Being Human?

  • Thread starter Thread starter atheistgirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

atheistgirl

Guest
As I understand it, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit.

It’s been explained to me that the reason Jesus had to be born of a woman, was to enable him to be human. Jesus being fully human is an essential part of the salvation story.

As an aside, I don’t see how Jesus can be ‘‘fully’’ human when He did not have a human father, but my main question is this - were Adam and Eve humans?

We’re all descended from Adam and Eve, our first parents. Jesus had to be born of woman to be human. But Adam and Eve were created.

What makes these ‘‘created’’ beings ‘human’?

If it’s not necessary to have ‘‘human’’ parents to be human, why did Jesus need to be born of a human woman to be human? Why couldn’t He have just been created, in the same way Adam and Eve were?

Sarah x 🙂
 
As I understand it, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit.

It’s been explained to me that the reason Jesus had to be born of a woman, was to enable him to be human. Jesus being fully human is an essential part of the salvation story.

As an aside, I don’t see how Jesus can be ‘‘fully’’ human when He did not have a human father, but my main question is this - were Adam and Eve humans?

We’re all descended from Adam and Eve, our first parents. Jesus had to be born of woman to be human. But Adam and Eve were created.

What makes these ‘‘created’’ beings ‘human’?

If it’s not necessary to have ‘‘human’’ parents to be human, why did Jesus need to be born of a human woman to be human? Why couldn’t He have just been created, in the same way Adam and Eve were?

Sarah x 🙂
From what I’m aware of Jesus didn’t have to be born of a woman, He chose to be born of a woman from eternity (hence why we say Christ was begotten not created). Some will say Jesus had to be born of a woman to fulfill the Scriptures in which I will say yes simply because the prophets dictated the way in which God willed to come to humanity and since Christ is truly divine he would not oppose His own will
 
As I understand it, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit. It’s been explained to me that the reason Jesus had to be born of a woman, was to enable him to be human. Jesus being fully human is an essential part of the salvation story. As an aside, I don’t see how Jesus can be ‘‘fully’’ human when He did not have a human father…
That is why Jesus is often referred to as “Man-God”, particularly in Papal Encyclicals, such as by Pope John Paul II; “This constitutes even a ‘superabundance’ of justice, for the sins of man are “compensated for” by the sacrifice of the Man-God”:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia_en.html
…but my main question is this - were Adam and Eve humans?
When Jesus walked the earth He taught in parables. The same God who inspired the Old Testament in the Bible is likewise the same God who inspired the New Testament. So some Catholics consider that the story of Adam and Eve might be a parable or metaphorical story. In that case, some Catholics consider that Adam and Eve may have been the first humans with a soul, an inner conscience that lasts forever. If this is the case, some consider that the Bible story of Cain and Abel might be a parable narrating how Homosapiens killed off the Neanderthals. Homo sapiens were farmers, like Cain, while Neanderthals were herdsman, like Abel.
We’re all descended from Adam and Eve, our first parents. Jesus had to be born of woman to be human. But Adam and Eve were created. What makes these ‘‘created’’ beings ‘human’? If it’s not necessary to have ‘‘human’’ parents to be human, why did Jesus need to be born of a human woman to be human? Why couldn’t He have just been created, in the same way Adam and Eve were?
In a nut shell, yes He could have been created and still be human, but there were scriptures in the Old Testament that required fulfilling.
 
As I understand it, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit.

It’s been explained to me that the reason Jesus had to be born of a woman, was to enable him to be human. Jesus being fully human is an essential part of the salvation story.

As an aside, I don’t see how Jesus can be ‘‘fully’’ human when He did not have a human father, but my main question is this - were Adam and Eve humans?

We’re all descended from Adam and Eve, our first parents. Jesus had to be born of woman to be human. But Adam and Eve were created.

What makes these ‘‘created’’ beings ‘human’?

If it’s not necessary to have ‘‘human’’ parents to be human, why did Jesus need to be born of a human woman to be human? Why couldn’t He have just been created, in the same way Adam and Eve were?

Sarah x 🙂
Sarah:

Not having been there, I think it’s important to attempt to understand how God might have created the universe, Adam, Eve, and Christ. I think that God exists at a level (one could call it the ‘implicate’ level) that is so different from the level at which we exist (the ‘explicate’ level, we could say), and that any creation most likely proceeds in much the same way, and at that level. In order to make that which is ‘physical’ God configures all or parts of continuous space (delineated by points) into what is perceived by humans beings as matter. The within of matter is almost 100% space, but not the standard, discrete stuff that we tend to experience and think of as space, but rather that space which we think of as Infinite Space (such as that which cohabits with electrons in electron shells), that we often refer to as God.

Space consists of those ‘points’ that flowed from an infinitesimally small singularity at the Big Bang. As these points (dimensionless particles) flowed from the singularity, they were configured into a lattice-like configuration, and this configuration resulted in “gaps” (s-gaps), that are permeated by the Infinite in a manner that has always been mysterious to us. Living, material beings can be thought of as configurations of s-points, animated by a particle of/from God, which we may call “Form” (after St. Thomas). I tend to think of Adam, Eve and Christ as Forms created by God, that were provided commissions, so to speak, that were extremely important in terms of God’s Divine Plan. Their s-point configurations were not any different from any other s-point configurations, except that those particle-s-point composites were tasked with specific objectives determined by the One, Subsistent, Omniscient Being. God selected them and endowed them with their formal differences, as has been revealed to us, with Christ being given formal speciation at the highest level God could possibly endow.

God endowed Christ with two forms - God’s own Form and the form of man - in one hypostatically unified Being - that Christ often had to re-consider as He was going through His earthly existence, especially during His passivity period, i.e, His human end-time.

Christ, then, would have proceeded into human existence in the same manner as any human being, by way of a mother. God has created species, albeit simpler ones, that are able to reproduce without the express presence of males, and I suspect that He can do this without too much effort.

As for Adam and Eve, our primal parents were created in the same way that everything is created, by the configuration of space (s-points) in composition with a “life-spark,” i.e., a God-spark, or soul.

This may or may not be precisely “how” it is/was done and I’m not saying that it is, only that it aligns with science so that science is no longer seemingly opposed to the religious conception of “creation.” Like any “theory,” this is one that is held by some, but is subject to change, or modification, if a more explanatory theory, or revelation, comes along.

God bless,
jd
 
If this is the case, some consider that the Bible story of Cain and Abel might be a parable narrating how Homosapiens killed off the Neanderthals. Homo sapiens were farmers, like Cain, while Neanderthals were herdsman, like Abel…
Really? I never heard this. If so, some people need to learn something about human history. Neanderthals disappeared long before any animals or plants were domesticated and they certainly weren’t herders and H. sap at the time, wasn’t either one.
 
Really? I never heard this. If so, some people need to learn something about human history. Neanderthals disappeared long before any animals or plants were domesticated and they certainly weren’t herders and H. sap at the time, wasn’t either one.
Science20: Could The Story of Cain & Abel Be The Story of The Genocide of Neanderthals?:

science20.com/hawkins_science/blog/could_story_cain_abel_be_story_genocide_neanderthals

NeanderthalProject: “…Neanderthal was living a pastoral life, and raised livestock.” & “The author of the NToA has suggested that Neanderthals were using stone tools to build fences or perhaps animal pens.”

neanderthalproject.com/?tag=neanderthal-culture
 
If it’s not necessary to have ‘‘human’’ parents to be human, why did Jesus need to be born of a human woman to be human? Why couldn’t He have just been created, in the same way Adam and Eve were?

Sarah x 🙂
I think it is more of a question of desire rather than necessity. More specifically, the Father desired the Messiah to have certain characteristics, which included being born of a woman. Consider that the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament foretold that the Messiah would be born of the tribe of Judah, within the royal line of David. But I don’t think that it was theologically or philosophically necessary for God to send the Messiah in this way.
 
The concept of the incarnation includes the idea of consubstantiation. Just as the persons of the Trinity are of one nature, so are all human persons. Trinitarian theology speeks of the thrree persons being one god. Theson is consubstantial with the father because he was born from him. Similarity is not enough to establish unity or consubstantiality. There is one species of humanity and that implies that they all descended from one source. All men are consubstantial with eachother.
 
As I understand it, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit.

It’s been explained to me that the reason Jesus had to be born of a woman, was to enable him to be human. Jesus being fully human is an essential part of the salvation story.

As an aside, I don’t see how Jesus can be ‘‘fully’’ human when He did not have a human father, but my main question is this - were Adam and Eve humans?

We’re all descended from Adam and Eve, our first parents. Jesus had to be born of woman to be human. But Adam and Eve were created.

What makes these ‘‘created’’ beings ‘human’?

If it’s not necessary to have ‘‘human’’ parents to be human, why did Jesus need to be born of a human woman to be human? Why couldn’t He have just been created, in the same way Adam and Eve were?

Sarah x 🙂
Question: Were Adam and Eve humans?

Answer: Yes. :hug3:

Question: What makes these ‘‘created’’ beings ‘human’?

Answer: The rational, spiritual soul.

Jesus, as God, assumed human nature. So that He is one person with two natures, both divine and human. I guess that someone would have to at least consider the possibility of God’s existence to even come close to understanding that. Frankly, that is a mystery which is not an easy one. Frankly, I don’t care how difficult it is. I accept it because to my simple mind it makes sense. How would anyone recognize Jesus if He didn’t have a physical body which could be seen?😃
 
As I understand it, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, and the Holy Spirit.

It’s been explained to me that the reason Jesus had to be born of a woman, was to enable him to be human. Jesus being fully human is an essential part of the salvation story.

As an aside, I don’t see how Jesus can be ‘‘fully’’ human when He did not have a human father, but my main question is this - were Adam and Eve humans?

We’re all descended from Adam and Eve, our first parents. Jesus had to be born of woman to be human. But Adam and Eve were created.

What makes these ‘‘created’’ beings ‘human’?

If it’s not necessary to have ‘‘human’’ parents to be human, why did Jesus need to be born of a human woman to be human? Why couldn’t He have just been created, in the same way Adam and Eve were?

Sarah x 🙂
Christ is fully human even though there was no father the same way that if there was another virgin birth (however, this one would be naturally and not miraculously with the child just being a replication of the mother’s genes), the girl would be a human. Christ would have had a complete human genetic structure same as everyone else…just some of it would have had to come elsewhere than from Mary.

Adam and Eve would be human in the sense that they are the first beings that (to our knowledge) were made of both matter and spirit. It is simply that they are different enough from everything else to be added into their own category. However, one does not need to simply use the spirit/intelligence quality. This is the same as why I am not classified as a lizard even though I as a human do share some qualities to a lizard. Evolutionarily my genes do not resemble that of a lizard, nor do I share a majority of “macro”-qualities with a lizard, and nor do I come from lizard parents. So, from that I am not a lizard but something completely different. Adam and Eve were not apes because they could think, not birds because they had no feathers and could not fly, not fish because they could not breathe under water, not lizards because they had no scales, but humans because they were uniquely what they were.
 
…] but my main question is this - were Adam and Eve humans?

We’re all descended from Adam and Eve, our first parents. Jesus had to be born of woman to be human. But Adam and Eve were created.

What makes these ‘‘created’’ beings ‘human’?
Just to mention an alternative Christian case, Adam and Eve are fictional characters in an early and much loved story that tries to explain the human condition.
 
Just to mention an alternative Christian case, Adam and Eve are fictional characters in an early and much loved story that tries to explain the human condition.
This is what I actually believe about the story of Adam and Eve - it’s a story. But I was interested in the take of those that take Adam and Eve as literally the first two humans so phrased it as such for the sake of the question.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Just to mention an alternative Christian case, Adam and Eve are fictional characters in an early and much loved story that tries to explain the human condition.
Just a quick note: while one possible approach to the Adam & Eve story is that it’s an allegory, this doesn’t mean that the account is false. The Catholic take on it is that the story tells us that there were two “first” humans, whom God created directly (whether or not one believes that they were literally “Adam” and “Eve”).

So, to say “fictional account” doesn’t imply “untruthful account”.
 
Just a quick note: while one possible approach to the Adam & Eve story is that it’s an allegory, this doesn’t mean that the account is false. The Catholic take on it is that the story tells us that there were two “first” humans, whom God created directly (whether or not one believes that they were literally “Adam” and “Eve”).

So, to say “fictional account” doesn’t imply “untruthful account”.
The real trick is to be able to discern Catholic doctrine from figurative language.

Remember that this “account” occupies three chapters in the Book of Genesis. Common sense calls for discernment on the part of Catholics.
 
This is what I actually believe about the story of Adam and Eve - it’s a story. But I was interested in the take of those that take Adam and Eve as literally the first two humans so phrased it as such for the sake of the question.

Sarah x 🙂
Is it scientifically dubious that we all “stem” from an original couple who were the first to have human DNA?

I’m not talking about proof here.

What’s the probability of polygenesis?

I’m prescinding from the problem of Adam being the chronologically first human. This aspect of the story may indeed be allegorical.
 
Is it scientifically dubious that we all “stem” from an original couple who were the first to have human DNA?
Exteremely dubious 😃 I don’t think the assertion we are all descended from a single mating pair is in any way sustainable, when the evidence is examined.
I’m prescinding from the problem of Adam being the chronologically first human. This aspect of the story may indeed be allegorical.
I believe it is just that, a story. A very good story, and a good attempt for the time at trying to understand our origins. However, we now have the human genome project among other tools to give us a much better, much clearer view, of our origins and development as a species.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Is it scientifically dubious that we all “stem” from an original couple who were the first to have human DNA?
Thanks to the Human Genome Project ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

all of the approximately 20,000 to 25,000 genes in human DNA have been identified. What needs to be remembered is that vertebrates (we are one) will have some similar genes. What makes the vertebrate anatomy human is the presence of the spiritual soul.

In general, polygenesis refers to a species having more than one set of founders. This does not apply to humankind.
 
Exteremely dubious 😃 I don’t think the assertion we are all descended from a single mating pair is in any way sustainable, when the evidence is examined.
I know that “mitochondrial Eve” has run into rough water.

Given that human DNA has now been determined by the genome project, there must have been some point in the past when it came on the scene.

Did this “event” happened independently in various populations in various places at various times? Or was it unique?

What would count as evidence, one way or the other?

Certainly, the same random mutation affecting dispersed groups at various times seems rather improbable.
 
I know that “mitochondrial Eve” has run into rough water.

Given that human DNA has now been determined by the genome project, there must have been some point in the past when it came on the scene.

Did this “event” happened independently in various populations in various places at various times? Or was it unique?

What would count as evidence, one way or the other?

Certainly, the same random mutation affecting dispersed groups at various times seems rather improbable.
In evolution it isn’t like one generation wasn’t human and the next was. The change is fluid so that each generation is continuous with its ancestors. Small changes occur over several generations and gradually the population changes. It isn’t an event, it is more of a flow.
 
Is it scientifically dubious that we all “stem” from an original couple who were the first to have human DNA?
Umm… if the theological question were about DNA, then it would be relevant to ask whether a single pair of persons had human DNA. It’s not a question of DNA, though: the question is whether it’s plausible that a single pair of humans were the first ensouled persons. Science can’t address that question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top