Were Adam and Eve Real? w/ Jimmy Akin
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2024
- In this short video, Matt and Jimmy Akin answer the question: Were Adam and Eve real? Jimmy outlines differing theories around our "first parents" and which theories a faithful Catholic can validly hold.
Watch the full episode here: • Faith and Reason w/ Ji...
----------------------------------------- SPONSORS -----------------------------------------
Hallow: hallow.onelink...
Truly Kindred Candles: shop.trulykind... (use promo code: mattfradd for 10% off)
Covenant Eyes: www.covenantey... (use promo code: mattfradd)
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/...
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
------------------------------------------ MY BOOKS ----------------------------------------
Does God Exist: www.amazon.com....
Marian Consecration With Aquinas: www.amazon.com....
The Porn Myth: www.ignatius.c....
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Book me to speak: www.mattfradd.....
--
Website - mattfradd.com
Facebook - mattfradd/
Twitter - mattfradd
Matt, Pope Pius XII condemned the idea that Adam and Eve were not two real human beings.
So?
@Prasanth Thomas
It is still a weighty pronouncement. Because affirming polygenism will lead to professional level mental gymnastics and trying to read modern evolutionary theory into a text which doesn't propose it. Or in the words of Michael Heiser, polygenism is "allowed but not affirmed"
@Prasanth Thomas
Firstly polygenism creates problems in many passages of the bible. The bible says that God specifically created Adam and Eve in his image. If there were other humans around at the time of Adam, then they clearly didn't bear his image which creates theological problems for people descended from them. But this is the least of the problems.
If you check passages like 1 Corinthians 15 verse 22, it says that "for in Adam all died, even so in Christ all shall me made alive". Also Adam being a symbol goes straight out the window. Again in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 45 "THE FIRST MAN ADAM BECAME A LIVING BEING, THE LAST ADAM BECAME A LIFE GIVING SPIRIT".
There's still a hole in the theory of Cain building a city and therefore his parents not being the first humans. You have to realize that Adam and Eve lived for over 900 years according to the biblical narrative. Which means they had enough time to produce many offspring. No, I'm not a young earth creationist and nor do I affirm that these ages are symbolic. In fact they seem all the more necessary to explain why a single couple could populate the earth with many generations of human offspring.
There is absolutely no indication about how many offspring they had when the story of Cain and Able took place granted that Cain was the first child. In Genesis 5 verse 3 and 4, it says Adam had many other children and they had many other children too lol. And we have to remember that Cain himself lived quite long. The city he built would have been for none other than his own siblings who would have reached many dozens or even hundreds by that time and possibly had children of their own. Since this is not a young earth view, the question of genetic diversity isn't a problem if we propose that Adam and Eve lived a few hundred thousand years ago. There is evidence of conceptional intelligence in Hominids such as Homo Heidelbergensis which showed advanced usage of tools and rudimentary implements. These hominids lived around 400 to 700k years ago.
But there is absolutely no need to push it that far. Genetic science affirms that our mitochondrial DNA can be tracked to a single female named Lucy who lived somewhere in or near Africa about 150 to 250k years ago. By logic, since Hominids don't reproduce asexually, she obviously had a mate who would be the mitochondrial adam. I can also show you a lot more bible passages which makes polygenism untenable and causes polygenist apologists to perform their gymnastics
@Prasanth Thomas Hello. I kindly remind you in a spirit of fraternal charity that Polygenism cannot be held by a Catholic. Humani Generis 37: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.”
Encyclicals of the Sovereign Pontiffs are binding with "religious submission of mind and will" i.e. a real interior submission, not merely an exterior assent. This is proven by the following:
Pius XII, Humani Generis no. 20: 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"; 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.
Just because a theological opinion is not a de fide dogma does not mean that it can denied or even doubted by a Catholic.
Bl. Pius IX, Quanta cura no. 5: Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.
Bl. Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, condemned proposition no. 22: The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.
Pontifical Biblical Commission, 30 June 1909:
Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters [of Genesis], which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race [i.e. monogenism]; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer?
--Reply: In the negative.
But is the Biblical Commission binding in conscience? Absolutely, under the pain of mortal sin:
St. Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae, 1907:
Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.
I hope this was helpful. God bless!
Set aside what some bishop in a city called Rome said and just follow the evidence. At some point you have to face the hard truth that just because he pronounced something doesn’t make it so. In other words, entertain the idea that his pronouncement on the nature of human origins might have come into conflict (dare I say definitely DID come into conflict) with overwhelming evidence that is publicly verifiable by all-homo sapiens cannot have all descended from an original pair.
Pius XII quote from Humani Generis:
37. 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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
@FightPeople Not necessarily. The meaning of "natural generation" could have a substantial effect here.
For instance, we can say that, ever since Adam, the only kind of soul which can be the form of a human body is a rational one. Therefore, the supernatural creation of Adam redefined the essence of human biological kind, so that any biologically human creature, wherever he might be, would also be philosophically/theologically human. This would still be natural generation, albeit not the usual sort.
@@delsydebothom3544 Hello. This interpretation is at odds with the teaching of Church, summed up by the Angelic Doctor:
St. Thomas teaches (In Sent. II, d. 31, q. 1, a. 2, ad 3):
If someone were formed from a finger by divine power [i.e. not a physical descendant of Adam], he would not have original sin. He would, however, possess all the deficiencies that those who are born in original sin have, though without the character of a fault. This is clear as follows. From the beginning, when God created man, he could also have formed another man from the clay of the earth and left him in the condition of his nature, namely as mortal, passible, and as one who feels the struggle of concupiscence against reason. This in no way detracts from human nature, since this follows from the nature's principles. Yet, this deficiency would not have had the character of fault and punishment in him because the deficiency would not have been caused by the will. Likewise, I say that in the man generated from a finger such deficiencies would exist if he were left to the principles of his nature-unless the Lord willed to confer on him gratuitously what he conferred on the first man-but the deficiencies would not proceed from the will of the first man, since the deficiencies are only caused by our first parent's will in those who receive the nature from him. Now one does not receive the nature from the matter but from the agent. Hence since this man is only from Adam materially but does not descend from him as an active principle, it is obvious that he does not receive human nature from him and does not incur original guilt through him or the aforementioned deficiencies. And thus they will not have the character of fault or punishment, since they are not compared to the will as a cause.
Now, in the same article, St. Thomas explains that no such a man could ever exist in the present order of things:
Furthermore, one who is not liable to sin does not need redemption. If, then, there were someone who were not born in original sin, besides Christ, there would be found someone who did not need the redemption accomplished through Christ. And then Christ would not be the head of all men (I Cor. 11.3), which is unfitting according to the faith. Therefore we cannot posit that someone can be born without original sin.
Original Sin spreads by conjugal union alone:
For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me. (Ps. 50 (51).6)
St. Fulgentius teaches (De fide ad Petrum, cap. 26, no. 67): Hold most firmly and do not at all doubt that any man who is conceived by the sexual joining of a man and a woman is born with original sin, subject to impiety and liable to death, and because of this is born by nature a son of wrath (Eph. 2.3); from this, no one is freed except through the faith of the mediator of Go and men. (1 Tim. 2.5)
If a man were not descended physically from Adam, as you and I are descended from our grandparents, then would be exempt from the Redemption of Jesus Christ. Such a doctrine is an intolerable blasphemy and heresy, since the Apostle teaches: “That if one died for all, then all were dead. And Christ died for all.” (II Cor. 5.14-15) And we are dead by reason of being born in original sin due to literal physical descent from the real man Adam, who walked the earth as you and I.
As original sin is propagated by natural generation, and since Christ entered life in a supernatural manner through conception by the Holy Ghost (Matt. 1.18 ff.; Lk. 1.26 ff.) it follows that he was not subject to the general law of original sin. Hence positing the existence of other men not physically descended from the man Adam would mean men other than Christ were also born sinless, which contradicts Holy Writ, which states all men are “by nature sons of wrath.” (Eph. 2.3)
I hope this was helpful. God bless!
@@Tannhauser45 I am going to be thinking this over for some time. In the meantime, I wonder if you could comment on how, under this paradigm, we address the people who are the outcome of in vitro fertilization. Is this technique to be considered a species of conjugal union, albeit a highly defective one? Hypothetically, too, if human cloning were ever to succeed, how would such a view account for the products of it?
Like I said, I'll be mulling this over as well, but if you could speak to those points it might could help me round out my thought process. Thank you!
I know we don't need to be compelled by any private revelations, but "City of God" seems **very** air tight and in it Mary is said to have met with Adam & Eve in Heaven as well as having been shown visions of them from the past. They are always referred to as two, very literal ppl. One man & one woman.
I'm 73 and I still believe in Santa and the tooth fairy and I also believe you a little bit
I was literally thinking this while watching this video. I am on book 3. I know it's not considered doctrine but it is air tight and considered "most helpful for the faithful" by the magisterium. It also describes both Adam and Eve's features and says Mary looked close to Eve and Jesus close to Adam. And it literally means it, not just drawing metaphors.
What's the exact name and author of this book? "City of God" brings up lots of hits when you search it. Thanks.
@@adamaj74 Try to search for Ven. Mary of Agreda City of God.
CCC 402 - "sin came into the world through one man". St.Paul affirms too. No mention of the possibility of a collective in the CCC or Sacred scripture. Why then should we entertain that which is contrary to the CCC and Scripture?
@FightPeople Give us proof, otherwise you are biased
@@nvsbeatbox3949 A christian asking for proof. lol
Why?...Hmmm...perhaps because it may be a way of interpreting the story of Adam and Eve that makes more sense than the traditional interpretation....His mention of this shows that Jimmy Akin too struggles to accept that which makes no sense. Catholic biblical interpretation has been in a constant state of change and evolution for two thousand years.
Before the new calendar, Christmas Eve was the feast of Saints Adam and Eve. Thats enough for me.
Wanda Maximoff Saint is from the Latin word for holy (I believe)
It means the person is in heaven. Adam and Eve are in heaven.
Wanda Maximoff I have no reason to believe they aren’t. Catholics have almost always believed that they were saved.
Allah yerhamo la Bachir
Our forefather and foremother are the patron saints of Gardeners and Tailors.
Why would the bible literally list out the lineage if they weren't real?
@Qwerty The Gospels are not any sort of metaphorical literature. They are a historically accurate account of Christs life. Why would it make any sense to assume the lineage tracing back to Adam and Eve wasn't literal when the Bible and the church hold so many of the other people in Jesus lineage to be real people who actually existed? Abraham, Boaz, Daniel? When do you get to decided when the people stopped being real and started being "pesher"? We know Abraham was real so why not his great grandfather Noah, who is traced in the same genealogy in the old testament as he is in the new back to Seth and Adam? It makes no sense to at some point just assert that the people didn't actually exist because its convenient for the modern way of looking at things built on scientific theory that does cannot yet prove itself to be true without a shed of doubt.
@Qwerty The Gospels are not any sort of metaphorical literature. They are a historically accurate account of Christs life. Why would it make any sense to assume the lineage tracing back to Adam and Eve wasn't literal when the Bible and the church hold so many of the other people in Jesus lineage to be real people who actually existed? Abraham, Boaz, Daniel? When do you get to decided when the people stopped being real and started being "pesher"? We know Abraham was real so why not his great grandfather Noah, who is traced in the same genealogy in the old testament as he is in the new back to Seth and Adam? It makes no sense to at some point just assert that the people didn't actually exist because its convenient for the modern way of looking at things built on scientific theory that does cannot yet prove itself to be true without a shed of doubt.
Allegory
I was once a Christian because I was born a Christian, I can tell that you too are deeply indoctrinated by Christianity. Bible claims we are all sinner, we are accused of being a sinner since birth because of that magical fruit that adam/eve ate and pass down the curse to all humanity.
We are told that God is not guilty of the evil things and sufferings that is happening on earth. Bad things happen becuase of the disobedience of Adam & Eve resulting to the birth of the original sin and the fall of mankind."
Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is a Christian belief in a state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the magical fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Here I intend to demonstrate to you the absurdity at the very heart of your Christian faith. I entitled it:
"The Absurdity Of The Original Sin."
Even if you are a believer a person of faith, I encourage you to look upon the Genesis account not as you have always done through the filter of faith and doctrine, but with the detachment of one who seeks to gain nothing from the story; all you need are broad perspective, good reasoning skills, common sense, and knowledge of the facts. Read it as you would any other book, and judge it on its own merits.
Why did God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden? What purpose did it serve? Did God Himself need the knowledge of good and evil? Did He have to take a piece of the magical fruit now and again to refresh His memory? We can assume that He did not. Did any of the animals of the Garden need the Tree? We can assume not.
What kind of tree was this? How could a tree, an organism of wood and sap, contain the knowledge of good and evil? What capacity did it have for storing such knowledge, and how was that knowledge passed on to all human generations by simply eating and digesting it? Allow yourself to think about that using your common sense...
Why, therefore, among all the useful trees in the Garden of Eden, did God deliberately include this tree, the tree that carries the warning:
"in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"?
Did He put it in the Garden as a temptation to tempt Adam and Eve?
We can assume that cannot be the case because God does not tempt right? Therefore, we have the magical tree that we cannot comprehend, whose fruit is so sinful to consume that it would result in the immediate and eternal damnation of humankind, placed in a location so precarious as to make that outcome an inevitability, all apparently for no purpose whatever.
Imagine a caring, loving parent leaving a fully loaded pistol in the playroom of his own five year old child, despite of giving him warnings not to play with that pistol, knowing full well what the result will be, then leaving him all alone watching from the cctv as the child blows his brains out.
Was God watching Eve when she tries to reach and eat that magical fruit? Of course He did! We are told by the bible that God is everywhere and knows all things from the Beginning unto the end.
Did He not know that Eve would also give it to Adam? Of course God knew it. Was God aware that it would result to the birth of EVIL AND SUFFERINGS, DISEASE, DISASTERS AND TOTAL DESTRUCTIONS? Of course He did.
All Christians try to justify this by saying "GOD GAVE US FREE WILL SO GOD LET IT HAPPEN" wtf? Is your God st*pd that He is more concerned by the free will of Adam and Eve than the eternal damnation of the entire human race?
And what about the serpent? Did He not know that the serpent would tempt Eve? He did. Therefore, did Eve have any free will in the matter? Could she have acted in a manner other than God had foreseen for her? Of course not! How could she?
How was the serpent able to speak? Did it give itself this remarkable ability? How does the mouth of a snake, with no lips or proper teeth, and no articulate tongue, form human words? How did the tiny brain of a snake become wise and subtle? Who made it so? Who was responsible for putting the principle actors-- Adam, Eve, the serpent and the Tree-- all together in the Garden of Eden? God, of course. The inescapable conclusion? That He put all the pieces on the game board, and enacted His own little drama, resulting in the deliberate, eternal damnation of Humankind.
God could have easily prevent all these things from happening but he did not.
In the words of Ingersoll:
"Could a devil have done worse?"
But here is another problem. We are told in Genesis 3:14 that after the speaking serpent had completed the mission for which he had been placed into the Garden of Eden, that of tempting Eve, God cursed the serpent: "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." (Does the devil have a finite life?) So somewhere out in the world, the Christian must believe, is a 6000 year old talking snake that eats dust! And they say that we're the irrational ones.
If Satan was cursed to spend the rest of his existence as a serpent, then how does he reappear later in the New Testament, and take Christ up to the top of the mountain to tempt him? How can this be? Did he release himself from the curse, or did God do it? What about the devil's activities in the Book of Revelation? If he is slithering around as a serpent, what is the great danger? Why doesn't someone simply step on him or cut his head off with a shovel?
We are told that at their creation, Adam and Eve, like small children, did not posses the knowledge of good and evil, of right from wrong. I wonder why God wanted to withhold this from them...
Should Adam and Eve therefore be held responsible for committing an action prior to them having the Knowledge of Good and Evil? I would not think so. They disobeyed an instruction before they knew it was wrong to disobey.
Was this the Ultimate Sin, for which every human being ever born was to pay with their eternal soul? Was that the worse thing that Adam and Eve could have done? They could have beaten and slaughtered each other, and destroyed their paradise. But they did not do anything so cruel or barbaric. They ate a piece of fruit, contrary to the will of an arbitrary god. People disobey God's commands millions of times every day all over the earth-- from lying and stealing to murder and worshipping other gods... why then was Adam and Eve's simple disobedience to carry such a heavy price?
Would you condemn them to eternal torture, infinite revenge, never ending intense pain with no chance of pardon, for taking a cookie out of the cookie jar before dinner, after you had told them not to?
And would you condemn your children's children, and all generations that will come after? What sort of justice is this? No natural person can condone this. All that the Christians can say is that
"We cannot understand God's method of justice."
That is all they can say.
Why should I be held responsible for Eve's decision to eat the fruit? Why should you? If your distant ancestor, four hundred years ago, killed a man in an act of cruel and pointless savagery, should you be handed a life sentence in prison for it? God Himself states in the bible,
(Deuteronomy 5: 9)
"I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
Now that's a pure b*llsh*t isn't it, we are to be born sinners because of our fathers simple disobedience, and the worst thing is that Christianity calls it "God's perfect justice."
And God's plan to save us from his own cursed, is that we now need a Savior.
Therefore Christians tells us that without Christ Jesus our Savior, all of us are doomed without hope. They try to convince us of the dilemma they have created for us, then try to convince us that they alone have the remedy.
"Christianity cuts you and then tries to sell you a Band-Aid."
Brainwashed as a child, made us believe that we are born sinners destined in hell and that we badly needed a Savior.
Because of the Fall of Man, we are told that it is not enough that we are good and caring people, not enough that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, not enough that we forgive those who trespass against us.
We must be baptized-- have our heads wet-- a meaningless gesture, and proclaim that we accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior.
We must believe the unbelievable. A Hindu, who happens to be more charitable and humane than the best Christian, is nonetheless consigned to eternal damnation, just as the kind and gentle native people of some tropical island who never heard of Jesus and his cross.
If, as the Christian doctrine teaches, the only way to salvation is through Christ, what became of all the souls of the people who died before Jesus' appearance on earth?
It is clear that Christianity is a gilded mansion built upon a foundation of sand. It's basis is not only unexplainable, but illogical and immoral as well. But, as people so often say when they are faced with such illogical, immoral conundrums that they can't talk their way out of, "God works in mysterious ways."
We are told that we must swallow this story, hook, line and sinker. We are told that God gave us the freewill to believe it or not believe it-- but this gift comes with a deadly threat. Believe it-- or be eternally damned. What kind of choice is that? Some people may be convinced that the threat is a very real one, and so they will believe any story that their preachers tell them. Under these conditions, some people can be made to believe anything at all.
Salvation is not awarded by doing good deeds, we are told by the church, but through belief alone. God can forgive all things, it is said, except disbelief.
He will pardon the murderer of children, rapists or serial killers if they begs for forgiveness, and accepts Jesus Christ as his savior. But He will not pardon the person who uses reason and honesty, and who finally decides: "I had enough, I just can't believe it."
I am told that it doesn't matter how good of a person I am during my life, because at the end of it, I will be asked: "Did you believe the one about the Garden of Eden?" I'll have to be honest and say, "No, I didn't. It was just too far-fetched. Sorry."
For me, I cannot swallow it, no matter how much I am threatened. I can't help it. It has to make sense to me... that's the way my brain works. If there is a god floating somewhere up in the vacuum of space, then he's sure to understand that.
I’d love to see you bring on Hugh Owen from the Kolbe Center for the study of Creation.
Or someone like Fr Chad Ripperger. it’s kind of frustrating that this is even a question, was Adam and Eve real? I reject theistic evolution, and I support the Kolbe center
i agree! That would be awesome. Hugh is brilliant.
Definitely! Bring on Hugh!
Indeed! Him and Fr. Ripperger are doing a great job by exposing the lies of evolution.
Pope Pius XII Humani Generis, article 37, August 12th 1950, Rome. " The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the FIRST PARENT OF ALL......... Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an INDIVIDUAL ADAM and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. "
Adam, in the words of the Pope and from the teaching authority of the Church is as real as you and me....he is in heaven, as is Eve, who is also real btw, and we are descended from them as our first parents...... How can you have original sin if you didn't have original parents??? Therefore out goes the argument that Adam or Eve were allegorical or did not exist. To have original sin you must have original parents, right? So the Church believes anyway and for that matter so do I.... Me and mine, we are going to listen to the Teaching Authority of the Church, this is always the safest way......
SS. Adam and Eve, please pray for us!!!!!!!
Where is it in Catholic teaching that Adam and Eve are in heaven?
@@johnp1995 In the Orthodox Catholic tradition there is a great devotion to Saints Adam and Eve and in the west we believe they are in the beatific vision i.e saints ( czcams.com/video/HuRjUqtqpb8/video.html ) watch this and this guy explains it much better than I could.
Also many mystics of the church in private revelations have stated that Adam and Eve are in heaven such as Mary of Agreda Mystical City of God (Imprimatur H. J. Alerding, Bishop of Fort Wayne. Rome City, Ind., Aug. 24, 1912) and Luisa Piccarreta, The Book of Heaven which also carries the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur from St Hannibal di Francia and in which Jesus Himself tells Luisa that Adam and Eve after original sin , never sinned again and are in fact in a high place in Heaven, not just in Heaven....
If a revelation carries the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur from the Church, then we do well to believe it because the Church Herself has examined the writings and found nothing in them contrary to faith and morals.....
@Qwerty respectfully I disagree Qwerty, Pope Pius does in fact state in the first sentence quite strongly that monogenism is the Church's stance. I quote
" The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the FIRST PARENT OF ALL"
"After" Adam all TRUE MEN took there origin through natural generation FROM HIM ( i.e Adam) which is monogenism in my book....which is defined as being " a single origin of humanity"
Before Adam there is definite evidence for the existence of several species very similar to ourselves, this is scientific fact.
However after Adam, the Church through Pope Pius states " the faithful CANNOT embrace that opinion that AFTER ADAM ....the Church is very specific here....after Adam all TRUE MEN take there origin through natural generation from Adam and he is in fact the first parent of ALL!!!
After Adam we are all infused with a soul in the image of God , we are a composite of both body and soul and we now have a Heaven to aim at getting to, through grace and the mercy of God!!!
Adam was created in the image and likeness of God and after the fall all his progeny i.e us..... are created in the image of God, as the Catechism tells us....
also Genesis 1 vs 27
"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."
God created Adam and Eve in His own image and likeness .....
“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Gen 1 vs 26)
There may indeed have been species on this earth very similar to ourselves in appearance, however Sacred Scripture , the Catechism and the Teaching Authority of the Church are abundantly clear; there was a definite moment in time, 6000 years ago when God Himself created man and that man was ADAM!!!!!!
" monogenism, " posits a single origin of humanity. There is one according to the Bible and the Church and that origin is when God Himself created Adam in His image and likeness........no other creature no matter how similar in appearance to ourselves, was made in the image and likeness of God, only Adam was.............
Adam is the single origin of humanity, our origin as stated by the Church through
" natural generation, " we are ALL descended from Adam and no one else......
I believe this to be the truth, I believe in everything the Church teaches and Humani Generis explicates Scripture for us , the Holy Spirit speaking through the words of Pope Pius, and I believe in them 100%!!!!!
Sorry for the long reply bud, but this posting from Matt about " Were Adam and Eve real " has really got me going because today in the Church even, there is a pervasive teaching that they are only allegorical figures, when the Church teaches the exact opposite is true......
God bless you and your own, now and forevermore!!!!
@Prasanth Thomas it is within a papal encyclical, article 37.....that, I respectfully would say is more than just an opinion. " The faithful cannot embrace " that opinion " which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the FIRST PARENT OF ALL.
The sentence above states the faithful, i.e you and me, " cannot embrace that opinion" the pope himself is saying it doesn't matter what your opinion is, you cannot embrace it if it is contrary to what revealed truth and the Magisterieum has promoted to us as truth.
"Now it is in no way apparent how " such an opinion ".......can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an INDIVIDUAL ADAM and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. "
Again the pope is saying it is in no way apparent how " such an opinion " ........ opinions don't matter, revealed truth does. What the Teaching Authority of the Church gives us to believe, that's what matters.
Pope's come and go, however the Truth and the Teachings of the Magisterium remain..... Opinions of Popes come and go, however the Truth remains. The Church and it's Teaching on Adam and Eve are to be embraced, not opinion so on that we agree, however, if as the Pope says that ........ Adam and Eve are our first parents citing the Teaching of the Church and revealed truth.......I am with the Pope on this one, Adam and Eve existed as our first parents and from Adam's sin the whole of the human race has contracted original sin. He committed it, I, you and everyone else contracted it, and Jesus died and rose again that we might be with Him forevermore. Simple!
@Prasanth Thomas The Teaching Authority of the Church is though.....That is what I and the Pope are saying.... What Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium have said, believe that. They are both worthy of belief because we have God's promise to the Church that it will never err in faith or morals etc, this is my point.
What does the pope point to in his words. Sacred Tradition. The Magisterium. If you can't believe or won't believe that, then what do you believe in?????
Yourself and your own opinion?
This is nonsense. God doesn't need hundreds of thousands of years to make "modern humans" and then give them certain souls to make them fully created in his image. God is a creator not a software updater.
He's also not someone on a time crunch like an engineer with a deadline. He made all time space and matter from nothing, He can take as much or as little time as He artistically sees fit because He can always just make more time
So what's the truth... For you?
So if Adam and Eve were symbols of the first rational human beings who turned away from God, what about Eden then? Is it also a symbol and not an actual place?
Im not a creationist but we cannot hold this view because the church teaches that Adam and Eve were real people
I believe it's a symbol of the purity of a world where people are obedient of god. Also a commentary on how powerful wrong things can be, and how they can find their place even in the purest of spaces.
@@idkatthispoint-s9swhat you believe is purely subjective and false.
There's no Church Father that didn't accept Genesis, Origen didn't and he was condemned as a heretic, and now people are trying to defend this view of allegorical Genesis citing a heretic, which, though, nonetheless believed Adam and Eve existed, but thought it was a very symbolized account, which it is, but that doesn't mean it can't be literal. Again, for this interpretation, the Blessed Augustine is cited, because he believed in an allegorical Genesis, but people misunderstood him, he only claimed that everything was made instantly, rather than on 7 days, but accepted that the Earth was young, in accordance with the scriptures, and even wrote: "Some people give certain ages to the world, but we see that not 6000 years have sent." Calculating from the Septuagint, 1500 years ago would have been Anno Mundi 6000, now it's 7529, again, let us look at Saint Basil, who writes concerning Genesis as literal. How about Saint Paul who wrote that sin came through Adam, which he called "one man", now, if Adam was indeed refering to a population of humans, he would say: "Through a population of men sin came into the world". At the end of the day, Adam is mentioned as the ancestor of Jesus in Luke 3, Jesus mentions his child, Abel, have we become so smart we cannot trust God anymore and started making hypothetical scenarios changing the way the scriptures were understood by the Fathers for 2000 years, even by the apostles and Jesus, just to coincide with the consensus of the scientific community which is, in fact, naturalistic, that is, thinks miracles can't happen, of course they don't believe God created everything, so they tried to explain everything without God and now people are falling in their trap, i mean those who reject Adam and Eve when not even Jesus did so. Trust God and do not listen of the world.
Saying Origen was not an early church father is pretty rich. He was probably the most important one. The Alexandrian and the Cappadocian fathers all held him up as their intellectual giant. The fathers that held the Council of Nicea, Gregory of Nazianus and Gregory of Nyssa, were big Origenist universalists. Ambrose of Milan and St Jerome, who taught Augustine, were Origenists. True, later some of his stuff on pre-existence of souls etc was condemned, but not all his views. And Augustine's views have been condemned a couple times at councils too (like Council of Orange and Council of Trent where his predistination views on God reprobating to evil were condemned). In Benedict XVI's book on the Church fathers he has a lot on Origen and is a big fan of Origen, like a lot of modern Catholics who understand that by modern standards pretty much all of the early fathers were heretics by later developed doctrinal standards. But they weren't heretics because those lines hadn't been clearly drawn yet so they just held opinions on undecided matters. Read Cardinal Newman's book on doctrinal development. He lists pretty much every early father and how they all disagreed with each other on issues and would be considered heretics by today's standards. One of the most ridiculous things they often believed, for example, is that the earth is only like 6,000 years old and that it was created in 6 literal days. Origen and Augustine at least could see that was silly.
Jesus spoke of them like they were real people, so why wouldn't we believe that they were real
Jesus spoke of His followers as sheep. Are you a four-legged woolly animal?
Not really. People refer to archetypes and mythological figures in a "real" way all the time.
@@hiker-uy1bi Humanae generis. Read it
Romans 5:12 "sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin." Seems to suggest it was a single man: Adam, who's sin lead to the fall, not mankind as a whole, like Jimmy suggested in his second possibility
Of course it does. That’s what they were taught, so that’s what they believed. Even the saints don’t always get everything right.
@@73cidaliaPaul is not just a saint. Paul is authoritative
"Seems to suggest". Maybe. But it's also possible he's referring to Adam as an archetypal representative of early humanity and its sinfulness.
I believe that the first time a human being looked up at the moon and wondered what it _really_ was, was the moment God said, "Now it is time to reveal myself to my creation".
@@Izumi-sp6fp well said indeed
I'm an Aquinas fan(he's my confirmation Saint) but Aristotle distinguished between the vegetative, sensitive and rational souls.
Trying to fit evolution into theology leads to some really bizarre theories! 🤯
Matt, look into Austriaco he’s a Dominican that has two phds in biology and theology. Brilliant work on this subject
Can you give more information? Is he got a blog? I'm really interesed
He did a PWA episode with Fr Austriaco a couple years ago
Fr Nic Austriaco is a Dominican priest. Taught at PC Providence College (Rhode Island). Brilliant man. Has gone back to Manilla where he's (i believe) advising the government on Covid-19 and other Medical issues. He has a firm understanding on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and his stand on Adam & Eve. You should look him up. Father Nic has the most sentient insight on the distinction between science and religion. He would be a GREAT interview on your show!
The polygenism theory (that Adam & Eve represented a whole community of humans) doesn't fit with the idea that Jesus and Mary are the new Adam and the new Eve.
It's just poetry. Doesnt need to be literal.
This goes against the very thing Christ became incarnate, died, and was resurrected for. If you believe in death before the fall, you take away what Christ did on the cross
That first explanation is what I've come to. They were the first of God's people really.
I can tell that this issue means a lot to Matt mainly because it means a lot to me! This issue is kind of difficult because of the firm teaching the Catholic Church has on this. I still am more inclined to believe in a de novo view of Adam and Eve’s creation. Mainly because the Catholic Church also teaches that woman was made out of man.
@Sage, I think you would benefit a lot from understanding Kenneth Kemp's hypothesis which Edward Feser outlines very clearly here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/knowing-ape-from-adam.html
Science can never show the woman was *not* made out of man. Also, Kenneth Kemp discusses some of the issues in more detail in a review of Swamidass' book: www.catholicscientists.org/idea/adam-eve-evolution
@Excuse me, but , Re: "Science can never show the woman was not made out of man." Here’s why that is true.
Suppose God chose to guide the process of evolution so that the human body reached a point at which it would be apt to receive a rational soul. Then, suppose God infused an original couple with a rational soul that made them fully metaphysically human. Paleoanthropologists cannot possibly *disprove* such a hypothesis since they cannot look back in time with such specificity as would be required to say that such an event did not happen. That fact alone (i.e. that paleoanthropologists can't disprove it) doesn't mean it happened, but if we trust divine revelation transmitted through the Church that it *did* happen, my point is the science cannot show one way or the other if the Church is right.
Moreover, suppose God infused *one man* with the special rational soul, and then put that man to sleep, and took a chunk out of him, say a rib, and supernaturally formed a woman with a rational soul to be his partner. If God did that, it would not be detectable through scientific inquiry which doesn’t have a tape-recorded version of what happened in the ancient past. Also, what is precisely the import of “woman is made out of man”? Since the Catholic Church already teaches that Genesis uses figurative language, perhaps it might be that a small strand of DNA was transplanted from Adam into Eve. Or perhaps it means something else. Hope this helps clear up my thought above.
It's my opinion that the catholic church guides people to take the Bible far too literally. What are meant to be allegorical are taken as an unwavering truth, as literally as possible
@@vinnyv949 I allow science and the Bible to work together and build on one another rather than fighting eachother at every turn. It's 2022, if you refuse to listen to scientific fact, seeing how much we've created and discovered, then you're just hard headed
@@GlorifiedGremlin it’s absolutely *not* the Catholic Church which encourages people to take Genesis literally, it’s the crazy evangelicals etc
God is not an author of confusion or chaos. He made adam and eve perfectly in the beginning.
Fascinating.
It’s mad that this is something that we don’t know, and don’t really discuss.
Both concepts very interesting, the first in particular.
Wait, I'm confused: I thought the Catholic Church requires us to believe that Adam and Eve were literal individuals, not symbols for larger communities? I used to hold to a community/symbolic theory myself, and had to give up that line of thinking as part of my conversion to Catholicism.
You’re correct in thinking that
@MattFradd, love your show man, but can you please interview someone with a different perspective on Genesis? I think it would only be fair to hear the perspective that was held for 2,000 years of Church Tradition?
Nothing wrong with that but given how entwined our lives are today with products of modern science, why do you want to hear the lesser of the two? To me that's like saying I want to be exposed to the ideas and thoughts people had before we could create the web, lasers, computers, etc.
Hugh Owen, please!
We've become so "smart" that we can't just accept the word of God anymore 🤦♂️
I suppose there were some who said the same to Aquinas too. Don't be afraid of the truth, it can't contradict itself.
Christopher Russ No, I understand that, I just don't think it applies the same way here. Aquinas was arguing for something that actually made sense with scripture.
Excuse me, but disagree.
@@christopherruss5899 czcams.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/video.html
@@Azygos1986 Your view is comically simple-minded, completely unproven and you reject the other view because it's too complicated and needed to be condensed to "wE wErE fIsH"
Reading genesis as a literal historical account doesn’t make any sense to me.
Or we can just go by what scripture actually says.
What geologists said in the decades before Darwin was evidence of slow deposits of sediment over millions of years is actually sediment laid down in the various inundation sequences of the Flood. Way easier to believe than continent-wide uniform sedimentary rock layers with no traces of erosion on their surfaces being deposited over millions of years
@@Azygos1986 I totally agree with you. I don't think that science has proved macroevolution to any extent that people try to claim it does. microevolution is absolutely evident but microevolutions existence does not prove macroevolution. For an atheist trying to make sense to the world it is understandable how because microevolution exists they therefore assume macroevolution does too even though they haven't witnessed it with their own eyes, because they do not believe in a God who could create advance and separate creatures as they are. However as Catholic Christians I feel like too many of us throw write off the truths contained in Genesis about the origin of man and the other animals. Sure the literary genre may be where it is not to be all taken literally perhaps, but it is clearly evident from other places in scripture that are written literally that Adam and Eve are real humans who lived, and you can trace the genealogy from them to Jesus in the beginning of the gospels. I don't understand how many in the church would certainly assert that other people in these genealogies such as Abraham are certainly real, but that Adam and Eve may not be. It seems inconsistent to me.
What's a day to the Creator of Existence?
What does it mean to be the first people?
What's a person to God?
I don't think you can read it in the most simplistic terms using a modern lens and come away with the complete story.
Basically, I believe it is always better to have an implicit faith if possible than trying to link science (which is ever changing) and creation with our limited wisdom. As Bible says, we’ll never able to find anything. The more we discuss about the creation and bring science into it, the more confuse we get and opens up doors for the evil one to put the seed of doubt. I remember reading in one of the revelations to a certain mystic… in which Jesus says… about the beauty of the prayers of our grand mothers, they didn’t had much education or knowledge, but still they had strong faith and they prayed always even during their daily home duties and sufferings.
Unfortunately, even after receiving many blessings from the Lord, we still want more proofs and answers.
Faith is the highest form of reasoning & intellectual pursuit according to Aquinas. I believe this to be true.
@@pdxnikki1 Faith is belief based on the absence of evidence.
@@troig43That's not the definition in no Christian dictionary ever.
Example. You are a journalist writing an article and then ask an expert a specific question. You would trust, or in other words have faith that the answer is legit, but that faith is ultimately not grounded on nothing, it's grounded _rationally._ Specifically, in the expert's degree or reputation.
A well educated Christian properly grounds their faith in reason, then leaves whatever cannot be easily understood to faith. A Christian doesn't know for certain why Jesus had to be incarnated at all, but has faith nevertheless when Christ explains the ultimate consequence (salvation of humanity). I have reason to trust Christ so I'll take him by his word.
If you have any further questions I'm here.
@@troig43Oh, for a reading/source on my position look up Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II. He warns that faith that's not grounded by rationality (i.e. Fideism) to be dangerous, and urges Christians into an education and, well, I'll leave you to find out his advice on your own. It's fascinating.
@@crusaderACR You have the burden of proof. So prove your god, or indeed the supernatural exists.
(hint: quoting bible verse is not proof)
Everyone! Take a look over at Reason & Theology for Jimmy's in depth analysis on the theological development of this issue! 👍🏼
This is a great summary! Just FYI, I think that Jimmy Akin misspoke a few times when he was summarizing the first theory that Adam and Eve were one literal couple. I think he meant to say that God gave two people, Adam and Eve, rational souls and therefore at that point they *became* behaviorally human, and therefore their descendants had advantages over the merely anatomically/biologically human communities... so the behaviorally & culturally human descendants with rational souls prevailed and thus caused the "great leap forward."
God bless you & yours! Viva Cristo Rey!
I thought that's what he said.
I agree with your paraphrasing. I was convinced by this perspective until speaking with a colleague who pointed out that the issue, then, would be that these superior “fully” human creatures were mating with sub-human animals, which is a type of bestiality. Also, scripture maintains that Eve comes from Adam (from where we get the idea of complementary). On this perspective, where does it posit Eve comes from…? A fascinating topic to contemplate…
Hi Matt I’m a recent de-convert from catholicism and a big reason for why I left the church was the obvious contradictions between evolution and Catholicism. I’ve searched CZcams and articles to try and find compatibility for the two and so far havent been able to find any. While your Video with Jimmy is the best by far that I’ve seen addressing the ideas of original sin and evolution I still have several questions 1.why were Adam and Eve given immortal souls while beings genetically the same as them roamed the earth and would continue to roam the earth for hundreds of generations, what made them less deserving of Gods love? 2. Jimmy asserts that we had a Great Leap Forward in society while this is true from a purely homosapien standpoint we have archeological evidence that Neanderthals made the first clothes, cultivated fire, and most importantly developed religious burial practices. All of this points to rational human beings that somehow didn’t have immortal souls. 3. If God revealed himself fully to Adam and Eve and they had free will, then they couldn’t have committed a grave and personal sin because if like catholic doctrine suggests when we go to heaven since god fully reveals himself to us then we will want to do nothing but praise him for eternity, so how could Adam and Eve commit this sin? 4. If the sin that we committed against god that damned humanity forever was god giving us the ability for us to question and rationalize then how can we as his created beings be held responsible for traits God willingly chose to give us. (I won’t address Adam and Eve being Metaphorical stories because of 404CCC and paragraph 37 of humani generis). Matt I would love to see real Evidence for God but going to a Catholic high school last year taught me what God teaches is in line with science and unfortunately when it comes to evolution this isn’t the case. I would sleep far better at night knowing there is a god who loves and cares for all of us and who dictates the rhyme and reason of our cold dark universe. so if there’s anything that I’m missing I’d love to know and I’m open to being wrong
Sorry the format of what I wrote is so bad, I don’t ever leave comments
@@c.s1126 , here are some responses to your queries:
Re (1): God didn't give Adam and Eve souls because they deserved it (as the last portion of your question suggests). If he wants to make fully metaphysical as the crown of his creation, men and women in the image of God, then that is his prerogative. Anyway, there's no incompatibility with that and evolution.
Re (2): "we have archeological evidence that Neanderthals made the first clothes, cultivated fire, and most importantly developed religious burial practices." - There's an authentic debate whether Neanderthals were part of the human race (or hominids that preexisted them). This too is no point of contention between evolution and Catholicism. Philosophically and theologically, we know that fully rational humans cannot arise from purely material processes, but precisely *when* they arose is a question for science. Dr. Dennis Bonnette argues for a very ancient Adam and Eve and Dr. William Lane Craig tends in this direction as well. Again no incompatibility here. For Bonnette's thoughts, see this: strangenotions.com/the-scientific-possibility-of-adam-and-eve/
Re (3): "If God revealed himself fully to Adam and Eve and they had free will, then they couldn’t have committed a grave and personal sin..." - This is not a contradiction, because no Catholic doctrine says Adam and Eve possessed the beatific vision. Rather, they were created with supernatural and preternatural gifts that gave room for freedom of choice for and against God. You are correct that once human beings departed behold the beatific vision, then they will no longer commit sins. Also, this shows no incompatibility between evolution and Catholicism.
Re (4): I don't think I've understood this question well. You say, "If the sin that we committed against god that damned humanity forever..." - But this is not part of Catholic doctrine. In particular, humanity is not damned forever because of what Christ has accomplished. The gift of redemption in Christ is open to all. As far as for *what constituted* Adam and Eve's sin, it's not what you suggest (i.e. "giving us the ability for us to question and rationalize").
Re: "....when it comes to evolution this isn’t the case..." - Nothing in your questions or comments shows that evolution is incompatible with Catholicism. This would certainly be news to Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, a biologist and researcher, who graduated from MIT. It also would be news to the over 500 Catholic scientists at the society of Catholic scientists, many of which hold to evolution. Check them out here: www.catholicscientists.org/
I hope you find these answers somewhat helpful. You sound like someone who wants to consider the issues seriously (and has) but was not given the best answers. If you have other worries with Catholicism, I totally get that. But I'd encourage you to reconsider the idea that evolution and Catholicism are incompatible. Some of the best Catholic minds today hold to evolution (though this is not obligatory according to the Church) and a genuine incompatibility has not been demonstrated.
I wish you the best in your journey for truth, goodness, and beauty. Pints with Aquinas is a great place to start.
@@c.s1126 , also, I wanted to add this very good discussion by Dr. William Lane Craig in his recent Defender's class: www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-man/doctrine-of-man-part-16/
Hi CS, did the replies on this help you? What's your position on the Catholic by faith now?
To answer the first question, using the framework of Jimmy's first answer, He chose in the same way He chose the Jews. The way for Jesus and God's love to come about with free will in effect was through a people. He chose His people.
Can anyone please help me with a question? Howcome the first human beings be around 2 million years old while Luke 3 states that there is only around 70 generations between Adam and Joseph? Im really struggling with this..
I was once a Christian because I was born a Christian, I can tell that you too are deeply indoctrinated by Christianity. Bible claims we are all sinner, we are accused of being a sinner since birth because of that magical fruit that adam/eve ate and pass down the curse to all humanity.
We are told that God is not guilty of the evil things and sufferings that is happening on earth. Bad things happen becuase of the disobedience of Adam & Eve resulting to the birth of the original sin and the fall of mankind."
Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is a Christian belief in a state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the magical fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Here I intend to demonstrate to you the absurdity at the very heart of your Christian faith. I entitled it:
"The Absurdity Of The Original Sin."
Even if you are a believer a person of faith, I encourage you to look upon the Genesis account not as you have always done through the filter of faith and doctrine, but with the detachment of one who seeks to gain nothing from the story; all you need are broad perspective, good reasoning skills, common sense, and knowledge of the facts. Read it as you would any other book, and judge it on its own merits.
Why did God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden? What purpose did it serve? Did God Himself need the knowledge of good and evil? Did He have to take a piece of the magical fruit now and again to refresh His memory? We can assume that He did not. Did any of the animals of the Garden need the Tree? We can assume not.
What kind of tree was this? How could a tree, an organism of wood and sap, contain the knowledge of good and evil? What capacity did it have for storing such knowledge, and how was that knowledge passed on to all human generations by simply eating and digesting it? Allow yourself to think about that using your common sense...
Why, therefore, among all the useful trees in the Garden of Eden, did God deliberately include this tree, the tree that carries the warning:
"in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"?
Did He put it in the Garden as a temptation to tempt Adam and Eve?
We can assume that cannot be the case because God does not tempt right? Therefore, we have the magical tree that we cannot comprehend, whose fruit is so sinful to consume that it would result in the immediate and eternal damnation of humankind, placed in a location so precarious as to make that outcome an inevitability, all apparently for no purpose whatever.
Imagine a caring, loving parent leaving a fully loaded pistol in the playroom of his own five year old child, despite of giving him warnings not to play with that pistol, knowing full well what the result will be, then leaving him all alone watching from the cctv as the child blows his brains out.
Was God watching Eve when she tries to reach and eat that magical fruit? Of course He did! We are told by the bible that God is everywhere and knows all things from the Beginning unto the end.
Did He not know that Eve would also give it to Adam? Of course God knew it. Was God aware that it would result to the birth of EVIL AND SUFFERINGS, DISEASE, DISASTERS AND TOTAL DESTRUCTIONS? Of course He did.
All Christians try to justify this by saying "GOD GAVE US FREE WILL SO GOD LET IT HAPPEN" wtf? Is your God st*pd that He is more concerned by the free will of Adam and Eve than the eternal damnation of the entire human race?
And what about the serpent? Did He not know that the serpent would tempt Eve? He did. Therefore, did Eve have any free will in the matter? Could she have acted in a manner other than God had foreseen for her? Of course not! How could she?
How was the serpent able to speak? Did it give itself this remarkable ability? How does the mouth of a snake, with no lips or proper teeth, and no articulate tongue, form human words? How did the tiny brain of a snake become wise and subtle? Who made it so? Who was responsible for putting the principle actors-- Adam, Eve, the serpent and the Tree-- all together in the Garden of Eden? God, of course. The inescapable conclusion? That He put all the pieces on the game board, and enacted His own little drama, resulting in the deliberate, eternal damnation of Humankind.
God could have easily prevent all these things from happening but he did not.
In the words of Ingersoll:
"Could a devil have done worse?"
But here is another problem. We are told in Genesis 3:14 that after the speaking serpent had completed the mission for which he had been placed into the Garden of Eden, that of tempting Eve, God cursed the serpent: "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." (Does the devil have a finite life?) So somewhere out in the world, the Christian must believe, is a 6000 year old talking snake that eats dust! And they say that we're the irrational ones.
If Satan was cursed to spend the rest of his existence as a serpent, then how does he reappear later in the New Testament, and take Christ up to the top of the mountain to tempt him? How can this be? Did he release himself from the curse, or did God do it? What about the devil's activities in the Book of Revelation? If he is slithering around as a serpent, what is the great danger? Why doesn't someone simply step on him or cut his head off with a shovel?
We are told that at their creation, Adam and Eve, like small children, did not posses the knowledge of good and evil, of right from wrong. I wonder why God wanted to withhold this from them...
Should Adam and Eve therefore be held responsible for committing an action prior to them having the Knowledge of Good and Evil? I would not think so. They disobeyed an instruction before they knew it was wrong to disobey.
Was this the Ultimate Sin, for which every human being ever born was to pay with their eternal soul? Was that the worse thing that Adam and Eve could have done? They could have beaten and slaughtered each other, and destroyed their paradise. But they did not do anything so cruel or barbaric. They ate a piece of fruit, contrary to the will of an arbitrary god. People disobey God's commands millions of times every day all over the earth-- from lying and stealing to murder and worshipping other gods... why then was Adam and Eve's simple disobedience to carry such a heavy price?
Would you condemn them to eternal torture, infinite revenge, never ending intense pain with no chance of pardon, for taking a cookie out of the cookie jar before dinner, after you had told them not to?
And would you condemn your children's children, and all generations that will come after? What sort of justice is this? No natural person can condone this. All that the Christians can say is that
"We cannot understand God's method of justice."
That is all they can say.
Why should I be held responsible for Eve's decision to eat the fruit? Why should you? If your distant ancestor, four hundred years ago, killed a man in an act of cruel and pointless savagery, should you be handed a life sentence in prison for it? God Himself states in the bible,
(Deuteronomy 5: 9)
"I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
Now that's a pure b*llsh*t isn't it, we are to be born sinners because of our fathers simple disobedience, and the worst thing is that Christianity calls it "God's perfect justice."
And God's plan to save us from his own cursed, is that we now need a Savior.
Therefore Christians tells us that without Christ Jesus our Savior, all of us are doomed without hope. They try to convince us of the dilemma they have created for us, then try to convince us that they alone have the remedy.
"Christianity cuts you and then tries to sell you a Band-Aid."
Brainwashed as a child, made us believe that we are born sinners destined in hell and that we badly needed a Savior.
Because of the Fall of Man, we are told that it is not enough that we are good and caring people, not enough that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, not enough that we forgive those who trespass against us.
We must be baptized-- have our heads wet-- a meaningless gesture, and proclaim that we accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior.
We must believe the unbelievable. A Hindu, who happens to be more charitable and humane than the best Christian, is nonetheless consigned to eternal damnation, just as the kind and gentle native people of some tropical island who never heard of Jesus and his cross.
If, as the Christian doctrine teaches, the only way to salvation is through Christ, what became of all the souls of the people who died before Jesus' appearance on earth?
It is clear that Christianity is a gilded mansion built upon a foundation of sand. It's basis is not only unexplainable, but illogical and immoral as well. But, as people so often say when they are faced with such illogical, immoral conundrums that they can't talk their way out of, "God works in mysterious ways."
We are told that we must swallow this story, hook, line and sinker. We are told that God gave us the freewill to believe it or not believe it-- but this gift comes with a deadly threat. Believe it-- or be eternally damned. What kind of choice is that? Some people may be convinced that the threat is a very real one, and so they will believe any story that their preachers tell them. Under these conditions, some people can be made to believe anything at all.
Salvation is not awarded by doing good deeds, we are told by the church, but through belief alone. God can forgive all things, it is said, except disbelief.
He will pardon the murderer of children, rapists or serial killers if they begs for forgiveness, and accepts Jesus Christ as his savior. But He will not pardon the person who uses reason and honesty, and who finally decides: "I had enough, I just can't believe it."
I am told that it doesn't matter how good of a person I am during my life, because at the end of it, I will be asked: "Did you believe the one about the Garden of Eden?" I'll have to be honest and say, "No, I didn't. It was just too far-fetched. Sorry."
For me, I cannot swallow it, no matter how much I am threatened. I can't help it. It has to make sense to me... that's the way my brain works. If there is a god floating somewhere up in the vacuum of space, then he's sure to understand that.
The answer is that human beings DIDN'T come around 2 million years ago. I suggest you actually look at creationist claims instead of dismissing them because they don't match up with "muh science".
Hugh Owen, Kolbe Center is your man for these things! God bless!
@@irishnich4456an over literal reading. Genesis is not a history book nor a science book. You wouldn’t read a poem that way.
This is extremely interesting. I've never heard such a well explained argument that meshes with our historical knowledge. Thanks for the presentation of the arguments.
But if Adam and Eve were just symbols, who is Cain? Indeed, Jesus lineage according to Luke would be invalid, wouldn't it?
No Mythology is very powerful in the human psyche
Mary stated: "I am THE Immaculate Conception." I don't remember the Church celebrating "The Feast of the THIRD Immaculate Conception" or of "One of MANY Immaculate Conceptions" as Akin proposes could be plausible. Why deny the words of Christ himself when he stated "But from the BEGINNING of Creation, God CREATED them Male and Female" Mark 10:6. ? If Jesus preached about the LITERAL creation of man at the beginning, why do modernists today believe otherwise? Come on Matt. Don't give in to this Modernist garbage.
Good points. The only reason Mary is "the" immaculate conception, is that it isn't even a remote impossibility for the Word to be even considered for inheriting original sin (sin is imputed to persons, and the person of Jesus is God Almighty). And of course, neither Adam nor Eve were conceived. Making Mary the immaculate conception - the only of her kind.
Thank you.
Interesting discussion. I’m personally still team monogenism. The clip really benefits from the context of the full episode. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide the Church so that the fullness of Revealed Truth can be proclaimed, and may He bless our scientists so that they may find the truths of the created world.
czcams.com/video/q86NfL_-GpU/video.html
Interestingly, the Adam and Eve story disproves the idea that God is all seeing. For instance, when God created Adam he clearly had no idea that Adam would be lonely and in need of a companion. This disproves the accepted belief that God can see into the future, and that fact would explain a lot.
Why do you think so?
@@SantiagosVideoChannel Well, God was surprised that Adam was lonely and in need of a companion. Now, surely, an all-seeing God couldn't be surprised by anything.
@@musik102 What verse are you referencing?
@@SantiagosVideoChannel The verse where God makes a companion for Adam from his rib.
@@musik102 Please specify it exactly.
So interesting, thank you so much! Very helpful
It's no difficult to get you interested
Sorry Polygenism is specifically condemned by the church and is not possible to be reconciled. So option number 2 is specifically out of bounds. see below magisterial document:
Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
- Pius XII, Humani generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1-4
Saint Adam the Forefather is our ancestor. We all descend from him.
Bro, I like your new beard, you look like a charismatic swashbuckler.
Metaphysics of evolution by Fr Chad Rippiger, on you tube, worth the watch 😄
No, it’s ridiculous. He has no grasp of what biologists and anthropologists mean by evolution at all. No one in the scientific community has ever claimed the existence of “macro evolution” in the way that he seems to understand. Aside from that, it’s based on inherently flawed platonic principles.
@@nickkraw1 Lamarcke was right
The Catholic Church has a feast day for Saint Adam and Saint Eve real people !
The Church Fathers speak about the gifts that Adam and Eve had as a result of being made in the image and likeness of God, they had Original Integrity, Original Innocents, They walked at talked with God. They were real people, and Adam was created from dust, or from the dirt of the earth, and Eve was made from the side of Christ.. Otherwise Christ "the New Adam" and the "bridegroom" would not have been able to "create" his bride "the Church" from his side on the cross. And, God is truth, he cannot lie, and so the book of Genius is not simply a "theological truth" but an actual truth as well. If, as you suggest, they are not "real people" then you can though out the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. Fr. Ripperger talks about the sins committed by Eve (7), and by Adam (8), and talks about the life they experienced "in the garden", and what we lost as a result of their sin. AND yes, in fact, if they had not sinned, we would have the same gifts today! I was raised in the evolutionary BS all my life, and I have a University Education (Engineering), and listening to good sound traditional teaching has caused me to reject the modern evolutional theory as BS. Even Richard Dawkins rejects evolution, and actually subscribes to the theory that Humans were seeded on earth by Aliens.
The praying class has quite a job shoehorning ancient religious folklore into new scientific discoveries ..good luck ..but is anyone buying ?
Adam and Eve were Literary Devices: 10 Things to Know and Share
So let’s teach our children all about the first incest and claim it’s gods will
There are probably more than two ways. The first way was very interesting.
But what about after the flood?
There were no 2 first humans. Evolution is such a slow process it's impossible to say that one generation was ape and then suddenly the next was human. That's like saying your parents are a different species from you. You might have a genetic mutation that makes you ever so slightly different from your parents but your still the same species.
2:02 well that's hermanology isn't an omen when considering a modern day at all
No offense, but this guy sounds like a typical babbling college professor.
Oh trust me, he is not. He's a very knowledgeable Catholic intellectual and author. Check out his podcast "Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World" and you'll see this.
@Excuse me, but Re: "trying to reconcile what is irreconcilable." -- which is...?
@@JohnDeRosa1990 He is, but when someone like him is wrong, he is monumentally wrong. Once again as the bible says, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men: and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Jimmy Akin is a fool to promote these ideas about the origins of Adam and Eve. There was simply NO NEED to complicate the book of Genesis the way he did.
@Excuse me, but , you have stated that they are "irreconcilable" and "result in absurdities" but you have not explained how this is the case. I'm curious what precisely you find to be incompatible.
Mind BLOWN!
Was those guns that Eve has in the picture real tho!?!? 💪
By one man we all inherit sin. St. Pius XII said, in considering the question of evolution as an original explanation, this evolutionary hypothesis is incompatible with divine revelation.
Christ is a descendant of Adam, the first man - Luke calls him, "the son of God" for that reason, so as to be a type of Christ - directly created, rather than born - a type of eternal generation in contradistinction to creation.
Christ and Mary being the new Adam and the new Eve is rendered meaningless unless there were a real Adam and Eve.
Also, there is the Feast of Sts. Adam and Eve. Umm, case closed.
@CALEB ALVAREZ bruh, adam and eve aint real but evolution is
@CALEB ALVAREZ lol
I don't agree with Jimmy's theories. Why try to find a rational explanation to Genesis. I believe in God's word about creation and its transcendental theological meaning. I do believe that Adam and Eve existed, as the Bible and the church refer to them many times
blew my mind
I was baptised and confirmed into the Roman Catholic church before the reforms of "Vatican 2" . Every sunday I recite the Credo which I was taught as the basic tenets of my Catholic faith, recited in Orthodox Eastern and Western Christian churches every sunday since the council of Constantinople in 377. This I must hold as the foundation of my faith. All the rest is add on and not necessarily required. If you can manage in simple humility to cling to this basic "Credo" and that can be difficult in the face of doubt, from within and without, which is only human. Then you understand your need for God as the only source of Faith. The literality of the old testament is not in the "Credo" It's literality is irrelevant to my faith. If you want to believe it is literal. Go ahead . You might want to argue as to how many angles can you get on the head of a pin. Seems to me that's what your doing . I would sooner take the time to meditate in the mysteries of the Rosary.
Pax Vobiscium.
I see the book "Dune" on the bookcase.
It's an excellent novel.
defintion of modenism
Christ sacrifice on the cross had repercussions throughout all the cosmos, even backwards in time. Wouldn't the same apply to original sin? The question I'm rising is maybe less about human lineage but more about cosmical evil. But it might also help us rethink different questions surrounding the original couple. Can they be parents of the whole humanity without being biological parents for example?
I was once a Christian because I was born a Christian, and most people here too are deeply indoctrinated by Christianity. Bible claims we are all sinner, we are accused of being a sinner since birth because of that magical fruit that adam/eve ate and pass down the curse to all humanity.
We are told that God is not guilty of the evil things and sufferings that is happening on earth. Bad things happen becuase of the disobedience of Adam & Eve resulting to the birth of the original sin and the fall of mankind."
Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is a Christian belief in a state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the magical fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Here I intend to demonstrate to you the absurdity at the very heart of your Christian faith. I entitled it:
"The Absurdity Of The Original Sin."
Even if you are a believer a person of faith, I encourage you to look upon the Genesis account not as you have always done through the filter of faith and doctrine, but with the detachment of one who seeks to gain nothing from the story; all you need are broad perspective, good reasoning skills, common sense, and knowledge of the facts. Read it as you would any other book, and judge it on its own merits.
Why did God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden? What purpose did it serve? Did God Himself need the knowledge of good and evil? Did He have to take a piece of the magical fruit now and again to refresh His memory? We can assume that He did not. Did any of the animals of the Garden need the Tree? We can assume not.
What kind of tree was this? How could a tree, an organism of wood and sap, contain the knowledge of good and evil? What capacity did it have for storing such knowledge, and how was that knowledge passed on to all human generations by simply eating and digesting it? Allow yourself to think about that using your common sense...
Why, therefore, among all the useful trees in the Garden of Eden, did God deliberately include this tree, the tree that carries the warning:
"in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"?
Did He put it in the Garden as a temptation to tempt Adam and Eve?
We can assume that cannot be the case because God does not tempt right? Therefore, we have the magical tree that we cannot comprehend, whose fruit is so sinful to consume that it would result in the immediate and eternal damnation of humankind, placed in a location so precarious as to make that outcome an inevitability, all apparently for no purpose whatever.
Imagine a caring, loving parent leaving a fully loaded pistol in the playroom of his own five year old child, despite of giving him warnings not to play with that pistol, knowing full well what the result will be, then leaving him all alone watching from the cctv as the child blows his brains out.
Was God watching Eve when she tries to reach and eat that magical fruit? Of course He did! We are told by the bible that God is everywhere and knows all things from the Beginning unto the end.
Did He not know that Eve would also give it to Adam? Of course God knew it. Was God aware that it would result to the birth of EVIL AND SUFFERINGS, DISEASE, DISASTERS AND TOTAL DESTRUCTIONS? Of course He did.
All Christians try to justify this by saying "GOD GAVE US FREE WILL SO GOD LET IT HAPPEN" wtf? Is your God st*pd that He is more concerned by the free will of Adam and Eve than the eternal damnation of the entire human race?
And what about the serpent? Did He not know that the serpent would tempt Eve? He did. Therefore, did Eve have any free will in the matter? Could she have acted in a manner other than God had foreseen for her? Of course not! How could she?
How was the serpent able to speak? Did it give itself this remarkable ability? How does the mouth of a snake, with no lips or proper teeth, and no articulate tongue, form human words? How did the tiny brain of a snake become wise and subtle? Who made it so? Who was responsible for putting the principle actors-- Adam, Eve, the serpent and the Tree-- all together in the Garden of Eden? God, of course. The inescapable conclusion? That He put all the pieces on the game board, and enacted His own little drama, resulting in the deliberate, eternal damnation of Humankind.
God could have easily prevent all these things from happening but he did not.
In the words of Ingersoll:
"Could a devil have done worse?"
But here is another problem. We are told in Genesis 3:14 that after the speaking serpent had completed the mission for which he had been placed into the Garden of Eden, that of tempting Eve, God cursed the serpent: "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." (Does the devil have a finite life?) So somewhere out in the world, the Christian must believe, is a 6000 year old talking snake that eats dust! And they say that we're the irrational ones.
If Satan was cursed to spend the rest of his existence as a serpent, then how does he reappear later in the New Testament, and take Christ up to the top of the mountain to tempt him? How can this be? Did he release himself from the curse, or did God do it? What about the devil's activities in the Book of Revelation? If he is slithering around as a serpent, what is the great danger? Why doesn't someone simply step on him or cut his head off with a shovel?
We are told that at their creation, Adam and Eve, like small children, did not posses the knowledge of good and evil, of right from wrong. I wonder why God wanted to withhold this from them...
Should Adam and Eve therefore be held responsible for committing an action prior to them having the Knowledge of Good and Evil? I would not think so. They disobeyed an instruction before they knew it was wrong to disobey.
Was this the Ultimate Sin, for which every human being ever born was to pay with their eternal soul? Was that the worse thing that Adam and Eve could have done? They could have beaten and slaughtered each other, and destroyed their paradise. But they did not do anything so cruel or barbaric. They ate a piece of fruit, contrary to the will of an arbitrary god. People disobey God's commands millions of times every day all over the earth-- from lying and stealing to murder and worshipping other gods... why then was Adam and Eve's simple disobedience to carry such a heavy price?
Would you condemn them to eternal torture, infinite revenge, never ending intense pain with no chance of pardon, for taking a cookie out of the cookie jar before dinner, after you had told them not to?
And would you condemn your children's children, and all generations that will come after? What sort of justice is this? No natural person can condone this. All that the Christians can say is that
"We cannot understand God's method of justice."
That is all they can say.
Why should I be held responsible for Eve's decision to eat the fruit? Why should you? If your distant ancestor, four hundred years ago, killed a man in an act of cruel and pointless savagery, should you be handed a life sentence in prison for it? God Himself states in the bible,
(Deuteronomy 5: 9)
"I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
Now that's a pure b*llsh*t isn't it, we are to be born sinners because of our fathers simple disobedience, and the worst thing is that Christianity calls it "God's perfect justice."
And God's plan to save us from his own cursed, is that we now need a Savior.
Therefore Christians tells us that without Christ Jesus our Savior, all of us are doomed without hope. They try to convince us of the dilemma they have created for us, then try to convince us that they alone have the remedy.
"Christianity cuts you and then tries to sell you a Band-Aid."
Brainwashed as a child, made us believe that we are born sinners destined in hell and that we badly needed a Savior.
Because of the Fall of Man, we are told that it is not enough that we are good and caring people, not enough that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, not enough that we forgive those who trespass against us.
We must be baptized-- have our heads wet-- a meaningless gesture, and proclaim that we accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior.
We must believe the unbelievable. A Hindu, who happens to be more charitable and humane than the best Christian, is nonetheless consigned to eternal damnation, just as the kind and gentle native people of some tropical island who never heard of Jesus and his cross.
If, as the Christian doctrine teaches, the only way to salvation is through Christ, what became of all the souls of the people who died before Jesus' appearance on earth?
It is clear that Christianity is a gilded mansion built upon a foundation of sand. It's basis is not only unexplainable, but illogical and immoral as well. But, as people so often say when they are faced with such illogical, immoral conundrums that they can't talk their way out of, "God works in mysterious ways."
We are told that we must swallow this story, hook, line and sinker. We are told that God gave us the freewill to believe it or not believe it-- but this gift comes with a deadly threat. Believe it-- or be eternally damned. What kind of choice is that? Some people may be convinced that the threat is a very real one, and so they will believe any story that their preachers tell them. Under these conditions, some people can be made to believe anything at all.
Salvation is not awarded by doing good deeds, we are told by the church, but through belief alone. God can forgive all things, it is said, except disbelief.
He will pardon the murderer of children, rapists or serial killers if they begs for forgiveness, and accepts Jesus Christ as his savior. But He will not pardon the person who uses reason and honesty, and who finally decides: "I had enough, I just can't believe it."
I am told that it doesn't matter how good of a person I am during my life, because at the end of it, I will be asked: "Did you believe the one about the Garden of Eden?" I'll have to be honest and say, "No, I didn't. It was just too far-fetched. Sorry."
For me, I cannot swallow it, no matter how much I am threatened. I can't help it. It has to make sense to me... that's the way my brain works. If there is a god floating somewhere up in the vacuum of space, then he's sure to understand that.
@@irishnich4456I'm reading your comment one year later. I'm a former atheist, and I asked myself all these questions. I don't have all the answers, but I do have enough to have faith. Those things that bothered you about religion, I totally get them. Most Catholics nowadays don't seem well informed about their faith and so they can't answer these issues.
So this is how it worked out for me even without all the answers. I was baptized as a child but never practiced the faith. Now as an adult I found God on my own, the God of the Catholic Church. In my experience, God not only approves of people needing answers, asking questions and using logic. Because, He seems to be pleased that His creation use their brain. At the same time, in my experience, He is pleased when His creation accepts the truth that we can't reach all the answers only with logics. In a way, we don't make logic our deity. It's in that sweet spot between a person that's courageous enough to question things and humble enough to know logic is not everything, that He says "here I am, I exist". So, again, in my experience, we don't follow something blindly like fanatics but we are grounded enough to remain humble about the limits of logic and we are eager for the truth, He shows up. At least, that's what He did in my life. That's why I don't have all the answers. Because even after finding him, I'm still tempted to make a god out of my logic.
@@irishnich4456sorry if I have typos, my phone doesn't let me see what I'm writing. The reason he doesn't give all and every little answer is because in our daily lives, if we have found Jesus, then there's plenty to do in our lives. God in a sense, is practical and also trains you to develop spiritual virtues, faith is one of those virtues and a way to train that virtue you have to go through moments without having any answer. After finding God, I noticed that ifeI was nonsensical about needing everything my way, then I would get nowhere. However, if I would trust God, He would even give me lots and lots of answers. Yet after finding them, you realize that nothing changes if you have that piece of information or not. Life is still the same and having God in your life is essential but you can't be close to him using logic and information. So then, those answers become less valuable and you become more practical, you study the faith, apply yourself in different ways and make progress on things that actually matter. Every once in a while you get a new logical answer for something that you wondered for years, but by that point it's like nothing but a cool fact or even meaningless. So at the end of the day you continue to chase Godly things and God Himself and logic is just an aspect of life that doesn't call all the shots because it can't solve all the problems. I hope my answer helped you or at least that it was clear enough. It's however a sign of healthy faith to not act like a fanatic and question some things, because it requires courage to not follow the herd. In the book of Job in the Bible, God is angry at Job's friends who acted like fanatics and He says that Job is more pleasing to Him, because in his limited understand, Job at least wasn't trying to act like a phony.
@@Elven. Sorry, the Bible has too much error, not logical, a lot of mythological stories and is very wrong on how they view cosmology. The Bible clearly teaches flat earth not doubt about it.
Did the tree of knowledge of good and evil really exist? If so why did God command Adam & Eve to remain ignorant? And since they were still ignorant of good & evil when they ate the forbidden fruit how could they be guilty of sin? And if they were guilty of sin why were their descendants punished? And if Jesus' sacrifice on Calvary atoned for original sin why are we not restored to Eden?
lol
On the television program, “Who wants to be a Millionaire, the following question was asked. Presented in an 1857 treatise, the Omphalos Hypothesis is an attempt to solve what famous theological quandary about Adam? And the answer was … Did he have a belly button?
Most likely there were more than 2 people that were created in the beginning.
Wow, the spin and hypothetical gymnastics this bloke comes up with is stunning, how about the physically adam/eve are pure myth and the other explanation boarders on ridiculous
I wonder if this preacher would stand a discussion about this with the Apostles or Jesus himself... - I doubt believe the Apostolic fathers would agree with this explanation-
God chose the words in Genesis knowing that we would be asking these questions. I think God chose His words very carefully and meant every one of them. Have you heard of foundations restored? I can't remember who started it but it's a young earth creationist website. Would be awesome if you interviewed the guy who started it. Cheers
And yet, in Genesis, God separates night from day before creating the sun and moon. Scripture may be inspired by God, but it wasn’t literally written by Him word for word. Human hands wrote the actual words.
Your friend Cameron on capturing Christianity helps with this in a video with Swamidass and WLC. czcams.com/video/XhznTACRjSU/video.html
You gotta stop interviewing this guy or asking him to explain traditional teachings. For everything you ask him he has something contrary to what has been taught since the early church and even in Judaism.
Pope pelagius the first, encyclical "vast electionis" : "along with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, one from the earth, the other however from the rib of man"
It's an error to say that adam and eve were born of parents and not directly created by God. As we see in the genealogy of Christ in the gospel of st Luke. Our lord was "the son of Adam, the son of God" not the son of some sub human primate, or the son of some single celled organism that supposedly contained the potentiality of all life, including bananas and the blessed Virgin...
just pitiful listening to these explanations..like getting caught in the fridge again when you have just started a new diet...desperately trying to find an explanation...amen
I think Inspiringphilosophy's view is much much better
Adam and Eve were real individuals. Original sin came through Adam.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
What a joke
I hold to the idea that Adam and Eve were real and literal people within a literal place on earth but that other humans existed in some form outside of that. The first theory seems to be the strongest in this regard. Perhaps this is mentioned in the full episodes but for me the consolidating factor is that nowhere in Genesis does it state that Eden was harmonious before the fall and that Adam was created immortal. In fact it seems to imply the opposite. The word for dominion meaning something akin to military conquest, and the presence of the tree of life. No, I think it makes far more sense that God create us to tame the wilderness of the garden and bear His image by bringing order to the chaos. His plan was that we would live in the garden in everlasting life by the tree of life. However when we turned away from Him, He denied us the tree and with it the promise of everlasting life because He couldn’t allow us to live for eternity in a state of imperfection. Therefore, death existed before the fall but human death is still a consequence of original sin. I think this is actually better than the creationist version because this way, Christ can be seen as the new tree of life.
God created a world of pain, death and diseases before the original sin and called it very good? Total nonsense.
William McGuire
1 hour ago
@Qwerty respectfully I disagree Qwerty, Pope Pius does in fact state in the first sentence quite strongly that monogenism is the Church's stance. I quote
" The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the FIRST PARENT OF ALL"
"After" Adam all TRUE MEN took there origin through natural generation FROM HIM ( i.e Adam) which is monogenism in my book....which is defined as being " a single origin of humanity"
Before Adam there is definite evidence for the existence of several species very similar to ourselves, this is scientific fact.
However after Adam, the Church through Pope Pius states " the faithful CANNOT embrace that opinion that AFTER ADAM ....the Church is very specific here....after Adam all TRUE MEN take there origin through natural generation from Adam and he is in fact the first parent of ALL!!!
After Adam we are all infused with a soul in the image of God , we are a composite of both body and soul and we now have a Heaven to aim at getting to, through grace and the mercy of God!!!
Adam was created in the image and likeness of God and after the fall all his progeny i.e us..... are created in the image of God, as the Catechism tells us....
also Genesis 1 vs 27
"So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."
God created Adam and Eve in His own image and likeness .....
“Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Gen 1 vs 26)
There may indeed have been species on this earth very similar to ourselves in appearance, however Sacred Scripture , the Catechism and the Teaching Authority of the Church are abundantly clear; there was a definite moment in time, 6000 years ago when God Himself created man and that man was ADAM!!!!!!
" monogenism, " posits a single origin of humanity. There is one according to the Bible and the Church and that origin is when God Himself created Adam in His image and likeness........no other creature no matter how similar in appearance to ourselves, was made in the image and likeness of God, only Adam was.............
Adam is the single origin of humanity, our origin as stated by the Church through
" natural generation, " we are ALL descended from Adam and no one else......
I believe this to be the truth, I believe in everything the Church teaches and Humani Generis explicates Scripture for us , the Holy Spirit speaking through the words of Pope Pius, and I believe in them 100%!!!!!
Sorry for the long reply bud, but this posting from Matt about " Were Adam and Eve real " has really got me going because today in the Church even, there is a pervasive teaching that they are only allegorical figures, when the Church teaches the exact opposite is true......
God bless you and your own, now and forevermore!!!!
I don't think they're real. I don't like this jimmy guy either, he looks like a Southern protestant
serape in the back
What if (just consider it for a moment in light of the overwhelming evidence), Pope Pius XII was (get ready for it…) wrong?
Sadly has been influenced by atheist evolutionary biology.
Or.. Instead of bending oneself into knots to explain the modernist nonsense of evolution one could accept the Word of GOD as divine revelation.
The scriptures are the word of God and are divinely revealed - but not all is of the same genre or deviod of the authors interpretations and historical context. If you were to read every verse in a literal non contextual sense, you'd see the contradictions that atheists keep bringing up and you'll end up having to reject scientific evidence. What this video is trying to do is to marry scientific evidence with theological truth. We as Christians need to be smarter in understanding scripture and not just in reading it. The bible is a Library, and just like a library it has many different types of writing, all with differentmeans of conveying truths.
Me personally, i don't see why people blindly accept single celled evolution- it seems to be a plausible theory, but nothing more- everyone nowadays takes it as fact. I accept natural selection and speciation, but single celled evolution is a leap for being a solid scientific theory in my eyes. This also seems to be the belief of a convert to Christianity who was an evolutionary biologist.
Evolution is a joke. The devil is laughing at Akin trying to explain this nonsense.
What was Adam and Eve job? To name the animals and take care of the animals. Why didnt God want them to eat from the tree of knowledge? Because he had a purpose for them and if they are that fruit they would become self aware. What was the fruit? It was a fruit that is similar to mushrooms that take your soul on a trip beyond the realm you were in. Why did God throw Adam and Eve out of the Garden? He didnt they left cause they did not want to be the shepherds of animals. They became self important and went out to explore earth. How do I know this? The bible tells us who God really cares about. After mankind grew they took many areas from the animals and they were sacrificing those animals to a fake God. He got Noel to build an Ark for the ANIMALS so Noel and his family can start his plan over again and be shepherds of the animals. What does that means for humans? We were given eternal life. That means the soul or spirit that is the body we are in today was in another body 200 years ago. The soul live forever the flesh dont. The body is just a tool for us to create more shepherds as our bodies reach its end. The time has come where God shall once again destroy mankind cause we have completely destroyed the heaven he gave us and animals. We wanted so bad to be the chosen but the animals were his chosen and we were just babysitters.
They are real!!!! It is the only way.
no it aint, but evolution is
How ridiculous, this is delusional, take about desperation to make the bible have some relevance. The bible doesn't even get the shape of the earth correct.
The Bible doesn't mention the shape of the earth.
That is your interpretation.
When does the Bible speak about earth's shape exactly ? Oh that's right it doesn't.
🤯
Jimmy akin is not catholic
What BS!
i understand why the pews are so empty these day in modern societies..amen
The myth of Adam and Lilith in Jewish theology, predated the myth of Adam and Eve in Christian theology. And by the way, had Jesus actually been a real person, he would have preached only Judaism, not Catholicism, or Protestantism.
My goodness, you are so clueless. The story of Lilith as Adam's wife comes from the Alphabet of Ben Sira, which is an early medieval SATIRICAL work. This is not "Jewish theology", its satire based on a figure from Jewish folklore. Obviously you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. And I'll just pretend I didn't see the rest of your comment so that I save myself a few more braincells.
Stop wathcing tik-tok please
@@balkananimations6389 lol
It’s painful watching intelligent people try to harmonize ancient legends with modern science.
Can't you bend almost any story to metaphorically fit with science?
Isn't it more than likely just a story earlier humans constructed to explain human origins before science figured it out?
I feel like if it wasn't such a linchpin for Christianity the idea would have been abandoned years ago.
I was once a Christian because I was born a Christian, I can tell that most people in here too are deeply indoctrinated by Christianity. Bible claims we are all sinner, we are accused of being a sinner since birth because of that magical fruit that adam/eve ate and pass down the curse to all humanity.
We are told that God is not guilty of the evil things and sufferings that is happening on earth. Bad things happen becuase of the disobedience of Adam & Eve resulting to the birth of the original sin and the fall of mankind."
Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is a Christian belief in a state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the magical fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Here I intend to demonstrate to you the absurdity at the very heart of your Christian faith. I called it:
"The Absurdity Of The Original Sin."
Even if you are a believer a person of faith, I encourage you to look upon the Genesis account not as you have always done through the filter of faith and doctrine, but with the detachment of one who seeks to gain nothing from the story; all you need are broad perspective, good reasoning skills, common sense, and knowledge of the facts. Read it as you would any other book, and judge it on its own merits.
Why did God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden? What purpose did it serve? Did God Himself need the knowledge of good and evil? Did He have to take a piece of the magical fruit now and again to refresh His memory? We can assume that He did not. Did any of the animals of the Garden need the Tree? We can assume not.
What kind of tree was this? How could a tree, an organism of wood and sap, contain the knowledge of good and evil? What capacity did it have for storing such knowledge, and how was that knowledge passed on to all human generations by simply eating and digesting it? Allow yourself to think about that using your common sense...
Why, therefore, among all the useful trees in the Garden of Eden, did God deliberately include this tree, the tree that carries the warning:
"in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"?
Did He put it in the Garden as a temptation to tempt Adam and Eve?
We can assume that cannot be the case because God does not tempt right? Therefore, we have the magical tree that we cannot comprehend, whose fruit is so sinful to consume that it would result in the immediate and eternal damnation of humankind, placed in a location so precarious as to make that outcome an inevitability, all apparently for no purpose whatever.
Imagine a caring, loving parent leaving a fully loaded pistol in the playroom of his own five year old child, despite of giving him warnings not to play with that pistol, knowing full well what the result will be, then leaving him all alone watching from the cctv as the child blows his brains out.
Was God watching Eve when she tries to reach and eat that magical fruit? Of course He did! We are told by the bible that God is everywhere and knows all things from the Beginning unto the end.
Did He not know that Eve would also give it to Adam? Of course God knew it. Was God aware that it would result to the birth of EVIL AND SUFFERINGS, DISEASE, DISASTERS AND TOTAL DESTRUCTIONS? Of course He did.
All Christians try to justify this by saying "GOD GAVE US FREE WILL SO GOD LET IT HAPPEN" wtf? Is your God st*pd that He is more concerned by the free will of Adam and Eve than the eternal damnation of the entire human race?
And what about the serpent? Did He not know that the serpent would tempt Eve? He did. Therefore, did Eve have any free will in the matter? Could she have acted in a manner other than God had foreseen for her? Of course not! How could she?
How was the serpent able to speak? Did it give itself this remarkable ability? How does the mouth of a snake, with no lips or proper teeth, and no articulate tongue, form human words? How did the tiny brain of a snake become wise and subtle? Who made it so? Who was responsible for putting the principle actors-- Adam, Eve, the serpent and the Tree-- all together in the Garden of Eden? God, of course. The inescapable conclusion? That He put all the pieces on the game board, and enacted His own little drama, resulting in the deliberate, eternal damnation of Humankind.
God could have easily prevent all these things from happening but he did not.
In the words of Ingersoll:
"Could a devil have done worse?"
But here is another problem. We are told in Genesis 3:14 that after the speaking serpent had completed the mission for which he had been placed into the Garden of Eden, that of tempting Eve, God cursed the serpent: "upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." (Does the devil have a finite life?) So somewhere out in the world, the Christian must believe, is a 6000 year old talking snake that eats dust! And they say that we're the irrational ones.
If Satan was cursed to spend the rest of his existence as a serpent, then how does he reappear later in the New Testament, and take Christ up to the top of the mountain to tempt him? How can this be? Did he release himself from the curse, or did God do it? What about the devil's activities in the Book of Revelation? If he is slithering around as a serpent, what is the great danger? Why doesn't someone simply step on him or cut his head off with a shovel?
We are told that at their creation, Adam and Eve, like small children, did not posses the knowledge of good and evil, of right from wrong. I wonder why God wanted to withhold this from them...
Should Adam and Eve therefore be held responsible for committing an action prior to them having the Knowledge of Good and Evil? I would not think so. They disobeyed an instruction before they knew it was wrong to disobey.
Was this the Ultimate Sin, for which every human being ever born was to pay with their eternal soul? Was that the worse thing that Adam and Eve could have done? They could have beaten and slaughtered each other, and destroyed their paradise. But they did not do anything so cruel or barbaric. They ate a piece of fruit, contrary to the will of an arbitrary god. People disobey God's commands millions of times every day all over the earth-- from lying and stealing to murder and worshipping other gods... why then was Adam and Eve's simple disobedience to carry such a heavy price?
Would you condemn them to eternal torture, infinite revenge, never ending intense pain with no chance of pardon, for taking a cookie out of the cookie jar before dinner, after you had told them not to?
And would you condemn your children's children, and all generations that will come after? What sort of justice is this? No natural person can condone this. All that the Christians can say is that
"We cannot understand God's method of justice."
That is all they can say.
Why should I be held responsible for Eve's decision to eat the fruit? Why should you? If your distant ancestor, four hundred years ago, killed a man in an act of cruel and pointless savagery, should you be handed a life sentence in prison for it? God Himself states in the bible,
(Deuteronomy 5: 9)
"I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."
Now that's a pure b*llsh*t isn't it, we are to be born sinners because of our fathers simple disobedience, and the worst thing is that Christianity calls it "God's perfect justice."
And God's plan to save us from his own cursed, is that we now need a Savior.
Therefore Christians tells us that without Christ Jesus our Savior, all of us are doomed without hope. They try to convince us of the dilemma they have created for us, then try to convince us that they alone have the remedy.
"Christianity cuts you and then tries to sell you a Band-Aid."
Brainwashed as a child, made us believe that we are born sinners destined in hell and that we badly needed a Savior.
Because of the Fall of Man, we are told that it is not enough that we are good and caring people, not enough that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us, not enough that we forgive those who trespass against us.
We must be baptized-- have our heads wet-- a meaningless gesture, and proclaim that we accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior.
We must believe the unbelievable. A Hindu, who happens to be more charitable and humane than the best Christian, is nonetheless consigned to eternal damnation, just as the kind and gentle native people of some tropical island who never heard of Jesus and his cross.
If, as the Christian doctrine teaches, the only way to salvation is through Christ, what became of all the souls of the people who died before Jesus' appearance on earth?
It is clear that Christianity is a gilded mansion built upon a foundation of sand. It's basis is not only unexplainable, but illogical and immoral as well. But, as people so often say when they are faced with such illogical, immoral conundrums that they can't talk their way out of, "God works in mysterious ways."
We are told that we must swallow this story, hook, line and sinker. We are told that God gave us the freewill to believe it or not believe it-- but this gift comes with a deadly threat. Believe it-- or be eternally damned. What kind of choice is that? Some people may be convinced that the threat is a very real one, and so they will believe any story that their preachers tell them. Under these conditions, some people can be made to believe anything at all.
Salvation is not awarded by doing good deeds, we are told by the church, but through belief alone. God can forgive all things, it is said, except disbelief.
He will pardon the murderer of children, rapists or serial killers if they begs for forgiveness, and accepts Jesus Christ as his savior. But He will not pardon the person who uses reason and honesty, and who finally decides: "I had enough, I just can't believe it."
I am told that it doesn't matter how good of a person I am during my life, because at the end of it, I will be asked: "Did you believe the one about the Garden of Eden?" I'll have to be honest and say, "No, I didn't. It was just too far-fetched. Sorry."
For me, I cannot swallow it, no matter how much I am threatened. I can't help it. It has to make sense to me... that's the way my brain works. If there is a god floating somewhere up in the vacuum of space, then he's sure to understand that.
Here we go with another "critical thinker". As is usual for people who think Christianity is stupid, you don't understand it one bit. First, you have no idea what original sin is. It's not being born a sinner, it's the condition of lacking the grace of original holiness. It's being outside of God's friendship and a lack of what results from it. You are NOT born guilty of Adam and Eve's sin. You also speak of a "magical fruit". This is not about the knowledge of good and evil literally being contained in some fruit. It's not about the fruit, it's about disobeying God. God could have forbidden to eat from any tree, or any plant or to do whatever. That doesn't matter. The knowledge of good and evil comes from the fact that they disobeyed God and sinned, not literally from that tree. I actually find it quite ridiculous how you're treating the Bible especially when you said to look at it as any other text. Maybe you should take your own advise. Do you treat every single piece of literature in this hyper-literal way? Or do you recognize the literary genre, literary devices, original language, cultural and historical context? So I would advise you to take your own advise and stop taking the Bible completely literally. If I were your literature teacher you would definitely deserve an F for this comment. Now let's continue. If created free creatures, of course He has to give them the option to choose evil. If there wasn't the possibility to do evil, then we haven't really made a free choice, there merely wasn't any other option available to us. God didn't create meat robots, He created creatures with free will. Real love is only possible with free will and He wants us to freely choose Him out of our free will. The point is that this fallen state of mankind is a necessity in order to reach a perfect world in the end. It's logically impossible to just create a perfect world right away. A big factor of a perfect world are the kind of people that are there, and this comes back to free will as I just explained. And your analogy with the parent leaving the child with a pistol is honestly terrible. The parent is a human, not God. He does not have the attributes of God, he's not omnipotent and omniscient. As I said, God has completely different reasons and goals here. You also bring up suffering, diseases, etc. These things also serve to shape character. For example if there was no danger there could be no bravery. Evil can serve to develop certain virtues within a person. Imagine this, who do you think is more appreciative of what he has? Some rich spoiled brat who never had to experience any inconvenience in life and had all of his needs met whenever he wanted something, or some very poor person who struggled his entire life? Clearly the latter. Your next objection concerning the serpent tempting Eve is also completely nonsensical. Yes God knew how Eve would react, how does this influence her free decision? This is literally the same thing as if I built a time machine, went to the future, saw that you got a new haircut and went back. Does me knowing this information somehow influence your free decision to get that haircut? Of course not! That's absolutely ridiculous! This is the same thing with God. He knows how you will act with your free will, He didn't "pre-order" you to act that way. And now regarding the serpent. Fine, let's pretend that the story is literal even though it's clearly not. Even if that was the case, it's not just a "talking snake". The Hebrew word for "serpent" there is "נחש" which can, and probably does refer to multiple things at once. Now we can distinguish the actual words by vowels, but the original Hebrew text doesn't have them. "נחש" can mean a serpent (נָחָשׁ), shining one (נְחַשׁ), diviner (נָחַשׁ). Interestingly, the word for a "seraph", in Hebrew "שרף" means "fiery serpent". Therefore what we can conclude is that certain divine beings were represented as serpents in that culture. To support this point, there are ancient Hebrew seals depicting the seraphim as a sort of winged serpents. This imagery is in fact quite similar to the Egyptian Uraeus which also sometimes appeared in winged form and is possibly even influenced by it. Therefore, no, the story is not just a "talking snake haha" but an encounter with a divine being.
No is the answer as real as King Arthur and Bilbo Baggins
Adam & Eve are just as mythohistirical as Jesus is. May I show you some swampland in Florida which you might like to buy too?
Jesus mythicism is the most idiotic claim that even most atheists reject
They are about as real as the talking snake! Blah