How is Christ a second Adam?

[marco]

Humans emerged in the Pleistocene Epoch but creatures resembling us appeared in the previous period. Of the various brutes that grunted and fought we do not know which one was Adam, nor indeed do we know the names of many creatures of that time but by a miracle of recording we are lucky to have Eve, Cain and Abel.


The enormously clever writer Paul compared Christ to Adam and invented a theory of different types of bodies which, as far as I know, has yet to win scientific acceptance. Cardinal Newman, perhaps even cleverer than Paul, wrote a hymn: Praise to the Holiest in which he mentions "a second Adam to the fight and to the rescue came."

Apparently humans had long been distressed and Jesus came to alleviate their misery. It is not clear how he did this, as the world continued as if he had done nothing. Of course people like Paul sowed theological seeds for varieties of belief, but nothing on earth changed because of Jesus. People continued to die.

So in what way was Jesus a second Adam?
Does calling him such make Jesus a myth?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]

ISAIAH 9:6

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us ...His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

WHO IS ISAIAH 9:6 REFERING TO?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Isaiah 9 verse 6 refers prophtetically to the promised Messiah. As with the case of the name "Emanuel" the titles in this verse constitute a prophetic description of the role the Messiah would play rather than literal names he would be recorded as being called .

Note what the bible manual : Light for All Mankind Vol I, Chap 9, p. 106 states in this regard

A counselor is one who gives counsel, or advice. When on earth Jesus Christ provided wonderful counsel. In the Bible we read that crowds were astounded at his way of teaching. (Matthew 7:28) He is a wise and empathetic Counselor, with an extraordinary understanding of human nature. ....

Jesus is also Mighty God ...Before Jesus came to earth, he was a god,existing in God's form. After his resurrection, he returned to an even higher position in the heavens. (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6-11) Further, the designation god carries an additional implication. Judges in Israel were called gods once by Jesus himself. (Psalm 82:6; John 10:35) Jesus is Jehovah's appointed Judge, destined to judge the living and the dead. (2 Timothy 4:1; John 5:30) Clearly, he is well named Mighty God.

The title Eternal Father refers to the Messianic King's power and authority to give humans the prospect of eternal life on earth. (John 11:25, 26) The legacy of our first parent, Adam, was death. Jesus, the last Adam, became a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45; Romans 5:12, 18) Just as Jesus, the Eternal Father, will live forever, so obedient mankind will enjoy the benefits of his fatherhood eternally. Romans 6:9.

Prince of Peace... Besides everlasting life, man also needs peace, both with God and with his fellowman. Even today, those subjecting themselves to the rule of the Prince of Peace have beaten their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears. (Isaiah 2:2-4) .... In God's due time, Christ will establish on earth a peace that will be global, firmly established, permanent. (Acts 1:7) To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. (Isaiah 9:7a) In exercising his authority as the Prince of Peace, Jesus will not resort to tyrannical means. His subjects will not be stripped of their free will and subjugated by force. Rather, all that he will accomplish will be by means of justice and by means of righteousness.What a refreshing change!
Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102000030#h=31

Evidently JW believe this Isaiah 9:6 is scripturally a fitting description of none other than Jesus Christ!



JW

RELATED POSTS

What effect did the original sin have on mankind?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 489#940489

What changes came as a result of Christ's death.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 788#959788

Why was the ransom set at the life of a perfect man?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 872#909872

Did Jesus fulfill the Messianic prophecies?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 984#959984

Return to posts related to LIFE, DEATH and ...REDEMPTION

[JehovahsWitness]

Adoption is a human device and there's not the slightest sign that thirty-year old Jesus in any sense "adopted" a multitude of all ages.

DOES THE BIBLE CONTAJN THE IDEA OF A SPIRITUAL ADOPTION?


♦ANSWER Yes, the bible specifically mentions the adoption of spiritual sons of God. The angels have long been refered to as "sons of God" as was Adam, but sadly God's first human creation rebelled against him and alienated the entire human race from the spiritual branch of that universal family. Fortunately, God purposed to adopt those that are meagre to enjoy a relationship with Him. Merriam Webster defines the act of adopting as ...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adopting

TO ADOPT : to take by choice into a relationship; especially : to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child

Fittingly then the bible speaks of certain human descendents of Adam being taken into a special relationship with God as being "adopted" by him. While in the literal sense Jesus didn't father any children and never adopted any during his earthly life, his sacrificial death enabled him to become the means through which faithful humans could obtain eternal life (something denied to them by their natural father Adam).

JOHN 10:10
"I came that they may have life and have it abundantly" - Jesus Christ

Paul well explained the parallelism between mankind's natural father (Adam) and this relationship through "adoption" saying...

ROMANS 5:18

As through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life.

The father is biblically seen as the life giver, and just as our fleshly human fathers pass on god-given life to us. Jesus, by means of his sacrifice is biblically seen as a FATHER adapting the faithful from Adam and giving them that which Adam failed to do. It is for this reason Jesus is called the last Adam and in Isaiah prophetically "Eternal Father", not because we are his natural descendants but for those that express faith in him, Jesus does what a good father does, namely cares protects and gives his children the best life possible.



JW




RELATED POSTS

Who is Isaiah 9:6 referring to?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 010#960010

In what sense is Jesus "The last Adam:?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 850#959850

What effect did the original sin have on mankind?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 489#940489

What changes came as a result of Christ's death.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 788#959788

Is there any indication in the bible the Messiah would have to come twice to fulfill the totality of the messianic promises?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 515#888515

[marco]

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Isaiah 9 verse 6 refers prophtetically to the promised Messiah. As with the case of the name "Emanuel" the titles in this verse constitute a prophetic description of the role the Messiah would play rather than literal names he would be recorded as being called .

You seem to have ignored my preceding post.


"As for "Prince of Peace" he specifically denied this title. Matthew 10:34 says otherwwise: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

This contradicts the statement that Christ was Prince of Peace, metaphorically or otherwise. It is curious to continue to hold a belief despite its obvious contradiction.


But I suppose this curiosity is nothing beside the enormity of believing we can identify the first human being by name and hold the poor thing responsible for man's ailments.

[JehovahsWitness]

EPHESIANS 1:5


For he foreordained us to be adopted as his own sons through Jesus Christ, according to his good pleasure and will

Adoption is a human device and there's not the slightest sign that thirty-year old Jesus in any sense "adopted" a multitude of all ages.

DOES THE BIBLE CONTAJN THE IDEA OF A SPIRITUAL ADOPTION?


♦ANSWER Yes, the bible specifically mentions the adoption of spiritual sons of God. The angels have long been refered to as "sons of God" as was Adam, but sadly God's first human creation rebelled against him and alienated the entire human race from the spiritual branch of that universal family. Fortunately, God purposed to adopt those that are meagre to enjoy a relationship with Him. Merriam Webster defines the act of adopting as ...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adopting

TO ADOPT : to take by choice into a relationship; especially : to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child

Fittingly then the bible speaks of certain human descendents of Adam being taken into a special relationship with God as being "adopted" by him. While in the literal sense Jesus didn't father any children and never adopted any during his earthly life, his sacrificial death enabled him to become the means through which faithful humans could obtain eternal life (something denied to them by their natural father Adam).

JOHN 10:10
"I came that they may have life and have it abundantly" - Jesus Christ

Paul well explained the parallelism between mankind's natural father (Adam) and this relationship through "adoption" saying...

ROMANS 5:18

As through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life.

The father is biblically seen as the life giver, and just as our fleshly human fathers pass on god-given life to us. Jesus, by means of his sacrifice is biblically seen as a FATHER adapting the faithful from Adam and giving them that which Adam failed to do. It is for this reason Jesus is called the last Adam and in Isaiah prophetically "Eternal Father", not because we are his natural descendants but for those that express faith in him, Jesus does what a good father does, namely cares protects and gives his children the best life possible.



JW




RELATED POSTS

Who is Isaiah 9:6 referring to?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 10#p960010

In what sense is Jesus "The last Adam:?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 50#p959850

What effect did the original sin have on mankind?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 89#p940489

What changes came as a result of Christ's death.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 88#p959788

Is it true that Jesus loves you?
viewtopic.php?p=1021609#p1021609

Is there any indication in the bible the Messiah would have to come twice to fulfill the totality of the messianic promises?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 15#p888515

[JehovahsWitness]

You seem to have ignored my preceding post.


"As for "Prince of Peace" he specifically denied this title. Matthew 10:34 says otherwwise: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Are you suggesting that someone addressed Jesus with this title (ie specifically called him "Prince of Peace") and Jesus explicitly responded to that person with a denial of his right to be thus addressed?

JW



Please NOTE This is not a request that my intelligence be questioned or a request to be insulted it is simply a request for clarification as to what you are claiming constitutes "a denial".



JW

[marco]

Are you suggesting that someone addressed Jesus with this title (ie specifically called him "Prince of Peace") and Jesus explicitly responded to that person with a denial of his right to be thus addressed?

I am at a loss to see how my post can remotely have this interpretation. Very simply put: Jesus was supposed to have been predicted as a Prince of Peace. Equally simply put, Jesus said he wasn't a peacemaker, which surely means he's NOT a Prince of Peace. Therefore those as believe he is the Prince in the Prediction are wrong.


That's about all I needed to convey. You haven't addressed this problem.

[Sojournerofthearth]

Christ was the second Adam as the first Adam failed to wrest control of the Earth from Satan. The Christ said I have overcome. Overcome what? Overcome the rule of Satan on Earth. Christ partook of the Tree of Life and not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, a tree symbolic of choosing for one's self what was good and what was evil, as opposed to the Tree of Life, that established that God had already determined good and evil.

Thus, by overcoming, Christ, as the second Adam, qualified to take the throne from Satan and provide a way for mankind to also obtain eternal life, established in the Kingdom of God on Earth at the return of Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Soj

[marco]

Christ was the second Adam as the first Adam failed to wrest control of the Earth from Satan.

This is a poetic picture of an imagined scenario. Milton begins his Paradise Lost with: "Of man's first disobedience..." Virgil looks to the beginning of Roman power in the originating man, Aeneas: "Of arms I sing and the man who first came from Troy..." They are long, lovely accounts of fictions.

Who placed Satan "in control of this planet, and why?

The Christ said I have overcome.

Caligula said "I have overcome the ocean" and ordered shells to be gathered as proof he had taken spoils. Caesar famously said that he had conquered, and he had. I feel Christ has more in common with Caligula here.

Thus, by overcoming, Christ, as the second Adam, qualified to take the throne from Satan and provide a way for mankind to also obtain eternal life, established in the Kingdom of God on Earth at the return of Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

He did not overcome the hearts and minds of Jews, who to this day practise a faith that existed before Christ. He failed in this respect. In the poetic, and so imaginary respect of conquering he was as successful as most of us. The success we attribute to him comes from folk like Paul who built a fictional temple round him, and from the Roman Church that built a bigger palace in his honour.

Adam is a fictional account of a token first man and though Christ may well have existed under Tiberius his escapades are as fictional as Adam's. Thus they both have life that rises from fiction.

[JehovahsWitness]

...Jesus said he wasn't a peacemaker...

Emphasis MINE

"To say" something is to utter speak, voice or pronounce words; did Jesus ever say he was NOT "a peacemaker" as some have claimed? There is absolutely no biblical or extra biblical record of Jesus ever saying he was not a peacemaker. The statement is therefore at worst false and at best unsubstantiated.

To be "peaceable" (a peacemaker) is to do everything in ones power to legitimately bring about peaceful relations with others and Jesus' ministry is a testimony to his advocating this course of action. He famously stated on the sermon on the mount, happy or blessed are the peacemakers/peacable (Mat 5:9), and a common parting blessing of his was "Go in peace" focusing on the blessing that can be had by those who adhere to his words . He taught his disciples not to react aggressively to negative relations to their evangelization, to prioritize "making peace with [ones] brother" over the formalities of worship and refused to rebuke those that linked his Kingship with the blessings of peace (see Mat 5:25; 10:13; Luk 19:38). Indeed, arguably it would be no exaggeration to suggest that Jesus taught that to prove their devotion to him and his Father a person as under obligation to favor peaceful relations with all, even ones enemies, by acting in a kind and loving.

So where and why do some suggestion that Jesus rejected peace in favour of aggression, division, and violence; the unspoken implication being that Jesus was in fact not the peace loving travelling Rabbi living by the sentiments in the famous story of "The good Samaritan" but rather a bloodthirsty revolutionary advocating aggression, creulty and murder?

Basically from bible literalists misinterpreting of some of Jesus statements, which will be properly explained below.

CONCLUSION Jesus is never recorded as saying he was not a peacemaker, rather he is recorded as advocating doing all in ones power to establish and maintain peaceful relations even with ones enemies.

JW

MATTHEW 5:44
You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you

LUKE 6:27, 28
But I say to you who are listening: Continue to love your enemies, to do good to those hating you, to bless those cursing you, to pray for those who are insulting you.

MATTHEW 26:51, 52
But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. Then Jesus said to him: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword."

MATTHEW 6:14
For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. NIV

MATTHEW 5:9
Happy are the peacemakers, since they will be called sons of God

NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses

[JehovahsWitness]

NOT PEACE BUT THE SWORD?

"Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household." - Matthew 10: 34-36 NWT

QUESTION: What did Jesus mean when he said he came did not come to bring peace to the earth but a sword?


♦ANSWER He meant that his message would inevitably cause a division between those that accept it and those who do not. Jesus mission therefore was not to promoted aggression, hatred or prejudice but enemies of truth would find his message offensive and act accordingly.

• When examining verses in the bible that seem somewhat ambiguous, it is always best to try and understand it in the light of more explicit verses that deal with the same subject in a similar context. As demonstrated above, Jesus made numerous explicit statements regarding how his disciples were to treat his fellow man. The context of Matthew 10 and it's parallel passages is that Jesus was sending his disciples out into the territory to preach the gospel. He was warning them, and by implication all Christians, what the reaction would be to their message. Far from being received universally as envoys of good news in a peaceful way, Jesus warned that the message will be ill received by some. This would cause a natural division between those that accepted the it and those that did not. So Jesus came to introduce, not the "sword" of physical warfare or violence where his followers were to killed or harm others, but a message that would ultimately result in two groups, those that would listen and those that would chose not to.

# Were Jesus disciples instructed to kill or war against those that reacted negatively to the message?

• If Jesus message would ultimately result in a natural division between those that embraced it and those that rejected it, did Jesus ever imply that his disciples were to kill or inflict physical harm on those that reacted negatively to their work? No! Jesus explained them in verses 13-14 of that same chapter "If the home is worthy, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. And if anyone will not welcome you or heed your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town". So rather than telling his followers to impose physical retribution on those that showed themselves enemies of that message, or sanction a "conversion under threat" as was practiced by many Catholic missionaries during the middle ages, Jesus in fact told his followers to act peacefully and that, if their "peace" was rejected to simply leave those individuals alone; at no time did he say to "kill them" or react with belligerence.

# Would violence ever be an issue when it came to Jesus message for mankind?

• Jesus implied that at times physical violence would become an issue for his disciples, but NOT violence practiced by his followers against others but rather violence his followers would have to suffer at the hands of their persecutors, some of which would even be members of their own household (see Mat 10: 36, 37). Jesus still however implied that they should not retaliated with violence saying on one occassion "I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also."

CONCLUSION: "When Jesus said that he had come to bring ‘not peace but a sword,’ he meant that this would be the effect of his coming. As commentators Kaiser, W. C., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce explain in the book "Hard sayings of the Bible" (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 1996) 378.The metaphor of the sword describes how unbelievers may respond to the gospel, not how [Christians] communicate it." -

JW






ANNEX: Did early Christians understand Jesus message to be supportive of war or violence?

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.� - The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333

“It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.� - The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276

“In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.� - A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382

“The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.� - Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125

“The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.� - The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131

Source: Bible Encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures Vol I p. 176
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000376#h=27

Further reading: Is war compatible with Christianity
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009731



RELATED POSTS


Did Jesus say he was not a peacemaker?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 080#960080