Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where do you find that point made in the Bible?But Jesus was also born in the flesh. He was born in the flesh to replace Adam. In John 5:58 Jesus declares "before Abraham was born, I am!". He could have just as rightly said "before Adam was born/created, I am!". How can we be in Adam without first being in Jesus since Adam is the son of God/Jesus?
Where do you find that point made in the Bible?
You strung together some disjointed texts that don't make the central point you are making to create a point. I asked where your central point is taught in Scripture. Where does the Bible use "in Adam" interchangeably with "in Christ" or claim that being "in Adam" and "in Christ" are equivalent?Every point I made was from scripture. Do you want me to attach the scripture reference to each point?
Where does the Bible use "in Adam" interchangeably with "in Christ" or claim that being "in Adam" and "in Christ" are equivalent?
I don't see it in MMXX's posts, what I see in MMXX's posts is unrelated texts being used to make a point not found in the Bible to then bring to the text and use that point to interpret Paul's usage of "in Christ" and "in Adam." It doesn't matter if MMXX can argue some way we can conceive of "in Adam" and "in Christ" to mean the same people, what matters is if Paul would have used those words that way.Where in MMXX's posts has he said that it does? Please provide the quotes.
What he has been saying is that the scope of the "all" the "in" is referring to is equivalent.
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive".
The scope is "all" people. It's very hard to read it any other way but I admire your determined efforts to do so
You strung together some disjointed texts that don't make the central point you are making to create a point. I asked where your central point is taught in Scripture. Where does the Bible use "in Adam" interchangeably with "in Christ" or claim that being "in Adam" and "in Christ" are equivalent?
That's not the UR contention, but trying to make the Bible dance by inventing ways to see it a certain way is exactly what I am objecting to rather than the UR position itself.As I understand it, the UR contention is that "in Adam" and "in Christ" are equivalent. I'm demonstrating how that might be the case.
I don't see it in MMXX's posts, what I see in MMXX's posts is unrelated texts being used to make a point not found in the Bible to then bring to the text and use that point to interpret Paul's usage of "in Christ" and "in Adam." It doesn't matter if MMXX can argue some way we can conceive of "in Adam" and "in Christ" to mean the same people, what matters is if Paul would have used those words that way.
As for your claim that it is "'all' people", Where do you get "people" from? I don't see "people" in the text.
That's not the UR contention
All in Christ=every confessing believer, all in Adam=everyone born in the flesh.I think it's possible that is what Paul was conveying. Especially when Romans 5 is taken into consideration. As for "all people" what else could "all" be referring to?
The grammatical argument the UR position tried to make is that the "in" functions within the verbal predicate, so that the subject and verb are both taking place within it. Which has been thoroughly explained and refuted, and your confusion just confirms that when you accused me of overcomplicating things its because you didn't understand what was at issue nor what I was arguing.So then what is the contention then? What are they trying to assert?
The grammatical argument the UR position tried to make is that the "in" functions within the verbal predicate, so that the subject and verb are both taking place within it. Which has been thoroughly explained and refuted, and your confusion just confirms that when you accused me of overcomplicating things its because you didn't understand what was at issue nor what I was arguing.
All in Christ=every confessing believer, all in Adam=everyone born in the flesh.
While they didn't use the specific terms, I did for brevity's sake. It is the argument Hmm posted. What that grammatical phrasing means, represented syntactically, is:I have read quite a lot of statements from UR proponents, and I have never seen any of them say anything like, "the "in" functions within the verbal predicate, so that the subject and verb are both taking place within it". That seems to be something you came up with. Using a bunch of terminology that I'm pretty sure only a high school English teacher or a grammar aficionado would properly grasp. Aside from all of that, the contention is that "in Christ" can only mean those who are born again. Whereas their contention is that just as "all in Adam" covers everyone, "all in Christ" covers everyone. I'm using my knowledge of the Bible to demonstrate how they might be right.
While they didn't use the specific terms, I did for brevity's sake. It is the argument Hmm posted. What that grammatical phrasing means, represented syntactically, is:
all died in Adam, all are made alive in Christ
if you can't understand how the meaning of that phrase is different than
all in Adam died, all in Christ are made alive
then you've got big comprehension problems which render all of your interpretations suspect.
If your contention is "all in Adam" and "all in Christ" are the same group, then that is 100% eisegesis(bringing the meaning into the text rather than the text actually saying it) unless you can show that Paul would have used them interchangeably not simply that you can concoct some rationalization for understanding it that way by cobbling together unrelated texts. The way you're "using your Bible" anything can be supported with the right out of context snippets and logical constructions.
I'm using scripture rather than grammar.
Which means that all in hell will acknowledge Jesus as the Christ but they will not be leaving hell.
NO WHERE in Scripture is there a suggestion that those in hell will ever leave.
That my friend is a figment of your imagination.
Really...really easy because you see.....I have actually read the Bible and I believe it when I read in Revelation 21:25thru 28 about the city prepared for all who believe in Christ......
"And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life."
But silver bullets returned to the Lone Ranger!
You may like "As all proceed from God so to Him shall all return." but the truth is that that phrase IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!
Now what is in the Bible is that only those who confess Christ and repent will be in heaven. In Matthew 11:20-24, we can see Jesus denouncing three cities for their unrepentant attitude despite the many miracles He performed.........
Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent.
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?