F
fhansen
Guest
I didn’t say otherwise. I’d maintain however, that the OS needed to occur as it did: first. Otherwise, Adam, while potentially capable of murder in his innocence, wouldn’t have even thought of it IMO.
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
I just discovered a glitch in my Garden murder investigation. Adam may have gotten mad at Eve for not putting the cap back on the toothpaste. Nonetheless, you are absolutely right that Adam would not have thought of murdering Eve. :bowdown:
They were the only people in the Garden before the Fall. And both had the gift of immortality before the Fall.
Please accept my apology.:flowers:
F
fhansen
Guest
None necessary. I hadn’t thought of that myself. And I guess adultery likewise would’ve been out of the question.
I just discovered a glitch in my Garden murder investigation. Adam may have gotten mad at Eve for not putting the cap back on the toothpaste. Nonetheless, you are absolutely right that Adam would not have thought of murdering Eve. :bowdown:
They were the only people in the Garden before the Fall. And both had the gift of immortality before the Fall.
Please accept my apology.:flowers:
S
simpleas
Guest
Because the way I have understood it, Adam had the gifts of holiness, justice and self mastery until the temptation to learn more by eating from the tree of knowledge. If we had the same now, as then, there would be no sin.
But we are born with O.S.
Wiped out at baptism, but not in the way which puts us back to how Adam first had knowledge and connection with God.
What part does the devil play in all this? Do we take the part of story about a devil tempting Adam literally or not. Was it all just Adam’s own doing, his own mind, conscience that lead him to seek more knowledge and go against God? Or did the fallen angel lead him to it?
Thanks
S
simpleas
Guest
No the relationship didn’t. So why are we told Adam had holiness and justice etc, but still he fell? Seems he wasn’t as holy as we are told he was.
S
simpleas
Guest
So does this say O.S would have always been needed in a way so that Adam could make a choice?
It was all a test anyway, but to be able to make a choice to begin with he would have needed to eat from the tree of knowledge and only then would he know good from bad, and realise he had gone against God?
But then it would have been to late…
F
fhansen
Guest
His holiness apparently didn’t guarantee that he’d recognize his need for God-and obedience to Him-at any rate. I think the message is simply that love of God requires cultivation-with our wills involved-and we’re all hopefully in the process of being molded into just that kind of being now.
F
fhansen
Guest
I just meant that OS needed to occur first in order for the door to be opened to following sins. And it’s never too late-God wouldn’t have created in the first place if that were true. Instead He deemed it worthwhile to create, knowing that evil would result from the abuse of Adam’s free will, determining to bring an even greater good out of the evil, And, yes, perhaps the greater good involves our coming to learn the hard way, for ourselves, our need for God and of the reality and value of His incomparable love;.
S
simpleas
Guest
Bare with me…I will get there
God didn’t want A&E to eat from the tree of knowledge, but with freewill and a tempter they do. So then they know what is good and what is bad. At this moment or however long it took, they then could choose to do good (as God asked) or bad (go against Gods command)
Is this the right way to think of it, or
The actual eating from the tree (as disobedience) was the O.S.
The latter just seems alittle to easy to think that one act of disobedience would be the reason for O.S and then all other sin after that, plus Our Lord as I see him now would never degrade his creature’s into a life of suffering and pain for one act of disobedience.
If we say Adam and Eve were intelligent, and could understand what they were about to do then they would already have eaten from the tree,thus scorned God and sinned.
G
grannymh
Guest
I do not mean to be rude.Bare with me…I will get there
God didn’t want A&E to eat from the tree of knowledge, but with freewill and a tempter they do. So then they know what is good and what is bad. At this moment or however long it took, they then could choose to do good (as God asked) or bad (go against Gods command)
Is this the right way to think of it, or
The actual eating from the tree (as disobedience) was the O.S.
The latter just seems alittle to easy to think that one act of disobedience would be the reason for O.S and then all other sin after that, plus Our Lord as I see him now would never degrade his creature’s into a life of suffering and pain for one act of disobedience.
If we say Adam and Eve were intelligent, and could understand what they were about to do then they would already have eaten from the tree,thus scorned God and sinned.
Can we drop the non-Catholic idea that Adam had to first eat from the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” before he could freely choose between good and evil?
Can we drop the non-Catholic goal of returning to Eden? Eden was never the goal of humans. Heaven was and still is the goal of humans.
Can we drop the non-Catholic conclusion that our human nature was destroyed? Regardless of pain and suffering, humans are still capable of sharing in God’s life here on planet earth and after bodily death, humans can still be in joy eternal with the Beatific Vision.
Can we accept the truth that Adam’s disobedience shattered the bond between humanity and Divinity which means that we accept the fact that we are creatures and not the Creator?
Can we accept the truth that God interacts with humans which is the second axiom of this thread? God and His terms for sharing His life with us comes first.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
The problem may be, if you exploring by reason you can not then default to precepts faith with out support of reason.
S
simpleas
Guest
- I didn’t know it was a non catholic idea, I am a catholic.
- So we shouldn’t try to be like our first parents were? (have grace and self mastery)
- I don’t think I said destroyed, I used the word degrade, (reduce) from being in harmony with God, to being fearful of him. Losing grace and self mastery as their punishment for the disobedience.
- Yes.
- Yes.
F
fhansen
Guest
I think it would be more correct to think of the loss of grace and self mastery as natural consequences of distancing ourselves from God, rather than punishment. IOW, God is the source of man’s integrity-we must remain in Him, in communion with Him, in order for us to be who we’re intended to be. So the first sin was to break communion with God. All other sins followed easily and inevitably after that.
G
grannymh
Guest
Regarding the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”. As a young student, I learned Catholic “doctrinal” facts about Adam, Human Nature, Original Sin, and the Salvific Mission of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. With that background, it is relatively easy to figure out which verses in the first three chapters of Genesis pertain to real events even though some may be described figuratively. Some verses can be considered either literal or figurative at the same time. Note: Not all verses automatically become Catholic doctrines.
One of the important features of the Catholic Church is that its doctrines hang together because the Divine Revelation of God is the source. Obviously, not all Catholic doctrines are completely explained in the first three chapters of Genesis; however, one can recognize the flow starting with Genesis 1:1. For example, I was taught that Adam was a human being in the same manner that we are human. This fact becomes the base for Christ assuming human nature.
As we learn about our own humanness, we can understand Adam’s humanness. For example, we are an unique unification of the material and spiritual worlds. We are a decomposing anatomy (material world) and rational soul (spiritual world). It is reasonable to conclude that our direct ancestors would have the same nature. The reason that Adam and Eve’s material bodies would not rot away is that they were given the gift of immortality. This individual gift of immortality depended on Adam’s choice to remain in the Divine intimacy of God. In other words, Adam had to remain in his state of original holiness.
Adam’s basic nature, being our basic nature, is why Christ came to teach all people. My favorite example is “the woman at the well” John 4: 4-42.
Being wounded by Original Sin did not radically change Adam and Eve’s basic human nature of body and soul. As the very first sole living persons, Adam and Eve had received the gift of immortality. Their gift of immortality disappeared when Adam abandoned his relationship with his Creator.
Adam’s humanness made it possible for him to be in the state of original holiness which is the description of his friendship relationship with God. The same humanness makes it possible for us to be in the state of sanctifying grace which is the description of our friendship relationship with God.
Back to the tree with the long name. The Catholic doctrine is that Adam disobeyed God. He disobeyed God by refusing to follow a specific command. Adam was a material being who had to eat to live so a garden is a logical place in which to live. Thus, a “forbidden” tree is a good choice where Adam could demonstrate his obedience to God on a daily basis.
Of all the creatures mentioned in the beginning of Genesis, Adam is totally unique.
Adam was a spiritual being because he was in the image of God. His spiritual soul enabled him to share in God’s life. Divine Revelation tells us that Adam’s state of original holiness and justice would be transmitted to all his descendants provided that Adam, himself, remained in union with his Creator. Tempted by the devil, Adam freely let his trust in God die in his heart. Consequently, he chose disobedience.
From both a literal and figurative point of view, a tree could serve as the reality of God’s command. It is the command itself which is significant. What is also significant is that Adam had a human nature which, by definition, enabled him to know right from wrong. Adam had a mind, freedom, and conscience at the moment of his creation. Freedom is the power to act or not to act, to obey or not.
God’s command of obedience is a necessary Catholic truth because Adam was not on the same level as God. The Catholic Church teaches that there cannot be two Gods which is why Adam is not equal to God. Therefore, Adam had to yield to the authority of God. The Catholic Church also teaches that Adam was created with the freedom to seek his Creator, to love his Creator, and to eventually live eternally in the full presence of his Creator.
From the above concepts, one can deduce that Adam needed to choose being with God without being equal to God. “Submission” to God is the proper description of what Adam had to do. By living in free submission to God, Adam could share in God’s life aka original holiness. Not only does original holiness apply to Adam’s original state in life; it also is the means of sharing in God’s life. Because Adam’s original state in life included the freedom to choose God or not, Adam could put aside the “means” of sharing in God’s love. Adam, in committing the Original Sin, literally preferred his own means of human living over God’s personal directions about the “how” of sharing in the Divine life.
To put it simply. Adam had God as his Creator. So, it should be obvious that he did not need a tree to finish his humanness. Thus, Satan could tempt Adam with the proposition of being equal to God at any point in time and space.
Practically speaking, there are a number of truths in the above which may not be familiar to Catholics. From what I learned from the media, etc., there are some Catholics who have dropped a number of interlocking truths for a variety of reasons. Some reasons date back centuries.
I am confident that further exploration of the person biblically known as Adam will logically lead to the conclusion that humankind was founded by two sole real fully-complete human persons.
This has turned into a rather long post. The character limits have been reached so I will need to answer points 2 & 3 in future posts.
On the other hand,
this is a good place to pause for discussion and questions.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You can if you make it clear that the precepts have a rational basis and are recognised by all civilised people.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you. I am aware of the problem.
That is why, in post one, I chose the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, as my source of information. Actual Catholic teachings are important because for a number of decades, various writers and teachers have altered or omitted basic information which flows from the first three chapters of Genesis. When people are left on their own to interpret those first chapters, anything can happen.
I chose the deductive method of reasoning as a way of demonstrating the truths which build on Divine Revelation found in Holy Scripture. As I study Adam, in what I believe is a logical way, I find additional interesting possibilities that will affirm the basics as taught by the Catholic Church. It is all right if people disagree with me. Most of the time, this prompts me to study more. What I see as important is that readers have the proper information when it comes to Catholicism, which by the way, can be very different from some other Christian religions. What people do with that information is up to them.
S
simpleas
Guest
Thank you Grannymh for this full explaination of Adam, it is much appreciated 
The piece below leads me to a question I have to ask also :
As Adam was just a human like us, why did God assume himself as a human in Jesus?
I think it sounds as though he sacrificed himself back to himself in a way. Adam was not God, made only in the image of God, with a soul etc.
Jesus was Human but much more than Adam and us, he was God.
If Jesus being born of woman, and his mother was free from O.S Jesus was free from O.S, and became the sacrifice for the sins of the world and the O.S.
Adam was just a human, who disobeyed God, yet God had to assume human nature to resolve O.S?
I’m not sure I’ve explain my question well enough…and please… I hope this does not sound blasphemous.
*One of the important features of the Catholic Church is that its doctrines hang together because the Divine Revelation of God is the source. Obviously, not all Catholic doctrines are completely explained in the first three chapters of Genesis; however, one can recognize the flow starting with Genesis 1:1. For example, I was taught that Adam was a human being in the same manner that we are human. This fact becomes the base for Christ assuming human nature. *
The piece below leads me to a question I have to ask also :
As Adam was just a human like us, why did God assume himself as a human in Jesus?
I think it sounds as though he sacrificed himself back to himself in a way. Adam was not God, made only in the image of God, with a soul etc.
Jesus was Human but much more than Adam and us, he was God.
If Jesus being born of woman, and his mother was free from O.S Jesus was free from O.S, and became the sacrifice for the sins of the world and the O.S.
Adam was just a human, who disobeyed God, yet God had to assume human nature to resolve O.S?
I’m not sure I’ve explain my question well enough…and please… I hope this does not sound blasphemous.
*One of the important features of the Catholic Church is that its doctrines hang together because the Divine Revelation of God is the source. Obviously, not all Catholic doctrines are completely explained in the first three chapters of Genesis; however, one can recognize the flow starting with Genesis 1:1. For example, I was taught that Adam was a human being in the same manner that we are human. This fact becomes the base for Christ assuming human nature. *
B
buffalo
Guest
I have no issue at all with long lives. Being specially created they would have pristine genes, they just lost bodily immortality and freedom from sickness.
B
buffalo
Guest
Just in:
Code:
**[Viewpoint: Human evolution, from tree to braid](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25559172)**This means, of course, that we must abandon, once and for all, views of modern human superiority over archaic (ancient) humans. The terms “archaic” and “modern” lose all meaning as do concepts of modern human replacement of all other lineages.
It also releases us from the deep-rooted shackles that have sought to link human evolution with stone tool-making technological stages — the Stone Ages — even when we have known that these have overlapped with each other for half-a-million years in some instances.
It seems that almost every other discovery in palaeoanthropology is reported as a surprise. I wonder when the penny will drop: when we have five pieces of a 5,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, every new bit that we add is likely to change the picture.
Did we really think that having just a minuscule residue of our long and diverse past was enough for us to tell humanity’s story?
If the fossils of 1.8 or so million years ago and those of the more recent Neanderthal-modern human era were all part of a single, morphologically diverse, species with a wide geographical range, what is there to suggest that it would have been any different in the intervening periods?
The conclusion that I derive takes me back to Dmanisi: We have built a picture of our evolution based on the morphology of fossils and it was wrong.
We just cannot place so much taxonomic weight on a handful of skulls when we know how plastic — or easily changeable — skull shape is in humans. And our paradigms must also change.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you Grannymh for this full explaination of Adam, it is much appreciated
The piece below leads me to a question I have to ask also :
As Adam was just a human like us, why did God assume himself as a human in Jesus?
I think it sounds as though he sacrificed himself back to himself in a way. Adam was not God, made only in the image of God, with a soul etc.
Jesus was Human but much more than Adam and us, he was God.
If Jesus being born of woman, and his mother was free from O.S Jesus was free from O.S, and became the sacrifice for the sins of the world and the O.S.
Adam was just a human, who disobeyed God, yet God had to assume human nature to resolve O.S?
I’m not sure I’ve explain my question well enough…and please… I hope this does not sound blasphemous.
You are very observing. Thank you.
I did leave out the answer to your valid questions. Actually, you have the valid answer.
Jesus assumed human nature because Adam was just a human.
I will not be back to the computer until tomorrow or Monday. For me, that will give me time to think and pray about the answers. However, you may come up with the answers.
*One of the important features of the Catholic Church is that its doctrines hang together because the Divine Revelation of God is the source. Obviously, not all Catholic doctrines are completely explained in the first three chapters of Genesis; however, one can recognize the flow starting with Genesis 1:1. For example, I was taught that Adam was a human being in the same manner that we are human. This fact becomes the base for Christ assuming human nature. *
- Status