What Species Was Adam & Eve?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1264033652' post='2041138']
I find this to be a really far stretching of the imagination, you have to keep in mind some of us are not as talented as you. But you are still no supplement for the authority of the Church who alone holds the right to interpret these statements.Because you said so... I will remember that.
[/quote]

It is you who has offered nothing but your opinion, and the opinions of theologians. I on the other hand have quoted authoritative Church documents and quotes from the Church Fathers. All of which you reject as non-authoritative/non-binding, or illogically question its interpretation, or reject because that's the old way. The latter is completely illogical, and quite dangerous. If the Church has taught something since it's beginning, ie that Adam and Eve really existed but now that old teaching is thrown out for the new understanding that they were but myths then we can not trust the Church to tell us anything. If it was wrong in the past for so long how can we believe it now? We cannot logically.

Edited January 21, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='20 January 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1264033004' post='2041131']
Sorry, but KoC never really wants to hear what any of us have to say.
[/quote]

I am open to Truth, and closed to falsehoods. If that is a problem I am not sorry.

[Lil Red]

+JMJ+
btw, i'm really glad that i am not cut out to be a theologian, because just reading most of this thread has made my head hurt even more

[Selah]

You and me both Red, lol.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1264033652' post='2041138']
I find this to be a really far stretching of the imagination, you have to keep in mind some of us are not as talented as you. But you are still no supplement for the authority of the Church who alone holds the right to interpret these statements.

“[b]If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.[/b]” This is from the First Vatican Council, some fundamentalist Catholics attempt to use this passage to combat evolution. But when one takes a closer examination of this passage, one can find that it is easily reconcilable to evolution, since the Church has repeatedly told us that evolution does not conflict with Catholicism.

Such as Catholic theologian Dr. Ludwig Ott, writer of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma(1952), explains that it is to be understood that these condemnations are of the errors of modern materialism ([i]that matter is all there is[/i]), pantheism ([i]that God is all there is[/i]), and ancient pagan and gnostic-manichean dualism ([i]where God is not responsible for the entire created world, since mere "matter" is evil not good[/i]) see page 79).Because you said so... I will remember that.
[/quote]

I'm not debating evolution, but rather the true existence of our First Parents who all of mankind trace their inheritance. That truth we've all heard a million times at Mass and other Catholic resources of faith it is true or it isn't. They existed or they didn't. They are real people or just myths. If they are just myths then who else is just a myth? Noah, Abraham, Moses, King David, Jesus? All the arguments against the existence of our First Parents are the same arguments made against the existence of other biblical persons.

Once we start down the "They're just nice myths" road it will be a domino effect taking out others with them.

Edited January 21, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Lil Red]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1264034142' post='2041146']
I am open to Truth,
[/quote]
+JMJ+
i think you think that.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 05:35 PM' timestamp='1264034142' post='2041146']
I am open to Truth, and closed to falsehoods. If that is a problem I am not sorry.
[/quote]
and i think there's an insult there somewhere, but my head hurts too much to figure it out.

[Selah]

I love this thread

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='20 January 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1264034547' post='2041153']
+JMJ+
i think you think that.[/quote]

I hope you will come to know it, because the truth is I am open to truth.

[quote name='Lil Red' date='20 January 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1264034547' post='2041153']and i think there's an insult there somewhere, but my head hurts too much to figure it out.
[/quote]

There is not.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1264034086' post='2041145']It is you who has offered nothing but your opinion, and the opinions of theologians.[/quote]I have subjected your proposals to skepticism and critical thinking, I haven’t really offered my opinions, since my faith and opinions are not to be thrown around carelessly.[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1264034086' post='2041145']I on the other hand have quoted authoritative Church documents and quotes from the Church Fathers.[/quote]But when it comes to explaining how this supports your case, you’re not quite following through, but if we just believe you then we can accept that you are. That’s not free discussion or debate, that’s an ultimatum.[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1264034086' post='2041145']All of which you reject as non-authoritative/non-binding, or illogically question its interpretation, or reject because that's the old way.[/quote]No... Please quote and source.[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1264034086' post='2041145']The latter is completely illogical, and quite dangerous. If the Church has taught something since it's beginning, ie that Adam and Eve really existed but now that old teaching is thrown out for the new understanding that they were but myths then we can not trust the Church to tell us anything.[/quote]In regards to the Church you wrote in post [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=102094&view=findpost&p=2041113"]#59[/url] "[i]Quite a few in the present authority don't recognize many of the traditional teachings of the Church, but the Universal Magisterium over rules the Ordinary, if there is in fact a conflict[/i]." I wonder why you wrote this?

But the whole problem that has been raised to you is that you are telling us we must listen to your opinions, under pain of sin, and accept it as the Church’s without what the Church requires for definitive statements. As Canon 749 of the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite proposes: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” So this is basically what I asked you for, in the context of the First Vatican Council, the Second Vatican Council, and the rest of the Code of Canon Law. I do not find what you suggest as evidence for this condition as “manifestly evident”.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1264034086' post='2041145']If it was wrong in the past for so long how can we believe it now? We cannot logically.[/quote]It is not logical to use age to deterime if something is true or not.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='20 January 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1264034540' post='2041152']I'm not debating evolution, but rather the true existence of our First Parents who all of mankind trace their inheritance. That truth we've all heard a million times at Mass and other Catholic resources of faith it is true or it isn't. They existed or they didn't. They are real people or just myths. If they are just myths then who else is just a myth? Noah, Abraham, Moses, King David, Jesus? All the arguments against the existence of our First Parents are the same arguments made against the existence of other biblical persons.

Once we start down the "They're just nice myths" road it will be a domino effect taking out others with them.[/quote]Slippery Slope Fallacy...

[goldenchild17]

infallible or not (and I side with the affirmative) it seems KoC is the only one who has provided documentation of any kind, while the other side simply argues its power. It would seem if there was strength in the argument that Adam and Eve weren't real people that one would be able to provide some scholarship instead of ignoring what has been provided. As KoC already pointed out, encyclicals do hold strong weight, at least until proven otherwise. I'm with him on this one until someone provides something better.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='20 January 2010 - 08:02 PM' timestamp='1264035738' post='2041163']
infallible or not (and I side with the affirmative) it seems KoC is the only one who has provided documentation of any kind, while the other side simply argues its power. It would seem if there was strength in the argument that Adam and Eve weren't real people that one would be able to provide some scholarship instead of ignoring what has been provided. As KoC already pointed out, encyclicals do hold strong weight, at least until proven otherwise. I'm with him on this one until someone provides something better.
[/quote]#27 and #48.

If someone told a Judge that because of the Freedom of Speech they had the right to heckle, while this would seem to be true, it is in fact false. The courts in most nations have ruled that heckling is not protected by free speech. Meaning for example, if you went to heckle your favorite politician, you would be arrested and charged with heckling. Merely because you insist that Freedom of Speech MUST protect heckling, it does not change how our current bodies of law have formed.

In a similar case, while KoC’s quotations seem by a stretch of the imagination may seem relevant, it doesn’t quite meet the criteria to claim that this is a “definitive definition” of the faith that is bound upon the faithful, under pain of sin, and that this is “manifestly evident”. These are the requirements set by the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite, even though it is I who asked for it. If these requirements are not met, then it merely remains KoC’s opinion.

[KnightofChrist]

Hope you don't mind but I'm tried of doing all the work, so I'm only going to focus on some of your post.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1264035260' post='2041159']
But the whole problem that has been raised to you is that you are telling us we must listen to your opinions, under pain of sin, and accept it as the Church’s without what the Church requires for definitive statements. As Canon 749 of the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite proposes: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.” So this is basically what I asked you for, in the context of the First Vatican Council, the Second Vatican Council, and the rest of the Code of Canon Law. I do not find what you suggest as evidence for this condition as “manifestly evident”.[/quote]

But it is manifestly evident that the Church through out time countless times, Pope Pius, The Church Fathers, The Council of Trent and the CCC all speak of Adam in the first person, in such a way that it is clear they all believed him to exist just as much as they believe Christ, the New Adam to exist.

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1264035260' post='2041159']It is not logical to use age to deterime if something is true or not.
[/quote]

Something that the Church has always taught is part of Divine Revelation known as Sacred Tradition, this is why your above statement is false in the matter of Church Teaching.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1264036206' post='2041164']
#27 and #48.

If someone told a Judge that because of the Freedom of Speech they had the right to heckle, while this would seem to be true, it is in fact false. The courts in most nations have ruled that heckling is not protected by free speech. Meaning for example, if you went to heckle your favorite politician, you would be arrested and charged with heckling. Merely because you insist that Freedom of Speech MUST protect heckling, it does not change how our current bodies of law have formed.

In a similar case, while KoC’s quotations seem by a stretch of the imagination may seem relevant, it doesn’t quite meet the criteria to claim that this is a “definitive definition” of the faith that is bound upon the faithful, under pain of sin, and that this is “manifestly evident”. These are the requirements set by the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite, even though it is I who asked for it. If these requirements are not met, then it merely remains KoC’s opinion.
[/quote]

Your rubberband logic broke, and that is about the worse analogy I've heard in quite some time, it does not follow at all.

But hey this is getting tiresome, if you really want to just downgrade Church teaching to 'my opinion' then 'my opinion', matches that of Countless Popes, namely Pope Pius, countless Church Fathers, The Council of Trent, the CCC, and every single sermon I've ever heard from the mouth of a faithful Catholic Priest or Bishop on the matter of Adam and Eve.

Edited January 21, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Socrates]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' date='20 January 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1264035341' post='2041161']
Slippery Slope Fallacy...
[/quote]
Hardly a fallacy.
There are (and have been for a long time now) plenty of "liberal Christians" who insist that the Gospels themselves are nothing more than myth and symbolism.
The Christian religion is then reduced to a vague message of being nice and helping people, while most of the theology is discarded.

If there was not a real Adam and Eve who actually sinned and fell from God's grace, leaving the human race in need of redemption, then most of Christian theology is meaningless.