Why did Adam need the Tree of Life?

[TimothyH]

Are they OBLIGED to believe Genesis is real? Many catholics will tell you the tree of life and Adam are symbolic or allergories.

Not Genesis, but Adam and Eve.

We are obliged to believe that Adam and Eve were two real people but not obliged to believe that Genesis is an historical account. We can believe that the rest of Genesis is an historical account, or symbolic or allegories, but not required to believe either.

The encylical quoted speaks to Adam and Eve, not all of the Book of Genesis. We cannot believe that Adam and Eve are allegory or symbolic, or that they represent a group of people, or a race, or a type of people. We have to believe that Adam and Eve are two real people and that all humans really descended from them.

Of all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic faith, if I had to pick one to struggle with, this would be it. I’ve let it go though and don’t worry about it much. I don’t know how it can be true, but I’m sure it is. Maybe I’ll find out some day.

-Tim-

 

[buffalo]

Not Genesis, but Adam and Eve.

We are obliged to believe that Adam and Eve were two real people but not obliged to believe that Genesis is an historical account. We can believe that the rest of Genesis is an historical account, or symbolic or allegories, but not required to believe either.

The encylical quoted speaks to Adam and Eve, not all of the Book of Genesis. We cannot believe that Adam and Eve are allegory or symbolic, or that they represent a group of people, or a race, or a type of people. We have to believe that Adam and Eve are two real people and that all humans really descended from them.

Of all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic faith, if I had to pick one to struggle with, this would be it. I’ve let it go though and don’t worry about it much. I don’t know how it can be true, but I’m sure it is. Maybe I’ll find out some day.

-Tim-

These are doctrine:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

These are doctrine:

1. 
   *] The first man was created by God. (De fide.)
   *] The whole human race stems from one single human pair. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Man consists of two essential parts–a material body and a spiritual soul. (De fide.)
   *] The rational soul is per se the essential form of the body. (De fide.)
   *] Every human being possesses an individual soul. (De fide.)
   *] Every individual soul was immediately created out of nothing by God. (Sent. Certa.)
   *] A creature has the capacity to receive supernatural gifts. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The Supernatural presupposes Nature. (Sent communis.)
   *] God has conferred on man a supernatural Destiny. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents, before the Fall, were endowed with sanctifying grace. (De fide.)
   *] The donum rectitudinis or integritatis in the narrower sense, i.e., the freedom from irregular desire. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
   *] The donum immortalitatis, i.e.,bodily immortality. (De fide.)
   *] The donum impassibilitatis, i.e., the freedom from suffering. (Sent. communis.)
   *] The donum scientiae, i.e., a knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God. (Sent. communis.)
   *] Adam received sanctifying grace not merely for himself, but for all his posterity. (Sent. certa.)
   *] Our first parents in paradise sinned grievously through transgression of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
   *] Through the sin our first parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
   *] Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil. (De fide.) D788.

1. 
   Yes! The red letters are what I am talking abut. Now, from thr narrative God gives them the Tree of Life. Now is it saying, before the Fall, they would only retain freedom from physical/spiritual death by eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life? After the Fall God guards the tree, as if eating the fruit would redtore what they just lost. That does not seem to make sense to me, as they were not allowed access to it even after they repented. God redeemed them but not by means of that tree but the Tree Christ hung on. So…why guard the tree?

 

[johnnyjones]

Yes! The red letters are what I am talking abut. Now, from thr narrative God gives them the Tree of Life. Now is it saying, before the Fall, they would only retain freedom from physical/spiritual death by eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life? After the Fall God guards the tree, as if eating the fruit would redtore what they just lost. That does not seem to make sense to me, as they were not allowed access to it even after they repented. God redeemed them but not by means of that tree but the Tree Christ hung on. So…why guard the tree?

Yes you have made good points but it still remains unfortunate that many catholics want to hear nothing about creationism as if there was nothing written down about it. My original sarcastic post was to put light on the issue.We need a Tree of Life, otherwise we create our own story about how sin entered the world and that can conjure up all kinds of speculative beliefs.

The tree was needed to see if man would follow God or do it his way. Ultimately the tree was necessary to give us free will. You can’t have good without evil. It was purposeful it seems.

 

[Robertanthony]

Not Genesis, but Adam and Eve.

We are obliged to believe that Adam and Eve were two real people but not obliged to believe that Genesis is an historical account. We can believe that the rest of Genesis is an historical account, or symbolic or allegories, but not required to believe either.

The encylical quoted speaks to Adam and Eve, not all of the Book of Genesis. We cannot believe that Adam and Eve are allegory or symbolic, or that they represent a group of people, or a race, or a type of people. We have to believe that Adam and Eve are two real people and that all humans really descended from them.

Of all the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic faith, if I had to pick one to struggle with, this would be it. I’ve let it go though and don’t worry about it much. I don’t know how it can be true, but I’m sure it is. Maybe I’ll find out some day.

-Tim-

You’d rather (think) God had created 100’s or 1000’s of human beings simultaneously to beget the rest of us? Are consanguinity and incest your main problems with monogenism?

 

[Layp3rs0n]

Yes you have made good points but it still remains unfortunate that many catholics want to hear nothing about creationism as if there was nothing written down about it. My original sarcastic post was to put light on the issue.We need a Tree of Life, otherwise we create our own story about how sin entered the world and that can conjure up all kinds of speculative beliefs.

The tree was needed to see if man would follow God or do it his way. Ultimately the tree was necessary to give us free will. You can’t have good without evil. It was purposeful it seems.

Oh! Got it! The Command was two-fold, “Eat of this tree not that one.” And so since the First Covenant with man was broken by man,. God could not a
allow him to eat of that which was the key to said Covenant. It is reasonable to assume then, that Adam still had access to the tree of life, eating from it would not restore his immortality or spiritual health, but having sinned against the Covenant would actually be sinning further! Thank you!

 

[johnnyjones]

Oh! Got it! The Command was two-fold, “Eat of this tree not that one.” And so since the First Covenant with man was broken by man,. God could not a
allow him to eat of that which was the key to said Covenant. It is reasonable to assume then, that Adam still had access to the tree of life, eating from it would not restore his immortality or spiritual health, but having sinned against the Covenant would actually be sinning further! Thank you!

More like , here’s a tree that according to the women was “good for food”, “a delight to the eyes”, "and “desirable to make one wise” but don’t eat of it. No choice between two trees. Just one beautiful tree that is appealing in all the aforementioned ways, but you can’t have it.

 

[TimothyH]

You’d rather (think) God had created 100’s or 1000’s of human beings simultaneously to beget the rest of us? Are consanguinity and incest your main problems with monogenism?

Slow down, take a breath, and read again.

You are arguing with something that was not said and a postion that was never taken.

I don’t know how it can be true, but I’m sure it is.

I am sure it is true. Absolutely, positively, one hundred perscent convinced that it is true.

How? I don’t know. But the Church has been right enough times in my life that I trust what she teaches to be so, even if I don’t know how it can be.

-Tim-

 

[Robertanthony]

Slow down, take a breath, and read again.

You are arguing with something that was not said and a postion that was never taken.

I am sure it is true. Absolutely, positively, one hundred perscent convinced that it is true.

How? I don’t know. But the Church has been right enough times in my life that I trust what she teaches to be so, even if I don’t know how it can be.

-Tim-

Tim, I’m sorry but I don’t think I came across the way I’d thought. I was just genuinely curious, you said monogenism was the doctrine that you found the toughest to accept, so I was essentially asking what there was about it that made it so. I’m not, nor was I, doubting that you hold it to be true, but my post could have led one to believe otherwise. Sorry, buddy.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

You’d rather (think) God had created 100’s or 1000’s of human beings simultaneously to beget the rest of us? Are consanguinity and incest your main problems with monogenism?

Actually if you accept evolution as a possible theory, it would explain why there would be a 2,000 (give or take) human genetic bottleneck instead of trying to explain if God created Adam and Eve without any previous causes in the universe. It would expound on His omniscience because instead of having to create the universe and then create Adam and Eve by direct intervention (making it look like He couldn’t or didn’t know how to have humans natural evolve from His first cause), creating the universe that would naturally produce the potential effects, according to design, He would have no need to directly create them since the universe had all the potentiality to do so from the beginning because of His design.

 

[TimothyH]

Tim, I’m sorry but I don’t think I came across the way I’d thought. I was just genuinely curious, you said monogenism was the doctrine that you found the toughest to accept, so I was essentially asking what there was about it that made it so. I’m not, nor was I, doubting that you hold it to be true, but my post could have led one to believe otherwise. Sorry, buddy.

Ah, apologies back at you! I’m sorry as well. Maybe I’m a little defensive. I havn’t been to confession in a while and I can feel it - a little bit sad and easily angered.

Sorry again.

-Tim-

 

[prodigalson2011]

I have also thought that the tree of life implied that man was not physically immortal, and in fact I still struggle with accepting that we ever were. Physical immortality in this universe doesn’t make sense, seeing as we now know that the sun will eventually die and, along with it, life on this planet. Even if we were to become so advanced as to colonize other solar systems, etc. the entire universe will eventually undergo heat death.

How does the Church respond to this knowledge?

 

[GEddie]

It hasn’t, so far, to the best of my knowledge.

The implications of the law of entropy to our life, world, and embodiment have yet to be sounded out theologically.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Nelka]

Many catholics don’t take Adam or a Tree of Life literally so what’s the relevance? These things didn’t exist, you came into existence over millions of years. Sin happened somehow but we really don’t know much about it.

How can a catholic believe such things!?!

 

[prodigalson2011]

It hasn’t, so far, to the best of my knowledge.

The implications of the law of entropy to our life, world, and embodiment have yet to be sounded out theologically.

ICXC NIKA

That’s pretty much what I thought. Way to leave me hangin’, Mother Church.

I actually went on a search for theological defenses of this doctrine and, while I didn’t find any specifically Catholic sources, I did find a dissertation written by a Christian that cited a large consensus of ancient rabbis who taught that, in time, had Adam, Eve and their descendants remained sinless. they would have been moved from this world into eternity without suffering physical death. I felt a little reassured when I read that, as that fits perfectly with the Ascension and the Assumption (though Mary may have died before she was assumed; still, her body was wholly transferred.)

 

[feed_me]

The tree of life was only there for testing. Nothing else. God told them not to eat of the tree of life or they would die. God did that to test if they would obey him, and he sent the serpent to do the testing.

 

[grannymh]

If Adam was created immortal why did he need the Tree of Life?

It is my understanding that as long as he remained in God’s friendship, Adam would not have to suffer or die. However, Adam being created, he would also be mortal like other creatures. Even though man’s nature is mortal, God had destined Adam not to die. Adam would be immune to bodily death had he not sinned. (Source: various paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition)