Did God create others after Adam and Eve?

[Byblos]

Not a problem Danny. How was your trip to NY? You should have told me you were going to be in my neck of the woods. We could've done lunch or something. Were you in NYC at all?)

Do you know what Byblos, that's a lovely thing for you to suggest and next time I'm over I will pre warn you and take you up on lunch. We could put the world to rights

Any time Danny. I would love to shoot the breeze with you in person.

Perhaps I'm not understanding what you're saying Danny. The traditional orthodox Christian position is that sin was propagated to humanity through Adam's lineage. If there are other lineages, please explain the precise mechanism by which sin was propagated to them then. If not by birth, then by what?)

I absolutely agree that sin was brought into the world through Adam's disobedience. Where I differ is that this in no way, nor is it suggested, that this has to be restricted to Adam's lineage. If you think about it, it would be ridiculous for Adam's transgression NOT to apply to all existent people. WEhy is God not God of all existence? Because God, for our benefit, focuses on Eve and Adam, does not mean that he had no dealings or no concern with others.

Throughout the OT God makes it clear that punishment can befall a person's descendants to the second and third generation or more. There is a clear delineation of the penalty for disobedience or sin to the lineage of the person committing the offense. God is just and fair. Why on earth would he punish people who are completely unrelated to the transgressor? Think of it this way, Adam and Eve were given a special grace, which they could have passed on to their descendants, but lost it instead so their descendants could not inherit it (and therefore are fallen). Also, look at what Genesis 3:1-24, where due to Adam and Eve's sin they would now have to work to live, be at war with nature, and suffer from pain and sickness. Why would non-adamic people lose that special grace or suffer all these punishments as well? Does that seem fair or even logical to you?

Also please look at how Paul deals with the subject of original sin in Romans 5:12-19 and in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.

Perhaps, maybe we should take his words exactly for what they are, considering he says 'all nations'. And what evidence is that you speak of? The fact that no siblings are mentioned? I'm sure you know the rule, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If the text says all descended from Adam and Eve, and it doesn't mention siblings between Cain and Abel, yet Abel had himself a wife, it's a not a far leap to surmise he married a sister. It's a gigantic leap to invent a whole new race because of it and insert that back into the text. Just out of curiosity, what it is about that you find objectionable? As it seems your entire position is built around the objection to Abel marrying his sister.)

I have no real argument here, Byblos, just on your "absence of evidence" comment. I do know the rule - I have had to point it out to many atheists - but I am not starting from this premise; my premise is the text itself and what it suggests. I take your earlier mention of two siblings at war among a siblinghood of 6. But the story of Cain and Abel, to me, points to a classic (indeed, I think this is the prototypical elder son resenting the newnorn) elder brother and newborn feud, a resentment from Cain of the next born Abel. I simply see no room for other siblings inserted between this hot jealously that Cain carries for Abel, who has intruded on his position.

It became prototypical with new generations, it didn't start out as prototypical. A clear case of eisogesis. But let's look at what one of the early church fathers had to say on the subject:

In the City of God (XV.16):

As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives,—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion . . . and though it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one's sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify.

Not sure exactly what you mean here, is there a typo? Are you a former Catholic? If yes, how far did you delve into Catholicism before deciding to convert? (if you don't mind me asking).)

No I don't mind at all, Byblos. I am a Protestant, always have been, but I prefer to look at Christianity from a neutral position. My problem with Roaman Catholicism is just the usual issue about hierarchy, Papism, and most of all how they use scripture to invent bogus orthodoxy. I have many criticisms too for the church of England, so this is not sectrian influenced, just dismay. But I think I'll cover this in the "orthodoxy" thread.

Thanks for the clarification, and I look forward to the new thread.

Why would it go away? We're having a civilized discussion, and I don't anticipate either of us will be convinced of the other's position. These types of discussions generally serve those who sit on the fence of a particular issue but seldom serve to sway the hardened souls. Hmm, if only we had a supreme court of sorts that can settle such disputes!

I quite agree. Well said, Byblos. Perhaps you'll convince me of your position. I'm open to persuasion...honest

God bless

I'm trying, I really am .

[Byblos]

The original Gospel of Peter now resides in the Museum of Cairo
You can find translations here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... brown.html
here:
http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagepet.html
here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... james.html

and probably many many other translations if you look it up. Pay attention to p4 "And they brought two malefactors, and crucified the 11 Lord between them. But he kept silence, as one feeling no pain"
The text was deemed heretic because it says Jesus did not feel pain. These texts were popular and even more accepted than the 4 included in the bible. They were deemed heretic by a handful of people in the 3rd century, not by the majority. Those texts WERE holy by the people of that time and were refused by the political agenda of the church. Now you say the 4 texts in the bible are the truth, only truth and nothing of the truth, then explain why Paul's gospel has more weight over Peter? Wasn't Peter jesus' favorite? Shouldn't Peter's gospel be the truth instead of paul? How do you explain that?

People please stick to the topic. If anyone wants to argue bible origins please create a new thread.

(thanks for splitting the posts CSL).

[cslewislover]

The original Gospel of Peter now resides in the Museum of Cairo
You can find translations here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... brown.html
here:
http://www.cygnus-study.com/pagepet.html
here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... james.html

and probably many many other translations if you look it up. Pay attention to p4 "And they brought two malefactors, and crucified the 11 Lord between them. But he kept silence, as one feeling no pain"
The text was deemed heretic because it says Jesus did not feel pain. These texts were popular and even more accepted than the 4 included in the bible. They were deemed heretic by a handful of people in the 3rd century, not by the majority. Those texts WERE holy by the people of that time and were refused by the political agenda of the church. Now you say the 4 texts in the bible are the truth, only truth and nothing of the truth, then explain why Paul's gospel has more weight over Peter? Wasn't Peter jesus' favorite? Shouldn't Peter's gospel be the truth instead of paul? How do you explain that?

People please stick to the topic. If anyone wants to argue bible origins please create a new thread.

Ok, boss, I split the topic. The posts referred to are now in "Other gospels than those in the NT?" http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =3&t=33787

[DannyM]

Any time Danny. I would love to shoot the breeze with you in person.

If there's does exist a match for the Londoner, to put the Londoner in his place, then it has to be the New Yorker!

Throughout the OT God makes it clear that punishment can befall a person's descendants to the second and third generation or more. There is a clear delineation of the penalty for disobedience or sin to the lineage of the person committing the offense. God is just and fair. Why on earth would he punish people who are completely unrelated to the transgressor? Think of it this way, Adam and Eve were given a special grace, which they could have passed on to their descendants, but lost it instead so their descendants could not inherit it (and therefore are fallen). Also, look at what Genesis 3:1-24, where due to Adam and Eve's sin they would now have to work to live, be at war with nature, and suffer from pain and sickness. Why would non-adamic people lose that special grace or suffer all these punishments as well? Does that seem fair or even logical to you?

But this isn't linked to original sin, Byblos; original sin affects mankind per se. God knew it would turn out this way and there was nothing new, nothing that surprised God. I understand and you are right about sin affecting one's decendants, but original sin was there to propogate and apply to ALL peoples. Original sin spread to all, and so every man and woman were (not born in sin, as some would have it) born into a world of sin where the potential to sin was real.

Also please look at how Paul deals with the subject of original sin in Romans 5:12-19 and in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.

I can't at the moment, Byblos, but I think in the Corinth quote Paul reflects on how "...just as sin entered the world through one man..." in his paradox of Adam and Christ? I can't think of anything in the quote to confound me. I'll look at it when I get home.

It became prototypical with new generations, it didn't start out as prototypical. A clear case of eisogesis. But let's look at what one of the early church fathers had to say on the subject:

But it was surely the prototype of sibling rivalry?

In the City of God (XV.16):

As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives,—an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion . . . and though it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one's sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify.

I have great respect for Augustine as a thinker, Byblos, and I loathe to disagree with such a man, but this is his view as he has interpreted it from Genesis. I strongly disagree that it was a necessity for brothers and sisters to mate for the reasons i have given: the text leads us to the existence of other peoples. Just look at Lev 18 and God's disgust at such practices - are we to believe that God permitted such acts and was indifferent to them until Lev 18 where he suddenly musters huge disgust at such practices? Did this disgust just come out of left field?

Thanks for the clarification, and I look forward to the new thread.

I will start a very interesting thread on orthodoxy, Byblos. I need the time to do this, as I have to be very careful and precise; such a thread will have little room for nonsense. I am formulating it in my head and can't wait to get it up, and look forward to your views on the topic.

God bless

[Byzantine_Catholic]

HUMANI GENERIS from Pope Pius XXII answered this question very clearly

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains 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 parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own

[ageofknowledge]

I'm still pretty sure He created me.