A
anon65111186
Guest
Sure, that would be great.
- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
Life of Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich
1774-1824
Vol 1
- Adam and Eve
Adam and Eve
over his head, a light vapor covering him as with a veil. I saw a figure in his right side, and I became conscious that it was Eve, and that she would be drawn from him in Paradise by God. God called him. The hillock opened, and Adam stepped gently forth. There were no trees around, only little flowers. I had seen the animals also, coming forth from the earth in pure singleness, the females separate from the males.
And now I saw Adam borne up on high to a garden, to Paradise.
God led all the animals before him in Paradise, and he named them. They followed him and gamboled around him, for all things served him before he sinned. All that he named, afterward followed him to earth. Eve had not yet been formed from him.
I saw Adam in Paradise among the plants and flowers, and not far from the fountain that played in its center. He was awaking, as if from sleep. Although his person was more like to flesh than to spirit, yet he was dazzlingly white. He wondered at nothing, nor was he astonished at his own existence. He went around among the trees and the animals, as if he were used to them all, like a man inspecting his fields.
Near the tree by the water arose a hill. On it I saw Adam reclining on his left side, his left hand under his cheek. God sent a deep sleep on him and he was rapt in vision. Then from his right side, from the same place in which the side of Jesus was opened by the lance, God drew Eve. I saw her small and delicate. But she quickly increased in size until full grown. She was exquisitely beautiful. Were it not for the Fall, all would be born in the same way, in tranquil slumber.
The hill opened, and at Adam’s side arose a crystalline rock, formed apparently of precious stones. At Eve’s, lay a white valley covered with something like fine white pollen.
http://tandfspi.org/ACE_vol_01/ACE_1_0001_out.html
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
- Creation of the Earth
I fixed my eyes steadily upon it. I beheld it as if in movement, growing larger and larger, as it were, bright spots breaking out upon it and encircling it like luminous bands. Here and there, they stretched out into brighter, broader plains, and at that moment I saw the form of the land setting boundaries to the water. In the bright places I saw a movement as of life, and on the land I beheld vegetation springing forth and myriads of living things arising. Child that I was, I fancied the plants were moving about.
Up to this moment, there was only a gray light like the sunrise, like early morn breaking over the earth, like nature awakening from sleep.
And now all other parts of the picture faded. The sky became blue, the sun burst forth, but I saw only one part of the earth lighted up and shining. That spot was charming, glorious, and I thought: There’s Paradise!
While these changes were going on upon the dark globe, I saw, as it were, a streaming forth of light out of that highest of all the spheres, the God-sphere, that sphere in which God dwelt.
It was as if the sun rose higher in the heavens, as if bright morning were awakening. It was the first morning. No created being had any knowledge of it, and it seemed as if all those created things had been
there forever in their unsullied innocence. As the sun rose higher, I saw the plants and trees growing larger and larger. The waters became clearer and holier, colors grew purer and brighter—all was unspeakably charming. Creation was not then as it is now. Plants and flowers and trees had other forms. They are wild and misshapen now compared with what they were, for all things are now thoroughly degenerate.
When looking at the plants and fruits of our gardens, apricots, for instance, which in southern climes are, as I have seen, so different from ours, so large, magnificent, and delicious, I often think: As miserable as are our fruits compared with those of the South, are the latter when compared with the fruits of Paradise. I saw there roses, white and red, and I thought them symbols of Christ’s Passion and our Redemption. I saw also palm trees and others, high and spreading which cast their branches afar, as if forming roofs.
Before the sun appeared, earthly things were puny; but in his beams they gradually increased in size, until they attained full growth.
http://tandfspi.org/ACE_vol_01/ACE_1_0001_out.html
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
T
Techno2000
Guest
G
Glark
Guest
I will bet my bottom dollar that there was 100% consensus among the Church Fathers on the literal interpretation of Genesis 2:7 - ie, Adam was created instantly from inanimate matter (and was not the offspring of a pre-existing creature).
Furthermore, the seventeen books from Genesis to Esther obviously describe real, literal history. It seems might odd to me that a few sentences of it should buck the trend and be interpreted symbolically.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
On the contrary, there is nothing important at all about evolution. It is nothing more than a useless, irrelevant bedtime-story invented by atheists. It’s only “use” is to make atheists feel “intellectually fulfilled”.
Re Adam:
The time that has elapsed since Adam was created/infused with a soul can be calculated from the genealogies described in the Old Testament and other sources, such as the date the Septuagint was written. Orthodox Jews calculate Adam’s creation to have occurred about 5778 years ago (which is the date that appears on the front page of several Jewish publications, ie, 5778 = 2017).
Therefore Adam didn’t live long enough down the evolutionary timeline to be the primitive moron that you suppose him to have been. Indeed, since we know that Adam lived only 5778 years ago, we can conclude that he had the intelligence of modern man. Adam’s parents, although lacking souls, would have been the same as him in every other regard, including cerebrally, so they would have had the intelligence of modern man as well. Since evolution progresses very slowly, the ancestors of Adam - going back tens of thousands of years - would also have had the same intelligence of Adam. That being so, they would have had the intelligence to develop writing and all manner of technologies - imagine what they could have achieved in fifty thousand years.
But it appears they didn’t achieve anything. In fact, there is no evidence that this race of humans ever existed. Why not? Because they didn’t exist. How come? Because evolution is a myth.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
One does not have to be a young earth creationist to be a faithful Catholic. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that you won’t find more than a handful of bishops today who subscribe to the theory that Adam lived less than 6000 years ago. Catholic teaching does not teach it.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
Fine, it doesn’t contravene faith or morals, and it is allowed for distribution, but that wasn’t the point. The point was whether they were accurate or authentic, which even the Vatican won’t vouch for.
A
anon65111186
Guest
If Orthodox Jews jumped off a bridge, would you too? It’s kind of funny they can calculate that, since Orthodox Jews don’t learn math and don’t teach their children math.
Too bad that current scientific facts put the human species at a lot older than 5778. There are bones of homo sapiens in America older than your supposed Orthodox Adam.
Who said they didn’t invent things, they certainly had tools. Many tribes living in remote places undisturbed for thousands of years never developed writing.
Writing and all manner of technologies is not a absolutely necessary development.
It certainly is important or we wouldn’t be having this conversation on this thread, it is the best theory to explain the unbiased data we have. Do you have a better explanation than evolution, if so, I’m sure the scientific community would love to hear it.
E
edwest211
Guest
Regarding this subject, the scientific community has nothing of importance to say. But the theory of never-ending threads about evolution here has been shown to be true. Scientists only deal with what’s alive today. That’s all they can do.
B
Bradskii
Guest
There is no comparison to how society operates. We are talking about nature. If you were a dog and needed food, would you eat the chickens that were easy to catch or the ones that were difficult? It’s an easy answer as I’m sure you’d agree. It’s literally the survival of the fittest.Bradskii:
You are looking at this through the lens of how man treats man in this society. People stepping on people to get to the top.The poor and weak cast aside for the rich and powerful.Darwin and you are trying to extrapolate and apply this to the animal kingdom. There were no worse flyers and half ass runners. Everything was created to fill it’s own niche in Nature.
So don’t head off and try to work in social Darwinisn. We are talking just dogs and chickens. No hidden philosophical meanings here.
And I’m pretty sure that you know where the arms race between these two creatures might end up. With dogs that are much better climbers than their ancestors and chooks that can fly a lot better than theirs.
Now there is nothing I have said at any point that is any way unreasonable or can in any way be described as speciation. It is STILL dogs and chickens.
Do you abree?
B
Bradskii
Guest
Bear with me. I will respond in due course…Bradskii:
You are looking at this through the lens of how man treats man in this society. People stepping on people to get to the top.The poor and weak cast aside for the rich and powerful.Darwin and you are trying to extrapolate and apply this to the animal kingdom. There were no worse flyers and half ass runners. Everything was created to fill it’s own niche in Nature.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
A brief look at any nature film showing a lion take down a gazelle will quickly falsify that claim.
G
Glark
Guest
No, considering the context and other verses, I think that is an unreasonable and even absurd interpretation. No one would have ever considered such nonsense unless pressured from the scientific community to squeeze evolution in the Bible - at the cost of sound theology.
G
Glark
Guest
Are you suggesting human with souls breed with humans without souls? If so, that is not only a ludicrous idea, it implies bestiality.
A
anon65111186
Guest
Are you denying bestiality ever happened?
Also, do you consider Neanderthals as having souls?
A
anon65111186
Guest
Which context are you referring to? What is unreasonable about it? Clay has a number of translations in the Hebrew.
Pressured? You mean to say I am pressured by the scientific community, now that is what I would call absurd.
I can hardly be the first to simply ask the question, which is all I was doing.
G
Glark
Guest
Darwinist have a penchant for taking extremely complex processes and “dumbing them down” in order to make evolution seem more plausible. It’s delusion masquerading as science.
A
anon65111186
Guest
You know the scientific has among its members Saints, priests, and millions of faithful Catholics who search for the truth in God’s creation. Such disregard for science is unCatholic and frankly quite ignorant.
Do you mind if I ask where you went to school?
- Status