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

[grannymh]

What is unusual about the verse in your opinion?

Thanks
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13301765#post13301765

As I said in post 449. “However, I believe contemporary confusion arises from the confusion about Adam’s human nature and subsequently the confusion about God and His original relationship with Adam.” However, this has been thrown out because of the new, more modern, easy teachings about Adam.

According to what I am now reading in multiple threads, this “confusion” has been solved with the new teaching that a tree had to complete Adam’s knowledge regarding evil. I never realized that a tree existed in order for Adam’s rational spiritual soul to operate correctly. Wow! A tree in charge of Adam! That is really an unusual twist leading to Genesis 3: 22.

By the way, the CCC Index of Citations does not list Genesis 3: 22.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, I have profound respect for you. Not too many people have your intelligence. Which is why I strive to understand you.

What do you mean by:

“Frankly, I am finding that all these new teachings about Adam sidestep some of the basic human nature doctrines that I learned in my geographical area. Thus, it is hard for me to be clear when I have no clue why people consider Adam so stupid that he had to eat organic fruit from a tree teaching him about right and wrong.”

I see major misconceptions here. Adam was so stupid? Maybe he was just weak.
He had to eat organic fruit to teach him about right and wrong? He didn’t learn about right and wrong from the organic fruit. He knew he was doing wrong when he ate it. The story of Adam and Eve strives to explain to us how evil entered into the world.

Do you not see the difference?

Now, let’s understand - a moment here. The church does not teach that there was an actual man named Adam (red earth) or woman named Eve (life) but it is documenting that there was a first man and a first woman - they’re names may not have been Adam and Eve. The story is to show how we inherited the Sin Nature.

Also, I don’t use sources. I hate to repeat myself, I think it bothers simpleas to some degree - I’ve taught this stuff for years. If I know an answer I say it, if I don’t, rarely will I look it up. I don’t have the time or the inclination to learn much more. I never express my own opinion, that’s not how I was trained.

If there’s a basic problem with this, let me know - as I already said, this thread may not be for me.

Fran

Here is an interesting perspective from this thread, post 38.
"It’s all plain from the first chapters of Genesis, which you have picked. Adam was innocent and knew only GOOD. God told him not to eat of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

He ate of it. THEN Adam knew evil."
In my childhood geographical location, “He ate of it. THEN [sic] Adam knew evil.” demonstrates the passing of time between Adam being innocent and knowing only good and the later moment when Adam knew evil because he ate the organic fruit. That organic fruit came from a tree. Thus, my surprise at a tree giving Adam spiritual knowledge. I should have recognized this earlier.

So far, my research shows that denial of Adam, naturally including the denial of Original Sin and its surrounding doctrines, was popular to the point that Pius XII gave us his brilliant encyclical Humani Generis in 1950.

If the tree did not give knowledge per se – I had one teacher threatening us with the plan to drill a hole in our head so that she could simply pour the knowledge straight into our brain. – What is the Catholic purpose for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

It is time for me to be quiet and let others talk.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[simpleas]

Grannymh, I have profound respect for you. Not too many people have your intelligence. Which is why I strive to understand you.

What do you mean by:

“Frankly, I am finding that all these new teachings about Adam sidestep some of the basic human nature doctrines that I learned in my geographical area. Thus, it is hard for me to be clear when I have no clue why people consider Adam so stupid that he had to eat organic fruit from a tree teaching him about right and wrong.”

I see major misconceptions here. Adam was so stupid? Maybe he was just weak.
He had to eat organic fruit to teach him about right and wrong? He didn’t learn about right and wrong from the organic fruit. He knew he was doing wrong when he ate it. The story of Adam and Eve strives to explain to us how evil entered into the world.

Do you not see the difference?

Now, let’s understand - a moment here. The church does not teach that there was an actual man named Adam (red earth) or woman named Eve (life) but it is documenting that there was a first man and a first woman - they’re names may not have been Adam and Eve. The story is to show how we inherited the Sin Nature.

Also, I don’t use sources. I hate to repeat myself, I think it bothers simpleas to some degree - I’ve taught this stuff for years. If I know an answer I say it, if I don’t, rarely will I look it up. I don’t have the time or the inclination to learn much more. I never express my own opinion, that’s not how I was trained.

If there’s a basic problem with this, let me know - as I already said, this thread may not be for me.

Fran

Also, I don’t use sources. I hate to repeat myself, I think it bothers simpleas to some degree - I’ve taught this stuff for years

:

 

[simpleas]

Here is an interesting perspective from this thread, post 38.
"It’s all plain from the first chapters of Genesis, which you have picked. Adam was innocent and knew only GOOD. God told him not to eat of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

He ate of it. THEN Adam knew evil."
In my childhood geographical location, “He ate of it. THEN [sic] Adam knew evil.” demonstrates the passing of time between Adam being innocent and knowing only good and the later moment when Adam knew evil because he ate the organic fruit. That organic fruit came from a tree. Thus, my surprise at a tree giving Adam spiritual knowledge. I should have recognized this earlier.

So far, my research shows that denial of Adam, naturally including the denial of Original Sin and its surrounding doctrines, was popular to the point that Pius XII gave us his brilliant encyclical Humani Generis in 1950.

If the tree did not give knowledge per se – I had one teacher threatening us with the plan to drill a hole in our head so that she could simply pour the knowledge straight into our brain. – What is the Catholic purpose for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

It is time for me to be quiet and let others talk.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

What is the Catholic purpose for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

You are asking the same thing I have been asking…

It is late, I am tired…

Maybe I’ll return tomorrow.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

What is the Catholic purpose for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?.

With respect specifically to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - Valentin Tomberg views it as primarily a teaching on chastity. Heavily paraphrased: Eve goes through three phases of temptation (1) listens to the voice of the serpent, compares what the serpent says to what God says and (he points out) treats them as if they were on the same plane, which brings about doubt in her; (2) with doubt in her mind she looks at the tree with her senses and finds delight in the fruit; and (3) she then follows through on what her senses are telling her and takes the fruit, eats and gives some to Adam.

Her doubt leads her to experiment (to look at the fruit and determine what her senses told her about the fruit, putting aside what God had said and what the Serpent said, in effect putting her senses on the same plane as God’s word, just as she had put the Serpent’s words on the same plane as God’s word). She then follows her sensual instincts, eats the fruit and then, to escape from her remaining doubt in her disobedience and reliance on her senses instead of God’s word by having her husband eat it as well.

Tomberg states that “to seek experience or to make experiments based on doubt is the very essence of carnal, psychic and spiritual unchastity (MOT p133).” For an example of how experimentation might lead to spiritual unchastity, look no further than Satan’s temptation of Christ in Matthew 4:6-7 “And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”.

With respect to eating the fruit, isn’t the issue not about suddenly receiving a moral code, but that with their eyes having been “opened” they now can see the world differently. They can now see it perversely, what was once innocent nudity is now something perverse that must be covered. The common metaphor we might use today is the glass “half-full”, glass “half-empty”. Prior to eating the fruit, Adam and Eve would only see the glass as half-full, after eating the fruit they might see it as “half-full” or might see it as “half-empty.” They same way one person can look at a sunset and see the wonders of God, another can look at a sunset and see some light refracted by dust in the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to review what the Fathers and the Doctors have said about this but it certainly is an interesting discussion.

Yours in Christ

 

[fhansen]

What is important to me — is knowing the **source **for this sentence in post 27–part of which is correct and part is not correct according to Catholic teachings.
“A and E didn’t KNOW evil before they ate of the tree. So I don’t think that back then they were deciding for themselves what was good and what was evil. Evil had to enter first.”

My sincere worry is that the source is quietly attacking God’s creative powers. It almost sounds like the **source **considers that the tree is acting like a god . Or more likely, God could only create the beginning of human nature. Therefore, it is up to the tree to complete God’s work.

Attacks on the reality of Adam are normal. But, attacks on human nature as God created it are a bit new to me. Therefore, I am very interested in the source so that I can examine the context and get a clearer picture of the comment about Adam and Eve.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

And yet Adam and Eve were incomplete, imperfect, unperfected, unless and until they would choose God, as their God, recognizing His right to the title. Man is meant to play a role in his own perfecting-it’s a matter of the will.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I think grannymh you are having difficulty because you maybe don’t realize that the story of A & E is an allegory. But you’re too intelligent for this…

OR maybe you think that I don’t know this. And so there’s a problem with thinking that Adam needed a “tree” to complete him.

Trevor Dewey’s explanaton is excellent, but he, alas, is also using material objects - the fruit - to explain a moral code or spiritual prinicple.

Is there some fundamental problem with this, grannymh??

I had a sweet girl in one of my Sacrament of Reconciliation classes. Did you know that kids think they’ve never sinned? It took me almost a whole year to get the right answer from her when asked: What is original Sin? And she’d reply: Adam ate the apple.

Yes, it took a whole year to hear: He disobeyed God.

So, I’m a bit dense, I guess. By your replies to me I’d have to think that you assume I beieve there was a real tree in the garden, a real serpent and a real fruit.

What DID they teach you in your geographical location, grannymh?

I would REALLY be interested to know.

Also, if you check my post no. 23, responding to simpleas, there is an answer to your question regarding Genesis 3:22.

Never heard anything about that again either. Concentrating on this question would have been interesting.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Here is an interesting perspective from this thread, post 38.
"It’s all plain from the first chapters of Genesis, which you have picked. Adam was innocent and knew only GOOD. God told him not to eat of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil.

He ate of it. THEN Adam knew evil."
In my childhood geographical location, “He ate of it. THEN [sic] Adam knew evil.” demonstrates the passing of time between Adam being innocent and knowing only good and the later moment when Adam knew evil because he ate the organic fruit. That organic fruit came from a tree. Thus, my surprise at a tree giving Adam spiritual knowledge. I should have recognized this earlier.

So far, my research shows that denial of Adam, naturally including the denial of Original Sin and its surrounding doctrines, was popular to the point that Pius XII gave us his brilliant encyclical Humani Generis in 1950.

If the tree did not give knowledge per se – I had one teacher threatening us with the plan to drill a hole in our head so that she could simply pour the knowledge straight into our brain. – **What is the Catholic purpose for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?
**

It is time for me to be quiet and let others talk.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

It is not a catholic purpose. All of christianity agrees on the teachings of the Adam and Eve story.

I still, unfortunately, don’t understand where this is all headed, or if I could be of any use, so I’ll wait to see if I can understand your reply to my above post.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

With respect specifically to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - Valentin Tomberg views it as primarily a teaching on chastity. Heavily paraphrased: Eve goes through three phases of temptation (1) listens to the voice of the serpent, compares what the serpent says to what God says and (he points out) treats them as if they were on the same plane, which brings about doubt in her; (2) with doubt in her mind she looks at the tree with her senses and finds delight in the fruit; and (3) she then follows through on what her senses are telling her and takes the fruit, eats and gives some to Adam.

Her doubt leads her to experiment (to look at the fruit and determine what her senses told her about the fruit, putting aside what God had said and what the Serpent said, in effect putting her senses on the same plane as God’s word, just as she had put the Serpent’s words on the same plane as God’s word). She then follows her sensual instincts, eats the fruit and then, to escape from her remaining doubt in her disobedience and reliance on her senses instead of God’s word by having her husband eat it as well.

Tomberg states that “to seek experience or to make experiments based on doubt is the very essence of carnal, psychic and spiritual unchastity (MOT p133).” For an example of how experimentation might lead to spiritual unchastity, look no further than Satan’s temptation of Christ in Matthew 4:6-7 “And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God”.

With respect to eating the fruit, isn’t the issue not about suddenly receiving a moral code, but that with their eyes having been “opened” they now can see the world differently. They can now see it perversely, what was once innocent nudity is now something perverse that must be covered. The common metaphor we might use today is the glass “half-full”, glass “half-empty”. Prior to eating the fruit, Adam and Eve would only see the glass as half-full, after eating the fruit they might see it as “half-full” or might see it as “half-empty.” They same way one person can look at a sunset and see the wonders of God, another can look at a sunset and see some light refracted by dust in the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to review what the Fathers and the Doctors have said about this but it certainly is an interesting discussion.

Yours in Christ

Your explanation is great and many good points have surfaced, for example, that it’s not a good idea to reason with satan - once you get to the “reasoning” point with him, you always lose.

However, this brings out my point exactly of why it’s always a bit dangerous to use people such as Valentin Tomberg to explain things in a complete manner.

Did you know that many years ago it was taught that Eve’s sin was sexual? I alluded to this in a previous post explaining how women have been called “temptresses” because of this teaching.

The church is not teaching any of that anymore. It causes much confusion and is not really found in the first chapters of Genesis. It only states that the fruit looked good and appealed to her senses.

Which would bring us to CCC 387. Now if concupescense didn’t exist yet, HOW did it appeal to her senses? Interesting question but not for this thread. It would take us into the question of the origin of evil and we certainly don’t want to go there!

So, yes, we could use whatever author we care to that could help us personally understand any spiritual principle, but I’m having a difficult time with this. How are we then to know church teaching??

I don’t really expect an answer, I’m just trying to make a point.

Fran
P.S. My point being that we should try to stick to the bible, biblical commentaries and the CCC. I get much disgareement on this.

 

[grannymh]

And yet Adam and Eve were incomplete, imperfect, unperfected, unless and until they would choose God, as their God, recognizing His right to the title. Man is meant to play a role in his own perfecting-it’s a matter of the will.

Adam and Eve were incomplete –

Interesting!

I am positive that you did not mean to imply that God was not able to create a true human person.

However, it does sound a tad like God was unable to create a fully-complete human person so the “Tree” of the Knowledge of Good and Evil had to take over.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

What DID they teach you in your geographical location, grannymh?

I would REALLY be interested to know.

Thank you for your sincere interest in proper Catholic teaching.

I have run out of posting time. However, regarding Adam you can find what I learned in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Paragraphs 355-421 and paragraphs 1730-1732.

Actually, It is time for me to be quiet and let others talk.

 

[fhansen]

IMO, the story of creation and the Fall in Genesis is, looked at in one light, a story of man’s struggle with the right use of his freedom. And man’s perfection is tied to this right use. So maybe some food for thought for this discussion from the Catechism could help:

**302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:
By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

**

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

I don’t really expect an answer, I’m just trying to make a point.

Fran
P.S. My point being that we should try to stick to the bible, biblical commentaries and the CCC. I get much disgareement on this.

Hi Fran,

Two Quick Points.

1. I’m short for time right now and this thread isn’t the appropriate place for a lengthy discussion on this topic anyways, but in general I agree with you that it’s best to stick to text, commentaries on the text by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as well as approved commentaries (such as in ODR, Haydock and most Catholic Bibles) and the CCC. In addition to those sources I semi-regularly refer to two additional sources: Valentin Tomberg (Catholic Hermeticist who is mostly orthodox but held two self-acknowledged heterodox beliefs) and C.S. Lewis (Anglican)). I will justify their use in a subsequent thread (when I have more time) based on official Church actions in relation to both of those authors, but always with the understanding that both must be read with care given that neither is fully orthodox.
2. With respect to changes in Church teaching. That’s whole other pickle of a problem, and an issue with the modern Church. Which would require an additional thread that I’m not going to start, and wouldn’t even know where to put if I did want to. I’m happy to contribute to such a thread should someone else start it. In any event, let me just add my comment on your comment about Eve, is that the Glossa Ordinaria has several commentaries from Doctors of the Church on the section we are talking about that speak exactly to the sexual sin of Eve that you mention and frankly I think they’re helpful for understanding the passage (even with my terrible understanding of Latin) and represent the received wisdom of the Church. I think CCC 397 isn’t particularly helpful for understanding the nature and causes of the Fall because it doesn’t discuss the nature of the temptation.

Anyway must run.

Yours in Christ,

 

[simpleas]

IMO, the story of creation and the Fall in Genesis is, looked at in one light, a story of man’s struggle with the right use of his freedom. And man’s perfection is tied to this right use. So maybe some food for thought for this discussion from the Catechism could help:

**302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator. The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu viae) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection:
By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, “reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well”. For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes”, even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.161

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

**

302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator.

Does this include man? From what I know, Man, male and female were created good not perfect, so their was some learning to be had, but they were created complete bodily and spiritually in the very beginning of human history.

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26
Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

Is this before or after the fall? Before the fall Man lived in a sort of paradise, had no real passion to want anything more than God, but could enjoy the beauty of creation. Was made in the image of God, but did not become like God until he chose for himself, according to the bible.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

Would Adam have been “nearly” or at least closer to God than anyone born after the fall, he experienced a different freedom than we do, yet he still chose to seek knowledge of good and evil?

Thanks.

 

[fhansen]

Does this include man? From what I know, Man, male and female were created good not perfect, so their was some learning to be had, but they were created complete bodily and spiritually in the very beginning of human history.

They were perfect as to their created status according to God’s wisdom, and yet there was another level, an “ultimate perfection”, yet to be attained by man.

Is this before or after the fall? Before the fall Man lived in a sort of paradise, had no real passion to want anything more than God, but could enjoy the beauty of creation. Was made in the image of God, but did not become like God until he chose for himself, according to the bible.

This is simply speaking of attributes innate to man-who man is. And Adam didnt actually become like God by eating of the fruit, except in his knowledge of good and evil, perhaps. God had already destined Adam to be like Him, but according to His wisdom and will, not Adam’s. If Adam really *had *ended up like God, the world would only be better, rather than the mess that the new “god” created.

Would Adam have been “nearly” or at least closer to God than anyone born after the fall, he experienced a different freedom than we do, yet he still chose to seek knowledge of good and evil?
Thanks.

Adam chose to disobey in any case, and a result was to gain direct experience-or knowledge -of good and evil, a knowledge all humanity would continue to share in to this day, everyday of their lives. This is not the same as the ability to discern right from wrong. This is the actual experience of wrong, of sin, beginning with his own, original, one. Prior to that no awareness of evil had been part of their experience in Eden.

 

[simpleas]

They were perfect as to their created status according to God’s wisdom, and yet there was another level, an “ultimate perfection”, yet to be attained by man.

This is simply speaking of attributes innate to man-who man is. And Adam didnt actually become like God by eating of the fruit, except in his knowledge of good and evil, perhaps. God had already destined Adam to be like Him, but according to His wisdom and will, not Adam’s. If Adam really *had *ended up like God, the world would only be better, rather than the mess that the new “god” created.

Adam chose to disobey in any case, and a result was to gain direct experience-or knowledge -of good and evil, a knowledge all humanity would continue to share in to this day, everyday of their lives. This is not the same as the ability to discern right from wrong. This is the actual experience of wrong, of sin, beginning with his own, original, one. Prior to that no awareness of evil had been part of their experience in Eden.

This is simply speaking of attributes innate to man-who man is. And Adam didnt actually become like God by eating of the fruit, except in his knowledge of good and evil, perhaps. God had already destined Adam to be like Him, but according to His wisdom and will, not Adam’s. If Adam really *had *ended up like God, the world would only be better, rather than the mess that the new “god” created.

Maybe God should not have put the tree there then.

What does the verse “The man has become like one of us knowing good and evil” mean then? If it’s experience of sin, does that mean we experience sin like God does? God not being human of course, not sinful or a creator of any evil, how does man become like God knowing good and evil.

Thanks.

 

[fhansen]

Maybe God should not have put the tree there then.

What does the verse “The man has become like one of us knowing good and evil” mean then? If it’s experience of sin, does that mean we experience sin like God does? God not being human of course, not sinful or a creator of any evil, how does man become like God knowing good and evil.

Thanks.

The experience of sin is simply to know it directly, to witness a murder for example, where beforehand, in your innocence, it would never even *occur * to you that one person would desire to harm or take away another person’s life, yet you would immediately know it as evil the instant you witnessed it, the natural law having been inscribed in your heart.

The tree was no more or less than the unavoidable consequence of God giving man free will. The eating of its fruit only represents the ability of man to disobey God; the whole scenario depicts the fact that man does so only at his own peril and loss.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

I think CCC 397 isn’t particularly helpful for understanding the nature and causes of the Fall because it doesn’t discuss the nature of the temptation.

To clarify this: there are two things going on and the CCC is only really focused on the second.

1. Eve listens to Serpent, falls into doubt, looks at the fruit of the tree (apple, pomegranate whatever), is tempted by her senses and eats. This is a sin of unchastity but not the original sin, and isn’t discussed in CCC beyond “Man, tempted by the devil.”
2. Adam listens to Eve and eats the fruit she offers him. This is a sin of disobedience and the original sin per the CCC and everybody else. There’s a big difference between Adam’s sin and Eve’s initial sin of unchastity (1) it’s completely voluntary, (2) Satan is a but-for cause of Adam’s sin, but Satan is not the immediate cause of it (unlike with Eve), Eve is the immediate cause, and why she has been referred to as a temptress. (3) as the CCC 398 says again somewhat cryptically “in that sin man preferred himself to God”, Adam preferred his wife’s suggestion (eat this fruit) to God’s command (don’t eat that fruit).

With respect to lust as being part of Eve’s temptation, there’s a note from S. Augustine in the G.O. (I’m going to avoid embarrassing myself by attempting to horribly translate the Latin - it’s note b on the 1603 version on the verse if someone who actually knows Latin wants to give it a go - I spent about thirty minutes trying to find a translation online but gave up) that cites Romans 6:23 for support for the idea that yes sexual lust was part of the Eve’s temptation that brought about original sin (see also Romans 6:21 ). He also notes compares the “eyes opened” line in Genesis with Luke 24:31 where Christ sharing bread with his disciples opened their eyes to his presence.

Anyway, I’ve certainly talked enough about this, I’ll write a quick post on a new thread on why I think X and Y are plausible authorities tonight or tomorrow and leave you be from my ramblings.

Yours in Christ,

T

 

[fhansen]

To clarify this: there are two things going on and the CCC is only really focused on the second.

1. Eve listens to Serpent, falls into doubt, looks at the fruit of the tree (apple, pomegranate whatever), is tempted by her senses and eats. This is a sin of unchastity but not the original sin, and isn’t discussed in CCC beyond “Man, tempted by the devil.”
2. Adam listens to Eve and eats the fruit she offers him. This is a sin of disobedience and the original sin per the CCC and everybody else. There’s a big difference between Adam’s sin and Eve’s initial sin of unchastity (1) it’s completely voluntary, (2) Satan is a but-for cause of Adam’s sin, but Satan is not the immediate cause of it (unlike with Eve), Eve is the immediate cause, and why she has been referred to as a temptress. (3) as the CCC 398 says again somewhat cryptically “in that sin man preferred himself to God”, Adam preferred his wife’s suggestion (eat this fruit) to God’s command (don’t eat that fruit).

With respect to lust as being part of Eve’s temptation, there’s a note from S. Augustine in the G.O. (I’m going to avoid embarrassing myself by attempting to horribly translate the Latin - it’s note b on the 1603 version on the verse if someone who actually knows Latin wants to give it a go - I spent about thirty minutes trying to find a translation online but gave up) that cites Romans 6:23 for support for the idea that yes sexual lust was part of the Eve’s temptation that brought about original sin (see also Romans 6:21 ). He also notes compares the “eyes opened” line in Genesis with Luke 24:31 where Christ sharing bread with his disciples opened their eyes to his presence.

Anyway, I’ve certainly talked enough about this, I’ll write a quick post on a new thread on why I think X and Y are plausible authorities tonight or tomorrow and leave you be from my ramblings.

Yours in Christ,

T

IDK. I’ve never heard anything from Augustine even remotely suggesting that lust was the cause of OS, only that it was a result of it.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

IDK. I’ve never heard anything from Augustine even remotely suggesting that lust was the cause of OS, only that it was a result of it.

My Latin is horrible so could be, easy enough for me to get tenses wrong, I’m trying to locate the full quote in a book as opposed to the snippet in the GO. However, that doesn’t change the fact that Eve’s sin with respect to the apple was one of unchastity (finding the fruit desirable and acting on that forbidden desire) and that it predates Adam’s sin of disobedience (the OS).