Human Extraterrestrials? Maybe they exist… and maybe they carry the Book of Mormon…
LOL!
1 Like
Can such Human Extraterrestrials be considered “genealogical descendants of Adam/Eve”?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
If God has allowed for Humans to exist on other worlds prior to the birth of Jesus … then it is well within his capacity to make sure one of the offspring of Adam & Eve joins that population (or populations) to insure all humanity are genealogical descendants of Adam/Eve.
The Genealogical Adam scenarios are not held captive by “randomness” as conventional Darwinism might be.
George
If I understand well you propose the following:
One or more genealogical descendants of Adam/Eve were miraculously transported by God to a Planet different from Earth where evolution had produced a population of creatures which are anatomically human like we are.
The genealogical descendants of Adam/Eve interbred with these creatures to produce further genealogical descendants of Adam/Eve.
By the time of Jesus’ birth on Earth all the humans in this Planet were genealogical descendants of Adam/Eve like the humans on Earth were.
Please tell me whether or not I interpret you correctly.
Hey… that is my response IF there humans also living on some other planet. AKA the Prometheus premise as seen in the movies.
If you arent explaining how these humans got there… then im not explaining how Adam’s offspring did either.
Life evolved in this other Planet the same way as on Earth bringing about creatures that are anatomically modern humans as we are.
I would now be thankful to you for explaining how Adam’s offspring got there.
Oh no you don’t, @AntoineSuarez … Remember back at your post 682?:
You literally dared me to disbelieve there were humans on other planets. So I humored you.
In this last post, you suggested that evolution created humans on other planets. This virtually requires God’s engagement to have humans evolve on two different planets, right?
So… GOD put humans on this other planet in your question. If so, then God scooped up some fertile Earthling, descended from Adam, and brought him to his other planet of humans.
Maybe that’s why Enoch or Elijah were “taken up”?
Frankly, the fact you thought to challenge me by such a fringe idea (humans on another planet … what says they are even humans?), I now have to wonder about the ingenuousness of your inquiry… like, “Have you stopped beating your spouse?”
In my view nothing speaks against the possibility that evolution has been reproduced in other planets outside Earth.
Accordingly coherency in knowledge requires us to consider how the “Genealogical Adam” model works under assumption that one day we encounter extraterrestrial creatures that are anatomically modern humans like we are.
This explanation seems to rest on the theological postulate that all anatomically modern humans (both on earth or outside it) have to become genealogical descendants of Adam before Jesus’ birth.
So the question arises:
Which is the theological motivation for such a postulate?
Apparently it cannot be other than “Adam’s sin must become the sin of all human beings by means of genealogical descent in order they all can share Redemption by Jesus”.
Please tell me whether or not this interpretation of your explanation is correct.
My position is:
In accord with @Kathryn_Applegate I advocate the idea that “Adam’s sin became our sin”, and this means more precisely:
After the first sin in human history all humans (both on earth or outside it) come into existence in the state of need of Redemption (state of ‘original sin’) regardless of whether or not they are genealogically descended from the first sinner.
1 Like
That can be your approach…it would even fit the G.A. scenarios. But i doubt many American Evangelicals will be moved by your logic.
1 Like
I am not sure that anything other than direct individual choice really makes sense to most of today’s secular young people, though, does it? Nothing against the brilliant GA or any other harmonizing position. It is more of a Western idea of justice.
Randy,
What do you mean by “Western idea of justice” in this context?
Thanks for explaining more in detail.
1 Like
Thank you, as always, for your courteous discussion, Dr Suarez. I hope that it is not yet too cold in Switzerland!
I was referring to the fact that many, my church included, interpret Adam’s fall as a blanket guilt to all of us. In the ancient near East, it was considered fairly common and right to curse a group because of one person’s sin–eg, Adam, and thus all his offspring; Noah cursed Canaan because of Ham’s sin; Jacob cursed some of his sons; Korah’s family, Achan’s family, and even all descendants of the Amalekites (Deut 25: 17) and Midianites (Numbers 31) because representatives did something wrong. It’s thought by some, including Pete Enns and other OT scholars, that that is an Eastern mindset–children and family are paramount–a unit.
In Western culture, we believe that the one who sins shall die (that’s in Ezekiel 18 too, but considered somewhat counter-cultural). We don’t really feel comfortable with punishing an entire family, even of someone whose figurehead was evil (Trump apparently created waves by recommending that we kill the entire families of terrorists Donald Trump on terrorists: 'Take out their families' | CNN Politics)
When we try to explain God’s grace to us, my church (and many others) says that Christ came to remove the sin of Adam.
That is a stumbling block. Why on earth would God punish me for Adam’s sin, some say (as did Muslim people talking to a missionary friend of mine).
Pete Enns and David Bentley Hart, among others, would say that Augustine misread what Paul intended in Romans 5, and a trajectory ensued that implied imbued sin that wasn’t there Was There a "Fall" or Did Augustine Really Screw Everything Up?
To quote,
"Romans 5:12, translated properly (as in the NRSV and other translations), says: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—“
'The “one man” is, of course, Adam. And Paul seems to be saying, quite clearly in fact, that death spread because all have sinned. Now what that means exactly needs some clarification, but that isn’t the issue here. The issue is that Augustine, working from a poor Latin translation of Romans 5:12, has “in him” where the Greek has “because.”
'You can see the problem. Augustine’s reading is that death spread to all because all sinned in him [in Adam]. In other words, death spread to humanity because all humanity was somehow “present” in Adam’s act of disobedience.
'This bad reading of Romans 5:12, rooted in a bad Latin translation of the Greek, has led to the notion that all humans are culpable (guilty) with Adam for what Adam did—all humanity sinned in him.
'Augustine’s reading is what many Christians believe Paul actually said, and which is why Augustine’s notion of “original sin” is defended with such uncompromising vehemence as the “biblical” teaching. But neither Romans nor Genesis or the Old Testament supports the idea."
So–this can be very confusing, but what Enns says is that Paul was emphasizing that Romans Jews have sinned as their Gentile brothers have–and that we’re all saved by grace, not by the outward marks of circumcision.
I’m concerned that no matter how we jive an idea of original sin whose guilt transmitted to all of mankind, no one with a Western idea of justice --that God judges each of us on our own merit–will really understand the gospel. I’m not sure that many of us truly understand (which is OK).
Edit: I checked with you by private message first to make sure that this is not too much of a diversion before posting it. You said to go ahead, so as to discuss some misconceptions. Thank you 
I look forward to this discussion. God bless.
2 Likes
Many thanks Randy for this most valuable contribution to this thread.
In Switzerland this summer has been extremely enjoyable but in the coming days it may get cooler.
The “Western idea of justice” you refer to is full of implicit assumptions we should bring to light in order to argue coherently.
To begin with:
I fully share this feeling but think it does not really corresponds to what the “state of original sin” is all about. Indeed you claim:
If God would strictly act according to this belief, He would “punish the sinners” immediately after they sin, and this would mean throwing them to hell “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41).
Apparently God does not share this “Western idea of justice” you refer to.
Should we blame God for this?
The answer to this question is crucial to understand what “state of original sin” means, in particular according to the teaching of St. Irenaeus, Father of the Church.
Dr Suarez,
Thanks. Rather, regarding sin, I would think that God would punish us in appropriate measure to sin. For example, if my daughter looks me in the eye and lies, I would not throw her into hell. God, to my understanding, is a father that reproves us with intent to correct, not to vindicate. George MacDonald says something like that as well. What do you think?
One narrative (and I think incorrect) interpretation says that we are created unable to avoid sin because of Adam’s inheritance; that even the tiniest sin sends us to eternal conscious torment; and that we are unable to get pardon unless we understand and accept the correct dogma.
In contrast, my own parents were gracious and full of Christ’s love. They punished us only to correct us. That led to my reasoning that God, who is perfect, couldn’t be any worse or unreasonable that my parents, who were as much like Jesus as I could imagine. In fact, it seems to me that Jesus was sent to tell us what the Father is really like.
Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
In my view it is not God who punishes us. God respect our freedom to reject Him. And when we reject God we punish us ourselves because we condemn ourselves to remain unknown to God and have no name forever. Hell is to be nobody and count for nothing for all eternity.
Me too I think this narrative incorrect.
This is a very good comparison!
Suppose (for the sake of argument) a brother of yours strongly rebelled against your father to the extreme of even threatening to kill him, and thereafter did not seem ready to ask for forgiveness.
Suppose you had claimed your brother is irredeemably bad and not worthy of your father’s love while you are unimpeachable and don’t need to be forgiven for anything.
How might your father have reacted to your claims?
1 Like
If I understand well you are referring to “American Evangelicals” who believe that:
-
The first Image Bearers Adam&Eve sinned and thereafter were in a state of need of the Redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ (the state called “original” sin).
-
This state of need of Redemption became transmitted to all accountable humans (Universal need of Redemption by Jesus Christ).
-
This transmission is bound to biological descent, and therefore the Universal need of Redemption requires that Adam&Eve are the common ancestors of all accountable humans.
If one wants move these Evangelicals to acknowledge that today’s humanity is not descended from a single couple which lived some thousand years BC, one has to show that transmission of the state of need of Redemption is NOT bound to biological descent but can also happen in absence of it.
In my view a straightforward way to do this is invoking that human beings in need of Jesus Christ’s Redemption may exist outside Earth.
Speaking as someone who is more or less an EXPERT at “Tilting at Windmills” … I suggest you drop the “ALIEN PROBLEM” and work on getting consensus on just EARTH. When I was a car salesman for a whole 5 days … I still remember my manager asking me: “How many cars is a potential buyer going to drive out of here with?” I said: “One?” He said: “That’s right … so get him or her to commit to the one car he or she really loves… then sell it!”
In the mean time, I’d like to comment on your three-point outline on “American Evangelicals”:
[1] The First Image Bearers (Adam & Eve) sinned and became in need of redemption.
[2] This need for redemption was [somehow] transmitted to all accountable humans.
[3] “This transmission is bound to biological descent, and therefore [this…] requires that
Adam & Eve are the common ancestors of all accountable humans.”
This final point sounds fine - - but it does have the potential for being misunderstood.
Biological descent does not require any of Adam’s or Eve’s “chromosomal material”… because
the actual chromosomes of Adam and Eve can be sidelined relatively quickly in the process of 7 or 8 generations.
So… what is in “Descent” that accomplishes this?
Does the human body know who its “Federal Head” is or was? I don’t think so.
Was all the human genome “corrupted” by Adam’s decision to eat of the Fruit? I don’t think so.
Is “Original Sin” passed on by generation to generation touch and physical contact? Doesn’t seem likely.
So what is your mechanism for how Original Sin gets into each new human?
Dr Suarez,
thanks for your note. I am sorry–I am not sure I get this implication. Isn’t there more likely a middle ground? We all have flaws, but are neither all bad, nor all good; this is the way God made us–really more with learning capabilities.
Thanks.
2 Likes
George, I apologize for insisting:
If you want “getting consensus on just EARTH” it may be useful to consider the “ALIEN PROBLEM”.
My reason is:
If one does NOT totally reject that there can be humans outside Earth who need Jesus’ Redemption as we need, one has to acknowledge that the transmission of the state of need of Redemption (state of “original” sin) is NOT bound to common descent from a single couple (be it genetic or genealogical).
Accordingly anyone endorsing a genetic or genealogical Adam has necessarily to endorse also that:
God has NOT created human beings outside Earth.
Are the “many American Evangelicals” you refer to ready to advocate this?
I have asked the same question to Josh in “peaceful science” and am awaiting for answer.