Adam & Logic

  • Thread starter Thread starter grannymh
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wmw said:
This is a very sad ending in this mini-topic, and I don’t want to accuse you and make you mad, but I am quite perplexed on your “we’ll see” attitude, because I think you understand that this isn’t just our saying so, but the revelation of God’s truth to mankind. Yet, it only makes sense that your not understanding that; so, you may need to digest this further; besides, I can hardly hope you will change all your thinking in the next text you write. Let, it be in His time then with the help of our prayers.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, didn’t realise this would sound sad to some people.😊

I think my imagination can run away with me sometimes, and I don’t always write what I am trying to say, so confuse people and myself!

I think why I have this thought that we might not necessary have a human body, that which we have now, when the new world comes again, is when i have reflected on the first 3 lines of the first account of creation, especially " And God’s spirit hovered over the water."

We are told God made us in his image, how do we understand that?
I understand it to be our spirit/soul that is God’s image, I can never understand how we are made in God’s image if we think God somehow looked like a human being as there were none before Adam and Eve?

To me God isn’t a human being, he is a spirit, beyond all we can imagine him to look like.
He came as a human being to teach us the truth in the person of Jesus, why did he think best to humble himself as a human being, rather than reveal himself as the spirit, because this may have been the best way to get his message across?

But yes, in the creed I profess the ressurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come again so I do believe in this, I’m on a journey to fully understand it.

Please as most have done, point out where I am looking at it wrong and so not quite joining the dots, I will appreciate it.

Thanks 🙂
 
grannymh said:
reading this again, i find something that is not quite accurate. It is the phrase “as we are souls”. We are a spiritual being because of our spiritual soul; yet, we are still an unique unification of both material anatomy and spiritual soul. This is why we are peerless in our created environment. Our material body dies when our soul leaves our body, but this is only a temporary separation. Belief in the resurrection of our body and the life of the world to come is what we profess when we proclaim our basic creed during the holy sacrifice of the mass.

it is our total self, both body and soul, which give glory to the creative power of our god. It is our total self, spirit and matter united, who will eventually see god as he is. The simple reason is that god created us and we will return to god in the way he created us.👍
Click to expand...
Blue highlighted…This does make sense to me 🙂
 
40.png
simpleas:
Blue highlighted…This does make sense to me 🙂

I am grateful that it makes sense.

What does not make sense to me is why my capital letters changed to lower case. :eek:
 
QUOTE=grannymh;11220665]I am grateful that it makes sense.

What does not make sense to me is why my capital letters changed to lower case. :eek:

:hmmm: could be the keyboard fairy!😃
 
grannymh said:
Obviously, this Genesis writer knew without a doubt that Adam and Eve were the sole parents of humanity. He also knew that Adam committed an original sin which shattered humanity’s intimate relationship with God, our Creator. The natural consequence was banishment but from where.
Click to expand...
I can’t be so sure. Please read the Catechism (#390). “Affirms”. Mimics.
 
DaveE said:
I can’t be so sure. Please read the Catechism (#390). “Affirms”. Mimics.
Click to expand...
Mimics is such an interesting word. Would you please expand your thoughts regarding it and CCC 390? 🙂

As for CCC 390, it is so realistic, I love it. It is a true treat to find the recognition that both figurative and literal can be used in the description of an event occurring at the dawn of human history. Its companion paragraph is CCC 66 which says: “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.”
 
Been away for delivery of children to College. Now after reading through when I’ve been gone there seems two questions that are the same:
1___________________________________________
“Banishment, but from where?”

2___________________________________________
[2:10] A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches.
[2:11] The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
[2:12] and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.
[2:13] The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush.
end________________________________________

Back in High School World History class they talked about the beginnings of civilzation coming from the “Fertile Crescent”. This place of Eden described is roughly this same area. This is where the farming and mineral deposits were so rich that nomatic tribes found that they never had to leave. This seems to me to be the metaphore that the inspired writer understood to mean the grandest of locations that Eden could be. Remember that God needs to work with the understanding of the writer. God speaks to him in the language of his thoughts then the man must put these to inspired words. I think the writer is trying to express the richest of lands possible that he can describe from his own experience. I think we try too hard sometimes to pull out meanings from why the “onxy stone” is mentioned when its just a detail of a big picture idea.
 
Wonderful thread - I thought I’d share some impressions.

God planted His garden in the same earth from which He fashioned a man and breathed life into him.
Adam, although different and separate because of his being body-spirit, was in holy union with Eden.
Adam and nature sprang from the ground of Eden, as did the water that quenched and gave life to the entire world of wonders beyond.
The garden provided the man all he needed, save companionship.
In drawing from Adam a part of his body-spirit, God created Eve.
He created us in His image as self-and-other, one from the other, joined in the love that proceeds from both.

The Centre of the Garden is in union with the centre of man.
Here are two trees: that of the knowledge of good and evil and that of eternal life.
Deeper into that Centre, within the duality of the two trees, we find the wood of the Cross. The wood on which the sins of the world are taken up by Christ who pays the debt through His sacrifice.
He becomes the sin and it dies with Him, redeeming us.
In His act of infinite love and through His resurrection, Christ brings us to eternal life.
In union with the transcendent reality of the Word made flesh and the physical reality of the trees, we find within Adam, his free will, the choice to do God’s will or to do evil.

We chose sin.
The consequence of original sin is a breakdown in the relationship with God, with each other, with nature and matter itself.
We have only glimpses into the true glorious qualities of the world around us.
Things are dissected, chemically analyzed, transformed into mathematical principles too much to the exclusion of quiet contemplation and simply sitting in nature and having it teach us.

So where is the physical reality of Eden?
I believe it is right here, but with original sin we have been cast out.
The harmony with its true and life-giving connection to the glorious reality that is the physical universe has been broken and there is no going back.
But we can move forward.
Now through the sacraments of reconciliation and the eucharist we have the hope of resurrection in our glorified body, in the New Jerusalem and sharing in the eternal glory of the Beatific Vision.

God was in the Garden when He created us and has been with us all along helping His lost sheep return Home.
 
Aloysium said:
Wonderful thread - I thought I’d share some impressions.

God planted His garden in the same earth from which He fashioned a man and breathed life into him.
Adam, although different and separate because of his being body-spirit, was in holy union with Eden.
Adam and nature sprang from the ground of Eden, as did the water that quenched and gave life to the entire world of wonders beyond.
The garden provided the man all he needed, save companionship.
In drawing from Adam a part of his body-spirit, God created Eve.
He created us in His image as self-and-other, one from the other, joined in the love that proceeds from both.

The Centre of the Garden is in union with the centre of man.
Here are two trees: that of the knowledge of good and evil and that of eternal life.
Deeper into that Centre, within the duality of the two trees, we find the wood of the Cross. The wood on which the sins of the world are taken up by Christ who pays the debt through His sacrifice.
He becomes the sin and it dies with Him, redeeming us.
In His act of infinite love and through His resurrection, Christ brings us to eternal life.
In union with the transcendent reality of the Word made flesh and the physical reality of the trees, we find within Adam, his free will, the choice to do God’s will or to do evil.

We chose sin.
The consequence of original sin is a breakdown in the relationship with God, with each other, with nature and matter itself.
We have only glimpses into the true glorious qualities of the world around us.
Things are dissected, chemically analyzed, transformed into mathematical principles too much to the exclusion of quiet contemplation and simply sitting in nature and having it teach us.

So where is the physical reality of Eden?
I believe it is right here, but with original sin we have been cast out.
The harmony with its true and life-giving connection to the glorious reality that is the physical universe has been broken and there is no going back.
But we can move forward.
Now through the sacraments of reconciliation and the eucharist we have the hope of resurrection in our glorified body, in the New Jerusalem and sharing in the eternal glory of the Beatific Vision.

God was in the Garden when He created us and has been with us all along helping His lost sheep return Home.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this line. “God was in the Garden when He created us and has been with us all along helping His lost sheep return Home.”

Definitely, there are a lot of good important thoughts here. Especially this line,
“In His act of infinite love and through His resurrection, Christ brings us to eternal life.”

However, being True Man does not mean that Christ became the sin. Even symbolically, Christ does not become the sin. Indeed, He is like us in all things except sin. Christ, both True God and True Man, assumed human nature; He did not absorb it. (CCC 470) Christ offered His obedience unto death to repair the damage caused by Adam’s disobedience. Adam, as the first human, simply did not have the status to atone for a sin against the Divine Creator. (Romans 5: 12-21) As descendants of Adam, all humanity is eligible for eternal life with God.
 
Hope this sounds understandable…

We need the O.T to understand the N.T and vice versa.

God in the N.T does not sound the same as the God in the O.T

Jesus said he was before Abraham, so thats why we believe Jesus was the same God as the one in Genesis.

We say God is unchanging, yet it seems he changed alot through the O.T, maybe in mind, and then when Jesus came to bring the Good News.

Do we say Jesus was there at the time of creation, being The father, son and holy spirit.

Adam was the first man, he can not be referred to as the first son of God because Jesus is the only son of God, Adam was made of the earth, Jesus was of God, therefore is God.
 
wmw said:
Been away for delivery of children to College. Now after reading through when I’ve been gone there seems two questions that are the same:
1___________________________________________
“Banishment, but from where?”

2___________________________________________
[2:10] A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches.
[2:11] The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
[2:12] and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there.
[2:13] The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush.
end________________________________________

Back in High School World History class they talked about the beginnings of civilzation coming from the “Fertile Crescent”. This place of Eden described is roughly this same area. This is where the farming and mineral deposits were so rich that nomatic tribes found that they never had to leave. This seems to me to be the metaphore that the inspired writer understood to mean the grandest of locations that Eden could be. Remember that God needs to work with the understanding of the writer. God speaks to him in the language of his thoughts then the man must put these to inspired words. I think the writer is trying to express the richest of lands possible that he can describe from his own experience. I think we try too hard sometimes to pull out meanings from why the “onxy stone” is mentioned when its just a detail of a big picture idea.
Click to expand...
No, just never noticed it before and wondered what posters thoughts were, no harm in that 🙂
 
simpleas said:
No, just never noticed it before and wondered what posters thoughts were, no harm in that 🙂
Click to expand...
Agreed, and my thoughts on this is not authoritative, just one of many possible ideas. I didn’t mean to imply it was a bad question or halt others responses.
 
simpleas said:
Hope this sounds understandable…

We need the O.T to understand the N.T and vice versa.

God in the N.T does not sound the same as the God in the O.T

Jesus said he was before Abraham, so thats why we believe Jesus was the same God as the one in Genesis.

We say God is unchanging, yet it seems he changed alot through the O.T, maybe in mind, and then when Jesus came to bring the Good News.

Do we say Jesus was there at the time of creation, being The father, son and holy spirit.

Adam was the first man, he can not be referred to as the first son of God because Jesus is the only son of God, Adam was made of the earth, Jesus was of God, therefore is God.
Click to expand...
I don’t see why Jesus can’t be called the first son. First, an only son is a first son. Second, He is named in scripture as the first Fruits of many fruits and he is the brother and friend though whom we are hopefully adopted to be son’s and daughter’s of God, but yes, we will always be of a different substance, not God.
 
Oops, I read your post a couple more times and realized you’re saying Adam isn’t the first son of God. OK, very true. Sorry, my eyes are weary at the end of the work day. Yes, The Father, Jesus the Son, & The Holy Spirit were all there in the Beginning of time.
 
wmw said:
Oops, I read your post a couple more times and realized you’re saying Adam isn’t the first son of God. OK, very true. Sorry, my eyes are weary at the end of the work day. Yes, The Father, Jesus the Son, & The Holy Spirit were all there in the Beginning of time.
Click to expand...
No worries 🙂

Thanks.
 
The logical principles so far are:
  1. God as Creator exists.
  2. God as Creator interacts with humans.
Post 1 has the stipulation that Adam existed as explained by the Catholic Church. 🙂

From the position of the Catholic Church, the greatest interaction of our Creator with us is Jesus Christ, True God and True Man.

So my very silly question is – which human nature did Jesus Christ assume? The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 470, is very clear that “assumed” human nature is the correct terminology. In other words, Christ did not absorb the human condition of the contracted state of Original Sin. Christ is like us in all things except sin.

Could there be various kinds of human nature? Our universe is full of material beings which have expanded into different personalities and purposes; for example, look at the different kinds of dogs. Those cute little lap dogs, as a normal course of life, do not herd sheep or rescue people in snow storms. While a St. Bernard dog is a great asset, having one go to sleep on our lap is not on the top of our list of fun things to do.

Obviously, our observation tells us that there is only one kind of human nature. Even with our physical and mental differences, there is unity to humankind. Genesis 2: 18 and following, confirms that human nature is totally unique and different from all other species. This is emphasized in the following verses which confirm that Eve is the same human nature as Adam. (CCC 369-371) Note: CCC 370 is in smaller print --refer to CCC 20-21 for an explanation of this usage.

We look at the various human races; yet, there is only one humanity. CCC 360 explains: “Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity…” This common origin is unique in that it was necessary that only two true humans could be founders of a species which has both a decomposing anatomy *and *a God-created spiritual soul. Living material-only beings are subject to the laws of material creation which include basic changes for good or bad. They have no need for Divine Jesus Christ because they are, by definition, non-spiritual, that is, they are not in the image of God. (CCC 356-357)

The material principle of human nature comes from what? From parents who generate the unique natural body which is receptive to a spiritual soul. Because human parents are totally unique in their spiritual (soul) difference
from other species, they had to first come from a species totally unique from other species. To obtain *total *uniqueness there could only be two founders.
 
grannymh said:
. . . However, being True Man does not mean that Christ became the sin. Even symbolically, Christ does not become the sin. Indeed, He is like us in all things except sin. Christ, both True God and True Man, assumed human nature; He did not absorb it. (CCC 470) Christ offered His obedience unto death to repair the damage caused by Adam’s disobedience. Adam, as the first human, simply did not have the status to atone for a sin against the Divine Creator. (Romans 5: 12-21) As descendants of Adam, all humanity is eligible for eternal life with God.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was trying out an idea that was stated in Francis’ homily at Mass Saturday June 15. There were serious problems with the english translation that were even reproduced on Catholic sites. Having an understanding of Italian, I read that version and he states something to the effect that:

One translation I found: “What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it’s not it … True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘This is yours, and I will not sin again’. And Jesus likes that!, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us.”

My translation: “So what is reconciliation? Uniting one side with the other; this is only part of it. True reconciliation is God, in Christ, taking onto Himself our sins, becoming the sin. And when we confess, for example, it is not that we tell our sins and God forgives us. It is not that. We find Jesus Christ and we say to Him, 'This is yours, I give you my sin, You become sin again” (as was done to you on the cross). And He wants that, because it was His mission; becoming sin for us, to free us."

I understand that our Pope tends to stir up controversy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top