Two questions about Adam and Eve

[Gorgias]

The human immune system which is integral to human nature is evidence that Adam had a real body and not a metaphoric body. Our own immune system is evidence that we have a real body and not a metaphoric body.

The immune system of a horse is evidence that it has a real body and not a metaphoric body; but, it isn’t evidence that the horse is human. Nor is it integral to its intrinsic “horse-ness”.

You still haven’t provided any support for your position that the immune system is integral to human nature.

A further note: are you suggesting that pre-human hominins had no immune system? Or that their immune system – which, on a physical level, would be indistinguishable from the immune system that the first human had – was not ‘human’? To suggest that, without attribution, would simply be begging the question.

Maybe I should have asked a third question – Is Adam human? Common sense would answer that because we humans are descended from Adam, Adam himself would need to be a real human. We are not metaphors and neither is Adam.

Yes; but none of that addresses the question of why the presence of an immune system in humans demonstrates that immune systems are integral to human nature.

 

[tdgesq]

The simple apologetics teaching is that the nature of a real descendant of Adam and Eve unites the spiritual and material worlds. This truth is found in paragraph 355,* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *I warmly invite those readers who are interested in human nature to continue reading the paragraphs following CCC 355. In addition, I suggest reading CCC 1730-1732.

The Catechism is explicit about the necessary conditions for human nature in the same Chapter you cite:

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

As I stated above, there is no human nature without a spiritual soul. The fact that there is a single human nature composed of body and soul does not change that reality.

What is evident in verses following Genesis 1: 26-27 is that human nature is also material. Adam’s body will need material nourishment so God graciously created a world with a garden. Our need for bodily nourishment demonstrates that we have inherited Adam’s basic genetics that determined the need to eat.

Well, I thought the question was: how did Adam inherit his genome? It could have been inherited from a male and female hominid through procreation. Then again, it could have been that God formed Adam from the dust of the earth. What does the Catholic Church teach?

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

To understand this link, I did the common sense thing of going to the following information on the site. From tab “About Genetic Geneology”
”Genetic" scientists, including paleoanthropologists, have a toolbox of thousands and thousands of genes and billions of chemical base pairs. Human descendants of Adam and Eve are determined by their entire genome.

Not according to the article I sent you, or this one:

Thus on average each of ancestors has contributed only a single block to you, and by chance it is possibly that they contribute zero. This gets worse the further we go back in time, your genome is broken up into more and more chunks, but this does not grow as fast as your number of ancestors. This makes it increasingly likely that you inherit no autosomal material from a particular ancestor.How much of your genome do you inherit from a particular ancestor?

An additional valuable piece of information is that each individual carries two copies or versions of a gene. The term for these versions is alleles. Alleles develop in a natural way, that is, there can be tiny changes or major changes in the original gene over extended periods of time. In turn, alleles can also change. At conception, the child receives one copy of a particular gene from each parent. With some imaginative thinking, it is easy to understand that by now there could be hundreds of existing alleles of the DRB1 gene.

Once the Church declares that the DRB1 gene with all its alleles is a fundamental part of human nature, then I will accept it. Until then, I will accept what is taught in its authoritative documents.

Applying these basic concepts to real descendants of Adam and Eve, it is entirely possible that a child could receive an allele of a particular gene, for example the DRB1 gene, which developed only a few hundred years ago, well after the appearance of Adam and Eve. What needs to be noted is that the DRB1 gene is part of the human immune system which is integral to human nature. Catholicism directly teaches that Adam had a true human nature. Therefore, it is proper to say that current humans inherited their general immune system from Adam, albeit there were numerous alleles since the dawn of human history.

And before “the dawn of human history” according to modern scientific literature:
Chimpanzees share some class II DRB1 allelic lineages with humans [14-16]. In humans, genetic variation and selective intensity on DRB1 are the greatest in the class II genes [17]. In humans, there are 13 DRB1 allelic lineages (HLA-DRB1*01, *03, *04, *07, *08, *09, *10, *11, *12, *13, *14, *15 and 16), while there are only four allelic lineages (Patr-DRB102, *03, *07 and *10) in chimpanzees [14-16]. A human-specific allelic group of the MHC DRB1
gene in primates.

 

[tdgesq]

Precisely.

On the other hand, perhaps we agree because we fail to understand science…

Maybe Pope Francis does too since he just named Yves Coppens an Ordinary Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. THE BUNCH OF PREHUMANS AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE GENUS HOMO.

 

[cfauster]

I think the following is helpful:

“In conclusion, recent data from genetics continue to confirm that Homo sapiens, modern humans, people with our cerebral morphology and our pattern of development, first appeared in Africa. And, that the probable date of that appearance was at least 200,000 years ago, and possibly significantly earlier. And, that the first members of our species were likely few in number, but nothing like the biblical two, Adam and Eve. And, that the rest of the world was settled by African emigration around 60,000 years ago, first to Asia. And, that a few of the people who migrated out of Africa mated with Neanderthals, spreading some advantageous genes, although the two populations were on the edge of genetic incompatibility. None of this was expected thirty years ago by either theology or anthropology … Unexpected, but accurate, data come from the hand of God, whatever the motives of those who discover them. Of course, such data do not come with attached meaning. We have to figure it out. But we should have confidence that God already knows how it all rightly fits together. Our challenge is to solve the puzzle he has set us, without losing fellowship with each other. We must follow the Lion wherever he goes—and give him glory for the works of his hands.”

The entire article from which the above is taken will be publicly available soon. The article title is “Genetic Insights for Human Origins in Africa and for Later Neanderthal Contact.” It was written by David L. Wilcox, Emeritus Professor of Biology at Eastern University and a population geneticist with a long-term interest in evolutionary mechanisms and faith-science issues.The article was published in September 2014, in Issue 3 of Volume 66 of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. As an ASA member, I have access to the latest issue. Here is a link to the journal. It’s published 4x a year. The December 2014 (Issue 4) was also recently published, so it won’t be long before Issue 3 is made publicly available.

 

[grannymh]

From the OP – The second question.

1. Did Adam and Eve’s descendants include the names Joseph and Mary?

One can discuss how genealogy is used until the cows come home. No doubt that these discussions can be fascinating. Yet, the bottom line is usually that knowing our ancestors helps us to know what to expect of our own physical anatomy. In addition, we often spot how we have been influenced by the choices/actions of our ancestors. There is a saying in my old neighborhood which goes like this: “On every family tree, there is a horse thief hanging from a branch.” The very first "horse thief “Adam” is hanging from a branch of the forbidden tree.

The theologian St. Paul was well aware that death started with our first human ancestor. “For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life,” (1 Corinthians 15: 22) In the Catholic Church, St. Paul’s use of the word “all” is a very big deal. It is the deal maker when it comes to all humans being eligible for God’s great love and His personal invitation to share in His life in joy eternal.

The essential reason that St. Paul could claim that all means all humans, is that St. Paul recognized that in the first three chapters of Genesis, the first ancestors were two real humans, not thousands of breeding individuals with their own lines of descendants. Only one line of descendants could assure that Jesus Christ opened the “gates of heaven” for each person by repairing humanity’s broken relationship with Divinity.

 

[cfauster]

The following is from the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome’s website on science and faith issues:

“In the encyclical letter Humani generis, the Catholic Magisterium has partially clarified the question debated by stating that «it is no way apparent how the rejection of monogenism can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth propose with regard to original sin», which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through the generations, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own (cf. DH 3897). But, according to someone, what today «is no way apparent how to reconcile» might be reconciled in the future. J. De Fraine believes that the refusal of poligenism made by the Catholic Church should not be considered as conclusive (see Adam et son lignage 1968). In H. Haag’s opinion, a distinction is due between the historical authenticity of the details contained in the biblical account and the historical authenticity of the sudden occurrence of the sin and its influence on human life (cf. Biblische Schöpfungslehre und kirchliche Erbsündenlehre, 1970). At the same time, we must remember that, from a scientific point of view, the assumption of monogenism should not be definitely excluded and that several researchers accept the possibility of a monogenetic origin of the human body.”

The above article (link) was published in 2002. It is now 2014. Dr. Bonnette indeed remains an example of a researcher who accepts the possibility of a monogenetic origin of the human body. But no longer can it be said that “several” researchers would agree. Today the number is few indeed. The data are clear. Theological monogenism remains a much more viable concept, but not biological monogenism.

 

[grannymh]

The following is from the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome’s website on science and faith issues:

“In the encyclical letter Humani generis, the Catholic Magisterium has partially clarified the question debated by stating that «it is no way apparent how the rejection of monogenism can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth propose with regard to original sin», which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through the generations, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own (cf. DH 3897). But, according to someone, what today «is no way apparent how to reconcile» might be reconciled in the future. J. De Fraine believes that the refusal of poligenism made by the Catholic Church should not be considered as conclusive (see Adam et son lignage 1968). In H. Haag’s opinion, a distinction is due between the historical authenticity of the details contained in the biblical account and the historical authenticity of the sudden occurrence of the sin and its influence on human life (cf. Biblische Schöpfungslehre und kirchliche Erbsündenlehre, 1970). At the same time, we must remember that, from a scientific point of view, the assumption of monogenism should not be definitely excluded and that several researchers accept the possibility of a monogenetic origin of the human body.”

The above article (link) was published in 2002. It is now 2014. Dr. Bonnette indeed remains an example of a researcher who accepts the possibility of a monogenetic origin of the human body. But no longer can it be said that “several” researchers would agree. Today the number is few indeed. The data are clear. Theological monogenism remains a much more viable concept, but not biological monogenism.

This article from the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome needs bit of clarification based on the Protocol of the Catholic Church.

Institutions such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences or the University of the Holy Cross in Rome and the various Papal commissions or committees such as the International Theological Commission, including the president of this commission, do not have individual authority to update Divine Revelation contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Therefore, the material presented by proper institutions and commissions, such as the above, must be viewed as personal in accord with the principle of free speech. The Catholic Church is not some kind of democracy subject to the preferences of whomever lives in whatever century.

Nonetheless, the Protocol of the Catholic Church includes the common sense that “even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” (*CCC *66)

Regarding Humani generis,
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Pius XII clearly states via footnote 12.
“12. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.”
that the definitive explanation of “One Adam” has already been “explicitly” declared according to the promise of the Holy Spirit in chapter 14, Gospel of John.

Pius XII clearly refers to “the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church” as having settled the issue of One Adam.

There will always be wolves in sheep’s clothing within the Catholic Church.

 

[cfauster]

There are wolves in sheep’s clothing. There are tares (weeds) among the wheat. But, please do not be too hasty nor too certain in identifying and dealing with such.

I’m amazed at the number of Catholics (not you, of course) who see wolves/weeds among the recent popes and bishops and theologians of the Catholic church.

In the understandable and necessary effort to maintain purity and keep out false doctrines, please be careful not to injure healthy and valid members of Christ’s body (the Church) who might be real sheep rather than wolves, real wheat rather than weeds.

I’ve seen it happen in the Lutheran and other Protestant churches. It happens in the Catholic church as well.

 

[Gorgias]

Institutions such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences or the University of the Holy Cross in Rome and the various Papal commissions or committees such as the International Theological Commission, including the president of this commission, do not have individual authority to update Divine Revelation contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Do you see something in the quote that you cited that attempts to “update Divine Revelation”? I’m not seeing it. Can you point out where they’re doing so?

Therefore, the material presented by proper institutions and commissions, such as the above, must be viewed as personal in accord with the principle of free speech.

It’s difficult to see how a publication by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences might be considered as a “personal” expression “of free speech.” I’m with you that it does not have magisterial force… but really? You’re going to tag it simply as “free speech”?

Pius XII clearly refers to “the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church” as having settled the issue of One Adam.

There will always be wolves in sheep’s clothing within the Catholic Church.

I’m not certain I see the ‘wolves’ that you’re seeing here. What, exactly, are the ‘wolves’ saying, in your opinion?

 

[grannymh]

There are wolves in sheep’s clothing. There are tares (weeds) among the wheat. But, please do not be too hasty nor too certain in identifying and dealing with such.

I’m amazed at the number of Catholics (not you, of course) who see wolves/weeds among the recent popes and bishops and theologians of the Catholic church.

In the understandable and necessary effort to maintain purity and keep out false doctrines, please be careful not to injure healthy and valid members of Christ’s body (the Church) who might be real sheep rather than wolves, real wheat rather than weeds.

I’ve seen it happen in the Lutheran and other Protestant churches. It happens in the Catholic church as well.

You deserve a reply regarding wolves in sheep’s clothing.

I have been on CAF since November 16, 2008. I am here because Google landed me in the middle of a thread and I could not literally escape. Finally, I registered so that I could exit.

My original goal with Google was to research reasons why people were not attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. However, when I found out that I could get back on CAF, without the fear of being forever in an internet prison, I soon learned the news that Adam and Eve were not real. When a dedicated poster gave my love for my first parents this title – granny’s magical mystery tour – researching Adam and Eve from both the Catholic and science positions was primary. Even though I did not appreciate the comment that I was flushing all science down the toilet, I still progressed slowly by following up on some of the CAF posts in addition to studying the current scientific proposals.

Yes, I eventually found a prominent Catholic wolf (off CAF) in sheep’s clothing because his “teachings” became sensational in the eyes of the media. The reality is that a “wolf” is not always a real person. A wolf or wolves can easily be all the misconceptions regarding human origin. Some of these misconceptions have turned into claims that the Catholic Church allows these misconceptions.

As for the understandable and necessary effort to maintain purity and keep out false doctrines, the current difficulty is a lack of proper information. Here the wolves can be those who have failed to properly teach basic Catholic doctrines and those who erroneously interpret science. As for the healthy members of the Catholic Church, they are recognizable so that they cannot be confused with wolves.

One final note about the real sheep. Some are being intimidated. Some are not sure what to believe. Some can accurately defend their Faith. The vast majority do their very best to remain faithful, in both words and deeds, to Catholicism.
The one poster who I will always remember is the one who shared his pain.

Please note that I will be having surgery and may not be able to post as much as I would like do. Please keep me in your prayers.

Thank you to all who have participated in this thread.

 

[cfauster]

Many prayers, including mine, will be offered for you as you face the surgery. Thanks so much for the helpful dialogue.

 

[Gorgias]

Please note that I will be having surgery and may not be able to post as much as I would like do. Please keep me in your prayers.

I’ll be praying for you, granny! May God bring you health and healing!

 

[tdgesq]

Prayers for you Granny; from my entire family tonight.

 

[Kelt]

Please note that I will be having surgery and may not be able to post as much as I would like do. Please keep me in your prayers.

Thank you to all who have participated in this thread.

I wish you all the best.
( did you say you had an ipad? Keep it with you - in my experience being in hospital involves a lot of being awake when others are all asleep. Maybe you’ll be posting in the wee small hours!)

 

[simpleas]

1. Were Adam and Eve Catholic?
2. Did Adam and Eve’s descendants include the names Joseph and Mary?

1. No. They were Jewish…or were they? They are written about by a jewish author, but it doesn’t prove the first two humans were any religion we would recognise.
2. Well seeing as Joseph and Mary are all apart of the story as descending from two first humans as we are then yes, but then the list doesn’t include the thousand of other people in the world that were around at the same time.

I’m prob to late to this thread and I haven’t read it all…just my :twocents:

 

[Gorgias]

1. No. They were Jewish…or were they? They are written about by a jewish author, but it doesn’t prove the first two humans were any religion we would recognise.

No, they wouldn’t be considered to be Jewish; the word ‘Jew’ comes from the name ‘Judah’. Therefore, a Jew is someone who descends from Judah (I would assert that this means the nation, not the tribe, per se). So, since Judah (the person and the nation) came far later than Adam & Eve, we wouldn’t call them ‘Jewish’.

(Interestingly, though, the narrative of Adam’s and Eve’s lives have a number of features that culturally belong to Semitic peoples (e.g., the societal shame attached to nudity, the system of sacrificing livestock and produce to God). Adam and Eve are Semitic in their habits, but that seems to stem from the inspired author’s characterization of them.)

 

[simpleas]

No, they wouldn’t be considered to be Jewish; the word ‘Jew’ comes from the name ‘Judah’. Therefore, a Jew is someone who descends from Judah (I would assert that this means the nation, not the tribe, per se). So, since Judah (the person and the nation) came far later than Adam & Eve, we wouldn’t call them ‘Jewish’.

(Interestingly, though, the narrative of Adam’s and Eve’s lives have a number of features that culturally belong to Semitic peoples (e.g., the societal shame attached to nudity, the system of sacrificing livestock and produce to God). Adam and Eve are Semitic in their habits, but that seems to stem from the inspired author’s characterization of them.)

Thanks for that answer, I did wonder if the author of Genesis thought of the first people as his own or not. He really does just describe a man and a woman of no religion.

 

[Gorgias]

Thanks for that answer, I did wonder if the author of Genesis thought of the first people as his own or not. He really does just describe a man and a woman of no religion.

Well, he certainly considered them his ancestors! The author of Genesis provides genealogies tracing ancestry for the Jews through Abraham and Adam & Eve! So, yes, although he wouldn’t, I think, call them ‘Jews’, he does recognize the family ties they share! They’re “his own”, even if they’re not covered by the Mosaic Law!

 

[GEddie]

Thanks for that answer, I did wonder if the author of Genesis thought of the first people as his own or not. He really does just describe a man and a woman of no religion.

When a human being can just walk around with God --nekkid!!! – there is no need for religion.

Religion is just the attempt to restore by ritual what should have been natural as breathing.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[simpleas]

When a human being can just walk around with God --nekkid!!! – there is no need for religion.

Religion is just the attempt to restore by ritual what should have been natural as breathing.

ICXC NIKA.

We do walk around with God…