Paul's theology of atonement.

[Elijah John]

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?

[paarsurrey1]

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

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

Paul himself seems to have been a Bible literalist.

So was Jesus.

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’?

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"?

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?

[Elijah John]

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?

The message of those chapters according to Paul anyway is the doctrine of "original sin".

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?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?

No.

Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?

No.

Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.

Scripture 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?

"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)

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?

No.

Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.

Paul seems to have been a literalist with regard to Genesis, and that conflicts with scientific reality.

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??

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?

No.

Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.

Paul seems to have been a literalist with regard to Genesis, and that conflicts with scientific reality.

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??

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?
Regards

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 16 by paarsurrey1]

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?

My mistake, sorry about that, please.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 13 by Elijah John]

Isn't it time to rethink Paul's vicarious atonemen theology in light of real world science, archeology and history?

No.

Prominent elements of his theology are derived from scripture you reject or reinterpret, from Genesis to Revelation.

Paul seems to have been a literalist with regard to Genesis, and that conflicts with scientific reality.

Jesus also seems to have been a literalist with regards to Genesis and more.

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??

Good point, I knew better, of course, but simply failed to apply it.

"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!

[polonius]

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?

I certainly say that Paul's messages do not depend on any part of the Old Testament being taken literally.

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.