glenn morton wrote:
>
> At 08:09 AM 3/11/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
> > Christ's atonement for sin is predicated upon sin.
> > While some NT texts concerning the work of Christ (specifically Rom.5 & I
> >Cor.15) speak of this in connection with Adam, others (e.g., Hebrews, I
> Peter) don't.
> >Most theories of the atonement can be expressed, some with minor
> modifications, without
> >the assumption that Gen.3 describes an historical fall of the first pair
> of humans.
> > Of course we both agree that Genesis 3 was written before the NT. But
> you seem
> >to be arguing that _logically_ the NT claim that Christ atoned for sin
> requires that
> >sin be understood as having originated historically as described in Gen.3,
> & thus that
> >we can conclude that if Christ really atoned for sin then Gen.3 must have
> really
> >happened that way. & that argument doesn't work.
>
> But neither does the argument work that Jesus paid a penalty for sin of
> indeterminant origin. How do I know that the sin atoned for by Christ was
> of Judaic theology or Hindu theology? Afterall, if the Judaic story of the
> origin of sin is not really what happened, then clearly one can question
> whose definition of sin is being atoned for. And that is very important. If
> sin is not defined as disobeying God's desires but is defined in some other
> way, then the entire edifice of Christian morality collapses like a house
> of cards. Maybe sin is not engaging in a particular ritual; maybe sin is
> not bowing 3 times before entering you house. The rejection of Genesis 3
> has much signficance to what is being atoned for. We simply can't pick and
> chose what we wish to accept in scripture without starting a new religion.
What sin is & how it originated historically are two different questions.
Genesis 3 shows the _nature_ of sin as well as - perhaps even more than - its origin.
Of course I am not "rejecting" Genesis 3 as you well know if you have paid
aattention to what I've said.
> > Let me try to state _positively_ how one might make a connection between
> the
> >work of Christ & Gen.2-3, beginning with part of the gospel for this
> coming Sunday,
> >Mk.1:12-13.
> > "The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in
> the
> >wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts;
> and angels
> >ministered to him."
> > Jesus was "with the wild beasts" as Adam was (Gen.2) & tempted as Adam &
> Eve
> >were (Gen.3). What seems to be happening here is that Jesus recapitulates
> the story of
> >Adam & Eve - except he does it right & doesn't yield to the temptation.
> > (& if that seems a stretch to anyone, note that the corresponding
> temptation
> >story in Mt. is quite obviously a recapitulation, but of the testing of
> Israel in the
> >wilderness - as is made clear by the citations from Dt.)
> > The primary historical event is the testing/temptation of Jesus. The
> >significance of that is described in terms of the Old Testament - the
> testing (&
> >failing) of Israel, the temptation (& failing) of Adam. The 2d is more
> global than the
> >1st - it refers to all humanity & not just Israel. The Matthaen theme of
> recapitulating
> >the testing of Israel is, however, more closely tied to the OT imagery in
> the location
> >& the nature of the tests. The Marcan connection with the Adam story is
> much looser -
> >no garden & no tree. The basic point - that Christ goes back to the very
> beginnings of
> >humanity to repair what went wrong - can be (& is here) expressed without
> any insistence
> >on the historical accuracy of Gen.3.
>
> So does this mean that we don't have to pay any attention at all to what
> the OT says? AFterall, if we don't like what one part says, we can
> subsume it into New TEstament events thus avoiding the need for the Old
> Testament altogether. Jesus atoned for sins but it has little to do with
> Adam and Eve. Indeed, neither of the two new testament temptation accounts
> mention the primal parents. So I gues we can dispense with them also, as a
> consequence of your views.
>
> And I notice that you mention:
> > The primary historical event is the testing/temptation of Jesus. The
> >significance of that is described in terms of the Old Testament - the
> testing (&
> >failing) of Israel, the temptation (& failing) of Adam.
>
> How can Adam fail if the event describing the failing didn't happen? Since
> Genesis 3 didn't happen, I can only conclude that Adam was successful
> because nothing happened at all with him, Eve and the snake. I can now see
> that theologians have really messed it up about Adam all these years. In
> fact they have slandered him. He didn't fail.
>
> To me, George this view is self-falsifying.
Because you are operating in caricature mode. I see no point in continuing the
discussion on that basis.
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 11 2000 - 20:52:56 EST