Who were Adam's womb based parents?

[edwest211]

Then why treat it like one?

 

[edwest211]

This is unscientific.

 

[edwest211]

Could you describe their role?

 

[AHapka]

My Catholic study bible says it’s not meant to be taken as a science text as well. They are real people and God did really do what was said. But the exact mechanism isn’t explained. The story is valid without the how.

In many of the gospels, Jesus traveled from one place to another. Does it matter if he took a donkey, walked, instantly placed Himself there (He is divine, after all), or drove a Buick? No, his actions for our salvation are what matter.

 

[edwest211]

What matters is God did what only God can do. Jesus raised the dead more that once, Himself rose from the dead, and He cleansed the lepers, gave sight to the blind… all without science.

 

[Sonic]

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 .

Thanks…

I’m still not sure I follow your exegesis (I’ll have to look up what the Church Fathers as well as what Fitzmeyer and Dunn have to say about this in their commentary). But here is what I understand from scripture…

When Adam sinned he gave up his dominion over creation and subjected it to the enemy. Henceforth, satan became the prince of this world. It was after the fall that death, disease, decay, etc came into the world.

Also, from tradition in the icons, we do not see Adam and Even or creation is a state of decay and subject to death and disease prior to fall. If your understanding of Romans 8 is correct, then it should be reflected in the Icon (which carry the same weight as scripture).

 

[mVitus]

it should be reflected in the Icon (which carry the same weight as scripture).

Uh, What? That is false. Artistic representations are not the same as Tradition.

 

[Benadam]

Just remember good theology doesn’t ignore empirical evidence that has become certain. According to St. Augustine a good theologian doesn’t make Christian theology a matter of ignorance. Also remember that the bodies of Adam and Eve became subject to death because of the fall. This meant that it would be compelled to obey the laws of survival like any other animals body. Urges to reproduce and the need to one up our neighbor to ensure survival. Just like the animals it turned into a dog eat dog world for man.

 

[Sonic]

Uh, What? That is false. Artistic representations are not the same as Tradition.

/sigh/ Seriously? Icons are not just artistic representation. They are considered visual writing of Holy scripture.

From the CCC…

Holy images

1159 The sacred image, the liturgical icon, principally represents Christ. It cannot represent the invisible and incomprehensible God, but the incarnation of the Son of God has ushered in a new “economy” of images:
Previously God, who has neither a body nor a face, absolutely could not be represented by an image. But now that he has made himself visible in the flesh and has lived with men, I can make an image of what I have seen of God . . . and contemplate the glory of the Lord, his face unveiled.27

1160 Christian iconography expresses in images the same Gospel message that Scripture communicates by words. Image and word illuminate each other: We declare that we preserve intact all the written and unwritten traditions of the Church which have been entrusted to us. One of these traditions consists in the production of representational artwork, which accords with the history of the preaching of the Gospel. For it confirms that the incarnation of the Word of God was real and not imaginary, and to our benefit as well, for realities that illustrate each other undoubtedly reflect each other’s meaning.28

1161 All the signs in the liturgical celebrations are related to Christ: as are sacred images of the holy Mother of God and of the saints as well. They truly signify Christ, who is glorified in them. They make manifest the "cloud of witnesses"29 who continue to participate in the salvation of the world and to whom we are united, above all in sacramental celebrations. Through their icons, it is man “in the image of God,” finally transfigured "into his likeness,"30 who is revealed to our faith. So too are the angels, who also are recapitulated in Christ: Following the divinely inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her) we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, venerable and holy images of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on streets.31

1162 "The beauty of the images moves me to contemplation, as a meadow delights the eyes and subtly infuses the soul with the glory of God."32 Similarly, the contemplation of sacred icons, united with meditation on the Word of God and the singing of liturgical hymns, enters into the harmony of the signs of celebration so that the mystery celebrated is imprinted in the heart’s memory and is then expressed in the new life of the faithful.
Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c2a1.htm

 

[Sonic]

Just remember good theology doesn’t ignore empirical evidence that has become certain. According to St. Augustine a good theologian doesn’t make Christian theology a matter of ignorance. Also remember that the bodies of Adam and Eve became subject to death because of the fall. This meant that it would be compelled to obey the laws of survival like any other animals body. Urges to reproduce and the need to one up our neighbor to ensure survival. Just like the animals it turned into a dog eat dog world for man.

Yes… and good theology also requires that one understand that there is a hierarchy concerning sources. We always start with Holy Scripture, then Liturgy and Tradition, then the Church Fathers, then the Medieval Theologians, and then after that we consider what other church documents have to say on the subject. Everything else, like scientific evidence, comes afterward. We should always be careful not to put empirical evidence before the Gospels and church fathers. The reason is that empirical evidence can be wrong, and may not give the full picture. Pope Benedict XVI emeritus emphasized this in his book On Conscience.

That’s why I’m not discounting your exegesis. You began with Paul, and I am going to investigate to see if this is a proper understanding of Romans 8. I’ll have to get back to you on that and let you know what I find.

 

[mVitus]

This may prove an interesting read for those interested in how there could be suffering prior to the Fall.

Reconciling Contemporary Science and the Doctrine of Original Sin

One of the key things it mentions is how there are different kinds of suffering. And humans are, because of our fallen state, capable of Reflexive Suffering. Suffering where we can reflect on the fact that we are suffering. Whereas animals only know physical pain and some emotional pain. And they can’t reflect on that.

 

[Ron_Conte]

It’s not compatible with Church teaching because, if God gave a hominoid a rational soul, Adam would have a fallen body. The hominoids before us experienced injury, disease, and death, so they were fallen. Adam had to be unfallen because his sin caused him to fall in body and soul.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Ok., but I just said that the gift of immortality was just that…a gift. It was a preternatural gift.

From New Advent " It may be well here to say a few words on the preternatural (relatively supernatural) gifts bestowed on our first parents, which are sometimes confused with the supernatural gifts properly so called. In the beginning God exempted man from the inherent weakness of his nature, i.e. the infirmities of the flesh and the consequent infirmities of the spirit. He made man immortal, impassible, free from concupiscence and ignorance, sinless, and lord of the earth. " http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm

Giving a hominoid a soul could certainly signal the creation of Man.

 

[Benadam]

The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. So Jesus is conceived in eternity. It follows then that the first human conceived is His Immaculate Mother. Is it possible it is her humanity conceived in eternity that Adam received on earth?

 

[edwest211]

The last sentence has no basis in science or Scripture.

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

How so? I believe in evolution …and I believe that God gave a hominoid a soul and made Adam. Simple as that. The Church doesn’t say it’s wrong to believe that…they also don’t say it’s wrong to believe that he literally came from the dust of the Earth.

 

[edwest211]

There are two problems:
Adam and Eve: Real People

"It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

"In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

"The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).
God gave Adam and Eve preternatural gifts. God, and only God, can do this:

mpassibility (freedom from pain)

immortality (freedom from death)

integrity (freedom from concupiscence, or disordered
desires)

infused knowledge (freedom from ignorance in matters
essential for happiness)

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Ok how does that contradict what I said and what I believe? I’m not denying that Adam and Eve existed. They did. They were gifted with immortality. They sinned and fell and lost that gift. They were back to square one…worse even b/c now they had an immortal (rational) soul that was separated from God. (Hence the death and Resurrection of Christ that would have to happen.)

I’m not denying monogenism either. We inherit our humanity from Adam and Eve…but that doesn’t mean that their descendants couldn’t have had relations with other hominoids…after the Fall all sorts of sin were in play. As I stated in another thread this could be a reason why certain peoples have more Neanderthal DNA in them than other peoples. That’s not hard for me to believe.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

If, that is, you believe that carnivores were vegans before the fall – which the Scriptures don’t state. And, of course, that you believe that eating plants didn’t kill them.

If death, disease, and decay entered the world because of sin, then how then could it exist prior to the fall?

Paul explains that death entered the world for those who sin. I’ve never seen my apple tree – or my dogs, for that matter – commit sin.

I have thought that God subjected creation to decay because He intended man, as steward of the earth

Why would the garden require ‘tending’ – or stewardship of any kind – if there were no ‘decay’?

How is this against Church teaching? The gift of immortality was just that…a gift…not something that was part of our original nature.

Precisely. One would have to conclude that physical death – a preternatural gift to humans – was part of animal and plant nature, prior to the fall.

It’s not compatible with Church teaching because, if God gave a hominoid a rational soul, Adam would have a fallen body.

Not even close. Our first human parents had preternatural gifts. However, an unensouled body could not be ‘fallen’, although it would have the physical nature of its body. Upon ensoulment, then, our first human parents gained the preternatural gifts – including immortality – which they subsequently lost.

There are two problems:

You don’t really state any problems.

 

[bobperk]

Not even close. Our first human parents had preternatural gifts. However, an unensouled body could not be ‘fallen’, although it would have the physical nature of its body. Upon ensoulment, then, our first human parents gained the preternatural gifts – including immortality – which they subsequently lost.

So this would be a miraculous creation of our first parents, by ensouling “hominins” who up until their ensoulment were subject to bodily disease and death, but upon receiving souls were made immortal? So once they were infused with souls, their bodies stopped aging, and presumably the effects reversed?

Why would the garden require ‘tending’ – or stewardship of any kind – if there were no ‘decay’?

Plants grow and produce fruit, vegetables, etc., so they would need to be harvested.