Which man?

[Mammoths]

“By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin so that death spread to all men because all sinned”

“God made man in his own image; male and female he made them.”

“So when Eve saw…she took it and ate it and gave to her husband with her and he ate.”

“For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.”

By which man did sin enter into the world, by Adam, Eve, AdamandEve…?

 

[Assyrian412]

Romans 5:19 “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

The one man that sin entered the world through is Adam and the one man that makes many righteous is Jesus; the last Adam.

 

[Mammoths]

Romans 5:19 “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

The one man that sin entered the world through is Adam and the one man that makes many righteous is Jesus; the last Adam.

That seems straight forward enough. So did Eve not sin?

 

[abucs]

That seems straight forward enough. So did Eve not sin?

I think that is an interesting point.

I guess I would lean to your Adameve description with ‘Adam’ being used as a euphemism for ‘mankind’ as well as describing the individual man relating to the Genesis story…

 

[NeedImprovement]

Although , we similarly refer to our Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary as the “New Eve.”

(*. . . I think the *“New Adam” *might be a slightly more accurate designation for our Blessed Lord Jesus - as opposed to the last Adam).

. . .

 

[St_Francis]

My understanding of this is that Adam should have been protecting Eve, not following her into sin.

 

[grannymh]

That seems straight forward enough. So did Eve not sin?

Both Adam and Eve committed the personal sin of disobedience. (Genesis 2: 15-17)
The Original Adam’s personal sin is also the sin named after him, Original Sin. (Genesis 3: 11)

The universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition has some interesting paragraphs: CCC 396-410.

 

[abucs]

Both Adam and Eve committed the personal sin of disobedience. (Genesis 2: 15-17)
The Original Adam’s personal sin is also the sin named after him, Original Sin. (Genesis 3: 11)

The universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition has some interesting paragraphs: CCC 396-410.

Typical. The man gets the blame.

 

[grannymh]

Typical. The man gets the blame.

Watch out for dumb blondes.

 

[Stephen_says]

Eve sinned as well as Adam, but we inherited original sin from Adam. It is human nature to inherit rights and lands and titles from our Fathers, not particularly our mothers. So it is with sin.

 

[Assyrian412]

Although , we similarly refer to our Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary as the “New Eve.”

(*. . . I think the *“New Adam” *might be a slightly more accurate designation for our Blessed Lord Jesus - as opposed to the last Adam).

. . .

Potentially. I just said last Adam because that is how the Bible describes him.

1 Corinthians 15:45
45 And so it is written: “The first man Adam was made a living soul.” The last Adam was made a quickening Spirit.

 

[Mammoths]

Potentially. I just said last Adam because that is how the Bible describes him.

1 Corinthians 15:45
45 And so it is written: “The first man Adam was made a living soul.” The last Adam was made a quickening Spirit.

It seems the Bible says last Adam in contrast to the first Adam. It has to do with beginnings. The first Adam was the beginning of mankind and the last Adam is the beginning of mankind redeemed. If a modern day couple names their son Adam they are not contradicting or violating the doctrine of the Last Adam or New Adam. Both titles acurately reflect Paul’s thesis regarding Christ as a fulfillment of the prophetic substance of the genesis account of the first sin. There is no further Adam promised so He is both new and last.

 

[Assyrian412]

It seems the Bible says last Adam in contrast to the first Adam. It has to do with beginnings. The first Adam was the beginning of mankind and the last Adam is the beginning of mankind redeemed. If a modern day couple names their son Adam they are not contradicting or violating the doctrine of the Last Adam or New Adam. Both titles acurately reflect Paul’s thesis regarding Christ as a fulfillment of the prophetic substance of the genesis account of the first sin. There is no further Adam promised so He is both new and last.

Yes that is correct. I was just pointing out that scripture so that it could be seen that calling him the new Adam isn’t necessarily more or less accurate than the last Adam for the reasons you just pointed out in response to the previous comment

 

[NeedImprovement]

St Paul refers to Christ as the "last Adam."

Then as the Church develops the theology, our Blessed Lord also becomes known as the “new Adam” and the “second Adam” as well.

The three terms become interchangeable in some tracts :

Pope Benedict XVI refers to our Blessed Lord (in relation to Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15 ) using all three of these designations in his same address of December 3, 2008 entitled On Christ, the New Adam.

Similarly, in article 359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church we see both the second Adam and the* last Adam* used :

". . .The second Adam stamped his image on the first Adam when he created him. That is why he took on himself the role and the name of the first Adam, in order that he might not lose what he had made in his own image. The first Adam, the last Adam: the first had a beginning, the last knows no end. The last Adam is indeed the first; as he himself says: “I am the first and the last.”

I like the* last Adam* because of its identification with Revelation 1:8 and 22:13 . I equally like the second Adam or the new Adam because it implies that there’s room for us also to become “new adams” when we remain in the Second Adam or the New Adam.

---

Here’s a snippet from one of Father John Hardon SJ’s treatises on Adam - supporting what abucs wrote in post # 4 :

Adam in context means first of all the man, described in Genesis and St. Paul as distinct from Eve. This is the term also found in the documents of the Church. However we do not use the word of him alone but extend it to Eve, in fact apply it to human nature as represented in our first parents.

God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural , Part Two: Creation as a Divine Fact ,Section Two: Supernatural Anthropology ; THESIS VIII ,Before the Fall, Adam Possessed Sanctifying Grace ,and the Preternatural Gifts of Integrity, Immortality and Infused Knowledge.

That would provide us with a little more clarity as to who owned the sin as well. When we say " the sin of Adam" we are not necessarily exempting Eve.

 

[joseie]

An interesting thing in this regard is that though it is said that Jesus came to redeem us out of the sin committed by Adam ,Jesus has not said a word about Adam or about that sin! To make matters worse ,he has said so many reasons why he came,but not this reason!!

 

[Mammoths]

An interesting thing in this regard is that though it is said that Jesus came to redeem us out of the sin committed by Adam ,Jesus has not said a word about Adam or about that sin! To make matters worse ,he has said so many reasons why he came,but not this reason!!

That actually does not seem so terrible at all in light of all that he did say, all that is said of him in the old testement and all that his apostles said about him. This comment reminds me of the “did Jesus really clams to be God” question. He never said, “I am God.” But he said a lot of things that only make sense if He is.

John the Baptist, “behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!”
The angel to Mary, “for he shall save His People from their sins.”
Isaiah, “surely he was stricken for our transgressions and by His stripes we are healed.”

That’s three of many. Even Paul says, “death spread to all men because all sinned.” It is interesting that he does not say that all died because one sinned. Original sin seems more to the effect that original sin created a legacy of corruption thus all sinned. If it were possible for anyone of themselves to not sin, the death of the messiah seems a bit unnecessary. However, the corruption inherited from Adam makes sin assured for those who are not united with Christ in his death and resurrection.

 

[Darryl_B]

My understanding of this is that Adam should have been protecting Eve, not following her into sin.

I agree with this, however how far should Adam have gone in protecting Eve? To the point of murder? To the point of surrendering his life?

 

[Mammoths]

I agree with this, however how far should Adam have gone in protecting Eve? To the point of murder? To the point of surrendering his life?

And the fact that he should have protected her does not mean he is guilty of what she did. There is a common line of thought in our society that blames another person for the first persons actions. Remember Adam had no knowledge of evil at the time of temptation. All he knew was not to eat that fruit. He had no capacity for preponderance of Eve’s temptation. We are not told what he was doing while she was being tempted. For all we know, he was out of earshot but close by preparing a raised bed. Or maybe he was trying to protect Eve in some way but failed. God did not rebuke Adam for his lack of chivalry but for eating the fruit he was commanded not to. The way the story goes it is very simple. God told them not to eat the fruit and they did anyway–Eve because the serpent deceived her and Adam because he knowingly chose to. It’s not Adams fault Eve ate the fruit–it was Eve’s. I have some issue with the notion some seem to hold that the women is functionally equal to the man except when a man is responsible for how a woman feels or what she does. Modern insinuations that Adam should have prevented Eve’s fall are no better than Adam’s blame for Eve.

 

[SnoopSword]

DouayRB:

I cannot explain it well, but this man has done an extensive explanation of “Man”.
Take time to listen and then reflect and discern.
His name is Myles Munroe and the details are found in his video:

The Power And The Purpose Of Women.

May the Holy Spirit be with you.

A comment from that video:

“I think every single guy should listen to this teaching and maybe** they will grow up** and become men and not boys.”

A Holy Spirit inspired homily doesn’t provoke those type of responses. At 25:00 the guy even threatens to kill someone and then lie to God about it. A huge ‘sin of the mind’. It was a huge man hating contest from strong willed women in the audience.

To me he’s another Evangelical lying serpent misleading people with lies about he Bible and Christianity. Here some verses just off the top of my head refuting his claims:

Gen 24:18-19 she said, “Drink, my lord.” Then she quickly let her pitcher down to her hand, and gave him a drink. 19 And when she had finished giving him a drink, she said, “I will draw water for your camels also, until they have finished drinking.”

Luke 10:39-40,42 She had a sister named Mary [who] sat beside the Lord at his feet listening to him speak. Martha, burdened with much serving, came to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? (implying women only) Tell her to help me.” There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her.” -Jesus does not instruct men to do the serving or for her to stop. He actually implies that a woman may ONLY be excused when it comes to him speaking (liturgy).

Luke 4:7 Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” - Directly from our Lords mouth on this matter.

 

[NeedImprovement]

EWTN has a Q & A answer by Fr. John Echert which deals with several aspects of how the story of Adam and Eve may be viewed HERE .

As the answer develops , he says :

And while there is latitude as to the literal nature of every detail of the story of creation, the Church teaches that we are all descended of an original Adam and that original sin is transmitted in the process of generation.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that we are following a more literally confined path along the story of creation. One of the first things I notice, is if we follow the sequence laid out in Chapter 2 of the Book of Genesis , God told Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil before He even forms Eve - his partner. [Genesis 2:16-17]
So the imputation of responsibility is initially placed directly on Adam . . . which subsequently concurs with St Francis’ post -

My understanding of this is that Adam should have been protecting Eve, not following her into sin.

Personally, I have always struggled when trying to view the entire scenario of the Fall as two separate sins - one of Adam , and one of Eve . While they both surely did sin and equally bore the guilt of the sin, we can’t ignore the high degree of complicity. I see it more like they participated in the same sin ; (if you’ll pardon the expression) partners in crime.

Look how closely together the Book of Genesis places them at the scene of the crime :
Genesis doesn’t say, “Well, the woman sinned and fell . . .and then later when Adam got home from work (he didn’t have to work yet either ) . . .” Rather, we read in Genesis 3:6 -

So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

If we further consider that just prior to the Fall the souls of both Adam and Eve - created in the divine image, were still imbued with original holiness, justice and free will , and that they were in a harmonious balance with God and nature ,the plausibility that they basically participated (shared) in the first sin at almost the same moment increases.

Trying to claim that Eve sinned and then caused Adam to sin, places the two of them just a little too far apart - and in my own limited opinion, that particular approach has never been able to pass the Mom God Scrutiny.