Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Aquinas 101)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- ⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticin...
Did Adam and Eve really exist? In this episode of Aquinas 101: Science and Faith, Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P. examines how we can reconcile Genesis with scientific theories of human history.
This video is an excerpt from Lesson 45: Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Aquinas 101) by Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P. To explore the complete module, including supplemental readings and lectures, click here: aquinas101.tho...
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
www.youtube.co...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.tho...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticin...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticin...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinsti...
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #FaithandReason #ScienceAndFaith #ScienceAndReligion
This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
*Scripture quotations are from The Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1965, 1966 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
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!!🤦🤢
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.
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.
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!🙏💔
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)👆
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.
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!🙏💔
Fundies incoming
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 😢🙏💔
Saints Adam and Eve, St. Thomas Aquinas, Holy Father Dominic, St. Philomena, pray for us.
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🙏💔
"By 'demythologizing' Genesis you remove the foundation for the Christian Faith, and sooner or later the entire edifice collapses like a pack of cards" -- Christopher Fleming
I do not mean to come across as disrespectful, but I believe this video includes so much mental gymnastics that it makes Christianity seem rather silly. Belief in evolution almost always leads to its logical conclusion: atheism. Rather than go through such a great effort to try to fit Catholicism into modern scientific theories, we should look more closely at these theories, especially evolution. Many scientists have begun to seriously doubt the theory because of its rather illogical extrapolations.
Furthermore, I believe that this modern theology runs the risk of infantilizing the Church Fathers and other great theologians of the past. It suggests that they were ignorant and simple-minded for taking a literal understanding of Genesis. Personally, I will side with the Church Fathers. If God has the power to walk on water, He certainly can create the world in six literal days--why wouldn't He?
Amen.
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
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".
What exactly did St Thomas Aquinas say about Adam and Eve and the truth of the matter?
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!!🤦🤢
Genesis chapter 1-2 are incompatible with evolution. Plain reading of the text makes that painfully obvious.
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
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.
Humani Generis
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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"
How do you interpret no death pre original sin? Also it is a Dogma that Eve was formed from Adam's side.
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
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...
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 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 TH-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)
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.!
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!!🤦🤢
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 TH-cam video.
So great! You are such a gifted teacher!
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 .
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!!!
Good stuff….thank you…..don’t stop.
☦️🤝✝️Don't stop blasphemy? No, YOU stop listening to those deceivers, brothers!🙏💔
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?
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.
I would love to see Dominicans make some arguments on why Evolution would not be compatible with Revelation/Scripture, rather than coming up with ideas to make Revelation compatible with Evolution. Again, when we have to speak of Adam and Eve as possibly having relations with irrational beasts, or that they themselves were conceived in the wombs of irrational beasts, perhaps we should start to think maybe Evolution does not fit with revealed truth, rather than that revealed truth does not fit with Evolution.
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.
This video trys to be so middle ground that it fails to have any consistency.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
At long last my questions have been answered thank you.
You didn't proove anything!
What kind of a "loving God" accepts burnt offerings and wipes out innocent people?!
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
"Adam" was the first true human being, and God created "Eve" also called "mitochondrial Eve" so that there may be more males and females. But sin had to come to humans from somewhere, and it wasn't from God, as our genome did.
5:31 The marger pool than one couple argument is soundly refuted by the Pitcairn population.
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.
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.
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.
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 TH-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.
With all due respect Father, I think this is a novel approach that wouldn't be supported by Tradition or any of the Fathers. Likewise, I think it's fair to say in the past 3 years, the "scientific consensus" has shown its true colors - ideology takes precedence over what we can actually empirically show
Are you sure YOU KNOW BE CAREFULL YOU COMPEYTE WITH GOD AND WILL BE ZAP BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU CROSS THE STREET AND IN THE MARKET PLACE ALWAYS AWARE THAT YOUR HEAD STILL ATTACHED
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.
amazing
☦️🤝✝️I never lived to see the day that Roman Catholics would call Blasphemy 101 "amazing"🤦Enough! Educate yourselves & repent!!😢🙏💔
This video and many of the comments reveal the sad state of things in the Church today. For our non-Catholic friends, the answer is YES! The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always taught and maintained, WITHOUT QUESTION, that Almighty God literally created 1 man and 1 woman as our first parents and their names were Adam and Chava, Hebrew for Eve. End of story! All other hypotheses are heretical. Case closed!
This doesn't contradict that though.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 "This" never answers the question nor gives clarity to Church teaching either.
@@ryanhilliard1620 yeah it seems to be a video for launching further thought and discussion rather than a definitive lesson.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Why the pretense that this is open to interpretation? I'm all for further discussion, but clarify what the Church teaches first.
@@ryanhilliard1620 true, the video didn't do that clearly.
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.
Thanks Father.
☦️🤝✝️His not a father, nor this channel is Aquinas. This is Blasphemy 101
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.
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
In Roman 5 Saint Pole compared between a REAL person called Adam the first vs a REAL one called Adam the second (our Lord Jesus Christ).😮
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”.
Yes, the first enlightenment.
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.
You bend the Scriptures to fit with modern "science." This shows where your faith is.
Nope. If your reading of Scripture conflicts with reality, the problem is with your reading, not reality. The idea that the intent and message of a text from thousands of years ago is going to be perfectly and instantly obvious to a 21st century English speaker is absurd.
@@marcuscaballarius2159 The theory of evolution has nothing to do with reality.
Eh idk there are multiple saints even early church father that interpret Genesis metaphorically like the saint that taught Saint Augustine (I forgot his name but I'm pretty sure he's a Bishop)
@@ReapingTheHarvest Of course it does: not believing in evolution is like not believing in oxygen. You can see different dog breeds, some that didn't exist before the 1800s for example. So yes, they really never bended scripture, because scripture is never in conflict with reality (Obviously).
It does is just the negationist irrational wrong reading of yours. "This shows where your faith is."
@@carolusaugustussanctorum People have always known about crossbreeding plants and animals, and that there is great variation within species. You breed two types of dogs and amazingly you will get dogs as offspring every single time. They won't magically give birth to a new type of animal. The theory of evolution is the opposite of reality. Adam and Eve were created as humans without evolving from anything else, and humans have been falling ever since they sinned. Adam lived for over 900 years. Even long after the flood, Abraham lived for 175 years and Isaac for 180 years.
No, they did exist and to deny this is to deny the Catholic faith.
"perhaps"? so not sure?
that's not how evolution works
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.
thank you. from México. There are so much priest that they don't belive in Adam and eve.
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
4:21 Y-Chromosome "Adam" is better known as Noah.
"Mitochondrial Eve" would be the woman who was last common ancestor of his three daughters in law. So, she was born, and that well after 5199 BC. Again, your view of the timescale makes your view seriously unbiblical and unthomistic as well.
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.
Or God created everything in 6 days.... God not not wear a watch. Nor does God have to follow laws of nature. God makes the laws.....
God saw it was good, evening came morning followed . The first day....
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!!🤦🤢
Good try but not entirely scientifically convincing. The problem is for believers that Darwin's theory now backed up with DNA evidence proves without doubt there is no Adam & Eve who committed the Original Sin which, by guilt of association sentences mankind to eternal damnation. Adam & Eve have to be real people who were tempted by the devil for the curse to work. No sin, no damnation! Case closed. See Darwin vs Adam& Eve th-cam.com/video/EHlQgetztBw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=xDtGrIjAyN4YTPA7
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
Very disappointing.
Reason is the part of us that makes us in the image of God, evolution is reasonable given an overwhelming amount of evidence, God loves us and is not a magician, God would not try to trick us with the very thing that makes us in His likness, original sin is a dogma of the Faith, we are brought into unity with God through Faith, we should try to exercise our faculties of Faith and reason harmoniously as one is agift from God and the other is the thing in us that resembles Him, therfore we should not reject what our reason tells us concerning matters of Faith (original sin).
Jesus is a historical figure and the reason Jesus came to this earth was because of Adam who was the first person to have committed sin . It’s so safe to conclude that Adam and Eve was historical figures since Jesus main mission was to fix and offer grace to humanity and we are all sinners too because of Adam and Eve fall. It’s crazy how people do everything they can to discredit the Bible and they rather believe in apes 😂
And yet you ignore all the evidence to the contrary
I think an easier answer is that Genesis account is an imagined retrospection of ancient peoples to account for evil and sin. Then Paul and early Christians just assumed the literal understanding of the text - just like they did with Noah and a global flood - because they didn’t have reason to think otherwise. Then Augustine and early church fathers and the magisterium codified Original Sin in terms of this more or less literal idea of Adam and Genesis. And so now it’s hard to walk back. And so you have videos like this trying to strain the theological belief with apparent scientific contradiction. I mean, you find people today trying to read magisterial texts in a way to be compatible with polygenism etc. As someone who tries to be a faithful Catholic, this reading of the data seems skeptical of a literal Adam and the faith, I know. But... I’m not so sure authentic Catholic understanding of redemption and salvation necessitates a literal Adam, in the first place. Especially when you look at more modern descriptions of Original Sin along the lines of “pure nature” and therefore not requiring a single “infection” from Adam.
I personally think that the story of Noah and the flood are actually incredibly ancient oral stories about the massive sea level rise following the end of the last ice age. Humans tend to congregate and build settlements close to the sea for food, trade, etc., so a massive global sea level rise could have obliterated ancient proto-civilization and reduced the world back to barbarism for a time.
@@michaelingerto2242 Have you seen InspiringPhilosophy's take on this topic? Not to mention his IMHO very convincing proposal for a potential historical location for Eden and how it matches the Biblical data, analysis of the non-Biblical written sources, archeology, geology, and the combinatorically compiled overall history of civilization in the area? There are some unanswered questions and difficulties with it and it is not a proof of the literalist reading for Eden. It does point to a surprisingly likely scenario and location and if we have those we can do further research.
If you are somewhat familiar with this topic, it is not in modern day Turkey he is proposing as Eden's location.
Thinking about this in light of Fr.Legge's presentation has made we realize though that there is a long way to go to square this with the larger historical and metaphysical picture. Still I do believe there is potential for something important here even if only tracing certain story elements that culturally framed the more important core to the ancient origin of humanity.
Here is the video for anyone who might want to view it to judge for themselves it is about 20 minutes long: th-cam.com/video/76PWWNDaMb4/w-d-xo.html
Here is the Thomistic Institute's video on what life was like in the Garden of Eden, as a more reliable reference to weigh it against: th-cam.com/video/XXY4xRx2pxo/w-d-xo.html
So Adams parents were none humans without souls. If I was Adam, I'd be very upset that my parents were animals,
Why do we try to explain the complicated points in the Bible away by demoting them to being simply “stories, or myths”?
Perhaps it is time for the dedicated seekers of Truth to dare combining Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 together. Following the story of Creation to the letter, it puts the creation of Adam and Eve on the third day as described in Genesis 1, shortly after the dry land appeared. The Garden of Eden could have been a domed enclosure where God Created Adam first and then all the specimen of other species by simply manipulating Adam’s DNA slightly. That’s why all living creatures have similar genetic blueprint: corals, plants and all living things, even those that have been long extinct. Now, to create Eve, God could not manipulate Adams DNA the same way he did when creating the lesser beings. God had to take a piece of Adams flesh and make her genetic code the same way as Adam’s. It is intriguing, how man’s genetic code is XY and the woman’s code is XX. The missing biblical Adam’s “RIB” most likely is hidden in the Y, which must have started as an X. It’s a scientific fact that all fetuses have the XX chromosomes and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female until the sixth week of gestation.
It is interesting to realize that the Earth was still void when the Garden of Eden was established. It is from the Garden of Eden that the four rivers carried water to the rest of the world behind the walls. We know that there were walls as the Bible says there was a gate. God spread all the creatures over the earth when the conditions got ripe. On the sixth day, God instructed the Earth to bring forth all the animals and also created the beings, in the image of MAN (Adam and God), called humans that were never spoken of as immortal. When Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden to live a harsh life and eventually to die like the rest of the living beings on the wide earth, they brought the curse of the knowledge of good and evil to the rest of the earthly humanity. This explains perfectly why there were many other people on Earth when Adam and Eve had their first children. Cain was running away from the people that were the descendants of the humans created on Earth on the sixth day of Creation. Obviously, they were very much like Adam and Eve as well as their descendants physically. The difference was in the spiritual knowledge of good and evil. Humans on Earth didn’t have it. They were as innocent as all other animals. When the knowledge of good and evil infected the minds of the rest of the humans on Earth, humanity turned extremely vile. The state that humanity finds itself in today, has been played out many times over centuries when God had to intervene to tone it down..
I don´t understand why people invest time to interpret ancient texts when we live in a time with science and know how our species actually evolved.