@alligatoraid either eastern Roman Orthodox or Catholic, but never listen to modernist Catholics & Orthodox like those in the Thomistic Institute who speak the blasphemy you just heard in this horrible video👆
Council of Florence teaches infallibly that all heretics will go to eternal fire prepared for devil and his angels. Join the holy Church, save your soul.
Hey thomists, after seeing some negative responses from Christian viewers, I would like to assert my complete gratitude towards you for trying to battle braviously the difficult questions around our faith, that can be compromised by modern science and philosophies. Keep it going, this channel is a treasure chest.
Thank you, Carlos Garnica, I agree with your clear comments. The Province of St. Joseph, and the entire Dominican Order, do an outstanding job of giving incredible theological, scriptural, and historical explanations of the Catholic Faith. Father Legge, the presentations by you and all of the Friars are a university-level education in small servings, God Bless your work! Carlos, regarding the negative comments, best to simply brush them off. The Catholic Church in this country is plagued by " armchair experts", who believe they are in sole possession of the truth. Speaking only for myself, I'll continue to listen to the Dominicans, Opus Dei, and such outlets as the Augustine Institute. Godspeed!
🇷🇺☦️You mean you are actually OK with this heretical video? How dare you even call yourselves Catholics? I mean you went to such a low that ME, a Russian Orthodoxz, need to defend your own Roman Catholic teachings from yourselves and these hacks who desecrate the honor and memory of the holy Aquinas!!🤦🤢
One thing I love about this video is that I can't tell which theory you, personally, believe. Thanks for just giving us the truths of the faith, the current science, and the truth about what we just can't be sure of right now. If only the news media would present the news with this kind of unbiased presentation. Thanks you.
🇷🇺☦️You mean you are actually OK with this heretical video? How dare you even call yourselves Catholics? I mean you went to such a low that ME, a Russian Orthodoxz, need to defend your own Roman Catholic teachings from yourselves and these hacks who desecrate the honor and memory of the holy Aquinas!!🤦🤢
☦️🤝✝️Oh, no brother, I think it's very clear - this is not Aquinas, but Blasphemy 101. Run for your lives from those false prophets & deceivers, brothers & sisters!🙏💔
I think it's both. Pope Benedict XVI when he was Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a very astute book on this. I am not infallible. But I'm pretty sure the "rib" was DNA. Adam grew naturally by evolution. But Eve was a special creation, the crowning glory of God's creation. That old serpent was so Jealous of Eve, he volunteered to God to tempt Adam and Eve. God gave him permission because it was all part of His plan. Later on, in due time, God called the Virgin Mary to replace the Virgin Eve. God knew in advance that Adam would fail humanity. Thankfully the Virgin Mary chose the Tree of Life first, just like Adam should have. Only something to consider.
The Catholic church not denying science is the one of the reasons why I belong to the Catholic faith. To deny scientific evidence would be dillusional. It doesn't go against our faith at all and I'm proud that a priest is behind the big bang theory. If you deny reality, why would anyone listen to what you have to say about your faith.
Darwinian Evolution has nothing to do with scientific evidence. The data is interpreted to be older by various unreliable methods and has in many points in time used forgery to promulgate its ideas as "scientific" when it was not
Also we can't mistake scientific theory for "reality". A theory is just that no matter how high the probability. We can't give it the same faith as is due to God alone.
☦️🤝✝️The Roman Catholic Church denied this fake "science" for 2000 years!! This isn't Aquinas, but Blasphemy 101!! Stop being indoctrinated by those false prophets who drag you all with them to the everlasting fire of Abhadon 😢🙏💔
*Arcanum,* Leo XIII “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
☦️🤝✝️Dear sister, please don't thank those deceivers, they are the tools of Satan. I used to like them & listen to their videos, UNTIL I got to this one & the rest. Your St. Aquinas is looking down on them from heaven in shock & disgust, how they spew those heresies in his name. This is BLASPHEMY 101, not Thomism or Christianity!🙏💔
The way I take Genesis is that it is allegorical and meant to show a basis for original sin and establishing that God made all that there is. Sin entered the world because we have rational minds that allow free will and poor/evil choices. You can see many of these same themes in other religions. I think people try too hard to see literal meaning in Biblical accounts that are poetry and metaphor. They lose track of the big picture by getting caught up in details that do not ultimately matter.
☦️🤝✝️Enough! If you don't repent from those blasphemy, you will end up in the everlasting fire of Abhadon!!! This isn't Catholicism nor Aquinas, but BLASPHEMY 101😢🙏💔
@@BabyBugBug 🤦Oh...good Lord...I never thought I live to see the day when Roman Catholics would be so godless & behave worse that pagan💔💔💔 This is Church fathers, the Magisterium & the teaching of the ancient Israelites for 3000 years!!! More that that - from the time of St. Adam! This is basics!!! If you dare not take Scripture at face value then you are no different than the pagans & their myths, you got no base to stand upon, nothing!! Shame! Repent & convert all of you, indoctrinated souls! Go to the Priests! (the real ones not those modernist imposters)👆
@@BabyBugBug The Orthodox brother is right. What you are saying is not Catholic teaching and I just learned that today. Interestingly, I had the same view as you. I thought it was an allegory. But, as Catholics, we can’t deny the existence of Adam and Eve and the fact that we inherited the lack of God’s grace from the them.
The historical context in which Darwin's theory emerged should not be ignored. There are serious metaphysical principles which the theory of evolution contradicts. Without getting into a complicated scientific and philosophical explanation of it - we, as Catholics, should be able to discern this much: Theology, as a higher science, trumps the lower sciences. Where the lower sciences may seemingly contradict the higher science, the higher science trumps in matters of certainty. Almost all the Church Fathers and most Saints believed Adam and Eve were historical and real people. This, at least for me, is enough to heavily lean on the more literal interpretation of the events described in the book of Genesis (this is not in competition with the symbolic language as scripture can be polyvalent in meaning).
People and, in particular, intellectuals like to play god by putting words and ideas on the mind and mouth of God, wanting to teach God how he should have done it because they like this way...
@@ramykalabchy5969 a lot of modern scientific theories are hardly scientific. The field of quantum mechanics is essentially hitting the threshold of materialism and physicists are, ironically, doing philosophy at that point. The Thomistic synthesis of reality and scripture is the most fulfilling imho. St Thomas rejected the double-truth theory and so faith can and does guide reason. Since the age of 'enlightenment' scientists have pitted reason against faith and many have reasoned their way into naturalism. Reason can dig itself a hole (grave) which, interestingly, only the gift of faith can escape.
@@ramykalabchy5969 yes they do and they are influenced by various ideologies. Evolution is a mechanism. Natural selection explains diversity within species. There are gaps in knowlege and no doubt new knowledge will be discovered in the future. God did not create the world as those in the past imagined. However there are core concepts and ideas that are true.
If you are interested please watch fr. Chad Ripperger's video on theory of evolution, he covers all of this, in more detail. And what is compatible with Church's teaching and what isn't. He starts with the metaphysics of evolution and combines it later on with Scripture and st. Thomas on Creation. Also, there is a book for those who are interested in this topic, it's from fr.Chad. It's called "The metaphysics of evolution".
Other Thomists have flatly denied this interpretation of Genesis 2, and backed up the denial with dogma and the Fathers. Can you recommend any books on the controversy?
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️No need to ask anything from those fake heretics, brother, only exposing them. After watching this disgusting video I understand why this pope and Vatican II are the way they are - heretics. You hit the nail on the head, cuz other Thomists are true Catholics, while those are secularist imposters that speak blasphemies and lie shamelessly about the views of the holy Aquinas who would be furious and disgusted hearing those evil twisting of his philosophy. Aquinas would rather die than to embrace the dumb sick dated primitive pagan ideology of evolution!!!
*Arcanum,* Leo XIII “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
@ Not really a book, just an encyclical. But it just goes to show you how modernist things have become. No one believed this kind of thing a few hundred years ago.
I would highly recommend the series of articles that the website "Thinkers Bible Studids did on genesis and Adam and Eve. It was a truly great read that shows how it is both scientific and biblical to think there were people before Adam and eve. Also, check out the videos made by Inspiringphilosophy on genesis, also a great watch
Also, when Cain was cast out for murdering Abel, he was afraid "someone" would find him and kill him and God said he would put a mark on him that if anyone finds him, they would sin 7 times more if they killed him. Which is clear reference ot other human beings. And not just ones of a previous homo species that didn't have a soul as God also holds those other people accountable to sin if they killed Cain.
Science can't explain the resurrection of our Lord. I don't think we will ever understand the creation of our Existence. But The Bible is the still truth.
@scartoons8639 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 yeah okay bud you clearly haven't done any research. Not only that raising from the dead or dieing has nothing to do with physics.
You’re some of the only honest and intelligently nuanced Thomists I know! May God bless you for your work! Far too many Thomists have tended to fundamentalism and scandalized those faithful who have any epistemological sense or knowledge! May God continue to guide you all, protect you, and reward you richly.
@@tobylees7199 Everything they say is blasphemous not reasonable! Don't call blasphemy "reason", ok? This is a dishonest playing with words! If you're Christian, you don't question the historical narrative of Scripture which the Roman Catholic Church was defending as BASICS for 2000 years & condemned anyone who questioned it as a heretic for daring so, so you have no excuse whatsoever to even suggest such a claim. Fake scientific theories do not quality as "reason" just because they're popular & claim to be as such
@@tobylees7199 @tobylees7199 Everything they say is blasphemous not reasonable! Don't call blasphemy "reason", ok? This is a dishonest playing with words! If you're Christian, you don't question the historical narrative of Scripture which the Roman Catholic Church was defending as BASICS for 2000 years & condemned anyone who questioned it as a heretic for daring so, so you have no excuse whatsoever to even suggest such a claim. Fake scientific theories do not quality as "reason" just because they're popular & claim to be as such
Thanks. Nice to see a serious examination of the issues. As you know, Aquinas is in accord with Augustine, who I believe is also revered by many Protestants, that if our biblical interpretation conflicts with what is known by experience, one of them is wrong. Failing to understand this principle, take it seriously, and apply it causes a great deal of harm. As Augustine says elsewhere, ""Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." The Literal Meaning of Genesis, book 1, chapter 19, paragraph 39.
Vincent DiCarlo, your explanation is very impressive, thank you. I have encountered many Protestants who believe that St. Augustine basically " killed biblical Christianity", so I am interested that you have found them to revere him. I've read his Confessions, which are very dense, and for this non- expert, difficult. I had better begin studying more seriously.... Godspeed!
@@johnalombardi2951 I have not done a study, but I think the key word here is "many." I have not done a study, but I have heard protestants speak well of Augustine, though I imagine others probably hold him in contempt. I guess it depends in part on whether you believe in a great Catholic apostasy and, if so, when you think it happened. Wikipedia says "Augustine is recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion....Many Protestants, especially Calvinists and Lutherans, consider him one of the theological fathers of the Protestant Reformation due to his teachings on salvation and divine grace.[33][34][35] Protestant Reformers generally, and Martin Luther in particular, held Augustine in preeminence among early Church Fathers." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
@@vdicarlo yes, however many of the Protestant simply omit St. Augustine’s Catholic sounding theology and just pull out of him what fits within their own theology. They do the same with the Bible.
🇷🇺☦️🤝☪️🇵🇸"Serious examination", hah? You mean serious blasphemy. You mean you are actually OK with this heretical video? How dare you even call yourselves Catholics? I mean you went to such a low that ME, a Russian Orthodoxz, need to defend your own Roman Catholic teachings from yourselves and these hacks who desecrate the honor and memory of the holy Aquinas!!🤦🤢
Fr. Dominic Perhaps the better starting question would be, "did Noah really exist such that all the population of the world originate via Shem, Ham, and Japheth? (With Ham's offspring inventing Canaanite gods and all manner of religions to minimize the value of the LORD, finally renouncing Him in their pantheon.)
I love that he explained that, while we can trace different parts of out DNA to different times, that proves nothing in regards to the possibility of all humans tracing their lineage back to the original Adam and Eve. We know this scripturally as well. Because we also know that all people can also trace their lineage back to Noah and his wife, albeit by different sons of his (not to mention countless other disasters wherein all but a few humans survived). So it is possible to have one ultimate genesis of the human race, while having multiple genetic points where all humans can trace their lineage.
I had a unique thought that is hard to explain. Imagine that the Garden was a real literal creation (whether or not it took 6 literal days to make or much longer) in which creation was basically perfectly ordered, as opposed to our own disordered world. When Adam and Eve sinned, creation itself was disordered (“cursed be the ground… thorns and thistles shall the earth put forth”), such that previously it was fundamentally ordered toward the glory of God, but afterward the whole thing became fundamentally ordered toward entropy, decay, and death: “to dust you shall return.“ Thus stars go nova, animals eat each other to survive, and evolution occurs to get better at preventing death. And so _even the past, not just the future, is corrupted._ While God may have made our first parents’s bodies out of the dust of the ground with his own hands, so to speak, now instead the evidence would show an evolutionary origin. The history of the entire universe is reoriented away from the original justice. So when Adam and Eve sinned, and they were expelled from the Garden, this Garden then became wholly cut off from the fallen creation, such that it is impossible to do any science on it. Adam and Eve might have found themselves in a new world where other humanoids now exist and have existed for millennia, but only they have rational souls. So then the descendants of Adam and Eve mingled with these proto-humans from the fallen creation. When Jesus comes again, he will redeem us and reorient all of creation back to him and away from the decaying fallen world.
I think that theory suffers from the 'fallacy' of infallibility, such that it cannot be proved wrong. Those types of theories should be automatically dismissed, lest we accept some obviously grave falsehood, such as "last thursday-ism," where the universe was created last Thursday, but in such wise as to appear much older. Both yours and this theory suffer from the same aforementioned flaw. Cheers
However, I have another idea. Consider Plato's "Theory of Ideas" (or forms, I've heard it both ways but they're the same essential concept). All things exist conceptually in the mind of God, including and especially the perfect "ideas" of things, or the "things themselves." These are the ideas by which we define the things we experience, e.g. "dog nature," the perfect conceptual dog, or rather, what it means to be a dog. Another example is Justice. We can be just, but we cant be justice ourselves. 'Justice itself,' the thing by which we define an act as just, therefore exists conceptually in the mind of God (or, I would argue, as God himself). It seems to me that there are two 'types' of Ideas. Things themselves, and the ways they relate to each other. 'Dogness' would be a thing itself, whereas 'Justice' would be a way in which things relate to each other. 'Dogness' and all other perfect conceptual things, as stated before, exist in the mind of the omniscient God. It is Plato's thought that when the commited lover of wisdom dies, he is able to investigate these things as they are. I figure this to be what Heaven is. Heaven is the "mind of God," or that place (an improper term to be sure, but I don't know what else to call it) wherein lies the perfect concepts of all things that are and could be. Plato believed that a "craftsman" (demiurgos/demiurge in the Greek. Also, we understand this to be God) made the "real world" after these perfect Ideas. Obviously, not being the perfect ideas themselves, he made the "real" world (I'm finding myself conflicted on what I mean by "real" if you couldn't tell, but you hopefully understand what I mean) to partake as closely as possible to the ideas without itself being the ideas. Do you follow? When Scripture says that "Heaven and earth will be made one" on the last day, I believe with some conviction that the "real world" and the Platonic realm of perfect concepts will brought into perfect alignment. The physical world will resemble completely what God knows as perfect. All of that is to say: Perhaps the garden of eden was a prefigurement of the last day, or a place in which the reality perfectly matched the ideal (This place doesnt even have to have really existed, by the way, but perhaps I just a vehicle to tell us something). Our acting against God in this story was to show us our proclivity towards such an action. That even in perfect conditions, man could still choose to act against God. THAT is original sin. Christ came to make us more like himself, and prepare us for when eden is restored over all earth. What do you think? I think I'm mostly coherent, but the eden part maybe not so much. Cheers!
You seem to be educated in philosophy, I however only took one political philosophy class and watch videos like this, so some of it might be tougher to translate. I think your though is intriguing. For some reason I thought of something I remember from a NOVA show with Steven Hawking, talking about how the universe is in motion, and he made an analogy (I cannot remember the exact wording for this though, memory is very fuzzy). Imagine a ballroom with a bunch of balls evenly spaced on the floor, not moving, then some random balls were taken away. What results is all the balls start to move as if to fill the open spaces, which leads into motion, with some bumping into others. It makes me think of how some people object to God’s craftsmanship by how disordered our creation is. I imagine part of the truth of fallen creation is how certain elements of existence were allowed to be removed from the ideal of initial creation, maybe due to original sin, which causes a degree of chaos that nevertheless is still ordered. God then would bring creation back into right order at the end of time. Don’t know how relevant this is though lol.
@@killianmiller6107 thanks for saying I sound educated but, my guy, I have read like 3 philosophy books max. Most of this comes from UA-cam too so like haha I dont know. If anything, the difficulty "translating" what in tarnation I just said is evidence of my lack of education. I love that analogy though, it's really good. The argument from evil fails for this reason (and like a hundred others, but human choice is the best imo)
yeah they complicate anything because they know its internet,and they got supported by people in internet so they have the gut to tell it,in the age without internet none of these things will be made complicated
You mean you are actually OK with this heretical video? How dare you even call yourselves Catholics? I mean you went to such a low that ME, a Russian Orthodox, need to defend your own Roman Catholic teachings from yourselves and these hacks who desecrate the honor and memory of the holy Aquinas!!🤦🤢
No brother I disagree. It is meant to be read like that. Otherwise Timothy wouldn't justify his position on women by saying Eve was the one who was deceived. Timothy made a judgement based on the fact that Eve was deceived and not Adam. It's making analogy of one distinct act of one man and one woman. No matter how you read it, it says what it says. I'm open to further arguments and wished I was wrong, but you can't change Scripture to fit your own personal preferences. 1 Timothy 2:12-14 (New International Version) 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. Please explain and justify instead of saying "I don't know".
He's addressing a particular church that seems to be in chaos and disorderly. To bring order to the situation he says that the women should be silent but listen and discuss with their husband's after if they have questions instead of interrupting. He used the Eve analogy to claim women are more likely deceived.
My confusion with the fall is that a sinful and singular transgression and disobedience by first Man thrust the entire world into being cast out by God and having a broken nature. Why when so much is placed on forgiveness could not a God who is all powerful forgive us and lead us towards salvation? Why is there so much suffering that is always justified with ‘because we’re fallen and broken’? Why when even those who loose faith because of this brokenness are they then promised Hell why then are we to see a loving God in this? Some People are lost and maybe don’t offer anything of observable significance in their existence due to their life circumstances and imbued qualities but are they evil? Why are we evil when we question? We are only looking for answers, something anything that gives us some concrete hope! We’re told to look at our blessings the details and complexity of our existence the fine tuning of the universe and that’s the only thing keeping me on the pursuit of God everything else is so confusing and it feels like people are just filling in and conflating the blanks this doesn’t help I’m afraid! With such brutality in existence we need something to hope for I don’t see miracles like in Jesus’ day or Paul’s day I see desperate people searching endlessly for an answer a connection from God something that enables them to hold on. I’ve never seen a ghost had a miraculous encounter heard voices (apart from my own internal mutterings) never seen a miracle (I know fine tuning the miracle of us etc etc) I see people searching and nothing!! Often we’re told live this way talk this way pray this way believe these church teachings (whilst heretics and hypocrites in high places abound) no the answers I see don’t satisfy at all but your faith is something that does provide comfort the fact that you so energetically believe and appear to have very little doubt leaves me hopeful even though I don’t have what you have clearly! I continue to search and continue to pray and continue confess and continue to try to believe I am loved and not being deprived I have no option left as science and philosophy can’t get me there and sin like Augustine has written on is an empty illusion and moreover a trap pulling us down. Thank you father pray for me and I will continue to pray also for all of us and hold on to that position that God is listening and has a plan and place in his heart for me. God bless
Believe in Christ. He is your savior and forgives you. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16 If you are struggling with suffering, remember that Christ suffered for our sins on the Cross. John Paul II wrote: “The Redeemer suffered in place of man and for man. Every man has his own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished. He is called to share in that suffering through which all human suffering has also been redeemed. In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ.” (Salvifici Doloris, 19) A good start on suffering would also be with CS Lewis’ work such as “The Problem of Pain”.
Mother Teresa is a canonized saint. Yet she claims to have loved in depression and darkness without consolation all her adult life. But she clung to her faith and believed without that emotional consolation we all need. Let's all pray for each other to stay in the race to the finish. Who else can we turn to,in the final analysis , but God.
In the bible it says that after Cain killed Abel then it stated that they basically started (Genesis 6: 1-4) to get together with the daughter of man so there is a claim saying there was already some form there but we are considered sons of god so I think this somehow aligns with what was taught in the UA-cam video.
One thing I want to ask Father. Isn’t macroevolution incompatible in a theological sense from our Catholic worldview. After all, there was no death before the Fall, correct? If there was no death, then evolution could not have occurred. I’m afraid that if I concede that there was death and suffering before the Fall, that it would put basic tenants of our faith into question. Why is there cancer and disease? Why are there natural disasters? Without the basis of original sin throwing the entirety of creation into disorder, how do I reconcile that with my Catholic faith?
2:19 Petrus Comestor disagreed. In the beginning of the Gospel part of Historia scholastica, he considered it a known fact of Biblical chronology (given the distance from Flood to Abraham and Creation to Flood : the text version is LXX without a second Cainan) that Christ was born 5199 after Adam and Eve were created. Not only that. Before you appeal to St. Thomas' typical output as being too intellectual to accept such "simplistic readings" - he had made an oath to uphold: * the theology of Peter Lombard * the Biblical history of - yes - Historia Scholastica * the canon law of Decree of Gratian. Plus obviously, he never took a distance from his probable youth work, Postilla in Libros Geneseos, except from its Latinity. Probably changed his Latin grammar a bit when going from Benedictines in Naples to Dominicans in Paris.
We know that the Genesis story is not history although it may be based on a true story. It is a story on origins using popular myths at that time in ancient Palestine. It teaches truth using historical constructs and literary devices of a distant past that we could decipher to get at the truth of the message. It would be foolish to look for evidence of a universal flood, a Noah’s ark, a parting of the sea, a garden between two rivers and a talking snake. That would be missing the point.
*Arcanum,* Leo XIII “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
When we read in Scripture the genealogy of Jesus, it goes all the way back to Adam. If "Adam" is figuratively someone, is this one of the reasons, if not the main one, that Jesus is called "The Son of Man?"
If a male rational animal, a man, had offspring with an irrational female animal, as this video suggests might have happened to explain the apparant larger pool of ancestors, then how could the parents be of a different species? Modern science defines species as the ability to produce fertile offspring. Could the fertile offspring of any two parents be a different species than those parents? And how could it have been sinful to follow natural propagation?
The Hebrew word for create is bara which means something is brought into existence brand new ,the word bara is only used 3 times in the Genesis account , day 1 day 5 day 6 .
Genesis is a memory of the first times of mankind, The gospels are about the historicity of Jesus . Comparing two different books with different intent (albeit all are inspired) is not the good method .
@@planteruines5619 The gospels are about the historicity of Jesus . ~~~ Only the Faithless care about Jesus' historicity. The Saved are already One with Christ/God in Heaven Here! Now! "Let the dead bury the dead!" The Gospel is about Salvation, Christ/Unconditional Love, not the man Jesus or the magic tricks attributed to him.
Thank you for the video. It is very informative. That said I hope you’ll pardon my saying this, but I have questions. Firstly: what denies other members of the genus Homo from having a human soul if they behaved so similarly to early Homo sapiens? Assuming that the gift of the human soul was given to a Homo sapiens couple. Could it be possible for more than one species to have a human soul? From the video I would assume that couldn’t be possible. And secondly: if the gifting of the soul was dispensed to Adam and Eve if they were early Homo sapiens, and we know there are people with Homo neanderthalensis ancestry, what then becomes of their offspring? And those offspring from other minglings outside of the species Adam and Eve belonged in that moment? Would the children of such unions be lesser than the children Adam and Eve would have together? I hope that my asking these questions doesn’t convey an expression of disliking the content of the video. I’m only eager to learn more.
The video does not specify whether Homo sapiens is identical with our concept of rationality. In fact, Homo sapiens refers merely to anatomical modernity, and behavioral modernity is much more recent.
@@DennisCNolasco I would like to believe so as well, but without any reasoning it could only be an assumption. Would there be anything that could make this assumption more plausible?
@@john-maryknight2012 You are right, the video doesn’t say anything on species specifically aside from some individuals having Neanderthal in their ancestry. And I know that nomenclature organizes organisms by physical traits. That said, if I’m understanding your statement correctly, behavioral modernity could offer some light to when humanity was given reasoning. And looking into the behavior of long extinct peoples is anything but simple. Am I on the right track for your meaning? I don’t want to assume anything.
The coming to being of homo sapiens is a product of the principle of distinction: a being is different from another because at least one of its accidents is different. Therefore, despite the genetic mixture and the progressive change, there needs to be a human being that WAS, as differentiated from his/her father and mother, who weren't. Then he had/she had needed to mate with another non-human being, the productvof which had to be the second human being. Unless God had put the human soul simultaneously to both first human couple, the product of which would have been the third human being. Makes sense?
I've studied with a Hasidic Rabbi/Kabbalist who interpreted the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for how God creates our reality in each moment, rather than as singular even in history. So basically, in his view we're reenacting the fall each moment that we mistakenly perceive ourselves to be separate from God.
I'm pretty sure Anne Catherine Emmerich is wondering why she excepted the Stigmata from Our Lord.. is it not signs enough to preach! Or does it not fit with your Scientific faith..
As much as I think, analyze and try to rationalize the idea of ANY form of hominid- human evolution the more I find myself believing Genesis literally. To me, theories change too often and radically to fathom...at least for my simplistic reasoning.
This one is hard to wrap my mind around, but I appreciate you giving light to the tough topics. I love learning them and defending the faith with knowledge. Thanks Fr.!
For anyone skeptical about this outlook, read the book called "Thomistic Evolution". It contains multiple proofs that modern day evolution aligns with the Bible and Gods will!
The problem is that you can't actually reconcile to two. Macroevolution and Thomistic metaphysics are irreconcilable. Human origins cannot be answered empirically, it's fundamentally a philosophical question (or if we happen to have knowledge from an original source, like, say, Divine Revelation) The other issue is that we don't actually have any proof that macroevolution exists. I would recommend checking out the Kolbe Center for the study of creation on this topic. Or read Fr. Rippergers book "Metaphysics of Evolution"
*Arcanum,* Leo XIII “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
Wow. A lot of what If’s, perhaps, might, at some Point in the mystic past, we may theorize, is it possible, hard to untangle these possibilities…Not a very confident assessment of the Creation story. I’ll assume the Catholic church thinks Paul was wrong referring to Adam as an actual person. Scripture itself does not allow Adam to be taken non-literally; many passages in Scripture require Adam to be a historical individual. Among them is Romans 5:12-21, where a historical Adam is contrasted with the historical Jesus. 1. Luke 3:38: Luke proceeds to trace Jesus’s descent back to “Adam, the son of God”. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Seems God is “the author of confusion”.
I don’t think genesis is trying to teach people the origin of human being in literal way , somehow felt like it’s more of wanting to show reader how Sin came about and how God deal with Sin. It’s a way of showing the Truth which is the Good always triumph over Evil. Taking the book literally is like taking all modern movies and think that’s earth life.
Let me throw some theology at you. Growing up, I was comfortable in the belief that there was wisdom in the story of Adam and Eve, but that it was mythological. Well, now that I'm older, I believe I was mostly right, but mythological or not, that Adam and Eve were real humans who were graced with perfection by God and declared by God to be the first humans, built for eternity, but they fell, cursing all of their descendents in original sin. Generational curses are real and this was the mother of all generational curses. God planned for this and created a new Eve. Let's call her Mary. Like the first Eve, she was graced with perfection. Unlike the first Eve, she did not fall, and gave everything she was to God; never questioning what it would cost her. Angels were created to be her guides and teachers and to be the dowery of her future husband. The chief angel among those was shown her beauty in his time of testing; outside of time, and when he saw what a perfect reflection she was of God, he knew he would always be 2nd place and rebelled. He wanted to be God. He wasn't jealous of God's power, but of the beauty of his love, his perfect humility and his perfect self sacrifice. Mary was conceived with this grace. Her husband gained it as a dowery. They both remained virgins for the simple fact that if they had children, we would have been replaced by a race without original sin rather than being redeemed.
It is very possible that psilocybin or some form of mushrooms were the forbidden fruit. I would assume if I ate some strange mushroom I would surely die.
This is such a refreshing comment section on the topic in contrast to my Protestant brethren close-mindedly ridiculing anyone suggesting the views in this topic. We don’t need more brash Ken Ham zealots, a little nuance goes a long way!
Yo he pensado mucho en esto, me considero una persona con mente científica y religioso y creo que hay una serie de preguntas a la que nos es difícil darles respuesta: -Dios es revelado cómo amor en el NT, amor infinito, incondicional, misericordia, perdón. ¿cCómo me va a hacer culpable de algo que un antepasado mío cometió hace más de 200 mil años? -¿Cómo si Adán era perfecto cae en la primera ocasión que tiene? ¿Cómo Dios castiga a los primeros humanos por un pecado de soberbia o desobediencia y luego cuando sus descendientes asesinan a su Hijo los perdona? -¿Si Adán no hubiera pecado, la Encarnación habría sido necesaria? ¿Fue Jesús un plan B de Dios, aunque todos necesitamos de Él para salvarnos? ¿Puedo equiparar a Adán, un hombre, con Jesús, 2da persona de la Trinidad en nuestra salvación? -De los cientos o miles de parejas iniciales, ¿Cuál fue la causante del "pecado original"? -El universo surgido por el Big Bang y el ser humano descendiente de una cadena de organismos , seres vivientes... son consecuencias de procesos en evolución, o sea no surgieron perfectos sino que se han ido perfeccionando con el tiempo y se dirigen hacia su perfección en la Escatología. ¿Cómo hablamos de perfección desde el origen? ¿De seres creados, no eternos? ¿La perfección no es está en la Protología sino en la Escatología. El punto fundamental es que para ser perfecto es necesario ser eterno, como Dios. Todo lo creado es finito, imperfecto, limitado. Todo lo creado lleva en su ser estas limitaciones, por eso todos los seres humanos nacemos con una tendencia natural a pecar, no producto de "un pecado original" cometido por alguien, sino que lo que es original en nosotros es esta tendencia de la que ningún ser humano se puede escapar por nuestra condición de seres creados. La fe y la ciencia provenientes ambas de Dios pueden y mnecesitan trabajar juntas pero tenemos que revisar lo que pensamos
Gracias por la oportunidad de darme tanto que pensar con tus preguntas. Sin mayor pretensión que compartir contigo mi humilde reflexión, muy probablemente llena de errores, paso a responderlas brevemente, por si por un casual pudiera interesarte algo: //* - Dios es revelado cómo amor en el NT, amor infinito, incondicional, misericordia, perdón. ¿cCómo me va a hacer culpable de algo que un antepasado mío cometió hace más de 200 mil años? *// Quizás la palabra no sea "culpable" sino simplemente "heredero", como quien hereda una deuda, un sistema de valores, una propensión enfermiza, una toxicomanía materna, un hábito, un mundo contaminado o, simplemente, una naturaleza humana desordenada. Supongo que Dios muy bien podría habernos creado a cada uno independientemente, sin condicionamientos previos ni condicionantes futuros pero, a imagen suya, quiso que fuéramos progenie, padres e hijos, transmisores y receptores de la misma naturaleza humana. //* - ¿Cómo si Adán era perfecto cae en la primera ocasión que tiene? *// No creo que la palabra "perfecto" aparezca tal cual en Genesis 1-3; todo lo más, "muy bueno" o "bueno en gran manera" (Gn 1,31), lo cual puede significar "adecuadamente ordenada a su máximo bien", es decir, para la actualización a su máximo potencial. //* - ¿Cómo Dios castiga a los primeros humanos por un pecado de soberbia o desobediencia... *// Creo que las palabras de Dios a Adán, "el día que de él comieres, ciertamente morirás" (Gn 2, 16-17), cabe interpretarlas, más que como prohibición, como profecía y advertencia causal: "si yerras (= pecas, te desordenas) en esto, ocurrirá esto otro". Asimismo, las palabras de Dios a Eva y a Adán tras ignorar éstos su advertencia y errar (Gn 3,14-21) pueden también interpretarse, no como castigo sino como la toma de las primeras medidas "de choque" por parte de Dios para empezar a arreglar el desaguisado generado con todas sus consecuencias... //* - ... y luego cuando sus descendientes asesinan a su Hijo los perdona? *// ...unas consecuencias que, cual "efecto mariposa", miles de años después, un diluvio in extremis mediante, llevará al ser humano a dar muerte, y muerte de cruz (Flp 2,8), al mismo Dios encarnado, incapaz ya de reconocerle, aunque lo tenga delante de sus mismos ojos. Lo cual, creo yo, nos da idea de la gravedad última del pecado original y el grado de depravación al que llegaría el hombre (mas no todos y, por eso mismo, creo yo, no total como afirman algunos). //* - ¿Si Adán no hubiera pecado, la Encarnación habría sido necesaria? ¿Fue Jesús un plan B de Dios, aunque todos necesitamos de Él para salvarnos? *// Es posible que la Encarnación sirva a muchos otros propósitos además de al de la salvación. Según tengo entendido, Dios podría haber salvado al ser humano de infinidad de maneras, pero eligió esa que le pareció particularmente conveniente para sus propósitos. //* - ¿Puedo equiparar a Adán, un hombre, con Jesús, 2da persona de la Trinidad en nuestra salvación? *// No me queda clara la pregunta, lo siento. Existe una tipología muy interesante entre Adan-Eva y Jesús-María (el Nuevo Adán y la Nueva Eva). Las tipología son siempre en grado creciente, de manera que el Nuevo Adán es sin pecado (como la Nueva Eva), hombre verdadero pero también Dios verdadero; circunstancia ésta que le permite extendernos la invitación a ser hijos adoptivos de Dios Padre por él y en él, Dios Hijo (parábola de la vid y los sarmientos, Jn 15, 1-8). ¿Puede que porque ése era el plan inicial? (“Dios se hizo hombre para que el hombre se hiciera Dios”, San Ambrosio.) //* - De los cientos o miles de parejas iniciales, ¿Cuál fue la causante del "pecado original"? *// No importa demasiado. Dado el carácter racional, social y transgeneracional del ser humano, bastaría con que una sola pareja concibiera una idea o una conducta desordenada para que a través de, digamos, el mimetismo, el inconsciente colectivo y la progenie humana, acabara eventualmente haciéndose "viral". //* - ¿Cómo hablamos de perfección desde el origen? ¿De seres creados, no eternos? ¿La perfección no es está en la Protología sino en la Escatología. *// Sí, la perfección sólo puede ser escatológica; y el "muy bueno" o "bueno en gran manera" original, teleológico, es decir, ordenado al Bien último. //* - Todo lo creado es finito, imperfecto, limitado. Todo lo creado lleva en su ser estas limitaciones, por eso todos los seres humanos nacemos con una tendencia natural a pecar, no producto de "un pecado original" cometido por alguien, sino que lo que es original en nosotros es esta tendencia de la que ningún ser humano se puede escapar por nuestra condición de seres creados. *// Yo distinguiría entre la naturaleza humana original y la naturaleza humana tras el pecado original. Puesto que la divinidad es el Bien actual absoluto, toda creación original suya (Adán incluido) está necesariamente ordenada al bien. Su limitación e imperfección pueden eventualmente hacer a la criatura susceptible al pecado, pero no tendente al pecado. (Y es que esto implicaría: o que está ordenada al mal, no al bien; o que está doblemente ordenada al mal y al bien, si esto tiene algún sentido. En cualquier caso, ambas posibilidades contradirían una "creación muy buena" por parte de Dios.) Ahora, si una criatura humana tiende al mal, eso quiere decir que su naturaleza está de algún modo desordenada. Hasta donde alcanzo a ver, los desórdenes de tendencia se producen de tres maneras, o a tres niveles: 1. por incitación externa (a la voluntad y razón autónomas, empujándolas separativamente, _diaballein_ , de donde _diabolos_ , en griego); 2. por herencia y aprendizaje social; 3. por desequilibrio del cuerpo animal. En otras palabras, por el diablo, el mundo y la carne, cada uno afectando respectivamente a los centros racional, social-emocional e instintivo-sensorial del humano. (El caso de los demonios, o ángeles caídos, merece consideración aparte por las particularidades de la naturaleza angélica: espiritual, eterna, perfecta y libre. Pero mejor lo dejo ahí, que de angeleología lo desconozco prácticamente todo y ya he sido demasiado osado.) Gracias por la paciencia, y un saludo.
6:13 No "a very long time ago" is very much not needed. Give a pre-Flood population of races Neanderthal, Sapiens and Denisovan, and Noah as tenth from Adam being Sapiens pointing to Adam being close to that too, Neanderthals and Denisovans can be explained as part or totally Nephelim, and Homo Erectus Soloensis as extreme case or as a bred kind of warrior giant. And the genome can be explained by Noah's inlaws having such ancestry. Only about 5000 years ago. And no actual non-humans ever involved with either human anatomy or ancestrality of modern day human populations.
The more you try to cram Adam and Eve into this type of history the more problems you get. What about the descendants and their stories? So Adam and Eve are historical but Cain and Abel are allegory? Etc
Whoever finds this interesting look at the haplogroup designations. The a haplogroup ‘A’ may have been Adam. And the J’s might’ve been the descendants of Abraham/issac.
What a great video. I had always thought that the 'first sin' was sexual in nature - the idea that God intended man and woman for each other and that somehow that was the temptation satan put before Eve and that she convinced Adam it was just fine. Is this what you meant with your reference to the sin?
Genesis and St Paul clearly state that the first sin was an act of disobedience. I can't understand how anyone can interpret consuming an empowering forbidden fruit as a sexual sin. The video is great and helps clarify a lot of my speculations. Thank you Fr Legge!
It is not about sex being a sin - that would be ridiculous; rather it would be a sin of a sexual nature of which there could be many. As for that being an act of disobedience-sexual sin can be an act of disobedience. The two are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, this was just a thought…the interpretation could be something else.
The First sin (Original sin) was not of sexual matter, but of pride. The historical sins (also the sin of Lucifer) are of pride. God forbid Adam and Even to eat the fruit, the Serpent came and said that they will be like God as they can choose good and evil, so they ate in defiance of a divine prohibition; Satan too, by his pride, by the feeling of superiority among the angels, he wanted to be like God.
@Loredan sex by itself is not indeed a sin, but it would be a sin to abuse of it. When it is not inside of marriage and without the idea of conceiving an infant, it is sinful, everything outside those two requirements are sinful.
The problem with videos like this is that you assert that the bible is to be taken as we interpret it. The Genesis accout completely and unequivocally precludes evolution by saying that the animals (all of them) were first created and then man was created from the dust. Not from anohter animal. The more literally we take the bible the more it makes sense. This implies that I can sort of make up my own idea of how man was made and twist the scriptures so it fits.
Who God created first woman or man? If a man was created first then God never needed a woman to create life. First son of man he truly has to be. Without a mother. Now explain that.
I’d like to think that the fall came as soon as humans became self conscious. Realizing they had choice. I also believe the most import is, that Jesus came to save us and bring us back to God. Jesus is the way the truth and the life.
If you look at the story of Adam and Eve as the tale of man's shift from hunter-gathering to agriculture, it makes a lot of sense. Archeologic evidence shows that hunter-gatherers were much better off than the first farmers. They had more vatiety in their diets and lived a lot longer. It would be natural for early farmers to think of farming as a punishment. The only reason that we switched to farming is because we could no longer feed ourselves from hunting and gathering due to natural climate change.
3:43 Timescale. If you put Adam into 7000 BP, as you should, and this into the Evolutionary Timescale (or Uniformitarian, not all who hold it are Evolution believers), it means, Adam wasn't the first man, and probably not ancestor of pre-Columbian or pre-Cook populations. If you put Adam into 40 000 BP or 100 000 BP, and note this, taking these as the real dates, you have suddenly made Genesis 3 impossible as history. It couldn't have been accurately transmitted, when if so even Genesis 5 and 11 were inaccurately transmitted.
Before I say anything else I want to state for the record I am a Church going Christian. I truly believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God in the flesh, come to save us and pay the price for our sin. But the point I want to discuss is what science is revealing to us compared to the old testament view of creation. In terms of the New Testament I fully believe it is true, and there is no "external evidence" to suggest that it is inaccurate or false. I cannot prove it is true but equally atheists cannot prove it isn't. However the same argument is not true of the old testament. There are a number of "stories" in the old testament that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The claim that the earth is only 6000 years old is clearly ridiculous and ignores everything that is God is revealing to us through science. The stories of Noah and the Tower of Babel are clearly "metaphors" not literal events. The problems with the story of Noah, for example, are many (but I won't list them here). But the key issue is there is absolutely no proof of a world flood. Also how does this story explain all the genetic diversity we see on the Earth after supposedly only 5000 years. Including all the human diversity we see today (white, black, Chinese, India, South America people etc). There are also literally millions of species on this planet. Some Christians even deny the existence of the dinosaurs. I think as a Christian we have to embrace scientific discovery as it is the truth. To continually say the Noah story is "literally true" doesn't help our cause despite the evidence to the contrary. The problem is that science is going to reveal more and more about creation and we need to embrace these findings. In the end the truth is the truth and in no way does this change the identity of Jesus Christ or why he is our saviour. I think some Christians are unwilling to accept that some stories in the bible are "metaphors" due to the "knock-on-effect" of the implications i.e if the Noah story isn't literally true what else isn't true!! I think we need to overcome these fears and seek the truth. The universe is 13.8 billion years old, this is a scientific fact. The universe was created by the big bang in an instant, not in 6 days. The sooner Christians accept these things we can start to understand the full picture. I am not trying to change anyone's faith, just realign it to the truth. Isn't that what God the Father would want us to do. Jesus remains the the "Way the truth and the life", regardless of current and inevitable future scientific findings. God and Science are not mutually exclusive as God created science. Thanks.
Great video, as always! If possible, I would like to know more about the possibility/ hypothesis of encountering life outside earth. I know the chances are almost none and can sound ridicolous, but given the case It could change civilization for sure. Being non rational life I guess it will not suppose any theological issue, but on the possibility of intelligent life... What could the position of The Church be? They would be also creatures of God, but could the definition of human be extended to them? Should we announce them the Gospel if they do not have a religion? I know it sounds stupid, but It rises a lot of questions in me and It has probably already been addressed by scholars
Statistically speaking it is actually far far less likely that there is not life out there besides on Earth, intelligent life is another story however, and technologically advanced life is yet another question, and if there is any within any range we could reasonably ever communicate or interact with is really the big enchilada of a question here. It isn't so much the likelihood of exobiology being a real thing that is problematic, it is the sheer amount of unknowns that make it very very difficult to determine how to go about tracking one down when we know next to nothing about them or how they may think, act, communicate, and the like and we know very little about the physical requirements on an astronomical scale for what fosters intelligent life. We keep finding more and more out all the time that is relevant to this topic. One exciting discovery is that the Sun exchanged material with a cluster of many stars of its stellar class for about 1 billion years before drifting off on its own. if life evolved anywhere in the cluster it may have spread during that time period. Note if true it would almost certainly be microbial life not anything multicellular let alone intelligent. We are sill tracking down these "sibling" stars of the Sun though so alot is unknown right now.
@@LostArchivist Thx. I see the very low probability of even the bacterial life. Or even the posibility of not even matching the time window of existance toguether. However I have always wonder how theology would answer that hipothesis. The existence of non rational life can also be easily explained theologicaly but the other... Anyway, not likely to happen
@@elosopardo2691 It can be easily explained if we get the idea that we are the center of the Universe out of the way and realize all of Creation exists for the glory of God and ultimately for His purposes, us included. He does not need Creation and so it is for the benefit of His creatures, but God is God and we and anything else but God are not, it is the ultimate good of rational creature to know that God is God. You might be interested in hearing the speculation by Catholic Answers apologist Jimmy Akin on this on his podcast. You can find it on his website of his UA-cam channel. If you don't agree with him, well as I said, it is simply informed speculation and can be freely rejected. I do not have the luxury of choosing a low likelihood of definitely simple microbial life in the Universe outside of Earth. There really is no reason from a scientific perspective for it not to be there. It does seem very odd for God to make the Universe as vast as He did and not to have other examples on the lower parts of the Great Chain out there, less numbers the higher one goes is expected, but as the perfection of the spheres is not true, there is not a human-centric assumption in terms of the arrangement of the Universe. In fact, it seems there literally is no center point in creation. This is theologically good as it says God is the center and summit of existence, as is metaphysically, spiritually, and existentially true. Something much more profound than the ancients could conceive of but still consistent with the Deposit of Faith that is more, beautiful, wise, and glorious must be true. For me this is not a problem, because God transcends human reason infinitely, so it would be odd if even fallen creation did not surprise, humble and confound us somewhat. Oh! There is also a very good series of talks on the Society of Catholic Scientists, some others on a summit between science and religion hosted by the Word on Fire and a talk by Catholic Answers Focus, and an episode of the Catholic Talk Show that cover this topic.
Great video as usual. A good friend of mine said the traditional rabbinical answer a creation account question is, “you are not supposed to ask that question.” It seems as good an answer as any.
@@metalvarez1 That’s not what I read. I read that both are acceptable and was curious what the Thomists had to say about it. Can you cite that can be found please? Here’s a quote from the Society of Catholic Scientists Q&A: “In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical letter Humani generis, warned Catholics not to “embrace” polygenism, because it was “in no way apparent” how polygenism is consistent with Catholic doctrines on “original sin.” 4 However, it is generally agreed that Pope Pius XII did not intend to definitively rule out the idea of polygenism, so it is an unresolved issue. It is worth noting that some well-known scientists have argued that the neurological basis for the brain’s processing of human language (a precondition for rational thought) must have originated with just one or a very few individuals.”
@@paulwiget9935 fair enough I see your point, if the first sons of Adam and Eve had offspring with humanoid not yet fully human creatures then polygenism will be a valid option, but for the doctrine of original sin yo work there must be two original human beings who chose to depart from their original state of grace
Have you ever heard about the mathematical impossibility of evolution, meaning there isn't enough time for creatures to evolve from random mutation ? Have you ever checked the discovery science channel? Have you ever heard of Dr Michael Behe ? Btw my English is not that good XD so please forgiveme
@@metalvarez1 I’ve studied all that stuff and it fails the scientific test. I’m a PhD in chemistry and Biochemistry, a fellow at the Center for Science and Religion at Samford university and a member of the Society of Catholic Scientists. I’ve actually read Behe’s book and papers and they are fundamentally flawed. He built an error into his calculations the he himself fails to see. It’s just not good science. Evolution it totally plausible and is the result of the best science and consensus available. It’s not opinion. It’s hard data-driven science now.
A creative attempt to reconcile the Bible with science, and yet Genesis does not say that Adam end Eve were there and God gave them reason as the story you are telling suggests, Genesis rather says that God created them anew and then at the same time gave them reason.
In Genesis first chapter NO mention of "Adam, Eve, the serpent, fallen angels, paradies/Eden, the great flood, Noah, Kain+Abel" etc.! But then in second chapter we read this wellknown stories - that`s all ancient sumerian/mesopotamien and canaaite mythologies adopted and reinterpretetd by the Jews during babylonian exile and after! Same with exodus of Moses, most of it is mythology.
Also the genealogy of Jesus goes back to Adam. Adam was a real man but the story in Genesis is poetry and not history. So it’s so difficult to have a proper understanding of how life was for Adam and Eve.
3:14 First of all, taking the days of creation as actual days, which is the natural reading, yes, Genesis answers that in the negative. Second, even without Genesis, a man can have irrational ancestry only on two alternative conditions : either he was directly born of beings fully irrational, or there is a graduation from irrationality of beasts and rationality of man. The second opinion is very popular among scientists and especially atheists among them, as it means "rationality" is just a quirk in animal consciousness. But it's incompatible with Christianity. The first of these involves that Adam was before he sinned treated badly by God. He was put into the position of becoming a feral child.
I am glad to know that you believe in science and feel happy about it. Didn't you witness how the science of Covid evolved right in front of our eyes? Do you still religiously believe in the initial dogmas of that science? What is science? Science is a God given ability to human beings, albeit not all equally, to pry and uncover the laws of God's created nature. If everything had evolved randomly, there would be no laws in nature and to do scientific research would be impossible.
Of course Adam and Eve exist; they exist as metaphor, as allegory, as artworks, as literature, as imaginary... "Did" they exist as literal historical figures? Don't be silly! ;)
This series in my opinion is trying too hard to reconcile NOT real scientific data but highly speculative scientific hypotheses (huge difference) with the Catholic faith. For example the Gospels make it clear Mary conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had no biological father. Genesis makes it very clear neither Adam nor Eve had biological parents, they were both made directly by God through a supernatural miracle (like that of Jesus' conception). That is a huge historical and theological event. Father here repeats the now tired theory that the original author had no intention of telling something historical, only something theological. Now let's use some common sense, (as Chesterton said it's becoming less and less common nowadays). Can you imagine a sacred author being inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself writing a work that just about everyone (including 99% of all saints) would interpret as historical (and theological) up until our modern era? Also, if Adam and Eve had non-rational hominis parents, what about the 4th commandment? Did Adam and Eve mourn the death of their monkey parents? The speculation that perhaps Adam and Eve sinned by having sex with their fellow non-rational hominins and that this might have been the original sin (as Father implies by saying "we know that sin entered very soon into the picture") it's just unfounded. This is the main premise on these series the way I see it: we must defend the official Dogma of the Church, but everything else is up for grabs. Since it's not technically Dogma that Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God on eating from a forbidden tree then we can speculate their sin might have been disobeying God by having sex with their fellow non-rational hominis. All this just to appease the latest scientific "knowledge" when it's rather nothing but speculation that monkeys gave rise to a pair of human bodies by evolution. As G.K Chesterton once said referring to commentators on the book of Revelation: "And though St. John saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators." God bless.
Slow down, Genesis lets us know that Cain found his wife outside his own family. That must mean that he mated with someone unrelated to Adam and Eve, that's what the Father means by "sin entered very early in our history". The original sin was not the mating with a soulless hominid, that proposition has problems and it's not what's being meant here. And I'd argue that what happened in Eden did not happen on this Earth, only after the fall were Adam and Eve in contact with hominids.
@@tafazzi-on-discord thanks for the reply. Where in the Bible does it say that Cain found his wife outside his own family? As far as I can tell his wife was a sister. It is traditionally believed God made a dispensation to allowed for this morally speaking so the human family could grow. From my reading of the video I'd argue Father is proposing the hypothesis that perhaps original sin was indeed the mating with soulless humanoids and I can give you evidence on this if you're open about it, just let me know.
@@germanr84 - You say; _"Where in the Bible does it say that Cain found his wife outside his own family?"_ It's stated in verses like Genesis4:14-17 etc that there were other people besides those introduced to us at the beginning of Genesis, namely Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. It also tells us that Cain found his wife from these people.
@@tafazzi-on-discord - I pretty much agree with your conclusions, although I think Eden was most likely an actual place on Earth and that God just kept Adam and Eve separate from the other hominids there until after the fall(Genesis3:22-24).
Genesis and the Gospel of Luke are 2 different genres. Genesis was written 3200 years ago for dessert nomads to explain basic truths about morality in form of allegory (Like all stories from that time period). Luke was written to tell the Greeks and Romans that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. It is literal history like the stories from that time period Like Josephus and Tacitus.
3:37 That the Sapiens race "mated" with Neanderthals has no bearing on whether Adam had ancestry. Not more than Black and White people getting married now. Candace Owens is pretty Black, and at least the father of her spouse, Michael Farmer, probably her spouse too, George Farmer is White. If both descend from Adam it doesn't mean Adam had non-human ancestry. Neither do pre-Flood marriages between Sapiens and Neanderthal races.
@@Super_Bros. how does changing one language create a different race of people, the reason God confused their language was because they were trying to create their own salvation ,after all God promised he would never again distroy the world with water.. Were did Cain get his wife,most speculate she was his sister, the bible says the land of Nod, who were these people in Nod ? The 6th day creation.
So are you saying that there was death before Adam's sin? And when Jesus said that from the beginning God made them man and woman he didn't really mean it?
> So are you saying that there was death before Adam's sin? I mean physical death obviously existed for hundreds of millions of years before the first behaviourally modern humans emerge.
This was painful! When you have to try to make your aetiology match up with modern science you know you’re in trouble. Instead of going through this whole song and dance, why not just accept the the story of Adam and Eve was one of hundreds of origin myths that were told by people who didn’t know the first thing about actual science
As a Christian myself..once you can gettison from your mind the faith based proposition that the Bible is inspired/inerrant this becomes easy. In other words..of course it isnt history. Duhh!
🇷🇺☦️You mean you are actually OK with this heretical video? How dare you even call yourselves Catholics? I mean you went to such a low that ME, a Russian Orthodoxz, need to defend your own Roman Catholic teachings from yourselves and these hacks who desecrate the honor and memory of the holy Aquinas!!🤦🤢
Adam and Eve themselves are Hebrew or Semitic words, which make it highly improbable that somehow the first universal parents of all human beings, whose descendants are all over the world, were somehow Semitic or already within the sphere of the Semitic culture, considering the diverse ranges of human languages, ethnicity, and race (setting aside strict literal reading of the Tower of Babel, and Noah). And hence, I believe the point made about the first parents in Genesis is first and foremost a theological fact, a foundational understanding about sin, grace, and salvation, and our relationship and total dependence on God. Nonetheless, the teaching that the first true human beings, endowed with true human souls and grace by God, began with only two individuals makes sense with our belief that the human souls are created by God at conception, in our participation in the act of creation by God. Adam and Eve are said to have two sons initially, Cain and Abel, with Abel murdered, Cain was exiled and then he took a wife, who is not described by name. As other people have pointed out, this indicates that there were perhaps other human populations which married the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. And hence, every person born to the children, and direct descendants, of Adam and Eve was given the human soul by God. I take it that these other humans would be no different than Adam and Eve themselves genetically, but perhaps they didn't have the uniquely human souls as we do, ability to recognize God, and initial nature enlightened with God's grace, or even consciousness in the way that we experience it. It's also important to point out that somehow, we are the only remaining human race that still exists, with all other human-like species died out, the last of which is probably the Neanderthals, or perhaps the Flores hobbits.
First, their names or more of universally understood titles. They were called by name in their time in a much different way, but by God. I'm glad you bought up that point about Cain, I thought about it as well.
*Arcanum,* Leo XIII “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
I’m a Protestant but I love this channel. You guys just ooze Holy Spirit. God bless you all and thanks for doing this channel.
You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Yes, of course you love the channel, that is why you are a Protestant not a Christian...💁
Become Catholic
@alligatoraid either eastern Roman Orthodox or Catholic, but never listen to modernist Catholics & Orthodox like those in the Thomistic Institute who speak the blasphemy you just heard in this horrible video👆
Council of Florence teaches infallibly that all heretics will go to eternal fire prepared for devil and his angels. Join the holy Church, save your soul.
Hey thomists, after seeing some negative responses from Christian viewers, I would like to assert my complete gratitude towards you for trying to battle braviously the difficult questions around our faith, that can be compromised by modern science and philosophies. Keep it going, this channel is a treasure chest.
Thank you, Carlos Garnica, I agree with your clear comments. The Province of St. Joseph, and the entire Dominican Order, do an outstanding job of giving incredible theological, scriptural, and historical explanations of the Catholic Faith.
Father Legge, the presentations by you and all of the Friars are a university-level education in small servings, God Bless your work!
Carlos, regarding the negative comments, best to simply brush them off. The Catholic Church in this country is plagued by " armchair experts", who believe they are in sole possession of the truth.
Speaking only for myself, I'll continue to listen to the Dominicans, Opus Dei, and such outlets as the Augustine Institute.
Godspeed!
Ms. Burton, I do mention scripture in my first paragraph.
The gift from god that gave humans intelligence was the stoned ape theory, all of your religious are based off a drug trip :)
Your little antiquated pontificating is simply nonsense. 🙄
🇷🇺☦️You mean you are actually OK with this heretical video? How dare you even call yourselves Catholics? I mean you went to such a low that ME, a Russian Orthodoxz, need to defend your own Roman Catholic teachings from yourselves and these hacks who desecrate the honor and memory of the holy Aquinas!!🤦🤢
One thing I love about this video is that I can't tell which theory you, personally, believe. Thanks for just giving us the truths of the faith, the current science, and the truth about what we just can't be sure of right now. If only the news media would present the news with this kind of unbiased presentation. Thanks you.
🇷🇺☦️You mean you are actually OK with this heretical video? How dare you even call yourselves Catholics? I mean you went to such a low that ME, a Russian Orthodoxz, need to defend your own Roman Catholic teachings from yourselves and these hacks who desecrate the honor and memory of the holy Aquinas!!🤦🤢
☦️🤝✝️Oh, no brother, I think it's very clear - this is not Aquinas, but Blasphemy 101. Run for your lives from those false prophets & deceivers, brothers & sisters!🙏💔
I think it's both. Pope Benedict XVI when he was Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a very astute book on this.
I am not infallible. But I'm pretty sure the "rib" was DNA. Adam grew naturally by evolution. But Eve was a special creation, the crowning glory of God's creation. That old serpent was so Jealous of Eve, he volunteered to God to tempt Adam and Eve. God gave him permission because it was all part of His plan. Later on, in due time, God called the Virgin Mary to replace the Virgin Eve. God knew in advance that Adam would fail humanity. Thankfully the Virgin Mary chose the Tree of Life first, just like Adam should have. Only something to consider.
The Catholic church not denying science is the one of the reasons why I belong to the Catholic faith. To deny scientific evidence would be dillusional. It doesn't go against our faith at all and I'm proud that a priest is behind the big bang theory. If you deny reality, why would anyone listen to what you have to say about your faith.
Darwinian Evolution has nothing to do with scientific evidence. The data is interpreted to be older by various unreliable methods and has in many points in time used forgery to promulgate its ideas as "scientific" when it was not
I know. Ofocarse there was a big bang in the beginning. It was god creating light and everything else after
Also we can't mistake scientific theory for "reality". A theory is just that no matter how high the probability. We can't give it the same faith as is due to God alone.
@@zatoichi1 a scientific theory isn't just a guess. It's something that has evidence to support it.
☦️🤝✝️The Roman Catholic Church denied this fake "science" for 2000 years!! This isn't Aquinas, but Blasphemy 101!! Stop being indoctrinated by those false prophets who drag you all with them to the everlasting fire of Abhadon 😢🙏💔
What exactly did St Thomas Aquinas say about Adam and Eve and the truth of the matter?
*Arcanum,* Leo XIII “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
Great video with a nuanced and accurate explanation of the issue!
☦️🤝✝️No, it's not brother! Stop being indoctrinated by those imposters - this is Blasphemy 101🙏💔
Thank you, Fr. Legge and the whole team, for making videos like this. Keep enlightening us. Know that we keep you in our prayers 🙏🙏🙏
☦️🤝✝️Dear sister, please don't thank those deceivers, they are the tools of Satan. I used to like them & listen to their videos, UNTIL I got to this one & the rest. Your St. Aquinas is looking down on them from heaven in shock & disgust, how they spew those heresies in his name. This is BLASPHEMY 101, not Thomism or Christianity!🙏💔
The way I take Genesis is that it is allegorical and meant to show a basis for original sin and establishing that God made all that there is. Sin entered the world because we have rational minds that allow free will and poor/evil choices. You can see many of these same themes in other religions. I think people try too hard to see literal meaning in Biblical accounts that are poetry and metaphor. They lose track of the big picture by getting caught up in details that do not ultimately matter.
☦️🤝✝️Enough! If you don't repent from those blasphemy, you will end up in the everlasting fire of Abhadon!!! This isn't Catholicism nor Aquinas, but BLASPHEMY 101😢🙏💔
@@EasternRomanOrthodox.What is your theological evidence to back your claims?
@@BabyBugBug 🤦Oh...good Lord...I never thought I live to see the day when Roman Catholics would be so godless & behave worse that pagan💔💔💔
This is Church fathers, the Magisterium & the teaching of the ancient Israelites for 3000 years!!! More that that - from the time of St. Adam! This is basics!!! If you dare not take Scripture at face value then you are no different than the pagans & their myths, you got no base to stand upon, nothing!! Shame! Repent & convert all of you, indoctrinated souls! Go to the Priests! (the real ones not those modernist imposters)👆
@@BabyBugBug The Orthodox brother is right. What you are saying is not Catholic teaching and I just learned that today. Interestingly, I had the same view as you. I thought it was an allegory. But, as Catholics, we can’t deny the existence of Adam and Eve and the fact that we inherited the lack of God’s grace from the them.
Great explaination. At the end of the day, genesis is not a science book but it does tell us in a simple matter how God started life.
The historical context in which Darwin's theory emerged should not be ignored. There are serious metaphysical principles which the theory of evolution contradicts.
Without getting into a complicated scientific and philosophical explanation of it - we, as Catholics, should be able to discern this much: Theology, as a higher science, trumps the lower sciences. Where the lower sciences may seemingly contradict the higher science, the higher science trumps in matters of certainty. Almost all the Church Fathers and most Saints believed Adam and Eve were historical and real people. This, at least for me, is enough to heavily lean on the more literal interpretation of the events described in the book of Genesis (this is not in competition with the symbolic language as scripture can be polyvalent in meaning).
Science shows through DNA that all humans are descended from one woman. That was about 150,000 years ago.
Evolution is BS, bible clearly states that man was created from the dust if the earth.
People and, in particular, intellectuals like to play god by putting words and ideas on the mind and mouth of God, wanting to teach God how he should have done it because they like this way...
@@ramykalabchy5969 a lot of modern scientific theories are hardly scientific. The field of quantum mechanics is essentially hitting the threshold of materialism and physicists are, ironically, doing philosophy at that point. The Thomistic synthesis of reality and scripture is the most fulfilling imho. St Thomas rejected the double-truth theory and so faith can and does guide reason. Since the age of 'enlightenment' scientists have pitted reason against faith and many have reasoned their way into naturalism. Reason can dig itself a hole (grave) which, interestingly, only the gift of faith can escape.
@@ramykalabchy5969 yes they do and they are influenced by various ideologies. Evolution is a mechanism. Natural selection explains diversity within species. There are gaps in knowlege and no doubt new knowledge will be discovered in the future. God did not create the world as those in the past imagined. However there are core concepts and ideas that are true.
If you are interested please watch fr. Chad Ripperger's video on theory of evolution, he covers all of this, in more detail. And what is compatible with Church's teaching and what isn't. He starts with the metaphysics of evolution and combines it later on with Scripture and st. Thomas on Creation. Also, there is a book for those who are interested in this topic, it's from fr.Chad. It's called "The metaphysics of evolution".
Other Thomists have flatly denied this interpretation of Genesis 2, and backed up the denial with dogma and the Fathers. Can you recommend any books on the controversy?
🇷🇺☦️🤝✝️No need to ask anything from those fake heretics, brother, only exposing them. After watching this disgusting video I understand why this pope and Vatican II are the way they are - heretics. You hit the nail on the head, cuz other Thomists are true Catholics, while those are secularist imposters that speak blasphemies and lie shamelessly about the views of the holy Aquinas who would be furious and disgusted hearing those evil twisting of his philosophy. Aquinas would rather die than to embrace the dumb sick dated primitive pagan ideology of evolution!!!
*Arcanum,* Leo XIII “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
@@CatholicSplaining101 Will read asap. Thanks.
@ Not really a book, just an encyclical. But it just goes to show you how modernist things have become. No one believed this kind of thing a few hundred years ago.
Adam had a son who was a shepherd and one who was a hunter. .... Hard to imagine this with no already existing some sort of already
Existing community.
I would highly recommend the series of articles that the website "Thinkers Bible Studids did on genesis and Adam and Eve. It was a truly great read that shows how it is both scientific and biblical to think there were people before Adam and eve. Also, check out the videos made by Inspiringphilosophy on genesis, also a great watch
Also, when Cain was cast out for murdering Abel, he was afraid "someone" would find him and kill him and God said he would put a mark on him that if anyone finds him, they would sin 7 times more if they killed him. Which is clear reference ot other human beings. And not just ones of a previous homo species that didn't have a soul as God also holds those other people accountable to sin if they killed Cain.
Science can't explain the resurrection of our Lord. I don't think we will ever understand the creation of our Existence. But The Bible is the still truth.
@scartoons8639 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 yeah okay bud you clearly haven't done any research. Not only that raising from the dead or dieing has nothing to do with physics.
Science is there to explain only what there is or have been.
there is no reason to explain something that didnt happen.
You’re some of the only honest and intelligently nuanced Thomists I know! May God bless you for your work! Far too many Thomists have tended to fundamentalism and scandalized those faithful who have any epistemological sense or knowledge! May God continue to guide you all, protect you, and reward you richly.
Honest, hah? Is that a new word for pagan? You people are Protestants disguised as Catholics
☦️🤝✝️This isn't Thomism, but Blasphemy 101, so stop being brainwashed by those deceivers!!🙏💔
You might disagree, but how is this brainwashing. Everything they say is reasoned through, engage with the argument if you disagree.
@@tobylees7199 Everything they say is blasphemous not reasonable! Don't call blasphemy "reason", ok? This is a dishonest playing with words! If you're Christian, you don't question the historical narrative of Scripture which the Roman Catholic Church was defending as BASICS for 2000 years & condemned anyone who questioned it as a heretic for daring so, so you have no excuse whatsoever to even suggest such a claim. Fake scientific theories do not quality as "reason" just because they're popular & claim to be as such
@@tobylees7199 @tobylees7199 Everything they say is blasphemous not reasonable! Don't call blasphemy "reason", ok? This is a dishonest playing with words! If you're Christian, you don't question the historical narrative of Scripture which the Roman Catholic Church was defending as BASICS for 2000 years & condemned anyone who questioned it as a heretic for daring so, so you have no excuse whatsoever to even suggest such a claim. Fake scientific theories do not quality as "reason" just because they're popular & claim to be as such
Thanks. Nice to see a serious examination of the issues. As you know, Aquinas is in accord with Augustine, who I believe is also revered by many Protestants, that if our biblical interpretation conflicts with what is known by experience, one of them is wrong. Failing to understand this principle, take it seriously, and apply it causes a great deal of harm. As Augustine says elsewhere, ""Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn." The Literal Meaning of Genesis, book 1, chapter 19, paragraph 39.
Vincent DiCarlo, your explanation is very impressive, thank you. I have encountered many Protestants who believe that St. Augustine basically
" killed biblical Christianity", so I am interested that you have found them to revere him. I've read his Confessions, which are very dense, and for this non- expert, difficult.
I had better begin studying more seriously....
Godspeed!
@@johnalombardi2951 I have not done a study, but I think the key word here is "many." I have not done a study, but I have heard protestants speak well of Augustine, though I imagine others probably hold him in contempt. I guess it depends in part on whether you believe in a great Catholic apostasy and, if so, when you think it happened. Wikipedia says "Augustine is recognized as a saint in the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion....Many Protestants, especially Calvinists and Lutherans, consider him one of the theological fathers of the Protestant Reformation due to his teachings on salvation and divine grace.[33][34][35] Protestant Reformers generally, and Martin Luther in particular, held Augustine in preeminence among early Church Fathers."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
@@vdicarlo yes, however many of the Protestant simply omit St. Augustine’s Catholic sounding theology and just pull out of him what fits within their own theology. They do the same with the Bible.
Vincent, thank you very much for this detailed explanation, most interesting!
🇷🇺☦️🤝☪️🇵🇸"Serious examination", hah? You mean serious blasphemy. You mean you are actually OK with this heretical video? How dare you even call yourselves Catholics? I mean you went to such a low that ME, a Russian Orthodoxz, need to defend your own Roman Catholic teachings from yourselves and these hacks who desecrate the honor and memory of the holy Aquinas!!🤦🤢
Thank You for this video. It made me understand the Bible more. May God bless You!
So glad to hear it! May the Lord bless you!
Fr. Dominic
Perhaps the better starting question would be, "did Noah really exist such that all the population of the world originate via Shem, Ham, and Japheth? (With Ham's offspring inventing Canaanite gods and all manner of religions to minimize the value of the LORD, finally renouncing Him in their pantheon.)
How do you interpret no death pre original sin? Also it is a Dogma that Eve was formed from Adam's side.
I love that he explained that, while we can trace different parts of out DNA to different times, that proves nothing in regards to the possibility of all humans tracing their lineage back to the original Adam and Eve. We know this scripturally as well. Because we also know that all people can also trace their lineage back to Noah and his wife, albeit by different sons of his (not to mention countless other disasters wherein all but a few humans survived). So it is possible to have one ultimate genesis of the human race, while having multiple genetic points where all humans can trace their lineage.
Such a great explanation, thanks
I had a unique thought that is hard to explain. Imagine that the Garden was a real literal creation (whether or not it took 6 literal days to make or much longer) in which creation was basically perfectly ordered, as opposed to our own disordered world. When Adam and Eve sinned, creation itself was disordered (“cursed be the ground… thorns and thistles shall the earth put forth”), such that previously it was fundamentally ordered toward the glory of God, but afterward the whole thing became fundamentally ordered toward entropy, decay, and death: “to dust you shall return.“ Thus stars go nova, animals eat each other to survive, and evolution occurs to get better at preventing death. And so _even the past, not just the future, is corrupted._ While God may have made our first parents’s bodies out of the dust of the ground with his own hands, so to speak, now instead the evidence would show an evolutionary origin. The history of the entire universe is reoriented away from the original justice. So when Adam and Eve sinned, and they were expelled from the Garden, this Garden then became wholly cut off from the fallen creation, such that it is impossible to do any science on it. Adam and Eve might have found themselves in a new world where other humanoids now exist and have existed for millennia, but only they have rational souls. So then the descendants of Adam and Eve mingled with these proto-humans from the fallen creation. When Jesus comes again, he will redeem us and reorient all of creation back to him and away from the decaying fallen world.
I think that theory suffers from the 'fallacy' of infallibility, such that it cannot be proved wrong. Those types of theories should be automatically dismissed, lest we accept some obviously grave falsehood, such as "last thursday-ism," where the universe was created last Thursday, but in such wise as to appear much older. Both yours and this theory suffer from the same aforementioned flaw. Cheers
That’s an interesting objection
However, I have another idea. Consider Plato's "Theory of Ideas" (or forms, I've heard it both ways but they're the same essential concept). All things exist conceptually in the mind of God, including and especially the perfect "ideas" of things, or the "things themselves." These are the ideas by which we define the things we experience, e.g. "dog nature," the perfect conceptual dog, or rather, what it means to be a dog. Another example is Justice. We can be just, but we cant be justice ourselves. 'Justice itself,' the thing by which we define an act as just, therefore exists conceptually in the mind of God (or, I would argue, as God himself). It seems to me that there are two 'types' of Ideas. Things themselves, and the ways they relate to each other. 'Dogness' would be a thing itself, whereas 'Justice' would be a way in which things relate to each other. 'Dogness' and all other perfect conceptual things, as stated before, exist in the mind of the omniscient God. It is Plato's thought that when the commited lover of wisdom dies, he is able to investigate these things as they are.
I figure this to be what Heaven is. Heaven is the "mind of God," or that place (an improper term to be sure, but I don't know what else to call it) wherein lies the perfect concepts of all things that are and could be.
Plato believed that a "craftsman" (demiurgos/demiurge in the Greek. Also, we understand this to be God) made the "real world" after these perfect Ideas. Obviously, not being the perfect ideas themselves, he made the "real" world (I'm finding myself conflicted on what I mean by "real" if you couldn't tell, but you hopefully understand what I mean) to partake as closely as possible to the ideas without itself being the ideas. Do you follow?
When Scripture says that "Heaven and earth will be made one" on the last day, I believe with some conviction that the "real world" and the Platonic realm of perfect concepts will brought into perfect alignment. The physical world will resemble completely what God knows as perfect.
All of that is to say:
Perhaps the garden of eden was a prefigurement of the last day, or a place in which the reality perfectly matched the ideal (This place doesnt even have to have really existed, by the way, but perhaps I just a vehicle to tell us something). Our acting against God in this story was to show us our proclivity towards such an action. That even in perfect conditions, man could still choose to act against God. THAT is original sin. Christ came to make us more like himself, and prepare us for when eden is restored over all earth.
What do you think? I think I'm mostly coherent, but the eden part maybe not so much. Cheers!
You seem to be educated in philosophy, I however only took one political philosophy class and watch videos like this, so some of it might be tougher to translate. I think your though is intriguing.
For some reason I thought of something I remember from a NOVA show with Steven Hawking, talking about how the universe is in motion, and he made an analogy (I cannot remember the exact wording for this though, memory is very fuzzy). Imagine a ballroom with a bunch of balls evenly spaced on the floor, not moving, then some random balls were taken away. What results is all the balls start to move as if to fill the open spaces, which leads into motion, with some bumping into others. It makes me think of how some people object to God’s craftsmanship by how disordered our creation is. I imagine part of the truth of fallen creation is how certain elements of existence were allowed to be removed from the ideal of initial creation, maybe due to original sin, which causes a degree of chaos that nevertheless is still ordered. God then would bring creation back into right order at the end of time.
Don’t know how relevant this is though lol.
@@killianmiller6107 thanks for saying I sound educated but, my guy, I have read like 3 philosophy books max. Most of this comes from UA-cam too so like haha I dont know. If anything, the difficulty "translating" what in tarnation I just said is evidence of my lack of education.
I love that analogy though, it's really good. The argument from evil fails for this reason (and like a hundred others, but human choice is the best imo)
"He should be a Politician, instead of a Priest with that... Answer "
Genesis is enough for me
yeah they complicate anything because they know its internet,and they got supported by people in internet so they have the gut to tell it,in the age without internet none of these things will be made complicated
the same as those transgender ideology,they complicate gender so people would believe in their absolute nonsense
Bro what? Jesus doesn’t allow asking questions?
Thanks for all the good work you do!
You mean you are actually OK with this heretical video? How dare you even call yourselves Catholics? I mean you went to such a low that ME, a Russian Orthodox, need to defend your own Roman Catholic teachings from yourselves and these hacks who desecrate the honor and memory of the holy Aquinas!!🤦🤢
No brother I disagree. It is meant to be read like that. Otherwise Timothy wouldn't justify his position on women by saying Eve was the one who was deceived. Timothy made a judgement based on the fact that Eve was deceived and not Adam. It's making analogy of one distinct act of one man and one woman. No matter how you read it, it says what it says. I'm open to further arguments and wished I was wrong, but you can't change Scripture to fit your own personal preferences.
1 Timothy 2:12-14 (New International Version)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Please explain and justify instead of saying "I don't know".
He's addressing a particular church that seems to be in chaos and disorderly. To bring order to the situation he says that the women should be silent but listen and discuss with their husband's after if they have questions instead of interrupting. He used the Eve analogy to claim women are more likely deceived.
My confusion with the fall is that a sinful and singular transgression and disobedience by first Man thrust the entire world into being cast out by God and having a broken nature. Why when so much is placed on forgiveness could not a God who is all powerful forgive us and lead us towards salvation? Why is there so much suffering that is always justified with ‘because we’re fallen and broken’? Why when even those who loose faith because of this brokenness are they then promised Hell why then are we to see a loving God in this? Some People are lost and maybe don’t offer anything of observable significance in their existence due to their life circumstances and imbued qualities but are they evil? Why are we evil when we question? We are only looking for answers, something anything that gives us some concrete hope! We’re told to look at our blessings the details and complexity of our existence the fine tuning of the universe and that’s the only thing keeping me on the pursuit of God everything else is so confusing and it feels like people are just filling in and conflating the blanks this doesn’t help I’m afraid! With such brutality in existence we need something to hope for I don’t see miracles like in Jesus’ day or Paul’s day I see desperate people searching endlessly for an answer a connection from God something that enables them to hold on. I’ve never seen a ghost had a miraculous encounter heard voices (apart from my own internal mutterings) never seen a miracle (I know fine tuning the miracle of us etc etc) I see people searching and nothing!! Often we’re told live this way talk this way pray this way believe these church teachings (whilst heretics and hypocrites in high places abound) no the answers I see don’t satisfy at all but your faith is something that does provide comfort the fact that you so energetically believe and appear to have very little doubt leaves me hopeful even though I don’t have what you have clearly! I continue to search and continue to pray and continue confess and continue to try to believe I am loved and not being deprived I have no option left as science and philosophy can’t get me there and sin like Augustine has written on is an empty illusion and moreover a trap pulling us down. Thank you father pray for me and I will continue to pray also for all of us and hold on to that position that God is listening and has a plan and place in his heart for me. God bless
Believe in Christ. He is your savior and forgives you.
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
John 3:16
If you are struggling with suffering, remember that Christ suffered for our sins on the Cross. John Paul II wrote:
“The Redeemer suffered in place of man and for man. Every man has his own share in the Redemption. Each one is also called to share in that suffering through which the Redemption was accomplished. He is called to share in that suffering through which all human suffering has also been redeemed. In bringing about the Redemption through suffering, Christ has also raised human suffering to the level of the Redemption. Thus each man, in his suffering, can also become a sharer in the redemptive suffering of Christ.” (Salvifici Doloris, 19)
A good start on suffering would also be with CS Lewis’ work such as “The Problem of Pain”.
Mother Teresa is a canonized saint. Yet she claims to have loved in depression and darkness without consolation all her adult life. But she clung to her faith and believed without that emotional consolation we all need. Let's all pray for each other to stay in the race to the finish. Who else can we turn to,in the final analysis , but God.
Good stuff….thank you…..don’t stop.
☦️🤝✝️Don't stop blasphemy? No, YOU stop listening to those deceivers, brothers!🙏💔
In the bible it says that after Cain killed Abel then it stated that they basically started (Genesis 6: 1-4) to get together with the daughter of man so there is a claim saying there was already some form there but we are considered sons of god so I think this somehow aligns with what was taught in the UA-cam video.
Fundies incoming
You mean faithful Catholics.
One thing I want to ask Father. Isn’t macroevolution incompatible in a theological sense from our Catholic worldview. After all, there was no death before the Fall, correct? If there was no death, then evolution could not have occurred.
I’m afraid that if I concede that there was death and suffering before the Fall, that it would put basic tenants of our faith into question. Why is there cancer and disease? Why are there natural disasters? Without the basis of original sin throwing the entirety of creation into disorder, how do I reconcile that with my Catholic faith?
2:19 Petrus Comestor disagreed.
In the beginning of the Gospel part of Historia scholastica, he considered it a known fact of Biblical chronology (given the distance from Flood to Abraham and Creation to Flood : the text version is LXX without a second Cainan) that Christ was born 5199 after Adam and Eve were created.
Not only that.
Before you appeal to St. Thomas' typical output as being too intellectual to accept such "simplistic readings" - he had made an oath to uphold:
* the theology of Peter Lombard
* the Biblical history of - yes - Historia Scholastica
* the canon law of Decree of Gratian.
Plus obviously, he never took a distance from his probable youth work, Postilla in Libros Geneseos, except from its Latinity. Probably changed his Latin grammar a bit when going from Benedictines in Naples to Dominicans in Paris.
Those Protestant heretics disguise d as Catholics are am embarrassment to Aquinas that's why
So great! You are such a gifted teacher!
We know that the Genesis story is not history although it may be based on a true story. It is a story on origins using popular myths at that time in ancient Palestine. It teaches truth using historical constructs and literary devices of a distant past that we could decipher to get at the truth of the message. It would be foolish to look for evidence of a universal flood, a Noah’s ark, a parting of the sea, a garden between two rivers and a talking snake. That would be missing the point.
I have never understood people who take Genesis to be anything other than metaphor. It is blatantly obvious five minutes into reading it.
*Arcanum,* Leo XIII “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
When we read in Scripture the genealogy of Jesus, it goes all the way back to Adam. If "Adam" is figuratively someone, is this one of the reasons, if not the main one, that Jesus is called "The Son of Man?"
Ooh that's interesting...
If a male rational animal, a man, had offspring with an irrational female animal, as this video suggests might have happened to explain the apparant larger pool of ancestors, then how could the parents be of a different species? Modern science defines species as the ability to produce fertile offspring. Could the fertile offspring of any two parents be a different species than those parents?
And how could it have been sinful to follow natural propagation?
5:31 The marger pool than one couple argument is soundly refuted by the Pitcairn population.
The Hebrew word for create is bara which means something is brought into existence brand new ,the word bara is only used 3 times in the Genesis account , day 1 day 5 day 6 .
And what happens with the genealogy of Jesus where the first ancestor is Adam, who gives traceability to other people with accounts in Genesis
Still there.
It's a man made religion. That's why it doesn't tally soth science. Back then people knowledge in biology was weak.
What about life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Are they historical?
Yes
No! ;)
Yes
Genesis is a memory of the first times of mankind, The gospels are about the historicity of Jesus . Comparing two different books with different intent (albeit all are inspired) is not the good method .
@@planteruines5619 The gospels are about the historicity of Jesus .
~~~ Only the Faithless care about Jesus' historicity. The Saved are already One with Christ/God in Heaven Here! Now!
"Let the dead bury the dead!"
The Gospel is about Salvation, Christ/Unconditional Love, not the man Jesus or the magic tricks attributed to him.
Thank you for the video. It is very informative.
That said I hope you’ll pardon my saying this, but I have questions.
Firstly: what denies other members of the genus Homo from having a human soul if they behaved so similarly to early Homo sapiens? Assuming that the gift of the human soul was given to a Homo sapiens couple. Could it be possible for more than one species to have a human soul? From the video I would assume that couldn’t be possible.
And secondly: if the gifting of the soul was dispensed to Adam and Eve if they were early Homo sapiens, and we know there are people with Homo neanderthalensis ancestry, what then becomes of their offspring? And those offspring from other minglings outside of the species Adam and Eve belonged in that moment? Would the children of such unions be lesser than the children Adam and Eve would have together?
I hope that my asking these questions doesn’t convey an expression of disliking the content of the video. I’m only eager to learn more.
I would think that once a human ancestor is present in the family tree, any hybrid offsprings would be gifted souls.
The video does not specify whether Homo sapiens is identical with our concept of rationality. In fact, Homo sapiens refers merely to anatomical modernity, and behavioral modernity is much more recent.
@@DennisCNolasco I would like to believe so as well, but without any reasoning it could only be an assumption. Would there be anything that could make this assumption more plausible?
@@john-maryknight2012 You are right, the video doesn’t say anything on species specifically aside from some individuals having Neanderthal in their ancestry. And I know that nomenclature organizes organisms by physical traits. That said, if I’m understanding your statement correctly, behavioral modernity could offer some light to when humanity was given reasoning. And looking into the behavior of long extinct peoples is anything but simple. Am I on the right track for your meaning? I don’t want to assume anything.
The coming to being of homo sapiens is a product of the principle of distinction: a being is different from another because at least one of its accidents is different.
Therefore, despite the genetic mixture and the progressive change, there needs to be a human being that WAS, as differentiated from his/her father and mother, who weren't.
Then he had/she had needed to mate with another non-human being, the productvof which had to be the second human being.
Unless God had put the human soul simultaneously to both first human couple, the product of which would have been the third human being.
Makes sense?
At long last my questions have been answered thank you.
I've studied with a Hasidic Rabbi/Kabbalist who interpreted the Adam and Eve story as a metaphor for how God creates our reality in each moment, rather than as singular even in history. So basically, in his view we're reenacting the fall each moment that we mistakenly perceive ourselves to be separate from God.
I'm pretty sure Anne Catherine Emmerich is wondering why she excepted the Stigmata from Our Lord.. is it not signs enough to preach! Or does it not fit with your Scientific faith..
You can’t make stories that rely on faith compatible with science which relies on evidence and is readily willing to change with new evidence.
As much as I think, analyze and try to rationalize the idea of ANY form of hominid- human evolution the more I find myself believing Genesis literally. To me, theories change too often and radically to fathom...at least for my simplistic reasoning.
This one is hard to wrap my mind around, but I appreciate you giving light to the tough topics. I love learning them and defending the faith with knowledge. Thanks Fr.!
For anyone skeptical about this outlook, read the book called "Thomistic Evolution". It contains multiple proofs that modern day evolution aligns with the Bible and Gods will!
The problem is that you can't actually reconcile to two. Macroevolution and Thomistic metaphysics are irreconcilable.
Human origins cannot be answered empirically, it's fundamentally a philosophical question (or if we happen to have knowledge from an original source, like, say, Divine Revelation)
The other issue is that we don't actually have any proof that macroevolution exists. I would recommend checking out the Kolbe Center for the study of creation on this topic. Or read Fr. Rippergers book "Metaphysics of Evolution"
*Arcanum,* Leo XIII “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
Wow. A lot of what
If’s, perhaps, might, at some
Point in the mystic past, we may theorize, is it possible, hard to untangle these possibilities…Not a very confident assessment of the Creation story. I’ll assume the Catholic church thinks Paul was wrong referring to Adam as an actual person. Scripture itself does not allow Adam to be taken non-literally; many passages in Scripture require Adam to be a historical individual. Among them is Romans 5:12-21, where a historical Adam is contrasted with the historical Jesus. 1. Luke 3:38: Luke proceeds to trace Jesus’s descent back to “Adam, the son of God”. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Seems God is “the author of confusion”.
"perhaps"? so not sure?
I don’t think genesis is trying to teach people the origin of human being in literal way , somehow felt like it’s more of wanting to show reader how Sin came about and how God deal with Sin. It’s a way of showing the Truth which is the Good always triumph over Evil. Taking the book literally is like taking all modern movies and think that’s earth life.
this is what i conclude as well
Let me throw some theology at you.
Growing up, I was comfortable in the belief that there was wisdom in the story of Adam and Eve, but that it was mythological.
Well, now that I'm older, I believe I was mostly right, but mythological or not, that Adam and Eve were real humans who were graced with perfection by God and declared by God to be the first humans, built for eternity, but they fell, cursing all of their descendents in original sin. Generational curses are real and this was the mother of all generational curses. God planned for this and created a new Eve. Let's call her Mary. Like the first Eve, she was graced with perfection. Unlike the first Eve, she did not fall, and gave everything she was to God; never questioning what it would cost her. Angels were created to be her guides and teachers and to be the dowery of her future husband. The chief angel among those was shown her beauty in his time of testing; outside of time, and when he saw what a perfect reflection she was of God, he knew he would always be 2nd place and rebelled. He wanted to be God. He wasn't jealous of God's power, but of the beauty of his love, his perfect humility and his perfect self sacrifice.
Mary was conceived with this grace. Her husband gained it as a dowery. They both remained virgins for the simple fact that if they had children, we would have been replaced by a race without original sin rather than being redeemed.
It is very possible that psilocybin or some form of mushrooms were the forbidden fruit. I would assume if I ate some strange mushroom I would surely die.
This is such a refreshing comment section on the topic in contrast to my Protestant brethren close-mindedly ridiculing anyone suggesting the views in this topic. We don’t need more brash Ken Ham zealots, a little nuance goes a long way!
Chuckle I'm Catholic I read it at face value. People will always have different view untill God comes back and put the facts down.
Also, I find it ironic how the government plays God in the garden of Eden. So that the war on drugs is possibly blasphemy.
Yo he pensado mucho en esto, me considero una persona con mente científica y religioso y creo que hay una serie de preguntas a la que nos es difícil darles respuesta:
-Dios es revelado cómo amor en el NT, amor infinito, incondicional, misericordia, perdón. ¿cCómo me va a hacer culpable de algo que un antepasado mío cometió hace más de 200 mil años?
-¿Cómo si Adán era perfecto cae en la primera ocasión que tiene?
¿Cómo Dios castiga a los primeros humanos por un pecado de soberbia o desobediencia y luego cuando sus descendientes asesinan a su Hijo los perdona?
-¿Si Adán no hubiera pecado, la Encarnación habría sido necesaria? ¿Fue Jesús un plan B de Dios, aunque todos necesitamos de Él para salvarnos? ¿Puedo equiparar a Adán, un hombre, con Jesús, 2da persona de la Trinidad en nuestra salvación?
-De los cientos o miles de parejas iniciales, ¿Cuál fue la causante del "pecado original"?
-El universo surgido por el Big Bang y el ser humano descendiente de una cadena de organismos , seres vivientes... son consecuencias de procesos en evolución, o sea no surgieron perfectos sino que se han ido perfeccionando con el tiempo y se dirigen hacia su perfección en la Escatología. ¿Cómo hablamos de perfección desde el origen? ¿De seres creados, no eternos? ¿La perfección no es está en la Protología sino en la Escatología.
El punto fundamental es que para ser perfecto es necesario ser eterno, como Dios. Todo lo creado es finito, imperfecto, limitado. Todo lo creado lleva en su ser estas limitaciones, por eso todos los seres humanos nacemos con una tendencia natural a pecar, no producto de "un pecado original" cometido por alguien, sino que lo que es original en nosotros es esta tendencia de la que ningún ser humano se puede escapar por nuestra condición de seres creados.
La fe y la ciencia provenientes ambas de Dios pueden y mnecesitan trabajar juntas pero tenemos que revisar lo que pensamos
Gracias por la oportunidad de darme tanto que pensar con tus preguntas. Sin mayor pretensión que compartir contigo mi humilde reflexión, muy probablemente llena de errores, paso a responderlas brevemente, por si por un casual pudiera interesarte algo:
//* - Dios es revelado cómo amor en el NT, amor infinito, incondicional, misericordia, perdón. ¿cCómo me va a hacer culpable de algo que un antepasado mío cometió hace más de 200 mil años? *//
Quizás la palabra no sea "culpable" sino simplemente "heredero", como quien hereda una deuda, un sistema de valores, una propensión enfermiza, una toxicomanía materna, un hábito, un mundo contaminado o, simplemente, una naturaleza humana desordenada.
Supongo que Dios muy bien podría habernos creado a cada uno independientemente, sin condicionamientos previos ni condicionantes futuros pero, a imagen suya, quiso que fuéramos progenie, padres e hijos, transmisores y receptores de la misma naturaleza humana.
//* - ¿Cómo si Adán era perfecto cae en la primera ocasión que tiene? *//
No creo que la palabra "perfecto" aparezca tal cual en Genesis 1-3; todo lo más, "muy bueno" o "bueno en gran manera" (Gn 1,31), lo cual puede significar "adecuadamente ordenada a su máximo bien", es decir, para la actualización a su máximo potencial.
//* - ¿Cómo Dios castiga a los primeros humanos por un pecado de soberbia o desobediencia... *//
Creo que las palabras de Dios a Adán, "el día que de él comieres, ciertamente morirás" (Gn 2, 16-17), cabe interpretarlas, más que como prohibición, como profecía y advertencia causal: "si yerras (= pecas, te desordenas) en esto, ocurrirá esto otro".
Asimismo, las palabras de Dios a Eva y a Adán tras ignorar éstos su advertencia y errar (Gn 3,14-21) pueden también interpretarse, no como castigo sino como la toma de las primeras medidas "de choque" por parte de Dios para empezar a arreglar el desaguisado generado con todas sus consecuencias...
//* - ... y luego cuando sus descendientes asesinan a su Hijo los perdona? *//
...unas consecuencias que, cual "efecto mariposa", miles de años después, un diluvio in extremis mediante, llevará al ser humano a dar muerte, y muerte de cruz (Flp 2,8), al mismo Dios encarnado, incapaz ya de reconocerle, aunque lo tenga delante de sus mismos ojos. Lo cual, creo yo, nos da idea de la gravedad última del pecado original y el grado de depravación al que llegaría el hombre (mas no todos y, por eso mismo, creo yo, no total como afirman algunos).
//* - ¿Si Adán no hubiera pecado, la Encarnación habría sido necesaria? ¿Fue Jesús un plan B de Dios, aunque todos necesitamos de Él para salvarnos? *//
Es posible que la Encarnación sirva a muchos otros propósitos además de al de la salvación. Según tengo entendido, Dios podría haber salvado al ser humano de infinidad de maneras, pero eligió esa que le pareció particularmente conveniente para sus propósitos.
//* - ¿Puedo equiparar a Adán, un hombre, con Jesús, 2da persona de la Trinidad en nuestra salvación? *//
No me queda clara la pregunta, lo siento. Existe una tipología muy interesante entre Adan-Eva y Jesús-María (el Nuevo Adán y la Nueva Eva). Las tipología son siempre en grado creciente, de manera que el Nuevo Adán es sin pecado (como la Nueva Eva), hombre verdadero pero también Dios verdadero; circunstancia ésta que le permite extendernos la invitación a ser hijos adoptivos de Dios Padre por él y en él, Dios Hijo (parábola de la vid y los sarmientos, Jn 15, 1-8). ¿Puede que porque ése era el plan inicial? (“Dios se hizo hombre para que el hombre se hiciera Dios”, San Ambrosio.)
//* - De los cientos o miles de parejas iniciales, ¿Cuál fue la causante del "pecado original"? *//
No importa demasiado. Dado el carácter racional, social y transgeneracional del ser humano, bastaría con que una sola pareja concibiera una idea o una conducta desordenada para que a través de, digamos, el mimetismo, el inconsciente colectivo y la progenie humana, acabara eventualmente haciéndose "viral".
//* - ¿Cómo hablamos de perfección desde el origen? ¿De seres creados, no eternos? ¿La perfección no es está en la Protología sino en la Escatología. *//
Sí, la perfección sólo puede ser escatológica; y el "muy bueno" o "bueno en gran manera" original, teleológico, es decir, ordenado al Bien último.
//* - Todo lo creado es finito, imperfecto, limitado. Todo lo creado lleva en su ser estas limitaciones, por eso todos los seres humanos nacemos con una tendencia natural a pecar, no producto de "un pecado original" cometido por alguien, sino que lo que es original en nosotros es esta tendencia de la que ningún ser humano se puede escapar por nuestra condición de seres creados. *//
Yo distinguiría entre la naturaleza humana original y la naturaleza humana tras el pecado original. Puesto que la divinidad es el Bien actual absoluto, toda creación original suya (Adán incluido) está necesariamente ordenada al bien. Su limitación e imperfección pueden eventualmente hacer a la criatura susceptible al pecado, pero no tendente al pecado. (Y es que esto implicaría: o que está ordenada al mal, no al bien; o que está doblemente ordenada al mal y al bien, si esto tiene algún sentido. En cualquier caso, ambas posibilidades contradirían una "creación muy buena" por parte de Dios.)
Ahora, si una criatura humana tiende al mal, eso quiere decir que su naturaleza está de algún modo desordenada. Hasta donde alcanzo a ver, los desórdenes de tendencia se producen de tres maneras, o a tres niveles: 1. por incitación externa (a la voluntad y razón autónomas, empujándolas separativamente, _diaballein_ , de donde _diabolos_ , en griego); 2. por herencia y aprendizaje social; 3. por desequilibrio del cuerpo animal. En otras palabras, por el diablo, el mundo y la carne, cada uno afectando respectivamente a los centros racional, social-emocional e instintivo-sensorial del humano.
(El caso de los demonios, o ángeles caídos, merece consideración aparte por las particularidades de la naturaleza angélica: espiritual, eterna, perfecta y libre. Pero mejor lo dejo ahí, que de angeleología lo desconozco prácticamente todo y ya he sido demasiado osado.)
Gracias por la paciencia, y un saludo.
6:13 No "a very long time ago" is very much not needed.
Give a pre-Flood population of races Neanderthal, Sapiens and Denisovan, and Noah as tenth from Adam being Sapiens pointing to Adam being close to that too, Neanderthals and Denisovans can be explained as part or totally Nephelim, and Homo Erectus Soloensis as extreme case or as a bred kind of warrior giant.
And the genome can be explained by Noah's inlaws having such ancestry. Only about 5000 years ago.
And no actual non-humans ever involved with either human anatomy or ancestrality of modern day human populations.
The more you try to cram Adam and Eve into this type of history the more problems you get. What about the descendants and their stories? So Adam and Eve are historical but Cain and Abel are allegory? Etc
Whoever finds this interesting look at the haplogroup designations. The a haplogroup ‘A’ may have been Adam. And the J’s might’ve been the descendants of Abraham/issac.
What a great video. I had always thought that the 'first sin' was sexual in nature - the idea that God intended man and woman for each other and that somehow that was the temptation satan put before Eve and that she convinced Adam it was just fine. Is this what you meant with your reference to the sin?
Genesis and St Paul clearly state that the first sin was an act of disobedience. I can't understand how anyone can interpret consuming an empowering forbidden fruit as a sexual sin.
The video is great and helps clarify a lot of my speculations. Thank you Fr Legge!
It is not about sex being a sin - that would be ridiculous; rather it would be a sin of a sexual nature of which there could be many. As for that being an act of disobedience-sexual sin can be an act of disobedience. The two are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, this was just a thought…the interpretation could be something else.
The First sin (Original sin) was not of sexual matter, but of pride. The historical sins (also the sin of Lucifer) are of pride. God forbid Adam and Even to eat the fruit, the Serpent came and said that they will be like God as they can choose good and evil, so they ate in defiance of a divine prohibition; Satan too, by his pride, by the feeling of superiority among the angels, he wanted to be like God.
@Loredan sex by itself is not indeed a sin, but it would be a sin to abuse of it. When it is not inside of marriage and without the idea of conceiving an infant, it is sinful, everything outside those two requirements are sinful.
If all are created by God, why can't we believe that God created homo sapiens too in his right time according to his will?
The problem with videos like this is that you assert that the bible is to be taken as we interpret it. The Genesis accout completely and unequivocally precludes evolution by saying that the animals (all of them) were first created and then man was created from the dust. Not from anohter animal. The more literally we take the bible the more it makes sense. This implies that I can sort of make up my own idea of how man was made and twist the scriptures so it fits.
what is dust ?
Who God created first woman or man? If a man was created first then God never needed a woman to create life. First son of man he truly has to be. Without a mother. Now explain that.
I’d like to think that the fall came as soon as humans became self conscious. Realizing they had choice. I also believe the most import is, that Jesus came to save us and bring us back to God. Jesus is the way the truth and the life.
0:39 What would your arguments for that position be?
Did you make an interview with Moses for 3cents Magazine?
the answer is no 🙈
If you look at the story of Adam and Eve as the tale of man's shift from hunter-gathering to agriculture, it makes a lot of sense. Archeologic evidence shows that hunter-gatherers were much better off than the first farmers. They had more vatiety in their diets and lived a lot longer. It would be natural for early farmers to think of farming as a punishment. The only reason that we switched to farming is because we could no longer feed ourselves from hunting and gathering due to natural climate change.
But adam and eve were created as vegetarians and that contradicts what we see in reality.
3:43 Timescale.
If you put Adam into 7000 BP, as you should, and this into the Evolutionary Timescale (or Uniformitarian, not all who hold it are Evolution believers), it means, Adam wasn't the first man, and probably not ancestor of pre-Columbian or pre-Cook populations.
If you put Adam into 40 000 BP or 100 000 BP, and note this, taking these as the real dates, you have suddenly made Genesis 3 impossible as history. It couldn't have been accurately transmitted, when if so even Genesis 5 and 11 were inaccurately transmitted.
Before I say anything else I want to state for the record I am a Church going Christian. I truly believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God in the flesh, come to save us and pay the price for our sin. But the point I want to discuss is what science is revealing to us compared to the old testament view of creation. In terms of the New Testament I fully believe it is true, and there is no "external evidence" to suggest that it is inaccurate or false. I cannot prove it is true but equally atheists cannot prove it isn't. However the same argument is not true of the old testament. There are a number of "stories" in the old testament that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The claim that the earth is only 6000 years old is clearly ridiculous and ignores everything that is God is revealing to us through science. The stories of Noah and the Tower of Babel are clearly "metaphors" not literal events. The problems with the story of Noah, for example, are many (but I won't list them here). But the key issue is there is absolutely no proof of a world flood. Also how does this story explain all the genetic diversity we see on the Earth after supposedly only 5000 years. Including all the human diversity we see today (white, black, Chinese, India, South America people etc). There are also literally millions of species on this planet. Some Christians even deny the existence of the dinosaurs. I think as a Christian we have to embrace scientific discovery as it is the truth. To continually say the Noah story is "literally true" doesn't help our cause despite the evidence to the contrary. The problem is that science is going to reveal more and more about creation and we need to embrace these findings. In the end the truth is the truth and in no way does this change the identity of Jesus Christ or why he is our saviour. I think some Christians are unwilling to accept that some stories in the bible are "metaphors" due to the "knock-on-effect" of the implications i.e if the Noah story isn't literally true what else isn't true!! I think we need to overcome these fears and seek the truth. The universe is 13.8 billion years old, this is a scientific fact. The universe was created by the big bang in an instant, not in 6 days. The sooner Christians accept these things we can start to understand the full picture. I am not trying to change anyone's faith, just realign it to the truth. Isn't that what God the Father would want us to do. Jesus remains the the "Way the truth and the life", regardless of current and inevitable future scientific findings. God and Science are not mutually exclusive as God created science. Thanks.
Great video, as always!
If possible, I would like to know more about the possibility/ hypothesis of encountering life outside earth. I know the chances are almost none and can sound ridicolous, but given the case It could change civilization for sure.
Being non rational life I guess it will not suppose any theological issue, but on the possibility of intelligent life... What could the position of The Church be?
They would be also creatures of God, but could the definition of human be extended to them? Should we announce them the Gospel if they do not have a religion?
I know it sounds stupid, but It rises a lot of questions in me and It has probably already been addressed by scholars
Statistically speaking it is actually far far less likely that there is not life out there besides on Earth, intelligent life is another story however, and technologically advanced life is yet another question, and if there is any within any range we could reasonably ever communicate or interact with is really the big enchilada of a question here. It isn't so much the likelihood of exobiology being a real thing that is problematic, it is the sheer amount of unknowns that make it very very difficult to determine how to go about tracking one down when we know next to nothing about them or how they may think, act, communicate, and the like and we know very little about the physical requirements on an astronomical scale for what fosters intelligent life. We keep finding more and more out all the time that is relevant to this topic. One exciting discovery is that the Sun exchanged material with a cluster of many stars of its stellar class for about 1 billion years before drifting off on its own. if life evolved anywhere in the cluster it may have spread during that time period. Note if true it would almost certainly be microbial life not anything multicellular let alone intelligent. We are sill tracking down these "sibling" stars of the Sun though so alot is unknown right now.
@@LostArchivist Thx. I see the very low probability of even the bacterial life. Or even the posibility of not even matching the time window of existance toguether. However I have always wonder how theology would answer that hipothesis. The existence of non rational life can also be easily explained theologicaly but the other... Anyway, not likely to happen
@@elosopardo2691 It can be easily explained if we get the idea that we are the center of the Universe out of the way and realize all of Creation exists for the glory of God and ultimately for His purposes, us included. He does not need Creation and so it is for the benefit of His creatures, but God is God and we and anything else but God are not, it is the ultimate good of rational creature to know that God is God. You might be interested in hearing the speculation by Catholic Answers apologist Jimmy Akin on this on his podcast. You can find it on his website of his UA-cam channel. If you don't agree with him, well as I said, it is simply informed speculation and can be freely rejected. I do not have the luxury of choosing a low likelihood of definitely simple microbial life in the Universe outside of Earth. There really is no reason from a scientific perspective for it not to be there.
It does seem very odd for God to make the Universe as vast as He did and not to have other examples on the lower parts of the Great Chain out there, less numbers the higher one goes is expected, but as the perfection of the spheres is not true, there is not a human-centric assumption in terms of the arrangement of the Universe. In fact, it seems there literally is no center point in creation. This is theologically good as it says God is the center and summit of existence, as is metaphysically, spiritually, and existentially true. Something much more profound than the ancients could conceive of but still consistent with the Deposit of Faith that is more, beautiful, wise, and glorious must be true. For me this is not a problem, because God transcends human reason infinitely, so it would be odd if even fallen creation did not surprise, humble and confound us somewhat.
Oh! There is also a very good series of talks on the Society of Catholic Scientists, some others on a summit between science and religion hosted by the Word on Fire and a talk by Catholic Answers Focus, and an episode of the Catholic Talk Show that cover this topic.
Great video as usual. A good friend of mine said the traditional rabbinical answer a creation account question is, “you are not supposed to ask that question.” It seems as good an answer as any.
Hello and Thank you, wonderful friends! Can you comment on monogenism vs polygenism?
Polygenism is condemned as an anathema
@@metalvarez1 That’s not what I read. I read that both are acceptable and was curious what the Thomists had to say about it. Can you cite that can be found please? Here’s a quote from the Society of Catholic Scientists Q&A: “In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical letter Humani generis, warned Catholics not to “embrace” polygenism, because it was “in no way apparent” how polygenism is consistent with Catholic doctrines on “original sin.” 4 However, it is generally agreed that Pope Pius XII did not intend to definitively rule out the idea of polygenism, so it is an unresolved issue. It is worth noting that some well-known scientists have argued that the neurological basis for the brain’s processing of human language (a precondition for rational thought) must have originated with just one or a very few individuals.”
@@paulwiget9935 fair enough I see your point, if the first sons of Adam and Eve had offspring with humanoid not yet fully human creatures then polygenism will be a valid option, but for the doctrine of original sin yo work there must be two original human beings who chose to depart from their original state of grace
Have you ever heard about the mathematical impossibility of evolution, meaning there isn't enough time for creatures to evolve from random mutation ? Have you ever checked the discovery science channel? Have you ever heard of Dr Michael Behe ? Btw my English is not that good XD so please forgiveme
@@metalvarez1 I’ve studied all that stuff and it fails the scientific test. I’m a PhD in chemistry and Biochemistry, a fellow at the Center for Science and Religion at Samford university and a member of the Society of Catholic Scientists. I’ve actually read Behe’s book and papers and they are fundamentally flawed. He built an error into his calculations the he himself fails to see. It’s just not good science. Evolution it totally plausible and is the result of the best science and consensus available. It’s not opinion. It’s hard data-driven science now.
This video trys to be so middle ground that it fails to have any consistency.
Saints Adam and Eve, St. Thomas Aquinas, Holy Father Dominic, St. Philomena, pray for us.
You didn't proove anything!
What kind of a "loving God" accepts burnt offerings and wipes out innocent people?!
Thanks Father.
☦️🤝✝️His not a father, nor this channel is Aquinas. This is Blasphemy 101
Adam was the first blessed by the Holy Spirit after the fall of man to the cave,where man lived for hundred of thousands of years.
Cave? You are an Evolutionist blasphemer just like those modern Thomists
A creative attempt to reconcile the Bible with science, and yet Genesis does not say that Adam end Eve were there and God gave them reason as the story you are telling suggests, Genesis rather says that God created them anew and then at the same time gave them reason.
In Genesis first chapter NO mention of "Adam, Eve, the serpent, fallen angels, paradies/Eden, the great flood, Noah, Kain+Abel" etc.! But then in second chapter we read this wellknown stories - that`s all ancient sumerian/mesopotamien and canaaite mythologies adopted and reinterpretetd by the Jews during babylonian exile and after! Same with exodus of Moses, most of it is mythology.
This is a translation of what I wrote in spanish
Also the genealogy of Jesus goes back to Adam. Adam was a real man but the story in Genesis is poetry and not history. So it’s so difficult to have a proper understanding of how life was for Adam and Eve.
3:14 First of all, taking the days of creation as actual days, which is the natural reading, yes, Genesis answers that in the negative.
Second, even without Genesis, a man can have irrational ancestry only on two alternative conditions : either he was directly born of beings fully irrational, or there is a graduation from irrationality of beasts and rationality of man.
The second opinion is very popular among scientists and especially atheists among them, as it means "rationality" is just a quirk in animal consciousness. But it's incompatible with Christianity.
The first of these involves that Adam was before he sinned treated badly by God. He was put into the position of becoming a feral child.
You are a heгеtic as those Protestant Trojan horses are
We know that Adam and Eve did not exist 6000 years ago.
We find Human Bones that are 200,000 years old compared
to Ape Bones that are 2.000.000.
Yes, the first enlightenment.
I am glad to know that you believe in science and feel happy about it. Didn't you witness how the science of Covid evolved right in front of our eyes? Do you still religiously believe in the initial dogmas of that science? What is science? Science is a God given ability to human beings, albeit not all equally, to pry and uncover the laws of God's created nature. If everything had evolved randomly, there would be no laws in nature and to do scientific research would be impossible.
thank you. from México. There are so much priest that they don't belive in Adam and eve.
amazing
☦️🤝✝️I never lived to see the day that Roman Catholics would call Blasphemy 101 "amazing"🤦Enough! Educate yourselves & repent!!😢🙏💔
Of course Adam and Eve exist; they exist as metaphor, as allegory, as artworks, as literature, as imaginary...
"Did" they exist as literal historical figures? Don't be silly! ;)
This series in my opinion is trying too hard to reconcile NOT real scientific data but highly speculative scientific hypotheses (huge difference) with the Catholic faith. For example the Gospels make it clear Mary conceived by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus had no biological father. Genesis makes it very clear neither Adam nor Eve had biological parents, they were both made directly by God through a supernatural miracle (like that of Jesus' conception). That is a huge historical and theological event.
Father here repeats the now tired theory that the original author had no intention of telling something historical, only something theological. Now let's use some common sense, (as Chesterton said it's becoming less and less common nowadays). Can you imagine a sacred author being inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself writing a work that just about everyone (including 99% of all saints) would interpret as historical (and theological) up until our modern era?
Also, if Adam and Eve had non-rational hominis parents, what about the 4th commandment?
Did Adam and Eve mourn the death of their monkey parents?
The speculation that perhaps Adam and Eve sinned by having sex with their fellow non-rational hominins and that this might have been the original sin (as Father implies by saying "we know that sin entered very soon into the picture") it's just unfounded.
This is the main premise on these series the way I see it: we must defend the official Dogma of the Church, but everything else is up for grabs. Since it's not technically Dogma that Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God on eating from a forbidden tree then we can speculate their sin might have been disobeying God by having sex with their fellow non-rational hominis. All this just to appease the latest scientific "knowledge" when it's rather nothing but speculation that monkeys gave rise to a pair of human bodies by evolution.
As G.K Chesterton once said referring to commentators on the book of Revelation: "And though St. John saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators."
God bless.
Slow down, Genesis lets us know that Cain found his wife outside his own family. That must mean that he mated with someone unrelated to Adam and Eve, that's what the Father means by "sin entered very early in our history". The original sin was not the mating with a soulless hominid, that proposition has problems and it's not what's being meant here.
And I'd argue that what happened in Eden did not happen on this Earth, only after the fall were Adam and Eve in contact with hominids.
@@tafazzi-on-discord thanks for the reply. Where in the Bible does it say that Cain found his wife outside his own family? As far as I can tell his wife was a sister. It is traditionally believed God made a dispensation to allowed for this morally speaking so the human family could grow.
From my reading of the video I'd argue Father is proposing the hypothesis that perhaps original sin was indeed the mating with soulless humanoids and I can give you evidence on this if you're open about it, just let me know.
@@germanr84 - You say; _"Where in the Bible does it say that Cain found his wife outside his own family?"_
It's stated in verses like Genesis4:14-17 etc that there were other people besides those introduced to us at the beginning of Genesis, namely Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. It also tells us that Cain found his wife from these people.
@@tafazzi-on-discord - I pretty much agree with your conclusions, although I think Eden was most likely an actual place on Earth and that God just kept Adam and Eve separate from the other hominids there until after the fall(Genesis3:22-24).
Genesis and the Gospel of Luke are 2 different genres.
Genesis was written 3200 years ago for dessert nomads to explain basic truths about morality in form of allegory (Like all stories from that time period).
Luke was written to tell the Greeks and Romans that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. It is literal history like the stories from that time period Like Josephus and Tacitus.
3:37 That the Sapiens race "mated" with Neanderthals has no bearing on whether Adam had ancestry.
Not more than Black and White people getting married now.
Candace Owens is pretty Black, and at least the father of her spouse, Michael Farmer, probably her spouse too, George Farmer is White.
If both descend from Adam it doesn't mean Adam had non-human ancestry.
Neither do pre-Flood marriages between Sapiens and Neanderthal races.
If we all come from Adam and Eve, were did the different races come from.
Genesis 11:8
@@Super_Bros. how does changing one language create a different race of people, the reason God confused their language was because they were trying to create their own salvation ,after all God promised he would never again distroy the world with water.. Were did Cain get his wife,most speculate she was his sister, the bible says the land of Nod, who were these people in Nod ? The 6th day creation.
So are you saying that there was death before Adam's sin? And when Jesus said that from the beginning God made them man and woman he didn't really mean it?
> So are you saying that there was death before Adam's sin?
I mean physical death obviously existed for hundreds of millions of years before the first behaviourally modern humans emerge.
No, they did exist and to deny this is to deny the Catholic faith.
This was painful! When you have to try to make your aetiology match up with modern science you know you’re in trouble. Instead of going through this whole song and dance, why not just accept the the story of Adam and Eve was one of hundreds of origin myths that were told by people who didn’t know the first thing about actual science
I agree with you, it's sheer desperation to try and make Genesis relevant. But behemoth juggernaut of bovine excrement keeps rolling on
As a Christian myself..once you can gettison from your mind the faith based proposition that the Bible is inspired/inerrant this becomes easy.
In other words..of course it isnt history. Duhh!
🇷🇺☦️You mean you are actually OK with this heretical video? How dare you even call yourselves Catholics? I mean you went to such a low that ME, a Russian Orthodoxz, need to defend your own Roman Catholic teachings from yourselves and these hacks who desecrate the honor and memory of the holy Aquinas!!🤦🤢
that's not how evolution works
Thomas Aquinas is not impressed.
Adam and Eve themselves are Hebrew or Semitic words, which make it highly improbable that somehow the first universal parents of all human beings, whose descendants are all over the world, were somehow Semitic or already within the sphere of the Semitic culture, considering the diverse ranges of human languages, ethnicity, and race (setting aside strict literal reading of the Tower of Babel, and Noah). And hence, I believe the point made about the first parents in Genesis is first and foremost a theological fact, a foundational understanding about sin, grace, and salvation, and our relationship and total dependence on God.
Nonetheless, the teaching that the first true human beings, endowed with true human souls and grace by God, began with only two individuals makes sense with our belief that the human souls are created by God at conception, in our participation in the act of creation by God. Adam and Eve are said to have two sons initially, Cain and Abel, with Abel murdered, Cain was exiled and then he took a wife, who is not described by name. As other people have pointed out, this indicates that there were perhaps other human populations which married the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. And hence, every person born to the children, and direct descendants, of Adam and Eve was given the human soul by God. I take it that these other humans would be no different than Adam and Eve themselves genetically, but perhaps they didn't have the uniquely human souls as we do, ability to recognize God, and initial nature enlightened with God's grace, or even consciousness in the way that we experience it.
It's also important to point out that somehow, we are the only remaining human race that still exists, with all other human-like species died out, the last of which is probably the Neanderthals, or perhaps the Flores hobbits.
On the first point I doubt that their real names would've been Adam and Eve, that would be the titles we give them later on, no?
First, their names or more of universally understood titles. They were called by name in their time in a much different way, but by God.
I'm glad you bought up that point about Cain, I thought about it as well.
*Arcanum,* Leo XIII “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”
Thanks