Adam is as good a name as any for a portrayal.Adam in the New Testament is always portrayed as the first parent of humanity, that might not sit well with Darwinian predilections.
Adam's name is used synonymously with humanity in the Old Testament, 400+ times, no one else's name can be used for that. Just like Israel is used synonymously with the father of that nation, Jacob. Not just any name will do.Adam is as good a name as any for a portrayal.
Because it's in the genealogy he pasted into his text.Adam's name is used synonymously with humanity in the Old Testament, 400+ times, no one else's name can be used for that. Just like Israel is used synonymously with the father of that nation, Jacob. Not just any name will do.
According to Paul sin came as the result of one man, Adam, the first parent of humanity. Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19). This comparison cannot be drawn with any other figure from history.
You never answered my question, why does Luke call Adam, son on God?
Grace and peace,
Mark
No, it's because Adam was created and had no human parents.Because it's in the genealogy he pasted into his text.
So on the basis of a line in that genealogy you raise Adam to the ontological status of Jesus Christ?
"Begotten not made." But Adam was a creature, in the sense of its Latin root creare, just like us. Even so, on the strength of a single word in a genealogy that Luke probably didn't even compose himself you want to elevate Adam's status to something more. You are going to have to explain to me exactly what theological axe you are grinding here.Hi speedwell,
You know that would only be true if God created Jesus out of the dirt of the earth just as He created Adam. Do you believe that God created Jesus?
God bless you.
In Christ Ted
No, Adam sinned and was the father of humanity, therefore when Adam ate we did not fast. When Abraham paid tithes, the writer of Hebrews tells us, Levi paid tithes to Mekezidek.So on the basis of a line in that genealogy you raise Adam to the ontological status of Jesus Christ?
"Begotten not made." But Adam was a creature, in the sense of its Latin root creare, just like us. Even so, on the strength of a single word in a genealogy that Luke probably didn't even compose himself you want to elevate Adam's status to something more. You are going to have to explain to me exactly what theological axe you are grinding here.
I assume that one of those "Adams" should be a "Jesus" but since Jesus had parents--one human parent, anyway--but no, I still don't see what you're getting at.Your position seems only to be that since Adam didn't have any parents, then that makes him like Adam. Tenuous at best. By your understanding, all of the angels would also be little Jesus's. They don't have any parents either.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
So the interpretation of Genesis does have a hermeneutic effect on the New Testament after all. Its not a figurative interpretation of an isolated text. Of course Luke wasn't the source for the genealogy he had James and Jude who had the exact same lineage, or he could have consulted with Barnabas or John Mark who were both Levites. Or do you mean the authorship of Luke because it would be a baseless rationalization born of desperation."Begotten not made." But Adam was a creature, in the sense of its Latin root creare, just like us. Even so, on the strength of a single word in a genealogy that Luke probably didn't even compose himself you want to elevate Adam's status to something more. You are going to have to explain to me exactly what theological axe you are grinding here.
Or he got it somewhere else; there was considerable messianic expectation at the time and no doubt plenty of genealogies. So?So the interpretation of Genesis does have a hermeneutic effect on the New Testament after all. Its not a figurative interpretation of an isolated text. Of course Luke wasn't the source for the genealogy he had James and Jude who had the exact same lineage, or he could have consulted with Barnabas or John Mark who were both Levites.
I'm not sure what that means at all. Is there some question about the authorship of Luke? I am certainly not aware of it.Or do you mean the authorship of Luke because it would be a baseless rationalization born of desperation.
OK, Adam was the "son" of God in the sense that he was created by God, but surely you can't mean that he was the son of God in the same sense that Jesus was.What theological indeed! First of all there is no interpretative challenge here, the context indicates father and son lineage. The father of Adam was God because God created Adam. Kings and high Priests were said to be son of God with respect to rank. Jesus was, is and forever will be the eternal Son of God by nature.
It's a profound and beautiful piece of writing. How can one imagine wanting it to say anything other than it does?Take a good hard look at Romans 5 and tell me what Paul is saying about original sin without telling me what you want it to say. Guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting huh?
Or he got it somewhere else; there was considerable messianic expectation at the time and no doubt plenty of genealogies. So?I'm not sure what that means at all. Is there some question about the authorship of Luke? I am certainly not aware of it.
OK, Adam was the "son" of God in the sense that he was created by God, but surely you can't mean that he was the son of God in the same sense that Jesus was.
Look, I appreciate that you are spending some effort on this and I hate to be so dense, but I just do not grasp what you are trying to tell me.
OK, here is what I have gotten out of this so far:I explained that, Jesus is The eternal Son of God, Kings and high priest were called son of God with regard to rank.
As so he was, according to the Garden story. I really don't understand why you brought in all of that business with the genealogy in Luke. The Gospel of Luke didn't exist yet when Paul wrote to the church in Rome. He didn't need it. Romans 5 is a riff on the Garden story, period.It says that in Adam all sinned and die, in Christ comes life and peace. There is no way that argument makes any since if Adam isn't the first parent of humanity
I still don't see what I'm missing. Romans 5 would never have been written the way it was without the Garden story. The whole passage depends on it being a story familiar and beloved to Paul's audience.I don't know how your missing it, the New Testament witness regarding Adam and original sin couldn't be clearer.
OK, here is what I have gotten out of this so far:
1. Luke includes in his Gospel a genealogy he got from somewhere to support the messianic prophecy that Jesus is "Son of David."
2. This particular genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, calling Adam the "son of God."
3. This casual reference is important to you as you seem for some reason to regard it as conclusive evidence that Adam had no parents.
4. But we already knew that Adam had no parents, it is explicit in the Garden story.
Oh, well. Let's move on to Romans 5, which you plop down in front of me with a snide flourish. It's the second time you've done it--you're beginning to remind me of Bob Ryan and his James Barr quote.
As so he was, according to the Garden story. I really don't understand why you brought in all of that business with the genealogy in Luke. The Gospel of Luke didn't exist yet when Paul wrote to the church in Rome. He didn't need it. Romans 5 is a riff on the Garden story, period.
I still don't see what I'm missing. Romans 5 would never have been written the way it was without the Garden story. The whole passage depends on it being a story familiar and beloved to Paul's audience.
Well, I'm disappointed. I thought maybe you had something new, but you led me around Robin Hood's barn and to nothing but another version of the old, tired "Jesus quotes Genesis" argument. I thought we'd done with that chestnut. But you've got other problems as well. The Luke source is weak. Luke probably didn't compose that genealogy and he cited it for reasons other than to affirm that Adam had no parents. Even so, neither Luke's geneology nor Paul's letter constitute independent verification of Genesis because they both derive from it. You wouldn't get away with that writing a paper for a junior high school history class; I don't know why you think you can get away with it here.It is explicit in the New Testament witness regarding Genesis, Adam is the first parent of humanity. My point is simply that in a genealogy that names father and son it names the father of Adam as God, because he was created and had no earthly parents.
Where do you think Luke was getting his information? That said Romans 5 is indeed rooted in the doctrine of original sin inextricably linked to the Genesis account. According to Paul:
Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12), Adams offense dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:
The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.
- Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
- Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
- All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
- Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
- Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
- Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
- The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
- Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.
The New Testament confirms in no uncertain terms original sin, the historicity of the Genesis account and the creation of Adam. These are not isolated texts but a recurring, vital theme in the gospel, we are sinners because when Adam and Eve ate we did not fast. You can no more take Adam figuratively then you can take the second Adam, Jesus Christ figuratively.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Hello everyone,
I'm assuming that this is the correct subforum in which to post this topic, but if not, forgive me. Basically, I've grown up in a home that believes in 100% biblical inerrancy and that's what I've believed, but recently I've been having a lot of doubts about creationism in particular. There are a few articles and websites that I have read that seem to completely and almost convincingly refute the idea of creationism. I'll link them below.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthr...ams-10-facts-that-prove-creationism-debunked/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_creationism
How am I, as a Christian, supposed to keep my belief in biblical inerrancy when there are all of these rebuttals that seemingly debunk creationism? Why can't creationists come up with good rebuttals to evolutionists' claims and rebuttals? If the creation story and the fall of man aren't true then is there no original sin by Adam? If there wasn't then why did God even have to send Christ to die for us, or did He? Was there even divine intervention in the universe's creation or formation? Is my faith just weak? I don't mean to cause controversy, I just really need some answers. I'm so tired of doubting my whole life. If these can't be answered, I'm afraid I may start to slip away to agnosticism. So, if anyone has answers, please share them.
Thank you!
Indeed, it's disappointing that original sin and Biblical exposition can be dismissed and ignored. The point I've made repeatedly about the genealogy in Luke is irrefutable in that context, and in the larger context of Romans 5. Adam is Paul's explanation for original sin.Well, I'm disappointed. I thought maybe you had something new, but you led me around Robin Hood's barn and to nothing but another version of the old, tired "Jesus quotes Genesis" argument. I thought we'd done with that chestnut. But you've got other problems as well. The Luke source is weak. Luke probably didn't compose that genealogy and he cited it for reasons other than to affirm that Adam had no parents. Even so, neither Luke's geneology nor Paul's letter constitute independent verification of Genesis because they both derive from it. You wouldn't get away with that writing a paper for a junior high school history class; I don't know why you think you can get away with it here.
OK, here is what I have gotten out of this so far:
1. Luke includes in his Gospel a genealogy he got from somewhere to support the messianic prophecy that Jesus is "Son of David."
2. This particular genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, calling Adam the "son of God."
3. This casual reference is important to you as you seem for some reason to regard it as conclusive evidence that Adam had no parents.
4. But we already knew that Adam had no parents, it is explicit in the Garden story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?