ECT Why is Jesus called the second Adam or last Adam?

Cross Reference

New member
We share in the Adamic sin only because we, like Adam, committed personal sin (Rom 5:12). I do not see why this passage does not bear on the discussion. The fall of mankind in Adam should never be considered without taking into account the truth of Rom 5:12.

Secondly, Adam's proclivity for sin, was obvious BEFORE he ate the fruit. Before he violated the only stated law for which he was accountable (there are 613 of those in the Old Law), he was curious to a fault, he doubted God openly, he challenged God's commands, He stopped believing that in his sin, he would surely die, he violated his headship as husband, he put his trust in the words of the serpent as he rejected the words of God in Christ, God had ceased to be his guide in life turning, instead, to the pleasant sounding advise of the Tempter, and, he joined in a corporate challenge to God with Satan and Eve . . . . . the first "den of iniquity, " all of this just BEFORE dinner.

Christ did none of these things and was truly sinless. He not only was sinless with regard to the Law, he had his sinful nature fully in check. When you realize that Jesus of Nazareth was the Creator of Adam and pre-existed Adam for that reason, the similarities between he and Adam are few . . . . . the only major difference is that Adam was the first to fall, and Christ was the first to succeed.

Consider everything you are saying here is not being correctly understood by you in the way that you can even begin to find agreement with me.

You are not understanding the issue of vanity that was introduced [Rom. 8:20] into the soul of SINLESS Adam for the purpose of giving him a problem to deal with i.e., "eve" when attempting to carry out the command of God; make the proper choice that would have 'spiritually' released him to desire to partake of the "Tree of Life" (Luke 14:26,27). You see, being a sinless man and having dominion over all creation coupled with the knowledge he couldn't die if he "did well" for God, never produced an urgency/desire within him to partake of the tree that would have sealed him to divinity every bit as much as Jesus was sealed to it upon His obedience to the cross. While that may not necessarily be a correct summation of it all, it is safe to assume it is in part, correct. Now, you may wish to explain which did I get wrong because this same scenario was repeated in the life king Saul and David.
 

Cross Reference

New member
You do not have what it takes to judge anyone let alone me

Your ignorance is why you have faith without works because your faith (what you believe) is dead because of the presence of sin in your doctrines......... as is in all of the Pentecostal denomination :)

Pardon me, but all I see on you is the judgement of God. You better wake up.
 

Cross Reference

New member
First off Adam only sinned after he was altered aka "made subject to vanity not willingly" but by the will of God when his flesh was given a voice and a mind of its own that was contrary to how Adam thought and acted after he was first given life from the Spirit of God being breathed into his nostrils.......... had Adam not been changed from when he was first created perfect Adam would have not sinned.

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

Adam's sin was all part of the plan and to even consider that God was caught by surprise is not giving an all omnipotent God His do respect. For sure had God wanted sinless robots for sons He would have had them but His plan for His creation was far greater than having sinless robots for sons.

Meanwhile the seven fold spirit that is God (Is.11:2 KJV) that has always existed including during the creation, did appear in its fullness in Jesus some 4000 years after creation, however, the man Jesus was not involved with creation........ only His Spirit and Soul were who are the same Spirit and Soul within God who created all things.

This is how we were in Him before the foundations of the earth were formed because we have been given an "earnest" of this same Spirit of God that is the free gift of salvation but is only a partial amount with the balance of it held in reserve for those who gain the mind of Christ that is the mind of God.

Doug

That partial understanding of Rom 8:20 is from me and I resent you adding to it a thought process antagonistic to it and to the intentions of God. By your willful antagonism in this you have now compounded your sinful error by your lack of judgment.
 

Livelystone

New member
That partial understanding of Rom 8:20 is from me and I resent you adding to it a thought process antagonistic to it and to the intentions of God. By your willful antagonism in this you have now compounded your sinful error by your lack of judgment.

You are funny, especially your ego

LOL, the day I ever need something from you

BTW what I teach is in my book which was completed by me long before i ever heard your name

What you do not get is that Jesus was not the first son sacrificed
 
Last edited:

TFTn5280

New member
What you do not get is that Jesus was not the first son sacrificed

Yes, so Cain sacrificed Abel. Says so right in 1 John. So what's that got to do with Christ or anything else? It only speaks to the depths to which Cain had fallen. You guys and your special revelations...Cheeesh!
 

TFTn5280

New member
Kenosis as it relates to Christ

Kenosis as it relates to Christ

Philippians 2.5-11 -- Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, (7) but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. (8) And being found in appearance as a man, he emptied himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross! (9) Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (10) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, (11) and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What does it mean that Christ "emptied" himself? I've seen this clause alluded to on numerous occasions since joining TOL. I've heard it expressed as anything from the eternal Son emptying himself of divine attributes to assertions claiming that Christ actually emptied himself of divinity – absurd! I think it might do us good to actually get inside some of these words and see if we can't do this passage some justice.

The thrust of the passage is this: that the One who, before becoming human, possessed divine equality, did not regard that status as something to be taken advantage of, but instead understood it as a mission to obedient humiliation and death; and that the Father acknowledged this interpretation by exalting the One, forever now also a Man, to share in divine glory. Allow me to explain.

Why do I say that Christ did not consider his divinity something to take advantage of? Most translations say something on the order of the Son did not consider his divinity something to be grasped, and interpret that to speak to the emptying of himself. My question is, Are we ready to go that far? Must we go that far? Did the Son divest himself of some or all of his divinity when taking on a human nature? No. Impossible. The eternal Son did not become something less than fully God when he took upon himself the flesh of humanity. In his own ministry Jesus interpreted himself as being fully divine. Look at John 14.9 – "Anyone who has seen me has seen my Father." And in case his disciples should misunderstand, he went on to say, "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work" (v. 10). How could Jesus truly manifest the divinity of his Father if he had divested himself of even an ounce of divinity himself? The answer is he couldn't. "To see Me is to see My Father." Did the Father become something less than God when he sent his Son? No, of course not. That is ridiculous. We need to reconsider this emptying idea.

That said, the key word in unpacking this passage is not kenosis -- to empty --, but this very word we are questioning, arpagmos. We will see that the kenosis clarifies itself, once we begin to understand the meaning of this other word: arpagmos. This word appears only once in the NT, right here at the heart of this passage. It is not used in the Septuagint, and it is rarely used in contemporary extra-biblical writings; however, in those contemporaneous writings that we do have, the word consistently conveys a meaning of “exploitation” on the part of one over another or others (See N.T. Wright for a full exposition of this word). Let us, therefore, take that meaning with us to the text.

The theme of this passage is the determination of the path Christ chose as the way to his Lordship. The incarnate Christ was always in the form of God, but throughout his earthly ministry he did not yet possess equality with God. At any point of his fleshly ministry he could have taken advantage of this higher state – that is to say, he could have exploited it – but in doing so he would not have been representing the heart of his Father. How do we know this? Jesus said so: "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." It was Jesus in a humbled state that truly revealed the heart of God; rather than by way of exploitation, Jesus maintained this higher form via the path of humbling service, even unto death. This pleased the Father, who exalted this God-man, Christ Jesus to the Glory that had previously only been exercised in divinity. Thus it was in the exaltation that Christ established his Lordship, a human being becoming equal with God the Father, forever over humanity.

How does our heavenly Father desire us to see him? Through the life of his Son, "who – being in nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be exploited, but made himself nothing, taking the nature of a servant, born in human likeness -- emptied himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross!"

How does the Father desire to see us? Our "attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus, ..." (v. 5).

In our frenzy to be right, let's not diminish who God is. We are the only religion on earth whose God stoops. While every other religion is trying to climb its way to God, ours came down to us. They are working themselves to death. But our God humbled himself, became like us in birth, re-gathered us in humanity and raised us up in the glory of His Son. Let's exalt our Lord in his exaltation. Let's glorify him in his glorification. He whose Name is above all names, let's praise him in his purification!

Blessings, T
 

Livelystone

New member
Yes, so Cain sacrificed Abel. Says so right in 1 John. So what's that got to do with Christ or anything else? It only speaks to the depths to which Cain had fallen. You guys and your special revelations...Cheeesh!

Nobody has said this so do not start implying otherwise and condemn yourself by doing so.

You're insulting God with your attitude that God's plan for man somehow got upset by Satan when God knows the end from the beginning.............. Amen? I think so !!!

Your lack of understanding was made obvious in your miss-use of the term "private interpretation" in your earlier post that proves how you need to forget everything you think you know, then go back and start over
 

Cross Reference

New member
You are funny, especially your ego

LOL, the day I ever need something from you

BTW what I teach is in my book which was completed by me long before i ever heard your name

What you do not get is that Jesus was not the first son sacrificed

No ego here, 'wild one' of the suprarevelation nitwits!.

What fairytale authors are you reading to arrive ate such nonsense? It isn't the Scriptures of God. Your Cain and Abel routine should seal
the opinion of anyone to burn your book.
 

TFTn5280

New member
Where in 1 John???

3.12. The word for "murder" is translated "sacrificed" or "slain" in Rev 5.6,9.

Friberg lexicon: (1)of animals, esp. when killed as a sacrifice slaughter, slay; metaph. of Jesus' atoning death as the Lamb of God (RV 5.6, 9);

I think Cain might have said something on the order of, "Okay, God, you want a sacrifice, here it is," as he cut his brother's throat.
 

Cross Reference

New member
Philippians 2.5-11 -- Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: (6) Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, (7) but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. (8) And being found in appearance as a man, he emptied himself and became obedient to death -- even death on a cross! (9) Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (10) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, (11) and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What does it mean that Christ "emptied" himself? I've seen this clause alluded to on numerous occasions since joining TOL. I've heard it expressed as anything from the eternal Son emptying himself of divine attributes to assertions claiming that Christ actually emptied himself of divinity – absurd! I think it might do us good to actually get inside some of these words and see if we can't do this passage some justice.

The thrust of the passage is this: that the One who, before becoming human, possessed divine equality, did not regard that status as something to be taken advantage of, but instead understood it as a mission to obedient humiliation and death; and that the Father acknowledged this interpretation by exalting the One, forever now also a Man, to share in divine glory. Allow me to explain.

Why do I say that Christ did not consider his divinity something to take advantage of? Most translations say something on the order of the Son did not consider his divinity something to be grasped, and interpret that to speak to the emptying of himself. My question is, Are we ready to go that far? Must we go that far? Did the Son divest himself of some or all of his divinity when taking on a human nature? No. Impossible. The eternal Son did not become something less than fully God when he took upon himself the flesh of humanity. In his own ministry Jesus interpreted himself as being fully divine. Look at John 14.9 – "Anyone who has seen me has seen my Father." And in case his disciples should misunderstand, he went on to say, "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work" (v. 10). How could Jesus truly manifest the divinity of his Father if he had divested himself of even an ounce of divinity himself? The answer is he couldn't. "To see Me is to see My Father." Did the Father become something less than God when he sent his Son? No, of course not. That is ridiculous. We need to reconsider this emptying idea.

That said, the key word in unpacking this passage is not kenosis -- to empty --, but this very word we are questioning, arpagmos. We will see that the kenosis clarifies itself, once we begin to understand the meaning of this other word: arpagmos. This word appears only once in the NT, right here at the heart of this passage. It is not used in the Septuagint, and it is rarely used in contemporary extra-biblical writings; however, in those contemporaneous writings that we do have, the word consistently conveys a meaning of “exploitation” on the part of one over another or others (See N.T. Wright for a full exposition of this word). Let us, therefore, take that meaning with us to the text.

The theme of this passage is the determination of the path Christ chose as the way to his Lordship. The incarnate Christ was always in the form of God, but throughout his earthly ministry he did not yet possess equality with God. At any point of his fleshly ministry he could have taken advantage of this higher state – that is to say, he could have exploited it – but in doing so he would not have been representing the heart of his Father. How do we know this? Jesus said so: "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." It was Jesus in a humbled state that truly revealed the heart of God; rather than by way of exploitation, Jesus maintained this higher form via the path of humbling service, even unto death. This pleased the Father, who exalted this God-man, Christ Jesus to the Glory that had previously only been exercised in divinity. Thus it was in the exaltation that Christ established his Lordship, a human being becoming equal with God the Father, forever over humanity.

How does our heavenly Father desire us to see him? Through the life of his Son, "who – being in nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be exploited, but made himself nothing, taking the nature of a servant, born in human likeness -- emptied himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross!"

How does the Father desire to see us? Our "attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus, ..." (v. 5).

In our frenzy to be right, let's not diminish who God is. We are the only religion on earth whose God stoops. While every other religion is trying to climb its way to God, ours came down to us. They are working themselves to death. But our God humbled himself, became like us in birth, re-gathered us in humanity and raised us up in the glory of His Son. Let's exalt our Lord in his exaltation. Let's glorify him in his glorification. He whose Name is above all names, let's praise him in his purification!

Blessings, T

Bad, bad, paper!! Nowhere, is Jesus referring to any divinity of Himself, but His humanity as being equal with God the Father. "This My beloved begotten Son, a human being in Whom I have prepared to express Myself and with Whom I am well pleased. With exception of not revealing to Him some end of time dates and times, privy to Myself alone, I have otherwise filled Him with all Knowledge, Grace and Truth. Listen to Him! Follow after Him on the agape road and Learn Me in the process. This is the way to everlasting life" . . . God
 

TFTn5280

New member
Bad, bad, paper!! Nowhere, is Jesus referring to any divinity of Himself, but His humanity as being equal with God the Father. "This My beloved begotten Son, a human being in Whom I have prepared to express Myself and with Whom I am well pleased. With exception of not revealing to Him some end of time dates and times, privy to Myself alone, I have otherwise filled Him with all Knowledge, Grace and Truth. Listen to Him! Follow after Him on the agape road and Learn Me in the process. This is the way to everlasting life" . . . God

Yes, CR, we know your beliefs.
 

Cross Reference

New member
3.12. The word for "murder" is translated "sacrificed" or "slain" in Rev 5.6,9.

Friberg lexicon: (1)of animals, esp. when killed as a sacrifice slaughter, slay; metaph. of Jesus' atoning death as the Lamb of God (RV 5.6, 9);

I think Cain might have said something on the order of, "Okay, God, you want a sacrifice, here it is," as he cut his brother's throat.

Yeah, so why choose "sacrifice" unless your motive is to take away from Jesus by elevating Cain, you're even more off base than I thought?? Rev. 5:6 and 9 is not given to be understood in that way by any Greek translation.
 

Livelystone

New member
If you'll notice the term was in quotation marks. I was not the first to have used it.

This maybe so and hopefully this points to you understanding the expression is an NT wording of an OT law that states one witness is not sufficient to convict.

In our case and how this applies to us is the only witnesses acceptable for teaching the Word is the Word. However, one verse by itself is not sufficient for determining any prophecy associated with that verse without at least one other verse that will fulfill the two laws needed to be fulfilled for determining clean spiritual food from unclean spiritual food with no other verses anywhere in the Bible stating otherwise (as in precept upon precept, line upon line). As long as these OT laws for determining the truth are applied to how we study God's Word, any doctrine can be proven to be either false, or acceptable to God for the edification of His children

BTW, My first post when I quoted you was an attempt to compliment you in your presentation and reasoning behind the word "all".

It does not appear to have worked as intended
 

Livelystone

New member
3.12. The word for "murder" is translated "sacrificed" or "slain" in Rev 5.6,9.

Friberg lexicon: (1)of animals, esp. when killed as a sacrifice slaughter, slay; metaph. of Jesus' atoning death as the Lamb of God (RV 5.6, 9);

I think Cain might have said something on the order of, "Okay, God, you want a sacrifice, here it is," as he cut his brother's throat.

Actually the words of God to Cain "if you are doing well sin lieth at the door" (my paraphrase) is a reference to a sin offering God provided Cain that would allow him to pass through the door from sin unto grace.
 

TFTn5280

New member
Yeah, so why choose "sacrifice" unless your motive is to take away from Jesus by elevating Cain, you're even more off base than I thought?? Rev. 5:6 and 9 is not given to be understood in that way by any Greek translation.

Oh, so we are not to understand the slain Lamb's murder as being that of a sacrifice also?

I'm not changing anything. I am simply employing the meaning of the word as it was conveyed by John in both the instances that he used it. Calm down, brother.
 

Cross Reference

New member
Oh, so we are not to understand the slain Lamb's murder as being that of a sacrifice also?

I'm not changing anything. I am simply employing the meaning of the word as it was conveyed by John in both the instances that he used it. Calm down, brother.

Stick to what I wrote. John conveyed no such understanding.
 

TFTn5280

New member
BTW, My first post when I quoted you was an attempt to compliment you in your presentation and reasoning behind the word "all".

It does not appear to have worked as intended

My apologies, CR. Thanks for the compliment :)

EDIT: My apologies to you, Livelystone. Thanks for the compliment :)
 
Last edited:
Top