Comments on: Tremper Longman on the Historicity of Adam

By: Being fair to Tremper Longman « Aberration blog

Being fair to Tremper Longman « Aberration blog — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:52:45 +0000

[...] think this issue was originally highlight by this blog here and with the claim, I also wonder if we’re seeing a preview here of a new issue here that some [...]

By: Show and Tell: Favorite Links of the Week | thejakers

Show and Tell: Favorite Links of the Week | thejakers — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:50:06 +0000

[...] Taylor runs a series on the historical reality of Adam here and [...]

By: Justin Taylor

Justin Taylor — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:51:13 +0000

Comments closed.

By: Chris Martin

Chris Martin — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:48:08 +0000

Steve, what makes you say Dr Longman acts like a rock star? And on what grounds do you make the claim that he seeks a following and does so just to boost his ego?

By: Assurs

Assurs — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:37:23 +0000

“Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?” The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!” The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

Jesus response on the Good Samaritan follows.

I assume that you are incorporating Christ’s teaching in the Bible. Samaritans were considered apostate by the Jewish people during Christ’s time when he gave the proverb. So, yes, the Bible and Christ speaks directly to loving heretics unless you want to claim that the orthodox reading of this textis wrong. If that is so I would call you a heretic – but I would be much nicer about it =P

By: Truth Unites... and Divides

Truth Unites... and Divides — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:21:58 +0000

Justin Taylor: “For those denying Adam’s historicity, I’d be curious to hear what you find wrong in the following argument….”

Incidentally Justin, the same line of reasoning that you use to argue for the historicity of Adam is the very same line of reasoning that I use to argue for the historicity of Jonah. Because Jesus (AND the people He was speaking to) believed in the historicity of Jonah.

And there are a good number of LibProts and skeptics who don’t believe in the historicity of Jonah.

By: Chris Zodrow

Chris Zodrow — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:20:05 +0000

Explain the origin of sin without Adam.

By: Chris Zodrow

Chris Zodrow — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:18:18 +0000

Assurs,
I love the brethren, but there is no command to love the heretic. Read the whole Bible.
Good day, sir.

By: Assurs

Assurs — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:16:04 +0000

I don’t think he is trying to incorporate the New Testament text and why he explicitly limits the discussion to interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Correct me if I am wrong but he all starts by making reference to Genesis 1-2. At the 30 second mark he makes reference to the “difficult questions associated” with a non-literal interpretation of the text. I don’t think it is fair to interpret this as a absolute stand that there is no historical Adam. I think Jeremy Pierce might be the most fairminded about what actually was said in the comment.

By: Steve Skinner

Steve Skinner — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:04:48 +0000

Why is anyone surprised when one of the so-called Doctors of the church make such outlandish statements. Guys, these fellows act like Rock Stars, who seek a following in order to boost their own egos. Seems like I remember reading somewhere about those who would arise within the fellowship to draw away disciples after their own perversions. We had better wake up!

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:40:41 +0000

I think many Christians have intellectually melded evolution to a real or metaphorical Adam and Eve. They think that evolution existed and God evolved man into an “Adam and Eve”. (This would still fit with N.T. Wright’s comment.)

I disagree with them, wholeheartedly.

By: Nathan Wall

Nathan Wall — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:35:22 +0000

“Adam”, of course, not “Paul”

By: Nathan Wall

Nathan Wall — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:34:52 +0000

Well, it’s not that I’m not willing to go there with you, Mark. It’s just that in this whole discussion I haven’t seen anyone defending your position actually deal with any of the New Testament texts to show how they stand even if Paul isn’t a historical person. If you ever feel like getting around to writing something addressing that at greater length and with some precision, maybe to post on your blog or something, send me a link.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:34:38 +0000

The apostle Paul believed in a historical Adam (Rom 5:12), that’s enough evidence for me.

By: Mark Traphagen

Mark Traphagen — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:22:43 +0000

To set the record straight on Wright, JT lifted the quote he used in the opening post from Wright’s Romans commentary out of its context. Readers should go read pp. 525-26 to see what I mean.

In the full context, Wright: 1) tries to steer readers of Romans away from such questions (of the historicity of Adam); 2) affirms that Paul probably believed in a literal Adam and Eve, etc.; 3) asserts, with very good reason given what Philo does with the early chapters of Genesis, that Paul would have been aware of possible “mythological” dimensions to the story; 4) urges against consigning the Adam and Eve story to the dustbin of “mythology” (in a UK and European context of that term); 5) and then goes on to offer a construal of Paul’s point about Adam and the primal sin and the entry of death that would remain valid regardless of the position one might take on human evolution and Adam and Eve.

By: Foolish Tar Heel

Foolish Tar Heel — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:09:21 +0000

Amen!

By: Assurs

Assurs — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:01:37 +0000

^Agreed – and I do believe in a historical Adam. However, my faith would not collapse as others here without a historical Adam. The relevation of God in the person of Christ is sufficient to sustain my faith.

By: Assurs

Assurs — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:49:28 +0000

You should read the book of John brother – I think you deny Christ’s direct command that there is a no debate about:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples”

A non-christian friend reading your post (and to be fair others here) made the comment that this was one of the most spiteful conversations they have ever read.

By: Mark Traphagen

Mark Traphagen — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:44:17 +0000

Nathan, I’m not going to get sidetracked into debates about male headship, but let me address your main challenge. I don’t accept that it is a necessary reading of the passages in question that Jesus’ and Paul’s arguments were grounded in the historicity of those people. That is not to say that they didn’t believe in Adam’s historicity; I think they probably did. It’s just to say that I’m not persuaded that the theological points they were making necessarily stand or fall on the historicity of Adam.

By: Chris Zodrow

Chris Zodrow — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:42:05 +0000

Further, the Psalm is not about creation, but about God’s sovereign rule over everything. Where you get that He subdued the monsters as part of His creative act is a bit of a stretch. Yes, creation is mentioned, but not in regards to the monster thing. I would rather believe a thousand things I did not know, then submit myself to the empty ramblings of a modernist who flattens all experience to the hell of what he can imagine.

My favorite line is this:
22 Rise up, O God, and defend your cause;
remember how fools mock you all day long.

23 Do not ignore the clamor of your adversaries,
the uproar of your enemies, which rises continually.

Amen.

By: Chris Zodrow

Chris Zodrow — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:29:17 +0000

FTH,
I am not saying anything that has not been said by the church fathers. The denial of the historic Adam is the basis for the gnostic heresy, and leads to the denial of history in toto. It is ultimately a denial of the Gospel. I don’t have time to flesh out the logical flow here. Others have said much more than I and said it better.

Tremper is a dog. The church should condemn him as a heretic. About the Psalm— so what? I have no problem with the Word of God. Let God be true and every man a liar. So, God destroyed the sea monsters. Yep. You know, of course, this is not some veiled reference to the Clash of the Titans, right?

By: Dan Phillips

Dan Phillips — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:26:03 +0000

Excellent, Paul. Thank you.

By: Bill Bartmann

Bill Bartmann — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:21:31 +0000

I don’t know If I said it already but …Excellent site, keep up the good work. I read a lot of blogs on a daily basis and for the most part, people lack substance but, I just wanted to make a quick comment to say I’m glad I found your blog. Thanks, :)

A definite great read..

-Bill-Bartmann

By: Nathan Wall

Nathan Wall — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:14:08 +0000

Mark,

In response to your comment on Jeremy’s blog, the problem is that Jesus and Paul used the historicity of Adam as grounds for their teaching on the issues Justin mentioned. So on what grounds can you argue for male headship? Paul argued for male headship from the fact that Adam was made first, then Eve. If Paul was wrong about the grounds for his argument, was he also wrong in the implication he drew (male headship)?

By: Mark Traphagen

Mark Traphagen — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:53:09 +0000

Justin,

My response to that argument flow is already posted in response to your comment on Jeremy Pierce’s blog, which he linked in his comment above.