S
simpleas
Guest
Apologies.
The assumption warning was about my take on what cargau was saying.
I should have been clearer.
- Status
The assumption warning was about my take on what cargau was saying.
I should have been clearer.
G
grannymh
Guest
That is understandable. Thank you for clarifying.Apologies.
The assumption warning was about my take on what cargau was saying.
I should have been clearer.
However, I am still interested in what is being assumed. Was Cargau referring to an assumption in post 113?
Is there truth or assumption in Genesis 2: 15-17? Readers want to know.
G
grannymh
Guest
This older than dirt granny is having a bit of brain problems which need some careful clarifications.
Regarding this from post 113.
“The Church does not compel us to believe in the historical existence of Adam and Eve. She does claim that we all share two human parents who at some point sinned.”
In the days before Google, when I walked five miles up hill to kindergarten
the word “historical” usually meant that something was based on an event or period in history. My poor question is – If, as you say, the Catholic Church does not compel us to believe in the historical existence of Adam and Eve, space and time, what kind, pray tell, is Adam and Eve’s existence according to the Catholic Church?Personally, it seems to me that the author of the first three Genesis chapters knew and affirmed that Adam existed in Genesis 2:15 as the original human on our planet. That bit of news is why I say that Genesis 2: 15-17 is an explanation of Original Sin. Original Sin, original human.
S
simpleas
Guest
That would be up to Cargau to say.That is understandable. Thank you for clarifying.
However, I am still interested in what is being assumed. Was Cargau referring to an assumption in post 113?
Is there truth or assumption in Genesis 2: 15-17? Readers want to know.
I was just expressing what I assumed Cargau was saying about a literal couple named Adam and Eve.
We don’t know how many years pasted (hundreds/thousands) before the creation story was recorded for reading, before that it was word of mouth, an account told through generations of peoples, and unless they had better memories than us, Adam and Eve could have been called by any name, the command could be different, (the tree bit, not the warning) and the “extras” given as punishment along with death may have been added on.
All my assumptions of course!
Got to have an opened mind to be able to search for the truth, test everything as they say, but always keeping in mind that God is the Divine creator.
G
grannymh
Guest
I believe that some of the problems are that people keep mixing up the actual text of the first three chapters of Genesis. These misunderstandings are repeated until no one really knows what happened in the first three chapters of Genesis. For example. While people refer to the first three chapters of Genesis as the “Creation Story”, Genesis 2: 15-17 is technically not about creation per se.
As for searching for the truth in the first three chapters of Genesis, personally, I see no reason to “reinvent the wheel.”
G
grannymh
Guest
Chapter 14, Gospel of John is why I do not care how many generations there were between Adam and Eve and the author of the first three chapters of Genesis.
I trust the memory of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, who guides the major ecumenical Catholic Church Councils when they are properly defining Divine Revelation as Catholic doctrines.
Holy Spirit
C
cargau
Guest
Granny,Chapter 14, Gospel of John is why I do not care how many generations there were between Adam and Eve and the author of the first three chapters of Genesis.
I trust the memory of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, who guides the major ecumenical Catholic Church Councils when they are properly defining Divine Revelation as Catholic doctrines.
Holy Spirit
I didn’t mean to upset you in any way. You are a person of faith and your grannykids are blessed to have you as a spiritual guide.
Much of scripture is allegorical. That means that the content of the message is more focused on spiritual realities than historical realities. What are these realities? Well, before I say, I mentioned in an earlier post that the Israel and Judah were conquered and taken into captivity by the Assyrians and Babylonians. The Jews were immersed in these other cultures including their religious tenets. Just prior to and during this captivity, the prophets really began to emerge. It is thought that Scripture, including Genesis, was either written or redacted during this time.
There was an urgency to preserve the Jewish understanding of God and his covenantal relationship with his chosen people. What are these theological realities? We know that God created man out of love for friendship. When he created the sun, moon, land and sea and all the plants and animals, it was good. But when he created Man, it was very good,
Look at Gn 1:27…“God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Contrast that to the mythologies of other near eastern cultures and we get a glimpse of who God is. Further we get a sense of the divine construction of complemented nature of man and woman.
In GN 1:28, It is written, “God blessed them and God said to them: 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 crawl on the earth.” God blessed them. I’m pretty sure Marduk never did that!
Have babies! God wants more people because he loves us. And finally, man’s primacy on earth is stressed as Man has lordship of all that God has created. That is what dominion means,
In GN 2:23-24 it says, "the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man this one has been taken.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.*
These passages give us a glimpse of God’s intentions for creating the world and in particular, us. And it provides a sense of God’s expectation of man. It is the beginning of a friendship, where we are to love God, each other and his creation.
In GN 2:15-17, "
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it. The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die."
This does not explain original sin, but it does set the table for it. I think we often undervalue the seriousness of this sin. You and I sin because our will has been darkened by original sin. That doesn’t excuse our sins, but think about Adam and Eve who had no such limitation. I mentioned before that God did not prevent Adam and Eve from doing what they want. Rather as a loving parent he was protecting them from something they could not handle and the result was of disobedience was death entering the world.
I hope this clears up some of the :assumptions.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please, please, I have to ask this silly question because you did make the comment in post 125 that *“Much of scripture is allegorical.” *So, is this table an allegorical picnic table in a well cultivated garden? And is God an allegory for …? since He is mentioned in Genesis 2: 15-17.
Seriously, we need to use common sense when it comes to historical reality in the first three chapters of Genesis. We need to be very careful of those clichés about allegory so we do not end up considering God, the Divine Creator as part of an allegory.
In Genesis 2: 15-17, there is a direct relationship between the first human and his Creator. Please notice that God chooses where to settle Adam. God gives the very strong commandment. Because it is obvious that God is in charge, this tells us that the love relationship between God and Adam is not between two equal beings.
cargau
You could use the unequal friendship relationship between God and Adam as a “table” for Original Sin because the unequal relationship can be seen as a necessary condition for Original Sin. But you cannot generally apply or imply that this is an allegory because the unequal relationship is historic reality.
G
grannymh
Guest
Going back to post 120, there is still the question which has not been explored. “Is there truth or assumption in Genesis 2: 15-17?”Is there truth or assumption in Genesis 2: 15-17? Readers want to know.
I should ask – Is there truth or assumption in Genesis 2: 15-17 when it is used as an explanation of Original Sin?
I should also ask is CCC 390 an either/or" teaching or a both/and teaching ?
**390 **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. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
While there are a lot of ideas about the first three chapters of Genesis, it is the Catholic Church which sorts out what is “Revelation” which is then put into Catholic doctrines. Adam is real. The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits of being human. (CCC 396; CCC 1730)
Therefore, practically speaking, CCC 390 is a both/and teaching.
The Catholic Church also realizes that the life of Jesus Christ needs to be known in order to understand the depth of those first three chapters of Genesis. (CCC 388-389)
When we find an organic fruit tree, with a weird name in Genesis 2: 15-17, we look to Jesus Christ Who is needed to repair the damage of Adam’s Original Sin. The original damage of Original Sin is that Adam let his trust in God die in his heart and thus he preferred himself over and against God. Adam chose an action that was clearly against the requirements of his creature position and consequently against his own good. (CCC 396-399; CCC 1730-1732)
To get a better grasp of the above, we need to understand that the unequal friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity is primary for the action of Original Sin. Adam, as a true human with intellect and free choice, was not divine; therefore, he could not undo what he did because the Creator of the original friendship is divine.
Personally, to me, the solution needed to bring Adam back into harmony with his Creator is the most amazing thing that could ever happen in human history. The Divine Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity assumed, not absorbed, human nature in order to repair and strengthen humanity’s relationship with divinity. This is the great gift to us. This is the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, True God and True Man. (CCC 422-424; CCC 464; CCC 470; CCC 479-483)
C
cargau
Guest
If you are suggesting that the use of an allegory presupposes that everything related to the narrative is not literally true, that is not what I said. The use of this literary technique is to highlight the underlying realities without worrying about being perfectly historical.
The fact is, God and his reality is exactly what is being communicated and taught.
God is our Father. In his divinity, he knows what we need. Like any parent he sets limitations (laws) to protect us from ourselves. Of Course, the relationship is not equal. How could it be. Perhaps a weak analogy is of a parent and a child, but there is a comparison there.
C
cargau
Guest
I’m not sure I understand truth vs. assumption. No one is assuming anything. Divinely inspired Scripture is true as far as the theological message. But, we don’t necessarily understand that every historical event in the story is true. That is what is meant by figurative language. I have said in a previous post that we had 2 human parents, a man and a woman who are our first parents. Was the literal Adam and Eve described in Genesis the first humans? Not sure about that. But, that is not necessarily germane to the message that comes through.
Just so we are clear, neither CCC390 nor CCC396 say that a Man named Adam is an historically factual character. Both statements refer to our “first parents or a spiritual creature”.
Yes, good points. All Scripture should be understand in the context of Jesus Christ. He is the fulfillment of Scripture and his revelation illuminates Scripture.
Amen! Man owed a debt it could not pay and Jesus paid a debt he did not owe! How awesome is our God!
G
grannymh
Guest
Flat out, straight forward – What is your explanation of Original Sin?
If somehow I missed your complete explanation, you have my apology. Still, it would be very easy for you to repeat it to this cranky granny.
Thank you in advance for your complete explanation of Original Sin.
C
cargau
Guest
I am incapable of completely explaining original sin. But I will offer some thoughts.Flat out, straight forward – What is your explanation of Original Sin?
If somehow I missed your complete explanation, you have my apology. Still, it would be very easy for you to repeat it to this cranky granny.
Thank you in advance for your complete explanation of Original Sin.
First we were made by God for God. In friendship and love He created us in His image to freely love Him. Through the “garden”, God provided for all of life’s needs. Our original parents, who possessed an enlightened will were deceived to believe that they were somehow equal to God and thus could do very well without God. They sinned and this horrible sin left a mark on mankind. Sin, thus death entered the world. Our will was darkened and we were doomed.
Only through the sacrifice of Jesus are we to overcome and live. That is the good news! The very good news!
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you.
Replying to your “The very good news!” which is perceived in Genesis 3:15 (CCC 410-411) – One of my favorite CCC sentences is “After his fall, man was not abandoned by God.”
Regarding being able to “completely explaining Original Sin” I often refer to “complete” in relationship to basics. Often simple basics are left out of explanations. For example, often Adam’s *intellective *free will is ignored. I noticed that you did not ignore Adam’s possession of “an enlightened will.” With that basic point in place we can go deeper into the basics of Original sin.
Here is another important basic point from post 131. “First we were made by God for God. In friendship and love He created us in His image to freely love Him.” (Genesis 1: 27; CCC 355-356; CCC 1730-1732)) The valuable state of our spiritual soul (image of God) is implied in the reverse of Genesis 2: 17. We can understand that Adam’s choice of separation from his Creator (disobedience) would be considered a mortal sin that destroys the soul’s divine life, that is, Adam’s State of Original Holiness, in the spiritual soul. (CCC Glossary, Mortal Sin, page 889)
Please continue with your thoughts.
G
grannymh
Guest
When studying Sacred Scripture, especially the controversial first three chapters of Genesis, it is easy to draw a line in the sand which, in a way, makes both sides immoveable. Yet, the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition has the guts to say: “Catechesis on creation is of major importance.”
CCC **282 **
Catechesis on creation is of major importance.
It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:
“Where do we come from?”
“Where are we going?”
“What is our origin?”
“What is our end?”
“Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?”
The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.
Perhaps it is time to let the waves of the lake wash against the sandy shore. Do we dare look at CCC 282 as a key to understanding Original Sin as explained in Genesis 2: 15-17?
CCC **282 **
Catechesis on creation is of major importance.
It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:
“Where do we come from?”
“Where are we going?”
“What is our origin?”
“What is our end?”
“Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?”
The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.
Perhaps it is time to let the waves of the lake wash against the sandy shore. Do we dare look at CCC 282 as a key to understanding Original Sin as explained in Genesis 2: 15-17?
C
cargau
Guest
Scripture hardly makes our understanding of our origin explicit. To my understanding, explicit means that Scripture, in this case relating to creation, is “complete and precise”. Yet, that is hardly the case. First, the creation story was written during or just after the exilic period in order to keep Jews not living in Palestine pure and pious. Second, the creation/flood stories are based on other near east literature again, to keep the Jews grounded in their faith.
The following is from the introduction to the Book of Genesis found on the USCCB website:
As far as the sources of Genesis are concerned, contemporary readers can reasonably assume that ancient traditions (J and E) were edited in the sixth or fifth century B.C. for a Jewish audience that had suffered the effects of the exile and was now largely living outside of Palestine. The editor highlighted themes of vital concern to this audience: God intends that every nation have posterity and land; the ancestors of Israel are models for their descendants who also live in hope rather than in full possession of what has been promised; the ancient covenant with God is eternal, remaining valid even when the human party has been unfaithful. By highlighting such concerns, the editor addressed the worries of exiled Israel and indeed of contemporary Jews and Christians.
Genesis 1–11. The seven-day creation account in Gn 1:1–2:3 tells of a God whose mere word creates a beautiful universe in which human beings are an integral and important part. Though Gn 2:4–3:24 is often regarded as “the second creation story,” the text suggests that the whole of 2:4–11:9 tells one story. The plot of Gn 2–11 (creation, the flood, renewed creation) has been borrowed from creation-flood stories attested in Mesopotamian literature of the second and early first millennia. In the Mesopotamian creation-flood stories, the gods created the human race as slaves whose task it was to manage the universe for them—giving them food, clothing, and honor in temple ceremonies. In an unforeseen development, however, the human race grew so numerous and noisy that the gods could not sleep. Deeply angered, the gods decided to destroy the race by a universal flood. One man and his family, however, secretly warned of the flood by his patron god, built a boat and survived
So, how does this all square with an “explicit” understanding of our origins? As I said before, the “explicit” understanding of the referenced passages are of a theological nature only. As far as I am concerned, that would hardly qualify as “explicit”.
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you, thank you for your information in red – it was a great reminder to me to find my old Bible which spoke about the "Several sources, or literary traditions, that the final redactor used in his composition … " Pages 2-3, Saint Joseph Edition of The New American Bible, Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, July 27, 1970; The Revised New Testament, Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, August 27, 1986.
This venerable book has a magnificent drawing of the “World of the Hebrews” between pages 4 and 5. Unfortunately, today’s [modern] readers focus on the “overturned bowl” with its “floodgates” resting on “columns.”
At the top of the drawing is the wisdom of all ages. “Heavenly Seat of the Divinity”
As for the word “explicit” in CCC 282, it refers to none other than the Catholic catechesis. Thus, it is correct that in the first three chapters of Genesis, the Catholic Church references passages which are theological in the sense of their interpretation given by the wisdom of Holy Spirit within the major ecumenical church councils. (chapter 14, Gospel of John)
My apology for not including the word “only” as in the text question –
"So, how does this all square with an “explicit” understanding of our origins? As I said before, the “explicit” understanding of the referenced passages are of a theological nature only. As far as I am concerned, that would hardly qualify as "explicit’.
I was an unlimited journalist before Google.
When doing a minor background check, often the info was found in a sturdy paper folder in a real steel cabinet in some organization’s basement. When researching a story, “only” meant that we better look under the rug.
G
grannymh
Guest
Continued comments from my Post 135.
Being concerned about a referenced Scripture as being of “a theological nature only” brings to my curious mind the question why only? What is it that we are not allowed to investigate? What is being hidden --maybe for a good reason?
We certainly should look for the theology in Genesis 2: 15-17. What we should not do is to separate its “theology only” from the reality of human nature which is an unique unification of both the material world (rotting anatomy) and the spiritual world (immortal soul). Sometimes, we have to lift the rug.
Genesis 2: 15-17 is not only about some rotten organic fruit which upset the digestive system of the person who ate it; these verses also lead to the basic questions in CCC 282
CCC **282 **
Catechesis on creation is of major importance.
It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:
“Where do we come from?”
“Where are we going?”
“What is our origin?”
“What is our end?”
“Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?”
The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.
Where do we come from? Adam knew.
Where are we going? Adam “let his trust in his Creator die in his heart …” (CCC 397; CCC 1707)
G
grannymh
Guest
From reading other threads on the effects of Original Sin,
I discover the false assumption that God is somehow a nasty immortal, etc. being Who let humans suffer unnecessarily. This is often followed by the false assumption that Adam has the same nature as birds, buffalo, bats, bears, and busy beavers.
When looking for the true explanation of Original Sin, we find that those above false assumptions are missing from Genesis 2: 15.
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
“settled him in the garden” sure doesn’t sound like the first man was plopped into the middle of an unfriendly jungle during a drought. “to cultivate and care for it” sure sounds like Adam is intelligent enough to understand the science of agriculture.
Still curious? Check out John 3: 16.
.
I discover the false assumption that God is somehow a nasty immortal, etc. being Who let humans suffer unnecessarily. This is often followed by the false assumption that Adam has the same nature as birds, buffalo, bats, bears, and busy beavers.
When looking for the true explanation of Original Sin, we find that those above false assumptions are missing from Genesis 2: 15.
15
The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
“settled him in the garden” sure doesn’t sound like the first man was plopped into the middle of an unfriendly jungle during a drought. “to cultivate and care for it” sure sounds like Adam is intelligent enough to understand the science of agriculture.
Still curious? Check out John 3: 16.
.
G
grannymh
Guest
Here is an early morning challenge. We know that God loved Adam. Did Adam love God? Remember that we are looking at Genesis 2:15 which is way before Adam let his trust in God die in his heart. (CCC 396-398) Adam, being in the State of Original Holiness, aka State of Sanctifying Grace, is a good start.
Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
- Status