thessalonian Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Romans 5:12 tells us:[ "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -- " I was listening to an MP3 talk on theology of the Body by Steve Keffmeyer, which was very good [url="http://bridegroompress.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&keyword=%22Theology%20of%20the%20Body%22&sort=20a&page=2"]http://bridegroompress.com/zencart/index.p...=20a&page=2[/url] avaialbe for free in mp3 format and he said that man's headship over woman was withregard to serving her, part of which is the protection of her. I've heard this before from other speaker. Okay so the serpant tempted eve and Adam did not come to her defense. Was this the first sin rather than Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 eve but she was still beautiful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Sirach 25:24 says: "From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die." I'm not sure about the details of Church teaching on this matter, but combining this passage from Sirach with what St. Paul says, it seems that Eve sinned first, but Adam's sin determined our fallen state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted November 28, 2007 Author Share Posted November 28, 2007 Thanks EM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Hey, that sounds like Scott Hahn's theory. hehe Lots of big dawg Catholics have criticized that interpretation so I wouldn't treat it as though it was dogma or something. I used to think it was cool but have come to reject it for a great many reasons. One of many "findings" and "discoveries" that Dr. Hahn puts forth in his popular literature which often become confused with definitive Catholic truth. I do admit that as a theory it involves some interesting points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 (edited) I've alway thought while Eve sinned first Adam sinned worst. Why, well eve blamed satan for sinning, Adam blamed God. "The woman, whom [b]thou[/b] gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Edited November 28, 2007 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carrdero Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 [b]Who Sinned First? Adam Or Eve?[/b] Neither, it was the serpent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Just to add, the passage from Sirach is interesting in light of the association of Mary as the New Eve. She is traditionally called "the cause of our salvation." This may seem to suggest that she gave us salvation, but she is the "cause" of our salvation in the same way that Eve is the cause of our death. Eve could not give us a fallen state, only the sin of Adam could accomplish that; hence St. Paul's statement that sin and death came into the world through one man. But Eve was essential to the tempting of Adam, and their actions could not be separated; hence Sirach's statement that we die because of Eve. She is the "cause of our death" in the same way that Mary is the "cause of our salvation." Not in a direct sense, because only Adam could give us death and only Christ could give us salvation, but in the sense that the two Eves were the instruments through which the acts of the two Adams were made possible. If Adam had sinned first, then I think the parallel with Christ is lost because Eve gave Adam the fruit just as Mary gave Christ the fruit of her womb -- his flesh and blood. It is because Eve truly sinned that she shares in Adam's shame; she was a full and free cooperator with the serpent. Likewise it is because Mary truly consented to be the Mother of God that she shares in Christ's glory; she was a full and free cooperator with the Holy Spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 [quote name='Era Might' post='1426459' date='Nov 28 2007, 07:52 PM']Just to add, the passage from Sirach is interesting in light of the association of Mary as the New Eve. She is traditionally called "the cause of our salvation." This may seem to suggest that she gave us salvation, but she is the "cause" of our salvation in the same way that Eve is the cause of our death. Eve could not give us a fallen state, only the sin of Adam could accomplish that; hence St. Paul's statement that sin and death came into the world through one man. But Eve was essential to the tempting of Adam, and their actions could not be separated; hence Sirach's statement that we die because of Eve. She is the "cause of our death" in the same way that Mary is the "cause of our salvation." Not in a direct sense, because only Adam could give us death and only Christ could give us salvation, but in the sense that the two Eves were the instruments through which the acts of the two Adams were made possible. If Adam had sinned first, then I think the parallel with Christ is lost because Eve gave Adam the fruit just as Mary gave Christ the fruit of her womb -- his flesh and blood. It is because Eve truly sinned that she shares in Adam's shame; she was a full and free cooperator with the serpent. Likewise it is because Mary truly consented to be the Mother of God that she shares in Christ's glory; she was a full and free cooperator with the Holy Spirit.[/quote] Awesome Era, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 [quote name='thessalonian' post='1426348' date='Nov 28 2007, 02:57 PM']Romans 5:12 tells us:[ "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned -- " I was listening to an MP3 talk on theology of the Body by Steve Keffmeyer, which was very good [url="http://bridegroompress.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=advanced_search_result&search_in_description=1&keyword=%22Theology%20of%20the%20Body%22&sort=20a&page=2"]http://bridegroompress.com/zencart/index.p...=20a&page=2[/url] avaialbe for free in mp3 format and he said that man's headship over woman was withregard to serving her, part of which is the protection of her. I've heard this before from other speaker. Okay so the serpant tempted eve and Adam did not come to her defense. Was this the first sin rather than Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit?[/quote] How do we know that this all didn't happen while Adam had to do some personal business in the bushes? Who's trying to frame Adam? Why didn't Eve listen to Adam when he asked her to wait outside the bushes while he did his business? God Bless Bro! max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1426440' date='Nov 28 2007, 07:16 PM']I've alway thought while Eve sinned first Adam sinned worst. Why, well eve blamed satan for sinning, Adam blamed God. "The woman, whom [b]thou[/b] gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat."[/quote] Men do stupid things for women. They have a power over us. lol God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 On a serious note, I think the Romans 5:12 has the context of "one human". It would be interesting to have the actual Aramaic spoken, but given the other verses and Church teaching, the only logical conclusion would be to go with the "one human/person" context. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 [quote name='ironmonk' post='1426632' date='Nov 28 2007, 11:27 PM']On a serious note, I think the Romans 5:12 has the context of "one human". It would be interesting to have the actual Aramaic spoken, but given the other verses and Church teaching, the only logical conclusion would be to go with the "one human/person" context. God Bless, ironmonk[/quote] Well, technically, the original language was greek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 [quote name='ironmonk' post='1426632' date='Nov 28 2007, 11:27 PM']On a serious note, I think the Romans 5:12 has the context of "one human". It would be interesting to have the actual Aramaic spoken, but given the other verses and Church teaching, the only logical conclusion would be to go with the "one human/person" context. God Bless, ironmonk[/quote] Well, technically, the original language was greek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 [i]heis anthropos[/i] which means: un hombre one homme ein mann un uomo 1 人 один человек 1 남자 一個人 0110111101101110011001010010000001101101 110000101101110 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now