What would have kept Adam from giving his life as a sacrifice for Eve?

[WolfBitn]

Semantics. The fact remains that God Himself says only His Son Jesus is qualified to be the perfect sacrifice for our sins, so scripture saying "disallows it being anything but God" is moot. God gives us much narrower qualifications. It has to be, was and is Jesus. You can debate and argue all you wish, but the point is actually already settled.

Cobalt, hi again... thats a great example^^^... you say this but you dont provide said passages... i dont think they exist

how about we take a look at the source of these allegations lol

from what i see, the ONLY requirement for any specific sacrifice is sinlessness... please provide the scripture stating otherwise

[ayin jade]

Romans 5

12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned:

18 Therefore as by one offense sentence came on all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came to all men to justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.

Adam could not have paid the price for Eve since according to this, sin and death came through adam.

Revelation 13

8 And all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world.

It is clear from this verse that before eve was deceived, that the sacrifice of Jesus was planned for. Adam could not have been the substitutionary sacrifice when Jesus was already the sacrifice.

[WolfBitn]

Cobalt... i've read John 1... it doesnt address the op

So you have no scripture to back what youre saying?

Romans 5

12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned:

18 Therefore as by one offense sentence came on all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came to all men to justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.

Adam could not have paid the price for Eve since according to this, sin and death came through adam.

Yes lol, but you seem to be missing the point of the op, which postulated on a scenario where Adam DIDNT eat of the tree... of course he ate and of course sin entered the world through him... but what if he HAD NEVER eaten of the tree? He would then have been in a sinless condition while his wife was in transgression of the law.

Revelation 13

8 And all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world.

It is clear from this verse that before eve was deceived, that the sacrifice of Jesus was planned for. Adam could not have been the substitutionary sacrifice when Jesus was already the sacrifice.

Of course God knew all along... my quesiton deals with what if things had worked out differantly and Adam HADNT eaten of the tree

If the OT used ANIMALS as a sinless sacrifice why not a sinless Adam... Christ Himself is called the 2nd adam for a reason id think... Hes the one that came and did it right... thus the implication that a sinless

Adam could have offered himself out of Agape for his wife

[canuckamuck]

I think the case still stands that there is a hypothetical but moot possibility that Adam fit the requirement for the sacrifice of sin, by the fact he was a man, he was sinless, and was able to suffer and receive a penalty (death). But I don't think He had the ability to bring himself back from the dead. So the Garden would be a lonely place and God's great creation unable to meet it's destiny.

A point to consider is that Adam was probably disqualified on the basis that he did not have knowledge of sin and therefore could not have been capable of understanding the sacrifice, in an Agape sense, because he did not understand the reason or the implications.

Only Jesus was sinless and also had knowledge of sin (not carnal knowledge, but divine knowledge) I think therefore only Jesus could have made an informed decision. I think this is necessary or the sacrifice is insufficient.

Animals are not sacrificing on their own behalf (as Adam would have hypothetically done)they are sacrificed by their owners, The owners understand the implications and receive the covering of their sin this is substitutional as has been mentioned. Adam could only have been a temporary patch.

[ayin jade]

My posts are being ignored. I showed you the scriptural proof.

[canuckamuck]

My posts are being ignored. I showed you the scriptural proof.

I am sorry AJ, I have not ignored your posts, I just felt that they didn't fully conclude the microscopic hair splitting point this thread has come down to.

Your posts are speaking to a post adamic fall reality, not pre-adamic post eveic fall reality, except for when you talk about the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. That scripture is only proof that God is omniscient and has a plan and purpose which He will fulfill on His own terms. It did not take away Adam's brief eligibility as a sacrifice for a single disobedience. But as I have pointed out, other conditions do exist which make the scenario impossible by many factors.

[WolfBitn]

My posts are being ignored. I showed you the scriptural proof.

I addressed your post... your post didnt address the scenario of Adam NOT eating of the tree

its only proof of the situation where he did, which no one argues this

Tell me something... in the OT in the days of Joshuah... were animal sacrifices acceptable to God as a sin sacrifice? What would happen if a man sacrificed his animal in faith, it was accepted and he died... did the blood of the animal not cover his sin?

[OneLight]

In the OT, those who died believing in God went to a place called Paradise, or Abraham's Bosom. They were then freed when Christ died and spend three days in the belly of the earth, becoming victorious over sin, taking with Him the keys of hell and death. Hell is also Hades.

[~candice~]

My posts are being ignored. I showed you the scriptural proof.

I addressed your post... your post didnt address the scenario of Adam NOT eating of the tree

its only proof of the situation where he did, which no one argues this

Tell me something... in the OT in the days of Joshuah... were animal sacrifices acceptable to God as a sin sacrifice? What would happen if a man sacrificed his animal in faith, it was accepted and he died... did the blood of the animal not cover his sin?

Your logic is wrong here. Jesus was the planned sacrifice even before the world was even formed. So it doesn't matter whether it is prefall, postfall, preadamic, post-adamic... it matters not WHEN, because Jesus was the sacrifice before any of this.

The answer is the same regardless of whether adam ate of the tree or not. Jesus was always going to be the perfect sacrifice.

Edited July 30, 2009 by ~andy~

[ayin jade]

My posts are being ignored. I showed you the scriptural proof.

I addressed your post... your post didnt address the scenario of Adam NOT eating of the tree

its only proof of the situation where he did, which no one argues this

Tell me something... in the OT in the days of Joshuah... were animal sacrifices acceptable to God as a sin sacrifice? What would happen if a man sacrificed his animal in faith, it was accepted and he died... did the blood of the animal not cover his sin?

Only because the animal sacrifice foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus. Nothing in that animal sacrifice itself could atone for their sins.

The bible doesnt speak of a lot of factual events. Why would it speak of things that are way out there as you propose here? The verse in Revelation does speak about pre-fall, in that Jesus was meant to be our sacrifice even then.