A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!


(Antoine Suarez) #824

This amounts to say that Adam’s sin “caused all of humanity” to be in a state of “struggle with God”, that is, a “state lacking original friendship with God” and therefore a “state of need of Redemption”.

I agree to this conclusion, which seems to derive from what you say.


(Tim) #825

Yes, that was the point, that I see as Adam’s role. The distinction though was not all of mankind were immediately subjected to Adam’s separation from God.

The distinction comes from the fact that Adam was the sole human responsible for “sin to enter”. The knowledge of evil as a singular event. I am not sure if the contrast of good and evil was the new concept as opposed to the evolutionary thought that good was not present either. If humans had no knowledge of good, then evolutionary development of the animal makes sense. My argument was that all had direct knowledge with God, therefore all knew what good was. No one knew evil, nor the contrast good and evil brought to creation.

I think that Satan was considered superior to humanity, because it was the creation to serve God without reason. But because Satan could reason, he thought it better that humans were given a choice, instead of being forced to only know good. I think that Satan attempted to convince God that humans knowing evil, would not choose God, but would choose their own reasoning.

What I do not get is the need to turn Adam into a figure representative of all humanity. Built into evolution is the distinction that not all animals in a particular species will mutate at the same time, and more than likely only seperation assures that a mutation will happen that will cause a change.

As a group, humans may have locked this chance of change away, and there would be no temptation to “sin”. The other interesting thing about Adam and Eve is we get the concept that with evil, there is also a separation of self. The other humans both male and female were on equal footing. There was no disparity between male and female. Not only did God set it up for one human to decide, but seemingly this man was also split perhaps in personality where he physically had to view life through Eve. Two humans had to come together in agreement over something. I think that was probably a more major thing than sin and death itself. It seems to be that we are finally getting to the point where this distintion no longer makes a difference.

I guess some would argue that God did it on purpose and that was natural law. The whole thing sounds more like an experiment with a predictive outcome. Either humans would see the need to come together in unity, or they would have to constantly blame others for their own mistakes. Adam and Eve essentially being independent, yet dependent on each other in coming to agreement. Instead of one partner being weaker, the emphasis should be in one person there is strength. In anology only is one considered stronger. In practice they need to build on that strength as one, regardless who is the stronger of the two. The male is not always the stronger in all things, but the burden, if the relationship is to survive, has to be that whoever is stronger spiritually, should be allowed to lead in that area, even if they fall short in other areas. I do not think that one side should dominate, because it is rare, one individual is the strongest in all things. I think the same can be applied to the human/God relationship. God will let you run with your strengths, but let God carry us in those areas we are weak in.

I think that Noah’s event, was the point, that God let humanity run with everything, instead of forcing humans in one area or another. But God removed any knowledge of God, except we had to take Noah’s word for it. God then once again separated out a human, Abraham. The plan was again on track, that God would let humans back into the knowledge of God. But it was change over time, and also with selection and separation. But not all of humanity was called, although no one is forced to accept, nor are they forced to reject. Up to the point, humans can convince themselves there is no God.


(Antoine Suarez) #826

This is an interesting point.
Could you explain your view about when and how Adam’s separation from God became transmitted to “all of mankind”?


(GJDS) #827

The discussion needs an understanding of what we usually term ‘human nature’. This is, briefly, what is common to all of humanity (not transmitted), as it (human nature) is formed in one man, so it is so in all humanity. Christ adopted the same nature and showed that we (through Christ) can grow into Godly attributes by avoiding sin and by Christ defeating death. This Christ-like nature then becomes all of humanity that repents and receives God’s grace.

Thus as in the first man Adam all have sinned, in the last Adam, all will be saved.


(Tim) #828

The separation was the physical from the spiritual. It was not a condition that was transmitted physically. Separation indicates loss of control over our spiritual side. Adam’s offspring from Seth on were “diconnected” from a spiritual ability to be in direct connection with God.

The image of God is not just being self aware and able to reason and understand. Humanity was actually God on earth. We were the likeness of God with fleshly bodies. Eating of the tree was not some exercise in gaining more understanding. The fruit did not impart anything intrinsically to the flesh. It was the act itself which resulted in Adam and Eve realizing they were evil and mere flesh, now in the sight of God. God immediately seperated the spiritual ability of Adam and Eve to the point they did not even know God any more. Being banned from Eden sealed any chance to return to a state in which they could be connected with their spiritual part, and a relationship with God.

Jesus and the early church seemed to indicate that the only way back to God was in Jesus the Christ. The firstborn and only born God, and God in the flesh way back to God. It was not a religion but a redemption. God redeemed mankind back to God. The spiritual connection was not resolved, but this time we had to engage with the Holy Spirit on a one on one basis.

Humanity were always fleshly bodies. What was not transmitted was the spiritual part. We were not told the specifics of birth before Adam disobeyed. We do know that the result of sin, was that birth now was all in the flesh and with a lot of sorrow and pain. That the means of birth forever changed, could be the means of transmission in a genetic sense, but we have no clue what birth was before that. It would seem to me the lack of transmission of the spiritual body was the issue. It was death and separation from this lack of connection that was passed on. Sin is not a genetic predisposition. It is a thought in the mind first, and an act if followed through to completion.


(Antoine Suarez) #829

I think your argument does not fit well the available data:

The basic principle of morality and to assigning rights is that each human being is accountable for the life of another human being (Genesis 9:5) but humans are allowed to kill animals for the sake of food (Genesis 9:3). God proclaims this principle stating that the reason for it is that “In the image of God has God made mankind.” (Genesis 9:6).

This principle entails that it must be possible for humans to clearly distinguish which creature is human and which is not, on the basis of observable data.

Such a distinction can be accomplished today because of the sharp gap between anatomically modern humans and chimps (the extant living form nearest to us). However, the more we go back in evolution the fuzzier becomes the distinction.

The recent discovery of Homo luzonensis increases to 4 the number of intermediate varieties between modern humans and chimps by about 50,000 years ago. Most likely more intermediate varieties will be found in coming years.

We have also data that Denisovan may have mated with modern humans as recently as 15,000 years ago. This means that Denisovans as intermediate variety between modern humans and apes did disappear only after this date, which also correspond to the disappearance of Flores man , another intermediate variety.

So the data lead us to conclude that the appearance of accountable human beings created by God in his Image did not happen before 15,000 years ago.


(Albert Leo) #830

Thanks for the link to the Cox et.al. publication. It surely deserves careful consideration, but I’m not sure the evidence is as conclusive as you maintain. In Ann Gibbons review of this work, she says the evidence “now suggests”. And further on:
Not everyone is convinced by the late dates Cox proposes. “There are definitely multiple Denisovan populations, but the claim that they interbred 15,000 to 30,000 years ago is extraordinary,” population geneticist Benjamin Vernot of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, told Science."

I certainly am NOT an expert in this very complex field, and thus I tend to pay close attention to the evaluations emanating from the Max Planck Institute

So…it would seem that in answering the question: “When did humankind first appear on earth?” you are more comfortable with “less than 15,000 yrs ago.” while I would prefer “between 30M and 50M yrs. ago.” No big deal. It is expected that you would be more influenced by finding concordance with ANE beliefs (including the O.T.) while I put more value on the evidence offered by Ian Tattersall and by Simon Conway Morris.

I just hope that God looks kindly on both our efforts to search for the Truth.
Al Leo


#831

But the appearance of anatomically modern humans dates to 200,000 years ago and they should have been able to recognize themselves. Based on the fossil reconstructions the other Homo groups would appear on the surface at least to be different. Your argument is basically saying humans couldn’t tell the difference so things had to wait until the different groups were gone and it just so happens that the date is conveniently close to a possible date match with the OT. If you want to go on a scientific, if I may use the word, determination I would argue, as Al does, that what matters is behaviourally modern humans which would be 50,000 to 70,000 years ago. After all, the major difference between us and chimps is in our behaviour.


(Antoine Suarez) #832

Thanks Bill for commenting again!

Different modern human groups today also “appear on the surface at least to be quite different” (see Darwin’s remarks about Fuegians!). History teaches us: Racism is always a lurking tendency.

According to Genesis 9:3-6 God commands to organize human social life and assign rights on the basis of the distinction between humans and non-human animals.

On the one hand we believe that this commandment holds for humans today. On the other hand, the distinction existing today between human and animals is quite sharp: We can unambiguously distinguish which creature is human and which is not on the basis of bodily features, to the extent that If someone asserts today that a human group is not fully human, he/she risks immediately to be convicted of crime against humanity.

Therefore, it is fitting to assume that God proclaims the commandment of Genesis 9:3-6 at a moment when the distinction between human and non-human was not less sharp than it is today. According to the available scientific data (disappearance of Neanderthal, Denisovan, Flores man, Luzon man) this moment has to be set later than 15,000 years ago.

If you go before you start blurring the distinction at the risk of stirring racism.