 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Historical Adam | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/29/2011 11:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Let's put some stuff together from N.T. Wright...
From what I get from Wright, there is a "problem of Adam" that Paul believes that Christ, as a member of "Abraham's family" solves as Messiah. Moreover, to Wright, there has to be "something like a primal pair getting it wrong."
I guess I'd ask the question: Does Paul believe that the "primal pair getting it wrong" is the ultimate catalyst of the "problem of Adam" that Paul believes that Christ, as Messiah and Abraham's "seed", actually solves?
What do you think Wright would say?
Yeah...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/29/2011 11:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/29/2011 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Enns is on the money here on the bolded part. He seems to AGREE with what I was talking about with inspiration...
Paul was an ancient man, not a modern one. Should we expect him, therefore, to share views of the world, of humanity, the cosmos, etc., common to his time? Or, does Paul’s inspired status mean that his view of physical reality transcends his time and place?
What we are really asking here is “What does ‘inspiration’ mean?” That is a huge question, but let’s remain focused on the Adam issue. The question is this: Does Paul’s status as an inspired author of Scripture mean that his views of human origins and the world as a whole are scientifically accurate (since, as the argument goes, a text inspired by God could not give false information)? Does his inspired status mean Paul cannot share the view of the “ancient science” of his first-century world?
The issue of Paul’s Adam is analogous to Genesis 1. My sense is that few expect the author of Genesis to know about an expanding universe, a round earth, and a heliocentric solar system. The author described the world as he and others saw it, and what they saw represented their reality.
In the modern world, we, too, describe the world that we see. The difference, though, is that we “see” differently: not only with the naked eye and our imaginations, but also with telescopes and microscopes; not by reading the stars but by higher math and other methods.
So, does what we say concerning Genesis 1 transfer to Paul’s worldview in general? Should we assume that Paul’s way of seeing reflected his ancient sight? Again, few expect Paul to have knowledge of scientific theories of an expanding universe, old earth, or heliocentrism.
This brings us to the following question: Does Paul’s ancient view of the physical world extend to human origins (one human pair living about 4000 years before his time)? Is Paul’s view of the physical world an ancient one everywhere else except when it comes to human origins?
Paul shared ancient views about a lot of things. The question is whether his understanding of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race is one of these ancient views-
----------------------------------------------
That bolded part is the ABSOLUTE PROBLEM. I'm sure of it. The way out is to RETHINK biblical inspiration as being more dynamic and relational, I think. Personally, I'd base it on the divine/human relationality that exists in true humanity seen in the Incarnation. It's the same principle by how the Word, becoming flesh, can be genuinely limited by the contextual knowledge of his religio-culturaly world. No one expected Jesus to know about germs or virtual particles while he walked the earth, right? But just because Jesus was "unwittingly wrong" on certain things does NOT mean he wasn't consistently living out truth by the Spirit which "inspired" him.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 6/29/2011 11:58:32 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/29/2011 2:33 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Enns: The question is this: Does Paul’s status as an inspired author of Scripture mean that his views of human origins and the world as a whole are scientifically accurate (since, as the argument goes, a text inspired by God could not give false information)?
Tom: For me, D, this is not the question. Let’s concede that there are historical/scientific errors in the Bible. But given ‘inspiration’ by ANY definition, we have also to concede that there cannot be errors of other kinds as well. SO…whatever errors we concede there are, if our view of inspiration is worth anything at all, we have to say that whatever errors the authors commit they are compatible with the inspired truth communicated by that same author.
So the question is NOT ‘Are there errors of any kind in the Bible?’ That’s what Enns is asking. The question is one of methodology: How do we determine the inspired truth (‘inspiration’ and ‘truth’ are inseparable; you can’t have the former without the latter)? How do we differentiate between error and truth? Is there a method for achieving this? If NOT, then we’ve essentially abandoned inspiration and truth with it.
D: The way out is to RETHINK biblical inspiration as being more dynamic and relational, I think.
Tom: You just mean the truth which inspiration secures for us is compatible with SOME levels of error. You wouldn’t suggest with Robert Price that it almost certain that there never was a historical person named Jesus of Nazareth. If Jesus is as unhistorical as Adam we’re screwed right? OK. So SOME historical claims made by biblical authors have to be true if our faith is to survive.
Another question is this: What sort of errors in the Bible would be incompatible with a belief in its entire trustworthiness for it divine inspired purpose?
D: Personally, I'd base it on the divine/human relationality that exists in true humanity seen in the Incarnation.
Tom: Seen how? For us you mean, seen in the story/narrative of the text. So you take the claim that Jesus was God incarnate to be true? How?
D: It's the same principle by how the Word, becoming flesh, can be genuinely limited by the contextual knowledge of his religio-culturaly world. No one expected Jesus to know about germs or virtual particles while he walked the earth, right? But just because Jesus was "unwittingly wrong" on certain things does NOT mean he wasn't consistently living out truth by the Spirit which "inspired" him.
Tom: Which truth? I’m trying to figure out how you GOT across the finish line to conclude that claims A, B, and C are ancient beliefs we now know to be false while claims D, E, and F are truths essential to our faith, especially since the authors arguing for D, E, and F think their truth has something to do with A, B, and C being truth.
Aren’t we just reducing the inspired truth of Scripture to a series of metaphysical principles about God, love, and living well, i.e., truths none of which require anything about the story that mediates them to be historically true? Kind of like a commercial or fictional story that inspires a certain feeling by getting you to pretend or imagine yourself in the fictional world?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 6/29/2011 2:38:38 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/29/2011 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Let me offer a couple examples.
In Ac 5.33-39 Gamaliel gives a speech about the rising Christian sect in which he refers to similar risings first by Theudas and then by Judas the Galilean. The problem is that according to Josephus, Theudas’ rising followed Judas’ (contrary order to Luke), and also after the date Gamaliel must have made his speech (c. AD 30). Josephus relates that Judas’ uprising occurred in AD 6 and Theudas during the governorship of Fadus (AD 44-46). So if we side with Josephus we have to conclude either that Luke is referring to two different Jewish uprisings in Palestine in recent memory by men of the same name (not likely!) OR that Luke is right and Josephus wrong (which might be a no brainer for some) OR that Josephus is correct and Luke is confused.
Let’s assume Luke got the order wrong AND has committed an anachronism (never mind that Luke’s putting these words in Gamaliel’s mouth!). But my point is that even assuming Luke has made a historical error here, the truth born by the illustrations is unchanged. Theudas DID attempt a rebellion as did Judas and that is the material point. But this material point is here rather easy to discern.
There is also the well-known problem of Luke’s view on the date for Quirinius’ governorship in Syria and when it included authority for Judea. Josephus and Luke again disagree. But again, the error leaves the fundamental story unaffected.
One last error. Paul in 1Co 10.8 says that 23,000 died in Baal Peor. But Num. 25.9 states it was 24,000. And the debate goes on about how to harmonize the two reports. Gordon Fee say Paul is just mistaken. Paul has Num 26.62 (which mentions 23,000 Levites included in a census) in mind. Understandable mistake, and entirely beside Paul’s main point in the passage.
These are mistakes compatible with the inspired truth being argued by the writers. And it’s pretty easy to see how inconsequential the errors are. Nothing is materially affected.
Can somebody show me how Paul’s teaching about Christ is similarly unaffected by Paul’s mistakenly believing Adam to be a historical figure? That’s what I need. I think that's what Enns needs to SHOW (instead of just claiming that it's so).
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 6/29/2011 7:09:25 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/29/2011 3:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Can somebody show me how Paul’s teaching about Christ is similarly unaffected by Paul’s mistakenly believing Adam to be a historical figure? That’s what I need. I think that's what Enns needs to SHOW (instead of just claiming that it's so).
This is the perspective at BioLogos, I'd say...
What holds Paul’s argument together is not a commitment to a particular first human, or to a particular reading of the story of Adam. Rather, it is a commitment to Jesus as the one savior and deliverer for all people—Jew or Gentile. For Paul, it is not Adam who determines a particular understanding of Jesus. Instead it is a prior conviction about Jesus that determines a particular reading of Adam.
In my previous post, I noted how the creation narrative is echoed in later stories about Israel, including an expectation that Israel would one day have a king. Paul reads the Adam story very differently. His vision has been shaped by what he sees to be the ultimate act of God, the death and resurrection of Jesus. This event shapes Paul’s understanding of Adam.
So in Romans 5, when Paul launches into his description of the work of Adam, he gives a reading deeply colored by his convictions about Jesus. We need to attune ourselves to the interpretive decisions Paul is making. Paul could read Genesis as teaching that Adam’s act introduced corruption into the human heart, and that’s why people stand under judgment (“Every intention of their heart is only evil all the time”, as Genesis 6:5 puts it). But he didn’t. Paul points back to one act. Similarly, Paul could have read Genesis 3 as a narrative that gives equal blame to both man and woman or even a story that teaches that sin entered into the world through woman (Eve). But he doesn’t. Why does he interpret the stories as pointing to the decisive act of one man? Because of his prior conviction about the gospel as a story surrounding the decisive act of one man.
There is a two-way conversation taking place in scripture. The Old Testament creates some expectations and tells stories with plot lines that anticipate resolution in the future. Then the New Testament comes along, but not merely to say that those expectations are met and stories are resolved. Rather, they find a surprising climax in the death and resurrection of Jesus. This surprise ending often transforms how the Old Testament stories are read.
Paul has rewritten the Adam narrative to correspond with his convictions concerning Jesus’ death and resurrection. Once we understand this, the pressure to hold onto Adam as a historical figure is released. Paul is using the creation stories for precisely the same function as that for which they were written: to show how God’s act of redemption corresponds to God’s act of creation.
When speaking of Jesus and Adam in Romans 5, Paul’s point is this: God has provided for universal salvation through one man’s one act. This act of salvation more than offsets the universal need for salvation. According to the biblical story as Paul portrays it, one man introduced this need for deliverance. And according to the gospel that brings this story to its consummation, one man’s act met this need for salvation.
------------------------------------------------------------
They basically just talk about Paul using Adam for the sake of conveying the universality of Christ's work combating the universal problem of sin. I guess they'd just take the universality of sin AS A GIVEN and go from there. I guess they are banking on no one questioning the universality of human sin and brokenness.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 6/29/2011 3:21:56 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/29/2011 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom: Can somebody show me how Paul’s teaching about Christ is similarly unaffected by Paul’s mistakenly believing Adam to be a historical figure? That’s what I need. I think that's what Enns needs to SHOW (instead of just claiming that it's so).
Jeff: Exactly. In both Rom. 5 and 1 Cor., Paul's very point is that AS BY ONE MAN ... If that's false, his very point is false, not an unrelated detail. That was my point about the mustard seed. I have no doubt Christ expected his audience to infer him to mean that the mustard seed was the smallest seed typically sown by sowers in their immediate agrarian world. Whether it was the absolute smallest had no relevance to his point. His point was merely the non-proportionality of the size of seeds to the size of their respective plants.
But that is just one aspect. What is more important is the fact that Paul believed that he was communicating truth either because it was given to him from God/Christ or because God PERMITTED him to speak his judgment because of his fidelity. In either case, if Paul was supposing he was on solid ground merely because an ancient text said so (knowing full good and well that many an ancient text said false things), Paul was as confused about his own legitimacy as much as any false prophet.
And we have to carry this over to Jesus himself. For Jesus supposedly said
"the scripture can not be broken,"
"if you had believed Moses you would believe me,"
"not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law and prophets,"
"if you do not believe the law and the prophets, neither will you believe if someone is raised from the dead,"
and so on.
I'm not arguing that it can be proved that there was a literal Adam that was part of the cause of a sin problem for all others. But I can't imagine what purely exegetical criteria for determining what is true in scripture is left standing if there wasn't. It seems to me there would be none. It would be, as D has said, experiential in nature. But then there is no objective basis to debate about scriptural claims which can not be verified by extra-scriptural corroboration, as far as I can tell. I can't argue an experience and its past effects out of having happened.
And what makes this more problematic than normal stand-alone claims is the fact that the very apostles are basically indicating they're confused about an important source of their certainty if in fact all scripture can be false like any other book. That alone means the apostles' belief in their own legitimacy was inadequately grounded. For they state words to the opposite effect about scripture and "put" similar words into the mouth of Jesus. You add that onto other difficulties, like reconciling the gospels, and the fact that their claims are grandiose while not being well-corroborated by extra-scriptural history, and you've got a difficult problem with defending the historicity of the gospels. Then, even talking about Jesus period is problematic.
If on the other hand, the gospels are historic, we have every reason to believe that Jesus truly prophesied that the apostles would be supernaturally given WHAT to speak in the hour of their need, and had no need to be prepared in the normal human sense. But if that's true, scriptural inspiration is no different, necessarily. And then the words the NT writers "put" into Christ's mouth about scripture make perfect sense. Everything re-coheres. Because then the reason why we have the difficulties of reconciling gospels is because they're not strictly histories--they're using history to teach humans very important things. And therefore the 4 of them do, when finally reconciled and analyzed for their uniqueness, more than any one equally-long history ever could.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 6/29/2011 7:08:40 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/29/2011 8:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
If Jesus is as unhistorical as Adam we’re screwed right?
1) The Crucified and Risen Incarnate Word, Christ, is the "eternal Contemporary", as someone has said. He's with you and me right now...isn't he, Tom? 
2) "That he [Jesus of Nazareth] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."
John Dominic Crossan
Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography.
Page 145
Quotes by St. Paul the Apostle...
"And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."
"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 6/29/2011 9:53:49 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/29/2011 10:03 PM (GMT -6) | | |
D: So, Jeff. Are either you or Tom gonna quit believing in Christ over this?
J: Not at all. The way it would work with me is like this. If I was ever convinced that there was a compelling argument against the basic Hebrew cosmological framework (and therefore Jesus'), I would cease debate about all but philosophical theology, though I would CONFESS my belief in the historical Christ and his ressurection. And only when someone could come up with a compelling argument against the historicity of the gospels would I even consider the possibility that Christianity was a grand illusion of mine. The one thing that screams out historicity of the gospels to me is the fact that people clearly voluntarily died over it so shortly after the apostles ministry. As N. T. Wright once said, SOMETHING HAPPENED. There is no easy way to explain the subsequent history unless something profound happened around a Jew named Jesus. And once we get that far, the historicity of the gospels is the most plausible account of that. It's just that that very explanation seems to necessarily push us back into the validity of Judaism and all that implies. It's hard to find an easy way to sever it.
Don't get me wrong. None of that reasoning got me converted. But looking back with 20-20, I can't seperate the rationality of it all from my experience. THey both work hand in hand now.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 6/29/2011 10:56 PM (GMT -6) | | So, then, Jeff.
It would seem that you and I agree that if it happens to be the case that a literal primal human couple being the progenitors of all human beings is at best a high improbability...this would NOT be considered an essential aspect of confessing and believing in "Christ crucified" and his Ressurection in any real sense, right?
It's not a deal-breaker, is what I mean.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/30/2011 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/2/2011 10:06 AM (GMT -6) | | D: 1) Being "fully human" means being a "God-bearing" human. That is to say, only a human being that is differentially united with the Holy Spirit has the ability to realize their full "Godlike" potential. The incarnation confirms this.
2) A human being who dies to the false self (egocentricity) can awaken to their true self (theocentricity), thus experience and live in the very freedom, love, joy, and peace of God.
J: This argument, though more philosophical in nature, makes perfect sense if there was a "Fall." But it seems to me to be problematic IF there was no "Fall." Because humans seem to think teleologically about theology. IOW, people tend to think of purposes for their life and existence when they're thinking in terms of God and theology. They tend to think of "sin" as the falling short of an end which is the logical equivalent of a "requirement"--a "requirement" in the sense of "where something is given, something is required."
So here are the non-historical problems with the non-Fall view, as I see them:
a) If God creates humans without the very "Spirit" that can render us "fully human," that seems to mean He INTENDED us to be less than "fully human" for some duration of our life. That in turn seems to complicate what we even mean by "sin." Where nothing is given, nothing is required. So if we are created without that "Spirit," our less than "fully human" life can not be conceived of as missing any mark merely because we are living less than "fully human."
b) If we actually "have" that "Spirit" prior to our "awakening," then the NT seems to be inconsistent with that. Moreover, the NT seems to imply that no one could have had a "Spirit" type "awakening" prior to the ressurection of Christ. This creates a need for explanation as well.
IOW, it's difficult to see how to make teleological, normative sense of human life and existence if we are created either less than what we are intended to be or ignorant of the means to the "fully human" mode of life. Because where nothing/little is given, nothing/little can conceivably be required. However,
a) If there was a Fall, then humans were originally given to according as were required of. And that mode of life involved the perpetuation of life as opposed to death.
b) If there was a Fall, the fact that no one could receive the "Spirit" prior to Christ's ressurection isn't contradictory to the claim that Adam (and therefore humanity, potentially, as well) was originally designed competently for his requirements.
c) If there was a Fall, the fact that no one can receive the "Spirit" after Christ's ressurection unless they believe on Christ isn't contradictory to the claim that Adam (and therefore humanity, potentially, as well) was originally designed competently for his requirements.
It may be that the Spirit may be necessary for "fully human" live even in a paradise once enough humans are in it. But that doesn't effect the logic of the Fall account about a single pair with respect to the points I'm making here. Those points have to do with God's original intent for humanity. Paul's argument about the "one man" is not only about history--it's about HOW we explain things.
The non-Fall approach definitely is problematic in the senses I'm describing. It makes it difficult to understand how living "fully human" is related to what "sin" is. But that doesn't change the fact that the "Fall" approach is also quite problematic historically/evidentially. I don't see either approach as being easy. That's why I sympathize with both sides.
I think this is why many theistic evolutionists accept that humanity is evolving not only physically, but socially and culturally as well. This allows them to see less evolved states as being "given" less. This in turn means that God required less of them--physically, socially, and culturally. People intuitively sense the seemingly undeniable fact that humans are naturally quite fallible in terms of what we normally mean by sinful.
Some will explain this evolutionarily by positing on-going reincarnations until one becomes "fully human." The more consistent ones add in karma to make sense of it. By those views, death is not a cessation of life. It is a gateway to another mode of life. But even they have the difficulty of explaining what they accept as natural evil consistently with a purely soul-building theodicy. And that is not an easy task. The "Fall" approach, on the other hand, allows us to posit that the instances and classes of natural evil that are most problematic to a purely soul-building theodicy are not, in fact, originally natural to the created order.
The point is, these approaches create difficulty with defining just what it means to sin or to die. We either really are failing at some things that God actually requires of us, or we aren't. And if we aren't, most people would be happy about that. Because they don't know how to "awaken" anyway. Heck, I don't even know how to "awaken" volitionally. I just know that I did and that scripture explains it in terms of divine enlightenment and the receiving of the Spirit. The rest is volitionally working out what God works in us.
And finally, I think even the Fall approach makes the most sense in terms of UR. UR seems to me, now, to be a necessary piece of a robust theodicy. I just don't see how it can do all the work because of the problems it leaves for defining sin and whether or not humans are naturally sinful or not or whether death is a cessation of life.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 7/2/2011 11:01:14 AM (GMT-5) | | 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 10:56 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 |
|
|