What make you think That Adam and Eve are real despite the evolutionary change or chance and widespread of the Neanderthals and Homosapians

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pathway2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
opop said:
Well yes, there is a fall. In a polygenist view, the fall was a sin committed, not by two persons, but by the whole community of humans present at the time. I don’t know what kind of things those guys were up to, but it should have been some sort of massive rebellion against God, organized by the whole society of the time.
Click to expand...
So, you’re talking about a Golden Calf episode, something like that? In the end, we’ll see.
 
Well, reading the CCC 402-405 it is very difficult, if not impossible, to see how polygenism and original sin are compatible.
 
stephenSTOSS1 said:
I found thomisticevolution’s writings to be problematic. The priest who runs it has a PhD in biology, but he seems to be ignoring, or isn’t aware of the problem with said research. I advise caution.
Click to expand...
They rely too much on the ITC’s “Communion and Stewardship” - itself a non-Magisterial and very speculative document - and then pile up more speculation and stretches of imagination and theology.
 
The Catholic Church doesn’t say how Adam and Even came to be. God could have created them out of whole cloth or could have put human souls in animal bodies. So how this was seems a matter of indifference to me, as a religious question…
If the first man and woman didn’t exist there would have been no human race. No one claims there were men a hundred million years ago. So there must have been a first man and woman. The original poster seems unsure that there was no Adam and Eve? Then we would evist, if the very first men didn’t exist.
However, perhaps the original poster is not sure if there was a first man or woman as described in the Book of Genesis? This is another question the original poster didn’t ask? I am not sure.
 
Last edited:
It seems that many are quite misguided, including the “esteemed” theologians who drafted “Communion and Stewardship.” Apparently they know better than St. Paul, who was called to be an apostle by the Lord Himself, who in Romans 5 clearly states that sin came through one man, Adam. Was St. Paul confused? Did he really mean “a whole bunch of people” when he wrote “Adam?” Did St. Paul and the Church Fathers think our first parents were wandering “hominins” who were zapped with souls by God?
 
PetraG said:
So, you’re talking about a Golden Calf episode, something like that? In the end, we’ll see.
Click to expand...
The Golden Calf episode seems a nice comparison, although I suspect something more sophisticated, since the first humans are supposed to have been more intelligent than we are today. But as you say, we’ll see.
 
St. Paul was not omniscient and was no more present than us at the beginning of humankind. So of course he speak about “Adam” since this is how Genesis speak. And the Church Fathers believed in a lot of currently obsolete ideas (like geocentrism), so this is not really a good argument.
However, there is an interesting polygenist theory according to which the first sin was committed by a community with the leadership of one man, who would be in this case Adam. So this would give an even richer meaning to the sentence of St Paul when he says: by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners
This is a nice way to conciliate the historicity of Adam with polygenism. And I also heard rumors according to which the pope emeritus was currently working on this theory. But those are only rumors.
 
Last edited:
There is no passage in Scripture, or any teachings in nearly 20 centuries of Church history, that propose polygenism and multiple parents as our origins. So we are to assume that God, concerning a tenet of faith as serious as the beginning of humankind and original sin, did not make it clear in Scripture and to the apostles who our first parents were, and who, by name, was responsible for the Fall? Many Catholics are simply embarrassed by miracles and articles of the faith, so find it easier to just erase previous teachings and traditions in order to fit them to modern scientific speculations.
 
bobperk said:
There is no passage in Scripture, or any teachings in nearly 20 centuries of Church history, that propose polygenism and multiple parents as our origins. So we are to assume that God, concerning a tenet of faith as serious as the beginning of humankind and original sin, did not make it clear in Scripture and to the apostles who our first parents were, and who, by name, was responsible for the Fall?
Click to expand...
There are also no teachings in nearly 20 centuries of Church history about the Big Bang. Would you for this reason believe in a literal 7 days creation?
And also the names of the first sinners are totally unimportant. The Bible is not a history book to satisfy our curiosity. God only tells us what is useful for our salvation.
bobperk said:
Many Catholics are simply embarrassed by miracles and articles of the faith, so find it easier to just erase previous teachings and traditions in order to fit them to modern scientific speculations.
Click to expand...
Well there are perhaps Catholics who have a kind of humean allergy to miracles, but it is not my case. Polygenism is a serious theory and it has nothing to do with a supposed plot to erase tradition.
 
Last edited:
opop said:
God only tells us what is useful for our salvation.
Click to expand...
You imply that Scripture has limited inerrancy, which is not the case. Sacred Scripture indeed teaches about creation and history as part of salvation history. Some things are not to be taken completely literalistically but literally. God does not lie or mislead as primary author of Sacred Scripture. But by no means is that blanket permission to wipe out teaching to accommodate the whims of scientific theory. The big bang has nothing to do with Adam and Eve, polygenism, original sin, etc. The big bang is not proven, it is just the prevailing theory of the day.
 
opop said:
And also the names of the first sinners are totally unimportant.
Click to expand...
Again, the authors of Tobit and Sirach, St. Paul, the Church Fathers, and very many Saints seem to think it did. I guess they were wrong all those years.
 
Last edited:
Pathway2 said:
With the scriptures tell a much different history of the migration spread, what evidence or arguments could you say would convince me that Adam and Eve are real?
Click to expand...
I don’t have to convince you but do you think that the Neanderthals were humans? Did they speak with intellect to their God?

Adam and Eve were.
 
opop said:
The Golden Calf episode seems a nice comparison, although I suspect something more sophisticated, since the first humans are supposed to have been more intelligent than we are today. But as you say, we’ll see.
Click to expand...
Intelligence and moral comprehension correlate poorly, LOL.
 
bobperk said:
40.png
stephenSTOSS1:
I found thomisticevolution’s writings to be problematic. The priest who runs it has a PhD in biology, but he seems to be ignoring, or isn’t aware of the problem with said research. I advise caution.
Click to expand...
They rely too much on the ITC’s “Communion and Stewardship” - itself a non-Magisterial and very speculative document - and then pile up more speculation and stretches of imagination and theology.
Click to expand...
This is very true. Unfortunately, they are misinterpreting what the ITC is saying. The ITC writes in #70:
The structures of the world can be seen as open to non-disruptive divine action in directly causing events in the world. Catholic theology affirms that that the emergence of the first members of the human species (whether as individuals or in populations) represents an event that is not susceptible of a purely natural explanation and which can appropriately be attributed to divine intervention.
Click to expand...
The term “human species” rational man. It refers to all those of the genus homo, and the species sapien such as Neanderthal man. Thus the term, “whether as individuals or in populations” is referring to the entire category of homosapien. Not to Adam and Eve, in particular.

As Pope St. John Paul II has said, it is an acceptable possibility to the Church that Adam could have been formed from some previously living genetic material. This, however, would not apply to Eve, unless that previously living genetic material was from Adam. I believe that both of these are exactly how it happened. Adam was made from the dust of the earth, but their is a special meaning to the term, dust of the earth, and Eve was taken from Adam’s rib.

I have written extensively about that, and the whole mitochondrial Eve topic. If you like, I can supply links.
 
“In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”[3] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.”

Pope Pius XII - DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU
 
Last edited:
Pathway2 said:
With the scriptures tell a much different history of the migration spread, what evidence or arguments could you say would convince me that Adam and Eve are real?
Click to expand...
Maybe you could clarify what the Scriptures say about the “migration spread”?

Science has already identified the mitochondrial Eve and traced our DNA back to a single male.

What makes you think that change/development contradicts creation?

I don’t understand what “widespread of Neanderthals” has to do with Adam and Eve?
philipl said:
I think there is some proof that all men are descended from a single female
Click to expand...
Mitochondrial Eve
bobperk said:
Good thing there’s not already 3 or 4 active Adam & Eve / evolution threads already going on CAF . . . . . . . .
Click to expand...
I wish members would search for relevant threads before starting a new one.
opop said:
Catholics are not obliged to believe in Adam and Eve
Click to expand...
What an odd thing to say. When did Catholics become excused from Church teaching?

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top