Were/are the Neanderthals saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter look3467
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

look3467

Guest
No education, no prophets, no bible, no church; what about their souls?

Based on what you’ve learned about God, what is your gut feelings?

Should God only save us, who have the knowledge, the bible, the churches and are supposedly good people and all the rest, condemned to hell?

Would God create mankind, and then say…ah, I think I will now introduce myself in Jesus, and who ever believes in Him shall be saved, and who doesn’t, shall be condemned forever, completely forgetting the Neanderthals and the like?

Lucky you and lucky me, we have been born at the right time, otherwise, as an Neanderthals, we’d be out of luck.

So, is God merciful, to only the righteous? How about the unrighteous?

Where does God draw the line between being saved and not and who?

Let’s kick it around and see what some of the responses will be.

I know what I believe, so I am not afraid to venture out into this field.

blessings, AJ
 
The Light Within still indwelled their souls to teach them about the Eternal…even if they got some or most of it wrong…God is in the business of loving and redeeming people…if they were people…God was present and had a witness.
 
Publisher said:
The Light Within still indwelled their souls to teach them about the Eternal…even if they got some or most of it wrong…God is in the business of loving and redeeming people…if they were people…God was present and had a witness.
Click to expand...
I like your answer. I would like to believe that they were souls/people educated only by their time’s availability.

And I do feel that I do have an answer within the bible’s pages that deal with just that.

But I would like to delay my answers till a later date so as to get a good discussion going.

I know that this subject must nag at some because there have been no clear answers to any of it.

Your answer tells me something about you, especially, with your heart.

Definitely, God indwells in your heart.

Blessings, AJ
 
look3467 said:
No education, no prophets, no bible, no church; what about their souls?
Click to expand...
*Homo Neanderthalensis *is a different species from Homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthal would be an *animal *not a human being. Therefore, a neanderthal would have a material soul, not an immortal soul.

Adam and Eve, our first human parents, received an immortal soul. Animals do not have immortal souls. Therefore, whether neanderthals had education, prophets, bible, church, etc, are irrelevant because when they died their material soul ceased to exist.

If you want to put forth the argument that neanderthals are *human *and are *descendants *of our first parents, then Church teaching would tell us that those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ **may **achieve salvation in a way known to God.

This teaching is the same as for any other person who lived before or after Christ established the Church. One need not reach back to the neanderthal to ask this question.
look3467 said:
Based on what you’ve learned about God, what is your gut feelings?
Click to expand...
Gut feeling is irrelevant. It has no place in theology.

Divine Revelation via Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Magesterium) are relevant.
 
1ke said:
Neanderthal would be an *animal *not a human being. Therefore, a neanderthal would have a material soul, not an immortal soul.
Click to expand...
Unsubstantiated assumptions, with no evidence at all.
 
SedesDomi said:
Unsubstantiated assumptions, with no evidence at all.
Click to expand...
The point 1ke was making is that Homo Neanderthalensis is not a human. Homo sapiens is human. Nowhere in scripture is there the suggestion that God gave immortal souls to non-humans.

Not human=no immortal soul=no need for salvation.
 
fermat said:
The point 1ke was making is that Homo Neanderthalensis is not a human. Homo sapiens is human.
Click to expand...
From the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of “human”:
  1. a. Of the nature of the human race; that is a human, or consists of human beings; belonging to the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo.
Some scientists say it should be Homo neanderthalensis; other scientists say Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Either way, Neanderthals are of the genus Homo, and are thus human.
 
SedesDomi said:
From the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of “human”:
  1. a. Of the nature of the human race; that is a human, or consists of human beings; belonging to the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo.
Some scientists say it should be Homo neanderthalensis; other scientists say Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Either way, Neanderthals are of the genus Homo, and are thus human.
Click to expand...
That is irrelevant based on what Ike posted.

But I would like to know is your definition of human the same definition of human in the biblical sense. You know form the bible. Were Adam and Eve Homo floresiensis (you know the hobbit)? First Homo in the genus Or were they sapiens? Or were they in between?
 
Maui71 said:
That is irrelevant based on what Ike posted.
Click to expand...
It’s quite relevant. If someone says “to be human is to have an immortal soul”, then one must also define what “human” means. If you want to say that only Homo sapiens has an immortal soul, then that means that some humans have immortal souls and some (e.g., Homo erectus) don’t. If, on the other hand, you want to define “human” to mean only “Homo sapiens”, then that should be made clear. But don’t expect everyone to agree that Homo sapiens is the one and only human species that ever existed.
But I want to know is this your definition the same definition of human as the definition of human in the biblical sense. Were Adam and Eve Homo floresiensis (you know the hobbit)? Or were they sapiens? Or where they in between?
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Catholic Church has defined the species classification of Adam and Eve. And I don’t interpret Adam and Eve literally, so the species of Adam/Eve question is quite irrelevant, in my eyes.
 
1Ike
"If you want to put forth the argument that neanderthals are *human *and are *descendants *of our first parents, then Church teaching would tell us that those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ **may **achieve salvation in a way known to God.

This teaching is the same as for any other person who lived before or after Christ established the Church. One need not reach back to the neanderthal to ask this question."

It is irrelevant - whatever part of the “tree” you wish to take plug the above.
 
Maui71 said:
1Ike
"If you want to put forth the argument that neanderthals are *human *and are *descendants *of our first parents, then Church teaching would tell us that those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ **may **achieve salvation in a way known to God.

This teaching is the same as for any other person who lived before or after Christ established the Church. One need not reach back to the neanderthal to ask this question."

It is irrelevant - whatever part of the “tree” you wish to take plug the above.
Click to expand...
Even if the Neanderthals did not have an immortal soul, they can still enter into salvation. An immortal soul is no more necessary for salvation than an immortal body.
 
SedesDomi said:
Even if the Neanderthals did not have an immortal soul, they can still enter into salvation. An immortal soul is no more necessary for salvation than an immortal body.
Click to expand...
Ok. If you don’t have an immortal soul, you must have a mortal soul. A soul that dies (like a plant soul or non-human animal soul) has no need for salvation. Granted, I am considering the options of moral and immortal to be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Is there a third option? (I’m being serious)
 
SedesDomi said:
Even if the Neanderthals did not have an immortal soul, they can still enter into salvation. An immortal soul is no more necessary for salvation than an immortal body.
Click to expand...
If both the body and the soul die at the time of death, then what remains to be saved? :confused:
 
SedesDomi said:
Unsubstantiated assumptions, with no evidence at all.
Click to expand...
As this whole discussion is extreeeemely speculative, that will be true of all posts here. Everything is is assumptions.

If Adam and Eve are homo sapiens, and I bet they are, then those that preceded them would not be in the need of salvation, as they would not yet know sin. Indeed, if Adam and Eve are our homo sapien progeniters, then I would have to agree 1ke on this one. Their soul was not eternal and they were no more in need of salvation than any other early homonid.
 
SedesDomi said:
Salvation. So easy a caveman could do it.
Click to expand...
Salvation came with a great price? At no cost to you? Can you appreciate that?

One individual in all of humanity paid the price for you and I, that we by Him may have salvation.

The question to you is: who is all included?

The Neanderthals?

Blessings, AJ
 
1ke said:
*Homo Neanderthalensis *is a different species from Homo sapiens sapiens.
Click to expand...
Not true. They are classified as a subspecies of Homo sapiens: *Homo sapiens *neanderthalis. Modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens.

Therefore, unless the paleontologists have made the wrong call (and that’s something that is not a dead issue), we are technically at least the same species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top