Adam and Eve? That's just mythology, says Pell

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

Please answer this question:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=677822
Thanks

As a reader of the Australian article, I think to myself what do I want to share with other readers and how do I want them to respond to me. Which is more valuable, my talking or their listening? I am very interested in what is being said on your link.

I often come back to this line of poetry.

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem "Christmas" by George Herbert

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

Look, grannymh, I think that is a hopeless way to fight for Adam real existence.
You may do it, but you turn out justifying things that are had to justify, as that Adam is around 5000 years old.

When we look at Adam under the point of view of midrash (see my former post in this thread) we learn much more than to think that women came from the ribs of Adam !!!

Going back to posts 410 and 411, my first sentence is: I look at the first three chapters of Genesis in a variety of ways. I need to add another sentence -- I look at the field of science in a variety of ways.

My preference is to approach the origin of human nature from the Catholic Deposit of Faith. This means that I use the actual Catholic doctrines to determine what is real in both the first three chapters of Genesis and what is real in the field of science.
For example, what is the truth about the idea that Eve came from the ribs of Adam? Does Genesis explain exactly how God "fashioned" Eve from Adam's rib once Adam was asleep. (CCC 371) How did God take out one of Adam's rib and then close up its place with flesh? More to the point, how did God build a woman with the same human nature as Adam? Was this the first stem cell transplant in history?

Why does Genesis, chapter 2, emphasize the difference in nature between Adam and the animals he named. Why, after this particular emphasis of the difference between Adam and animals, is there a strong emphasis on the "sameness" of Adam and his spouse?

What all these questions are trying to do is to put into human language the unequaled power of God.

Please refer back to post 404
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....&postcount=404
which looks at Adam from the point of view of midrash.
Here are some of the points of midrash regarding the origin of man.

God created the Universe
God created life
God created Man
God thinks that it is worthwhile living for God enjoyed the works of His creation
Man is created for Happiness and Joy

What Catholicism does is to look at the teachings in Genesis, such as the above points, along with the teachings from the Catholic tradition. Consequently, over the centuries, the Catholic Church has defined certain individual teachings as official doctrines of Divine Revelation. People refer to these official doctrines as the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

My first question as a high school student was why did it take so long to put Divine Revelation into regular human language? As I subsequently learned, the "Catholic doctrines" were always present in Scripture, including the teachings found in Acts, letters from Apostles, plus the writings of the Early Church Fathers and traditional understandings often expressed in liturgies. When people would stray from Divine Revelation, the promise of the Holy Spirit became actual in major Church Councils.
Please refer to the Gospel of John, chapter fourteen.

I believe that the above bit about Church history is important to know because it helps us to understand the first three chapters of Genesis and the line between how God accomplishes something and the truth of God's accomplishments.

To be continued.

[Huiou Theou]

Originally Posted by Pfaffenhoffen

Look, grannymh, I think that is a hopeless way to fight for Adam real existence.
You may do it, but you turn out justifying things that are had to justify, as that Adam is around 5000 years old.

When we look at Adam under the point of view of midrash (see my former post in this thread) we learn much more than to think that women came from the ribs of Adam !!!

Adam lived to 930/10 = around age 93.
Eg: see Genesis 5:4.

That talking snake is more difficult to understand....
Don't forget, midrash is NOT scripture. It is the opinions of rabbis of a much later age on methods of interpretation of the stories. Midrash is a good place to look in order to find HOW people thought about the ideas in scripture -- but it isn't an official and undisputed teaching about them. Midrash, in many ways, corresponds to Hermeneutic and is rabbi dependent. (I'm not saying everything in Midrash is wrong...!) Do, please, note the *methods* of midrash, but don't expect readers to accept all conclusions without question.

Also, don't forget, Genesis is Law (Torah); It isn't just a "story", it is a set of laws given by example. For this reason, later ideas also show up earlier in the text -- for it isn't interested in chronology so much as in correlation of ideas.

A decent example is that in Babylon (the place of the final writing down of Genesis) whore's would use serpent symbols as advertisement. Ergo: the sign of a Serpent is also a sign of a pagan fertility cult. This cultus appears in virtually all ancient societies that I have studied -- From Egypt (the Pharaoh's crown), through Israel's history (the serpent in the desert), through Babylon, and even in Greek history (certain rites of orgies...!). Hence, the idea "serpent" has a universal appeal as a the idea of sexual seduction, and destruction BY seduction.

Genesis 3:13 "The serpent beguiled [eg: seduced] me, and so I came to eat."

The actual word for serpent describes something like "the thing with teeth" or "leviathan", etc. (I haven't studied it's precise etymology, I just know variations from other scholars.)

However, the important thing to grasp is the correlation between sexual seduction, and the injection of "serpenthood" into the children. Original sin is associated with sexual reproduction -- and so is the antidote (the woman shall be saved through her children.).

This is one of the historical ties of the idea of Adam transmitting original sin to all his offspring (Like a VD that his wife got from a snake...just for a different non-physical reason.)

When Pell talks about mythology, his idea is generally misinterpreted today to mean "empty story", rather than a story relating the past Hi-story; There is an emphasis on a story as a vehicle for the message, but not as a self-contained and consistent relating of pure facts. There are Symbols in the text which require study. (That is what Midrash is about, anyhow...!)

[grannymh]

Continued from post 422.

Not recognizing both the mystery of how God accomplishes something and the amazing truth of God's accomplishments makes it very easy for Catholics to be intimated by the claim that Adam and Eve are not real people.

For example, the truth of God's accomplishments is that ordinary human beings are peerless. In the past, how God accomplished this was not questioned because Catholics accepted that God existed as the Creator. Today, because there are some greatly exaggerated claims about the power of material anatomies to create soul-like material experiences, some, not all, Catholics are not so sure that God has the know-how capability to originate human nature.

What this means to ordinary folk is that interpretations of some research papers are seen as the power to displace God as the Creator of the human person. Obviously, individual interpreters of research papers can extrapolate conclusions beyond what is warranted by the evidence.

For example, in 1995, the results of research regarding a common set of genes was interpreted as excluding the possibility of two sole founders of humankind. Coincidentally, this worked well with the theological movement to get rid of Original Sin. Those who remember the early books of Matthew Fox know what I am referring to. Those who had the good fortune of ignoring Matthew Fox and his disciples came up against the so-called Catholic way of symbolically describing the hidden truth in the first three chapters of Genesis. Thus some Catholics are being intimidated, one way or another, into considering Original Sin as part of a very sophisticated mythology [non-reality of Adam] which attempts to explain the evil and the suffering in the world.

Catholics, who have a strong belief in the Catholic Church, as containing Divine Revelation protected by the Holy Spirit, dismiss the barbs against Adam. These Catholics know that research, by definition, cannot deny the existence of the spiritual. This is because natural science is limited not only to the material/physical environment but it is also limited to decomposing anatomies.

Because God is God and the spiritual is spiritual, natural science cannot deal with God and the spiritual because that is beyond its own material/physical realm. This does not mean that every scientist has to deny the existence of God. It does mean that scientists, as well as ordinary folk, need to use the Gift of Faith. It also means that rational humans can also use their human tools of reasoning which include, but are not limited to, observation, analysis, designed experiments, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. (Personally I like to include gut instinct and woman's intuition.)

What I am trying to say in different ways is that ordinary folk can crawl out from under the mountains of evidence against Adam by realizing that those "mountains" are limited. God is not limited. Proof -- He made us in His image.

The mountains of evidence against Adam's existence are really speculations about "how" Adam came about. Their evidence is not powerful enough to get rid of the truth of God's accomplishments.

Please note that I am not doubting the sincerity of women and men scientists. A lot of their very hard work benefits society. Natural science, which explains the processes of life, is a gift from God.

However, those who want to modernize the Catholic Original Sin doctrine by claiming that Adam is not science and therefore not real need to be respectfully challenged.
The first challenge is not really a challenge in its traditional sense. The first challenge is a simple declarative statement which a person says out loud or silently in her or his heart. This simple sentence is "I trust the existence of God as Creator." Followed by "Divine Revelation trumps!"

Because of the push to modernize Adam in order to make Divine Revelation [Catholic doctrines] conform to human speculations regarding human origin, Catholics do need a tad more basic information about evolution theories.

[mazsa]

Wonderful! I hold your truths to be self-evident to anyone who believes that God is our Creator. Science and spirituality can mesh or clash. But I'll always side for God. Maybe I can't "prove" His existence, but neither can science "prove" He does not exist.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Because of the push to modernize Adam in order to make Divine Revelation [Catholic doctrines] conform to human speculations regarding human origin, Catholics do need a tad more basic information about evolution theories.

By "modernize Adam" I am referring to the modernist movement to change the source for Catholic doctrines from Divine Revelation to natural science via the use of the "mythology" concept. It does get confusing because of media coverage.

As a start, may I respectfully point out that contemporary evolutionary theory has expanded way beyond its original concept of chance happenings.

Currently, the evolution model is used to determine the source of humanity which at this point only refers to human's anatomy due to the limitations of natural science. This material/physical approach to you and me intersects with the Catholic doctrine that our human nature, as created by God, unites both the material and the spiritual worlds. It is because of its God-created spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human person.
(Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 355 - 421, including footnotes)

Each one of us is called by our Creator to share eternally in His own life. What guarantees this truth is that all of us are descended from one person who is referred to as the living Adam. And how do we know this? We accept the fact that God blest the two sole founders of humanity, Adam and Eve, so that they could be fertile and multiply. (Genesis 1: 27-28) Because of the unity of the human species which is founded in one couple, you and I are assured that we are included in the Salvific Mission of Jesus Christ. (Romans, chapter five)

In other words, Catholics can be evolutionists when it comes to the material/physical world with its animals and plants, etc. (I am this kind of evolutionist.)

But when it comes to the human person, Catholics cannot accept the claim that we slowly descended from 1,000 to 10,000 breeding pairs which is what current evolution theory is proposing.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by The Rock

I am just trying to picture how this theory of polygenism would work...

God at some point created a soul in the first humans, because without a soul they would not be human (body+soul).

So the scientists look at fossils and try to guess when the human race came into being??? I never imagined that walking upright was indicative of the presence of a soul.(or any other fossil record)

So God must have watched the primates evolve and said to Himself..Look there is a group of about 1200 primates that have bodies that are upright enough, I will implant souls in them.

And thus the human race was created. Perhaps others started to walk more upright many years later so He then implanted souls in them as well.

Since they now had souls they were able to sin, they all started sinning somewhat simultaneously. And this is the basis for the myth/symbol of original sin. Concupiscence must not have been a result of original sin but rather just a cultural influence?

Since original sin was not a definitive act by one man, we don't need a definitive act by one God-Man to reconcile us. After all, it's just a myth, right? Death, after all was in the world before the mythical original sin. So it's a myth to believe one death by the God-Man destroys death and gains eternal life, right? (what did Paul say about this anyway, or was he a mythological figure as well?)

I am just trying to ferret out the theological implications of the polygenistic "scientific" model. I am certainly no theologian, so that must be why I can't see the continuity between polygenism and Catholic theology

Well put.

Catholics do not have to accept the claim that humanity slowly descended from1,000, 1,200 or 10,000 breeding pairs of anatomies that walk upright which is one of the signs of the human species. This is known as polygenism.

Why don't we have to accept that claim? Because it only takes one breeding pair to begin humankind in the same manner that we descended from our two parents.

Cardinal Pell correctly said "But we have to say if there are humans, there must have been a first one."

[FaithByProxy]

Are we really having a debate about whether Adam and Eve were real on a Catholic forum?

God made man after laying the foundations of the Earth, exactly as he is today. I would love to see any Evolutionist present actual evidence of creatures of any sort changing into a different kind of creature. In fact, assuming that evolution were true (and that is quite the assumption), I would love to see evidence how insanely complicated single-celled organisms appeared without some sort of divine intervention.

[EmperorNapoleon]

Originally Posted by FaithByProxy

God made man after laying the foundations of the Earth, exactly as he is today. I would love to see any Evolutionist present actual evidence of creatures of any sort changing into a different kind of creature.

There are tons of transitional fossils which demonstrate the gradual evolution of species. However, if I'm not mistaken, there is a rule on this forum regarding the discussion of evolution.

Originally Posted by FaithByProxy

In fact, assuming that evolution were true (and that is quite the assumption), I would love to see evidence how insanely complicated single-celled organisms appeared without some sort of divine intervention.

Evolution only covers what happened after life came into being; its doesn't touch on the subject of its origins. What you are asking about is abiogenesis

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

There are tons of transitional fossils which demonstrate the gradual evolution of species. However, if I'm not mistaken, there is a rule on this forum regarding the discussion of evolution.

Because of the subject matter of the link in post 1, we may discuss evolution as it relates to the topic of Adam and Eve. And of course, discussion must be calm and charitable. In addition, we should not assume the context of Cardinal Pell's very brief remarks. We need to remember that the article is written by Nicolas Perpitch from his point of view.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226322379822

I do not mean this as an insult, but the Cardinal is not original in his remarks. His "comments" are everywhere and as Catholics we need to understand what is being said and how scientific research intersects with our Faith. We should be looking at the article from the reader's reactions to our secular environment.

Note: check the sticky notes on the top of each forum for information about the ban on evolution and atheism discussions.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by EmperorNapoleon

There are tons of transitional fossils which demonstrate the gradual evolution of species. However, if I'm not mistaken, there is a rule on this forum regarding the discussion of evolution.

One of the more interesting fossils is the Piltdown Man.

Evolution only covers what happened after life came into being; its doesn't touch on the subject of its origins. What you are asking about is abiogenesis

True. While abiogenesis is fascinating, natural science accepts the existence of material/physical life.

The difference between Catholic teaching and natural science is that Catholicism looks at human life as a total package. Natural science explores human life solely in the material/physical realm. Obviously, natural science helps us get along in our universe.

Natural science per se is a gift from God; but it is not the only gift from God.

Getting down to the nitty-gritty, it is the basic gift of a human relationship with God which makes humankind peerless among animal species. The spiritual gift of a relationship with God cannot be dissected like the human anatomy. The soul does not leave fossils. Yet, Catholicism insists that the human person is real. Thus, it follows that the human person had to descend from a real human. Catholicism calls that first real human, Adam.

Evolution theory is the name of a process, the goal of which is to account for the diversity of species on earth. That is a good goal.

Catholics can accept various aspects of the evolution process regarding their decomposing anatomy. Catholics can accept relationships between humans and animals based on the similarity of anatomies; for example, the immune system or digestive system, etc.

Note: the contemporary evolution model does not teach that humans directly descended from monkeys. Both probably descended from a type of common ancestor. This "probably" does not rule out the possibility of Adam and Eve.

[grannymh]

Catholics who are intimidated by those so-called mountains of evidence
against the reality of Adam and Eve need to remember one valuable point.

The anti-Catholicism interpreters (not necessarily scientists themselves) of some natural science research have made an illicit shift from a particular conclusion
to an universal exclusion.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh

Catholics who are intimidated by those so-called mountains of evidence
against the reality of Adam and Eve need to remember one valuable point.

The anti-Catholicism interpreters (not necessarily scientists themselves) of some natural science research have made an illicit shift from a particular conclusion
to an universal exclusion.

To better understand an "illicit shift" Google "Black Swan". For example, Black Swan Australia, Black Swan theory, etc. Skip the movies with that name.

http://www.svswans.com/black.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

It is religious freedom which allows ordinary folk to look beyond scientific explorations of material anatomies and their origins. Intellectual freedom can lead to the discovery that human nature is uniquely created so that there is both a material anatomy and a spiritual soul. Catholicism teaches that God calls each person to share eternally (beyond human death) in His life. That is no myth.

Ordinary folk need to remember that Catholic doctrines concern our spiritual journey to eternal peace via the Beatific Vision. Rightly so, scientific explorations stop at the limits of the material physical world. On the other hand, neither God nor humans are limited by the material physical. In the same manner as a black swan, the possibility of Adam's reality exists.

The "illicit shift" regarding Adam is an unwarranted (by the evidence) assumption that every bit of mother earth has been explored every day for thousands of years going backwards.

Scientific evidence is very useful; but, when it comes to the origin of human nature, indviudal conclusions cannot be turned into an unviersal statement that rules out two sole founders of humankind. Catholics need to keep to the real events in the first three chapters of Genesis. In a sense, mythology does have a place in human history. Catholics need to learn when something can be considered analogical or figurative. At the same time, Catholics may have to remember a black swan when faced with seemingly difficult questions.

[grannymh]

From the news article in the OP.

"And it's a religious story told for religious purposes."

As a granny from the U.S.A., I stand with our Irish sisters and brothers and others from all over the world here at the 50th International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin.
The universal Catholic Church is here in worship of and thanksgiving for the Eucharist, the true presence of Jesus Himself.

In regard to the "religious story" of Adam and Eve, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that there is only one purpose. We do not know how many good, important purposes the Cardinal was thinking about when he made that comment. We can only look into our own lives to see how the real Adam touches us.

The real Adam scorned his Creator. He broke the relationship between God and himself and future descendents. Yet, here am I in Hall 4 of the RDS, sitting before God Himself Who is loving us as individuals, each one needing healing in some form.

As I think about that "religious story" about Adam and Eve, I think about God's mercy in promising Jesus Christ as our Redeemer. I know from Catholic teaching that all of humanity is as one body in Adam. There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus before me in the Eucharist is my Savior. No doubt because that "religious story" is not about a large ancient population developing in their own material anatomies, some kind or variety of something which may be similar to the spiritual.

God gives each human person who is a descendent of Adam, a spiritual soul so that we can truly respond to His Divine call to share eternally in His Divine life full of love and happiness.

That "religious story" assures all humankind that they are made in the Image of God. The assurance is that there is one Adam along with his one wife, who are the one true, sole parents of all humanity.

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

I have not read the thread, I was just advised to post a reference here. Maybe someone already did. I think the most enlightening book on this topic is "In the Beginning...."
A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

------
An excerpt:
Creation and Evolution

"All of this is well and good, one might say, but is it not ultimately disproved by our scientific knowledge of how the human being evolved from the animal kingdom? Now, more reflective spirits have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the "project" of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities. "
--------

In this book, iirc, our future Pope characterizes Genesis in it's first 13 chapters as "mythological in nature." Not false, not fantasy, but based in something actual, to explain certain things: what we are and what our relationship to God is.

It's a really remarkable piece of writing, I encourage folks to find it. I bet Amazon has it used really cheap.

My apology for taking two months to get this book and start reading it.

The excerpt above is from the Third Homily, "The Creation of the Human Being". In the section "Creation and Evolution", the future Pope addresses the work of Jacques Monod and the concept that we are the product of haphazard mistakes. In place of God's will, Monod postulates chance--the lottery--as having produced us. Contemporary evolution developments in the natural sciences are beyond the crudeness of Monod. Still, there are people who prefer the "mythical Adam" over God's "divine project" which is human nature.

Further in this section, the Pope writes: " It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error."

For Pope Benedict, the great projects of the living creation is each human person. He writes: "Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love."

The Pope's book, 'In the Beginning...' A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and The Fall, ISBN 978-0-8028-4106-3, is based on the first three chapters of Genesis.

His Fourth Homily, "Sin and Salvation" addresses the reality, not mythological in nature, of Original Sin committed by a real living person. The future Pope writes in the section "Original Sin": "In the Genesis story that we are considering, still a further characteristic of sin is described. Sin is not spoken of in general as an abstract possibility but as a deed, as the sin of a particular person, Adam, who stands at the origin of humankind and with whom the history of sin begins."