Adam and Eve 'amongst' the first humans?

[Mike]

smaller I don't disagree with anything you said up until the final paragraph. Even then, I don't disagree with what you said, but I do disagree with what you implied. I'll accept that the tree might not have been a literal tree. While I didn't see you state it overtly, I did get the impression that you were starting to imply that Adam wasn't the cause of original sin.

Now that I reconsider it, you didn't even imply that. I'm not even sure what your point as it relates to my post that you quoted. Do you believe in original sin that caused the fall of man? If not, what do you say to my post that you quoted?

 

[smaller]

smaller I don't disagree with anything you said up until the final paragraph. Even then, I don't disagree with what you said, but I do disagree with what you implied. I'll accept that the tree might not have been a literal tree. While I didn't see you state it overtly, I did get the impression that you were starting to imply that Adam wasn't the cause of original sin.

Highlighted and underlined for specific intention above.

If you followed my prior post I pointed to the fact that sin "must" be sourced in the category of spiritual disobedience. Was Adam that source? No.

Paul makes this case in point about sin, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit's facts doubling the case in point for emphasis:

Romans 7:
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

IF sin is sourced as spiritual disobedience (it is!) and it is as Paul shows us, twice no less, as no more I, then sin was not Paul anymore than it was ADAM. It is spiritual in nature and it is disobedience i.e. a "disobedient spiritual source." It is NOT the flesh in which this sin dwells. Sin is spiritual and it is disobedient or adverse/contrary to the Holy Spirit/Spirit of God/Spirit of Christ (I say this as a collective of One Spirit.)

IS Adam as the son of God (Luke 3:38) the source of the "spirit of disobedience?" Never. It's not possible that Adam was that source. The source was always and still IS the 'spirit of disobedience' acting out adversely IN the flesh.

And, by citing, Eph. 2:2 in particular, the spirit of disobedience is precisely pinpointed for us by Paul as "the prince of the power of the air." Is this ADAM? No. It is obviously THE DEVIL, Satan.

IF the church taught "original sin" truthfully, they would teach it as it is meant to be taught, "spiritual" as "disobedient spirit." NOT Adam. The SIN that "entered" the flesh of Adam, and therefore entered ALL mankind, save ONE, Jesus, God Himself "in flesh" was "disobedient spirit." The sin that was "no more I" that was in Paul's flesh was "no more I" in Adam's flesh, identically, as "spiritual disobedience."

IF we back this working up further, it is sourced as Jesus sourced it, in EVIL THOUGHT form as its core placement, within the flesh body. Paul isolates this fact in Romans 7:7-13 for himself, showing in his example that where the LAW, the WORD of God came to his MIND saying "do not covet" what happened "in him" was every manner of DISOBEDIENCE in his own mind, against that LAW. That is how Paul shows us SIN worked in him. In HIS MIND. Jesus shows us the same thing in the citings in my prior post, from Matt. 15:19-20, Mark 7:21-23 and Matt. 5:28. Jesus and Paul taught in absolute identical integrity on this matter.

Was Adam the same as the dust/flesh body Adam inhabited? No. Not any more than you, I or any other person is the same as the body of dust/flesh we inhabit.

Now that I reconsider it, you didn't even imply that. I'm not even sure what your point as it relates to my post that you quoted. Do you believe in original sin that caused the fall of man? If not, what do you say to my post that you quoted?

I was following the line of reasoning you were traveling down with the other 2 camps of orthodox positions and the subject of "original sin." Just put in a few basics.

It's unfortunate to me that Adam and Eve are "blamed" for sin and the working of "spiritual disobedience" that was NOT THEM always gets bypassed from such narratives. It's typical of blind teaching. That blindness IS courtesy of "spiritual disobedience" operating in the flesh of the readers, themselves. That's WHY they never pick up on the details and end up blaming and accusing ONLY Adam and/or Eve.

There is a more fundamental scriptural basis of understanding sin. And for that we have to look PAST both the flesh and the person and bring the "spirit of disobedience" into SIGHT. Which is problematic, because this working can not be "seen." It's not something we can sink our "literal teeth" into.

Regarding the tree of life, I use the "multi-God" factor to show WHY we must move to allegory understandings of said tree of life, connecting it to God Himself or we wind up with other problems. Polytheism. It's part of why I'm not a literal only guy and can't be. I accept that the narratives are both literal and Spiritual, but the Spiritual aspects are the PRIORITY, not the literal aspects. Is it important to see Adam as a literal man? Absolutely, it is. But there is more going on than just a literal genealogical account. The meat of the narratives transpires behind the curtains of the literal only sights.

Also, I'm not in the "literal six 24 hour earth day" camp either.

 

[Mike]

smaller okay. I'll probably frustrate you as much as your response frustrates me. Either you are a much more intelligent being than I, or you are frazzled in your thinking. I suspect the former, but I'm reserving the right to conclude the latter.

I agree that this isn't all on Adam. I don't believe the first feeble person was given the world to hold in place, and his "woops" botched it all for the rest of us. The temptor caused him to reach for more than he was Given, and he yielded to it. Regardless, Adam's sin reverberated and was passed down throughout humanity.

Earlier, I'd cited Romans 5:12-15 but later in the chapter we see Romans 5:18-19. Paul tells us:

"18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

Regardless of how or why the fall occurred, the fall had to have occurred, or much of what is written of it becomes useless information. My point which you originally responded to was not the genesis if original sin. It was that the story of Adam's sin cannot be an allegory if the sinful nature of humanity passed on from generation to generation requires the sacrifice of our Savior.

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't necessarily disagree, but this was inconsistent with the way I've seen you attack theology you disagree with.

I don't "attack theology (I) disagree with".
I do my best to refute the popular heresies. Those are not "theology I disagree with"; they are heresies (erroneous opinions) contrary to what the Church has taught from the beginning.

Why do you believe it's not important to hold that the events to follow that conversation never actually took place,

I don't believe that those "events never took place." I believe the story of the fall of man is accurately expressed in Genesis. I just don't see the necessity to believe that the story is the "transcript of the video tape." I accept it a metaphor which would be in line with the literary practices of the ancient middle east rather than a modern understanding of "History." It would be understood by the people of Moses' time as the story of man's fall which was precipitated by man's desire to be a god by means of his own wisdom rather than submission to God and that all the ills which mankind suffers continues to be the result of man's desire to be his own god rather than to submit to the will of the One True God. It is a concise description of the basis for all sin: man's desire to be god in his own right.

To insist on an understanding according to our modern meaning of history is an anachronism. No such concept existed in the literature of the ancient middle east. And the idea of Genesis being, not literature but: "the word of God" categorizes it as a separate and unique genre of literature which did not exist at the time of Moses but, rather, is an unfortunate development of fundamentalism with no connection to the reality of the time of Genesis' writing.

thereby nullifying Romans 5:12?

In no manner do I nullify anything.
The story of the "original sin" does not have to be an actual, historical event (in the modern understanding of the word "history") for the passage (Ro 4:23 - 5:19) to be properly understood. Sin and death entered the world because, "from the very first man," every man has been a sinner but salvation from death came into the world by the obedience of the God-man, Christ Jesus so that whoever would trust in God would be graciously given eternal life as a gift, not as something which any man can secure by means of his own efforts.

I find your stated position that original sin stemming from Adam is something of little importance inconsistent with your body of work here on CFnet.

I didn't say "that original sin stemming from Adam is something of little importance." That is your misinterpretation of what I said. It is an essential teaching of the source of sin in the lives of every human being. Everyone who ever lived, in his "flesh", wants to be a god who creates his "world" to sustain him and protect him from every need and even death, if that were possible. But it only by the finished work of the God-man, Jesus, that we may have eternal life by being united with Him Who is the first among many God-bearing brothers. (Ro 8:29)

iakov the fool

 

[smaller]

smaller
I agree that this isn't all on Adam. I don't believe the first feeble person was given the world to hold in place, and his "woops" botched it all for the rest of us. The temptor caused him to reach for more than he was Given, and he yielded to it. Regardless, Adam's sin reverberated and was passed down throughout humanity.

At least you managed to get both parties on the table of facts. More than most are capable of.

The point of indwelling sin, of "spiritual disobedience" is that sin/spiritual disobedience is not capable of being "obedient" or "legally compliant" to the Spirit-> other than to resist. If we understand that Mark 4:15 was a reality for Adam as well as for us, it goes a long way to getting a clearer picture of what happens internally.

Earlier, I'd cited Romans 5:12-15 but later in the chapter we see Romans 5:18-19. Paul tells us:

"18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

Regardless of how or why the fall occurred, the fall had to have occurred, or much of what is written of it becomes useless information. My point which you originally responded to was not the genesis if original sin. It was that the story of Adam's sin cannot be an allegory if the sinful nature of humanity passed on from generation to generation requires the sacrifice of our Savior.

I'd suggest that you may see "allegories/parables" as NOT REAL matters. They are very real matters. Just because facts are conveyed allegorically or parabolically does NOT mean they are not real matters. Thought I had covered this in the first post in the Mark 4:4 to Mark 4:15 connection. (checked, yep). The "parable" of Mark 4 given to the masses is obscured. In the "reality analysis" to His disciples in Mark 4:15 the understanding of a REAL ENTITY/REAL IDENTITY described in that parable is Satan. So, yes, parables are REAL matters, even if conveyed by "parable connections." A similar method of engagement is found in Gal. 4 where Paul breaks down the lives of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Hagar, Ishmael and the law "allegorically." Nevertheless that allegorical breakdown contains very "real" matters.

We know for no uncertain fact from Paul's description set of Adam (and likewise all natural mankind) in 1 Cor. 15:42-46 is that Adam, the first natural man, was in corruption, weakness and dishonor in a natural body.

We also know that Adam was a sinner LONG before the chain of events of Eve's engagement with the tempter. How do we know? Because God LAID THE LAW, "do not eat" on Adam. We also know the LAW is for "the lawless and sinners" from 1 Tim. 1:9. The simple fact that Adam had LAW imposed on him proves his condition in the flesh, as a sinner. Spiritual disobedience was already upon or "in" Adam's flesh.

From your citing in Romans 5 regarding Adam, I'm not fond of how some versions describe this matter. In the KJV we are shown that "sin entered."

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered

IF we understand Mark 4:15 as a reality for Adam, then we'll see EXACTLY the parties involved and HOW the spirit of disobedience ENTERED Adam's flesh/mind.

The fall is not difficult to comprehend when we see "how" spiritual disobedience works in adverse/resisting relationship to Gods Words, inclusive of LAW. And, if we observe Jesus' Words to Paul in Acts 26:18 and essentially the same statements in 2 Cor. 4:4/Eph. 2:2 we'll see the SAME PARTIES, man and Satan, that are contained in the parable analysis Jesus gave His disciples in Mark 4:15. All incredibly in exact accord.

 

[jasonc]

so post the sources of how the early jews taught the book genesis. I know it wasn't for the debate of evolution et all
you may use the Talmud or midrash. the calender they use is still in use for the feasts.

 

[Mike]

I didn't say "that original sin stemming from Adam is something of little importance." That is your misinterpretation of what I said. It is an essential teaching of the source of sin in the lives of every human being.

This is your post that caught me off guard and appeared to be inconsistent with everything else I've read by you.

Yes.
Some intelligent people with a valid perspective to offer have put forward the view that we should understand Adam and Eve as myth communicating basic, essential truth. (not to be confused with "fairy tales" or fables which have "morals")
It's OK if you don't accept it.
God won't judge you or them by theology.

Have a nice day.

If I misinterpreted you to say it's okay to view the story of Adam and Eve as a myth, my bad. Personally, I don't think it's essential either in and of itself. God looks into the hearts of men for those who earnestly seek Him. The problem becomes what a person does with the fall of man when there's no fall of man that runs like a black ribbon through his lineage.

I'd suggest that you may see "allegories/parables" as NOT REAL matters.

Certainly not! Firstly, the parables of Jesus were never less than extraordinary. I wouldn't put allegories in the same class as His parables. Secondly, allegories and symbolism are important and meaningful vehicles especially in a book like Revelation which is full of them.

As I've said numerous times already, seeing the fall of man as an allegory impacts the critical truth of man's nature. This is why I refuse to see Genesis, particularly this account in Genesis, as allegorical. I do believe all of Genesis is historical and literal.

 

[smaller]

As I've said numerous times already, seeing the fall of man as an allegory impacts the critical truth of man's nature. This is why I refuse to see Genesis, particularly this account in Genesis, as allegorical. I do believe all of Genesis is historical and literal.

The FALL is undoubtedly understood "figuratively."

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

And it is so because evil/sin is not a matter understood apart from the arena of spiritual internal (unseen) disobedience. Disobedience is an unseen/internal/adverse spiritual matter and is therefore understood "figuratively" by "similitude." Evil comes from within. It is not forensic. It is not empirically proven to be "on the inside." It is therefore beyond the "literal physical."

Matt. 15:19-20, Mark 7:21-23 and Matt. 5:28

Even though it's "external evidence" is plastered all over the entire world, it is still an internal issue, understood Spiritually, by the employment of figures/similitude/parable/allegories in scriptures.

 

[Mike]

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Wow. What version are you using? I don't see siggies from my phone if you have it there. If you don't, you should cite it. Here's what I have in the NKJV.

"12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."

I see this entirely different. To me, it is clearly saying that some haven't sinned exactly as Adam had but that they no less inherited his sin. So, when v 12 says just as through Adam, sin entered the world, your takeaway is that this is an allegory? That's a stretch.

 

[smaller]

Wow. What version are you using? I don't see siggies from my phone if you have it there. If you don't, you should cite it. Here's what I have in the NKJV.

"12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."

I see this entirely different. To me, it is clearly saying that some haven't sinned exactly as Adam had but that they no less inherited his sin. So, when v 12 says just as through Adam, sin entered the world, your takeaway is that this is an allegory? That's a stretch.

Cited the KJV. Paul obviously deployed similitude/figure to matters of Adam.

 

[Jim Parker]

As I've said numerous times already, seeing the fall of man as an allegory impacts the critical truth of man's nature.

Not quite; seeing the STORY as an allegory to communicate the TRUTH that man was created "very good" but chose to rebel and has transmitted that rebellion to all mankind rendering mankind subject to death and in need of a savior, does not detract from the critical truth of man's nature.
Man's nature is good (because that's how God created man; good) but man has distorted his nature by allowing the lusts of the flesh to guide and dominate his decision making rather than choosing to submit to God's good will for him.

iakov the fool