Cave Paintings at Altamira


#1

Does the Church teach that the ancient paintings in caves such as Altamira and Lascaux were necessarily made by human beings with human souls like our own, rational, immortal and made in the image and likeness of God? Thank you.


#2

[quote=Work of God]Does the Church teach that the ancient paintings in caves such as Altamira and Lascaux were necessarily made by human beings with human souls like our own, rational, immortal and made in the image and likeness of God? Thank you.
[/quote]

Is there a reason why the church wouldn’t think that the people who created these paintings didn’t have souls?


#3

<< Is there a reason why the church wouldn’t think that the people who created these paintings didn’t have souls? >>

Yeah because they came before Adam and Eve. It is a trick question. I smell another evolution thread, just what we need. :yawn:

Phil P


#4

[quote=Work of God]Does the Church teach that the ancient paintings in caves such as Altamira and Lascaux were necessarily made by human beings with human souls like our own, rational, immortal and made in the image and likeness of God? Thank you.
[/quote]

Your question contains an underlying difficulties that need to be resolved first.

The Church does not bound us to believe in to the literal account of the creation and states that it does not claim to be authoritative into the scientific facts of the genesis of life. Without taking a stand, it allows room for modern theories of evolution.

That being said, if we take the route and answer this question in light that evolution is the accepted theory, then I would say yes, these men and women had souls. Their beautiful paintings demonstrate without doubt their humanity. Their faith would be the same as those souls that have lived without having being exposed to the Revealed Truth of God.

[font=Arial]If your question was designed to setup the follow up: Well then, when did men started to be Men and no longer apes? Then, I doubt the Church addresses this question since it does not consider Evolution a certainty.[/font]


#5

These paintings are said by archaeologists to be 15000 years old. If they are that old, then either (1) Adam existed at least 15000 years ago, or (2) the painters were not human but some type of animal, or (2) Adam’s sin was transmitted to them before Adam existed. Some scientists today are saying that Adam existed only 4000-6000 years ago.


#6

[quote=Work of God]Does the Church teach that the ancient paintings in caves such as Altamira and Lascaux were necessarily made by human beings with human souls like our own, rational, immortal and made in the image and likeness of God? Thank you.
[/quote]

The Church has expressed no opinion on these paintings. It isn’t pertinent to our salvation. The hows and/or whens of “evolution” are likewise not important. What we must believe is that God created the universe out of nothing and in his power and providence sustains it. Everything else about creation is open to speculation.


#7

“The Church does not bound us to believe in to the literal account of the creation and states that it does not claim to be authoritative into the scientific facts of the genesis of life. Without taking a stand, it allows room for modern theories of evolution.”

Yes, I know. But I believe the Church does maintain that Adam and Eve were actual literal historical individual persons and that they committed the first sin. Does it not?


#8

Work << Adam’s sin was transmitted to them before Adam existed. Some scientists today are saying that Adam existed only 4000-6000 years ago. >>

Ah ha I knew it. :yawn: We have discussed this in detail in past threads. I don’t know scientists who try to date Adam/Eve, but certainly young-earth creationists attempt to date them to that range, other old-earth creationists (Hugh Ross) to around 50000 - 70000 years ago, others like Glenn Morton believe Adam was a Australopithecine (millions of years ago), others (this article) that Adam/Eve were Neandertals, and other views (Adam, Eve, and Hominids). We just don’t know but it is an interesting question to try to figure out. Those cave paintings were done by homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon) like ourselves.

Phil P


#9

[quote=Work of God]“The Church does not bound us to believe in to the literal account of the creation and states that it does not claim to be authoritative into the scientific facts of the genesis of life. Without taking a stand, it allows room for modern theories of evolution.”

Yes, I know. But I believe the Church does maintain that Adam and Eve were actual literal historical individual persons and that they committed the first sin. Does it not?
[/quote]

The answer is Adam and Eve lived 6.3 Billion years ago, however a year then was not 365 days.


#10

[quote=Tom]The answer is Adam and Eve lived 6.3 Billion years ago, however a year then was not 365 days.
[/quote]

Tom,

I am confused, please help me to understand what you are talking about here. What time scale is this?

-D


#11

Gee whiz, get over it. The Catholic Church does not dispute science…it only puts science in its proper perspective. Somebody had to get the ball rolling…we believe/know it was God.


#12

It doesn’t matter to me whether Adam and Eve existed 6,000 years ago or 15,000 years ago. Why is this a matter for religious discussion?


#13

If your faith is challenged by the evolution or creationism then I would seriously consider asking God to give you more faith.
If a brother or sister is weak in the faith we should not flaunt our freedom. Do not put stumbling blocks in the path of another.
Romans ch.14–
The strong must bear with the weak. Cautions against
judging and giving scandal.

      14:1. Now him that is weak in faith, take unto you: not in
      disputes about thoughts.

The text deals with diet but is applicable to many things.--nicolo

#14

[quote=PhilVaz]Work << Adam’s sin was transmitted to them before Adam existed. Some scientists today are saying that Adam existed only 4000-6000 years ago. >>

Ah ha I knew it. :yawn: We have discussed this in detail in past threads. I don’t know scientists who try to date Adam/Eve, but certainly young-earth creationists attempt to date them to that range, other old-earth creationists (Hugh Ross) to around 50000 - 70000 years ago, others like Glenn Morton believe Adam was a Australopithecine (millions of years ago), others (this article) that Adam/Eve were Neandertals, and other views (Adam, Eve, and Hominids). We just don’t know but it is an interesting question to try to figure out. Those cave paintings were done by homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon) like ourselves.

Phil P
[/quote]

Amazingly helpful. Thanks. People are sure reading this, aren’t they?


#15

[quote=Darrel]Tom, I am confused, please help me to understand what you are talking about here. What time scale is this? –D
[/quote]

Gn 1,1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. 5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

Please note that nowhere does it state that this first “day” was a 24 hour period that we would today consider a “day” it was simply a period of light, could have been 15 minutes long, could have been 15 million minutes, Scripture doesn’t say because it shouldn’t matter. We know it wasn’t necessarily a 24 “hour” period since the sun and the moon were not yet created see Gn 1,16 the sun and moon were not created until the 4th “day”.

11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 15 To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.

16 And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. 17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. 18 And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and morning were the fourth day.


#16

How long were the first three days according to mans reconing? The sun wasn’t created until the 4th day. Peter doesn’t say one day is a thousand years, he says one day is like a thousand years, a simile. Big difference.

So again, how long was/is Gods day? For a real brain buster: God lives outside of time, eternally, everlasting to everlasting, so isn’t Gods day really just one long neverending day?

Or is it more appropriate to say the bible was written by men inspired by God trying to relate Gods infinity (and wisdom) to other men using concepts that can only be expressed in the finite of human understanding?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#17

[quote=Work of God]Does the Church teach that the ancient paintings in caves such as Altamira and Lascaux were necessarily made by human beings with human souls like our own, rational, immortal and made in the image and likeness of God? Thank you.
[/quote]

I suggest a reading of G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man. He begins the book with an entire chapter devoted to ancient cave paintings. According to him, “Art is the signature of man.” In other words, only human beings create art.

As for a date when man was created, I find the whole issue irrelevant. The fact is he was created, and by God.


#18

[quote=Work of God]“The Church does not bound us to believe in to the literal account of the creation and states that it does not claim to be authoritative into the scientific facts of the genesis of life. Without taking a stand, it allows room for modern theories of evolution.”

Yes, I know. But I believe the Church does maintain that Adam and Eve were actual literal historical individual persons and that they committed the first sin. Does it not?
[/quote]

No.

The first sin is said to be a primeval act, not an historical one:

**390 **The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

The trouble with calling A & E historical is that history is not simply the past, but the ascertainable past, the past as verifiable by historical study. That’s why the evolution of earth before man is not a subject for history, but for those sciences which study beings earlier than man. Historical records know nothing of a first human pair, let alone of a first human pair who did exactly as described in Genesis 1.26 to 3.20, saying and doing those acts and those words in that order. Those chapters are not a diary or a biography.

The trouble with talking about Adam & Eve is that both names are Hebrew - and Hebrew does not go back millions of years; nor even six thousand; it’s a dialect of Canaanite, apparently. The text is a Hebrew equivalent of much older myths about the creation and purpose of man, and his status in relation to God. Its truth is that it tells us about man’s standing as created by the only God there is, in His image; and that man is nevertheless a sinner. Which is far more valuable ISTM than if the text were recounting historical facts.

The narrative in Genesis should be compared not with history as written today, but with the creation myths current among Israel’s neighbours. It has a far higher ethical and theological tone - man is created in the image of God, not from the body of an executed rebel-god. God is the only Creator-God - He does not create the universe out of any pre-existing matter; nor does He have to fight other gods to so. Genesis 1 to 3 is not one iota less excellent for not being historical. It should be compared not with what it does not resemble, but with what it does resemble: otherwise, misunderstanding of what the text is saying is absolutely guaranteed. ##


#19

[quote=Kay Cee]I suggest a reading of G.K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man. He begins the book with an entire chapter devoted to ancient cave paintings. According to him, “Art is the signature of man.” In other words, only human beings create art.
[/quote]

It’s been created by chimpanzees too :slight_smile: - Art world goes wild for chimpanzee’s paintings as Warhol work flops

As for a date when man was created, I find the whole issue irrelevant. The fact is he was created, and by God.

Exactly :thumbsup:


#20

[quote=Gottle of Geer]## It’s been created by chimpanzees too :slight_smile: - Art world goes wild for chimpanzee’s paintings as Warhol work flops ##
[/quote]

I don’t think Chesterton would consider that art. I certainly don’t.

Can a chimpanzee paint a portrait of another chimpanzee? Can he, with forethought, make a picture that is recognizable as a house or a horse or a dog or a tree?

A bunch of scribbles that happen to bear a faint resemblence to a flower are hardly what Chesterton had in mind. I call that a coincidence.

I could draw a picture of a chimpanzee. It wouldn’t be very good, but I bet most people would recognize it as the portrait of a primate. I doubt a chimpanzee could do the same by trying to draw a picture of me.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.