Adam's Choice to Remain with Eve--The keeping of a commandment and blessing.

  • Thread starter Thread starter ParkerD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, the question becomes what Eve thought they needed versus what she had been told were her choices, and what her experiences had already led her to find out in the course of her life up to that point. She didn’t have wisdom at that point, nor reason to believe it would descend upon her along with the attribute of “joy” without her doing something to receive those qualities into her life along with Adam.

My point is that Adam being a “status quo” individual would have said to Eve, “wait–we have everything we need right here–don’t seek more than what we already have” and she could innately feel that that was not correct.

Again, what evidence that “God would have provided them what they needed” given that He had indeed provided them a tree with fruit about the knowledge of good and evil, but had given them a choice about eating that fruit and that led to consequences that brought the opportunities for experience, wisdom, and joy to humankind?
This is just your speculation regarding how Adam and Eve were evaluating their situation. My point is that Eve didn’t ASK God before she partook of the fruit. Eating of the fruit was not 1 of 2 equally acceptable options. It was a commandment that Adam & Eve broke.
Again, she had a whole set of commandments and a few teachings, one of which was that they should “leave father and mother, and be one flesh”. If she has been told to leave her father (which she had been told) then why not be able to figure out that this leaving of her father means that she will be out of the presence of her father and that such an experience will offer the opportunity of gaining wisdom by making choices?
Every daughter who leaves the home of her parents, has to decide whether by leaving her parents she is expressing love to them or is expressing selfishness. If she thinks only that such a decision is expressing selfishness, then I think she does not really understand love or the love of a parent for their child. What parent (besides one who is self-centered enough to want to either protect their child from the outside world or to keep that child at home because that child happens to bring happiness to the parent) is not happy when that child leaves home, begins a marriage with a companion chosen by God, and begins experiencing life away from home?
I have said all along that Eve did not express not loving God by partaking the forbidden fruit, nor did God say “now I know you don’t trust me or trust my commandments”.
God never said “Eve, now I know you really don’t love me.” He said in so many words, "Eve, here are the consequences that I had promised you would receive (actually, more consequences but ones consistent with what I had promised to you and Adam).
I don’t believe I ever said that Eve didn’t still love God or feel sorrow for her sin. Or that God didn’t love her anymore because of her sin. 🤷

And Eve did not need to “leave” God to experience companionship with Adam. God is certainly a part of my marriage and I didn’t/don’t need to leave Him to experience anything with my husband.
Go ahead and describe their alternate reality, including the kinds of choices they could make and the kind of joy they could experience, and explain why it is not the comparative joy and decision-making of a five-year-old or a seven-year-old.
How would you expect me to describe what the alternate reality before the fall would have been if the fall had never taken place. :rolleyes: You have no evidence that it would be comparative to a 5 or 7 year old. Just as I don’t have any evidence that it would not. You are making assumptions.
Wait–I don’t think I need to go into a discussion about what a menstrual cycle is, since that is taught in schools or can be researched in an encyclopedia. (Hint: It begins with a living egg cell, and something happens to that egg cell.)
No, you obviously don’t need to go into the details. I am very familiar with the whole process. 😉 But, that still doesn’t support your theory that Eve couldn’t have children unless she sinned.

I am guessing that you are theorizing that because the egg cell dies if it is not fertilized and there was no “death” in the Garden of Eden that Eve could not have children. ??? However, skin cells (as well as other body cells) also die and are regenerated through normal physical processes. Unless you are going to contend that Adam & Eve were somehow physically different than the rest of us.
 
Jay53,
Good morning. It seems we’re “getting nowhere” by trying to explain points of view or to probe the other point of view being expressed. For example, I don’t think there is evidence that Eve had not asked God for wisdom, although as I had noted she may have been perceptive enough to realize that she already had an answer from God about that issue, and thus it would be an affront to ask for another answer or a different answer.

The stem cell thing really shows how profoundly we disagree as to the nature of breaking one commandment with specific consequences given at the time the commandment was given, versus “thou shalt not kill” which is totally selfish, robs life, robs freedom, and of course is the greatest of all affronts one could give to God and His creations in that it attempts to destroy His creations and to destroy His plan of happiness for His creations.

I don’t know how else to explain in such a way that you will be able to move any slightest degree from your basic premises that you began with, which were assumptions you have brought with you into the reading of the text of Genesis.

Have a great day.
 
Jay53,
Good morning. It seems we’re “getting nowhere” by trying to explain points of view or to probe the other point of view being expressed. For example, I don’t think there is evidence that Eve had not asked God for wisdom, although as I had noted she may have been perceptive enough to realize that she already had an answer from God about that issue, and thus it would be an affront to ask for another answer or a different answer.

The stem cell thing really shows how profoundly we disagree as to the nature of breaking one commandment with specific consequences given at the time the commandment was given, versus “thou shalt not kill” which is totally selfish, robs life, robs freedom, and of course is the greatest of all affronts one could give to God and His creations in that it attempts to destroy His creations and to destroy His plan of happiness for His creations.

I don’t know how else to explain in such a way that you will be able to move any slightest degree from your basic premises that you began with, which were assumptions you have brought with you into the reading of the text of Genesis.

Have a great day.
Fair enough. However, I would also contend that you are equally bringing your own assumptions along with the twisting of scriptures provided by Joseph Smith into your interpretations.

The fact that you cannot see how any sin or breaking of a commandment is an affront to God does indeed show how profoundly we disagree. You still seem to think that somehow “wisdom” or “gaining wisdom” is an acceptable reason to turn away from God and break His commandments.

I would also still contend that God did not give the “eating of the tree” as a viable “option” or “choice”. He specifically said “Do not eat…” in the same way He tells us “Thou shalt not kill.”, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” etc. Just because* you* think the ends justify the means does not mean that breaking that commandment is any different than breaking any other one. 🤷

Hope you have a great day, too.
 
Fair enough. However, I would also contend that you are equally bringing your own assumptions along with the twisting of scriptures provided by Joseph Smith into your interpretations.

The fact that you cannot see how any sin or breaking of a commandment is an affront to God does indeed show how profoundly we disagree. You still seem to think that somehow “wisdom” or “gaining wisdom” is an acceptable reason to turn away from God and break His commandments.

I would also still contend that God did not give the “eating of the tree” as a viable “option” or “choice”. He specifically said “Do not eat…” in the same way He tells us “Thou shalt not kill.”, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” etc. Just because* you* think the ends justify the means does not mean that breaking that commandment is any different than breaking any other one. 🤷

Hope you have a great day, too.
Jay53,
Contrarily, I think it is an affront to God and an affront to the teachings of the New Testament about Christ as well as an affront to the law of sacrifice in the Old Testament, for anyone to think that God expected Adam and Eve to be perfect and their posterity to be perfect just as Christ was perfect. Here Christ was more incredibly gifted than any other Person born into the world–yet the standard you are holding everyone else up to is the standard that only He could accomplish! It is an impossible standard for anyone else besides Christ!

Here also, Christ is revealed as “Alpha and Omega”, the Beginning and the End, which shows to anyone who cares to think about what that means, that He was known about by God when God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden of Eden and pronounced everything that He had made “very good.” (Genesis 1:31) One would realize that these words “very good” include Adam and Eve since “male and female created he them” and gave them the commandment to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion…” (Genesis 1:27-28)

They did not all of a sudden become “very bad” at the point that Eve made a choice that had been given to them as an opportunity to gain wisdom through experiencing a life of choices between good and evil and a life of hardship, pain, and adversity to also be able to gain wisdom and greater love from those sufferings and difficulties (like a muscle grows by exertion–no exertion, no growth).

How in the world does any Catholic really express the belief that God is omniscient (or maybe they don’t think God is omniscient?) yet that He did not know ahead of time that Eve was going to make the choice that was going to match her personality, when He had created her and given her the choice in the first place?

Why is there no tree of knowledge of good and evil for us to decide to partake of or not, if one thinks God is punishing us for something Eve did? How is that fair of a God who is a just God?

You see, scriptures I have shown from Genesis did not have to be “twisted” yet you have brought into the text words that are not there, in order to explain your beliefs about what God did and what God intended. The text says what the text says. Moses was given to write by inspiration the words he wrote to describe what happened including thought processes of Eve and the very important phrase “to be with me” that Adam stated was his reasoning for eating the forbidden fruit. Yet you evidently believe Adam had not the slightest mercy given to him in his decision making, when he clearly had a dilemma facing him because he had conflicting commandments at that point when he made his decision to go with Eve and be with her.

Do Catholics really think God is this much of a “bungling God”, to think that He would place a tree with fruit of the knowledge of good and evil knowing full well that that fruit was going to be partaken of by Eve, and not having already planned a situation (the coming of Christ) that was going to bring good to the world from that situation that He knew ahead of time was likely to happen?

Here we’re coming up on Easter, a wonderful celebration of Christ’s victory over death, yet you are evidently saying Christ was an afterthought and His life should not have been needed in this world created by God?

Have a joyful Easter, anyway.
 
Jay53,
Contrarily, I think it is an affront to God and an affront to the teachings of the New Testament about Christ as well as an affront to the law of sacrifice in the Old Testament, for anyone to think that God expected Adam and Eve to be perfect and their posterity to be perfect just as Christ was perfect. Here Christ was more incredibly gifted than any other Person born into the world–yet the standard you are holding everyone else up to is the standard that only He could accomplish! It is an impossible standard for anyone else besides Christ!
And yet Christ asks us to do just that. (Matthew 5:48)
Here also, Christ is revealed as “Alpha and Omega”, the Beginning and the End, which shows to anyone who cares to think about what that means, that He was known about by God when God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden of Eden and pronounced everything that He had made “very good.” (Genesis 1:31) One would realize that these words “very good” include Adam and Eve since “male and female created he them” and gave them the commandment to “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion…” (Genesis 1:27-28)
Because Jesus IS God. Of course He was there from the beginning. 🤷
They did not all of a sudden become “very bad” at the point that Eve made a choice that had been given to them as an opportunity to gain wisdom through experiencing a life of choices between good and evil and a life of hardship, pain, and adversity to also be able to gain wisdom and greater love from those sufferings and difficulties (like a muscle grows by exertion–no exertion, no growth).
I did not say that they became “very bad”. I said that they were tempted and disobeyed God. They thought “wisdom” was something they needed and didn’t trust God to give it to them. So they chose to break God’s commandment not to eat of the fruit.
How in the world does any Catholic really express the belief that God is omniscient (or maybe they don’t think God is omniscient?) yet that He did not know ahead of time that Eve was going to make the choice that was going to match her personality, when He had created her and given her the choice in the first place?
Why is there no tree of knowledge of good and evil for us to decide to partake of or not, if one thinks God is punishing us for something Eve did? How is that fair of a God who is a just God?
Just because God is omniscient does not mean that we still don’t have free will.
You see, scriptures I have shown from Genesis did not have to be “twisted” yet you have brought into the text words that are not there, in order to explain your beliefs about what God did and what God intended. The text says what the text says. Moses was given to write by inspiration the words he wrote to describe what happened including thought processes of Eve and the very important phrase “to be with me” that Adam stated was his reasoning for eating the forbidden fruit. Yet you evidently believe Adam had not the slightest mercy given to him in his decision making, when he clearly had a dilemma facing him because he had conflicting commandments at that point when he made his decision to go with Eve and be with her.
What you are twisting is the interpretations of those words. And I believe you do so based on all the other erroneous things you were taught by Joseph Smith. You need to have certain interpretations of scripture to fit what he believed and taught.
Do Catholics really think God is this much of a “bungling God”, to think that He would place a tree with fruit of the knowledge of good and evil knowing full well that that fruit was going to be partaken of by Eve, and not having already planned a situation (the coming of Christ) that was going to bring good to the world from that situation that He knew ahead of time was likely to happen?
No. 🤷
Here we’re coming up on Easter, a wonderful celebration of Christ’s victory over death, yet you are evidently saying Christ was an afterthought and His life should not have been needed in this world created by God?
Shame on you for this disgusting insinuation! :tsktsk:
I absolutely have NEVER said or even implied that Christ was an “afterthought”. He is God - He IS, WAS and ALWAYS SHALL BE.

I think your defensiveness and passive-aggressiveness are beginning to show again with this post.
 
I realize that I worded two final questions in a way that may have seemed aggressive in my prior post. I was trying to get someone (anyone, or one person) to think “outside of their box”, and really address the issues of whether God really expected Adam and Eve to “be perfect” when He had pronounced His creations as “very good” after He had created them, and He knew about the future coming of Christ into the world to redeem humankind from their sins (meaning He knew that humankind would indeed commit sins and they would thus need to be redeemed).

The only way Christ has asked humankind to “be perfect” is through coming unto Him and accepting His atoning grace and following a path that leads to sanctification, all the while knowing we are going to be less than perfect while on that path toward sanctification. Christ showed no evidence of thinking the apostles needed to be perfect in their lives at the moment in time He said “be ye therefore perfect” (a goal for them for their future), or anyone else, other than believing in Him and believing that He would indeed redeem them from their sins if they had faith and repentance and followed a covenant path.

Christ would offer the same merciful grace to Adam and Eve that He offers to everyone else ever born.

Peace to all, including to Jay53. Have a wonderful and beautiful day.
 
Jay53,
In case it did not come across in my earlier comment, I do apologize for the pointed questions and to anyone including yourself whom I have offended by such questions, but yet I was glad to finally be told that a belief you hold is that God is omniscient and was omniscient about the fall of Eve and Adam. I am grateful to have finally understood that, but it does still result in the question of why there is a belief that this earth would have somehow been vastly different if they “had not partaken” and “had not fallen.” But thanks for that one point of clarification.
 
Go ahead and describe their alternate reality, including the kinds of choices they could make and the kind of joy they could experience, and explain why it is not the comparative joy and decision-making of a five-year-old or a seven-year-old.
I find it both startling and sad that you never experienced joy as a child that was so beyond description that it still echos in the present.
Wait–I don’t think I need to go into a discussion about what a menstrual cycle is, since that is taught in schools or can be researched in an encyclopedia. (Hint: It begins with a living egg cell, and something happens to that egg cell.)
That would be death like hair and nail cells, right.
 
I find it both startling and sad that you never experienced joy as a child that was so beyond description that it still echos in the present.
Hi, Zaffiroborant,
I had long since quoted the words of Wordsworth and agreed with them. I’ll add more of his

“Ode on Intimations of Immortality”:

"There was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,
The earth, and every common sight
To me did seem
Apparelled in celestial light,
The glory and the freshness of a dream.
It is not now as it hath been of yore;–
Turn wheresoe’er I may,
By night or day,
The things which I have seen I now can see no more.
Code:
        The rainbow comes and goes, 
        And lovely is the rose; 
        The moon doth with delight
 Look round her when the heavens are bare;
        Waters on a starry night
        Are beautiful and fair;
 The sunshine is a glorious birth;
 But yet I know, where'er I go,
That there hath past away a glory from the earth.

Now, while the birds thus sing a joyous song,
And while the young lambs bound
As to the tabor’s sound,
To me alone there came a thought of grief:
A timely utterance gave that thought relief,
And I again am strong.
The cataracts blow their trumpets from the steep,–
No more shall grief of mine the season wrong:
I hear the echoes through the mountains throng.
The winds come to me from the fields of sleep,
And all the earth is gay;
Land and sea
Give themselves up to jollity,
And with the heart of May
Doth every beast keep holiday;–
Thou child of joy,
Shout round me, let me hear thy shouts, thou happy
Shepherd-boy!

Ye blesséd Creatures, I have heard the call
Ye to each other make; I see
The heavens laugh with you in your jubilee;
My heart is at your festival,
My head hath its coronal,
The fulness of your bliss, I feel–I feel it all.
O evil day! if I were sullen
While Earth herself is adorning
This sweet May-morning;
And the children are culling
On every side
In a thousand valleys far and wide
Fresh flowers; while the sun shines warm,
And the babe leaps up on his mother’s arm:–
I hear, I hear, with joy I hear!
–But there’s a tree, of many, one,
A single field which I have look’d upon,
Both of them speak of something that is gone:
The pansy at my feet
Doth the same tale repeat:
Whither is fled the visionary gleam?
Where is it now, the glory and the dream?

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;
The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting
And cometh from afar;
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
But he beholds the light, and whence it flows,
He sees it in his joy;
The Youth, who daily farther from the east
Must travel, still is Nature’s priest,
And by the vision splendid
Is on his way attended;
At length the Man perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day."

I certainly did experience that kind of “joy” as a youngster and a child. So have my children, though I didn’t observe that they were as excited about going on hikes as I had been as a child.

But there is a difference between knowledgeable joy–the joy of really understanding our own personality better through having “found it out” by being confronted with needs to make changes, and the joy of interacting with others and watching them overcome challenges in their lives and realize that Christ is helping them do that–than the joy of a child who is delighting in the world of nature and a world to be explored.

I think Gerard Manley Hopkins captured that understanding of “knowledgeable joy” in several of his poems such as “Patience”.

I also think that William Shakespeare showed the difference in works such as “Hamlet”.

So I think great thinkers have explored the difference between “innocent joy” and “knowledgeable joy” and have expressed that there is a difference.

Hopefully, as Wordsworth intimated, we move back during the course of our lives to delighting in nature as we did as a child, but part of being able to do that is when we recognize that “the world is too much with us, late and soon, getting and spending, we lay waste our powers–little we see in Nature that is ours.”

Knowing Christ can help us do that. Then we can become “like a little child” and experience the “newness of life” that Christ described was a part of being “born again.”
That would be death like hair and nail cells, right.
If you think hair and nail cells are just exactly like an egg cell ready to follow the genetic course of its DNA capability to form a life with all its complexities and miracles of the formation of life in the womb, then I guess I see things differently. I think the death of an egg cell is a much different kind of death than the death of a skin cell or a hair cell or a nail cell. I think a woman would also think that there is quite a difference, based on having observed what they go through. (I don’t know that that topic needs to be explored in any more depth, to not make anyone uncomfortable.)

Have a nice day, Zaffiroborant and Jay53.
 
I realize that I worded two final questions in a way that may have seemed aggressive in my prior post. I was trying to get someone (anyone, or one person) to think “outside of their box”, and really address the issues of whether God really expected Adam and Eve to “be perfect” when He had pronounced His creations as “very good” after He had created them, and He knew about the future coming of Christ into the world to redeem humankind from their sins (meaning He knew that humankind would indeed commit sins and they would thus need to be redeemed).

The only way Christ has asked humankind to “be perfect” is through coming unto Him and accepting His atoning grace and following a path that leads to sanctification, all the while knowing we are going to be less than perfect while on that path toward sanctification. Christ showed no evidence of thinking the apostles needed to be perfect in their lives at the moment in time He said “be ye therefore perfect” (a goal for them for their future), or anyone else, other than believing in Him and believing that He would indeed redeem them from their sins if they had faith and repentance and followed a covenant path.

Christ would offer the same merciful grace to Adam and Eve that He offers to everyone else ever born.

Peace to all, including to Jay53. Have a wonderful and beautiful day.
What I have taken from all of your posts is that you believe that God didn’t really expect Adam and Eve to obey His commandment to not eat of the fruit. That it wasn’t really a commandment He gave them, but a choice or option that they could choose or not - and you think they made the wise choice. I guess I’m just not following your logic because you view the “be fruitful and multiply” commandment as a commandment that they HAD to follow, not as a choice that they could or not, but you view the “do not eat…” commandment as a choice. 🤷

As I said previously, if God wanted them to eat of the fruit because that was how He created them and knew that that would be the only way for them to obtain knowledge, then He wouldn’t have made it a commandment to NOT eat of the fruit. God does not desire “sin” or want us to choose sin.

Also, I am not offended by questions. Despite the fact that you put a question mark on your last statement of the earlier post, it was NOT a question, but an attack on my beliefs about Jesus.
Originally Posted by ParkerD Here we’re coming up on Easter, a wonderful celebration of Christ’s victory over death, yet you are evidently saying Christ was an afterthought and His life should not have been needed in this world created by God?
Have a joyful Easter, anyway
You also very snottily added the observation that we are “coming up on Easter”, as if I don’t understand the importance and significance of Easter. :mad: You apologize for asking “pointed questions”, however, as I said, they were NOT questions, despite the fact that you put a question mark on the end. You falsely ascribed a belief to me that I have never expressed or implied and then had the audacity to wish me peace and a happy Easter. That is your passive-aggressiveness at its best.
 
Hi, Zaffiroborant,

I certainly did experience that kind of “joy” as a youngster and a child. So have my children, though I didn’t observe that they were as excited about going on hikes as I had been as a child.

Hopefully, as Wordsworth intimated, we move back during the course of our lives to delighting in nature as we did as a child, but part of being able to do that is when we recognize that “the world is too much with us, late and soon, getting and spending, we lay waste our powers–little we see in Nature that is ours.”

Knowing Christ can help us do that. Then we can become “like a little child” and experience the “newness of life” that Christ described was a part of being “born again.”
Yes nature is delightful and awe inspiring but that’s not what I’m talking about. And I’ve never liked hiking:)
If you think hair and nail cells are just exactly like an egg cell ready to follow the genetic course of its DNA capability to form a life with all its complexities and miracles of the formation of life in the womb, then I guess I see things differently. I think the death of an egg cell is a much different kind of death than the death of a skin cell or a hair cell or a nail cell. I think a woman would also think that there is quite a difference, based on having observed what they go through. (I don’t know that that topic needs to be explored in any more depth, to not make anyone uncomfortable.)

Have a nice day, Zaffiroborant and Jay53.
Yes it’s amazing, and also it’s counterpart. with the same potential to follow it’s genetic course in forming a life. And every day billions of each of these die. Your point with this whole issue seems to be that the egg dies, but when it comes to death egg, sperm, hair and nail cells are all the same.
 
Yes nature is delightful and awe inspiring but that’s not what I’m talking about. And I’ve never liked hiking:)

Yes it’s amazing, and also it’s counterpart. with the same potential to follow it’s genetic course in forming a life. And every day billions of each of these die. Your point with this whole issue seems to be that the egg dies, but when it comes to death egg, sperm, hair and nail cells are all the same.
Then I don’t know what you were talking about in part 1.

In part 2, based on the logic I seem to be seeing, then I guess you think a hair or a nail cell can form a human body if joined with another cell of just the right kind, and that this could be done in any environment without nourishment from a host environment that was carefully prepared as the host environment and goes through a cycle every month that is preparatory to being the host and starts the cycle over again the next month. I know my wife disagrees, since I have asked her about this belief about an egg cell and what she experienced for some thirty or so years (when she was not with child, of which we have eight, so minus 72 months).

It’s OK–we disagree.
 
Then I don’t know what you were talking about in part 1.

In part 2, based on the logic I seem to be seeing, then I guess you think a hair or a nail cell can form a human body if joined with another cell of just the right kind, and that this could be done in any environment without nourishment from a host environment that was carefully prepared as the host environment and goes through a cycle every month that is preparatory to being the host and starts the cycle over again the next month. I know my wife disagrees, since I have asked her about this belief about an egg cell and what she experienced for some thirty or so years (when she was not with child, of which we have eight, so minus 72 months).

It’s OK–we disagree.
No I’m saying if you are coming from a no death stance death is death is death. Millions of sperm cells die every minute with the same potential as the eggs are you just as attached to them, if not why?
 
I hope you don’t mind me putting in my 2 cents here…

I thought I understood the RC Doctrine of the Fall until I read these 15 odd pages of the forum and am now somewhat confused about the Catholic Doctrine of the Fall. So that I don’t misspeak, could you folks contribute to answering some questions I have?
  1. What were the commandments given to Adam and Eve?
  2. What is the RC position of God putting the Forbidden Tree in the Garden? I ask this one because Parker pointed out that it would be very odd for God to put what would be essentially poison, make it attractive (almost addictive) to His two guests there.
  3. Do you believe Jesus was the Christ from the ‘beginning’, i.e., the Alpha and Omega?
  4. Do you believe the Holy Ghost was with The Father and The Son ‘from the Beginning’?
  5. Was Eve in sin for eating of the forbidden fruit?
  6. Was Adam also in transgression?
  7. Do you believe Adam and Eve had children in the Garden before the Fall?
  8. What was the consequence of the Fall?
Thank you for any efforts to help with these questions. Maybe we have more similarities than differences?
 
I realize that I worded two final questions in a way that may have seemed aggressive in my prior post. I was trying to get someone (anyone, or one person) to think “outside of their box”, and really address the issues of whether God really expected Adam and Eve to “be perfect” when He had pronounced His creations as “very good” after He had created them, and He knew about the future coming of Christ into the world to redeem humankind from their sins (meaning He knew that humankind would indeed commit sins and they would thus need to be redeemed).
Adam and Eve were created in original innocence and holiness. God called His creation good, but when he made man he called it “very good”. He also created man with a free will that he would be free to love God. Man was tempted by the evil one and abused this freedom. He turned against God with the intention of attaining his goal of knowledge apart from Him. The result of man’s sin was the weakening of human nature, the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will manifesting in ignorance, suffering, the inclination to sin, and death. The fact that God is omniscient has nothing to do with man’s choice to sin. He chose that of his own free will. Did God expect Adam and Eve to be perfect. Yes, just as he expects us to be perfect. “Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect”. The fact that we fail is our choice, not God’s. He chooses for us to be holy. God didn’t just “know about the future coming of Christ”, He willed it. I wasn’t that things were happening around Him and He just knew about it because He is omniscient. Yes, out of His love for us, He gave His only Son to save us from sin and sent his Holy Spirit to sanctify us (make us holy). Because of Adam’s failure, God sent us a “New Adam”.

“After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. (Gen 3:9,15). This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevegelium (“first gospel”): the announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.” (CCC par 410)

“The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the ‘New Adam’ who, because he ‘became obedient unto death, even death on a cross’, makes amends superabundantly for for the disobedience of Adam. (1 Cor 15:21-22, 45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20) Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevengelium as Mary, mother of Christ, the ‘new Eve’…” (CCC par 411)
The only way Christ has asked humankind to “be perfect” is through coming unto Him and accepting His atoning grace and following a path that leads to sanctification, all the while knowing we are going to be less than perfect while on that path toward sanctification. Christ showed no evidence of thinking the apostles needed to be perfect in their lives at the moment in time He said “be ye therefore perfect” (a goal for them for their future), or anyone else, other than believing in Him and believing that He would indeed redeem them from their sins if they had faith and repentance and followed a covenant path.

Christ would offer the same merciful grace to Adam and Eve that He offers to everyone else ever born.
You say that “Christ showed no evidence of thinking the apostles needed to be perfect in their lives…”. Realizing that the apostles weren’t perfect is not the same as thinking that they didn’t need to be perfect. Yes they did, but they could not. The fact that He realized that He would become flesh and dwell among sinful humans (that is the reason He came; because we are sinful) does not mean that He excuses sinfulness, that in some way it is perfectly ok that we fail. How could He expect us to be perfect and how could He expect Adam and Eve to be perfect? He created us perfect in Adam and Eve. He then commanded them not to sin. The fact that He loves us enough to save us does not mean that He has somehow lowered the bar. God did not cause or will sin into the world even though He knew which choice they would make. Sin entered through the free choice of Adam and Eve and all of creation has suffered since. But God, out of His love for us, gave us a Savior so that we might become perfect in Him.

God bless.

Steve
 
No I’m saying if you are coming from a no death stance death is death is death. Millions of sperm cells die every minute with the same potential as the eggs are you just as attached to them, if not why?
Good point about them also, except that there is not a host environment and a cycle every month that prepares to host the new life. But they certainly do die, and they certainly have more potential for becoming the essential component of life in an eventual independent body than does a skin cell or a nail cell. My point is that there may be something more to the situation that we can read about, inasmuch as Adam and Eve had no children in the garden of Eden (nor do we know how long they were there without children) and also had no death that applied to them. We may be missing an important piece of information about the condition of their bodies before the fall and before their bodies were changed such that their bodies would age and experience death and pain.
 
Adam and Eve were created in original innocence and holiness. God called His creation good, but when he made man he called it “very good”. He also created man with a free will that he would be free to love God. Man was tempted by the evil one and abused this freedom. He turned against God with the intention of attaining his goal of knowledge apart from Him. The result of man’s sin was the weakening of human nature, the darkening of the intellect and the weakening of the will manifesting in ignorance, suffering, the inclination to sin, and death. The fact that God is omniscient has nothing to do with man’s choice to sin. He chose that of his own free will. Did God expect Adam and Eve to be perfect. Yes, just as he expects us to be perfect. “Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect”. The fact that we fail is our choice, not God’s. He chooses for us to be holy. God didn’t just “know about the future coming of Christ”, He willed it. I wasn’t that things were happening around Him and He just knew about it because He is omniscient. Yes, out of His love for us, He gave His only Son to save us from sin and sent his Holy Spirit to sanctify us (make us holy). Because of Adam’s failure, God sent us a “New Adam”.

“After his fall, man was not abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysteriouws way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. (Gen 3:9,15). This passage in Genesis is called the Protoevegelium (“first gospel”): the announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and of the final victory of a descendant of hers.” (CCC par 410)

“The Christian tradition sees in this passage an announcement of the ‘New Adam’ who, because he ‘became obedient unto death, even death on a cross’, makes amends superabundantly for for the disobedience of Adam. (1 Cor 15:21-22, 45; Phil 2:8; Rom 5:19-20) Furthermore many Fathers and Doctors of teh Church have seen the woman announced in the Protoevengelium as Mary, mother of Christ, the ‘new Eve’…” (CCC par 411)

You say that “Christ showed no evidence of thinking the apostles needed to be perfect in their lives…”. The fact that He realized that He would become flesh and dwell among sinful humans (that is the reason He came; because we are sinful) does not mean that He excuses sinfulness, that in some way it is perfectly ok that we fail. How could He expect us to be perfect and how could He expect Adam and Eve to be perfect? He created us perfect in Adam and Eve. He then commanded them not to sin. The fact that He loves us enough to save us does not mean that He has somehow lowered the bar. Adam and Eve possessed all that was taken from them by the serpent. Their intellect was perfect, their will was in line with God’s will, and death was not in their future. They were really super-human before the fall. Sin was certainly not required as part of God’s plan. God did not cause or will sin into the world even though He knew which choice they would make. Sin entered through the free choice of Adam and Eve and all of creation has suffered since.

God bless.

Steve
Hi, SteveVH,
Thanks for sharing a concise and step-by-step explanation of the Catholic teachings on these points of doctrine. My point has been that several of those points are not reflected in the Bible, and are somewhat contradicted by the teachings of Paul in the New Testament. But they do make a lot of sense if one starts with the premise that Adam and Eve were supposed to be perfect at every moment in their lives.

That is why I had asked how the Savior and His being Alpha and Omega and having a pre-planned mission as the Savior, figures into the thinking process that says Adam and Eve and their posterity were supposed to be “perfect.” Why, then, the need for a Savior to atone for sins?

And why if the intent was that they were to have been perfect, didn’t God just let them die and then start over with a new “first couple”? (Within the thinking process that led to the conclusion that they were absolutely and positively and necessarily supposed to be perfect at every moment of their lives?)

(I hope these questions don’t rub anyone the wrong way, and I apologize for already having probed too deeply previously with poorly worded questions.)
 
Hi, SteveVH,
Thanks for sharing a concise and step-by-step explanation of the Catholic teachings on these points of doctrine. My point has been that several of those points are not reflected in the Bible, and are somewhat contradicted by the teachings of Paul in the New Testament. But they do make a lot of sense if one starts with the premise that Adam and Eve were supposed to be perfect at every moment in their lives.

That is why I had asked how the Savior and His being Alpha and Omega and having a pre-planned mission as the Savior, figures into the thinking process that says Adam and Eve and their posterity were supposed to be “perfect.” Why, then, the need for a Savior to atone for sins?
To view the situation as Jesus having a “pre-planned mission” may be where some of our differences originate. We believe that Jesus is an eternal, divine Person. In eternity all of history unfolds at once, no past or future. “Pre-planned” implies that He was acting in time and space, rather than eternity. Since we have not experienced eternity, it remains a mystery, not in the sense of a puzzle to be solved, but in the sense that we cannot fully comprehend it. To suggest that sin was part of God’s original plan would mean that sin was part of His will. To say that some of the points I brought up are not reflected in the Bible is not really accurate in my estimation. We draw different conclusions based on the evidence offered in scripture, but we believe the evidence is there to make such conclusions. A Savior was needed precisely because we (along with Adam and Eve) failed and because God loves us “even unto death”. To take the view that God’s original plan was for man to be sinful so that He could save them (“pre-planned mission”) is certainly not the Catholic view.
And why if the intent was that they were to have been perfect, didn’t God just let them die and then start over with a new “first couple”? (Within the thinking process that led to the conclusion that they were absolutely and positively and necessarily supposed to be perfect at every moment of their lives?)
He did. Jesus is the “New Adam” and Mary is the “new Eve”. Adam and Eve died but may have been redeemed through the “New Adam”, Jesus.
(I hope these questions don’t rub anyone the wrong way, and I apologize for already having probed too deeply previously with poorly worded questions.)
Not at all. I could very well say the same thing about many of my posts. Join the club.

God bless.

Steve
 
Sorry i’ve been M.I.A. I’ll answer as much as I can for now.
If you think Paul wrote that it was not acceptable that Eve and Adam “brought death into the world”, then I disagree. I think you can look up the New Testament scriptures about death as well as I can, including the scriptures about the resurrection provided through Christ. I can think. God has given me both the ability to think and the responsibility to think. I can think “death is an acceptable consequence, given what I know”. You may think it is not an acceptable consequence, but that is your personal choice and I can make a different one. The Bible never says “death is an unacceptable consequence” or “death is a bad consequence.”
Paul never talks about death as a good thing, that’s for sure. It has always been one of those sad but necessary things needed to get into heaven. If death was held so highly there would be no reason for angels to rescue Peter from prison.

I know you can think, but you have to realize that you are in the minority here, so before you simply share your thoughts as if they were true, try to prove them by giving evidence. You give none, but only provide mere speculation. The great theologians of the past used scriptural, traditional and logical evidence to make their cases. They didn’t simply state an assumption such as “it was not wrong for Eve to disobey God”.
I disagree about what you think it meant that “their eyes were open.” That was your opinion. There are several consequences from the fall, and they are listed in Genesis and I have already posted them.
No it is not mere opinion. Adam and Eve were not blind and then suddenly saw after the fall. (this would go against the nature of the fall). So logically when it says “their eyes were open” it means something other than “they suddenly saw genitals”. There has to be another reason for this. Why did their nakedness bring them shame when it had not given them shame before? Did they realized something after the fall? Maybe. But whatever they realized caused them to hide their genitals. Tell me, why do you hide your genitals? Because they are precious and because you don’t want them to be judged. This is what they realized, that they were judging each other solely on the outside and man was not meant for this.
 
Questioner, I read that they were in a situation before partaking of the forbidden fruit, that they “were not ashamed” that they were “naked” as described in Genesis 2:25, but that this changed in Genesis 3:7 (after “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked”). I read that this change in outlook and perspective happened as a result of their having eaten the fruit. They knew more (about themselves) after they ate the fruit than before they had eaten the fruit. This would be why verse 2:25 is even in the Genesis account at all–to show the difference in what had happened to their perspective. It means that before the fall, they were innocent both in knowledge about themselves, in knowledge about others, and certainly in knowledge about God and about Satan.
Close, but you missed the mark. They were ashamed because they lusted after each other. This is why they were ashamed. They didn’t suddenly realize their genitals were shameful, they are not in and of themselves, for nothing God makes is shameful. Their disposition is what became shameful, and they looked at each other in a shameful way.
But I can indeed back that up from other sources, so if you think I’m not being honest by including those other sources then you can go ahead and look at 2 Nephi 2:23 (note that this is going to go against my better judgment to include because it will bring a lot of fear and mistrust into your mind by even knowing that there is a source text that I know about that you didn’t know about) which uses the words “state of innocence” to describe their situation. The situation being a “state of innocence” can readily be seen in the Genesis account, if one thinks about the words they are reading.
I’m glad you posted this. See, if we were all Mormon you could just post up 2 Nephi and this conversation would be over:

"If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created…

“And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin” (2 Nephi 2:22-23.)

However, if what was said in 2 Nephi was so obvious in the Bible then there would have been no need to put it in 2 Nephi in the first place. Like I said, what 2 Nephi says is found nowhere in the Bible, you are trying to defend Mormon doctrine that comes from the Book of Mormon by using only the Bible, and it doesn’t work.
I don’t know what you mean by “gratuitous wisdom directly from his experience but from God.” I asked you to show examples of Solomon evidencing wisdom that had no basis, origin, or thought process allowing his to gain wisdom (through inspired meditation) from his experience, that of his parents whom he had observed, or that of others whom he had observed. Based on your assumption that his wisdom came sans experience, that should be a completely easy thing to do from either Proverbs or from 1 Kings.
I showed you 1 Kings 3, but I’ll outline everything here because it is either hard for you to see or grasp.

1 Kings 3

4 The king went to Gibeon to offer sacrifices, for that was the most important high place, and Solomon offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon during the night in a dream, and God said, "Ask for whatever you want me to give you."(so already we see God offered Solomon anything he wanted because of the burnt offerings)…

7 “Now, O LORD my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties. 8 Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number. 9 So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?” (you have two options at this point Parker. You can either admit that distinguishing between right and wrong is wisdom as per what you have been claiming with Eve, or you can deny it but destroy your entire argument for Genesis)

10 The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. 11 So God said to him, “Since (in Douay Rheims translated as “Because”) you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, 12 I will do what you have asked.** I will give you a wise and discerning heart**, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. 13 Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both riches and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. 14 And if you walk in my ways and obey my statutes and commands as David your father did, I will give you a long life.” 15 Then Solomon awoke—and he realized it had been a dream.(here we see God gave him a “wise and discerning heart” simply **because **Solomon asked for one)

16 Now two prostitutes came to the king and stood before him…(now we see the next major event in Solomon’s life after the dream was the famous decision between the two women and the baby, for which Solomon was praised for showing extraordinary wisdom)

28 When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice. (the people ascent to Solomon’s wisdom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top