Who were Adam's womb based parents?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
Not really. They make the same assumption you’re making, and also without substantiating it. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I’ve been looking over the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Immaculate conception, and I realize this is a weak argument. Not because it’s true or false, but because it’s more rhetorical and relies on a gray area based on perspective.

In other words, I can look at it both ways and reach a conclusion from your perspective as well as mine.

I need to read up more on this to form a stronger argument. I concede for the moment.
 
Last edited:
Elf01 said:
It may be possible that Adam was a homonoid whom God gave a rational soul. In that case he would have had parents.
Click to expand...
This idea is not compatible with Catholic teaching. Adam and Eve had no original sin, until they fell. So if they began life by being conceived in the womb, they would have had an immaculate conception. But Mary’s immaculate conception was “a singular grace and privilege”. So that possibility is excluded.

I believe Adam and Eve were created miraculously by God, patterned after the highest form of life that had evolved on earth (evolved under providence).
 
Gorgias said:
What if they were created (i.e., ‘conceived’) and later received a soul, and even later than that, sinned?
Click to expand...
Not possible, since the doctrine is that Adam and Eve were unfallen. The hypothetical parents of the bodies of Adam and Eve would be fallen creatures, so the bodies would be fallen. And the lower animals all have souls, just not immortal souls. So that does not work.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The hypothetical parents of the bodies of Adam and Eve would be fallen creatures
Click to expand...
Not sure why you’d assert that. If, by this thought experiment, ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ didn’t have souls, then clearly they wouldn’t yet be fallen – and therefore, neither would their parents have been fallen. So, your assertion doesn’t seem to make sense, chronologically.
Ron_Conte said:
And the lower animals all have souls, just not immortal souls.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the only souls that are in play are rational, immortal souls, so that doesn’t seem relevant, either.
 
Unlike the recent British experiment, Adam was first to have three parents.

Father

Son

Holy Spirit
 
The word ‘dust’ is several times used as a symbol to mean a population of people in the scriptures.
Just sayin’.
 
Gorgias said:
Not sure why you’d assert that. If, by this thought experiment, ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ didn’t have souls, then clearly they wouldn’t yet be fallen – and therefore, neither would their parents have been fallen. So, your assertion doesn’t seem to make sense, chronologically.
Click to expand...
death, disease, injury all indicate the fallen state for the lower animals and plants. So it seems clear that nature was in a fallen state long before Adam and Eve fell from grace.
 
Ron_Conte said:
death, disease, injury all indicate the fallen state for the lower animals and plants. So it seems clear that nature was in a fallen state long before Adam and Eve fell from grace.
Click to expand...
Creation subjected to the futility of decay that St Paul described?
 
Ron_Conte said:
death, disease, injury all indicate the fallen state for the lower animals and plants. So it seems clear that nature was in a fallen state long before Adam and Eve fell from grace.
Click to expand...
Exactly… this is what I was trying to articulate last night but could not for lack of sleep. Thank you!

If death, disease, and decay entered the world because of sin, then how then could it exist prior to the fall? It seems therefore that my prior reasoning is a strong argument after all. But, only if one believes that the affects of sin began after Adam and Eve disobeyed God.
Ron_Conte said:
Yes. That may have begun when some angels fell from grace, since angels have a role over creation.
Click to expand...
I wonder about this though, because it seems that the order of creation suggests that man and all of creation is now tied through Jesus Christ. From God the Father down through the Angels through man to Christ, and from Christ to man down to the animals, plants, and the rest of material creation. At least that’s what I see major theologians like Peter Kreeft and Fr. Roch Kereszty pointing out.
 
Last edited:
Ron_Conte said:
Yes. That may have begun when some angels fell from grace, since angels have a role over creation.
Click to expand...
Interesting. That would explain why creation must wait for the sons of God.
 
Last edited:
Sonic said:
If death, disease, and decay entered the world because of sin, then how then could it exist prior to the fall? It seems therefore that my prior reasoning is a strong argument after all. But, only if one believes that the affects of sin began after Adam and Eve disobeyed God.
Click to expand...
I have thought that God subjected creation to decay because He intended man, as steward of the earth, that creation would be lifted up with him into life without decay. This was why nature became hostile to man at the fall. He is no longer respected as it’s steward and savior. But the idea that it happened because of the fall of the angels puts a new spin on it…
 
Benadam said:
But the idea that it happened because of the fall of the angels puts a new spin on it…
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how you surmise that death and decay occurred prior to the fall of man. Could you elaborate your reasoning, because I’ve yet to hear this being taught (even in my theology classes)?
 
Last edited:
Benadam said:
I have thought that God subjected creation to decay because He intended man, as steward of the earth, that creation would be lifted up with him into life without decay.
Click to expand...
That idea still works. It’s just more than one reason for the fall of creation.
 
Ron_Conte said:
This idea is not compatible with Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
How is this against Church teaching? The gift of immortality was just that…a gift…not something that was part of our original nature. I think it’s referred to as preternatural gift. Adam and Eve fell and we lost that gift. Our nature was wounded not destroyed.
 
Sonic said:
I don’t understand how you surmise that death and decay occurred prior to the fall of man. Could you elaborate your reasoning, because I’ve yet to hear this being taught (even in my theology classes)?
Click to expand...
At the fall of man bonds were broken. Creation wasn’t changed except for it’s bond with man. Man broke the bond with God. This broke the bond between the sensitive powers of the soul and the intellect. The bond between persons were broken and the bond between man and creation or nature. The powers of nature no longer serve man. Within himself or outside himself. Nature didn’t begin operating in a different way as many believe happened at the fall. With that in mind I read what St. Paul wrote differently .
Romans 8
19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in[o] hope we were saved.
Click to expand...
St Paul doesn’t even hint that creation is subjected to decay because of the fall. It seems he is suggesting it was subjected to be lifted up out of decay at the Resurrection. Resurrection was our intended end even if we hadn’t fallen from Grace. I mean eternal life with God not resurrection.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top