Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter Historicity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Historicity

Guest
Hi just a question I’m hoping some people can answer

I’m assuming there are some non-fundamentalist Catholics here and since a non-fundamentalist Catholic will likely not believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, I’m wondering what the response would be to the question of if Adam and Eve didn’t exist, there would be no origin of original sin, and therefore no reason for salvation from original sin/the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?

Someone please clarify this for me.
 
Historicity said:
Hi just a question I’m hoping some people can answer

I’m assuming there are some non-fundamentalist Catholics here and since a non-fundamentalist Catholic will likely not believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, I’m wondering what the response would be to the question of if Adam and Eve didn’t exist, there would be no origin of original sin, and therefore no reason for salvation from original sin/the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?

Someone please clarify this for me.
Click to expand...
Fundamentalist or not: No Adam & Eve = no original sin = no need for salvation = no need for God to become man = no Jesus Christ = no Trinity = no Catholicism = no CAF.
 
Our DNA tells us that Adam and Eve did exist. Look at the human genome project (it was a special on National Geographic). Every person alive today is descended from a genetic Eve and a genetic Adam. The genetic Adam didn’t live as long ago compared to our Eve, so it looks like our Adam was a Xgreat-grandson of the original Adam, and his siblings/uncles did not reproduce since their genetic line died out.
 
Historicity said:
Hi just a question I’m hoping some people can answer

I’m assuming there are some non-fundamentalist Catholics here and since a non-fundamentalist Catholic will likely not believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, I’m wondering what the response would be to the question of if Adam and Eve didn’t exist, there would be no origin of original sin, and therefore no reason for salvation from original sin/the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?

Someone please clarify this for me.
Click to expand...
That’s like saying if the people in Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son weren’t “literal, historical figures” then the moral lesson taught therein would be null and void. A story doesn’t have to be literal for it to convey a spiritual truth.

As the RCC is wrong about original sin anyway, that’s really a moot point.
 
stephe1987 said:
Our DNA tells us that Adam and Eve did exist. Look at the human genome project (it was a special on National Geographic). Every person alive today is descended from a genetic Eve and a genetic Adam. The genetic Adam didn’t live as long ago compared to our Eve, so it looks like our Adam was a Xgreat-grandson of the original Adam, and his siblings/uncles did not reproduce since their genetic line died out.
Click to expand...
The Genetic (mitochondrial) Eve spoken about in the National Geographic program you reference lived 200,000 years ago (way before the Eve of the Bible). The y-chromosomal “Adam” lived less than 80,000 years ago. The Adam and Eve labels should not be taken literally. Not sure how you’d explain that 120,000 year gap between Adam and Eve. You should read up on the topic before implying that it supports the Biblical Adam and Eve story.
 
stephe1987 said:
Our DNA tells us that Adam and Eve did exist. Look at the human genome project (it was a special on National Geographic). Every person alive today is descended from a genetic Eve and a genetic Adam. The genetic Adam didn’t live as long ago compared to our Eve, so it looks like our Adam was a Xgreat-grandson of the original Adam, and his siblings/uncles did not reproduce since their genetic line died out.
Click to expand...
Clearly we all have genetic ancestors, but we can’t use those genetic ancestors to verify a mythical story in which original sin supposedly entered the world. These genetic ‘Eve’ and genetic '‘Adam’ ancestors only explain the mere fact that we evolved from prior humans etc., they do not even begin to explain the validity of the actual story of Adam and Eve intertwined with original sin.
 
ckempston said:
The Genetic (mitochondrial) Eve spoken about in the National Geographic program you reference lived 200,000 years ago (way before the Eve of the Bible). The y-chromosomal “Adam” lived less than 80,000 years ago. The Adam and Eve labels should not be taken literally. Not sure how you’d explain that 120,000 year gap between Adam and Eve. You should read up on the topic before implying that it supports the Biblical Adam and Eve story.
Click to expand...
Thank you sir.

sorry for DP
 
ckempston said:
That’s like saying if the people in Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son weren’t “literal, historical figures” then the moral lesson taught therein would be null and void. A story doesn’t have to be literal for it to convey a spiritual truth.

As the RCC is wrong about original sin anyway, that’s really a moot point.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the concept of original sin is taught as more of a fact in most modern catholic teachings than the obvious moral lessons of parables.
 
Historicity said:
Hi just a question I’m hoping some people can answer

I’m assuming there are some non-fundamentalist Catholics here and since a non-fundamentalist Catholic will likely not believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, I’m wondering what the response would be to the question of if Adam and Eve didn’t exist, there would be no origin of original sin, and therefore no reason for salvation from original sin/the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?

Someone please clarify this for me.
Click to expand...
Well I’d object to being called fundamentalist I suppose but the belief that we’re all descended from a single set of parents, by whatever name you wish to call them, who committed the first sin is simply Catholic orthodoxy.
 
Historicity said:
It seems to me that the concept of original sin is taught as more of a fact in most modern catholic teachings than the obvious moral lessons of parables.
Click to expand...
That was two separate comments…you seem to have combined them. I’ll break it down for you:

The Catholic claim: If Adam and Eve did not literally exist, original sin didn’t enter the world, therefore there’s no need for a savior, etc.

My first statement was regarding the reasoning above. Clearly, a literal, real-world counterpart does not need to exist for a story to convey a spiritual truth. It could very well be that God summed up evolution with the idea that, at some point, man went from being a simple animal, to being one with a conscience, morals, etc. That would be the point of moving from innocence and existing with only instinct, to being what we consider human and moral today.

The second statement was about the assumption that original sin was in fact a Biblical doctrine. It is not. So really the whole argument is not only invalid, as I demonstrated above, but at least one of its premises is false.
 
fhansen said:
Well I’d object to being called fundamentalist I suppose but the belief that we’re all descended from a single set of parents, by whatever name you wish to call them, who committed the first sin is simply Catholic orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
Where do we begin to determine which parents these should be? Would our parents be considered the first homosapien sapiens, or the first homo sapiens, Australopithecus or a different early man, first reptiles, first amphibians, first multicellular life, first complex cells, or first single cells?
 
ckempston said:
The second statement was about the assumption that original sin was in fact a Biblical doctrine. It is not. So really the whole argument is not only invalid, as I demonstrated above, but at least one of its premises is false.
Click to expand...
I understand that a real- life counterpart is not needed for stories to reveal a moral truth, yet I see so much of the church doctrine based on the the idea of original sin (which you’re saying itself isn’t doctrine), but maybe I’m not informed enough on the actual teaching of original sin in the church.
 
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).

“Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.”

(CCC 159.
 
Historicity said:
Hi just a question I’m hoping some people can answer

I’m assuming there are some non-fundamentalist Catholics here and since a non-fundamentalist Catholic will likely not believe that Adam and Eve actually existed, I’m wondering what the response would be to the question of if Adam and Eve didn’t exist, there would be no origin of original sin, and therefore no reason for salvation from original sin/the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?

Someone please clarify this for me.
Click to expand...
I never realised believing in the teachings of the Church made me a fundamentalist.
Then again I suppose the fundamentals are important in any situation
 
Historicity said:
I understand that a real- life counterpart is not needed for stories to reveal a moral truth, yet I see so much of the church doctrine based on the the idea of original sin (which you’re saying itself isn’t doctrine), but maybe I’m not informed enough on the actual teaching of original sin in the church.
Click to expand...
From the Catholic Catechism:
407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals.
Click to expand...
Note careful that Original Sin is a doctrine of the Church.
 
Barbkw said:
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).

.
Click to expand...
And that brings us back to my previous question of which parents?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top