If Adam and Eve were immortal in Eden

  • Thread starter Thread starter scameter18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seperation of body and soul is unnatural to man. Man’s earthly life was meant to end in eternal life body and soul.

If the original natural state had been maintained earthly food is exactly what a former poster mentioned. It sustained man as he became complete and returned to God.

In the garden man reached up for food and nothing had to die for man to eat. The reward for earthly life fulfilled in God was the fruit of the tree of good and evil. The fruit that eternal man could eat because he is no longer bound by law.
 
Benadam said:
The account expresses that the essence of earthly life is summed up in man. To name is to know to know is to be like.

Yet no suitable helpmeet was found. Why? Because Adam could not be bound in oneness to animal life alone. Man is a composit of two living realms animals are not.

The time for perfect life to rise to a more perfect life is announced by God.
Before the fall God announced what was good and evil.

" It is not good that the man is alone." Man seeks a rememdy for this loneliness that God revealed by searching out all possible remedies among his animal likenesses in the world. Untill this search is exhausted man is not prepared to recieve the remedy that was in himself. The oneness of man . So God took woman out of man and gave her to him. . In return Adam gave himself to woman and they were one bone and flesh but no longer alone.

like the days of creation are divided by night and day that makes a whole so too is man divided by male and female that makes a whole.

Peter you enterpretation at some point stopped short ,because at that point, for you, all things were not possible with God.
Click to expand...
Hi, Benadam.

Could it be, Benadam, that your erudition here is completely misplaced – like the work of the 1960s CIA analysts who wrote papers on the deeper meaning of Krushchev picking his nose?

Could it be that you are trying to ascribe deep meaning to idiot-level Biblical humor?

In Genesis 2, God introduces Eve to Adam. Adam responds with something like, “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. I will call her woman, for out of her man she was taken.”

You might write some kind of deeply profound and erudite observation on the event, discerning world-shaking theology in it.

In fact, it is an ancient Hebrew pun – a joke.
 
Peter_Dawson said:
Hi, Benadam.

Could it be, Benadam, that your erudition here is completely misplaced – like the work of the 1960s CIA analysts who wrote papers on the deeper meaning of Krushchev picking his nose?

Could it be that you are trying to ascribe deep meaning to idiot-level Biblical humor?

In Genesis 2, God introduces Eve to Adam. Adam responds with something like, “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. I will call her woman, for out of her man she was taken.”

You might write some kind of deeply profound and erudite observation on the event, discerning world-shaking theology in it.

In fact, it is an ancient Hebrew pun – a joke.
Click to expand...
Absolute certainty doesn’t pertain to our state of being. I can be fairly certain that the meaning I give the text isn’t misplaced. Certainty about that increases as it is confirmed by it’s consistency with the traditions that lived by and preserved the original author’s inspiration. It is increased if it’s inclusion enables deeper understanding throughout the Sacred Scriptures.
I can’t say I couldnt give the pun some profound meaning because I already have. It is harmonious and profound but I am now not at liberty to believe it with absolute certainty.

I am not certain that the author of Geneis didn’t write a pun but I have a very high degree of certainty that it isn’t ‘just’ a pun.
 
Benadam said:
Absolute certainty doesn’t pertain to our state of being. I can be fairly certain that the meaning I give the text isn’t misplaced. Certainty about that increases as it is confirmed by it’s consistency with the traditions that lived by and preserved the original author’s inspiration. It is increased if it’s inclusion enables deeper understanding throughout the Sacred Scriptures.
I can’t say I couldnt give the pun some profound meaning because I already have. It is harmonious and profound but I am now not at liberty to believe it with absolute certainty.

I am not certain that the author of Geneis didn’t write a pun but I have a very high degree of certainty that it isn’t ‘just’ a pun.
Click to expand...
Remember Frued’s famous warning: “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”

In Genesis, the pun reads something like this, in Hebrew…

“This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. I will call her ishshah, for out of ishah she was taken.”

If we translate the logic of the pun into English, and not the Hebrew words, it reads, “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. I will call her a ‘herman,’ for out of ‘her man’ she was taken.”

Voila! Eve was a “herman”!!!
 
Peter_Dawson said:
You say to me that “you have just gone against Church teaching” but only after you yourself have gone through a “filtering process,” filtering out of your belief structure about the story things which would make other people laugh at your beliefs.
Click to expand...
Actually I get laughed at far more for that “crazy” belief of mine that I consume our Lord; body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist. My musings on ‘if the Garden is real, what was it like?’ do not elicit nearly the negative response. After all it is a ‘what if?’ scenario. My sure belief in the Real Presence is much harder to defend.
 
LittleDeb said:
Actually I get laughed at far more for that “crazy” belief of mine that I consume our Lord; body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist. My musings on ‘if the Garden is real, what was it like?’ do not elicit nearly the negative response. After all it is a ‘what if?’ scenario. My sure belief in the Real Presence is much harder to defend.
Click to expand...
There’s really, really good Biblical material on the Real Presence.

Example: When Jesus was born, He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in the manger.

By being wrapped in swaddling clothes, Jesus was made to look like a cadaver. The manger was a feeding trough for yoked animals – a kind of dinner plate.

So, even at His birth, we see the actual sacrificed body of dead Christ offered as food on a plate!

Lest you think that this is a coincidence, note where He was born – in “Bethlehem,” Hebrew for “House of Bread”!!!

There are other examples.
 
I’ve wondered this too. Adam and Eve’s bodies were animated by a soul with an unobstructed immortal life. So their bodies life was a continuum unobstructed by death. Jesus’ body I would think was too. Does this mean that for Him choosing death was more than just allowing people to kill Him but choosing to let His body die? Did His body die because of the severe trauma it suffered? Or did choosing to allow His body to die entail…healing…preturnatural power of healing…Would have the laws of nature before the fall kept even the most severe trauma from seperating the body from the soul? hmmmm
 
grannymh said:
How sad to see a beautiful interpretation of scripture denigrated.
Click to expand...
The beautiful interpretation is the one overlooked by nearly all, Granny – the typological interpretation.

The Adam and Eve story is a hypothetical by God the Holy Spirit showing how each of us WOULD handle every single moral question IF grace did not exist.

Thus, we needed saving.

Thus, at the end of the hypothetical, the crucifixion of Christ is promised as the cure for the problem.

The literalists by and large don’t even care about God’s true purpose, in the story.

Did you know, Granny, that the Holy Spirit Himself, in Scripture, declares Adam to be a symbol of Christ?

How often do the folks here dwell on that symbolic design by Almighty God Himself?

They care more about whether mosquitoes bit Eve in Paradise than why God declared Adam to be a symbol of God’s Own Son.
 
Peter_Dawson said:
Did you know, Granny, that the Holy Spirit Himself, in Scripture, declares Adam to be a symbol of Christ?
.
Click to expand...
Really.😉 Was that declaration about Adam before or after his original sin?

Perhaps it is best to check the Catholic Catechism.

Or read a really good book.
Jesus of Nazareth
by Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI.
ISBN 978-0-385-52341-7
 
Peter_Dawson said:
There’s really, really good Biblical material on the Real Presence.

Example: When Jesus was born, He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in the manger.

By being wrapped in swaddling clothes, Jesus was made to look like a cadaver. The manger was a feeding trough for yoked animals – a kind of dinner plate.

So, even at His birth, we see the actual sacrificed body of dead Christ offered as food on a plate!

Lest you think that this is a coincidence, note where He was born – in “Bethlehem,” Hebrew for “House of Bread”!!!

There are other examples.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know all of this. If you peruse my threads from this time last year, I **started **a thread about the manger and the Real Presence. It was well received. Perhaps you were in it? We also discussed the death shroud = swaddling clothes connection, and Bethlehem.

You are not the only one who knows the deep levels of interpretation of Scripture. There is no harm in musings about the design of our bodies in a perfect environment. Before you decided to hijack this thread with your frustration on literalists, I had hoped it would go in the direction of a better understanding of our bodies and the natural design.

Our bodies are a perfect design just as they are. It is because we fell that the imperfection entered the world. Christ is the New Adam. Adam had the chance to redeem us but didn’t. A-dam means “first man.” The first man didn’t redeem us even though he was created in perfection. He couldn’t redeem us because he was relying just on himself (just like all of us.) But then you already know all of that.

If you want to help people, please keep the condescension to yourself.
 
grannymh said:
Really.😉 Was that declaration about Adam before or after his original sin?

Perhaps it is best to check the Catholic Catechism.

Or read a really good book.
Jesus of Nazareth
by Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI.
ISBN 978-0-385-52341-7
Click to expand...
👍
 
grannymh said:
Really.😉 Was that declaration about Adam before or after his original sin?
Click to expand...
Hopefully, you’re not plodding, here, and you’re actually talking, because citing the Catechism, generally, is really a form of plodding and non-communication.

Though Paul’s words in Romans 5:14 attach Adam’s symbolic value as a type, or symbol, or Christ, to the sinful time…

14 But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come.

…review of Genesis 2-3 suggests that Adam symbolizes Christ during the entire story.

Why would Paul infer that Adam symbolized sinless Christ during the sinful time in the story?

It is the reason why sinless Christ is frequently symbolized by ** sin ** symbols in Scripture. (For example, the bronze serpent on the pole in Numbers 21 is used as a picture of Christ on the cross in John 3.)

Paul sets forth that reason at 2 Corinthians 5:21: Christ is He-Who-did-not-know-sin-Who-was-made-to-be-sin.

By that Paul meant that Christ, by paying for our sins by His torture and death, took our sins upon Himself and so ended up being treated as though He were sin, itself.

Thus, in Genesis 3, we see Adam the Christ symbol taking the fruit from Eve like an idiot, without even being tempted by her.

That is a picture of Christ taking our sins upon Himself.
 
Peter_Dawson said:
There’s really, really good Biblical material on the Real Presence.

Example: When Jesus was born, He was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in the manger.

By being wrapped in swaddling clothes, Jesus was made to look like a cadaver. The manger was a feeding trough for yoked animals – a kind of dinner plate.

So, even at His birth, we see the actual sacrificed body of dead Christ offered as food on a plate!

Lest you think that this is a coincidence, note where He was born – in “Bethlehem,” Hebrew for “House of Bread”!!!

There are other examples.
Click to expand...
I humbly suggest that you read up on the theology of the Real Presence before you try to symbolize the Infant Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, as a dead cadaver.

If you are not interested in Catholic theology, try reading “The Bread of Life Discourse” in John Chapter 6. Jesus does not refer to Himself as the bread of death.

Yes, the manger was the place for life giving food. But, did Mary really believe she was to make Jesus “look like a cadaver”? What kind of a mother are you portraying? How does your use of cadaver symbolize God as the way, the truth, and the life? Do you realize that Jesus at birth was the living God?

Pardon me, but the Catholic Eucharist **is not what you are implying **in your comment: "So, even at His birth, we see the actual sacrificed body of dead Christ offered as food on a plate!

This link is an easy way to learn about the Catholic Eucharist.

Another way to learn about the Catholic Eucharist is to attend the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and listen intently to the words.
 
grannymh said:
I humbly suggest that you read up on the theology of the Real Presence before you try to symbolize the Infant Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, as a dead cadaver.

If you are not interested in Catholic theology, try reading “The Bread of Life Discourse” in John Chapter 6. Jesus does not refer to Himself as the bread of death.

Yes, the manger was the place for life giving food. But, did Mary really believe she was to make Jesus “look like a cadaver”? What kind of a mother are you portraying? How does your use of cadaver symbolize God as the way, the truth, and the life? Do you realize that Jesus at birth was the living God?

Pardon me, but the Catholic Eucharist **is not what you are implying **in your comment: "So, even at His birth, we see the actual sacrificed body of dead Christ offered as food on a plate!

This link is an easy way to learn about the Catholic Eucharist.

Another way to learn about the Catholic Eucharist is to attend the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and listen intently to the words.
Click to expand...
Hi, Granny. Here’s another Real Presence typological word picture. You’ll love this one.

37 A certain Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem, was denounced to Nicanor as a patriot. A man highly regarded, he was called a father of the Jews because of his love for them.
38 In the early days of the revolt, he had been convicted of Judaism, and had risked body and life in his ardent zeal for it.
39 Nicanor, to show his detestation of the Jews, sent more than five hundred soldiers to arrest him.
40 He thought that by arresting such a man he would deal the Jews a hard blow.
41 But when these troops, on the point of capturing the tower, were forcing the outer gate and calling for fire to set the door ablaze, Razis, now caught on all sides, turned his sword against himself, [There’s Christ being stabbed in the side.]
42 preferring to die nobly rather than fall into the hands of vile men and suffer outrages unworthy of his noble birth.
43 In the excitement of the struggle he failed to strike exactly. So while the troops rushed in through the doors, he gallantly ran up to the top of the wall [There’s Christ on the cross.] and with manly courage threw himself down into the crowd.
44 But as they quickly drew back and left an opening, he fell into the middle of the empty space. [There’s Christ descending into Hell.]
45 Still breathing, and inflamed with anger, he got up and ran through the crowd, with blood gushing from his frightful wounds. [There’s Christ rising from the dead.]
46 Then, standing on a steep rock [There’s Christ presiding over the Church.], as he lost the last of his blood, he tore out his entrails and flung them with both hands into the crowd [There’s Christ distributing His actual sacrificed body to the people in the Eucharist.], calling upon the Lord of life and of spirit to give these back to him again. Such was the manner of his death. 2 Maccabees 14:37-46.
 
Peter_Dawson said:
Hopefully, you’re not plodding, here, and you’re actually talking, because citing the Catechism, generally, is really a form of plodding and non-communication.
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
is a good way to check the real Catholic teaching when private individuals interpret Scripture on their own. One difficulty is when a single verse or a bunch of verses are separated from their context to prove someone’s personal ideas. This becomes a problem because the style of St. Paul’s writing and the way he uses words is often ignored.

For those who may be a wee bit confused about the relationship of Adam, the first human nature, who sinned and our loving and merciful Savior, Jesus Christ, Who is both true God and true man – here is a quick link. www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Addional note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church has many paragraphs about Jesus Chirst.
 
grannymh said:
I humbly suggest that you read up on the theology of the Real Presence before you try to symbolize the Infant Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, as a dead cadaver.

If you are not interested in Catholic theology, try reading “The Bread of Life Discourse” in John Chapter 6. Jesus does not refer to Himself as the bread of death.

Yes, the manger was the place for life giving food. But, did Mary really believe she was to make Jesus “look like a cadaver”? What kind of a mother are you portraying? How does your use of cadaver symbolize God as the way, the truth, and the life? Do you realize that Jesus at birth was the living God?

Pardon me, but the Catholic Eucharist **is not what you are implying **in your comment: "So, even at His birth, we see the actual sacrificed body of dead Christ offered as food on a plate!

This link is an easy way to learn about the Catholic Eucharist.

Another way to learn about the Catholic Eucharist is to attend the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and listen intently to the words.
Click to expand...
Well some of his theology isn’t far off. He is just presenting it with all of the grace of a water buffalo in a tutu.

I completely overlooked the cadaver references, so you are right in pointing out that they do *not *portray our Lord in the Eucharist. The swaddling clothes are a fore-shadow of the shroud, but not as the “dead baby” reference he uses. (Note to Mr Dawson: They are about His birth and His re-birth, the resurrection.)

Normally, those types of gross errors would have stood out to me. But with his thread hijack, I tend to be skimming his posts. I’m glad you were there to catch that. I need to be done feeding the troll in this thread. I brought up the Eucharist in a thread about the *earthly *immortality. My bad.

Good catch Granny!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top