The first human person was created both male and female and was gender fluid

[jcrichton]

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with scholars. The problem comes when you simply dismiss them without looking carefully and the reasons why they say what they say.

That’s a strange way to put it. We’re talking about textual interpretation. People look at the text in the original language, with whatever light archeological discoveries and other literary texts may shed, and come up with interpretations to fit the evidence. The one under discussion here is associated primarily with the feminist scholar Phyllis Trible, though she’s persuaded a lot of people. From what I was able to tell from an online search just now, it looks as if her view is a minority position. I was not claiming that it’s necessarily correct, only that your very rude response that the person suggesting this must have “reading comprehension” problems was utterly un-called-for.

Mitochondrial Eve. However, scientists do not believe that there was only one human pair at that time. Even if, as recent discoveries apparently suggest (something I just discovered while working on this post), “Y-chromosomal Adam” may have lived in the same period as “Eve” rather than 100,000 years later as formerly believed–that still doesn’t mean that they were the only humans existing in their day. Scientists certainly do not believe that human beings experienced a “genetic bottleneck” as severe as that.

And we are not talking about “monkey-like creatures” but recognizable members of our species. Perhaps in fact they did live at the same time and really are our Biblical “Adam and Eve.” But we would have then to explain the theological status of all the other humans existing in their day, and the many people who lived before the genetic material from these two people spread throughout the whole human race. I really don’t think that trying to interpret the Biblical account in genetic terms is a viable approach.

I’m not sure what that means exactly.

There is genetic evidence for the theory. I’m not sure what you mean by “without evidentiary proof” other than “I don’t want to believe this.”

Who believes that?

All the primates? That is not what “mitochondrial Eve” is about at all.

Edwin

Hi, Edwin!
…firstly, I do not degrade anyone in particular; you must have confused my posts with someone else’s–I do tend to use blanket statements and I work from my limited encounters…

…when it was first proposed (news) the claim was that mitochondrial Eve was found–that it was she who gave birth to all; perhaps it was a simplistic presentation (drama) but what I am proposing is the fact that we have not actual proof but theories (as with the huge missing links: no skeletal remains of creatures in the midst of species reformation (morph).

Once science spoke of theory (as that of evolution); now they speak of “x” or “y” or “z.” Without any actual evidence it is claimed that evolution transpired just as…

I was attempting to juxtapose mitochondrial Eve with Adam and Eve–the Biblical is shun as an impossibility while the theorized as factual.

Since I am not a learned person I do not challenge the idea of scholarship (intellect) but the findings that are presented as proof because “scholars” have stated so… as in’ the Universe being so old that it is folding upon itself…’ till the Hubble–then there’s the super collider? $10 billion in the making & making it work–to prove… ‘the emergence of life’ …well they’ve come up with ‘what we see is not the actual reality’ ???

Taking a theory and working to reveal it with science is great; taking a theory and forcing events to match what is theorized… no science there! (That applies to reading things into history/Scriptures.)

Granted as tech enhances our abilities to discern (through experimentation, formulation and theorizing) we do get better pictures of what is theorized. Calling a theory a proven fact is believing that the moon is made of cheese.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Right. It’s actually heresy to say that God is either male or female (leaving the Incarnation aside, of course).

Edwin

Hi, Edwin!
…heresy?

Can you expand, with quotes, if possible?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[goout]

hi, edwin!
…heresy?

Can you expand, with quotes, if possible?

Maran atha!

Angel

ccc 239

 

[Memaw]

Hi, Edwin!
…I don’t mean to disagree with “scholars,” but have you noticed that their theories are presented as fact without evidential proofs?

…I can recall an old argument about the “fallacy” of Scriptures claiming that humanity had only two sets of parents (Adam and Eve); they expressed it as an impossibility for all of the human genome to be held by only two candidates… in truth, I never paid it much attention (don’t really know where or when the argument ensued)… yet, years later “scholars” stated that all primates (inclusive of homo xyz) were descendants of one monkey-like female…

Clearly, an Omnipotent God could not compress all of humanity’s raw materials into two parents but science could determine, without evidentiary proof, that one monkey-like creature did contain not only humanity’s raw material but also that of all the primates (non-homo xyzs)…

Maran atha!

Angel

God knows what HE is doing, even if science doesn’t !!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Edwin!
…heresy?

Can you expand, with quotes, if possible?

Maran atha!

Angel

The positive teaching is found in CCC 239: “God transcends the human distinction between the sexes.” The view that God is male would imply that God has a human-like (or at least animal-like) body and would thus be a form of the “anthropomorphist” heresy which was condemned in the fourth century.

This article from EWTN tries to prove (rather tortuously in my opinion) that we can call God “Father” analogously but “Mother” only metaphorically (that seems to me to be quite different from what CCC 239 says). But that’s as far as anyone would go within the framework of orthodox Catholicism–Brumley clearly acknowledges that God is not literally male.

Edwin

 

[jcrichton]

ccc 239

Hi!
Thanks!

…though I guess the understanding is that God is not man… not that He cannot be addressed in a masculine title.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The positive teaching is found in CCC 239: “God transcends the human distinction between the sexes.” The view that God is male would imply that God has a human-like (or at least animal-like) body and would thus be a form of the “anthropomorphist” heresy which was condemned in the fourth century.

This article from EWTN tries to prove (rather tortuously in my opinion) that we can call God “Father” analogously but “Mother” only metaphorically (that seems to me to be quite different from what CCC 239 says). But that’s as far as anyone would go within the framework of orthodox Catholicism–Brumley clearly acknowledges that God is not literally male.

Edwin

Hi, Edwin!
I now understand your previous post, thanks for expanding…

…designating a gender to God would project a human condition… since God, the Father, is not man, we cannot think of Him as male; yet, since He has attributed to Himself the masculine title of Father, we can, without falling into heresy, see Him as our Father. And since He Himself has used the metaphorical title of “mother,” we can view in God the characteristics of both male and female parents–by neither would we be designating a gender to God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Contarini]

Hi!
Thanks!

…though I guess the understanding is that God is not man… not that He cannot be addressed in a masculine title.

Maran atha!

Angel

Of course.

Or even that masculine titles may be more appropriate for God.

I’m not sure I believe that, but it’s certainly the traditional usage. I think we need a lot more theological discussion of this.

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

She also used PJPII to back her claim “Man is ‘male and female’ right from the beginning.”

“Man” refers to the whole human race - to both Adam and Eve, and to all of their descendants. It’s not referring to just one person - not only Adam.

Adam was not created male and female - he was created male, and then Eve was created female, and thus, Man (the human race) was created male and female.

And quotes TOB lecture 8 Union of man and Woman

My response:
“When Pope John Paul is talking about man as “male and female” right from the beginning he is referring to the Elohist text of Genesis. There are two creation accounts the Elohist text in which female isn’t created from man but they both are created right from the beginning after the animals. But theology of the body goes more so into the second creation account, the Yahwist text where woman is created from Adam after the animals when he found no commonality with the animals and desired someone he can share love with. We as Catholics do not take either text as literal historical accounts of creation because we have two different creation accounts. The Pope is simply pointing out why he here in TOB and in particular the chapter on original unity decided to use the Yahwist verses the Elohist text.”

How else would you approach this??

I think the confusion is that she thinks “Man” refers to one individual, rather than to both Adam and Eve, or to the whole of the first human family.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have exhausted myself trying to explain the Church’s teachings on TOB and creation. This person basically thinks gender is fluid and is upset women cannot become priest.

How would you respond to this particular statement? It is so far left and crazy I am having difficulty reasoning with this person. Do you see anything that contradicts any writtings of popes and doctrinal teaching. Somthing specific to show God isn’t the union of the principals of gender. And we all remain to some degree male and female because we are the breath of God. Someone give me something substantial!

Thanks

Odell

Let’s assume for a moment that this concept is true of Adam: he was both male and female at the moment of his creation.

Okay, isn’t it also true that God pulled out that portion of Adam that was female in order to create a second person, Eve?

AT BEST (and I’m conceding quite a lot simply to humor the person asserting this nonsense), God appears to have divided the male and female aspects of the first human he created in order to make the second.

MORE LIKELY God simply made Adam 100% male from scratch and made Eve 100% female by adding to or subtracting from that which He took from Adam.

Either way, I don’t think there is much to this.