So, when Jesus healed the lepers, did he act on the spur of the moment out
of pity, or was this part of His plan? Maybe Jesus' spur of the moment
action isn't consistent with the majestic view of God's creation.
>You also wrote, "Christian theology has traditionally believed that Adam was
>the first of the human race." Quite true, and traditional theology is wrong,
>as Dick Fischer took great pains to demonstrate. His conclusion: Adam was
>created into a peopled world. Who were the people? Those descendants of the
>man (adam) created by God in his Image in Gen. 1.
I have a lot of respect for Dick and his views. And he has many excellent
points to make about his thesis. I find it very worrisome that part of us
could be Adamic and others aren't. Given mankinds penchant for playing us
versus them games, I don't see much reason for Genesis to try to show the
unity of the human race (Genesis 11) for there not to be unity. And I
worry about the dangers of Christianity playing a Adamic/nonAdamic game.
It would remind me too much of the views of the Mormons concerning black
>I agree. I too prefer concordism. Your resuscitated hominid had these
>pseudogenes. Does that demonstrate that he was the Adam of Gen. 2? Not at
>all. Your argument is with YECers, not me.
Then why are you responding and the YECs aren't? :-)
>Then you continued, "So, back to the original question. Do I believe
>is possible to use E.V.K. Pearce's suggestion that Adam of Chapter 2 is not
>adam of Chapter 1. No. It raises racial concerns with me. Are any of the
>adams still alive and if so, how should we treat them. The entire slave
>of the US was
>partially based upon the working belief that blacks were not human and
>could b. For this reason, I think it is best for Christianity to maintain
>the biological unity of the human family."
>You raise questions that are no longer relevant or helpful since Jesus Christ
>came to earth to live, die, and be raised again for humanity's salvation.
>Your questions are pre-Christian questions that have already been answered.
>A large part of the answer is given Paul's letter to the Ephesians 2: 11-21.
>He says there was once two groups: "the circumcision" (Jews) and "the
>uncircumcision" (Gentiles, = the rest of humanity). Let me quote what Paul
>wrote further, because it is so beautiful, "But now in Christ Jesus you (the
>uncircumcised) who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of
>Christ. For he is our peace; _in his flesh he has made both groups into one_
>and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He
>has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might
>create in himself _one new humanity in place of two_, thus making peace, and
>might _reconcile both groups to God in one body though the cross_...."
I would like to point out that the division of circumcised/uncircumcised is
not equivalent to Adamic/nonAdamic in either Pearce's or Fischer's scheme.
So I don't see how Ephesians applies to the Adamic/nonAdamic issue. Most of
the people listed in Genesis 11, descendants of Adam are not circumcised.
>By the way, do you have a reference to E.V.K. Pearce's work. As you can
>imagine, I would like to get my hands on it. Thanks.
I am sure you would like to read it. It is E. K. Victor Pearce, Who ws
Adam, S. A.: S.A.L.T. Project, 1987).
By the way, his anthropology is very outdated.
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information