Ben Adam?

[seeingeyes]

Not so. For one, he had no concept of disobedience. I believe your brother pointed out that he wasn't deceived of the serpent. So it would appear Adam knew better than to entertain God would lie to him, but he had never experienced disobedience and knew nothing of its consequences. God has provided us with a protected way to explore what sin brings.

Your question is a very good one.

The trouble with this though, is that if God hadn't planted that tree in the garden and told them not to eat of it, then there is nothing that Adam could have done that was sinful.

Or in other words, when I tell my kids not to play with fire, but I allow them the freedom to play with fire, I know that they will get burned, and I know that that pain will teach them to not stick their hands in fire any more.

But I only want them to learn this lesson because there are many fires in this world that are out of my control, and I want my children to know enough to keep themselves unharmed.

This analogy breaks down in the Garden, and in general with God and His children, because there are no 'fires' that are out of God's control, and He has no limitations on His time or presence that could keep Him from keeping His own children safe.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Perhaps. The question is how can Jesus Christ be Adam? The term Ben Adam means Adam before he sinned. Apparently there are people who believe Jesus Christ was pre-sin Adam.

I raised the question, how could Jesus Christ be Adam before Adam knew about the knowledge of good and evil. It would seem to me that Jesus Christ would have had to forget about what He know from before time began.

Jesus isn't Adam. So that would solve that mystery.

Also "Ben Adam" means "son of Adam" or "son of man", in Hebrew.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yes, a spirit of confusion must be guarded against. I've been guilty of it on occasion.

Yes there is confusion (which is more rooted in strife and envy) and then there is just not understanding (where the former might not be evident). Seeing in part is not a sin.

 

[rdcast]

The trouble with this though, is that if God hadn't planted that tree in the garden and told them not to eat of it, then there is nothing that Adam could have done that was sinful.

Or in other words, when I tell my kids not to play with fire, but I allow them the freedom to play with fire, I know that they will get burned, and I know that that pain will teach them to not stick their hands in fire any more.

But I only want them to learn this lesson because there are many fires in this world that are out of my control, and I want my children to know enough to keep themselves unharmed.

This analogy breaks down in the Garden, and in general with God and His children, because there are no 'fires' that are out of God's control, and He has no limitations on His time or presence that could keep Him from keeping His own children safe.

You're a mother, so tell us, what causes the unborn baby to begin the birthing process?

 

[rdcast]

Yes there is confusion (which is more rooted in strife and envy) and then there is just not understanding (where the former might not be evident). Seeing in part is not a sin.

yet I sin often and fervently

 

[rdcast]

Jesus isn't Adam. So that would solve that mystery.

Also "Ben Adam" means "son of Adam" or "son of man", in Hebrew.

-CryptoLutheran

Exactly, but there lies the question.

 

[Fireinfolding]

yet I sin often and fervently

God grant you a repentant heart toward sinning

 

[rdcast]

God grant you a repentant heart toward sinning

Thank you, and I repent more fervently than I sin. God has dealt mightily with me.

 

[jdbear]

dysert posted,
A different take on this is that Adam died *spiritually* the day he ate the fruit. This broke the relationship he had previously enjoyed with God, which is borne out as you read the rest of the story.

Good point!

 

[jdbear]

rdcast posted,
So he wasn't deceived, then why would he sin against the command from God?

Maybe he didn't want to live without his wife.

About the day Adam died...

2 Peter 3:8 (21st Century King James Version)
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing: that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Get that? God's day is our thousand years. Adam died at the age of 930 years old, 70 man-years short of a full God-day. He died that selfsame day!

Nice one!

 

[rdcast]

Good point!

Yes, no doubt it was traumatic for everyone, but necessary for all mankind and he did die within that single God-day of 1000 man-years. So, indeed, God was speaking literally and not just figuratively.

 

[rdcast]

[/color][/font]
Maybe he didn't want to live without his wife.


Nice one!

did you catch x141's highlighting of the number 70? Awesome catch.

 

[rdcast]

Maybe he didn't want to live without his wife.

I would never have thought of that, but it makes perfect sense.

 

[jdbear]

rdcast posted.
did you catch x141's highlighting of the number 70? Awesome catch.

I have no idea what x141 is talking about. It may just be I'm not as skilled in the word.

rdcast posted,
I would never have thought of that, but it makes perfect sense.

I think it does make sense since Paul said the man and woman are figures of Jesus and the church (Eph.5:32)

 

[seeingeyes]

You're a mother, so tell us, what causes the unborn baby to begin the birthing process?

Not jumping jacks, that's for sure! My last one was so late that I had to schedule an appointment for my 10th month.

But I think what you were getting at is 'pain'. And as far as pain being necessary in God's plan, I agree. I don't see Jesus as being 'Plan B' since Adam and Eve and all their kids messed up God's 'Plan A'. In fact, I've got a sneaking suspicion that we are right on schedule.

But if God's plan was just to make folks who were 'obedient', then there are some logical troubles. Why not just program us to do as we're told? Or why not administer immediate justice in the form of lightning bolts every time we do evil? We learn well enough that fire is hot the first time we stick a hand in it, so wouldn't instant negative feedback be the way to bring about 'obedience'? Surely God knows us well enough to know that. But God doesn't seem to have much interest in cultivating cowering cult members who jump at His every command. Otherwise He would just do that.

So maybe, just maybe, 'obedience' in the form of 'avoiding sin' is not the plan. Perhaps it's part of the plan, but I think the overarching goal is much higher. I think it's love.

Now, that's a weighty topic in and of itself, so I think I'll set that aside for a moment, but the question then is: If love is the goal, does knowing good from evil help or hinder that goal?

Fast forward to Jesus who says crazy things like "love your enemies" and it makes you wonder, "how are we supposed to love those evil jerks?" And we see Jesus saying, "Father forgive them" about the people who are currently murdering him. And we wonder, "why would he want that kind of evil to be forgiven? Wouldn't it be better if evil men were destroyed so that they won't get in the way of us good folks?"

Now I'm getting to the question in the OP, it just takes me a while. lol

I know nothing about the theology behind Jesus being a pre-sin Adam, so I can only claim ignorance on that. But it's not too much of a stretch to say that Jesus is what we aspire to, and post-sin Adam is where we are at.

That being said, I think that there is no problem saying that Jesus doesn't/didn't 'know good and evil', or certainly not in the way that we do. The difference between good and evil is generally what keeps us from loving and forgiving each other. Me good, you bad, go away. It's what makes us choke each other and demand "pay me what you owe me!", instead of being generous to both the just and the unjust as our Father is.

 

[rdcast]

I have no idea what x141 is talking about. It may just be I'm not as skilled in the word.

I think it does make sense since Paul said the man and woman are figures of Jesus and the church (Eph.5:32)

I see
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

 

[rdcast]

Not jumping jacks, that's for sure! My last one was so late that I had to schedule an appointment for my 10th month.

But I think what you were getting at is 'pain'. And as far as pain being necessary in God's plan, I agree. I don't see Jesus as being 'Plan B' since Adam and Eve and all their kids messed up God's 'Plan A'. In fact, I've got a sneaking suspicion that we are right on schedule.

But if God's plan was just to make folks who were 'obedient', then there are some logical troubles. Why not just program us to do as we're told? Or why not administer immediate justice in the form of lightning bolts every time we do evil? We learn well enough that fire is hot the first time we stick a hand in it, so wouldn't instant negative feedback be the way to bring about 'obedience'? Surely God knows us well enough to know that. But God doesn't seem to have much interest in cultivating cowering cult members who jump at His every command. Otherwise He would just do that.

So maybe, just maybe, 'obedience' in the form of 'avoiding sin' is not the plan. Perhaps it's part of the plan, but I think the overarching goal is much higher. I think it's love.

Now, that's a weighty topic in and of itself, so I think I'll set that aside for a moment, but the question then is: If love is the goal, does knowing good from evil help or hinder that goal?

Fast forward to Jesus who says crazy things like "love your enemies" and it makes you wonder, "how are we supposed to love those evil jerks?" And we see Jesus saying, "Father forgive them" about the people who are currently murdering him. And we wonder, "why would he want that kind of evil to be forgiven? Wouldn't it be better if evil men were destroyed so that they won't get in the way of us good folks?"

Now I'm getting to the question in the OP, it just takes me a while. lol

I know nothing about the theology behind Jesus being a pre-sin Adam, so I can only claim ignorance on that. But it's not too much of a stretch to say that Jesus is what we aspire to, and post-sin Adam is where we are at.

That being said, I think that there is no problem saying that Jesus doesn't/didn't 'know good and evil', or certainly not in the way that we do. The difference between good and evil is generally what keeps us from loving and forgiving each other. Me good, you bad, go away. It's what makes us choke each other and demand "pay me what you owe me!", instead of being generous to both the just and the unjust as our Father is.

You're a great mother no doubt. Jesus asked for the forgiveness of us all, because we all hung him on our cross. It was the ultimate expression of agape love. As far as our enemies needing punishment, well, let's just say they may be right in not liking us good people. We must face the painful fact that we are all, indeed guilty to death, of every sin possible. We are our enemy.

So, I might ask, knowing Yah can't be tempted, when Yahshua was accompanied by the tempter, was He truly able to experience temptation? Our sin is allowing temptation regardless what the temptation stands for.

 

[rdcast]

You're a mother, so tell us, what causes the unborn baby to begin the birthing process?

Goodness, I just quoted myself

I asked this question about birthing because it seems reasonable to me that Adam was at his 9th month of his embryonic development, so to speak. Perhaps his helpmate was needed to coax him out of his garden womb. Would you have told your unborn baby to come out because it was much better out in the world? He'd be vexed with you. Which brings up a decent question, how did the garden expulsion affect Adam's opinion of God?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I suppose my confusion comes from the notion that "Ben Adam" refers to "Adam before he sinned".

That's not what it means. It's use in Hebrew is used as an idiom meaning "human being", such as its use by the Prophet Ezekiel. Or the way it is used in Numbers, asking if God is a man or a son of man that he should lie.

In theory it could also refer to the immediate descendents of Adam, such as Seth, Cain, or Abel (i.e. Seth ben Adam); but this is not the typical usage in Scripture. In Scripture typical usage is simply "human being".

Now, when the Lord refers to Himself as "Son of Man", there is some conversation to be had, is the Lord using this term in its usual idomatic sense "human being", or is He drawing primarily from Second Temple Period language which uses the term (such as in Daniel) in a more messianic sense? This sense can also be found in non-Canonical Second Temple literature such as Enoch.

In any case, however, it has nothing to do with a pre-lapsarian Adam. Hence much of my confusion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[seeingeyes]

You're a great mother no doubt. Jesus asked for the forgiveness of us all, because we all hung him on our cross. It was the ultimate expression of agape love. As far as our enemies needing punishment, well, let's just say they may be right in not liking us good people. We must face the painful fact that we are all, indeed guilty to death, of every sin possible. We are our enemy.

Exactly. Us good people? Not so good after all. That's what Jesus was trying to tell the Pharisees, but they were too 'good' to hear it. It fact, it was their very knowledge of their own 'goodness' and their knowledge of the 'evilness' of others that kept them from seeing the Messiah standing right in front of them. The Messiah was supposed to be torching their enemies, not having dinner and drinks with them. We share their blindness still today.

So, I might ask, knowing Yah can't be tempted, when Yahshua was accompanied by the tempter, was he truly able to experience temptation? Our sin is allowing temptation regardless what the temptation stands for.

If Jesus wasn't tempted to eat a piece of bread after a forty day fast, then he simply wasn't human, no matter what the theologians say.

But the temptations of Satan didn't seem to be targeted at Jesus' physical desires, per se. Instead, they seem to be targeted at his very identity.

The first and third temptations start with "If you are the Son of God", and the second one offers all the authority that the Son of God should be expected to already have. What I see here is Satan appealing to the pride that a Son of God should, presumably, have. Hey man, if you've got the power, why don't you use it? And since Jesus is not using it, then Satan offers him some power, which would make Jesus beholden to Satan instead of God.

This hearkens back to the snake in the garden playing up Eve's insecurities and offering the chance to be greater than she was, to be like God. And it hearkens forward to those yelling at Jesus to come down off the cross 'if you are the Son of God".

But Jesus didn't bite. He wasn't like Eve, trying to scramble himself to the top of the pack. He didn't have anything to prove. He didn't need to be 'right', he needed to be righteous. And the righteousness of God lays down it's life for it's friends. Nothing that Satan was offering could advance his Father's cause.