www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Death prior to the fall

I don't think that Andrew was saying that the events behind Christianity didn't happen. I think he was saying that you couldn't prove that the events happened. I agree with him on this. What can be proved, in the strong sense of the word prove, is very little. If we believe that the events are real, we do so on faith.

Joe

I have debated my fundamentalist brother-in-law frequently on the issue of Genesis. It seems clear to me that the author of Genesis never intended the Creation story to be a science lesson, so to interpret it as such is an abuse of the Scriptural text.

But the only part in which I don't have confidence in my argument is when he asks about death before the fall. Usually I simply answer that the "death" caused by the Fall is spiritual death; that before the Fall there was physical death on earth (i.e. trees, animals, etc.), but the Fall caused Adam and Eve to suffer spiritual death. But to be honest, I'm not sure how much I accept that argument myself.

Joe,


Are you saying that we can't prove that Jesus actually was a man who lived in Palestine 2,000 years ago? That he was killed by the Romans? That his followers went out preaching of his resurrection?

I think you both are confusing scientific proof with historical proof. We do not prove historical events by being able to experience them with our senses, or be able to recreate them in a laboratory. We don't need to have a picture or videotape of them in order to have historical proof that they occurred. We have proof based on an evaluation of the eyewitness accounts that comes down to us. This is true of any history, religious or non-religious. Our historical proof for the events of Christianity is as strong, if not stronger, than any historical proof from that time period. Unless you want to simply reject all of ancient history as "unknown", you cannot deny the existence of proof for the historical events of Christianity.

I acknowledge the role of faith in our religion. But our faith is built upon actual events of history, which we believe are actual interventions of God into human history. If you simply have faith built upon something you have faith in, you have built a house upon sand.

I think that Genesis is "myth" as opposed to allegory. By "myth" I don't mean "pure fiction", but rather the story-telling style of the ancient world in which known truths were conveyed in an easy to understand and entertaining way.

For example the Trojan War would be a "myth", but was also a historical event. The way people recorded information was through oral tradition, and certain conventions developed as a means of making the stories easy to transmit. After all, think about how boring a clinical account of biology would be around a campfire.

So Genesis recounts the true story of our first parents, Adam and Eve, but in a mythical format that makes it easy to convey as a story to be passed down for generations. The struggle with the hidden and insidious temptations of Satan are expressed as a conversation with a snake, and this because a snake best represents Satan's nature (hidden, silent, fast moving with a deadly bite, ect). We really all descend from Adam and Eve, but they aren't necessarily the only source of our biology, nor do they have to have been created immediately out of thin air (or clay, or a rib), but those tidbits express to us fundamental truths about them and about us. We are dust, and to dust we will return, and man and woman were made specially for eachother.

So all of Genesis can be true without being allegory; we just have to remember to think like the ancients when we read it, and understand the information that is being conveyed. It's important that we pick out the symbolism of the language rather than take a literalistic approach that might actually hinder our understanding of the Truth. There is actually more fact in Genesis than a literalist approach would lead us to believe; I heard someone say once that it doesn't matter whether or not the snake could talk, what's important is what he said. I think that conveys the depth of what's going on in the stories of Genesis.

Peace and God bless!

We can certainly hold that it is highly probable (with near certitude) that Jesus of Nazareth lived, that He preached in such a way that others claimed Him to be the messiah, that He was put to death by the Romans on the cross, and that not long after his disciples preached that He had risen from the dead. What you can't prove is that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, that He was the Son of God, and that the disciples were right. Those beliefs we must hold on faith.

Joe

I think that this is well said and a good explanation. But, if true, then it would seem that physical death existed before the fall.

Joe

I agree with Francis that to read science into the Genesis narrative is bad exegesis. Nevertheless, it is essential that Genesis be taken as an historical truth in what it teaches. Personally I would argue that the creation narrative is written in poetic form or story form or mythological language. This does not relegate the truth of Genesis to what we commonly mean when we say myth. Yet the form of myth is useful for conveying truth and I think that is exactly what is going on there. Creation is not just an idea that someone dreamed up ages ago. It really happened. To hijack Arius, "There was a time when IT was not." And then, there was a time when IT was. And IT came to be through the Word of God. To believe less than this is gnosticism in which truth is not dependent on historical realities. God did not "create" the world outside of History or above history or beyond history. Creation marks the very point where history began. If we get that wrong then everything else falls apart.

As for the language of Genesis, I think Moses (I do not accept the higher critical notion that there were many authors of Genesis, nor do I disbelieve that Moses had oral and or written sources to consult when he wrote) intended not to give us a scientific dissertation on the origins of the universe, but a story which conveyed the almighty power of YHWH. Moses takes it for granted that creation from nothing happened sometime in the remote past. That part of the creation story which is necessary for our salvation has been recorded and enshrined in Holy Scripture for our information and edification. St Paul says "By faith we understand the worlds to have been made." There is therefore no question in my mind that Genesis is the subject of Faith, not science. It is not and cannot be subject to the critiques of science, for, among many reasons, the very simple one that no human being was present at the time to see it transpire.

Furthermore, I do not think we have the authority or the privilege of dismissing Adam and Eve as non-historical persons. The Church has spoken for 2 millenia on this and Tradition is clear: Adam and Eve were real persons and the progenitors of the human race. Some have scoffed at the idea of God planting a "Garden" as though this were a bizarre idea. I ask, WHY? If men and women plant gardens why is it so strange that God might do so? I hardly thing he had in mind a nicely plowed field with various veggies growing. Wouldn't you consider a tropical jungle or rainforest to be a garden of sorts? Throw in a little manicuring and you have what is described in Genesis. The idea that God wouldn't "plant a garden" seems stupid to me.

No one has brought up the idea of recapitulation, though it has been implied in several posts. One need only look at the life of Christ to glean much information (wisdom) concerning the first few chapters of Genesis. Nothing happened to Jesus except what had already occurred in the past, thus recapitulating the past into his Life in the final definitive form for our salvation. If God didn't plant a garden, then why was Jesus so fond of Gardens? Forgive me if the question seems naive, but I intend it in all seriousness. If there was not really a "Tree of Life" then why did Jesus die on a tree? If there was not chaos and then light then why was the Holy Spirit Hovering over the virginal waters of the womb of Mary? Too far fetched? Maybe. But I have Tradition on my side and if you are going to dis Tradition then go find another religion. Just because something happened so far back in the mists of time that we no longer have any societal recollection of it occurring does not mean that it did not happen.

Frankly, when one studies world religions outside Christianity one finds much that supports the Traditional Christian view. One might call this the "Universal Tradition". Oddly, the less developed the culture the more clearly does this universal tradition shine except in the Christian Tradition where it has blossomed (uh-oh, there's that Garden imagery again) into a tree of colossal magnitude.

If we feel that we are above or beyond embracing the historic roots of types then we are devolved into gnostics. Frankly, I am troubled by this as it seems that many many within the Church both east and west, today, are gnostic in that they dismiss the real value of history. Maybe not so much denying the historicity of Jesus himself, but of all that preceded him. What then if he does not return for another 5,000 years? Will that give us reason and justification to say that since he lived so far away from us we really can't know anything about him? The saying goes "time heals all wounds" but it is a lie. Only forgiveness heals wounds...Time, left to itself, leads to forgetfulness and disbelief. That is why the Church is unique among institutions. It has a divine mind, memory guiding it. The Church very simply, CAN NOT forget...not essentially. IF she forgets, she is reminded and reminded until she "gets it" once more. This is why the Church cannot fall into utter paganism...why it cannot morph into something else...it is Divine.

Frankly, higher criticism makes me sick. I hate it and can't wait for the day when God vindicates himself and puts it to rest forever. Christianity is not a religion of Doubt and Skepticism. It is a religion of certainty and hope. Critics of the Old and New Testament drown us in doubt. This is completely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel which is Light and Life. Whether we like to admit it or not, we are all much more children of the Renaissance than we care to acknowledge. We have substituted doubt for faith, uncertainty for certainty, skepticism for confidence.

Who's children are we? Sons of Adam or sons of chimpanzees?

Jason

Jason,

Do you think that the arguments of higher critics should be evaluated on their merits or should they be a priori rejected? Is the certitude of Christian faith something that we can defend rationally or is it just something that we posit and hold on to at all costs? What do we do if the evidence seems to point in a direction different from the conclusions that we desire to hold?

By the way, your points about history are excellent and I do agree that if we mythologize too much, we risk turning Christianity into some kind of universalist myth that is intelligible only to those with the proper "gnosis." Still, unless we wish to be fedeists, it ought to be possible to show on scholarly, academic grounds that the arguments of skeptics are weak.

Joe

As an aside, I take the story of Noah and the Ark to be true. I don't pretend to know what animals were actually on the ark though. However, I have argued with my fundamentalist dad that NO!, There were NOT Dinosaurs on the ark!"

I think this illustrates how silly the literal position is.

Jason

Agreed. But that is waaay different than saying:


Which is what I am disputing. All of Greek Mythology is based on acknowledged invented stories. Christianity, on the other hand, is completely based on historical events. To compare the two is problematic, at best.

Joe,

I think we must critique the critics and evaluate on their merits. However, I think it is essential that we do so from a fundamentally Christian perspective. I don't subscribe to fideism and I don't think it's a very Christian philosophy. Fideism demands believing in something without proof or evidence of any kind. This flies in the face of what I have written about the value of history. I would argue that we must keep to the mind of Church and critique from that perspective. I will grant that not EVERYTHING that has come down to us is genuine Tradition. At the same time, I want to keep away from the Reformation notion of "Reformed and always Reforming". That, is not how God made the world. He spoke and it was. He formed it once for all time. Unless we take the Story of the Flood to be a second creation account (which I do). But that's another topic.

I believe firmly that the Christian faith is fully defensible rationally. However, it is not BASED on Human rationality, but Divine. Sometimes we have to bow our heads and say "I don't know, but I know what the CHurch teaches." THough many will disagree with this, I think history has made it clear that on occasion, the church can err. Just think "Papal Supremacy". I will not touch this issue and I do not say it is right or wrong. I merely point it out as one on which the Church has quite clearly erred be it one way or the other. So long as we can't agree on this topic the world will laugh at us regarding it. But I don't think it's all that important as to whether the world laughs at us or not. I think it comes with the whole Christian package. We WILL be laughed at. Not because the truth of our Religion is indefensible, but because the minds of the wicked cannot comprehend it.

I think we've gotten into this trap of considering ALL men and women as sons and daughters of God and not realizing the biblical basis upon which the distinction between the righteous and wicked exists. Frankly, Christians are the Righteous and the Wicked are those outside the church. Now someone will pipe up and say this is BS because there are many outside the church who are good people etc blah blah blah. Fine, I agree. But that doesn't destroy the biblical/historical definition which I have just described. Holy Scripture is abundantly clear that there are two types of people in the world: the Righteous and the Unrighteous. Sons of God and sons of Satan. I know this has been used in the past to justify hatred and bigoty. I don't support that use at all. But just because it has been abused does not make it not true. We have to take St Paul at face value when he says the mind has been darkened and they cannot understand the truth. We take it for granted that everyone CAN understand the truth. But they can't. So says Tradition and Holy Scripture. This is why we have...missionaries. To help the blind to see...the lame to walk and the dumb to speak. We dont (or should not) send out missionaries to CONVERT people. WE sent them out to enlighten the world and to disciple the nations.

In spite of all that, sometimes men have doubts about the veracity of certain Christian claims which really do seem to point to the "Christian" position as being the wrong one. What should we do in such a case? I don't believe we should silence the doubter. Nor do I believe we should dismiss out of hand his questions and the evidence he may have brought forth to his position. As CHristians we must, before all else, in regard to our fellow man, be humble. That means taking his doubts as the doubts of a sincere seeker of truth and his critique as a possible corrective for our misguided ideas. As I said before, sometimes the Church is wrong. Especially when she presumes to speak to issues upon which she has no authority: Aka science. If she would stick to her realm of responsibility, such occasions of error would be kept to a bare minimum. I think perhaps in the future this may be the case. Historically, however, it's another matter altogether.

Jason

Excellent post, Jason!

Regards,
Alice

P.S. I want also say that all the posts on this thread have been stimulating for me to read and learn from.

Jason,

Would you say then that we must posit the existence, goodness, and truthfulness of God and the reliability of His Church as a kind of first principle? And then hold this on faith and take this as the starting point for interpreting all of the evidence?

I believe that this is position held by many theologians and philosophers that belief in God is properly basic. It would seem then that it would be pointless to argue the existence of God. One merely proclaims God and then, hopefully, the other is moved to faith. Once we are moved to faith then we use reason within the bounds of faith. Would this position be acceptable? Also, what would distinguish what I've just articulated from fideism?

Joe

Genesis is either an accurate and reliable narrative describing the events of the creation of man and the subsequent entrance of sin in to the world through the introduction of death, or it isn't. The "not a science book" angle to me really has no bearing (though I think the vast majority of patristic commentators viewed it in quite literal terms). It's not a matter of science however, it's a matter of what is written on the page itself being accurate and true to the events that it describes. Gordon in my opinion has best articulated the danger to the whole Gospel story if the underlying elements are found to be suspect. Basically it seems to me there is an impulse to undercut the authority (it's not science, it's not exactly how it happened, it was written to be communicated in a simple and entertaining way, etc.) of the text to deal with its apparent inconsistencies and problems while also claiming it is authoritative and trustworthy. That makes no sense, and that is why the issue isn't with higher criticism or people outside the church. The issue is with what is being communicated, i.e. there's a reliable truth behind a highly unreliable exterior.

I'm not hearing good answers to explain this.

Joe,

To answer your first set of questions, I have to say yes AND no. How I answer that question depends on my answer to your last question, "What would distinguish what I've just articulated from fideism?"

Fideism, as said before is a leap of faith. A belief based on no evidence. There have been certain thinkers both religious and secular, who have advocated this type of "faith" and described it as the Catholic idea of faith. I, however, most heartily disagree. What then is Faith? The biblical answer is well known "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." But that answer is almost as mysterious as the original question "What is faith". Rather than beat around the bush because I want to go take a nap I'll just say straight out that Faith is not "blind belief"; such belief might as well be belief in nothing. IT is not rationalistic. That is, faith cannot be created by argumentation on a human level. Faith, very simply is divine. It is divine knowledge imparted to the soul. We believe XYZ a priori not by jumping over a cliff in blind trust (where is the confidence in that?) not by being argued into belief (where is the humility?) but by an immediate act of God upon the soul whereby faith is infused. Faith is divine knowledge of divine things. It is implanted into us in seminal form at Baptism and we RECOGNIZE truth rather than are persuaded of truth. Arguments and persuasion, rationality and reason all have their uses: to uncloak, to debunk, to cast down the reasoning of the world and expose it for the fraud that it is. Why cant the natural man believe? Because he has no faith. He has no experience of God. The Christian, on the other hand HAS faith and can believe. He may also disbelieve; but he does not do so because he cannot believe. Rather he does so because he does not WANT to believe. It becomes personal between him and God.

I want to tread very carefully when I make this next statement as there are many here on the forum more knowledgeable about this than I am, but I believe that if one reads St Gregory Palamas, one will come away with this understanding of faith, or something similar to it.

The west has obscured this through emphasis on rationality. Now, rationality is useful as I said for debunking the lies of the world. It is NOT useful for creating faith. It cannot do that. Only God can create faith in someones heart. Now I will not say that God can't use a rational argument to be the MEANS of awakening faith, I am only arguing that rationality alone has no power to do so. And I think the best of the western fathers would agree.

SO, the long and short is, we do not argue from what we simply believe, but we argue from what we actually know to be true. This is why the statement elsewhere in the thread that compares Genesis to the Greek Mythologies and says that there is no difference between the two in terms of proving one or the other is only partially correct. In terms of literature, no, the written word has no power to create faith. THus the Genesis narrative AS LITERATURE is no more true or valid than the Greek Mythologies. However, Genesis is NOT simple literature, it is the Word of God inscripturated. It is impossible that it is not true and those with Faith can recognize its truth. I don't say they WILL recognize it because we are still sinful people but they CAN recognize it if they will.

It all goes back to the fact that Truth is Genuinely Rational, but not HUMANLY Rational, rather Divinely Rational. That Divine means of thinking is given to us, in seminal form, in the gift of Faith. So we are able to think as GOd thinks, albeit as sinful creatures.

Hope this helps.

Jason