lmbarre

In Romans 5, Paul compares and contrasts the first Adam with the last Adam. In his view, it was necessary for Christ to be a man so that he could undo what the first man wrought:

12 Well then; it was through one man that sin came into the world, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned.
13 Sin already existed in the world before there was any law, even though sin is not reckoned when there is no law.
14 Nonetheless death reigned over all from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sin was not the breaking of a commandment, as Adam's was. He prefigured the One who was to come . . .
15 There is no comparison between the free gift and the offence. If death came to many through the offence of one man, how much greater an effect the grace of God has had, coming to so many and so plentifully as a free gift through the one man Jesus Christ!
16 Again, there is no comparison between the gift and the offence of one man. One single offence brought condemnation, but now, after many offences, have come the free gift and so acquittal!
17 It was by one man's offence that death came to reign over all, but how much greater the reign in life of those who receive the fullness of grace and the gift of saving justice, through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 One man's offence brought condemnation on all humanity; and one man's good act has brought justification and life to all humanity.
19 Just as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience are many to be made upright.
20 When law came on the scene, it was to multiply the offences. But however much sin increased, grace was always greater;
21 so that as sin's reign brought death, so grace was to rule through saving justice that leads to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


For those who think that Adam was not a real person, but rather a fictional character in a primordial myth, will not be able to accept Paul's arguments in Romans 5-8 since the comparsion of Adam and Christ depends upon Adam (and Christ) being real human beings. If Adam is not real, his act of disobedience did not actually happen and his disobedience did not create the Pauline concept of Sin. It follow then that Christ did not undo the effects of Sin since Sin is not real in terms of Pauline thought. If indeed Paul's idea of Sin is false, then there is no need for Salvation --to be saved from Sin. I would think that the Pauline concept of Sin should be classified with such notions as that of a geocentric universe or that of a flat earth.

But Pauline anthropolgy and soteriology was only one Jesus tradition in the first century. The letter of James, for example, does not contain any of the major Pauline teachings such as we find in Romans 5-8, apart from the hope of an apocalyptic return of Jesus. It belongs to a different stream of tradition, one that shows affinities with Matthew's Sermon on the Mount and which seems to me to be the most direct stream flowing from the teachings of Jesus. As with the historical Jesus, James draws heavily upon Israel's wisdom tradition as did Jesus.

sotto voce

Adam is real enough. 'He' is all of us, females as well. That's the meaning of the Hebrew word.

lmbarre

But that is not the view of Paul as shown by Romans 5. For him, Adam was human as was Christ. Both were men, the first Adam and the last Adam. Watch out for confusing your views with that of Paul.

sotto voce

True, but Adam is everyone but Christ. Adam stands as figure for all who fall, just as, in Paul's illustration, Sarah and Hagar stood for contrasting conditions. Each falls, each is responsible for his or her own sin, not that of any other person. As mentioned in previous Jewish literature, each becomes "our own Adam". Paul continued in this vein.

Chili

What is real? Do you think life is real? Do you think you are real? Why do you even think? And who do you think you are? Or do you know who you are? Or is there maybe two of you? so you can think, one who knows and one who doesn't know?

Of course sin is an illusion but with a purpose, as is taste, and smell, and pain, and pleasure, and so is sex but in the mean time we procreate and multiply . . . in sin, wherein two opposites meet to get the job done in love, and in war as love cannot be conceived to exist without hate, in the same way as faith cannot be conceived to exist without doubt . . . except in heaven of course where there is no faith, and so no doubt, as our home where we truly are and all illusion is gone . . . and so is void of pleasure and of pain, and of sin, and of sex, with no more love between opposites, and so no more procreation with the opposites removed in our gender identity, while our sex identity is still real but are neutered and passive but nice to go shopping with, and that's about it.

So Paul's concept of sin is to created opposites in the mind, with desire and thirst between the sexes, so that sin may abound and the orgy is on, and with social taboos as the antagonist in life.

aeebee50

I have a hard time following Paul.

Chili

The first Adam left Eden by desire and the second one ended desire for which all the senses were pierced to bring paradise back to earth and all illusion removed.

Chili

You do not have to follow Paul but just do as he says and "go sin young man, go sin and sin some more" as his concept of sin is like a fishing line so he can real you in when you are done and bring you home where you belong and know the place as if for the first time.

Chili

So if you want, Paul is just opposites to protestants who live life in guilt as sinner on acount of righteousness aquired as self proclaimed Christians, while Catholics are free to sin and get a new ticket to go sin some more after confession has cleared their conscience, as the priest sends them West again to sin some more (doors always face West, or should with the altar facing East), which then is why Catholics are not Christian and have the confessionals to prove it.

aeebee50

No, I do not want to have anything to do with Paul. I will stick with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.