RE: Adam from Dust

From: Stuart d Kirkley (stucandu@lycos.com)
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 19:49:20 EDT

  • Next message: Lucy Lear: "Re: Noahic Covenant"

    --
    

    On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:44:56 Dick Fischer wrote: > >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.

    I suppose it depends on what theology you subscribe to. Like I said, this is what I believe, and it makes perfect sense to me. I'm not talking about Christ as in Christ Jesus, but the ideal man, of which Christ Jesus was the embodiment sent to demonstrate the way to eternal spiritual reality and eternal life in the here and now, always and forever. > >>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.

    Yes, but do you really suppose that man is nothing more than a creation from dust. I can't accept that. And why does Paul refer to that which was first, which is spiritual, when explaining the difference between Adam and Christ. > >"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?

    Like I said, the story of the creation of Adam is an allegory. The meaning of the allegory is not false, but it points to the error of believing in a mortal creation as opposed to the perfect spiritual creation already established and eternally maintained by God, who saw it all as very good. 'But there went up a mist from the ground' is the mystification of material mortal sense in which everything gets inverted, and the spiritual creation becomes obscured by material sense, or the belief of life in matter, or dust. Life is spiritual and eternal, and can never enter into that which is temporal and mortal, except in belief, which is the illusion we all suffer from to some extent. But Christ, or the Truth of spiritual creation, is already established and is able to draw us out of this mortal illusion as we follow the example set by Christ Jesus and all who have ever responded to CHrist, or divine Truth. > >>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?

    It may be that there was an actual Adam from who the biblical genealogy began. I don't dispute that. But my point is that the notion of creation as having begun with Adam is false. Jesus said, 'Before Abraham was, I am' referring not to the man Jesus, but to the Christ. or his true spiritual identity, and the true spiritual identity of all creation, which is the same yesterday, today, and forever. THis is the creation presented in Genesis 1, and we need to learn that it is the truth of creation, as spirtual, and that the mortal, material creation, presented in Gen 2, is not the truth of our being, but a false picture where corruption somehow enters into God's creation. BUt God saw all, and it was very good. How can corruption enter into that which is already established as good, so much so that GOd rested and blessed His creation on the Sabbath. It was after this that the mist arose. It is only when we lose sight of this perfect spiritual creation, and believe in a mortal, m! ate rial creation, as presented by the creation from the dust of the ground, that discord and disharmony enter into the picture.

    ANyway,that is my understanding, and like I said, it makes perfect sense to me, and makes a lot of the scriptures make a lot of sense also, when examined in this light.

    With respect Stuart K. > >Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orislol.com >ĪThe Answer we should have known about 150 years agoĶ >

    _____________________________________________________ Supercharge your e-mail with a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and NoTaglines --> LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 19 2002 - 00:10:06 EDT