Does Jesus need Creationism?

[I, Brian]

Although it's easy for liberals to regard the accounts in the Book of Genesis as metaphorical, and even perhaps point to interesting developments from the Sumerian legends, it's interesting to note why Creationists are possibly so desperate to claim a scientific validity for events in the Book of Genesis:

• We can only be saved if we follow Jesus
• We need to be saved because we are all born sinners
• Jesus died to save us from our sins but we must follow him to be saved.
• We are born sinners because we inherited sin from Adam.
• Adam brought sin into the world.

By this simply line of reasoning, for the Resurrection of Jesus to have any meaning whatsoever, Adam must have had literal existence in the first place. After all, if there was no Adam then there was no literal first sin that the blood of Jesus need wash us with.

Or have the Creationists missed the point?

Is the death of Jesus and belief in Christ not at all dependent upon a literal Adam? Is the Garden of Eden account a metaphor for a much more profound "fall" story, perhaps even the separation of Man from nature? If so, does that at all affect the way in which the purpose of the Resurrection is interpreted?

This thread is dedicated to examining the theological links between Adam and Jesus, and the different perspectives on their required - or not - relationship.

[Polycarp]

The whole Adam story, Creationism and all, gets in the way, for most folks, of what I believe that a proper relationship with God and Christ should be.

The idea of sin is a bugaboo for many people -- they liken it to a criminal offense. And just as an infant or small child cannot be a felon, the whole issue of original sin becomes a stumbling block.

But Christ's teachings, largely taken from the Law of Moses, sum up to, God calls us to utter perfection, to agapetic love at every moment with every fiber of our being of Him and of our fellow man. This we are incapable of doing on our own. It's enforced by chet and hamartia, the Hebrew and Greek for sin, each of which means the falling short of the mark.

And though God is many things, including judge, the predominant metphor which Jesus uses is that of loving Father. We stand to him as small children to an ideal human father.

Sin is not a penal code, with specific definitions for individual offenses, which may be avoided. It's inherent in the human condition that we will fall short, despite our own best efforts, of the utter perfection that God esires of us. And we are all born into the same sin-filled world. Before we can begin to make moral judgments, we are already being egocentric and unloving, stubborn and prideful. (All babies are consummate egotists, demanding everything and giving virtually nothing in return, in a highly pragmatic analysis. This is not their fault; it's inherent in the nature of altricial human birth. And the reason why the first sentence in this parenthetic sounded offensive to many is that we are accustomed to assume that babies will be this way and love them anyway. It's not a judgment, but merely an evaluation of their behavior from the perspective of how it would be judged in a competent adult.) But when that child carries that egocentricity and demanding nature past toddlerhood, we in effect demand that he or she repent of it.)

So the picture becomes one of contasts: theoretically righteous humans who sometimes break the Law, and who are mired in a tendency to do so by some nebulous taint said to have been inherited from a possibly legendary ancestor; vs. decent people with faults who are aspiring to ideals they can never reach, in a world where man's inhumanity to man is often evident.

I've said before that the god of the Creationists is a lying trickster, who deserves my scorn not my worship. But the God whose divine Plan can bring forth a world with all its many wonders out of the careful initial settings of the laws of physics, natural law, genetics, and so on -- that God is greater than I can comprehend. And that He so loved me as to have sent Jesus and called me to Himself is humbling.

[Skeptic44]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

>> Is the Garden of Eden account a metaphor for a much more profound "fall" story, perhaps even the separation of Man from nature?

________

Simple answer: NO.

The Creation account was an adequate attempt by a group in B.C. to describe how mankind got here.

The Truth was beyond their grasp.

The idea that we are descended from common ancestors with apes and chimpanzees.... is so counter-intuitive, anyone who came up with such a theory would never have gotten it published.

God, however, would have known how it happened.

which proves the Bible is NOT the Word of God, conclusively.

I did quite an extensive search of this at one point. Does the Bible contain hidden truths that the people of the day missed, but that became apparent as our knowledge grew.

NO.

Exactly the opposite. The Bible perpetuates basic errors that science has corrected. Major, impossible to ignore errors.

for example, in 7 days of creation, the order is

(a) trees growing on earth
(b) a night, then a morning
(c) creation of sun and stars

For 500 BC, this was a good guess. Especially if your competing religions worshipped the sun as a god.

But our sun is a second or third generation star. The heavier elements at the core of our earth were cooked inside a star and expelled, meaning there had to be other stars before there was an earth.

There is no doubt or question about this whatsoever.

Therefore, I conclude that Genesis is not a metaphor for some greater story... except through interpretation or coincidence.

[bananabrain]

The Bible perpetuates basic errors that science has corrected.

The Truth was beyond their grasp.

puh-leeeeze. this is so 19th century and so, *so* arrogant. the ma'aseh bereisheet (account of creation) is probably the most complicated bit in the Torah and one which some people have spent a lifetime studying. but never mind, it's must all be bollocks just because it doesn't mention evolution and doesn't follow scientific principles. but i forget, scientists have done such a great job of creating a just society, haven't they?

the ma'aseh bereisheet is, as i've said elsewhere, a *mytho-poetic* account which contains a lot of extremely important stuff for us. it doesn't *preclude* evolution, unless one happens to be one of those feckwit literalists who don't know anything other than some garbled secondhand translation.

The idea that we are descended from common ancestors with apes and chimpanzees.... is so counter-intuitive, anyone who came up with such a theory would never have gotten it published.

right, because religions never come up with anything counter-intuitive, do they? whether something's intuitive or counter-intuitive has no bearing on a) whether it is accepted or indeed b) whether it's true. truth does not reside within the purview of human perception. we're just not equipped to deal with it.

God, however, would have known how it happened. which proves the Bible is NOT the Word of God, conclusively.

look, i don't think you really understand the purpose of the Text. as fallible, imperfect humans, we cannot know the mind of the Divine, even indirectly. the closer it gets to something we can understand the further away we are from the First Cause. to think that humans can ever "prove" how the universe came to being and how we came to be is the height of hubris and self-satisfied pride. we can't even look directly at the sun - how can we possibly kid ourselves that anything we know is ever more than a theory?

look, genesis (or to give it its correct name, bereisheet) is not there to confirm or deny science. that's simply not its purpose. not that i can prove that of course, but presumably you've seen the matrix and know enough philosophy to realise that we could all just be brains in vats. sheeeeeee. i've got a cold, which is making me tetchy, so excuse the sharpness of this post.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

The whole Adam story, Creationism and all, gets in the way, for most folks, of what I believe that a proper relationship with God and Christ should be.

That's actually an important part of my question. In Biblical terms, Christ is specifically argued as the result of the events in Genesis with the "Fall of Man", where Jesus is required to bring Man towards God.

If there is no need for Adam, then there is no need for Christ in the doctrinal sense - is there?? In which case, if Christ was not to atone for the fall of Adam, then what was Christ for if there was nothing to correct?

A general postulation for discussion, though I'm aware it's a complex and often difficult issue to address.

[mikie8]

adam was without knowleadge of right and wrong untill he ate the apple so could this be a sin ?
what was the original sin ?
also if adam is the first man who was god protecting cain from when he marked him so no others may slay him ?

i dont think there was ment to be a direct path from adam to jesus or the origiunal sin but i may be wrong

if adam never ate the apple and therefore never had children with eve would not jesus still come to save the sins of the ppl outside eden ? if not only jews maybe christians as st paul was from the ppl outside eden

[DeaconJustin]

Originally Posted by I,Brian

Or have the Creationists missed the point?

Is the death of Jesus and belief in Christ not at all dependent upon a literal Adam? Is the Garden of Eden account a metaphor for a much more profound "fall" story, perhaps even the separation of Man from nature? If so, does that at all affect the way in which the purpose of the Resurrection is interpreted?

This thread is dedicated to examining the theological links between Adam and Jesus, and the different perspectives on their required - or not - relationship.

I'm going to side with BB here, and second his "puh-leeeze!" Whether Adam existed exactly as detailed in Genesis is irrelevant. A man existed, a woman existed. They were separated from G-d. That's that. G-d can do whatever G-d wants to do, however G-d wants to do it. Unless G-d came down and said "Yo, this is how I did it," we're not going to know the specifics. There's really nothing wrong with G-d using evolution to create the human race.