CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Theology of the Body
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 1st November 2010, 11:11 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,764
Default the creation of Adam and Eve

{1:26} And he said: “Let us make Man to our image and likeness. And let him rule over the fish of the sea, and the flying creatures of the air, and the wild beasts, and the entire earth, and every animal that moves on the earth.”
{1:27} And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him; male and female, he created them.

Mankind, men and women, are each and all made in the image of God, more so than any other living creature upon the face of the earth. All creation is a reflection of the Goodness of God. But human nature all the more so. Men and women have the same nature; this is the true basis for equality. Just as the Three Persons of the Trinity are co-equal as God by having the same Nature, so also are human persons equal before God and one another by having the same nature.

{2:7} And then the Lord God formed man from the clay of the earth, and he breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
{2:8} Now the Lord God had planted a Paradise of enjoyment from the beginning. In it, he placed the man whom he had formed.

Adam is made from the clay (dust, mud, earth) of the earth. Adam was formed by God, just as a potter forms a vessel from clay. But this applies to all human persons, not only to Adam, and not only to men. We are all told, on Ash Wednesday, 'Remember that you are dust, and unto dust you shall return.'

{2:18} The Lord God also said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. Let us make a helper for him similar to himself.”

A man benefits from the companionship of a woman. But the role of a woman, especially in marriage, is to be a helper to her husband. She is similar to him, in that they each have the same nature. But she is a helper, indicating a difference in roles.

Christ is the new Adam. Mary is the new Eve. Mary was created to be a helper to Christ in all that He does for our salvation. But to be a helper to Him in saving us from sin, she had to be sinless -- from her creation. Therefore, this passage points to the Immaculate Conception.

{2:19} Therefore, the Lord God, having formed from the soil all the animals of the earth and all the flying creatures of the air, brought them to Adam, in order to see what he would call them. For whatever Adam would call any living creature, that would be its name.

Adam, and by extention mankind, has authority over the earth and all its creatures. The ability to name a thing indicates authority over that thing.

{2:20} And Adam called each of the living things by their names: all the flying creatures of the air, and all the wild beasts of the land. Yet truly, for Adam, there was not found a helper similar to himself.

They did not have the same nature as Adam, so they could not be 'a helper similar to himself'.

{2:21} And so the Lord God sent a deep sleep upon Adam. And when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and he completed it with flesh for it.

A false interpretation is commonly expressed today, that Adam is made from mud or dirt, and that Eve was made from flesh and bone, so that women are therefore better in their natures than men. Not so. The passage that describes Adam being made from clay indicates the origins of all humanity. Even if we take the passage literally, such that Adam was miraculously created from clay, this does not imply that males are all created from clay, and that women are not. And if Adam were to be denigrated for being created from clay, how can Eve be exalted when the flesh and bone from which she was created is from Adam? This false but very common interpretation is offensive to the dignity before God of all human persons.

Eve is described as being created from the side of Adam for a number of reasons. 1) She is made of the same flesh and bone as Adam, indicating equality of nature. This is a profound and ancient teaching, long before modernist ideas of feminism (with its false version of equality that exalts women above men). 2) She represents the Church, being created from the side of Christ on the Cross. 3) Her creation from the side of Adam indicates the will of God that men and women marry, becoming one flesh. So the equality of nature is essential to both natural marriage and the Sacrament of Marriage.

{2:22} And the Lord God built up the rib, which he took from Adam, into a woman. And he led her to Adam.
{2:23} And Adam said: “Now this is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. This one shall be called woman, because she was taken from man.”

Adam names the woman, indicating his role of leadership over her. But since she is bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, his authority over her, just as a husband has authority over his wife, is a role between persons who are equal.

{2:24} For this reason, a man shall leave behind his father and mother, and he shall cling to his wife; and the two shall be as one flesh.

The union of man and women in marriage is based on their equality of nature, and also on their differences in gender and role. And this is why marriage is limited to one man and one woman. The similarities and the differences are both essential to true marriage.

{2:25} Now they were both naked: Adam, of course, and his wife. And they were not ashamed.

Eve is the wife of Adam, and they are not ashamed to be husband and wife, since marriage is ordained by God.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 7th December 2010, 03:17 AM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 973
Default

What is to be made of the following article, wherein it is said that we are not to take the biblical account of Adam and Eve literally?

http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac0507.asp
Quote:
Was there then an historical Adam and Eve? Cain and Abel? Noah and the flood generation? Builders of the tower of Babel? Not in a literal sense. These are stories composed with figurative language; they do not give us that kind of historical information.

I don't believe that the book of Genesis is just fanciful storytelling that merely helps us to understand what is hard to understand.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 7th December 2010, 12:41 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacredcello View Post
What is to be made of the following article, wherein it is said that we are not to take the biblical account of Adam and Eve literally?

http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac0507.asp


I don't believe that the book of Genesis is just fanciful storytelling that merely helps us to understand what is hard to understand.

My understanding is that many of the OT stories contain both literal elements and figurative elements. It is a false dicotomy to say that a story must be entirely literal or entirely figurative (and so fictional, they say). Obviously, elements such as a talking serpent, and a fruit that is a mortal sin to eat, but that gives knowledge, are figures.

But just as obviously, the human race must have had a starting point. Jesus in the Gospels, and the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul in the Epistles, speak of Adam and Eve as two real persons.

And the Magisterium has taught, in Humani Generis, that we cannot accept the idea that the human race began with more than two persons (polygenism).

37. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

IN particular, the infallible teachings of Trent on original sin necessitate the belief that Adam and Eve were two real historical persons, who sinned at the origins of the human race.

The article that you cite is incompatible with Catholic teaching on original sin and incompatible with the teaching of Scripture in the Old and New Testaments.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12th December 2010, 11:48 AM
ExCelciuS ExCelciuS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 791
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
My understanding is that many of the OT stories contain both literal elements and figurative elements. It is a false dicotomy to say that a story must be entirely literal or entirely figurative (and so fictional, they say). Obviously, elements such as a talking serpent, and a fruit that is a mortal sin to eat, but that gives knowledge, are figures.

But just as obviously, the human race must have had a starting point. Jesus in the Gospels, and the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul in the Epistles, speak of Adam and Eve as two real persons.

And the Magisterium has taught, in Humani Generis, that we cannot accept the idea that the human race began with more than two persons (polygenism).

37. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

IN particular, the infallible teachings of Trent on original sin necessitate the belief that Adam and Eve were two real historical persons, who sinned at the origins of the human race.

The article that you cite is incompatible with Catholic teaching on original sin and incompatible with the teaching of Scripture in the Old and New Testaments.

At the beginning there were only one male ( Adam ) and one female ( Eve ) , I have questions regarding this.

#1. How they multiply? If Adam and Eve were married and they had children, with whom their children married?
#2. Why there are human race? Caucasus, Negro, Chinese, Jews, Indian, Arabic, etc.. What is race and what is the first race then? How we have multiple races like today?

Thanks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12th December 2010, 12:49 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExCelciuS View Post
At the beginning there were only one male ( Adam ) and one female ( Eve ) , I have questions regarding this.

#1. How they multiply? If Adam and Eve were married and they had children, with whom their children married?
#2. Why there are human race? Caucasus, Negro, Chinese, Jews, Indian, Arabic, etc.. What is race and what is the first race then? How we have multiple races like today?

The children of Adam and Eve, of necessity and by Divine dispensation, were permitted to marry one another. But soon afterward, when this was no longer necessary, marriage of siblings was rightly forbidden.

The various ethnic groups are not so different. It does not require different first parents for each ethnic group. Ethnic groups do not need a very long time in order to diverge in appearances.

We don't know what ethnicity were Adam and Eve, if they even can be said to have an ethnicity.

It is a mystery how the creation of Adam and Eve are integrated into human history as we understand it in modern scientific terms. We don't know.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 13th December 2010, 05:06 AM
ExCelciuS ExCelciuS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 791
Question

Quote:
Genesis 6:1-4

{6:1} And when men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,
{6:2} the sons of God, seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took to themselves wives from all whom they chose.
{6:3} And God said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, because he is flesh. And so his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
{6:4} Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they conceived, these became the powerful ones of ancient times, men of renown.
Ron, "the sons of God" refer to who?

Quote:
Genesis 6:5-6

{6:5} Then God, seeing that the wickedness of men was great upon the earth and that every thought of their heart was intent upon evil at all times,
{6:6} repented that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with a sorrow of heart,
Why God repent? Did He already know future events and what will happen on mankind?
__________________

Last edited by ExCelciuS : 13th December 2010 at 05:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 13th December 2010, 12:27 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,764
Default

"the sons of God" refer to who?

It is not clear. It may refer to those human persons who remained prayerful and devout, having learned this tradition from Adam and Eve, compared to those who quickly became entirely worldly, abandoning the worship of God.


Why God repent?
Did He already know future events and what will happen on mankind?

God's repentance is a figure of speech. He knew from all eternity what would happen. God's knowledge of all is One timeless Act.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 8th February 2011, 06:31 AM
feyfifer feyfifer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: India
Posts: 319
Default

Ron,

In Gen 6: 1-3 isnt there a distinction between "sons of god" and "men", "daughters of men"?





[quote=ExCelciuS;35289]Ron, "the sons of God" refer to who?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 8th February 2011, 01:14 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,764
Default

[Genesis 6]
{6:1} And when men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,
{6:2} the sons of God, seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took to themselves wives from all whom they chose.
{6:3} And God said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, because he is flesh. And so his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
{6:4} Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they conceived, these became the powerful ones of ancient times, men of renown.

My interpretation is that the 'sons of God' are those human persons who still kept the worship of the one true God from the tradition of Adam and Eve and their descendents and from natural law. Men are mentioned, even though this group would include women, because men have roles of leadership in any properly ordered family, religion, or society. Beautiful daughters would include any attractive women, whether they were devout or not. But when men choose wives solely based on beauty and charm, then often their wives will not be spiritual (sons of God).

I think that giants is used figuratively, referring to persons who had power within society by leadership ability. The children of spiritual men marrying women without regard for spirituality, would have the advantage of a good leadership role model in their father, but would perhaps end up living a very secular life, not a humble life, resulting in many of them becoming secular leaders with power in society.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 9th February 2011, 07:46 AM
feyfifer feyfifer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: India
Posts: 319
Default

Ron,

If you hold that "the 'sons of God' are those human persons who still kept the worship of the one true God from the tradition of Adam and Eve and their descendents and from natural law.."

is it reasonable to consider that,
* since God created the universe and evrything in it for the sons of God, and even gave him sway over all
* and God took the the 6 days of kairos time to fashion the universe for the sons of God
the physical bodies of "the daughters of men" (as distinct from the sons of God who kept the faith and were direct descendants of Adam) were evolved from apes for sons of God to procreate with?...so that the sons of God would be completely integrated with creation?..that being the orginal intention of God if Adam hadnt sinned?









Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
[Genesis 6]
{6:1} And when men began to be multiplied upon the earth, and daughters were born to them,
{6:2} the sons of God, seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took to themselves wives from all whom they chose.
{6:3} And God said: “My spirit shall not remain in man forever, because he is flesh. And so his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
{6:4} Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they conceived, these became the powerful ones of ancient times, men of renown.

My interpretation is that the 'sons of God' are those human persons who still kept the worship of the one true God from the tradition of Adam and Eve and their descendents and from natural law. Men are mentioned, even though this group would include women, because men have roles of leadership in any properly ordered family, religion, or society. Beautiful daughters would include any attractive women, whether they were devout or not. But when men choose wives solely based on beauty and charm, then often their wives will not be spiritual (sons of God).

I think that giants is used figuratively, referring to persons who had power within society by leadership ability. The children of spiritual men marrying women without regard for spirituality, would have the advantage of a good leadership role model in their father, but would perhaps end up living a very secular life, not a humble life, resulting in many of them becoming secular leaders with power in society.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.