I don’t see how that is possible, since there are so many contradictory claims made in the Bible. For example, after the Crucifixion, when Jesus had risen from the tomb, did the women see one man or did they see two angels?I accept the bible as a whole and on each individual claim made therein.
Both. The angels, as they usually do, took the form of men. One author felt the need to highlight the fact they were angels, and that there were two of them. The other only felt the need to reiterate what was said. You see the same thing in articles written about events today. Different publishers will chose different things to focus on based on their target audience. The Gospel which lists two angels was geared towards Jewish converts. They were accustomed to the reality of angels, and so the author felt it was appropriate to highlight their angelic nature. The other Gospel was written towards Gentile converts, who were not necessarily accustomed to the concept of angels, and so to indicate that the man was on would have been more confusing than helpful.I don’t see how that is possible, since there are so many contradictory claims made in the Bible. For example, after the Crucifixion, when Jesus had risen from the tomb, did the women see one man or did they see two angels?
Is that what they told Galileo? He was put under house arrest and forced to recant.For example, those few who rabidly will tell anyone who listens that to deny geocentrism is to commit formal heresy,
Was it one man or two angels? Were there three women or was there only one woman there?The angels, as they usually do, took the form of men. One author felt the need to highlight the fact they were angels, and that there were two of them.
Galileo was denounced by the Church, but sentenced under secular law. He was denounced because he tried to use his discovery to denounce God, which was a wholly inappropriate use of it.Is that what they told Galileo? He was put under house arrest and forced to recant.
Did you even read my post?Was it one man or two angels? Were there three women or was there only one woman there?
I understand your meaning. I may have haphazardly read through your statement earlier, not fully understanding your statement and intentions. My apologies, I was at work but, excited to find this thread and looking at it in between projects.Of course, no faithful Catholic should.
But it is one thing to do what you state. It is another to genuinely wonder, for example, when the book of Daniel was written, and whether its literary genre is truly prophetic when it relates events of certain empires, or whether the inspired author was merely commenting on the past by means of a certain literary form as guided by the Holy Spirit.
To state that everything that Holy Scripture relates must be interpreted as belonging to an utterly modern idea of history is overly-simplistic.
I’m sorry, I don’t argue with fence posts. You sir, are a fence post.I don’t see how that is possible, since there are so many contradictory claims made in the Bible. For example, after the Crucifixion, when Jesus had risen from the tomb, did the women see one man or did they see two angels?
Is this to say anything other than, that we must be open to scientific opinion on matters of human origin but, not obligated to accept it as fact where evidence is lacking and/or it contradicts biblical teachings as interpreted by the church?Paragraphs 35-37, Encyclical Humani Generis, Pius XII, 1950
The "Teaching Authority of the Church"paragraph 37, post 18, is the Magisterium which makes it clear that the Science of Human Evolution directly contradicts a major fundamental teaching of CatholicismWhat I’ve read of recent articles from the Magisterium doesn’t endorse any particular issue of evolution but, seems to invite science to do what it does and bring the facts fourth.
The concept of man evolving from apes is long gone. This web site page (scroll down) may be helpful. Note: the speciation event is also known as the most recent common ancestor which was a large indiscriminate, random breeding, genetically mixed (polygenism in post 18) population which, over time, diverged into new population lineages, each eventually developing further into a separate species.Facts don’t support the concept of man evolving from apes, the coincidental “coming into existence” of all life. If I’m inaccurate, please, steer me in the right direction.
Thank you!! I’ll read up on this to clear out any misinterpretations I hold. The most recent article I read on Catholic.org seemed to leave the issue open but, this may have been a misinterpretation on my part.The "Teaching Authority of the Church"paragraph 37, post 18, is the Magisterium which makes it clear that the Science of Human Evolution directly contradicts a major fundamental teaching of Catholicism
The concept of man evolving from apes is long gone. This web site page (scroll down) may be helpful. Note: the speciation event is also known as the most recent common ancestor which was a large indiscriminate, random breeding, genetically mixed (polygenism in post 18) population which, over time, diverged into new population lineages, each eventually developing further into a separate species.
It goes deeper than “biblical teachings.” A major foundational Catholic doctrine based on Divine Revelation has been attacked by the Science of Human Evolution. Actually, when one reads the Humani Generis text carefully, one finds more problems. Humani Generis goes deeper than “where evidence is lacking” because it looks into the relationship between any evidence and/or any scientific opinions and Divine Revelation as properly defined and duly declared. Humani Generis addresses this relationship. We are obligated to remain faithful to basic fundamental Catholic doctrines.Is this to say anything other than, that we must be open to scientific opinion on matters of human origin but, not obligated to accept it as fact where evidence is lacking and/or it contradicts biblical teachings as interpreted by the church?
One of the things that I have noticed on CAF is that a lot of people are not aware that the science of human evolution is considered a separate discipline. This can lead to misinterpretations as to what the Catholic Church actually says about science in the material world. In addition, there is Genesis 1: 27 which teaches that our own nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world.Thank you!! I’ll read up on this to clear out any misinterpretations I hold. The most recent article I read on Catholic.org seemed to leave the issue open but, this may have been a misinterpretation on my part.
Thanks again
I don’t see where Galileo ever denounced God. I think that this is an uncharitable and possibly slanderous accusation on your part.He was denounced because he tried to use his discovery to denounce God, .
As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.It was two angels, who appeared as Men. .
I’ve already gone over this, twice. I’m not going to repeat myself again. There is no discrepancy here. Repeating the same thing over and over again does not somehow make your point more valid, it just makes you look irrationally stubborn. The only reason you’re applying this sort of faulty logic to the Bible is because you are actively looking for something to find fault with in it, even if that fault is the construct of your refusal to acknowledge context and audience.As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
They saw one man according to Mark.
They saw one angel according to Matthew.
The Catholic Church does not consider every verse of Holy Scripture as an automatic Catholic doctrine.I’ve already gone over this, twice. I’m not going to repeat myself again. There is no discrepancy here. Repeating the same thing over and over again does not somehow make your point more valid, it just makes you look irrationally stubborn. The only reason you’re applying this sort of faulty logic to the Bible is because you are actively looking for something to find fault with in it, even if that fault is the construct of your refusal to acknowledge context and audience.
As for Galileo, here is a “brief” synopsis of the issue: catholic.com/encyclopedia/galileo-galilei
Umm… I never implied that it did…The Catholic Church does not consider every verse of Holy Scripture as an automatic Catholic doctrine.
You are repeating yourself but not answering the objection, only criticizing me as irrationally stubborn.I’ve already gone over this, twice. I’m not going to repeat myself again. There is no discrepancy here. Repeating the same thing over and over again does not somehow make your point more valid, it just makes you look irrationally stubborn. ]
The person says that he accepts “each individual claim made therein.”I accept the bible as a whole and on each individual claim made therein. .
No, this article does not support your contention, which I believe is false, that Galileo “tried to use his discovery to denounce God,”As for Galileo, here is a “brief” synopsis of the issue: catholic.com/encyclopedia/galileo-galilei
He was denounced because he tried to use his discovery to denounce God,