Eve the first woman

[NotWorthy]

No. The Apostles saw a Glorified Body (modified slightly, so that He bore the crucifixion marks, but not the torture marks). By “fully human” I meant, “barred from doing magical stuff in substance,” like “de-materializing” to go through things.

Can you de-materialize?

No?

Then that’s what Jesus was – a non-de-materializer.

I think that one of the reasons why the Father would have wanted Him to be a non-de-materializer is so that there could be no speculation that the crucifixion did not hurt bad – no speculation, for example, that He “de-materialized” in His hands, feet and side WHILE on the cross.

Read Wisdom 7:5-6.

But Peter, my Body hasn’t been raised by death. Jesus’ was. His Body had merely healed from the wounds of Torture, but He chose to bear the wounds of Crucifixion in order to prove that He wasn’t an apparition. When we are raised from the Dead to reign with Him in His Kingdom, wouldn’t you think we would no longer be bound by mere walls?

Your scenario - “modified slightly” is the term you used - seems to imply someone who is no longer fully human.

I would say that Jesus passed through the wall of the Upper Room with the very same Body as the He did while passing through the wall of Mary’s uterus without “breaking its integrity”.

 

[Martin_Roberts]

[No message]

 

[Martin_Roberts]

As an outsider (non-Catholic) I have read the contributions about Adam and Eve with great interest. If all human beings were literally descended from Adam and Eve, surely this would produce inbreeding of a disastrous kind. I am not a scientist, but I understand that genetics and biology both show that what would amount to incest has dreadful physical results which I do not need to describe. I get the impression that some of your contributors disagree with the idea of a literal descent from only two parents. This seems to be inconsistent with the papal pronouncement.
I was told that Adam means"man" and that the story is an allegory. The ancient writers did not have enough abstract words to express their ideas except by telling stories that contained a greater truth. Does anyone else share this opinion?

 

[juliamajor]

As an outsider (non-Catholic) I have read the contributions about Adam and Eve with great interest. If all human beings were literally descended from Adam and Eve, surely this would produce inbreeding of a disastrous kind. I am not a scientist, but I understand that genetics and biology both show that what would amount to incest has dreadful physical results which I do not need to describe. I get the impression that some of your contributors disagree with the idea of a literal descent from only two parents. This seems to be inconsistent with the papal pronouncement.
I was told that Adam means"man" and that the story is an allegory. The ancient writers did not have enough abstract words to express their ideas except by telling stories that contained a greater truth. Does anyone else share this opinion?

Check posts #52 & #54…
There are so many interesting questions in Genesis such as-Are there really two creations in Genesis? If two what meaning does each have. If not then why did the writer write what he did?What is the origin of evil.?Was Eve A seductress as many Church Fathers saw her?What is the real meaning of the two trees-one tee of Life the other of Good and evil. was Eve the first wife Adam had? Etc.Let’s get back to the Lady Eve!

 

[Peter_Dawson]

But Peter, my Body hasn’t been raised by death. Jesus’ was. His Body had merely healed from the wounds of Torture, but He chose to bear the wounds of Crucifixion in order to prove that He wasn’t an apparition. When we are raised from the Dead to reign with Him in His Kingdom, wouldn’t you think we would no longer be bound by mere walls?

Your scenario - “modified slightly” is the term you used - seems to imply someone who is no longer fully human.

I would say that Jesus passed through the wall of the Upper Room with the very same Body as the He did while passing through the wall of Mary’s uterus without “breaking its integrity”.

I think that, indeed, if we die and are saved, our substance will be less restrained by current physical constraints.

I think that we will be less “fully human” in the Earthly sense.

We won’t suffer.

Remember that the point of Jesus’ first coming was to suffer and die.

So, I think that Wisdom 7:5-6 is assurance that He was born in the usual traumatic way, and that He died in the usual traumatic way.

I, personally, believe that the miraculous birth doctrine is error.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Check posts #52 & #54…
There are so many interesting questions in Genesis such as-Are there really two creations in Genesis? If two what meaning does each have. If not then why did the writer write what he did?What is the origin of evil.?Was Eve A seductress as many Church Fathers saw her?What is the real meaning of the two trees-one tee of Life the other of Good and evil. was Eve the first wife Adam had? Etc.Let’s get back to the Lady Eve!

Hi, Julia. You need to talk to me.

IMHO…

There are two conflicting creation accounts, because neither is intended to be historical, and each focuses on different components of Catholic theology.

One writer – maybe Jeremiah’s secretary Baruch, who may be the famous “Final Redactor” – pulled together two differenbt creation accounts from two different authors in Genesis.

Evil has two origins – our hungry flesh “beating out the brains of” our free wills with constant demands, and the Devil who wants us to marry him, not God.

Hopefully, Eve was a seductress – if she was Adam’s wife, she owed him a good time, just as he, if he was her husband, owed him a good time.

The Tree of Life is the Cross. The Tree of Knowledsge of Good and Evil is the commandments, imprinted in our minds and hearts, so that our conscience jumps into action so that we “know” what is good and what is bad when we try to commit sin.

Asking questions like, “Was Eve the first wife of Adam?” is off-base. Eve is a fictional character in a myth. There may have been two hominids, one male and the other female, who were ensouled by God so that they became “the first humans.” But the Adam and Eve story isn’t really about them.

Instead, it’s about you.

 

[buffalo]

Hi, Julia. You need to talk to me.

IMHO…

There are two conflicting creation accounts, because neither is intended to be historical, and each focuses on different components of Catholic theology.

One writer – maybe Jeremiah’s secretary Baruch, who may be the famous “Final Redactor” – pulled together two differenbt creation accounts from two different authors in Genesis.

Evil has two origins – our hungry flesh “beating out the brains of” our free wills with constant demands, and the Devil who wants us to marry him, not God.

Hopefully, Eve was a seductress – if she was Adam’s wife, she owed him a good time, just as he, if he was her husband, owed him a good time.

The Tree of Life is the Cross. The Tree of Knowledsge of Good and Evil is the commandments, imprinted in our minds and hearts, so that our conscience jumps into action so that we “know” what is good and what is bad when we try to commit sin.

Asking questions like, “Was Eve the first wife of Adam?” is off-base. Eve is a fictional character in a myth. There may have been two hominids, one male and the other female, who were ensouled by God so that they became “the first humans.” But the Adam and Eve story isn’t really about them.

Instead, it’s about you.

The Catholic Church affirms there was a historical Adam and Eve.

The first creation account talks about God’s creation. The second talks of man’s creation. There is no conflict.

The Toledoths of Genesis

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The Catholic Church affirms there was a historical Adam and Eve.

The first creation account talks about God’s creation. The second talks of man’s creation. There is no conflict.

The Toledoths of Genesis

When we read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, we are supposed to read them in a relaxed way, and not have to turn more tumble-saults and handsprings than an Olympian in a floor exercise, to resolve conflicts.

Genesis 2: “5 while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil,
6 but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground–
7 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.”

So, Genesis 2 has man being made BEFORE plants.

Genesis 1: “11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.” And so it happened:
12 the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was.
13 Evening came, and morning followed–the third day.
26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”
27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”
29 God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; 30 and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.
31 God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed–the sixth day.”

Here we see that Genesis 1 has man made AFTER the plants. Contradiction.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Additionally, the Church probably does not currently require a belief in an “historical Adam and Eve.”

This is because we have to strip the story of so much detail to make it a serious contender for non-fiction that the main characters aren’t recognizable any more as “Adam” and “Eve.”

For example, in the story, who is Adam? Answer: Adam is the guy God initially tries to match - up with animals, because God errs. Read Genesis 2:18-20.

But this part MUST be fiction, because God doesn’t err, right?

So, we have to cast out that portion of the story if it is a “history,” right?

Another example: In the story, who is Eve? Answer: Eve is the lady who talked to the talking serpent.

But serpents don’t talk! So, this part, too, MUST be fiction, because serpents don’t talk, right?

So, we have to cast out that portion of the story if it is a “history,” right?

This process of stripping the story goes on and on and on. Soon, there are insufficient details surviving to identify them as “historical Adam and Eve.”

 

[Peter_Dawson]

You could complain, dear friend, that such an analysis “ruins your faith,” but do you really want to have faith in an erring God and in talking serpents?

 

[buffalo]

When we read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, we are supposed to read them in a relaxed way, and not have to turn more tumble-saults and handsprings than an Olympian in a floor exercise, to resolve conflicts.

Genesis 2: “5 while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil,
6 but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground–
7 the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.”

So, Genesis 2 has man being made BEFORE plants.

Genesis 1: “11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.” And so it happened:
12 the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was.
13 Evening came, and morning followed–the third day.
26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.”
27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”
29 God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; 30 and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.
31 God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed–the sixth day.”

Here we see that Genesis 1 has man made AFTER the plants. Contradiction.

Are there two creation accounts?

 

[buffalo]

Additionally, the Church probably does not currently require a belief in an “historical Adam and Eve.”

This is because we have to strip the story of so much detail to make it a serious contender for non-fiction that the main characters aren’t recognizable any more as “Adam” and “Eve.”

For example, in the story, who is Adam? Answer: Adam is the guy God initially tries to match - up with animals, because God errs. Read Genesis 2:18-20.

But this part MUST be fiction, because God doesn’t err, right?

So, we have to cast out that portion of the story if it is a “history,” right?

Another example: In the story, who is Eve? Answer: Eve is the lady who talked to the talking serpent.

But serpents don’t talk! So, this part, too, MUST be fiction, because serpents don’t talk, right?

So, we have to cast out that portion of the story if it is a “history,” right?

This process of stripping the story goes on and on and on. Soon, there are insufficient details surviving to identify them as “historical Adam and Eve.”

Do you have a citation that states - we no longer believe as the Church has taught and believed since the beginning? An official Magisterial document mind you not some theologians musing.

After that please give me your opinion as to what the Holy Spirit was doing all this time.

 

[grannymh]

As an outsider (non-Catholic) I have read the contributions about Adam and Eve with great interest. If all human beings were literally descended from Adam and Eve, surely this would produce inbreeding of a disastrous kind. I am not a scientist, but I understand that genetics and biology both show that what would amount to incest has dreadful physical results which I do not need to describe. I get the impression that some of your contributors disagree with the idea of a literal descent from only two parents. This seems to be inconsistent with the papal pronouncement.
I was told that Adam means"man" and that the story is an allegory. The ancient writers did not have enough abstract words to express their ideas except by telling stories that contained a greater truth. Does anyone else share this opinion?

Thank you for sharing. There is a lot of disagreement about Adam and Eve between individuals, sad to say. But the Church, herself, remains firm. I would appreciate sharing opinions with you but unfortunately, commitments are calling me. Thus, I have just snatches of time to post instead of being able to think in peace. May I get back to you later?

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[buffalo]

You could complain, dear friend, that such an analysis “ruins your faith,” but do you really want to have faith in an erring God and in talking serpents?

Just one question - the devil does not have the ability to speak through serpents, demons or other means? or does he?

 

[grannymh]

You could complain, dear friend, that such an analysis “ruins your faith,” but do you really want to have faith in an erring God and in talking serpents?

I just read Genesis 2:18-20. It sure didn’t read like you said it did.

 

[grannymh]

Additionally, the Church probably does not currently require a belief in an “historical Adam and Eve.”
."

The word “probably” covers a multitude of individual opinions which are just that. If one is interested in the word “actually” here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition paragraph 390, actually says:

"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man".

 

[grannymh]

When we read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, we are supposed to read them in a relaxed way, and not have to turn more tumble-saults and handsprings than an Olympian in a floor exercise, to resolve conflicts.
.

If one would relax and read Scripture in the way God intended it to be read, i.e., listening to the greater truth, one could skip the Olympian floor exercises. Thank you to the poster, back a few blocks, who mentioned the “greater truth.”

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I just read Genesis 2:18-20. It sure didn’t read like you said it did.

Here is the way it reads…

**18 The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.”
19 So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man. **

Okay, let’s go through it, word by word.

18 The LORD God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him."

Man is alone. God’s says, “That’s not good. I’ll make him a suitable partner!!!”

19 So…

In other words, we are about to read, here, what God supposedly did in order to satisfy God’s Own intention to “make a suitable partner” for Adam. What kind of a partner? Answer: A “suitable” partner.

So, here we are about to read what God did to make a “suitable” partner for Adam…

the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.

But, the question arises…Were the wild animals and birds, which God made in order to fulfill God’s Own ambition to make Adam a “suitable” partner, “suitable” partners???

**20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man. **

There it is! God made a mistake!

Now, is Genesis actually teaching us that God made a mistake? Is that history?

Of course not.

We are not supposed to believe that Genesis 2 and 3 is an historical document.

We are supposed to have the intelligence to know fiction when we read it, and think, “Oh! I get it! It’s NOT history!”

 

[NotWorthy]

So, I think that Wisdom 7:5-6 is assurance that He was born in the usual traumatic way, and that He died in the usual traumatic way.

I, personally, believe that the miraculous birth doctrine is error.

For no king has any different origin or birth, but one is the entry into life for all; and in one same way they leave it.

Before I comment on the Wisdom quote, I’d like to point out something in the way you said it. You offered up reasons for believing this, without demeaning opposing views. I think a better way to say it is, “you didn’t preach it from on high”. That, I think, has been my biggest trouble with you (and hey, maybe its just me…) for although you state this is your opinion, you usually conclude with something like, “and this is the only plausible excuse for something…”.

Now, regarding the Wisdom quote… are you sure that this proves the form of birth of Jesus (i.e breaching the integrity)? “For no king has any different origin”? Really?!? Christ does not have a different origin than any other king? Wasn’t He "conceived by the Holy Spirit"? Doesn’t that equate to a different origin, or have we all been “conceived by the Holy Spirit”.?

 

[grannymh]

Here is the way it reads…
quote]

You may interpret Scripture to suit yourself. That is your decision.