jazzact13,

Are you then suggesting that if any part of the bible is not historically factual then it is useless?

I fear that plays right into the hands of atheists and sets Christianity on a path to speedy death in the 21st century if it is not already on its last breath. You may not agree with the amounts of text I’m willing to categorize as “myth” or “legend” but don’t you agree that some parts are mythological? The garden of Eden or at a minimum the 6 days of creation? How about the flood? I’m just curious how far your literalism goes. Why force Christianity into a corner that will end up making it a comedy and bolster the cause of atheism.

The traditional theistic Christian image of God is a hypothesis, BUT that doesn’t mean that God is not a reality. There are more than 2 choices (atheism / theism)

You said:

Was the Bible lying when it referred to Jesus as the “second Adam”, and contrasted His work of redemption with Adam’s fall and it’s results?

It isn’t a matter of lying. The bible isn’t a person so it can’t lie. Paul however, the author of that specific text, did make that statement but for him it wasn’t a lie. I suspect that he likely did believe Adam was a literal figure and Jesus was a divine turning point in history. And for him (and me), it certainly was. I don’t think it is a lie for him to write based on his 1st century understanding of the universe. It would only be a lie if Paul somehow knew that Adam was myth and then intentionally spoke as if it wasn’t. The stories were at a minimum 6 centuries old by then and likely taught to him as a child just like you and I. I felt that way too when I was 8 years old.

I also suspect that Jesus had this same ancient worldview. It would be impossible to imagine anything else. He likely believed in a literal heaven/hell which explains his comments to the “theif on the cross”. Of course, it is also possible that those words did not originate from his mouth but rather from the later Christian tradition that wrote about him. Either way, the theology which comes out of those texts reflects the 1st and 2nd century worldview that was common to the day and likely understood afterlife as a reality. Not everyone believed that, but it seems likely that Jesus and Paul did. I feel we can safely accept the mission and purpose of Jesus and Paul without having to accept their 1st century worldview or the worldview of later Christians that developed the creeds and much of our theological history.

I’m not sure what you mean by “attempts to sneak in works by the back door”. I don’t attempt to follow a “salvation by works” theology. I don’t see salvation as meaning afterlife so the discussion of works vs. faith is irrelevant to me. Salvation or “healing” is relevant to the particular ailment of the individual. If you ailment is anxiety about an imagined torment in afterlife, then I guess you should try to obtain “correct belief” so that you can eliminate that anxiety. In a modern world that has no anxiety about status in afterlife, the idea of salvation will need to be reset to our culture. I think Jesus already understood something about the relative nature of healing (salvation) because each person he offered salvation seemed to get a unique message about his or her own unique need.