Re: [asa] (once burned, twice shy) Saving Darwin: What theological changes arerequired?

But Paul didn't, & we shouldn't, start with Adam. We start with Christ.
I.e., we don't begin with faith in Adam & then connect that with Christ, but
proceed the other way. (& if Ted Peters et al are right, if God creates
from the future & the historical Jesus is a prolepsis of that future, then
the fact that he is the "last Adam" means that he has priority over the
"first Adam.")

& there are really no serious doubts about the historicity of Jesus & his
cross as there are for a putative historical Adam. Of course there are
debates about the resurrection of Christ, & that's what the debate - as far
as history is concerned - centers on.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
Cc: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 10:25 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] (once burned, twice shy) Saving Darwin: What theological
changes arerequired?

> Ted Davis said:
> "The bottom line is that Robin follows NT scholar Jimmy Dunn who, in his
> commentary on Romans 1-8, holds that "an act in mythic history can be
> parallel to an act in living history without the point of comparison
> being lost." Robin applies this to the second Adam."
>
> That sounds new and interesting to me- thanks for sharing. Something to
> consider. Although, if the first was thought true then later found to
> be myth; it makes the second, which is also considered true to be,
> suspect in the same way. "Once burned, twice shy."
>
> ...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 11 07:36:52 2008