Did satan tempt Adam and Eve?

[thistle]

So you think his books are totally useless for giving one an understanding of Satan and Jesus Christ? I know he doesn’t speak for the Church, but I think he gave great thought to the story of the Fall of man, and the corresponding redemption of mankind through our Lord.

(By the way, that’s really cool that you own those old editions. I definitely needed notes to read these two books. His language is really difficult to plow through.)

YES! Well, not totally useless.

Heavy reading though.

 

[Joe_5859]

Is this literal too? Or is this at least metaphorical?

Mary crushing the head of the serpent (as has often been depicted in art for many centuries), is based on her being the “new Eve” and fulfillment of Genesis 3:15.

Genesis 3:15 has a history of having a somewhat ambiguous pronoun. Some translations translate it as “he will crush the head [of the serpent]” while others have translated as “she will crush the head [of the serpent]”.

I chalk up the ambiguity as somewhat signifying Mary’s total cooperation with Jesus’ saving mission. She can do no else but exactly what Christ wills.

This is just my flowery theologizing, though. It’s not official Church doctrine or anything.

 

[Joe_5859]

Why is this not open for debate?

Well, I suppose it is open for debate in the sense that anyone is free to debate any Catholic teaching they want to.

What I meant is that it is a Catholic doctrine that will not change. The Church is not going to suddenly say, “Oh well, it wasn’t our first parents that sinned, but that ‘Original Sin’ came three or four generations later.”

 

[simpleas]

Well, I suppose it is open for debate in the sense that anyone is free to debate any Catholic teaching they want to.

What I meant is that it is a Catholic doctrine that will not change. The Church is not going to suddenly say, “Oh well, it wasn’t our first parents that sinned, but that ‘Original Sin’ came three or four generations later.”

Thanks

 

[Kelt]

Not necessarily. One of the many reasons that Catholics believe in the reality of Adam and Original Sin is that the proper understanding of that is directly related to the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Sad to say, I am now finding that some Catholics do not understand all that is involved with Adam and Original Sin.

You are correct in that “belief” does open more questions. For me, I start with my personal belief in the existence of God. Once that is established as a true axiom, I can understand and follow subsequent Catholic teachings.

I do not find that the Catholic Church makes people believe that black is white if necessary. Also, the Catholic Church has the power to lead people to joy eternal in the presence of God in heaven. I do not find that power sinister.

You are right. The value of the Catholic Church (based on Sacred Scripture) in our century needs its own thread.

Well, thanks for taking the time to explain. I have thought about all these posts on this thread on and off on my holiday walking thru’ the English countryside!
I always find that when I look things up on Catholic sites, the language is that of philosophy…designed to obfuscate the ‘facts’ and tie your brain in knots…and, while some people here have learnt to do it too, it’s usually easier to get the real gist of the matter here.
Now, as for Adam and Eve…this clearly can’t be taken as a literal story as after the repeated incest of their children with siblings, then cousins etc, we would have a very motley bunch of inbreds.
That God should have made a man one off with a ready formed human nature, (able to speak a ready made language?) and then been surprised that he did something wrong…??
Seems a bit of design fault…
And then God’s so peeved that his first man did something that he’d programmed into him anyway, that he decides to punish EVERY SINGLE ONE of his creation thereafter…??
What a short sighted and vindictive God!
If Adam had been a good boy God could hardly expect that to be the case for many more generations - he made him how he was, after all!
No, ‘the tree of knowledge’ is an allegory for the ability we evolved to know the difference between right and wrong - a step further than other animals…which makes us human.
‘Original sin’ is a way of illustrating how we have in all of us ( mentally normal) knowledge of, and potential to do, good and bad.
The Catholic Church accept evolution…it cannot in all seriousness (especially with the fast and furious discoveries of DNA) MAKE intelligent, educated people believe that God made Adam and then Eve alone, in order to populate the world.
I doubt very much that many Catholics do believe this story literally.

 

[grannymh]

Well, thanks for taking the time to explain. I have thought about all these posts on this thread on and off on my holiday walking thru’ the English countryside!
I always find that when I look things up on Catholic sites, the language is that of philosophy…designed to obfuscate the ‘facts’ and tie your brain in knots…and, while some people here have learnt to do it too, it’s usually easier to get the real gist of the matter here.
Now, as for Adam and Eve…this clearly can’t be taken as a literal story as after the repeated incest of their children with siblings, then cousins etc, we would have a very motley bunch of inbreds.

I will stop here.

In order to have a motley bunch of inbreeds, various diseases would need time to genetically develop from the first humans who did not have human ancestors. Considering the length of Eve’s female fertility, which would produce overlapping generations, the need for sibling marriage would disappear rather quickly, most likely before serious mutation damage could be transmitted. Even then, it is a roll of the dice as to which dominant or recessive genes are transmitted. Later in human history, incest or not incest would depend on the legal (civil) impediments for marriage.

This link to a CAF post gives a good explanation of the different aspects of incest.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11804019&postcount=346

Note: I am not saying that every word about Adam and Eve in the first three chapters of Genesis is literal. What is truly literal, even if it is expressed figuratively, have already been properly defined as Catholic doctrines. I find that what may or may not be literal, for example, a talking snake, still points, explains, Divine Revelation.

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church accept evolution…it cannot in all seriousness (especially with the fast and furious discoveries of DNA) MAKE intelligent, educated people believe that God made Adam and then Eve alone, in order to populate the world.
I doubt very much that many Catholics do believe this story literally.

You may be surprised by this current assessment of the Catholic Doctrines about our favorite couple biblically known as Father Adam and Mother Eve.

hprweb.com/2014/07/time-to-abandon-the-genesis-story/

 

[Kelt]

I will stop here.

In order to have a motley bunch of inbreeds, various diseases would need time to genetically develop from the first humans who did not have human ancestors. Considering the length of Eve’s female fertility, which would produce overlapping generations, the need for sibling marriage would disappear rather quickly, most likely before serious mutation damage could be transmitted. Even then, it is a roll of the dice as to which dominant or recessive genes are transmitted. Later in human history, incest or not incest would depend on the legal (civil) impediments for marriage.

This link to a CAF post gives a good explanation of the different aspects of incest.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11804019&postcount=346

Note: I am not saying that every word about Adam and Eve in the first three chapters of Genesis is literal. What is truly literal, even if it is expressed figuratively, have already been properly defined as Catholic doctrines. I find that what may or may not be literal, for example, a talking snake, still points, explains, Divine Revelation.

The genetic abnormalities that occur with inbreeding do not come from diseases…they come from the limited gene pool. In Britain there is a problem of a disproportionate amount of birth defects amongst children of some Asian communities where they have a limited ‘choice’ of potential spouses for their children. As a result more 1st cousins are marrying. OK for once or twice, but too much and you get trouble. We’re not even talking siblings here! Animal breeders know all about the dangers of inbreeding.
It seems that people will tie themselves in knots to try and bend the facts, even as they are discovered, to fit a doctrine that was declared before those facts were known.
It appears that the church is condoning sex between siblings - as long as they are MARRIED?? Or have I got that wrong? Perhaps it was just in ancient times…I shall continue reading with interest.
Thank you…

 

[grannymh]

The genetic abnormalities that occur with inbreeding do not come from diseases…they come from the limited gene pool.

I am thinking of Huntington disease and Hemophilia which are transmitted from previous ancestors with the possibility of a limited gene pool such as the requirement of nobility. Technically speaking, a limited gene pool may survive due to the founder effect. And technically speaking, a limited gene pool may adversely affect a species survival.

Since there can only be speculation regarding the first human genomes, the possibility of rapid population expansion and adaption due to rapid migration can account for the survival of humankind. A specific research paper can posit the improbability of Adam and Eve, but, due to the amount of hard evidence, there cannot be an extrapolation to a complete denial of Adam and Eve’s possibility. Yes, I recognize the fine line between improbable and impossible.

In Britain there is a problem of a disproportionate amount of birth defects amongst children of some Asian communities where they have a limited ‘choice’ of potential spouses for their children. As a result more 1st cousins are marrying. OK for once or twice, but too much and you get trouble. We’re not even talking siblings here! Animal breeders know all about the dangers of inbreeding.
It seems that people will tie themselves in knots to try and bend the facts, even as they are discovered, to fit a doctrine that was declared before those facts were known.

The fine line between improbable and impossible does not bend facts. (Think about the Black Swan in Australia theory.) Instead the fine line presents a free choice.

It appears that the church is condoning sex between siblings - as long as they are MARRIED?? Or have I got that wrong?

It depends if one is talking about the first few generations of humankind or today.

Perhaps it was just in ancient times…I shall continue reading with interest.
Thank you…

I have another thought about sex between siblings. The marriage of the first sets of siblings preserved the important family structure. Preserving the family structure was key to the survival of the human species. Interestingly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 396 closes with this sentence.
“Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.”
I view the above sentence as affirming that morality existed from the dawn of human history.

This is my personal opinion. It appears that the first few generations benefited from the blessing to be fertile and multiply. Genesis 1: 28. With that reasoning, one can posit that the few sibling marriages needed to expand the population, were within moral norms provided that the morality of family structure in obedience to God was observed. The necessity of sibling marriages would disappear by the time that it was observed that marriage between within close relationships was not always a good thing.

 

[faithfulwannabe]

I’m no expert but wasn’t the serpent(satan), being a fallen angel, much more intelligent than Adam and Eve? Shouldn’t God have given Adam and Eve a heads up about this character? Better yet, why was the serpent in the garden in the first place? Why didn’t God banish him like he did later with Adam and Eve?

I think it has to do with God’s grand plan.

Romans 8:20-21 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

 

[Kelt]

I think it has to do with God’s grand plan.

Romans 8:20-21 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Which means??

 

[simpleas]

:twocents:

The writer of Genesis records satan as a snake. (I believe that snakes were thought off as evil in those times, probably are now too for some people)
So for the story to make sense, the use of a snake for satan may have been believable for the people of that time. (not that I’m saying they were stupid) just that we know people of different times thought certain things to be of evil. We don’t hold snakes to account and kill them all cause one of them was evil in the bible…ha.

But this is what makes the idea of the conscience (snake) slightly more appealing to the 21st person.

 

[Jerurussia]

“Shining One” refers to a serpent or Lucifer, both apt. Here’s Canadian Arthur Custance’s DOORWAY PAPERS that show the depth of scientific analysis if one takes Genesis literally. I especially like his SEED OF THE WOMAN.

Inbreeding works just fine if you have a good lineage, by the way. ANXIETY IV is the predecessor of all the great American Herefords, for example. If you start with perfect genes, a few generations of inbreeding, or close breeding, stabilize the best of the best. God later outlawed incest. But there’s no genetic reason for disdaining inbreeding out of hand.

Satan tempted the Woman, the title Christ used of His mother, and the Woman tempted Adam, and Adam had the authority to betray so sin and death came into the world through the Sin of Adam, analyzed by Arthur Custance to have been an actual chemical or genetic affront to life. Your mtDNA says it’s true…