Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

[Clare73]

If, as you say, everything depends on the literal historical exitance of Adam and Eve, one would have no choice but to defend that literal belief at all costs and in the face of all contrary evidence. It is Christian tradition to do so. I acknowledge that. But I do not acknowledge that the life and mission of Jesus depends on it even though NT writings utilize a literal sense to explain Jesus.

I'm thinking the NT didn't get it wrong. . .and Paul having received his doctrine in heaven from Jesus (2 Co 12:1-9, Gal 1:11-12), I am in no position to second guess Paul and, therefore, Genesis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm thinking the NT didn't get it wrong. . .and Paul having received his doctrine in heaven from Jesus (2 Co 12:1-9, Gal 1:11-12), I am in no position to second guess Paul and, therefore, Genesis.

For my part, I'm not saying that "Paul got it wrong." What I'm saying from my viewpoint is that it appears that where ancient paradigms rub up against our modern paradigm, Paul's direct encounter with Kerygma was enveloped in the ancient ontological paradigm of his time, and thus, we have to pull out his actual historical and personal experiences of Christ from out of the more ancient envelope in which they were placed into in the 1st century.

To understand what I'm saying, you'd have to study the History of Historiography to get some insight. If you can't or won't, well, so be it.

 

[Clare73]

If, as you say, everything depends on the literal historical exitance of Adam and Eve, one would have no choice but to defend that literal belief at all costs and in the face of all contrary evidence.

Contrary "evidence" is in the mind of the beholder.

It is Christian tradition to do so. I acknowledge that. But I do not acknowledge that the life and mission of Jesus depends on it even though NT writings utilize a literal sense to explain Jesus.

My faith is not in nor based on literary devices, but in/on actual reality as reported in Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

For my part, I'm not saying that "Paul got it wrong." What I'm saying from my viewpoint is that it appears that where ancient paradigms rub up against our modern paradigm, Paul's direct encounter with Kerygma was enveloped in the ancient ontological paradigm of his time, and thus, we have to pull out his actual historical and personal experiences of Christ from out of the more ancient envelope in which they were placed into in the 1st century.

It's about divine revelation (2 Co 12:1-9, Gal 1:11-12) where the doctrines revealed by Paul are not dependant on historical nor personal experience.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's about divine revelation, where the doctrines revealed by Paul are not dependant on historical nor personal experience.

Which sentences written by Paul are those that are a direct result of Paul's revelational experience "in heaven"?

Do you have an exhaustive list...... ?

 

[Clare73]

Which sentences written by Paul are those that are a direct result of Paul's revelational experience "in heaven"?

Do you have an exhaustive list...... ?

It's not complicated. . .

All NT revelation from Paul which Is not recorded in the OT is the direct result of Paul's revelation in heaven (2 Co 12:1-9); e.g.,
1) imputation of Adams' sin to all those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16, 18-19),
2) imputation of Christ's rIghteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9),
3) imputation of Adam's sin being the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imuputation of Christ's righteusness Ro 5:18-19),
4) salvation only by faith in the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ (Ro 3:25, Eph 2:8-9),
5) law not given for salvation but only to reveal sin (Ro 3:20), which salvation has always been by faith (Ge 15:5-6, Ro 4:1-5),
6) doctrines regarding election to salvation,
7) etc., etc., etc.

I'll let you do the homework of completing the exhaustive list, that way you will be more likely to remember it.

Paul received his doctrine in heaven, as did Jesus (Jn 3:13).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

My faith is not in nor based on literary devices, but in/on actual reality as reported in Scripture.

Your faith is based on literary genres found in scripture. You just interpret them differently than I and others here do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not complicated. . .

All NT revelation from Paul which Is not recorded in the OT is the direct result of Paul's revelation in heaven (2 Co 12:1-9); e.g.,
1) imputation of Adams' sin to all those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16, 18-19),
2) imputation of Christ's rIghteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9),
3) imputation of Adam's sin being the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imuputation of Christ's righteusness Ro 5:18-19),
4) salvation only by faith in the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ (Ro 3:25, Eph 2:8-9),
5) law not given for salvation but only to reveal sin (Ro 3:20), which salvation has always been by faith (Ge 15:5-6, Ro 4:1-5),
6) doctrines regarding election to salvation,
7) etc., etc., etc.

I'll let you do the homework of completing the exhaustive list, that way you will be more likely to remember it.

Paul received his doctrine in heaven, as did Jesus (Jn 3:13).

You're so helpful, Clare.

 

[Clare73]

Your faith is based on literary genres found in scripture. You just interpret them differently than I and others here do.

I just believe them, as did Jesus, who believed the OT was the "word of God" in every detail (Jn 10:35, Lk 11:28, 5:1),
that it was the truth of God vested with the authority of God and backed by the power of God (Mt 5:17-19).
He treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture, for "the scripture cannot be broken." (Mt 4:5, Mt 4:7, Mt 4:10, Jn 10:35). God's word holds good forever.
He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scripture: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?". . ."Have you not read. . .?". . ."Go and learn what this means. . ." (Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, Mt 12:5, Mt 19:4, Mt 21:16, Mt 21:42,
Mt 9:13).

Likewise, Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the word of God:
he lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Lk 4:17-21, Mt 8:16-17, Mt 11:2-5),
and then he died in obedience to Scripture (Lk 18:31, Mk 8:31, Mk 9:31, Mk 10:33-34, Mt 26:24, Lk 22:37, Mt 26:53-56),
when he arose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47, Lk 24:27),
he presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40, Jn 5:46-47).

Belief in the truth of the OT was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

I'm sure you'll understand if I agree with Jesus.

 

[ARBITER01]

It's not complicated. . .

All NT revelation from Paul which Is not recorded in the OT is the direct result of Paul's revelation in heaven (2 Co 12:1-9); e.g.,
1) imputation of Adams' sin to all those of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-16, 18-19),
2) imputation of Christ's rIghteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19, 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9),
3) imputation of Adam's sin being the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imuputation of Christ's righteusness Ro 5:18-19),
4) salvation only by faith in the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ (Ro 3:25, Eph 2:8-9),
5) law not given for salvation but only to reveal sin (Ro 3:20), which salvation has always been by faith (Ge 15:5-6, Ro 4:1-5),
6) doctrines regarding election to salvation,
7) etc., etc., etc.

I'll let you do the homework of completing the exhaustive list, that way you will be more likely to remember it.

Paul received his doctrine in heaven, as did Jesus (Jn 3:13).

One slight correction, if I may,....

Gal 1:12 For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

The whole of the NT teachings for the church was entrusted unto Paul from Jesus. They still originate from Jesus, but were not given till He was seated next to The Father in Heaven.

 

[ARBITER01]

No, there's still a reason for Jesus to fulfill all that He fulfilled. Because even if Adam and Eve weren't literally 'real' historical people, all that is needed is for a statement from God, through a prophet, to be given to humanity to the effect that, "All have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of God."

I'm way more apt to trust that when GOD says something, it is not just the truth, but absolute fact. I don't consider Him just declaring something falsely into existence that never happened.

 

[Clare73]

You're so helpful, Clare.

You're so appreciative, Phil.

 

[Clare73]

For my part, I'm not saying that "Paul got it wrong." What I'm saying from my viewpoint is that it appears that where ancient paradigms rub up against our modern paradigm, Paul's direct encounter with Kerygma was enveloped in the ancient ontological paradigm of his time, and thus, we have to pull out his actual historical and personal experiences of Christ from out of the more ancient envelope in which they were placed into in the 1st century.

To understand what I'm saying, you'd have to study the History of Historiography to get some insight. If you can't or won't, well, so be it.

See Jesus' viewpoint of the OT in post #69.

That view works for me, needs no improving upon.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Because even if Adam and Eve weren't literally 'real' historical people, all that is needed is for a statement from God, through a prophet, to be given to humanity to the effect that, "All have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of God."

So God would lie? I am out of this nonsensical conversation

 

[Clare73]

So God would lie? I am out of this nonsensical conversation

A guy's gotta' do what a guy's gotta' do to bring Scripture into agreement with one's personal non-Biblical view.

Otherwise, one might have to submit to Biblical teaching contrary to one's personal view. . .maybe the imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind (Ro 5:17, 12-16, 18-19), condemning all mankind at birth, making them by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3)?

 

[HBP]

So do I.

My question is directed to those questioning the legitimacy of the account. If it is not true, then there would be no reason for Jesus to demand that we be born from above, and His work He accomplished here was unnecessary. He could of just stayed up in heaven.

I don't see that this is true at all. Adam and Eve represent humanity, the human condition. Among the profound spiritual insights of the Adam and Eve account are that humans (1) are finite creatures answerable to a creator, (2) are incapable of reaching the creator's standard of holiness; (3) have a mysterious attraction to evil; and (4) are thus estranged from the creator. The whole point of the Adam and Eve account is that, in a nutshell, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Another way of saying this is simply "all are human and not divine." There are numerous models as to how the Atonement actually "works," but in broadest terms Jesus' message is simply "You don't have to be estranged from God. I offer you a way to bridge the gulf." The necessity of Jesus and his message in no way hinge on a literal Adam and Eve.

The literalist is so locked into an "A, then B, then C, then D, and therefore Y" sort of mindset that the theology becomes cartoonish and all the mystery and profundity of Christianity are lost. The literalist can't see the glorious forest for all the literalist trees. Statements such as "I am the way and the truth and the life," "No one comes to the father except through me," and "You must be born again from above" are huge mysteries that could be meditated upon for the rest of one's life - but not to a literalist, for whom they are just theological boxes to be checked, little litmus tests to gauge whether one is a "real" Christian. Hence my description of literalism as Perpetual Vacation Bible School. I don't say it's wrong or displeasing to God, merely that it seems to me a shallower version of Christianity than I could accept.

 

[ARBITER01]

I don't see that this is true at all. Adam and Eve represent humanity, the human condition. Among the profound spiritual insights of the Adam and Eve account are that humans (1) are finite creatures answerable to a creator, (2) are incapable of reaching the creator's standard of holiness; (3) have a mysterious attraction to evil; and (4) are thus estranged from the creator. The whole point of the Adam and Eve account is that, in a nutshell, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Another way of saying this is simply "all are human and not divine." There are numerous models as to how the Atonement actually "works," but in broadest terms Jesus' message is simply "You don't have to be estranged from God. I offer you a way to bridge the gulf." The necessity of Jesus and his message in no way hinge on a literal Adam and Eve.

The literalist is so locked into an "A, then B, then C, then D, and therefore Y" sort of mindset that the theology becomes cartoonish and all the mystery and profundity of Christianity are lost. The literalist can't see the glorious forest for all the literalist trees. Statements such as "I am the way and the truth and the life," "No one comes to the father except through me," and "You must be born again from above" are huge mysteries that could be meditated upon for the rest of one's life - but not to a literalist, for whom they are just theological boxes to be checked, little litmus tests to gauge whether one is a "real" Christian. Hence my description of literalism as Perpetual Vacation Bible School. I don't say it's wrong or displeasing to God, merely that it seems to me a shallower version of Christianity than I could accept.

If there is no truth, there is no reality.

 

[ARBITER01]

A guy's gotta' do what a guy's gotta' do to bring Scripture into agreement with one's personal non-Biblical view.

Otherwise, one might have to submit to Biblical teaching contrary to one's personal view. . .maybe the imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind (Ro 5:17, 12-16, 18-19), condemning all mankind at birth, making them by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3)?

Personal belief seems to be very popular in this particular section of the message board for some reason.

 

[HBP]

So God would lie? I am out of this nonsensical conversation

I think you're missing the point. Regardless of whether Adam and Eve were historical figures, Genesis expresses the core truth about the human condition, about what it means to be human. To be human is to be less than divine, less than holy, estranged from the creator. How would it constitute a "lie" by God to express this core truth to ancient Jews in metaphorical, literary terms they could easily grasp? Are the most profound works of poetry and fiction all "lies"? No, they convey their truths in non-literal terms because this is the most effective way to convey them.

Do the literalist folks also accept the cosmology of Genesis - the waters above and the waters below, separated by the vault of the sky, with the sun, moon and stars all attached to the vault? Really, you do? If not, why not - why is the ancient Jewish cosmology not to be taken literally but the account of Adam and Eve is?

 

[HBP]

If there is no truth, there is no reality.

I'm sure you think you've said something profound here, but you'd have to flesh it out for me. Reality - whatever actually, ontologically exists - is by definition true. It can't be otherwise. If there were no God, this would be the reality and the truth. In the context of this discussion, I see no applicability to what you've said. If Adam and Eve are simply literary fictions, as I believe they are, this has nothing at all to do with the truth or reality of the Bible or Christianity. ONLY IF ONE STARTS WITH A LITERALIST MINDSET is it a problem - "The Bible refers to Adam and Eve, and if there was no Adam and Eve THEN THE BIBLE ISN'T TRUE!!!" This is exactly the fundamentalist mindset that so easily flips to atheism. It's exactly what happened to Bart Ehrman and has happened to umpteen others. Literalism is a very fragile house of cards just waiting to collapse.