Question about Adam and Eve

Valentina · Post by **Valentina** » Sat 28 February 2004 12:41 am

I have a question regarding Adam and Eve. I was always taught that they actually existed. I was just wondering because a few people I know (Catholic) believe that they didn't exist. They say that it's more of a parable from the Bible. I'm just curious to know how come they believe it in that way. If any former Catholics, or even current Catholics who are lurking around the board, could answer that would be great. I always wondered about that. Sorry if I seem smug-I'm not trying to make it an "im right, your wrong" type of thing-just curios. Thanks

Also, I was choosing an icon avatar for my username and when I came across the icon of the ladder ascending to Heaven, it was called Paradosis. What does that mean?

I'm filled with questions today! :mrgreen:

尼古拉前执事 · Sat 28 February 2004 12:49 pm

Dear Valentina,

With the Roman catholic Pope accepting evolution, unfortunately everything has become fair game in reinterpreting the Bible in new anti-Patristic post-modern ways. It is very sad.

Joe Zollars · Post by **Joe Zollars** » Sat 28 February 2004 12:50 pm

AS a former Catholic I will answer your question. Yes I did believe in adam and eve and fifty years ago anyone who didn't would have been excommunicated by their (roman) Bishop.

Joe Zollars

Valentina · Post by **Valentina** » Sat 28 February 2004 12:59 pm

Oh I see. Well thanks for your replies.

Грешник · Post by **Грешник** » Sat 28 February 2004 10:06 pm

Joe,

You "did"? I am hoping that was a typo.

Valentina, my undeerstanding of the Old Testament is that it, like the New Testament was the inspired Word of God. The New Testament being written down through the Apostles and the Old Testament, at least the first 5 books, being written through the Holy Prophet Moses.

Just as it would seem insane that the Apostles would "make things up" to "add or detract from the life and teachings of the Christ" and although there are those who hold this opinion it is totally ludicrous.

The same goes for the Old Testament. Moses would gain nothing by putting "parables" in the Old Testament. It is obvious to see that the books of the Old Testament serve as the basis for Christian History. What would be the point of a parable starting off the Hostory of theentire faith of Christianity?

I had a "Introduction to the Bible" teacher tell me this same exact line on "the Bible as a parable for life." Needless to say i walked out of his class.

Hope this helps a bit.

Juvenaly

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Tue 9 March 2004 10:50 am

Also, I was choosing an icon avatar for my username and when I came across the icon of the ladder ascending to Heaven, it was called Paradosis. What does that mean?

paradosis basically means tradition. For an example, paradosis was the Greek word St. Paul used when he said: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (2 Thes. 2:15)

Seraphim Reeves · Post by **Seraphim Reeves** » Sat 27 March 2004 11:51 am

My understanding (being a former RC) is that just what you have to believe if you're RC is a slippery slope.

It used to be that you couldn't believe in polygenism (the idea that humanity originated with several pairings), that you had to believe there was a literal Adam and Eve. Now it seems to be (I'm not clear on this though) that all you have to believe is that there was a literal "first man" as in "first soul" - so while Adam may not have been the first physical homo sapien, he was the first to receive a rational soul.

All of that, of course, is hogwash, imho. I'm really hoping I'm wrong about what the modern RCC requires people to believe, but that seems to be what I've read and been told by people who should know better.

As time goes on, the more willing I find myself to accept a "literalist" understanding of the early chapters of Genesis. The fads of modern scientism come and go, often fueled by quasi-religious ways of thinking amongst scientists themselves (who often have a slavish devotion to philosophical materialism and it's creation myth, "evolution"). I'm becoming more able of accepting that a basic surface reading of Genesis is pretty indicative of what actually happened, though recognizing it not to be "natural history" per se (more concerned with the "why" than the "how".)

The world before the fall existed in a way that we can hardly fathom. Our experience of this life is so conditioned by decay and death, that we cannot even imagine what this universe once was. When the Saints have experienced theoria, we get a glimpse into that pre-fall world; in such a state of grace, they did not suffer corruption, nor did they even need to pay heed to the things otherwise necessary to physical well being (sleep, eating, avoiding the harsh elements, etc.)

Well, such a state used to be the norm, for everything. Obviously, materialistic scientists, expecting the condition of the world to have always basically been like it is now, cannot possibly get an accurate picture of the past - their assumption of uniformity is just that, an assumption. It's arbitrary on a natural level, and according to the Holy Scriptures, it's incorrect (the universe was not always like it is now.)

Seraphim