MARY vs ADAM AND EVE

[CLW001]

so now my quwston is was mary ever even tempted by the devil?
i would say not if emnity between her and satan was there.
it says it was so i think it was so he, satan, could not have tempted her, mary, so how could she commit sin?

 

[Lazerlike42]

There are (and people will probably give you) a lot more detailed answers than this, but basically, think about the whole time she watched Jesus be cruxified… she could have sinned at any moment there by doubting God’s will or by being angry at Him or something along those lines, but she didn’t, she went through all that with an accepting heart.

 

[Shiann]

CLW001:

so now my quwston is was mary ever even tempted by the devil?

Yes, but Immaculate Mary, being full of Sanctifying Grace, had PERFECT reason over her temptations. (Same as Adam and Eve) And she still choose to remain obedient and do the Will of God, and Trust Him explicitly in everything she did and thought.

i would say not if emnity between her and satan was there.

Why would Satan not wish to tempt Mary if enmity existed between them? I would say there would be temptation-ESPECIALLY if enmity existed between Mary and Satan.

it says it was so i think it was so he, satan, could not have tempted her, mary, so how could she commit sin?

“IT says IT was”… HUH? What said what was?

Your premise is incorrect- therefore your conclusion is wrong.

Satan tempted Jesus. Why would you think he wouldn’t try to tempt Jesus’ mother? Why don’t you think that Satan couldn’t try to convince Mary that he could save Jesus from death?

 

[CLW001]

I SEE MY ERROR NOW
i thought enminty was a separation of mary and satan.
now that i looked in the dictionary i see that it is a total
hatred. yes satan was always tempting mary out of the hatred
he had for her sense she was to be the mother of God. everything now falls into place. thanks

 

[NotWorthy]

Satan tempted Jesus, so I would assume he also tempted Mary.

Notworthy

 

[BibleReader]

marlo:

Well, I believe that they are real human beings,
whats the purpose of creation, if both of them are not real.
read the gospel…and you can see that Jesus lineage directly from David to Abrahan to Adam.

Adam is also called the “son of God” (Luk 3:38)

btw, Jews believe that Adam and Eve are trully human beings
as we catholics are the fulfillment of Judaism, we believe the same.

Hi, marlo.

The importance of Jesus being descended from “Adam” is that He is “of our flesh.”

If one’s take of that verse is purely literal – “Hah! That proves it! There was an Adam!” – then one has missed the point of the verse.

It is genuinely doubtful that the Hebrews/Jews literally believed that there was a literal “Adam” and “Eve.” The Adam and Eve story is a Doctor-Seuss-like collection of comical phrases and ideas which teach theology.

Prime example: Like a moron, God at first unsuccessfully tries to match lonely Adam up with animals. Genesis 2:18-20. Do you really think that the ancient Hebrews or Jews believed for a second that God was that dumb?

Another example: Adam jokingly calls Eve a “herman.” He says, “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.” Genesis 2:23. Substituting back-into the translation the critical Hebrew words, we see that this line is a pun – a joke! It reads, “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘ishsha,’ for out of ‘ishah’ this one has been taken.” The pun doesn’t translate into English. If we forget about trying to make an accurate translation, and instead preserve the logic of the pun, the verse reads, “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called a ‘herman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”

So, do you not only believe that God Himself was foolish, but also that Adam called Eve a “herman”?

There are many things like this in the Adam and Eve story. If you want, I’ll list other examples.

Even Adam’s name is gentle humor.

The bottom line is that it is almost impossible that the ancient Hebrews and Jews believed that Adam literally existed.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The statement that it’s impossible that ancient Jews believed Adam literally existed misses several key points.

For one thing, there have always been many different varieties of Jews. Even in Jesus’ time there were the Saduccees and the Pharisees. These were two fundamentally different types of Jews. They each had their own beliefs and interpretations. Even today, there are many different varieties of Jews. For instance, Judaism has definitely picked up a very liberal tone recently, with many Rabbi’s actually teaching that a huge chunk of the Old Testament (not just Genesis) is all metaphore. Now of course we know this to be false because some of the stories these Jews say are metaphors have recently been backed up archaeologically. On the other hand, there are the Hacidic Jews who remain very orthodox.

Also, it’s a fallacious arguement to say that just because the word name Adam is actually a play on words that he wasn’t a real person. There were quite a few people in the Bible who were named as such. Moses is also a play on words. Does this mean he didn’t exist? Of course not! Jesus means “God Saves.” Does that mean that early Christians made up the name Jesus? NO! Isn’t it possible that God simply has a “sense of humor” and gave Adam the name he did symbolically? Isn’t it possible that the Hebrew word “Adam” entymolgically developed from the fact that it was the name of the first man?

So, the bottom line is that some ancient Jews and Hebrews likely did believe that there was no real Adam, but there were plenty that thought he was an actual person.

Actually, the bottom line is that the Catechism says there was an actual man named Adam.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. 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).

 

[BibleReader]

Lazerlike42:

Also, it’s a fallacious arguement to say that just because the word name Adam is actually a play on words that he wasn’t a real person. There were quite a few people in the Bible who were named as such. Moses is also a play on words. Does this mean he didn’t exist? Of course not! Jesus means “God Saves.” Does that mean that early Christians made up the name Jesus? NO! Isn’t it possible that God simply has a “sense of humor” and gave Adam the name he did symbolically? Isn’t it possible that the Hebrew word “Adam” entymolgically developed from the fact that it was the name of the first man?

So, the bottom line is that some ancient Jews and Hebrews likely did believe that there was no real Adam, but there were plenty that thought he was an actual person.

Actually, the bottom line is that the Catechism says there was an actual man named Adam.

It’s not just the fact that Adam’s name is a play on words.

Rather, it’s the fact that just about *every single sentence of the story * is a joke or absurd or a pun that suggests that the Adam and Eve story is a “Dr.-Seuss-like” entity which teaches theology.

Genesis 2:5-7 portrays God as creating man before seed-bearing grass. Genesis 1:11 portrays God as creating seed-bearing grass (“every kind of plant that bears seed”) before man.

Genesis 2:6-7 portrays God as making man out of the aphar of the *adama – *out of the “dust” of the “red [stuff]” – clay, like a potter. Clearly, God is being portrayed as a “potter.” *Did *God make man like a pot? Do you believe that? This is clearly another piece of gentle humor. And it makes Adam’s name a pun. You suggest that the etymology could have grown out of the name. I.e., "“clay” came to be called adama because Adam was made out of it. The problem with that concept is that it must assume that God made man like a potter.

Genesis 2:8 says that *God * planted garden in what the narrator calls “Eden.” “Eden” is a Sumerian/Hebrew pun. In Sumerian Eden means “fertile field.” In Hebrew it means “delight” – God put this guy in “Delight Park,” in other words. Just in case his listeners missed the joke, the narrator explains his pun in the next verse – "Out of the ground the Lord God made various trees that were chamad to look at – he uses a Hebrew synonym for *eden, *another term meaning “delight” – to remind his Semitic listeners of the double meaning of eden.

Virtually every single verse is like that, again and again and again and again and again and again. Joke and joke after joke.

When you get to Genesis 2:18 et seq., it portrays God as stupid – unsuccessfully trying to match Adam up with “lions and tigers and bears” – before God thinks of creating woman.

END OF PART ONE. PART TWO WILL BE POST IN THE NEXT RECTANGLE.

 

[BibleReader]

PART TWO OF MY POST
Eve being made out of a rib is the first half of another foreign language pun. In Babylonian, “Nin-ti” means *both *“Lady of the Rib” and “Lady of Life.” So, at Genesis 2:21, when the listeners here the narrator say that the woman was made out of a “rib,” having just heard the narrator make a pun out of Adam’s beginnings, figure that the narrator is going to make a pun out of Eve’'s beginnings. Having set the joke up at Genesis 2:21, the narrator completes the joke at Genesis 3:20: The narrator tells his auydience that Adam called Eve *hawwa *-- “Eve” – because she is mother of all of the *hay *-- the “living.” Instantly the listeners remember her being made out of a “rib,” and realize that the narrator has just told them a double pun – a Babylonian language “rib/life” pun and a Hebrew language “Eve/living” pun!

Again, the entire story, stem to stern, is a collection of jokes. Why in Heaven’s name would the Catechism teach “that there was an actual man named ‘Adam.’” Do you really believe that the Catechism would do that?

Or, is it possible that you are misreading the Catechism?

By the way, while the story of the Exodus may be mostly non-fiction, Moses’ name is another joke.

In fact, this appears to be the etymology of Moses’ name…

There were pharaohs named “Thut-mose” “Moses of the god named Thoth”]; “Ah-mose” “Moses of the god named Amun”]; Ra-moses “Moses of the god named Ra”]. Now, all of these people were not pulled out of a basket floating in the Nile, the reason given for the name “Moses.” Exodus 2:10. Therefore, probably, just plain “Moses” means something like “Moses of the God named ]” – the God with no name! Exodus 2:10 is just another typical ancient Hebrew pun.

Why commit yourself to “Adam” referring to a particular person? Is the monogenesis concept some kind of absolutely sacred Judeo-Christian concept?

No. The reason for the monogenesis concept is the deeper principle that “we are all made of the same Original-Sin-tainted sin-seeking biological garbage as those folks in the fictional Adam-and-Eve story.” That principle, right there, is re-re-emphasized in the Adam-and-Eve story. (Adam is made out of aphar, “dust,” a Biblical type for “sin”; Adam is made on day #“6” of creation, the Biblical number type meaning “evil”; Eve is made out of “sleeping stuff” – sleeping Adam – where “sleep” is a Biblical type for “death.”) The zealous sin-proneness of our flesh is the reason why we needed to be saved – why Christ *had to *suffer and die.

That is why water, the Biblical type meaning “salvation,” activated by the sacrificial “blood” of Christ, comes out of the ribs of the New Testament Adam, John 19:34, after Eve was taken out of the ribs of the Old Testament Adam.

If all one gets out of the Adam and Eve story is something like, “It’s heresy to deny that there was a guy named Adam,” and in the process misses the theology being taught, then that person really doesn’t understand the story at all.

I’m not trying to be offensive, but these things are simply true.

 

[Lazerlike42]

To start, read this: tektonics.org/jedp/creationtwo.html

For seconds, I have to ask if you understand that the existence of a literal Eve is fundamentally necessary for the dogmas of Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, and Assumption? In fact the entire concept of Mary as the “New Eve,” a concept proliferated abundantly by early Church fathers and also by Catholic Apologists and the Church itself today, falls apart if there was not a literal Eve.

For thirds, open up your Bible and go to Acts 17:26 - “'from one ancestor God made all nations to inhabit the whole earth.” The catechism makes reference to this. The only way to avoid the implications of this passage is to take a very Protestant approach and read it symbollically because that would happen to suit the desired purpose.

Fourth: The Catechism DOES state that there was one single Adam, but unfortunately not in so explicit a way that you would be unable to deny it. It says things like, “The first man Adam,” or, “Out first Parents, Adam and Eve.” Clearly these do refer to single individuals, but of course one could try to argue that the Catechism also is speaking symbolically. Therefore, I turn your attention to a document of the Magesterium, one which is referenced by the Catechism (and which itsjustdave already cited, though it was ignored): The encyclical Humani Generis composed by Pope Pious XII. I will quote more of the document than did itsjustdave, because the paragraph following his actually explains why the language in Genesis are as such:

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

1. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

1. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

If you should like to read the entire encyclical, you may follow this link: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

In short, the only way to deny the existence of a literal, singular, first man Adam is to disagree with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[CLW001]

The Church teaches infallibly that Mary was conceived without original sin and preserved from all personal sin. This was by a special dispensation of grace given by the Lord in anticipation of the cross.
notice ‘by a special dispensation of grace given by the Lord’
so are you sure she could have sinned?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yes, I’m sure. Grace is not irresistible. Calvinists think so, but Catholics reject that teaching. Furthermore, the Mary-Eve comparison withing Catholic theology, affirmed since the 2nd century, is made nonesensical if Mary could not have sinned.

The word used to describe the impossibility of sin in Catholic theology is “impeccability” (*impecabilitas). *Nowhere is Mary said to be impeccable prior to her bodily Assumption.

“From the Hypostatic Union there arises a physical impossibility of sinning and from the Beatific Vision a moral impossibility that is, it involves such a close connection with God in knowledge and love that a turning away from God is actually excluded.” (Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *p. 169) It follows that, to be impeccable, one must either enjoy the gift of Hypostatic Union with the Divine as only Jesus did, or enjoy the gift of the Beatific Vision, which only those in God’s heavenly presence enjoy.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I also want to clarify, that Mary was preserved from all personal sin is not infallibly defined by the Catholic Church. The four infallible Marian dogmas are:

1. Immaculate Conception
2. Theotokos (Mother of God)
3. Perpetual Virginity
4. Bodily Assumption

That Mary was free from personal sin by special privilege from God is a teaching proximate to faith (*sententia fidei proxima, *cf. Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *203). While not infallible, it is not a matter of free opinion for Catholics.

That the special privilege kept her from not actually committing sin, does not imply that such grace of irresistible in that it destroyed Mary’s free will to sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.:

Q. Was the Blessed Virgin Mary impeccable?
—S.C., Georgia

A. The Blessed Virgin never sinned. In fact this is common Catholic teaching. But strictly speaking Mary was preserved from ever committing actual sin. It is a common teaching of Catholic Christianity that the Blessed Virgin, being conceived without sin, never actually offended God by even the least venial sin. This preservation from actual sin is part of the common teaching of Catholic Christianity. However, the Church’s focus is on Mary’s being preserved from ever committing actual sin.

Impeccability literally means the absolute impossibility of committing sin. The Church teaches the impeccability of Christ. Christ could not sin because He was the all holy God who became man. In fact, the Council of Constantinople condemned the theory that Christ became fully impeccable only after His resurrection. This is false. Christ, as the living God who became man, not only never sinned but could never sin. Absolutely speaking Christ was impeccable. Our Lady certainly never sinned, but we cannot say that she was incapable of sinning because we do not say that she was absolutely impeccable. We apply impeccability to Christ who was the living God who became man.

(Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., *Ask Father Hardon, *http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/Jul-Aug99/Questions.html)

 

[CLW001]

and so why the temtations of CHRIST IN THE BIBLE?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

CLW001:

and so why the temtations of CHRIST IN THE BIBLE?

According to St. Thomas Aquinas,

**Christ wished to be tempted; first that He might strengthen us against temptations. Hence Gregory says in a homily (xvi in Evang.): “It was not unworthy of our Redeemer to wish to be tempted, who came also to be slain; in order that by His temptations He might conquer our temptations, just as by His death He overcame our death.” **

**Secondly, that we might be warned, so that none, however holy, may think himself safe or free from temptation. Wherefore also He wished to be tempted after His baptism, because, as Hilary says (Super Matth., cap. iii.): “The temptations of the devil assail those principally who are sanctified, for he desires, above all, to overcome the holy. Hence also it is written (Sirach 2): Son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and in fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation.” **

**Thirdly, in order to give us an example: to teach us, to wit, how to overcome the temptations of the devil. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. iv) that Christ “allowed Himself to be tempted” by the devil, “that He might be our Mediator in overcoming temptations, not only by helping us, but also by giving us an example.” ****Fourthly, in order to fill us with confidence in His mercy. Hence it is written (Heb. 4:15): “We have not a high-priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.” **(Summa Theologica, III, 41, 1)

 

[CLW001]

DAVE your great.
thanks for all the infomation.