That's an assumption I would like to see support for.
& it's consistent with that that Paul
>gives Christ priority over Adam in Romans 5,
Huh? Consistent with what?
so that trying to
>understand human nature in terms of an historical Adam is henceforth a
Whoa! You had me with you right down to that last line. Where did you
uncork that one? Is that a logical conclusion? I think not. Perhaps you
can track the logic somehow, but it is not a premise I would accede to
based on this line of reasoning. I thought those who wanted to reject an
historical Adam did so on the basis of something more substantive than this...