You’re actually an idiot if you take these passages literally

>>18499275
repeatedly in both the old testament and new testament God makes it clear his covenant is with all animals. Itsa not like this is a novel take either Francis of Assisi called it out.

>>18499275
NTA but he is correct. Please reveal unto us the secret metaphorical meaning instead, Grand Expositor Anon.

Hard mode, TAS only: explain how you know the secret metaphorical meaning with actual evidence instead of "bro it's obvious look"

>>18499282
>The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox
>oh yeah that’s clearly saying that a lion will literally eat straw somewhere and I will eat onions and it’s not talking about peace among men and the destruction of the devil’s dominion
Question, do you also take 2 Samuel 12:2-4 literally?

>>18499289
Direct from Pauls mouth
For the creation (all ktisis, not humanity) waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God…
the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay
— Epistle to the Romans 8:19–21

>>18499293
The creation includes rocks and stars. Do you think Paul is saying rocks and stars have souls? Do you believe this?

>>18499297
Are you saying Paul is wrong? very unchristian of you

There is more evidence to support from the direct words of God and Paul that animals have souls then there is not. The position that they do not have souls was imported from greek philosophy direct from Aristotle and essentially you are placing pagan materialism higher in importance than what God literally says to noah multiple times if you go down Aquinian logic.

>>18499289
>oh yeah that’s clearly saying that a lion will literally eat straw somewhere
Yes? Once we have the ability to make predators vegetarian again like they once were in the original creation, why would we not do this? It isn't even that far from what we can already do today.

>do you also take 2 Samuel 12:2-4 literally?
That passage is literal because it's "He came to him and said to him", Nathan did speak these words in history.

>and it’s not talking about peace among men and the destruction of the devil’s dominion
You failed the hard mode challenge, like the revealers of the mystical metaphorical meaning always do :-(

>>18499297
Notably the KJV goes with "creature" instead of "creation" there. It can mean either depending on context.
>For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

>>18499297
Every rock and star that ever existed will be resurrected. The resurrection is of all of creation. Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5kAte0NX8Nc

>>18499309
It’s actually a distinction without a difference because creature in this translation is referring to all created things (i.e. the creation) including inanimate objects. If you’re going by this alone, it’s doubtful that it can go either way, because the word “creature” in Elizabethan English could refer to inanimate objects.
>>18499302
No, I’m saying you are wrong
>>18499307
>Once we have the ability to make predators vegetarian again like they once were in the original creation, why would we not do this?
1. “We” don’t fulfill messianic prophecy 2. This is a prophecy of the new heavens and new earth and the perfection enjoyed by the saints therein. It is talking about the same people the entire passage is talking about, and the peace and harmony they will enjoy forever under Christ, beginning with the institution of the new covenant in the resurrection.

>>18499320
>It’s actually a distinction without a difference because creature in this translation is referring to all created things (i.e. the creation)
The KJV does swap from translating κτίσις as "creature" in verses 20-21 to "whole creation" in verse 22. But the underlying word remains the same. And the descriptions of it are not those of an inanimate object.
>For the earnest expectation of the creature...
>For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly..
>the creature groaneth and travaileth in pain together...
It has expectations, it has will, and it can suffer, all features of something that has a soul, not something inanimate. So if you want to say he means something inanimate, you have to say that he's being purely poetic.

And there's also the problem that the inanimate cosmos are going to be destroyed according to passages like 2 Peter 3, which says things like "the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire..." If the present heaven and earth are going to be burned up, how can it be also said that it will be "set free from its enslavement to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God"?

One solution is that the creature Paul is referring to is distinct from the purely material cosmos which will be burned up. Imo one possibility is that what Paul has in mind is a "world soul" consisting of all non-human souls.

>>18499347
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_mundi
>Plato described the universe as a living being in his dialogue Timaeus (30b–d): "Thus, then, in accordance with the likely account, we must declare that this Cosmos has verily come into existence as a Living Creature endowed with soul and reason [...] a Living Creature, one and visible, containing within itself all the living creatures which are by nature akin to itself."

>>18499347
They are reconciled because what Peter described is not truly destruction but a renovation.

>>18499366
This has 0 to do with the biblical worldview.

>>18499369
The saddest thing about much of modern Christianity is the belief that it can't possibly have any basis in Greek philosophy, only Jewish stuff.

Romans 10:17-21
So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have: “Their voice has gone out to all the earth and their words to the ends of the world.” Again I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says, “I will use those who are not a nation to make you jealous; with a foolish nation I will provoke you.” Then Isaiah is so bold as to say, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.” But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

>>18499376
That’s true, Christianity has basis in the law and the prophets and sharply rejects the false wisdom of the world. The kind of false Christianity that is based on the latter was called Gnosticism.

File: 1773460990919425.gif (1.73 MB, 221x293)

1.73 MB GIF

>>18499377

>>18499275
>i-its a metaphor
According to who? For every major theological figure you can name that believe this, there were many more who took it literally. There is no accepted consensus on this and I'm tired of you niggers pretending there is just so you can weasel out of questions you can't answer.

Dude, the covenant with all flesh does not mean animals have the same kind of soul men do.
Adam was animated by God's own breath.
This is unique among creation.

Sure, animals probably exist in the new heavens and earth too. All things in heaven and earth were reconciled to Christ through his blood.
Maybe you'll get to see Sparky your old goldfish again, who knows really that doesn't matter at all. That's not really the reason he died, you know, for Sparky.

God, from the very beginning privileged men with his image.
Clearly Jesus cares more about men than goldfish, he incarnated as a man not as a fish.

God did not breathe his own breath into the fish when he made them.
That is what he did with Adam, that is where your spirit comes from. He ensouled him, made him a living soul as it were this way. And gave Adam dominion over the fish.

>>18499385
My question is what sort of person would not want animals to have an immortal soul? Wouldn't you like to see all your pets whole again?

If you interpret the passages to take animals as part of the covenant literally you also get a perspective where their predations and exploitations of other animals are a mark of wrongness tied to the fallen state of the world. Its pretty simple to rectify them as being simpler and therefor closer to gods plan in general and not needing jesus yet still having a soul.

>>18499392
NTA

I don't see any evidence that animal souls are immortal like human's are.
They don't go to hell or anything. There is no animal specific afterlife. They aren't morally responsible, Jesus isn't going to judge chickens from geese too on the last day. Try and imagine Jesus bringing frogs to trial.

Of course they actually experience things while alive. Have memories, etc.
All those can pass away, even be recreated.

God enabled the donkey to speak.
That doesn't mean he put the donkey on the same spiritual level as the man.
You're really degrading mankind by drawing this comparison, and so by extension Jesus' own human soul.

>>18499401
Do you really see that much distinction between animal and man? I am a neuroscientist and can directly port stuff over like the rutabaga pathway for coincidence detection in mushroom bodies of insects to how our own memory systems work. What ever makes us, us It looks pretty gradient and emergent out of complexity out of the system it is running on. I suspect there is a soul but my experience with animal cognition makes me think its a gradated thing. Dogs and toddlers have very similar experiences cognitively. I can't look at one and say the other doesn't have a soul. I suspect Jesus would only have to judge the smarter dogs, horse and elephants.

>>18499406
That's just what the bible reports about who Jesus is.

He's not spiritually identical to a fish.
Fish do not share the same divine breath that he does with men.

Having emotions and memories is not what the soul is.

>>18499387
>He ensouled him, made him a living soul as it were this way
The phrase most commonly translated as "soul" in the old testament is used of animals before it's used of humans. In fact the very same phrase is used in Genesis 1:24, when God says to let the earth bring forth living creatures (nephesh chayyah in Hebrew, or psychen zosan in the Greek Septuagint) and in Genesis 2:7 when it's said that Adam became a living soul (nephesh chayyah in Hebrew, or again psychen zosan in the Greek Septagint).

>>18499433
Ecclesiastes 3:21 also speaks of animals as having spirits, like humans, that could conceivably go up or down, like humans.
>Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?

>>18499433
I think this is an ambiguity arising from the fact that in the biblical context breath is often used as the descriptor for immaterial beings (which doesn’t imply they held those two concepts identical, just as Aristotle using the literal word for wood to describe the concept of matter does not imply he equated wood and matter) eg “pneuma hagion”, Holy Spirit, literally holy breath. Nephesh is evidently related to the word for breathing and apparently means “a breathing thing” i.e. an animal. So it would be plausible to argue it has a different sense between the two verses, i.e. in the first place referring simply to an animated creature and in the latter to man’s breath (soul).

>>18499447
You could suppose that the same words mean different things in different places, but you could also suppose that the same words mean the same thing, which should be the default unless there's a solid argument to the contrary.

Ecclesiastes 3:17-19
I said to myself, “God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for he has appointed a time for every matter and for every work.” I said to myself with regard to humans that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals, for all is vanity."

Another topic I think is relevant here is whether humans are actually so firmly distinguished from animals by bearing the image of God. To the extent that human do bear the image of God, we evidently somehow bear an imperfect or partial form of it, because there are a few places where Christ is said to be the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15), and there's the idea that we need to be transformed into that image (2 Corinthians 3:18) and that the image Christ bears is distinct from the image Adam had (1 Corinthians 15:49).

>>18499459
>you could also suppose that the same words mean the same thing, which should be the default unless there's a solid argument to the contrary.
No it’s not, the meaning of a word in any case is determined by its context. For the “default” to be that they mean the same thing implies that the “default” is that all contexts are the same until proven otherwise.
>Another topic I think is relevant here is whether humans are actually so firmly distinguished from animals by bearing the image of God.
That is inarguable.
>Christ is said to be the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15), and there's the idea that we need to be transformed into that image (2 Corinthians 3:18) and that the image Christ bears is distinct from the image Adam had
I don’t have a clue what that has to do with man’s relation to beasts, but man is the imperfect image of God, since he is a creature. The division between creature and creator is infinite. The Son is the perfect image of God, since He is identical in essence to Him.

>>18499470
>For the “default” to be that they mean the same thing implies that the “default” is that all contexts are the same until proven otherwise.
It means that you (or various Bible translators) don't get to just imagine additional context-dependent meanings for words or phrases wherever you would prefer them to mean something different. You only get to do that if you know that in the language (as the original author used it), the word had one certain meaning in a certain context and another meaning in another context, or if the usual meaning of the word simply doesn't make sense in a certain context, so you're forced to suppose a context-dependent additional meaning even without knowing it a priori.
>That is inarguable.
Humans are often spoken of metaphorically as animals in the Bible (sheep, pigs, dogs, etc.) , and there were early Christians who thought most humans were in the same category as animals (Gnostics mainly, but I think the distinction can also be discerned in the new testament obscured by translation. E.g. in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God," the word commonly translated natural is actually psychikos, or, in the Latin, "animalis.")
>I don’t have a clue what that has to do with man’s relation to beasts
If conformity to the image of God is a spectrum rather than a binary, then humans can become arbitrarily close to simply not having it at all, presumably like animals.

>>18499320
>“We” don’t fulfill messianic prophecy
It's a prophecy about the age of the Messiah. Not sure if you've noticed anon but he gave us his teachings and has departed. Now we are fulfilling the prophecies. Such as how it will be an age of peace, as we wind down wars.

>This is a prophecy of the new heavens and new earth and the perfection enjoyed by the saints therein. It is talking about the same people the entire passage is talking about, and the peace and harmony they will enjoy forever under Christ, beginning with the institution of the new covenant in the resurrection.
This can't be talking about after the resurrection since verse 20 says that in this time "the young man shall die a hundred years old". People have long lifespans in this time but they still die. This is the age of the Messiah - our age - not post-resurrection.

I love watching the poser tradcaths get blown the fuck out by people who actually study the bible

>>18499406
>I am a neuroscientist
That field is fake since none of you have discovered the consciousness molecule.

>>18500059
It's pretty funny how openly hostile and uncharitable you are towards Catholics, but that's to be expected.

No, denying that Christ gave his life on the cross to save the immortal souls of pigs and goats and to secure them glorified bodies in the resurrection does not make you a "tradcath".
Jesus simply did not incarnate into the form of every animal on Noah's arc.
He did not undergo the animal equivalent of sacrifice as a perfect beast victim for the forgiveness of their animal sins for every species on the planet, and was then resurrected.

There is no cow version of the Virgin Mary, neither is there any equine Theotokos.
He has a fully divine and human nature, not that of fish which men were uniquely given dominion over.

Human nature is uniquely dignified among creation, because they are the chosen vessels of God's entering into his own making.

Saying he did would be very disrespectful to the importance of his death on the cross and resurrection. It is this one death, one sacrifice as a man that reconciled the whole of heaven and earth to him through the falling of his blood from the cross.
But if I don't miss my guess, normalizing this passive aggressive slight is mostly what this thread is for. It seems strange to me that OP would actually entertain the thought of some people not possessing the image of God while others do. That reminds me of Christian Identitarian or Black Hebrew Israelite insanity.
Sorry, Christianity is literally human supremacist and you're going to have to deal with it.

>>18499271
Animals have sensitive souls. They are informed by matter and wholly dependent on it. They have no rational, intellectual or spiritual nature which comes directly from God, like humans or angels do. This part of your soul is what survives death, and is what ends up as your final state. Union/reconciliation with being (heaven), or fixed rejection of it (hell/damnation)

>>18500368
Anyone ever notice that when poser tradcaths try to talk about theology it's always free-association semi-schizobabbel instead of actual evidence or arguments?

NTA you're replying to but you are getting absolutely mopped in this thread mate

>>18500382
Wrong, that is a greek pagan import and can be refuted by reading the bible

>>18500382
>This part of your soul is what survives death, and is what ends up as your final state
"Trad"caths denying bodily resurrection now, literal heresy because they hate animals

There is no penguin gospel or revelation, are no tiger apostles, no call to repentance and inner transformation for the moose, no church of chickens founded by Christ, no baptism for the alligators, no BoBo the chimp disciple who JoJo their savior loved, no institution of worship established by the Lord among the bears.

God has a special relationship with man.
The sacraments he instituted serve a particular spiritual need in man that animals do not have.

There is one incarnation, one sacrifice for all the world, one church, one final judgement. These are gifts to man, to reconcile him to God so that they may walk together again as Adam did in the beginning.

People who treat the Eucharist as if it were a doggy treat, and people giving communion to their dogs is a documented phenomenon that actually happens, are dramatically unformed in their understanding of the faith and embarrassing.

>>18500587
And yet you bothered replying just to say again that your "side" is winning.

Probably because it's simply not obvious enough ITT, so that's something you feel the need to repeat just to compensate. And you throw a pedantic insult in, just in case it wasn't clear enough that you aren't here in good faith. You're a weak person.