Was Adam representitive of the entire human race?

[minkymurph]

In fact, they both AS A UNIT (mankind) performed the SAME sin (not two of the the same KIND of sin but the self-same instance of sin of it’s type).

They performed ONE SIN, whose effect was not “valid” UNTIL both of them “as one flesh” had performed it.

It would be an interesting piece of theology to explain how THAT makes sense!

There are some very interesting writings on the fall. I would be of the opinion that Eve’s sin was somehow different to Adam’s because of what Paul says; Eve was deceived Adam was not, through one man sin entered the world and the reference he makes to women being saved through childbearing is interesting. I you think of it, under the law all animal sacrifices had to be male. Christ was male and I don’t think this was to do with male ‘headship’ as was believed in the past. It was to do with the sin itself. Traditionally, we find the idea of a male sacrifice more acceptible. In hunter gatherer societies they prefer to kill the male of the species for food. I you think of the film Titanic, the men went down with the ship, women and children were saved, they had first preference to a space in the lifeboat and even in our modern society were women can go to war, somehow men being killed in battle or in the line of duty is somehow more acceptible. Of course this relates to the traditional roles but I think the concept comes from sacrifice and Christ had to be male for the purpose of removing sin as it was the sin of Adam and not Eve needed to be removed by sacrifice. I’m not sure what Paul means by women being saved through childbearing. May relate to Mary giving birth to the Saviour.

 

[Karlsruhe]

**Adam in ancient Hebrew is the word for human being altogether in the sence of human being. A single person would within be “Ben Adam" = Son of a human being. “Adamah” means acre or earth. “Adam”: Human being out of earth. Made off material. Darwins theorie doesn’t contradict biblical creation. But evolution by itself is not of spirit. Evolution alone would grow and grow like cancer uncontrolled and end up in chaos. It wouldn’t stop pollutating when it’s harmony is at it’s peak. Instead of continuously for the better, it would degenerate for the worse. The human race was human, the moment God made him – “Adam”. All the rubbish of “humans beings” millions of years ago, where without any reason, because those humanoids did not yet have the spirit of God. As soon as Adam was created, they looked alike God, and – they did not further mutate or develop, but looked like they did ever since created by God and where given LANGUAGE (which as som say, was around 12-15,000 years ago - but its of no importance really when exactly that was). Now, as God created Adam, He also gave him language. There was language instead of signals. The word. In the beginning was the word, and word was with God and God was the word.
So, sin did not come over us because Adam and Eve listened to Satan the Snake, but human race found sin at the time favourable to good. It was we ourselves who sinned, as it was us who crucified Jesus.
**

 

[CatsAndDogs]

There are some very interesting writings on the fall. I would be of the opinion that Eve’s sin was somehow different to Adam’s because of what Paul says; Eve was deceived Adam was not, through one man sin entered the world and the reference he makes to women being saved through childbearing is interesting. I you think of it, under the law all animal sacrifices had to be male. Christ was male and I don’t think this was to do with male ‘headship’ as was believed in the past. It was to do with the sin itself. Traditionally, we find the idea of a male sacrifice more acceptible.

Well, as we all know but don’t like to say out loud, biologically males are much more expendable than females, as one male can beget many offspring from many females limited only by the number of females, while one female can only birth a small number of offspring regardless of a greater number of males.

The old husbandry knowledge of “if you’re going to give something away make it a male!” makes sacrifice a non-debilitating possibility. God certainly didn’t want us to “hurt ourselves” by being absurdly over-generous in our offerings!

In hunter gatherer societies they prefer to kill the male of the species for food. I you think of the film Titanic, the men went down with the ship, women and children were saved, they had first preference to a space in the lifeboat and even in our modern society were women can go to war, somehow men being killed in battle or in the line of duty is somehow more acceptible. Of course this relates to the traditional roles but I think the concept comes from sacrifice and Christ had to be male for the purpose of removing sin as it was the sin of Adam and not Eve needed to be removed by sacrifice. I’m not sure what Paul means by women being saved through childbearing. May relate to Mary giving birth to the Saviour.

I think you’ve got a huge point here!

Priests sacrifice themselves utterly to God, and God provided that the proper NON-DEBILITATING sacrifice was that of a male. So, female sacrifice is absurdely expensive in the eye’s of God (thus no female Priests), and if a woman chooses to sacrifice herself to God her sacrifice is MASSIVELY more valuable than a man’s!

May our Holy Women pray for us! What power, indeed!

Adam commited the SIN, while Eve was merely the “secondary tempter” (aka “the dupe”), and only when HE (Adam) completed the sin (which was started but not made “whole” by Eve’s not-completely culpable?] sin) was mankind bound to have to sacrifice it’s MALES.

Women pay for Eve’s not-completely-culpable?]-sin-which-was-not-communicable-as-original-sin via the pain of childbirth, while men get to pay their original-sin-producing sin with MALES of their and other species.

Sounds good to me!

 

[minkymurph]

Women pay for Eve’s not-completely-culpable?]-sin-which-was-not-communicable-as-original-sin via the pain of childbirth, while men get to pay their original-sin-producing sin with MALES of their and other species.

Sounds good to me!

Can you expand on this a bit more? I get what your saying, man and woman as one flesh the sin was completed by Adam and was incomplete until he as well as Eve sinned. Sound reasoning. Are you talking about the passing on of sin here? Or are you making reference to the pain of childbirth being increased? (Does Gen 3:15 relate to Mary’s suffering as a mother?) Are woman more self-sacrificing towards their children which has led to their oppression, part of the ‘fall out’ of original sin. Does the fact that men had to toil for their family ('the sweat of your brow etc) refer to the ‘fall out’ of original sin for them was to miss out on the intimacy of family life? They would be a sacrifice in that sense? I’m kind of having a brain storm here but I don’t really know where I’m going with it.

 

[Benadam]

I think the entire human race is born in Adam’s image. Well, besides those pesky children of Cain who are out there projecting his mother’s image of man.

 

[minkymurph]

I think the entire human race is born in Adam’s image. Well, besides those pesky children of Cain who are out there projecting his mother’s image of man.

 

[Karlsruhe]

Let me ask you dear friends: Should we, the whole community of worldwide Christians, really bother such a lot about this guy Adam and many other questions of believe; if and whether or not Adam was one guy or just symbol or analogy of human kind God created: 1Genesis 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Does it really matter if there was one or several (who sinned)?

Why don’t we simply let it be as it is and don’t worry if we don’t understand in detail. We will see anyhow and understand instantly all our Questions one day – the day we see God.

Our friends and I always insisted on the one and only reality that we too often make an interrogate of: God Is!
That’s a fact for one thing.

When we all, all Christians worldwide, finally put ourselves into the state, that we firmly confirm not only to ourselves, but to anyone we get to know, that GOD IS, then we are in a state where we wouldn’t care to much about other questions concerning God – those we won’t ever understand, because we know anyway, that we’ll clearly see everything one day.
So lets stick to the one and only real problem: Do I myself REALLY believe in God?!
If we firmly are able to approve this and really answer that uncertainty strongly with YES in the face of God, then our heart will be filled with joy and understanding and we’ll pass that on to our next, just as so if we’d speak about our friends, parents, wife or children.

 

[Karlsruhe]

in the meantime it’s three of you I can’t excange PM’s with, as this note appears:
…has exceeded their stored private messages quota and can not accept further messages until they clear some space.
But then PM’s aren’t my thing anyway. I prefer normal mail. My mailadress is
Bruno-Maria-Schulz at Krippenfiguren.com
I can’t put an “at” here, as I’d then get even more spam then ;-)

 

[minkymurph]

Let me ask you dear friends: Should we, the whole community of worldwide Christians, really bother such a lot about this guy Adam and many other questions of believe; if and whether or not Adam was one guy or just symbol or analogy of human kind God created: 1Genesis 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Does it really matter if there was one or several (who sinned)?
.

It matters when you have to write a 3 000 word essay on the subject which is why I started this thread. If I had realized I was going to prompt a whole debate on authenticity of the Genesis account I may have gone somewhere else to expand on ideas for my essay. I was not looking for any ‘proof’ of Genesis, or debates on whether the Church is right so on and so forth. I am studying Christian Spirituality and Philosophy and I was looking for a philosophical and spirtutal expansion on the writings of Julian of Norwich and what she said pertaining to original sin. Perhaps I should just stick to books but then I have nothing other than my own opnions and ideas to draw on. I like to expand a little. I’m really looking in depth into the meaning of original sin rather than the authenticity of Genesis and was Adam a real person.

 

[Benadam]

I’m not familiar with the authors you are studying so if I’m just causing clutter I understand. I do have some unique thoughts about the Adam and Eve creation myth though.

You ask if Adam embodies the human race. Perhaps that is more union than you ask. Is Adam a re-presentative of the human race.

Interesting note: That is exactly the perspective from the middle tree occupied by the serpent. It is also the vision of creation forbidden by God. From that unique and exclusive view the serpent asks;

"Did God really say that you couldn’t eat from any of the tree’s in the garden?

This was much more than a question.
It presented the serpent as respecting the heirarchy God established. Safe environment for Eve. ( she thinks)
It presented a mystery that begged to be revealed, a foretaste of the vision which is the fruit of the tree.
It reversed the order of revelation as God established it the moment Eve engages in dialogue.

Apparently the tree of good and evil in the middle of the garden is representative of all the tree’s in the garden.

 

[Karlsruhe]

In that case minkeymurph, it of curse isn’t only worth while, but obligation to present and answer the question. Surely your headmasters wanted you to answer this challenge, for they too have problems with the matter and nosily eager wait what you know about it
Definitely we all have to bother about every word in the holy Bible, but we should neither mourn nor be sad or disturbed, if many questions occur within us. Atheists don’t have questions about things concerning God, for they consider God inexistent anyhow. So, why should they bother. There’ll be a lot upcoming to them to bother about, after death anyhow, so let them be happy now – it’s all they got

It really was indeed very good you rose the question – for some need a kick to think about the Bible a bit more than they do ;-)))
Thank’s you did! :extrahappy:

 

[Karlsruhe]

"Did God really say that you couldn’t eat from any of the tree’s in the garden?“

Science told us, that there where no apples at that time. Truly God spoke himself to humans at that time. It was natural to them, until their sin divided.
But more likely than not, God never mentioned an apple nor tree. Sin itself was of other dimension. Remember what the devilish snake promised. The longing to be like God is incredibly more that stealing an Apple.
We too speak in miracles and don’t think twice about it:
When we say >it rains cats and dogs< we never loose an idea on real animals falling down from the sky - or do we? : shrug:

 

[santodomingo]

I was not talking about “the church”. What is “the church”? One decides what one believes on their own, not from some pronouncements from some group that calls itself “the church”. If some group pronounces that a story is literally true, this does not mean that you must believe it. Use your brain. How the hell could Adam or Eve be real people? Explain that. It is so obviously a creation myth. Only children and the delusional would believe it literally.

“The Church” is the mystical Body of Christ, the deposit of Truth established by Christ on Earth, represented by bishops who are the successors of the 12 apostles and by the Pope, the successor of St. Peter.

Funny how you have to explain to people what the Church is, IN A CATHOLIC FORUM!!!

 

[edwest2]

**Adam in ancient Hebrew is the word for human being altogether in the sence of human being. A single person would within be “Ben Adam" = Son of a human being. “Adamah” means acre or earth. “Adam”: Human being out of earth. Made off material. Darwins theorie doesn’t contradict biblical creation. But evolution by itself is not of spirit. Evolution alone would grow and grow like cancer uncontrolled and end up in chaos. It wouldn’t stop pollutating when it’s harmony is at it’s peak. Instead of continuously for the better, it would degenerate for the worse. The human race was human, the moment God made him – “Adam”. All the rubbish of “humans beings” millions of years ago, where without any reason, because those humanoids did not yet have the spirit of God. As soon as Adam was created, they looked alike God, and – they did not further mutate or develop, but looked like they did ever since created by God and where given LANGUAGE (which as som say, was around 12-15,000 years ago - but its of no importance really when exactly that was). Now, as God created Adam, He also gave him language. There was language instead of signals. The word. In the beginning was the word, and word was with God and God was the word.
So, sin did not come over us because Adam and Eve listened to Satan the Snake, but human race found sin at the time favourable to good. It was we ourselves who sinned, as it was us who crucified Jesus.
**

Will you and others here simply look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (available online) and get the clear, total truth. All human beings contain Original Sin due to a sin freely committed by our first parents, Adam and Eve. All future human beings came from Adam and are descended from him.

That is the truth and the facts.

Stop speculating.

God bless,
Ed

 

[santodomingo]

Some of us were cradle Catholics who came to our faith the hard way-by looking for it on our own…post-childhood catechesis. You seem to easily dismiss faith with your assumption that it’s all based on myth but the concept of “God”, and with it the supernatural and all that it implies, is not an unreasonable concept-just unprovable. But *not *unbelievable if and when this God who may or may not exist decides to show that He does exist to anyone willing to take more than a half-hearted look-see, in which case He reveals Himself, sometimes in ways unimaginable to the uninitiated.

AMEN!! I was raised a “nothing”, in that any religious thought was completely irrelevant to my existence as a child. I don´t mean I was an atheist because I wasn´t even aware enough of religion to be able to DENY anything.

I came to the CC at age 22 and have had to learn the hard way. I also have trouble getting my head round the dogma of original sin. I have so many questions unanswered, so many moments of doubt. How do you reconcile the theory of evolution with original sin? If all human kind descend from Adam & Eve, where did all the other “sub-human” creatures go after the fall?

In the end it all comes down to faith. I believe this is true because the Catholic Church teaches it is. I trust the CC because I trust Jesus. It´s good to inquire, to ask questions, and investigate. But we shouldn´t demand instant answers from God. Our faith requires us to trust even when we don´t understand.

 

[Karlsruhe]

Will you and others here simply look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church (available online) and get the clear, total truth.

Well Dear, you might not believe it, but I never hat a Catechism nor looked it up in the net. That’s true for once.(or one thing) sorry about my shocking English. I’d love to tell you more about it in normal mail. (I just hate anonymous PM’s)

The thing is, that if you live in the word of Christ - in believe - you come to no other conclusion. That’s just so.
I’d never in my live write things I don’t believe myself - am convinced of it, and hold on to it with a heavenly joy.
OK - I’m an old men of 68 -but that not the point. I believed exactly what I believe now -or should I rather say KNOW NOW, what I believed about God when I was a kid.

Mind you - there are so many people who never red a word of the catechism, nor would even know there is such thing, but they live in God and with God. Those, who where never touched by high education, are so near to God, we might hope to be in a thousand years, But on the other hand - we’d be surprised to learn, how many highly educated are in direct dialogue with God in prayer eve day too.
Let’s do alike.

It’s Midnight now, and I really have to go to bed - my wife’s asleep for hours and so is my dog Filou (Gordon Setter)

 

[Benadam]

I

I think the entire human race is born in Adam’s image. Well, besides those pesky children of Cain who are out there projecting his mother’s image of man.

Gen 4

1 And Adam knew Eve his wife: who conceived and brought forth Cain, saying:* I have gotten** a man through God. *

25 Adam also knew his wife again: and she brought forth a son, and called his name Seth*,** saying: God hath given me another seed, for Abel whom Cain slew. *

Gen 5
1 This is the book of the generation of Adam. In the day that God created man, he made him to the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and* begot a son** to his own image and likeness, and called his name Seth. *

**Cain: Eve say’s " I have gotten a man through God" **Nothing in the text identifies Adam as procreator of Cain and is probably viewed as just a means the end of which is Eve’s aquisition of a ‘man’. She apparently views God and Adam as mere tools to aquire a man.Seth: **Eve say’s " God has given another seed"**Adam is identified as generator having ‘begotten’ Seth in his own likeness. Also, like God, Adam has given another seed. That Adam is made in the image of God is restated right before the statement that Seth is born in his father’s image and likeness points out a union of act shared by God with Adam.

​

• It’s easy to see the reasons Cain is the generator of a different image of man than the image that God created and Adam generated through Seth. The author makes a point to describe Seth as generator of a son who initiates a closer union with God.
• Keeping in mind that Seth is purposely pointed out as begotten in his father’s image and likeness, and that that image and likeness is created in God’s and also,that in Eve’s view God and Adam are her helpmeets in the procreation of Cain, who else but Eve would Cain’s image originate?

" I am queen on my throne and am no widow and am not in mourning."

" All the blood ever shed on earth is on her hands."

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
Women pay for Eve’s not-completely-culpable?]-sin-which-was-not-communicable-as-original-sin via the pain of childbirth, while men get to pay their original-sin-producing sin with MALES of their and other species.

Sounds good to me!

Can you expand on this a bit more?

I can expand on anything, but there may be quite a lot of hot air production in the process.

I get what your saying, man and woman as one flesh the sin was completed by Adam and was incomplete until he as well as Eve sinned. Sound reasoning.

Are you talking about the passing on of sin here? Or are you making reference to the pain of childbirth being increased? (Does Gen 3:15 relate to Mary’s suffering as a mother?)

Women, being the “more valuable”, which HAD to have been recognized by satan, was the natural “first target” of the tempter.

For the first sin to have been really culpably “mortal” it needed the “cooperation” of the whole of the flesh-made-one-by-God (married man[kind]).

“Communicable” (for want of a better term [HELP!]) original-sin had to be mortal sin, which means cooperated in by “all mankind” (Adam and Eve).

Men pay for their “contribution” to original-sin by being the “sacrifice” (due to God not wanting to overburden mankind by taking our more valuable females [MERCY]). Women pay by “bearing pain” (due to God not wanting to create an imbalance of due “responsibility” by being too “lenient” to half of the team of “His&HersFirstBigBoo-Boo Corp” [JUSTICE]).

• Mercy is served by not taking our precious women (and imperiling mankind’s very existence).
• Justice is served by distributing responsibility wisely (and not creating a permanent threat to “family stability”).

Like I said, “Lots of Hot Air”. With more to come!

Are woman more self-sacrificing towards their children which has led to their oppression, part of the ‘fall out’ of original sin.

Women are more prone to being oppressed because of men’s sinful jealousy due to women being inherently more valuable. It’s simply the sin of greed. “Collecting” valuable “trinkets” as opposed to treating people as persons of dignity.

Every “pain” (discomfort) is a product (fall out) of original sin.

Does the fact that men had to toil for their family ('the sweat of your brow etc) refer to the ‘fall out’ of original sin for them was to miss out on the intimacy of family life? They would be a sacrifice in that sense?

Men get sacrificed. Women get pained.

I’m kind of having a brain storm here but I don’t really know where I’m going with it.

My religious storm chasing seems to have gotten me sucked up into this here twister, and I appear to be heading southwest with the rest of the ejecta at about 158mph at an altitude of…

 

[minkymurph]

right ok, this is my two cents worth but I would like to stress, I am NOT infallible. Genesis 3:15 has a very deep and profound meaning. It is not to be taken as literal. Adam and Eve were real people, no dispute. Had they had children before the original sin? I don’t know, not clear as Genesis is not recorded chronologically. Adam and Eve are representitive of the human race but that does not mean they were not actual people. Their actions concern all humankind. If they had not sinned, someone would have. That does not mean God INTENDENDED sin. He simply knew it was inevitable. As representitives of the human race, Adam and Eve represent DESIRE. Adam is no more guilty than anyone else. God wanted man to know good and evil to become like him. Therefore, he had to sin to be Godlike. If there was no evil, nothing could exist save God himelf. The inevitable fall was part of making man Godlike. When the son of God, Adam, fell, it compelled the Incarnate Son Jesus to fall to save mankind. Why? Only God knows the true answer. In order to know good, we must know evil. But, we can choose good or evil by will. By God, we can choose above human reason. According to Julian, we are tempted by sin, we commit sin, but there is the part of our soul, the part God occupy’s, which cannot consent to sin. We are tempted, we sin, but there is part of us which does not fully consent to the act. There are those that despite this, fully consent which is rejection of God. I don’t know Adam and Eve did that fully. I do think the Genesis account has a greater reality in relation to sin. I don’t think Adam was predestined to sin. It was inevitable. There is a difference in foreknowledge and pre-destination. God is in control yes but not everything that happens is pre-destined. There is a difference in consent by the power of God, grace, and consent by human free will. The consent by human will in union with grace produces good actions. Consent by will alone, human will which is fallible, produces ‘not good.’ Human will in union with divine will which can only happen by infusion and God given willingness. I an trying to reason things out. Forgive me if I seem weird and please challenge me if you desire. I don’t expect everyone here just to agree. I am seeking understanding.

 

[fhansen]

God wanted man to know good and evil to become like him. Therefore, he had to sin to be Godlike. If there was no evil, nothing could exist save God himelf. The inevitable fall was part of making man Godlike.

Since angels apparently didn’t have to go through the kinds of trials man must endure, do you think that man becomes “more Godlike” than them if he perseveres and wins the race set out for him? How would you compare unfallen angels, who also possess free wills, to man?