Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all

[Wm. Taylor]

Hi John,   There are numerous theologians, some of whom are wonderfully Christian, who have read the creation account as allegory and have not taken it literally. And so you are not alone if you conclude that "Adam" represents collective mankind. For several reasons I do not agree with this account. The main is the bloodline. Jesus is go'el, the Seed promised in the garden. If all blood does not go back to the first Adam, then the Second Adam could not redeem all humanity in taking on the flesh of the first; for if he is not of our bloodline, he is not our Kinsmen Redeemer and thus could not represent us.   Nevertheless, John, I am thrilled that you are enjoying Kruger. And yes he has a wonderful vision of the inner workings of God. If only we all were willing to benefit from his insight! And I am very excited about what you are saying concerning fellowship and community. You are quite right about what it should have been. I think it just never got going like it could have had our first parents not rebelled.   Thanks,   Bill        ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks ... especially for y'all In a message dated 7/23/2004 6:06:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay, okay, you are right, it was unnecessary and I shouldn't have done it. I guess what comes around doesn't have to go around. I will try to be better.   bill You're a good man, Bill Taylor.   By the way, I am about to revise my leanings in regard to Adam  and this image of God thing.   The single most important contribution I see in Kruger (to date) is his well worded defense of the  relational Godhead (he would say Trinity but I just can't do that) and the idea that central to the essence of God is this thing we call fellowship  --  The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit (and these are my words, I know) finds purpose as He indwells (fellowships) the disciples of Christ.  In the Genesis account,  I am thinking the proclamation "Let us make man in Our image" (1:26) and the fulfillment of that announcement "And God created man in His own image,  in the image of God He created him  -- male and female He created them"  are not specific references to Adam and Eve  --  rather a declaration about "mankind."  Mankind is in the image of God.   If the essence of God is fellowship, would not the community of human beings known as "mankind" have, as its essence, the property of fellowship?   Community demands fellowship does it not?    And so it is that mankind was created in the image of God (a collective deity)  The resulting conclusion is almost forced upon us  -- that when fellowship is perverted into warring factions and sectarian spirits, the end result is the destruction of those who participate in that misuse of community. Just thinking John (I'm listening) Smithson