Replies

I think the brick wall is the following. Christ is the Second Adam. Now if there was no First Adam why bother with the Second?

"Adam" is the Hebrew word for man, related to the word for red: Adom. It can be ssen as simply a first man.

The literalness of the second Adam may not necessarily imply a literalness to the first adam.

Allow me to start over and explain my logic. Your viewing it as a literalist thing but try approaching Theology as a mysterious science which observes and records life. If you do so you will recognize the NEED for the systematic begats. Just as there is a desire among scientists to tie up the lose ends with factual evidence likewise there is a desire for theologians (mystery of "life" chai scientists) to have no lose ends.

SchrödingersCat: "Adam" is the Hebrew word for man, related to the word for red: Adom. It can be ssen as simply a first man.

Doing that causes one to have to ignore Christ's lineage which precisely speaks of 14 generations between various well known biblical persons and more specifically 14 breaking down into 7 (mathematics being an intergral part of all science) which is considered Divine. The lineage proves his right to claim the throne of the Kingdom of Israel. The promise of redemption first being given to Adam and on down the line. To dismiss Adam as a person is to dismiss his descendents and in some respects it butchers the mysterious Divinity of Christ.

*note that the 14 generations is spoken of in Matthew which only goes as far back as Abraham. However, Luke's record goes back to Adam, even more specifically back to God (Adam being referred to as "the son of God") which can still be broken down by sevens.

"The literalness of the second Adam may not necessarily imply a literalness to the first adam."

Just want to point out that Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve as though they were historical figures.