M
Michalina58
Guest
You mean a human soul is created in the womb instantly ?
Are Catholics supposed to believe that Adam and Eve were real people ?
- Status
F
feed_me
Guest
Yes a human soul is created in the womb instantly, thats why life begins at conception.
8
808Catholic
Guest
Yes, a soul is created by God for each and every child that is conceived.
G
Gorgias
Guest
How so? I’m not seeing the problem. Non-ensouled hominins give birth to Adam and to Eve; God gives Adam and Eve human souls; they become the first true humans. No problem.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Based on nothing but my own logic, this is what I’ve always believed.How so? I’m not seeing the problem. Non-ensouled hominins give birth to Adam and to Eve; God gives Adam and Eve human souls; they become the first true humans. No problem.
G
Glomung
Guest
The point of creating Adam and Eve was twofold, the first being that they were to be the representatives for the entirety of mankind, so that when they disobeyed, their disobedience and the resultant change of nature was applied to mankind as a whole.
Secondly, through them Jesus has “divinely ordained” ancestry. All of Jesus’ ancestors can be traced back to those two.
Secondly, through them Jesus has “divinely ordained” ancestry. All of Jesus’ ancestors can be traced back to those two.
E
edwest2
Guest
So the only difference between hominids without souls and Adam and Eve is God picked two and gave them souls? There is no Biblical reference to this.How so? I’m not seeing the problem. Non-ensouled hominins give birth to Adam and to Eve; God gives Adam and Eve human souls; they become the first true humans. No problem.
Ed
O
on_the_hill
Guest
There’s no Biblical reference to other hominids at all, but we know they were there, don’t we?
G
Gorgias
Guest
There’s no Biblical reference to ‘transubstantiation’, either: and it, too, is an attempt to take what the Church does say doctrinally and what we know from our experience of the natural world, and juxtapose the two so that there is no longer the mistaken assertion that theology and science are at odds with one another.
E
edwest2
Guest
I see what you’re saying. At the Last Supper, Jesus gives an explicit account of transubstantiation.There’s no Biblical reference to ‘transubstantiation’, either: and it, too, is an attempt to take what the Church does say doctrinally and what we know from our experience of the natural world, and juxtapose the two so that there is no longer the mistaken assertion that theology and science are at odds with one another.
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
At present, this cannot be proven one way or the other as it pertains to True Humans. Whatever they were, I’ll stick to what the Church tells us.
Ed
M
Michalina58
Guest
Exactly.
Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world. A world in which both can flourish… (Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, 1988)
E
edwest2
Guest
G
Gorgias
Guest
Umm… maybe you’d like to explain that claim?
I mean, if you said that, at the Last Supper, Jesus gave an explicit assertion of the ‘Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist’, I’d agree with you. After all, He said, “this is my body… this is my blood.”
However, what He didn’t do is explain that He is sacramentally present in the Eucharist, by means of keeping the accidents of bread and wine changing their substance to His substance… which is what ‘transubstantiation’ refers to.
Of course, I’ll wait to hear your explanation of your claim…
E
edwest2
Guest
“This is my body… this is my blood” is not enough? How can bread be His Body or Wine His Blood? He presented this as fact. “Do this in remembrance of me.”Umm… maybe you’d like to explain that claim?
I mean, if you said that, at the Last Supper, Jesus gave an explicit assertion of the ‘Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist’, I’d agree with you. After all, He said, “this is my body… this is my blood.”
However, what He didn’t do is explain that He is sacramentally present in the Eucharist, by means of keeping the accidents of bread and wine changing their substance to His substance… which is what ‘transubstantiation’ refers to.
Of course, I’ll wait to hear your explanation of your claim…
I’m 100% certain that nobody who eats bread or drinks wine today, or then, accidentally could change it into something else.
Ed
G
Gorgias
Guest
It could be ‘consubstantiation’. It could be symbolic representation.
It is transubstantiation because a Catholic philosopher and theologian applied sound principles of philosophy to the revelation of Scripture and demonstrated that it is so. Not purely on the basis of Scripture, as you’ve asserted… but on Scripture and philosophy, together.
Jesus certainly did present the ‘Real Presence’ as fact. That doesn’t demonstrate that He was presenting ‘transubstantiation’ at that time.
Umm… neither does God. He doesn’t change the bread and wine accidentally, He changes it substantially.
R
Richca
Guest
Science can be in error especially concerning the origins of the human race which some scientists claim an interpretation theory based on a few fossils found that are thousands or millions of years old. On the other hand, divine revelation is without error and what the Catholic Church proposes for our belief from the sources of divine revelation, that is, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The first man and woman, Adam and Eve, were created immediately by God as the biblical account makes known to us for only God immediately creates the spiritual immortal soul of every human being. Though the Church allows the belief that the body of Adam may have been formed by God from some pre-existent living matter, I personally hold literally to the biblical account that God immediately formed Adam’s body from the “dust of the earth”. Eve’s body was formed from living matter from Adam’s body as Holy Scripture relates and which has been the constant teaching of the Church. Human beings come from human beings just as lions come from lions.
R
Richca
Guest
I understand that this sort of interpretation would not contradict the catholic faith. Whether it is in contradiction to Holy Scripture is another question as edwest2 noted, there is no biblical reference to this sort of interpretation especially if we take into account the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis literally. In my personal view, that the so-called “parents” of Adam and Eve (as to their bodies) were irrational animals does not make a whole lot of sense. In this view, if Adam was ensouled at conception, he would have been raised by irrational animals unless one was to say that Adam was ensouled after becoming an adult “animal”. Human beings, man and woman, are the pinnacle of God’s material creation; the material creation was created for human beings to serve them as the CCC says. Such being the case, the Genesis account of God forming Adam’s body immediately from the dust of the earth makes sense to me; and then God formed Eve’s body from living material from Adam’s body, that is, his side or rib. The formation of Eve’s body from the side of Adam is very important scriptural typoloy as the Church confesses that the Church, the bride of Christ, was formed from the side of Christ asleep on the cross when he was speared in the side and out flowed water and blood, symbols of baptism and the eucharist.How so? I’m not seeing the problem. Non-ensouled hominins give birth to Adam and to Eve; God gives Adam and Eve human souls; they become the first true humans. No problem.
I do not mean to argue over your post here as what you are saying does not necessarily contradict the catholic faith. It is a way of trying to reconcile scientific theory, which as I said in a previous post could be erroneous and which is certainly not undoubtable fact, with divine revelation. I am simply making a few comments concerning the point in question.
B
BklynTony
Guest
That was 65 years ago…what about today almost 2016…what official declaration has the church made in the 21 st century ???
J
juliamajor
Guest
Well the names of Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel are.symbolic .we don’t have to believe in their names but in thn e concept of monogenesis. One set of parents for the w hole human race.common e ancestry for all humans so that we are all truly brother’s and sisters. So after Abel is killed by CAin and God asks where Abel is Cain says" Am I my brother’s keeper?" The resounding Answer is Yes! We are all related to each other.
As far as other hominids Cain’s wife is said to come from another.place and people. This is a blank page in scripture. Some scholars believe that the scribes accidentally cut out more information on the Creation. Other scholars say that the common people were so familiar with the Creation that a few missing tales would have been filled in ( in their imagination) by what they were already familiar with…
We have the same problem with the Nephilim. It is very vague who they really were and what was the rest of the story that ends so abruptly. Lots of those little tidbits in Genesis that makes it Incredibly interesting.
As far as other hominids Cain’s wife is said to come from another.place and people. This is a blank page in scripture. Some scholars believe that the scribes accidentally cut out more information on the Creation. Other scholars say that the common people were so familiar with the Creation that a few missing tales would have been filled in ( in their imagination) by what they were already familiar with…
We have the same problem with the Nephilim. It is very vague who they really were and what was the rest of the story that ends so abruptly. Lots of those little tidbits in Genesis that makes it Incredibly interesting.
- Status