The child would be Jesus whom everything was created through and for.
There was at least this time with Jesus:
Is 7: 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste .
I’ve heard many pastors saying how Jesus didn’t know everything. Things unknown about things on earth (who touched me), things unknown about heaven (Not the angels or Son but only the Father knows), and other examples. The scriptures imply Jesus could not know everthing, or else we would overcome something that Jesus didn’t have to suffer. Jesus had to trust the Father through the Holy Spirit in faith, and that is a very christian message. However not universal.
Which suggests that either he shouldn’t have trusted his father, or that his father didn’t know everything either, because the suffering still happened-trusting dad didn’t really change things suffering-wise.
This is a good point, and defines the sabbath rest, basically all is completed and the purpose of God would be done. But just to add, while total creation was said to be ‘very good’ and also worthy of a Sabbath rest day, 5 out of 6 days were said to be ‘good’, the second day has no such mention of being good. This leaves open the possibility of something not right about it, though the days taken as a whole cover anything amiss about day 2.
According to the Bible everything that had been created was created for Jesus (Col 1;16) (thus not Adam), however also according to the Bible we get to share in that inheritance with Christ:
(Ro 8:17)“Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory”
Which also answers Czarcasm’s statement:
The present suffering will be met in the end of being co-heirs with Christ.
This has been taken by some to mean learning from the animals, and naming them once the lesson was learned, as opposed to just calling that tree swinging thing a Monkey out of the blue.
In the Bible names were ofter more then identification but had meaning behind them that related to that person’s or objects function, such as naming a well after a battle or a agreement, or Jesus calling Simon Peter meaning rock, and stating on this rock I will build my church. It is in line that the naming of the animals implies some familiarity with them and some schooling going on, placing Adam in the position of a student which is a more ‘child like’ position.
The Bible says God says to Adam they should not eat of it. Eve is the one in the Bible who states God Stated they should not even touch it. It is uncertain that God said this, or if Adam told Eve God said this, or Eve added that to the instructions as an extra precaution for herself. The Bible does also indicate that Eve was deceived. Thus we don’t know if God also disallowed touching of the fruit.
I heard a pastor opine that the first telling was suppose to be the ideal (non-fallen) case, and if that was so the Bible could have ended at Gen 2:3. Also indicating that may be what happens when the restoration happens and all the pain is forgotten.
I’ve heard a white-supremacist interpretation of that — which wouldn’t seem to merit further elaboration, but which also seems like it’d become irrelevant once things winnowed down to Noah and crew.
Matt 9 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Adam seemed to confirm that he was one with Eve:
Gen 2:23x “This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
Which is a different type of marriage then we apparently have now:
Matt 9:8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
While some people take this to mean that the man and woman have head hearts towards each other and getting a divorce, it is probably more accurate that their hearts were hard towards God, thus didn’t get His guidance, and married the wrong person which they never became one with. Biblically I believe Bathsheba and Uriah were such a pairing that never were meant to be and unquestionably King Ahab and Jezebel.
Matt 7:17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. 19 So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire. 20 Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions.
Which could define ‘fruit’ as outcome, the outcome of the knowledge of good and evil, or at least the actual fruit was a physical connection to the spiritual.
Also just to note the reappearance of the tree of life, the one that A&E were prevented from, comes back for us in Revelation 22. The purpose of the tree of good and evil seemed to no longer been needed as such knowledge was already in humanity.
I think it is a foreshowance of Christ and the Church, as if it was not good for the man to be alone (which Adam had God his Father, and the animals, but still ‘alone’), would not that also apply to Jesus. Wouldn’t Jesus also need such a companion.
Some supporting verses:
[Ephesians 1:23]
And the church is his body; it is made full and complete by Christ, who fills all things everywhere with himself
(Going on the 2 shall become one flesh theme here)
Eph 5:31 As the Scriptures say, “A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. 32 This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.
By the way, I think it hasn’t come up yet in this thread: for me, the story of the Tree of knowledge never made a lick of sense. So God made Adam and Eve, but they both don’t know the difference between good and evil by design. Then God (as by definition he is the Almighty) sends the snake along to tempt A&E to eat the fruit. Them being drooling toddlers mentally without a moral compass and thus not knowing that eating the fruit is evil in God’s mind, of course follow the snake’s advice and bam, they are cursed for life, and with them all their offspring/the whole of humanity. How can you sin without knowing what sin is? Nothing computes.
The Bible does say this is a great mystery, this union of Christ and the church and relates it to the two becoming one in marriage but only as marriage was ‘in the beginning’. For a society today we can only imagine how 2 becoming one works or means, because that is not how it works today. Husband and wife are not one flesh. So in this I don’t think necessarily we are talking about marriage as we know it. But I think it is the type of relationship we commonly hear as ‘Christ in us’.
To me this marriage is the two becoming one, but not in a man/wife sex/baby sense here. It is full adoption of us as sons and daughters of God and sharing Christ’s inheritance, and responsibility of rulership that we are talking about. We are fully Christ’s brothers and sisters of His kind (just as Eve was Adam’s kind)
Or to put it another way, as I see it, the Father, knowing that it was not good for (Jesus) to be alone, gave the greatest give He could give an only child, the largest family, full of brothers and sisters, all of humanity, made in their likeness, Given the very same spirit in Jesus which is the spirit of the Father - the Holy Spirit. It is through the Holy Spirit we, Jesus and the Father are one.
Also creation was made through Jesus, perhaps before Jesus understood what the full ramifications of what He was making, but Jesus did have input. I like to read the creation story as Jesus (the Word) said and the Father made it so. Jesus may have been too young to understand during creation, but the Father knew.
For Jesus to gain His inheritance, Jesus had to become part of it, and to give it away - even His very life, to ultimately gain everything, including the family of humanity made in their likeness. The Bible does seem to indicate that this may have been a coming of age milestone of Jesus, and Him receiving His glory.
Just because you are “one” with each other doesn’t mean that whatever one does, the other always does. Am I required to have a peanut butter and bacon sandwich on Russian rye every time My Beloved decides to have one? As for the rest of the post, well…you go on believing what you want to believe, I guess.
All of humanity ? Last time I looked at the statistics (right now), only 2.4 million of about 8 million humans on Earth are Christian. And they are splintered into thousands of sometimes battling denominations. Hardly all of humanity.
1 Col 1:20: and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven , by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Jesus conquered death and has the power to raise people from the dead. Jesus also shares this power with us through the Holy Spirit. Death is not an obstacle, God’s plan is perfect and Jesus will not lose any of His inheritance.
Warning for kanicbird. You’ve made a long tradition of hijacking religious threads with whatever you want to talk about. This needs to stop and you need to keep it to the subject of the thread.
This does not make sense. The trinity doctrine proclaims Jesus as being indistinguishable from jehovallah. He was merely the physical manifestation of the deity. He was not “too young” at the time of creation because he was the creator. This is just weird fapping around.
Yet Trinity doctrine is not in the Bible. It is an explanation of certain things in the Bible. But the Bible does contradict your definition:
Matt 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father .
This clearly states a difference between Father and Son when it comes to knowledge, (or foreknowledge), and also sounds like who is the one to make the decisions and when those decisions are made known, even to Jesus. So not just a physical manifestation of the deity. The Son must be a son to be a son in this relationship, or else it’s just a co-God type of thing.
? Last time I looked at the statistics (right now), only 2.4 million of about 8 million humans on Earth are Christian. And they are splintered into thousands of sometimes battling denominations. Hardly all of humanity.