G
Gaber
Guest
Thanks. I usually find as you do, regarding contradictories!
I read Romans, Chapter Five, will read it again, and consider further. I look forward to your next post.
- Status
I read Romans, Chapter Five, will read it again, and consider further. I look forward to your next post.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
My purpose was not to show that I don’t understand the complexities of the trinity but to show how bizzare it must have sounded to the common people of the day to hear a man say he was God. Thats why they picked up stones. Or to hear “eat my flesh”. Those were complex issues and some still wrestle with them today. Yet some have claimed “people would not have understood evolution” back then, Jesus could’t have talked about that. The Genesis account is not a parable, and when Jesus spoke of it he never said, “this is how it really is”, as he did with the nature of God and himself which is as equally complex to the people of the day. You didn’t understand the thrust of my post.
H
Hunter24
Guest
Not strange at all actualy. There were plenty of people at this time claiming to be gods.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Give me the name of another Rabbi and Jewish messiah that claimed to be the God of Abraham in the flesh. Your mising the point as well. If Jesus was willing to delve into the hardest thing you could ever tell a Jewish person, that he was the God of Abraham in the flesh, then telling them they came from "other’ origins would be almost childs play.
H
Hunter24
Guest
I know of no ther Jew persay, I was refuting to the whole mediterranean in general. Indead it’s a hard claim to beleave, especialy for Jews, I’m just pointing out that he isn’t the only person to claim they are God as some people think.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Not sure how you missed that but the point stands. Jesus on multiple occasions was in danger of his life for saying he was God. This is a hard thing for anyone to believe let alone the jews of that time. I am simply refuting the claim that Jesus would have held back from revealing evolution because it was “too complex” or hard to say. He said the hardest thing possible.
Instead Jesus repeats Genesis , confirming the account and the people, instead of clarifying the “real story” that man was an ape or God made the world over millions of years. I trust Jesus on genesis because He ALWAYS said the hard things, not some easy fluff that Genesis is claimed by some to be. I could fill this page with some really hard things Jesus said, and none of it is evolution.
G
Gaber
Guest
I’m glad that you understand, then. And what you describe would be as true today, I’ll wager, even for a lesser claim in that direction. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that the majority of people who worship the Jesus in their thoughts would happily support at least His character assassination if they didn’t once again hang Him on the gibbet, were they to meet Him on the bus, or at a lecture on metaphysics. There is little question for me that the fundamental Teaching of Jesus has been filtered into pablum by lesser states than His, alleged guidance from the Holy Ghost notwithstanding. Pure messages from “the other side” are yet filtered through the mental capacity of the receiver, regardless of sincerity or good intention. So I’m convinced that the picture we are presented with of His Teaching is not the original by any means.
H
happy2be
Guest
simple answer…Adam and Eve were real people…
G
Gaber
Guest
Welcome to the forums, Happy2be!
X
xylem411
Guest
ditto
H
happy2be
Guest
thanks nice to be here
G
grannymh
Guest
This next post is very short. Within Romans, Chapter five, is the connection between the real Adam and the mission of the Real Jesus. Here, is the Catholic teaching on original sin and the need for humankind’s reconciliation with God,Thanks. I usually find as you do, regarding contradictories!
G
Gaber
Guest
Yes, I see how that can be taken as such a trace. For my part there are too many unresolved ideas in all that to make it stick for me as a literal accounting of what we are about as a Race.
Paul keeps talking about the sin of one man. This raises the question of the two Genesis accounts from different pens, the first usually being take as “the” account. That one has A&E simultaneously created, and therefore co-responsible, I would think. But the whole dynamic smacks of the patriarchal culture from which it came. And there is the thing that we talk about the mitochondrial Eve pre-dating the mitochondrial Adam by some thousands of years. Now I am way no expert on genetics, but that raises some questions for me as well, concerning the necessity or usefulness of Jesus genealogy. For my part the Redemption is irrelevant of physical lineage and doesn’t even apply to what I see as a misunderstanding of what “original sin” could be, tow other explanations working more economically and sensibly for me in terms of acceptability.
And as I mentioned elsewhere, except for the seeming need for connectivity, which I don’t see as necessary, I have to wonder why Christianity retained the OT to begin with. The OT could easily be relegated, imo, to archival material status, and Jesus and the Great Commandment take easy primacy. So I am kind of now mystified at this retention after some decades of musing about it.
If indeed we are in the image and likeness of the Lord God, redemption has to do with what happened to our self awareness of what constitutes that image and likeness, not the genealogy of the body that is the vehicle for it. And nowadays I’m even less convinced of the body/soul “duality,” seeing that dynamic as rather different than advertised as well. I would say there is a soul/Soul, but not quite in the role it is Christianly portrayed.
In any case, I’m also pretty convinced that as a general rule the public explanation for anything is usually veiled or watered down. In terms of Christianity, I see this in both what Mark 4:33,34 could point to, and some rather, from their and my perspectives, obvious congruencies of statements from Jesus with other teachings, notably non dualism.
So I have to be very agnostic about the main line Christian take on the Eden story. In fact I’m sure that one’s salvation even in Catholic terms is not dependent on believing it. And there, I said the “B” word: “Belief.” While I maintain that belief is a necessary and useful dynamic in human growth, any belief is essentially an ad hoc or interim structure used in order to get along until something closer to reality is arrived at. And as far as religion is concerned, I think that that is an area in which this is especially true.
And I hinted at about why earlier. It is about the state of awareness about awareness itself that is in fact, as far as I can see, the one common and crucial cross cultural concern in the esoteric and hidden teachings, or mysticism, of any religious or philosophical system. It is about what the chocolate chip cookie tastes like, not about the recipes and its variants and contentions about which one is the true cookie recipe. One taste dispels that area of argument forever, as St. Thomas Aquinas exemplified for us, and others, Catholic and non. In the mean time, the recipes make for fun forums!
G
grannymh
Guest
As a Catholic who learned Catholic doctrines before opening a bible, understanding the true events depicted in the first three chapters of Genesis is relatively easy especially now since I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition to augment my early education.
In addition, I have learned a lot on CAF and have come to the conclusion that there is a bit of difference between the Catholic take on the story of Eden and the Christian take on the story of Eden and the new modern theology take on the story of Eden, and the scientific take on the story of Eden and the faith/science take on the story of Eden and so on. When in doubt, I look at the Catholic doctrine first.
From a Catholic viewpoint, the sin of one man raises the question of sin/evil in the world, the question of human nature, and the question of reconciliation between the creature and the Creator.
Even Wikipedia points out the fallacies in the Mitochondrial Eve research paper regarding the basic Christian [sic] belief in two sole founders of humankind. However, what used to be a basic Christian belief has, in some religions, been downgraded to an interesting story of sorts.
While creative discussions can be fun – that leads to a serious question, “Why re-invent the wheel?” From my personal observation, the re-inventing the “Wheel of Catholic Doctrines” flowing from the first three chapters of Genesis is the contemporary attempt to adapt Catholicism to modernism. It is evolution of theology by natural (human not divine) selection.
G
Gaber
Guest
I think you are right. As a point of faith, it ought not to change. But despite getting excellent marks in catechism and theology all through grammar and high school, I never found myself convinced of any of it, even as I was proselytizing. There was that gnawing thing of 'Yes, but…" and when I had the rug pulled pout from under me about what being human and having a mind means, it all went out the window. Now I can see that it points to something, but not what I originally thought as a “believer.”
So if one is a believer, then of course it ought not change. For me, everything did, so that changed with it. But that was not a choice on my part. And it is, as I keep finding out, futile to explain what changed. It just did.
G
grannymh
Guest
If you wish, please expand on the change and the reference of what being human and having a mind means. I always took my mind for granted.I think you are right. As a point of faith, it ought not to change. But despite getting excellent marks in catechism and theology all through grammar and high school, I never found myself convinced of any of it, even as I was proselytizing. There was that gnawing thing of 'Yes, but…" and when I had the rug pulled pout from under me about what being human and having a mind means, it all went out the window. Now I can see that it points to something, but not what I originally thought as a “believer.”
So if one is a believer, then of course it ought not change. For me, everything did, so that changed with it. But that was not a choice on my part. And it is, as I keep finding out, futile to explain what changed. It just did.
Though now, my mind is missing a few pieces. No real loss since there is so much new knowledge to replace gaps. Besides, it is great fun having grannykids look after me which means lots of laughter especially when the eleven-year-old was showing me something called apps (?)Who knows? Maybe in the long run, having the rug pulled out from under you will lead you to greater faith. Should I ask Lucy with the apps (new version of old song) if there is one about a slippery rug?
G
Gaber
Guest
Most people have habituated to a heaving rug and superimposed the idea of stability on it so they could feel comfortable. Only the Changeless is in fact stable. What in your life doesn’t change? what has remained exactly the same since you became aware of being aware?If you wish, please expand on the change and the reference of what being human and having a mind means. I always took my mind for granted.
Who knows? Maybe in the long run, having the rug pulled out from under you will lead you to greater faith. Should I ask Lucy with the apps (new version of old song) if there is one about a slippery rug?
Love your posts and their sincerity. I don’t get from you that you use your faith as a weapon, as some do. I’ve always enjoyed reading what you write. Thanks for being here.
i will wriet more if you wish, and can inform you either from a strict Catholic source, though many are contentious with it, or the sources I came upon in my need to have an explanation when the Catholic one was unavailable or too obscure. It is the same in both cases, but the one by the person in the Church accounts for some matters of faith the others don’t. I prefer simplicity, as ultimately that includes all anyway.
G
grannymh
Guest
What has never changed in my life is my curiosity. Of course, there have been times when I couldn’t indulge in it as I wanted, but curiosity, itself, remained. On CAF, curiosity kept me faithful to the Catholic teaching of a real Adam and Eve.
I had gone into shock when someone posted that according to science, there never were two, sole founders of the human species. At the word “never” my curiosity raced into high gear. At the beginning, I fumbled around and had my head on a platter for not reading the research. It did take time to catch on to the tools of science which estimates events going thousands of years backwards. Eventually, I have learned that the possibility of Adam and Eve exists. It all has to do with the scientific method where the presented evidence waranteds the conclusion.
As for what has remained exactly the same since you became aware of being aware?
That is easy. Answer – My basic human nature which is an unique unification of *both *the spiritual and material worlds.
Please do.I will wriet more if you wish, and can inform you either from a strict Catholic source, though many are contentious with it, or the sources I came upon in my need to have an explanation when the Catholic one was unavailable or too obscure. It is the same in both cases, but the one by the person in the Church accounts for some matters of faith the others don’t. I prefer simplicity, as ultimately that includes all anyway.
G
grannymh
Guest
From Post 1
On the other hand, it is comforting to know that God never abandoned Adam and Eve. Instead, he promised a Redeemer. As descendants of Adam and Eve, we, too, are not abandoned because of sin. Our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, conquered death so He could bring us back to God. So we could respond to God’s invitation. God calls each one of us to share in His eternal life of perfect happiness.
There are probably a ton of reasons why some Catholics, as well as some other Christians, reject the reality of our two first parents.
On the other hand, it is comforting to know that God never abandoned Adam and Eve. Instead, he promised a Redeemer. As descendants of Adam and Eve, we, too, are not abandoned because of sin. Our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, conquered death so He could bring us back to God. So we could respond to God’s invitation. God calls each one of us to share in His eternal life of perfect happiness.
- Status