Stuart Kirkley wrote:
>I have to differ with you here. This is what I believe: God's man,
>the man of the true creation, the first account of creation in
>Genesis 1, is Christ, made in the image and likeness of God, whom God
>saw and beheld as very good.
God "created" Christ? Theological difficulty with that approach.
>If Adam is God's man, made in His image and likeness, then you are
>tacitly saying that God is dust.
Adam was a creation, dust is a creation, God is eternal.
"In God's image" would be Adam as a representative of God, an
ambassador. "The image of Baal" was the same thing - a symbolic
representation that stood in the place of Baal. All "graven images"
intended to represent the deities are rejected by God. The only
mediator today is Christ who is "in the image."
>The second account is a false account of creation: man made of the
>dust of the ground, what a poor imitation of the grand truth of
>spiritual creation already presented.
I think you are on shaky ground positing a "false account." How many
other false accounts are there in Scripture? Who are we to judge
what parts of God's Word may be true or false?
>The story of Adams creation is but an allegory designed to
>illustrate the error of believing in mortal existence, as opposed to
>the grand truth of immortal spiritual
>creation presented in the first chapter.
It amazes me how much we can find in the Scriptures. If this is how
the Holy Spirit relates it to you, who am I to say you are wrong? It
doesn't jibe with my understanding of Scripture, but we all are aware
of a conservative/liberal split which will be with us forever, I
suppose. But I would suggest that you will wind up having to explain
away more than I will as you move from passage to passage. Here is a
case in point:
>If Adam is God's man , why does Paul state 'As in Adam all die, even
>so in Christ shall all be made alive' 15:22 ? Is not this whole
>chapter explaining the difference between Adam and Christ, between
>the false man, and the true man, between the real and the unreal.
If Adam is "unreal," you must find a way to dovetail the real Christ
with the "unreal" Adam in Luke's genealogy. Where do the real
fathers and patriarchs stop, and the "unreal" ones begin? Even
historians recognize "Semites" who emanate from Shem. Was Noah not
his father? And since Noah is named in II Peter 2:5, would it not be
just as reasonable to suppose that Adam has the same claim to being
real as Noah has?
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orislol.com
ěThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoî
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 17 2002 - 10:40:08 EDT