Adam and Eve

  • Thread starter Thread starter silvergrasshopp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Huh?:

I mean read again what I wrote.

I was saying nothing of the sort that you suggested.

Such came from a too quick reading.

What did I write?
40.png
Bookcat:
Thankfully Doctrine does not simply arise through the discipline of theology.
Thankfully Doctrine does not simply arise through the discipline of theology.
 
If people want to read the catechism, then they will read it. It doesn’t help a *discussion *board by endlessly posting long sections that do not have any relevance to the subject at hand.
The quotes I provided were actually not only from the Catechism.

What you note there is simply not true. I do not so any such thing.

Please cease your ad hominums.

Yes most of the time my posts of quotes from whatever - are very relevant to the topic at hand being discussed. And I am thanked for it. Your not the only reader of the forums…

I forgive you and wish all the good to you and yours - and ask forgiveness for anything amiss from my side - such is not intended.
 
Getting back to the subject of the thread.
According to Catholic teaching, are Adam and Eve actually the first human beings, or are they symbols of the first human beings? Relevant quotes of the bible or church documents would be appreciated.
Adam and Eve were our first parents. And yes they were actually the first human beings not merely symbols.

They had free will and made a choice…

Adam and Eve were real human beings- they are not simply a symbol -though of course the first part of Genesis does use figurative language.

Some examples from Church documents as you have requested of references to Adam and Eve and real persons with real free will…committing the real original sin…and having us as their real descendants:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
  1. What are the first stages of God’s Revelation?
54-58
70-71

From the very beginning, God manifested himself to our first parents, Adam and Eve, and invited them to intimate communion with himself. After their fall, he did not cease his revelation to them but promised salvation for all their descendants…
  1. What was the first human sin?
396-403
415-417

When tempted by the devil, the first man and woman allowed trust in their Creator to die in their hearts. In their disobedience they wished to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God (Genesis 3:5). Thus, Adam and Eve immediately lost for themselves and for all their descendants the original grace of holiness and justice.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

]"Deceived by the Evil One, Adam and Eve, our first parents, failed to live up to the relationship of trust with their Lord, succumbing to the temptation of the Evil One who instilled in them the suspicion that the Lord was a rival and wanted to limit their freedom.

So it was that they preferred themselves to divine love freely given, convinced that in this way they were asserting their own free will. They consequently ended by losing their original happiness and they tasted the bitter sorrow of sin and death."

~ Pope Benedict XVI

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/messages/missions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20060429_world-mission-day-2006.html

They were rather real persons who yes made a rather real choice with their free will…one that effected their lives …and that of their descendants…
 
Now that we are sure that Adam and Eve are literally true persons in the first three fascinating chapters of Genesis, is anyone interested in the literally true events, involving them, which led to real Catholic doctrines?

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
 
Now that we are sure that Adam and Eve are literally true persons in the first three fascinating chapters of Genesis, is anyone interested in the literally true events, involving them, which led to real Catholic doctrines?

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
Oh, I am, for sure. What “literally true events” do we have in the “first three fascinating chapters of Genesis?”
 
The faith of Abraham, from which the creation story came from, doesn’t interpret the story of Adam and Eve as having to do with original sin.

It was people like St. Augustine of Hippo who later developed the doctrine of original sin. I’m sure most of you are aware of his hedonistic lifestyle and subsequent conversion and repentance. I am starting to wonder if his teachings and interpretations were heavily colored and influenced by his immense guilt of his past sinful lifestyle leading to harsh teachings on sin.



Though initially optimistic about the ability of humans to behave morally, at the end he is pessimistic, and thinks that original sin makes human moral behavior nearly impossible: if it were not for the rare appearance of an accidental and undeserved Grace of God, humans could not be moral.

iep.utm.edu/augustin

…but his struggle to achieve celibacy, as he documented in his autobiography, Confessions, was standard fare in the saintly struggle. What was distinctive in Augustine’s account was that he blamed himself, rather than the seductive temptations of the Devil, for his plight. Appropriately enough for the author of the creation story of a culture which would become focused on individual experience, lust led him to search within to understand sin’s inexorable grip, and from this intensely personal journey emerged an explanation for everyone’s desire to sin…

In 391, at the age of thirty-seven, Augustine became a priest in the North African town of Hippo, and in 395 was made bishop. It was not until the early fifth century, while immersed in a study of Genesis, that he expounded the doctrine which he had begun to set out in Confessions. Having limited Greek, Augustine adopted the mistranslation of Paul used in the fourth-century Latin Bible known as the Vulgate, which stated that ‘all men had sinned in Adam’, and he became ever more concerned to stress how much the original sin in the Garden of Eden had permanently corrupted human nature. Augustine drew heavily on custom, theology and tradition to buttress his case. He accepted that original sin was not fully expounded in the Bible, but was adamant that unless it was accepted, even good Christians would be tempted to seek salvation through holy living and end up in hell. Before they could be saved, he argued, a person must admit that they were wholly incapable of reforming themselves, so that they would rely only on the mercy of God: ‘One hope, one trust, one firm promise – your mercy.’

The obvious difficulty in Augustine’s account was how the transmission of sin occurred. This was to remain the subject of confused controversy for centuries to come – in fact, it would never be resolved – but Augustine kept his answer simple: semen was the culprit. Original sin, and the guilt and just judgement of God which followed from it, was physically transmitted via sexual intercourse to every human being. Only Jesus ‘alone of those who are born of a woman is holy…by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth’, whereby the Holy Spirit ‘infused immaculate seed into [Mary’s] unviolated womb’.

Despite his grim view of human nature, Augustine did not despise the body, as many of his opponents suggested.

utne.com/mind-and-body/st-augustine-and-original-sin-ze0z1505zken?PageId=2

Thousands upon thousands of pages have been written on Augustine and his views. Given his influence, he is often canvassed for his opinion on controversies (from the Immaculate Conception of Mary to the ethics of contraception) that he barely imagined or could have spoken to. But the themes of imperial God and contingent self run deep and go far to explain his refusal to accept Manichaean doctrines of a powerful devil at war with God, Donatist particularism in the face of universal religion, or Pelagian claims of human autonomy and confidence. His views on sexuality and the place of women in society have been searchingly tested and found wanting in recent years, but they, too, have roots in the loneliness of a man terrified of his father—or his God.

In the end, Augustine and his own experience, so vividly displayed and at the same time veiled in his Confessions, disappear from view, to be replaced by the serene teacher depicted in medieval and Renaissance art. It is worth remembering that Augustine ended his life in the midst of a community that feared for its material well-being and chose to spend his last days in a room by himself, posting on a wall where he could see them the texts of the seven penitential Psalms, to wrestle one last time with his sins before meeting his maker.

britannica.com/biography/Saint-Augustine
 
Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”.

So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.

Augustine was indeed right to oppose the teaching (or alleged teaching) of the British or Irish teacher Pelagius, that humans are intrinsically good and can make themselves acceptable to God by good works. But Augustine’s view of the matter takes things too far in the opposite direction, further than can be justified by the biblical text.

For the far more likely meaning of the Greek text of Romans 5:12 is that all are counted as sinners because each person individually has sinned. On this view there is perhaps some kind of tendency to sin passed down from Adam to others, but there is no actual guilt. This is consistent with the Old Testament teaching of Ezekiel in which

The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.

Ezekiel 18:20 (TNIV)

gentlewisdom.org/2007/08/11/augustines-mistake-about-sin
 
Augustine took Paul’s phrase “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” following the Vulgate “in quo omnes peccaverunt” to be “in whom [Adam] all sinned”.

(The Greek can be transliterated ef’ ho pantes hemarton.) Well, Augustine didn’t actually use the Vulgate, which was being translated during his lifetime, but the sometimes not very accurate Old Latin translations. But his Latin version seems to have been similar to the Vulgate here. Doug continues:

the Augustinian interpretation of Paul’s “ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” as meaning “in whom all sinned” makes it the most disastrous preposition in history. All modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.”

More precisely, “the most disastrous preposition” is ἐφ᾽ ef’, a contracted form of epi meaning “on”. The Greek phrase ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ef’ ho literally means “on which”, or possibly “on whom”, but is commonly used to mean “because”, or perhaps “in that”. The problem is that the Latin rendering of ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, in quo, is ambiguous between “in which” and “in whom” (I’m not sure if it can also mean simply “because” or “in that”), and Augustine understood it as meaning “in whom”, i.e. “in Adam”.

So, according to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner. This is his doctrine of “original sin”, that every human is born a sinner and deserves death because of it. He may have taken up this idea because it agreed with his former Manichaean theology. This teaching is fundamental to most Protestant as well as Roman Catholic teaching today. For example, it underlies the Protestant (not just Calvinist) teaching of total depravity, that the unsaved person can do nothing good, a teaching for which there is little biblical basis apart from Augustine’s misunderstanding which was followed by Calvin.

Augustine was indeed right to oppose the teaching (or alleged teaching) of the British or Irish teacher Pelagius, that humans are intrinsically good and can make themselves acceptable to God by good works. But Augustine’s view of the matter takes things too far in the opposite direction, further than can be justified by the biblical text.

For the far more likely meaning of the Greek text of Romans 5:12 is that all are counted as sinners because each person individually has sinned. On this view there is perhaps some kind of tendency to sin passed down from Adam to others, but there is no actual guilt. This is consistent with the Old Testament teaching of Ezekiel in which

The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.

Ezekiel 18:20 (TNIV)

gentlewisdom.org/2007/08/11/augustines-mistake-about-sin
And yet we have this a bit later in Rom 5:

"Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." Rom 5:18-19

All men not only died because of Adam’s trespass, but also lost the state of justice.
 
Oh, I am, for sure. What “literally true events” do we have in the “first three fascinating chapters of Genesis?”
1.The creation of our universe.

2.The creation of the animal kingdom.

3.The unique creation of humans which established the unique
relationship between Divinity and humanity.

4.The clarification of specific terms for a relationship between a
divine being and a non-divine being.

5.The appearance of Satan and his temptation.

6.Adam yielding to Satan and the results.
 
Adam & Eve were not real in the sense that George Washington was real.
That depends. If I described Washington as “the father of our nation” – and if I found an ancient name that had that meaning (for instance, ‘Abraham’), and I called him by that name… would you then say that he was not real?

You might reasonably claim that the name I used wasn’t the name he was called by…
but you wouldn’t be able to claim that the man I’m talking about – that is, the man I’m calling “the father of the nation” – isn’t real… would you?
We simply call them Adam & Eve.
Fine. They still existed, though, right?
Their names are a play on words, Adam being “of the ground” and Eve being “out of her man.”
Actually, the name ‘Eve’ means “mother of all the living.” The word for “man” is ish, and the word “ish-shah” (which the Bible ID’s as “out of [her] man”) means “woman”; it does not translate as the proper name “Eve.” (In fact, if you read the Genesis account in Greek, you’ll see that the name used there is “Zoe.”)
The Genesis narrative of them living in a garden, the incident with the serpent (Gorgias is correct that it was Christian commentators who ascribed the serpent being Satan; Jewish commentators do not), eating the forbidden fruit is all part of the figurative language used to instruct.
Agreed. Yet, the use of figurative language in the Genesis account does not mean that there was not a first human couple (regardless of what names they were called by).
 
Romans 5:12

Parallel Verses
New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–

New Living Translation
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

English Standard Version
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

Ed
So really , if its literal, its all Adam’s fault sin entered the world. Eve’s fault it was not😇

If its figurative, ‘one man’ = both of them.

Hmm, you males have a lot to answer for…
 
So really , if its literal, its all Adam’s fault sin entered the world. Eve’s fault it was not������

If its figurative, ‘one man’ = both of them.

Hmm, you males have a lot to answer for…
Adam is literally the real first human; therefore, he is responsible for committing the real Original Sin. Eve, as the second real human, also committed a personal serious sin. That is why both Adam and Eve were sinners.

Sorry, but current males do not have the responsibility for committing the actual Original Sin. Current males were not alive at the beginning of human history. 😉

Everyone, as descendants of Adam and Eve, have a wounded human nature deprived of Adam’s State of Original Holiness and Justice. This contracted state is known as the State of Original Sin. This is why it can be said that all humans are implicated in Adam’s sin. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases the State of Original Sin and brings the person into the State of Sanctifying Grace. Jesus, hanging bloody on His freely chosen cross, is the salvation for everyone, as descendants of Adam and Eve.

Catholic information is found in paragraphs 396-421, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...e/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
 
The Church teaches that there really were two first ensouled humans. Were their names “Adam” and “Eve”? Well, given the meanings of their names, that’s a stretch.

Did these first true, ensouled humans rebel against God in a way that still affects us? The Church says “yes”. Did that rebellion involve an apple and a snake? That’s the part that’s “figurative.”

As others have mentioned, the Church doesn’t teach that this “figurative” tale means that Adam and Eve are “symbols” or are representative of historical truth. Nor does she teach that they represent a larger body of people.
I know we aren’t allowed to believe in polygenism but are we allowed to believe this: a Catholic philosopher, Edward Feser says on his blog, Monkey In Your Soul, that there was a group of unensouled human-like beings that were like humans in every way or almost every way except they lacked souls.

By scientific standards they were human, by Catholic standards they weren’t, since they lacked souls.
Adam and Eve and their offspring received human souls and interbred with these hominids, which started the population.

Are we allowed to believe that?
 
Which is exactly what the Church teaches. It does not say that Genesis 1 is literal history, nor does it deny the spiritual truths contained therein. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Note to the bolded: It is silly to think that 21st century Americans can read and interpret an ancient, non-Western text from at least 3500 years ago as if they are reading an article from the New York Times.
I think you’re like making a mess out of words.
The definition and root meaning of Literal and literary are closely related.

Literal:* b* : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : actual

Literary: Of, relating to, or dealing with literature: literary criticism.
eg:
Literature: The body of written works of a language, period, or culture.

Therefore, I humbly suggest to you that The literal meaning of Genesis is the primary meaning it had in the period that it was written. (eg: not today.)

Therefore, the church can say that the literal meaning of Genesis is true.
They will simply qualify that statement by saying that the literal meaning of Genesis is not true apart from an understanding of the time period in which it was written.

An “ordinary construction” today, is different from one made 2000 years ago.
That’s all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top