Adam & Logic

[grannymh]

Adam didn’t* know* evil prior to the fall-he only knew God’s command against it, against the granddaddy of all evils: disobedience of God. After that Adam would immediately know the first evil: separation from God, and then go on to experience all the other evils and darkness/ignorance that necessarily flow from that separation. Having been banned from the Tree of Life perhaps means that Adam wasn’t yet even* capable* of turning back to God, that his heart was still set on his own way after the Fall despite his deprived position. In any case this separation, this “ex-communion” with time spent in a much less graceful condition, causing some to stoop to even extreme baseness, is quite possibly a necessary first step in our learning of the need of “re-communion”.

I’m not sure just how well Adam really knew God; perhaps that was a major part of the problem; the “good relationship” may’ve been largely one-sided. It was mentioned a few posts back that, as a result of Adam’s original state of justice/holiness, he “gave himself to God”. But I don’t know about that: his state may’ve demanded this giving but his *will *certainly ended up opposing it-seems to me he never fully did give himself to God and his loss of sanctifying grace is the simple consequence of that when he broke communion altogether.

Would you please clarify which definition of “know” you are using?

Otherwise, someone may get the impression that Adam was not a fully-complete true human person created by God. (CCC, 355)
Also, I have to be careful of denying CCC, 1730-1732 and CCC, 356-357 which depends on the definition or use of the word “know” and the word “knowledge” in CCC, 356 and self-knowledge in CCC, 357.

Thank you for your help.

There have been far too many posts in other threads which imply that Adam was stupid. Naturally, the logic of Adam needs to include the Catholic teachings on human nature per se.

 

[fhansen]

Would you please clarify which definition of “know” you are using?

Otherwise, someone may get the impression that Adam was not a fully-complete true human person created by God. (CCC, 355)
Also, I have to be careful of denying CCC, 1730-1732 and CCC, 356-357 which depends on the definition or use of the word “know” and the word “knowledge” in CCC, 356 and self-knowledge in CCC, 357.

Thank you for your help.

There have been far too many posts in other threads which imply that Adam was stupid. Naturally, the logic of Adam needs to include the Catholic teachings on human nature per se.

Being innocent of direct knowledge of evil in no way implies stupidity. Do you think Adam fully understood what he would lose by not answering the call outlined in paragraph 357? In any case I’d speculate that he knows now.

 

[grannymh]

Being innocent of direct knowledge of evil in no way implies stupidity. Do you think Adam fully understood what he would lose by not answering the call outlined in paragraph 357? In any case I’d speculate that he knows now.

We also “know” now. :sad_yes:

I apologize, but I need your definition of “innocent of direct knowledge”. Some of the definitions for know are "to perceive " - “have direct cognition” -“to be aware of the truth or factuality of” - “to have knowledge of” - “to have experience of” and “archaic, to have sexual intercourse with”

Genesis 2: 16-17 is an example of “have direct cognition” because Adam actually “hears” God speaking His commandment of obedience and the consequence of being doomed to die. Genesis 3: 2 is an example of direct cognition because Eve has her knowledge of the commandment either from Adam or from God before she was tempted by Satan. The definition “to have experience of” is seen in Genesis 3:10. This experience does not directly deny the direct communication of information given by God in Genesis 2: 15-17.

In addition, for Original Sin to be “mortal” Adam had to have full knowledge. Now Adam could have been innocent because he had not committed personal sins. But, Adam’s Original Sin is more than a personal sin. Adam’s sin affected the human nature which he and his spouse would then transmit in a fallen state. (Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512; CCC, 404; CCC, 360)

In answer to the question " Do you think Adam fully understood what he would lose by not answering the call outlined in paragraph 357?" Yes, Adam knew full well the consequences. There is nothing in CCC, 355-357 which excludes Adam. St. Paul also recognizes Adam’s full responsibility, which by definition would include pre-knowledge of consequences. (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22)

The last sentence in CCC, 389 is explicit.
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

We also “know” now. :sad_yes:

I apologize, but I need your definition of “innocent of direct knowledge”. Some of the definitions for know are "to perceive " - “have direct cognition” -“to be aware of the truth or factuality of” - “to have knowledge of” - “to have experience of” and “archaic, to have sexual intercourse with”

Genesis 2: 16-17 is an example of “have direct cognition” because Adam actually “hears” God speaking His commandment of obedience and the consequence of being doomed to die. Genesis 3: 2 is an example of direct cognition because Eve has her knowledge of the commandment either from Adam or from God before she was tempted by Satan. The definition “to have experience of” is seen in Genesis 3:10. This experience does not directly deny the direct communication of information given by God in Genesis 2: 15-17.

In addition, for Original Sin to be “mortal” Adam had to have full knowledge. Now Adam could have been innocent because he had not committed personal sins. But, Adam’s Original Sin is more than a personal sin. Adam’s sin affected the human nature which he and his spouse would then transmit in a fallen state. (Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512; CCC, 404; CCC, 360)

In answer to the question " Do you think Adam fully understood what he would lose by not answering the call outlined in paragraph 357?" Yes, Adam knew full well the consequences. There is nothing in CCC, 355-357 which excludes Adam. St. Paul also recognizes Adam’s full responsibility, which by definition would include pre-knowledge of consequences. (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22)

The last sentence in CCC, 389 is explicit.
“The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.”

Fr. Barron’s most recent video addresses this point.

youtu.be/Fdmsnbz1-EE

The way he explains “knowledge” in this sense, it functions as a kind of taking it upon or arrogating to oneself the power to determine the nature of good and evil.

God alone brings into being those things which are conceived or “known” to him. This is a kind of creative knowledge wherein things are or exist as they do because they are known by God.

By eating of the tree of knowledge, human beings took upon themselves the authority to “know” good and evil in this sense, i.e., to determine the nature of good and evil for themselves.

As Fr. Barron points out, this “attitude” is prevalent in our society, steeped as it is in ethical relativism. It also seems the dominant mantra of atheism - to determine what is right or wrong for oneself.

 

[grannymh]

Fr. Barron’s most recent video addresses this point.

Praise God, I now have sound on my computer and there is this handy bar which I can use to back up so that I can hear interesting points more than once.

youtu.be/Fdmsnbz1-EE

The way he explains “knowledge” in this sense, it functions as a kind of taking it upon or arrogating to oneself the power to determine the nature of good and evil.

It sounded to me that Father was explaining Original Sin which is arrogating to oneself the power to determine the nature of good and evil. God is the criterion of good and evil. Original Sin is choosing oneself as the criterion. (video 6:14, 6:31, 7:19 and following) Father continues to emphasize that we do not determine good and evil.

By eating of the tree of knowledge, human beings took upon themselves the authority to “know” good and evil in this sense, i.e., to determine the nature of good and evil for themselves.

It is impossible for Adam, the creature, to take upon himself the authority to determine the nature or criterion of good and evil because only the Creator Himself had that Divine authority. Determining is God’s action. Understanding is Adam’s action. The distinction is important.

Yet, that reality did not prevent Adam was choosing to do the “impossible” which did turn out to be impossible. Disobeying God gave Adam the appearance of being like God, but in reality he scorned God which is why he could no longer be free from bodily death which is symbolized by eating the fruit of the Tree of [immortal bodily] Life.

Catholic Bible Dictionary, edited by Scott Hahn
books.google.com/books?id=RVQ1zjMLv8MC&pg=PA923&lpg=PA923&dq=CCC+Tree+of+Life&source=bl&ots=ZnKTXcLFpE&sig=8U1Pbv-KoPrCQqCKpavU7gPpoOE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cUkXU-THNsmGkQeysYDoDQ&ved=0CGAQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=CCC%20Tree%20of%20Life&f=false

(CCC, 396; CCC, 398, CCC, 2084)
Last sentence of CCC, 2084:
“God’s first call and just demand is that man accept Him and worship Him.”
First sentence of CCC, 398:

“In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned Him.”

​

Adam, freely choosing the impossible is why CCC 396 speaks of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as symbolically representing insurmountable limits for the human creature. See Catholic Bible Dictionary link above.

As Fr. Barron points out, this “attitude” is prevalent in our society, steeped as it is in ethical relativism. It also seems the dominant mantra of atheism - to determine what is right or wrong for oneself.

Father’s video was excellent Lent advice. He was warning us not to imitate Adam’s sin. We need to recognize that it is God Who determines good and evil and not ourselves (ethical relativism).

Pardon me, but I did not hear any reference to Adam’s pre-Fall knowledge. It seems to me that Father assumed that the listeners knew the conditions for serious sin; thus there would be no need to go back to an explanation of Adam pre-Fall. Please do correct me if I missed that. I am new at p(name removed by moderator)ointing an interesting point.

Links to* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[grannymh]

Important correction to post 914. Sorry that I missed quoting properly.

The top should be

Originally Posted by Peter Plato forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Fr. Barron’s most recent video addresses this point.

Praise God, I now have sound on my computer and there is this handy bar which I can use to back up so that I can hear interesting points more than once.

youtu.be/Fdmsnbz1-EE

The way he explains “knowledge” in this sense, it functions as a kind of taking it upon or arrogating to oneself the power to determine the nature of good and evil.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It sounded to me that Father was explaining Original Sin which is arrogating to oneself the power to determine the nature of good and evil. God is the criterion of good and evil. Original Sin is choosing oneself as the criterion. (video 6:14, 6:31, 7:19 and following) Father continues to emphasize that we do not determine good and evil.

That is correct, we just think we determine what is good, not that we really do.

 

[fhansen]

We also “know” now. :sad_yes:

Yes, that’s the point; we, along with Adam, know now. Either way I bet that Adam knows better now than he did when merely told; he knows that Father knew best after all. That’s my point. Adam came to experience evil by and as a consequence of his act. Remember that God says, after Adam sinned, that then he (Adam) knew good and evil.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, that’s the point; we, along with Adam, know now. Either way I bet that Adam knows better now than he did when merely told; he knows that Father knew best after all. That’s my point. Adam came to experience evil by and as a consequence of his act. Remember that God says, after Adam sinned, that then he (Adam) knew good and evil.

Sorry for going around in circles But if Adam only knew good and evil after he sinned then it wasn’t a fair test God had allowed happen, imo.
To me, to be tested on something, you need to aleast know both sides of a test, then you can choose which way you prefer.
If adam didn’t know good and evil and the consequence of his action (death) then he wasn’t as close to God as our church states.

God created the first man a rational being, but his sin has numerous consequences along with death we are told.
Was Adam as rational as we thought, but then this makes him out to be less than perfect which we are told he was, (Original holiness and justice)?
If as you say he lacked wisdom, could he have lacked rationalilty also?

 

[fhansen]

Sorry for going around in circles But if Adam only knew good and evil after he sinned then it wasn’t a fair test God had allowed happen, imo.
To me, to be tested on something, you need to aleast know both sides of a test, then you can choose which way you prefer.
If adam didn’t know good and evil and the consequence of his action (death) then he wasn’t as close to God as our church states.

God created the first man a rational being, but his sin has numerous consequences along with death we are told.
Was Adam as rational as we thought, but then this makes him out to be less than perfect which we are told he was, (Original holiness and justice)?
If as you say he lacked wisdom, could he have lacked rationalilty also?

We can lack the wisdom.to use our rational faculty properly.And original justice doesn’t necessarily imply perfection IMO because OJ is a gift of grace while perfection would include the willingness to stay within that grace, with God, which Adam refused to do. And remember that the Church teaches that God created His universe in a state of journeying to perfection.

 

[simpleas]

We can lack the wisdom.to use our rational faculty properly.And original justice doesn’t necessarily imply perfection IMO because OJ is a gift of grace while perfection would include the willingness to stay within that grace, with God, which Adam refused to do. And remember that the Church teaches that God created His universe in a state of journeying to perfection.

Thanks.
Yes we can now lack wisdom, rationality etc, but Adam and Eve were without this default, if you like, before the sin.
They must have been highly intelligent, because they believed they could be like God.
Humanilty fell into so much chaos from one man’s sin.
I agree with the state of journey to perfection, but think it should be back to perfection in humanity’s case if we were once like that.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks.
Yes we can now lack wisdom, rationality etc, but Adam and Eve were without this default, if you like, before the sin.
They must have been highly intelligent, because they believed they could be like God.
Humanilty fell into so much chaos from one man’s sin.
I agree with the state of journey to perfection, but think it should be back to perfection in humanity’s case if we were once like that.

“Highly intelligent” is a relative quality, though, not the same as perfectly intelligent, or omni=intelligent or omniscient. The problem with saying that Adam was perfect, in the way you seem to mean it, is that it leaves us with a burning question: If Adam was perfect, and his sin therefore totally inexcusable,* why then did Adam sin*? Was it because he was bad? But that wouldn’t be possible, would it, because God created nothing bad. But He *did *create things less-than-perfect, in a state where then can perfect themselves, with His help, on their journey.

The more I think about it the more it seems right to me that, if Adam had instead reached out and partaken of the other tree, the Tree of Life, then he would’ve been approaching perfection directly, because he would’ve been opening himself to the source of life, the life of God, his Perfecter. Instead Adam placed us on a circuitous route, ultimately leading, as we’re willing, back to that Tree.

And this is why it makes sense to me to say that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil gained for Adam the direct* experience*-the intuitive knowledge, or “knowingness”-of evil, a knowledge which would’ve been completely out of sync with and unnecessary in Adam’s innocence. It’s like knowing that lying is wrong because we’re given that knowledge as part of our nature- and yet some manage to override this innate “command” nonetheless, but hopefully learning in the long run, via time and experience, that harming ones neighbor is to harm one’s universe; every sin diminishes the quality of our existence in one way or another, besides offending God as well.

 

[grannymh]

For general information.

The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden should not be confused with getting or having or partaking of God’s life because God has never been a tree.

 

[fhansen]

For general information.

The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden should not be confused with getting or having or partaking of God’s life because God has never been a tree.

I agree that He’s not necessarily that tree but still your statement is a bit strange to me, if not somewhat short-sighted, in light of the fact that 1) the Catechism teaches that figurative language is employed in Gen 3, and 2) the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, in fact, is symbolic- symbolic in this case of man’s limitations, and 3) God tells us in John 15:5 that He’s a vine (literally or figuratively?) and in Rev 2 that “To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” Who are we to partake of in order to have life and life eternal? John 6 is certainly literal.

But the real point of what I said is to suggest that Adam probably couldn’t remain neutral forever; the Tree of Life was there for a reason-as an* option*-but eating of it represented the option of growing near to God while eating of the other Tree the option of departing from Him.

 

[grannymh]

I agree that He’s not necessarily that tree but still your statement is a bit strange to me, if not somewhat short-sighted, in light of the fact that 1) the Catechism teaches that figurative language is employed in Gen 3, and 2) the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, in fact, is symbolic- symbolic in this case of man’s limitations, and 3) God tells us in John 15:5 that He’s a vine (literally or figuratively?) and in Rev 2 that “To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” Who are we to partake of in order to have life and life eternal? John 6 is certainly literal.

But the real point of what I said is to suggest that Adam probably couldn’t remain neutral forever; the Tree of Life was there for a reason-as an* option*-but eating of it represented the option of growing near to God while eating of the other Tree the option of departing from Him.

The Tree of Life has been used to symbolize many different things in Scripture.

In the CCC, section Man in Paradise, paragraphs 374-376, we learn that as long as Adam remained in the state of Original Holiness via his obedience, he would have God’s gift of immortality. (Genesis 2: 15-17) Human immortality is symbolized by the Tree of Life.

In Genesis 3: 21-24, God again recognizes Adam’s Original Sin which is why he could no longer be free from bodily death. Original Sin took away Adam’s gift of immortality. He would no longer be able to take fruit from the Tree of Life and consequently live forever (human immortality).

This link goes to the page in the Catholic Bible Dictionary, edited by Scott Hahn, where there is the symbolism for both the tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. The web site will not allow me to copy the information.
books.google.com/books?id=RVQ1zjMLv8MC&pg=PA923&lpg=PA923&dq=CCC+Tree+of+Life&source=bl&ots=ZnKTXcLFpE&sig=8U1Pbv-KoPrCQqCKpavU7gPpoOE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cUkXU-THNsmGkQeysYDoDQ&ved=0CGAQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=CCC%20Tree%20of%20Life&f=false

The Tree of Life information contains a list of where this symbol appears in Scripture and also the particular meaning of it in that particular place in Scripture. That is very interesting.

Another source on Google wonders why did Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when they could freely eat from the Tree of Life?
It has some interesting personal insights. Scroll up to the beginning of this excerpt.
books.google.com/books?id=TFML2HYN8j0C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=CCC+Tree+of+Life&source=bl&ots=4tJwwQQkDI&sig=B4P4NUdteyIZWz9jQDqudgRDufI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t8wbU_vUG5HGkQfJgYGADw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=CCC%20Tree%20of%20Life&f=false

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sorry for going around in circles But if Adam only knew good and evil after he sinned then it wasn’t a fair test God had allowed happen, imo.
To me, to be tested on something, you need to aleast know both sides of a test, then you can choose which way you prefer.

It isn’t clear to me that the episode can fairly be characterized as a “test.” There is no reason for thinking it was intended to be. I think the allegorical nature of the story makes it appear that way after the fact, but that is more a function of the story rather than the underlying reality of the choice between good and evil.

Recall that God is Being itself, Goodness itself, so the choice of Adam and Eve can best be characterized as between “God” and “not God” and they chose, in this instance, “not God.”

If adam didn’t know good and evil and the consequence of his action (death) then he wasn’t as close to God as our church states.

I’m not sure what to make of this point.

Would we say that someone cannot truly be “a friend” unless they are or, at least, can choose to be an enemy? Only love another if they can hold open the possibility of hating?
I’m just not sure why that would be so.

Jesus said we were to love God, with our whole heart, mind, and being. This would seem to imply that a kind of fully integrated possibility for choosing and acting (purity of heart, guileless, not having a duplicitous nature, integrity) is the wholesome ideal.

God created the first man a rational being, but his sin has numerous consequences along with death we are told.
Was Adam as rational as we thought, but then this makes him out to be less than perfect which we are told he was, (Original holiness and justice)?
If as you say he lacked wisdom, could he have lacked rationalilty also?

The word is “irrational.” Just because a person is eminently rational or wise, does not mean they cannot choose to act irrationally or unwise. He may have been perfectly rational or wise, but chose, in this instance, to act contrary to his best thinking. Will is a different faculty from the intellect. Reason is not “causal” in the way material effects follow from the conditions that bring them about. Having a reason for, not even a strong reason for, does not “cause” a concordant behaviour. That would be part of the nature of being a person and not a molecule or chemical compound.

 

[fhansen]

The Tree of Life has been used to symbolize many different things in Scripture.

In the CCC, section Man in Paradise, paragraphs 374-376, we learn that as long as Adam remained in the state of Original Holiness via his obedience, he would have God’s gift of immortality. (Genesis 2: 15-17) Human immortality is symbolized by the Tree of Life.

In Genesis 3: 21-24, God again recognizes Adam’s Original Sin which is why he could no longer be free from bodily death. Original Sin took away Adam’s gift of immortality. He would no longer be able to take fruit from the Tree of Life and consequently live forever (human immortality).

This link goes to the page in the Catholic Bible Dictionary, edited by Scott Hahn, where there is the symbolism for both the tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. The web site will not allow me to copy the information.
books.google.com/books?id=RVQ1zjMLv8MC&pg=PA923&lpg=PA923&dq=CCC+Tree+of+Life&source=bl&ots=ZnKTXcLFpE&sig=8U1Pbv-KoPrCQqCKpavU7gPpoOE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cUkXU-THNsmGkQeysYDoDQ&ved=0CGAQ6AEwDA#v=onepage&q=CCC%20Tree%20of%20Life&f=false

The Tree of Life information contains a list of where this symbol appears in Scripture and also the particular meaning of it in that particular place in Scripture. That is very interesting.

Another source on Google wonders why did Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil when they could freely eat from the Tree of Life?
It has some interesting personal insights. Scroll up to the beginning of this excerpt.
books.google.com/books?id=TFML2HYN8j0C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=CCC+Tree+of+Life&source=bl&ots=4tJwwQQkDI&sig=B4P4NUdteyIZWz9jQDqudgRDufI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t8wbU_vUG5HGkQfJgYGADw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=CCC%20Tree%20of%20Life&f=false

I read the links. It’s interesting that there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of speculation in Catholic literature regarding the trees as far as I know, especially the tree of life. And even on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there’s relatively little official doctrine. But in any case the Catholic Bible Dictionary aligns with my thoughts, and those of an ECF or two I’m aware of, where it speaks of the fruit of the tree being the Eucharist; by eating of the tree A&E would’ve partaken of God directly. And this partaking is, of course, the very source of our life.

The second link, which I liked the best if only because it spoke more extensively on the subject, also related the theory of the fruit of the tree being the Eucharist but it went further yet, with the notion that Jesus was recognized as the fulfilled tree of life when He was met on the road to Emmaus, a comment apparently stemming from Joseph Ratzinger going by the footnotes, which doesn’t surprise me. That same book also emphasizes my thought that A&E were not merely to abstain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil but also were given the opportunity to* choose life *by eating of the tree of life.

Additionally that book tells us that the Hebrew word for “know” in the story means “knowledge or understanding gained by experience”, referring to the knowledge to be gained by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The author then goes on to ask: “Would Adam and Eve trust God and the knowledge He gave them, or would they seek independent verification on their own?”

An interesting question came to me from a priest after I mentioned to him Aquinas’s teaching that A&E did not experience the Beatific Vision in Eden. The priest asked, “If Adam & Eve had not sinned, would Jesus have still needed to come?” And, if the answer is “yes”, then A&E must not have experienced the BV in Eden. I didn’t get a chance to follow up with him then as we both had to run but I presume this would be so because the Beatific Vision is all man could ever want or need and no more would need to occur; they would already “possess” or know Jesus in the fullest way possible.

 

[fhansen]

Fr. Barron’s most recent video addresses this point.

youtu.be/Fdmsnbz1-EE

The way he explains “knowledge” in this sense, it functions as a kind of taking it upon or arrogating to oneself the power to determine the nature of good and evil.

God alone brings into being those things which are conceived or “known” to him. This is a kind of creative knowledge wherein things are or exist as they do because they are known by God.

By eating of the tree of knowledge, human beings took upon themselves the authority to “know” good and evil in this sense, i.e., to determine the nature of good and evil for themselves.

As Fr. Barron points out, this “attitude” is prevalent in our society, steeped as it is in ethical relativism. It also seems the dominant mantra of atheism - to determine what is right or wrong for oneself.

Thanks for that link to Fr Barron. He has some great insights on Original Sin along with his other teachings.

 

[grannymh]

I read the links. It’s interesting that there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of speculation in Catholic literature regarding the trees as far as I know, especially the tree of life. And even on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil there’s relatively little official doctrine. But in any case the Catholic Bible Dictionary aligns with my thoughts, and those of an ECF or two I’m aware of, where it speaks of the fruit of the tree being the Eucharist; by eating of the tree A&E would’ve partaken of God directly. And this partaking is, of course, the very source of our life.

I put in bold a questionable timetable.

Your personal opinions are yours . However, may I respectfully point out that the Gospel of John, chapter 6 on the Eucharist did not take place in the Garden of Eden. In fact, Jesus was born centuries later. One can speak of the Tree of Life in relationship to the Cross of Christ. However, the real historical event did not happen when Adam and Eve were alive and eating.

 

[fhansen]

I put in bold a questionable timetable.

Your personal opinions are yours . However, may I respectfully point out that the Gospel of John, chapter 6 on the Eucharist did not take place in the Garden of Eden. In fact, Jesus was born centuries later. One can speak of the Tree of Life in relationship to the Cross of Christ. However, the real historical event did not happen when Adam and Eve were alive and eating.

Yes, and that wasn’t Ratzinger’s point which should go without saying. His point was that the Tree of Life, whether viewed as the Cross or as Jesus, Himself, in person on the road to Emmaus or in the form of the Eucharist, was in existence at both events. Jesus was present in the garden in some manner in any case.

And while this is all speculation either way, it’s speculation about a figure which is mentioned in Genesis for a purpose, a purpose I’ve yet to hear your own speculation about BTW, other than a dogmatic sounding statement in post #922. In my own case I only mentioned that Tree as an aside in post #921, the preceding part of the post being the main response to simpleas’s comments.

But IMO it might be profitable for you to take some time to study the second link a bit. The discussion of the Hebrew term “yada” and how it applies to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil might be enlightening as well as the author’s idea of the role the Tree of Life may have played had A&E eaten of it instead, since you seem to be somewhat interested in that particular plant which God placed in Eden.