What Species Was Adam & Eve?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='20 January 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1264022864' post='2041000']So your saying we could have started out with 4 people, and not 2? I'm not trying to be facetious, but what part of Adam and Eve could be mythical?[/quote]Based on my post, what do you think?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1264023806' post='2041016']
Based on my post, what do you think?
[/quote]

Quite honestly, I'm a bit lost and I'm going to need to re-read some stuff. I apologize for intruding without thinking it through.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]I had a theology professor who told me that Adam and Eve were just myths, and that the rest of Genesis was all just legends...is that what the Church teaches?


Absolutely not! The Church has always taught that Adam and Eve were real people and were the first human beings from whom all other human beings are descended. In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in Paragraph 37 of an encyclical entitled Humani Generis, states, "...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 [Adam] as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." In other words, the Church teaches that all humanity descended from Adam and Eve. They had to be real for that to happen.

Paragraph #38, states: "This [encyclical], in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis...do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense..." Again, Adam and Eve are not myths, and the rest of Genesis is not legend. They are history in a "true sense."

Paragraph #39: "Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things..." Can it be stated any clearer than that?

And listen to what the Catechism says, Paragraph #375, "The Church...teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve..." No mention of a myth here.

Paragraph #404: "By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin. Someone please tell me, how do myths commit personal sins?
Adam and Eve are not myths. Genesis does not contain myth or legend. That is Church teaching. Challenge anyone, who teaches differently, to produce their sources from a magisterial document. They cannot do it. They can, however, produce countless books and articles by "theologians". Not good enough.

Source: [url="http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#6"]biblechristiansociety.com[/url][/quote]

[Selah]

KoC, why is it important that we believe Adam and Eve to be real, actual people?

Don't answer "Cuz it's heresy." Please give a real answer. WHY is it heresy?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Selah' date='20 January 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1264025210' post='2041035']
KoC, why is it important that we believe Adam and Eve to be real, actual people?

Don't answer "Cuz it's heresy." Please give a real answer. WHY is it heresy?
[/quote]

Because this is what the Church teaches and has always taught. Christ's purpose coming to earth and dieing for our sins is an direct response to the fall of our first parents Adam and Eve. If they did not in fact exist the fall, nor Original Sin exist thus no purpose for Christ to come to earth and be crucified, which would be a logical reason to also doubt His existence. If you read the post 33 you can see where just some of the Church's teaching on this matter.

Edited January 20, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

KnightofChrist, "[i][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html"]Humani Generis[/url][/i]" (1950) was not a definitive definition of faith, thus we can safely assume that it was either his personal or theological opinion; which is [u][b]not[/b][/u] teaching or binding upon the faithful, thus can be changed at the whims of the Church, and the faithful reserve their liberty and freedom to accept or reject such an opinion.

Since it is up to the Church to decide which statements are definitive definitions and how, personal interjection are not welcome when claiming to represent the Catholic Church or her teachings. Moreover because it appears that there is no major case for this being a definitive definition of the faith from Catholic theologians, in fact we have the former Prefect of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith"]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI"]Cardinal Ratzinger[/url] (1981-2005) suggesting indirectly that "[i][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html"]Humani Generis[/url][/i]" (1950) is [b][u]not[/u][/b] a definitive definition of the faith.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Mr.CatholicCat

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1264025756' post='2041043']
KnightofChrist, "[i][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html"]Humani Generis[/url][/i]" (1950) was not a definitive definition of faith, thus we can safely assume that it was either his personal or theological opinion; which is not teaching or binding upon the faithful, thus can be changed at the whims of the Church, and the faithful reserve their liberty and freedom to accept or reject such an opinion.

Since it is up to the Church to decide which statements are definitive definitions and how, personal interjection are not welcome when claiming to represent the Catholic Church or her teachings. Moreover because it appears that there is no major case for this being a definitive definition of the faith from Catholic theologians, in fact we have the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005) suggesting indirectly that "[i][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html"]Humani Generis[/url][/i]" (1950) is not a definitive definition of the faith.
[/quote]

Since the Church has taught for 2,000 years in various documents that Adam and Eve were two persons our first parents, that becomes binding teaching which the Faithful are required to believe.

Liberal Catholicism is an cancer on the faithful, to doubt the existence of Adam and Eve or two first parents is an offense to 2,000 years of binding Church teaching. Which clearly teaches that Adam and Eve existed and all of mankind come from them.

Also the CCC is binding on the faithful. The writings of Cardinal Ratzinger on this matter are not.

Edited January 20, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Selah]

[quote]The writings of Cardinal Ratzinger on this matter are not[/quote]

He is our Pope!


[quote]Because this is what the Church teaches and has always taught. Christ's purpose coming to earth and dieing for our sins is an direct response to the fall of our first parents Adam and Eve. If they did not in fact exist the fall, nor Original Sin exist thus no purpose for Christ to come to earth and be crucified, which would be a logical reason to also doubt His existence. If you read the post 33 you can see where just some of the Church's teaching on this matter. [/quote]

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)

[KnightofChrist]

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

He was not then, and was speaking as a theologian. And so was Pope Pius XII who spoke much more firmly and clearly on this matter.


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


Here is some more info that may help.


[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp"][b]Real History[/b][/url]


The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.



[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp"][b]Adam and Eve: Real People[/b][/url]


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).

Edited January 20, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1264025939' post='2041045'] Since the Church has taught for 2,000 years in various documents that Adam and Eve were two persons our first parents, that becomes binding teaching which the Faithful are required to believe[/quote]Unless you have an explicit and direct statement from the Church that binds this upon the faithful for belief, your case fails. You are not the arbiter for the Catholic Church or faith, if you wish to claim this as your personal opinion that is another matter. If you wish to oppose the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that is your choice and problem, when the Inquisition comes we will know whose door to knock on first.[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1264025939' post='2041045']Liberal Catholicism is an cancer on the faithful, to doubt the existence of Adam and Eve or two first parents is an offense to 2,000 years of binding Church teaching. Which clearly teaches that Adam and Eve existed and all of mankind come from them.[/quote]The danger to the Church and faithful is disobedient Catholics who decide for themselves what they will believe or will not believe, this is exactly what you are doing. Instead of addressing the fact that you are disobediently misrepresenting the Church, you just call people who oppose you “liberal” and “cancerous”. Unless you can support your case with the only authority that can tell us what is binding on the faithful or not, the Church, your case simply fails.[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1264025939' post='2041045'] Also the CCC is binding on the faithful. The writings of Cardinal Ratzinger on this matter are not.[/quote]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.

[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.