A lesson learned, Adam and Eve

[grannymh]

If it be outside the scope of the thread I am sorry, but I think on second thought you can have both working in the same scripture without the need to say this chapter is DivRev and that verse is BabMyth? E.g. When Jesus came as a man, he built on God’s creation, humanity, in order to save us. So can’t we say that Moses built on myth to save it? IOW’s, to make it true to the story of humanity? Just thoughts …

What is essential with Catholicism is the duly defined and properly declared doctrines which have a base in the first three chapters of Genesis. For example, the lessons which are learned from the first three chapters of Genesis include that we are descended from Adam who committed the actual Original Sin and that we were promised a Redeemer.

Now read Romans 5:12-21 to find out the real, basic reason Jesus Christ assumed, not absorbed, human nature.

If an individual wants to decipher where and when some words, or verses, first appeared or were popularly used – fine. That is a personal, independent decision. However, the Catholic Church, with the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit (read Chapter 14, Gospel of John) has the final say regarding the truth of Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis. My apology, I do not do Moses.

 

[Michael19682]

What is essential with Catholicism is the duly defined and properly declared doctrines which have a base in the first three chapters of Genesis. For example, the lessons which are learned from the first three chapters of Genesis include that we are descended from Adam who committed the actual Original Sin and that we were promised a Redeemer.

Now read Romans 5:12-21 to find out the real, basic reason Jesus Christ assumed, not absorbed, human nature.

If an individual wants to decipher where and when some words, or verses, first appeared or were popularly used – fine. That is a personal, independent decision. However, the Catholic Church, with the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit (read Chapter 14, Gospel of John) has the final say regarding the truth of Divine Revelation in the first three chapters of Genesis. My apology, I do not do Moses.

I am familiar with the Romans passage and John’s Gospel you refer to. Your take on assumed vs. absorbed is a bit at variance with my previous understanding of this issue. Gal 2:20 uses language that seems to me to indicate absorption (whether inititiated from outside in or inside out ). Also, our Catholic Anima Christi prayer seems also to justify and urge one seeking absorption in Christ. Unsure why you chose that route of discussion. It seems a topic of mysticism, and therefore highly subject to poetic laguage.

Also, whether or not Adam was a literal or figurative person is not as important to me as that his story gives a perusal of man’s first sin. He is a reference point in time, and Jesus is a single person. I don’t personally feel that if Adam is figurative, then we would be as a Church giving the impression that our savior’s parousia also be rendered in imagery only? The analogy in Romans is not only to their personhood, but to the appearance of sin and grace and to the difference between the two.

How would essential Catholic Doctrine be misunderstood by an acceptance of my thoughts?

 

[grannymh]

I am familiar with the Romans passage and John’s Gospel you refer to. Your take on assumed vs. absorbed is a bit at variance with my previous understanding of this issue. Gal 2:20 uses language that seems to me to indicate absorption (whether inititiated from outside in or inside out ). Also, our Catholic Anima Christi prayer seems also to justify and urge one seeking absorption in Christ. Unsure why you chose that route of discussion. It seems a topic of mysticism, and therefore highly subject to poetic laguage.

Also, whether or not Adam was a literal or figurative person is not as important to me as that his story gives a perusal of man’s first sin. He is a reference point in time, and Jesus is a single person. I don’t personally feel that if Adam is figurative, then we would be as a Church giving the impression that our savior’s parousia also be rendered in imagery only? The analogy in Romans is not only to their personhood, but to the appearance of sin and grace and to the difference between the two.

How would essential Catholic Doctrine be misunderstood by an acceptance of my thoughts?

I am sorry. But I am not sure what “essential Catholic Doctrine” is being referred to. As for personal thoughts – that is part of free speech which is often enjoyable.

 

[djames99]

*are supposedly lacking of freewill, like their their hellish opposites, demons. They have a predetermined and narrow scope in God’s plan. *

The creation of the angels occurred at one time. The angels did not have sanctifying grace at this time. So they could choose evil or good. When the angels sinned, that is when they en masse rejected God, and were booted out of heaven, the remaining angels were altered in a such a way that they could not choose anything evil. They also received a special beatification for their reward.

The pre sanctified angels are the same genus in what they have in common, that is a spirit nature and the same faculties. They used these instruments which they have in common to sin. So far we note species has nothing to do with the capability to sin, and the prevention of such a case to happen again, which their case bears out.

In an analogy Tom tempts Harry. I can say that Harry’s progeny cannot be stigmatized because Harry doesn’t have the same color eyes as Tom. But we note color of eyes have nothing to do with the case, and especially in the aspect of preventative measures. We note that they had the same communication skills and abilities, and these are what’s common and relevant.

The decision firmly made to accept this, in the analogy of Eve and satan, the differing eyes(species) are no longer relevant. Something just happened to the foundational Justice system. I as judge in this case as in the previous need to explain the double standard.

The case needs to be treated at this stage before going further, since it’s in the jurisdiction of due process. The case it treats needs to be placed aside until an answer is found.

Hope this is clearer.

 

[grannymh]

The Fall of the Angels is found in the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*, paragraphs 391-395
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/391.htm

 

[Michael19682]

I as judge in this case as in the previous need to explain the double standard.

The case needs to be treated at this stage before going further, since it’s in the jurisdiction of due process. The case it treats needs to be placed aside until an answer is found.

Hope this is clearer.

Nolle proseque. It contains the idea. Not a bona fide double standard as you describe it, but contains the idea. Sometimes also in the interests of a greater social good a judge declares a law or practice illegal, uneforceable, etc. These are principles always available and do not require specific “cases” to make them stand as principles of reason. Incidentally, since God is all encompassing, I don;t think it is fruitful to even temporarliy separate his justice from his creation. You need cases to make justice. If you look at some of the Jewish laws in their books, they derive from actual problems of life.

I’m not sure I know these legal doctrines precisely, but they appear to be another avenue of inquiry for your quagmire.

 

[Ion]

I don’t dispute the arguments of the two parties. I question why what appears to be a standard of justice that was not applied equally among the judged.

I do not recall the quote but I’m sure God said he is going to have mercy on the ones he wants to, there is no such thing as, he has to have mercy on somebody. He is the standard.

I think that the consequence of a sin goes down in our hearth and change us in a way we do not comprehend;but you might not expect to find differences in DNA, if this is your point.