Do you believe in Adam and Eve?

[Thorolfr]

That’s what I learned in Catholic school…Matt, Mark, Luke & John gave their accounts which were inspired by God, so they would have no error.

But if they were inspired by God, could God not remember whether the cock crowed once or twice so that we have two different accounts from when He was inspiring Matthew and Mark?

 

[truetofaith]

But if they were inspired by God, could God not remember whether the cock crowed once or twice so that we have two different accounts from when He was inspiring Matthew and Mark?

Some things are just not that crucial to the story.

And some people like to nit - pick !

 

[Thorolfr]

Some things are just not that crucial to the story.

And some people like to nit - pick !

 

[powerofk]

Some things are just not that crucial to the story.

And some people like to nit - pick !

No kidding. Like Mark mentioning the man wrapped in nothing but a linen cloth running away naked. Or Luke mentioning that Peter cut off the slave’s ear (Matthew and Mark only mention “a disciple”) and Jesus healing the ear of the slave (neither Matthew nor Mark have this) - and only John giving the NAME of the slave, Malchus. Or Matthew having Jesus ride into town on a mother donkey and her colt (straddling both of them!), while Mark and Luke have Jesus riding in only on a female donkey.

But honestly, I kinda like the slight inconsistencies in the gospels. We’d actually have more to be worried about if they all said exactly the same thing!

Regardless, as for Adam and Eve… we have to believe that they existed. And actually, it even makes slight sense in the evolutionary sense. But the ever question remains… the story of our first parents leads to the question, taken metaphorically, what was the forbidden fruit? Because I know it wasn’t an actual apple.

 

[Thorolfr]

One problem is that Adam and Eve might not have lived at exactly the same time. They could have lived thousands of years apart:

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA; informally also known as Y-chromosomal Adam) refers to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living people are descended patrilineally; the term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of matrilinear most recent common ancestor is known as “Mitochondrial Eve” (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilinear transmission of mtDNA), the woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally.

By the nature of the concept of most recent common ancestors, these estimates can only represent a terminus ante quem until the genome of the entire population has been examined (in this case, the genome of all living humans); thus, in 2013, the discovery of a previously unknown Y-chromosomal haplogroup was announced,[1] which resulted in a slight adjustment of the estimated age of the human Y-MRCA at between 163,900 and 260,200 years.[2]

By comparison, the age of the mt-MRCA (matrilinear MRCA) has been estimated at 140,000 to 200,000 years. By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time,[3][4] even though current (as of 2014) estimates suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

 

[grannymh]

No kidding. Like Mark mentioning the man wrapped in nothing but a linen cloth running away naked. Or Luke mentioning that Peter cut off the slave’s ear (Matthew and Mark only mention “a disciple”) and Jesus healing the ear of the slave (neither Matthew nor Mark have this) - and only John giving the NAME of the slave, Malchus. Or Matthew having Jesus ride into town on a mother donkey and her colt (straddling both of them!), while Mark and Luke have Jesus riding in only on a female donkey.

But honestly, I kinda like the slight inconsistencies in the gospels. We’d actually have more to be worried about if they all said exactly the same thing!

Regardless, as for Adam and Eve… we have to believe that they existed. And actually, it even makes slight sense in the evolutionary sense. But the ever question remains… the story of our first parents leads to the question, taken metaphorically, what was the forbidden fruit? Because I know it wasn’t an actual apple.

While the Gospels deserve attention, the point of this thread is the Catholic doctrine of the reality of Adam and Eve and the reality of subsequent Catholic doctrines about the reality of Original Sin and the reality of a transcendent, super-natural Pure Spirit independent of material/physical restrictions aka God the Creator. Genesis 1: 26-27.

The nature of some archaic organic fruit is not the same as the demolition of humanity’s relationship with Divinity. Genesis 2: 15-17.

 

[grannymh]

One problem is that Adam and Eve might not have lived at exactly the same time. They could have lived thousands of years apart:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Even Wikipedia points out that the proposed genetic Eve was one of many women existing in the same population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
“Common Misconceptions”

I like to think that one of the blessings in the Garden is that Eve did not have to worry about Adam falling in love with a younger woman.

 

[simpleas]

I do…when Jesus made the blind man SEE, I believe he saw with his once blind eyes …not that he saw ( understood ) …what Jesus was saying.

Cool, so you believe every word written in the old and new testament to be the literal word of God.
That is some faith!

 

[truetofaith]

Cool, so you believe every word written in the old and new testament to be the literal word of God.
That is some faith!

So, You believe Jesus curing a blind man or raising someone from the dead was just thrown in there to make the story more exciting?

I guess there had to be something interesting before the next commercial.

Why are you a Catholic …become an atheist!

 

[grannymh]

So, You believe Jesus curing a blind man or raising someone from the dead was just thrown in there to make the story more exciting?

I guess there had to be something interesting before the next commercial.

Why are you a Catholic …become an atheist!

Pardon me. It looks to me that post 206 is simple admiration for someone’s faith.
It is o.k. for Catholics to recognize faith.

 

[truetofaith]

Pardon me. It looks to me that post 206 is simple admiration for someone’s faith.
It is o.k. for Catholics to recognize faith.

I’m sorry…I misunderstood and thought the poster was being sarcastic.

 

[simpleas]

So, You believe Jesus curing a blind man or raising someone from the dead was just thrown in there to make the story more exciting?

I guess there had to be something interesting before the next commercial.

Why are you a Catholic …become an atheist!

Nice…

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Don’t you people realize the 4 gospels are eye witness reports of what happened? Just like at the scene of an accident one eye witness has more information than another. It doesn’t make it wrong…it is reported from a different vantage point & how many times the cock crowed may have been more important to one writer than to another!

Good Evening TrueToFaith: I hope all is well with you today. I would like to point out if I may that there are lots of even more significant disparities between the Gospels and I’m sure we’re all aware of them so I won’t delve into that. The point is that most eye witness accounts don’t claim to be divinely inspired, nor are people normally compelled to say “The word of the Lord” after they read eye an witness account to a group of people. I think that the point is if we’re going to say that something is divinely inspired or infallible, or 100 percent literally true, we are setting ourselves up for a credibility crisis. Because people can read. I would be happier if we were more honest with ourselves and after reading the gospels we said something like “man, I really hope this is true” or “this is what Luke said he saw” or something like that. Because that’s the truth isn’t it? If that wasn’t the truth, then no one who attends mass would have the slightest fear of death and suffering and yet just about all of us do fear death and suffering. We fear it a lot. The point is, if we can’t be honest in church then all bets are off when we go back out in the streets. So - just being honest here.

All the best,
Gary

 

[truetofaith]

Good Evening TrueToFaith: I hope all is well with you today. I would like to point out if I may that there are lots of even more significant disparities between the Gospels and I’m sure we’re all aware of them so I won’t delve into that. The point is that most eye witness accounts don’t claim to be divinely inspired, nor are people normally compelled to say “The word of the Lord” after they read eye an witness account to a group of people. I think that the point is if we’re going to say that something is divinely inspired or infallible, or 100 percent literally true, we are setting ourselves up for a credibility crisis. Because people can read. I would be happier if we were more honest with ourselves and after reading the gospels we said something like “man, I really hope this is true” or “this is what Luke said he saw” or something like that. Because that’s the truth isn’t it? If that wasn’t the truth, then no one who attends mass would have the slightest fear of death and suffering and yet just about all of us do fear death and suffering. We fear it a lot. The point is, if we can’t be honest in church then all bets are off when we go back out in the streets. So - just being honest here.

All the best,
Gary

Hi Gary, I also wish you well.
I appreciate what you are saying about not being 100% positive that the gospel narratives are literally true. We can only hope that they are true, because if they are not…
then the whole purpose of Jesus’ birth, death & resurrection are wasted reading and may as well be treated like reading Mother Goose stories to children.
I believe in the power that Jesus displayed in the gospels …otherwise I may as well quit going to church.
Have a good night,
Tony

 

[Contarini]

Hi Gary, I also wish you well.
I appreciate what you are saying about not being 100% positive that the gospel narratives are literally true. We can only hope that they are true, because if they are not…
then the whole purpose of Jesus’ birth, death & resurrection are wasted reading and may as well be treated like reading Mother Goose stories to children.

You assume that the Gospel narratives must be 100% literally true for them to be true. Why?

And frankly, I think Mother Goose narratives are quite valuable. But the Gospels of course are much more valuable.

Edwin

 

[davidv]

You assume that the Gospel narratives must be 100% literally true for them to be true. Why?

If one does not equivocate on the meaning of literally true as the Church instructs us on the interpretation of Scripture, then we must conclude that all of Scripture is literally true. But, only in so far as the original authors intended.

And frankly, I think Mother Goose narratives are quite valuable. But the Gospels of course are much more valuable.

Edwin

 

[grannymh]

I have heard it said that the Catholic Church has the guts to duly define and properly declare what is Divine Revelation.
:extrahappy:

 

[carmenp1]

How can every word be true?

For example, in Matthew 26:75, it says, “Then Peter remembered what Jesus had said: ‘Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.’ And he went out and wept bitterly.”

But in Mark 14:72, it says, “At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ And he broke down and wept.”

So what did Jesus say? Did he say, “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times.” Or did he say, “Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” How many times did the cock crow before Peter denied Jesus? Once or twice?

Whether every word is true or not is a matter for you to take up with God. If you want to know and understand what God is saying you will need His help and His guidance.

I know what God has done for me. The bible cannot build up my faith if I am questioning every other word or phrase as if God was untrustworthy. Without the bible to build up my faith how can God answer my prayers? Without faith it is impossible to please God. God says, you have not because you ask not. I have a relationship with God. That outcome is a direct result of my belief that I need to live not by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD THAT COMES OUT OF GOD’S MOUTH.

Do you see God answer your prayers? Do you have a relationship with Him? What has He done for you? Without faith you will not receive a thing from Him.

My husband wanted me to agree to a 2nd mortgage on the house. To start his business, he said. He hounded me. In the end I took it to God. I said Father, I will agree but if it isn’t good for me don’t let it go ahead. But if it is good, then let it be approved." My husband was very happy. He took me to the Teachers Credit Union. His friend, wasn’t there! We were seen by someone else. The loans officer said “No way. Absolutely not!” If my husband had been successful, he would have taken every bit of equity in our home. He left the marriage a week later. What a ruthless plan to avoid the ordeal of going to court to get a settlement on the marital home. You have no idea how awesome God is!

The only reason I am on this forum is to try and use what God has done for me over the past 24 years to encourage people that God is true to His Word. If you would only stop questioning and take God at His Word, you might discover How awesome God is for yourself. If you want to put words in God’s mouth, you will be proven to be a liar. God says let God be true and every man a liar. If God didn’t say it happened the way you, or anyone else says it happened…who do you think I will believe? The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom. If you don’t believe God you are already condemned. You will wake up on the wrong side of eternity.
Carmen

 

[carmenp1]

Hi Gary, I also wish you well.
I appreciate what you are saying about not being 100% positive that the gospel narratives are literally true. We can only hope that they are true, because if they are not…
then the whole purpose of Jesus’ birth, death & resurrection are wasted reading and may as well be treated like reading Mother Goose stories to children.
I believe in the power that Jesus displayed in the gospels …otherwise I may as well quit going to church.
Have a good night,
Tony

Absolutely true. Well said. The bible is the tool God is using to bring us to salvation. Who knows the mind of God. Who are we to question Him. To hear someone dispute the veracity of any part of the bible makes me cringe. You can’t cherry pick. God put it in there for a reason. Complain when you have believed God, trusted Him, put your faith in Him to fulfil His promises and you get zilch. But you know, even then, the fault does not lie with God.
Carmen

 

[truetofaith]

You assume that the Gospel narratives must be 100% literally true for them to be true. Why?

And frankly, I think Mother Goose narratives are quite valuable. But the Gospels of course are much more valuable.

Edwin

I thought it was obvious that the Gospel narratives Must be 100% literally true. As I said in an earlier post, …“when Jesus made the blind man SEE, I believe he SAW with his once blind eyes …not that he saw ( understood ) …what Jesus was saying.”
How could the apostles lay their lives on the line to follow a fraud, who was just a good talker?

When Jesus calmed the storm…the apostles were completely awed & said “this is truly the Son of God!”
We Must - take it literal that bread & wine is changed into the Body & Blood of Christ at Mass.
Do you agree?