Persuaded

I think I stated it as clearly as I could on the first page of this thread. Basically, Adam's choice had the end result of Eve's salvation. I don't think Adam did, nor needs to, understand the redemptive/future aspect of his action for the model/type to apply, and most models get distorted of we try to apply them over-zealously. I see no evidence in the text that says he knew his act would redeem her, just that he chose to eat, which he knew was sin, and this act had the paradoxical end result of Eve's redemption (and the curse! -see, the model doesn't fit Christ in every aspect, just up to a point). As I try to put myself in Adam's shoes, I see his choice being motivated in love for Eve, in not wanting to be separated from her as she faced exile. He chose to sin and go with her, than to let her go and he himself stay in Eden. I don't think we know the theological ramifications of what would have happened if Adam refused the fruit from Eve.

That might be overstating Adam's motive a bit- I don't see that Adam knew his choice would save Eve, just that he chose (perhaps carnally or selfishly, perhaps out of selfless love) to join her in whatever future she then had before her. God's promise of the redeemer through the seed of the woman came after both sinned.

No! That is a separate issue. Only that he was a type of Christ, and this is how- by choosing to follow Eve. What is the symbolism of the snake on a pole, that is said to be a figure of Christ in John 3? John equates the snake with Christ. It doesn't take much symbolic insight to realize what a snake represents to a Jewish mind. The point of the comparison to Adam or the snake isn't that they are like Christ, but that Christ made Himself like them, on the cross. He was "made sin". He experienced separation from the Father for the first time in eternity. I believe that separation hurt far more than the physical ordeal. His cry of anguish from the cross wasn't about physical pain, but about the realization that with the weight of our sins resting on/in Him, He could no longer have fellowship with the Father. 2 Corinthians 5:21 (KJV) For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. I think the significance of this verse is generally overlooked. Being "made sin", is to experience the full wrath of a righteous God, who cannot abide any sin. Christ's physical death was insignificant in comparison.

You're using "transgression" so I'll assume you're referring to 1 Tim 2:14, quoted earlier. So Eve didn't sin? A transgression isn't a sin? Several translations render this same word as sin or sinner. It's use throughout the rest of the NT is in relation to breaking the law, even used to refer to Adam's transgression. So if Adam sinned, so did Eve! We aren't guilty of Adam's sin, but we have inherited his sin nature. Before sinning, they knew no sin. I think that is what is meant by the "knowledge of sin". Nakedness was not a sin, but after sinning an awareness of their lack of righteousness (clothing is almost always scripturally linked to righteousness, here especially so) is what caused them to seek clothing. And it's instructive to note that this is the first act of religion- they tried through the works of their own hands to put on righteousness by sewing garmets of fig leaves, and God corrects them by making them coats of skins and thereby signifying that by the shedding of blood they would be covered.

The "following" I'm referring to happened earlier, in Gen 3:6, when Adam chose to also eat the fruit. That is when Adam made a choice and was not deceived. Exile from the garden was the result of their sin. I guess in my mind the act of eating is equivalent to the exile, which is what's implied in Gen 2:17. Or are you saying that Eve could have sinned, and not been exiled??? -that's not the significance I see in the him and man in v23-24; rather that he as the head of his family in a patriarchal setting was driven out, and therefore his family (Eve) with him.

I like this benefit, that I live with the expectancy of His imminent return: Mat 24:45-51~ Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed [is] that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite [his] fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Without looking them up, I can think of a half-dozen places where the return of the Lord is described as at hand, soon, quickly, nigh, etc. Simply, are you looking for the coming of the Lord, or are you focussed on the signs leading to the trib? If you're post-trib then you have seven or 3.5 years to make yourself ready, once you become aware the trib has started. Do you think some folks today are using that as a reason to delay coming to the Lord? Jane Eyre said when asked what she must do to avoid hell: "I must remain healthy." As long as they're healthy, people will think that there will be an event to watch for, and then they'll get serious about this God stuff. The benefit of a pre-trib perspective is that I don't give myself an excuse to delay preparing my heart for His return. I have an attitude of urgency. Do you see such an urgent attitude in the post-trib or amillinneal mainstream denominational church today?

Indeed, Ephesian 5:25-32 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (I suggest Adam did this too. I'm not saying he acted with the same fore-knowledge as Christ, but he still chose to follow Eve into her exile from the garden, which then allowed her to have offspring, which then allowed her to be redeemed. Paul in other places says Adam is guilty of introducing sin into the world, but in a paradoxical way his sin allowed Eve's salvation.) That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Paul is saying that human marriage is a model of the relationship of the Christ to the church. We see this evidenced in scripture in several places. Offhand: Adam taking on sin to save Eve. Boaz redeeming Naomi's land and taking a gentile bride in Ruth. The Commandment "though shalt not commit adultery": note that adultery occurs in a marriage, whereas fornication is among the unmarried, and while wrong is not the subject of the commandment. God seems to have placed a special emphasis on unfaithfulness inside of marriage. Unfaithfulness to God in Israel is referred to as a whoring wife throughout the OT, reinforcing the idiom of the marriage as a model of a right relationship to God. Paul in other passages places special emphasis on those sins that are contrary to marriage, for example Rom 1:24-28. I think 1 Tim 2:15 is a separate thought than v14 before it, but it is interesting to see them linked. Eve, by her childbearing, was able to be saved.

1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Adam *chose* to follow Eve into her exile from the garden, and by doing so she, through the promised "seed of the woman", was redeemed. (That Adam's choice was a sin is an important, but separate issue!) Likewise, Christ chose to follow us into sin (in a manner of speaking; He was made sin), so that we could be redeemed.

James 5:11 (ESV) Behold, we consider those blessed who remained steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have [bold]seen the purpose of the Lord[/bold], how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. Until we learn the lesson of Job, nothing else matters. Once we learn the lesson of Job, nothing else matters!

I think it's a point that if people had the same faith they had back in that day of the apostles, the church really would grow the way it used to. But forget the all-important labels of 'liberal' and 'conservative' for just a minute-- if the congregation just had FAITH, people would get saved. I think that's why the church is on the decline. There's just no faith. And a liberal church teaches a corrupt faith, so if people had true faith, the conservative Christian church would grow more. Faith is a gift that can be grown: [2Th 1:3 KJV] We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; Faith is learned, by the scriptures: [2Ti 3:15 KJV] And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Faith is learned by the Word: [Rom 10:17 KJV] So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. If faith is lacking today, it is because the Word is not taught in our churches. Any place where faith is strong, there is also a hunger for the Word. Where the Word is taught in milquetoast fashion, milquetoast faith results. Where persecution requires strong faith, a strong desire for the Word exists as well. We can't create persecution, but we can encourage our pastors to teach the Word!

Here’s some thoughts on the book of Ruth. I’ll just assume you’re familiar with the book; if you’re not, it’s short and a very pleasant read, especially the beauty of the dialogue in the KJV. Most generally agree that Boaz is a type of Christ in his roll as the kinsman redeemer (goel). What makes this story interesting typologically though is that Ruth is a gentile. As NT readers, it’s easy to see this as a model of Christ taking His gentile bride, the church. There are lots of elements of the Ruth story that seem engineered to fit this model. [Rth 2:2 KJV] And Ruth the Moabitess said unto Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean ears of corn after [him] in whose sight I shall find grace. And she said unto her, Go, my daughter. Right away, Ruth is dropping NT words! It gets better… [Rth 2:6 KJV] And the servant that was set over the reapers answered and said, It [is] the Moabitish damsel that came back with Naomi out of the country of Moab: An unknown servant introduces Ruth to Boaz (compare Gen 24 where Eliezer’s name is left out of the story, as he goes to search for a gentile bride for Isaac; and John 16:13 where the Spirit will not speak of Himself) [Rth 2:14 KJV] And Boaz said unto her, At mealtime come thou hither, and eat of the bread, and dip thy morsel in the vinegar. And she sat beside the reapers: and he reached her parched [corn], and she did eat, and was sufficed, and left. vinegar here, is chomets, and is probably a grape vinegar, or a variant of wine. So here, Boaz offers Ruth bread and wine. We in the church might call that communion. [Rth 3:3 KJV] Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the floor: [but] make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking. I suggest that washing (by the water of the Word), anointing (by the Spirit), and putting on raiment (righteousness): [Rev 19:7 KJV] Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. [Rev 19:8 KJV] And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. -all speak of the church’s proper relationship and approach to Christ. [Rth 4:9,10 KJV] And Boaz said unto the elders, and [unto] all the people, Ye [are] witnesses this day, that I have bought all that [was] Elimelech's, and all that [was] Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi. Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye [are] witnesses this day. Next, Boaz buys the field, to get a bride. Compare to John 3:16, or: [Mat 13:44 KJV] Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. …where the field, from earlier in verse 38, is the world. Christ paid for/redeemed the world, so that out of it He might obtain a bride. So that’s most of the Boaz/Christ and Ruth/church comparison. But what about Naomi? How about looking at her as a type of Israel? Try substituting Christ for Boaz, the NT church for Ruth, and Israel for Naomi in each of the following: For Ruth to come to Boaz, Naomi had to be exiled from her land. Naomi doesn’t return to the land until the bride is ready. It is from Naomi that Ruth learns of the proper way to approach Boaz. Ruth had to make the first move, then Boaz pledged to not rest until he fulfilled his roll as kinsman. (the six measures of meal in Ruth 3:17-18 refers to the creation, and the day before God’s rest.) Naomi never meets Boaz (until after the wedding). Naomi learns of Boaz through Ruth. Throughout jewish history, the book of Ruth is associated with the feast of Pentecost, and is still read in synagogues on that day each year. In their mind, it is appropriate because it comes at the time of the wheat harvest. In my mind, it is appropriate because they both relate to the church!

I'm not seeing a relation between the passage in John to the yoke passage. With the yoke, we are told to follow Jesus (more or less), in John 5:30 Jesus is saying He is sent of the Father and is following the Father's will. I suppose if you take the verse by itself and out of its context, it seems to apply to me "seeking not my own will but the will of him who sent me"? The two most direct ways I've heard the yoke taught are that it refers to a teacher's mantle or doctrine; or it refers to the two-ox literal yoke. The teacher's mantle idea is that a rabbi had a certain perspective and method of teaching and this was called his yoke, so when you came under his yoke you agreed to follow his instructions and teachings. So Jesus would be contrasting His instruction to that of the pharisees, who "...bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers." [Mat 23:4 KJV] Seeing it as an actual ox-yoke is similar, referring to the farmer who paired two oxen but made sure there was a strong and a weak one, so that the weak always followed the strong and they weren't competing or in conflict. Here, and doctrinally this also works pretty well, when Jesus says "my burden is light", it's because He's carrying it for you- He's the strong ox and your job is to just put your neck in the yoke while He does all the work.

What is the source for your quote? Just a memorable quote from a long ago history lesson. Similar are found with an internet search of crusade, Jewish, killing, or the Rhineland Massacre.

You have this one correct. And because of this one event when Moses broke the model, God shut him out of the promised land, after having lead the people through the wilderness for forty years. I get the impression that God really likes His models! (And I've always enjoyed studying them- they are like mini-prophecies, scattered through scripture. It's like a treasure hunt.) Hosea 12:10 NKJV- I have also spoken by the prophets, And have multiplied visions; I have given symbols (KJV "similitudes") through the witness of the prophets."

"How many Jewish babies can be fit onto a spear" gives some evidence as to just how Christian the crusades were. Western culture has romanticized the crusades with Robin Hood and the stories of the knights of olde, but it appears to be just another example of Rev 12:4- "...And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born."

If you've ever heard of the deutero-Isaiah theory, here's a passage that will save you some trouble. John 12 quotes from "1st Isaiah" and "2nd Isaiah", but between them are the words "Isaiah said again": 37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?"[fn] 39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: 40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them."[fn] John didn't have the benefit of modern textual criticism, but I think his source is much to be preferred!

The Babylonian, Medio Persian, Greek, and Roman empires weren't shadow empires, and there's nothing in scripture to suggest that the feet and toes are anything but "real" and observable kingdoms. That's why I don't like the islam/papacy/power-behind-the-scenes theories. It seems scripture has given us an example of four fore-runners, to indicate the essential attributes of world dominion that simply won't go unnoticed when these scriptures are fulfilled, when God's timing is ripe.

You make a valid point about Jesus’ sermon on the mount being before the gospel was well-known. I included it to show how serious sin is to God. And there are multitudes of verses threatening loss of eternal life to ANYONE who is involved in habitual unrepented-of sin! … Some are in the OP list. Here’s one … “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9-10) This applies to everyone on the planet, and I can show from Scripture that entering the kingdom of God/heaven is equivalent to go to heaven. Now, will these people come around later? … Heb 10:26+ says there is a cut-off point. So really, that's what all of the dozens of warnings are all about, i.e. OSAS is from the pits of hell. IMO, you’ve got a big problem with righteousness! Does one need to be righteous in God’s eyes to enter heaven? Check the end of Matt 25, and then verses such as: “… let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous” (1 John 3:7) It’s the old story: is God playing games with us? … I.E. is the reverse of the above true? If the BAC is not practicing his imputed righteousness, this proves that he is no longer righteous! We are to choose to be “(slaves) of obedience leading to righteousness” (Romans 6:16) “… so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.” (Romans 6:19) So, everything is conditional: God's INITIAL grace, righteousness, salvation, etc. may be carelessly rejected and thrown away! Wow, I just went and read the passage in 1 Cor 6 that you quoted as your champion verse. But you stopped at verse 10, and now I see why! v11: "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God". This begins with the passage about going to the law with a believer, and having an attitude of forgiveness, and he's reminding them of how much they owe because they have been forgiven, and should walk worthy of the debt they owed. In no way is he talking about their salvation! It goes better for your case if you 1) read the passages you've quoted, and the context and 2) don't accuse others of heresy based on your limited understanding. If you study the Word, you will find that both responsibility and security are sound doctrin; they are each opposing sides to the same coin. Reliance on just one or the other leads to problems- either a works trip for the responsibility crowd, or cheap grace by the security crowd. Try to understand what the whole counsel of God is saying here, both in the verses you've been told to rely on, and those that the folks here have provided. It's the same truth, but God has given a perspective of it from many angles. Don't be the blind man that only feels one part of the elephant!

Your righteousness is worthless. Have a look at Isaiah 64:6 to see what God thinks of your righteousness. He thinks your very best, is disgusting. That's why you need His righteousness. "The righteous" or "the just" in Paul's writings are those that have received the imputed righteousness of (from) God. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[fn] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Do we also have responsibility? Yes. To believe is also to obey. Obedience is evidence of belief, real belief. But believers still slip, still sin, and still have a sin nature. But His love is what constrains us, not fear of His wrath. We are His children, co-heirs with Christ, who are urged to call Him "Abba, Father".

"People" is in the original text, and folks have made a choice to render it "marriage" to make the sentence easier to read (have I mentioned that I dislike paraphrases?). I guess I don't see evidence, in either the statue or the world today, that the papal and ottoman empires are still around. I see pieces of each in all of the middle east and europe, and this leads me to think the ten toes/ten horns can be from any part of the whole Roman empire. In a sense, the ten toes reinforces this- 5 toes from each foot! The roman church today does undoubtedly wield significant influence, but it isn't a world government or empire. At best, it might be a toe or a horn; heck, one of its members may even be the little horn. When you (I won't be here ) see the ten, there will be no need for conjecture.

Ok, another one. How about the burning bush? (I can maybe weave in a little John 8:58 here as well, since that thread got shut down!) [Exo 3:2 NKJV] And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush [was] not consumed. [Exo 3:3 NKJV] Then Moses said, "I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn." [Exo 3:4 NKJV] So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am." [Exo 3:5 NKJV] Then He said, "Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand [is] holy ground." First, the bush. The word is cenah, and refers to a thorn bush. The "thorn bush of the desert" is referred to fairly often, and is a part of the acacia family. This same thorn bush is linked to the wood of the tabernacle, and to Jesus' thorny crown. There's more going on here than "a bush"! Regardless of all that, thorns are a symbol of the curse, or more specifically the sin that caused the curse. Fire speaks of judgment or punishment for sin. Altars and sacrifice weren't new under the Law; they go back all the way to Abel. So the the bush burning is analogous to sin being judged. A pretty basic metaphor. But, the bush didn't burn, and this is what drew Moses closer. The lack of burning is a figure of mercy. We are drawn to God by His mercy, not by His righteousness. From the outside, we are terrified by His righteousness, and it's only when we learn of His mercy that we can approach and commune with Him. And a minor digression... [Exo 3:13 NKJV] Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, [when] I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What [is] His name?' what shall I say to them?" [Exo 3:14 NKJV] And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' " This is the famous "I AM" statement, that Jesus claims for Himself: [Jhn 8:58 NKJV] Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." One of the Jesus-isn't-God doubters here brought up that Jesus' "I am" (ego eimi, ἐγὼ εἰμί) means something else, like "I was". (the post was deleted, I forget the exact wording he used). But, it actually doesn't matter what the meaning of ego eimi is, the point was that Jesus was identifying Himself with the voice in the burning bush, which the pharisees clearly understood and therefore tried to kill Him. In Jesus' day, they spoke greek. They used the greek translation of the OT, called the septuagint or LXX. How does the LXX translate Exodus 3:14, and does it exactly match what Jesus said? Why, yes it does! Exodus 3:14 (LXX) καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς John 8:58 εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

In 13:1 the seven heads/ten horns/ten crowns are introduced, and 13:2a is added so you know for sure what his frame of reference is. I see all of Rev 13:2a as a reference to Dan 7, so that you would know that the ten horns of Rev 13 are in the same idiom as the ten horns of Dan 7. Then, only the heads and horns are dealt with in the remainder of the chapter. I don't see 13:2 as adding to the description of the heads/horns, just telling you that he's using Dan 7 as the background for this beast.

I think one area where you are going off-track is with the clay. You're reading significance into the soft/hard aspects of clay, but I don't think that is valid. I've never seen a useful pot made with soft clay, for instance. Since the idiom is defined in the very next verse, I think that's the one that should be used, and it is consistent with the clay idiom throughout scripture: [Dan 2:43 NKJV] "As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. It seems you're reading a religious overtone into the clay, and thus trying to fit in the papacy or islam. I think the more scripturally supported view is that the clay is simply people.

We agree on so much regarding Rome, that I feel a little bad for focussing on a point of difference. I feel there is a little clue to the defining of these ten kingdoms in an often neglected part of Rev 13:2 And the beast that I saw was like a leopard This is an obvious reference back to Daniel 7; Alexander's Empire, which is described as the leopard. If the final beast has similar borders to Alexander's empire, just refer to inchrist's map of this empire to see which ten countries will be part of the final empire. I could be wrong but the best ten seem to be: Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, Egypt, Iran, Afghanistan, and Libya. Or maybe replace Libya with Pakistan. This is not conclusive, but I regard it as a likely possible fulfilment of the sentence "the beast that I saw was like a leopard". Rev 13:1-2 refers to aspects of all four beasts of Dan 7. The Rev 13 beast is like Neb's dream, a composite beast that represents world dominion. In Dan 7, the beasts are in chronological order looking forward, in Rev 13 the order is reversed, as John is looking from the point of view of the future, looking back.

All the other kingdoms, refers to the three previously mentioned. It's poor hermeneutics to change the definition of a word from one sentence to the next. Kingdom is consistently used here of the empires, not the individual city-states that comprised the empire.