Was Adam Made Holy

[Magenta]

What’s your thoughts? Do you believe Adam was standing next to Eve allowing her to be deceived while he listened on and was not deceived?

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Adam had to have been within arms' reach of Eve

However, I do not assume Eve's temptation by/discussion with the serpent to have been anything another would have heard.

 

[garee]

Your statement directly contradicts clear and plain Scripture, which tells us that God created the man from dust (clay) before He made the woman from Adam's side.

What side of the flesh and bones (clay the whole body) . left or right?

Its not making a new person out of a body part of another.

Mankind is the new creation as one.. . not two. What God joins together stays together. The end will prove.

So God created man (mankind) in his own image, in the image of God created he him (mankind) ; male and female created he them. (the other kind, two seperate creations) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.Genesis 1:27-28


Genesis 2: 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

She was taken out of mankind, the one work of one whole creation. Not whole as in males only.

Our new incorruptible bodies will be neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile but is called the wife of Christ, His eternal bride. Our hope. . . The two have become one new creation.

 

[posthuman]

right

I have heard some interesting comments on that one, but I agree no connection with Genesis

No way it isn't connected to Genesis. The immediate context of the statement is reference to Genesis

I agree there's a lot of wild ideas out there on this verse - not one you're likely to hear preached on lol

 

[Dino246]

What side of the flesh and bones (clay the whole body) . left or right?

Its not making a new person out of a body part of another.

Mankind is the new creation as one.. . not two. What God joins together stays together. The end will prove.

So God created man (mankind) in his own image, in the image of God created he him (mankind) ; male and female created he them. (the other kind, two seperate creations) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.Genesis 1:27-28


Genesis 2: 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

She was taken out of mankind, the one work of one whole creation. Not whole as in males only.

Our new incorruptible bodies will be neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile but is called the wife of Christ, His eternal bride. Our hope. . . The two have become one new creation.

Your ideas about the metaphorical meaning of these events requires that the events be something other than what Scripture tells us, which is that Adam was created from the dust, and Eve was made from Adam's side.

If your conclusions don't line up with the actual Scripture on which they are supposedly based, then your conclusions are wrong.

 

[Dino246]

Adam had to have been within arms' reach of Eve

Thank you for using correct grammar! So many others put "of" where "have" should be.

 

[posthuman]

Adam and Eve were prevented from eating of the Tree of Life specifically because to do so would have granted them eternal life, which they did not have yet, nor did God want them living eternally in their sinful state.

Yes

Eternally dead, more or less, if they ate from it in the state of death they were in. But if God didn't want them eating from it, ever, stands to reason He would have commanded against it - which He didn't, even when He prevented them

I believe the NT corresponding passage is this one:

1 Corinthians 11:26-30
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks [this] cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many [are] weak and sick among you, and many sleep.


Keeping in mind that we are not correctly understanding anything in scripture until we are seeing Christ in what we're reading

 

[Dino246]

No way it isn't connected to Genesis. The immediate context of the statement is reference to Genesis

I agree there's a lot of wild ideas out there on this verse - not one you're likely to hear preached on lol

Given that Paul's letters were copied and distributed, I wonder if Paul ever re-read his own letters in later life and thought, "I could have explained that better."

 

[Judges1318]

Adam and Eve were not made having sin, nor were they made perfect. They were made blameless. They knew neither right nor wrong. No command had come yet to show them that.

The reason they ate was because they were naked. They were created unclothed with the righteousness of Christ and unprepared to overcome the temptations of the evil one, just as each of us are born that way. The commandment came and exposed their nakedness, just as it does for us.

 

[Judges1318]

Adam had to have been within arms' reach of Eve

I don't see why we beat up on Adam for not stopping Eve since God didn't stop her either.

We have to stop thinking about Adam and Eve according to our natural experiences and ideas about man and woman. Adam is a type of Christ who apparently loved his bride so much he followed her into her sin, knowingly and willingly, just as Christ didn't stop his bride from failing to keep the commandment and willingly and knowingly followed her into her sin by taking her sin on himself because he loved us so much. It is the greatest (love) story ever told. They should make a movie about that.

 

[Magenta]

Thank you for using correct grammar! So many others put "of" where "have" should be.

You are welcome, Dino. I know, I know, the dumbing down of America has made great strides

It is sad to witness

 

[Magenta]

Yes

Eternally dead, more or less, if they ate from it in the state of death they were in. But if God didn't want them eating from it, ever, stands to reason He would have commanded against it - which He didn't, even when He prevented them

I believe the NT corresponding passage is this one:

1 Corinthians 11:26-30
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks [this] cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many [are] weak and sick among you, and many sleep.


Keeping in mind that we are not correctly understanding anything in scripture until we are seeing Christ in what we're reading

Dearest Post... I see you keep repeating that Adam and Eve were not commanded against eating of the Tree of Life... and yet I have not seen any corresponding counter claims, that is, until AFTER they sinned. Personally I see no reason to assume they ate of it at all, and in fact, it makes no sense to assume they did just because they were allowed to, because if they had, they would have attained to life ever after, and we know from Scripture that they died both spiritually and physically. I do agree that Jesus Christ is the Tree of Life... the True Vine

 

[Magenta]

I don't see why we beat up on Adam for not stopping Eve since God didn't stop her either.

We have to stop thinking about Adam and Eve according to our natural experiences and ideas about man and woman. Adam is a type of Christ who apparently loved his bride so much he followed her into her sin, knowingly and willingly, just as Christ didn't stop his bride from failing to keep the commandment and willingly and knowingly followed her into her sin by taking her sin on himself because he loved us so much. It is the greatest (love) story ever told. They should make a movie about that.

I have not beat up on Adam at all, so I am not sure why you are bringing this grievance to me Saying Christ followed us into sin is also erroneous, for He did not such thing. He was MADE sin, without sinning Himself.

God made Him Who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor 5:21

 

[Judges1318]

I have not beat up on Adam at all, so I am not sure why you are bringing this grievance to me

I'm not targeting you. I only used your post as a spring board for my own thoughts.

Saying Christ followed us into sin is also erroneous, for He did not such thing. He was MADE sin, without sinning Himself.

He did not follow us into our sin that way. He followed us into our sin by taking the penalty of our sin upon himself as if he actually had sinned. Adam really did sin. And so would every one of us if we were Adam or Eve because we have all been born just as naked and unprepared to live righteously as they were.

This is Adam and Eve's story. It is our's also:

Romans 7:7-8 NASB
"I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting (or any other sin) if the Law had not said, “< fill in the blank >.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead."

Not directed at you, but I wonder why so many Christians criticize Adam, particularly, so severely in light of the fact that all of us would have eaten of the tree, too. No exceptions. None.

 

[Magenta]

I'm not targeting you. I only used your post as a spring board for my own thoughts.

He did not follow us into our sin that way. He followed us into our sin by taking the penalty of our sin upon himself as if he actually had sinned. Adam really did sin. And so would every one of us if we were Adam or Eve because we have all been born just as naked and unprepared to live righteously as they were.

This is Adam and Eve's story. It is our's also:

Romans 7:7-8 NASB
"I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting (or any other sin) if the Law had not said, “< fill in the blank >.” But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead."

Not directed at you, but I wonder why so many Christians criticize Adam, particularly, so severely in light of the fact that all of us would have eaten of the tree, too. No exceptions. None.

Thank you for explaining... and I agree I often wonder why anyone says Adam was created perfect. We are perfected in Christ

 

[Magenta]

Adam and Eve were not made having sin, nor were they made perfect. They were made blameless. They knew neither right nor wrong. No command had come yet to show them that.

The reason they ate was because they were naked. They were created unclothed with the righteousness of Christ and unprepared to overcome the temptations of the evil one, just as each of us are born that way. The commandment came and exposed their nakedness, just as it does for us.

This is an excellent exegesis Born physically but not yet spiritually, with a need to be born again, as Christ has said

 

[TooFastTurtle]

Thank you for using correct grammar! So many others put "of" where "have" should be.

Are you an english teacher? Or your wife, mother, father, sister, uncle, someone in your family?

I personally try my best to use language correctly, but because english is my second language I often say things in the wrong word order and I do not use "'" correctly. Such as typing dont instead of don't but I see many many british people do it as well. Its just a quicker way to type.

 

[PS]

Imagine this. Has anyone ever known a baby to lie, steal, murder or commit any other sins. They cannot do those things, and are innocent. Then they grow up and get married like Adam and Eve did, but before that they come into the knowledge of right and wrong, and the Bible is telling us to beware of iniquity, or we shall be thrown out of the garden. And we have been, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

 

[PS]

That is the basis of the lesson, and then there is another deeper level in which the second Adam performs a major part..

 

[ieuan]

I see the discussion is still going on, even English being taught.

The answer to my original question is :

1. Yes Adam was made perfect and very good, holy too as there was no knowledge of sin in him,
he was innocent.

2. Did Adam lead a holy life, yes he did. Even though he fell into sin, he was covered by Christ's
righteousness and was counted righteous; i.e. holy. Because God (Triune God) had made him with
free will to sin or not to sin, God also provided a remedy because God loved Adam. The remedy for
Adam's sin is found in God's own Son. The punishement for sin was death, physical death, but God
provided a remedy for eternal damnation. His own perfect Son would be born as a man, live a perfectly
holy life and then die on the cross for our sins, taking our punishment and appeasing the anger of God
this is called a propitiation. This is why Jesus is referred to as the second Adam.

Try not to get side tracked with other issues.

Note: maybe there is interest, I don't know, but Eve was made the mirror image of Adam.
God intention is that Eva was to be a mate for Adam, more than a mate a life friend,
their opposites were to attract, the strength of one complemented by the softness
of the other. They were made to bond, and to be one unit, God planned the family
and although it does go wrong in life, that is the best unit for bringing up children.
It wa sneevr intended thatmen should know other men carnally, or that women
should know other women carnally. It was never intended that there were effeminate
men, although that happens. It was not intended that there would be cross dressing men.
This all came about becuase of the fall.

Thank you all for responding, I am in awe.

 

[Dino246]

Are you an english teacher? Or your wife, mother, father, sister, uncle, someone in your family?

I personally try my best to use language correctly, but because english is my second language I often say things in the wrong word order and I do not use "'" correctly. Such as typing dont instead of don't but I see many many british people do it as well. Its just a quicker way to type.

My Mom has a major in English, though she didn't actively teach me grammar, that I recall. I sometimes make errors (which Magenta has caught at least once) though they tend to be lapses of keying or proofing rather than 'incorrect but thought to be correct'.

As an aside, Mom is now 87 and her eyesight is quite poor. The keying errors in some of her text messages are hilariously wrong, and doubly funny considering her extensive knowledge.