SolomonVII
Well-Known Member
- Sep 4, 2003
- 23,138
- 4,919
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
Upvote
0
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.
What does this mean "brought you to myself"?
Assyrian said:And if Paul interpreted Adam figuratively? Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come. Scripture refers to people and you assume it is treating them literally, you may be reading that into the texts. Even if people and events are literal, it doesn't mean every description is literal. The Exodus was literal yet we have seen we have non literal descriptions of it like being flown out of Egypt on eagle's wings. Does the bible tell you that it always explain symbols by other scriptures? It took the church 1500 years for just part of the church to realise the symbols of the body and blood were symbolic.
If the first Adam was not a literal figure, why would you expect the last Adam to bea literal figure?
Exodus chapter 19:
PapiasThen Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.
So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the Lord had commanded him to speak.
Can't metaphors be used to describe things that are real? The Good Shepherd is a metaphor, yet there was no problem using the metaphor to describe Jesus who is very real. If Uncle Sam isn't real does that mean the United States isn't real either?If the first Adam was not a literal figure, why would you expect the last Adam to be a literal figure?
Originally Posted by Papias
People evolved eagle wings?Exodus chapter 19:
PapiasThen Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, youwill be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.
So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the Lord had commanded him to speak.
Wasn't the first person to sin Eve? Just because there must have been a first person ever to sin doesn't mean Paul is discussing it literally. Paul calls Christ the last Adam rather than the second Adam, but that isn't the problem, it is that he call Adam the first man and Christ the second man. When Paul compare Adam and Christ there are only two men in the universe, the whole sinful human race is summed up in Adam and the new humanity summed up in Christ because he redeemed us and made us one with him. Paul tells us he interprets Adam as a figure of Christ, is it an off the cuff remark with no connection with the rest of the passage? Given that the whole passage is a comparison of Adam and Christ, starting with the "Just as..." in verse 12, shouldn't we consider that Paul comparison of Adam and Christ could be figurative. 'One man' in verse 12 doesn't help you tie the passage down to literal history since the whole comparison 'one man... so also... one man' runs down through the whole passage. It is the language Paul uses to compares Adam and Christ, we see it again in the first man... second man language in 1Cor.Both Adam and Moses are real people Paul is referring to. Read vs 12 as it plainly states one man sin entered into the world .... that would be Adam. The "Second Adam" you are referring to is a real person as well named Jesus. There are many "types" in the OT that point to Christ (Joseph,Isaac,etc) which were real people. I believe both Adam and the Second Adam were literal.
Good point. It is difficult though, to know what the groups called heretics believed since the people who called them heretics destroyed most of their writings. Some of the so called heretics may have been true believers, and some may have interpreted the eucharist symbolically, though denying transubstantiation would be enough to get you labelled heretic even if you didn't go all the way to a completely symbolism. I suspect though that most believers throughout this period were in the Catholicism and the Orthodox churches who also believe in the real presence though not transubstantiation. With the Reformation, Lutherans and Anglicans abandoned transubstantiation but stuck with consubstantiation the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, Calvinism and the Reformed churches went with spirtual presence. Of the main early reformers only Zwingli went with symbolic, though his ideas have spread since. Basically, Jesus said 'this is my body' and there isn't very much in scripture to contradict a literal interpretation.I don't why it took "the church" (whatever that means) 1500 years when it's very plain in scriptures. From my understanding not every "church" agreed with the Roman Catholics as they called any church not agreeing them as heretics. The Catholics (as well as some Protestants) were known to go after any church who preached against baby baptism. The Roman Church could care less if people were actually saved they just wanted everyone to identify themselves as Christians so they could control the masses. It was all about power to them.
(P.S I not assuming everyone in the Roman Catholic Church were the same as I have no doubt there were true believers who love God in the Roman Catholic church even in the Dark Ages. The same with the heretics, some were true believers while some were actually heretics)
Eve was deceived but Adam wasn't. Both Adams did what they did willfully and out of love. God command Adam personally not to eat that fruit so he was more accountable. Jesus claimed the Pharisees were more accountable than those in Sodom.Wasn't the first person to sin Eve?
Wasn't the first person to sin Eve? Just because there must have been a first person ever to sin doesn't mean Paul is discussing it literally. Paul calls Christ the last Adam rather than the second Adam, but that isn't the problem, it is that he call Adam the first man and Christ the second man. When Paul compare Adam and Christ there are only two men in the universe, the whole sinful human race is summed up in Adam and the new humanity summed up in Christ because he redeemed us and made us one with him. Paul tells us he interprets Adam as a figure of Christ, is it an off the cuff remark with no connection with the rest of the passage? Given that the whole passage is a comparison of Adam and Christ, starting with the "Just as..." in verse 12, shouldn't we consider that Paul comparison of Adam and Christ could be figurative. 'One man' in verse 12 doesn't help you tie the passage down to literal history since the whole comparison 'one man... so also... one man' runs down through the whole passage. It is the language Paul uses to compares Adam and Christ, we see it again in the first man... second man language in 1Cor.
Adam may be more accountable, but it doesnt change who sinned first. Interesting take with the 'both Adams' though, but it doesn't help with 'sin came into the world through one man'Eve was deceived but Adam wasn't. Both Adams did what they did willfully and out of love. God command Adam personally not to eat that fruit so he was more accountable. Jesus claimed the Pharisees were more accountable than those in Sodom.
Except it refers not just to Christ but all the redeemed in Christ too. Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.You do realize that Christ himself is the interpretation of "man" here right?
Careful with your understanding of the incarnation Greg. Yes Christ was God incarnate, but if he wasn't fully human too he could not take away our sins. Heb 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.Christ was hardly a man in the normal sense of the word.
Except it refers not just to Christ but all the redeemed in Christ too. Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.
Careful with your understanding of the incarnation Greg. Yes Christ was God incarnate, but if he wasn't fully human too he could not take away our sins. Heb 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
You do realize that Christ himself is the interpretation of "man" here right? Christ was hardly a man in the normal sense of the word.
I don't see any problems here either. He took on flesh but was not a man in the ordinary sense of the word.
What glaudys said.Hm, I don't see how this contradicts what I said. "14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace."
He has broken down the wall, but it is still up to us to make both as one."14 Forasmuch 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;The issue isn't that the new creation is an ongoing process but the Paul uses the symbolism of one man to describe us all united in Christ.
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted."
I don't see any problems here either. He took on flesh but was not a man in the ordinary sense of the word.
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?