 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Historical Adam | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/26/2011 4:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | I would agree that Wright is contradicting himself. You can't say, "OK. This is myth here, but that is not myth there" because why wouldn't Adam be mythical and not historical? I see your point and I think that Wright himself is still left in a quandry. However, I don't really see how you would say that Pete Enns painted himself in a corner. Essentially, Enns says that he thinks that Paul was a man of his time, saw the world as an ancient man, and believed in a historical progenitor of the human race--Adam. But, it seems, this doesn't negate the theological point that Paul is making if it turns out no Adam ever existed. This seems very much like saying (to me at least) that all of scripture has to be perfect and without error in order for us to believe that the Gospel Story is true. Paul still sees that there is much that is wrong in the cosmos and that there was a need for Christ whom he interprets as the solution. Period. Secondly, if you watch his lecture, Enn's takes the origin's question right out of it. In other words, Genesis is not about the origins of humanity but about the story of Israel. It is only in the last 10 mins or so of the lecture that he deals most directly with the Adam and Paul issue. I think he could have been more thorough at that point and would have loved to been there for the question and answer period but I think it is enough information to suffice.
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 6/26/2011 10:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | Just an interesting graphic I came across today...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/27/2011 6:25 AM (GMT -6) | | |
The mustard seed example is a good one. Jesus said it was the least. But couldn't it have been the least in some sense? IOW, couldn't it have been the least of seeds that were sown by humans in his culture that his immediate society was aware of? IOW, it could have actually been the least in some sense.
But when you get to Rom. 5 and the genealogies that go to Adam (the one in Luke even saying Adam was the son of God), it would seem that the authors either intended to say something they thought was true in SOME SENSE, or they were intending to say stuff that they thought was flat false, even though the context doesn't remotely indicate what truth they intended the hearer/reader to take from it if the latter--and that is what we normally call DECEIT. But if Paul was wrong unwittingly, then that seems like self-delusion since he was speaking with an authority that could get believers literally killed.
I guess what I'm saying is this: I completely understand how difficult it has been for folks like Greg to argue long and hard for the historicity of the gospels because of the difficulties of understanding some of the gospel genre. But this additional problematic aspect--if real--seems to be well-nigh fatal to finding any kind of inductive criteria for determining what is historical in the gospels where it actually bears on what we call the GOSPEL STORY. That's not to say that our experience ceases for that reason. But it does seem to mean that scriptural argument will necessarily be just what it by and large has been and still tends to be--futile. And in that case, why even do it?
Post Edited (Similitude) : 6/27/2011 7:07:07 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/27/2011 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
The biggest problem for me in thinking about Adam/Eve as non-historical is the geneologies listed in various places, both old and new testament. Where do they transition, then, from being mythical to historical?
Excellent point.
**********************************************************************
Similtude:
I completely understand how difficult it has been for folks like Greg to argue long and hard for the historicity of the gospels because of the difficulties of understanding some of the gospel genre. But this additional problematic aspect--if real--seems to be well-nigh fatal to finding any kind of inductive criteria for determining what is historical in the gospels where it actually bears on what we call the GOSPEL STORY. That's not to say that our experience ceases for that reason. But it does seem to mean that scriptural argument will necessarily be just what it by and large has been and still tends to be--futile. And in that case, why even do it?
Man...this is pretty serious, huh?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 6/27/2011 11:10:50 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/27/2011 11:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | Corey brings up what I think would be a question relative to the problem of genealogies in general. For example, there are many descrepencies between the two genealogies in both Matthew and Luke. Both genealogies differ from one another after David is mentioned. Up to that point the lists pretty much agree. Now, no biblical records exist of the names between Zerubbabel and Joseph (nine in Matthew and eighteen in Luke). And if we grant that Luke's Sheltiel and Zerubbabel are different from those in Matthew, no biblical record exists for the names after Nathan in Luke's list. So it seems that Matthew and Luke have different purposes for their lists. And if you think, "At what point do we go from these guys becoming mythical to historical?" is a problem? Shoot, that ain't noth'n honey. We can't even be sure about Jesus' HISTORICAL lineage to David! And if that is a problem, then how can we be sure the record is straight in the Gospels that tell the story of Jesus (Jeff's point). So screw the "history--> myth" question. I want to know about the history question!
Well, fortunately, over the centuries several solutions have arisen and yet even these solutions are not without their problems such that no FINAL solution to the intricate issues involved in comparing the two lists will ever be found. The ADEQUATE solution is that there is ENOUGH to these theories to show that the apparent descrepencies are not INSOLUABLE. So. The most important thing that we can take away from these genealogies is not the names of Jesus' grandfathers (Jacob or Eli or both) but that he is the messianic king by God's providential working (Matthew) and that he is God's agent, offering all the world salvation (Luke). See the point?
Are we asking the appropriate question when we ask for THAT accurate of a record? What if, in the end, one was right and one was wrong about Jesus grandfather? What if the writer, gathering his information (based on what the community understood to be as accurate as possible) and he used that to say, "Hey, here's what I'm trying to get across."
Brandon
Since love grows within you, so beauty grows. For love is the beauty of the soul.--Saint Augustine
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 6/27/2011 11:54:55 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/27/2011 7:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | I'm not read up on the genealogy discrepancies, but if they have different purposes, that could explain the discrepancies even if they're historical for all I know. I'll try to read up a bit on that.
But that's different than saying because there are discrepancies that we can say they weren't trying to be as accurate as they knew how to be for the purpose they had in mind. But Paul seems to have convinced himself that he was writing what God explicitly wanted him to write or what God deemed him faithful enough to be permitted to write about with apostolic authority. And if either of those include statements that can not be seen to be true in any sense, that's obviously a problem.
It's the delusional self-deception that Paul must have had by the view being posited here that seems to be problematic for the possibility of getting at the historical Christ. Paul, probably more than the rest, was adamant about judging, etc based on truth as opposed to vain imagination, philosophy, or mere tradition. If Paul was as clueless as the next guy as to how to live out that truth-based approach in his epistolary writing, then how are scriptures any different than any other religious writing?
And then we get down to the view that the ressurection need not be literal--that so long as we understand the metaphorical analogy it has for our newness of repentant life, that's what matters. How would I argue with that? Indeed, WHY would I argue with that? Would we claim that view is actually problematic from God's perspective? If so, why, if historical accuracy is not important? Why would God base much on accurate beliefs about historical events of Christ's life if ONLY experiencing the fruit of the event is important?
It seems to me that the historical events that are testified to in scripture IDENTIFY who the TRUE GOD is and WHAT He's like (which includes the fact that He is the kind of God that intervenes in human history for certain purposes). And that's why scriptural history is important, if at all, I would think. That's why God can base important consequences for us on accurate beliefs about it. Otherwise, we might as well just say the history is just a mostly fictional history that tells us somewhat analogically what God is like in character, and that's it.
IOW, what's the criteria that tells me WHICH seemingly historical claims ought to be believed to BE history? I know about a lot of what people consider problematic. But what's the objective, human, epistemological criteria that gets me to what's important to believe about seeming scriptural history, if anything? Because it seems to me that if we can't answer that question, we have no reason to be concerned with the arguments for the historicity of the gospels at all. At least, I'm not seeing what that reason would be. At that point, our subjective experience is it as far as the identity of Jesus and deity is concerned. There would be nothing objectively knowable about history that had any implications or indications to that effect such that we could say intellectually honest, reasonable people should see it.
So for me, it's about knowing what the criteria IS. That's how meaningul debate can proceed. I've just never been able to think of one that I could honestly expect anyone to take seriously other than this: that whatever we choose to accept as scriptures should be interpreted with standard exegetical methodology and allowed to stand or fall thereby. Anything beyond that is "every man for himself," as far as I can tell. And then, like all people in all else, we enjoy what we still have in common after the fall-out. If it's a lot, great. If it's not, make the most of it.
Do I believe in subjective experience that can not be totally explained by objective belief? Yes.
Do I believe meaningful, successful communication can occur between two people without the use of HUMAN exegetical methodology? No. However subjectively concepts arise in human minds, objective criteria seems to be necessary to communicate them to others.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 6/27/2011 7:32:25 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/27/2011 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | | IOW, apostolic authority can not legitimately be used to pontificate speculation. Isn't that what it means when it says "Be not many teachers, for they cause ALL to stumble?"
E.g., getting Gen. 1-3 wrong leads to getting other things wrong--like whether humans are ACTUALLY under sin as opposed to having a mere tendency to sin; like whether natural evil is consistent with a world that could have been sinless and where all eyes could have seen; etc. Different propositions have different implications.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 6/27/2011 7:40:24 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/27/2011 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Let's get it back down to something simple. Whether there was an original pair of human-divinus, i.e. Why is this problematic from the point of view of evolution? Evolution is a naturalistic process that can not, therefore, explain the origin of free-will. Thus, it is perfectly conceivable that God did indeed, if evolution is true, endow some single PAIR of humanoids to render them human-divinus. And, then, VOILA, Paul need not be speaking falsely in Rom 5. Of course, you still have the problem of why all humans sin. There is no explanation for it. It's just a brute fact. But, as a brute fact, we can't know that it is not somehow caused by the first human-divinus. Both are inexplicable. So what's the problem? There is mystery either way. Maybe it could have been a stress-induced (from guilt) mutation that significantly decreased the fitness of human-divinus to the terrestrial environment.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 6/27/2011 8:09:20 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/27/2011 8:49 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I may have misunderstood D. But I took the following from one of his posts to imply he thought the biologos view was bogus:
"
With this critically important distinction, BioLogos is thus compatible with the belief that part of Adam’s curse was the onset of physical death for the human race, because the human race in the full Imago Dei really began with Adam. Although many human-like creatures lived and died before the Fall, these Homo sapiens did not yet bear the image of God. After the bestowal of God’s image, there was no death of Homo divinus until after the Fall. As soon as image-bearing humanity fully emerged through God’s creative process of evolution, no member of that species experienced death until after the Fall.
This seems mighty convenient, don't you think?
"
My point is that natural evolution can not explain (to humans at least) free-will and, therefore, a necessary divine intervention to endow a species with free-will seems at least as plausible as not. And once we posit such an intervention for such an endowment, I see no reason to infer it involved more than a single pair of the species. IOW, I don't see how parsimony can be used to argue against the biologos view of an original PAIR from an evolutionary perspective. Because attempting greater parsimony by assuming there is no such thing as free-will just creates problems and solves nothing.
Now, if D was saying that the "convenience" has to do with the difficulty of explaining how an original pair somehow transmitted a sin problem to its progeny, then I would agree. But it seems to me that explaining a universal sinfulness is just way problematic period if the species was designed to live sinlessly--and what else is human sin but the acting contrary to God's design/preference for our undetermined behavior? It's not like there is an easy solution to that for any one.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 6/27/2011 9:02:47 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/27/2011 9:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
it is perfectly conceivable that God did indeed, if evolution is true, endow some single PAIR of humanoids to render them human-divinus.
That doesn't help the issue..not really. No one in BioLogos is going to say that any "single pair" of human-divinus were the progenitors of all human beings. They will not say that this proposed human-divinus couple were the "historical parents of the entire human race." They've gone on record saying that there were other humans around at that time of human-divinus coming on the scene. But look here from the CT Article...
At issue: the traditional tenet (as summarized in Wheaton College's mandatory credo) that "God directly created Adam and Eve, the historical parents of the entire human race."
So, if a person who held to BioLogos' (and Jeff's) view, they would NOT be able to intellectually adhere to Wheaton College's mandatory credo, right? Sure, they can say that Adam and Eve (as homo divinus) were "directly created" by God...but they most certainly would NOT be able to say that Adam and Eve were the historical parents of all human beings, including all modern homo sapiens. No way. Now let's just say that this part of Wheaton College's credo is what's generally held to be true in much of American evangelicalism. Let's further say that the above tenet is exactly what Paul himself probably believed about Adam and Eve. (Something we've all agreed on here.)
See how major that is?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 6/27/2011 9:40:03 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/27/2011 9:35 PM (GMT -6) | | BioLogos:
Another view sees human-like creatures evolving as the scientific evidence indicates. But at a certain point in history, it is possible that God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the Image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil — an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences that have carried through the history of Homo divinus.
This is what I'm talking about. If anything, this says that homo divinus is a SUBSET of the already-existent homo sapiens. So, there's no way that BioLogos can say that Adam and Eve are the historical parents of the entire human race if homo sapiens are seen as genuine humanity. The only way make that claim would be to say that modern homo sapiens are NOT truly human beings. And that only the progeny of the Adam-Eve homo divinus couple were "true" human beings. That'd be a stretch for some, I'd bet. Why? Because, neurophysiologically speaking, I'm betting that there would be NO DIFFERENCE between homo sapiens and homo divinus. For all intents and purposes, the brain/minds of homo divinus are the same as those of homo sapiens...because they ARE homo sapiens.
From this perspective, BioLogos would NOT be able to hold to Wheaton's College's credo.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 6/27/2011 9:48:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/27/2011 10:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Yep.
As I wrote last week, the data are clear that humans have been created through an evolutionary process and there was never a time when there was a single first couple, two people who were the progenitors of the entire human race. Within that framework, BioLogos does not take a position on the existence, in history, of two unique individuals, Adam and Eve. This is a theological question, not a scientific one. We recognize that now that the scientific consensus is clear, having become substantiated even further through genetics, there will be many fine theological minds on both sides of the historicity question. Our task is to help the Church come to appreciate that mainstream science and Christianity can co-exist in harmony. We’re happy to stand back and watch as the theologians work through the historicity question.
Anyone who believes this AIN'T goin' to Wheaton College right now...right?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
| 149 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:29 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|