I put the above words from St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1. “as one body of one man” (CCC, 404) in bold because they are my very favorite explanation of why Adam was not some figure of some truth. In his position as first human, Adam had the responsibility of living in free submission to his Creator. (CCC, 396; CCC, 1730-1732) Not only would this responsibility pertain to him personally, but his obedience or disobedience would affect all human nature via propagation. (CCC, 402, Romans 5: 12-21).
The Jews, often known as the chosen people and a couple of Christian Sects reject any notion of original sin. Augustine, hundreds upon hundreds of years later disagrees and declares the idea. Is it any wonder that people move around or leave their faith’s entirely?
This is a fairly complex exhortation by Pope Benedict worth reading. One small section in this area:
Father Barron is not saying anything out of line at all.
The Jews ceased to become the Chosen People at the institution of the Church. The Rabbinic Jews of the modern, post-destruction of the Temple era are much different than their First and Second Temple counterparts of the biblical era.
“For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).
Are you rebutting the other Catechism passages and Pope Benedict, or adding to them
I’m confused what point you are making.This discusses the reality of original sin, not the historicity of a man named Adam.
It sounded to me as if you were asserting the non-historicity of Adam (or at least, the first man whom he represents), and/or the idea that said man was not the author of original sin and the father of us all. If not, I am heartily sorry.Are you rebutting the other Catechism passages and Pope Benedict, or adding to them
This is the full context for passage 390 of the Catechism:
This discusses the reality of original sin, not the historicity of a man named Adam.
Scripture is not a science or history textbook, although it does have historical elements. To use it as such (not saying you are, I don’t know what you are saying) is reductionism.
Pope Benedict’s exhortation is worth the time to read.
IMHO, Armstrong’s phrasing of the question is deficient: “The issue is whether the Adam and Eve described in Genesis were real persons and the primal human pair.” This is not the question, as I see it. There is a distinction between the question “were the Adam and Eve described in Genesis real persons and the primal human pair?” and the question “were there real persons who were the primal human pair?”. The persons identified as ‘of the red earth’ and ‘(mother) of all the living’ (which, after all, is what Adam and Eve mean!) allegorically represent these two people. The question is not “did Adam and Eve exist?”, nor does the answer to this question require a given answer to the question “did a primal human pair exist?”, as some would claim. Rather, if one identifies ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ as allegorical, then one is not claiming that there was not a primal human pair, but rather, simply that these two characters allegorically represent that pair. Armstrong accuses Fr Barron of making this implication, but I would assert that he does not do so.
That is all well and good, However, this cannot be used to contradict what the Church has always taught and continues to teach about original sin and our first parents. That truth is fixed by Dogma in some cases and Traditional teaching in others and is not open to dispute. Please see my comments above and those of Granny.
Not exactly correct. See my comments and those of Granny. A real first man and a real first woman existed and they sinned against God and passed that sin on to us by generation, we inherited that sin as Original Sin. And since the Chruch has always referred to these two as Adam and Eve, following Genesis, and since the Catechism does the same, these names are most likely literal. There is no reasonable justification for saying otherwise, certainly not in a public forum such as that used by Fr. Barron.Are you rebutting the other Catechism passages and Pope Benedict, or adding to them
This is the full context for passage 390 of the Catechism:
This discusses the reality of original sin, not the historicity of a man named Adam.
Scripture is not a science or history textbook, although it does have historical elements. To use it as such (not saying you are, I don’t know what you are saying) is reductionism.
Pope Benedict’s exhortation is worth the time to read.
Just for the sake of ensuring that you don’t think I disagree: yes, this is true.
Two thoughts: first, in saying “the Catechism does the same,” you’re making an interesting assertion. Do you realize that, in the section on the creation of humanity, the names ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ don’t show up in the CCC? They only appear once the catechism is talking about original sin, and even there, it only begins to appear when the catechism is talking about the effects on humanity!
This is quite a conclusion! Yes, there are traditional ways of referring to the first man and the first woman, but does that prove that they literally existed under those names? Let’s look at a counterexample: after being renamed ‘Israel’, the Bible still regularly switches between ‘Israel’ and ‘Jacob’ in referring to him. He is not consistently called by one name, either by the Bible or by the Church, which is your measuring stick for asserting the literal truth of a name. Does this imply that these weren’t his names?
Call them Man and Woman then or Bob and Jane for all I care. CheersJust for the sake of ensuring that you don’t think I disagree: yes, this is true.
Two thoughts: first, in saying “the Catechism does the same,” you’re making an interesting assertion. Do you realize that, in the section on the creation of humanity, the names ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ don’t show up in the CCC? They only appear once the catechism is talking about original sin, and even there, it only begins to appear when the catechism is talking about the effects on humanity!
Second, the Church hasn’t always referred to these as ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’. Take a look at the Septuagint; there, we see two interesting points: first, everything in creation is given a name – except Adam. God doesn’t name him; he doesn’t name himself. All of a sudden ‘the man’ is called by the name ‘Adam’, which simply means “of the red (earth).” It is not so much a name as it is a title.
And what about Eve? When Adam names her, that name is reported in the Septuagint as Ζωή (‘Zoe’), not ‘Eve’. In other words, this, too, is a title! (Later in Gen 4, her name is given – only one time, and not again – as Ευαν (‘Eve’).) I would assert that this is hardly evidence as “always referring to” them in a way that’s significant.
This is quite a conclusion! Yes, there are traditional ways of referring to the first man and the first woman, but does that prove that they literally existed under those names? Let’s look at a counterexample: after being renamed ‘Israel’, the Bible still regularly switches between ‘Israel’ and ‘Jacob’ in referring to him. He is not consistently called by one name, either by the Bible or by the Church, which is your measuring stick for asserting the literal truth of a name. Does this imply that these weren’t his names?
Linusthe2nd is correct about the name Adam. Adam is a key figure in Catholic teachings. Catholic teachings have used the name Adam since Pentecost. The divinely inspired 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 and Romans 5: 12–21 use the name Adam in addition to the designation of “one person”.
The Church is clear that we are all descended from a single man and woman, who were the authors of original sin, as described in Genesis. Whether or not they were actually named “Adam” and “Eve” is (somewhat) irrelevant.
I don’t see where you’re getting any disagreement on that teaching.
The Jews, often known as the chosen people and a couple of Christian Sects reject any notion of original sin.
QUOTE]
The Jewish author of Genesis introduced the incident of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve, and of the penalty that would be paid by all future generations. If the penalty was to be paid by all, all must have inherited the guilt and the requiremnent to be cleansed of their guilt by a redeemer.
How do you get around that?
And why do you think Paul did not get to original sin before Augustine?
Romans 5:12
12 It was through one man that guilt came into the world; and, since death came owing to guilt, death was handed on to all mankind by one man. (All alike were guilty men;[2] 13 there was guilt in the world before ever the law of Moses was given. Now, it is only where there is a law to transgress that guilt is imputed,[3] 14 and yet we see death reigning in the world from Adam’s time to the time of Moses, over men who were not themselves guilty of transgressing a law, as Adam was.) In this, Adam was the type of him who was to come. 15 Only, the grace which came to us was out of all proportion to the fault. If this one man’s fault brought death on a whole multitude, all the more lavish was God’s grace, shewn to a whole multitude, that free gift he made us in the grace brought by one man, Jesus Christ.
