Adam & Logic, Genesis 1, 2, 3, CCC teachings

[Huiou_Theou]

In the age of equal Education for all I can’t help but believe that if there was an original human couple who lived in a garden without the sin we have experienced as humans, that God would have given both sufficient knowledge about the tree of good and evil.

Sufficient knowledge for what?

I think you are missing the distinction I am trying to make.
Culpability is proportional to knowledge; Culpability is graduated, not binary True/False.

Neither one would be, ignorant, weak, or vulnerable.

In each of the categories, ignorant, weak, and vulnerable; there is a matter of degree.
I can agree that Man was not totally ignorant, weak, vulnerable – but he clearly was not, omniscient, omnipotent, and infallible.

If Man is not omniscient, than I can claim man is at least partially ignorant.
If Man is not omnipotent, than I can claim man is breakable and weak.
If Man is not infallible, then I can claim man can fall (exactly as he does.)

When you say “sufficient”, that’s a threshold of some kind. What determines this threshold’s value and meaning? Where do you get the idea of “sufficient” from?

There could be no technicality to excuse them, they either made a decision together for both to be responsible for the original sin and therefore punished/cursed, or they did not and the original sin is just a made up story, hinting that women are the weaker ones to suit a certain period in time.
The CCC does go from Adam in verses, to Adam and Eve in others…

There is too much here to respond to in one pass.

The Law, engraved on man’s heart, is talked about by Jesus:

Matthew 22:36 “Master, which commandment in the law is the greatest? Jesus said to him, Thou shalt love the Lord your God** with thy whole heart **and thy whole soul and they whole mind [Deuteronomy 6:5] This is the greatest of the commandments, and the first. And the second, its’ like, is this, Thous shalt love thy neighbour as theyself. On these two commandments all the law and the prophets depend”

Some more details are discussed in Hebrews 8:18, and especially pertinent is that such a law engraved on the heart can exist simultaneous with intellectual ignorance: Romans 2:15. Romans 2:15 also makes very clear that the formation of a person’s conscience can excuse people from full culpability in certain circumstances.

Genesis is a book of “the law”; eg: Torah. Therefore Jesus is teaching us definitively that the law given to Adam must depend on the two command’s Jesus talks about. But there is no evidence that the commands Jesus is talking about were explicitly given to Adam or Eve in Genesis itself.

In the law given to Adam, the word Love does not exist, the word God does not exist, the word heart does not exist. That’s why, I’m going to say again: The law in Genesis is not identical with the law engraved on a person’s heart – it must be a statute.

So: Understand, You are asking me to believe that Adam had a law infused into him, which is sufficient to make him perfectly and completely condemnable; on par with the angels? and yet, that’s condradicted, for Adam is not punished with the full threat of the law. God does not make him die the second death and enter eternal damnation in hell. God judged him, and the church declares even today that Adam is a saint.

Read CCC #393 again, and notice the part about “mercy”

Angel’s decisions are irrevocable precisely because they had sufficient spiritual knowledge to make mercy impossible for them. They are completely spiritual, and intellectually more powerful (stronger) than man. If man is not weaker than the angels, then there could have been no salvation for man. The fact that there is salvation of man, means man must be weak. Man must have been intentionally created weak.
In fact, I think there is potential to claim that Eve, being the weaker vessel – gave us cause to be forgiven even if Adam was strong enough not to be deceived.

I don’t deny that both Adam and Eve were involved in the fall, and each carried a relative guilt. But, they did not decide to sin simultaneously, together; either.

There was a definite sequence, 1st: Eve eats, and nothing happens. Her eyes are not opened. The law, therefore, is not completely broken yet. 2nd: Eve gives the fruit to Adam, and transgresses the law according to her conscience. She makes them both “touch” the fruit.

However, even that isn’t enough, but only after Adam Eats, ONLY then – are both their eyes opened.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Errata: Sorry, I should have said “the woman” ate first, to be more precise. She would become Eve in the future, but not at the moment she ate the fruit. I don’t mean to be so sloppy, but old habits die hard.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks.

I do ponder on why Eve is even mentioned then. If they weren’t “in it together” the serpent would have just tempted Adam alone. Like you said they both committed a sin. In my Bible it states they both realised they were naked, and they both heard God walking in the garden and so both hid because they were afraid.

We have no dialogue between A&E, so it leaves my imagination open as to what they may have said to each other when tempted.

For both to realise they were naked hints at something. It doesn’t say in Genesis that Adam alone was responsible and therefore punished, the writer includes Eve and the serpent.

Like you say also, the Catholic Church places Adam as head of the human race and so responsible for Original sin.

I need to look at the CCC to read what our church says about Eve, because I’m not sure where your axiom #2 comes into it.

Axiom 2.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. Genesis 1: 26-27

Question about your beliefs about Eve. Is Eve a true individual human person? If yes, than according to Axiom 2, God has given her a rational spiritual soul, Genesis 1: 27.

Because Eve is a real person with an immortal spiritual soul, Axiom 3 applies to her.

Axiom 3.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27

Now, knowing all the above about the real human Eve, please include these paragraphs in your search: CCC 355-356 and CCC 1730-1732.

Looking for essential information about Eve per se, I found *CCC *399 and *CCC *404 which explains personal sin and the unique role of Adam. There could be other paragraphs.

 

[simpleas]

Sufficient knowledge for what?

I think you are missing the distinction I am trying to make.
Culpability is proportional to knowledge; Culpability is graduated, not binary True/False.

In each of the categories, ignorant, weak, and vulnerable; there is a matter of degree.
I can agree that Man was not totally ignorant, weak, vulnerable – but he clearly was not, omniscient, omnipotent, and infallible.

If Man is not omniscient, than I can claim man is at least partially ignorant.
If Man is not omnipotent, than I can claim man is breakable and weak.
If Man is not infallible, then I can claim man can fall (exactly as he does.)

When you say “sufficient”, that’s a threshold of some kind. What determines this threshold’s value and meaning? Where do you get the idea of “sufficient” from?

There is too much here to respond to in one pass.

The Law, engraved on man’s heart, is talked about by Jesus:

Matthew 22:36 “Master, which commandment in the law is the greatest? Jesus said to him, Thou shalt love the Lord your God** with thy whole heart **and thy whole soul and they whole mind [Deuteronomy 6:5] This is the greatest of the commandments, and the first. And the second, its’ like, is this, Thous shalt love thy neighbour as theyself. On these two commandments all the law and the prophets depend”

Some more details are discussed in Hebrews 8:18, and especially pertinent is that such a law engraved on the heart can exist simultaneous with intellectual ignorance: Romans 2:15. Romans 2:15 also makes very clear that the formation of a person’s conscience can excuse people from full culpability in certain circumstances.

Genesis is a book of “the law”; eg: Torah. Therefore Jesus is teaching us definitively that the law given to Adam must depend on the two command’s Jesus talks about. But there is no evidence that the commands Jesus is talking about were explicitly given to Adam or Eve in Genesis itself.

In the law given to Adam, the word Love does not exist, the word God does not exist, the word heart does not exist. That’s why, I’m going to say again: The law in Genesis is not identical with the law engraved on a person’s heart – it must be a statute.

So: Understand, You are asking me to believe that Adam had a law infused into him, which is sufficient to make him perfectly and completely condemnable; on par with the angels? and yet, that’s condradicted, for Adam is not punished with the full threat of the law. God does not make him die the second death and enter eternal damnation in hell. God judged him, and the church declares even today that Adam is a saint.

Read CCC #393 again, and notice the part about “mercy”

Angel’s decisions are irrevocable precisely because they had sufficient spiritual knowledge to make mercy impossible for them. They are completely spiritual, and intellectually more powerful (stronger) than man. If man is not weaker than the angels, then there could have been no salvation for man. The fact that there is salvation of man, means man must be weak. Man must have been intentionally created weak.
In fact, I think there is potential to claim that Eve, being the weaker vessel – gave us cause to be forgiven even if Adam was strong enough not to be deceived.

I don’t deny that both Adam and Eve were involved in the fall, and each carried a relative guilt. But, they did not decide to sin simultaneously, together; either.

There was a definite sequence, 1st: Eve eats, and nothing happens. Her eyes are not opened. The law, therefore, is not completely broken yet. 2nd: Eve gives the fruit to Adam, and transgresses the law according to her conscience. She makes them both “touch” the fruit.

However, even that isn’t enough, but only after Adam Eats, ONLY then – are both their eyes opened.

Sufficient knowledge for what?

To know what the consequence of their disobedience would be, would you say they were ignorant of what death would mean?
I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were on the same level as Angels, I understand they were created as Humans like you and me
The Law written on our hearts as Jesus describes it to love God and neighbour would be known to A&E I think, but I am thinking of it as sort of woven into Man, we know many people can and do kept the law without really knowing it, by means of being taught it. Some things we do naturally, by way of our conscience.

There was a definite sequence, 1st: Eve eats, and nothing happens. Her eyes are not opened. The law, therefore, is not completely broken yet. 2nd: Eve gives the fruit to Adam, and transgresses the law according to her conscience. She makes them both “touch” the fruit.

She makes them both “touch” the fruit.

Evidence?

 

[grannymh]

It may help to understand Adam and Eve by looking at the first three chapters of Genesis as God presenting His Divine Revelation through the means of an author.

Think about the important truths that God is conveying.
What is God’s necessary information?

 

[grannymh]

**Today’s Invitation for Brave Catholics **

I am looking for the actual Catholic teachings about Adam and Eve.

Per thread title, Genesis 1, 2, 3, CCC paragraphs, and basic common sense logic can be consulted.

It should be obvious that these teachings are few and succinct. That is why there are so many personal interpretations and sincere questions wondering about this and that on this thread.

As an introduction to the seriousness of knowing the exact Catholic teachings regarding a real Adam and a real Original Sin, consider a Google search on Modern Arianism or Stealth Arianism. Those who are not familiar with the original Arianism, please use this Catholic Answers Tract for basic information. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

Keep in mind that some forms of contemporary Arianism can be sugar coated.

 

[simpleas]

Axiom 2.
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. Genesis 1: 26-27

Question about your beliefs about Eve. Is Eve a true individual human person? If yes, than according to Axiom 2, God has given her a rational spiritual soul, Genesis 1: 27.

Because Eve is a real person with an immortal spiritual soul, Axiom 3 applies to her.

Axiom 3.
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27

Now, knowing all the above about the real human Eve, please include these paragraphs in your search: CCC 355-356 and CCC 1730-1732.

Looking for essential information about Eve per se, I found *CCC *399 and *CCC *404 which explains personal sin and the unique role of Adam. There could be other paragraphs.

Question about your beliefs about Eve. Is Eve a true individual human person? If yes, than according to Axiom 2, God has given her a rational spiritual soul, Genesis 1: 27.

Agreed.

When it is written about the law given to the man, but not the woman, it makes me question the way God seems to communicate to his creation. Man written as male and female, Man as written male only.

 

[simpleas]

**Today’s Invitation for Brave Catholics **

I am looking for the actual Catholic teachings about Adam and Eve.

Per thread title, Genesis 1, 2, 3, CCC paragraphs, and basic common sense logic can be consulted.

It should be obvious that these teachings are few and succinct. That is why there are so many personal interpretations and sincere questions wondering about this and that on this thread.

As an introduction to the seriousness of knowing the exact Catholic teachings regarding a real Adam and a real Original Sin, consider a Google search on Modern Arianism or Stealth Arianism. Those who are not familiar with the original Arianism, please use this Catholic Answers Tract for basic information. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

Keep in mind that some forms of contemporary Arianism can be sugar coated.

I don’t think anyone is denying Adam and Eve and Original sin? Just filtering through what makes sense and what does not (me anyway).
I think you said in an earlier post each person will have a slightly different way of understanding, due to their own experience in life (apology if you didn’t say this).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

To know what the consequence of their disobedience would be, would you say they were ignorant of what death would mean?

No, he was not ignorant of the basic meaning of what death is.
Fruit bears it’s seed inside of it, and for a seed to germinate requires it to die in the scriptural sense. So, there is already evidence in scripture that Adam knew that objects of one kind could be transformed into another; eg – die. Adam might not have understood the concept of corruption, but there was assuredly plenty of evidence that when a person eats a fruit – that the fruit disappears and becomes something else. Or that when grass gets eaten by an animal, that the grass is grass no longer.

It is the Lord God, YHWH elohym, who spoke to a specific man, Adam.
( See the LXX and the Hebrew of Genesis 2:16, Adam is a proper name – it is not translated “Man” but strictly Adam in the LXX; and is “ha Adam” in the Hebrew; only the Vulgate translates it generically as “him”, and of course I don’t have the original Vulgate to know what it “used” to say back in Jerome’s day… )

But, the Lord God specifically put the command in terms that the first man, Adam, would have been able to understand: Adam clearly knew from experience that eating any fruit at very least leads to the death of the fruit; so Adam had a general idea of what it meant that he too might die. ( He clearly could imagine what being eaten by something like a giant dragon might do to himself. )

ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm
Genesis 2:16 " 16 And the Lord God gave a charge to Adam, saying, Of every tree which is in the garden thou mayest freely eat, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die."

Those last two words “surely die” are “מות תמות” in Hebrew or “θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε” in Greek, or “morte morieris” in Latin. In both Latin and Greek, it is quite literally a double death; “die the death” or “to-death you-shall-die-from”

Those words generally indicate a legal execution for a crime, especially in the Hebrew/law of Moses. But the idea is also mentioned in the book of Revelation: Revelation 20:13-14 “The sea, too gave up the dead that lay there, and death and hell gave up the dead they imprisoned, and each man was judged according to his deeds, while death and hell were thrown into the lake of fire; This is the second death everyone must be thrown into this lake of fire unless his name is was found written in the book of life.”

But of course, Adam is a saint, and therefore will not die the second death according to Church Teaching… that has implications with respect to how we ought to read Genesis.

I don’t believe that Adam and Eve were on the same level as Angels, I understand they were created as Humans like you and me
The Law written on our hearts as Jesus describes it to love God and neighbour would be known to A&E I think, but I am thinking of it as sort of woven into Man, we know many people can and do kept the law without really knowing it, by means of being taught it. Some things we do naturally, by way of our conscience.

Conscience, the “eyes” of the soul. Curious how Genesis says, “Then their eyes were opened.” – and yet I am sure the first parents were not physically blind before that time!

She makes them both “touch” the fruit.

Evidence?

I think that even people who play hot potatoe can be forced to touch a potatoe… the beauty of the game is in the targeting eye of a quick giver.

Just so: I’ll admit the woman didn’t make Adam “eat” the fruit. – as the old adage goes, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”

But there is evidence that the woman’s reflexes were quicker than the man’s:
Genesis 3:6 “Then the woman gave some to her husband”

Besides, Adam was not told by the LORD God that he was forbidden to touch the fruit.
As far as I can tell, handling the fruit wasn’t against the law (at least for Adam).

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think anyone is denying Adam and Eve and Original sin? Just filtering through what makes sense and what does not (me anyway).
I think you said in an earlier post each person will have a slightly different way of understanding, due to their own experience in life (apology if you didn’t say this).

Is there a Catholic doctrine in your post 183? Please see post 181.

 

[grannymh]

No, he was not ignorant of the basic meaning of what death is.
Fruit bears it’s seed inside of it, and for a seed to germinate requires it to die in the scriptural sense. So, there is already evidence in scripture that Adam knew that objects of one kind could be transformed into another; eg – die. Adam might not have understood the concept of corruption, but there was assuredly plenty of evidence that when a person eats a fruit – that the fruit disappears and becomes something else. Or that when grass gets eaten by an animal, that the grass is grass no longer.

It is the Lord God, YHWH elohym, who spoke to a specific man, Adam.
( See the LXX and the Hebrew of Genesis 2:16, Adam is a proper name – it is not translated “Man” but strictly Adam in the LXX; and is “ha Adam” in the Hebrew; only the Vulgate translates it generically as “him”, and of course I don’t have the original Vulgate to know what it “used” to say back in Jerome’s day… )

But, the Lord God specifically put the command in terms that the first man, Adam, would have been able to understand: Adam clearly knew from experience that eating any fruit at very least leads to the death of the fruit; so Adam had a general idea of what it meant that he too might die. ( He clearly could imagine what being eaten by something like a giant dragon might do to himself. )

ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm
Genesis 2:16 " 16 And the Lord God gave a charge to Adam, saying, Of every tree which is in the garden thou mayest freely eat, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die."

Those last two words “surely die” are “מות תמות” in Hebrew or “θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε” in Greek, or “morte morieris” in Latin. In both Latin and Greek, it is quite literally a double death; “die the death” or “to-death you-shall-die-from”

Those words generally indicate a legal execution for a crime, especially in the Hebrew/law of Moses. But the idea is also mentioned in the book of Revelation: Revelation 20:13-14 “The sea, too gave up the dead that lay there, and death and hell gave up the dead they imprisoned, and each man was judged according to his deeds, while death and hell were thrown into the lake of fire; This is the second death everyone must be thrown into this lake of fire unless his name is was found written in the book of life.”

But of course, Adam is a saint, and therefore will not die the second death according to Church Teaching… that has implications with respect to how we ought to read Genesis.

Conscience, the “eyes” of the soul. Curious how Genesis says, “Then their eyes were opened.” – and yet I am sure the first parents were not physically blind before that time!



I think that even people who play hot potatoe can be forced to touch a potatoe… the beauty of the game is in the targeting eye of a quick giver.

Just so: I’ll admit the woman didn’t make Adam “eat” the fruit. – as the old adage goes, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”

But there is evidence that the woman’s reflexes were quicker than the man’s:
Genesis 3:6 “Then the woman gave some to her husband”

Besides, Adam was not told by the LORD God that he was forbidden to touch the fruit.
As far as I can tell, handling the fruit wasn’t against the law (at least for Adam).

In post 184, what are the basic Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters in Genesis? Please see post 181.

 

[simpleas]

No, he was not ignorant of the basic meaning of what death is.
Fruit bears it’s seed inside of it, and for a seed to germinate requires it to die in the scriptural sense. So, there is already evidence in scripture that Adam knew that objects of one kind could be transformed into another; eg – die. Adam might not have understood the concept of corruption, but there was assuredly plenty of evidence that when a person eats a fruit – that the fruit disappears and becomes something else. Or that when grass gets eaten by an animal, that the grass is grass no longer.

It is the Lord God, YHWH elohym, who spoke to a specific man, Adam.
( See the LXX and the Hebrew of Genesis 2:16, Adam is a proper name – it is not translated “Man” but strictly Adam in the LXX; and is “ha Adam” in the Hebrew; only the Vulgate translates it generically as “him”, and of course I don’t have the original Vulgate to know what it “used” to say back in Jerome’s day… )

But, the Lord God specifically put the command in terms that the first man, Adam, would have been able to understand: Adam clearly knew from experience that eating any fruit at very least leads to the death of the fruit; so Adam had a general idea of what it meant that he too might die. ( He clearly could imagine what being eaten by something like a giant dragon might do to himself. )

ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm
Genesis 2:16 " 16 And the Lord God gave a charge to Adam, saying, Of every tree which is in the garden thou mayest freely eat, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil—of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die."

Those last two words “surely die” are “מות תמות” in Hebrew or “θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε” in Greek, or “morte morieris” in Latin. In both Latin and Greek, it is quite literally a double death; “die the death” or “to-death you-shall-die-from”

Those words generally indicate a legal execution for a crime, especially in the Hebrew/law of Moses. But the idea is also mentioned in the book of Revelation: Revelation 20:13-14 “The sea, too gave up the dead that lay there, and death and hell gave up the dead they imprisoned, and each man was judged according to his deeds, while death and hell were thrown into the lake of fire; This is the second death everyone must be thrown into this lake of fire unless his name is was found written in the book of life.”

But of course, Adam is a saint, and therefore will not die the second death according to Church Teaching… that has implications with respect to how we ought to read Genesis.

Conscience, the “eyes” of the soul. Curious how Genesis says, “Then their eyes were opened.” – and yet I am sure the first parents were not physically blind before that time!



I think that even people who play hot potatoe can be forced to touch a potatoe… the beauty of the game is in the targeting eye of a quick giver.

Just so: I’ll admit the woman didn’t make Adam “eat” the fruit. – as the old adage goes, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”

But there is evidence that the woman’s reflexes were quicker than the man’s:
Genesis 3:6 “Then the woman gave some to her husband”

Besides, Adam was not told by the LORD God that he was forbidden to touch the fruit.
As far as I can tell, handling the fruit wasn’t against the law (at least for Adam).

Fruit bears it’s seed inside of it, and for a seed to germinate requires it to die in the scriptural sense. So, there is already evidence in scripture that Adam knew that objects of one kind could be transformed into another; eg – die. Adam might not have understood the concept of corruption, but there was assuredly plenty of evidence that when a person eats a fruit – that the fruit disappears and becomes something else. Or that when grass gets eaten by an animal, that the grass is grass no longer.

Interesting way to understand it.

It is the Lord God, YHWH elohym, who spoke to a specific man, Adam.
( See the LXX and the Hebrew of Genesis 2:16, Adam is a proper name – it is not translated “Man” but strictly Adam in the LXX; and is “ha Adam” in the Hebrew; only the Vulgate translates it generically as “him”, and of course I don’t have the original Vulgate to know what it “used” to say back in Jerome’s day… )

I don’t know about hebrew. My bible describes Adam as the Man up to Gen 4 :25.

I think that even people who play hot potatoe can be forced to touch a potatoe… the beauty of the game is in the targeting eye of a quick giver.

Just so: I’ll admit the woman didn’t make Adam “eat” the fruit. – as the old adage goes, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”

Not heard of that game.

But there is evidence that the woman’s reflexes were quicker than the man’s:
Genesis 3:6 “Then the woman gave some to her husband”

This made me LOL

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know about hebrew. My bible describes Adam as the Man up to Gen 4 :25.

And how do Catholic doctrines describe the Man in the chapters before Genesis 4: 25?

Anyone can answer per post 181.

 

[simpleas]

And how do Catholic doctrines describe the Man in the chapters before Genesis 4: 25?

Anyone can answer per post 181.

Catholic doctrines describes the man as Adam, since that is what God named him in Gen 5 :1.
Although Adam is named at Gen 4:25 and only referred to as the Man up until then, Eve is named by the Man as a Woman in Gen 2:23 and then again as Eve in Gen 3 :20, and as it’s explained Eve means mother of all living.

Man is also referred to as male and female :

CCC 355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

Hence why I get a little confused when the sin is considered as a fault of one man.
I think I’m putting 2+2 together and coming up with 5!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Man is also referred to as male and female :

Well, Adam isn’t directly referred to that way, and neither is a single man.
You’re referring to Genesis 1:27 ?

As I mentioned before, Genesis 1:27 is a table of contents (a compressed outline) which is meant to give the essence of what will be described in the story of creation which follows it.

But if you look at the actual sentence structure of Genesis 1:27, in no bible does it actually say that God created Adam male and female.

Rather that’s an implication, which is logical; but it’s an implication that is overlooking the structure of how mankind is created male and female; especially in light of the story which follows it.

There are two acts of creation in the actual story which follows: First comes the creation of man as Adam; Second come the creation of woman out of her man with an intervening death/reproduction (God cast Adam into a deep sleep/ and Cuts him to create a woman)

Now; look again at Genesis 1:27 there are TWO SEPARATE sentences describing the creation of man. The first says God created “the Adam” (he-Adam in Hebrew) in his image. eg: A singular man. The second sentence does not say,“THE Adam”, it says “them.” God created them, male and female. eg: A plural human race created in the state of marriage; of union.

The idea of reproduction and marriage is implied by the mismatch in subjects of the two sentences. There are two acts of creation; the creation of man (solo), and the creation of man in union/marriage. The woman is created together with (married) her man, but at a later time than the man.

Hence why I get a little confused when the sin is considered as a fault of one man.
I think I’m putting 2+2 together and coming up with 5!

You have said it.
I can understand the confusion.
I think it’s a bit like adding apples and shoes; The number you get will always represent something mixed up in an odd way.

The Catholic church, however, teaches that Adam was a real man in history and through his marriage to Eve; all men come from him. She is the mother of all the living, not just some of the human race. (Genesis 3:20) He is the father of all the living because he is her only husband, and it is the substance of his body which we all (as humans) receive.

I understand the sentence where God created Adam in his image, as referring to a single man in one sense; and to a marriage in another sense.

We are the image of God, but only in communion; whereas a ‘man’, solitary, is already the image of God as a person.

Likewise: The sin has an individual aspect, and a communal aspect.
You’re inclined to view it from the community aspect.

 

[grannymh]

From the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
Very interesting!!!

**CCC 404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

Catholic teaching that Eve did not commit Original Sin. She committed a personal sin as described in previous post 191.

From the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

**CCC 402 **All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: **“By one man’s disobedience **many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

**Today’s Invitation for Brave Catholics **

I am looking for the actual Catholic teachings about Adam and Eve.
Per thread title, Genesis 1, 2, 3, CCC paragraphs, and basic common sense logic can be consulted.

It should be obvious that these teachings are few and succinct. That is why there are so many personal interpretations and sincere questions wondering about this and that on this thread.

As an introduction to the seriousness of knowing the exact Catholic teachings regarding a real Adam and a real Original Sin, consider a Google search on Modern Arianism or Stealth Arianism. Those who are not familiar with the original Arianism, please use this Catholic Answers Tract for basic information. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies

Keep in mind that some forms of contemporary Arianism can be sugar coated.

From Simpleas, post 189. Thank you for replying to the invitation.
Adam is definitely part of “man” when it is used as mankind or humankind.
CCC 355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

From Huiou Theou, post 190. Thank you for replying to the invitation.
The Catholic church, however, teaches that Adam was a real man in history and through his marriage to Eve; all men come from him. She is the mother of all the living, not just some of the human race. (Genesis 3:20) He is the father of all the living because he is her only husband, and it is the substance of his body which we all (as humans) receive.

My sincere thank you to all who have participated in this thread.

May the Holy Spirit guide all readers to the Presence of the Beatific Vision in Heaven.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

My questioning was not so much about what substances we get our human bodies from, but the law given to these first ever spiritual human beings.

Thanks for your help
I’ll keep my questions to myself from now on and ponder them.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

My questioning was not so much about what substances we get our human bodies from, but the law given to these first ever spiritual human beings.

Thanks for your help
I’ll keep my questions to myself from now on and ponder them.

The point of original sin, according to church teaching, is that it is “propagated” not just imitated.

Since God creates souls, and God does not create anything evil; Original sin must be normally transmitted by the substance of the body which we inherit from our parents. The law, Given to Adam, is also specifically about the act of transforming the substance of the fruit into the human body (eg: you are what you eat.) Therefore: Do not eat a particular fruit… eg: do not attempt to transubstantiate the fruit into your own flesh. The fruit is more powerful than you are.

This law was in effect until Jesus made all foods clean.

Also, Paul doesn’t talk about the effects of original sin as “original”, rather he speaks about it as the desires of the “flesh” and “concupisence.” coming from Adam (one man in one body). In some ways Paul’s description is better as it focuses on the way that the human body was damaged by Adam which is the crux of the issue.

As parting set of comments for you to ponder;

Adam’s substance includes X and Y chromosomes. A woman generally doesn’t have Y chromosomes. That is one possible reason why a woman can’t really be considered the originator of our fallen condition. (There are more reasons, but this is a sufficient example / analogy for all the others I can think of.)

A woman doesn’t (in general) have the whole human substance in order to be able to corrupt it by her personal sin. She had to get a man to sin in order to make the fall complete. Of course, Adam was the only man available to her at that time.

Also: There is an ambiguity in Genesis, with respect to the law; In English, the word “you” can be either singular or plural. But in the original languages, there is a separate word for singular you, and plural you. When the devil tempted or first parents, he said: “You will not die, if you [all plural] eat the fruit.” So even the devil recognized that he had to corrupt Adam as well as the woman to achieve his goal. Corrupting her alone was insufficient.

Cheers and happy contemplation.