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

[simpleas]

There are two different stories of creation in Genesis, one of which treats of creation as an overview; the later story fills in details and as a sequence of events (time). Note: The stories look at creation from different perspectives but speak of events which happened at the overlapping times.

Look at Genesis 1:28, “God pronounced his blessing on them”; so the story in Genesis 1:28 is talking about God blessing an already created man and woman; but God doesn’t actually create Adam until Genesis 2:7. Again: In Genesis 2:1 – Creation is proclaimed “finished”, but then God doesn’t create a man until a few verses later.

The earlier story is like a table of contents for the later story. It’s an epitome or outline. In the earlier story, we already know that God is rational and spiritual. In the earlier story, God says Man AND woman were created in his image. From that alone, we already know that woman has a spiritual soul just like man. (eg: The answer to your original objection…)

But as to the exact sequence of events, or the order in which they were created; that doesn’t happen until the second story. I know I’m not mistaken about the sequence of events, for St. Paul tells us “Adam was created first, then the woman.” ( 1Timothy 2:13 ).

However, the exact way the author of Genesis wrote about those events is not strictly chronological. In a Cyclic history,essential events are expected to repeat. For example, Tuesday follows Monday, but eventually – Monday will happen again. (Not the same Monday, Chronologically, but the same Monday cyclically.)

God created “man” (not Just a single person, Adam) from the dust of the earth.
But also: Every time two people have intercourse, they share the watered dust of the earth from which Adam was made, and it is God who forms the child in the womb from that substance. The same generalized or abstracted event mentioned in Genesis 2:7 repeats.

Much of the story of creation repeats. The events are not identical, just as the things that happen on this Monday are not exactly the same as that happened last Monday; but there is a general repetition of events because of similar conditions.
If I watch how a “typical” week goes for a certain person; I have a good idea what the next week will be like in general (not in detail, and not without risk of deviation.)

As a reader of Genesis, each of us needs to figure out which events are cyclical, and which ones are unique; and why.

Example:
God breathes life into a specific man, Adam, as part of fulfilling Genesis 1:27. But, God is still breathing life into man every time one comes into the world. That’s the way I read passages like Genesis 2:7. Later events may not occur precisely the same as the way it happened in Genesis 2:7, but it does repeat in a general way; eg: When life was breathed into me – I became Andrew; when life was breathed into my son, Stephen was formed. But we are both alive, and God did it.

exactly.

I’m not sure. This is one of the places where conundrums show up.
Most traditional Catholics would say they lost “preternatural” gifts. But I don’t see that word in the CCC… did I miss it? Since you brought nature up; What do you think the word “nature” means and how do you know? Perhaps we can compare ideas with those in the CCC and discover a few things about it.

God created “man” (not Just a single person, Adam) from the dust of the earth

And this is what I am trying to understand from you. Man was two, male and female, both given a soul. One receives the command, the other doesn’t.
The law is written on our hearts, and so the law would be written onto Eve’s heart also.

Can’t continue right now, it’s late.

Good night.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

And this is what I am trying to understand from you. Man was two, male and female, both given a soul. One receives the command, the other doesn’t.
The law is written on our hearts, and so the law would be written onto Eve’s heart also.

Can’t continue right now, it’s late.

Good night.

On opposte sides of the world… Good night, or I suppose morning by the time you read this…

Your question is a much bigger question than the one I thought you were asking.
hmm… saying the law was is “written” means someone has to write it, either directly or indirectly.

“The” general law inscibed on man’s heart is universal, and applies to both males and females. But specific laws (statutes) can be diverse for men and women. Specific laws can depend on specific genders.

Compare the law of Genesis 2:16-17 vs. the woman’s version of it in Genesis 3:2.
They are not identical. It has the character, then, of a statute – or else, the woman’s knowledge about the law was in error. In either case, transgression of a statute may in appear to break “the law” written on one’s heart, but not be indictable because a technicality. There are, after all, both mortal and venial sins.

 

[grannymh]

Compare the law of Genesis 2:16-17 vs. the woman’s version of it in Genesis 3:2.
They are not identical. It has the character, then, of a statute – or else, the woman’s knowledge about the law was in error.

First, this thread attacks Eve who casts a love spell on Adam. And now she is attacked as being a dumb blonde. Guess what guys. In the Catholic Church, it is Adam’s personal sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity aka Original Sin. Mess with Original Sin and the mystery of Christ is undermined. Please, take seriously the last sentence in *CCC *389. Those readers who know early Church history should be able to recognize various forms of modern Arianism which describe Jesus Christ as a prophet among prophets. Or the misuse of symbolism in regard to chapter six, Gospel of John.

 

[simpleas]

On opposte sides of the world… Good night, or I suppose morning by the time you read this…

Your question is a much bigger question than the one I thought you were asking.
hmm… saying the law was is “written” means someone has to write it, either directly or indirectly.

“The” general law inscibed on man’s heart is universal, and applies to both males and females. But specific laws (statutes) can be diverse for men and women. Specific laws can depend on specific genders.

Compare the law of Genesis 2:16-17 vs. the woman’s version of it in Genesis 3:2.
They are not identical. It has the character, then, of a statute – or else, the woman’s knowledge about the law was in error. In either case, transgression of a statute may in appear to break “the law” written on one’s heart, but not be indictable because a technicality. There are, after all, both mortal and venial sins.

When I think of the law written on mans hearts (male and female) Adam and Eve, I’m thinking of a sort of infusion of knowing without it having to be taught. Like God breathing his spirit into the first couple, pure goodness and peace, a knowing that could’t be forgotten. I don’t think of it as something written as such. I think the specific laws you mention came after the fall.

Eve didn’t get the command wrong, at least I do not read it that way, she does say they should not touch it, which wasn’t what God had commanded earlier, but she knows it would cause death.

I do wonder why Adam is not quoted saying anything to the serpent as he was right beside Eve.

 

[davidv]

When I think of the law written on mans hearts (male and female) Adam and Eve, I’m thinking of a sort of infusion of knowing without it having to be taught. Like God breathing his spirit into the first couple, pure goodness and peace, a knowing that could’t be forgotten. I don’t think of it as something written as such. I think the specific laws you mention came after the fall.

Eve didn’t get the command wrong, at least I do not read it that way, she does say they should not touch it, which wasn’t what God had commanded earlier, but she knows it would cause death.

I do wonder why Adam is not quoted saying anything to the serpent as he was right beside Eve.

In a Genesis bible study with Jeff Cavins some years ago this specifically was addressed. It was understood that Adam was present and failed carry out one of the commands he received, namely to care for the garden. Which meant that he was to protect it. This he failed to do when he did not intervene during Eve’s temptation.

 

[grannymh]

Clarification of God’s commandment to the first original human and his spouse, also a true human person.

God’s commandment is given directly, flat out to Adam. Adam as the first original human being relays the commandment to Eve who is not the first original human being, but still she is a fully-complete human person and thus subject to God’s commandment. Both Adam and Eve commit a serious personal sin.

Please notice that the word “we” means more than one. Also notice that the sin of eating, which is the actual personal sin is known by both persons. It is not helpful to sidestep the purpose of the basic command. Obviously, Adam had the capability of communicating with God, asking God about this or that. This or that did not change the basic command.

I put God’s basic command in bold. I realize that because of the popular denial of Original Sin, there are public teachers who are spreading lies about Adam and Eve. An example is given in post 65.

usccb.org/bible/genesis/2

15The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.h 16The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the gardeni 17except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.* j
18The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.* k

usccb.org/bible/genesis/3

2The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3a it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’”

 

[simpleas]

In a Genesis bible study with Jeff Cavins some years ago this specifically was addressed. It was understood that Adam was present and failed carry out one of the commands he received, namely to care for the garden. Which meant that he was to protect it. This he failed to do when he did not intervene during Eve’s temptation.

Adam sinned because he loved Eve, Adam sinned because he failed to care for the garden, I’ll assume the garden also included Eve. I’ve not read Jeff Cavins interpretation, I will look it up, I find all these interpretations interesting.

Thanks.

 

[davidv]

Adam sinned because he loved Eve,

I see no evidence for this in Genesis. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Adam sinned because he failed to care for the garden, I’ll assume the garden also included Eve. I’ve not read Jeff Cavins interpretation, I will look it up, I find all these interpretations interesting.

Thanks.

 

[Hunho]

I’m not sure. This is one of the places where conundrums show up.
Most traditional Catholics would say they lost “preternatural” gifts. But I don’t see that word in the CCC… did I miss it? Since you brought nature up; What do you think the word “nature” means and how do you know? Perhaps we can compare ideas with those in the CCC and discover a few things about it.

Go back up to my post #4 at the beginning of this thread to get a summary of the “original grace” and “original justice” that Adam and Eve enjoyed before their Fall. That post is drawn from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not on my speculations, so it presents proper Catholic doctrine on this matter.
:compcoff:

 

[fhansen]

CCC 397 (quoting Romans 5:19) states that the sin was disobedience, CCC 398 seems to be a gloss on 397 stating the motivation for the disobedience and cites to St. Maximus the Confessor’s Ambigua for the “be like God” quote and the ". I am an admirer of St. Maximus, specifically, I’d love to get a copy of the translation of his Life of the Virgin but in this case I don’t think the cite accurately reflects what happened, or supports the whole of CCC 397 which states “In that sin man preferred himself to God…he chose himself over and against God.”

Whether Adams’ disobedience arose due to his attachment to Eve, or whether it had to do with his wanting to “be like God”-or to be God?-either way he was pursuing a good. Eve was desirable to him, but OTOH *being like *God would be the greatest of all goods. In the immortal words of Mel Brooks, “It’s good to be king”. But maybe these two motivations wouldn’t be at odds anyway. Maybe, in order to be able to realize the one, Adam had to first pursue the other. The act of disobeying God could be the equivalent of trying to be like God, in a way beyond the measure due to Adam… Because it would be to dethrone Him, so to speak, in your mind, to place yourself, your opinion, above Him and His command. The motivation for doing so could well include any various temptations sitting before him, including his desire for Eve. Both could be causes for the same act I suppose, just as Jesus was given more than one temptation in the desert to bow before Satan rather than the Father.

At any rate Aquinas would say that sin originates in the heart-or will-and so an inordinate internal disposition must precede the act. In the case of the first sin, the act of disobedience was said to be preceded by pride, inordinate desire for one’s excellence/inordinate self-love, which exalts itself above all things including God. So, Aquinas said, pride was the cause of the original sin; pride was the sin while disobedience was the act or commission of the sin, the sinful act itself. And this makes sense to me because I see our world today as still inordinately* rife *with this very vice, carrying on the family tradition by echoing the fathers sin. This situation results in an imbalance/disharmony-with injustice and harm to each other resulting in great and small ways. Pride/self-righteousness is man’s self-justification; we’re capable of doing many things that reason would otherwise preclude, based on motivations influenced by pride.

Adam created moral relativity, then, so that he could do as he saw fit. From a position of original innocence it was necessary to commit this first breech before any other sins could be committed. And we’ve lived and struggled with this, with God no longer being the God of ourselves and our world, ever since. God had given man just that very freedom, the freedom to experiment, at least for this time we have, with a life free from His moral influence, to see, presumably, just who should deserve the title “God” in the end.

In any case, the original sin opened the door for all other sins, acts which are at odds with God’s will. A* spiritual* desire, which separated man from God spiritually, is said to be the progenitor of concupiscence, loss of control over the flesh. When man’s mind was no longer subject to God, man, ironically perhaps, lost control; in trying to gain self-mastery he actually forfeited it. This man/God relationship is said to be critical in maintaining our inner harmony/balance/justice-and happiness. God doesn’t force His will upon us but instead wants* us* to choose Him in the end.

So, as Aquinas would put it, Adam elected for mutable goods over the immutable, presuming to find an even greater happiness apart from God and any obligation he would have to Him. And it’s interesting that Aquinas maintains that Adam’s sin, even as the granddaddy of all sin, is not the most grievous or greatest of sins. Just some thoughts to add to the discussion-sorry if they’re a bit rambling or fragmented.

 

[simpleas]

I see no evidence for this in Genesis. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

I didn’t arrive at that conclusion, but others have.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

I see no evidence for this in Genesis. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

He didn’t. I did.

In a Genesis bible study with Jeff Cavins some years ago this specifically was addressed. **It was understood that Adam was present **and failed carry out one of the commands he received, namely to care for the garden. Which meant that he was to protect it. This he failed to do when he did not intervene during Eve’s temptation.

Apparently in a similar manner as to whomever Jeff Cavins is arrived at this conclusion.

I’m not interested in defending my supposition with respect to Adam’s reason for accepting the fruit, happy to admit it is just a supposition. I’m just noting that this thread continues to support my theory that scripture discussion on the Internet is a black hole. I have never read any commentary, Church Father or other discussion that ever suggested the idea that Adam was standing mute next to Eve as the Serpent was talking to her, and can’t fathom where such an idea came from. But hey YMMV.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

First, this thread attacks Eve who casts a love spell on Adam. And now she is attacked as being a dumb blonde. Guess what guys. In the Catholic Church, it is Adam’s personal sin which shattered humanity’s relationship with Divinity aka Original Sin. Mess with Original Sin and the mystery of Christ is undermined. Please, take seriously the last sentence in *CCC *389.

I do take CCC 389 seriously.

Although… St. Paul didn’t say Eve was blonde. He just said she was deceived and Adam was not, eg: as an infallible interpretation of scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.

That’s separate from something like St. Paul choosing to forbid women to teach [in Church/liturgy/homily] eg: St Paul issued a disciplinary decree, not an infallible teaching that all women are (in general) deceived. The anti-woman notion is more of a fundamentalist protestant view. But, St. Paul clearly says “I” will not allow a woman to teach 1Timothy 2:12; so he issues a personal rule for HIS church, not a universal church law for the Catholic church as a whole. Each bishop has authority over their own church.

But as to the inspired teaching about Genesis: Paul’s inspired argument is preserved in all versions of the new testament as the inerrant teaching of scripture, whether found in the Latin vulgate or the Septuagint Greek; Adam was not deceived or seduced, but Eve was.

Latin vulgate: 1Timothy 2:13-14 on Genesis 3:

Adam enim primus fomatus est: deinde Heva: et Adam non est seductus: mulier autem seducta in praevaricatione fuit.

Adam was first formed: then Eve: and Adam is not seduced: but the woman being seduced was in transgression.

Tishendorf, Greek, Codex Sainaiticus 1 Timothy 2:13-14 on Genesis 3

αδαμ γαρ πρωτοϲ επλαϲθη ειτα ευα
και αδαμ ουκ ηπατηθη η δε γυνη εξαπατηθειϲα εν παραβαϲει γεγονε

For Adam first was formed then Eve, and Adam was not deceived; but woman, having-been-deceived into the transgression, went.

Or you can look at a more modern Greek (Textus Receptus) and parse the individual words yourself; Even the received texts of today still says exactly the same thing: studylight.org/interlinear-bible/1-timothy/2-14.html

The issue that we’re dealing with, given your choice of OP, is that nowhere in the CCC does it say Adam was deceived, and nowhere does it say Eve wasn’t; but St. Paul goes beyond the vague statements of the CCC and makes a few more facts explicit.

I don’t intend to bash women. I’m sorry if my earlier post where I said that Eve thinking the fruit would give her “wisdom” got your hackles up and led you to think I condemned Eve as stupid. My remark was imprecise;I apologize. I think Eve was ignorant at the time. There is a clear difference between stupidity and ignorance: Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever.

But as to this “infused” knowledge that the CCC talks about, and “simpleas” wants to assign to the woman: I don’t know that it gives a basis to claim “vincible ignorance” which she would be guilty of mortal sin for doing. We don’t know exactly what they knew based on infused knowledge, and the more spiritual the knowledge – the more irrevocable the sin would be. I don’t think that kind of accusation against Eve can be sustained given Church teaching and St. Paul’s remarks ( without having to deny the church’s teaching on why Adam and Eve were not damned but the fallen angels were. )

Many of the early church fathers comment that the fallen angels were not given a second chance, precisely because they did not have a human body which was weak and capable of ignorance. The angel’s knowledge and communion with God is perfectly spiritual, and therefore there was no excuse whatsoever for their sin. Angels didn’t have to “talk” with God using words, but scripture clearly depicts that the law was given to Adam by the use of a “voice” (God said to Adam…).

Also: Angels are the messengers/voice of God, and Devils speak against God;
Therefore, the message is handled by an intermediary. ( Think, Guardian angels: Behold, I say to you the children’s angels in heaven behold the father’s face. )

Man, on the other hand, is a composite mind and body, and therefore is weak (eg:can be deceived ) That’s exactly why the early church father’s taught that man can be forgiven, but angels can not.

See CCC #393, and footnote to St. John Damascene, De Fide orth.
From ST. John Damascene:

An angel ] is not susceptible of repentance because it is incorporeal; for it is owing to the weakness of his body that man comes to have repentance.

When man physically dies, his spirit separates from his body; the weakness spoken of by the early church fathers temporarily ends, and notably: Man becomes identical with an angel with regard to his sin. Once separated from the body, man can no longer repent.

There are problems with reading too much into the undeveloped opinions of the ECF’s; but I think that insisting Adam and Eve had some kind of spiritual knowledge equivalent to that of the Angels, would automatically make them damned eternally just as the angels were.

So, again, I think I have to insist that there absolutely must be some kind of technicality in the Law which was given to Adam by God; and I mean given verbally and not infused.
That technicality excused Adam and Eve from having sufficient knowledge and will on par with what the angels had.

 

[grannymh]

Because I have a heavy schedule for a couple of days, I thought that the following would give posters some ideas while I am away.
From the opening post

This new thread in the Adam & Logic series follows the ”Adam & Logic, Third Edition, Original Relationship between Humanity and Divinity” thread which began in the Philosophy Forum. It became apparent that key information in that thread is straight from Scripture. This analysis told me that the Sacred Scripture Forum was the better fit. This is the reason for the switch.

Being in the Sacred Scripture Forum, we can have all kinds of fun. For example, we can tell the science critics that Adam has Ph.D. knowledge in the Science of Agriculture, Genesis 2: 15-17. Or we could have a poll as to which verse in the group Genesis 1: 3 through Genesis 1: 25 is the worse. We could have a prize for whomever names the most Catholic teachings flowing from Genesis 1: 26-28

Because there have been a variety of alternative approaches to the first three chapters of Genesis – upfront, this thread uses the teachings of the Catholic Church as the foundation for truth. This is proper on a free speech public message board.

Please return to post 1 for the concluding information.

Sorry, I really do not have a prize for whomever names the most Catholic teachings flowing from Genesis 1: 26-28. I can give a hint. Go back to post 1 and take a close look at the three axioms, word by word. Yet, there is the challenge like climbing a mountain.

 

[Richca]

If I may: “It” refers to “moral discrimination” which A&E had to begin with since God had implanted the natural law in their hearts. They already knew right from wrong; they just weren’t the ‘determiners’ of right and wrong which is God’s province alone.

yes, this is correct, thank you.

 

[simpleas]

I do take CCC 389 seriously.

Although… St. Paul didn’t say Eve was blonde. He just said she was deceived and Adam was not, eg: as an infallible interpretation of scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.

That’s separate from something like St. Paul choosing to forbid women to teach [in Church/liturgy/homily] eg: St Paul issued a disciplinary decree, not an infallible teaching that all women are (in general) deceived. The anti-woman notion is more of a fundamentalist protestant view. But, St. Paul clearly says “I” will not allow a woman to teach 1Timothy 2:12; so he issues a personal rule for HIS church, not a universal church law for the Catholic church as a whole. Each bishop has authority over their own church.

But as to the inspired teaching about Genesis: Paul’s inspired argument is preserved in all versions of the new testament as the inerrant teaching of scripture, whether found in the Latin vulgate or the Septuagint Greek; Adam was not deceived or seduced, but Eve was.

Latin vulgate: 1Timothy 2:13-14 on Genesis 3:
Tishendorf, Greek, Codex Sainaiticus 1 Timothy 2:13-14 on Genesis 3
Or you can look at a more modern Greek (Textus Receptus) and parse the individual words yourself; Even the received texts of today still says exactly the same thing: studylight.org/interlinear-bible/1-timothy/2-14.html

The issue that we’re dealing with, given your choice of OP, is that nowhere in the CCC does it say Adam was deceived, and nowhere does it say Eve wasn’t; but St. Paul goes beyond the vague statements of the CCC and makes a few more facts explicit.

I don’t intend to bash women. I’m sorry if my earlier post where I said that Eve thinking the fruit would give her “wisdom” got your hackles up and led you to think I condemned Eve as stupid. My remark was imprecise;I apologize. I think Eve was ignorant at the time. There is a clear difference between stupidity and ignorance: Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is forever.

But as to this “infused” knowledge that the CCC talks about, and “simpleas” wants to assign to the woman: I don’t know that it gives a basis to claim “vincible ignorance” which she would be guilty of mortal sin for doing. We don’t know exactly what they knew based on infused knowledge, and the more spiritual the knowledge – the more irrevocable the sin would be. I don’t think that kind of accusation against Eve can be sustained given Church teaching and St. Paul’s remarks ( without having to deny the church’s teaching on why Adam and Eve were not damned but the fallen angels were. )

Many of the early church fathers comment that the fallen angels were not given a second chance, precisely because they did not have a human body which was weak and capable of ignorance. The angel’s knowledge and communion with God is perfectly spiritual, and therefore there was no excuse whatsoever for their sin. Angels didn’t have to “talk” with God using words, but scripture clearly depicts that the law was given to Adam by the use of a “voice” (God said to Adam…).

Also: Angels are the messengers/voice of God, and Devils speak against God;
Therefore, the message is handled by an intermediary. ( Think, Guardian angels: Behold, I say to you the children’s angels in heaven behold the father’s face. )

Man, on the other hand, is a composite mind and body, and therefore is weak (eg:can be deceived ) That’s exactly why the early church father’s taught that man can be forgiven, but angels can not.

See CCC #393, and footnote to St. John Damascene, De Fide orth.
From ST. John Damascene:
When man physically dies, his spirit separates from his body; the weakness spoken of by the early church fathers temporarily ends, and notably: Man becomes identical with an angel with regard to his sin. Once separated from the body, man can no longer repent.

There are problems with reading too much into the undeveloped opinions of the ECF’s; but I think that insisting Adam and Eve had some kind of spiritual knowledge equivalent to that of the Angels, would automatically make them damned eternally just as the angels were.

So, again, I think I have to insist that there absolutely must be some kind of technicality in the Law which was given to Adam by God; and I mean given verbally and not infused.
That technicality excused Adam and Eve from having sufficient knowledge and will on par with what the angels had.

But as to this “infused” knowledge that the CCC talks about, and “simpleas” wants to assign to the woman:

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

 

[grannymh]

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

I put the opinion in bold because it is not an option in the Catholic Church.

May I gently remind readers …

In the Catholic Church, both Adam and Eve committed a serious personal sin. In the Catholic Church, the original Adam’s personal sin is known as the Original Sin.

Genesis 3: 9-12.
9
The LORD God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you?
10
He answered, “I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.”
11
Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?
12
The man replied, “The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”

All explanations avoiding Adam as the original man who committed the Original Sin are the personal opinion of the poster.

Therefore, when Original Sin is approached where …
Adam and Eve "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.

Please remember that the Catholic Church holds firm the doctrines involving the first human creature and his relationship with his Creator. CCC 389; CCC 396; *CCC *404-405.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

First, this thread attacks Eve who casts a love spell on Adam.

Hi. Feel free to belittle my statement that Adam took the fruit despite God’s command because of his love for Eve, I think it’s a reasonable gloss on “preferred himself to God”, but I’m not interested in debating Scripture or the CCC on this or any board after my experience in this thread. However, please don’t misrepresent my supposition in a way that suggests something like the above, which is clear heresy. Thanks.

 

[simpleas]

I put the opinion in bold because it is not an option in the Catholic Church.

May I gently remind readers …

In the Catholic Church, both Adam and Eve committed a serious personal sin. In the Catholic Church, the original Adam’s personal sin is known as the Original Sin.

Genesis 3: 9-12.
9
The LORD God then called to the man and asked him: Where are you?
10
He answered, “I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid.”
11
Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat?
12
The man replied, “The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”

All explanations avoiding Adam as the original man who committed the Original Sin are the personal opinion of the poster.

Therefore, when Original Sin is approached where …
Adam and Eve "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.

Please remember that the Catholic Church holds firm the doctrines involving the first human creature and his relationship with his Creator. CCC 389; CCC 396; *CCC *404-405.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

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.

 

[grannymh]

Hi. Feel free to belittle my statement that Adam took the fruit despite God’s command because of his love for Eve, I think it’s a reasonable gloss on “preferred himself to God”, but I’m not interested in debating Scripture or the CCC on this or any board after my experience in this thread. However, please don’t misrepresent my supposition in a way that suggests something like the above, which is clear heresy. Thanks.

May I kindly point out that any statement such as I think it’s a reasonable gloss on “preferred himself to God” is debatable from either Scripture or the *CCC. *On this public message board, there is the real possibility that someone will think that the “gloss” is not reasonable. Because of diverse opinions, is why I sincerely recommend that the actual Scripture verses and the actual CCC paragraphs be consulted.

When it comes to a reasonable gloss, one could consider that as a personal view which enhances or explains the truth from a personal position. For example, there are historical or poetical comments in the CCC. (CCC Index of Citations, page 689 and following.) That is what it is very important to read CCC 20-21 first.

My apology if I used too strong or too dramatic language in my reply to Huiou Theou, post 159.
.
A small point. Post 159, referred to in post 173 has a serious comment at the end.