Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What exactly was Jesus?


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 freckle

freckle

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 08:55 PM

I know this probably isn't a new question but I'd like to work through it by discussion if possible so please bear with me.

The background "facts" as I understand them:

Adam was made by God from the dust of the earth and animated by the breath of God (which I'd equate with the Holy Spirit).

All subsequent humans have been formed from the same dust and animative spirit but instead of being formed and animated de novo they are made from cells broken off from the original man. i.e. Eve made from Adam's rib and everyone else from their parents gametes.

Jesus was half made from his mother and I can only assume the other half must have been the first de novo creation of a living cell by the power of the Holy Spirit since the creation.


The questions:

How then was Jesus any more God's son from his conception than Adam was from his creation? Adam was completely God's and yet he sinned. Jesus was only half God's and yet somehow he was made just that bit different from the rest of us, somehow a bit stronger so he could completely resist sin.

What was Jesus? He's clearly completely man and not some kind of half god. Jesus was half from the cursed stock of Adam and half from a new, un-cursed stock. Is that what made him stronger in the face of temptation? If that were the case then Adam should have been able to resist - he wasn't half cursed already - he was totally new and "very good".

What was it about Jesus that made him God's son and not just his creation?
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

#2 Phil

Phil

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,779 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 09:24 PM

How then was Jesus any more God's son from his conception than Adam was from his creation?

Hard to know... The chain in Luke 3 indicates that in some way Adam was regarded as a son of God. Paul picks up on the obvious connection between the two special creations in 1 Cor 15:45, referring to the "first" and "last" Adam.

So was he any MORE God's son from conception? I'd struggle to see why, except that a re-intervention (Jesus) somehow strikes me as a bit different to the beginning of the process (Adam).

For me the main difference is in what happened after that. None of Rom 1:4, for example, applies to Adam.

and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,


Adam was completely God's and yet he sinned. Jesus was only half God's and yet somehow he was made just that bit different from the rest of us, somehow a bit stronger so he could completely resist sin.

But was he different to the rest of us? It's easy to think that he was - he's the son of God, he resisted sin, ergo there must be some sort of difference. But that's inference, and to me it's not obvious that the conclusion follows the premises. On the contrary we have those famous passages (particularly Heb 2) telling us that he was exactly the same.

It doesn't make complete sense that Jesus could have been exactly the same as me and yet somehow resisted sin. And because it doesn't make sense i want to seek explanations which end up making Jesus just that little bit different to me, and then his victory doesn't make sense either cos the odds were stacked in his favour, and "tempted in all points as we are" sounds like a platitude.

Tricky topic, and one that i end up having to leave alone. It's too easy to find yourself making things up, and that's where (a) the apostasy began, and (b) most of the atonement controversy in Christadelphia ends up coming from.

Edited by Mark, 24 July 2010 - 05:22 PM.
Mended tags

"I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless i live; yet not i, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which i now live in the flesh i live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
- Gal 2:20

-----------------

"She was one in a million, so there's FIVE MORE JUST IN NEW SOUTH WALES!!"
- The Whitlams

#3 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 09:27 PM

I know this probably isn't a new question but I'd like to work through it by discussion if possible so please bear with me.

The background "facts" as I understand them:

Adam was made by God from the dust of the earth and animated by the breath of God (which I'd equate with the Holy Spirit).

All subsequent humans have been formed from the same dust and animative spirit but instead of being formed and animated de novo they are made from cells broken off from the original man. i.e. Eve made from Adam's rib and everyone else from their parents gametes.

Jesus was half made from his mother and I can only assume the other half must have been the first de novo creation of a living cell by the power of the Holy Spirit since the creation.


Agreed.

The questions:

How then was Jesus any more God's son from his conception than Adam was from his creation?


He wasn't any more God's Son from his conception than Adam was from his creation.

Adam was completely God's and yet he sinned. Jesus was only half God's and yet somehow he was made just that bit different from the rest of us, somehow a bit stronger so he could completely resist sin.


He was not made any different from the rest of us. However, he did receive an unprecedented measure of the Holy Spirit, and he enjoyed an intimate relationship with God via direct, permanent, two-way communication. These two things alone gave him a tremendous advantage. The point is not that he succeeded because he was some sort of super-human, but that he succeeded because he received God's help. That is the entire message of the Law: man cannot save himself. God must intervene.

What was Jesus? He's clearly completely man and not some kind of half god. Jesus was half from the cursed stock of Adam and half from a new, un-cursed stock. Is that what made him stronger in the face of temptation? If that were the case then Adam should have been able to resist - he wasn't half cursed already - he was totally new and "very good".


No. I do not think it is accurate to say that he was "half from a new, un-cursed stock." He was made from exactly the same stuff as we are, and subject to exactly the same weaknesses (Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:15).

What was it about Jesus that made him God's son and not just his creation?


The fact that God created him personally (just as He did with Adam, who is also listed as the Son of God; Luke 3:38) in a unique way, as a unique creation for a unique purpose.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#4 freckle

freckle

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:04 PM

Tricky topic, and one that i end up having to leave alone. It's too easy to find yourself making things up, and that's where (a) the apostasy began, and (b) most of the atonement controversy in Christadelphia ends up coming from.


Thanks for your thought Phil. Unfortunately I've got fed up with avoiding issues and I'm on a mission to make it all make it all make sense as far as I can.
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

#5 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:12 PM

Go freckle! :luke:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#6 freckle

freckle

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:21 PM


How then was Jesus any more God's son from his conception than Adam was from his creation?


He wasn't any more God's Son from his conception than Adam was from his creation.


Ok. So Adam had the potential to be like Jesus but failed and Jesus wasn't intrinsicly better than Adam. Both were created equally "sons of God".

Adam was completely God's and yet he sinned. Jesus was only half God's and yet somehow he was made just that bit different from the rest of us, somehow a bit stronger so he could completely resist sin.


He was not made any different from the rest of us. However, he did receive an unprecedented measure of the Holy Spirit, and he enjoyed an intimate relationship with God via direct, permanent, two-way communication. These two things alone gave him a tremendous advantage. The point is not that he succeeded because he was some sort of super-human, but that he succeeded because he received God's help. That is the entire message of the Law: man cannot save himself. God must intervene.


That is a very good point. One I am ashamed I hadn't really considered in depth. Further question though - What happened in the years before Jesus got the Holy Spirit. Did he simply survive all temptation on a huge amount of prayer and reading? What motivated him differently from us in that case?

What was Jesus? He's clearly completely man and not some kind of half god. Jesus was half from the cursed stock of Adam and half from a new, un-cursed stock. Is that what made him stronger in the face of temptation? If that were the case then Adam should have been able to resist - he wasn't half cursed already - he was totally new and "very good".


No. I do not think it is accurate to say that he was "half from a new, un-cursed stock." He was made from exactly the same stuff as we are, and subject to exactly the same weaknesses (Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:15).


So the new bit got "contaminated" by the adamic bit from his mum?

What was it about Jesus that made him God's son and not just his creation?


The fact that God created him personally (just as He did with Adam, who is also listed as the Son of God; Luke 3:38) in a unique way, as a unique creation for a unique purpose.


But Jesus was His "one and only Son" so evidently he became more a son than Adam could have been during his life and in his death and resurrection "You are my Son, Today I have become your Father".
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

#7 freckle

freckle

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:24 PM

Go freckle! :luke:

It's that or give up and withdraw. Could take me a lifetime. I started in Matthew last night as most of my problems are with the NT (briefly considered ditching it and taking up Judaism). I'm reading verse by verse with a notebook and pen and writing down the issues I don't get. As I said, could take a lifetime.
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

#8 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:34 PM

Ok. So Adam had the potential to be like Jesus but failed and Jesus wasn't intrinsicly better than Adam. Both were created equally "sons of God".


Yep.

He was not made any different from the rest of us. However, he did receive an unprecedented measure of the Holy Spirit, and he enjoyed an intimate relationship with God via direct, permanent, two-way communication. These two things alone gave him a tremendous advantage. The point is not that he succeeded because he was some sort of super-human, but that he succeeded because he received God's help. That is the entire message of the Law: man cannot save himself. God must intervene.


That is a very good point. One I am ashamed I hadn't really considered in depth. Further question though - What happened in the years before Jesus got the Holy Spirit. Did he simply survive all temptation on a huge amount of prayer and reading? What motivated him differently from us in that case?


Yes, I believe he survived all temptation on a huge amount of prayer and reading (and also the communication from God which he would have received). Even from the age of 12 we know he was fully aware of his special role, and blessed with unnatural wisdom.

So the new bit got "contaminated" by the adamic bit from his mum?


I don't think there was any "new bit" to begin with. God miraculously fertilised one of Mary's eggs with some miraculously created cells that were identical to the nature we all share. You can call those cells "the new bit" if you like, but I think that's creating an unnecessary distinction. Whatever was implanted in Mary's womb, it was identical to her own flesh nature. That's the key issue.

But Jesus was His "one and only Son" so evidently he became more a son than Adam could have been during his life and in his death and resurrection "You are my Son, Today I have become your Father".


Not quite. We are not told that Jesus was God's only Son. We are told that he was God's only begotten Son.

Adam was the first son of God and we ourselves are called to be sons and daughters of God. But Jesus was unique in that he was the only begotten Son of God, miraculously conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit without a human father.

Hope I'm making sense.

:luke:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#9 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:36 PM

Go freckle! :luke:


It's that or give up and withdraw. Could take me a lifetime. I started in Matthew last night as most of my problems are with the NT (briefly considered ditching it and taking up Judaism). I'm reading verse by verse with a notebook and pen and writing down the issues I don't get. As I said, could take a lifetime.


Trust me, it's not that difficult. Galilean fishermen understood it. You're a modern medical professional with a PHD. Who's got the advantage here? :eek:

These questions only become difficult when we create new and unnecessary questions in the process of attempting to answer the original ones. We end up seeing things that aren't really there because we believe the Bible must be saying more than it actually does. But it doesn't. It's wonderfully simple.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#10 Richie

Richie

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,355 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:39 PM

I don't believe this issue has got anything to do with biology, chemistry or physics. Make Jesus any different from us and you're dabbling with the spirit of antichrist (denying Jesus came in the flesh) and you're making the physical relationship between God and Jesus the deciding factor, which plays right into the hands of Jewish belief regarding the holiness of simply being Jewish.

The promise which the angel gave to Mary was that the holy thing born to her would be the son of the highest, and that means we need to search the Scriptures to see what it means to be a son of God. Again, it has nothing to do with chemistry, biology or physics. The example of Isaac, a precursor to Christ, shows this - he was "born of promise". But being a son of God is more than that and if God truly is Jesus' father then it's based on spiritual principles rather than physical ones. You're a son of God if you take after him, and that's what Jesus did, he took after his father. And a good father brings up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and I doubt very much God was a distant father. So there's something about the intimate relationship between Jesus and God which enabled him to be sinless. But it's not sinlessness per se which is the issue, it's about being an obedient child who wants to do the will of his father, and the gospel of John pays testimony to the humility of Christ, despite being in such an exalted position, in that he always honoured his father and used his word as a script to follow - it was part of how he thought, not a manual on a shelf.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett.

#11 Rebel

Rebel

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,596 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:42 PM

The questions:

How then was Jesus any more God's son from his conception than Adam was from his creation? Adam was completely God's and yet he sinned. Jesus was only half God's and yet somehow he was made just that bit different from the rest of us, somehow a bit stronger so he could completely resist sin.

What was Jesus? He's clearly completely man and not some kind of half god. Jesus was half from the cursed stock of Adam and half from a new, un-cursed stock. Is that what made him stronger in the face of temptation? If that were the case then Adam should have been able to resist - he wasn't half cursed already - he was totally new and "very good".

What was it about Jesus that made him God's son and not just his creation?

I think Adam is as we all. (I tend to think he was the first through evolution who could worship God.) It's like Adam was born mainly from mother earth (physical, sinful, fleshly) and a little bit from God (spiritual ability to worship God). For me it's like Adam took after 'mother', while Jesus took after a Father. Like different children in the same family. And we strive to be like Father, like Jesus.

Jesus had more spirituality (is that the right word?) than Adam did or we do. That was God's gift to him. [Just noticed Ev said "blessed with wisdom".] And He managed to maintain it though his life, faithful to his Father to death.

(Adam was "very good", because his existence would bring godly people into this world and because eventually God would be glorified.)

Edited by Rebel, 02 November 2009 - 10:55 PM.


#12 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:45 PM

I don't believe this issue has got anything to do with biology, chemistry or physics. Make Jesus any different from us and you're dabbling with the spirit of antichrist (denying Jesus came in the flesh) and you're making the physical relationship between God and Jesus the deciding factor, which plays right into the hands of Jewish belief regarding the holiness of simply being Jewish.

The promise which the angel gave to Mary was that the holy thing born to her would be the son of the highest, and that means we need to search the Scriptures to see what it means to be a son of God. Again, it has nothing to do with chemistry, biology or physics. The example of Isaac, a precursor to Christ, shows this - he was "born of promise". But being a son of God is more than that and if God truly is Jesus' father then it's based on spiritual principles rather than physical ones. You're a son of God if you take after him, and that's what Jesus did, he took after his father. And a good father brings up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and I doubt very much God was a distant father. So there's something about the intimate relationship between Jesus and God which enabled him to be sinless. But it's not sinlessness per se which is the issue, it's about being an obedient child who wants to do the will of his father, and the gospel of John pays testimony to the humility of Christ, despite being in such an exalted position, in that he always honoured his father and used his word as a script to follow - it was part of how he thought, not a manual on a shelf.


Anyone physically created by God can legitimately claim to be a son or daughter of God. Adam was a son of God even before his spiritual enlightenment; his claim to sonship was purely physical: God had created him!

Yes, being a son of God is more than that. But Adam and Jesus had another claim to the title which we do not share. They were both unique creations.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#13 freckle

freckle

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 11:39 PM

Yes, I believe he survived all temptation on a huge amount of prayer and reading (and also the communication from God which he would have received). Even from the age of 12 we know he was fully aware of his special role, and blessed with unnatural wisdom.


So God granted him special advantages to enable him to carry out the job he needed to do?

I don't think there was any "new bit" to begin with. God miraculously fertilised one of Mary's eggs with some miraculously created cells that were identical to the nature we all share. You can call those cells "the new bit" if you like, but I think that's creating an unnecessary distinction. Whatever was implanted in Mary's womb, it was identical to her own flesh nature. That's the key issue.



I think the new created bit is important. It's clearly what is implied by the story of Jesus' conception and does make him more clearly a second Adam, a new start for a new creation, but still human.

But Jesus was His "one and only Son" so evidently he became more a son than Adam could have been during his life and in his death and resurrection "You are my Son, Today I have become your Father".


Not quite. We are not told that Jesus was God's only Son. We are told that he was God's only begotten Son.

Adam was the first son of God and we ourselves are called to be sons and daughters of God. But Jesus was unique in that he was the only begotten Son of God, miraculously conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit without a human father.


Have you got some hard evidence that the "one and only son" verses should really be "begotten"? "Only" seems to have so much more significance and meaning about Jesus' unique sonship as opposed to our sonship. "Begotten" appears to just imply mechanics and that's not so important if we don't think he was different from Adam. I don't think God would be more attached to a son because of the mechanism by which he was made - more by the uniqueness of the relationship. At least the God that I have a concept of anyway.

Hope I'm making sense.


Some :luke:
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

#14 freckle

freckle

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts

Posted 02 November 2009 - 11:44 PM

Trust me, it's not that difficult. Galilean fishermen understood it. You're a modern medical professional with a PHD. Who's got the advantage here? :luke:

These questions only become difficult when we create new and unnecessary questions in the process of attempting to answer the original ones. We end up seeing things that aren't really there because we believe the Bible must be saying more than it actually does. But it doesn't. It's wonderfully simple.


Qualifications are meaningless.

For something so simple, it's wonderfully complicated, ambiguous and contradictory. But there you go.
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

#15 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 12:37 AM

So God granted him special advantages to enable him to carry out the job he needed to do?


Of course He did. How else was Jesus going to achieve it? No man is capable of a sinless life without divine assistance.

I think the new created bit is important. It's clearly what is implied by the story of Jesus' conception and does make him more clearly a second Adam, a new start for a new creation, but still human.


Whatever works for you mate. :luke:

Have you got some hard evidence that the "one and only son" verses should really be "begotten"? "Only" seems to have so much more significance and meaning about Jesus' unique sonship as opposed to our sonship. "Begotten" appears to just imply mechanics and that's not so important if we don't think he was different from Adam.


I don't know of any "one and only son" verses. I only know of "only begotten son" verses, and they definitely use the word "begotten." The NET Bible unfortunately obscures these by using the phrase "one and only son" instead. It does this for purely theological reasons (primarily in John 1) and the footnotes never adequately address the fact that God has more than one son.

This produces some funny old muddles, such as in Hebrews 11:17, where the NET says:


By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac. He had received the promises, yet he was ready to offer up his only son.


Of course, we know that Isaac was not Abraham's only son; he already had Ishmael! But the NET translators are forced to translate "only begotten son" as "only son" to match the consistency of their translation in other passage. Oops!

I don't think God would be more attached to a son because of the mechanism by which he was made - more by the uniqueness of the relationship. At least the God that I have a concept of anyway.


Agreed.

Hope I'm making sense.


Some :eek:


It's a start. ;)
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#16 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 12:48 AM

Qualifications are meaningless.


You're an intelligent lass; that's all I'm saying. You shouldn't have any trouble understanding the Sonship of Jesus.

For something so simple, it's wonderfully complicated, ambiguous and contradictory. But there you go.


I honestly do not find it complicated or ambiguous or contradictory. I find it simple, clear and logically consistent.

It seems to me that you are finding it difficult because you have arrived at the subject with a preconceived notion that it must be complicated, so that's how it appears to you. We're already delving into strange discussions about cells and "new bits" being added to "old bits", which I think the 1st Century Christians would have simply laughed at. :luke:

God created Jesus in a unique way ("only begotten"); Jesus is therefore God's Son by virtue of his special creation. God has a unique relationship with Jesus ("I and my Father are one") and this relationship is also one of the ways by which Jesus' Sonship is defined. :eek:
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#17 Guido

Guido

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:03 AM

How then was Jesus any more God's son from his conception than Adam was from his creation?

Hard to know... The chain in Luke 3 indicates that in some way Adam was regarded as a son of God. Paul picks up on the obvious connection between the two special creations in 1 Cor 15:45, referring to the "first" and "last" Adam.

So was he any MORE God's son from conception? I'd struggle to see why, except that a re-intervention (Jesus) somehow strikes me as a bit different to the beginning of the process (Adam).


I'm not sure whether or not this verse implies a difference between Adam and Christ from creation/conception:

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.


If Adam is said to be "of the earth" because he was made from stuff that's on the earth, then what does it mean to say that Jesus was 'from heaven'?

If we discount the idea that he personally came down from heaven, could we take this verse to mean that he was, in some respect, actually made from heavenly stuff?

Edited by Guido, 03 November 2009 - 02:05 AM.


#18 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:06 AM

I think it means that he was sent from God for a heavenly purpose.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#19 Richie

Richie

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,355 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:11 AM

I don't know of any "one and only son" verses. I only know of "only begotten son" verses, and they definitely use the word "begotten." The NET Bible unfortunately obscures these by using the phrase "one and only son" instead. It does this for purely theological reasons (primarily in John 1) and the footnotes never adequately address the fact that God has more than one son.


I disagree with you. For reasons see what I put together here.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett.

#20 Guido

Guido

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:13 AM

I think it means that he was sent from God for a heavenly purpose.


Okay, but then what does it mean, in that context, that Adam was 'of the earth'? That he was sent for an earthy purpose?

Edited by Guido, 03 November 2009 - 02:14 AM.


#21 Richie

Richie

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,355 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:19 AM

I think it means that he was sent from God for a heavenly purpose.


Okay, but then what does it mean, in that context, that Adam was 'of the earth'? That he was sent for an earthy purpose?


That his thoughts went towards the earth (Genesis 3:6 for example).
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett.

#22 Guido

Guido

    Rho

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:23 AM

I think it means that he was sent from God for a heavenly purpose.


Okay, but then what does it mean, in that context, that Adam was 'of the earth'? That he was sent for an earthy purpose?

That his thoughts went towards the earth (Genesis 3:6 for example).

That's true, however, 1 Corinthians 15 seems to be talking about the body. As v.45 says, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.'

Hmmm... now that I think of it, sounds as though it's comparing Adam when he was created to Jesus when he was resurrected.

Edited by Guido, 03 November 2009 - 02:25 AM.


#23 Richie

Richie

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,355 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:29 AM

Yes, I was thinking more of the John 3 passage. 1 Corinthians 15 is talking about the old and new creation rather than how each was born.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett.

#24 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:38 AM

Hmmm... now that I think of it, sounds as though it's comparing Adam when he was created to Jesus when he was resurrected.


I think you're absolutely right.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#25 Grace

Grace

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,505 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:07 AM

It seems to me that you are finding it difficult because you have arrived at the subject with a preconceived notion that it must be complicated, so that's how it appears to you. We're already delving into strange discussions about cells and "new bits" being added to "old bits", which I think the 1st Century Christians would have simply laughed at. :luke:


1st Century Christians had no understanding of biology except for action and result; we do. That automatically makes it more complicated.
"Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing."

William James

#26 Mercia2

Mercia2

    Chi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,442 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:25 AM

Tricky topic, and one that i end up having to leave alone. It's too easy to find yourself making things up, and that's where (a) the apostasy began, and (b) most of the atonement controversy in Christadelphia ends up coming from.


Thanks for your thought Phil. Unfortunately I've got fed up with avoiding issues and I'm on a mission to make it all make it all make sense as far as I can.

Then will you do what the Bible actually tells you to do? And in private repent sincerely and "ask" for the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), as only when an angel comes to you, and all those who are to be saved have "ministering angels", only then will you truly begin to understand as you study Gods Word.

Edited by Mercia2, 03 November 2009 - 09:25 AM.

"and will smite every HORSE OF THE PEOPLE with blindness"

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_symbolic_meaning_of_a_horse#ixzz1K0LLUt00

#27 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,351 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 09:55 AM

It seems to me that you are finding it difficult because you have arrived at the subject with a preconceived notion that it must be complicated, so that's how it appears to you. We're already delving into strange discussions about cells and "new bits" being added to "old bits", which I think the 1st Century Christians would have simply laughed at. :luke:


1st Century Christians had no understanding of biology except for action and result; we do. That automatically makes it more complicated.


I don't see why it should, unless we want to invent unnecessary problems for ourselves.
In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas
Imago
Credo

#28 granny

granny

    Pi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 542 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 11:16 AM

I think it means that he was sent from God for a heavenly purpose.


Yes, like John the baptist was sent from God:

John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

And like the baptism of John was from heaven:

Mat 21:23-26 ESV And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" (24) Jesus answered them, "I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. (25) The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?" And they discussed it among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' (26) But if we say, 'From man,' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet."

Perhaps the above verses imply that if someone is authorised by God to say/do something, what they say/do is heavenly or from heaven.
The angel of the LORD encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them.

#29 Guest_steveyb3_*

Guest_steveyb3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2009 - 11:54 AM

Thanks Granny, that post really helped me :luke:

#30 Huldah

Huldah

    Phi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,041 posts

Posted 03 November 2009 - 12:31 PM

Tricky topic, and one that i end up having to leave alone. It's too easy to find yourself making things up, and that's where (a) the apostasy began, and (b) most of the atonement controversy in Christadelphia ends up coming from.


Thanks for your thought Phil. Unfortunately I've got fed up with avoiding issues and I'm on a mission to make it all make it all make sense as far as I can.

Then will you do what the Bible actually tells you to do? And in private repent sincerely and "ask" for the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13), as only when an angel comes to you, and all those who are to be saved have "ministering angels", only then will you truly begin to understand as you study Gods Word.

What are you on about?

I always think that those who say this sort of thing should be able to demonstrate that they have the Holy Spirit by explaining the difficult teaching or doctrine to the others. So what is your explanation to freckle's question?
"Dear friends, if our conscience does not condemn us, we have confidence in the presence of God and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing to him. Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he gave us the commandment. And the person who keeps his commandments resides in God, and God in him. Now by this we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us"
1 John 3.21-24




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users