Adam & Logic

[simpleas]

hope not too late for one to join

mention of the historic father of the race is found in the Epistle of Jude (verse 14), where a quotation is inserted from the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which, rather strange to say, is attributed to the antediluvian patriarch of that name, “the seventh from Adam.” But the most important references to Adam are found in the Epistles of St. Paul. Thus in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, the Apostle, after laying down certain practical rules referring to the conduct of women, particularly as regards public worship, and inculcating the duty of subordination to the other sex, makes use of an argument the weight of which rests more upon the logical methods current at the time than upon its intrinsic value as appreciated by the modern mind:

For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.

A similar line of argument is pursued in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9. More important is the theological doctrine formulated by St. Paul in Romans 5:12-21, and in 1 Corinthians 15:22-45. In the latter passage Jesus Christ is called by analogy and contrast the new or “last Adam.” This is understood in the sense that as the original Adam was the head of all mankind, the father of all according to the flesh, so also Jesus Christ was constituted chief and head of the spiritual family of the elect, and potentially of all mankind, since all are invited to partake of His salvation. Thus the first Adam is a type of the second, but while the former transmits to his progeny a legacy of death, the latter, on the contrary, becomes the vivifying principle of restored righteousness.

" For as Aaron was not induced to agree with the people when they blindly wished him to make an idol, and yet yielded to constraint; and as it is not credible that Solomon was so blind as to suppose that idols should be worshipped, but was drawn over to such sacrilege by the blandishments of women; so we cannot believe that Adam was deceived, and supposed the devil’s word to be truth, and therefore transgressed God’s law, but that he by the drawings of kindred yielded to the woman, the husband to the wife, the one human being to the only other human being. For not without significance did the apostle say, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression;” 1 Timothy 2:14 but he speaks thus, because the woman accepted as true what the serpent told her, but the man could not bear to be severed from his only companion, even though this involved a partnership in sin. He was not on this account less culpable, but sinned with his eyes open. And so the apostle does not say, “He did not sin,” but “He was not deceived.”

• augustine
• church fathers

God bless

Not to be picky or anything, but what does your post say about Adam existing/God as creator exists?
The Jews held Eve reponsible for Adam’s sin, our Church holds Adam responsible because he is the head of the Human race…
To me if we believe that male and female become one in the flesh, then both were equally responsible.

 

[Aloysium]

Not to be picky or anything, but what does your post say about Adam existing/God as creator exists?
The Jews held Eve reponsible for Adam’s sin, our Church holds Adam responsible because he is the head of the Human race…
To me if we believe that male and female become one in the flesh, then both were equally responsible.

True, but Adam could/should have known better. He did get the message direct from God. It is interesting to think that he was not tricked; he freely chose to do what God told him not to: that would be the source of original sin.

Gen 2: 15-18 Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it. Then Yahweh God gave the man this command, ‘You are free to eat of all the trees in the garden. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat; for, the day you eat of that, you are doomed to die.’ Yahweh God said, ‘It is not right that the man should be alone. I shall make him a helper.’

We are held to different standards in keeping with the graces bestowed upon us. However, I would agree that they both sinned. It is just an interesting way to look at it, especially in light of what granny points out, that Eve seems to be blamed a lot.

Matt 11:20-24 Then he began to reproach the towns in which most of his miracles had been worked, because they refused to repent. ‘Alas for you, Chorazin! Alas for you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Still, I tell you that it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on Judgement Day than for you. And as for you, Capernaum, did you want to be raised as high as heaven? You shall be flung down to hell. For if the miracles done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have been standing yet. Still, I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on Judgement Day than for you.’

 

[grannymh]

hope not too late for one to join

We have been waiting for you. It is about time you showed up.

Thus in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, the Apostle, … makes use of an argument the weight of which rests more upon the logical methods current at the time than upon its intrinsic value as appreciated by the modern mind:

snip

**“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression;” 1 Timothy 2:14. … **He was not on this account less culpable, but sinned with his eyes open. And so the apostle does not say, “He did not sin,” but "He was not deceived."

I put in bold what first caught my eye in post 708. Thank you.

Quick confession.
Because I lack knowledge of Scripture, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *footnotes are my cheat sheet.

Adam sinning with his eyes open reminded me of the CCC paragraphs 1730-1733. Romans 6:17 is the footnote to CCC, 1733. My habit is to read context. Check out Romans 6: 15-23. The last sentence makes me think back to Genesis 3: 15-19; CCC, 388-389; CCC, 410-411, and then further back to Genesis 2:15-17 which is God’s commandment so that Adam, as a human creature, could live in free submission to his Creator. (CCC, 396) Here, I ask myself – What nature is Adam? And I find Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC, 355 -357 and CCC, 1730.

Am I finding the path of the logical methods current at the time of the Scripture authors? Does going forward to St. Paul lend the necessary weight to the argument that there are two sole parents of all humankind? Have our modern minds chosen secular approaches to human origin which ignore the intrinsic value of the first two humans?

So many serious questions…Like the Socratic Method of learning. thefreedictionary.com/Socratic+method

When we get to the nitty-gritty, our lives are a serious choice between accepting God’s plan to have us share in His divine life on planet earth (Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC, 355-357;* CCC*, 1730; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898) and the choice to reject His plan for us. (CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)

I believe that the Catholic Church is on the right tract when it begins it teachings with Genesis 1:1 (Creed professed at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; axiom 1. God as Creator exists.) The entire Bible demonstrates axiom 2. God as Creator interacts with humans.

Post 688, page 46, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11620731&postcount=688
gives a brief explanation about the need for a third axiom – something like “God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.”
(CCC, 374; CCC, 356-357; CCC, 1730-1732; and common sense)

When we posit that God interacts with us, this opens the door to the means, which again is all of Scripture. In chapter 14, Gospel of John, Jesus assures the Catholic Church of Divine Wisdom in the Person of the promised Holy Spirit. Although Divine Revelation is completed in Jesus Christ (CCC, 65; CCC, 73), it has not been made completely explicit. Therefore, through its protocol, the visible Catholic Church on earth has gradually grasped Revelation’s full significance over the course of centuries. (CCC, 66-67)

What I think I am seeing in post 708 are the intermediate steps to the foundational teaching that there are two first parents of humankind. Because God is the source of Revelation, we can posit that the One God personally informs his human creatures.
In my humble opinion, we can make the jump to God interacting with each individual human because Jesus, in words and actions, consistently preaches that His salvific mission is for all people. “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, …” (Matthew 28: 16-20)

As humans, with a limited life span, none of us can reach all humans in all centuries. It is only God Who can touch every soul.
CCC, 1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”

CCC, 1257, last sentence. God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Going back to post 1. This is a simplified description of God. God is a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions. God is not restricted by time and place; therefore, He can interact personally with each individual human. (CCC, 374; CCC, 356-357; CCC, 1730-1732; and common sense)

My poor brain is spinning. How can we express all this in an orderly, yet simple, fashion?

 

[aragonjohn1]

So, Adam’s sin would be greater. Interesting post.

yes, or lessened depending on culpability. welcome

God bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

Not to be picky or anything, but what does your post say about “Adam existing/God as creator exists?”
The Jews held Eve reponsible for Adam’s sin, our Church holds Adam responsible because he is the head of the Human race…
To me if we believe that male and female become one in the flesh, then both were equally responsible.

Adam along with God is one of our forefathers that is what one meant. sin hurts both and all creation; so, Eve sinned then Adam was tempted then he sinned. in short Eve succumbed to the big creature then sinned tarnish Adam etc… then Adam not wanting to be alone sins; then redemption happens.

God bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

We have been waiting for you. It is about time you showed up.

---

• I put in bold what first caught my eye in post 708. Thank you.
• Quick confession. ********
• Because I lack knowledge of Scripture, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition *footnotes are my cheat sheet.
• Adam sinning with his eyes open reminded me of the CCC paragraphs 1730-1733. Romans 6:17 is the footnote to CCC, 1733. My habit is to read context. Check out Romans 6: 15-23. The last sentence makes me think back to Genesis 3: 15-19; CCC, 388-389; CCC, 410-411, and then further back to Genesis 2:15-17 which is God’s commandment so that Adam, as a human creature, could live in free submission to his Creator. (CCC, 396) Here, I ask myself – What nature is Adam? And I find Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC, 355 -357 and CCC, 1730.
• Am I finding the path of the logical methods current at the time of the Scripture authors? Does going forward to St. Paul lend the necessary weight to the argument that there are two sole parents of all humankind? Have our modern minds chosen secular approaches to human origin which ignore the intrinsic value of the first two humans?
• So many serious questions…Like the Socratic Method of learning. thefreedictionary.com/Socratic+method
• When we get to the nitty-gritty, “our lives are a serious choice between accepting God’s plan to have us share in His divine life on planet earth” (Genesis 1: 26-27; CCC, 355-357;* CCC*, 1730; CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898) and the choice to reject His plan for us. (CCC, Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)
• I believe that the Catholic Church is on the right tract when it begins it teachings with Genesis 1:1 (Creed professed at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; axiom 1. God as Creator exists.) The entire Bible demonstrates axiom 2. God as Creator interacts with humans.
• Post 688, page 46, forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11620731&postcount=688
• gives a brief explanation about the need for a third axiom – something like “God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.”
• (CCC, 374; CCC, 356-357; CCC, 1730-1732; and common sense)
• When we posit that God interacts with us, this opens the door to the means, which again is all of Scripture. In chapter 14, Gospel of John, Jesus assures the Catholic Church of Divine Wisdom in the Person of the promised Holy Spirit. Although Divine Revelation is completed in Jesus Christ (CCC, 65; CCC, 73), it has not been made completely explicit. “Therefore, through its protocol, the visible Catholic Church on earth has gradually grasped Revelation’s full significance over the course of centuries. (CCC, 66-67)”
• What I think I am seeing in post 708 are the intermediate steps to the foundational teaching that there are two first parents of humankind. Because God is the source of Revelation, we can posit that the One God personally informs his human creatures.
• In my humble opinion, we can make the jump to God interacting with each individual human because Jesus, in words and actions, consistently preaches that His salvific mission is for all people. “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, …” (Matthew 28: 16-20) Ah-men
• As humans, with a limited life span, none of us can reach all humans in all centuries. It is only God Who can touch every soul.
• CCC, 1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”
• CCC, 1257, last sentence. God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
• Going back to post 1. This is a simplified description of God. God is a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions. God is not restricted by time and place; therefore, He can interact personally with each individual human. (CCC, 374; CCC, 356-357; CCC, 1730-1732; and common sense)
• My poor brain is spinning. How can we express all this in an orderly, yet simple, fashion?

thank You

yes, accepting God’s will and willing in love is a start.

the catholic church does have the fullness of Truth. which means Y’all still have very much to learn. :bounce:

yes, baptism and repentance

common sense; faith is reason, quite which comes initially from love

dunno, how bout a short list, summary, or something

God bless

 

[simpleas]

Adam along with God is one of our forefathers that is what one meant. sin hurts both and all creation; so, Eve sinned then Adam was tempted then he sinned. in short Eve succumbed to the big creature then sinned tarnish Adam etc… then Adam not wanting to be alone sins; then redemption happens.

God bless

Another interesting interpretation

 

[Aloysium]

Eve having eaten the apple was apparently going to die.
The occasion would have demonstrated God’s mercy.
With Adam’s guidance, Eve repenting could have eaten of the tree of eternal life.
Adam could not bear to lose her and chose to die with Eve.
Love of a creation was more dear to him than God.
He did not trust God would make it right.
Mankind fell.
Later, Abraham was given the same choice: Isaac or God.
He chose God. Faith was renewed and we embarked on the path to return us Home.
Ultimately, in becoming one of us and sacrificing His son, God enabled us to choose Him.
In the Eucharist we eat the bread of eternal life in Christ, the love of God.
Mind is blown by Genesis . . . again.

 

[grannymh]

Eve having eaten the apple was apparently going to die.
The occasion would have demonstrated God’s mercy.
With Adam’s guidance, Eve repenting could have eaten of the tree of eternal life.
Adam could not bear to lose her and chose to die with Eve.
Love of a creation was more dear to him than God.
He did not trust God would make it right.
Mankind fell.
Later, Abraham was given the same choice: Isaac or God.
He chose God. Faith was renewed and we embarked on the path to return us Home.
Ultimately, in becoming one of us and sacrificing His son, God enabled us to choose Him.
In the Eucharist we eat the bread of eternal life in Christ, the love of God.
Mind is blown by Genesis . . . again.

My friend. The above sounds more like poetry than Catholic doctrines. The section on Adam choosing to die with Eve is not part of the Catholic doctrines. And Abraham, being a descendant of Adam, could not have had the original choice that the original first human had to make.

 

[Aloysium]

Recognizing I am reading a lot into a story that is also of two people, I do not believe it to be heretical.

It has seemed strange that Adam and Eve were so united in their decision. I supposed that it may have represented some sort of single-mindedness, a reflection of some basic human nature that made itself known in that decision. This may be the case but it made them more symbolic and less human. As human beings, they seemed to represent the worst, in spite of whatever essential graces they were to have possessed. It would take a God of infinite love to love them. They were stupid, self-centred and the worst parents one can imagine. Cain kills Abel and what is their response? (Gen 4:25) “Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, ‘God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.’” It is very hard to empathize with these people. Quite clearly a wrathful god, more patient than compassionate would be required. You can’t love sin, and there was not much in them to love.

Break up their two decisions and actions imagining what could be going on within them, they emerge as two individuals, like you and I. It was difficult to empathize, simply because I was not trying. Seriously, if Adam ate the apple for his wife, if he were someone who could not bear being parted from his her, who would sacrifice his own life to be with her: that is someone who is worthy of God’s love; it provides a reason why He would sacrifice Himself for us.

While God’s testing of Abraham anticipates the sacrifice of the Son on the cross, it does also appear to reflect back on a decision, unspecified but I believe rightly assumed, that Adam knew of the potential loss of Eve. Not trusting in God, he feared an eternity without her. Seems like a lot of people I know.

 

[grannymh]

Recognizing I am reading a lot into a story that is also of two people, I do not believe it to be heretical.

My friend.

What appears in post 718 sounds like early poetry probably based on some of the speculations of early Catholic writers. Not all speculations, even those of saints, are part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the rejected speculations are still being used in some manner.

As for “heretical”, I consider that a four-letter word which I try to avoid. My preference is to present Catholic doctrine as it should be interpreted.

It has seemed strange that Adam and Eve were so united in their decision. I supposed that it may have represented some sort of single-mindedness, a reflection of some basic human nature that made itself known in that decision. This may be the case but it made them more symbolic and less human.

Genesis 2: 18-25 teaches the truth of Adam and Eve’s unity. They were created, which is to say, willed by God in perfect equality as human persons. (CCC, 369-373)

What I personally find difficult on CAF is that many, not all, posters think in terms of either - or instead of considering the real possibility
of both - and. There are special times when Adam and Eve are both symbolic and fully human…at the same time.

As human beings, they seemed to represent the worst, in spite of whatever essential graces they were to have possessed.

I have seen similar proposals which are about as far from Genesis 1: 26-27 as one can get. (CCC, 356)

It would take a God of infinite love to love them.

This is one of the reasons that the three axioms are true.

1. God as Creator exists.
2. God as Creator interacts with humans.
   and the proposed axiom 3. God as Creator interacts personally with each individual human.

They were stupid, self-centred and the worst parents one can imagine. Cain kills Abel and what is their response? (Gen 4:25) “Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, ‘God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.’” It is very hard to empathize with these people. Quite clearly a wrathful god, more patient than compassionate would be required. You can’t love sin, and there was not much in them to love.

Granted that it is hard to empathize with these people.

Break up their two decisions and actions imagining what could be going on within them, they emerge as two individuals, like you and I.

Genesis, chapter 3, does describe Adam and Eve as two individuals. And this is important for the doctrine of Original Sin. While Eve shared human nature with Adam, it was Adam, as the first individual in whom was the whole human race as one body of one man, who is responsible for the Original Sin. (Romans 5: 12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22; St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4, 1; CCC, 404; CCC, 360)

It was difficult to empathize, simply because I was not trying. Seriously, if Adam ate the apple for his wife, if he were someone who could not bear being parted from his her, who would sacrifice his own life to be with her: that is someone who is worthy of God’s love; it provides a reason why He would sacrifice Himself for us.

We need to back up a bit. In fact, we need to recall CCC, 66-67.
From CCC 66. “Yet, even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp it full significance over the course of the centuries.”
How this is done is demonstrated in the Catechism’s footnotes and the Index of Citations, page 689

Going back to Genesis 1: 26-31, we find God blessing Adam and Eve. In contrast, God gives His command for free obedience first to Adam who relays it to Eve so that when Satan enters the Garden in the form of a serpent, both Adam and Eve become culpable for their actions.

The divinely inspired St. Paul writes about Adam after the event of Christ’s resurrection. He is aware that the Church cannot tamper with the facts of Original Sin without undermining the mystery of Christ. (CCC, 389) Footnotes in the Catechism show that further clarification of Adam, that is, the full significance of his being the first human, was formalized by the Council of Trent.

Adam’s love for Eve existed. Their immortality was a gift from God which was directly connected with Adam’s obedience to God. (Genesis 2: 15-17; CCC, 376; CCC, 404) Personally, I doubt that Adam was seriously thinking about Eve, because if he were, he would have obeyed God’s command which would insure her freedom from death. Recall that both were in the state of original holiness and justice which means that they were sharing in God’s divine life, because they were created in the image of God. (CCC, “Man in Paradise”, paragraphs 374-379)

"While God’s testing of Abraham anticipates the sacrifice of the Son on the cross, it does also appear to reflect back on a decision, unspecified but I believe rightly assumed, that Adam knew of the potential loss of Eve. Not trusting in God, he feared an eternity without her. Seems like a lot of people I know.

Adam knew the consequence of his disobedience. (Genesis 1: 15-25) However, this was not exactly the potential loss of Eve. It was the potential loss of their friendship relationship with their Creator. Adam freely let his trust in his Creator die in his heart when he preferred himself over God.
(CCC, 397-400)

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Adam knew the consequence of his disobedience. (Genesis 1: 15-25) However, this was not exactly the potential loss of Eve. It was the potential loss of their friendship relationship with their Creator. Adam freely let his trust in his Creator die in his heart when he preferred himself over God.
(CCC, 397-400)

I don’t disagree with anything you say.

Observing the world today, it seems that many people choose sexual relationships that are contrary to the Church’s teachings. In the end they are thinking of themselves, their loss. They do not consider that they would be causing their partner to sin, which would not be a loving thing to do. Within their experience, they do typically feel that they are seeking and would do anything for love; just as often this all falls apart.

Bottom line: in not trusting God and, perhaps in the attempt to maintain a relationship that would collapse, Adam may have sought his own solution. He also would not have been actually thinking of what was good for Eve, but of his own potential loss. Thus he would have knowingly gone against God’s command, and thereby committed the original sin, creating a split between himself (ourselves) and God, but also, what was possibly feared the most, between himself (ourselves) and Eve ( one another).

Again, I am not saying that this is what actually happened, but I find it an interesting speculation of what emotionally was going on in these two people. I don’t want to derail the thread.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t disagree with anything you say.

Observing the world today, it seems that many people choose sexual relationships that are contrary to the Church’s teachings. In the end they are thinking of themselves, their loss. They do not consider that they would be causing their partner to sin, which would not be a loving thing to do. Within their experience, they do typically feel that they are seeking and would do anything for love; just as often this all falls apart.

Bottom line: in not trusting God and, perhaps in the attempt to maintain a relationship that would collapse, Adam may have sought his own solution. He also would not have been actually thinking of what was good for Eve, but of his own potential loss. Thus he would have knowingly gone against God’s command, and thereby committed the original sin, creating a split between himself (ourselves) and God, but also, what was possibly feared the most, between himself (ourselves) and Eve ( one another).

Again, I am not saying that this is what actually happened, but I find it an interesting speculation of what emotionally was going on in these two people. I don’t want to derail the thread.

Thank you.

I am in a difficult position. Because the “logic” of Adam relates to Original Sin, I have to be careful to stay within the boundaries of Catholic doctrines. While we certainly can speculate on what was going on emotionally between Adam and Eve, we need to be clear about how we express the actual action of Original Sin. Thus, I have to balance what is speculation with the reality that the sin was against God’s commandment.

It is the lack of clearness regarding Original Sin that I am worried about. Unfortunately, there are too many readers who have only learned part of the Garden story. At this point in time, I need to respond in some way to post 718.

 

[simpleas]

Eve having eaten the apple was apparently going to die.
The occasion would have demonstrated God’s mercy.
With Adam’s guidance, Eve repenting could have eaten of the tree of eternal life.
Adam could not bear to lose her and chose to die with Eve.
Love of a creation was more dear to him than God.
He did not trust God would make it right.
Mankind fell.
Later, Abraham was given the same choice: Isaac or God.
He chose God. Faith was renewed and we embarked on the path to return us Home.
Ultimately, in becoming one of us and sacrificing His son, God enabled us to choose Him.
In the Eucharist we eat the bread of eternal life in Christ, the love of God.
Mind is blown by Genesis . . . again.

Interesting

So you are saying Adam could have guided Eve into repentance, then they both could have eaten from the tree of life…is that what you mean?

Seems God did not offer repentance to either.

From what Genesis describes, Eve offers the fruit to Adam and he takes it without much thought, (completely forgot what God had told him?) and not as an act of love for Eve.

God created a female for Adam, I assume to love and procreate with, so his choosing Eve over God would be a pretty human thing to do, why God would not see this as an act of Love seems unthinkable.

Abraham was in a different time completely, he had a wife and son and many troubles around him, Adam and Eve were the only two in the world.
Abraham had his faith tested to the extreme, and he passed.

 

[grannymh]

Seems God did not offer repentance to either.

It is Adam and Eve who needed to offer their repentance to God.
There is a tradition that Adam and Eve did that.

 

[simpleas]

It is Adam and Eve who needed to offer their repentance to God.
There is a tradition that Adam and Eve did that.

My mistake, should have said repentance isn’t mentioned in Genesis.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . So you are saying Adam could have guided Eve into repentance, then they both could have eaten from the tree of life…is that what you mean?

Seems God did not offer repentance to either. . . .

What happened happened, and thus things cannot be otherwise. I was speculating as to what Adam could have been feeling and what his choice was at the moment that he ate the fruit. He might have been deceived as was Eve, or perhaps he knew exactly what he was doing and making a real choice. Ultimately, he failed to trust God and follow his command as to what was best for him.

At any rate, we have been all redeemed through Jesus Christ and have the hope of eternal life in Him.

 

[grannymh]

My mistake, should have said repentance isn’t mentioned in Genesis.

In the third chapter of Genesis, God promises that the required repentance for Adam’s Original Sin will be made by the Messiah and Redeemer to come. Here, we see God’s love and mercy for Adam and Eve, and all humankind.
(Genesis 3:15; John 3: 16; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22; Romans 5-12-21; Philippians 2: 1-11; CCC, 410-411)

 

[grannymh]

What happened happened, and thus things cannot be otherwise. I was speculating as to what Adam could have been feeling and what his choice was at the moment that he ate the fruit. He might have been deceived as was Eve, or perhaps he knew exactly what he was doing and making a real choice. Ultimately, he failed to trust God and follow his command as to what was best for him.

At any rate, we have been all redeemed through Jesus Christ and have the hope of eternal life in Him.

It is the lack of clearness regarding Adam’s free choice to commit the Original Sin that I am worried about. Unfortunately, there are too many readers who have only learned part of the Garden story.

In response to post 718, Adam’s foreknowledge of the consequences of his free choice of scorning God is indisputable. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that Adam as creature had to respect. He knew that the only way to maintain his friendship relationship with his Creator was to live in free submission to Him. This meant obedience to God’s command regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam recognized his freedom to shape his own life. (Genesis 2: 15-17; CCC, 396; CCC, 1730-1732)

Adam listened to Satan describing the forbidden fruit as the means to have all knowledge and thus be like a god. Like Eve, he saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom. (Genesis 3: 1-7) Adam’s conscience urged him to do good and avoid evil. (CCC, 1706) Nonetheless, Adam was free. He was master over his own acts. (St. Irenaeus, small print, CCC, 1730) Adam looked at his own freedom and feely chose to abuse it in order to gain the “knowledge” he desired. To reach that goal of being like a god, Adam let his trust in God’s goodness die in his heart. (CCC, 397-398) Adam took the forbidden fruit and ate it.

St. Paul affirms this free, singular action of the first man Adam. (Romans 5: 12-21; CCC, 399, CCC, 402-405)

 

[simpleas]

What happened happened, and thus things cannot be otherwise. I was speculating as to what Adam could have been feeling and what his choice was at the moment that he ate the fruit. He might have been deceived as was Eve, or perhaps he knew exactly what he was doing and making a real choice. Ultimately, he failed to trust God and follow his command as to what was best for him.

At any rate, we have been all redeemed through Jesus Christ and have the hope of eternal life in Him.

I knew you were speculating I wondered how you came to that thought “with Adam’s guidence, Eve repenting could have eaten of the tree of life”

As I read it Gen 2 :11-13 Adam blames “the woman you put with me” He doesn’t sound like he would want to protect her from blame out of love for her. Eve is more truthful, and says it how it was, “The serpent tempted me and I ate”

Yes both did wrong in any case.

The writer of Genesis could not have known what Adam and Eve’s thoughts were, or how they decided to trust satan rather than God, as they were only handed down this story through many years. But because it is simply written as Adam and Eve failing to trust God, and believe they would do what they wanted by their own authority, leaves room for speculation on Adam and Eve as pure humans like us in the 21st century.