Christianity without Adam

[chris9178]

How well do you think Christianity holds up without the creation story - or at least with the adam and eve figures. I've been thinking about this the last couple of days. A lot of people want to compromise evolution and creation, and that in itself is fine, but what happens to original sin, the purpose of Christ, and much of the rest of scripture without Adam?

 

[No*s]

How well do you think Christianity holds up without the creation story - or at least with the adam and eve figures. I've been thinking about this the last couple of days. A lot of people want to compromise evolution and creation, and that in itself is fine, but what happens to original sin, the purpose of Christ, and much of the rest of scripture without Adam?

I think that an article you might be interested in are The Appearance of the World and Mankindhttp://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creation_man_a_mileant_e.htm. I hold a similar view, but I pull some theology from the Book of Enoch .

I would make an argument here for it, but his argument is pretty exhaustive to someone who already believes, and I can't top it.

 

[Isis-Astoroth]

I don't have time to read that link, but he's my opinion. I think that Christianity would be able to hold up pretty well as many things established in the creation story are backed up later on in the bible. The only thing is, that without a creation story, there is the question whether 'God' is all the creator or not. Apart from that, I shouldn't think there would be much of a problem. I mean, how many Christians believe that the creation story is literally true? Not too many I should think.

 

[No*s]

I don't have time to read that link, but he's my opinion. I think that Christianity would be able to hold up pretty well as many things established in the creation story are backed up later on in the bible. The only thing is, that without a creation story, there is the question whether 'God' is all the creator or not. Apart from that, I shouldn't think there would be much of a problem. I mean, how many Christians believe that the creation story is literally true? Not too many I should think.

That is, indeed, his argument. He provides a framework in which to do it, and even interpreting it semi-literally or even allegorically, it can still be used to back up God's being the Creator.

The harshest problem for Christianity is the lack of a Fall, and I think that's what Chris is alluding to.

 

[chris9178]

The harshest problem for Christianity is the lack of a Fall, and I think that's what Chris is alluding to.

Yes. It is, and I'll read your article sometime when I get home.... I'm at work now...
Thanks for it though No*s

 

[No*s]

Yes. It is, and I'll read your article sometime when I get home.... I'm at work now...
Thanks for it though No*s

Welcome.

I think Bishop Alexander has a good approach to the problem. He firmly believes in the Fall, and I after him, and the way I look at it is almost identical.

 

[may]

The Ransom is Jehovahs greatest gift to mankind.It makes possible our deliverance from sin and death.(Ephesians 1;7) It is the foundation of the hope of everlasting life whether in heaven or in a paradise earth.The ransom became necessary because of the sin of Adam.Adam, passed on to his offspring a legacy of sickness,sorrow,pain,and death.A ransom is defined as something paid to buy something back. In the Hebrew scriptures the word for ransom (ko pher) comes from a verb meaning to cover, this helps me appreciate that to ransom also means to cover.In order to ransom or cover sin,a price must be paid that fully corresponds to or fully covers the damage caused by sin.So the ransom had to involve the death of the exact equal of Adam.(a perfect human). Someone not under adamic death sentence,could offer a corresponding ransom, one corresponding perfectly to Adam.(1 timothy 2;6)Through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world and death through sin.(romans 5;12) and since death is through aman, God provided for the redemtion of mankind through a man.(Jesus)(1 corinthians 15; 21)Jehovah arranged to have a perfect man voluntarily sacrifice his life. As a man, he would be called Jesus, but in a legal sense,he could be called the second Adam, for he corresponded perfectly to Adam.(1 corinthians 15; 45 and 47)so with out the sin of Adam there would be no need for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus

 

[Master Vigil]

Hmmm... How well would christianity hold up if there wasn't a fall? Well, there would be no christianity, since jesus supposedly died for our sins resulting from the fall. If there was no fall, there would be no need for salvation and no need for jesus. Unless someone realized that the fall might not be too important, and that christs teachings on how to live may be more important. But thats just my opinion.

 

[No*s]

The Ransom is Jehovahs greatest gift to mankind.It makes possible our deliverance from sin and death.(Ephesians 1;7) It is the foundation of the hope of everlasting life whether in heaven or in a paradise earth.The ransom became necessary because of the sin of Adam.Adam, passed on to his offspring a legacy of sickness,sorrow,pain,and death.A ransom is defined as something paid to buy something back. In the Hebrew scriptures the word for ransom (ko pher) comes from a verb meaning to cover, this helps me appreciate that to ransom also means to cover.In order to ransom or cover sin,a price must be paid that fully corresponds to or fully covers the damage caused by sin.So the ransom had to involve the death of the exact equal of Adam.(a perfect human). Someone not under adamic death sentence,could offer a corresponding ransom, one corresponding perfectly to Adam.(1 timothy 2;6)Through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world and death through sin.(romans 5;12) and since death is through aman, God provided for the redemtion of mankind through a man.(Jesus)(1 corinthians 15; 21)Jehovah arranged to have a perfect man voluntarily sacrifice his life. As a man, he would be called Jesus, but in a legal sense,he could be called the second Adam, for he corresponded perfectly to Adam.(1 corinthians 15; 45 and 47)so with out the sin of Adam there would be no need for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus

*sputters, stammers*

Amazing. We agree almost completely . This should be a holiday.

 

[chris9178]

The Ransom is Jehovahs greatest gift to mankind.It makes possible our deliverance from sin and death.(Ephesians 1;7) It is the foundation of the hope of everlasting life whether in heaven or in a paradise earth.The ransom became necessary because of the sin of Adam.Adam, passed on to his offspring a legacy of sickness,sorrow,pain,and death.A ransom is defined as something paid to buy something back. In the Hebrew scriptures the word for ransom (ko pher) comes from a verb meaning to cover, this helps me appreciate that to ransom also means to cover.In order to ransom or cover sin,a price must be paid that fully corresponds to or fully covers the damage caused by sin.So the ransom had to involve the death of the exact equal of Adam.(a perfect human). Someone not under adamic death sentence,could offer a corresponding ransom, one corresponding perfectly to Adam.(1 timothy 2;6)Through one man (Adam) sin entered into the world and death through sin.(romans 5;12) and since death is through aman, God provided for the redemtion of mankind through a man.(Jesus)(1 corinthians 15; 21)Jehovah arranged to have a perfect man voluntarily sacrifice his life. As a man, he would be called Jesus, but in a legal sense,he could be called the second Adam, for he corresponded perfectly to Adam.(1 corinthians 15; 45 and 47)so with out the sin of Adam there would be no need for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus

So is that a long way to say "Christianity relies on Adam having existed"?

What about compromising with evolution? It's getting hard to deny evolution these days. But if evolution is true, then that means no Adam.

 

[No*s]

What about compromising with evolution? It's getting hard to deny evolution these days. But if evolution is true, then that means no Adam.

Yeah, it's kind of difficult to deny evolution reasonablly, but OTOH, it also doesn't neccessitate a loss of Adam. How do we know how many people there initially were? God could have created them in an exalted state, with His image, which they subsequently lost upon falling, turning their divinized matter inert.

There are no scientific facts to contradict this, and science will never test it. It's purely religious belief. I really don't see science disestablishing Adam and Eve, even with our coming from other organisms.

 

[Master Vigil]

I believe the story of Adam and Eve is metaphoric and symbolic, and shouldn't be taken literally. It is when people do take it literally that evolution becomes a problem. But if people realize that hundreds if not thousands of creation stories exist in many different religions and they should be viewed as myth, than evolution can co exist with no problem.

 

[may]

So is that a long way to say "Christianity relies on Adam having existed"?

What about compromising with evolution? It's getting hard to deny evolution these days. But if evolution is true, then that means no Adam.

Are​

those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?


​

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.​

"A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification."—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.​

The scientific magazine Discover said: "Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent."—October 1980, p. 88.​

 

[Pah]

How well do you think Christianity holds up without the creation story - or at least with the adam and eve figures. I've been thinking about this the last couple of days. A lot of people want to compromise evolution and creation, and that in itself is fine, but what happens to original sin, the purpose of Christ, and much of the rest of scripture without Adam?

My thoughts exactly. But there is plenty of "everyday" sin to go around and still require a divine sacrifice. Except for the retention of original sin, Noah could easily stand in Adams place.

There is nothing wrong with reducing creation to myth with the understanding that all humanity has a propensity for evil

 

[chris9178]

My thoughts exactly. But there is plenty of "everyday" sin to go around and still require a divine sacrifice. Except for the retention of original sin, Noah could easily stand in Adams place.

There is nothing wrong with reducing creation to myth with the understanding that all humanity has a propensity for evil

Yeah, but Adam and Christ are directly linked according to the Bible. Our Theology says that Christ made the sacrifice because of Adam.
Personally I can only take so much "metaphor" before the whole thing looks like a crock. People argue that creation is a metaphor, noahs ark was, davids stories, revelations...... I mean come on! According to some people the Bible is 90% metaphor!

Fortunately we're saved by faith...... but I can certainly understand the atheists behavior.

 

[Pah]

Yeah, but Adam and Christ are directly linked according to the Bible. Our Theology says that Christ made the sacrifice because of Adam.
Personally I can only take so much "metaphor" before the whole thing looks like a crock. People argue that creation is a metaphor, noahs ark was, davids stories, revelations...... I mean come on! According to some people the Bible is 90% metaphor!

Fortunately we're saved by faith...... but I can certainly understand the atheists behavior.

Hehehe you are talking to one who believes the 90-95% of the Bible is metaphor, allegory, fable, hyperbyle, parable and myth but important to some none-the-less.

 

[chris9178]

Yeah, and your an atheist, are you not?

 

[Master Vigil]

I too believe it is 95% metaphor, but I don't believe that decreases its meaning. I believe there is more meaning in it as myth, than as literal. But I am also not an athiest.

 

[Pah]

Yeah, and your an atheist, are you not?

You ask that as if it would change the numbers

 

[chris9178]

You ask that as if it would change the numbers

No, I ask because it would make your beliefs irrelevant. As far as you're concerned the whole thing could be some farce. One would expect you to not believe it... otherwise you wouldn't be an atheist, now would you.

The point I was making is that Christians are becoming more and more compromising with what they believe. Sure it could still have meaning, but the point of Christianity is the Truth. If I believe that even 25% of the Bible is metaphor, then what's to keep me believing that the other 75% isn't?
If one is an atheist, this doesn't affect him. But for a Christian, this is bad news.