Adam & Logic

[Love4All]

I would like to give my opinion on the topic of this thread.

Adam was the first member of the species Homo sapiens to fully realize “God.” Such a situation was bound to be temporary, given human nature. So more or less immediately after Adam found himself in such a blessed state, he fell away from it.

Thus the third chapter of Genesis refers to an event at the beginning of human history. That event, actually, defines the beginning of human history.

Science attests to the fact that there are no writings more than six thousand years old.

Science also presents records of the species Homo sapiens for a million years or more.

The question is, is there a conflict between the two ideas, that the human biological species has been around for a million years or more, and that human beings per se have only been here for around six thousand years?

I submit, no, there is not. The two ideas are manifestly in harmony. A difficulty arises if we equivocate between “human being” and “hominid.”

I submit, “hominid” names our biological species, whereas “human being” names our spiritual reality. The hominids who inhabited this planet prior to the advent of Adam, sought but did not find, God and immortality. Adam, found it, but immediately lost it. God’s provision for Adam’s immortality was physical; it was contained in the Tree of Life. With access to the Tree of Life, Adam could have lived forever on Earth; without it, he had to die.

Thus, the hominid species developed gradually over time (i.e. “out of the slime of the earth”) but Adam was the first human being.

 

[Love4All]

As for the knowledge of Adam, Thomas says that his knowledge of God was not unmediated or immediate, but was knowledge obtained through the created order (De Veritate, q18).

Hope that makes sense…

Can you quote Saint Thomas more completely on this? Did not Adam and God converse face to face?

 

[Love4All]

Huh??

Never mind, I figured it out. The Theory of Evolution can be mentioned and discussed, it just can’t be the topic of a thread. That is my understanding of the ban; correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[grannymh]

Never mind, I figured it out. The Theory of Evolution can be mentioned and discussed, it just can’t be the topic of a thread. That is my understanding of the ban; correct me if I’m wrong.

Sorry that is an error.

Please read this Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/multipage.gif 12)
Jo Benedict. It is at the top of this Forum.

Please note the opening sentence.

“For the foreseeable future, there shall be no discussion in the Philosophy Forum of evolution or atheism.”

Thank you for respecting this ban.

 

[grannymh]

I am really troubled with the story of Adam and Eve. I have the following questions that you could help me with it:

1. Did God know that first sin would eventually occur considering omniscience? If yes, why it created a situation with known outcome which lead to a dilemma. The dilemma: why others should have been punished for a situation which was unavoidable. If no, how we should redefine omniscience to avoid this dilemma.
2. How sin could possibly occurs without the possibility to perform it? I mean, it has to be a part of creation otherwise it could never happen.
3. Who made the first sin? Servant/Satan by seducing Eve or Eve by eating the fruit. I believe that you agree that the act of seducing is also a sin so how servant who was an angel could perform a sin.
4. Do you think it is fair that humanity pay such a big price for one sin that another person made considering all human suffering in the history?

This is the link to post 53 which talks about Adam and his relationship with God.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10767916&postcount=53

No matter what Adam did, God continues to call us, you and me, to eternal life in the peaceful presence of God Himself. No matter what evil and suffering is in our world, we know that God, our Creator loves us and wants us to be with Him in eternal joy.

Let’s work on question 3.
“Who made the first sin? Servant/Satan by seducing Eve or Eve by eating the fruit. I believe that you agree that the act of seducing is also a sin so how servant who was an angel could perform a sin.”

There are Preachers who talk about the idea of Servant/Satan or Satan’s servants.
This is what the Catholic Church teaches us.

God did create angels. When it came time for the angels to make a choice, some chose God. Some angels sinned by rejecting God. The angels who sinned are known as devils with Satan as the main devil. There are different names for Satan and devils. The important thing to remember is that Satan entered the world bringing evil with him. The most important thing to remember is that Jesus Christ is more powerful than the devils or demons.

In post 53, we read that Adam also had a choice to make. The terms or rules for being in friendship with God was that Adam had to be obedient. Remember that he was not a god, but someone created by God.

Satan saw Adam and wanted Adam to reject God. This meant that Satan tempted Adam to disobey God. Satan, who already committed the greatest sin of rejecting God continued to sin by first seducing Eve. He tempted Eve and she sinned by disobeying God in that she ate the forbidden fruit. In a sense, Adam too was seduced by Satan. Unfortunately, Adam let his trust in his Creator die in his heart.
Adam could have said no to Satan, but he didn’t.

You asked “Who made the first sin?” Satan committed the first sin when he turned his back on God. Then Eve committed the sin of disobedience by breaking God’s rule.

Because He is the original human, Adam committed the Original Sin. Because Adam was to be the first father of all humans, his sin had disastrous consequences. As a parent, having children, Adam passed on his human nature to his children and eventually, we received Adam’s nature which was wounded by his first sin. Adam’s sin broke humanity’s relationship with God.

To be continued.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I do wonder if anyone would spot the error in these two sentences.

*1. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. *

2. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.

Sentence 1. True. Why?

Sentence 2. Not always. Why?

1. Because Nature is the subject-matter of the study of the natural sciences.
2. Because the idea might be spiritual.

Your answer to 1. “Because Nature is the subject-matter of the study of the natural sciences.” is something we should engrave on our foreheads.

While God is the Creator of both the natural world and the spiritual world-- logically, we have to remember that each has its own functions. The pomegranate of the natural world feeds our body and the Catholic Eucharist feeds out soul.

Your answer to 2. “Because the idea might be spiritual.” is the basic beginning. What often happens is that we change or ignore the spiritual when it should not be changed or ignored. That is what Adam did. He changed his spiritual life in God’s grace for what looked like a material benefit of knowing all that God knew. The tree named Knowledge of Good and Evil is actually all the knowledge in the world. Logically, what else is there besides good and evil?

 

[Aloysium]

I am really troubled with the story of Adam and Eve. I have the following questions that you could help me with it:

1. Did God know that first sin would eventually occur considering omniscience? If yes, why it created a situation with known outcome which lead to a dilemma. The dilemma: why others should have been punished for a situation which was unavoidable. If no, how we should redefine omniscience to avoid this dilemma.
2. How sin could possibly occurs without the possibility to perform it? I mean, it has to be a part of creation otherwise it could never happen.
3. Who made the first sin? Servant/Satan by seducing Eve or Eve by eating the fruit. I believe that you agree that the act of seducing is also a sin so how servant who was an angel could perform a sin.
4. Do you think it is fair that humanity pay such a big price for one sin that another person made considering all human suffering in the history?

Thanks for the interesting questions that help people gather their thoughts.

:twocents:

1. God knew what would happen but His intent was to create us free to join Him in His eternal love in paradise. Our choice did not thwart His plan. To say He did some spectacular damage control is the understatement of eternity. It is hard to pin it on Adam and Eve when one repeats the same sin they did, blaming the snake, the other; you sound like you’re taking it one step further (no offense; you most definitely are not the first) blaming God.
   Who is sinning?
   Omniscience = God knows all. None of this changes anything.
2. We had the possibility of sinning - we were told not to. We did it anyway, thinking it was a pretty good idea at the time. God separated light from darkness, Satan chose darkness and correctly concluded that we would be interested and follow him.
3. see 2. It didn’t happen, so it’s kind of pointless, but I wonder if Adam could had said “no” to Eve; they seem to be of one mind: " The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was enticing for the wisdom that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it."
4. see 1. What happened in history also describes the structure of our soul. There is a brokenness in all of us, as one body of Adam, but (Rom 5:18) “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.” Through Christ’s sacrifice, we can be redeemed.
   “Fair”? - We can eternally be with God - Hallelujah!!!

 

[Love4All]

Sorry that is an error.

Please read this Sticky: Temporary Ban on Evolution/Atheism Threads (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/multipage.gif 12)
Jo Benedict. It is at the top of this Forum.

Please note the opening sentence.

“For the foreseeable future, there shall be no discussion in the Philosophy Forum of evolution or atheism.”

Thank you for respecting this ban.

Thank you for your correction

 

[grannymh]

The question is, is there a conflict between the two ideas, that the human biological species has been around for a million years or more, and that human beings per se have only been here for around six thousand years?

I submit, no, there is not. The two ideas are manifestly in harmony. A difficulty arises if we equivocate between “human being” and “hominid.”

I submit, “hominid” names our biological species, whereas “human being” names our spiritual reality. The hominids who inhabited this planet prior to the advent of Adam, sought but did not find, God and immortality. Adam, found it, but immediately lost it. God’s provision for Adam’s immortality was physical; it was contained in the Tree of Life. With access to the Tree of Life, Adam could have lived forever on Earth; without it, he had to die.

Thus, the hominid species developed gradually over time (i.e. “out of the slime of the earth”) but Adam was the first human being.

Historically, through verbal and written literature, our human species has known about the existence of the spiritual and sought its presence. This does not imply that all early humans’ knowledge of God was correct. What is demonstrated is that within human nature, there is an inherent, rational, intellective ability to recognize something spiritual existing separately. If archaic beings sought God, and there is evidence of such, then these early archaic beings were human per se because of their spiritual (soul), rational, intellective abilities.

In the early part of the 20th century, the Catholic Church left the door opened a crack to the possibility that the human physical/material decomposing anatomy may have developed in some way over the course of time. However, there were numerous qualifications to this “open door”.

Pius XII was precise when he wrote in Humani Generis #36.
“36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.”
The primary qualification was that God creates the spiritual soul directly and individually at human conception. Immediately, this is a human child, a member of a single human species. Whether this child was conceived centuries ago or yesterday, it has both, at the same time, a biological body and the spiritual reality of a rational, intellective capability. In other words, because God creates the spiritual inherent ability to seek something spiritual beyond the body, there is no growing or developing or emerging characteristics of this spiritual soul.

What we see in cultures seeking God is the direct result of God calling our first real, sole true, fully-complete human parents, Adam and Eve to joy eternal. After Adam shattered humanity’s deep relationship with God, the Creator, Adam and Eve’s children migrated across the globe. Like childen today, some kept true the teachings of Adam and Eve and others discarded them by creating their own versions.

What you and I are finding is that in the changing fields of paleoanthroplogy or biology, etc., there can be a difficulty with terminology. In some research papers, it is difficult to tell if the term “human ancestors” are ancestors with human nature of body and soul or the term refers to possible pre-human or subhuman ancestors of current humans. Nonetheless, these sciences are fascinating especially when reading about tiny genes which could eventually participate in the fight against cancer provided that this or that would happen… We are all looking for the day when this or that does happen thanks to the Creative God Who gives us the gift of natural science.

 

[grannymh]

When all is said and done…

The logic of Adam is based on the logic of Catholicism.

Interesting reading may be found in paragraphs 355-421 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[grannymh]

I am really troubled with the story of Adam and Eve. I have the following questions that you could help me with it:

1. Did God know that first sin would eventually occur considering omniscience? If yes, why it created a situation with known outcome which lead to a dilemma. The dilemma: why others should have been punished for a situation which was unavoidable. If no, how we should redefine omniscience to avoid this dilemma.
2. How sin could possibly occurs without the possibility to perform it? I mean, it has to be a part of creation otherwise it could never happen.
3. Who made the first sin? Servant/Satan by seducing Eve or Eve by eating the fruit. I believe that you agree that the act of seducing is also a sin so how servant who was an angel could perform a sin.
4. Do you think it is fair that humanity pay such a big price for one sin that another person made considering all human suffering in the history?

This is a continuation from my posts 53 and 63. Because it answers the last question, it is my conclusion to the list of questions. Note: there were other answers to these questions. See previous posts.

Sin is a choice to do something wrong. And sin has consequences. Adam, as the original, first person on earth had a responsibility of obeying God. Unfortunately, he chose the sin of disobedience. The consequences of that sin affected Adam’s human nature. Adam and Eve passed this wounded nature to their descendents.

Do I think that it is fair that humanity received their human nature from Adam and Eve?
I think of it in this way. The human nature which we received from our first parents was a nature designed to live in eternal joy with God. We are the only species or group that can do this.

Yes, we are capable of committing sin; but, we have Jesus Christ, our Good Shepherd, Who leads us back to God. We have the Catholic Church, which has Seven Sacraments which provide the grace, that is, the help we need to remain true to God.

When Adam turned his back on God, God did not abandon Adam’s descendents.
The way God continues to love us is more than fair.

 

[hicetnunc]

Wonderful!

I am getting to know friend Thomas, not necessarily by reading his works, but understanding who he is and what he was accomplishing. I have Aquinas on Creation, translated by Steven E. Baldner & William E. Carroll. (ISBN-0-88844-285-8) It is a small book on "Writings on the “Sentences” of Peter Lombard 2.1.1. It is the Introduction and Analysis (some 60 pages) that captures my attention. Someday, I will read his words.

Would it be possible to post Thomas’s definition of reason/Image of God? etc.?

Genesis 1; 26-27 and paragraph 355, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. are the essential keys to human nature. These doctrines are what lifts us out of and beyond our material environment.

We need Thomas. By the way, I have already requested his help. And there you are, here and now. I do some editing for a philosopher friend.

Hi Grannymh;

You are so right: we really do need Thomas. I’m always getting my students to pray with me to St Thomas. He’s a great help. I had four students who began this academic year saying they were atheists, and all have since changed their minds and now declare themselves believers, thanks to good ol’ Thomas! It’s not just his great philosophy and theology, but also his deep mysticism.

Here’s some tidbits on the image of God in us from our mutual friend. He dedicates several articles to this in the Summa (Ia, q.93 for example) and in the De Veritate (q.10). In both places and elsewhere, he identifies the image of God in the human person as being the rational mind in us. There are two things which he draws out: first of all, the rational part of us, which includes will, is the power by which we know and love, and it is in knowledge and love that we speak of being made in the image of God. The body is not, properly speaking, made in the image of God because God does not have a body of course. But he does not dismiss the beauty of the human body, nor does he hold that the human body is purely arbitrary. Thomas is no spiritualist or Manichean. He says that we express our friendship in both body and soul, and says, for example, that there are certain bodily virtues by which we play and recreate…and most importantly, worship God through prayer and singing and the like, which are not just things that go on in the mind, but which are incarnated in the flesh, “which is good”. God’s creativity is expressed in his creation, in other words.

The image of God in us is not simply “inert” like a photograph. We participate in the image of God, in so far as we have, by grace, the power to perfect the image of God in us. In a certain sense, every human being is made in the image of God; but that does not mean there is no development of the image of God in us. Through grace and virtue, we become more and more like God throughout life. He says, for example, that “there are some virtues [in us] by which we tend towards Divine Similitude, and these are called perfecting virtues.” (ST IaIIae, q.61, a.5). In other words, the image of God is something living and growing in us. This means that the perfection of reason necessarily perfects the image of God in us, and this perfection of reason takes place through seeking, studying, knowing and loving the truth, and living it in charity and friendship (for Thomas, the form of all the virtues is love in friendship).

 

[hicetnunc]

Can you quote Saint Thomas more completely on this? Did not Adam and God converse face to face?

Hi Love4all;

St Thomas is quite clear that speaking to God “face to face” as it is said of Adam in the Garden of Eden before the Fall has to be understood metaphorically. This is because, seeing God face to face means seeing God in his essence (God of course has no physical face, and so “seeing” God is an intellectual vision, not a physical vision).

But even Adam and Eve, as they existed prior to the Fall, and in the state of innocence, were “still on the way to Beatitude”. In other words, original innocence cannot be equated with the Beatific Vision in heaven. If original innocence were the same as the Beatific Vision, Adam and Eve could not have sinned, since no one who possesses beatitude can sin (once we are “face to face” with God, we can never lose this encounter. Hence heaven, in which beatitude consists, is eternal).

Hence, Genesis gives Adam and Eve a temporal command, so to speak, when He says, “be fruitful and multiply…subdue the earth” etc. This indicates that Adam and Eve were given the free will to work towards Divine Similitude (see earlier reply to grannymh) through the practice of the “perfecting virtues”.

Hence, the knowledge of God in the Garden of Eden prior to the Fall was a mediated understanding of God. Just as we have to work to know God, so did Adam and Eve—with the difference that their faculties, prior to the Fall, were in harmony. But they did not possess the Beatific Vision. Furthermore, Thomas rejects the opinion that Adam and Eve were somehow “midway” between our vision and the vision of the Blessed in Heaven. There is no midway in seeing God in his essence; either you see God in His essence, or you do not. Adam and Eve did not see God in his essence, but through the medium of understanding, though in a way which is more perfect than what we experience on account of original sin, which obscures the harmony of our reason and appetites.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Grannymh;

You are so right: we really do need Thomas. I’m always getting my students to pray with me to St Thomas. He’s a great help. I had four students who began this academic year saying they were atheists, and all have since changed their minds and now declare themselves believers, thanks to good ol’ Thomas! It’s not just his great philosophy and theology, but also his deep mysticism.

Years ago, when researching Transubstantiation on the net, I came across a comment that scholasticism was dead. Yet, the little bit I am learning about St. Thomas Aquinas makes perfect sense in our present material/physical world.

For example.

The image of God in us is not simply “inert” like a photograph. We participate in the image of God, in so far as we have, by grace, the power to perfect the image of God in us.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 356 tells us that we humans are “called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life.”
This sounds like St. Thomas is a modern writer.

Since we have this rational ability to know and to choose love or reject love, and our parents before us had the same and their parents before them had the same…there has to be an unique source for our rational abilities especially for our will. Unique source? Because we are definitely unique on this planet.

Granted that the author(s) of the first three chapters of Genesis were not scientists with a Ph.D. But they did have eyes which they used to determine the characteristics of the human race. And they did know the difference between a tribe or community and the family unit headed by two parents.

Granted that the author(s) of those important, valuable Genesis chapters knew about all kinds of stories about creation besides the stories handed down to them. Yet, when it came time to put quill to parchment, they began human history with two first persons. This is interesting because these authors were well aware of the uniqueness of their tribe or community.

Why didn’t those first authors exalt the glory of their own particular civilization?

Could it be that their civilization did not exist at the beginning of human history?

Seems to me that those first authors knew, from oral tradition, that their human origin came from two unique human parents who began human history in a relationship with the Creator, the same Creator responsible for the glories of the universe.

Genesis 1: 1.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Grannymh;

You are so right: we really do need Thomas. I’m always getting my students to pray with me to St Thomas. He’s a great help. I had four students who began this academic year saying they were atheists, and all have since changed their minds and now declare themselves believers, thanks to good ol’ Thomas! It’s not just his great philosophy and theology, but also his deep mysticism.

Here’s some tidbits on the image of God in us from our mutual friend. He dedicates several articles to this in the Summa (Ia, q.93 for example) and in the De Veritate (q.10). In both places and elsewhere, he identifies the image of God in the human person as being the rational mind in us. There are two things which he draws out: first of all, the rational part of us, which includes will, is the power by which we know and love, and it is in knowledge and love that we speak of being made in the image of God. The body is not, properly speaking, made in the image of God because God does not have a body of course. But he does not dismiss the beauty of the human body, nor does he hold that the human body is purely arbitrary. Thomas is no spiritualist or Manichean. He says that we express our friendship in both body and soul, and says, for example, that there are certain bodily virtues by which we play and recreate…and most importantly, worship God through prayer and singing and the like, which are not just things that go on in the mind, but which are incarnated in the flesh, “which is good”. God’s creativity is expressed in his creation, in other words.

The image of God in us is not simply “inert” like a photograph. We participate in the image of God, in so far as we have, by grace, the power to perfect the image of God in us. In a certain sense, every human being is made in the image of God; but that does not mean there is no development of the image of God in us. Through grace and virtue, we become more and more like God throughout life. He says, for example, that “there are some virtues [in us] by which we tend towards Divine Similitude, and these are called perfecting virtues.” (ST IaIIae, q.61, a.5). In other words, the image of God is something living and growing in us. This means that the perfection of reason necessarily perfects the image of God in us, and this perfection of reason takes place through seeking, studying, knowing and loving the truth, and living it in charity and friendship (for Thomas, the form of all the virtues is love in friendship).

There is something about this post that reminds me of an old philosophical thesis of mine. In general terms, this thesis presented the idea that the possibility of two, sole, real, fully-complete human parents of the human species (theological monogenism) lies within human nature itself. The defining factor would be “free will.” At that time, one critique was that rational behavior (intellective power) should be the definitive factor. Yet, to me, it is through our will that we can perfect the “image of God” in our human nature. Even though the rational part of our nature includes our will, I lean to the reality that we can know and understand a good action, but it takes “movement” on our part to do a good action. That seems “logical” to me.

This old philosophical thesis, at least I thought it was philosophical, needs better wording. In any case, that project was aborted for a number of reasons. Still, I am left with the obvious fact that humanity is the pinnacle of creation. We are totally unique. Therefore, if we are unique because we exercise free will, it should logically follow that our beginning ancestors were unique. And to guarantee this uniqueness in the animal kingdom, there were only two founders of humankind.

Imagination is a necessary virtue.

 

[Aloysium]

Not wanting to miss an opportunity to speak of God and creation:

Of this earth, on which we were to exist in perfect harmony and in eternity, infused with His spirit, made in the image of God, we were created as God’s church, each of the same spirit and flesh but separate and unique; our fulfillment found in mutual love and complete devotion to the Lord.

Corruption followed; fallen from the heights of divine union, we endure the sufferings of our transient existence in this now unyielding world, which is characterized by conflict, mistrust and exploitation. Something went terribly wrong.

Formed at conception, within the chain of generations stretching back into the unknown past, we exist as an expression of our eternal human nature which had its beginning in our two original, unconceived parents. Directly created by God, one from the other, unalike but of one flesh, they came into being in Eden: a mystery which allegory may describe, but science can never hope to explain.

The misuse of their reason and will, transformed our nature, which passed on through successive generations. Jesus, the Word made flesh, has conquered, taking it upon Himself, our sin; His church strives to bring about God’s kingdom and to have all participate in Beatific Vision. When He saw what He had made, wonder upon wonder, it was most definitely good.

 

[JamesCaruso]

There is something about this post that reminds me of an old philosophical thesis of mine. In general terms, this thesis presented the idea that the possibility of two, sole, real, fully-complete human parents of the human species (theological monogenism) lies within human nature itself. The defining factor would be “free will.” At that time, one critique was that rational behavior (intellective power) should be the definitive factor. Yet, to me, it is through our will that we can perfect the “image of God” in our human nature. Even though the rational part of our nature includes our will, I lean to the reality that we can know and understand a good action, but it takes “movement” on our part to do a good action. That seems “logical” to me.

This human “free will” is so unique and so different from the attributes of any other creature that it allows a human creature to rise above every natural instinct by giving his/her life for a higher end, whether it be for the benefit of another human being, or in defense of his/her virtue, that is, in remaining obedient to God. So we have Jesus being obedient to his death to bring us spiritual life v. Adam being disobedient and bringing spiritual death to the human race. We have St. Maximilian giving his life for a stranger, and St. Maria Goretti maintaining her virtue to her death. And this is the perfection of the “image of God” in our human nature. It is no coincidence that 11 of the 12 apostles (after the replacement of Judas) gave their lives for their faith. Death appears to be intricately tied to our redemption and to the sin of Adam, so that obedience to the death becomes the instant doorway (now opened by Christ’s death) back into Paradise, but not to once again walk with God in the garden, but to see him face to face, which was the intended path of Adam before the fall. It is why the cross and the tree represent the same focal point, obedience or disobedience, life or death. It is why overcoming death required obedience to the death, so that all the knowledge of the natural world could be put aside for the greater knowledge of God.

So what I am trying to say is that I know the story of Adam and his fall from grace contains profound truth, because of how it resonates with my knowledge and understanding of Christ, and my own experience of Christ in my life as a sinner struggling to enter by the narrow way, trying to overcome the world, flesh, and devil, by the grace of God, and the instrumentality of the New Eve through which that grace is dispensed, if that makes any sense. But I cannot understand the natural side of it, how it came to be that one man and one woman began this human journey that led to where we stand today, only that I believe it somehow must have happened because it makes clear to me who I am, why I am, where I am, and where I am going, and because it makes clear to me who God is and what my relationship to him should be. I can find no better explanation of humanity than what the scriptures give me, because science does not recognize or account for my/our spiritual nature.

 

[BklynTony]

grannymh, THANK YOU for starting this thread!!

I also live in the both/and world, and I agree with you that it seems, given the evidence, there really was an Adam. And yet, it seems, given the evidence, that the species Homo sapiens sapiens has been around for something on the order of a million years or so. Attempting to resolve this apparent dilemma, I have done research into Natural History, into Written History, and into the world’s religious texts such as have come down to us. I think I found the resolution of it on a web site whose author is a Kabbalist.

Adam was not the first member of the species Homo sapiens. Biologically, it doesn’t even make sense to posit a “first member” of a species. Speciation is not thought to occur via any so-called saltation events. But Adam was the First Man. So obviously, we are here defining “man” differently than according to our biological species.

Adam was the first human to know God, and he knew God with knowledge in which there was no uncertainty. And for a brief shining moment, however long that moment may have been, Adam and Eve knew God, and did not sin. But then, they sinned. They fell away from the perfect Knowledge of God, because although they could attain it, they could not maintain it.

There is a lot more. A LOT more. But this may serve for a start. Looking forward to a good discussion!

When we read the CCC 390 it leaves open for the possibility of others explanations than JUST ONE ADAM. Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and many theologians have said that it is the Soul which God creates at the time of of our firsts parents which makes them human and truly unique to Him. I do not believe that since Pope Pius XII made his statement(Humane Genres) of the possibility of evolution but holds on to the ONE ADAM has the Church made a forceful CLEAR statement on the single parent issue. This is not an infallible statement to the best of my knowledge…but I am interested in all comments: Thank you

 

[grannymh]

When we read the CCC 390 it leaves open for the possibility of others explanations than JUST ONE ADAM. Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and many theologians have said that it is the Soul which God creates at the time of of our firsts parents which makes them human and truly unique to Him. I do not believe that since Pope Pius XII made his statement(Humane Genres) of the possibility of evolution but holds on to the ONE ADAM has the Church made a forceful CLEAR statement on the single parent issue. This is not an infallible statement to the best of my knowledge…but I am interested in all comments: Thank you

Actually, one original Adam, the first human, who committed the one original sin is an infallible teaching because it is essential to and part of Catholic teachings on Original Sin and the Divinity of Jesus Christ which flow from the inspired teachings of St. Paul (Romans 5: 12-21 among other Scripture sources) which is due to Chapter 14, Gospel of John and to Pentecost.

The short version is that theological monogenism ( two, sole, fully-complete human beings who are the parents of humankind) comes from the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[BklynTony]

Thank you for your reply and yes I understand the teaching authority of the church, however my question remains even our recent popes leave open the possibility of human evolution according to God’s divine plan…it is the gift of the Spirit at some point along the evolutionary chain Man has received a Soul, man comes to know God and God calls us His Children.
Is it Possible that God gave a Soul to ONE MAN along that chain ? One Woman?
I don’t understand …does not God make a Soul for each person as they are born… It is the Soul that is not part of the evolutionary process,not the flesh.
Please if possible…I like more information.
Tony