Ben, can you elaborate on this statement please?Originally Posted by Benjamin Burch
Ben, can you elaborate on this statement please?
What I mean is that we seem to ask a whole lot from a collection of books. All we really need is a source of faith, and it certainly provides that. Why do we ask it to be more than that? Why would we need it to be more than that?
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Heh. Total sidebar thought. What if the knowledge of good and evil is what truly separates us from the other animals? :P
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingPaul DeBaufer - "thanks" for this post
I keep hearing that there was no death prior to Adam eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. But then how do we deal with
Seems God thinks that to live forever they must've eaten from the Tree of Life, which they didn't. Seems to me that death awaited them because they failed to eat from the Tree of Life (one which they were allowed to eat, yet didn't.)22 Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— 23therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I just read Plato for the answer to that question, because of his influence on western thought and some of Christianity.
"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Yes!
God apparently created Adam & Eve (humanity) with the possibility of living forever in relationship with him, but because of their sin, they will die/return to the dust. According to the story, the possibility of living forever would have been realized by eating from the tree of life. Adam and Eve were not created as eternal beings that would have lived forever if just left alone. They were created to depend on God and God's gifts for life.
So we can imagine that the "history" behind the story of the creation of Adam & Eve is God raising up humanity over millions/billions of years, starting with elemental particles (dust) and eventually shaping us into human beings. He then initiates a relationship with us... and we turn away. Etc.
Death is still an enemy that will one day be defeated.... when we live in that city where the water of life flows like a river from the throne of God and the Lamb, watering the tree of life, which bears an abundance of fruit, and whose leaves are a medicine to heal the nations.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Except that it's true. It's quite easy to believe that the earth is flat, or the sun revolves around the earth, based soley on our perceptions. Which was the point.
Julie, please show me that the earth isn't flat without using science.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
It hasn't already?
Not until the end, when resurrection happens for us all.
I'm thinking of the phrase from 1 Corinthians 15:
Interestingly, this passage includes some of what we've been talking about, with its references to Adam.20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Is there a difference between defeating something and also destroying it? Death is surely something that has already been defeated, although we wait for the second coming to destroy it.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Perhaps. Feel free to mentally edit my earlier post to say "destroyed" instead of "defeated" if you like.My point is that death will one day die and no longer be a reality that the creation has to contend with... and this is true regardless of whether Adam and Eve were a literal first human pair in a garden or whether God raised up a community of hominids into relationship with him.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
The gospels are as authentic a historical source as anything else from the period - that being said, for all such documents, bias must be taken into account. Clearly the gospel writers had a specific purpose in writing what and as they did. Likewise, the official Roman records of the time have their own bias.
That's all I mean.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I think the confusion may have begun because in your earlier post you referred to "the Bible" and not "the gospels." The Bible is a much more diverse collection, covering everything from creation to resurrection, over a much broader "time period" (to quote your earlier post & David's). We can't treat "the Bible" as an undifferentiated unit... but now I'm preaching to the choir.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I didn't want to pick to much on the verbiage, but there is a difference between defeating something and destroying it. I'm looking forward to The Day!Perhaps. Feel free to mentally edit my earlier post to say "destroyed" instead of "defeated" if you like.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If death had not existed then Genesis 3:3but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’ is totally incomprehensible to both Adam and Eve, yet she seems to understand what death is. Then there is the statement from God about good thing that they hadn't eaten from the tree of life. So, I agree that death wasn't anything new.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
God: "...you shall surely die."
Adam: "Uh... die? What is that? Is it like a party? It's good, right?"
God shakes head...
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Laughing
We should also keep in mind that the vision of God's shalom, Kingdom, and reign in the Old Testament does not include the elimination of death until its very latest stages (Daniel 12 - written about 165 BC). Throughout most of the OT, death is expected even in God's new heaven and new earth.
We simply cannot draw neat lines from death in Genesis 3 to God's restoring it in Christ as though the Bible tells us a coherent story. It doesn't, and it doesn't pretend to.
We ask it the wrong questions, and set ourselves up to get the wrong answers when we expect it to do this.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If you destroy it, you must remove it from the game, you cannot put it into the discard pile.
Hrm. Ben quoted Isaiah:
"No more shall there be in it
an infant that lives but a few days,
or an old person who does not live out a lifetime;
for one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth,
and one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed."
But this is talking about the new heaven and the new earth. So...Hrm.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
We don't need a "second Adam". We need Christ. Paul uses Adam to explain Christ's salvation. Paul could have done it without Adam.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
ATTENTION!
Just checking, but we are ALL committed to thinking post traditionally here, aren't we? Otherwise this could just as well have been posted on the general theology forum.
I have to admit that when I read some comments, doubt arises.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I was noticing the same thing so I think your doubt is not unwarranted.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Ii tend to still aspire to think in rather simple ways. I can follow some complex process for a little ways, however. I have come to the place where I find it spiritual strengthening to allow God to have created man however He wanted, and to have described it to man also however He felt it was best for man to hear/discover it. It's miraculous, however one looks at it.
I did find it necessary to sit down and reflect a bit at the thought of His having created man with merely superficial differences like dna records in many places at once. It's beginning to look like God is bigger and more capable than I earlier had considered. Accepting one big bang was challenging enough, but to have faith that there were several big bangs in various places with the same result stretches faith even more. I like that.
I know it is self-serving, but I can imagine that it may have been more than Moses could have accepted, recorded and promoted.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
No, I am not committed to thinking post traditionally here. I am willing to participate in the discussion from what I have believed for so very long to be true, and I am willing to listen to and attempt to understand what is being said by people with much more knowledge than me on the subject. However, if someone has to be committed to thinking a certain way to participate in any thread or forum on NazNet, then it will seriously hinder the ability to have quality conversations.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I take the position I do on death in Genesis, first, because Genesis doesn't say anything about death coming from sin, but, honestly, a more important reason is because I believe the incarnation of Christ was planned before the creation of the world. I am uncomfortable with a God who creates, doesn't anticipate sin, and then has to hastily come up with a plan to solve the problem. That doesn't seem like the God of scripture.
It seems more coherent, both logically, and from scripture, that God created the world as God intended it to be, knowing that the free creatures God created would not be able to avoid seeking fulfillment of their selfish desires. From there, all of history is a path towards reconciliation, whereby these human creatures come to realize that the only way to satisfy their selfish desires is to give them up totally and selflessly serve others. Christ provides both the example and the means through which this reconciliation is possible, and the Holy Spirit provides our ability to actually live it out. We look forward to the full reconciliation that comes at the end of time, when we are returned to our creative relationship to God, but with a powerful understanding of the value of said relationship for our very being.
If the plan was for people to live perfectly and peacefully forever, then Christ doesn't have a part to play - which is something I'm uncomfortable with.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
David, after having posted on NazNet since 1998 and having had innumerable discussions, I'll dare to say this is not true. Unless one is willing to start to think in a different way, not just "understand their views", discussions are an utter waste of time and energy, and usually lead to disrupted relations and/or angry posts. (Understanding that merely asking questions is appropriate, but that is a rare phenomenon.)
So the very reason for this forum is to separate the people who simply aren't willing to think any different from what they once learned, and those who are indeed committed to a post traditional way of thinking or at least open to changing their minds. If this explanation still isn't clear, try http://www.naznet.com/community/show...is-forum-about.
Your initial remark seems to indicate this might not be a place for you to post, though of course I might do you injustice by grounding it on only one post. Apologies if I'm mistaken.
Now do understand, people are very welcome to post on the general theology forum, within the rules of NazNet and its goal. But this forum is specifically there NOT get drawn into the 5,469,248th discussion on Calvinism or Arminianism, creation versus evolution etc etc without the commitment to be willing to change one's mind. Which as I see it, is a crucial element of post traditional thinking.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Hans, it is likely I misunderstood the aim of your post. As I said, I am willing to think differently...but what I took from what you said is that I must be committed to a specific view in order to participate in this forum. I am open to changing my mind, and this thread has challenged me to do just that. My contribution at this point in the thread has been asking questions to seek a better understanding on others views and beliefs. I apologize for misunderstanding you.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
No problem at all. Thanks for asking and allowing me to explain!
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
This sounds like steady state cosmology, is it making a comeback?
You can be right or you can be in relationship
I'm still firmy convinced that the most essential question re creation is why, not how.
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
OK, I'll bite: usually we say who, rather than why. Your post seems to deserve longer discourse.
Actually, all of Ben's statements on this thread have been along that theme.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I only was wanting to point out that recent dna evidence points to more than one strain (likely not the proper term) that indicates not only one "Adam and Eve." I was using the big bang theory as an often referred to attempt to identify a beginning. IMO there still have been no plausible theories of human origin - at least none as reasonable as the biblical story.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Obviously you haven't been listening to Al Mohler, then.
Dan Hamlin
The straightest distance between two points is a straight line.Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 3 Laughing
Dan,
I agree with you. Craig Boyd has a nice essay in a book I edited, Creation Made Free, in which he specifically talks about the lack of perfection in creation. You might check it out to add support for your (good) argument.
Tom
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Oh I think time dilation easy compared to death.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
Several posts did not help. Once again, if you're here merely to defend traditional views versus non-traditional views, THIS IS NOT YOUR FORUM! I really don't know how to make it any clearer. But since people refuse to listen, and I refuse to let this forum become another battlefield of useless discussion, I'll be acting more promptly now. I'll remove any post from people who appear to be only defending traditional views from this forum.
Right now I've split this thread. If you want to defend traditional views, you're welcome at the general theology forum in the thread http://www.naznet.com/community/show...f-Adam-and-Eve.
This a moderator's post.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'd say more, but I'm afraid Al Mohler would get bent out of shape.
Actually, to me, the particular mechanics employed by the Creator (see, Al, I capitalized it!) in the process have little to do with our living out his purposes. How long and by what means is, IMO, much less significant than why he chose, at incredible risk to the realization of his purposes, to allow us to choose.
Were I seeking such, Mohler's SBC would probably refuse to ordain me. This is most emphatically a place where both I and they can join in a hearty "Thank you, Jesus!"
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
When will we let go of this western planotic view of perfection?
"Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek."
Thoughts on the subject from my friend Tad: http://taddelay.com/2011/08/22/the-d...-adam-and-eve/
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
