Adam and Eve? That's just mythology, says Pell

[Julia_Mae]

I’m not well-educated in science. I’m new to this site, and guess it’s time to wet my feet. I can’t debate all that I’ve read on the topic of “our first parents”. I hope I didn’t miss mention of what I’m about to comment on: Wasn’t it shown through mitochondrial DNA that we have indeed descended from one woman? (The “Real Eve” as a program on Discovery Channel termed it several years ago.) I believe I’ve heard that one woman is the mother/matrix of 7 billion people now on earth. I call her Eve, as does the Bible. Just curious…

Yes, there was. Since the advent of the original paper about this ancestor, there has been a flurry of semi-deniability from various scientists who don’t like the religious connotations and try to make it seem as if she is just a “population” of possible females.

But she’s one person. We could posit a family group in an isolated population a with a set of related females, but they’d still be sisters and offspring coming from one original female. The thing is, theoretically, you can follow every single species back to an original female form whom all are descended, whether people or beetles. It’s just the way the system works.

 

[independentDemo]

…how when genetic scientists have agreed that DNA originates from only 2 people.

Adam & Eve!

 

[Julia_Mae]

…how when genetic scientists have agreed that DNA originates from only 2 people.

Adam & Eve!

No they haven’t. Why do you think this?

 

[grannymh]

…how when genetic scientists have agreed that DNA originates from only 2 people.

Adam & Eve!

May I explain a bit about human DNA before answering your question.

Human DNA consists of 20,000 to 25,000 genes. A number of human genes or their variations can be found in material anatomies similar to humans. Scientific research on fossils, which pre-date human appearance, often focuses on similarities of bone structure with current human anatomies.

In brief, DNA is the hereditary material found in humans and other living organisms including organisms, such as dinosaurs and hominids (prehumans or subhumans), which are extinct. Therefore, DNA did not originate from only two people nor is it unique to humans.

What genetic scientists can agree on is that the genetic inherited composition of material anatomies, for example dogs and humans, could have evolved from prehistoric sources or evolved at some point along the lines following the beginning of life.

The glitch is that the human species is peerless so that it is not essentially or totally comparable with other species. The genetic estimates about the history of various genes in DNA only go as far as the anatomical details of humans, animals, and other living organisms such as plants. This is proper because the scientific methods are limited to the material/physical domain.

Genetic evidence itself is material/physical. Examination of this evidence leads to possible conclusions about living organisms within our material/physical environment. Conclusions about the material/physical parts in our lives do not warrant an universal exclusion of the spiritual.

Belief in human nature which began with the origin of the first human person is based on a serious belief in a transcendent, supernatural, pure spirit without restrictions Who is God the Creator. The material/physical environment does not have the capability of limiting the ultimate power of its Creator.

Considering that God the Creator directly creates our spiritual soul, it is theoretically possible that the first two humans originated within a non-human archaic population. These two founders of the human species would not only inherit the general, common, anatomical DNA prevalent in a population but they also would be endowed with a spiritual soul which is what makes it possible for these two individuals to be in the image of God.

Scientifically, there would not necessarily be a major difference between the anatomies of the non-humans and two fully-complete humans. Of course, there would be individual differences because DNA itself is not a process of cloning. The actual difference between Adam and Eve and archaic beings is the spiritual soul with its intellective abilities and freedom of choice. Unfortunately, the spiritual soul does not turn into a fossil.

By all means, the realm of science is that of the material and physical world. But that does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. Ah, one says. Spirituality cannot be put under a natural science microscope. True. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature – the human being one sees in the mirror.

Because some misuse the material evidence found in the scientific domain – that is no reason to bash science itself. We need to remember that science itself is a gift from God. We are a gift from God which goes beyond the scientific domain.

While modern scientific technology is beyond the majority of us ordinary folk, we need to realize that individual research papers on genetic histroy depend on assumptions of what was happening millions of years going backwards. Hard data about what was happening every day, everywhere on earth, is not available so estimates have to be substituted. Retrocalculations can be valid in some circumstances, but they cannot be considered universally accurate. The evidence itself cannot warrant an extrapolation to an universal exclusion.

Therefore, the possibility of a real Adam remains.

Speaking of modern technology which is constantly improving, one should refer back to post 222 in this thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9200113&postcount=222

 

[tarboy]

I like to think of the bible as the inspired word of God, given to help us grow spiritually.

I’ve not read where it proclaims to teach any of the sciences, such as Astronomy or Biology, nor be an accurate recording of History.

I think the bible loses respect when it is made out to be something it is not. Non-believers reject it out of hand because it fails as a science manual.

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?

 

[samdoum]

…Now the two of them were naked, Adam and the woman he called Eve,
And though they felt no shame, it was Eve who became naïve.
See the serpent was the shrewdest of all creatures,
And he duped her by telling her, that she could do whatever pleased her.
That is, he led Eve to believe that she could take from the tree:
The one of knowledge of good and bad, and could have a bite from it to eat.
She gazed over at the tree, and saw it as a delight to her eyes,
Because it was an awesome sight to see—that was the reason why.
So she walked over to the tree and grabbed a bite to eat,
Disobeying the Lords command, that to take from this tree, they were not free.
She then saw the tree to have provided a source of wisdom,
So she gathered some fruit up and took some to her husband.
And as the two of them ate, their eyes became opened,
No longer blind, becoming wiser, no longer like two innocent children.
And when the two of them gained sight, they perceived they were naked.
And what happened next? Well the two of them never waited
To sew together fig leaves from a tree to cover their nudity
But the Lord of the Earth, He found out eventually
See, when they heard the sound of the Lord roaming through the garden,
The two of them hid among the trees, because they were frightened.
“Where are you?” cried the Lord, from out of the heavens?
And Adam called out to the Lord, “Yes, Lord. I am here,
I’m hiding behind the trees, My Lord—that is where.
I only hid because I perceived I was naked.”
And the Lord then looked down at His son, the man He had created.
And to this God responded, “My son Adam, how did you know this?
And what about that garment you are wearing—did you sew it?
Did you eat from the tree of which I told you not to eat?”
“Yes Lord, I ate from the tree, and I took the fruit from the woman,
You created for me.”
And the Lord said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
“Yes”, spoke the woman,
“I gave it to Adam, and ate myself, because of the serpent. He’s the one.”
Then the Lord became angry and placed a curse on the serpent,
Saying, “All of the rest of your days you shall suffer and they shall be spent
Crawling on your belly over the earth and the soil.”
And to Adam he said, “Of the land of which you toil,
Thorns and thistles shall only sprout for you.
And my Eve as for you, I even have a curse for you too.
See you pains of child bearing shall be just as dreadful,
And your husband will rule over you, no matter how stressful.
Now listen to Me, all of you—this is your curse!
All of you should have taken some time to think about what you did first.
And now that I see what the two of you have done,
I do not feel as though I can ever trust you again—
Neither you, my daughter Eve, nor even you Adam, My son.
And now that I see that you have taken from the knowledge of good and bad tree,
What if you take from the tree of life too, and have from it also a piece?
So the Lord God banished both Adam and Eve
Away from the garden, and they walked out from it on their feet.
And as for the tree of life, the one of which God feared from next they’d eat,
He guarded it with cherubim, and a fiery sword, to protect it from their greed. . .

Wanna read more? Purchase the E-book for* Bible Tales: The First Five Books in Rhyme (For Children and Adults)* from Amazon.com today! Purchase now for only $0.99 for a limited amount of time!

Here’s the Link:
amazon.com/Bible-Tales-Children-Adults-ebook/dp/B0081L6T78/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336706208&sr=8-1

 

[grannymh]

I like to think of the bible as the inspired word of God, given to help us grow spiritually.

I’ve not read where it proclaims to teach any of the sciences, such as Astronomy or Biology, nor be an accurate recording of History.

I think the bible loses respect when it is made out to be something it is not. Non-believers reject it out of hand because it fails as a science manual.

Yes, the bible, as the inspired word of God, does help us to grow spiritually.

Bible means – Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

But why is it that so many people have problems with the first three chapters of Genesis?

Is it because the Catholic Church has the guts to declare difficult, and somewhat uncomfortable, doctrines about humanity? Is it because some people wrap the truth of the first three chapters of Genesis in a cloud of symbolic language in order to make it suitable for modern living?

Why is it that many, not all, contemporary Catholics have so many problems sorting out the realty from the analogical when it comes to discussions about Adam and Eve? Have some, not all, people misread Genesis 1:1?

Instead of looking only at Cardinal Pell’s response to some questions…perhaps we should re-examine our own answers to those issues. The OP challenges readers to step forth with the Catholic doctrinal teachings regarding our first parents.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Yes, the bible, as the inspired word of God, does help us to grow spiritually.

Bible means – Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

No, it doesn’t.

Why is it that many, not all, contemporary Catholics have so many problems sorting out the realty from the analogical when it comes to discussions about Adam and Eve? Have some, not all, people misread Genesis 1:1?

We don’t have problems. We’re fine. We just don’t believe what you do.

Instead of looking only at Cardinal Pell’s response to some questions…perhaps we should re-examine our own answers to those issues. The OP challenges readers to step forth with the Catholic doctrinal teachings regarding our first parents.

Are you saying the Cardinal Archbishop knows less about the Catholic doctrinal teachings than you do? Does Father Robert Barron? Did Blessed John Paul II? Every Pastor I ever had?

I wish you would not imply that Catholic doctrine is somehow being misapplied by a Cardinal, who would then be guilty of heresy, or that what you say is some sort of incontrovertible correct interpretation of a variety of disparate quotes.

If the Church wanted to say something definitive, then She would. She has not. Please stop trying to convince everyone that you know better than the Cardinal or other experts. Voicing an opinion is fine when the Church gives us the latitude to chose an interpretation as it has done in this case. Insisting you are right and the Cardinal is not promulgating Catholic doctrine is offensive and starting to sound like calumny.

 

[grannymh]

We don’t have problems. We’re fine. We just don’t believe what you do.

May I respectfully point out that you and others were included in what is now in bold.

From post 393: “Why is it that many, not all, contemporary Catholics have so many problems sorting out the realty from the analogical when it comes to discussions about Adam and Eve? Have some, not all, people misread Genesis 1:1?”

Are you saying the Cardinal Archbishop knows less about the Catholic doctrinal teachings than you do? Does Father Robert Barron? Did Blessed John Paul II? Every Pastor I ever had?

If that is your impression, so be it. However, there have been a number of posts which do explain my approach to an article written by Nicolas Perpitch linked in post 1

I wish you would not imply that Catholic doctrine is somehow being misapplied by a Cardinal, who would then be guilty of heresy, or that what you say is some sort of incontrovertible correct interpretation of a variety of disparate quotes.

May I respectfully ask for the Catholic doctrine you are referring to. I will leave the question of “misapplications” of Catholic doctrine to participants in either the Apologetics or Philosophy Forums. How heresy is determined is not related to the Australian article.

If the Church wanted to say something definitive, then She would. She has not

.

In the year 529, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the second Council (synod) of Orange addressed the meaning of Original Sin. This was to clarify the Catholic position in regard to Pelagianism. In 1546, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Council of Trent, Session V, followed St. Paul’s teaching when it referred to Adam as “himself alone” in its dogmatic definitions on Original Sin. St. Paul’s teaching is in Romans, Chapter Five.

The Encyclical Humani Generis is the modern statement explaining the position of the first human Adam in regard to Original Sin. The heading of the Encyclical describes it as “concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine”.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Please stop trying to convince everyone that you know better than the Cardinal or other experts.

It is not necessary to shoot the messenger who happens to believe in the Catholic Deposit of Faith and consequently trusts doctrinal explanations regarding the origin of human nature found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Voicing an opinion is fine when the Church gives us the latitude to chose an interpretation as it has done in this case.

Of course, I respect your right to voice an opinion at any time.

And I do hope that readers will respect my right to present unpopular Church teachings. In addition, I do hope that readers will also respect my right to voice my opinions just as I respect your right to do so.

From post 393 with the addition of bold lettering.
“Instead of looking only at Cardinal Pell’s response to some questions…perhaps we should re-examine our own answers to those issues. The OP challenges readers to step forth with the Catholic doctrinal teachings regarding our first parents.”

 

[Julia_Mae]

May I respectfully ask for the Catholic doctrine you are referring to.

I have no idea, you were the one who used the word with no reference. What “doctrine” were you referring to?

It is not necessary to shoot the messenger who happens to believe in the Catholic Deposit of Faith and consequently trusts doctrinal explanations regarding the origin of human nature found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

You and I have been over every quote you could glean in support of your position. I have asked you several times for a reference in the CCC to the requirement that we must believe a mated pair of Homo sapiens committed the first sin. You have not supplied any such requirement. There is none.

And I do hope that readers will respect my right to present unpopular Church teachings.

What you are doing is not “presenting unpopular Church teachings.” What you are doing is interpreting Church teachings in a certain way that is most comfortable for you. Which is fine, you are allowed to do that in this instance. The Cardinal presented Church teachings, which are, evidently, unpopular with you.

I am not prepared to repeat myself endlessly, either. So, as my daughter used to say before she left a conversation:

whatever.

 

[grannymh]

You and I have been over every quote you could glean in support of your position. I have asked you several times for a reference in the CCC to the requirement that we must believe a mated pair of Homo sapiens committed the first sin. You have not supplied any such requirement. There is none.

As I recall Homo sapiens is either an anthropological designation or a designation from another scientific discipline. So you are correct. I have not found a doctrinal reference to a “mated pair of Homo sapiens” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

What I would recommend are CCC 355 - 421 as an excellent source of information. A specific paragraph is 390 and its footnote which refers to the Council of Trent and two popes.

What you are doing is not “presenting unpopular Church teachings.” What you are doing is interpreting Church teachings in a certain way that is most comfortable for you. Which is fine, you are allowed to do that in this instance. The Cardinal presented Church teachings, which are, evidently, unpopular with you.

The comments that Nicolas Perpitch attributed to Cardinal Pell are isolated comments chosen by the article’s author. These comments are basically references to doctrinal issues that are also being discussed on and off CAF. Link to article
theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

In my humble opinion, there is not sufficient substance in the Cardinal’s comments to qualify as a presentation of Church teachings. This is my personal opinion and naturally anyone can disagree with it by presenting their own opinion.

On the other hand, the Cardinal’s comments do relate to current issues regarding humanity’s founder and Original Sin. No lie–I have heard similar comments often on CAF. Since the OP asked a question about the Cardinal’s comments, it is proper for posters to discuss the issues connected to the comments.

 

[grannymh]

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

Isn’t that heresy to say that Adam and Eve weren’t real?

Serious question.

Can anyone tell me the teachings of “Adam and Eve Mythology”?

Guesses are acceptable.

 

[grannymh]

What you are doing is not “presenting unpopular Church teachings.” What you are doing is interpreting Church teachings in a certain way that is most comfortable for you. Which is fine, you are allowed to do that in this instance. The Cardinal presented Church teachings, which are, evidently, unpopular with you.

Some serious help needed.

Can anyone tell me the wording of the exact Church teachings, the Cardinal presented in the Australian article?theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/adam-and-eve-thats-just-mythology-says-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1226322379822

Guesses are not acceptable.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Given the topic of this thread, it was hardly unexpected that someone would post the widely popularized claim … in light of recent findings in molecular biology, especially regarding the Human Genome Project. Many succumb to the modernistic tendency to “adjust” Church teaching … thus scandalizing Catholics …

I was just looking at the human Genome project for HLA-DRB1 genes last year. There is only 1 sample of alleles in it which makes it almost useless for determining anything about Adam and Eve – except, perhaps, a single example of the statistical rate of each codon; Mutations are codon dependent and most research I have seen appears to ignore this fact and use codon-ignorant methods from the 1960’s and earlier…

The fact remains that a literal Adam and Eve are part of unchanging Catholic doctrine. Central to St. Paul’s teaching is the fact that through one man, Adam, sin entered the world, and through the God-man, Jesus Christ, redemption came (Rom 5:12-21). The Catechism cites St. Paul, and speaks of Adam and Eve as of a single mating pair who “committed a personal sin” (CCC, 399-404).

Cardinal Pell in the first five to six minutes of the interview (after which I turned it off!) essentially tried to de-couple science from religion; Unintentionally or not – scientifically minded people are going to read “beautiful mythology” as distinct from the commentators question “literal Adam and Eve.”

We must be careful not to confuse the technical concept of average effective population size estimates,

with certainty and reality !

A famed study by Ayala (1995) led many to believe that a bottleneck of two was impossible at any time in the human lineage after the Homo/Pan (human/chimp) split some five million years ago. However, Ayala’s claim of thirty-two ancient HLA-DRB1 lineages (prior to the Homo/Pan split) was wrong because of methodological errors. The number of lineages was subsequently adjusted by Bergström (1998) to just seven at the time of the split, with most of the genetic diversity appearing in the last 250,000 years.

That’s very interesting.

Since the Class II region where HLA-DRB1 resides recombines only rarely, the region behaves as a unit during reproduction. It is inherited as a block, referred to as a haplotype. It is now known that there are only five basic haplotypes (Andersson 1998),

Just a note: A human pair could reasonably pass up to 8 haplotypes; for even today chimeras are known; for example, there was a maternity case where DNA tests proved both that a woman was and was NOT the mother of a child (Two different lab runs). The problem is that human beings are composite, and a single individual may in fact be the biological fusion of two maternal or fraternal twins. In such a case, it is possible that one ovary generates a distinct DNA oocyte from the other, although it is really one woman with two different DNA ovaries. In such a person, there are often swaths of skin, tongue, eyes, etc. that are genetically different.

I don’t see, in principle, why a man can’t also have this trait – at which point, up to eight haplotypes are possible since the testicles and ovaries come in pairs.

the most recent studies appear potentially compatible with a literal Adam and Eve. *

The point of all this is to show that the science which is so dogmatically employed to undermine Catholic doctrine regarding Adam and Eve is itself not definitive. Catholic doctrine trumps in any event, but even more so when the science itself is far from settled.
…
Catholic doctrine firmly teaches a literal Adam and Eve.
*

The statements in Humani Generis indicate that the literalness of Adam and Eve is theologically contingent on the idea of the transmission of original sin; The case is definitive only if there is no other way to reconcile evolutionary arguments considering polygenism with original sin.

Which leads to a sad comment: Obvious examples of men/women laying with beasts are known; In general, one would not expect such a mating to ever produce offspring; but based only on genetics, it is possible. Nor is it impossible that the mere act of mating may cause genes to be transferred to the host (and not a hybrid offspring.) through infection even to the ovaries/testes;

There is no theological opinion that I have come across that says offspring of such a mating would be human… And I don’t think anyone can force God to place a rational Spirit into a creature just because it has some human DNA.

Also:
The Spirit forms the body, and just so – I might argue that even the e-coli in the intestine are formed into a particular shape for a particular purpose… The human body is not without them, by design, and they are in some sense the substance of the human body as well.

Just so, the sperm of a man is shaped by his body up and until the point it leaves him. It too, is not a complete human being, it too can become non-human, though living… eg: Accidental emission of sperm in the toilet, doesn’t mean human beings are dying!

I find it rather a satisfying point, consistency wise, that marriage expects the transfer of such separable cells within the one flesh of man and wife. The Spirit of both maintains a visible presence while shaping the act and substance from start to finish – so that no question arises to what happened on its “own”.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I thought it was an excellent post until I got here. Why is it necessary to diss a Cardinal of the Catholic Church by accusing him of “newspeak?”

The Scripture, the story of Adam and Eve in the garden is from an ancient oral Hebrew tradition. This story would have been told in camps for possibly hundreds of years, or more,

yes, quite a bit more!

before it was written down, it was part of the religion of the people, a religious story told for religious purposes. That’s just a statement of fact, not newspeak. It still is that.

I watched cardinal Pell, and he did use a euphamism; that is, I think the scientific bluntness that was being demanded of him by the moderator was ignored. Rather than answering the question, he used a circumlocution or euphamism.

Besides, Orwell was a great orator – it’s a compliment, not a “diss” to be compared to him…

The ancients weren’t less spiritually informed than we are, the underlying message, the one we glean today, was exactly the same for them. Nothing has changed, nor should it, because these are eternal Truths.

Somehow, I doubt that… how could you possibly prove the assertion?

There is nothing at all to criticize about cardinal Pell’s remarks except that he doesn’t know much about Neanderthals and their relationship to modern human. But then, he doesn’t have to, he is a Cardinal Archbishop of the Catholic Church and evidences the Magisterium.

Uhhh… Cardinals don the red, and prepare to lay down their lives for the church. He knew before going on the show what the topic was, and what doctrines he would need to defend. He can’t be ignorant of the magnitude of scandal which people like Dawkins exploit to drive people out of the church.

Pell needed to know quite a bit more than he appears to know in order to bring the fullness of Truth to light in the discussion. I see no reason to condemn him of “heresy” (God forbid!) but at the same time, I would love to see a well informed hero cardinal once in a while…!

A public broadcast of that magnitude is an opportunity … or paradise lost.
PJP II talked about the need to master the new modes of communication (media/internet/etc.) in order to bring the message of J.C. to the world.

The only part of the Pell video I really enjoyed was him bringing up the paintings on the cave walls which do indeed have a very real immediacy to the argument – they do show humanity in these creatures of the past.

If you have other highlights, I’d like to know what impressed you – and what you thought he actually taught about the Church’s Traditions?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Yet, the “reality” is that there is no dogmatic necessity that a mated pair of Homo sapiens committed the first sin. Or, none that I find in the CCC, which, while not exhaustive, does contain all that is dogmatic.

The *Catechism *states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

A mated pair most certainly had to commit the sin according to the CCC.
Are you arguing they were homo-erectus, and not sapiens? or what?
Pell seems to think that they were Neanderthals… but it’s unclear why; how about you?

The encyclical Humani Generis has more wiggle room than the CCC does by it’s explanation; I would cite that instead of the CCC if you wish to argue this way…

 

[grannymh]

How many Magisterial documents have there even been on anthropology and archaeology?

Interesting question since there are mountains of anthropology and archaeology published research papers. Which ones are being referred to?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Serious question.

Can anyone tell me the teachings of “Adam and Eve Mythology”?

Guesses are acceptable.

I would not call mythology which comes from the greek but “midrash” (google it pls)
So:

• God created the Universe
• God created life
• God created Man
• God thinks that it is worthwhile living for God enjoyed the works of His creation
• Man is created for Happiness and Joy
• The present state is one of Sin
• Man has a tendency to Sin
• Evil comes from the interior of Man: there are no good people and bad people, everyone has got good and bad
• But God does not forget his people
• For the first time in history, time becomes linear. In other peoples, times is circular: spring, summer, autumn, winter, spring or birth, adult, reprodution, new generation death of the olde and so on,
• with Adam and Eve there is a promise of someone who is coming son of a Woman, from that came the idea of Messiah and with Jesus the idea of the second coming. We are not emprisoned in circles but we wait for Jesus now.
• Suffering and death are part of human life.
• Sin is something that Do does not want, it is not in God’s plans.

 

[grannymh]

I would not call mythology which comes from the greek but “midrash” (google it pls)

So:

• God created the Universe
• God created life
• God created Man
• God thinks that it is worthwhile living for God enjoyed the works of His creation
• Man is created for Happiness and Joy
• The present state is one of Sin
• Man has a tendency to Sin
• Evil comes from the interior of Man: there are no good people and bad people, everyone has got good and bad
• But God does not forget his people
• For the first time in history, time becomes linear. In other peoples, times is circular: spring, summer, autumn, winter, spring or birth, adult, reprodution, new generation death of the olde and so on,
• with Adam and Eve there is a promise of someone who is coming son of a Woman, from that came the idea of Messiah and with Jesus the idea of the second coming. We are not emprisoned in circles but we wait for Jesus now.
• Suffering and death are part of human life.
• Sin is something that Do does not want, it is not in God’s plans.

Thank you for your post. I appreciate the time and work you put into it.

First, I accept the meaning of midrash as you explained earlier. As I read and learn from posts, I find that mythology is not used in the same way as midrash.

I see how midrash contributed to the first three chapters of the book of Genesis. These chapters have a long history. On the other hand, mythology regarding human origin dates to the 20th and 21st centuries. This contemporary formulation of mythology is based on modernism and not Divine Revelation.

Another difference is that midrash, as used in your post, is more complete than contemporary mythology. Apparently, midrash is studied as it appears in the first three chapters of Genesis. Sometimes I wonder if posters who claim mythology have actually read and studied the first three chapters of Genesis.

Another difference is that contemporary mythology is a gut reaction to certain Catholic doctrines. Midrash, as I read your post, contributed to Catholic doctrines.

There is a reasonable difficulty with midrash and the first three chapters of Genesis. While midrash points to the future when the Messiah will come, it, by itself, cannot verify God’s revelation as contained in the New Testament because of linear time.
In the first three chapters of Genesis, one can see the first seeds of what is to come; but, it takes the Divine Revelation of Jesus Christ in order to understand those seeds.

Your post 404 is a gift from heaven to me. Now, I can visually understand how, with God’s inspiration, the writers of the first three chapters put together the foundation for Catholic teaching. That is amazing.

I would like to hear your response to what I have written. Then, I would like to demonstrate how some of the points you presented eventually developed into the Catholic doctrines of human nature, original sin, and two real founders of humanity.

I know you believe that God created the spiritual soul and what that means in regard to our journey to God’s full presence in heaven. You understand the meaning of Adam and Eve. But it is difficult to accept their reality. Am I correct?

 

[grannymh]

I would not call mythology which comes from the greek but “midrash” (google it pls)

So:

• God created the Universe
• God created life
• God created Man
• God thinks that it is worthwhile living for God enjoyed the works of His creation
• Man is created for Happiness and Joy
• The present state is one of Sin
• Man has a tendency to Sin
• Evil comes from the interior of Man: there are no good people and bad people, everyone has got good and bad
• But God does not forget his people
• For the first time in history, time becomes linear. In other peoples, times is circular: spring, summer, autumn, winter, spring or birth, adult, reprodution, new generation death of the olde and so on,
• with Adam and Eve there is a promise of someone who is coming son of a Woman, from that came the idea of Messiah and with Jesus the idea of the second coming. We are not emprisoned in circles but we wait for Jesus now.
• Suffering and death are part of human life.
• Sin is something that Do does not want, it is not in God’s plans.

I am looking over my post 405 and some of my comments are not worded in the way I would like as I am learning a bit more about midrash. So feel free to give me a better meaning.

I keep going back to the two points – “Man is created for Happiness and Joy” and “The present state is one of Sin”. It seems to me that the Catholic Church may be one of the few faiths which explain what the state of sin is and how that can be reconciled with the fact that Man is created for Happiness and Joy. Since above it simply says that “God created Man”, achieving happiness and joy must be on God’s terms.