What if Adam had said no to the Apple

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRKH

Guest
Just curious…don’t know if this had ever been brought up…What if, after Eve had eaten of the forbidden tree, Adam refused to?

Thoughts?

Peace
James
 
The serpent would have killed him and God would have raised him from the dead.

-Tim-
 
your guess is as good as mine

he would have sinned in some other way maybe.
 
Have you ever read C.S. Lewis’ Space trilogy? This question comes up (in allegorical form) in volume 2 (Perelandra). It’s a good trilogy, if you think of it more as fantasy rather than SF. 🙂

As I recall, Lewis’ idea was that if he had rejected the apple he had the opportunity of sanctifying his wife, and of course it would put the children in a better position, having the example of unfallen man to emulate.

–Jen
 
I have wondered thanks to Michael Voris what would have happened if instead of blaming Eve Adam and Eve recognized their sin and asked for forgiveness.
 
Scott Hahn’s theory was that Adam’s sin was that he didn’t protect Eve from the serpent(dragon). Adam was familiar with all of the creatures because he named them, so he knew that the serpent did not belong and was not from God. He stood by and did nothing because he was frozen with fear.

Once Adam was in a state of mortal sin it was easy for him to keep stumbling. He then sins again by eatting the apple himself and yet sins again when he blames Eve. This illustrates the fall quite well.

So just to confuse things, maybe he ate the apple because he was already in a state of mortal sin by letting his bride be deceived. Maybe they would of been thrown out even if he never ate the apple. But if it wasn’t the apple he would of done something else because he was in a state of mortal sin.

We know that Jesus is the new Adam and that he came to sacrifice himself for us, so it fits that Adam’s sin was that he didn’t sacrifice himself.
 
JRKH said:
Just curious…don’t know if this had ever been brought up…What if, after Eve had eaten of the forbidden tree, Adam refused to?

Thoughts?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
There would be a lot of naked dudes running around who didn’t know the difference, and all the females would be scandalized and wearing clothes.
 
Nobody said it was an apple, it was a fruit in a figurative way most likely. Let’s take this a bit further, though. Was the Fall an inevitable thing to happen sooner or later. If Adam and Eve hadn,t taken of the fruit, the possibility would have remained open for every human down the ages and at some point someone would have done it…and would have borne the disgrace instead of A & E. Thoughts?
 
LucyLight said:
Scott Hahn’s theory was that Adam’s sin was that he didn’t protect Eve from the serpent(dragon). Adam was familiar with all of the creatures because he named them, so he knew that **the serpent **did not belong and was not from God. He stood by and did nothing because he was frozen with fear.
Click to expand...
If the serpent was not from God, what was he from? Is there another creator?
 
JRKH said:
Just curious…don’t know if this had ever been brought up…What if, after Eve had eaten of the forbidden tree, Adam refused to?

Thoughts?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Adam would’ve remained faithful to and still in communion with God. So presumably this could mean no human fruitfulness, no multiplication, no JRKH to ask the question. 🙂
 
The obvious is that there was an unique relationship between God, the Creator and Adam, the creature. Adam shattered that relationship by preferring himself over God.
Because people fail to understand what “being in the image of God” actually means, organic fruit is easily substituted for the truth.

Furthermore, learning about Adam’s human nature before and after he scorned his Creator is a tad difficult. For those with guts, paragraphs 355-421 in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition* is a good place to learn about Catholic doctrines. Be warned. This Catechism does not answer every question in this thread nor does it answer every possible question one can imagine. No doubt, the Catechism is the greatest when it comes to the necessary basics which you and I have to deal with.

By the way, there is a difference between Adam’s personal sins and the Original Sin which changed the course of human history.

Blessings,
granny

Adam is the apple of God’s eye.
Example of reality and figurative language.
 
Then only those born of woman would have original sin, and a lot less tilling of the soil would have occurred.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
If the serpent was not from God, what was he from? Is there another creator?
Click to expand...
I should of said his form was not from God. Scott Hahn’s theory is that the serpent was really a big scary dragon. So in the same way that Lucifer came from God but turned himself into something different the dragon was something that Adam had not seen before and named because its form had changed.
 
Lot’s of interesting replies.
Never heard that explanation by Scott Hahn. While it might be plausible, it seems to me to be taking a bit of liberty with the text and so forth…But that’s just me…

Thanks to everyone who responded…even the humorous ones. I love it…😃

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Just curious…don’t know if this had ever been brought up…What if, after Eve had eaten of the forbidden tree, Adam refused to?

Thoughts?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
In my small wisdom respectfully; I think the What If is too huge of a statement to make considering God’s redemptive design in eternity for the human race from the moment our first ancestral parents Adam and Eve came upon this world.

God already knew Satan would tempt the folly of our human weakness. Is it conjectural to think we were predestined to fall by pride and disobedience. IMHO I don’t think so, considering the Great Fall of Lucifer himself. Obviously the enticing fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was to great to resist despite God’s warning.
 
JRKH said:
Lot’s of interesting replies.
Never heard that explanation by Scott Hahn. While it might be plausible, it seems to me to be taking a bit of liberty with the text and so forth…But that’s just me…

Thanks to everyone who responded…even the humorous ones. I love it…😃

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I agree that the “explanations” by Scott Hahn do not comport with his Catholicism.

Could it be possible that someone accidentally misunderstood the purpose of his Scripture Dictionary? And then forgot the citation?
 
grannymh said:
I agree that the so-called “explanations” by Scott Hahn do not comport with his Catholicism.

Could it be possible that someone accidentally misunderstood the purpose of his Scripture Dictionary? And then forgot the citation?
Click to expand...
 
JRKH said:
Lot’s of interesting replies.
Never heard that explanation by Scott Hahn. While it might be plausible, it seems to me to be taking a bit of liberty with the text and so forth…But that’s just me…

Thanks to everyone who responded…even the humorous ones. I love it…😃

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Jeff Cavins goes further, stating that their sin was a fundamental lack of trust in God. They knew that if they didn’t eat the fruit, that the serpent would have killed them. Their sin was that they didn’t trust that God would have raised them from the dead. Such an interpretation is consistent with Abraham’s obedience;

By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac descendants shall bear your name.” He reasoned that God was able to raise even from the dead, and he received Isaac back as a symbol. (Hebrews 11:17-19)

It is also consistent with Jesus Christ’s trust that the Father would raise him from the dead.

All through Scripture, God tries to get Israel to trust him. The Bible is a story of trust. I tend to agree with Jeff Cavins on this, that faith means trust, and that at a fundamental level Adam and Eve failed to trust God.

-Tim-
 
JRKH said:
Lot’s of interesting replies.
Never heard that explanation by Scott Hahn. While it might be plausible, it seems to me to be taking a bit of liberty with the text and so forth…But that’s just me…

Thanks to everyone who responded…even the humorous ones. I love it…😃

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Scott Hahn’s theory is in his book ‘A Father Who Keeps His Promises’. It certainly makes for a more interesting story to have a scary dragon than a snake hanging from a tree. I guess we will never really know, we can only speculate.
 
TimothyH said:
Jeff Cavins goes further, stating that their sin was a fundamental lack of trust in God. They knew that if they didn’t eat the fruit, that the serpent would have killed them. Their sin was that they didn’t trust that God would have raised them from the dead. Such an interpretation is consistent with Abraham’s obedience;

By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac descendants shall bear your name.” He reasoned that God was able to raise even from the dead, and he received Isaac back as a symbol. (Hebrews 11:17-19)

It is also consistent with Jesus Christ’s trust that the Father would raise him from the dead.

All through Scripture, God tries to get Israel to trust him. The Bible is a story of trust. I tend to agree with Jeff Cavins on this, that faith means trust, and that at a fundamental level Adam and Eve failed to trust God.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
The Fall certainly involved a lack of trust in God, which is consistent with Catholic teaching. Much of the rest is speculative-but interesting enough IMO. I think fear of death-meaning fear of God’s ability to end a created beings’ existence (or, put another way, a mistrust of His wilingness to keep us in existence) could play a role in the fall of angels and man as well. Perhaps it’s easier to deny God’s godhood than to live under withe knowledge that ones’ very continued existence depends on His sustaining power. And it’s interesting in any case that the lesson we’re here to learn, sort of like the Prodigal Son, is our need for God-and that no fear or mistrust is called for due to His unending, unconditional love for His creation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top