The Vatican says Evolution is right!?!?!

[Paidion]

You claim that because you believe the Bible account is literal. Where does the Bible make that statement? Where does the Bible say "chapter one and two of Genesis are literal. A day refers to one twenty-four hour period..." It doesn't.

The idea that the days of Genesis 1 and 2 are long periods of time, seem incredible. How can a long period of time have "an evening" and "a morning"? The very sentence in Genesis 1:5 "And there was evening, and there was morning the first day" suggests a 24h period, since, for the Hebrews, a day began at sunset.

 

[Rick W]

Job 28:12 But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?
Job 28:13 Man knoweth not the price thereof; neither is it found in the land of the living.
Job 28:14 The depth saith, It is not in me: and the sea saith, It is not with me.
Job 28:15 It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for the price thereof.
Job 28:16 It cannot be valued with the gold of Ophir, with the precious onyx, or the sapphire.
Job 28:17 The gold and the crystal cannot equal it: and the exchange of it shall not be for jewels of fine gold.
Job 28:18 No mention shall be made of coral, or of pearls: for the price of wisdom is above rubies.
Job 28:19 The topaz of Ethiopia shall not equal it, neither shall it be valued with pure gold.
Job 28:20 Whence then cometh wisdom? and where is the place of understanding?
Job 28:21 Seeing it is hid from the eyes of all living, and kept close from the fowls of the air.
Job 28:22 Destruction and death say, We have heard the fame thereof with our ears.
Job 28:23 God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof.
Job 28:24 For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;
Job 28:25 To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.
Job 28:26 When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder:
Job 28:27 Then did he see it, and declare it; he prepared it, yea, and searched it out.
Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

 

[francisdesales]

The idea that the days of Genesis 1 and 2 are long periods of time, seem incredible. How can a long period of time have "an evening" and "a morning"? The very sentence in Genesis 1:5 "And there was evening, and there was morning the first day" suggests a 24h period, since, for the Hebrews, a day began at sunset.

You are taking things too literally.

How can there be light before the stars were created?

It's not a science book.

Regards

 

[stranger]

The idea that the days of Genesis 1 and 2 are long periods of time, seem incredible. How can a long period of time have "an evening" and "a morning"? The very sentence in Genesis 1:5 "And there was evening, and there was morning the first day" suggests a 24h period, since, for the Hebrews, a day began at sunset.

You are taking things too literally.

How can there be light before the stars were created?

It's not a science book.

Regards

francis,

Look not only to the beginnings but also to the end, Rev 22:5. God is Light and doesn't need to create a star so that He can see what He is doing.

To the beginnings. . .

In a previous post you mentioned that God may have taken one Nethandral and made him into Adam. This is more of an incarnation (Adam would be born and not created with the infusion of a soul) than a creation from inorganic matter since we would have to say Adam's parents were huminoid animals. The scientific community would welcome the confession by the Church that man's ancestors were animals.

If you think of a mirror when you see the words 'image and likeness' the image and likeness of God in Adam is a visible external attribute. When you look in a mirror you don't see your soul which is not to say that 'God's image and likeness' has no internal consequences but rather you are looking at something you can see.

There is a strong prophetic element about the incarnation when God said 'let us make man in Our own image and likeness.'

How can God who is Spirit reflect an image and likeness of Himself into the created order in Adam? My answer is that Adam is a son of God (and God is Adam's Father and Creator), as the genealogy in the Gospels says, and a type of Christ's incarnation. To illustrate this - when God the Father looks in a mirror He see the Son. When the Son says 'he who has seen Me has seen the Father - the mirror is reversed.

The image in which Adam was created (not begotten) was perfect and had no prior physical manifestation in the created order. If Adam had parents who were of a lower order of creation - this would have to reflect in Adam's image and likeness of flesh and blood. The implications of this for the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ would leave Him with some sort of residual image (from the Nethandrals) which would tarnish the perfect image and likeness that makes Him truly man.

Is your 'sense of the faithful' being stirred?

Blessings

 

[francisdesales]

francis,

Look not only to the beginnings but also to the end, Rev 22:5. God is Light and doesn't need to create a star so that He can see what He is doing.

Hi Stranger. Hope you had a nice weekend...

I believe that Genesis 1 and Rev 22 are talking about different lights.

The former is "natural" light. It is something that didn't exist before, something that was created...

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:2-3

God created light. Now, this light is not God, correct? And yet, God creates the stars in Gen 1:16? What is generating the light in Gen 1:2-3? It should be obvious that the Bible is not giving us a science lesson here, because the stars give off light naturally, and yet, natural, created light is emitting from as yet non-existing stars?

In Rev 22, I think it is clear that God HIMSELF is light. Secondly, we are dealing with heaven, which is different than earthly light.

In a previous post you mentioned that God may have taken one Nethandral and made him into Adam. This is more of an incarnation (Adam would be born and not created with the infusion of a soul) than a creation from inorganic matter since we would have to say Adam's parents were huminoid animals. The scientific community would welcome the confession by the Church that man's ancestors were animals.

If one takes a different approach to Genesis, God DID create Adam out of "dirt" if we look at how single-cell life could evolve into complex structures. Perhaps man, Adam, is a creation in that he received something from God that evolution could never give him. Again, this is an attempt to coorelate what the Bible says and what science says. The Bible is subject to interpretation and Science is subject to interpretation, as well. Genesis 1 and 2 do not require literal interpretation.

If you think of a mirror when you see the words 'image and likeness' the image and likeness of God in Adam is a visible external attribute. When you look in a mirror you don't see your soul which is not to say that 'God's image and likeness' has no internal consequences but rather you are looking at something you can see.

There is a strong prophetic element about the incarnation when God said 'let us make man in Our own image and likeness.'

How can God who is Spirit reflect an image and likeness of Himself into the created order in Adam? My answer is that Adam is a son of God (and God is Adam's Father and Creator), as the genealogy in the Gospels says, and a type of Christ's incarnation. To illustrate this - when God the Father looks in a mirror He see the Son. When the Son says 'he who has seen Me has seen the Father - the mirror is reversed.

Perhaps. Keep in mind that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God BEFORE the incarnation, so the verse ALSO refers to a linkage between God and man that doesn't take the Incarnation into account. The bible has multiple meanings, and it is not a nonsensical book for those reading it before the Incarnation. Thus, it had true meaning before the Incarnation. I would posit that "made in the image and likeness of God" is the soul. The intellect and the will are given to man, which, when made holy by God, allows man to "image" God in ways an animal could never do.

This would be the meaning of the passage for people before the Incarnation.

Regards

 

[stranger]

francis wrote:

I believe that Genesis 1 and Rev 22 are talking about different lights.

The former is "natural" light. It is something that didn't exist before, something that was created...

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:2-3

God created light. Now, this light is not God, correct? And yet, God creates the stars in Gen 1:16? What is generating the light in Gen 1:2-3? It should be obvious that the Bible is not giving us a science lesson here, because the stars give off light naturally, and yet, natural, created light is emitting from as yet non-existing stars?

In Rev 22, I think it is clear that God HIMSELF is light. Secondly, we are dealing with heaven, which is different than earthly light.

There is uncreated light - God is light on that we agree. Created light does not shine independently of God no more than man 'lives and moves and has his being' independent of God. Creation remains dependant upon the Creator. You ask 'What is generating the light in Gen 1:2-3?' My answer is God and the heavens and the earth of Gen 1:1.

In Rev 22. . . we are talking about the new creation and the now passed away existing creation. By comparison, before Adam's sin I would regard the garden of Eden was heaven on earth. The appearance of the serpent however does suggest a prior fall had occurred.

Theology is a science and use to be called the queen of the sciences. How we do theology requires the light of God.

If one takes a different approach to Genesis, God DID create Adam out of "dirt" if we look at how single-cell life could evolve into complex structures. Perhaps man, Adam, is a creation in that he received something from God that evolution could never give him. Again, this is an attempt to coorelate what the Bible says and what science says. The Bible is subject to interpretation and Science is subject to interpretation, as well. Genesis 1 and 2 do not require literal interpretation.

I understand the attempt to correlate the scriptures with science in the question of man's origin. Test the propositions that have been derived from revelation in theology and see if you can reconcile them with theistic evolution.

Perhaps. Keep in mind that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God BEFORE the incarnation, so the verse ALSO refers to a linkage between God and man that doesn't take the Incarnation into account. The bible has multiple meanings, and it is not a nonsensical book for those reading it before the Incarnation. Thus, it had true meaning before the Incarnation. I would posit that "made in the image and likeness of God" is the soul. The intellect and the will are given to man, which, when made holy by God, allows man to "image" God in ways an animal could never do.

This would be the meaning of the passage for people before the Incarnation.

Agreed, Adam was made in the image and likeness of God before the incarnation. That revelation is progressive and its fuller meaning follows can be seen from the understanding the Church has arrived at about the incarnation which describes Jesus Christ as truly man AND truly God. If the terms of reference are limited to prior the incarnation then I think our understanding of man's origins will also be limited. What happened to the fuller meaning that the Church brings in its confessions, Council definitions and theology?

Here is a summary - using the classical Christian definition of the two natures of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Adam was 'truly man'
Jesus Christ is 'truly man AND truly God.'

Adam was created in the image and likeness of God.
Jesus Christ was NOT created in the image and likeness of God but is the image and likeness in which Adam was created or simply put Col 1:15

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Since the Son of God did not evolve His image and likeness was mature. The correlation tracks what God is in Himself with what Adam (and not the rest of humanity) was as created.

greetings brother

 

[nadab]

Hello francisdesales,
Yes, God did not make man in "one minute", but he did create man without theoretical mindless evolution. At Genesis 1:1, it is written that God "created (Hebrew bara) the heavens and the earth." Did God create a portion of the heavens and earth, then allow some mindless entity to complete his handiwork ? No. God began and brought to finish "the heavens and the earth" of Genesis 1:1. Thus, all life on the earth was created by God, and only with his "master worker", Jesus Christ, to assist him.

Throughout Genesis 1, what is seen ? That God started and brought to a completion on each "creative" day, and in the proper creative order, each earthly arrangement, including through days five and six, in which he created all things "according to their kinds". Then finally, at the end of day six, after having created man and woman in their complete form, Genesis 1:31 says: "After that God saw everything he had made and, look ! it was very good." This naturally included man. Could God have really said this if he only began the creation of life but allowed a theoretical mindless evolution to bring life to man ? No ! If evolution was used by God, then why was it not mentioned as having a part in "creation" ?

At Genesis 2:2,3, the account says that "by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made....And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making." Thus, the Genesis account says clearly that on the seventh "creative" day, "God came to completion of his work that he had made". No theoretical evolution.

At Revelation 4:11, the "twenty-four elders....cast their crowns before (God's) throne, saying, "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created."These "twenty-four elders", who represent those who become "kings and priests" alongside Jesus, clearly recognize that only God is worthy "to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they...were created." This rules out theoretical mindless evolution.

Not long after Charles Darwin made the theory of evolution popular with the publishing of his book, The Origin of the Species in 1859, many so-called Christian denominations began to look for ways to marry their belief in God to their acceptance of the theory of evolution. In this year of 2008, most prominent "Christian" religions seem willing to consent to the idea that God must have used evolution to create life.

Some subscribe to theistic evolution, that God preprogrammed the universe to develop in such a way that living things inevitably evolved from lifeless chemicals and eventually produced mankind, and feel that God did not interfere with the process once it started. Others feel that God allowed evolution to produce most families of plants and animals but occasionally stepped in to move the process along. This does not harmonize with the Bible.

At Genesis 2:7, it rules out a "Neanderthal man", for God took the necessary materials from the earth and formed a complete man, who "came to be a living soul". Hence, there was no "pre-man" who was infused with a soul, but rather man is a "living soul".

The Bible is not a "theological work", but rather, as Jesus Christ said, that it is the "word of God".(Matt 15:6) Hence, the Bible reveals all the necessary and important information (Matt 13:11) for those who are like "babes", but is hidden "from the wise and intellectual ones."(Matt 11:25; 13:13) Often, these "wise and intellectual ones" are the ones who have accepted theoretical mindless evolution as "fact", as part of "higher learning".

At Numbers 16:28-30, Moses, in speaking to Dathan and Abiram and those who followed them, said that "if it is something created that Jehovah will create, and the ground has to open it's mouth and swallow up them and everything that belongs to them...they will go down alive into Sheol." Was the splitting of the earth "created" by God for these rebellious ones or was theoretical mindless evolution also in the mix ? Thus, when the Bible says that God "created" something, there is no theoretical mindless evolution, for such is only a theory proposed by individuals, and often times these are seeking a way to avoid accountability before their Creator.

The apostle Paul wrote that God's "invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." Paul now says that "although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God....they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish."(Rom 1:20-22)

Could God take credit for "the world's creation" if theoretical mindless evolution was what brought man to a finish ? Yet Paul said that God is responsible for "the world's creation", not evolution. He even said that ones were loath to accept God as their Creator, though knowing God, becoming "empty-headed in their reasonings", unwilling to draw the proper conclusion from all the evidence, which certainly involves the Bible.

In the book of Job, God gives information concerning the earth, asking Job: "Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth ?...Who set it's measurements, in case you know, or who stretched out upon it the measuring line ? Into what have it's socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid it's cornerstone ? Or who barricaded the sea with doors ? And I went on to say (to the sea) ' This far you may come, and no farther ?...Did you cause the dawn to know it's place ? Have you intelligently considered the broad spaces of the earth ? Tell, if you have come to know it all."(Job 38:4-18)

Did God introduce theoretical mindless evolution when speaking with Job as being part of the "equation" in creating the earth ? No, but rather spoke only of himself, causing Job to truthfully acknowledge that only God was capable of this, for he said that "I have come to know that you are able to do all these things, and there is no idea that is unattainable for you." He then condemns those who are "obscuring counsel without knowledge" and recognized that he too was guilty of not looking at all the facts, saying that "I talked, but I was not understanding."(Job 40:2,3)

 

[francisdesales]

There is uncreated light - God is light on that we agree. Created light does not shine independently of God no more than man 'lives and moves and has his being' independent of God. Creation remains dependant upon the Creator. You ask 'What is generating the light in Gen 1:2-3?' My answer is God and the heavens and the earth of Gen 1:1.

Technically, you are correct in that nothing exists or acts without God. Since He is being Itself, nothing can exist without His willing it to exist. However, He allows objects of creation to be secondary causes. Animals can reproduce, plants can grow, and stars can shine, since God has placed within them His Laws (of Nature) so that they do what they do. Thus, when we see God creating light, it implies that He also created the means by which it would shine independently as a second cause of God Himself, since creation is NOT God.

To take Genesis one literally is fraught with danger since science clearly tells us that stars produce light. Now, "heavens". Are they the same thing as what we read about in verse 16?

It should be clear that the author of Sacred Scriptures is writing metaphorically, teaching us God created an orderly creation and that it did not previously exist. It is quite unlike other pagan creation myth stories. If you read them, you will find that the Jews were enlightened beyond their ability on the underlying "why" on creation.

I think that it should be obvious that God and the light of Genesis one are not the same thing.

In Rev 22. . . we are talking about the new creation and the now passed away existing creation. By comparison, before Adam's sin I would regard the garden of Eden was heaven on earth. The appearance of the serpent however does suggest a prior fall had occurred.

Agree.

Theology is a science and use to be called the queen of the sciences. How we do theology requires the light of God.

Agree again. But again, the light of God is not the same thing as the light that God created. We are not pantheistic. Creation and God are not the same thing.

Adam was made in the image and likeness of God before the incarnation. That revelation is progressive and its fuller meaning follows can be seen from the understanding the Church has arrived at about the incarnation which describes Jesus Christ as truly man AND truly God. If the terms of reference are limited to prior the incarnation then I think our understanding of man's origins will also be limited. What happened to the fuller meaning that the Church brings in its confessions, Council definitions and theology?

Certainly, Jesus is not called the Second Adam for no reason. We can look to Jesus, then, and conclude what man is SUPPOSED to be by viewing the Christ. A being with a body and a soul, a soul that places God's will above his own will.

Here is a summary - using the classical Christian definition of the two natures of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Adam was 'truly man'
Jesus Christ is 'truly man AND truly God.'

Adam was created in the image and likeness of God.
Jesus Christ was NOT created in the image and likeness of God but is the image and likeness in which Adam was created or simply put Col 1:15

Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Since the Son of God did not evolve His image and likeness was mature. The correlation tracks what God is in Himself with what Adam (and not the rest of humanity) was as created.

I agree. But I was talking about man's bodily form, which is NOT made in the image and likeness of God!!! God has no such "image". We say WE are made in His image and likeness because of our soul - our will and intellect that exists within us. After Adam's sin, we lost our likeness to God, but maintained our image. Upon our regeneration, we begin to regain our likeness to God as we are now brothers and sisters to the Second Adam.

But again, this doesn't address our body. Only our souls.

Does our faith require that God instaneously created our flesh from literal dirt on the ground? I do not think it is absolutely pointed out in Genesis one - and we can safely assume that God created us from dirt over billions of years, infusing one body with His image and likeness, calling this new composite body and soul Adam.

Again, I do not consider either point (immediate creation or gradual creation) instrumental to my faith or beliefs. I can certainly accept science's explanation - or later explanations that evolution was a mistake. In either case, the Scriptures are flexibile enough that they do not demand a literal interpretation - although the author MAY very well have intended a literal interpretation.

Brother in Christ

 

[francisdesales]

Hello francisdesales,
Yes, God did not make man in "one minute", but he did create man without theoretical mindless evolution. At Genesis 1:1, it is written that God "created (Hebrew bara) the heavens and the earth." Did God create a portion of the heavens and earth, then allow some mindless entity to complete his handiwork ? No.

You got me confused with someone else, nabab, because I never said evolution was "mindless force". I am saying it is a scientific process that attempts to explain how God created us that takes into account what science ALSO tells us. Is it so difficult to see God HIMSELF as utilizing evolution to create? Catholics certainly do not teach that evolution makes God unnecessary! Thus, it certainly is feasible that God created man over many years, taking objects that He already created (the Bible calls it "dirt". He didn't create man out of nothing) I am merely saying that "dirt" in the bible can refer to the very long evolutionary process that began with the puddle of dirty water on the ground. Who knows... I do not think it was the Sacred Author's intent to detail science.

God began and brought to finish "the heavens and the earth" of Genesis 1:1. Thus, all life on the earth was created by God, and only with his "master worker", Jesus Christ, to assist him.

Don't forget the Holy Spirit. The One who blew across the waters and was breathed into man.

Throughout Genesis 1, what is seen ? That God started and brought to a completion on each "creative" day, and in the proper creative order, each earthly arrangement, including through days five and six, in which he created all things "according to their kinds". Then finally, at the end of day six, after having created man and woman in their complete form, Genesis 1:31 says: "After that God saw everything he had made and, look ! it was very good." This naturally included man. Could God have really said this if he only began the creation of life but allowed a theoretical mindless evolution to bring life to man ? No ! If evolution was used by God, then why was it not mentioned as having a part in "creation" ?

I refer you to my constant mentioning over and over again about your theoretical "mindless evolution" is not what we argue. We both agree that God is the force behind creation. You are wasting a lot of time by constantly saying this and me constantly correcting it.

At Genesis 2:2,3, the account says that "by the seventh day God came to the completion of his work that he had made....And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making." Thus, the Genesis account says clearly that on the seventh "creative" day, "God came to completion of his work that he had made". No theoretical evolution.

What are you trying to say? That a day MUST be 24 hours? And quite frankly, God continues to be behind creation. When a man and woman conceive a child, WHY do people "thank God" if He is already done creating??? Do animals procreate without God having a part to play? God continues to create, my friend. EVERY single infant in the womb is a creation of God. This all makes it perfectly clear that the "seventh day of rest" is a metaphor, since God's work is NEVER "done".

At Genesis 2:7, it rules out a "Neanderthal man", for God took the necessary materials from the earth and formed a complete man, who "came to be a living soul". Hence, there was no "pre-man" who was infused with a soul, but rather man is a "living soul".

I do not understand how this rules out the "Neanderthal man", since God formed Adam in His image and likeness, which does NOT refer to the body of man (God has no bodily image). God is talking about man's soul, his intellect and will.

The Bible is not a "theological work", but rather, as Jesus Christ said, that it is the "word of God".(Matt 15:6)

Do you know what "theology" means, nabab?

Hence, the Bible reveals all the necessary and important information (Matt 13:11) for those who are like "babes", but is hidden "from the wise and intellectual ones."(Matt 11:25; 13:13)

Well, the bible never once mentions how to breath or how to put food into our mouths and how to chew... Would you consider that necessary? Does the bible mention how to start a fire? How to build a house? How to have sex with a woman to continue the human race??? Please, give me a break with your "the bible is the book that reveals everything I need to know" cliche... It doesn't, nor is it MEANT to. It is a book that describes our relationship with God, a SPIRITUAL NECESSITY. It doesn't really speak much of physical necessities.

The Bible reveals all that is necessary and important for our relationship with God. Not on every subject under the sun. To look to the Bible to tell us about science is ridiculous. We know for a fact that the earth is not flat, although the Bible seems to point out that to the men of the time, it APPEARED to be flat. The writers were not making scientific statements, but were pointing out their perspectives.

The rest of your ramblings again is under the impression that I believe your little strawman that you have hung around my neck - that I believe that evolution is a mindless force that doesn't require God. Until you can open your mind to MY point of view, you are close minded and will never understand what I am talking about.

Regards

 

[St Francis]

Hello.

This is the first thread that caught my eye since I joined. The Church teaches that God created all things out of nothing. That is unequivical.

But, the Church also teaches that there can be no discrepency between God's truth and authentic science, since the truths of both come from the same God.

We must be careful not to let false science influence our faith, yet we must also be equally vigilent not to let a narrow view of scriptures & faith blind us to authentic science.

 

[nadab]

Hello francisdesales,
The word theology means the "study of religion, especially the Christian faith. A religious theory, school of thought, or system of belief".(Encarta Dictionary) The Bible never once uses this word theology, but does use the Greek word threskeia at Acts 26:5 and James 1:27, meaning "form of worship".(Latin, "religion") The Bible is more than just a religious book, such as the Koran, but provides the ' utterances (Greek rhema) of Jehovah ', which directs our attention that God did not use a mindless entity called evolution.

At Matthew 11:25, Jesus was speaking of those who would grasp the ' hidden things ' of the "kingdom", those who are like "babes", teachable ones. Thus, the Bible reveals all the necessary and important information for these to be taught by God, whereas those who are considered by the "world" as "wise and intellectual", these vital truths of the "kingdom" are "hidden", unable to grasp them. Jesus further said that only his disciples would "understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom", whereas those of the "world", it "is not granted",(Matt 13:11) not getting "the sense" of the "kingdom".(Matt 13:13)

Thus, these "babes" are able to grasp and, in turn, teach others of God's wonderful creation, that "how many your works are, O Jehovah ! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."(Ps 104:24) You seem to believe that evolution is not a "mindless force". Then, what is evolution ? Does it have a mind, capable of making decisions, of creating life ?

Is it not vital that we understand what God is saying through his word, the Bible, and not allow human wisdom to direct our thoughts. That is why Jesus told Satan, that "man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah's mouth."(Matt 4:4; Deut 8:3)

 

[francisdesales]

Hello francisdesales,
The word theology means the "study of religion, especially the Christian faith. A religious theory, school of thought, or system of belief".(Encarta Dictionary) The Bible never once uses this word theology, but does use the Greek word threskeia at Acts 26:5 and James 1:27, meaning "form of worship".(Latin, "religion") The Bible is more than just a religious book, such as the Koran, but provides the ' utterances (Greek rhema) of Jehovah ', which directs our attention that God did not use a mindless entity called evolution.

Actually, theology is the study of God. Theo = God...

Religions are different means of reaching to God. Thus, theology IS the subject of the Bible, my friend.

The bible never speaks about America, but here we are living in America... Hasn't it become obvious that the Bible doesn't address many things? It is not the intent of Scriptures to address such matters, and science, history and medicine, for example, are addressed only as background that leads to the heart of the Bible - God and His relationship with man.

At Matthew 11:25, Jesus was speaking of those who would grasp the ' hidden things ' of the "kingdom", those who are like "babes", teachable ones. Thus, the Bible reveals all the necessary and important information for these to be taught by God, whereas those who are considered by the "world" as "wise and intellectual", these vital truths of the "kingdom" are "hidden", unable to grasp them. Jesus further said that only his disciples would "understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom", whereas those of the "world", it "is not granted",(Matt 13:11) not getting "the sense" of the "kingdom".(Matt 13:13)

Jesus is speaking about theological issues, not on the atomic makeup of uranium... The bible does not mention such things, but we know that the science of chemistry exists.

Thus, these "babes" are able to grasp and, in turn, teach others of God's wonderful creation, that "how many your works are, O Jehovah ! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."(Ps 104:24) You seem to believe that evolution is not a "mindless force". Then, what is evolution ? Does it have a mind, capable of making decisions, of creating life ?

Teaching about our relationship to God, such as God created us, God loves us, God wants to share His life with us, etc... It is not a book about chemistry or physics. It never once mentions the Laws of Gravity or Thermodynamics or Magnetism. It doesn't speak about NUMEROUS scientific issues because that is not its intent. Treating the Bible as a universal book of knowledge is ridiculous. As I said before, where does the Bible teach us HOW to eat, HOW to build a house, HOW to have sex, HOW to farm? It is not such a manual of knowledge...

Is it not vital that we understand what God is saying through his word, the Bible, and not allow human wisdom to direct our thoughts. That is why Jesus told Satan, that "man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah's mouth."(Matt 4:4; Deut 8:3)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with our discussion at hand. The Scripture you post tells us that God is important in our lives, not that man eats only bread and the pages of a book...

The subject is whether theistic evolution (God creating through the gradual process of evolution) is compatible with Sacred Scriptures. Nowhere does this idea state that evolution is a blind process, and until you can wrap your mind around that, you are wasting our time.

Regards

 

[St Francis]

The word theology means the "study of religion, especially the Christian faith. A religious theory, school of thought, or system of belief".(Encarta Dictionary)

I thought the word "Theo" referred to "God", as in Monotheistic (One God).

So wouldn't Theology be the "study" of "God" ?

 

[stranger]

Hi francis,

Thanks for your comments. I think we would agree about light sufficiently to set it aside. While it may appear that I am moving over the same ground making the same points - the argument now hinges upon just one question:

Was Adam created or born?

If you accept that Adam was born you have to be prepared to work through the consequences and ramifications:

Is Adam being born consistent with the remainder of revelation?
Is Adam being born consistent with what the Church has always believed.

My answers to both questions is no. Do you seriously believe that the answer can be maybe or yes?

I agree. But I was talking about man's bodily form, which is NOT made in the image and likeness of God!!! God has no such "image". We say WE are made in His image and likeness because of our soul - our will and intellect that exists within us.

God most certainly had an 'image and likeness'. The incarnation is the relevation of the image and likeness of God in which Adam was created. The incarnation is the second Adam come in the flesh. What does God say: the first Adam was from below, the second Adam was from above? Who is the copy and who is the original? Does 'below' come before 'above'? see Romans 5.

As the Apostle John says 'everything was created through Him and without HIm was not anything made that was made.' This includes Adam since I believe that God the Son, though not incarnate, does not need Adam to exhibit what His own image and likeness is - but rather, it pleased God to create Adam in the image and likeness of God (specifically the Son). To summarise this as a proposition . . .

With respect to what is truly man: the first Adam was created in the image and likeness of the second Adam. cf Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

I have heard it asked: Did Adam have a belly button? If he did then he was born not created! To maintain a 'delayed or prolonged creation' consistent with what the Church has always believed Adam could not have parents. We should probably look for a mutually graceful exit out of this discussion - sorry about my comment about the white elephant!

brother in Christ

 

[stranger]

The word theology means the "study of religion, especially the Christian faith. A religious theory, school of thought, or system of belief".(Encarta Dictionary)

I thought the word "Theo" referred to "God", as in Monotheistic (One God).

So wouldn't Theology be the "study" of "God" ?

Welcome St Francis.
Yes!

 

[stranger]

deleted duplicate

 

[one_lost_coin]

Jesus Christ left this earth with something he did not have before he arrived. A Body. The body he received from his mother Mary. He ascended into heaven and will spend the rest of eternity with this body.

 

[francisdesales]

Hi francis,

Thanks for your comments. I think we would agree about light sufficiently to set it aside. While it may appear that I am moving over the same ground making the same points - the argument now hinges upon just one question:

Was Adam created or born?

If you accept that Adam was born you have to be prepared to work through the consequences and ramifications:

Is Adam being born consistent with the remainder of revelation?
Is Adam being born consistent with what the Church has always believed.

My answers to both questions is no. Do you seriously believe that the answer can be maybe or yes?

Hello Stranger

I would agree that Adam was created, since being born requires a HUMAN mother and father. They were not "human" if they lacked a soul. I believe God must have made some unique application of His Love to the creature who we call Adam. No matter if He took Him from a pile of dirt - a previous creation - OR a Cro-Mag man - a previous creation. It matters not to me. God did whatever He did to begin OUR race.

God most certainly had an 'image and likeness'.

Not at the time when He created Adam and Eve. The incarnation was a feature of time, God breaking into time and uniting Himself with the nature of man. But this followed Adam and Eve. When God says "Let us create man in our image", God had not yet taken on a human nature.

The incarnation is the relevation of the image and likeness of God in which Adam was created. The incarnation is the second Adam come in the flesh. What does God say: the first Adam was from below, the second Adam was from above? Who is the copy and who is the original? Does 'below' come before 'above'? see Romans 5.

I don't think Paul is talking about the flesh of Christ, but rather, the soul, the intellect and the will that chooses to obey God. The first Adam did not, the second Adam, the "original" did obey God's will, as God intends.

I don't see these passages as discussing the body of Adam being made in the pattern of the future Jesus Christ's FLESH. Romans 5 speaks about sin. Here is another example of what I am getting at...

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. 1 Cor 15: 45-48

As the Apostle John says 'everything was created through Him and without HIm was not anything made that was made.' This includes Adam since I believe that God the Son, though not incarnate, does not need Adam to exhibit what His own image and likeness is - but rather, it pleased God to create Adam in the image and likeness of God (specifically the Son). To summarise this as a proposition . . .

As I said before, I agree that God created man. Even Genesis taken literally has God gradually creating things from pre-existing material when the Bible tells us that God took "dirt". We are arguing over what "dirt" is!!!

With respect to what is truly man: the first Adam was created in the image and likeness of the second Adam. cf Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Again, not the flesh, but the spirit, as I detail above from 1 Cor 15.

I have heard it asked: Did Adam have a belly button? If he did then he was born not created! To maintain a 'delayed or prolonged creation' consistent with what the Church has always believed Adam could not have parents.

I would agree that Adam and Eve did not have human parents - if we define "human" as a person with a soul given to him by God. God certainly could have taken a humanoid, given it a soul while it was in a "mature" state, and all subsequent souls of future children from Adam and Eve would be given at conception - making us children of Adam and Eve while also being created by God.

We should probably look for a mutually graceful exit out of this discussion - sorry about my comment about the white elephant!

sounds good. I certainly do not rule out a "six day creation" as absolutely disproven by science, but I see it is unlikely, when I realize that the bible doesn't need to be taken literally here. Thus, with this view of Genesis 1 and 2, I am able to reconcile what science says and what God says.

Take care, brother.

 

[stranger]

Francis wrote:

I don't think Paul is talking about the flesh of Christ, but rather, the soul, the intellect and the will that chooses to obey God. The first Adam did not, the second Adam, the "original" did obey God's will, as God intends.

I don't see these passages as discussing the body of Adam being made in the pattern of the future Jesus Christ's FLESH. Romans 5 speaks about sin. Here is another example of what I am getting at...

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven. As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly. 1 Cor 15: 45-48

I am not talking about the flesh of Christ either, nor the soul or intellect - these are your definition of what the image and likeness of God is. I think the whole man is involved in God's image and likeness which by definition cannot be fractured. God simply made Adam ( not parts of Adam) in His own image and likeness.

There is no problem for me before or after the incarnation in the words: 'let us make man in our own image and likeness' since the pronouns 'us and our' include God the Son. After the incarnation the image and likeness of God partly revealed in Adam is completely revealed in Jesus Christ. 1 Cor 15 does raise the question of resurrection and glorification - wrt the present discussion - we have an ever expanding field. While you remain focused also - having previously discussed whether Adam was born or created I now offer the summary of the image and likeness issue:

So if I ask you: What is the image and likeness of God? You have answered 'it is a man's soul, intellect etc'.

If you ask me: What is the image and likeness of God? I would answer the image and likeness of God is the image and likeness of Jesus Christ. If you add - but before the incarnation? - I would answer the image and likeness of God is the image and likeness of God the Son.

There is a prior assumption God states before He creates Adam: let us make man in our own image and likeness. God is self aware of His own image and likeness before creating man.

take care

 

[francisdesales]

So if I ask you: What is the image and likeness of God? You have answered 'it is a man's soul, intellect etc'.

If you ask me: What is the image and likeness of God? I would answer the image and likeness of God is the image and likeness of Jesus Christ. If you add - but before the incarnation? - I would answer the image and likeness of God is the image and likeness of God the Son.

There is a prior assumption God states before He creates Adam: let us make man in our own image and likeness. God is self aware of His own image and likeness before creating man.

take care

I can understand what you are saying, and I do not totally disagree with this. However, God took on human nature, we did not take on His nature with the creation of Adam. I would lean more towards Christ being TRUE man in the spiritual sense - One who did not disobey God, etc., not that Jesus was the prototype for making Adam as someone who could experience hunger, fright, etc...

Regards