Does Paul's theology of vicarious atonement depend on the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal reading of the Eden story? Christ being the "second Adam" and all.
If Adam and Eve and the Garden story are myth, what happens to Paul's atonement theology?
Paul's theology of atonement.
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Paul's theology of atonement.
Post #1 My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
Post #11
Paul's theology of atonement
Jesus as per NT Bible that he was Son of Man or Son of Adam. This tells us loudly the teaching of Jesus on the atonement of sins. It depends on asking forgiveness of the sins from One-True-God, repentance of sins and firm resolve not to commit the particular sin again. Then God could on His sole discretion and Mercy may atone the sins. Like the man Adam was forgiven the sins, so the Son of Man or the Son of Adam or any people that came in the times to come:
[20:116] And verily, We had made a covenant with Adam beforehand, but he forgot, and We found in him no determination to disobey.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... &verse=115
Regards
Jesus as per NT Bible that he was Son of Man or Son of Adam. This tells us loudly the teaching of Jesus on the atonement of sins. It depends on asking forgiveness of the sins from One-True-God, repentance of sins and firm resolve not to commit the particular sin again. Then God could on His sole discretion and Mercy may atone the sins. Like the man Adam was forgiven the sins, so the Son of Man or the Son of Adam or any people that came in the times to come:
[20:116] And verily, We had made a covenant with Adam beforehand, but he forgot, and We found in him no determination to disobey.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... &verse=115
Regards
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: Paul's theology of atonement.
Post #12It is not really about whether anyone is or is not a literalist.Elijah John wrote:By saying this you are conceding that Paul was a Bible literalist. And since there is no real evidence that the Garden story ever happened, what happens to Paul's theology of blood atonement, orignal sin and the need for the "2nd Adam"?Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]
So was Jesus.Paul himself seems to have been a Bible literalist.
Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
Matthew 19:
4 He answered, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
The question is, what is the message conveyed by Genesis 1-3? Metaphorical or literal, or both, what is the basic message of these chapters?
Specifically, does it include any intimation of a "theology of blood atonement, original sin and the need for the "2nd Adam"?
Further, was that any part of the teaching of Jesus, and of Peter and John?
-
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Paul's theology of atonement.
Post #13The message of those chapters according to Paul anyway is the doctrine of "original sin".Checkpoint wrote:
It is not really about whether anyone is or is not a literalist.
The question is, what is the message conveyed by Genesis 1-3? Metaphorical or literal, or both, what is the basic message of these chapters?
Specifically, does it include any intimation of a "theology of blood atonement, original sin and the need for the "2nd Adam"?
Further, was that any part of the teaching of Jesus, and of Peter and John?
Paul's remedy for that is not a metaphor, but the theological role of Jesus as the "2nd Adam".
And upon Paul's theological meanderings, (which seem to be based on a literal interpretation of the first Adam) a foundational Church doctrine was developed.
Now that most thinking people agree that there was no literal Adam and Even and Garden of Eden, what happens to Paul's atonement theology upon which it was based?
Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?
My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: Paul's theology of atonement.
Post #14[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]
Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.
No.Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?
Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Paul's theology of atonement.
Post #15Scripture which has been found to be false, if taken literally. Namely the Genesis Garden of Eden account. Is it advisable to construct binding doctrine upon a shaky myth?Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]
No.Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?
Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.
"Reinterpret". Yes, Paul's theology and letters are open to interpretation aren't they? Otherwise there could be no women pastors, or Bible teachers etc*. If we must take Paul literally and as infallible, then his letters are no longer relevant. His wisdom yes, his soaring rhetoric definately... his theology? Not so much.
Unless of course, we want to live at odds with reality.
So when the foundation of one of his Paul's essential doctrines is shaken by real-world knowledge, science and archeology, what then?
You say "no" don't question, don't challenge don't reinterpret. What's left, simply live in denial and accept tradtiional understandings on the basis of "it's always been thus"??
Or "the Church says so", or the "Bible says so"? Or "my Pastor's say-so"?
*(Ironic that the Evangelical community considers Paul's correspondence "Sacred Scripture" and infallible, and they themselves violate Paul's teaching by ordaining women as pastors and applauding women Bible teachers)
My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Paul's theology of atonement.
Post #16Paul seems to have been a literalist with regard to Genesis, and that conflicts with scientific reality.Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]
No.Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?
Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.
And how could Paul have derived any of his theology from the book of Revelation, which had not even been written at the time of Paul's letters??
My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
Re: Paul's theology of atonement.
Post #17Elijah John wrote:Paul seems to have been a literalist with regard to Genesis, and that conflicts with scientific reality.Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]
No.Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?
Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.
And how could Paul have derived any of his theology from the book of Revelation, which had not even been written at the time of Paul's letters??
It is an important point. Isn't it, please?And how could Paul have derived any of his theology from the book of Revelation, which had not even been written at the time of Paul's letters??
Regards
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: Paul's theology of atonement.
Post #18[Replying to post 16 by paarsurrey1]
My mistake, sorry about that, please.And how could Paul have derived any of his theology from the book of Revelation, which had not even been written at the time of Paul's letters??
It is an important point. Isn't it, please?
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: Paul's theology of atonement.
Post #19Jesus also seems to have been a literalist with regards to Genesis and more.Elijah John wrote:Paul seems to have been a literalist with regard to Genesis, and that conflicts with scientific reality.Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]
No.Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?
Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.
Good point, I knew better, of course, but simply failed to apply it.And how could Paul have derived any of his theology from the book of Revelation, which had not even been written at the time of Paul's letters??
"Genesis to Revelation" is a common term for the Bible that I used loosely and unthinkingly, without the needed adaption to say what I intended.
He had only the Tanakh as scripture to derive from.
My bad!
Re: Paul's theology of atonement.
Post #20JP Cusick wrote:I certainly say that Paul's messages do not depend on any part of the Old Testament being taken literally.Elijah John wrote: Does Paul's theology of vicarious atonement depend on the existence of a literal Adam and Eve, and a literal reading of the Eden story? Christ being the "second Adam" and all.
If Adam and Eve and the Garden story are myth, what happens to Paul's atonement theology?
The story of Adam and Eve is obviously filled with metaphors and symbolism, so it is not intended to be a literal reading.
Jesus was the 2nd Adam - which is more symbolism and metaphor.
And just because it is not literal then that does not make the story into being a myth.
RESPONSE: Of course it does.
Definition of myth: noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind:
realm of myth.