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

[wmw]

Items in post 249 that I do not believe are required teaching:

1. Eve sinned first. I can understand people thinking this since Eve ate the fruit before Adam, but it is not defined doctrinally that Eve’s sin must be first. The narrative style is not one that records and timestamps all the thoughts of each person. Adam’s initial sinfulness could have been in the time of his silence. While Eve was talking with the serpent or contemplating the relative value of eating the fruit.
2. Adam’s status as being first made and the source of Eve makes him head of the Human race. I will agree that he is the original source of all humanity and he is a representative model of the perfectly good created man, but it is not required that Adam must be the head in terms of being a master over women. I do believe he was given more authority at the time, but there is no reason or Catholic teaching that Adam and the males that follow for all time are rightfully higher in status over the females. The opposite seems to be said in that Eve came from his side to be an equal and that the lording it over women as their subjects came as a result of sin.

It seems to me that there is freedom to believe or not to believe these according to the teachings of the church.

 

[wmw]

What it means today for a father to be the “head” of a family according to a Cardinal:

…in happy families, father and mother occupy a position of
equality, but there is no misunderstanding that he is the head. The
importance of the mother is an accepted fact. She is the heart of the
family–the custodian of love and warmth, the first comforter and
educator of the children. In according her a just status, however, we
must not weaken the father’s traditional position.

By nature and temperament, he should exercise headship. When he fails
to do so, his children lack an appropriate male model to guide them in
their conduct, and they are likely to reach maturity without properly
understanding the roles they must play as men or women. But while he
must be the leader, he should not be like a common type of fathers of
the past–the tyrant whose word was law, and whose wife and children
constantly trembled before him. Such a father does more harm than good…
Establishing clear-cut family rules requires complete agreement between
father and mother. Few things disturb a child more than when his father
establishes one standard of conduct and his mother makes continuous
exceptions to it. Once a father and mother agree, neither should change
the rules without consulting the other, or the child will not know what
is expected of him. And both father and mother must share in enforcing
them…

 

[grannymh]

Symbolism:
What does it mean for the first three chapters of Genesis to be symbolic? The Catholic Encyclopedia provided this statement:

However literal may be our interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, we cannot fail to recognize the symbolic element which pervades them. When we read for example how “God created man to his own image”, or how He “formed man of the slime of the earth and breathed into his face the breath of life”, we can hardly doubt that it was upon the underlying moral lesson rather than upon the material fact suggested by the words that the attention of the writer was concentrated.

The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia does not necessarily leave open the question of literal description of events vs. non-literal symbolic parable in the first three chapters of Genesis. There is not sufficient evidence which warrants an extrapolation to that conclusion. The Catholic Church, through major ecumenical councils, has already decided what refers to literal events and has decided how Divine Revelation should be declared.

Note: Adam’s status is due to the fact that
"the whole human race is in Adam ‘as one body of one man’ " CCC 404. Nothing supersedes that fact.

 

[wmw]

And this is why the specific teachings are in the same post. It is these that govern what must be believed not a literal or allagorical reading of the text according to our individual understanding.

It always seems you find a way to diasagree in some out of context twist.

 

[grannymh]

And this is why the specific teachings are in the same post. It is these that govern what must be believed not a literal or allagorical reading of the text according to our individual understanding.

It always seems you find a way to diasagree in some out of context twist.

You are right. I do disagree with what appears as some out of context twist. Apparently, we can disagree on context twists without getting personal. Thank you sincerely.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[grannymh]

From the opening post. Let us try this method of learning about Adam.
“I like the Deductive Method of Reasoning because truth follows truth. The key is that the first truths (axioms) need to be accepted as true. Following propositions or hypotheses need to be demonstrated as truth either by their logical connection to the initial axioms or by proper demonstrations of their truth.”
First axiom

1. God as Creator exists. Genesis 1: 1

This first axiom may sound too simple – :doh2: However, when we step into the shoes of the author of the first three chapters of Genesis, we find amazing courage because he was attempting to explain the “pathos of the human condition” (CCC 388) which was part of the Hebrew world. In some ways, this author is no different from ourselves. We want to know what happened.

Granted, that there were many sources of information about the beginning of the world and its inhabitants. In fact, these very sources signify the human ability to recognize the super-natural. Still, in reality there was only one source, the Creator God Himself. The Catholic Church teaches that Divine Revelation given by God to the author resulted in the truths of the first three chapters of Genesis. The “truth” in Genesis 1: 2-25 is that God saw how good creation is. Those wonderful descriptions about lights in the dome of the sky emphasize the beauty of God’s work. Science would come later with its own descriptions of the beauty of creation. Certainly, we can say that the author followed a basic principle of natural science which is Observe Without Prejudice.

What has to be Divine Revelation is that the author saw beauty in all humans.

The beauty in humans begins with the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1-26.
**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.
Footnote is Genesis 1:26

This is a good place to stop and let others search out the beauty in those amazing three chapters, both that which is apparent and that which follows Divine Revelation. There are numerous Catholic teachings flowing from those first three chapters. Hopefully, readers will add them to this thread.

Please consider that this thread is a Bible (first three chapters of Genesis) study class.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect – including Adam.

 

[wmw]

Genesis 1:25
God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:26
Then God said: Let us make* human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.
Genesis 1:27
God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female* he created them.

[xref’s for 1:26–27] Gn 5:1, 3; 9:6; Ps 8:5–6; Wis 2:23; 10:2; Sir 17:1, 3–4; Mt 19:4; Mk 10:6; Jas 3:7; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10.

Footnotes:

• [1:26] Let us make: in the ancient Near East, and sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth (1 Kgs 22:19–22; Is 6:8; Ps 29:1–2; 82; 89:6–7; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). This scene accounts for the plural form here and in Gn 11:7 (“Let us then go down…”). Israel’s God was always considered “Most High” over the heavenly beings. Human beings: Hebrew ’ādām is here the generic term for humankind; in the first five chapters of Genesis it is the proper name Adam only at 4:25 and 5:1–5. In our image, after our likeness: “image” and “likeness” (virtually synonyms) express the worth of human beings who have value in themselves (human blood may not be shed in 9:6 because of this image of God) and in their task, dominion (1:28), which promotes the rule of God over the universe.
• [1:27] Male and female: as God provided the plants with seeds (vv. 11, 12) and commanded the animals to be fertile and multiply (v. 22), so God gives sexuality to human beings as their means to continue in existence.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

God asked the woman “what is this you have done?”
God punishes the woman for what she did, if he didn’t care he wouldn’t have.
Why punish the woman if she was (in your opinion) confused? The woman tells God exactly what she did.

But God does not say he is punishing her for what she said she did.
Besides her punishment is not identical with the one given Adam.
If the sin is the same between two people – then the sin should have the exact same punishment; therefore the difference in punishment is telling:

Let’s walk through the passage and look closely:

Adam gave testimony that the woman gave him the fruit – Adam DID not say “the woman you gave to me ate the fruit”. Rather, Adam said,“The woman you put with me gave me the fruit.”

God then asks the woman why she did this, and therefore this refers to giving Adam the fruit; God is asking “why did you give the fruit to Adam”

Genesis 3:12 (RKV) “The woman, said Adam, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, she is was who offered me fruit from the tree, and so I came to eat it.”
Genesis 3:13 “Then the Lord God said to the woman, What made you do this?”

I have already detailed out the Greek of 3;12, so I won’t repeat the gory details; I think the above interpretation that the Ronald Knox version/translation (With Catholic Imprimatur) is also worth considering – for Adam is stating in his testimony that the woman’s part was in the giving of the fruit, not the eating of it. Therefore, the testimony of Adam against the woman has nothing to do with her eating.

God is clearly NOT asking her why she ate, rather God IS asking her what motivated her to give the fruit to Adam. Recall: Back in Genesis 3:11, God explicitly asked Adam, “have you[singular] eaten of the fruit which I forbade thee to eat?” God does not say “have you all” eaten of the fruit.

The woman’s response has a degree of honesty in it that forms the basis of several possible interpretations, but the one I think what you are missing is the one based on the implications of the fact that when the woman alone had eaten, her eyes were not opened. eg: She suffered no ill effects when she ate. Therefore, her experience gave her grounds to suspect Adam would not suffer ill effects either.

Note: She does admit eating, but she does not add (in confession to God) the extra piece of information that she thought her own eating was wrong. The context of her statement is still answering “why” she gave the gift of the fruit to Adam.

Again: She had been given a correction to the Law by an authority figure (the Devil was an angel, and a messenger of God who clearly perverted the message, but angelic beings would normally be someone to be believed.) That’s the basis of the woman being deceived. eg: The bible even explicitly tells us that the devil was “subtle”.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So, you think she told god exactly what she did?

She ate from the tree that would cause mortal sin.

We’re in some difficulty when you try to interpret things in terms of that tree alone.

The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, can be two different trees; or they could be the same tree. The grammar is ambiguous.
We’re also missing a large amount of background on the historical development of the story of Genesis. Genesis was written down as an apologetic work, (and expression of the law of God), with an eye to preserving the Hebrew people during the Babylonian exile and the perversions of God’s law. There are several statements in the text which are tailored to correct specific aberrations in the Babylonian conception about God and how to worship him.

The tree itself is a symbol of the king, who is both the giver of law and life to his people in ancient cultures. It is understood as a metaphor for the ruling authority who is “god” in the sense that he mediates between god and man and brings prosperity or death by his decisions. Therefore, when read to a Babylonian, Genesis would have several innuendos that are specifically designed to attack their particular errors from a politically suppressed context, which we do not understand today. eg: We read the text from a different cultural background of freedom of speech. Whereas, they couched many political bombshells in parabolic speech.

The CCC is alluding to this issue when it says:

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 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

The details and headaches associated with trying to untangle the message from the figures is difficult. But I would make a few comments that might give you an idea of some of the issues involved; The historical depiction of the trees of life often show a single tree which has many different KINDS of fruits on it. The tree itself is used interchangibly with images of particular kings in settings where only a king is allowed; The tree, therefore, is understood to be a representation of a king’s body in some sense of the word. The middle of the body/tree/garden is also where genitals/(generators of life) are found.

Now consider, In Babylonian culture, serpents were signs of fertility cults/gods; and routinely used as signs of prostitutes. And in the bible Nakedness is routinely a euphamism for sexual sin. etc.

As a teaser of how relationships in Genesis can be double sided: Scott Hahn points out that the devil is given a punishment of eating “the dust of the earth” – the very stuff which man is going to rot and corrupt into. For the devil’s punishment, the murderer shall eat our corpses (?while loosing his angel wings?). That’s a symbolic punishment that befits the crime. But Scott Hahan also points out that the activity is a mocking of the Eucharist – Whereas we eat the dust of grains of wheat in order to provide life, the same sign of dust when used improperly becomes the devil’s food: death. The same symbol, but in contradiction. (The serpent lifted up on a tree, vs. the son of man lifted up on a tree.) Both indicate Life or Death decisions.

I hesitate to draw too much attention to the perverted nature of the innuendos (nakedness) being mentioned in Genesis; but I think it reasonable to at least sketch a crude idea. Fruit trees produce fruit with their seeds in them. eg: The fruit is meant for eating, but the seed is meant for planting so that the next generation of life may come about. – Therefore how the woman ate the fruit is every bit as important as what she ate. The devil wishes to teach eating, improperly, for pleasure or power. He still does so today, in the so called “oral sex” pornography of our own culture.

So, tell me (if you can, politely) – what “exactly” did the woman do in the Garden of Eden?

 

[simpleas]

So, you think she told god exactly what she did?

We’re in some difficulty when you try to interpret things in terms of that tree alone.

The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, can be two different trees; or they could be the same tree. The grammar is ambiguous.
We’re also missing a large amount of background on the historical development of the story of Genesis. Genesis was written down as an apologetic work, (and expression of the law of God), with an eye to preserving the Hebrew people during the Babylonian exile and the perversions of God’s law. There are several statements in the text which are tailored to correct specific aberrations in the Babylonian conception about God and how to worship him.

The tree itself is a symbol of the king, who is both the giver of law and life to his people in ancient cultures. It is understood as a metaphor for the ruling authority who is “god” in the sense that he mediates between god and man and brings prosperity or death by his decisions. Therefore, when read to a Babylonian, Genesis would have several innuendos that are specifically designed to attack their particular errors from a politically suppressed context, which we do not understand today. eg: We read the text from a different cultural background of freedom of speech. Whereas, they couched many political bombshells in parabolic speech.

The CCC is alluding to this issue when it says: The details and headaches associated with trying to untangle the message from the figures is difficult. But I would make a few comments that might give you an idea of some of the issues involved; The historical depiction of the trees of life often show a single tree which has many different KINDS of fruits on it. The tree itself is used interchangibly with images of particular kings in settings where only a king is allowed; The tree, therefore, is understood to be a representation of a king’s body in some sense of the word. The middle of the body/tree/garden is also where genitals/(generators of life) are found.

Now consider, In Babylonian culture, serpents were signs of fertility cults/gods; and routinely used as signs of prostitutes. And in the bible Nakedness is routinely a euphamism for sexual sin. etc.

As a teaser of how relationships in Genesis can be double sided: Scott Hahn points out that the devil is given a punishment of eating “the dust of the earth” – the very stuff which man is going to rot and corrupt into. For the devil’s punishment, the murderer shall eat our corpses (?while loosing his angel wings?). That’s a symbolic punishment that befits the crime. But Scott Hahan also points out that the activity is a mocking of the Eucharist – Whereas we eat the dust of grains of wheat in order to provide life, the same sign of dust when used improperly becomes the devil’s food: death. The same symbol, but in contradiction. (The serpent lifted up on a tree, vs. the son of man lifted up on a tree.) Both indicate Life or Death decisions.

I hesitate to draw too much attention to the perverted nature of the innuendos (nakedness) being mentioned in Genesis; but I think it reasonable to at least sketch a crude idea. Fruit trees produce fruit with their seeds in them. eg: The fruit is meant for eating, but the seed is meant for planting so that the next generation of life may come about. – Therefore how the woman ate the fruit is every bit as important as what she ate. The devil wishes to teach eating, improperly, for pleasure or power. He still does so today, in the so called “oral sex” pornography of our own culture.

So, tell me (if you can, politely) – what “exactly” did the woman do in the Garden of Eden?

Maybe I am reading to much into what you are saying, but are you referring to the serpent seedline?

As far as I’m aware, the church teaches that they both sinned in someway that affected human nature by loss of Grace.

So, tell me (if you can, politely) – what “exactly” did the woman do in the Garden of Eden?

Not sure why you ask this, I explained before, she told God she was tempted by the serpent and ate from the forbidden tree.

Tempted, not deceived, confused, or tricked.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Maybe I am reading to much into what you are saying, but are you referring to the serpent seedline?

I have heard the term before, but I’ve never studied it; So I can’t be referring to it.
I actually studied the Enuma Elish, and Babylonian history as that’s the context in which Genesis was finally written down as an apologetic. Genesis is meant to combat errors in Babylonian thinking – that’s what you should be reading in what I wrote.

As far as I’m aware, the church teaches that they both sinned in someway that affected human nature by loss of Grace.

The church makes an ambiguous statement in the CCC which isn’t dogma and I doubt means what you seem to think it does. It does not say they committed original sin.
The ambiguous statement is found only in CCC 404.

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affect the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.

The statement references a particular passage in Trent; but if you read the passage of Trent which is footnoted, it does not have the same ambiguity as the CCC and clearly refers to Adam alone as the the one who originates the sin.

The statement in the CCC only proves that they share in the propagation of sin to children (which is obviously true), but absolutely doesn’t ascribe to the woman any definitive role as the origin of that fallen nature.

Rather, whenever the formal definition of the original sin is spoken of, both the CCC and scripture uniformly speak of Adam and not a “couple’s” disobedience.

Romans 5:12 – “By one man’s disobedience many men were made sinners”

And let me be very clear: Even Eve’s eventual death is irrelevant as an indicator of her guilt.

Romans 5:14 – "Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

If the statement in Roman’s 5:12 is stretched to include Eve, that reasoning would automatically mean that every disobedience through history is also the original sin.

Either ‘one’ means a single man, or it means every man in union with the first man.
In light of the clarifications found in Trent, Orange, and the CCC; I think the second option is absurd.

Not sure why you ask this, I explained before, she told God she was tempted by the serpent and ate from the forbidden tree.

Tempted, not deceived, confused, or tricked.

That’s garbage. Cite the scripture verse. Are you even reading the scriptures??

You also told me, and I quote “The woman tells God exactly what she did.”
Such a statement is nonsense. Did the woman say “I touched the fruit, I picked it from that three over there?” There are SOOOOO many things the woman didn’t say.

I mean, all she says is a very vague:

Genesis 3:13 And the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.”

And whooooooa! the word beguiled means TRICKED in every dictionary I’ve ever looked in! And several bibles come right out and translate it “tricked.” So – Where do you get off twisting things so backward! are you purposely trying to troll?

The reason I asked if you could tell me “exactly” what she did — is because I don’t know, the CCC says it’s symbolic, and I am beginning to wonder where you could possibly be getting your mixed up information from.

 

[grannymh]

The church makes an ambiguous statement in the CCC which isn’t dogma and I doubt means what you seem to think it does. It does not say they committed original sin.
The ambiguous statement is found only in CCC 404.

CCC 404 By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.
May I respectfully point to the first two sentences of CCC 404 and then point out the interpretation error of only using either/or instead of using the proper approach of both/and. That *either/or" personal approach actually limits or restricts the guidance of the promised Holy Spirit. Adam’s disobedient act is ***both ***a personal sin because Adam is a person and his disobedience shattered the original relationship with his Creator because Adam is the original person. Please note that all humans are implicated in Christ’s justice according to Divine Revelation.

I do not believe that limiting or restricting the Holy Spirit to either/or is a good way to approach God’s Divine Revelation.
**CCC 404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.

 

[grannymh]

So, tell me (if you can, politely) – what “exactly” did the woman do in the Garden of Eden?

Genesis 3: 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.c

Basic facts are sufficient for belief.

 

[simpleas]

I have heard the term before, but I’ve never studied it; So I can’t be referring to it.
I actually studied the Enuma Elish, and Babylonian history as that’s the context in which Genesis was finally written down as an apologetic. Genesis is meant to combat errors in Babylonian thinking – that’s what you should be reading in what I wrote.

The church makes an ambiguous statement in the CCC which isn’t dogma and I doubt means what you seem to think it does. It does not say they committed original sin.
The ambiguous statement is found only in CCC 404.

The statement references a particular passage in Trent; but if you read the passage of Trent which is footnoted, it does not have the same ambiguity as the CCC and clearly refers to Adam alone as the the one who originates the sin.

The statement in the CCC only proves that they share in the propagation of sin to children (which is obviously true), but absolutely doesn’t ascribe to the woman any definitive role as the origin of that fallen nature.

Rather, whenever the formal definition of the original sin is spoken of, both the CCC and scripture uniformly speak of Adam and not a “couple’s” disobedience.

Romans 5:12 – “By one man’s disobedience many men were made sinners”

And let me be very clear: Even Eve’s eventual death is irrelevant as an indicator of her guilt.

Romans 5:14 – "Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

If the statement in Roman’s 5:12 is stretched to include Eve, that reasoning would automatically mean that every disobedience through history is also the original sin.

Either ‘one’ means a single man, or it means every man in union with the first man.
In light of the clarifications found in Trent, Orange, and the CCC; I think the second option is absurd.

That’s garbage. Cite the scripture verse. Are you even reading the scriptures??

You also told me, and I quote “The woman tells God exactly what she did.”
Such a statement is nonsense. Did the woman say “I touched the fruit, I picked it from that three over there?” There are SOOOOO many things the woman didn’t say.

I mean, all she says is a very vague:
And whooooooa! the word beguiled means TRICKED in every dictionary I’ve ever looked in! And several bibles come right out and translate it “tricked.” So – Where do you get off twisting things so backward! are you purposely trying to troll?

The reason I asked if you could tell me “exactly” what she did — is because I don’t know, the CCC says it’s symbolic, and I am beginning to wonder where you could possibly be getting your mixed up information from.

I have heard the term before, but I’ve never studied it; So I can’t be referring to it.
I actually studied the Enuma Elish, and Babylonian history as that’s the context in which Genesis was finally written down as an apologetic. Genesis is meant to combat errors in Babylonian thinking – that’s what you should be reading in what I wrote.

Ok, I haven’t read up as much as you have, so you are more knowledgeable in that particular point in history.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on how you understand the CCC and scriptures.

That’s garbage. Cite the scripture verse. Are you even reading the scriptures??

The bible I have uses the word tempted when the woman replies to God after he asked what she had done.
I have learnt that there are many word interpretations in various bibles, but I think I can safely say the Church uses the word tempted when explaining the fall. Anyway we need not argue over words.

You also told me, and I quote “The woman tells God exactly what she did.”
Such a statement is nonsense. Did the woman say “I touched the fruit, I picked it from that three over there?” There are SOOOOO many things the woman didn’t say.

Yes you are right, there are sooooo many things not written down that the woman didn’t say, nor Adam.

I mean, all she says is a very vague:
And whooooooa! the word beguiled means TRICKED in every dictionary I’ve ever looked in! And several bibles come right out and translate it “tricked.” So – Where do you get off twisting things so backward! are you purposely trying to troll?

Not twisting anything, I thought I was discussing the topic, expressing how I understand and read the teaching.
Trolling…nice…Maybe you are joking? I can’t be sure, but this is twice now you have accused me, maybe we should discontinue with our conversation.

 

[grannymh]

Not twisting anything, I thought I was discussing the topic, expressing how I understand and read the teaching.
Trolling…nice…Maybe you are joking? I can’t be sure, but this is twice now you have accused me, maybe we should discontinue with our conversation.

So far, I have not seen evidence of trolling on this thread. Thank you, Simpleas for your honest participation.

I have seen evidence which points to some serious misunderstandings of Catholic protocol. I have addressed a couple of issues in posts 267 & 268.

 

[fhansen]

Genesis 3: 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.c

Basic facts are sufficient for belief.

Must’ve been a regular orgy.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

CCC 404 By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.
May I respectfully point to the first two sentences of CCC 404 and then point out the interpretation error of only using either/or instead of using the proper approach of both/and. That *either/or" personal approach actually limits or restricts the guidance of the promised Holy Spirit. Adam’s disobedient act is ***both ***a personal sin because Adam is a person and his disobedience shattered the original relationship with his Creator because Adam is the original person. Please note that all humans are implicated in Christ’s justice according to Divine Revelation.

I do not believe that limiting or restricting the Holy Spirit to either/or is a good way to approach God’s Divine Revelation.**CCC 404 **How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice.

Of course what Adam did was both a personal sin and Original sin.
I have no problem with the “and” interpretation;so I agree with you that far.

However: The first two sentence of CCC404 do not say, the sin of Adam and the the woman – nor “one” sin committed by both Adam and Eve – is the original sin itself. So, you’re actually supporting what I’m pointing out. The statement of CCC404 regarding the woman is ambiguous, where in other places the sin being from Adam is explicit.

Since I know you have the companion to the CCC – please read the passages in Trent regarding CCC 404 as quoted in the companion to the CCC. In those documents, Eve nor the woman, is ever mentioned.

The person who penned CCC 404 is claiming the dogmatic statement of Trent is the source of information they are interpreting when they wrote 404, yet anyone who reads Trent can see that CCC 404 appears to go beyond what the dogmatic statement itself explicitly says. So, I have to ask – how do we know that the author of CCC404 intended to convey that Eve (herself) acts a source of sin by her union with Adam and not just aiding and abetting Adams crime? How do we know the bishop who wrote CCC404 wasn’t speaking loosely?

eg: How can we be sure that all parts of the statement applies to each of them (a per-se relationship), and not merely as a group? They both yielded to the tempter (true), but that doesn’t mean they both have the ability to poison the whole human race by their sin in the same way.

The woman did not have (could not have had) concupiscence before the fall; but once fallen, there is no direct evidence that her defect is directly a consequence of her sin (directly).

Psalm, 51, which the church routinely uses to combat Pelaganism and prove the transmission of original sin is according to propagation and not imitation – shows that the woman’s part in the transmission of the sin is not in eating a “fruit” nor in disobeying, but in having a particular kind of sexual craving: Psalm 51:5 “In [sin] cravings did my mother conceive me” is probably a more accurate description of what the sentence conveys.

So, when CCC 404 talks about the transmission of the sin – I can easily agree that Eve has a defect which is involved during the propagation of the sin, even though I don’t see evidence that she had the power to create the sin itself.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Ok, I haven’t read up as much as you have, so you are more knowledgeable in that particular point in history.

Totally understandable.

The bible I have uses the word tempted when the woman replies to God after he asked what she had done.
I have learnt that there are many word interpretations in various bibles, but I think I can safely say the Church uses the word tempted when explaining the fall. Anyway we need not argue over words.

Um, no, this is a pretty important word.
Which bible are you using – for I’ve looked in, both protestant and Catholic; including the one on the USCCB (the NAB) and I don’t see “tempted” ever used in Genesis 3:13.

origin.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3/

When I check the Latin Vulgate and the Douay Rheems, they say:

313And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat.

et dixit Dominus Deus ad mulierem quare hoc fecisti quae respondit serpens decepit me et comedi

So, I have never seen a Catholic bible, new or old, which translates that passage as “tempted.” I’ve looked through 23 bibles, including protestant ones, and they all agree with “deceived” or “beguiled” or “misled.”

Although what you are saying isn’t impossible, It does make me highly suspicious. Since you are speaking for the church by saying you are “SURE” and “safely”, please be forthright and tell me which bible you are using.

I know bibles vary in some places; for example, in Genesis 3:11-12, which I quoted earlier – some Greek bibles have “the woman you gave”, and others that I’ve seen say “didomi” (I gave). So – If someone wanted to dispute part of what I said in the earlier post, I would have to (and do) admit that the passage could be read “The woman, who you gave to be with me, gave me the fruit and I ate”

But what you are quoting is so uniformly attested to by bibles from every line of church history, that I’m having a hard time believing you didn’t misread something. It does happen, and even I make mistakes like that sometimes. eg: Memory can play tricks on a person – so it’s always best to double check.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You are referring to Gen 3 :16. Yes God punishes Eve with child pain and yearning for her husband, yet the husband will lord it over you.
Doesn’t sound like headship, more like domination, which I don’t believe God meant it ever to be, nor stay that way. Woman do not refuse pain control during birth in the belief that it’s what God wants…

That passage is used to talk about lust and domination, but dominion was already the man’s right even before the fall. The passage in question is not only used to talk about sin, but also used to justify why Queen mothers – such as Bathsheba – were given a throne to sit on in order to talk to their son’s who rule as king and demand they honor their mother’s requests when appropriate. The same argument is used in Catholic apologetics to explain that Mary has a right to the ear of her son, Jesus.

To reduce the passage in Gensis to mere lust and domination; as if that passage refers only to acts of sin, is to grossly oversimplify the passage and also undermine Catholic apologetics regarding Mary.

Although lust and arbitrary or wrongful domination can be imagined in that passage, the passage does not explicitly prove that’s the only case God had in mind. eg: We know from chrurch teaching that God always intended Adam to be the head, and woman to desire to communicate with her husband;

All I see in the remedial phase (not all punishment) is that the pre-ordained relationship of husband and wife will be subject to tensions because of the fall. The pangs of childbirth are meant as a limit, or remedy, against lust – A husband ruling in according to reason, is also such a limit.

Consider the passage in psalm 51 again – there is more to be said and thought about, here. Also you might want to look up the story of Bathsheba sitting on a throne next to Solomon.

Also, I would refer you to “Castii Connubi” on chaste marriage.
The pope, there, is very explicit about headship in marriage belonging to the man.
Paragraphs 26-29.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

Of course I must be something other than Catholic because I question and ponder my faith.

I never said that. You’re distorting what I said to turn it into an accusation which has not yet been made.

 

[grannymh]

Although what you are saying isn’t impossible, It does make me highly suspicious. Since you are speaking for the church by saying you are “SURE” and “safely”, please be forthright and tell me which bible you are using.

Pardon me. This sentence (post 273) sounds like Sola Scriptura –
“Since you are speaking for the church by saying you are “SURE” and “safely”, please be forthright and tell me which bible you are using.”
May I gently ask if you are using some form of Sola Scriptura for your interpretations. Obviously, Sacred Scripture does give us Divine Revelation. Still, we need to yield to the Catholic Church when it comes to properly defining a Catholic doctrine. Sola Scriptura should not be the only means to find God’s truth. Jesus Himself promised the wisdom of the Holy Spirit as proper guidance of the Catholic Church. (chapter 14, Gospel of John)

Blessings,
granny

Divine Revelation trumps.

P.S. This week I have limited time. Thus, it may be days before I can copy the requested footnote to CCC 404. I am not sure why I should be concerned about Eve. She is obviously not the original human.