If Adam and Eve are not real and if no literal fall

[_Jersey Girl]

Okay, trying to get into this a bit......................................................................................................still trying..........................................................okay, sometimes I don't know how to phrase my question..........do LDS believe that Jesus always was the Savior or do they believe that he was appointed as Savior after the alleged fall?

Please try to get into my question Bourne..................

:-)

[_Jason Bourne]

1: Do you believe Adam and Eve were literally the first man and woman?

Yes. That is what the Biblical record tells us.

So to be clear, you believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that all humans-the 7 billion on earth today, can tie back to Adam and Eve through Noah and his family and that Adam and Eve were dismissed from the garden of Eden about 6000 or so years ago. Also that there was no death at all for any plants or animals on this earth prior to that time.

2: Do you believe that there was a literal fall of Adam and that if Adam had not fallen that the human race would be living in a paradise state today?

I have no idea.

Could you clarify for me. I thought it was orthodox to Christian doctrine that God intended for human beings to live is a paradisaical state but because Adam and Eve sinned that essentially blew it for the rest of us. Of course this begs the question of why didn't God just replace Adam and Eve rather than condemning all their posterity but that is another subject.

So if Adam and Eve had not sinned I assume we would all be in paradise. Of course one or more of their posterity could have rebelled but maybe that would have just condemned that particular person. I am not sure.

So could you expound for me and share what Christian doctrine is on this one?

I know what LDS doctrine is-If Adam had not fallen he and Eve would have remained in a state of innocence, they would have had no posterity, knew no real joy because they did not have opposition in all things other than the command to obey God and not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

3: If Adam and Eve were not literally real and there was not a literal fall of man then what implications does this have on the orthodox Christian

Plenty. There would be no Christianity. Orthodox or otherwise.

So you agree with me that the fall of Adam is critical to the core of Christian doctrine about the redemption of human kind.

Now by the way, the fall of Adam could be myth and we still could have Orthodox Christianity. However it seems to me that a figurative mythical Adam and Eve and their fall has serious implications for the literalness of the story of salvation through Jesus Christ.

teachings of original sin as well as the need for Jesus Christ to save us?

I have no idea what a symbolic fall is.

I think many would say the story of Adam and Eve are mythical to explain sin and death. It further becomes metaphorical and so may much if not the rest of the message of redemption.

Either sin was introduced to a sinless world at some point, or it was not.

Or what we now call sin has always existed. Or sin is a religious construct and philosophy and perhaps the Christian concept of sin is nonsense if there was no fall of man?

And if there is no original sin, then it's reasonable to assume that someone at some point would have iived a sinless life. What makes me think one hasn't? is the next question. Because he/she would have stood out from the rest of humanity fairly profoundly I would think. Thus, if it were possible to live a sinless life, then there is no need for a Savior.

I understand. Of course living a sinless life means someone has to define what sins one must avoid to live a sinless life. Without that construct this becomes a bit meaningless. If there is no fall or original sin why does one even have to live a so called sinless life?

[_Jason Bourne]

Okay, trying to get into this a bit......................................................................................................still trying..........................................................okay, sometimes I don't know how to phrase my question..........do LDS believe that Jesus always was the Savior or do they believe that he was appointed as Savior after the alleged fall?

Please try to get into my question Bourne..................

:-)

Jersey, I know your posting style is often to answer questions with questions. I am ok with that if you attempt to answer my questions as well. I am more interested in comments from traditional Christians because I know what the LDS view is and what the potential implications are to LDS teachings based on what the answers are.

Now to your question, yes, the LDS Church believes Jesus Christ was chosen as savior from the foundation of the world and even before. But LDS teachings state that we all pre-existed, knew Adam would fall as it was really part of the plan, that sin would be part of the world we would enter, that we would all sin and require redemption.

I do not think that is the Orthodox Christian view. I think it is God intended for humans to exist in paradise.

[_Jersey Girl]

Bourne,

I think I need to explain myself. :-)

Jersey, I know your posting style is often to answer questions with questions.

I do often answer questions with questions and it's not because it's my posting style. It is my teaching style. If you want to get technical about it, it's called "facilitative". It's how I function as a teacher. It is not my position to give answers but to search for answers with other posters and in this case, to establish the terms of the topic. For example, I need to know what folks believe about Christ before I can go forward with that premise.

I am not being "catty" when I ask questions. Sometimes I need to know what others think and believe before I can try to address what is being forwarded and so you might see me asking divergent questions which is exactly what I do as a teacher of children and adults.

With children and adults, I might ask "Who knows what..." or "Who knows why..." or "How do you know that?" and the response leads to information and new ideas about a topic. So, from that point on we can explore those ideas and hypotheses and see how or if they work.

Sort of like when the issue of "hell" comes up. You might see me ask (and I have numerous times) "What is hell?" When I ask that, all sorts of variations can come from that. They might say "fiery furnace" or "separation from God" and if they do, I might add information about the fires of Molech or Tophet and someone might learn something from that exchange...and it might be me.

So I am not being facetious, I am trying to find out where the beginning is and will try to follow the thinking from that point and forward.

I've run into a few posters who feel insulted when I explain my position. They criticize me because they think that I think I'm their teacher.

Quite the contrary is true. I think I can learn with them. If you understand that there is a difference, then you'll "get" me.

:-)

[_Jersey Girl]

I also don't like to come in at the middle of a topic. I'd rather go back to the beginning and methodically move forward which explains a lot of my frustration on a message board. Okay, let's go.

Jersey, I know your posting style is often to answer questions with questions. I am ok with that if you attempt to answer my questions as well. I am more interested in comments from traditional Christians because I know what the LDS view is and what the potential implications are to LDS teachings based on what the answers are.

I'll do the best that I can. I needed to know what LDS believe first, because I needed to know if there was common ground here to deal with, and there is.

Now to your question, yes, the LDS Church believes Jesus Christ was chosen as savior from the foundation of the world and even before. But LDS teachings state that we all pre-existed, knew Adam would fall as it was really part of the plan, that sin would be part of the world we would enter, that we would all sin and require redemption.

I do not think that is the Orthodox Christian view. I think it is God intended for humans to exist in paradise.

I do not know if I am Orthodox Christian or if I can supply that view. If you'll take an answer for a mixed up Christian who doesn't know what doctrinal day it is, then here goes...

I think it safe to say that there are some Christians who believe that Jesus was chosen as Savior before the world and humans were created. If that is so, then God created us knowing that we were NOT God, NOT divine, and would definitely fall. Thus, the need for a predetermined Savior.

There are some Christians who believe that God is OUTSIDE of creation and always WAS outside of creation because he cannot be in the presences of evil (if you will). Which might explain why in the Genesis story, we see a God who is positioned away from Adam and Eve and the only evidence we have that he is there is his voice.

If Jesus was predestined to be the Savior of mankind and if human beings were destined to fall because of our imperfect nature, then the Garden story could be literal or metaphorical.

I see no problem taking the story as literal. If you see some reason not to take it literally, I'd like to know what it is.

But...if the Garden story is metaphorical, then you can take the geneaologies and throw them out the window which doesn't bode well for the line of David.

[_Hoops]

This story contains no literal truth:

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I can't wrap my head around a "non-literal" truth.

the events recounted did not in fact take place. It is string of falsehoods.

Unprovable, of course. And assuming facts not in evidence.

It does however contain a different kind of truth

I have trouble here. Truth is Truth. God is Truth. Truth (or truth-telling) is not an attribute of God, it is who He is. He the mechanism, if you will, by which we guage truth.

- a sociological or psychological truth (if you like to call it that) that people who are told repeatedly that danger is near and find that this is not the case eventually ignore warnings of danger, and that disaster may be the result.

That sounds more like advice to me. It would appear that different "kinds" of truth are not truth at all. And the motivation for such constructs is to have the luxury of appealing to some higher order of truth to maintain a working society without the burden of recognizing Absolute Truth.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable, but I think i disagree.

[Guest]

-

[_Jersey Girl]

HDE

However I think it's important to note that a large number of Christians completely reject the Old Testament as myths anyway

How can that be true? How can Christians "completely reject the Old Testament as myths"?

Are you saying that, for example, a large number of Christian's don't believe that King Solomon existed?

[_Jersey Girl]

There was no King Solomon? No Herod? No first and second temples?

How can a Christian reject the entire Old Testament as myth???

I'm not seeing it...

Songs or Song of Solomon is myth?
Psalms is myth?
Proverbs is myth?

I'm sorry, but I don't see how someone can paint with one broad brush, the entire Old Testament as myth given the variety of literary styles it contains.

[_Hoops]

So to be clear, you believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that all humans-the 7 billion on earth today, can tie back to Adam and Eve through Noah and his family and that Adam and Eve were dismissed from the garden of Eden about 6000 or so years ago. Also that there was no death at all for any plants or animals on this earth prior to that time.

I believe if one is to take The Bible seriously, then literalism is the only choice that does it justice. I believe if one is to regard The Bible as containing what God wants us to know about Him, then it must be taken at face value. It does not mean that there is NO symbolism, of course there is, for a variety of reasons. But our starting point should be a literal interpretation, otherwise there is no meaning left at all.

I noted your appeal to science. I don't disagree. But the first problem with which one must contend is the idea that The Bible is not a science textbook - while still containing scientific truths. I'm not sure why it is incumbent upon the "other" natural to explain Himself within purely natural borders. You (not you specifically) say that science disproves Biblical accounts. I say it can not and does not. You say it's unfair or illogical to appeal to the "other" natural to explain apparently contradicting evidence. I say it is equally unfair to restrict one's explanation of a creator simply and only by its creation. There are other Truths that science can not or has not explained adequately. And I've found the attempts to be clumsy at best. For example: Love. To explain Love as some sort of evolutionary mechanism is wholely inadequate and not very explanatory at all.

Yes, I take the Bible seriously and therefor have no problem believing the Biblical record for what it tells us.

Could you clarify for me. I thought it was orthodox to Christian doctrine that God intended for human beings to live is a paradisaical state but because Adam and Eve sinned that essentially blew it for the rest of us. Of course this begs the question of why didn't God just replace Adam and Eve rather than condemning all their posterity but that is another subject.

One can only surmise regarding the reasons. But your hypothetical assumes a lot of things that I'm not willing to assume. For example: I'm not sure any religion can adequately explain what sin is in this context. Nor can we understand the relationship that Adam and Eve had with God. Again, taking the Bible at face value, one can only get a slim glimpse of how close that relationship was. Remember, it apparently was common for either/both to be walking in the garden and for God to show up. How does one describe that today? Can we even fathom how close they were? Doesn't that impact the egregiousness of the sin? Given how pervasive sin is today, I think we may have become a bit jaded about sin. In a way, that's a real blessing. In another way, we've lost sight of what we've really lost.

But to get back to your answer, I'm not really sure. I question whether you and I would even be here. If that's the case, Adam and Eve would be living in paradise today.

So if Adam and Eve had not sinned I assume we would all be in paradise. Of course one or more of their posterity could have rebelled but maybe that would have just condemned that particular person. I am not sure.

Would they have had children? I'm not so sure.

So could you expound for me and share what Christian doctrine is on this one?

To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure. But I'll be happy to give you whatever mundane and trite thoughts I have on this.

So you agree with me that the fall of Adam is critical to the core of Christian doctrine about the redemption of human kind.

Absolutely.

Now by the way, the fall of Adam could be myth and we still could have Orthodox Christianity. However it seems to me that a figurative mythical Adam and Eve and their fall has serious implications for the literalness of the story of salvation through Jesus Christ.

I don't think I agree.

I think many would say the story of Adam and Eve are mythical to explain sin and death. It further becomes metaphorical and so may much if not the rest of the message of redemption.

You're assuming that something so common as death requires explanation. Why would it? Without the context of Adam?

Or what we now call sin has always existed. Or sin is a religious construct and philosophy and perhaps the Christian concept of sin is nonsense if there was no fall of man?

I think that it is. You're right.

I understand. Of course living a sinless life means someone has to define what sins one must avoid to live a sinless life. Without that construct this becomes a bit meaningless. If there is no fall or original sin why does one even have to live a so called sinless life?

I completely agree. Sin is meaningless outside a Christian perspective. In addition, sin is essentially meaningless today anyway. While sin is certainly the last temper I lost my temper when I shouldn't have, it so much more than that. Biblically, me losing my temper is the consequence of my sin, not the sin itself. And this also impacts what redemption really is, but perhaps another discussion.