I reject that Jesus was not who He said He was and I reject atheistic, materialistic evolution that denies the existance of a loving God…
Please show me the “massive, indisputable evidence that… Adam never existed.” (Hint: there isn’t any.)
Why is this a devolution?
He did. He just phrased it in ways that would make sense to a 1st century Palestinian Jew who had a very good knowledge of his history and of the Scriptures. Those who have neither at their command will naturally not recognize the claims Jesus made. I’d recommend Brant Pitre’s book “The Case for Jesus” for more details.
He doesn’t, and the Church has taught that is not the case. In his encyclical Humani generis, Pope Pius XII taught:
So, in a very literal way, the Church says “no” to the notion that Adam wasn’t real, as well as to the notion that Adam merely “represents” a population of humans.
With all due respect, I think you misunderstand what ‘original sin’ is. Our first human parents (let’s call them “Adam” and “Eve”, ok?) committed personal sin. The guilt of that first sin belongs to them and them alone. However, that first sin had consequences to human nature. Those consequences are passed down to all their progeny (including you and me). To steal a line from the catechism, original sin is ‘sin’ by analogy only. (See the catechism at #404 for more details.)
I’m not basing my thesis on Jewish belief, but on Christian belief.
Allegory / anthropomorphism. Not literal.
I’ll defer responding until I see your response to the discussion of what original sin actually is.
The Bible doesn’t teach this. Neither Adam nor Eve were created ‘ex nihilo’, according to the Genesis accounts.
Well I guess that it would be best to first mention that I am not trying to argue for any specific position regarding this claim. I was merely hypothesizing possible objective responses to your argument.
No offense taken. I think my articulation of original sin is perhaps the best way to clarify it. I think the notion of original sin is often complicated and misunderstood. People just view it as a sin committed by the first humans and that the sin itself is distant to us even if the effects are proximate. It is true that the first sin belongs to Adam and Eve. But we all share in original sin by our own fallen nature, yes caused by our first parents, but still our sin as well. We all “grasp for the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.” It’s why St. Paul writes that Jesus did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but rather emptied Himself.
Yes, but the idea that a redeemer is needed despite a rejection of original sin exists. So, your premise isn’t true. Maybe your conclusion is true, but it cannot be derived from your argument stated above.
Perhaps like Adam and Eve?
Sure, but in doing so, he specifically mentions the point you raised and identifies it as untenable in a Catholic context.
No. “Original sin” is “fallen nature.” Nothing more. And certainly not our personal sin.
In context, it works.
LOL!
The Church teaches us.
I’d nuance that a little. There are historical truths being presented in Genesis 1-3, although they’re not being presented literally, but rather, allegorically. The truths are still true.
So, you can’t ask me “why” unless you first understand “what”.
The word evolution may not be in Scriptures but creation is, God breathed is…
When did Jesus say evolution is true?
In all charity, I think I will believe God rather than an anonymous poster on the internet.
This is what is possible,but if it leads you to disbelief in God then you are following the wrong scientists.
Original sin did enter the world when our ancestors, Adam and Eve sinned.
Eh, I would caution on the language. I think that this view is hypothetically tenable in a Catholic context. I don’t think its current form is tenable yet. And maybe it never will be. But I wouldn’t shut the door on it completely as definitive just yet.
I think there is certainly more to it. Our fallen nature is a consequence of original sin, not original sin in itself. And while you are correct that it is not our personal sin, we do “share” in original sin when we fail to trust in God. When we are Baptized, we are cleansed of original sin, but we do not lose the consequences of original sin. We are linked with our first parents. Original sin is more “personal” (for a lack of better word) than we may commonly think. It is not some distant sin that has no effect on us. It clearly affects us. The question is “how?” I’m proposing one way to look at it similar to how St. Paul described. We are born with a difficulty in trusting God.
In what context? When we look at the claims themselves, they certainly do not objectively hold up to scrutiny. One doesn’t need to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to believe in original sin and one doesn’t need to believe in original sin to believe that we need a savior. But like I said, I’m not going to argue your conclusion.
That is absolutely true. But the Church has traditionally taught that the story is figurative, even if we affirm that we have actual first parents. I think that many people easily misread the Book of Genesis, especially using a fundamentalist approach. It’s easy to misread any book without the context. And it’s honestly hard to understand the context without engaging in a comprehensive study of it. I’ll admit, I have a theology degree and I still don’t understand much of the Bible. It’s a lifelong journey I guess.
The first eleven chapters of Genesis are called “Primordial History.” I’d caution on trying to look for anything historical in those chapters. That is not to say that historical truths cannot be known in those sections; they certainly teach us about the context surrounding the authors and their times. The historical accounts really begin in chapter twelve.
I think that the issue of monogenism vs polygenism is one the Church is grappling with, and one that the Church will take up again in time. What Humani Generis says is interesting. I am not disagreeing with your characterization (which is accurate), but the exact words are notable:
The bolding is mine. This is a very interesting way to phrase the issue. Pope Benedict wrote about original sin and how it may be reconciled with modern science - this is in one of his books, and before he was Pope. (The exact passage escapes me at the moment.)
It’s a papal teaching in an encyclical, @Mountie. At worst, it’s authoritative. There’s a certain requirement on us Catholics there.
No. Fallen nature (i.e., ‘original sin’) is a consequence of the first sin of Adam and Eve. I still get the feeling that you’re calling their sin “original sin”, and it’s not.
Except that this is precisely the doctrinal teaching of the Church.
No – you only claimed that Jesus might still have become incarnate, even in the absence of sin. All speculation aside, that wouldn’t be an appearance as ‘savior’.
Yep. Fair enough. Literal two first ensouled human parents. Call them what you wish, but the Church has – and continues to – teach that they were real.
So do I, and it seems to me to be a whole lot less sketchy than you’re making it out to be.
By “historical”, do we mean “things that really happened”? Or do you really mean to say literal? I’d go with the first, rather than the second.
Strawman argument. Take out “literal” and the Church does say that.
Umm… that would have been because he was making the argument that they showed evidence of rationality (and therefore, of an immaterial, immortal soul), right? We’re not making the case that Jesus died for chimps and dolphins… right?
Easy peasy: intellect and will. Immaterial, immortal soul.
It is certainly true that there is a certain requirement. We are obligated to at least seriously consider it. However, there are varying degrees of authority. The decrees of an ecumenical council, for example, are doctrinal. Encyclicals, while taken serious, are typically at a lower level.
Adam and Eve’s sin is original sin. I think you are mixing up the action with the consequence. You cannot substitute in every context “fallen nature” for “original sin.” Concupiscence, which is our inclination to sin, is a consequence of the sin of our first parents.
That is not the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches that we have first parents. The Church has not dogmatically declared that Adam and Eve are two literal historical people.
How do you explain every Jew who has waited for the Messiah? Why are they waiting for a savior if they do not believe in original sin?
I think that it’s a relatively clear insight. Genesis 2-3 is a figurative story about human nature. Pharisaic Jews await a Messiah. I’m not someone who is drawing extra-biblical insights from the story that is not in alignment with Catholic biblical scholarship. That isn’t to accuse you of doing so, but to show I haven’t said anything that should be controversial to any Catholic or scholar. In fact, I’m reiterating what I learned in my 100 level theology undergraduate theology class.
Can you cite the Church document that claims that? Genesis 1-11 are not historical accounts by any means. In fact, they are largely copies of other holy texts from the Levant, re-written with Jewish theology.
Exactly that.
Animals certainly have a will. What do you define as intellect? Some animals act with moral considerations. Others problem solves. And some use tools. Chimps have shown to do all three, but I don’t think you would claim that they possess a rational soul. Or at least, I personally am not willing to bite that bullet yet.
Hi Adam. I’m Zaccheus and I’m ::inarticulatemumble:: years of age.
I don’t agree. It’s quite possible God used evolution to produce all the other life forms but used Special creation to create the first man and the first woman.
Individual variations, however, have been disproven from time to time. Also: “not proven false” =/= “positively proven true”.
Because God said so, and if it was possible for God to lie then we couldn’t trust anything He has told us.
Also this.
First: the evidence is massive and indisputable in your opinion. Second there are many versions and variations of the general theory. It’s possible for one or more to be true and the rest false.
Not in the Catholic Church. There were no pre-Adamite humans. Nor were there any alternate genetic lines. Every human being is a direct descendent of Adam and Eve.
“I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
You accept Noah as historical but reject Adam?
Lower than a conciliar document, to be sure. Right below it, though. So, I would say that “there is a certain requirement” is really, really tap dancing around the question. By that description, it would seem that you’re saying “yeah, I get it that this is a formal papal explanation of doctrine, but this is really a lower level communication that I only have a certain requirement to listen to…”
No. It’s not. It’s the “first sin”, but “original sin” is what we inherit. I thought you were getting those confused!
I think that, to an extent, you can, but I get what you’re saying. In any case, “fallen nature” and “original sin” conflate a whole lot better than “original sin” and “the personal sin of Adam and Eve” do!
If you say so.
You’re seriously asking that? Really?
Agreed. Yet, you’re downplaying Catholic teaching.
That’s not the reassuring statement that I think you think it is.
Sure. The Catechism:Gorgias:
Can you cite the Church document that claims that?TMC:
Strawman argument. Take out “literal” and the Church does say that.
“affirms a primeval event… that took place at the beginning of the history of man.” Literal history, expressed in a figurative narrative.
We keep talking past one another. There are historical facts mentioned in Gen 1-11, but not in literal narratives. Was there a first sin? Yep; literally. Was there a flood (possibly super-regional)? Yep, there seems to be evidence of that.
This conversation may have just jumped the shark. The kind of speculative theology you’re peddling might be fun in certain corners of the Church, but it’s not mainstream Catholic thought.
There’s been a lot of discussion about that kind of topic around here. It would come down to the question “what do you mean by ‘animal will’?” I would nuance that slightly: animals certainly make choices; they do not have free will, however.