Did they really eat the apple?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As previous people have said, we do not know if it was a literal fruit or figurative. Many doctors of the Church say it may have been figurative, which I tend toward because the genre of that part of Genesis is such that that would make sense. In general it is considered well established that the sin was primarily on of disobedience, but the exact type of disobedience is uncertain.

As for the original sin being Adam and Eve having sex, that is an idea that is contrary to Church teaching and theology since the Church has consistently and repeatedly affirmed the goodness of sex and that having marital relationships with one’s wife is not only not sinful but a great good ordered toward new life. God would not have said “be fruitful and multiply” if he did not mean Adam and Eve to procreate, nor would he have designed their bodies for procreate if they were not meant to use those faculties in some way.
 
The whole idea that the act that caused the fall of man was sex isn’t new. It was already around since the second Temple period - the time of Jesus - actually.

The idea was, that Eve (the Jewish Rabbis were not too fond of Eve - they often fitted the Genesis story into the ‘killer wife’ motif, where the woman is responsible for the man’s downfall) did have sex - not with Adam (who was obviously meant to be her natural partner), but with the serpent. In other words, the fall of man was apparently caused by interspecies adultery. :eek: To those people who thought that the serpent was somehow controlled by or was a manifestation of a fallen angel (Satan, Samael, etc.), this idea of Eve having sex with the serpent (= the fallen angel) sort of dovetails with Genesis 6, where the ‘daughters of men’ are said to have relations with the ‘sons of God’ (identified in an idea common at the time as fallen angels).

Some Jews speculated that the sentient serpent / the angel was infatuated with Eve and seduced her. (Apparently, this was triggered by the wording of Eve’s complaint in Genesis 3:13 - “The serpent deceived me,” and God’s statement in verse 15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman,” suggesting that there was no enmity between the two at this point yet.)

The apocryphal work 4 Maccabees (1st century AD) seem to reflect this whole idea of Eve having sex with the serpent in its retelling of the story of the mother and her seven sons who were martyred:

The mother of seven sons expressed also these principles to her children:
“I was a pure virgin and did not go outside my father’s house; but I guarded the rib from which woman was made.
No seducer corrupted me on a desert plain, nor did the destroyer, the deceitful serpent, defile the purity of my virginity.

The phrase “the rib from which woman was made” is a clear reference to the story of the creation of Eve in Genesis 2, and the mention of the seduction and the defilement by the serpent would seem to refer to the story of Eve and the serpent in Genesis 3. By having the mother boast that she was not seduced by the serpent, the author implies strongly that Eve was. For example, a few even went as far as to suggest that Cain was actually the snake’s son rather than Adam’s, which to them apparently explains why Cain was (inclined towards) evil: he was the fruit of an unnatural union.

A late Jewish retelling (midrash) of biblical stories, the Pirqe De-Rabbi Eliezer (8th-9th century or earlier), adopts this whole ‘Cain was the son of the serpent’ story.

Sammael was the great prince in heaven: the Chayyot had four wings and the Seraphim had six wings, and Sammael had twelve wings. What did Sammael do? He took his band and descended and saw all the creatures which the Holy One, blessed be He, had created in His world and he found among them none so skilled to do evil as the serpent, as it is said, “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field.” Its appearance was something like that of the camel, and he mounted and rode upon it. The Torah began to cry aloud, saying, ‘Why, O Sammael! Now that the world is created, is it the time to rebel against the Omnipresent? Is it like the time when thou shouldst lift thyself up on high? The Lord of the world “will laugh at the horse and its rider” (Job 39:18).’

…] (Samael) riding on the serpent came to [Eve], and she conceived; afterwards, Adam came to her, and she conceived Abel, as it is said, “And Adam knew Eve his wife.” What is the meaning of “knew”? (He knew) that she had conceived. And she saw his [Cain’s] likeness that it was not of the earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: “I have gotten a man with the Lord.”

In other words, when Eve gave birth to Cain, she found out that he did not look so much human as he did an angel - at which she knew that the child’s father was not Adam, but the angel Samael who came with the serpent. An Aramaic translation-paraphrase (targum) of Genesis, the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, also inserts the same idea into the text:

And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And she said: “I have got a man from the angel of the Lord.”

And Adam knew Eve his wife who lusted after the angel; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man, the angel of the Lord.”

While the above sources are quite late, the tradition behind it or something similar (that Cain’s father was the serpent = the angel Samael) was apparently already known in the 2nd century, since St. Irenaeus mentions gnostic groups who seem to have used this idea (Against Heresies 1.30.9 “[The Ophites] affirm that the serpent cast down has two names, Michael and Samael”).
 
The whole idea that the act that caused the fall of man was sex isn’t new. It was already around since the second Temple period - the time of Jesus - actually.

The idea was, that Eve (the Jewish Rabbis were not too fond of Eve - they often fitted the Genesis story into the ‘killer wife’ motif, where the woman is responsible for the man’s downfall) did have sex - not with Adam (who was obviously meant to be her natural partner), but with the serpent. In other words, the fall of man was apparently caused by interspecies adultery. :eek: To those people who thought that the serpent was somehow controlled by or was a manifestation of a fallen angel (Satan, Samael, etc.), this idea of Eve having sex with the serpent (= the fallen angel) sort of dovetails with Genesis 6, where the ‘daughters of men’ are said to have relations with the ‘sons of God’ (identified in an idea common at the time as fallen angels).

Some Jews speculated that the sentient serpent / the angel was infatuated with Eve and seduced her. (Apparently, this was triggered by the wording of Eve’s complaint in Genesis 3:13 - “The serpent deceived me,” and God’s statement in verse 15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman,” suggesting that there was no enmity between the two at this point yet.)

The apocryphal work 4 Maccabees (1st century AD) seem to reflect this whole idea of Eve having sex with the serpent in its retelling of the story of the mother and her seven sons who were martyred:
The mother of seven sons expressed also these principles to her children:
“I was a pure virgin and did not go outside my father’s house; but I guarded the rib from which woman was made.
No seducer corrupted me on a desert plain, nor did the destroyer, the deceitful serpent, defile the purity of my virginity.
The phrase “the rib from which woman was made” is a clear reference to the story of the creation of Eve in Genesis 2, and the mention of the seduction and the defilement by the serpent would seem to refer to the story of Eve and the serpent in Genesis 3. By having the mother boast that she was not seduced by the serpent, the author implies strongly that Eve was. For example, a few even went as far as to suggest that Cain was actually the snake’s son rather than Adam’s, which to them apparently explains why Cain was (inclined towards) evil: he was the fruit of an unnatural union.

A late Jewish retelling (midrash) of biblical stories, the Pirqe De-Rabbi Eliezer (8th-9th century or earlier), adopts this whole ‘Cain was the son of the serpent’ story.
Sammael was the great prince in heaven: the Chayyot had four wings and the Seraphim had six wings, and Sammael had twelve wings. What did Sammael do? He took his band and descended and saw all the creatures which the Holy One, blessed be He, had created in His world and he found among them none so skilled to do evil as the serpent, as it is said, “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field.” Its appearance was something like that of the camel, and he mounted and rode upon it. The Torah began to cry aloud, saying, ‘Why, O Sammael! Now that the world is created, is it the time to rebel against the Omnipresent? Is it like the time when thou shouldst lift thyself up on high? The Lord of the world “will laugh at the horse and its rider” (Job 39:18).’

…] (Samael) riding on the serpent came to [Eve], and she conceived; afterwards, Adam came to her, and she conceived Abel, as it is said, “And Adam knew Eve his wife.” What is the meaning of “knew”? (He knew) that she had conceived. And she saw his [Cain’s] likeness that it was not of the earthly beings, but of the heavenly beings, and she prophesied and said: “I have gotten a man with the Lord.”
In other words, when Eve gave birth to Cain, she found out that he did not look so much human as he did an angel - at which she knew that the child’s father was not Adam, but the angel Samael who came with the serpent. An Aramaic translation-paraphrase (targum) of Genesis, the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, also inserts the same idea into the text:
And Adam knew that his wife Eve had conceived from Sammael the angel (of death) and she became pregnant and bore Cain. And she said: “I have got a man from the angel of the Lord.”

And Adam knew Eve his wife who lusted after the angel; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man, the angel of the Lord.”
While the above sources are quite late, the tradition behind it or something similar (that Cain’s father was the serpent = the angel Samael) was apparently already known in the 2nd century, since St. Irenaeus mentions gnostic groups who seem to have used this idea (Against Heresies 1.30.9 “[The Ophites] affirm that the serpent cast down has two names, Michael and Samael”).
I am so grateful that the Catholic Church provides understandable logical teachings regarding Original Sin. That is possible because chapter 14, Gospel of John leads to the protocol of the early visible Catholic Church on earth.
 
Todd977,
You say figurative language was used. My query remains, ‘what was the primeval event?’
Rebellion was the event. The first humans rebelled against God.
To say that figurative language was used does not deny that an event took place in history.
 
Newcalling,
Again you seem to imply a literal event occurred, even though you make remarks about ‘literal’, which I cannot grasp.
 
Joseie,
your reply is original. So our first parents having sex caused all our problems. I cannot agree with you.
Interestingly enough, many groups taught that the first sin was sex overall (many of whom were deemed heretical): Gnostic Sethites and Adamites (the latter who did not believe in clothing themselves), and the Quaker Protestant offshoot, the Shakers (of whom there are three members left).
 
CeelosDeznos,
we must all follow our consciences, whether we are mature or not. The question still remains - ‘what actually happened?’
 
CeelosDeznos,
we must all follow our consciences, whether we are mature or not. The question still remains - ‘what actually happened?’
what are you asking?
Are you asking whether or not a literal apple was eaten as the event?

If that is the question you are asking, why do you place such importance on an apple being eaten as opposed to a kumquat?
How could we possible know, literally what happened, since Genesis was not written in modern journalistic mode?
 
Grannymh,
I am rereading the replies in this thread and I note your #12. It is profound.
You claim the original sin was disobedience. This gives food for thought. Thanks.
 
Grannymh,
Re #17.
You seem to imply that the big bang theory is a doctrine of faith. I know a priest, Fr Lemaitre, first came up with this idea, but seeing it as Catholic doctrine is pushing things a bit far.
But thank you for all your thoughtful contributions. They are profound.
 
Goout,
is it a bit silly to say this? Does it mean we do not know if Jesus existed? We were not in first century Palestine.
The historicity of Jesus is very solid and not shrouded in other types of literature like the OT like prophecy or poetry, or at least to anywhere near the same degree.

The question of whether Jesus walked the earth is nothing like whether or not Adam and Eve really ate a piece of actual fruit.

Good source to learn about senses of scripture:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
 
Fred Conty,
your reply is solid. You wrote " But as a man has reason and freewill by right of his nature". However in heaven people do not have free will.
 
Fred Conty,
your reply is solid. You wrote " But as a man has reason and freewill by right of his nature". However in heaven people do not have free will.
Yes, they do have free will in heaven. Heaven is the highest state of freedom, that fully willed freedom to be with God.
 
Patrick457,
thanks for your interesting and scholarly post. But I do not think it answers my query.
You quote from Terry Pratchett, I like this one ‘Build a man a fire, and he’ll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he’ll be warm for the rest of his life.’
 
Grannymh,
Re #17.
You seem to imply that the big bang theory is a doctrine of faith. I know a priest, Fr Lemaitre, first came up with this idea, but seeing it as Catholic doctrine is pushing things a bit far.
But thank you for all your thoughtful contributions. They are profound.
Pardon me. There must be a mix-up. Post 17 is not about the big bang theory.

Post 17

“In the Catholic Church, there are explicit Divinely revealed doctrines which directly flow from the specific first three chapters of the book of Genesis. These particular doctrines are based on historical events such as the appearance (space and time) of the first original fully-complete individual human lovingly known as Adam. Another historical event is the free disobedience of Adam known as the real Original Sin.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top