What Jesus Said About Adam and Eve

[John Bauer]

well, jesus stated that Genesis was a literal historical account, and he supported them as being rel and created by God, not coming from primate parents

What about mammal parents?

 

[Dale]

well, jesus stated that Genesis was a literal historical account, and he supported them as being rel and created by God, not coming from primate parents

Where did Jesus ever say that Genesis is a literal historical accvount? I don't see where He ever said this.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Where did Jesus ever say that Genesis is a literal historical accvount? I don't see where He ever said this.

We often refer to fictional characters as if they were literal historical. Someone out of context could think we mean them that way.

 

[davetaff]

We often refer to fictional characters as if they were literal historical. Someone out if context could think we mean them that way.

Hi
Did God have to say it was the truth all Gods word is the truth the creation account in Genesis should be applied starting with Noah everything God created before the flood was destroyed in the flood except for Noah and everything on the ark.
So it was a new beginning starting with Noah and everything on the ark everything else was destroyed in the flood.
So the creation account should be applied starting with Noah so the things in the creation account should be understood as symbolic take the forth day the sun is symbolic of Christ the light fo the world the moon the church the bride of Christ the stars the children of God maks absolutely no sense to say the sun was created on the forth day very little could survive without sunlight so when Noah stepped out of the ark the sun was shining it had to be so that everything could grow and thrive.

Love and peace
Dave

 

[YeshuaFan]

Where did Jesus ever say that Genesis is a literal historical accvount? I don't see where He ever said this.

He referenced the creation of Adam amd Eve by God as true history

 

[The Barbarian]

well, jesus stated that Genesis was a literal historical account

Can you cite a verse?

 

[The Barbarian]

Can you cite a verse?

Apparently not.

 

[Michie]

AI Overview


Yes, according to the Gospels,
Jesus treated the early chapters of Genesis (like Adam, Eve, Noah, the Flood) as real, historical events, using them as factual references for theological and moral teaching, such as defining marriage from "the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6, quoting Genesis 1:27, 2:24) and referencing Noah's Flood (Matthew 24:37-39). While He treated the figures and events as historically true, the text itself doesn't detail howlong creation took, focusing more on God as the Creator, leaving interpretations of literal timeframes a matter for later theological discussion.
Examples of Jesus referencing Genesis as history:

• Adam and Eve: When discussing divorce, Jesus pointed to the creation of man and woman "from the beginning of creation," directly referencing the Genesis account of Adam and Eve as foundational.
• Noah and the Flood: He described the days of Noah and the global Flood as historical reality, using them as parallels for future judgment.
• Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & Lot:Jesus referred to these patriarchs as actual historical persons, as noted in Matthew 8:11 and Luke 17:28-32.

Interpretation:

• Factual Basis: For many Christians and theologians, Jesus's direct citations confirm that He viewed Genesis as reliable history, not mere myth or poetry.
• Focus on What, Not When: His references often emphasize the truth of the events (God created humanity, a global flood occurred) rather than specifying the durationor mechanism (like the age of the Earth), leaving room for different views on scientific timelines within a belief in Genesis's historical framework.

The Catholic Church also teaches Adam and Eve were real historical people.

 

[YeshuaFan]

AI Overview


Yes, according to the Gospels,
Jesus treated the early chapters of Genesis (like Adam, Eve, Noah, the Flood) as real, historical events, using them as factual references for theological and moral teaching, such as defining marriage from "the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6, quoting Genesis 1:27, 2:24) and referencing Noah's Flood (Matthew 24:37-39). While He treated the figures and events as historically true, the text itself doesn't detail howlong creation took, focusing more on God as the Creator, leaving interpretations of literal timeframes a matter for later theological discussion.
Examples of Jesus referencing Genesis as history:

• Adam and Eve: When discussing divorce, Jesus pointed to the creation of man and woman "from the beginning of creation," directly referencing the Genesis account of Adam and Eve as foundational.
• Noah and the Flood: He described the days of Noah and the global Flood as historical reality, using them as parallels for future judgment.
• Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, & Lot:Jesus referred to these patriarchs as actual historical persons, as noted in Matthew 8:11 and Luke 17:28-32.

Interpretation:

• • Factual Basis: For many Christians and theologians, Jesus's direct citations confirm that He viewed Genesis as reliable history, not mere myth or poetry.
  • Focus on What, Not When: His references often emphasize the truth of the events (God created humanity, a global flood occurred) rather than specifying the durationor mechanism (like the age of the Earth), leaving room for different views on scientific timelines within a belief in Genesis's historical framework.

The Catholic Church also teaches Adam and Eve were real historical people.

Jesus treated all of the OT as historical accurate accounts, Noah, Adam and Eve etc, and the only way to get around that would be to either deny his deity, or else to hold to accomodation view, that Jesus was wrong, as he assumed the wrong views of the Pharisees of that time

 

[Michie]

Jesus treated all of the OT as historical accurate accounts, Noah, Adam and Eve etc, and the only way to get around that would be to either deny his deity, or else to hold to accomodation view, that Jesus was wrong, as he assumed the wrong views of the Pharisees of that time

My Church believes in a literal
Adam and Eve. So your argument is not with me.

 

[The Barbarian]

Adam and Eve: When discussing divorce, Jesus pointed to the creation of man and woman "from the beginning of creation," directly referencing the Genesis account of Adam and Eve as foundational.

AI got this wrong. God makes it very clear what was there in the beginning, and male and female were not there. Jesus is speaking of the creation starting with Adan and Eve.

The Catholic Church also teaches Adam and Eve were real historical people.

They were. But this is consistent with the discoveries of science:

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*​

...While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution...

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

 

[Michie]

The Church teaches Adam and Eve are literal people. We’ve been through this before. Have a nice day.

 

[Dale]

The Church teaches Adam and Eve are literal people. We’ve been through this before. Have a nice day.

I’ll give you much the same answer I have last time. The following quote comes from the New Advent Catholic Encylcopedia under Adam.

<< Practically all the Old Testament information concerning Adam and the beginnings of the human race is contained in the opening chapters of Genesis. To what extent these chapters should be considered as strictly historical is a much disputed question, the discussion of which does not come within the scope of the present article. >>

It is “a much disputed question.” If that is the best the Catholic Encyclopedia can do, you should reconsider the question.

Source:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Adam
www.newadvent.org followed by cathen01129a.htm

 

[Michie]

Permission to post in full:

The Theory of Evolution​

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man. These may be referred to as cosmological evolution, biological evolution, and human evolution. One’s opinion concerning one of these areas does not dictate what one believes concerning others.

People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the cosmos, life, and man: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone.

Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation often hold that they arose at about the same time, perhaps six thousand to ten thousand years ago. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale. They generally hold the universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old, life on earth to be about four billion years old, and modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.

What Does the Catholic Church Teach About Evolution?​

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

How Old is the Earth According to the Catholic Church?​

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence.

“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” (CCC 159)

It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.

Chronological Reading​

According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days.
Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night.

Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.

That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, “What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East” (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

The Topical Reading​

This leads us to the possibility that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was “formless and empty” (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

Real History​

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did. It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

Adam and Eve: Real People​

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “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 either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents 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 that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

​

Science and Religion​

The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

---

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004​

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Adam, Eve, and Evolution

The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about ourselves and the world. Find out what Catholics believe about it.

www.catholic.com

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

AI got this wrong. God makes it very clear what was there in the beginning, and male and female were not there. Jesus is speaking of the creation starting with Adan and Eve.


They were. But this is consistent with the discoveries of science:

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*​

...While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution...

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

All descended from one organism eh? So how do we rate a savior, and the tape-worm gets the crappy end of the stick? (pun intended) Creation is the product of intelligent design; mankind in the image of God and subservient only to God, the rest of the animals etc. subservient to man.

 

[The Barbarian]

All descended from one organism eh? So how do we rate a savior

God gave us a living soul and that made all the difference. This is important. While biology can show that human bodies evolved from other species, it has nothing at all to say about how we became living souls.

Creation is the product of intelligent design

It is disrespectful to demote God to a mere "designer." Limited creatures design. God creates.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

God gave us a living soul and that made all the difference. This is important. While biology can show that human bodies evolved from other species, it has nothing at all to say about how we became living souls.

It is disrespectful to demote God to a mere "designer." Limited creatures design. God creates.

You are the one that is disrespectful, insinuating that that is the only way I view God. The wisdom of God is folly to men. So sad that you feel that you must stoop to insults rather than defending your position. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Verba Domini Manet in Aeternam; The Word of God endures forever.

Mankind having faith in their own wisdom and reason is the greatest stumbling block on the way to salvation; and has been since the fall in the garden. How did self reliance and self actualization work out for Adam and Eve?

Jesus Christ is not only a man, but is God, all three persons of God were present and participated in Creation, so when our Lord Jesus interprets Scripture literally, my faith tells me that I would be foolish to listen to a counter argument formulated by a man, or men. You are free to take that risk, I am not willing to do so.

 

[The Barbarian]

God gave us a living soul and that made all the difference. This is important. While biology can show that human bodies evolved from other species, it has nothing at all to say about how we became living souls.

It is disrespectful to demote God to a mere "designer." Limited creatures design. God creates.

You are the one that is disrespectful, insinuating that that is the only way I view God.

Demoting God to "designer" denies his omniscience. God has no need to figure things out.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory.

The theory of gravitation is just a theory. Gravity and evolution are observed phenomena.

Perhaps you don't know what a scientific theory is. What do you think it is?

Mankind having faith in their own wisdom and reason is the greatest stumbling block on the way to salvation

Faith should be good enough for you.

How did self reliance and self actualization work out for Adam and Eve?

I had no idea that they had any concept of self-actualization. Do you have a verse?

so when our Lord Jesus interprets Scripture literally

Do you have a verse wherein He says all scripture is meant to be understood literally?

My faith tells me that I would be foolish to assume such a doctrine formulated by a man, or men. You are free to take that risk, I am not willing to do so.

Fortunately for you, what you think of the way God created things, will not determine your salvation. Only if you make an idol of your interpretation and insist that all must believe it to be saved, will your salvation be at risk.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

God gave us a living soul and that made all the difference. This is important. While biology can show that human bodies evolved from other species, it has nothing at all to say about how we became living souls.

It is disrespectful to demote God to a mere "designer." Limited creatures design. God creates.


Demoting God to "designer" denies his omniscience. God has no need to figure things out.

The theory of gravitation is just a theory. Gravity and evolution are observed phenomena.

Perhaps you don't know what a scientific theory is. What do you think it is?


Faith should be good enough for you.


I had no idea that they had any concept of self-actualization. Do you have a verse?


Do you have a verse wherein He says all scripture is meant to be understood literally?

My faith tells me that I would be foolish to assume such a doctrine formulated by a man, or men. You are free to take that risk, I am not willing to do so.

Fortunately for you, what you think of the way God created things, will not determine your salvation. Only if you make an idol of your interpretation and insist that all must believe it to be saved, will your salvation be at risk.

My faith tells me that I should not waste time on someone who twists everything that others wright, including the Bible. Have a nice day.

 

[The Liturgist]

God gave us a living soul and that made all the difference. This is important. While biology can show that human bodies evolved from other species, it has nothing at all to say about how we became living souls.

It is disrespectful to demote God to a mere "designer." Limited creatures design. God creates.

I’m not sure I get what your point is or the reason for your outrage at Mark. It seems to be an argument against terminology.

Also you seem to be … upset, curiously, about the idea of humans being holy aside from the soul. We were created, whether through intelligent design or another process (I myself don’t care since the means by which God brought us into being are of His concern; for us it is enough to know that He did it, but Genesis 1 is important as a prophetic text, for in Holy Week God remade us as he made us in Genesis 1, on Great and Holy Friday, before resting on the Sabbath and rising from the dead on Sunday, the first day, also typologically symbolizing the mystical eighth day of creation, that of the Life of the World to Come.

Christ our True God rose from the dead embodied, in sanctified flesh, having died in order to glorify our entire human nature, and ascended, in the flesh, just as certain of the saints such as St. Moses the Prophet, St. Elias the Prophet (Elijah( and our most blessed and glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary, who was miraculously assumed after her repose, an event not recorded in Scripture but known to the Apostles and passed down through the church, which we Orthodox have held as dogma since the first century; the Roman Catholics had historically celebrated the Dormition, which is also called the Assumption, but some erroneously believe she did not repose but was assumed while still alive, despite this contradicting the apostolic narratives and the Patristic writings upon which the dogma was based, but at any rate this is why we have no relics of her body, unlike the Holy Apostles, where we have relics of all of them, and of St. John the Baptist, and of the Cross.

The reason this is important is that we are sacred in our physical being, not just in our soul; eschatologically while our soul rests in Heaven, or not, such as the case may be (we Orthodox believe in prayer for the departed as this might help, as do our Anglican friends; I don’t know what the Confessional Lutheran position is on this, particularly of Evangelical Catholics like my most pious friend @MarkRohfrietsch but they do agree with us on more than they disagree and what they do disagree with us on I tend to regard as being in most cases adiaphora, to use a Lutheran term, but on the Last Day, we shall be raised incorruptible before standing in judgement before Christ Pantocrator. That is scriptural; some parts of what I have advocated, such as prayer for the dead, are scriptural but in scripture not everyone recognizes as canonical, whereas others such as the Dormition of the Theotokos rest on Patristic writings (which I believe are important to the faithful on the basis of 1 Corinthian 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15-2:37 creating a clear mandate for us to follow Tradition; the tradition condemned by our Lord in ch. Mark 7 being specifically the more problematic parts of the Pharisaical tradition which was later mostly codified in the Mishnah), but regarding what occurs eschatologically, that we are raised in the flesh, this is protocanonical Scripture and indeed is mentioned in the Symbol of Faith (the Nicene Creed) and also the Apostles’ Creed and Quincunque Vult, also known as the Athanasian Creed - technically not written by St. Athanasius, but based on two of his writings which expounded upon the Nicene Creed as adopted at Nicaea in 325 contra Arius, who denied that Christ was God incarnate, and also contra the likes of Mani who denied the resurrection of the Body but rather regarded the flesh and the material world as inherently sinful and evil.