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

[grannymh]

. 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.

Yours in Christ,

The nature of Adam’s temptation is in the first sentence of CCC 397. The temptation is to abuse his freedom.

The “Tree” in Genesis 2: 15-17 symbolically evokes Adam’s limits as a creature. To further understand CCC 397, there is *CCC *1707 as a cross-reference in the margin. Its first sentence is “Man, enticed by the Evil One, abused his freedom at the very beginning of history.”

Returning to chapter 1, book of Genesis, there is an amazing shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26. It is in this shift that the author signals the difference between material animals and human nature’s freedom to seek the Creator and more importantly to interact with the Creator. Genesis 1: 27. CCC 356-357. CCC 1730.

Genesis 1: 26 is a footnote to CCC 343.
**CCC 343 **Man is the summit of the Creator’s work, as the inspired account expresses by clearly distinguishing the creation of man from that of the other creatures.

All of the above is evidence for the Axioms in the opening post.

1. God as Creator exists. Genesis 1: 1
2. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human. Genesis 1: 26-27
3. Every individual human has the inherent capacity to interact with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27

Note: Please refer to fhansen, post 50 for CCC paragraphs.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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,

Hi Trevor Dewey,

I’m not certain I know how to look for threads, so I’d like to thank you for your answer now.

I agree with all C.S. Lewis says and think every christian should read Mere Christianity since it is the best explanation of christianity I have ever read. However, I never quote him.

The CCC uses quotes of church fathers, saints, but it matches up to biblical concepts and our doctrines.

Also read your post below. I’ve already said, and I think it’s important, that Adam’s sin is greater because he received instruction directly from God and so he decided to absolve that relationship of trust and obedience to God.

Eve, OTOH, spoke directly to the serpent and was under more temptation, taking the time to actually listen to satan and converse with him, something that shouldn’t be done - and not having had direct contact with God her rapport with Him was not as great as Adam’s.

This is the same now. To Whom Much Is Given, Much Will Be Required. The closer you get to God, the more you understand what is expected of you. And the more you wish to do what He wants, understanding better what He has done for you. Save you.

The farther away you are from God, the more you’re open to temptation, the more you listen to satan, why? because the less you understand what God has done for you. Sent Jesus from heaven to here - think of it!

Again, thanks for your considered response.
Be seeing you around!

Fran

 

[grannymh]

Both Adam and Eve committed a personal serious sin.

Adam is responsible for Original Sin.
This is due to the fact that Adam is the original human. Eve is the second human. The Original Disobedience Sin of Adam shattered the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity. The result is Adam and Eve’s deprivation of Original Holiness and Justice.

Because of the unity of humankind, Adam and Eve’s deprivation of Original Holiness and Justice is transmitted by propagation to their descendants. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases Original Sin and instills the State of Sanctifying Grace.

Information source: CCC 374-379; CCC 404-405

 

[simpleas]

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.

Thanks fhansen but this isn’t what I asked.

I will search alittle harder for information on what it means.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks fhansen but this isn’t what I asked.

I will search alittle harder for information on what it means.

Oh, ok.

 

[fhansen]

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.

Adam & Eve became like God* in no way other than *to know good and evil. God, OTOH, had much more in store for them than that single relatively non-essential quality. There’s much more to divinity that that, IOW.

 

[grannymh]

Looking at Adam in a logical manner,
it seems to me that one of the first questions is –Who is Adam?

Obviously, there are many, not all, Catholics who consider the figurative Adam as part of an allegory. A newspaper article reports that a prominent Catholic gave the answer that we should look in the mirror.

What do you think about this answer?
"Catholics who ask, “Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?” The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. … The man and woman of Genesis … are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.”
I would sincerely appreciate comments. This is a free speech public message board.
No one will be hung from the ceiling by their toenails.

 

[simpleas]

Adam & Eve became like God* in no way other than *to know good and evil. God, OTOH, had much more in store for them than that single relatively non-essential quality. There’s much more to divinity that that, IOW.

The author sees a shift in A&E’s behaviour after they gain knowledge of good and evil. What I’m focusing on is their knowledge prior to gaining knowledge like God’s.
They had infused knowledge, but we don’t know what they knew, and they had preternatural gifts, both lost after they disobey God’s command. As they gained knowledge like Gods, they could no longer live forever (one of the preternatural gifts they had, which they knew they would loose if they “ate from the tree”.
Sometime back we discussed this knowledge and I learnt it was experiencing knowledge, however if it was a lose of gifts (grace etc) why does the author describe it like they do.

 

[simpleas]

Looking at Adam in a logical manner,
it seems to me that one of the first questions is –Who is Adam?

Obviously, there are many, not all, Catholics who consider the figurative Adam as part of an allegory. A newspaper article reports that a prominent Catholic gave the answer that we should look in the mirror.

What do you think about this answer?
"Catholics who ask, “Were there an Adam and Eve?” would be better off asking another question: “Are there an Adam and Eve?” The answer, he said, “is a definite ‘yes.’ We find them when we look in the mirror. We are Adam, and we are Eve. … The man and woman of Genesis … are intended to represent an Everyman and Everywoman. They are paradigms, figurative equivalents, of human conduct in the face of temptation, not lessons in biology or history. The Bible is teaching religion, not science or literalistic history.”
I would sincerely appreciate comments. This is a free speech public message board.
No one will be hung from the ceiling by their toenails.

I would say thinking as above would allow us to believe that everyone has a time in their life when they are tempted to “eat from the tree”. All of us would be born capable.
But that then takes away the first two humans, the prototype that failed, who we all are tide in with as one body.

 

[davidv]

I would say thinking as above would allow us to believe that everyone has a time in their life when they are tempted to “eat from the tree”. All of us would be born capable.
But that then takes away the first two humans, the prototype that failed, who we all are tide in with as one body.

I think this comment ignores a key difference between Adam and ourselves. Namely the source of the temptation to do so. In Adams case that temptation had to come from outside himself (the serpent). In our case in can come from within as well.

 

[Gorgias]

Both Adam and Eve committed a personal serious sin.

Adam is responsible for Original Sin.
This is due to the fact that Adam is the original human. Eve is the second human. The Original Disobedience Sin of Adam shattered the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity. The result is Adam and Eve’s deprivation of Original Holiness and Justice.

No. This is one of the ways to misunderstand the doctrine of ‘original sin’. It is not “Adam’s sin, imputed to Eve”. It’s Adam and Eve’s sin, and its consequences are later transmitted through generation to all humanity.

Eve doesn’t receive original sin through Adam because she’s “the second human.” She does so, because she herself sinned. Since you’ve got your finger on the CCC:

“Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” (#390)

“Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents…” (#391)

“Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.” (#397) – Note that this is “man” and not “the man” (Adam); in the Latin, it’s “homo” and not “vir”.

So, although it’s called the “sin of Adam” (in order to draw the correlation between the first Adam and the second Adam), it’s not just his sin alone (such that Eve gets unfairly tagged with its consequences).

 

[Gorgias]

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.

In the meantime, why don’t you just copy the snippet and post it here? There are plenty of armchair Latinists around here; I’m sure someone will be able to give us a workable translation.

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).

Hmm… that doesn’t seem to make sense. The ‘original’ sin was pre-dated by a different sin? Wouldn’t that make the ‘original’ sin the ‘second’ sin, and Eve’s the ‘original’?

No… of course not. The sin was shared, as was the guilt. The CCC asserts that “(t)he account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms … the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” (CCC, #390)

An overly-literalistic interpretation of Genesis 3, through which one reaches theological conclusions that are not part of the doctrine of the Church (and which contradict the doctrines of the Church, as found in the CCC), is probably not the best exegetical technique…

 

[grannymh]

I think this comment ignores a key difference between Adam and ourselves. Namely the source of the temptation to do so. In Adams case that temptation had to come from outside himself (the serpent). In our case in can come from within as well.

Davidv Post 68 is a true eye opener.

It clarifies one of my own questions about Adam.

Thank you.
:flowers:

 

[grannymh]

I would say thinking as above would allow us to believe that everyone has a time in their life when they are tempted to “eat from the tree”. All of us would be born capable.
But that then takes away the first two humans, the prototype that failed, who we all are tide in with as one body.

Interesting thoughts. Thank you. Yes, we are all tempted** like** Adam and Eve. That is certainly more realistic than saying “We** are** Adam, and we are Eve.” from the newspaper quote in post 65. I wonder-- if all of us are Adam and Eve, which of us are the founders of the human species.

 

[wmw]

No. This is one of the ways to misunderstand the doctrine of ‘original sin’. It is not “Adam’s sin, imputed to Eve”. It’s Adam and Eve’s sin, and its consequences are later transmitted through generation to all humanity.

Eve doesn’t receive original sin through Adam because she’s “the second human.” She does so, because she herself sinned. Since you’ve got your finger on the CCC:

“Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” (#390)

“Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents…” (#391)

“Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.” (#397) – Note that this is “man” and not “the man” (Adam); in the Latin, it’s “homo” and not “vir”.

So, although it’s called the “sin of Adam” (in order to draw the correlation between the first Adam and the second Adam), it’s not just his sin alone (such that Eve gets unfairly tagged with its consequences).

I agree that it is presented as a 3 way meeting of Adam, Eve, and the serpent. It is mostly that Adam is silent that it is sometimes thought as just Eve in a scene alone with the serpent. She may be the first to act, but Adam is there and eats with her. I don’t think there is much doubt that this is a single joint act of humanity both male and female.

Genesis, Chapter 3, verse 6:
The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

In the meantime, why don’t you just copy the snippet and post it here? There are plenty of armchair Latinists around here; I’m sure someone will be able to give us a workable translation.

I’ll append it to the bottom.

Hmm… that doesn’t seem to make sense. The ‘original’ sin was pre-dated by a different sin? Wouldn’t that make the ‘original’ sin the ‘second’ sin, and Eve’s the ‘original’?

No… of course not. The sin was shared, as was the guilt.

This goes to why I’m not a fan of the CCC. If you go to the cited source AAS 58 (1966) the appropriate section read (translated from the Italian from Google translate)
“from which is derived the strong flow of evil in humanity, was first of all the disobedience of Adam ‘the first man,’”, quoting the Council of Trent. Original sin flows to you and me from Adam, not Eve. The CCC obscures this with its “first parents” language.

Eve committed a separate sin or sins (depending on how you count) and then committed another sin by asking Adam to eat it as well, but it was Adam’s disobedience in eating the fruit, despite his awareness of God’s commands, that is the original sin. This is because Adam is Adam and Eve is Eve. God established a Hierarchy on Earth even though there were only two people on Earth and Adam was at the top of that two person hierarchy, thus the proverbial “buck” stopped with him. Eve sinned, but Adam could have and should have ameliorated that sin by refusing the fruit (that is to say refusing to be disobedient himself), he didn’t and we get the stain of original sin because of him. I am aware we are talking a mythologized event, but this is what the mythology is saying, not that there was some sort of collective guilt by the combined actions of both Adam and Eve. Per the quote above, it is specifically Adam’s disobedience in ‘eating the fruit’ from which OS flows.

Also, with respect to one other poster, at no point in this mythology did Adam talk with the Serpent, note that CCC 398 says Man (generally which includes Eve) was tempted by Satan, not Adam specifically, so CCC 398 is true, but not very illuminating. As I note, Satan is a but-for cause of Adam’s temptation (so again CCC 398 is absolutely true in wording, but not illuminating) but the immediate cause of Adam’s temptation is only Eve.

I read it that he eats the fruit because he loves Eve. And thus he puts his love of Eve above his love of God, which the CCC 398 read as “he prefers himself to God” . Because the following is lengthy I’m not going to look at the sources for 398 now.​

As to the S. Augustine quote from Bibliorum Sacrorum cum Glossa Ordinaria, Tome 1, section 94 on Gen3:6. Cryptic abbreviations in the original. Looking at, it’s clear now it refers a bit to 3.6 but more to 3.7, which without even translating suggests Hansen’s point. The cryptic abbreviation was “Qui comedit & a.s.ocv.am & cat”, which I now get is a reference to qui comedit, et aperti sunt oculi amborum. (focused on 3:7).

Here is the whole thing, I didn’t try to go past the Luke Bread opening their eyes reference myself. There are some words I can’t read, and a lot I don’t know, and the printing is dicey at points (s and f and c and e can look very similar). Apologies if there are misspellings I went through it twice but have to get back to work. It is available from archive.org if you want to see the original.

Augustinus. Ad concupiscendum scilicet invicem, ad peccan poenam morte. f. carnis conceptam, ut esset corpus, non tantum animale, sed &. mortis. Rom vii.d. In quo lex membororum repugnant lelgimentis (??) Non enim caeca errant facti.aut prohibitos fructus palpantes decepserant. Lucae 24.e Sed sicut in fractioine panis aperti sunt oculi discipolorum & cognoverunt eum quem cognoscere nom ualebant, sic aperti sunt oculi eorum ad quod ante nom patebant. quia anima rationalis bestialem motum in carnesua erubuit, & pudorem habuit, non solum qua sentibat quod ante non senserat, sed etiam quia motus ille prudens detrasgressione veniebat. Ibi enim sensit vbigraua vestibatur, cum in nudiatate nihil indecens pat ebatur. Ibi complementum est, Psalm 29.b "Domine in uoluntate tus (unreadable) meo virtutem. Averti illis (I think) faciem tua (unreadable), et fatus sum conturbatus. Pro (unreadable but I’ll give it a go) hac conturbatione ad sicus vel ficulnee folia concurrerunt, et sibi succinctoria consuerunt, et qui gloriosa reliquerant, pudenda texerunt. Nec puto eos in foliis putasse aliquid, quo congrueret tegimembra prurientia. Sed occult instin (??) et tu ad hoc conturbatione impulum sunt, ut talis poenae significato a nescientibus fieret, quae (I think) conuinceret peccatorem afacto et doceret scripto lectorem.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

No. This is one of the ways to misunderstand the doctrine of ‘original sin’. It is not “Adam’s sin, imputed to Eve”. It’s Adam and Eve’s sin, and its consequences are later transmitted through generation to all humanity.

Eve doesn’t receive original sin through Adam because she’s “the second human.” She does so, because she herself sinned. Since you’ve got your finger on the CCC:

“Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” (#390)

“Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents…” (#391)

“Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.” (#397) – Note that this is “man” and not “the man” (Adam); in the Latin, it’s “homo” and not “vir”.

So, although it’s called the “sin of Adam” (in order to draw the correlation between the first Adam and the second Adam), it’s not just his sin alone (such that Eve gets unfairly tagged with its consequences).

Actually, God didn’t tell Eve not to eat the fruit. He told Adam not to. There was nothing said by God as to what would happen if Eve ate the fruit and Adam did not.
Now notice, that when Eve alone had eaten of the fruit – her eyes were NOT opened.
The Septuagint Greek makes it very clear that first Eve ate the fruit (nothing happened), and then gave it to Adam. Immediately upon Adam eating, the curse took effect.

When God gives a law, he doesn’t interpret the punishment phase until the technicalities are fully met. This principle can be shown to be true in many different example cases throughout the whole bible.

Adam was the source of the body, or flesh, of his wife. So long as the original fountain and head of the body was not ill, it could continue to sanctify the wife; even if she ceased to be a believer.

St. Paul uses that very inference in 1Corinthians 7:14 “the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

Notice: Holy or “clean” is not the same as saved; eg: Being clean but empty is not the same as indwelt by the Holy Spirit. See the parable in Luke 11:24-26.

Precisely because Adam was the source of the body of Eve, he was capable of regenerating/keeping his wife clean. Therefore, Christ Jesus, who comes to save us is able to cleanse the whole body, eg: the church. Why? Because Jesus becomes the source of pure flesh for the all those whom are saved. When we rise from the dead, we will be “like him.”

You’re not entirely wrong in saying that Eve received the punishment due to her own sin; but she transgressed, specifically, by giving the fruit to her husband who was with her.
That’s what triggered the punishment and curse. Eating it herself did nothing. That’s also additional evidence as to why Eve was so completely deceived. Notice also that Eve quotes the law given by God incorrectly in the first place. God did not say that touching the fruit would cause death. etc. Eve did not hear the law directly from God, but from Adam. Eve did not even exist when God told Adam the law.

There is more I could say, but I think this is enough to get you started thinking about the problem. Meditation is good.

 

[simpleas]

I think this comment ignores a key difference between Adam and ourselves. Namely the source of the temptation to do so. In Adams case that temptation had to come from outside himself (the serpent). In our case in can come from within as well.

Yes we experience temptation from outside and from within, but to sin must always come from within. Same with Adam and Eve, both knew not to eat of the tree, both went a head and did it from a temptation of an outside source and temptation from within.
That’s how I understand it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hmm… that doesn’t seem to make sense. The ‘original’ sin was pre-dated by a different sin? Wouldn’t that make the ‘original’ sin the ‘second’ sin, and Eve’s the ‘original’?

Worse than that, it would be at least a third sin.

The Devil had already refused to serve God and was tempting others to follow in his disobedience. The temptation, itself, already shows a sin which predated both Eve’s and Adam’s.

Original does not have to mean “very first of all”; rather the idea of Origin, is “source.” Original often carries the lesser distinction of being merely the “first” of it’s particular kind (or genera?)

 

[fhansen]

The author sees a shift in A&E’s behaviour after they gain knowledge of good and evil. What I’m focusing on is their knowledge prior to gaining knowledge like God’s.
They had infused knowledge, but we don’t know what they knew, and they had preternatural gifts, both lost after they disobey God’s command. As they gained knowledge like Gods, they could no longer live forever (one of the preternatural gifts they had, which they knew they would loose if they “ate from the tree”.
Sometime back we discussed this knowledge and I learnt it was experiencing knowledge, however if it was a lose of gifts (grace etc) why does the author describe it like they do.

But it wasn’t knowledge that caused them to die. Nor was knowledge the cause of their loss of grace/preternatural gifts. It was disobedience of the Perfect Will of the Universe; it was disobedience of God that was the cause of their loss. And the knowledge of good and evil was not really a gain either, even tho they lacked it before, but also a loss: they had never beforehand experienced sin/evil, either by witnessing it or by their own participation in committing it. Now they were iniated, now they had “arrived”; they, too, would from then on share in a knowledge that both God and the devil knew. They might have become rather more sophisticated with this new knowledge perhaps, in their minds, but somehow they now just looked beaten, drabber, sad and ashamed. They had lost the freshness and brightness and beauty of their innocence. Where peace and harmony had reigned, strife would now be their lot, to one degree or another.

So the knowledge they now possessed was no blessing; it was another consequence of their sin. But God could use this evil to ultimately bring about a greater good. With the knowledge gained they might learn to value and desire a return to that original innocence, if possible, to a world not dirtied by the ugliness of sin. They might learn to value obedience of God after all-and that the knowledge they coveted was nothing worth the giving up of what they had. They might learn to trust God, to believe in Him, in that Something greater than themselves, that something that they would always know existed but had then dismissed as an irrelevant obstacle to their own fulfillment, preferring themselves and their way to God. They might, in time, learn that they had, indeed, died, that they were in need of being born again, when the time was ripe. This other knowledge, of their need for God their Lord and only Savior, this wisdom to be acquired, would be truly valuable, turning them back to Him.

The knowledge of good and evil might, finally, drive them to pursue the true Good alone. Like touching a hot stove its only value lies in teaching us not to do that again! And to seek their Healer Who would come to reveal Himself, in time, as they and their descendants-all of us-were ready