The Blood Line.

[freesoulhope]

I believe that both evolution and Christianity (mostly as a religion) are complementary of each other and are not contradictory in respect of there being a divine creator ( Philosophically speaking, I find it pretty obvious that there is a God). But scripturaly there are some blatant untouched problems. I have no problem looking at life from a Scientific veiw, with Adam and Eve, descendents of a lower organism, being blessed with self awareness and the ability to appreciate existents; and its all cool that it happened 30,000 years or so back. But if we except the scientific interp’s, we run directly into scriptural problems with the blood line.( Im not speaking of genesis, I’ve climbed that mountain).

At risk of being an advocate of the devil and, very reluctantly I might add, giving the enemy weapons to blind and agitate the weak, I ask this question…

How is one meant to understand the lineage?

There is a blood line that seems to stem all the way from Adam and Eve to are Lord Jesus Christ (am i wrong?). If the scientific time frame introduced by science and evolution is correct, then I cannot honestly hold that everything in the family tree, in respect of time and historical data, including evolution, is historically correct.

Now, I could never become a young earth creationist because philosophically, all the so called data collected in favour of it, doesn’t sound intellectually honest; neither could I leave Catholicism and become and atheist or take on any other religious ideal or philosophy, for similar reasons. It would be embarrassing for me.

Rejecting Stand-alone naturalistic explanations for reality and seeing that Christianity has many Good, powerful truths and arguments on its side, I have come to the belief that there is an honest answer to my question that does not compromise Christianity( More specifically " Catholicism). No matter how far away it takes us away from traditional interpretations of the bible; even if it leaves young earth creationist models sadly in the dust, Im prepared to tread into unknown lands for the truth.

Can we please have an unflinching, honest, philosophical discussion? I would Very much appreciate it if we spoke about things such as this on this forum.

Any theorys or ideas are welcome.

All in good faith. Free soul.

 

[Sixtus]

It is said that that Calvary was on the site where the tree of knowldege was in the garden of Eden.

Further, the human psychi is described [in a thread on this forum] as ‘in the image of God’!

You know, I am slightly disturbed by this and other claims of bloodlines etc. I feel it give an unhealthy faith in something unprovable, which brings in to doubt the credibility of some aspects of our faith.

How do we account for those suffering from mental and psychological ill health? Surely we are not suggesting 'the image of God can become sick and in need of a physician?

I think St Paul expresses it rather nicely in 1 Cor 15 : 45-49 when he describes ‘the first man Adam became a living soul’ but the last man became a life-giving spirit’. My understanding of this text is that he is not saying that Adam was the first man nor Christ the last; it appears allegorical.

My interpretation is that there was a definite point when Neanderthal man became fully human and at that point, he was endowed with that which his predecessor was not. But it may or may not have been a single generation occurance. It may also have evolved over several generations, we just do not know. What we do know is that humanity was well established before the book of Genisis was written.

My understanding is ‘the bloodline’ was from our father Abraham to Christ, not from Adam. But I may have misunderstood.

Once my learned brothers and sisters [who are infinitely wiser in theology and biblical history], read this: no doubt I will soon be corrected.

 

[Sixtus]

It is said and believed by some that that Calvary was on the site where the tree of knowldege was in the garden of Eden. It is also said that the Cross of the Blessed Lord was on the very spot where Cain killed Able and that His blood fell on the very earth which contained Able’s blood.

Further, the human psychi is described [in a thread on this forum] as ‘in the image of God’!

You know, I am slightly disturbed by this and other claims of bloodlines etc. I feel it give an unhealthy faith in something unprovable, which brings in to doubt the credibility of some aspects of our faith.

How do we account for those suffering from mental and psychological ill health? Surely we are not suggesting 'the image of God can become sick and in need of a physician?

I think St Paul expresses it rather nicely in 1 Cor 15 : 45-49 when he describes ‘the first man Adam became a living soul’ but the last man became a life-giving spirit’. My understanding of this text is that he is not saying that Adam was the first man nor Christ the last; it appears allegorical.

My interpretation is that there was a definite point when Neanderthal man became fully human and at that point, he was endowed with that which his predecessor was not. But it may or may not have been a single generation occurance. It may also have evolved over several generations, we just do not know. What we do know is that humanity was well established before the book of Genisis was written.

My understanding is ‘the bloodline’ was from our father Abraham to Christ, not from Adam. But I may have misunderstood.

Once my learned brothers and sisters [who are infinitely wiser in theology and biblical history], read this: no doubt I will soon be corrected.

 

[Sixtus]

t is said and believed by some that that Calvary was on the site where the tree of knowldege was in the garden of Eden. It is also said that the Cross of the Blessed Lord was on the very spot where Cain killed Able and that His blood fell on the very earth which contained Able’s blood.

Further, the human psychi is described [in a thread on this forum] as ‘in the image of God’!

You know, I am slightly disturbed by this and other claims of bloodlines etc. I feel it give an unhealthy faith in something unprovable, which brings in to doubt the credibility of some aspects of our faith, which really should not be questioned.

How do we account for those suffering from mental and psychological ill health? Surely we are not suggesting ‘the image of God’ can become sick and in need of a physician?

I think St Paul expresses it rather nicely in 1 Cor 15 : 45-49 when he describes ‘the first man Adam became a living soul but the last man became a life-giving spirit’. My understanding of this text is that he is not saying that Adam was the first man nor Christ the last; it appears allegorical.

My interpretation is that there was a definite point when Neanderthal man became fully human and at that point, he was endowed with that which his predecessor was not. But it may or may not have been a single generation occurance. It may also have evolved over several generations, we just do not know. What we do know is that humanity was well established before the book of Genisis was written.

My understanding is ‘the bloodline’ was from our father Abraham to Christ, not from Adam. But I may have misunderstood.

Once my learned brothers and sisters [who are infinitely wiser in theology and biblical history], read this: no doubt I will soon be corrected.

 

[Sixtus]

t is said and believed by some that that Calvary was on the site where the tree of knowldege was in the garden of Eden. It is also said that the Cross of the Blessed Lord was on the very spot where Cain killed Able and that His blood fell on the very earth which contained Able’s blood.

Further, the human psychi is described [in a thread on this forum] as ‘in the image of God’!

You know, I am slightly disturbed by this and other claims of bloodlines etc. I feel it give an unhealthy faith in something unprovable, which brings in to doubt the credibility of some aspects of our faith, which really should not be questioned.

How do we account for those suffering from mental and psychological ill health? Surely we are not suggesting ‘the image of God’ can become sick and in need of a physician?

I think St Paul expresses it rather nicely in 1 Cor 15 : 45-49 when he describes ‘the first man Adam became a living soul but the last man became a life-giving spirit’. My understanding of this text is that he is not saying that Adam was the first man nor Christ the last; it appears allegorical.

One may I think take it literally that Adam possessed a human psychi which Christ imbued with that which IS in the image of God, which is Spirit.

My interpretation is that there was a definite point when Neanderthal man became fully human and at that point, he was endowed with that which his predecessor was not. But it may or may not have been a single generation occurance. It may also have evolved over several generations, we just do not know. What we do know is that humanity was well established before the book of Genisis was written.

My understanding is ‘the bloodline’ was from our father Abraham to Christ, not from Adam. But I may have misunderstood.

Once my learned brothers and sisters [who are infinitely wiser in theology and biblical history], read this: no doubt I will soon be corrected.

 

[steveandersen]

…How is one meant to understand the lineage?

There is a blood line that seems to stem all the way from Adam and Eve to are Lord Jesus Christ (am i wrong?). If the scientific time frame introduced by science and evolution is correct, then I cannot honestly hold that everything in the family tree, in respect of time and historical data, including evolution, is historically correct. …

If you hold to common decent (which is what both science and religion tells us) then Christ is a descendant of Adam just like the rest of us. I’m not sure what your concern is.

If you are referring to the genealogies given in the Gospels, only 2 of the 4 give them and they are different from each other. So it seems to me the fact that Jesus was descended from the house of David and thus from Abraham before was more important than each and every name on the list.

 

[Della]

Sixtus:

My interpretation is that there was a definite point when Neanderthal man became fully human and at that point, he was endowed with that which his predecessor was not. But it may or may not have been a single generation occurance. It may also have evolved over several generations, we just do not know. What we do know is that humanity was well established before the book of Genisis was written.

Well, not Neanderthal–they died out. You mean must Homo Erectus. The book of Genesis tells us that God created everything, including man, and that we are all descendants of that man and woman. There is genetic “proof” (although a scientist would not use that term) that we all came from one female human being. So, Genesis isn’t far fetched, but neither is it a scientific text.

My understanding is ‘the bloodline’ was from our father Abraham to Christ, not from Adam. But I may have misunderstood.

The bloodline is from Adam to Abraham to David to Joseph. But, not everyone is listed in the lineage, only those most important to Matthew and Luke. They never intended that their lineages be exhaustive, but only representative of the major persons in them.

 

[mchale]

Further, the human psychi is described [in a thread on this forum] as ‘in the image of God’!

Being that our rational soul (not my words, the Church’s words) was made in the image of God, that is a perfectly legitimate interpretation, yes.

You know, I am slightly disturbed by this and other claims of bloodlines etc. I feel it give an unhealthy faith in something unprovable, which brings in to doubt the credibility of some aspects of our faith, which really should not be questioned.

I think you missed the point of the story of doubting Thomas. Our faith is not meant to be proved. Indeed, no one yet has come up with a rock solid proof for any aspect of our faith. We may find reasons in the world to believe, but by nature, faith is a belief in something unprovable.

How do we account for those suffering from mental and psychological ill health? Surely we are not suggesting ‘the image of God’ can become sick and in need of a physician?

Its a reflection of our fallen nature. The physical body can impact the Soul. Its part of the challenge of living a Christian Life to strive against the challenges that our physical bodies can pose to our souls.

I think St Paul expresses it rather nicely in 1 Cor 15 : 45-49 when he describes ‘the first man Adam became a living soul but the last man became a life-giving spirit’. My understanding of this text is that he is not saying that Adam was the first man nor Christ the last; it appears allegorical.

One may I think take it literally that Adam possessed a human psychi which Christ imbued with that which IS in the image of God, which is Spirit.

Actually, the Church teaches that the image of God is in the soul. The spirit, at least in greek philosophy, was the actual life force, something we do actually share with animals. The soul would be that which makes us distinct and unique

My interpretation is that there was a definite point when Neanderthal man became fully human and at that point, he was endowed with that which his predecessor was not. But it may or may not have been a single generation occurance. It may also have evolved over several generations, we just do not know. What we do know is that humanity was well established before the book of Genisis was written.

Homo neandertalis was not the ancestor species of homo sapiens. Rather they were both descendents that evolved from homo erectus. The Neanderthals appear to have evolved in Europe and we appear to have evolved in Africa. There is, as of yet, little evidence to suggest that any of our ancestors were neanderthals.

Further, as Catholics, we must believe that our Souls were given to us by God and did not evolve. It is possible that early homo sapiens did not have human souls. I rather think that at some destinct point lost in prehistory a small group (or maybe even literally one man and one woman) were given souls by God. These first fully human then were the first to sin (and thus original sin). Over time their descendents overtook all the other homo sapien populations and all that was left were fully human, but fallen people.

Consider, the science of Genetics have shown that all people can be traced back to a single female ancestor around 140,000
years ago, and to a single male ancestor around 60-90,000 years ago. Older such genetic ancestors though are likely. In a similar way, we could have a single pair of original sin ancestors.

My understanding is ‘the bloodline’ was from our father Abraham to Christ, not from Adam. But I may have misunderstood.

By definition, if Adam was uniquely the first man, then Jesus, and all humans would be his descendents. Further, such a link is necessary to explain the stain of original sin in all of us (save of course Jesus and Mary).

Once my learned brothers and sisters [who are infinitely wiser in theology and biblical history], read this: no doubt I will soon be corrected.

Perhaps because you always seek to argue that our immortal souls are generated from our mortal bodies.

–
Bill

 

[Sixtus]

The bloodline is from Adam to Abraham to David to Joseph. But, not everyone is listed in the lineage, only those most important to Matthew and Luke. They never intended that their lineages be exhaustive, but only representative of the major persons in them.

Thank you Della, I did not realise that.

I actually find the concept of ‘bloodline of Christ’ a bit scary, though of different context here, none-the-less it has a resonance with that most scandalous fiction The Davinci Code!!

not Neanderthal–they died out. You mean must Homo Erectus.

I thought that maybe Homo erectus may have evolved from Neanderthal. That is why I thought they died out because they quite literally evolved into something else

The book of Genesis tells us that God created everything, including man, and that we are all descendants of that man and woman. There is genetic “proof” (although a scientist would not use that term) that we all came from one female human being. So, Genesis isn’t far fetched, but neither is it a scientific text.

Call me cynical if you will but unfortunately academia has trained me well! I am now sceptical of most things I am told and ‘test’ everything. I cannot test Genisis but it does seem a bit preposterous and incredulous [and embarrassment], but I may be completely wrong.

 

[Della]

Thank you Della, I did not realise that.

You’re welcome. Understanding the lineages are not complete lists helps understand that we cannot know just how many years passed between Adam and Joseph, that’s why it’s important.

I actually find the concept of ‘bloodline of Christ’ a bit scary, though of different context here, none-the-less it has a resonance with that most scandalous fiction The Davinci Code!!

Unfortunately, things like the ridiculous Davinci Code cloud such issues and taint people’s minds. The devil is always busy trying to discredit Christ, and he will not stop until the end of time, so we’re going to have to put up with his nonsense for qutie some time to come.

I thought that maybe Homo erectus may have evolved from Neanderthal. That is why I thought they died out because they quite literally evolved into something else

No. Homo erectus produced both homo sapiens and Neanderthal. The Neanderthals didn’t survive, for reasons that scientists are still sorting out.

Call me cynical if you will but unfortunately academia has trained me well! I am now sceptical of most things I am told and ‘test’ everything. I cannot test Genisis but it does seem a bit preposterous and incredulous [and embarrassment], but I may be completely wrong.

You’re just been trained by the wrong academia. It isn’t the duty of good academia to cast doubts on all that has gone before us, contrary to what most secularist say these days. It wasn’t like that before modern times. Academics built on the truths of the past so they could learn to deal with the present and pass it on to future generations.

We have been lied to and sneered at and led to believe that only unintelligent people believe in God, the Church, the Bible. But, those that say that have rejected everything that came before them except what fits into what they want to believe. Hardly unbiased or truthful, IMHO. I suggest you read people like Fulton Sheen, G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis if you want brilliance and wisdom instead of mere denial and self-serving nonsense.

 

[Sixtus]

Thaks Della, you ar probably right. I had it drummed into me to question everything until I eventually ‘questioned everything’ and could evidence it in assignment module.

Problem with that is that once one adopts that type of enquiry, it is actually very difficult if not impossible to do other wise seeings we seem [or at least I seem to] have changed by academia, so that it isn’t a case of merely going back but trying to be what one is no longer.

That said, don’t want to be too negative. I regularly debunk a lot of cheap marketing which aims to rip people off. Also, helping people to see when they are being taken for a ride. But, it is difficult to discriminate between the two. Maybe I need to re-learn to just accept

 

[Sixtus]

Thanks Della, you ar probably right. I had it drummed into me to question everything until I eventually ‘questioned everything’ and could evidence it in assignment modules. My supervisor was very thorough in her teaching to doubt and our learning to question.

Problem with that is that once one adopts that type of enquiry, it is actually very difficult if not impossible to do other wise seeings we seem [or at least I seem to] have changed by academia, so that it isn’t a case of merely going back but trying to be what one is no longer.

That said, don’t want to be too negative. I regularly debunk a lot of cheap marketing which aims to rip people off. Also, helping people to see when they are being taken for a ride. But, it is difficult to discriminate between the two. Maybe I need to re-learn to just accept

 

[Sixtus]

Thanks Della, you ar probably right. I had it drummed into me to question everything until I eventually ‘questioned everything’ and could evidence it in assignment modules. My supervisor was very thorough in her teaching me to doubt and my learning to question. As you know, it underpins everything at post graduate level. I just do not know how folk survive it

Problem with that is that once one adopts that type of enquiry, it is actually very difficult if not impossible to do other wise seeings we seem [or at least I seem to] have changed by academia, so that it isn’t a case of merely going back but trying to be what one is no longer.

That said, don’t want to be too negative. I regularly debunk a lot of cheap marketing which aims to rip people off. Also, helping people to see when they are being taken for a ride. But, it is difficult to discriminate between the two. Maybe I need to re-learn to just accept

 

[Della]

Thanks Della, you ar probably right. I had it drummed into me to question everything until I eventually ‘questioned everything’ and could evidence it in assignment modules. My supervisor was very thorough in her teaching me to doubt and my learning to question. As you know, it underpins everything at post graduate level. I just do not know how folk survive it

Problem with that is that once one adopts that type of enquiry, it is actually very difficult if not impossible to do other wise seeings we seem [or at least I seem to] have changed by academia, so that it isn’t a case of merely going back but trying to be what one is no longer.

That said, don’t want to be too negative. I regularly debunk a lot of cheap marketing which aims to rip people off. Also, helping people to see when they are being taken for a ride. But, it is difficult to discriminate between the two. Maybe I need to re-learn to just accept

Oh yes, healthy doubt and skeptism have their place. But to question everything means that nothing can be true, and that’s not even reasonable or how could you ever decide that everything isn’t a “rip off,” yes?

We can know that some things are true because they’ve always been true and always will be. Truth is eternal just as love is. But neither one is going to crawl under a microscope so we can see them. We have to see them elsewhere. And that elsewhere is in Christ and his Church.

It is possible to “go back”–to reclaim the ability to trust in what is true, right and good. Your mind and spirit have been wounded by the overly zealous training you’ve had. But, the mind and spirit can be retrained, reformed, renewed. That is why I suggested you read the authors I listed. They will lead you out of the clouds of doubt you have been led into, of that I have no doubts at all.

 

[Sixtus]

Thank you, God bless you

Most sincerely

Sixtus

 

[Sixtus]

Thank you, God bless you Della

 

[freesoulhope]

Im not sure that anybody has anwsered my qeustion.

Let me put it in another way.

Is the the family tree( Starting from Adam and Eve, up until Jesus,) “Literally” correct? If so, how does one understand it in respects of evolution?

If it is not “literal”, how am i to understand It? At what point does the bible give a “literal” “historical” account of the blood line.

Im not talking about Davici code! Its a **** film!

 

[mchale]

Im not sure that anybody has anwsered my qeustion.

Let me put it in another way.

Is the the family tree( Starting from Adam and Eve, up until Jesus,) “Literally” correct? If so, how does one understand it in respects of evolution?

I don’t think many Catholic Theologians would argue that the family trees tracing Jesus to Adam are meant to be read as literal history. They would argue, I think, that it demonstrates a real line of descent to Jesus (i.e. that Genetically Adam would have been Jesus’s forebear).

Evolution is not really an important point in this debate. All that is necessary, is that at some point there was a first man and woman who were unquely endowed by God with a soul, that they sinned and that Jesus came along later. How God created the bodies of the first people is not really that important in Salvation history.

If it is not “literal”, how am i to understand It? At what point does the bible give a “literal” “historical” account of the blood line.

I think it could probably be argued that the bloodlines tracing Jesus to David are important, and I doubt that there are many Catholic Theologians who would argue that the bloodlines from Abraham should not be taken literally.

–
Bill

 

[Tom]

Is the the family tree( Starting from Adam and Eve, up until Jesus,) “Literally” correct? If so, how does one understand it in respects of evolution?

Yes it is correct in a literal as well as a literalistic sense. As all humans possess the same “blood line”. It not only goes back to Adam and Eve, but, goes back to the very first single organism created by God on this earth. In fact, every creature and plant have the same “blood line” if we traced it back to the instant of creation of the first living creature.

 

[freesoulhope]

To emphasis(sorry about spelling) my point, i want to ask another qeustion, because i dont thionk that anyone has understood my problem. But thats okay.

When did, acording to “science”, did the first inteligent human beings emerge in history? In other words, “think like we do”. When was the first “Adam”.