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]

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.

DOES THE PRINCE OF PEACE FIGHT ?

Jesus was clear that his mission on earth was related to establishing peaceful relations between man and his creator. He said he had not come to judge the world but to save it and never authorized any of his followers to fight or engage in violent struggle no matter how "nobel" the cause (compare Luk 19:42, John 3:17 NWT) . However he also promise to return in kingdom power at a future date to judged the wicked and war for truth and righteousness.

".“When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him,+ then he will sit down on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep+ on his right hand, but the goats on his left." - Matthew 25: 31-33 NWT

QUESTION: Does the fact that Jesus is recorded as predicting his destroying the wicked forfeit his right to the title PRINCE OF PEACE?

♦ANSWER No, true peace is not peace at any price; true peace cannot do coexist with evil. The Hebrew word for peace "Shalohme" is more than an absence of conflict, it is linked with the idea of complete well-being, safety and soundness, something in the absolute is only possible when in communion with God who does not indefinitely tolerate evil. "The Prince of Peace" thus defend God's standards and promotes peace to those that want it. A peacemaker does all that is legitimately possible to promote peace but doesn't compromise godly standards for the sake of avoiding conflict.

Destroying those God judged as wicked in no way disqualifies the Messiah from being called the Prince of Peace, indeed his role as PRINCE would involve defending the rights of those that wish to enjoy a peaceful relationship with God and live free of the influence of those that hate God.





JW



RELATED POSTS



What did Jesus mean when he said he came did not come to bring peace to the earth but a sword?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 081#960081

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

Why is the Messiah refered to as ETERNAL FATHER in Isaiah 9:6?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 046#960046

[marco]

"To say" something is to utter speak, voice or pronounce words; did Jesus ever say he was NOT "a peacemaker" as some have claimed?

My goodness, Jesus didn't speak English. I believe he would have made his intentions clear in Aramaic and when he is reported to have said, presumably in that tongue, that his was not a mission to bring peace, I think that strongly suggests he is declining the appellation "peacemaker."

One would find it awfully hard to have someone say: I have NOT come to bring peace and interpret that as "I am a peacemaker." I am sorry if this confounds your interpretation.

He famously stated on the sermon on the mount, happy or blessed are the peacemakers/peaceable

It is possible NOT to be X and still praise X. I agree Jesus said that peacemakers are blessed, but that doesn't mean he's one of them. He might also have said that ornithologists are blessed, but that wouldn't mean Jesus was an ornithologist.

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 .

We are trying really hard. Some of the most belligerent popes would say: Pax vobiscum, which means peace be with you. Isn't language curious!

CONCLUSION Jesus is never recorded as saying he was not a peacemaker,

Yes, because he didn't speak English. But he is reported by Matthew to have said:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "


You see, "to bring" indicates not consequence but PURPOSE. His purpose is NOT to being peace. Therefore, he is NOT a peacemaker. Nothing you have said refutes this. On my side I have Christ; I'm afraid I see no equivalent authority on yours.

[John Human]

Responding to both Marco and JehovasWitness, there is indeed an apparent contradiction between "Blessed be the peacemakers" and "I bring not peace, but a sword..."

This is clearly a worthy challenge for apologists, and I might take that one up, to see what I might do with the argument. However, for the moment, might I humbly submit, for the purpose of discussion, that a picture of a "Peacemaker" is worth a thousand words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B ... -korea.jpg

[Sojournerofthearth]

[Replying to post 28 by marco]

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.

a scholarly type

I lived abroad, a good portion of my youth, in the far east. There are also many interesting stories there as well. I went to temples with my nanny... Buddhist, Confucius, Quan Yen. I was raised to attend whatever church was nearby... usually my sister and I were dropped off for Sunday School and picked up after. My heart always sank a little when my Dad showed up in a Suit and tie. My mom was into Jean Dixon and Edgar Cayce... She liked to say she was also a little "witchy." When I reached adulthood I began to look into various churches, starting with the mainstream and even branching out into the edges of Jehovah's Witness and Church of the latter Day Saints. None sufficed.

The Bible was confusing and contradicted many of the doctrines held by every organization I had looked into. Church doctrines made no sense of the Bible and left me with more unanswerable questions. So I get your brash disdane of religion in general and the Bible in particular. If I have given you the impression that it is my intention to convince you otherwise, perish the thought.

I don't get into semantics as I'm quite convinced that most people are fairly well dug into their preconceived postulations and I'm not one to set out to bust anyone's bubble.

But if you have a question about the bible, or you want to discuss what is in it, I'm always ready to do that... I can tell you what I believe and why I believe it... I'm not going to try and make sense of what other's believe or postulate.

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

Well, that would be God. (Job 38:4-7, 2Cor 4:4, Luk 4:5-6 Eze 28:13-14) But, at that time, his name was Lucifer... and He and 1/3 of the angelic realm all lived here. At some point, in the distant past, Lucifer became at odds with the plans of God and decided to wrest control of the universe from God (Is. 14:13-14).
So God had already given him control of Earth and He wasn't going to give it to another just like him, so there was a process of qualifying that had to be met (Dan 2.44) because the rulership of the Kingdom of God wasn't to be given to other men, like the kings of this world, but to a prepared people, spirit born sons of God, to the saints of the Most high God.

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.

He did not... in fact, he even told Moses that, when the people said, All that the Lord has said, we will do... God's reply was, o that there was such a heart in them... and before the week was out, they were flat on their faces... because they didn't have the heart.

They were a physical people called to a physical job of setting up a physical representation of the Kingdom of God here on Earth, because at some point, people are going to say, hey, you never gave me the chance... but he did... and they can't stand up under the pressure... so He's made a way, through Christ, to prop them up in the resurrection (see Eze 37) and save them all... those who couldn't see, those who didn't know and those who had no courage and those who had no faith... and he will put a new heart in them and He will be their God and they will be His people... at that time.

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.

Yeah, I don't really get into the semantics... but you're certainly welcome to your opinion.