What Species Was Adam & Eve?

[KnightofChrist]

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

- Humani Generis, #20

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Selah' date='20 January 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1264026267' post='2041049']
He is our Pope!




But I have trouble believing it myself. There is no historical evidence for their existence. How do you know that they were not simply representations of human beings who sinned of their own accord? (I'm just trying to understand this)
[/quote]


im going to butt-in with awesomely huge generalized statements to try to make things clearer:

- "The Fall" [i]has[/i] to be true, because otherwise God created the world exactly how it is now - filled with sin and separate from him. This can not be as God can not do that. Furthermore, the idea that "this is how it was meant to be" is an awful conclusion and destroys the entirety of logic and our faith. Either a separation from God exists, or this is how everything was meant to be (which doesnt even hold up)

- For their to be a fall, there has to be people to fall. People of our own species. Could homo erectus have had an adam + eve and a fall? Who the hell knows. I'm going with no.

- More importantly though. It has never been proven that a male and a female of species A can give birth to a member of species B. Let alone have a whole bunch of species B's come from species A parents in the same generation. What has been seen is that the geneological tree gets fewer branches the farther you go back in time. This sort of kills the whole "what if there were all of a sudden multiple adams and eves"

incase that didnt make sense let me try again: Let alone the fact it's never been proven that speciesA can give birth to an entirely different speciesB, - but have it happen twice in the same generation and have both offspring be of the same species enough to mate with eachother?

[KnightofChrist]

The Church Fathers certainly believed in the actual existence of Adam and Eve, and so does the Church.


Hermas

"'They had need,' [the Shepherd] said, 'to come up through the water, so that they might be made alive; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God, except by putting away the mortality of their former life. These also, then, who had fallen asleep, received the seal of the Son of God, and entered into the kingdom of God. For,’ he said, 'before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water [of baptism]. They go down into the water [spiritually] dead, and come out of it alive’" (The Shepherd 9:16:2).


Theophilus of Antioch

"For the first man, disobedience resulted in his expulsion from paradise. It was not as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death" (Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181]).'



Irenaeus

"But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]" (Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).'


Irenaeus

"Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning" (ibid., 5:16:3.)


Tertullian

"On account of his [Adam’s] transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation" (The Testimony of the Soul 3:2 [inter A.D. 197-200]).


Tertullian

"'Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection' [Romans 5:17]. Here by the word 'man,' who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ" (Against Marcion 5:9:5 [inter A.D. 207-212]).


Origen

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39]. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" [Titus 3:5] (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]).


Origen

"Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live" (Homilies on Jeremiah 8:1 [post A.D. 244]).


Augustine

"Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the sacrament [of baptism] shall be made alive in Christ truly goes counter to the preaching of the apostle and condemns the whole Church, where there is great haste in baptizing infants because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ" (Letter to Jerome 166:7:21 [A.D. 415]).


Athanasius

"Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world. . . . When Adam transgressed, sin reached out to all men" [Romans 5:12]. (Discourses Against the Arians 1:51 [inter A.D. 358-362]).


Cyril of Jerusalem

"Indeed, one man’s sin, that of Adam, had the power to bring death to the world. If by the transgression of one man, death reigned over the world, why should not life more fittingly reign by the righteousness of one man [Jesus]? If they were cast out of paradise because of the tree and the eating thereof, shall not the believers now enter more easily into paradise because of the tree of Jesus [the Cross]? If that man first formed out of the earth ushered in universal death, shall not he that formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, since he himself is life?" [John 10:10, 14:6] (Catechetical Lectures 13:1 [A.D. 350])


Source: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9201frs.asp

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1264027016' post='2041058']
No the "[i]Catechism of Pope John II[/i]" is not binding upon the faithful, while the statements of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Ratzinger concerning faith and morals are quite relevant to the faithful. I suppose it makes it easier to ignore the Church when one can pretend you’re fighting for the righteous cause, but the fact is this is a moot matter anymore, unless you have evidence from the Church or empirical scientific evidence... this is merely your personal belief or opinion.
[/quote]

They are both binding.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 05:40 PM' timestamp='1264027226' post='2041060']
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

- Humani Generis, #20[/quote]What this quotation is referring to is that the theological opinions of the Popes are the official opinions of the Church, not doctrine or teaching, and definitely not bound upon the faithful for belief. These opinions of the Church can change at whim and are not lasting, which in the twenty first century these former theological opinions appear to be no longer that of the Church considering the "[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM"]Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite[/url]" (1983) permits more freedom to individual Catholics and theologians. Also since the expressed opinion of the Church from modern or present Church authorities seem to suggest it has changed.

But on the fa stretch of the imagination that it is still somehow the opinion of the Church, it is merely the opinion of the Church, and is [b][u]not[/u][/b] doctrine or binding. The criteria that I asked you to find is an [u]“[u]explicit and direct statement from the Church that binds this upon the faithful for belief[/u][/u]”, since you have not provided such your case simply fails unless you can provide that.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='20 January 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1264028294' post='2041067']They are both binding.[/quote]Please show that the "[i][url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"]Catechism of John Paul II[/url][/i]" is binding upon the faithful, meaning under pain of serious sin.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1264028557' post='2041069']
What this quotation is referring to is that the theological opinions of the Popes are the official opinions of the Church, not doctrine or teaching, and definitely not bound upon the faithful for belief. These opinions of the Church can change at whim and are not lasting, which in the twenty first century these former theological opinions appear to be no longer that of the Church considering the "[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM"]Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite[/url]" (1983) permits more freedom to individual Catholics and theologians. Also since the expressed opinion of the Church from modern or present Church authorities seem to suggest it has changed.

But on the fa stretch of the imagination that it is still somehow the opinion of the Church, it is merely the opinion of the Church, and is [b][u]not[/u][/b] doctrine or binding. The criteria that I asked you to find is an [u]“[u]explicit and direct statement from the Church that binds this upon the faithful for belief[/u][/u]”, since you have not provided such your case simply fails unless you can provide that.
[/quote]

Ehh, I stand with that the Church has always taught threw her Popes, Church Fathers and others that Adam and Eve actually existed. I reject this nonsense that Adam and Eve were not really real, that is Liberal Catholicism which is a cancer on the faithful. You want us to believe non-sense or debate and entertain nonsense, no thanks.

If Adam and Eve did not actually exist nor did Original Sin, nor did the fall and nor did the New Adam and the New Eve.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1264029012' post='2041076']Ehh, I stand with that the Church has always taught threw her Popes, Church Fathers and others that Adam and Eve actually existed. I reject this nonsense that Adam and Eve were not really real, that is Liberal Catholicism which is a cancer on the faithful. You want us to believe non-sense or debate and entertain nonsense, no thanks.

If Adam and Eve did not actually exist nor did Original Sin, nor did the fall and nor did the New Adam and the New Eve.[/quote]But yet you can’t prove it, scientifically or religiously. Its just your personal opinion, while you might be able to provide interesting reasons to why this is your personal opinion, you haven’t supplied what I specifically asked for from you which I hope some of us can admit is helpful to this discussion. To put it simply, if we have some doubt or question about what the Church teaches, we turn to the Church. [i]What a novel idea, turning to the Church[/i]... but no, you would rather formulate our own opinions and speak as if for the Church, rather than listen to those who currently hold the authority and ministry of the Church, the authority and ministry of Christ according to your faith.

But you are right, this isn't a debate, this is you repeating your opinions with more attitude and volume. Based on my previous criteria, your case fails, but thank you for sharing your personal opinions with us. Since we wish to appeal to the Church Fathers through “Catholic Answers”, perhaps this might be worth consideration:[quote][url="http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-augustine-of-hippo/"][b]Saint Augustine of Hippo[/b][/url] (354-430)
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he (the non-Christian) should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, [u]and as if in accord with Christian writings[/u], [u][b]that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are[/b][/u]. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp[/quote]Well... I'm not laughing, but I am afraid that some Catholics are turning their faith into fundementalism, and that is nothing to laugh about.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Mr.CatholicCat

[KnightofChrist]

Myths and non-existent people can not incur sin, or pass it to their children. Trent makes it plainly clear that Adam did in fact exist!

[url="http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm"]COUNCIL OF TRENT[/url]

CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

FIRST DECREE


1 If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2 If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3 If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1264029781' post='2041085']
But yet you can’t prove it, scientifically or religiously. Its just your personal opinion, while you might be able to provide interesting reasons to why this is your personal opinion, you haven’t supplied what I specifically asked for from you which I think we all can admit is necessary for this discussion. To put it simply, if we have some doubt or question about what the Church teaches, we turn to the Church. What a novel idea, turning to the Church... but no youwould rather formulate our own opinions rather than listen to those who currently hold the authority of the Church, the authority and ministry of Christ according to your faith.

But you are right, this isn't a debate, this is you repeating your opinions with more attitude and volume. Based on my previous criteria, your case fails, but thank you for sharing your personal opinions with us. Since we wish to appeal to the Church Fathers through “Catholic Answers”, perhaps this might be worth consideration:Well... I'm not laughing, but I am afraid that some Catholics are turning their faith into fundementalism, and that is nothing to laugh about.
[/quote]

[mod]personal attack - MIKolbe[/mod]

Edited January 22, 2010 by MIkolbe

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1264029881' post='2041087']
[mod]personal attack - MIKolbe[/mod]
[/quote]No, I think you mean, “Listen to me because I have my ideas”. No thank you, I would rather listen to the Church than listen to your personal reinvention of the Church.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1264030075' post='2041089']
No, I think you mean, “Listen to me because I have my ideas”. No thank you, I would rather listen to the Church than listen to your personal reinvention of the Church.
[/quote]

But you're not doing that you're not listening to the Church.


[b]If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.[/b]

Edited January 20, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1264029801' post='2041086']Myths and non-existent people can not incur sin, or pass it to their children. Trent makes it plainly clear that Adam did in fact exist!

[url="http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm"]COUNCIL OF TRENT[/url]

CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

FIRST DECREE


1 If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

2 If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

3 If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.[/quote]But yet the present authority of the Church doesn’t seem to recognize it in this light, so I guess the Church is wrong and you are right, I am glad that you are here to correct us in how we waver from your reinvention of Catholicism.

I’m not a theologian but here is a guess, these definitions are chiefly concerning the fall of man, not necessarily a person called Adam.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1264030200' post='2041095']
But you're not doing that you're not listening to the Church.


[b]If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.[/b]
[/quote]Because you have the liberty to interpret what this passage means and pass judgment onto other people, I wonder how that is obedient to the Church, WAIT its not! lol... This is geting more silly by the moment. "It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he (the non-Christian) should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, [u]and as if in accord with Christian writings[/u], that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."

Edited January 20, 2010 by Mr.CatholicCat

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1264030613' post='2041102']
Because you have the liberty to interpret what this passage means and pass judgment onto other people, I wonder how that is obedient to the Church, WAIT its not! lol... This is geting more silly by the moment.
[/quote]

That passage is clear, if Adam did not in fact exist that passage is illogical, nonsense, false, and a lie. It clearly speaks of his existence your denial of that is simply illogical.

[mommas_boy]

Please forgive me for butting back in. As far as I am able to surmise, Mr.CatholicCat makes the claim that the teachings contained in Encyclicals constitute personal theological opinions of the pope, and are not binding on pain of mortal sin. If that is true, then it would make sense that the opinions of the CDF on the same matters are equally unbinding.

KoC makes the point that without some sort of binding characteristic, documents such as Encyclicals and the Catechism are quite impotent, to the point of making one wonder why our Leaders even bother.

Can we please get a Church Scholar in here who can clear this up, please? I am quite confused...

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1264030844' post='2041106']That passage is clear, if Adam did not in fact exist that passage is illogical, nonsense, false, and a lie.[/quote]Not quite.[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1264030844' post='2041106']It clearly speaks of his existence your denial of that is simply illogical.[/quote]Illogical to heed those presently intrusted with the care of the Church... Yes... I see where this is going... Heed you, not the Church!

I asked for an explicit and direct statement, you have failed to provide such... If the question was on the Immaculate Conception, I think we could provide an explicit and direct statement concerning it. But when it comes to the existence of an actual person named Adam, who was the first man, created outside of Evolution... Unless you mean that he was made through evolution, or maybe he was created according to the second story of creation found in Genesis 2... I wonder what this means, but I am sure you can answer for me, since we can't let the Church do that for us. That is "liberal".

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='20 January 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1264031067' post='2041108']Please forgive me for butting back in. As far as I am able to surmise, Mr.CatholicCat makes the claim that the teachings contained in Encyclicals constitute personal theological opinions of the pope, and are not binding on pain of mortal sin. If that is true, then it would make sense that the opinions of the CDF on the same matters are equally unbinding.[/quote]Correct! These are matters of opinion for the Church and Catholics, not doctrine. KoC can think whatever he likes about this subject, but it is not doctrine.[quote name='mommas_boy' date='20 January 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1264031067' post='2041108']KoC makes the point that without some sort of binding characteristic, documents such as Encyclicals and the Catechism are quite impotent, to the point of making one wonder why our Leaders even bother.[/quote]The same reason previous encyclicals and catechisms were published, to instruct the faithful, it’s a guide not an infallible proclamation. [quote name='mommas_boy' date='20 January 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1264031067' post='2041108']Can we please get a Church Scholar in here who can clear this up, please? I am quite confused...[/quote]Why when we have KoC proposing fundementalism and rejection of modern secular science?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 06:34 PM' timestamp='1264030461' post='2041101']
But yet the present authority of the Church doesn’t seem to recognize it in this light
[/quote]

Quite a few in the present authority don't recognize many of the traditional teachings of the Church, but the Universal Magisterium over rules the Ordinary, if there is in fact a conflict.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1264031304' post='2041113']Quite a few in the present authority don't recognize many of the traditional teachings of the Church, but the Universal Magisterium over rules the Ordinary, if there is in fact a conflict.[/quote]Which you are more than willing to expound for us so we may believe you. No thank you, I will go with the Church.