Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
Contrary "evidence" is in the mind of the beholder.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.
My faith is not in nor based on literary devices, but in/on actual reality as reported in Scripture.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.
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.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, where the doctrines revealed by Paul are not dependant on historical nor personal experience.
It's not complicated. . .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...... ?
Your faith is based on literary genres found in scripture. You just interpret them differently than I and others here do.My faith is not in nor based on literary devices, but in/on actual reality as reported in Scripture.
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).
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),Your faith is based on literary genres found in scripture. You just interpret them differently than I and others here do.
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).
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."
See Jesus' viewpoint of the OT in post #69.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.
So God would lie? I am out of this nonsensical conversationBecause 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."
A guy's gotta' do what a guy's gotta' do to bring Scripture into agreement with one's personal non-Biblical view.So God would lie? I am out of this nonsensical conversation
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.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.
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)?
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.So God would lie? I am out of this nonsensical conversation
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.If there is no truth, there is no reality.
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?