Evolution & Creationism

minasoliman

Minasoliman, but I am struggling to put my mind at ease.

If Christ made death as a form of mercy for us, why does Paul call death Christ's final enemy?

It just seems that the patristic consensus is that death was not caused by God who is the Life.

This is a great question.  And I sympathize with your concern.  Today, I was just reading about a rare genetic disease people are born with called "Congenital Insensitivity to Pain", CIP.  People with CIP will feel no pain.  An example is of a girl who dropped her toy in a pot of boiling water, and she put her hand in to get her toy.  She did not feel the pain of burning.  She got seriously burned and needed to be treated, but she felt no pain in the treatment, and she was not traumatized.  This is very serious.  You need pain to survive.  If she had pain, just feeling the heat of the pot would keep her away.

When we rise again from the dead, it is believed that we will not feel pain anymore.  There will be no reason to.  God will glorify us in Himself, and we will grow eternally in Him away from the pain we had.  There will no longer be "pain, sorrow, or grief".  Nevertheless, while we live here on earth, pain is also a gift.  Without it, we would be destroying our own flesh and our own lives with it.

In a similar manner, the Church fathers are clear, death will be destroyed.  In fact, the power of death is already destroyed.  Death as an end of our lives, and as a tool of fear no longer should exist.  Instead, we see death as a blessing.  "To die is gain" said St. Paul.  Because it is through death in Christ that we will live!  It is the paradoxical salvation that we received.  Therefore, death will no longer be in the second coming.

God is Life.  By communion with Him, we become living.  You need to remember that it was losing communion with God that caused death.  And who caused loss of communion?  The envy of Satan and Adam's disobedience.  God did not cause you to lose communion with Him.  So He did not "cause" death.  But He also put it there as a means of help, not a means of fear or anger.  Satan lost power over death.  Now Christ, who took flesh, and underwent death "turned our punishment into salvation."  This is what the Church fathers teach as I have clearly demonstrated.  We chant repeated "by His death, He conquered death, bestowing life to those who are in the tombs".  We must therefore die to rise with Him.  This is why death is the last enemy.  It must be confronted, with faith and hope in Christ.

You therefore need to remember that "True Life is communion with God."  God did not create True Life for us.  HE IS TRUE LIFE.  When the fathers talk about partaking of Life, they are talking about the divine nature.  Biological life is only an icon of glory we have, an effect of God's mercy and grace on us.  That is why biological death is now the receptacle of divine life if done in Christ, which will cause us to rise from the dead in His second coming.  Biological death has always been there according to what God tells us in nature.  We can transcend biological life itself by partaking of the divinity.  The key here therefore is not to confuse creation with Creator.  Creation is given a means to live biologically, but true life is that which the Creator is by nature, and that which we receive by grace.  When Adam rejected grace, the grace that only humanity can receive, not animals, not plants, then Adam joined the animals and plants in this graceless life.

One you realize "life is communion", then it will become easier to think why most learned theologians find it a waste of time trying to refute evolution.

St. Cyril wrote in his first book on the Commentary of the Gospel of John:

+++

Man then is a creature rational, but composite, of soul that is and of this perishable and earthly flesh. And when it had been made by God, and was brought into being, not having of its own nature incorruption and imperishableness (for these things appertain essentially to God Alone), it was sealed with the spirit of life, by participation with the Divinity gaining the good that is above nature (for He breathed, it says, into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul). But when he was being punished for his transgressions, then with justice hearing "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return", he was bared of the grace; the breath of life, that is the Spirit of Him Who says "I am the Life", departed from the earthy body and the creature falls into death, through the flesh alone, the soul being kept in immortality, since to the flesh too alone was it said, "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return". It needed therefore that that in us which was specially imperilled, should with the greater zeal be restored, and by intertwining again with Life That is by Nature be recalled to immortality: it needed that at length the sentence. "Dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" should be relaxed, the fallen body being united ineffably to the Word That quickeneth all things. For it needed that becoming His Flesh, it should partake of the immortality that is from Him. For it were a thing most absurd, that fire should have the power of infusing into wood the perceptible quality of its inherent power and of all but transfashioning into itself the things wherein it is by participation, and that we should not fully hold that the Word of God Which is over all, would in-work in the flesh His own Good, that is Life.

+++

minasoliman

Joshuaa said:

Everything has a direction.
Some things are more benign in direction in comparison than the inheritance Christ wants to share with us.
Inheritance starts from a family relationship and as I started before satan will inherit this world when it's past its use by date. That is the direction of things Christ cannot save, even the apes whether you prove them or not. Because they cannot choose to go to Him by how He has revealed Himself.

I have no idea what you just said here.  

Zoxsasi

I just wish to say one final word:

Yes, there are ethical, moral and allegorical meanings in the Bible; especially in Genesis. We can dumb down the entire Bible, or our understanding of it, by simply saying: "well, God wants us to love each other. How He died, why He died, or what He came for, shouldnt be an obstacle."

It is though.

Science and Religion have to meet. They have to. There has to be some reconciliation between how man was formed and How God created Man. The two have to align somewhere. 

I cannot see how this was aligned.

I believe, whole heartedly, that we are spiritual beings and we have a spiritual nature. We are not just made of atoms or molecules. Humans are given a special place in the creation and Universe. 

But how we respond to questions involving evolution and how we are created are paramount. We cannot keep on and on and on diluting questions, or dumbing them down because we ultimately "do not know".

Do you not realise that the key to understanding salvation is deep rooted in Genesis??? 

If we have NO understanding of death in Genesis, then our faith, or the foundation of it, is built on incorrect understanding. We don't want that!!

If God created us to die, as a Mercy from Him; then why did Christ weep when Lazarus died?? Why didnt He say: "Hey.. relax people, I created you guys to die... its cool. It was the plan". 

I thought always that Christ wept at the tomb of Lazarus because of condition we had brought upon ourselves: Death (Physical & Spiritual!!).

If we do not understand Genesis correctly, then the entire Bible becomes hard to understand. God's plan for us becomes impossible to understand. 

You don't need to comment on this, or reply to me. I'm going to read up a bit and post a few things. I have a couple of friends who are theologians (i.e. studying theology) and I'll just ask them. They must have some idea.

Joshuaa

I will answer later minasoliman sorry to sound abstract. I need to ask more questions of you.

I think death as a mercy is as a relief from this world in its sin and suffering.

Joshuaa

From minasoliman:
God is Life.  By communion with Him, we become living.  You need to remember that it was losing communion with God that caused death.  And who caused loss of communion?  The envy of Satan and Adam's disobedience.  

minasoliman

Dear Zoxsasi,

You keep saying "if He created us to die" as if that is what I said.  Have you not learned anything from what I wrote?  To be by nature capable of death and to be created to die are two different things.  We are by nature capable of death, but in communion with God, we become immortal.  Only when we lost communion have we died.  That is the understanding of Genesis.  That is what I have been writing about this whole time, and I used the Church father to help you in this, and you still continue to say the same thing over and over again!

I don't understand Zoxsasi.  How is that you still keep on misrepresenting what I am telling you?

Furthermore, I suggest you read also Oration 45 by St. Gregory the Theologian.  In it, he gives us similar allegorical ways of reading Genesis.  He also did not believe there were actual trees.  "You can eat from all the trees" meant to him that Adam was partaking of all the divine virtues, except one he was not ready for.  Once he took one he was not ready for, he corrupted himself and removed himself from God's life-giving bosom.  To remove yourself from God is the cause of death.

Finally, I think I allowed the Church fathers to speak for themselves.  The questions of evolution are only a side issue for you, but the essential theological teachings, I have shown you are not from my own mouth.  Therefore, the "I don't know" answers also go hand in hand with St. Gregory the Theologians allegories of the Genesis story.  The story of our creation and fall is summarized in what I have written for you, and the details are only extraneous, unimportant in our faith.  That is why I am amazed at how detail oriented some people here are when it is not really important for the essential dogmatic traditions of the Church.  I have given you a patristic understanding of death and how to understand Genesis correctly.  I feel it is not me who built on this foundation on incorrect understanding, but you.  The questions you seem to ask only tells me you take things dogmatically where it shouldn't.

cyril

+1000

Zoxsasi

Mina,

How am I mis-representing you? You are saying that you do not know how God created woman. 

You said , as far as I'm aware, that God did not create us to die. He gave us the grace of life (physical and spiritual) - but what you cannot answer (as far as I'm aware) - is how or why we inherit this corrupt nature from Adam and Eve if they sinned. Why is God punishing us for the sins of our fore-parents. 

We can argue and say that we inherit the consequences of their actions - but that doesn't make sense: The consequences of their action is that we no longer life with our fore-parents because THEY died; it shouldnt mean that WE die also if we have been faithful and obedient to God. 

If my parents go to Jail for theft, the consequences of their actions, that I incur is that I do not have the luxury of being with them. It doesn't mean that I too am destined for jail. So - this "inheriting the consequences of Adam & Eve's sins makes zero sense".

minasoliman

Forget the Eve question for now. Your other question is a question that has nothing to do with evolution. I can discuss a possible answer for you, but how does a literal reading of Genesis help answer this question you just asked? You tell me what should be the answer.

Remnkemi

Zoxsasi, let me try to answer your question.

Abouna explained death in a real simple example. It is not a perfect example but I think it may answer your question. He said when he was younger living in Egypt, his mother had a domesticated cat for years. One time this domesticated cat tore up her sofa for no apparent good reason. Then it happened consistently every day. His mother would repair the furniture and the cat would tear up again. Finally, his mom decided to get rid of the cat and threw it out of the house. Out of the house, the cat became more wild (undomesticated). Finally, the cat gave birth to lots of kittens in the wild. All of these kittens were born outside of the house. So Abouna asked us, "do you think my mother should allow the wild kittens in her house, without testing these kittens some how to see if they will be fully domesticated?" 

In the same way, the original cat lost the grace of living in Abouna's mom's house, so too all the kittens born outside this grace were forever "wild". They were not punished for their mother's sin. They didn't inherit a "sin gene". No matter how you look at it, they were wild kittens merely because they were born outside the house. ALL cats were not allowed in the house out of mercy. Rather than neuter and deform the cat into something that is against its nature, Abouna's mom let them live according to their nature outside the house. She does not desire her original cat and all her kittens to die in the wild. She would want all of them back in the house. But they cannot return without the "grace of domestication". Otherwise, the whole process repeats with the next generation of cats. And if Abouna's mom went out and got a new domesticated cat, then one can argue she never really loved her first cat that she threw to the streets. 

Where this example falls short is the "process of domestication". For cats, the process of domestication is trial and error. Abouna's mom takes one or two cats and tries to train them and see if they are domesticated. If they are not, these new cats are thrown out of the house again. For humans, the process required God Himself to die and break the middle wall, renew life in Adam and his sons and free them from the prison of death. 

Returning to our example, let's assume Abouna's mom, wanting to express her true love for her original cat and its kittens, willingly dies while demoliting the door between the grace inside the house and the wild outside of the house. In doing this all the cats return domesticated (somehow). The act of Abouna's mom dying for these cats outside only proves that it was never about punishment rather it was about grace, mercy and love to return these cats to her house, even though they are by nature wild cats. 

Finally, the outside of the house is still wild. At some point in the future, the "wild" itself will be destroyed so that the whole world is Abouna's mom's house. This was God's plan all along for mankind. When one sees the whole big picture, "inheriting the consequences of Adam's sin" makes a lot of sense.

I personally don't like the example because I don't want to be compared to a cat, nor can God be compared to a human. But this simple example tends to help people understand the reason for Adam's fall, the consequence of sin and what "corrupt nature" means in the Orthodox mind. 

Zoxsasi

Thanks Remenkemi & Minasoliman:

Maybe the problem is my understanding of certain terms. Maybe Remenkemi and others are using terms that mean something for you, yet for me, mean something else.

Please read the following and correct me where I'm wrong:

1. God initiated the Big Bang

2. From this bang, we had single cells which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into mammals.

3. From certain mammalian species, we evolved into man

4. When man was formed, God breathed into him and gave him life: Physical and Spiritual (eternal life).

5. When man sinned, that grace of eternal life was forsaken. He died.

6. He died physically and spiritually. He simply returned back to the nature he had.

7. Physical death was not God's intention for man. Perhaps it was the intention He had for other mammals/creatures; but man was intended, by God, to have everlasting life with Him. Correct?

8. Man returned back to his original nature (and hence we inherited the same nature) 

9. God wanted to redeem us back to our "intended" state of Grace: When we say "Grace", we mean life from the Holy Spirit, through Unity with the Holy Spirit that is always life giving.

10. Because of 9. God's plan was to become man, take our sins, crucify them, appease the Father (Divine Justice --> Once debt has been paid, we then have Pentecost: return of the Holy Spirit)

Would you agree with any of the above?? 

Then the open questions remain: 

a) Where was Eve created? It makes no sense that God created her from Adam's rib given that man evolved from other reptiles. 

minasoliman

Let's leave alone the "open questions" first until I'm sure you're comfortable with the most vexing questions. The fact that you keep repeating concerns means we need to concentrate on those questions before anything else for your sake, so that we don't throw you around in a sea of confusion further than you already are in.

Concerning your sequence: 1, 2, and 3 are not dogmas. They do not have the same weight of importance as the rest of the numbers. I would change them to:

1. In the Beginning, God created all things, seen and unseen

2. God even created all things living and non-living, in heaven and on earth

3. God created man, who like all creatures, are of the same created essence with them, but apart from the creatures are also made to share in the Divine and Holy Image and made into His likeness.

The how, the when, the where, seems to matter little or of secondary importance.

I would also like to modify 10 a bit. Because He LOVES us, and He is consistent in His creation at the same time, He became as we are, even taking up our consequences in a blameless fashion, to the point of death and descent into Hades, that any person is without excuse no matter how shattered their spiritual lives are, that there is still hope they can be raised from the deadness of their spiritual lives now, and in the age to come, may truly rise from physical death as well.

The use of "debt" and "paying of our sins" are an analogy that explains God in His nature ransoming us from the nothingness, the non-existence we value ourselves through sin, into His infinite honor and glory. Only God is able to bring man to God. Only the one who is by nature Righteous can bring the sinful man into His uncreated Righteousness. Only Life is able to raise the dead into His divine Life. It is not a matter of owing Him anything, for God is not in need of anything to be paid back to Him. Rather He paid the debts we owe to our own non-existence for what we committed, to give us a chance into eternal and meaningful life, and this was accepted by the Father as a sweet smelling sacrifice, even though He was not in need of it, but He did so because by nature He is Love, freely saving us from what we deserve, from what we have caused to ourselves.

Remnkemi

I also wanted to clarify that the Big Bang theory and evolution are two separate theories, not a conglomerate cause and effect theory. Thus God initiated the "big bang" (which I am reluctant to use this term because there may not have been any real "bang". This is merely human language.) From the "big bang" the universe expanded 13.5 billion years ago at an accelerated rate. The expansion of the universe is not by itself a prerequisite for evolution. The big bang only tells us that the age of the stars, planets, supernovae, black holes, the earth (4.5 billion +/- 0.5 billion years) and our galaxy's sun (4.567 billion years), not that it caused evolutionary biology on earth (3.5-3.8 billion years). There is no cause and effect postulated in the two theories.

Secondly, evolutionary biology INFERS a common ancestor, referred to as the "last common ancestor" by a few processes: speciation (the formation of new species, anagenesis (changes within species), extinction (removal of species), by examining shared morphological and biochemical traits (phylogenetics). From this we can find "more recent common ancestors" by examining evolutionary relationships. Thus, comparing a "single cell" to a reptile has very limited relationships and this is insufficient to INFER a "recent common ancestor" much less "the last common ancestor" between a single cell organism and reptiles. However, biologically and evolutionarily comparing an ape to a human has much closer evolutionary relationships and this is sufficient to INFER a "recent common ancestor". Thus, claiming evolution says an ape became man is somewhat misrepresenting what evolution actually says. (This has been happening since Darwin published On the Origin of Species). What evolutionary biology states is that we can infer evolutionary relationships resulting in speciation, anagenesis and extinction caused by natural selection adaptation, mutations and genetic drift. 

This means nothing when we extend this into religion and how God was involved in this process. When we speak of religion, we don't infer anything. We know by revelation by the Holy Spirit through the Church's teachings, the Gospel and the fathers' writings. Trying to infer anything about God outside of revelation is the cause of many heresies. 

katanikhoros

Thanks Mina, your post did help clarify things, especially that quote from St. Cyril.

Evolution may or may not be true, I am inclined to believed it.

But still after honestly confronting the Scriptures there are a number of issues that I run into. First is, according to the theory of evolution (in fact almost all science in general), modern humans have existed for 200,000 years originating in Africa, whereas Scripture explicitly describes Eden as geographically being in the Middle East. What do we also make of all the genealogies in the Old Testament that lead up to Abraham, and from Abraham to Christ? 

Moreover, there is no proof that humans had ever existed in a Paradise. It seems that all fossil record shows humans (even pre-human species) using tools to hunt and gather and going back as far as 7 millions years ago. These tools and advancements are proof that humans were more than mere animals but had some sense of creativity (and there is proof of primitive forms of spirituality).

It seems almost impossible to fit Adam or Eve being stamped with God's Image in a Paradise described geographically in this picture. This runs a number of problems.

How do you explain this?

Are we perhaps making excuses because of a lack of faith in the words of Scripture?

God Bless

minasoliman

All true, but I didn't go into scientific details, as I thought it necessary to get the theological aspects correct first. Your last paragraph is the most important here. I have allowed some misrepresentation of the science of evolution in this discussion just for the sake of discussing some of the obvious issues of theology.

Zoxsasi

minasoliman said:

[double post - see comment below]

Zoxsasi

minasoliman said:

 I would also like to modify 10 a bit. Because He LOVES us, and He is consistent in His creation at the same time, He became as we are, even taking up our consequences in a blameless fashion, to the point of death and descent into Hades, that any person is without excuse no matter how shattered their spiritual lives are, that there is still hope they can be raised from the deadness of their spiritual lives now, and in the age to come, may truly rise from physical death as well. The use of "debt" and "paying of our sins" are an analogy that explains God in His nature ransoming us from the nothingness, the non-existence we value ourselves through sin, into His infinite honor and glory. Only God is able to bring man to God. Only the one who is by nature Righteous can bring the sinful man into His uncreated Righteousness. Only Life is able to raise the dead into His divine Life. It is not a matter of owing Him anything, for God is not in need of anything to be paid back to Him. Rather He paid the debts we owe to our own non-existence for what we committed, to give us a chance into eternal and meaningful life, and this was accepted by the Father as a sweet smelling sacrifice, even though He was not in need of it, but He did so because by nature He is Love, freely saving us from what we deserve, from what we have caused to ourselves.

Everyone I've met wants to modify point 10. I'm just paraphrasing H.H Pope Shenouda and other Bishops who said clearly that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was offered to the Father. Pope Shenouda said that He paid the debts to the Father; not to our own non-existence for what we committed.

Perhaps we need another thread to go over this.

I take it you are no fan of Anselm, Aquinas, or Augustine then?? 

minasoliman

It's not that I have anything against them, but that their views on soteriology are incomplete (and I think St. Augustine is misunderstood at times). The idea of "debt" and "ransom" is not wrong, but if taken alone, it can be misrepresented, and it only shows us a theology that is dangerously bordering on the idea that God "needs" blood to appease wrath, which is a blasphemous and pagan concept.

Zoxsasi

minasoliman said:

It's not that I have anything against them, but that their views on soteriology are incomplete (and I think St. Augustine is misunderstood at times). The idea of "debt" and "ransom" is not wrong, but if taken alone, it can be misrepresented, and it only shows us a theology that is dangerously bordering on the idea that God "needs" blood to appease wrath, which is a blasphemous and pagan concept.

very very well articulated, Mina.

cyril

+1000

minasoliman

Zoxsasi said:

minasoliman said:

It's not that I have anything against them, but that their views on soteriology are incomplete (and I think St. Augustine is misunderstood at times). The idea of "debt" and "ransom" is not wrong, but if taken alone, it can be misrepresented, and it only shows us a theology that is dangerously bordering on the idea that God "needs" blood to appease wrath, which is a blasphemous and pagan concept.

very very well articulated, Mina.

As long as that means you understand what I wrote, I am happy.  Yes, I can be articulate, but I want to make sure it is also comprehensible :)

Zoxsasi

minasoliman said:

Zoxsasi said:

minasoliman said:

It's not that I have anything against them, but that their views on soteriology are incomplete (and I think St. Augustine is misunderstood at times). The idea of "debt" and "ransom" is not wrong, but if taken alone, it can be misrepresented, and it only shows us a theology that is dangerously bordering on the idea that God "needs" blood to appease wrath, which is a blasphemous and pagan concept.

very very well articulated, Mina.

As long as that means you understand what I wrote, I am happy.  Yes, I can be articulate, but I want to make sure it is also comprehensible :)

Not entirely comprehensible, you use some terms I find ambiguous (at best of times); but on the whole your last comment was quite clear and succinct. 

Well done. You have a great future ahead of you.

minasoliman

katanikhoros said:

Thanks Mina, your post did help clarify things, especially that quote from St. Cyril.

Evolution may or may not be true, I am inclined to believed it.

But still after honestly confronting the Scriptures there are a number of issues that I run into. First is, according to the theory of evolution (in fact almost all science in general), modern humans have existed for 200,000 years originating in Africa, whereas Scripture explicitly describes Eden as geographically being in the Middle East. What do we also make of all the genealogies in the Old Testament that lead up to Abraham, and from Abraham to Christ? 

Moreover, there is no proof that humans had ever existed in a Paradise. It seems that all fossil record shows humans (even pre-human species) using tools to hunt and gather and going back as far as 7 millions years ago. These tools and advancements are proof that humans were more than mere animals but had some sense of creativity (and there is proof of primitive forms of spirituality).

It seems almost impossible to fit Adam or Eve being stamped with God's Image in a Paradise described geographically in this picture. This runs a number of problems.

How do you explain this?

Are we perhaps making excuses because of a lack of faith in the words of Scripture?

God Bless

I completely missed this post. My post right after was a reply to Rem. it must have been posted around the same time I posted. I will get to these questions later.

minasoliman

Dear Katanikhoros,

Before I reply to your question, something does bother me about how you are looking for evidence of humans "in Paradise".  My question to you before I think about an answer to your post is what do you think "Paradise" is?  And furthermore have you read one of my suggestions that I recommended to be read, particularly, Origen's Philocalia and St. Gregory the Theologian's Oration 45?

katanikhoros

I have read sections yes.

I understand that Paradise is spiritual communion with God. But Paradise in the Scriptures is defined as a specific geographical location with the first humans marked with God's Image (free will, spirit, reason, creativity) originating there. In other words it is saying that the first two humans to live as rational free creatures were in the Middle East. While science shows this was in Africa and all over the place. My problem is that scripturally it is presenting itself as a history that can easily contradict scientific findings.

Moreover, the genealogy that follows makes humanity no younger than 8,000 years which science is also quick to refute. If this genealogy is faulty, why did the Holy Spirit inspire it to be part of the Bible?

God Bless

minasoliman

What Paradise is described in the Scriptures and the way Eden is interpreted by the Fathers need to be differentiated.  Not all Church fathers pinpointed Eden somewhere in the Middle East.  In fact, I would say that a good number of important Church fathers did not even pinpoint Eden anywhere in Earth at all, or if they did, it did not matter where, but what state of grace man was in.  The Paradise of Eden that is mentioned in Genesis is interpreted by the Church fathers as the Paradise that the saints we ask prayers from are enjoying today.  St. Gregory the Theologian did not read into the text as literal trees somewhere on Earth, but spiritual trees, virtues that they would grow into if they continue in obedience with God.  The very same Paradise as the saints is just that!  St. Athanasius writes about Adam and Eve:  

Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption.

True life of the saints in paradise is the immortality in heaven.  This is what is promised us when we depart from this world, and in fact, we can even live it now.  Some saints in fact do live paradise now before they even depart from the world.  So it makes no sense to search out for Paradise, as described by the Church fathers, through scientific evidence.  As you point out, you know very well what "Paradise" is.  So why do you search for a literal description?  If it is a state of relationship with God, you will have to search for scientific evidence for God.  Tell me now...can you scientifically prove the divine nature?  If you can understand that this is absurd to sense God physically, then you can understand that spiritual paradise has no place in "proofs" of science either.  That is why the question bothers me.

The Church fathers clearly did not take those parts literally.  As Origen said in his Philocalia, some parts are NEVER to be taken literally.  Some parts can be taken literally.  But what they all have in common is that the Holy Spirit interwoven fiction with fact to give us a clearer picture of the revelation of Christ.  The Holy Spirit included those parts of the story not for you to see through them literally.  What dogma or salvific effect is there to believe that Eden was somewhere between four rivers?  None!  Therefore, you need to search deeply with prayer to find the answer the Holy Spirit is trying to convey through these writings.

Origen had no problem with anything in Scripture that may have contradicted some historical or scientific facts, and St. Gregory and St. Basil who gave approval of those writings show us a Church that was not very much tied up in this idea that the Scriptures had to be 100% literally accurate.  Their main concern was how the Old Testament tells us about the New Testament?  What does the Old Testament reveal to us about the gospel of Christ.  Anything else is extraneous.  That does not mean that the Old Testament is completely fiction.  That is not what I am saying.  The Old Testament is rooted in historical reality of Israel, and this is very important.  No Church father, including Origen, ever said Israel is a fiction.  But some were saying that there are parts of the Old Testament that were added to history to paint a more complete prophetic picture of the gospel.

One can also ask, if we can assume that Moses wrote Genesis, what was Moses' intention in writing the way he wrote about some of these stories?  I think the first few chapters of Genesis are of a drastically different literal genre than the rest of Genesis.  It is filled with mystery and a certain prose that seem to point to a way of interpretation non-literally.  Philo the first century Alexandrian Jew even recognized it as such and did not take it literally as well, and he was not a Christian.  So one also has to consider the literary genre and the historical context of what was written.

(continued to next post)

minasoliman

Now, your other issue is genealogy and the beginning of humanity.  Let us consider what the genealogy of Christ exactly is, since this is the most important issue.  First, Christ is a "son of man", which literally means He was a human being.  When we say all of humanity are "Sons of Adam", we are saying we are "Sons of humanity".  That is the take home message.  So the genealogy of Christ requires that He be human.  That's straightforward.  No matter where someone is born in the world, we are all human.  That much is clear.  Remember however that a lot of the genealogy is cloaked in mystery, even up to Abraham.  Abraham has a much stronger case of historicity than Adam himself.  He even has a stronger case than Noah, since Noah is more mysterious than Abraham.  Still though, now we get to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and this shows that Christ is descended from the fathers of true and strong faith in the one God, and that His lineage is from the people who worship "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob".  Jacob is none other than Israel himself, who gave birth to the chosen nation of God in the 12 tribes.  From the twelve tribes, one, named Judah, was chosen.  And not just anyone from Judah, but specifically from David.  After Solomon, the genealogy becomes different between Matthew and Luke, but they both agree that Christ is the descendant of David, and specifically the descendant of David and his adulterous relationship with Bathsheba.  In Matthew's account, it would be Solomon, but in Luke's account, it would be Nathan, both were sons of Bathsheba specifically.

So, we have a few things to consider.  Christ was the son of humanity (Adam), the son of the saved (Noah), the son of faith (Abraham), the son of the promise (Isaac), the son of the chosen covenant (Israel), the son of chosen royalty (David).  This last one has actually been confirmed true.  We do have historical evidence of King David.  If God wishes to reveal to us more historical evidence of earlier generations, then God will do so in His own time for us.  At the moment, I personally do not find it a problem to believe in a real "Adam".  How then can one believe in Adam who is about 7 to 8000 years ago, and a homo sapien sapien who is supposed to be calculated to appear between 1-2 hundred thousand years ago (some even calculate as late as 50,000 years ago), as opposed to homo sapien which is believed to have appeared about 2.5 million years ago?  

This is one of those "I don't know" questions.  If I'm going to give you an answer, the answer would be my answer, not something I can give you with assurance from the Church fathers.  What I have confidence in though is that God at some point decided a specific hominid where he miraculously created a woman out of, or group of hominids He chose to stamp in them His image, or whatever other possibility may be that I do not know about that lead to the creation of further "chosen" humans.  In fact, throughout history, it is very clear that God has continued to "choose" those that best represent His Image.  The first "chosen" could have been Adam.  Later, Noah.  Later, Abraham.  Later, David.  Later, Mary and Joseph and their families probably, who were born probably of a very recent (relatively speaking compared to their births) righteous generation before them.  The parents, grandparents, and great grandparents of Mary and Joseph were probably very righteous people of high caliber (you can tell that even Elizabeth, the wife of Zacharias, was probably chosen by Zacharias for her righteousness and her family's good reputation).  With such excellence in virtues from these families, naturally, the soil for Christ to be born was finally ready, especially out of a daughter of David.

So then, if God continually has made choices in primitive times, as time evolves, I personally contemplate maybe God has done the same in the evolution of humanity.  Even scientists have made a differentiation between "homo sapiens" and "homo sapien sapiens", or modern anatomical humans.  Notice the word "anatomical".  In other words, this is only a physical characteristic we know about humans based on fossil evidence.  Later, we can understand the behavior of these hominids.  The Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago, leading to a change of behavior of these hominids as well.  The control and domestication of plants and animals seemed to occur about 8000 years ago, showing another revolutionary change of behavior.  By that time, the soil of creation was ready finally for the perfect hominid to be made in His divine image, the first real human.  At that point, you can take it by faith that even though we have fossil records of those who are anatomically similar to us before the Biblical understanding of when Adam came into the scene, Adam may have been the first to be a real human in the image of God.  All others seem to either have also become divinely anointed with this same image or have become gradually extinct, making way for all of humanity to be descended by one man who bore a human spirit.  And that is not too far fetched to understand.  Other hominids that were clearly different from us anatomically were already gone by then (like the Neanderthals, who have actually given us a small part of DNA to us as evidence shows), and the story of Noah even further indicates how God shows even other "descendants of Adam" could be wiped out very easily making way for a specific group of humans.  Indeed, when we genetically calculate our closest ancestor, it seems to be around that Adamic time.  

That does not mean there were no pre-Adamic "humans", but it does mean the full story of THE ONE TRUE God's relationship with man begins with "Adam", whoever he may have been, and the full revelation of God begins with Christ.  Here is when I begin not to give you my interpretation, but now the interpretation of the Church:

Therefore, one must interpret these stories of Genesis only in the light of Christ.  At that point, once Christ is in the picture, it does not matter to me whether a real literal Adam was there or not.  The best we can do thus far is Christ is a true descendant of David and of Israel and of Abraham, and is fully human (with a rational soul), that is "of Adam".  He is a descendant of "true man" (Adam) and "true life" (Eve), both of whom forfeited their image and their immortality, and both of whom been replaced with Jesus and Mary, the new Adam and the new Eve.  This is the dogmatic understanding that I can confidently convey to you, and this is how I read Genesis.

Remnkemi

I am going to piggy back off of Mina's comments on the genealogy. No one takes the genealogy of Christ literally either. If it were to be taken literally, then only one genealogy would exist. But since there are two different genealogies, then we must apply some space for interpretation and allegory/symbolism. Additionally, there is more spiritual information in the genealogies than there is historical. I will give two examples.

As I read the genealogies, first and foremost I see it as a revelation of the Trinity. As Mina pointed out, "the genealogy of Christ requires Him to be human." This is true. The genealogy itself also points to Trinity's love and man's adoption (theosis) since in Luke 3:38, Adam is called "the Son of God". Thus, the Holy Spirit inspiring St Matthew informs us that Adam (and all humanity) partakes of the divine nature by being loved and called by the name of the Trinity. 

In addition, I would like to point out an apparent disagreement with Mina's comment "With such excellence in virtues from these families, naturally, the soil for Christ to be born was finally ready, especially out of a daughter of David." All of the 5 women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy were, under Jewish standards, the exact opposite of "excellence in virtues". One was a prostitute who aided and abetted a fugitive and spy (Rahab), one played a prostitute and tricked her father in law to have sex in order to have Levirate union (Tamar), one was the granddaugher of Ahitophel (a big problem in itself) who committed adultery (Bathsheba) and two were not even Jewish (Ruth and Naaman). All of this illustrates a spiritual truth: even the worst sinners (sinners who are thousands of times worse than you and I) belong to the family of Christ. 

This illustrates again how literalism - and how it crosses over into evolutionism and creationism - are complex topics commonly misunderstood. Thankfully, God does not leave us in darkness but illuminates us with His incarnation, His gospel, the saints, the wisdom of the Church (and even science).

minasoliman

I don't think we disagree. If I was vague, I meant the direct family of Sts. Mary, Joseph, and Elizabeth, not their ancestors, which as you rightly point out were not exemplary, but were nonetheless chosen by God.

Joshuaa

fully human (with a rational soul) ?

Those that support evolution wouldn't believe we have a soul Mina.