The theology of a symbolic Adam

[A Beautiful Truth]

Tell me what you think. There are a number of Christians who argue for a non-literal Adam. What do you think are the major problems with this? Though I do not know all the arguments thouroughly, I'll try to be an advocate for them (even though I am undecided as of yet). Of course theistic evolutionists are encouraged to join in and defend their position concerning the theology.

*This is not a thread about the age of the earth.*

I will be very sensitive to stay on topic and not go to any other aspects like the AGE OF THE EARTH or SCIENCE or the like, this is strictly about arguing from a THEOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW for either an historical or a symbolic Adam.

One last thing...

*Please be nice*

~Charleen

[Warcraft3]

Tell me what you think. There are a number of Christians who argue for a non-literal Adam. What do you think are the major problems with this? Though I do not know all the arguments thouroughly, I'll try to be an advocate for them (even though I am undecided as of yet). Of course theistic evolutionists are encouraged to join in and defend their position concerning the theology.

*This is not a thread about the age of the earth.*

I will be very sensitive to stay on topic and not go to any other aspects like the AGE OF THE EARTH or SCIENCE or the like, this is strictly about arguing from a THEOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW for either an historical or a symbolic Adam.

One last thing...

*Please be nice*

~Charleen


:popcorn:

I will be watching this thread with great interest....



Russ

[Solly]

I think the main problems fall into two parts:

1. Literary. Significant parts fo the bible assume the existence of Adam and Eve, most especially Paul.

2. History. Again, the bible to most eyes endorses an historical view in which there is no break between the early parts of Genesis and the later parts, even if one accepts the higher critical idea that most of Genesis was written much later than Moses, even post exilic.

If Adam is not literarily and historically true, then we need other forms of interpretation, not only of the texts, but of how it all relates to us now. Ie, should we see all atonement/salvation statements as metaphors, not requiring a strict correspondance between the statements of later writers and the actuality or not of events recorded in the early parts of the Bible?

Within that, there is the matter of the human condition, spoken to by the Fall. If that is not literal, temporal, historical, then what is our condition?

[RoadRunner]

If Adam was non-literal, then how could St. Luke trace Jesus' genealogy back to Adam?

[Ormly]

If Adam was non-literal, then how could St. Luke trace Jesus' genealogy back to Adam?

.
1 Tim. 1:4 (NASB-U)
....nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. :wink:

[A Beautiful Truth]

Yes, Solly, those are the main concerns I have with it as well. Let me take a shot at it... (I am glad you responded, Solly. I am doing this as more of a personal educational project than to push a point)

I think the main problems fall into two parts:

1. Literary. Significant parts fo the bible assume the existence of Adam and Eve, most especially Paul.

Yes, I think this is the biggest challenge. Still, if we treat Adam as truth, even though not an historical figure, then we still have the theology of Paul, I believe.

Think of the symbolism in Revelation. We speak in terms of these things being true, even though we know they are true as symbols, and not literally. If Paul spoke of Adam in this way, because that is how God inspired the creation story, it does not affect the truth of the account, as when we speak of the Lamb affect the truth in the context of our mention of Him.

I once read that it seems fitting for the understanding of our origins and of our end to be apocalyptic in nature. These are truths, but they are spoken of in symbols. Because they are symbols does not make them untrue.

So Paul was speaking in the terms revealed to the Hebrews. If these are figures and he is speaking of them as real, he is not deceived or deceiving for they are still true.

2. History. Again, the bible to most eyes endorses an historical view in which there is no break between the early parts of Genesis and the later parts, even if one accepts the higher critical idea that most of Genesis was written much later than Moses, even post exilic.

Yes, I have been challenged by the geneologies. If Adam is symbolic, it is hard for me to understand these names--where they historical figures? Where they Hebrew characters in stories to give a moral? It is so much easier to believe they are historical records.

There is always the idea that Adam was not the originator of all mankind, but of the history of the Hebrew people. And I think I would support this view, but, Solly, the Garden account just seems so symbolic. This is very difficult for me. It seems so very ripe with symbolism. I want to believe it is all historical, but it seems to me the author had something else in mind. This particular point probably deserves a seperate thread, actually, it is the main objection I have to take the account as historical.

If Adam is not literarily and historically true, then we need other forms of interpretation, not only of the texts, but of how it all relates to us now. Ie, should we see all atonement/salvation statements as metaphors, not requiring a strict correspondance between the statements of later writers and the actuality or not of events recorded in the early parts of the Bible?

Within that, there is the matter of the human condition, spoken to by the Fall. If that is not literal, temporal, historical, then what is our condition?

It goes without saying that if we view the origin of man in Genesis as symbolic, then we understand that it needs to be symbolic of something true. If God did reveal this as a symbol then perhaps the truth behind the symbol is unimportant for us to understand.

As a friend once explained to me--if your young child asks you where do babies come from, you can tell him something true like your mommy and I loved each other very much and out of that love you were born. Rather vague, but true. Or you can say that the stork brought him, which is untrue. Perhaps God did not get into all the detalis behind the symbolic figues He gave us as an explanation, because it is unnessesary for us to understand the core truth behind it all.

I don't know, Solly, I am just trying to work this out. Thanks as usual for your input.

[Solly]

Yes, Solly, those are the main concerns I have with it as well. Let me take a shot at it... (I am glad you responded, Solly. I am doing this as more of a personal educational project than to push a point)

S'alright, it's still on my agenda, though on the back burner at the moment.

Yes, I think this is the biggest challenge. Still, if we treat Adam as truth, even though not an historical figure, then we still have the theology of Paul, I believe.

Think of the symbolism in Revelation. We speak in terms of these things being true, even though we know they are true as symbols, and not literally. If Paul spoke of Adam in this way, because that is how God inspired the creation story, it does not affect the truth of the account, as when we speak of the Lamb affect the truth in the context of our mention of Him.

I once read that it seems fitting for the understanding of our origins and of our end to be apocalyptic in nature. These are truths, but they are spoken of in symbols. Because they are symbols does not make them untrue.

So Paul was speaking in the terms revealed to the Hebrews. If these are figures and he is speaking of them as real, he is not deceived or deceiving for they are still true.

It is Calvin who said that God lisps. Ie, he speaks to us in ways we can understand, he accommodates himself to our intellects etc. It would be said by some, frothing at the mouth a little, that to follow this through would lead to liberal protestantism - as indeed it did for some when the responded to Darwin et al. I find myself moving in a liberal evangelical direction, I must say. However, on the point of they are still true, we need a whole new approach to what 'true' means. We have reduced it to meaning one thing. Hence some are up in arms at the use of words like myth, analogy, etc. True in the Bible comes in two main forms: true, as in correct, and true (verity) as in genuine. We major on the former, even YECs falling prey to the Enlightenment agenda that only 'facts' are true, whereas other things are not.

Yes, I have been challenged by the geneologies. If Adam is symbolic, it is hard for me to understand these names--where they historical figures? Where they Hebrew characters in stories to give a moral? It is so much easier to believe they are historical records.

There is always the idea that Adam was not the originator of all mankind, but of the history of the Hebrew people. And I think I would support this view, but, Solly, the Garden account just seems so symbolic. This is very difficult for me. It seems so very ripe with symbolism. I want to believe it is all historical, but it seems to me the author had something else in mind. This particular point probably deserves a seperate thread, actually, it is the main objection I have to take the account as historical.

I think this is why most critical theologies and studies of the OT start with Abraham, and see the earlier parts as back fill.

It goes without saying that if we view the origin of man in Genesis as symbolic, then we understand that it needs to be symbolic of something true. If God did reveal this as a symbol then perhaps the truth behind the symbol is unimportant for us to understand.

As a friend once explained to me--if your young child asks you where do babies come from, you can tell him something true like your mommy and I loved each other very much and out of that love you were born. Rather vague, but true. Or you can say that the stork brought him, which is untrue. Perhaps God did not get into all the detalis behind the symbolic figues He gave us as an explanation, because it is unnessesary for us to understand the core truth behind it all.

I don't know, Solly, I am just trying to work this out. Thanks as usual for your input.

This would make a very good case for a Christological understanding. he is the centre. What is said by him and about him should determine how the other parts fit in. What does Christ say about our condition. Fact is, scientifically, there is no way to determine when, where and how these things took place, or didn't take place. Or even what took place. The focus is the historical life death and resurrection of God, and God revealed in him; that is what makes the rest of the Bible important to us, rather than just dead languages literature. From my point of view, does the Gospel preached have a reaction, a challenge, does it bring to bear upon the person, and find a response in them. People soon realise what it means to be a son of Adam when the light of the Gospel shines on them, and continue to do so - mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - and God has given the structures within which to interpret that fact, a structure that stops it being my own private experience, and unites each one to a community of people stretching back thousands of years.
I'm going on a bit, and I have to go home as well. I hope George Murphy looks in here, and that Glenn will say something theological.
g'nite

slly

[technomage]

Tell me what you think. There are a number of Christians who argue for a non-literal Adam. What do you think are the major problems with this? Though I do not know all the arguments thouroughly, I'll try to be an advocate for them (even though I am undecided as of yet). Of course theistic evolutionists are encouraged to join in and defend their position concerning the theology.

*This is not a thread about the age of the earth.*

I will be very sensitive to stay on topic and not go to any other aspects like the AGE OF THE EARTH or SCIENCE or the like, this is strictly about arguing from a THEOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW for either an historical or a symbolic Adam.

OK, as I have said before, I do accept the post-exilic authorship (actually, the post-exilic redaction) of much of the Old Testament. However, for this discussion, there is no necessary dependance of my argument on when the OT was written, and my conclusions would remain the same whether or not Moses wrote the Torah.

Perhaps the problem is that, in this case, the literary cart is in front of the philosophical horse. The author(s) of the Torah obviously saw that humanity was continually doing things that were wrong--"evil," if you will. The obvious question, even more fundamental than "Where did this evil come from," is "What is evil?"

Remember, the Jews (like the Christians) posit a God who is omni-benevolent, but who is also just. To their thinking, a loving. just God could not have created an Earth with evil in it: He was not capable of it, because He was not capable of commiting evil. Like many other Middle-Eastern cultures, the Hebrews took an "Voluntarist" view of evil--in other words, something was good or evil solely and simply because YHVH said it was. This also points to the basic fallacy of assuming that the ritual purity laws of the Torah are intended as primitive hygenics laws: pork is not ritually unclean because it contains parasites; it is ritually unclean solely and simply because YHVH said so. Preventing trichinosis is a side benefit.

So the writer(s) of the Pentateuch sit down. He sees that there is evil in the world, but he cannot state that God created the evil, because God is incapable of doing so. The "Fall" mythology is an explanation of where evil comes from, but it is also an answer to the more fundamental question: in the Genesis account, evil is disobedience to God. So whether or not there was ever an actual Adam, his existence becomes philosophically necessary. In the Jewish mythology, it is man, not God, who introduces evil into the world.
OK, but that leaves us with problems: Solly notes the following:

I think the main problems fall into two parts:

1. Literary. Significant parts fo the bible assume the existence of Adam and Eve, most especially Paul.

2. History. Again, the bible to most eyes endorses an historical view in which there is no break between the early parts of Genesis and the later parts, even if one accepts the higher critical idea that most of Genesis was written much later than Moses, even post exilic.
I'm going to leave these two problems together, because they're actually the same problem.

There is no part of the Bible, with the possible exception of Acts, that is intended as a historical chronology--in the sense that we understand the words. Even the Torah and the History books are not histories: they are commentaries. Follow the logic: there is nothing in the Old Testament of the secular issues that the Hebrews faced. There is no War that does not also deal with theological issues. There is no famine that is not either a judgement from God, or is permitted to allow God to show his mercy. The only purpose of the Old Testament is to show a commentary of God's dealings with the Hebrews, and it all equates to one central theme: obey God and prosper, disobey God and fail.

In that sense, even Paul is not taking Adam as necessarily historical: it doesn't matter if Adam was a literal person, any more than it matters that the "Good Samaritan" of the parable was a real, historical person. What matters is that this put the issues of good and evil into terms that were understandable by the readers fo the Bible. (Note, however, that I do not assert that Paul was rejecting the historicity of Adam.)

If Adam is not literarily and historically true, then we need other forms of interpretation, not only of the texts, but of how it all relates to us now. Ie, should we see all atonement/salvation statements as metaphors, not requiring a strict correspondance between the statements of later writers and the actuality or not of events recorded in the early parts of the Bible?

Within that, there is the matter of the human condition, spoken to by the Fall. If that is not literal, temporal, historical, then what is our condition?
According to the understanding I have, there is no difference. Whether or not Adam had ever lived is immaterial, because the tale of the Fall was a story told to explain the origins of evil. Evil was already present in the world before the Torah was written, and whether you take the traditional view of authorship, or the critical view, you're still left with that evil.

The tale of Adam places that evil into context. God couldn't create a world with evil in it, so where did it come from? Obviously it came from a human being. What human being? Adam. (Note, however, that the word we translate as "Adam" is simply the Hebrew word for "man," in the generic sense.)

Yet there may be more problems. RoadRunner asks:

If Adam was non-literal, then how could St. Luke trace Jesus' genealogy back to Adam?
Tracing Jesus's genealogy back to Adam was imperative for the author of Luke: it fulfilled his theme that Jesus was connected to humanity in that he was fully human ("Luke" used other passages to assert that Jesus was God, but that's a completely different discussion.) But even if Adam was not a historical character, the author of Luke cannot be accused of lying: he was using the literature and literary style of the time.

Justin

[rmwilliamsjr]

the items of theology which a not literal Adam seems to effect are:

1.what does it make to be made in the image of God?
2.what does the breath of God, the spirit of God have to do with man as a living being?
3.the fall
4.original sin, both what it is and how it is transmitted.
5.the set of doctrines labelled -- federal headship in particular the strong Pauline parallel of the imputation of Adam's sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness

on the image of God, that is anthropology and seems quite contented to be a group of people bearing God's image

on the fall and original sin, if you accept the liberal ideas that it is metaphoric fall, or even the Mormon fall upward, then you haven't problems, seems to work with groups or figurative Adam just fine. But it you accept the traditional theology then without a single point fall in time and history then you have problems justifying the harshness of OS. So if you want to get rid of OS, making Adam literary rather than literal seems to help.

but the big issue is imputation of sin, first and later righteousness. if Adam is metaphorical where is the righteousness to impute? Where is the disobedience to use to justify the creation of 'damaged souls'?
this is the central doctrine that gets modified in a movement from a literal single person Adam to a metaphoric generalized fall of human beings.

[doulos]

Guys if we say that adam and eve is just a metaphor or story or whatever then how can we say that any part of the Bible is true. If we say one part is a metaphor then how can we know what is a metaphor and what is not. Maybe Jesus' death on the cross is a metaphor too. Maybe the whole Bible is just one big metaphor. Then what do we believe. All we have then is a book full of Hebrew Aesop's Fables.

I believe that Jesus is God, so Jesus will not tell a lie or refer to something that is not true. Jesus refers to the son of Adam and Eve (abel) so he obviously believed that Adam and Eve existed. That is good enough for me.

[seer]

It would be said by some, frothing at the mouth a little, that to follow this through would lead to liberal protestantism - as indeed it did for some when the responded to Darwin et al. I find myself moving in a liberal evangelical direction, I must say.

What else are you willing to give up Solly? The incarnation? The deity of Christ? A literal resurrection? Are you supporting gay marriage yet?

[technomage]

Guys if we say that adam and eve is just a metaphor or story or whatever then how can we say that any part of the Bible is true. If we say one part is a metaphor then how can we know what is a metaphor and what is not. Maybe Jesus' death on the cross is a metaphor too. Maybe the whole Bible is just one big metaphor. Then what do we believe. All we have then is a book full of Hebrew Aesop's Fables.

I believe that Jesus is God, so Jesus will not tell a lie or refer to something that is not true. Jesus refers to the son of Adam and Eve (abel) so he obviously believed that Adam and Eve existed. That is good enough for me.
Doulos, does that mean there has to have been a literal "Good Samaritan?" A literal Prodigal Son? Or a literal, specific fig tree, out of all the fig trees? A parable does not depend on being a literal example: it is a story that shows a moral precept, or gives an explanation.

In the same way, if Adam was a mythological or metaphoric symbol of "sin"coming into creation because of man's doing, then Jesus could have referred to Adam, or to Abel, and not have been referring to a "lie"--He was also referring to the metaphor, and more importantly, to the meaning of the metaphor.

The existence or non-existence of a "literal" Adam does not make Jesus a liar.

Justin

[just Johnna]

Tell me what you think. There are a number of Christians who argue for a non-literal Adam. What do you think are the major problems with this?

A literal Adam makes us one literal family. We are in relationship to each other, suggesting we treat each other with respect and value human life.

There have been times when one group of people ignores the Biblical record and denigrates another group of people as subhuman.

Christ is "good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people." Let there be no confusion about what all people means.

Peter said "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" and understood all nations of people were worthy to receive the Word.

I can see that symbolic Adam might cover these functions.
I believe in the power of reality.

just Johnna

[porter]

I think that another issue is what did people in Biblical times believe?

Did people in Moses time believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
Did people at the time of Ezra believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
Did people in the first century believe in a literal Adama and Eve?
Did Jesus believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
Or did they all realize that it was a story like Pilgim's Progress?

It seems to me that most people believed this story up until the Rennaisance.
And most people believed this story until the theory of evolution was conceived.
I think a goodly portion of Christians still believe that the story is literally true.

Personally, I think it reads like a science fiction story.

Porter

[A Beautiful Truth]

on the image of God, that is anthropology and seems quite contented to be a group of people bearing God's image

Body, soul, spirit?

on the fall and original sin, if you accept the liberal ideas that it is metaphoric fall, or even the Mormon fall upward, then you haven't problems, seems to work with groups or figurative Adam just fine. But it you accept the traditional theology then without a single point fall in time and history then you have problems justifying the harshness of OS. So if you want to get rid of OS, making Adam literary rather than literal seems to help.

We all sin, we all fall short. This is not God's failing, but man's. But this is why we have a Redeemer, God is merciful. With the question of why He choose this plan of putting humans in flesh and giving them the choice for obedience or disobedience, we find a similar answer in why does God allow evil and suffering now? For the Christian, the belief that God has an overarching plan answers enough.

It may be that if the Garden account is symbolic of humanity, then what is represented in that picture is the continual story of our lives. I see the suit followed even in my own children. Same basic story. We humans have the curiousity to do the thing we are not to do. What do we get for it? Every child grows through it. It's part of the human condition.

but the big issue is imputation of sin, first and later righteousness. if Adam is metaphorical where is the righteousness to impute? Where is the disobedience to use to justify the creation of 'damaged souls'?

Perhaps man has the choice to sin. Since God is so holy, even one sin is too much and He justifies His creation of such beings because of the sacrifice of His Son and the mercy given there outweighs the consequences of the human condition.

[A Beautiful Truth]

I think that another issue is what did people in Biblical times believe?

Did people in Moses time believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
Did people at the time of Ezra believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
Did people in the first century believe in a literal Adama and Eve?
Did Jesus believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
Or did they all realize that it was a story like Pilgim's Progress?

It seems to me that most people believed this story up until the Rennaisance.
And most people believed this story until the theory of evolution was conceived.
I think a goodly portion of Christians still believe that the story is literally true.

Personally, I think it reads like a science fiction story.


If the account is inspired, then it contains truth, whether you believe it literally or as a symbol. I would not deter my friends from speaking of Adam as literal nor would I deter my friends from speaking of the figures in the book of Revelation as they are presented in the account. The account never says look, these are all symbols. Christ is not really a lamb and he does not really have a sword in His mouth, etc. We speak of them as they are presented, for they are inspired and they are true.

[A Beautiful Truth]

It would be said by some, frothing at the mouth a little, that to follow this through would lead to liberal protestantism - as indeed it did for some when the responded to Darwin et al. I find myself moving in a liberal evangelical direction, I must say.

What else are you willing to give up Solly? The incarnation? The deity of Christ? A literal resurrection? Are you supporting gay marriage yet?

I think that you are much too rash. These things you question do not logically follow what we are discussing here.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Guys if we say that adam and eve is just a metaphor or story or whatever then how can we say that any part of the Bible is true. If we say one part is a metaphor then how can we know what is a metaphor and what is not. Maybe Jesus' death on the cross is a metaphor too. Maybe the whole Bible is just one big metaphor. Then what do we believe. All we have then is a book full of Hebrew Aesop's Fables.

Perhaps you will think about this more. It does not follow that if you take some things as symbols (especially those things that seem to be set up as such as in the Garden account and in John's Revelation) that all things are symbols. Indeed, would so many Christians have died for a metaphor they called Christ? There are many other defenses against your thinking.

[technomage]

If the account is inspired, then it contains truth, whether you believe it literally or as a symbol. I would not deter my friends from speaking of Adam as literal nor would I deter my friends from speaking of the figures in the book of Revelation as they are presented in the account. The account never says look, these are all symbols. Christ is not really a lamb and he does not really have a sword in His mouth, etc. We speak of them as they are presented, for they are inspired and they are true.
Precisely. And for all that I believe that the Bible is the work of men, in as much as it leads a person to Truth, or contains Truth, that Truth is breathed from God.

Justin

[A Beautiful Truth]

Precisely. And for all that I believe that the Bible is the work of men, in as much as it leads a person to Truth, or contains Truth, that Truth is breathed from God.

Justin

I guess it would be off topic to ask you to explain this. If it contains truth breathed by God, and is the work of men, then you have inspiration. But what is your judge to decide what parts of the Bible are not inspired?

This is off topic, I don't mind if you want to continue via PM.

~Charleen

[technomage]

I guess it would be off topic to ask you to explain this. If it contains truth breathed by God, and is the work of men, then you have inspiration. But what is your judge to decide what parts of the Bible are not inspired?

This is off topic, I don't mind if you want to continue via PM.

~Charleen
Hmmm. I certainly don't mind discussing it, but you're right, it's off topic. Give me a little bit, and I'll start a new thread in Comparative Religions 101.

Justin

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hmmm. I certainly don't mind discussing it, but you're right, it's off topic. Give me a little bit, and I'll start a new thread in Comparative Religions 101.

Justin

Perhaps you'll pm me, I never make it over there.

[technomage]

Perhaps you'll pm me, I never make it over there.
Will do. :)

Justin

[Solly]

Firstly,
OK, as I have said before, I do accept the post-exilic authorship (actually, the post-exilic redaction) of much of the Old Testament. However, for this discussion, there is no necessary dependance of my argument on when the OT was written, and my conclusions would remain the same whether or not Moses wrote the Torah.

Perhaps the problem is that, in this case, the literary cart is in front of the philosophical horse. The author(s) of the Torah obviously saw that humanity was continually doing things that were wrong--"evil," if you will. The obvious question, even more fundamental than "Where did this evil come from," is "What is evil?"

Remember, the Jews (like the Christians) posit a God who is omni-benevolent, but who is also just. To their thinking, a loving. just God could not have created an Earth with evil in it: He was not capable of it, because He was not capable of commiting evil. Like many other Middle-Eastern cultures, the Hebrews took an "Voluntarist" view of evil--in other words, something was good or evil solely and simply because YHVH said it was. This also points to the basic fallacy of assuming that the ritual purity laws of the Torah are intended as primitive hygenics laws: pork is not ritually unclean because it contains parasites; it is ritually unclean solely and simply because YHVH said so. Preventing trichinosis is a side benefit.

So the writer(s) of the Pentateuch sit down. He sees that there is evil in the world, but he cannot state that God created the evil, because God is incapable of doing so. The "Fall" mythology is an explanation of where evil comes from, but it is also an answer to the more fundamental question: in the Genesis account, evil is disobedience to God. So whether or not there was ever an actual Adam, his existence becomes philosophically necessary. In the Jewish mythology, it is man, not God, who introduces evil into the world.

There is no part of the Bible, with the possible exception of Acts, that is intended as a historical chronology--in the sense that we understand the words. Even the Torah and the History books are not histories: they are commentaries. Follow the logic: there is nothing in the Old Testament of the secular issues that the Hebrews faced. There is no War that does not also deal with theological issues. There is no famine that is not either a judgement from God, or is permitted to allow God to show his mercy. The only purpose of the Old Testament is to show a commentary of God's dealings with the Hebrews, and it all equates to one central theme: obey God and prosper, disobey God and fail.

In that sense, even Paul is not taking Adam as necessarily historical: it doesn't matter if Adam was a literal person, any more than it matters that the "Good Samaritan" of the parable was a real, historical person. What matters is that this put the issues of good and evil into terms that were understandable by the readers fo the Bible. (Note, however, that I do not assert that Paul was rejecting the historicity of Adam.)

According to the understanding I have, there is no difference. Whether or not Adam had ever lived is immaterial, because the tale of the Fall was a story told to explain the origins of evil. Evil was already present in the world before the Torah was written, and whether you take the traditional view of authorship, or the critical view, you're still left with that evil.

The tale of Adam places that evil into context. God couldn't create a world with evil in it, so where did it come from? Obviously it came from a human being. What human being? Adam. (Note, however, that the word we translate as "Adam" is simply the Hebrew word for "man," in the generic sense.)

Tracing Jesus's genealogy back to Adam was imperative for the author of Luke: it fulfilled his theme that Jesus was connected to humanity in that he was fully human ("Luke" used other passages to assert that Jesus was God, but that's a completely different discussion.) But even if Adam was not a historical character, the author of Luke cannot be accused of lying: he was using the literature and literary style of the time.

Doulos, does that mean there has to have been a literal "Good Samaritan?" A literal Prodigal Son? Or a literal, specific fig tree, out of all the fig trees? A parable does not depend on being a literal example: it is a story that shows a moral precept, or gives an explanation.

In the same way, if Adam was a mythological or metaphoric symbol of "sin"coming into creation because of man's doing, then Jesus could have referred to Adam, or to Abel, and not have been referring to a "lie"--He was also referring to the metaphor, and more importantly, to the meaning of the metaphor.

The existence or non-existence of a "literal" Adam does not make Jesus a liar.

And for all that I believe that the Bible is the work of men, in as much as it leads a person to Truth, or contains Truth, that Truth is breathed from God.

Interesting thoughts here, Justin, and well thought out, even if I don't agree with your premises. The main one being that for most Christians the text is given by God, not merely an expression of the experiences and thoughts of the authors as they seek to interpret what happens to them. I cannot deny that that is part of it, but the secondary part only. I do think we need to be more aware of the literary forms of SCripture, beyond the simple ones of Law, Prophecy, Psalm, Gospel, Epistle. And the styles employed within those forms, ie rhetoric, diatribe, accession record, etc.

[Solly]

the items of theology which a not literal Adam seems to effect are:

1.what does it make to be made in the image of God?
2.what does the breath of God, the spirit of God have to do with man as a living being?
3.the fall
4.original sin, both what it is and how it is transmitted.
5.the set of doctrines labelled -- federal headship in particular the strong Pauline parallel of the imputation of Adam's sin and the imputation of Christ's righteousness

These are all good questions that have to be considered.

on the image of God, that is anthropology and seems quite contented to be a group of people bearing God's image
I think we need more emphasis on the communal nature of the imago dei.

on the fall and original sin, if you accept the liberal ideas that it is metaphoric fall, or even the Mormon fall upward, then you haven't problems, seems to work with groups or figurative Adam just fine. But it you accept the traditional theology then without a single point fall in time and history then you have problems justifying the harshness of OS. So if you want to get rid of OS, making Adam literary rather than literal seems to help.

I think work needs doing on the nature of 'orginal sin', work which moves away from the legalistic framework of augustinian-Reformed thought. There are two aspects to OS, one is the fact itself, the other is the doctrine of a change in our nature. Common misconceptions of the Calvinist doctrine of Total depravity show that a clearer understanding of what is involved is needed.

but the big issue is imputation of sin, first and later righteousness. if Adam is metaphorical where is the righteousness to impute? Where is the disobedience to use to justify the creation of 'damaged souls'?
this is the central doctrine that gets modified in a movement from a literal single person Adam to a metaphoric generalized fall of human beings.
What is the righteousness you wish to impute? A legal quantum given to each person, or our righteous standing beore God in Christ, his vindication of us against himself through Christ. i am troubled by Calvinistic notions that see imputed righteousness as something we are given individually, rather than the place in which we stand in Christ.
The righteousness involved is covenant righteousness, of staying in or out of God's place of blessing - not in a NP idea of taking it or leaving it, but in an OT idea of being obedient to the covenant or not, but still falling under the covenant penalty if we disobey. Humanity has no choice but to be in covenant with God, and will be treated accordingly. In that sense it does not require a single human being for that institution, and can rely on a personification of man [ha adam].

[Solly]

Doulos: I believe that Jesus is God, so Jesus will not tell a lie or refer to something that is not true. Jesus refers to the son of Adam and Eve (abel) so he obviously believed that Adam and Eve existed. That is good enough for me.

This is the probelm I noted in my posts earlier; our conception of truth is too narrow, post Enlightenment. We have to show that the Hebrews had the same notion of truth as we have to make this stick. It is just false reaosning to say, my God would not lie, therefore...

Seer: What else are you willing to give up Solly? The incarnation? The deity of Christ? A literal resurrection? Are you supporting gay marriage yet?

Solly: Really Seer, how does this advance a discussion. For a start, I have not taken up any position beyond the traditional one at the moment; I am however open to investigation and debate, on this as with my Calvinism - something I am sure you would like me to give up. interestingly, the first three items refer to Christ, whom I already noted as the focus of our thoughts, and the last is just a smear tactic, which, if you had read my homosexuality threads a few moths ago, you would know to be so.
What am I willing to give up? Misrepresentations of what the Bible really teaches for the sake of comfort zones and avoidance of cognitive dissonance, fundamentalism if you like. I am a radical conservative: I seek to conserve the truth, but also to make sure I am clear what the truth is. My Baptist forebears did this when the struck out for believers baptism, just as my Reformation forebears did when the spoke against hoc est corpus meum. I will do so today: semper reformanda. Fides Quærens Intellectum.
Engage in discussion, or go back to multiple threads on your misunderstandings of Calvinism...

[Solly]

If the account is inspired, then it contains truth, whether you believe it literally or as a symbol. I would not deter my friends from speaking of Adam as literal nor would I deter my friends from speaking of the figures in the book of Revelation as they are presented in the account. The account never says look, these are all symbols. Christ is not really a lamb and he does not really have a sword in His mouth, etc. We speak of them as they are presented, for they are inspired and they are true.

This is an interesting point. When I read 'traditional' religious texts, such as memoirs and devotionals, of the kind that are saturated in Biblical texts, one often finds people using what, in scriptural context, are symbolic images, as if they are literally true. Sometimes, in the kind of way MLK did, they will take literal images from the Bible, and use them in a symbolic way. Ie, MLK never actually went to a mountain and looked over into a land where black children were hand in hand with white children. Similarly, people on their death beds don't actually see 'over Jordan' cf Pilgrim's Progress. So it works both ways. We are imaginative in our use of the texts (Luther's Babylonian Captivity of the Church; Premillers Laodicean days, etc). The later prophets used the Exodus as a model for their own thoughts, even though the Jews were on the other side of the Euphrates, not the Red Sea. Hosea used the images of whoredom. Hebrews reinterprets the Levitical tabernacle in a spiritual way.

[gary cook]

of course there is 2 adams one telling how we started the 1st time ?The next telling how we started the 2nd time .one of the earth and flesh .the other a QUICKING SPIRIT .I believe every word of the bible .JESUS CHRIST came to restore all that the 1st adam lost and much more ..When we accept the 2nd adam ?We aldo become QUICKING SPIRIT ,not of this world ?Sounds funny ,but we can be called SPACE PEOPLE .For our land is in SPACE ?NEW JERUSALEM .Where our LORD IS ..When we are born again ?We are spirits .We do not sin .Buit our flesh does .The spirit is willing to live in perfection with our LORD JESUS CHRIST .But the flesh will never .That is why we recieve a NEW body ?

[George Murphy]

Let me come at this topic from a somewhat different angle. I think that what underlies some concern for a "literal Adam" is the idea that the story of Adam & Eve really tells us who we are as human beings, and that without such a literal Adam we're sort of cut loose from any theological grounding. Correspondingly, the Incarnation is thought of as God's way of dealing with what went wrong with humanity, beginning with Adam & Eve.

It's the other way around. It is Christ who shows us what it means to be fully human, not Adam. Christ shows us most fully how we are to live in relationship with God, other people, and the world. The biblical story of Adam & Eve, OTOH, tells us very little about what genuine humanity is supposed to be.

& while the Incarnation is of course the way God deals with the problem of sin, it isn't limited to that. Ephesians 1:10, e.g., suggests that the Incarnation was God's purpose from the beginning. God created a world in order to make the Incarnation possible.

Looking at things from this standpoint doesn't immediately resolve all questions about a literal Adam & Eve, but it does relativize their importance.

Shalom,
George

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

Ephesians 1:10, e.g., suggests that the Incarnation was God's purpose from the beginning. God created a world in order to make the Incarnation possible.


Beautiful. This requires some thought in the context of which we are speaking. I'll just be over here thinking...

~Charleen

[Solly]

This would be Barth's view, and also has resonances in classical Calvinism, although not brought out enough IMHO

[George Murphy]

This would be Barth's view, and also has resonances in classical Calvinism, although not brought out enough IMHOYes, Barth has given probably the fullest expression of this idea. It also seems to have been the view of Irenaeus. Aquinas rejected it: His response to the question "Wheter, if man had not sinned, God whould have become incarnate?" is Article 3 of Question 1 of the Treatise on the Incarnation in the Summa Theologica. But he recognizes there that some had given a positive answer to the question. They include Albert the Great and Alexander of Hales.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

George, along the same lines of thinking that the world was made for the purpose of Christ's incarnation, do you think it could be also that "...the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope..."?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Tracing Jesus's genealogy back to Adam was imperative for the author of Luke: it fulfilled his theme that Jesus was connected to humanity in that he was fully human ("Luke" used other passages to assert that Jesus was God, but that's a completely different discussion.) But even if Adam was not a historical character, the author of Luke cannot be accused of lying: he was using the literature and literary style of the time.

Justin

Please explain. Also, there are those who do not believe the scriptures before Abraham are nessesarily historical. How do they justify that in light of the geneologies?

~Charleen

[technomage]

Tracing Jesus's genealogy back to Adam was imperative for the author of Luke: it fulfilled his theme that Jesus was connected to humanity in that he was fully human ("Luke" used other passages to assert that Jesus was God, but that's a completely different discussion.) But even if Adam was not a historical character, the author of Luke cannot be accused of lying: he was using the literature and literary style of the time.Please explain. Also, there are those who do not believe the scriptures before Abraham are nessesarily historical. How do they justify that in light of the geneologies?
Because 1st century CE ideas on "history" are nothing like our own. The concept of History as a collection and correlation of all relevant facts, and then of analysis from the facts, is fairly recent: I'm guessing about 17th or 18th centuries. Luke is not a historian, though his story does relate many things purported to be historical: he is an apologist.

Luke's theme was a Jewish Christ for the Gentiles: he maintained that theme through both Luke and Acts, and made his arguments accordingly. But to make that argument, Luke had to show that Jesus was Jewish (within a context that the Jews could accept), but that he was also related to all the world (which he did by tying the geneology all the way back to Adam, and thence to God).

To do so, he used the geneologies that he had--geneologies that were accepted as accurate within Jewish culture. He didn't lie ... he simply used what was available.

Justin

[Killerpriest777]

hello

[gary cook]

I have no problem ,thinking this is TRUTh .As I believe the bible 100% .I believe I will meet adam one day soon .But then I know GOD better than I know me .And I feel ?I have a good understanding of life .I look forward to shedding this flesh .But knowing this is the only chance to serve GOD in FAITH .We will never get this chance again ?It is a big deal ,walking in FAITh

[George Murphy]

George, along the same lines of thinking that the world was made for the purpose of Christ's incarnation, do you think it could be also that "...the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope..."?Certainly - that's what Paul says in Rom.8:20. Are you asking about the connection between the 2 ideas? I would say that God created a universe in which intelligent life could develop as preparation for divine incarnation. That development was possible through natural processes (with which God cooperates). & those processes included the 2d law of thermodynamics & evolution via natural selection, aspects which are essential but which from our standpoint sometimes lead to "vanity" or "futility." The cross means (among other things) God taking that futility upon himself, and the resurrection is God's overcoming of it.

Human sin didn't come as any surprise to God. Even without divine foreknowledge, evolution via natural selection would almost inevitably result in intelligent creatures who would stray from the path God desired for them. So the cross needn't be seen as a kind of addendum to God's plan when things went wrong. It would have been part of God's intention for Incarnation.

Shalom,
George

[NB Miller]

There is no more pressing theological issue, because the lost meaning of biblical symbols confines spiritual discourse to the superficial.

If Genesis is studied for its symbolic, metaphorical content, it provides powerful guidance for the spiritual journey, "for those who have ears to hear." Jesus spoke in parables for a reason, attempting to recommunicate lost knowledge to his generation in a powerful new way, but the older stories which he studied, are still rich in transformational content for us today. Psychology can take us only so far, but religious symbolism can help us trace our path back before our individual "fall," to the unitive Christ state.

Our internal battles between Adam (the sleep of reason), and Eve ("natural" creative aspect of mind), our personal stories of ingesting the apple (the innocent's vulnerability to "beliefs" in good and evil) and the subsequent Fall in which the mind sucumbs to shame and separation from the Divine experience, all are powerful symbols that can be used to help us return to the Garden.

Jesus' life and teachings (the Kingdom is within) have never been more needed in this sad atmosphere of national and global religious hatred. His redemptive message that suffering is unnessary, and transcendence is possible could not be more critical. I am confounded by the lack of interest in the hidden "mysteries" and powerful symbolism that exist in all the world's religious traditions. Until this changes, the jihad will still be externalized.


Tell me what you think. There are a number of Christians who argue for a non-literal Adam. What do you think are the major problems with this? Though I do not know all the arguments thouroughly, I'll try to be an advocate for them (even though I am undecided as of yet). Of course theistic evolutionists are encouraged to join in and defend their position concerning the theology.

*This is not a thread about the age of the earth.*

I will be very sensitive to stay on topic and not go to any other aspects like the AGE OF THE EARTH or SCIENCE or the like, this is strictly about arguing from a THEOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW for either an historical or a symbolic Adam.

One last thing...

*Please be nice*

~Charleen

[A Beautiful Truth]

Because 1st century CE ideas on "history" are nothing like our own. The concept of History as a collection and correlation of all relevant facts, and then of analysis from the facts, is fairly recent: I'm guessing about 17th or 18th centuries. Luke is not a historian, though his story does relate many things purported to be historical: he is an apologist.

Please continue. What are the 1st century CE ideas on history?


To do so, he used the geneologies that he had--geneologies that were accepted as accurate within Jewish culture. He didn't lie ... he simply used what was available.

Justin

So, was he wrong?

[A Beautiful Truth]

Certainly - that's what Paul says in Rom.8:20... Are you asking about the connection between the 2 ideas? I would say that God created a universe in which intelligent life could develop as preparation for divine incarnation. That development was possible through natural processes (with which God cooperates). & those processes included the 2d law of thermodynamics & evolution via natural selection, aspects which are essential but which from our standpoint sometimes lead to "vanity" or "futility." The cross means (among other things) God taking that futility upon himself, and the resurrection is God's overcoming of it.

And of the victory of believers who are "revealed". This could be the meaning of Rom. 8:18-22?

Human sin didn't come as any surprise to God. Even without divine foreknowledge, evolution via natural selection would almost inevitably result in intelligent creatures who would stray from the path God desired for them. So the cross needn't be seen as a kind of addendum to God's plan when things went wrong. It would have been part of God's intention for Incarnation.

Shalom,
George

Again, I think a defense of this is along the same lines of our defense of God in the midst of evil and suffering.

Thanks, it helps.

George, please help me with the geneologies. How are we to consider them? I am almost swayed that "true" history does not start until Abraham. Is this what you believe and how would you support it? It just makes sense to me. Abraham was there in the center of civilization of the time and the creation stories all going around. It is very likely to me that God took what Abraham knew and gave him the spiritual truth behind it to reveal His truth.

[technomage]

Because 1st century CE ideas on "history" are nothing like our own. The concept of History as a collection and correlation of all relevant facts, and then of analysis from the facts, is fairly recent: I'm guessing about 17th or 18th centuries. Luke is not a historian, though his story does relate many things purported to be historical: he is an apologist.Please continue. What are the 1st century CE ideas on history?
Hoo, boy, you don't ask the easy ones, do you? :smile:

First and foremost, the roots we need to look at are not Hebrew, but Greek--Luke was culturally Greek, and his writing was influenced as much, if not more, by his Greek culture as it was by his Christian beliefs.

In Greek culture, this argument goes back to Aristotle (4th C. BCE): in his book, Poetics, he argued that poetry was better than history, because poetry told about the world as it should be, rather than as it necessarily was. So historians of the time started consciously crafting their tales to be edifying to the student: if truth was sacrificed to the needs of moral education, so be it. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history#Unit_of_Study) for more information.)

This is true not only of Luke, but of all four canonical Gospels--not to mention all of the non-Canonical ones that I am familiar with. These works are not "history" as we understand the term, but polemic and apologetic works that are arguing for, and defending, their doctrinal position. Jesus is presented as a "Divine Figure," not by his doctrine or specific claims, but by his miracles and the Greek semi-tragedy of the narrative.

The Gospels are not full-fledged Greek tragedies, in that they are not designed as cathartic, they were not written for performance, and the character of Jesus does not have the "fatal flaw" noted so often in Greek tragic literature, but they are structured similarly, in that the character of Jesus is obviously foreshadowed for death--IMO, John's Gospel is the most obvious in the use of foreshadowing.

Greek tragic literature was an outgrowth of the Greek religious ceremonies, and many of the Greek Tragedies were performances of Greek myths. By the time of Jesus, Greek religious life was heavily influenced by concepts from the Mystery Religions: this influence was also present in Hellenized Judea under the Ptolemys, and may have been a factor in the development of the Essenes (with their emphasis on ritual purification, asceticism, and secret knowledge available only to the community) and the pre-Christian Gnostics.

It is within this cultural milieu that Luke (and the other Gospel writers) are writing, and to some extent, they have to appeal to this "market" using the terminology and cultural references that their readers can understand. Thus, Jesus is described as a sacrificial God-King in the terminology of the Mysteries. One of the necessities of a Sacrificial God-King is the presence of a Kingly lineage.

Now, some will say that I am trying to make a "Mythic Christ" argument--far from it. There are any number of possible explanations for this comparison between Jesus and the other Mystery cults:
* A Christian may very well state that these Mystery cults were a Satanically-inspired deception, aimed at drawing people away from Christ.
* A truly paranoid skeptic may state that the early Church callously and deliberately twisted the events of Jesus' life to match the Mystery Cults, so as to draw people away from those cults into Christianity.

But I am neither a Christian, nor paranoid--I am a historian, though certainly not a "professional," by any means. I can only state what I see--any actual, verifiable historicity (or lack, in this case) of the Mattian and Lucan genealogies is utterly and completyely beside the point.

Justin

[dizzle]

I remind the nonChristian debate participants of this forum guideline:


While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome. Please keep this in mind - this area is not strict "Christian-only" but the posts need to be in line within respect for what would be considered a normative Christian framework - just asking that this be kept in mind and perhaps some threads or thoughts need to be expressed in Comp Rel or General Theistics

[technomage]

Please keep this in mind - this area is not strict "Christian-only" but the posts need to be in line within respect for what would be considered a normative Christian framework - just asking that this be kept in mind and perhaps some threads or thoughts need to be expressed in Comp Rel or General Theistics
Sorry, Dee Dee, :blush:

Charlene, Dee Dee is quite correct: we probably need to move further discussion along these lines to another forum. I would recommend the Church History 201 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=147) forum, however, I'm open to other suggestions.

[gary cook]

Certainly - that's what Paul says in Rom.8:20. Are you asking about the connection between the 2 ideas? I would say that God created a universe in which intelligent life could develop as preparation for divine incarnation. That development was possible through natural processes (with which God cooperates). & those processes included the 2d law of thermodynamics & evolution via natural selection, aspects which are essential but which from our standpoint sometimes lead to "vanity" or "futility." The cross means (among other things) God taking that futility upon himself, and the resurrection is God's overcoming of it.

Human sin didn't come as any surprise to God. Even without divine foreknowledge, evolution via natural selection would almost inevitably result in intelligent creatures who would stray from the path God desired for them. So the cross needn't be seen as a kind of addendum to God's plan when things went wrong. It would have been part of God's intention for Incarnation.

Shalom,
GeorgeSin did not start with man!Sin started with satan.After he is put in the lake of fire .Guess what no sin ever again .But when BORN AGAIN ?We become NEW CREATURES ,NONE like us before ! NOT OF THIS WORLD .BORN OF GOD !You SEE ?GOD WANTED BEINGS LIKE HIMSELF .WE ARE THOSE BEINGS .

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hoo, boy, you don't ask the easy ones, do you? :smile:

First and foremost, the roots we need to look at are not Hebrew, but Greek--Luke was culturally Greek, and his writing was influenced as much, if not more, by his Greek culture as it was by his Christian beliefs.

In Greek culture, this argument goes back to Aristotle (4th C. BCE): in his book, Poetics, he argued that poetry was better than history, because poetry told about the world as it should be, rather than as it necessarily was. So historians of the time started consciously crafting their tales to be edifying to the student: if truth was sacrificed to the needs of moral education, so be it. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_history#Unit_of_Study) for more information.)

This is true not only of Luke, but of all four canonical Gospels--not to mention all of the non-Canonical ones that I am familiar with. These works are not "history" as we understand the term, but polemic and apologetic works that are arguing for, and defending, their doctrinal position. Jesus is presented as a "Divine Figure," not by his doctrine or specific claims, but by his miracles and the Greek semi-tragedy of the narrative.

The Gospels are not full-fledged Greek tragedies, in that they are not designed as cathartic, they were not written for performance, and the character of Jesus does not have the "fatal flaw" noted so often in Greek tragic literature, but they are structured similarly, in that the character of Jesus is obviously foreshadowed for death--IMO, John's Gospel is the most obvious in the use of foreshadowing.

Greek tragic literature was an outgrowth of the Greek religious ceremonies, and many of the Greek Tragedies were performances of Greek myths. By the time of Jesus, Greek religious life was heavily influenced by concepts from the Mystery Religions: this influence was also present in Hellenized Judea under the Ptolemys, and may have been a factor in the development of the Essenes (with their emphasis on ritual purification, asceticism, and secret knowledge available only to the community) and the pre-Christian Gnostics.

It is within this cultural milieu that Luke (and the other Gospel writers) are writing, and to some extent, they have to appeal to this "market" using the terminology and cultural references that their readers can understand. Thus, Jesus is described as a sacrificial God-King in the terminology of the Mysteries. One of the necessities of a Sacrificial God-King is the presence of a Kingly lineage.

Now, some will say that I am trying to make a "Mythic Christ" argument--far from it. There are any number of possible explanations for this comparison between Jesus and the other Mystery cults:
* A Christian may very well state that these Mystery cults were a Satanically-inspired deception, aimed at drawing people away from Christ.
* A truly paranoid skeptic may state that the early Church callously and deliberately twisted the events of Jesus' life to match the Mystery Cults, so as to draw people away from those cults into Christianity.

But I am neither a Christian, nor paranoid--I am a historian, though certainly not a "professional," by any means. I can only state what I see--any actual, verifiable historicity (or lack, in this case) of the Mattian and Lucan genealogies is utterly and completyely beside the point.

Justin

Thank you for responding, but, yes, this does take us out of the realm of Christianity. I'll not respond to your points in this thread but if you did start another thread in a different forum, I'd like to know.

~Charleen