Solo

And of course you are entitled to that opinion....just out of curiosity: are you familiar with Dunn's 'Theology of Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk)' ? You will find the quote that Rick lifted from Charlesworth's OT Pseudepigrapha in a chapter called 'Humankind under Indictment'. I have a feeling once you get through the chapter, you'll have a better handle on what it is that Rick and I were arguing. No guarantees, though. :wave:

Jiri

Rick Sumner

Actually, it's from the Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (IVP) (or via: amazon.co.uk), though the actual quote is checked from Charlesworth's OTP, which sits on my shelf, so I didn't really feel a need to reference the DPL given that I'm using the actual source.

As far as whether or not he'll understand what's being argued, I think he's already got a handle on it. I might refer you to the NIV Commentary on Romans, Cottrell at least understands the necessity of reference to infants (which has nothing to do with "burning in hell"), and does indeed argue that position.

As it is, I remain content to leave it as it stands without further elaboration.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Solo

...and that is fine, Rick. The reader will notice that I did not accuse you of dishonesty in identifying your sources. I simply noted in Dunn's quoted chapter the emphasis on the cognitive elements in Paul of the "generic nature" of Adam, as "representing humankind as a whole" (beside the complementary view of him as an individual). It is clear that in Dunn's thinking, the etymological root of Adam's name (Heb. adamah, earth or ground) is an important clue.

No doubt he has good sense where the real issues are. He asked you a sharp question. I just thought it would be interesting for Amaleq13 to see for himself, what Dunn has to say about the "Jewish theologizing about Adam: that all humankind are caught in the nexus of sin and death". Dunn also treats 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch as exhibits of Jewish intellectual preoccupations in the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. Again, I thought that would provide some additional important info about where the Jewish theological headset was in the first century AD.

Thanks for the Cottrell reference, btw. Unfortunately, I have a big problem to begin with, because of the gaping anachronism in the proposition. The antiquity (and Western civilization until the 17. century) did not have a view of children as special "entity" markedly different from adults. They were seen, on the whole, as little men and women (,hence the later drive to baptize infants). Paul keenly observes certain elements of "childishness" in his rivals and articulates the world of adults as more fully defined than that of children (1Cr 13:11-12). He also has a sane perception of infants as innocent of evil (1 Cr 14:20). But in terms of transference of sin, Paul leaves us nothing (that I am aware of) to indicate he was sixteen hundred years ahead of his time. To raise it as an issue, and make distinctions that were not available to him, I find therefore hard to credit.

Regards,
Jiri

jakejonesiv

No, it indicates that the Lord was a liar and the snake told the truth. (Remeber, this is all a myth).

Genesis 2:16-17 (New American Standard Bible)
16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...0;&version=49;
4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Genesis 3:22 (New American Standard Bible)
22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

So Adam did not die that physical day. And he didn't die eventually because he ate from the the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that Adam was created immortal. He was bound to die anyway. He died eventually because he was barred from eating the tree of life.

So what in the heck was mankind created for?" To cultivate the ground.

What? So mankind was created to cultivate the ground? And you thought the toil of cultivation was the result of disobedience??? (Gen. 3:17). Nope, just pro-Yahweh propoganda.

So here we have it clearly. Mankind was, according to the Genesis myth, created to be ignorant of all morals, kept naked, subservient, and to cultivate the Garden for the gods. The whole thing is a muddle now, because an originally polytheistic myth, with competition between two brother gods, has received a thin veneer overlay of monotheism. It makes God look like a schizophretic, alternately cursing mankind them saving them. (Think about the flood). But the underlying myths had one god trying to enslave or destroy mankind, and another being mankinds savior.

The Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian myths have a striking number of parallels (or rather precusors), even if the exact myth from which Genesis is derived is no longer extant. The competing Sumerian brother gods are Enlil and Enki (the caduceus was Enki's symbol); these lie behind the figures of Yahweh and the serpent.

If anyone decides to investigate this further, be warned there is a huge amount of nonsense originating from Zecharia Sitchin and Lawrence Gardner.

Solo

The point you are not getting is that being expelled from Eden, A&E had no chance eat from the tree of life, which they would have eaten from eventually (as a statistical probability) had they not broken the taboo. God did not forbid Adam to eat from the tree of life, only from the tree of knowledge, i.e. what was important (to God) was that man knew nothing of his "created" nature and the hazardous potentialities of not being THAT in whose image he was made.

What flows from this is the one truly intriguing problem in theology: God can evidently do anything, except one thing: if he is truly causa sui he cannot ...............

What is it Jake ? Can you think of the one thing that even the Omnipotent cannot do ? I am sure you can.

Jiri

Gamera

[QUOTE=jakejonesiv;3707349]Let's assume it's a myth. Why would the author relate a myth that made God a liar. Seem a very farfetched analysis.


Yeah, that's my point -- he didn't die immediately so maybe God didn't mean physical death.

Good question which bears on the prior question. How about this:

Gen 1: And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.

Is it possible that cultivating the ground in obedience to God meant something different to the author than cultivating the ground in order to avoid starvation? Indeed perhaps cultivation is meant figuratively in the first instance, and involves something like self cultivation, and the development of an examined, moral life.

That's the problem with comparative religion -- it misses all the important details.

pharoah

Romans 5:19 is actually a better fit than either of those passages.

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Taken at face value, this certainly seems to provide support for the original sin doctrine.

pharoah

The notion of a perfect, omnibenevolent God is a late development not supported by most of the OT. There are numerous OT passages that depict God as a combination of good and evil. Indeed the A&E tale has God fearing that man would become like the gods, knowing good and evil.

The OT has passages about an evil spirit from God, a lying spirit from God, and it has numerous passages suggesting that mischievious and duplicitous characters are God's favorites. See Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, David and Satan, among many others. So the analysis isn't so far-fetched.

jakejonesiv

Assume that it's a myth?? Why would any rational person want to qualify the Eden story as anything else? Do you want to tell me that the Lord of the Universe came to Mesopotamia and breathed life into a mud man?

Well, you did say maybe.

Including the serpent? Good Serpent, very good!

How in the ...explicative deleted... could Adam and Eve have an examined moral life when, according to the genesis myth, they weren't supposed to possess the knowledge of good and evil, and didn't even know they were naked?

It is this kind of nonsense that arises when one tries so very hard to avoid the fact that the tales of Genesis myths evolved from earlier myths. http://www.earth-history.com/Clay-tablets.htm#MS%202950. Note the competition between Enlil and Ea (aka Enki).

Jake Jones IV

Rick Sumner

On the contrary. That Paul is not suggesting that all are guilty of Adam's sin is clear but 7 verses prior, in 5.12. Sin entered the world through Adam, death entered the world through sin, death then spread to all men because all men have sinned. It doesn't spread through the world because Adam sinned.

The "original sin" of Adam led all men to sin. It didn't convict them of crimes they weren't guilty of. 5.19 isn't contradicting that, it's emphasizing it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner