Dangers of Intellectualism

[GadFly]

Why did God put Adam in the Garden of Eden with all the knowledge necessary to take care of all creation and then tell him not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Anybody have an answer to this?

 

[ulcseminary]

Perhaps, God wanted to see if Adam and Eve were more interested in having their lives handed to them or if they were interested in free will.

The free will shows a desire to learn and grow, which I believe was the purpose.

--Amy

 

[mark46]

As far as I can see, this is your construct and your paradox, not scripture's and not Wesley's.
Global Ministries - John Wesley, Sermon 57, On the Fall of Man
I apologize in advance if I understand your position.

Adam and Eve were created in the image and likelness of God, with many of his attributes, but they were NOT God. They did NOT possess knowledge. It is not clear to what degree they even had life, having not yet eaten from the Tree of Life.

from Wesley as quoted by Oden
"Man and woman, having spirit, reason, will and liberty, akin to God, nonetheless "choose evil". This is Scripture's "plain, simple account of the origing of evil".
==========================
For Wesley, Adam, through his will chose to disobey God. His disobediences is often called the sin of pride.
==============================
In any case, there is no mention of knowledge before Adam ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
=============================
For Wesley, Adam had free will and sinned and greatly damaged (but did not destroy) the image of God within him. We inherit the natural tendency to sin. We inherit the consequences of Adam's sin: the tendency to sin, hard work, childbirth, and natural death. We inherit the separation between man and God. Jesus in the Way to breech that gap, through our acceptance of Jesus and through our following him.
==================
IMHO, we are to be in a better state than Adam, having accepted God with the knowledge of the alternatives, as well as with faith and with obedience.

Why did God put Adam in the Garden of Eden with all the knowledge necessary to take care of all creation and then tell him not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Anybody have an answer to this?

 

[GadFly]

As far as I can see, this is your construct and your paradox, not scripture's and not Wesley's.
Global Ministries - John Wesley, Sermon 57, On the Fall of Man
I apologize in advance if I understand your position.

Adam and Eve were created in the image and likelness of God, with many of his attributes, but they were NOT God. They did NOT possess knowledge. It is not clear to what degree they even had life, having not yet eaten from the Tree of Life.

from Wesley as quoted by Oden
"Man and woman, having spirit, reason, will and liberty, akin to God, nonetheless "choose evil". This is Scripture's "plain, simple account of the origing of evil".
==========================
For Wesley, Adam, through his will chose to disobey God. His disobediences is often called the sin of pride.
==============================
In any case, there is no mention of knowledge before Adam ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
=============================
For Wesley, Adam had free will and sinned and greatly damaged (but did not destroy) the image of God within him. We inherit the natural tendency to sin. We inherit the consequences of Adam's sin: the tendency to sin, hard work, childbirth, and natural death. We inherit the separation between man and God. Jesus in the Way to breech that gap, through our acceptance of Jesus and through our following him.
==================
IMHO, we are to be in a better state than Adam, having accepted God with the knowledge of the alternatives, as well as with faith and with obedience.

My! MY! So you begin with "this is your construct and your paradox, not scripture's." You do premise your post with this?

My premise was that the breath of life was all the knowledge Adam needed to have dominion over the face of the earth. It really was the innate knowledge that all men are born with, it was our portion of logos. It is not my imagination for I now give you scriptures to back this up.

The Gospel of John, chapter one, John said Christ was the logos, that would be the controlling principle of the universe, that was the breath of life breathed into man and John said Christ was the light that lightered every man that comes into the world. That is incredible knowledge we have at birth. Now that is my argument. Now stop with the personal stuff and if you disagree with me, use the scriptures to rebuff my ideas. That will be fine.

 

[GadFly]

In interpretation of scriptures, there is no such thing as literal interpretation even if you believe every word of the Bible is true, which I do. We are to interpret the Bible in light of what the Bible intends to say to us by use of the Holy Spirit.

Take the story of creation, the creation of Adam, and the creation of all things, as a prime example. Whether you say God created everything in six days 6000 years ago or you say God created man like creature 70 million years ago as Arnold Murray claims, you still have the same story of Adam and creation in the Bible. We are forced by either fact to interpret the story of creation in light of other scriptures which use the story as allegory to explain the truth.

1Cor:15:45: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Now you read the verses surrounding this verse and if you do not see how Paul uses allegory to explain the mystery of creation, I will eat your hat (not literally of course). Today, we say things like "I killed a giant" and we know we did not kill a giant but we know David did and we know it was a supernatural thing he did and now we think we did a great thing too. See, there is no such thing as literal interpretation in the sense of which we use common sense and understanding. To attempt to win a debate based on the fact the opponent is too literal or not literal enough proves you are simply trying to win a debate. We on the CF have at least the pretense of seeking the truth, don't we?

 

[GadFly]

Perhaps, God wanted to see if Adam and Eve were more interested in having their lives handed to them or if they were interested in free will.

The free will shows a desire to learn and grow, which I believe was the purpose.

--Amy

That is very true today. We do need to learn and grow but the idea of Adam is that he was created fully grown and intellectually prepared to be the care taker of the creation. Adam did not grow. He infarct put man in a state of atrophy. It is a good thing that the second man Adam reversed this trend of atrophy, is it not?

1Cor:15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

[mark46]

OK, you have stated that there is a paradox between John 1:1 and the biblical account of the fall. I see no paradox, no conflict and and no problem.

My! MY! So you begin with "this is your construct and your paradox, not scripture's." You do premise your post with this?

My premise was that the breath of life was all the knowledge Adam needed to have dominion over the face of the earth. It really was the innate knowledge that all men are born with, it was our portion of logos. It is not my imagination for I now give you scriptures to back this up.

The Gospel of John, chapter one, John said Christ was the logos, that would be the controlling principle of the universe, that was the breath of life breathed into man and John said Christ was the light that lightered every man that comes into the world. That is incredible knowledge we have at birth. Now that is my argument. Now stop with the personal stuff and if you disagree with me, use the scriptures to rebuff my ideas. That will be fine.

 

[GadFly]

To be intellectual is a good thing and the only time it is a dangerous thing is when the old Snake is involved and he is always involved. Now there is no argument that we all believe in God on the CF but do we forget sometimes that there is a Devil and he has his angles of light here too. One thing I am sure of is that the Snake does not want us to know the truth so he will interject anything he can to confuse us. The Garden of Eden is our graphic illustration of his subtlety. The old Snake is not going to change what God said in big gulfs. That is too visible. He will work in small degrees and inches to take miles of territories later. Just watch him said Jesus because he is sneaky before he roars. When he roars, it is too late, he has you.

What was the tree of knowledge of Good and evil? It is debatable of course but what we do know is that with all the vast knowledge Adam had, he did not need to know the things on the forbidden tree.

Adam was a prototype of all mankind. We have all agreed to this fact. He was fully prepared to be the caretaker of the earth. He did have scientific and the metaphysical knowledge to pull this task off or else God would not have him instructed to do so. Half of metaphysics is ontology, theory of being. Adam did fellowship with God on an ontological level in the cool of the evening but you knew this and that was not difficult for you to accept. How could you be more intellectual than to talk to God, the dabar/logos every day of your life? Not only deid Adam have his own superior knowledge but he had access to even more with his relationship with Christ the logos. Hay! Inter the Snake, "Adam, you don't think for yourself, do you? You need to be free (liberal), you will surely not die when you are free and liberated from what God says." The fact is that the tree of which Adam and Eve was forbidden to eat was humanism, the philosophy of the Snake. Leave God out of reality (metaphysics) by eliminating God's words (ontology). What is left, pure cosmology or/and the flesh nature of man and the physical nature of the universe. When God is removed from the equation, we by default left with a pure materialistic universe. That is what humanism teaches and liberal Christianity pays homage to this principle.

Now let the discussion begin and the fire fly. This is the crux of the matter. Is Christ the logos or do we have access to another source of knowledge in the universe as the Snake says we do? Ther is a reason the Bible says: Prov:3:5: Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Humanism, liberal politics and liberal Christianity says we are not sure there is a God so we must trust our own judgement. Ask any liberal professor in America's major universities and that is what they will tell you. Do you believe God or the Snake?

 

[GadFly]

OK, you have stated that there is a paradox between John 1:1 and the biblical account of the fall. I see no paradox, no conflict and and no problem.

I do not recall saying there was a paradox between anything. I think you are the one to have said that. Why would you attribute that to my philosophy?

 

[lucaspa]

Why did God put Adam in the Garden of Eden with all the knowledge necessary to take care of all creation and then tell him not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Anybody have an answer to this?

You are taking things from 2 different creation stories from 2 different traditions within ancient Israel. To understand the stories you need to remember the context of the times. Israel had 3 major competitors in religion: the worship of Baal, the Babylonian pantheon, and the Egyptian pantheon.

Genesis 1 is a monograph for monotheism and a refutation of the Babylonian pantheon and creation story. If you read the Enuma Elish, you immediately see that Genesis 1 is taking the Babylonian gods in order of their appearance and destroying them. Those gods were all tied to some physical object: saltwater, fresh water, god of plants, goddes of the sun, etc. When those physical objects are created by Yahweh, the gods cannot exist.

In the Enuma Elish, humans are the servants and entertainment for the gods. Humans have no power. Genesis 1 emphasizes that Yahweh creates humans for their own sake. Then God gives them power. The phrase "in the image" is usually taken to mean some sort of likenes to God, either physical or intellectual or spiritual. But it's not. I once had a Biblical scholar explain to me that "in his image" had a definite meaning in that time. Because communication was so poor, an ambassador or representative of a merchant would be given power to negotiate binding treaties or contracts without referring back to the king or merchant. Such an ambassador would be said to be "in the image" or "in his image" of the king or merchant. So the phrase "in his image" in Genesis 1 doesn't really refer to either physical or spiritual appearance, but empowerment. God is telling humans that they are free to act on the environment. That what they do they do "in the image" of God, or with God's full backing. This is seen in the juxtaposition in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea ..." We tend to separate the image from the dominion, but it appears that those were two ways of saying the same thing. To be "in his image" was also to be given plenipotentiary powers and have dominion.

The Egyptian religion of the time emphasized that, if a person could gain enough knowledge, he would become a god. The story in Genesis 2-3 refutes that. Adam and Eve gain the knowledge of good and evil, but they don't become gods. However, they do scare God a bit in that they are like God in that they know of good and evil. That's why God kicks them out of the Garden before they can eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life (Genesis 3:22). In addition, Genesis 3 is an allegory to explain why we are cut off from God. Adam and Eve (standing for all men and women) disobey God. The fruit of the tree just happens to be that particular way to disobey God.

 

[lucaspa]

My premise was that the breath of life was all the knowledge Adam needed to have dominion over the face of the earth.

Unfortunately, the premise is in error because Genesis 2 doesn't have dominion over the creatures of the earth and Genesis 1 doesn't have the breath of life.

It really was the innate knowledge that all men are born with, it was our portion of logos. It is not my imagination for I now give you scriptures to back this up.

But you don't have God's other book to back you up. In this case -- knowledge that all men are born with -- you need support from both books. Humans are not born with a great deal of knowledge; we have to learn practically everything.

The Gospel of John, chapter one, John said Christ was the logos, that would be the controlling principle of the universe, that was the breath of life breathed into man and John said Christ was the light that lightered every man that comes into the world.

"In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He existed in the beginning with God. God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him. The Word gave life to everything that was created, [fn] and his life brought light to everyone. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it. [fn] "

That doesn't say what you said. It doesn't say that the Logos was "the breath of life". It says that the Logos "gave life", but not how. What's more, the Logos gave life "to everything". In Genesis 2, only Adam has the "breath of life". Notice that Eve does not, nor do the animals.

"his life brought light to everyone" refers to the spiritual light of salvation. And apparently it came only with the Word's earthly life. It does not refer to knowledge we have at birth.

Now stop with the personal stuff and if you disagree with me, use the scriptures to rebuff my ideas. That will be fine.

So you don't want us to listen to John Wesley? Sorry, but no.

 

[lucaspa]

In interpretation of scriptures, there is no such thing as literal interpretation even if you believe every word of the Bible is true, which I do. We are to interpret the Bible in light of what the Bible intends to say to us by use of the Holy Spirit.

And there goes the quadrilateral out the window. Again.

BTW, Jesus tells us Deut 24:1 is wrong. So not every word of the Bible is true.

Take the story of creation, the creation of Adam, and the creation of all things, as a prime example. Whether you say God created everything in six days 6000 years ago or you say God created man like creature 70 million years ago as Arnold Murray claims, you still have the same story of Adam and creation in the Bible.

I'm afraid you don't. A problem is that there is another creation story in the Bible, and it isn't like the story of Adam! Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are unlike and contradict on several major points.

BTW, are you referring to Arnold Murray the pastor? As it happens, there were no "man-like" creatures 70 million years ago. The first species that is really "man-like" is Homo ergastor about 2 million years ago. H. sapiens doesn't appear until about 100,000 years ago.

We are forced by either fact to interpret the story of creation in light of other scriptures which use the story as allegory to explain the truth.

Genesis 2 is allegory.

1Cor:15:45: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Let's do all the verse:
"The Scriptures tell us, "The first man, Adam, became a living person." [fn] But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit. What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. "

That blows away your claim "It really was the innate knowledge that all men are born with, it was our portion of logos."

Paul is saying we don't have a portion of Christ, because Christ was heavenly, and earthly man is not like heavenly man.

we know David did and we know it was a supernatural thing he did

Actually it is not presented as supernatural:
"Reaching into his shepherd's bag and taking out a stone, he hurled it with his sling and hit the Philistine in the forehead. The stone sank in, and Goliath stumbled and fell face down on the ground."

So please find the verse that says God intervened in this fight. David gives the credit to God, but nowhere does it say anything supernatural happened.

Nothing supernatural about it. A very good slinger killing a swordsman at a distance.

See, there is no such thing as literal interpretation in the sense of which we use common sense and understanding.

You are taking a literal interpretation in that you think there was literally one man created from dust, right? And you think God removed a rib from Adam and used it to make Eve, right? That's what we mean by "literal". It seems you want to change definitions. Again.

We on the CF have at least the pretense of seeking the truth, don't we?

LOL! How adorable you are when you say things like this! Particularly after you have just mangled the truth so badly.

 

[GadFly]

You are taking things from 2 different creation stories from 2 different traditions within ancient Israel. To understand the stories you need to remember the context of the times. Israel had 3 major competitors in religion: the worship of Baal, the Babylonian pantheon, and the Egyptian pantheon.

Genesis 1 is a monograph for monotheism and a refutation of the Babylonian pantheon and creation story. If you read the Enuma Elish, you immediately see that Genesis 1 is taking the Babylonian gods in order of their appearance and destroying them. Those gods were all tied to some physical object: saltwater, fresh water, god of plants, goddes of the sun, etc. When those physical objects are created by Yahweh, the gods cannot exist.

In the Enuma Elish, humans are the servants and entertainment for the gods. Humans have no power. Genesis 1 emphasizes that Yahweh creates humans for their own sake. Then God gives them power. The phrase "in the image" is usually taken to mean some sort of likenes to God, either physical or intellectual or spiritual. But it's not. I once had a Biblical scholar explain to me that "in his image" had a definite meaning in that time. Because communication was so poor, an ambassador or representative of a merchant would be given power to negotiate binding treaties or contracts without referring back to the king or merchant. Such an ambassador would be said to be "in the image" or "in his image" of the king or merchant. So the phrase "in his image" in Genesis 1 doesn't really refer to either physical or spiritual appearance, but empowerment. God is telling humans that they are free to act on the environment. That what they do they do "in the image" of God, or with God's full backing. This is seen in the juxtaposition in Genesis 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea ..." We tend to separate the image from the dominion, but it appears that those were two ways of saying the same thing. To be "in his image" was also to be given plenipotentiary powers and have dominion.

The Egyptian religion of the time emphasized that, if a person could gain enough knowledge, he would become a god. The story in Genesis 2-3 refutes that. Adam and Eve gain the knowledge of good and evil, but they don't become gods. However, they do scare God a bit in that they are like God in that they know of good and evil. That's why God kicks them out of the Garden before they can eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life (Genesis 3:22). In addition, Genesis 3 is an allegory to explain why we are cut off from God. Adam and Eve (standing for all men and women) disobey God. The fruit of the tree just happens to be that particular way to disobey God.

Short and simple, plain and direct and mythology be chucked. There is only one creation but it seems that every generation, age, and culture has its own version and story of creation. Which story and version is true could be considered a subject for debate but for Christian, it is a simple choice. We premise our story of creation on Christ. We skip the foolishness of conjecture and mythology and stick to our primes of Deity and belief in a universe created by logos or dabar. He is our premise for everything. That is why we adopted the scripture's version of creation in the UNC and all of true Christianity. Our premise is Christ.

The philosophy of the Snake is to erode away at this great premise in anyway he can. The Snake sows seeds of doubt through mythology if he can. He defines science with a pure secular definition, leaving God out of the definition, if he can. He does try to make his premise of reasoning to be humanism. The Snake is subtle. He does not attack God head on but he does erode at the way man thinks about God through making man think that only his secular definitions based on humanism are the only acceptable definitions of what is real.

We just finished a debate on another thread over definitions and it was proven that your definitions of reality left God out of the true meaning of words in that you attempted to take ontology or God out of the definition of ontology. You did not want to acknowledge God or Christ as the Creator. That is the philosophy of the Snake. Opposition! Opposition! Welcome back to my thread. Here we use Christ as our premise. As I said you have already lost the debate even though the Snake will not allow you to stop.

 

[GadFly]

Unfortunately, the premise is in error because Genesis 2 doesn't have dominion over the creatures of the earth and Genesis 1 doesn't have the breath of life.

There is only one creation but many stories in mythology. Genesis anf John one tells the same story and in John chapter one Christ is the light that lights every man that comes into the world. The philosophy of the Snake is to cast doubt on this fact, which you do here by challenging the number one premise of Christianity. What you do here is follow the Snake.

But you don't have God's other book to back you up. In this case -- knowledge that all men are born with -- you need support from both books. Humans are not born with a great deal of knowledge; we have to learn practically everything.

We are born with the principle of knowledge. Tabula rosa is outdated, we know that man has a superior oporating system than all other creatures but the Snake says no to this.

"In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He existed in the beginning with God. God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him. The Word gave life to everything that was created, [fn] and his life brought light to everyone. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness can never extinguish it. [fn] "

Have you not enough sense to see that the scriptures you use do contradict your own silly secular definitions?

That doesn't say what you said. It doesn't say that the Logos was "the breath of life". It says that the Logos "gave life", but not how. What's more, the Logos gave life "to everything". In Genesis 2, only Adam has the "breath of life". Notice that Eve does not, nor do the animals.

"his life brought light to everyone" refers to the spiritual light of salvation. And apparently it came only with the Word's earthly life. It does not refer to knowledge we have at birth.

Notice that you refer to what I say. I am not the premise. The logos is the premise and he is the principle that gives order and structure to the universe. Without structure there is nothing but data. Data is not meaningful until it is organized. That is how man is a knowing superior creature and that is the definition of innate knowledge. A rabbit has the same data as a man but it has never built a car or a rocket ship and no matter how long a rabbit receives data, it will never write a book.

So you don't want us to listen to John Wesley? Sorry, but no.

You spend all this time opposing what the Bible teaches and what John Wesley would teach and you come up with this conclusion! What a farce! And what a very poor question for you to close with.

 

[GadFly]

And there goes the quadrilateral out the window. Again.

BTW, Jesus tells us Deut 24:1 is wrong. So not every word of the Bible is true.

I'm afraid you don't. A problem is that there is another creation story in the Bible, and it isn't like the story of Adam! Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are unlike and contradict on several major points.

The Snake has you brother thinking like he wants you to think. Let's make this short. There is only one creation. There are several stories of creation. Take your pick but that does not change our premise of Christ.

BTW, are you referring to Arnold Murray the pastor? As it happens, there were no "man-like" creatures 70 million years ago. The first species that is really "man-like" is Homo ergastor about 2 million years ago. H. sapiens doesn't appear until about 100,000 years ago.

So, what if I am? There is nothing evil in referring to the opinion of others even if you don't care for the opinion of others. Liberals are not the only thinkers in the universe. They only think they are.

Genesis 2 is allegory.

So what? Allegories tell the truth too.

Let's do all the verse:
"The Scriptures tell us, "The first man, Adam, became a living person." [fn] But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit. What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. "

I told you that you that you did not really believe in the Deity and now you do admit it. I can buy that. Keep talking and the truth will keep coming out.

That blows away your claim "It really was the innate knowledge that all men are born with, it was our portion of logos."

Christ differed from man in that he had the logoswithout measure. That was His Deity. You not only deny man's innate knowledge of God, you do confirm that you do not believe in Deity. It appears that you throw out the Quad.

Paul is saying we don't have a portion of Christ, because Christ was heavenly, and earthly man is not like heavenly man.

Gad,what a twist. How on earth did you come to this silly conclusion?

Actually it is not presented as supernatural:
"Reaching into his shepherd's bag and taking out a stone, he hurled it with his sling and hit the Philistine in the forehead. The stone sank in, and Goliath stumbled and fell face down on the ground."

So please find the verse that says God intervened in this fight. David gives the credit to God, but nowhere does it say anything supernatural happened.

Nothing supernatural about it. A very good slinger killing a swordsman at a distance.

So, like we said, the Snake wants to take God out of the equation of life. Is there anything you are willing to credit to God? What a farce of a Christian argument.

You are taking a literal interpretation in that you think there was literally one man created from dust, right? And you think God removed a rib from Adam and used it to make Eve, right? That's what we mean by "literal". It seems you want to change definitions. Again.

And of course you do not believe any of this and we are silly for believing any story of creation, especially the the story in the Bible of how God created man. Yes, we see well from where you are coming, the old Snake philosophy. All of us UM are going to follow you to heaven as sure as anything. By the way, what is the Snake's version of creation now that you have discredited the Bible's version?

LOL! How adorable you are when you say things like this! Particularly after you have just mangled the truth so badly.

OH boy! The way the Snake thinks is amazing. Intellectual liberals! The greatest joke of our times. Will it ever end?

 

[Cjwinnit]

Why did God put Adam in the Garden of Eden with all the knowledge necessary to take care of all creation and then tell him not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Anybody have an answer to this?

Because God's got a sense of humour!

 

[GadFly]

I am back Lucaspa and now let us look some more at your logic.

But you don't have God's other book to back you up. In this case -- knowledge that all men are born with -- you need support from both books. Humans are not born with a great deal of knowledge; we have to learn practically everything.

I have no idea what two books you are talking about but we use only the NT and OT as our authority on CF. Both these give the story of creation, especially in Genesis and the Gospel of John. However the creation is mentioned by many authors throughout the Bible.

Data means nothing until it is given structure and order. The understanding is brought into effect by experience. The principle of order, that would be logos, is in everybodies mind at birth. You would have no use for a computer that did not have a hard drive, would you? Chuck tabula rosa because it is outdated.

 

[GadFly]

Lucuspa again:

That doesn't say what you said. It doesn't say that the Logos was "the breath of life". It says that the Logos "gave life", but not how. What's more, the Logos gave life "to everything". In Genesis 2, only Adam has the "breath of life". Notice that Eve does not, nor do the animals.

"his life brought light to everyone" refers to the spiritual light of salvation. And apparently it came only with the Word's earthly life. It does not refer to knowledge we have at birth.

No not logos but it was dabar. There is no debate that Christ was Life and he was

logos

. It is his portion of Spirit which was also logos that made man superior to all creatures.

It is this breath of life that makes man superior and that is what is our substance we get from Adam. Of course light comes to everybody becauee we are born with a portion of the Spirit of God, which is logos. Earthly, secular, and animal life is carnal and not aware of God. You never did see a horse or chicken pray or construct an alter, did you? Your explanation is on the verge of....well, I just will not say.

 

[GadFly]

Lucuspa again:

Let's do all the verse:
"The Scriptures tell us, "The first man, Adam, became a living person." [fn] But the last Adam—that is, Christ—is a life-giving Spirit. What comes first is the natural body, then the spiritual body comes later. Adam, the first man, was made from the dust of the earth, while Christ, the second man, came from heaven. Earthly people are like the earthly man, and heavenly people are like the heavenly man. "

That blows away your claim "It really was the innate knowledge that all men are born with, it was our portion of logos."

Not know that Christ, Life, the Way, Truth. Spirit, and logos are all one and the same, your criticism fails badly. Your criticism is not biblical but secular.

Without realizing it, you just gave a strong argument for man's and your need for the new birth of the Spirit The flesh can not be born again but Nicodemus had to be told this also, so do not be real ashamed for not knowing this too. It is too late to be born of the flesh again but it is not too late to be born of the Spirit again. Believers do it all the time. Now just whose claim does not hold hot water, you said?

 

[GadFly]

lUCUSPA AGAIN:

See, there is no such thing as literal interpretation in the sense of which we use common sense and understanding.
You are taking a literal interpretation in that you think there was literally one man created from dust, right? And you think God removed a rib from Adam and used it to make Eve, right? That's what we mean by "literal". It seems you want to change definitions. Again.

LOL! How adorable you are when you say things like this! Particularly after you have just mangled the truth so badly.

And of course, you Lucuspa do not believe the Bible version of creation of the universe or man because you are liberated from all these ideas of mythology, right? I told you before that your authority for debate was not your belief in what the Bible teaches but it is your secular beliefs that do. Now you admit to this accusation of mine.

It does take a special logic to come to your adorable conclusions. But conclusions based on Christ as the number one premise for reasoning are always going to be different from yours and yours so easy to expose.