Is the Fall historical? A question for TE believers

[Didaskomenos]

I have to ask, was Pandora originally created without sin? How about Balder?

My memory of Pandora is one who opened the box and cause all evil to come into the world. I don't see how Jesus is similiar to that.

Boy, do I feel stupid! Of course. The parallel is between Pandora and Adam, and Balder and Christ.

But they are merely parallels, who can be drawn for analogical or even typological purposes in certain respects. I'm not saying they're the same characters, but merely share certain characteristics good enough for certain analogies. Pandora, like Adam, brought all the sin into the world. However, Pandora was a female who did it through opening a forbidden box, whereas Adam was a male who did it through eating a forbidden fruit. Jesus and Balder are both dying deities who are resurrected. They're not the same people - but similar in many respects. My point was that Adam was similar in converse respects (author of sin vs. abolisher of sin), so Paul used him for his analogy.

I think the point is missed when you are speaking as you are. Adam was created originally sinless and then he sinned. Like Adam, Jesus was created sinless - hence the Holy Spirit's work in conceiving Jesus within Mary's womb. Unlike Adam, Jesus never sinned.

Adam was a mythological figure. Jesus was historical. The point of the thread is our personal stance on whether the Fall was historical or not.

It is essential doctrine to realize that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. It is essential doctrine to realize Jesus was sinless. It is essential doctrine to realize that Jesus was the perfect lamb. It is essential to realize that on His death, he brought spiritual life. And upon His resurrection, He brought physical life.

Heartily agreed.

Both were lost at the fall, both were redeemed at His death and resurrection. Both are essential, both carry the meaning of redemption. Without one, we are all lost.

Both are essential aspects of Christ's work. The historical events that may or may not have led to our states of spiritual and physical death that necessitated Christ's work are immaterial to the work of the Messiah.

 

[Critias]

I agree that it is kinda upsetting to be called a "newbie" ... I'm curious Critias. Can you show me where else "in that day" is used in that sense?

1 Kings 2:36-46.

 

[Critias]

Boy, do I feel stupid!

Please don't feel stupid. I must have read it wrong.

Of course. The parallel is between Pandora and Adam, and Balder and Christ.

I was sure there was something I was missing so I asked to see.

But they are merely parallels, who can be drawn for analogical or even typological purposes in certain respects. I'm not saying they're the same characters, but merely share certain characteristics good enough for certain analogies. Pandora, like Adam, brought all the sin into the world. However, Pandora was a female who did it through opening a forbidden box, whereas Adam was a male who did it through eating a forbidden fruit. Jesus and Balder are both dying deities who are resurrected. They're not the same people - but similar in many respects. My point was that Adam was similar in converse respects (author of sin vs. abolisher of sin), so Paul used him for his analogy.

It is hard for me to equate myths of Balder with the True, Living Jesus Christ. It is my own inability to do so. I feel that it does an injustice to Christ. I mean no offense to you, Didaskomenos, I just have difficulties in doing so.

I don't think Paul, knowingly, would compare Christ to a mythical person either, again that is just me. It just feels disrespectful of who Jesus Christ is to compare Him to something that is a myth. That is not to be put on you. I am just sharing how I feel about it.

Adam was a mythological figure. Jesus was historical. The point of the thread is our personal stance on whether the Fall was historical or not.

I disagree that Adam is a mythical figure. The Bible is a different book than those myths that were written by ancients. The myths written by ancients were to talk about their kings and prove they were deity or sent by the deities. Genesis was in a way to counter what was circulating around, but not to counter it in the same fashion as what was being done. Instead, God countered it with True accounts of what He had done.

Can I ask, if Adam is a myth who is Adam representing? All of mankind I presume? When did all of mankind fall?

Heartily agreed.


Both are essential aspects of Christ's work. The historical events that may or may not have led to our states of spiritual and physical death that necessitated Christ's work are immaterial to the work of the Messiah.

In study of the Old Testament, the New Testament becomes revealed. Through it we can understand why Jesus died as He did and why He did what He did at the Last Supper. Through that which is done, He fufilled with His death and His resurrection. They are two distinct events of One Work. Both literal and symbolic. A meaning on surface and a meaning below it.

Paul knew that Christ's resurrection brought him an immortal body that soon would be restored to him. That is why he labored as he did without fear for his life, dying each day. So the resurrection says something about what we will gain, because it is something we did indeed lose because of sin.

To deny physical death at the fall of mankind is to deny Christ's atonement at the resurrection. It is say that His resurrection is meaningless, only His death is significant. Paul said, without the resurrection we are all doomed to be lost.

 

[gluadys]

It is hard for me to equate myths of Balder with the True, Living Jesus Christ. It is my own inability to do so. I feel that it does an injustice to Christ. I mean no offense to you, Didaskomenos, I just have difficulties in doing so.

I don't think Paul, knowingly, would compare Christ to a mythical person either, again that is just me. It just feels disrespectful of who Jesus Christ is to compare Him to something that is a myth. That is not to be put on you. I am just sharing how I feel about it.

I don't know that Paul would agree with you. I know C.S. Lewis didn't. He saw the various myths of a dying and resurrected god as a sort of divine pre-evangelism. He saw Jesus as the real life, historical enactment of what God had presented to various peoples through their myths.

I remember reading a book published some time ago by Inter-Varsity Fellowship called "Eternity in their Hearts". Don't know if it is still available. In any case it was about missionaries working with tribespeople in places like Indonesia who had had no contact with the gospel before. Very often the key to acceptance of the gospel by these tribes was a connection made between one of their mythical beliefs and the gospel. Once the missionary was able to show them that a hope they had tied to one of their mythical figures had its historic counterpart in Jesus, the openness to the gospel increased immeasurably.

To give one example, one tribe had created a system of "refuges", places a person could go if they were being pursued by others intent on fighting and/or killing them. It was taboo to attack a person in a refuge. But the refuges were only for adult men. Women or children who strayed into a refuge, even accidentally, were executed.

The missionary was able to introduce Jesus to these people as one "in whom to take refuge" and as a refuge open to all, not just adult men.

 

[Didaskomenos]

It is hard for me to equate myths of Balder with the True, Living Jesus Christ. It is my own inability to do so. I feel that it does an injustice to Christ. I mean no offense to you, Didaskomenos, I just have difficulties in doing so.

I don't think Paul, knowingly, would compare Christ to a mythical person either, again that is just me. It just feels disrespectful of who Jesus Christ is to compare Him to something that is a myth. That is not to be put on you. I am just sharing how I feel about it.

That's because you believe mythology is false and perhaps even innately evil. I value mythology above much history. If you liked and appreciated mythology, you would have no problem with seeing it in the Scriptures.

I disagree that Adam is a mythical figure. The Bible is a different book than those myths that were written by ancients. The myths written by ancients were to talk about their kings and prove they were deity or sent by the deities. Genesis was in a way to counter what was circulating around, but not to counter it in the same fashion as what was being done. Instead, God countered it with True accounts of what He had done.

Again, I presume you insist upon this distinction because you deem mythology as simply an untrue story, rather than as a presentation of observations without the need for particular historical knowledge; necessarily, the observations in Scriptural mythology would be true. The stylistics of mythology vary over cultures and over time, but the Garden narratives indeed read like mythology, sharing many common themes with other ANE myths.

Can I ask, if Adam is a myth who is Adam representing? All of mankind I presume? When did all of mankind fall?

Myths are not allegories; a metaphor in an allegory has a 1 : 1 correspondence with some particular truth, whereas the metaphors of myth are multireferential. The whole of mankind can find one typological reference within Adam, but so does each individual. And you must have missed my first post on this thread in which I told you why I don't believe there was an historical "fall" per se, or rather that every human falls independently.

Paul knew that Christ's resurrection brought him an immortal body that soon would be restored to him. That is why he labored as he did without fear for his life, dying each day. So the resurrection says something about what we will gain, because it is something we did indeed lose because of sin.

To deny physical death at the fall of mankind is to deny Christ's atonement at the resurrection. It is say that His resurrection is meaningless, only His death is significant. Paul said, without the resurrection we are all doomed to be lost.

I believe that mankind is born in a state of spiritual death and is physically mortal. Jesus' work on the cross and in resurrection provides for spiritual and physical life. The question here is whether or not the state of spiritual death and physical mortality was caused by the event in Genesis 3 or not. I say not.

 

[shernren]

Well, if you look at the original, it doesn't have any prepositions for yom. A crude transliteration reads: "Tree of knowledge of good and evil do not eat: day you eat, die die". I kid you not! http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1119110026-5388.html#17 I think it says nothing about what would happen on that day ...

 

[Critias]

That's because you believe mythology is false and perhaps even innately evil.

Did I state that about mythology or are you just making a judgment about what I believe even though you know nothing of it?

Is that the best way to communicate?

I value mythology above much history. If you liked and appreciated mythology, you would have no problem with seeing it in the Scriptures.

Really? Again, I see this as a judgment statement about what I believe when you don't even know me. Is this how you always approach people? Judge them first then maybe ask them questions about what they believe?

You are making this a one-way conversation. You are telling me what I believe and then creating an argument built around that. This is a typical strawman.

Again, I presume you insist upon this distinction because you deem mythology as simply an untrue story, rather than as a presentation of observations without the need for particular historical knowledge; necessarily, the observations in Scriptural mythology would be true. The stylistics of mythology vary over cultures and over time, but the Garden narratives indeed read like mythology, sharing many common themes with other ANE myths.

And the strawman continues. Do you even care about what I believe or do you just want to speak against me for your own pleasure regardless of how I feel or believe?

Myths are not allegories; a metaphor in an allegory has a 1 : 1 correspondence with some particular truth, whereas the metaphors of myth are multireferential. The whole of mankind can find one typological reference within Adam, but so does each individual. And you must have missed my first post on this thread in which I told you why I don't believe there was an historical "fall" per se, or rather that every human falls independently.

Well I must have missed that, my apologies. I was just offering my input on the subject, but it seems it was not needed. You seem to have told me what I believe instead.

I believe that mankind is born in a state of spiritual death and is physically mortal. Jesus' work on the cross and in resurrection provides for spiritual and physical life. The question here is whether or not the state of spiritual death and physical mortality was caused by the event in Genesis 3 or not. I say not.

Well we disagree. To say that Christ's resurrection was not an atonement is to deny the purpose of it. Simple as that. Physical death was part of the fall of mankind and to say it wasn't is to say Christ's resurrection had no purpose and is not an atonement.

That is what is so interesting that, in my experience, many people just don't see. That the resurrection has power and a purpose. It is an atonement just as His death on the Cross was an atonement. To deny the physical death being part of the fall is to deny Christ's atonement.

 

[dcrowther3]

The Fall is Myth.
We all need myth in our lives to help cope.
Without a Vision, the People die.

 

[Critias]

Well, if you look at the original, it doesn't have any prepositions for yom. A crude transliteration reads: "Tree of knowledge of good and evil do not eat: day you eat, die die". I kid you not! http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1119110026-5388.html#17 I think it says nothing about what would happen on that day ...

If one is to do a transliteration of both passages, both say "in the day".

In neither passage did the person die on that day of sin.

 

[TheBear]

Maybe it is just me, but this is rather condecending and unbecoming for how one should treat another.

Whoa!

That was not the intent of my remarks. However, I can now see how it can be interpreted that way.

That's one of the drawbacks of these 'cyber' discussions. Things like tone of voice are not heard. A warm smile is not seen. Body language is missing. Laughter is not heard. Tears are not seen. All we have are words on a screen. As a result, miscummunication and misunderstandings occur. It happens to all of us from time to time. Either we post something which is misinterpreted by others, or we misinterpret others' posts. This was one of those times.

 

[Critias]

I apologize for reading that how it was not meant.

May God Bless you!

 

[TheBear]

Was Adam barred from the Tree of Life?

Did the Tree of Life give eternal life?

If yes to both, then Adam did begin to die that day. But that is not what Scripture says, it says "in the day"

That phrase is a figurative phrase not indicating that it would be "on" that day, but "in" that day.

This phrase is used in another place in the Old Testament where the subject did not die "on" that day, but rather later on another day.

I understand the logic in what you said. I just don't agree.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life, were both forbidden while Adam was in perfect communion with God. Adam never ate from the Tree of Life. God kicked him out before he had a chance. Right after Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, he had knowledge of good and evil. He saw himself naked and was embarrassed. Had he eaten from the Tree of Life instead, he would have lived forever. But he didn't. Therefore, Adam died physically, just the way he was designed and created. God did not say that Adam would "begin" a 930 year process of "dying".

By itself, "in the day" can be a little ambiguous. But when you put in context with other scripture, our interpretation either stands or falls.





Now I understand why you misinterpreted my earlier post.

It's all good.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Did I state that about mythology or are you just making a judgment about what I believe even though you know nothing of it?
...
Really? Again, I see this as a judgment statement about what I believe when you don't even know me. Is this how you always approach people? Judge them first then maybe ask them questions about what they believe?
...
Do you even care about what I believe or do you just want to speak against me for your own pleasure regardless of how I feel or believe?

Well now, we're touchy, aren't we? I arrived at my conclusion about how you view myth in a very logical fashion. The following quotes led me to say what I did:

It is hard for me to equate myths of Balder with the True, Living Jesus Christ. It is my own inability to do so. I feel that it does an injustice to Christ. I mean no offense to you, Didaskomenos, I just have difficulties in doing so.
...
The Bible is a different book than those myths that were written by ancients. The myths written by ancients were to talk about their kings and prove they were deity or sent by the deities. Genesis was in a way to counter what was circulating around, but not to counter it in the same fashion as what was being done. Instead, God countered it with True accounts of what He had done.

From this I gathered:
1) You apparently feel it is an injustice to relate Jesus in any way to a mythological character (notice I in no way suggest a full equivalency of Christ and Balder, only incidental comparisons).
2) You feel the Bible does not use mythology because historical narrative is a better way of presenting truth.
3) You feel that God, because he was interested in "True accounts", chose historical narrative over mythology for Genesis.
This leads me and everyone else to believe that you believe that mythology is less true than historical narrative. Is it a stretch to say that you believe mythology is untrue, or at least not true enough for God to use? Is it a stretch then to say that you prefer historical narrative over myth, or to say that you believe God prefers historical narrative over myth? It was a hypothetical with much basis in prior experience to say that "perhaps" you thought of myth as "innately evil." I cannot name a non-TE on this board who does not believe this. If you are the exception, bless you.

Well we disagree. To say that Christ's resurrection was not an atonement is to deny the purpose of it. Simple as that. Physical death was part of the fall of mankind and to say it wasn't is to say Christ's resurrection had no purpose and is not an atonement.

Well, atonement means to set "at one", set aright, make amends, harmonize. I have in no way denied that Christ's resurrection is part of his atonement! Please define atonement as you understand it and as I have violated it.

That is what is so interesting that, in my experience, many people just don't see. That the resurrection has power and a purpose. It is an atonement just as His death on the Cross was an atonement. To deny the physical death being part of the fall is to deny Christ's atonement.

You are still missing the point, Critias! I don't deny that Christ's resurrection had the purpose of making amends for physical death. It needed to be made amends for regardless of whether it was something from the beginning or a result of the Fall. If this does not answer your question I must be missing something again.

Hey man, I don't want to get into a mean-spirited fight about this. No malice was intended by my remarks. My apologies if I hit some sore spot.

 

[Critias]

I understand the logic in what you said. I just don't agree.

Fair enough.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Tree of Life, were both forbidden while Adam was in perfect communion with God. Adam never ate from the Tree of Life. God kicked him out before he had a chance. Right after Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, he had knowledge of good and evil. He saw himself naked and was embarrassed. Had he eaten from the Tree of Life instead, he would have lived forever. But he didn't. Therefore, Adam died physically, just the way he was designed and created. God did not say that Adam would "begin" a 930 year process of "dying".

I don't see where in the Bible the Tree of Life was forbidden while Adam was in perfect communion with God. Maybe you made a mistake in saying that?

I don't see either where we can say Adam did not eat of the Tree of Life. He could have or could not have, it doesn't say. So either position is an argument from silence. I believe this because even we who are saved can turn away from God. When we believe in Jesus Christ we now have eternal life. But when we turn away from Him, we lose that. Same thing could have happened in the Garden.

No, God did not say Adam would begin a 930 year process of dying, but God did say Adam would die. If Adam did stay in the Garden, would he have died? No. But now that he is outside of it, not being able to enter, he will die, just as God said he would.

By itself, "in the day" can be a little ambiguous. But when you put in context with other scripture, our interpretation either stands or falls.

The phrase 'in the day' is a figurative phrase to mean you shall now be subject to death. And Adam was.

Now I understand why you misinterpreted my earlier post.

It's all good.

Again, I apologize for that.

 

[Critias]

Well now, we're touchy, aren't we? I arrived at my conclusion about how you view myth in a very logical fashion. The following quotes led me to say what I did:

Touchy? Would you like me to create some beliefs for you and then argue against those beliefs claiming they are what you believe? I don't think you would enjoy other people telling you what you believe. Neither do I.

Your conclusions were not derived in a logical way. Did you ever ask me if that is what I believed about myths? No. Did you ask me anything about what you claimed I believe? No.

How is that logical then to make assumptions about my beliefs, when you have never conversed with me before? I see no logic in that. It is rather illogical to met someone for the first time and assume you know everything about what they believe.

Could it all be possible that I see the Almighty God to be Greater than a mythical person? Therefore I do not see it to be fitting to equate Him with that mythical person.

Never did I say myth cannot hold truth. I was talking about equating a mythical person with the Almighty God. You just assumed I thought myths cannot hold truth.

From this I gathered:
1) You apparently feel it is an injustice to relate Jesus in any way to a mythological character (notice I in no way suggest a full equivalency of Christ and Balder, only incidental comparisons).

As I said, I find it to be an injustice to take Balder, a mythical person, and equate him with God, the real Almighty God. In your first presentation of Balder, it seemed you were equating him to be like Jesus. I stated I cannot do this, that I see Jesus to be a real God and Balder to be a fantasy. That for me is a big difference because I have a real relationship with Jesus Christ and could never have a real relationship with Balder.

2) You feel the Bible does not use mythology because historical narrative is a better way of presenting truth.

How did you gather this? Where did I talk about historical narrative or mythology in detail?

3) You feel that God, because he was interested in "True accounts", chose historical narrative over mythology for Genesis.

Where did I express this? Where did I talk about this previously?

This leads me and everyone else to believe that you believe that mythology is less true than historical narrative. Is it a stretch to say that you believe mythology is untrue, or at least not true enough for God to use? Is it a stretch then to say that you prefer historical narrative over myth, or to say that you believe God prefers historical narrative over myth? It was a hypothetical with much basis in prior experience to say that "perhaps" you thought of myth as "innately evil." I cannot name a non-TE on this board who does not believe this. If you are the exception, bless you.

So you speak for everyone else now? Again, where did I state such a thing about historical narratives? Where did I state that mythology is less true? Where did I state that I was not a theistic evolutionist or that I was of some other belief?

Let me tell you what I think you may be doing. You are judging me, whom you have never had a conversation with until now, on the basis of every other person you have talked with that disagrees with you.

Well, atonement means to set "at one", set aright, make amends, harmonize. I have in no way denied that Christ's resurrection is part of his atonement! Please define atonement as you understand it and as I have violated it.

Atonement means to reconcile. Reconcile means to reestablish. Reestablish means to fix or restore.

When you claim physical death was not part of the fall, then you are claiming that Christ's resurrection is not an atonement. The whole New Testament teaches that the resurrection is the atonement of our physical bodies. That Christ will resurrect our bodies as His was, to be incorruptable and immortal. Indeed His resurrection is the atonement of our bodies.

If you claim that we did not suffer physical death at the fall then you do deny Christ's resurrection as the atonement.

You are still missing the point, Critias! I don't deny that Christ's resurrection had the purpose of making amends for physical death. It needed to be made amends for regardless of whether it was something from the beginning or a result of the Fall. If this does not answer your question I must be missing something again.

Of course I am missing the point because I don't believe as you.

If God created us to die, then why do our bodies need to be restored so that they can be immortal? It makes not sense to restore to something that never was.

Hey man, I don't want to get into a mean-spirited fight about this. No malice was intended by my remarks. My apologies if I hit some sore spot.

You didn't hit a sore spot Didaskomenos. You simply showed you have no interest in what I believe, simply by telling me what I believe then arguing against it.

Again, is this how you treat every new person you meet? Tell them what they believe and why they are wrong, without them ever telling you what they actually believe?

 

[shernren]

Critias, this is the problem with cyber discussions. You're not there in front of Didas, you can't correct him when he thinks you believe something, and then you go on a rant just because he seems to have misunderstood you. He is not trying to offend you, he's not trying to turn you off. The simple fact is that many YECs start from a position of myth being inferior and useless and progress to saying that therefore if Genesis is myth it is inferior and useless compared to Genesis being historical-literal. Maybe it wasn't yet clear that you aren't taking that tack.

I agree that it may seem offensive to take such a comparison. But Jesus compared Himself before to water and to a sheep-gate. He compared the Holy Spirit's working to leaven, the eternal catholic Church to a big tree, and His Heavenly Father to a human father, a violent feast-throwing king and a vineyard owner. I cannot have a real relationship with Balder, but I could see in Balder a dim image of Jesus, pierce through that image to find Jesus (with the help of the Bible) and have a real relationship with Jesus. Perhaps Didas means that the use of Adam is similar - even if Adam is mythical, he may be used to complement and to comment upon the characteristics of a very real Jesus.

Atonement means to reconcile. Reconcile means to reestablish. Reestablish means to fix or restore.

When you claim physical death was not part of the fall, then you are claiming that Christ's resurrection is not an atonement. The whole New Testament teaches that the resurrection is the atonement of our physical bodies. That Christ will resurrect our bodies as His was, to be incorruptable and immortal. Indeed His resurrection is the atonement of our bodies.

If you claim that we did not suffer physical death at the fall then you do deny Christ's resurrection as the atonement.

Firstly I wonder which dictionary that came from. but that's not my main contention. Simply: if physical death was the main effect of the Fall, shouldn't the main effect of the atonement be the abolishment of physical death? We run into snags there: for firstly, Christians die.

But secondly, and far more gravely, did Christ atone for the wicked? The Bible speaks of physical punishment for the wicked in the afterlife - unless you can tell me what a spiritual lake, spiritual brimstone and spiritual smoke are! The wicked are in a state of physical damnation because they have physical bodies. Moreover, since their physical damnation is eternal, so are their physical bodies. Now, where have we heard of eternal physical bodies before? That's right - it is "a result of Christ's atonement that brings resurrection", isn't it? But how can Christ's work have efficacy for the wicked??

The Bible says that the wicked and the righteous will be resurrected together at the End, and that resurrection is a physical resurrection (since the following states are physical states). So if the resurrection of the righteous is a result of Christ's atonement, what is the resurrection of the wicked a result of?? In fact this is a theological problem when you allow dualism to creep in, namely the idea ("ghost in the machine") that there is a physical body and a spiritual soul that are ontologically separable. They are not.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Wow, you're in this for blood!

Could it all be possible that I see the Almighty God to be Greater than a mythical person? Therefore I do not see it to be fitting to equate Him with that mythical person.

As C.S. Lewis said, in Christ myth became fact. Christ was equally a mythological and historical person. He cannot be greater than Himself.

Never did I say myth cannot hold truth. I was talking about equating a mythical person with the Almighty God. You just assumed I thought myths cannot hold truth.

Now who's making assumptions? Where did I say that you think myths cannot hold truth?

As I said, I find it to be an injustice to take Balder, a mythical person, and equate him with God, the real Almighty God. In your first presentation of Balder, it seemed you were equating him to be like Jesus. I stated I cannot do this, that I see Jesus to be a real God and Balder to be a fantasy. That for me is a big difference because I have a real relationship with Jesus Christ and could never have a real relationship with Balder.

As for "3) You feel that God, because he was interested in "True accounts", chose historical narrative over mythology for Genesis." I took that from the quote:

Genesis was in a way to counter what was circulating around, but not to counter it in the same fashion as what was being done. Instead, God countered it with True accounts of what He had done.

Once again, why equate "True" with "historical" if you did not think historical was more "true" than myth? You made it clear in those quotes that you thought that God didn't want to use mythology, but instead chose to use "True accounts". This necessarily belittles mythology to less than true status. If you had said, "Instead, God countered it with an historical account of what He had done," we wouldn't be arguing.

After I told you that I do not fully equate Jesus with any other mythological figure, you still told me that you feel nevertheless that it would have been disrespectful for Paul to compare Christ to a mythological person. Assuming you had read my post (perhaps a misstep), I cannot but assume that you feel it is disrespectful to compare Christ with a mythological character even on an incidental basis! Funny that you're not shocked that He was paralleled to sinful, fallen Adam, but that I would even in small points compare Him to sinless Balder.

What I find puzzling is that you keep telling me where I am wrong about what you believe, but refuse to correct me by telling me what you do believe.

Where did I state that I was not a theistic evolutionist or that I was of some other belief?

Don't try this. You said on another thread that TE's who believe in a literal Adam and Eve believe something absurd(http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16247939&postcount=1). Since you've made it clear on this thread that you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and surely you wouldn't knowingly believe anything absurd, you must not be a theistic evolutionist! Stop trying to be slippery. Tell me what you believe and I won't have to read between the lines.

Let me tell you what I think you may be doing. You are judging me, whom you have never had a conversation with until now, on the basis of every other person you have talked with that disagrees with you.

I have demonstrated that my assumptions were based on the quotes. Heaven forbid I disagree with you for the same things I disagree with other people for.

Atonement means to reconcile. Reconcile means to reestablish. Reestablish means to fix or restore.

Yes, the word atonement can mean those things. Especially "fix". No one's denying there's something broken about death. The "re-" aspect is only one possible subset of meanings. If you look it up, you'll find there are many meanings that don't have the semantics of "again". So now we're arguing over the best dictionary translation, ignoring the glaring fact that "atonement" is not in the Bible - because it's an English word. Your choice of definition for atonement is as much theologically motivated as anything else.

If you claim that we did not suffer physical death at the fall then you do deny Christ's resurrection as the atonement.

I do not claim that. I claim there was no Fall, and that atonement for physical death via Christ's resurrection was necessary because there was physical death before the first Homo sapiens walked the earth.

If God created us to die, then why do our bodies need to be restored so that they can be immortal? It makes not sense to restore to something that never was.

Not restored, but fixed. Atoned for.

Listen, let's stop bickering about this. It's not getting us anywhere. To whatever extent I'm making assumptions about your beliefs, at least I'm not making assumptions about your character.

 

[Critias]

Critias, this is the problem with cyber discussions. You're not there in front of Didas, you can't correct him when he thinks you believe something, and then you go on a rant just because he seems to have misunderstood you. He is not trying to offend you, he's not trying to turn you off. The simple fact is that many YECs start from a position of myth being inferior and useless and progress to saying that therefore if Genesis is myth it is inferior and useless compared to Genesis being historical-literal. Maybe it wasn't yet clear that you aren't taking that tack.

The problem is not the cyber discussion. The problem is that he did not even ask me a question to know what I believe. Instead he created a strawman and argued against that. That is not the fault of cyberspace, that is the fault of the one presenting the argument.

Secondly, where I have stated what position I have taken on origins for him or you to assume you know? Neither of you have asked, but rather have assumed. Is that the fault of the internet or you?

I agree that it may seem offensive to take such a comparison. But Jesus compared Himself before to water and to a sheep-gate. He compared the Holy Spirit's working to leaven, the eternal catholic Church to a big tree, and His Heavenly Father to a human father, a violent feast-throwing king and a vineyard owner. I cannot have a real relationship with Balder, but I could see in Balder a dim image of Jesus, pierce through that image to find Jesus (with the help of the Bible) and have a real relationship with Jesus. Perhaps Didas means that the use of Adam is similar - even if Adam is mythical, he may be used to complement and to comment upon the characteristics of a very real Jesus.

We are not talking about a comparison, we are talking about equating. There is a difference. That was the impression I got from his first post on this. I simply explained my position without attacking his or saying it was wrong. He returned with an explanation of what he meant by that, one which I was fine by. He then continued to attack my position by telling me what I believe and why it is wrong.

I am not upset by his tactics, but trying to make a point about his tactics. If this is the way he treats everyone, and people like yourself come to defend him, this says a lot about you both. It shows that neither of you care about anyone elses position, you are out to solely be right.

That he will create strawmans and argue against those telling the someone he is arguing against what they believe.

Firstly I wonder which dictionary that came from. but that's not my main contention. Simply: if physical death was the main effect of the Fall, shouldn't the main effect of the atonement be the abolishment of physical death? We run into snags there: for firstly, Christians die.

The American and Webster dictionary. Now, where did I say that physical death was the "main" effect of the fall? Again, another strawman.

We don't run into snags on the atonement of the resurrection if one listens and understands Paul's teachings on it, simple as that.

But secondly, and far more gravely, did Christ atone for the wicked? The Bible speaks of physical punishment for the wicked in the afterlife - unless you can tell me what a spiritual lake, spiritual brimstone and spiritual smoke are! The wicked are in a state of physical damnation because they have physical bodies. Moreover, since their physical damnation is eternal, so are their physical bodies. Now, where have we heard of eternal physical bodies before? That's right - it is "a result of Christ's atonement that brings resurrection", isn't it? But how can Christ's work have efficacy for the wicked??

No where in Scripture does it say the wicked will inherit incorruptable and immortal bodies. Paul is specifically speaking about those in Christ.

This is what happens when you create the meaning within the Bible...confusion over the doctrine.

The Bible says that the wicked and the righteous will be resurrected together at the End, and that resurrection is a physical resurrection (since the following states are physical states). So if the resurrection of the righteous is a result of Christ's atonement, what is the resurrection of the wicked a result of?? In fact this is a theological problem when you allow dualism to creep in, namely the idea ("ghost in the machine") that there is a physical body and a spiritual soul that are ontologically separable. They are not.

Yes, all people will be resurrected. Only those in Christ will receive bodies like Christ. Where in Scripture does it say that the dead in Christ will receive a body like His, incorruptable and immortal?

In fact, this is a theological problem of one creating the meaning of what the Bible says. It is not what do you think the Bible says, it is what is the Bible saying.

 

[Critias]

Wow, you're in this for blood!


As C.S. Lewis said, in Christ myth became fact. Christ was equally a mythological and historical person. He cannot be greater than Himself.

I don't see Christ as mythical, simple as that.

Now who's making assumptions? Where did I say that you think myths cannot hold truth?

Read your post #25.

"That's because you believe mythology is false and perhaps even innately evil." -- Didaskomenos.

As for "3) You feel that God, because he was interested in "True accounts", chose historical narrative over mythology for Genesis." I took that from the quote:

Do you see how you started that sentence: "You feel..." You never asked me if that is how I felt, you assumed. Obviously you see nothing wrong with telling people what they feel and believe when you don't even know them.

I did not say, your quote of me, that God was interested in "True accounts" but rather God countered the myths of the day that exalted the kings, with a true account that exalted God.

Once again, why equate "True" with "historical" if you did not think historical was more "true" than myth? You made it clear in those quotes that you thought that God didn't want to use mythology, but instead chose to use "True accounts". This necessarily belittles mythology to less than true status. If you had said, "Instead, God countered it with an historical account of what He had done," we wouldn't be arguing.

Interesting first statement. First off, you you are again making an assumption when you state what you think my reason for equating True with historical. My reason is not that myths cannot hold truth.

Historical is always true in the sense that it did really happen, so how can I not equate historical with true? Historically speaking, WWII happened, it is a true event. You cannot say it was false, something that did not happen. By default historical is true because it did happen.

It seems by your reasoning that if I choose something over another I am belittle the other. That makes no sense. Sometimes different circumstances call for different techiques. Because we opt for different ways to express ourselves for certain occassions does not mean I am belittling the one I did not use.

The norm for the time was to tell myths to exalt kings as either deities or as the deities personal representative. This was so that all people would come and bow down to the King because he was exalted over all men. That was the purpose of the many myths.

I suggested that God had a different style to tell a story of what really happened to set aside all the other tales of exalted kings, to show that God is the only Exalted King. For kings can only tell myths of things they do not know, God can tell truths of everything for there is nothing that He does not know.

Myths do indeed hold truth, but they are not true. They are methods used by mortal men to tell of stories in which they are limited in knowledge. God is not.

Your problem exists that because I believe God tells us true historical accounts of Creation that I think myths don't tell truths by default. That is your assumption based on nothing but your intention of telling me what I believe.

The only reason I have continued this conversation with you is not because I care to debate this subject, but because of your treatment of person you do not even know. You assume you know me and so you can freely tell me what I believe and judge me on that. I am trying to make a point that you cannot do this and everytime you do, you have lost any ability you have to persuade anyone of anything.

You see, because of what you have already done, there is nothing you can do or say to persuade me of anything. You have shown you have no interest in what I believe nor do you care. Therefore I can conclude upon your treatment of me, that all you care about in this conversation is showing that you are right. Whether this is actually how you feel or not is now not important because this is how you have presented yourself to me.

Let me make this clear, I am not upset nor bothered by what you have said, but I am trying to make you aware of what you are doing here. If you treat a non-Christian like this, you will not have any grounds to witness to them. If you are speaking to a "lost-Christian" you will not have any grounds to persuade them that you are indeed right. This is all because of your presentation of assuming you know what they believe without ever asking.

After I told you that I do not fully equate Jesus with any other mythological figure, you still told me that you feel nevertheless that it would have been disrespectful for Paul to compare Christ to a mythological person. Assuming you had read my post (perhaps a misstep), I cannot but assume that you feel it is disrespectful to compare Christ with a mythological character even on an incidental basis! Funny that you're not shocked that He was paralleled to sinful, fallen Adam, but that I would even in small points compare Him to sinless Balder.

No, I don't hold you to that. I have not be engaging against you on that subject of Jesus and Balder. I have stated what I believe and my inability to equate them or see Jesus as mythical. That is my statement about what I believe, it is independent of what you said.

I stated that I don't think Paul would see Adam as mythical since Paul was Jewish and they believed Adam was a literal person at that time. I also stated that I don't think Paul would equate Jesus to a myth.

What I find puzzling is that you keep telling me where I am wrong about what you believe, but refuse to correct me by telling me what you do believe.

You keep telling me what I believe without ever asking me. You have showed you don't care about what I believe, so why I would I share?

Don't try this. You said on another thread that TE's who believe in a literal Adam and Eve believe something absurd(http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16247939&postcount=1). Since you've made it clear on this thread that you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and surely you wouldn't knowingly believe anything absurd, you must not be a theistic evolutionist! Stop trying to be slippery. Tell me what you believe and I won't have to read between the lines.

See again, you are creating a strawman. Go read what I said. I said a person who believes that there was pre-adamic man in a world, without sin; where God took Adam and Eve, from them, into a Garden and then gave them the option to sin, only to kick them back out again to a now sinful world, is absurd.

Really, I could not be a theistic evolutionist? Here you go again, assuming, without asking, that you know what I believe. With such a wide range of beliefs within the theisic evolutionists world, you believe there can be no different belief than what has already been presented?

This is your problem, you don't even ask, you just assume.

With all that you already assumed about me, without asking me what I believe you have shown you don't care what I believe. So I see no reason to tell someone what I believe when they don't even care.

I have demonstrated that my assumptions were based on the quotes. Heaven forbid I disagree with you for the same things I disagree with other people for.

I am ok with you disagreeing with. You just don't ask what I believe, you just assume and argue against your assumptions.

Yes, the word atonement can mean those things. Especially "fix". No one's denying there's something broken about death. The "re-" aspect is only one possible subset of meanings. If you look it up, you'll find there are many meanings that don't have the semantics of "again". So now we're arguing over the best dictionary translation, ignoring the glaring fact that "atonement" is not in the Bible - because it's an English word. Your choice of definition for atonement is as much theologically motivated as anything else.

If you simply disagree that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an atonement because the word atonement is not in the Bible, then fine.

I do not claim that. I claim there was no Fall, and that atonement for physical death via Christ's resurrection was necessary because there was physical death before the first Homo sapiens walked the earth.

So did God create physical death to be part of the sinless world and then sent Christ to atone for what He created to originally be?

Not restored, but fixed. Atoned for.

Listen, let's stop bickering about this. It's not getting us anywhere. To whatever extent I'm making assumptions about your beliefs, at least I'm not making assumptions about your character.

Those are the definitions for the word. If you don't like them, I am sure you can send them a better definition. Maybe they will hear your argument out, but I wouldn't approach it by telling them what they think without asking them like you have with me.

I am trying to point out that if you keep just assuming what everyone believes and never ask them first, no one is going to ever be persuaded by you. Your ability to witness will not be an ability but rather a reason for people to stay away from Christianity.

You could at least asked me what I believed before you told me what I believed and argued against that. Instead you showed me you don't care what I believe.

 

[TheBear]

edit