I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
Yes, but the bible is not the pillar and ground of truth, nor is it the only source of truth.
- Status
Z
zro_x
Guest
Yes, but I don’t need to take every word of the bible literally. I’m supposed to believe in what the bible says about morality and God, not necessarily history and science. The church has the authority and expertise to discern what in the bible is meant to be literal and what is meant to be metaphorical or poetic.
I think the story in genesis was a metaphorical account, and the speculation I gave was one that fits the bible and evolution together.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Although God is timeless, creation isn’t: it’s an event that, within its own context, happens in time. At the time that God created humans, the Incarnation had not yet occurred. The Logos Incarnate is something that didn’t ‘yet’ exist (within time, that is). I don’t think it’s “cutting Jesus in half” to note that at the time of Creation, we didn’t image Christ.
No, you don’t. You receive Christ sacramentally, not physically. Things that are physical can be perceived by human senses. We do not sense Christ in the Eucharist; we know that he’s there sacramentally.
E
ericc
Guest
“SOOOO LONG” is relative. God is outside of time. Before Adam and Eve, there were just animals and plants per Creation history. For sure animals kill each other as per survival of the fittest/meanest. They were just matter, no spirit. I am not assuming apes and hominids have souls as it is clear that God did not breathe upon them.Hey,
This question bothers me a lot: We know now that the human race is between 100’000-200’000 years old. Why did it take SOOOO LONG for God to show up and finally speak with Adam and Eve or Abraham? Why did he just watch for 10’000s of years how humans kill each other without knowing Him? And why doesn’t the bible explain all that?
Thanks
source
pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/o.html
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans
genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Press_files/2011_Gibbons_New_View.pdf
I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
If you are referring to my posts, I was claiming that early hominids were merely different races of men, and came after and were descended from Adam and Eve. It is provable that Humans and neanderthals interbred, and that as early as at least Homo Erectus they were building ships and fires.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
The substance of Jesus is there. And we do say it is His Body and His Blood. We don’t say it is His Body and His Blood sacramentally. It is really His Body and His Blood. Sometimes miracles have occurred where the real Body and Blood actually changed in appearance to real flesh and blood, and was scientifically verifiable. I find your saying that it is only sacramentally akin to saying it is only spiritual. I believe the Church condemns the notion that we only receive Christ spiritually. When He spoke His teaching about eating His Body and Blood, people stopped following Him, yet He never amplified it to mean that He was only talking sacramentally. Please, theologians weigh in on this. Senses are fooled by the appearances. I believe we actually eat His Body and drink His Blood.No, you don’t. You receive Christ sacramentally, not physically. Things that are physical can be perceived by human senses. We do not sense Christ in the Eucharist; we know that he’s there sacramentally.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
If substance is what makes a physical thing what it is, and if the consecrated host is a physical thing, and if the substance of the consecrated host is the Body of Jesus Christ, then the Body of Jesus Christ is a physical thing in the Holy Eucharist. Only the appearances of bread remain after the consecration. What you see is Jesus Christ, even though it seems to be still bread. It is not scientifically verifiable. We take Christ’s word for it.
What Gorgias is saying is I believe called sacramentarianism, which has been rejected by the Church.
What Gorgias is saying is I believe called sacramentarianism, which has been rejected by the Church.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Sure we do. The Catechism, #1380, puts it this way: “It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence”. Notice: not his physical presence – his sacramental presence.
Yes, it really is.
Then you’re reading something into my comments that I didn’t say.
I said ‘sacramental’, not ‘spiritual’.That’s correct – and that’s why I didn’t say ‘only spiritual’.
It’s from my theology classes that I learned this distinction.
Good! You should believe this, because it’s true! However, although you ‘actually’, ‘truly’, ‘really’ consume Christ’s body and blood, this doesn’t mean that you do so ‘physically.’ It’s a nit-picky distinction, but a very important one – this is the distinction that so many non-Catholics do not understand, and that’s why it’s important for us Catholics to have it down solidly!
Nope. ‘Substance’ is what accidents adhere to – that is, it is fitting for the accidents of a dog to adhere to the substance of a dog; it is fitting for the accidents of a human to adhere to a human; and it is fitting for the accidents of bread and wine to adhere to bread and wine.
The consecrated host is not a ‘physical thing’, in the natural way we’re accustomed to: it’s the substance of Christ and the accidents of bread and wine. It’s not natural for the accidents of some thing to adhere to the substance of something else. That’s part of the miracle of the Eucharist.
What this boils down to is that what I taste when I consume a host are the accidents of bread and what I taste when I drink the Precious Blood are the accidents of wine: however, I don’t eat or drink the physical accidents of Christ. Therefore, your logic doesn’t hold: I don’t consume the physical Christ.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
You learned it in your theology class, but it is not a convincing argument to me.Sure we do. The Catechism, #1380, puts it this way: “It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence”. Notice: not his physical presence – his sacramental presence.
Yes, it really is.
Then you’re reading something into my comments that I didn’t say.
That’s correct – and that’s why I didn’t say ‘only spiritual’.
It’s from my theology classes that I learned this distinction.
Good! You should believe this, because it’s true! However, although you ‘actually’, ‘truly’, ‘really’ consume Christ’s body and blood, this doesn’t mean that you do so ‘physically.’ It’s a nit-picky distinction, but a very important one – this is the distinction that so many non-Catholics do not understand, and that’s why it’s important for us Catholics to have it down solidly!
Nope. ‘Substance’ is what accidents adhere to – that is, it is fitting for the accidents of a dog to adhere to the substance of a dog; it is fitting for the accidents of a human to adhere to a human; and it is fitting for the accidents of bread and wine to adhere to bread and wine.
The consecrated host is not a ‘physical thing’, in the natural way we’re accustomed to: it’s the substance of Christ and the accidents of bread and wine. It’s not natural for the accidents of some thing to adhere to the substance of something else. That’s part of the miracle of the Eucharist.
What this boils down to is that what I taste when I consume a host are the accidents of bread and what I taste when I drink the Precious Blood are the accidents of wine: however, I don’t eat or drink the physical accidents of Christ. Therefore, your logic doesn’t hold: I don’t consume the physical Christ.
You say Christ is sacramentally present. I say he is sacramentally present in a physical way.
You say it is fitting for the accidents of bread (and wine) to attach to bread (and wine). I say that after transubstantiation, the accidents of bread now attach to Jesus Christ, and so Jesus Christ is physically present even though He looks like a piece of bread.
You say that the consecrated host is not a physical thing, in the way we’re accustomed to. I say it is most definitely a physical thing and any scientist will attest to that.
I define physical to mean the joining of substance with accidents, since accidents alone cannot exist. (Substance, of course, can exist without accidents, as is the case with angels.)
Accidents alone cannot exist. Whiteness does not exist without something to attach to. Roundness does not exist without something to attach to. Thinness does not exist without something to attach to. Therefore, none of the accidents can be called physical in and of themselves. Therefore, there is one thing left that makes a thing physical, and that is substance. Substance combined with accidents gives physicality. Jesus Christ (substance) under the appearances of bread and wine (accidents) gives physicality, and that physicality is Jesus Christ, albeit, it looks like bread. You may say that it is not fitting for accidents of bread to attach to anything else but bread, but for me, that’s the miracle of it. Jesus is wearing a disguise, as it were!
Because accidents must attach to substance, if you say that the accidents of bread exist but they do not attach to the substance of Jesus, it is equivalent to saying that there must be some other substance present, ie, the substance of bread, so that the bread can fittingly attach to the substance of bread and thus attain physicality. But that would be to deny the doctrine of transubstantiation which says that the substance of bread is changed into Our Lord’s body. My objection to your theology class explanation is they it leaves accidents hanging in the air so to speak, instead of the simple explanation given by Jesus, “This is my Body.”
We may have to agree to disagree.
B
Ben_Quincy
Guest
Let’s get back on topic. If anyone wishes to discuss the Real Presence they may do so in another thread.
Thank you.
Thank you.
B
BrunoMaria
Guest
OK I transferred the thread
THE IMAGE OF GOD
to there:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10428665&
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
But no need to yell.
E
ericc
Guest
Hi Inego, I wasn’t referring to your post, just replying to the OP. He claims there were humans before Adam/Eve. All I am saying soul-less apes/hominids do not qualify as human beings Biblicaly. Just matter.
A
Aloysium
Guest
I suppose they would have animal souls - be able to move, react emotionally, instinctively, but lack the capacity of self-awareness or a sense of morality. They would not be able to commune with God. We might see them as apes which looked like us.
B
BrunoMaria
Guest
To return to the actual question: God “showed up” as you please to say, right away in the first place when creating first Humans.
And the indeed silly figures of 200.ooo years - other even speak of a or even more Million years, ist plain evolution-talk and as silly as the whole evolution is, which is nothing but the main source of atheism. (Though there is of course a evolution - human race did not evolute). Serious science speaks of language as the beginning of humans, and before it wasn’t humans but humanoids. Language was first spoken according to science about 12.ooo years ago. Language is the spark of God in us and God-goven with our souls, as the Bible tells us in John 1,1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
When God had created first humans, He also spoke to them as the Bible tells.
So; it didn’t even take a single day before “God showed up”.
Simpl thought tells us, that God would not create humans, without “showing up” and revealing Himself. And much later, God revealed Himself many times to many people; Saints and Prophets from Abraham to Moses, from Isaiah to Zechariah.
And then again Jesus revealed us God again to an extend, that all who believe in Him, do understand. “He who saw Me, saw the Father”.
Actually it’s all so simple, that once we arrive in God’s hemisphere and see, we will slap our forehead and say - oh no! It all stood there and silly me didn’t understand!
Yours
Bruno
- Status