N.T. Wright and Pete Enns: Paul's Perspective on Adam

In this video Conversation, senior biblical fellow Peter Enns asks Rev. N.T. Wright to respond to the question of how Adam functions theologically in the Old Testament and whether a historical Adam is central or important for that "Adam theology" that is brought up later in Paul's letter to the Romans, where he describes Christ as the "new Adam."

[jaredyoung]

Thank you Biologos for clearing up science and the Bible

[paulshoh]

Thank you Lord for your agent Rev. NTWright mentioning that “True Human is the Messiah Yeshua out Expectation!”

[manifesttruth]

I’ve been approached with at first glance appears to be an interesting issue. I was told by an online friend that the problem with evolution is that you have to be willing to accept that death occurred before the first sin of Adam and Eve, which contradicts Romans 5:12 & 5:21. I haven’t Ben able to find a response to this issue. Did death occur before sin or is sin a result of death? And if you look at an interlinear/concordance the word for “death” is Thanatos which means death of the body. So the scripture is talking about a physical death.

[thapelomaraisane]

Not pertinent but my goodness, Enns has amazing hair.

[bartleysawatsky]

Interesting thoughts Wright presents. But he doesn't actually say anything about Paul's perspective on Adam. Maybe not the right title here...?

[allnations]

When a video only 3min26sec long takes a disproportionate 40-seconds before really starting anything, one almost gives up watching

[keithbentley]

How can gods plan have been derailed ?

[sevenswords]

Jesus was the true Human.. Adam was a fallen Human.. its like comparing all Angels to satan the fallen one.

[jjreddog]

Adam, a real man chose to join his wife in her sin to save her, she would be saved in childbirth until the Lord Jesus was born.
The Incarnation of Jesus Christ by the Virgin Birth brought the Lord`s Salvation to all those who believe in Him by Faith.

[pannonia]

NT Wright does not answer the question what the historical Adam has to do with the theological Adam. I think the reason is that as an educated European (and not a scientifically illiterate fundamentalist American) he is aware that the historical Adam did not exist. But then my question is: why does he accept Paul's theology when it is clearly built on sand? Why do Christians accept Paul's theology as God's revelation when it is based on an outdated, wrong notion of mankind's history, and Christians do not accept anyone else's theology as binding?

[eddiemorris]

Wright annoys me so much, he dances around questions so much, GET TO THE POINT MAN.

[tedprice]

any one who is in Christ is the new Israel of God because Jesus became Egypt. "out of Israel have I called my Son".