Featured Did Jesus Endorse Adam and Eve as Historical?

The thinking is that they do not want to attack the Cross so they try to hack away at the Foundations of Christianity. If they can disprove Genesis, then the Cross falls also. But you are correct that they are really at a loss because Jesus talked about the beginning and how God made them male and female, for example. Of course, Jesus is the Last Adam so that proves that there was a first Adam.

 

Yes.

Mark 10:6-8 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

That, and the fact as a person of the Godhead, he was involved in inspiring all that is written in the Bible about Adam.

 

Not only did Jesus endorse them as historical, so did Paul.

 

One thing that it seems the majority of Christiandom misses. The cause of mankinds sinful nature as a result of Adam's. That it was do to Adam's sin, yes. But how it was caused by Adam's sin does not seem to be historically acknowledged. ". . . And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: . . ." -- Genesis 3:22. That the knowledge of good and evil was the infinitely good God's knowledge of good and evil. And man, while created to be good, is only a finite good. Where infinite good cannot be corrupted by any amount of evil, not so for finite good.

 

Bingo.

Paul's argument in Romans 5 becomes pretty weak (arguably incoherent) if Adam is taken as metaphorical.

v. 12 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin . . ." I don't see how this sentence could be reasonably taken to mean anything other than a literal person (i.e. Adam).

v. 15 " . . . For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many." The logic here demands consistency. If Adam is metaphorical, you'd really need Jesus to be metaphorical, too.

v. 18 "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men." One act by one man in each instance. A person could argue (poorly, IMO) that the principle is that one sin is sufficient for condemnation for every person, and we all are like a metaphorical "Adam" in a sense in that we all choose sin and therefore are condemned. But that seems to undermine the one vs. one antithetical structure that Paul's overall argument is using.

 

Limited good vs unlimited good? (Oh, and it's 'Christendom.')

He was created good, but not incorruptible. Their goodness was whole and complete, walking and talking with God. The problem wasn't their goodness, but their nature. Once they were exposed to a lie, they were corrupted.
And we were in Adam's loins when he sinned, so we are corrupted.

Creation isn't an ongoing thing. We were all created on the Sixth Day. And a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

 

Yep, I misspelled Christendom. Yes the problem was not Adam and Eve's goodness. Adam and Eve did not become sinful in nature until they ate of God's knowledge of good and evil. Yes, their first sin was to eat of it.

 

Wrong. They were corrupted first, and then they sinned.

No, it was unbelief. They disbelieved God and believed a lie.

 

Oh. And stop renaming the tree.

 

Jesus argued regarding that old Serpent the Devil, " He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." With his lie he murdered Adam and Eve. Genesis 3:4, Genesis 2:17.
Your "No" is false, even if a case of unblief and disbelief of God is cited. They were not counted gulity of any sin until they ate of that fruit of that tree of God's knowledge of good and evil. The word of God also says Adam's sin was disobedience, Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:17, and Eve was deceived in their sin, 1 Timothy 2:14. Furthermore sin to them was not imputed beyond that command Genesis 2:17 God had give them. ". . . For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. . . ." -- Romans 5:13. That sinful nature caused by the inheritance of the divine knowledge (Genesis 3:22) of good and evil was passed down from Adam and Eve.

 

Who is renaming the tree of "knowledge of good and evil"? That knowledge of good and evil was God knowledge and His creation placed in the garden. ". . . And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: . . ."

 

K

 

You are.

K

 

So identifying the knowlege of good and evil of "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" Genesis 2:17 as God's knowledge of good and evil is renaming the tree, Genesis 3:22.

 

I agree with you.


I would say that through communion, they did eat of Satan rather than eating of God.

The tree that brings death and the tree that brings life. They did eat of the death rather than eating of the Life.

And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. Deut 8:3

 

Make sense of what God said, "man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: . . ."