Why is this a true statement, though not literally found in the Bible?

God wants a vast family of Son's who will be just like Him but of flesh and bone and the program of producing them can only be by pro-creation.

God wants a vast family of Son's who will be just like Him but of flesh and bone and the program of producing them can only be by pro-creation.

We do not become Son's of God by procreation. To suggest such a thing would be to suggest those Born Again are already procreating through our offspring, baby gods or baby son's of god but with flesh and bone.

The scriptures say

WE don know yet what we will be, but we know we will be like Him, for we will see him as He is.

With that, we will not be Just like Him...BUT.
There are no BUTS.

We are being changes NOW from Glory to Glory, even by the Spirit of the Lord.

WE are going to be GLORIFIED together with Christ.

The BUT you re suggesting would be something altogether different.

So your statement *Why is this a true statement, though not literally found in scripture* suggests you have imagined something not literally in scripture, and the presupposition that it is true.

Ormly. It's NOT TRUE! Never was, and Never will be according to the Holy Scriptures..no suppliments added or other bibles not being the Inspired Word of God.

Love in Christ
Katy-did

This statement isn't for you Katy because you said you posted your last comment a long while back. Please don't reply anymore.

This is a true statement:
[b]Jesus came by the act of pro-creation[/b]. That is what "begotten" means. It was the only way He could come on the scene for redeeming mankind.

MSeaman wrote:
what do you mean by pro-creation? Thanks.

[b]John 1:12[/b] [i]But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.[/i]

I think it needs to be said we are not the sons of God until we are born again. Is there any place in the Bible that refers to anyone as being a child of God, or son of God, without them first walking in a relationship with God?

Krispy

MSeaman wrote:
well I know what procreation is, I just didn't know what pro-creation was...Thanks for the clarification. it seems to me that Catholics and Muslims are made by procreation, but sons of God have to make an individual decision to follow Christ.

But they can't make that decision before being born ... at least once, can they?

think it needs to be said we are not the sons of God until we are born again. Is there any place in the Bible that refers to anyone as being a child of God, or son of God, without them first walking in a relationship with God

Krispy, absolutely true.

Here are more scripture to prove it is not by procreating, but receiving the Gift of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, buried with Him in Baptism unto death and raised up a New Creation.

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Romans 8:14
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Romans 8:19
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

Galatians 4:6
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Philippians 2:15
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

1 John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

1 John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

We can ONLY become the sons of God, by receiving Jesus Christ, through repentance and receive the Holy Spirit that will quicken you together with Christ.

There are no other Sons of God.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

Hi Krispy!

KrispyKrittr wrote:
[b]John 1:12[/b] [i]But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.[/i]

I think it needs to be said we are not the sons of God until we are born again.

But even then it would be by His Nature only, certainly not His Character that must be taught and learned which makes the son [child of God], a son.

Is there any place in the Bible that refers to anyone as being a child of God, or son of God, without them first walking in a relationship with God?

Krispy

[i]"But as many as received him, *instantly became His children and to them, He gave power [b]to become sons[/b] of God, even to them that believe on his name"[/i] John 1:12 (KJV) And this by "self-renounciating", the "way of the cross", which is the Character builder. Certainly, this is a process, a painful one for most, eh?

*Orm's translation.

MSeaman wrote:

But they make that decision before being born ... at least once, can they?

can you put that in "for dummies" terms?

I am sorry. It should have read: But they CAN"T make that decision before being born ... at least once, can they? [I do that alot so becareful] :-(

MSeaman wrote:
ah, yes that makes sense. perhaps it's a matter of training? if a child is trained correctly in the Lord, he or she will choose to follow? of course every person enters this world as a matter of procreation too, so at least in the physical sense, I would say your statement is true.

A couple of things for undertsanding: The child is son, His nature is of you. That doesn't change.

This is the natural I speak of yet it can apply to the spiritual, ok? ....moving on:

I am sure that you want your son to be just like you, in goodness/righteousness. It is therefore in that you train him to be. This is called character building. Character predicated upon the strength of your own character that a child be raised up to be a son trained in your character to become a respentative of your likeness..... No! More than that! He is you! Because he was obedient to your tutor-ship. "He learned obedience by the things he suffered."

And all this from the natural that we can readily apply it to the Spiritual when we are "born again". Now it is you and me who become the children of God, with His Nature to be tutored by the Holy Ghost in the ways of the Father; Character building in us as children who, in the end, become the son's who will be just like our Heavenly Father.

I hope that is a help :-)

After endless searching I have found where Ormly is coming up with this doctrine called Armstrongism.

Robert Schmid teaches this who teaches Herbert W Armstrong, or Armstrongism.

That Jesus was a created being as was Adam I,
and rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, and so much more.

Well, before getting carried away into what you don't know you are getting carried away into, please look up on line Robert Schmid and Herbert W. Armstrong.

Then with your Eyes completely opened, you can continue to agree or disagree with Ormly's version of Salvation by ?????.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

You know, Katy, if you weren't so laughable I could be offended. However, I refuse to let myself be so offended. I will do my utmost to view your incredulity and unlearned remarks as an instrument of righteousness whereby I renounce my "self" and all that it solicits me to say to you. Thank you

MSeaman wrote:

Katy-did wrote:
After endless searching I have found where Ormly is coming up with this doctrine called Armstrongism.

Robert Schmid teaches this who teaches Herbert W Armstrong, or Armstrongism.

That Jesus was a created being as was Adam I,
and rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, and so much more.

Well, before getting carried away into what you don't know you are getting carried away into, please look up on line Robert Schmid and Herbert W. Armstrong.

Then with your Eyes completely opened, you can continue to agree or disagree with Ormly's version of Salvation by ?????.

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

Ormly, is this what you are talking about or something else?

Indeed, no!

She doesn't know what she is talking about. She has no clue concerning the scriptures. Her "endless searching" means she reviewed a few her comic books and stumbled on something the which was on her level of comprehension. There is no discernment in her for understanding even the most elementary teachings of Jesus Christ and the Father.

Armstrongism is a offshoot cult of "British Israelism". I have been given to believe that they have repented back at the home office in California; have forsaken Herbert W's doctrine for the simple gospel of Grace..

Ormly it's Robert Schmid who teaches much of what you are saying, becoming sons of God through pro-creation. I put it in my search engine and walla, Robert Schmid and Herbert Armstrong came to the rescue. Armstrongism is more than thinking Britan is one of the tribes of Israel.

Anyway, You think god wants another family of sons of God unlike what we are, but of flesh and bone.

You posted in another Firstfruits, that the first Adam 1 was to be obedient thus securing his transfiguration, and in doing so there would be no need for the second adam..who is Christ. That at Adam 1's transfiguration he would be infact Christ, the son of God,(the one who was originally to be the Son of God, but messed up, God having to start over again creating another adam (Armstrongism) Jesus, who doesn't need to pro-create with anyone to bring in sons of Glory. But the Original Adam would have procreating with Eve, who I'm assuming her obedience too would have to take place and therefore after they were both transfigured, they would then pro-create and produce little baby sons of God for God....these children of flesh and bone god beings.

And you believe God is still looking for a way to bring these flesh and bone sons of god into existance? So, is this what YOU want to be? One of those OTHER sons of god?

Katy-Did

THis conversation began with Jesus - Firstfruits, and one myst go back and read ALL there is there in understand what Ormly is asking.

One must also understand ALL of what Robert Schmid and Herbert Armstrong taught rejecting the Trinity, and that Jesus was a created being as was Adam 1. The doctrine is more than them thinking Britian was a lost tribe, but infact a mixture of Mormon, JW and a hodge - podge of several many concepts.

No comprendi, Katy

How do we know what God 'wants'?

ginnyrose wrote:
Ormly wrote:

God wants a vast family of Son's who will be just like Him but of flesh and bone and the program of producing them can only be by pro-creation.

Never in my born days have I ever read or heard of this concept - and I am 60 years old! I have attended Bible School, attended church all my life, studied the Scriptures, read a lot, including [i]Christianity Today[/i] magazine for 25 years plus other denominational literature and have never read anything like this.

Is this concept something you dreamt about one night when you had a nightmare?

ginnyrose

LOL!! Nope. It's all there. You just have to get out of the "redemption" only mode when viewing the Cross. There is two manifestations of Cross: The "Work" and the 'Way". The "Way" came first and when rejected, by Adam, made necessary the "Work" of the Cross by the death of Jesus. The "Way" of the Cross is given to those who, by faith, have embraced His death as their own.

If your answer to why God created Adam was simply for His glory, as most in redemption only mode folk believe, then you will stay in that state and be forced to continue in a sub-normal Christian experience not intended by God. Think more about why God created Adam; what was Adam to become?

Compliments wrote:
How do we know what God 'wants'?

That's easy, though impossible to work out; requiring the new birth and Pentecost for success. What He wants is for you to become a son, with His Character well expressed by you.

Ormly asked

God wants a vast family of Son's who will be just like Him but of flesh and bone and the program of producing them can only be by pro-creation.

Ormly, you err in your materialistic interpretation of scripture. True, our Lord created us from inanimate matter. But the Spirit was breathed into us and, upon our death, the Spirit will return to Him.

And those who die and are renewed by fire in the Baptism of the Spirit (symbolised by immersion and raising out of water) will live on for eternity long after the physical body returns to dust.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (GEN 2:7)

After death and judgement, those left in His presence will not necessarily be flesh and blood,

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." (MAR 12:25)

As to the glorified nature of our new, perfected bodies after death, John says,

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and [i]it doth not yet appear what we shall be:[/i] but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (I JOHN 3:2)

As to the corruption of the physical body and the perfection of the spiritual body, Paul posits,

"[i]It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. [b]There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.[/b][/i] And so it is written, [i][b]The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.[/i][/b]" (I COR 15:42-44)

For those who believe we will live in the presence of Almighty God for all eternity in our present physical bodies,

"[i]For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire,[/i] even a jealous God." (DEU 4:24)

"[i]And this word,[/i] Yet once more, [i]signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.[/i] Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire." (HEB 12:27-29)

And what, pray tell, will survive of the flesh, the world, and the devil in the presence of the Lord God?

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." (II PET 3:10)

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever... And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (REV 20:10-15)

The scriptual evidence is irrefutable: the Lord, is Spirit, and has made Man in His Image. Those who walk in His Spirit will return to Him in joy. All else but silver and gold will burn as chaff before His presence.

Ormly also said

You know, Katy, if you weren't so laughable I could be offended. However, I refuse to let myself be so offended. I will do my utmost to view your incredulity and unlearned remarks as an instrument of righteousness whereby I renounce my "self" and all that it solicits me to say to you. Thank you

and...

She doesn't know what she is talking about. She has no clue concerning the scriptures. Her "endless searching" means she reviewed a few her comic books and stumbled on something the which was on her level of comprehension. There is no discernment in her for understanding even the most elementary teachings of Jesus Christ and the Father.

Watch your tongue! And get your hands off your sister's throat! You will answer for every venomous word you've spat:

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." (MATT 12:36)

"Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son... Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God." (PSA 50:19-20)

"The north wind driveth away rain: so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue." (PRO 25:23)

"If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain... Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! And the tongue [is] a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell... " (JAM 1:26, 3:5-6)

:roll:

LOL!! Nope. It's all there. You just have to get out of the "redemption" only mode when viewing the Cross. There is two manifestations of Cross: The "Work" and the 'Way". The "Way" came first and when rejected, by Adam, made necessary the "Work" of the Cross by the death of Jesus. The "Way" of the Cross is given to those who, by faith, have embraced His death as their own.

Ormly, I believe what you are saying here is, "The Work of the Cross" is Jesus Christ's alone for our redemption, correct?

And then the "Way of the Cross" would be our life being sanctified IN CHRIST through that very same Cross.

But you must also understand sanctification is still *the WORK of Christ* in you... We are HIS workmanship.

"He who has begun a good work will continue it until the Day of Jesus Christ". Who is HE that we are talking about here? The same Jesus...the Author and Finisher of our faith.

Paul says in Corinthiams we are sanctified by faith as well, so justification is by faith, sanctification is by faith.

2nd Peter also confirms this stating, BY FAITH we are partakers of His divine nature.

The Just (those justified by His blood) shall continue to live by faith.

What more could there possibly be that is greater than the story of our Redemption.

You seem to suggest those who only see this are seeing a lower element of their eternal existance.

Have you seen more then this, "MORE" beyond our eternal life? More then Redemption which includes the WHOLE of our life in Christ. SAlvation is a continuing operation as we are being changed from Glory to Glory, even by the Spirit of the Lord. We cannot change ourselves from Glory to Glory, it's the spirit of the Lord who is doing the changing, every minute of every day.

On another thought you brought up, relating to this same subject on the Firstfruits forum:

The Tree of Life, must now in someway be the tree Jesus Christ was Crucified on,( Deut 21:23 Galatians 3:13) for there is no other way to eternal life then through Christ Crucified.... So maybe in some way the Tree of Life is connected and has always been connected to Jesus Christ, who created all things for Himself to begin with. There are scriptures in Revelation that still refer to the Tree of Life...one being to the Church of Ephesus Rev 2:7. And more scripture in Rev 22 concerning the Tree of Life, in the NEW Heaven and New Earth...with nothing there to make a lie or to deceive.

More to think about.

Love in Christ
Katy-did

God wants a vast family of Son's who will be just like Him but of flesh and bone and the program of producing them can only be by pro-creation

Ormly, I truly am trying to understand what you are saying. Yes, after Adam and Eve sinned, they were to pro-create, and Adam didn't even KNOW Eve intil after they sinned. So here we do have pro-creation.

The story of Redemption IS God taking this pro-created human, and offering eternal Sonship through our Lord Jesus Christ, who was and is and will always be, God who became flesh, tasted death for us, and gave us LIFE through Him, thus becoming to those who receive Him, sons of God.

When God created the Angels, each individual angel was created by God, not through any pro-creation among the angels themselves. However, we are different than the angels, having multiplied through god's plan of procreation among ourselves, and Sonship is given only to those who receive Him. We are already Sons of God at our new Birth. We don't become a son through our own effort by the "Way" of the Cross. Your idea seeming to say we are not son's yet, but are WORKING at becoming sons. Many scripture say otherwise. 1st John stating NOW we are the sons of God. Our sonship has already been sealed by the Holy Spirit. And now we are a New Creation, having been quickened by the Risen Christ. Now we are waiting to see Him as He is, for we shall be like Him. We are now Bone of His Bone and Flesh of His Flesh, so there is the flesh and bone part you are looking for. Ephesians 5

Love in Christ
Katy-did

PS: Also Ephesians states HE will present the Church to Himself, Ephesians 5:25-33, a Glorious Church without spot or wrinkle. HE must know what He is doing. We surrender to the Works of HIS hands, working out what He first works in.

Thank you ginnyrose. Let me begin with answering your statement here:

When Elohim made Adam, he was made in His image. Since this was the case, he could not have been made more perfect.

If we believe Jesus was perfect man in His flesh, He made no such assertions simply because He was continually sanctifying Himself; making Himself Holy, how can you say Adam could not have been more perfect?

Just curious..... But this needs a respose from you.

ok

whyme wrote:
Ormly,

Procreation produces natural flesh. New birth or being born again quickens and creates a new spirit. Resurrection and glorification produce flesh that can survive the presence of God. Procreation in humans can produce nor result in perfect flesh. That is why resurrection and glorification is required.

None of which would have been necessary if Adam had not transgressed and had progressed in becoming what God had intended, i.e., perfection out of innocence instead of perfection out of a new born life, which is now the only way it can be accomplished. Think about that part of it.

ginnyrose wrote:
Orm,
I cannot believe you can answer a post with one word! What's wrong with you, cat got your tongue (or fingers)?

Now I think you owe everyone here a detailed explanation of what you meant in your original post. And keep it short, to the point and do not speak in riddles! :-P

ginnyrose

Ok, however, I am not going to argue this if you wont take time the to read the scriptures where my reason stems.

Heres one example: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was [b]very good[/b]. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31 (KJV)

Very Good. Ginny. Not perfect.

In regards to perfection, I made the comparison for you between Adam and Jesus. You didn't address that but rather came back with your remark that warns me, you really aren't interested:

If we believe Jesus was perfect man in His flesh, He made no such assertions simply because He was continually sanctifying Himself; making Himself Holy, how can you say Adam could not have been more perfect?

So I ask again: How could Adam not have been more than just, "very good"?

Ginnyrose wrote:

Adam was never divine nor of the same substance as Elohim, but a creation.

[i]And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.[/i] Genesis 3:15 (KJV)

What would have ensued had Adam not sinned can only be left to the imagination because the Scriptures do not tell us this.

Jesus spent over three years demonstrating to a 4G yr old world the life of what Adam should have exhibited when it was only him and Eve. Then He died to make it possible for you and I to take up where He left off. That is part and parcel of the 'Work of the Cross".

God in his foreknowledge knew man would sin so had made plans to redeem him before the event ever took place.

Now that the individual can be redeemed, it means his standing with God will be similar to Adam's through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

And how this is being lived out is totally dependant on my yieldedness to this voice of the Spirit: do I choose to do things my way, or am I willing to follow him, even when things do not look promising, sensible or logical - from my vantage point. God wants to have a working, loving relationship with us, not just save a soul from hell.

Sometime ago I was struck with the OT's prophets walk with the LORD - and they lived before Pentecost! And I thought why are there so few like that today then decided if there are few it is because people are not yeilded to Him - it is not God's fault but ours, mine. So I started to ask the LORD to speak to me so I will know it is Him (and speak LOUDLY), and to teach me to recognize his voice when he speaks. Sir, I am still in kindergarten in my learning here...I have lots of Biblical knowledge but I want a relationship that will tell me how to do things in my everyday walk of life. And he is teaching me - the problem is me. So I can see he is very patient, but I must not presume upon it either: he is so holy. So at any time during the day I can in my spirit ask God which? where? how? and unless he answers immediately, I know to take the logical route. If he suggests something else that is out of my range of common sense, I will do it in act of faith.

This is what walking with the LORD is about, IMHO.

I feel very vulnerable now having said all this...but this is what I see God wants from all of us and I suspect we are all in one stage or another of this. Some have not realized this to be possible and needed to be instructed and others are growing in it...

My understanding of this issue...do not know if this what you had in mind...

I understand. I hope what I stated will explain much of that which I had in mind.

Christinyou wrote:
Quote:
These are son's of God and could not be before the Cross.

One more time: Only becasue Adam failed.

That's easy, though impossible to work out; requiring the new birth and Pentecost for success. What He wants is for you to become a son, with His Character well expressed by you.

I understand, howver, try this out by Chambers:

After obedience—what?

And straightway He constrained His disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side. . . . Mark 6:45-52.

We are apt to imagine that if Jesus Christ constrains us, and we obey Him, He will lead us to great success. We must never put our dreams of success as God’s purpose for us; His purpose may be exactly the opposite. We have an idea that God is leading us to a particular end, a desired goal; He is not. The question of getting to a particular end is a mere incident. What we call the process, God calls the end.
What is my dream of God’s purpose? His purpose is that I depend on Him and on His power now. If I can stay in the middle of the turmoil calm and unperplexed, that is the end of the purpose of God. God is not working towards a particular finish; His end is the process—that I see Him walking on the waves, no shore in sight, no success, no goal, just the absolute certainty that it is all right because I see Him walking on the sea. It is the process, not the end, which is glorifying to God.
God’s training is for now, not presently. His purpose is for this minute, not for something in the future. We have nothing to do with the afterwards of obedience; we get wrong when we think of the afterwards. What men call training and preparation, God calls the end.
God’s end is to enable me to see that He can walk on the chaos of my life just now. If we have a further end in view, we do not pay sufficient attention to the immediate present; but if we realize that obedience is the end, then each moment as it comes is precious.

Chambers, O. 1993, c1935. My utmost for his highest : Selections for the year . Discovery House Publishers: Grand Rapids, MI

Words fail me, Phillip

Adam was created to become, Lord Adam. He failed the test. Learn that and you will understand why Jesus is called the second Adam or last Adam.

Christinyou wrote:
What would have Adam been if he passed the test?

How?

When?

Where?

He would have, by a series of moral choices, arrived at his own transguration.... just like the man Jesus. That was the ultimate intention for him by God. Adam failed the first test given him.

Hey, I am not writing all this out again. Go back and read what you need to read.

Ormly wrote:
Adam was created to become, Lord Adam. He failed the test. Learn that and you will understand why Jesus is called the second Adam or last Adam.

Jesus was never called the second Adam - only the last Adam.

If the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, then why was - "Adam created to become Lord", had he not failed - if God knew he would fall and that is why The Lamb, the second Person of the Trinity, [i]was[/i] slain from the foundation of the world ?

Has any man been "created to become [or be called] Lord" but God ?

If you wouldn't mind, would you read this below and give your opinion of it ?

'Central to the * Sons of God doctrine - is the idea that sonship comes through higher revelation. The Christian life is fragmented into stages of maturity: the first step is that of servant of God; the next step is to become a friend of God; following this is to become a son of God and, ultimately, gods ourselves.'

Thank you Ormly.

Hi Ormly,

I haven't had time to join this thread, and won't be able to hang in with the detailed discussion, but I wanted to comment that you do mix your questions with enough truth to give them substance, but, that odd word or thought here or there, which is out of place with scriptural thought, always creates a stir!

Would you please clarify: are you talking about 'in the resurrection'?

Thanks. :-)

dorcas wrote:

Hi Ormly,

I haven't had time to join this thread, and won't be able to hang in with the detailed discussion, but I wanted to comment that you do mix your questions with enough truth to give them substance, but, that odd word or thought here or there, which is out of place with scriptural thought, always creates a stir!

Would you please clarify: are you talking about 'in the resurrection'?

Thanks. :-)

Hello Dorcas,

You will have to read all that have I posted to recognize I am coming from a different perspective than nominal/intitutional, man-centered, thought. . It is not that much of a read and I am QUITE clear in my "assertions", violating NO scripture.

You are asking a question based on a very little reading of it, if any and I have no idea where it stems from.

If you believe what I am saying is NOT scriptural I only hope you can make clear disinctions when addressing my "error" and not go all over the map in doing so as some others here, are. It is very frustrating, producing poor questions that are "Rabbit Runs" that have no direction. As frustrating as that can be, mis-representing words is even more.

Cheers

HE_Reigns wrote:

Ormly wrote:
Adam was created to become, Lord Adam. He failed the test. Learn that and you will understand why Jesus is called the second Adam or last Adam.

Jesus was never called the second Adam - only the last Adam.

The name "second Adam" can stand if you understand you are a new creation in Christ, if He has indeed, quickened your spirit..

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was [b][i]made[/i] a quickening spirit.[/b]" 1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV)

Note: Though in italics, all translations understood the "making" process and added the word. Adam was made ...; Jesus was made....

God's perspective is to see that Adam, though made a living soul, was, by choosing the way of self-renounciation, as Jesus later gives us the example, progress to a point in time when he would have experienced transfiguration; incarnating the Christ of Glory into his flesh. The result would have been that many sons would have been procreated without sin making the need for redemption unecessary. Jesus, regardless of our 20/20 hindsight, would not ever have been born. There would have been no need for a redeemer. I might that that is the reason God chose procreation as the means for "birthing" His sons. When Adam failed, by virtue of heredity, only one sinless being would ever be necessary for reconcilation/redemption. His Name was Jesus.

If the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, then why was - "Adam created to become Lord", had he not failed - if God knew he would fall and that is why The Lamb, the second Person of the Trinity, [i]was[/i] slain from the foundation of the world?

All you laying out here is the foreknowledge of God who had all things worked out beforehand. Did you ever build a house without having plan and counting the cost? Would you expect that God would; Father, whose plan was to have "many sons brought to Glory", also counted the cost? Think about that cost and the "work of the Cross".

Read this verse carefully: [i]"For it became him,[God..] for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation [Jesus]perfect through sufferings[/i] [training].
Hebrews 2:10 (KJV)

[emphasis mine]

Now, I know the reason "why" however, "where" do we have problem believing this couldn't have been the intent/purpose of the Father, who desired many sons, when applying this to Adam? Had Adam not sinned, would he not have been the Captain; the Lord. This is not about man's salvation at this point in time. It is about procreating many sons and grooming them for divinity; Adam, was to be the Author of son-ship. Adam who was perfected in the Eternal Character of the Father by the continual renouncing of His "self" nature; giving "His utmost for His Hightest". Had he not transgressed he would have succeeded; the "first of first fruits". However, Alas and Alac its now all academic.

Has any man been "created to become [or be called] Lord" but God?

That is a very poor question inasmuch as I am not inferring such.

If you wouldn't mind, would you read this below and give your opinion of it ?

'Central to the * Sons of God doctrine - is the idea that sonship comes through higher revelation. The Christian life is fragmented into stages of maturity: the first step is that of servant of God; the next step is to become a friend of God; following this is to become a son of God and, ultimately, gods ourselves.'

Thank you Ormly.

I did. It is cultish babble.

Try to understand what I am saying to see the privilege we have that has been far too long, ignored/overlooked by teachers hung up in "redemption only mode", gospel.

Cheers

Warrior4Jah wrote:
Hi Ormly!

Do I understand correctly that you are trying to discuss to what purpose God made Adam?

Shalom,
Jonathan

More than that inasmuch as God wants a many sons brought to Glory; a vast family of them created for Himself not only in His Likeness but also established in His Character for Eternity. The whole nature of man to become the very Nature of the Father by virtue of procreation. Adam was supposed to lead the way; to become the first one and thus the father of our son-ship. He failed making it necessary for redemption which brought reconcilation that can place human back into the process of becoming. Jesus, the Captain of our salvation is now the Father of our son-ship, showing us the way "to become", as Adam should have learned.

ginnyrose wrote:
Orm,

God came to Adam and Eve and the end of the day and fellowshipped with them. Everything was absolutely perfect from our human standpoint. God loved it as did the humans.

ginnyrose

But not His. God wanted sons JUST LIKE HIM; WITH HIS CHRARCTER.

What is so-o-o-o difficult to understand about this?

godcentral wrote:
Hello Ormly,

God is all powerful and therefore doesn't even require pro-creation for his purposes.

Mat 3:9 And do not think to say within yourselves, We have a father, Abraham. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

As I stated and as Jesus provided FOR ALL MANKIND, it can't be any other way than procreation. Sorry you can't see it that way.

murdog wrote:
Orm,

I must say I find that this thread actually angers me. First of all it does not seem as if you have a point. I am not alone on this as it seems most of the other posters have no idea what the question actually is.

Secondly you have been extremely rude and condescending to some of the other posters who question you. You get annoyed with them for not being clear, when by your own admittance you are guilty of the same.

Enough Already.

Murray

Thats because I don't like dishonesty; have my statements/words returned to me, mis-represented.

Secondly, I have been quite clear. You, as with most hung up with only the understanding of part of the good news, just don't agree and that's ok.
Don't slam me because I do. And, I might add, I am not violating SOUND doctrine. Perhaps you should question yours and not me.

If fact, why don't you show me where I am wrong!

Address some of the questions I have asked like "Did God place Adam here to fail just so you could be redeemed"? If not, what did God have in mind .... and don't give me "for His pleasure" bit. That won't wash.

Note: Though in italics, all translations understood the "making" process and added the word. Adam was made ...; Jesus was made....

This is the verse,
The first MAN Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam (notice it DOESN"T say Last MAN Adam, or second Adam) a quickening spirit.

1[b][color=CC0000] Corinthians 15:47 state the first man was of the earth -earthly, the second man ***IS THE LORD***, HEAVENLY.[/color][/b]

No where does it say **IS BECOMMING OR WAS BECOMMING**.

Actually much of what is being said here denies the trinity, suggesting Jesus was made or created, grossly overlooking the following statements about who Jesus was before becoming flesh for us.

Ormly states:

He would have, by a series of moral choices, arrived at his own transguration.... just like the man Jesus. That was the ultimate intention for him by God. Adam failed the first test given him

No such test was EVER given to Adam according to SCRIPTURE. Adding words and and adding a different meaning to those ADDED words is not scripture....but only those who want to "monkey around" with the Word of God.

This is what SCRIPTURE says about the Last Adam, who WAS and IS and Always will be.

John 17,

24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory [b][color=CC0000]which I had with thee before the world was. [/color][/b]

Philippians 2:

[b][color=CC0000]6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: [/color][/b]

Hebrews 2:
14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

[b][color=CC0000]16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.[/color][/b]

John 8
23And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

57Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, [b][color=CC0000]Before Abraham was, **I AM**. [/color][/b]

With Love in Christ Jesus
Katy-Did

godcentral wrote:
hey orm,

Address some of the questions I have asked like "Did God place Adam here to fail just so you could be redeemed"? If not, what did God have in mind .... and don't give me "for His pleasure" bit. That won't wash.

Clearly through Israels fall the gentiles recieved mercy. It was all pre-planned and Adam is not exempt from this plan for:

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

For it is God who wants to show his wrath and power.

What does that have to do with God's reason for creating Adam/mankind and placing him in the garden for a test of his allegiance?

godcentral wrote:
Your question was "Did God place Adam here to fail just so you could be redeemed"?

well, my view is yes he did. Adams fall did not take God by surprise. For he is the potter (the creator of us all. Adam as well) making the lumps of clay into whatever he pleases

Then you, in believing that, have to conclude; are forced to conclude, God is unjustice. Is God unjust?? There can be no other conclusion.

You are also saying, by your remark, that God is arbitrary in what He does. Is God arbitrary??

Your "potter and clay" thing won't wash.

Ormly has an erroneous understanding of the word "Transfiguration" as something that was to happen to Adam after his obedience, Transfiguring him into a son of God.

But the scripture in the Gospel of Matthew 17:2 and Mark 9:2 was revealing to the Apostles, those who were standing there, that Jesus Christ is/was God who being veiled in the flesh had been seen and to testify of these things afterward.

He didn't have to do anything or prove anything FIRST, to receive His Transfiguration. His being transfigured "momentarily" for the disciples eyes to see, PROVED HE IS/WAS and will always be Lord. When He came down off the Mountain, He once again, clothed in Flesh for you and me, continued His Ministry, went to the Cross, Rose Again, was seen of some 500, (not in a transfigured state...*white as snow* etc) until He went to the Father and was once Again Glorified with Him. This Glorified Jesus, appeared to Paul on the road to Demascus, with such brilliance, it blinded Paul.

This mis-application of the understanding of Transfigur"ed" NOT Transfigur "ATION"( no word in scripture for TransfigurATION....as something of BECOMMING.

Through Christ, and IN CHRIST ONLY ,are our minds being transformed from Glory to Glory, even by the Spirit of the Lord. This is ALL the WORK of the Lord, so in reality of the Saint, It should read, HIS UTMOST for our Highest. As that is exactly what HE DID, God GAVE HIS UTMOST, God Gave HIS Only Begotten Son....To God be the Glory for all the UTMOST Things HE has done.

Love In Christ
Katy-did

Warrior4Jah wrote:
God did allow Adam and Eve to fall in sin, it can't be that God was taken by surprise and had to think up a plan b which was less glorious, then His first design.

Galatians 3:

27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,

*****there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The ****HEIRS**** according to **the** PROMISE!!!!

(A Promise that was NEVER made to Adam and EVE).

For if Adam 1 was to have been the First Lord of Lords and King of Kings,( had He succeeded) would then have made EVE the first Goddess of Heaven or QUEEN of Heaven and Earth.

WE know where this teaching comes from...PAGANISM, MYTHOLOGY etc. !!!

Love in Christ
Katy-Did

Ormly wrote:
God's perspective is to see that Adam, though made a living soul, was, by choosing the way of self-renounciation, as Jesus later gives us the example, progress to a point in time when he would have experienced transfiguration; incarnating the Christ of Glory into his flesh. The result would have been that many sons would have been procreated without sin making the need for redemption unecessary. Jesus, regardless of our 20/20 hindsight, would not ever have been born. There would have been no need for a redeemer. I might that that is the reason God chose procreation as the means for "birthing" His sons. When Adam failed, by virtue of heredity, only one sinless being would ever be necessary for reconcilation/redemption. His Name was Jesus.

Had Adam not sinned, would he not have been the Captain; the Lord.

This is not about man's salvation at this point in time. It is about procreating many sons and grooming them for divinity; Adam, was to be the Author of son-ship. Adam who was perfected in the Eternal Character of the Father by the continual renouncing of His "self" nature; giving "His utmost for His Hightest". Had he not transgressed he would have succeeded; the "first of first fruits". However, Alas and Alac its now all academic.

I am writing this in love and His peace, so please receive it as such. This quote above is heresy, except for The "only One sinless 'being'" - being [u]needed[/u] for reconciliation and redemption and may I add, Regeneration - Who's Name we all know - Who shed His blood for the cause of sin - Freewill - the Choice to obey or not.
Adam merely represented mankind with freewill and what 'any' man would do with freewill - that is why he is representative of mankind in total. He disobeyed one "law". He only had "one" law to obey, in a Good environment, with a good body and even the priviledge to walk and talk in the garden with Eloheim - The triune One God. That's "man". He represents ALL of mankind and their inability to follow God's law. [i]1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.[/i] The whole of this was and is to point all the Glory to The Son. The Bible [God's Plan] was and is Christocentric.
Having man become as Lord by obeying the law was not in any way the program and it was and is a complete impossibility without Christ. And even with Christ, we will not become "divinity".
Jesus was The Logos made flesh. Big difference. Jesus was what we could be, while He was in the flesh only, but we will never be divinity - Adam was what we are before Jesus/God 'indwells' us. The Savior will be our Father and we will be His sons Rev. 21:7. We have His Divinity within our spirits, but we are not and will not be divinity.
Why were those who 'would be' His sons, [i]also[/i] known before the foundation of the world ?
Why was Christ "Predestined" ? Your answer earlier is not sufficient Biblically. [ie. "counting the cost of building.]

To say that, had Adam obeyed God, there would have been no need for God to come and shed His Own blood, is error, because that was "The Plan" before creation, Because man cannot obey God without The Lamb. Rom 7. If man could obey the law [thou shalt not eat of ...] then The Lamb would not have been slain from the foundation of the world.
His 'Plan' - was before the beginning - that we would have this Kinsmen Redeemer, Who was God in the flesh, called Immanuel to be our Righteousness ... not having a righteousness of our own, that is by the law ... and so forth. Philippians 3.

You are going too far with focusing on just a man, made from the dust of the earth. The Bible's mentions of Adam, does not even touch where you have gone with these "what if's", in fact it goes just the opposite.
The Word of God only uses Adam as an Explanation of His Love - in that, "man cannot save himself". It is impossible and Adam proved it. That is the example that Adam has left us. The Law was a school-master to lead us to Christ, because the law proved we could not obey --- just as Adam couldn't.
Only the God-Man could cause a human to be transformed into the image of the Son/God.
He is HolyLove - come in the flesh - to destroy our rebellious nature, so that we may now "reckon it dead". Without the empowering of His Spirit - which Jesus depended on while here, as we should, rebellion/sin cannot be overcome.
Had Adam eaten of the tree of life, would he have then miraculously lost his "freewill" ? Then, could he have still sinned after eating from the tree of life ?
Adam was "representative man" - Jesus "representative God in a man".
To say Adam would have become "Lord Adam", as you're said, is not accurate at all. Christ was Predestined from Eternity past. Before Creation. To say that "God's plan would have made Adam Lord is going beyond anything written about Adam and excludes all written of The Lamb.
You can teach Biblical sonship, without going extra-Biblical on your teachings and speculating over Adam. In order for Adam to "be perfect AS Christ was perfect", Adam would have #1 - needed to be God in the flesh and 2 - would have needed to never - future tense, After had he eaten of the tree of life - to never sin - ever.
All sin needs a means of pardon and God from the beginning had said - it would cost a blood covering. That's why the fig leafs didn't cover it. That's why Cain's offering wasn't accepted. How would Adam's future sin and those of his offspring have been forgiven ? Would they have had a "sinless perfection" experience and how ?
How would eating from the tree of life - have made Adam or his seed incapable of any "future" sin ?
The tree of Life would have produced "physical immortality" only. Nowhere is it implied that it is the tree of life which "transforms" one to the image of Christ or removes freewill to sin. To say that it would have made their offspring "the sons of God" - [who would also be immortals with freewills, but not with the risen Christ within them to "perfect" them] is again, going beyond what is written. When we receive our Glorified Bodies, Then we "shall be like Him" and receive the final heirship of our adoption. [u]We will not be "pro-creating" in glorified bodies.[/u] So that shows that eating of the tree of life would not have given Adam a glorified body, because as you say, he would have then gone on to "pro-create" perfect little darlings.
There was only One plan for sonship for Creation - God's plan was for sonship through His Only Begotten Son, Only. The "law" was to point us to Him.
The Tree of Life had no other powers to do anything but make mortal flesh immortal. Not transform Adam into what the sons of God are now by Virtue of Immanuel's blood - Who is the Predestined "First Born and First Fruits" among many brethren, so that in ALL things HE might have the Preeminence - Colossians 1 & 1 Corth 15.

To go on with this speculation, of something that was not even in the mind of God - Not His Plan - is to go beyond what is written of Adam and The Lamb/The Son, that was slain from the foundation of the world.
You believe in foreknowledge, but don't quite take it out far enough. You are taking Glory from Him, His Foreknowledge/Omniscience and His plan, with these speculations that are not written into Scripture. It was not God's plan for Adam to become physically immortal in that state. Though God did not 'cause' Adam to eat from the tree of good and evil, [as He did not cause 1/3 of the angels to fall] - He knew that "man without the indwelling of His Spirit" could Not Obey - as it is written.
That was the whole point. Adam/Man "could not obey" and God knew that before He created him. It would take GOD to be the propitiation for man's freewill and then the Indwelling of His Spirit to make "sons". "Born-Again" by the Spirit. And those who died B.C. and are now with Him, are with Him because of their Faith - just as we will be.
Adam would have not have been obedient and had Adam eaten of the tree of life - where would the Glory to God have been ? It would have said that "man can obey the law without God's intervention or needed sacrifice", thus glorifying man alone.
You are under the impression that I or we don't understand. I understand what you are saying. I have no problems with Romans and Galatians and I doubt anyone else here does.
The whole of the Bible is a Love Story - of God's love for His creation. His Love being the sole cause of all He's done by Creating Creation in the first place and then dying for it. It is not a Mystery Novel. There are not "what if's " in It. He is Sovereign. The only 'what if' that we should look at is - What If God did not Love the world - than what ?
The Entire Plan was because He is Love. He wanted sons and daughters/ or His Bride, to enjoy His Love and Love Him by their own freewill - and HE provided the only provision that would or could enable a human "to" love with His Love - which is not human love and cannot be found in an unregenerate human.
Being perfected in His Love, is Only what makes us go on to sonship or make up His Bride.
The Word is clear in explaining how man could not follow God's law - first made obvious by Adam. That is all we need to know about the "representative [u]man[/u]" Adam. He was "just a man". Lucifer was "just an angel".
No - Adam would have never have been "Lord Adam". And the only place "Captain" is used is for the Captain of our Salvation. If you say that Adam could have been the Captain of our Salvation, you may as well take the whole Bible and tear it up. Either God is Sovereign and all-knowing or He is not.
Adam merely represented what any man would have done. Representative of all men.
You are twisting the simplicity of The Gospel with your attempts to spiritualize it and thus go beyond "what is written". I was taught - that to do so to the Word of God, is our attempt to appear more spiritual ourselves and to be admired, to form a following. Had you preached or displayed the Love of God, which is the whole purpose of Creation and Redemption in it's Entirety, rather than give short-smug replies to so many, from the beginning - to those who couldn't understand [i]your[/i] concepts, most wouldn't have the questions that they've had and this much confusion. Far too many of your answers are demeaning to those who don't understand your "theories". Your thoughts on Adam are theories and speculations that exceed what is written. The tone alone of your answers, do nothing but prove that you are speaking to humans in a tone that He Himself would never use and neither would any of the N.T. Authors. He and they spoke simply to the people [except for those who thought they did have a righteousness of their own to obey without Him]. He and they spoke with love and the desire to bring 'understanding' - not to cause such a display of self-focus by mystery, as you've done through-out these few threads that I've seen.
A servant of The Lord, never sets himself up to confuse, but to paint plain/clear word pictures - that even a child could understand - and not use sawed-off short sentences to make them feel as if you are holding the Ace in the hole and give the "I know the 'secret' but you don't" type impression in your answers. HIS teachers are patient, bring truth to a child's level and do not cause months of confusion.
Back in the 70's, the teachings of Bill Britton infiltrated our Church. Those who embraced it, became similarly smug to the rest of us. "They had the secret of sonship" and we didn't.
Though you may not be an adherent to that particular "Sonship Doctrine or Sonship Message", the affects of going beyond what is written is still the same. Addressing people with the "I know something you fools don't know."
We are first saved by grace through faith and then, "to them that [u]obey[/u] Him, by faith through love - to them He gives the power/authority to become the sons of God." Period!
It is no wonder that you've left a trail of confusion behind you. You'd better to just post Chambers.
Yes, we must go beyond just our "redemption" and see that the only fruit that bears witness that we are the sons of God is our obedience - of 'walking in the spirit', as He did while on earth and being transformed by the renewing of our minds by the washing of The Word, because those whom He did Foreknow, He did predestine to be transformed into the image of His Son, so that we would walk as He did, while in the world and do all that He did and ultimately become 'like' Him. Sonship is so simple to explain, I know 5 year olds that can teach it. "The simplicity of The Gospel" was meant for children.
That is "simply spoken" - and worked out with fear and trembling, that is generated by our love for Him, because it is He that worketh in us, both to do and to will of His good pleasure - which through the obedience of seeking Him with all of our hearts, because of our Love for Him, so that we might love as He does and IS, we are thus fulfilling all the law and the prophets and only by His love actively working in us - because we sought Him for HIMSELF, will we be faithful unto the end and thus by that fruit/love of His nature within us - are we known as He is known and as His Elect. Without His Love/Him - being our goal that we 'strive' or press on toward - we are not His. If we love Him, we will strive to Know Him and be transformed into The Word of God's Image - Who Is Love.
May HE be manifested to you as - One Omniscient [total foreknowledge] God, with One 'Eternal' Plan, motivated solely by One HolyLove to The Glory of Himself Alone.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, .......... , to feed the church of [u]God which He hath purchased with His Own blood.[/u]

To say that, had Adam obeyed God, there would have been no need for God to come and shed His Own blood, is error, because that was "The Plan" before creation,

However, that was plan "B". Adam was plan "A".

God had all the bases covered.

You aren't thinking to believe what I wrote is heresy.

Ormly wrote:
God's perspective is to see that Adam, though made a living soul, was, by choosing the way of self-renounciation, as Jesus later gives us the example, progress to a point in time when he would have experienced transfiguration; incarnating the Christ of Glory into his flesh. The result would have been that many sons would have been procreated without sin making the need for redemption unecessary. Jesus, regardless of our 20/20 hindsight, would not ever have been born. There would have been no need for a redeemer. I might that that is the reason God chose procreation as the means for "birthing" His sons. When Adam failed, by virtue of heredity, only one sinless being would ever be necessary for reconcilation/redemption. His Name was Jesus.

Had Adam not sinned, would he not have been the Captain; the Lord.

This is not about man's salvation at this point in time. It is about procreating many sons and grooming them for divinity; Adam, was to be the Author of son-ship. Adam who was perfected in the Eternal Character of the Father by the continual renouncing of His "self" nature; giving "His utmost for His Hightest". Had he not transgressed he would have succeeded; the "first of first fruits". However, Alas and Alac its now all academic.

This above is what I commented to.

We'll let some other man step up to the plate now, if they feel led to. I've shot the wad for now.
I can only ask, How could Perfect Omniscience-Omnipotence even need a "plan B" ?

HE_Reigns asked:
I can only ask, How could Perfect Omniscience-Omnipotence even need a "plan B" ?

Simply because plan "A" failed.

Whay is so difficult to understand about?

Now, I will ask you: Why do you suppose Jesus was called the 'First of First Fruits'? Surely Him, as God, it wouldn't be necessary.

Christinyou,

You will never connect the dots using that thinking.

THINK! Jesus, "son of Adam" was of necessity because Adam failed. All that you posit from Ephesians is and was, AFTER THE FACT OF ADAM"S TRANSGRESSION.

Let's go back to the Garden of Eden and see where the truth lies.

Genesis never deifies Adam. How can we have something offered which could never exist in the first place? If Adam was to have deity by any definition, why would Satan bother to offer to Adam and Eve,the opportunity to become "as gods"?

Yes, there is a promise in the Bible that we can become gods. But notice who made the promise. SATAN! And he is still making the same vain promise today. But the Lord God says,

Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. Is. 43:10

I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. Is.45:5

With Love in Christ Jesus
Katy-did

Ormly said

THINK! Jesus, "son of Adam" was of necessity because Adam failed. All that you posit from Ephesians is and was, AFTER THE FACT OF ADAM"S TRANSGRESSION.

There is no scripture which calls Jesus a "son of Adam". That is the [i][b]whole[/i][/b] point.

Adam was a son of God, and so is Jesus Christ THE Son of God.

When Adam sinned in Eden, he and Eve lost whatever glory had naturally been theirs because they had been created in God's image.

There was never a plan in God's mind to make Adam any purer than He had created him, because he was already pure enough for God to walk with him every day.

You are, by trying to work qualities into Adam's constitution and relationship (with God), missing a very important truth out of your cogitations, which is that God always had intended to send His Son, the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world, from before He ever founded the world.

And, He always had intended to pour out the Holy Spirit on men and women, to bring us into a better fellowship with Himself than Adam had (apparently) lost.

Rather than trying to flatten out the contours of the spiritual history of man's relationship with God, it would be better if you thought of those differences as necessary growth pangs, and not errors.

Certainly, those who have engaged with you in this thread, to whom you cannot offer scripture to back up your doctrine, are right to keep challenging your invitations to read your mind or agree, when you cannot offer any substantial reason they should, other than your own opinion.

Jesus was the last Adam, but He did not have a sinful nature although He partook of flesh and blood.

My question to you about the resurrection, was because that is when 'flesh and bone' is mentioned by both Jesus (Luke 24:39) and Paul (Eph 5:30), and both have to be read by us, (so long after He was on earth either before or after His resurrection), in that light, and the light of Paul's comment to the Corinthians:

2 Corinthians 5:16
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know [i]Him thus[/i] no longer.

Jesus plunged into death and became the first fruit from among the dead when His Father raised Him again because death could not hold Him (because He was not a sinner).

We do the same - plunge into His death, acknowledging our sin for which He died - and then receive His Spirit, by which we are raised to walk in newness of life, God having become our Father also. This could not be simpler.

The difficult bit is [u]dying with Christ[/u] and [u]accepting to be grafted into that death[/u], but unless we do, we won't even live with Him, let alone reign with Him as a 'more than conquerer'.

(Thus) we become sons of God on God's terms. Thank you Father. :-D

The terms are different from Adam's sonship. Agreed. So what?

Dorcas, do you recall this in Luke:

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
...... Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, [b]which was the son of Adam[/b], which was the son of God.
Luke 3:23,38 (KJV)

And of course this, on Mary's side that only goes back to Abraham and we know he stems from Adam:

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren ...." Matthew 1:1-2 (KJV)

So what's the problem that Jesus would not be a son, a begat of Adam? How else do you suppose His humanity had it's beginning?

Now please don't tell me I'm wrong about this.

Hi Katy-did,

I thought you might find these scriptures useful to ponder. I hope you don't mind...

John 10
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '?
35 "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36 "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

1 John 3, 1 John 4: 12 - 17, John 17

This whole 'Plan A' and 'Plan B' business is confusing me slightly.

Let me put it to you another way. I have read someone's post on this thread, saying that [i]God never needs a Plan B because His first plan cannot 'fail'[/i] (rephrased, I can't remember the exact wording).

If this is true, then taking that into another area regarding sin (as an illustration), if God never needs a Plan B, then that would mean that His Plan A is that every man sins. This is complete madness, because God is holy, and He hates sin. He intended perfection on earth, 'Plan A', but Adam and Eve chose contrary to that, and so every man does indeed sin. However, God's new 'plan' was to send His one and only Son into the world to pay for our sin.

So regarding what Ormly is saying (if I'm not mistaken) about Adam originally purposed to be 'Jesus' and praised by all men, is not heresy at all. Adam simply chose to disobey God. And although God's 'Plan A' would therefore not have suceeded, He had a 'Plan B'.

God has a 'plan' or a will, if you like. However, it is not necessarily one direct path. He has, as Ormly says, 'all the bases covered'. Everything is still in His almighty and faultless control.

I think rather than just going for the jugular of a new idea that you don't necessarily agree with, it is necessary to [i]try[/i] and see where it comes from. I've by no means come to any conclusions regarding this issue, however I think (emphasis on that word) that I can see where Ormly is coming from.

Am I mistaken?

Thank you richardf for your encouragement in this. I was beginning to wonder if this forum was the "Twilight Zone".

Indeed, God did have all the bases covered insofar as His foreknowledge permits Him all knowledge in His planning for success in all that He purposes and undertakes, whether it is for us or for Himself. In this it is paramount that we understand that His Ultimate intention is for a vast family of sons, all to be groomed in His Character; His Divine likeness. With this in mind,redemption is but the doorway to His Ultimate purpose for man, for Himself.

If this can be understood when asked what the chief end of man is, we will have something more to respond with than pious words.

Ormly asked me

... do you recall ... 'which was the son of Adam,'

And no, I didn't recall... but, I do have something to say about it... which is that all down through the natural geneology supplied for Jesus by Adam and his sons, the father was the one who conferred the family title upon the son - not the mother.

There is a thread called 'Jacob or Heli' on SI, in which the details of Joseph's entitlement to be called Jesus' 'father', are discussed and compared with Mary's. (I'm not going to quote from it.)

In fact, God Himself was Jesus' father and Mary was His mother inasmuch as she gave birth to Him. It was vital that He should be born of David's line, of the tribe of Judah, but at this point in the history of Israel, God throws a curveball; all previous parameters are suspended - by Mary's miraculous conception and the liklihood that Joseph had been [i]adopted[/i], making his claim as a descendent of David, a purely legal claim (rather than a natural one).

I say all this to broach the possibility that Mary did not supply any part of the genetic material which became the body of Jesus Christ.

This doesn't mean she wasn't His mother, though. But, as God was His father, it is reasonable to say that the 'as was supposed' in

Luke 3:23
Now Jesus Himself began [i]His ministry at[/i] about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) [i]the[/i] son of Joseph, [i]the son[/i] of Heli,

most specifically recounts the 'son of Adam' to [b]Joseph[/b], rather than to Jesus.

What d'you think?

dorcas wrote:

Ormly asked me

... do you recall ... 'which was the son of Adam,'

Of course you're right!

And no, I didn't recall... but, I do have something to say about it... which is that all down through the natural geneology supplied for Jesus by Adam and his sons, the father was the one who conferred the family title upon the son - not the mother.

Say no more. You are correct. That is a foundational issue that should always be kept in mind when attempting to sort out the issues. Heres why in my estimation:

Jesus, the man, had to come by procreation. That was the only way if the human "Lamb of God" who would take away the sin[s] of the world could ever come on the scene. God could never die for man. Only a man so intimate with God as to be, in [u]reality[/u], so one with Him, not only by Nature but by Character, therefore equal to the Father, could. Jesus, by the Christ of Glory, so in union with Him as to be God in flesh accomplished the task.

Creation was ended on the sixth day the only way a sinless being could enter this world with a sinless Nature was by the sinless seed of a father. I'm sorry, no earthly father for that? How about the seed of our Heavenly Father through the life of a young virgin maiden.

That is still a procreation birth, isn't it?

I hope that helps my case... :-)

Dorcas, you were right above. Ormly is not looking at the italicized words in Luk 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

In all four cases where it says "the son" in this one verse alone - they are italicized, which means, it is not in the Greek.

HE_Reigns wrote:
Dorcas, you were right above. Ormly is not looking at the italicized words in Luk 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

In all four cases where it says "the son" in this one verse alone - they are italicized, which means, it is not in the Greek.

Please don't hi-jack this thread. Kindly make you reply's over on the other one. I give that one to you to say all the things you wish to say.

Ormly, could you please define "hi-jack" ?

And please tell, which of your threads here am I permitted to post to ?

Hello HE_Reigns,

I appreciated this

Dorcas, you were right above. Ormly is not looking at the italicized words in Luk 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

In all four cases where it says "the son" in this one verse alone - they are italicized, which means, it is not in the Greek.

I don't agree with the thread title, that the statement in the leading post is true, and I appreciated, also, your longer exposition.

Lord Bless you Dorcas. I am sure you have been touched at the heart also and are praying with Christ's mercy. This has affected me also and I noticed it when I saw an article on another site written by an anonymous.
This signature to writings does not mean the same to me now. We must grieve with those who grieve and I feel, though the decision was Scriptural, I'm sure the decision makers are grieving also. I've seen some of the biggest strongest men I've known, weep at disfellowships.
Thank you for your concerns.