N
NotWorthy
Guest
I think post #36 sums it up.
- Status
O
Omyo12
Guest
I think one of the dangers of regarding Genesis 1-11 as allegorical is that sometimes people tend to not look deep into the text and skim over it as a fairy tale. They ignore the deep spiritual and philosophical truths it contains.
For example. I read Genesis 2:7- “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
In my own primitive interpretation, I think this verse shows humankind’s physical body being of earthly origin (figuratively from the earth or physical world as oppose to the spiritual) and the soul being a divine creation (God breathing it Himself). The body could be a product of evolution while the soul is a special creation. It gets even deeper when talking about Intelligent Design. At first one could argue that one needs to at least accept Intelligent Design in that random mutation/natural selection are not the culprits. However, I think it’s perfectly possible for evolution to seem completely random but to still be by God.
Take this example:
A paint bucket could spill over on a canvas and the end result is completely random. However, an artist could also have painstakingly drawn it as such. Just like evolution can be explained by random events that logically fit, it could have been the intent of our Creator.
God, being the timeless Being that He is, intended the creation of humanity from what we would call the very beginning. So IMHO the argument to whether evolution is random or guided is irrelevant.
Now this is only my own interpretation for this one verse and I kinda went off on rant… lol
I do see your concern with writing off the Creation and the primeval history of man as complete “fiction”
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Hi, friend.
Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.
That being said…
I respectfully disagree. I think that the opposite is true.
When do you see literalists here or anywhere else talking about anything except, “You are a heretic if you don’t believe in historical Adam and Eve and in the serpent who tempted them, and in a primeval sinful event which caused these two individuals to be expelled from a perfect place and which resulted in their offspring – all 100,000,000,000 of them – being driven out of the perfect place, too. And, by the way, Cain had sex with his sister.”?
I’m not making fun of them. This is how they talk. This website is filled with that talk.
That’s not “the deep spiritual and philosophical truths the story contains.”
The literalists hardly know that Adam is a type, or symbol, of Christ, and if they know this, they couldn’t care less. Once again, that observation is not to make fun of them. It is fundamentally accurate.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
By the way, speaking of “allegory,” the Holy Spirit Himself engages in “the dangers of regarding Genesis 1 to Genesis 11 as allegorical” a few times, when the Holy Spirit, through Paul’s Epistle, refers to Adam as “the type of the One to come,” Christ, and through Peter’s Epistle when Peter interprets Noah’s ark as allegory.
An allegorical interpretation is not a “danger.”
It’s REQUIRED by our own Church’s Own Biblical canon.
NotWorthy, once again, note well. I know what I am talking about.
An allegorical interpretation is not a “danger.”
It’s REQUIRED by our own Church’s Own Biblical canon.
NotWorthy, once again, note well. I know what I am talking about.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Ah, good, you know where I’m going.
Historically, re Jesus’ birth, the Church’s teaching is that there was no violation of “integrity.” Historically, that has been read to have the same meaning as the word “integrity” when the captain of a ship is told, “The iceberg has breached the integrity of the ship’s hull, sir.” With a Caesarian as with a birth via a birth canal, there is a “breach of integrity.” So, claiming a Caesarian equivalent misses the point.
The point is that our Church’s teaching is that Jesus came into the world from a womb with no opening. He *had * to have “become mystical,” to leave the womb to come into the world. The point of the teaching is that He wasn’t “born” in the technical sense, because being born in the technical sense necessarily entails a breach of integrity.
So, you apparently believe that Jesus wasn’t born, correct?
I believe that Jesus was born in the same wonderful, beautiful, slippery, slimey, sloppy way as the rest of us. Ironically, I interpret Wisdom 7:5-6 literally, and Luke 2:7 literally, and Luke 2:23 “opens the womb”] literally, and Luke 2:24 literally.
The point of the question is this: You say up above that my view of Adam and Eve seems to deny elements of Church teaching on the Adam and Eve story.
I say that almost all of us, yourself included, have our way of denying elements of The Faith.
Technically, you deny that Jesus was “born.” You functionally deny Wisdom 7:5-6 (which states that “one [way] is the entry into life for all kings,” you functionally deny that Jesus was “born,” you functionally deny that He “opened the womb,” you functionally deny that Mary’s sacrifice at the Presentation was “in accord with the dictate of the Law of the Lord,” which reserves the sacrifice for the blood of childbirth.
So, it’s okay if you note that I am proving your point that I diverge from doctrine. In my mind, you are doing the same thing I do.
Get the point?
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Note well, friend: When you say that you would “not disagree” with someone who felt that Mary did not die, you are implicitly affirming that they have a moral right to squarely disagree with Paragraph 20 of Pope Pius’ Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus, which expressly refers to Mary’s “dead body.” Read it. It does.
So, why do you say they are free to ignore specific Church teaching?
Are they free to ignore parts of Humanae Vitae?
Do you see what I mean? Once again, you ignore a component of Catholic teaching – that we are bound to bow to our Pope’s clear express teaching – and yet you do disagree with my position on Adam and Eve, saying, “Thank you for proving my point.”
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Oh, we can pick and choose between various things in encyclicals. Once its dogma, however, we are placed under certain restrictions.
Sorry, I forgot to address this, too.
As far as I know, Munificentissimus Deus is expressly “ex cathedra.” If you reserve the right to ignore Paragraph 20, you are reserving the right to ignore words expressly declared “ex cathedra.”
So, you are the same as me. You have doctrinal “problems.”
It’s okay. We all do.
It’s part of the process.
Sorry, I forgot to address this, too.
As far as I know, Munificentissimus Deus is expressly “ex cathedra.” If you reserve the right to ignore Paragraph 20, you are reserving the right to ignore words expressly declared “ex cathedra.”
So, you are the same as me. You have doctrinal “problems.”
It’s okay. We all do.
It’s part of the process.
J
juliamajor
Guest
The thing about Genesis is that it was probably way more expansive then the written down version. Being a Creation story people would have been very familar with it , with the characters.What we have written is probably just a piece of the puzzle.The audiences of that time would have been able to fill in the blank spots-there are stories -like the ones of the Nephiliim- that seem to start and abruptly end.The redactor would not have had to fill in the blanks because the audience could fill them from the centuries old creation stories that passed from generation to generation.
Take a great cultural folktale like cinderella- a few written words and after that most people could fill the rest in.If you wrote down that"george Washington chopped down a cherry tree and his father found out’and the writer left the other parts out-most of us could fill in the rest of the story.Dad confronted George- George confessed and proclaimed "i cannot tell a lie…etc"Further generations might not know what the heck was being talked about.But the Israelites were a society that depended on oral transmission of their cuture, law and history.
Where missus Cain came from and who where those other folks that Cain was worried might kill him were was probably well known to those who read the story .They filled in the story from their own oral tradition and knowledge.
Take a great cultural folktale like cinderella- a few written words and after that most people could fill the rest in.If you wrote down that"george Washington chopped down a cherry tree and his father found out’and the writer left the other parts out-most of us could fill in the rest of the story.Dad confronted George- George confessed and proclaimed "i cannot tell a lie…etc"Further generations might not know what the heck was being talked about.But the Israelites were a society that depended on oral transmission of their cuture, law and history.
Where missus Cain came from and who where those other folks that Cain was worried might kill him were was probably well known to those who read the story .They filled in the story from their own oral tradition and knowledge.
O
Omyo12
Guest
On the flip side. yes, a literalist also misses the spirituality of Genesis. However, they still get the basics of it.
If you read my commentary on Genesis 2:7, you can see its hardly literal.
I say its a danger because it may lead people to have heretical beliefs. Someone who takes it as fiction could also dismiss Original Sin, who Eve was, or the Fall of man. All of which are taught by the Church as real events some time in primeval history.
Believing it literally will, IMHO, hinder deeper spiritual knowledge Genesis but won’t promote heresy unless they also think the Catholic Church is a heretic for not teaching the literal interpretation…
Also, maybe a new thread is in order for a discussion on the “Virgin birth” so you don’t get off topic. Even my own posts begin straying a bit from the OP.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Abel comes from the Hebrew word “hevel” meaning “breath , nothingness” an augur for things to come.
The evidence for the cain and abel story being a tale of conflict between nomad and farmer is weak. The problem is Adam’s occupation in and out of the Garden was a farmer. Humankind were vegetarians till the time of Noah. Sheep were for not for food but for wool, milk,cheese and occasional sacrifice. Not meat.
Cain was punished - not rewarded. He was made a drifter-nomad. For a person of the soil a hardship indeed.He even says in Gen4:13-14-how difficult. Because the earth was soaked with his brother’s blood- it is a suiting punishment to be denied the use of the earth.The mark of Cain is not a reward but a sign of protection. God does not want Cain killed. Punishment here as in Exodus is measure for measure. Cain not experiencing death did not know that striking Abel would result in death- a thing unknown to him.
The evidence for the cain and abel story being a tale of conflict between nomad and farmer is weak. The problem is Adam’s occupation in and out of the Garden was a farmer. Humankind were vegetarians till the time of Noah. Sheep were for not for food but for wool, milk,cheese and occasional sacrifice. Not meat.
Cain was punished - not rewarded. He was made a drifter-nomad. For a person of the soil a hardship indeed.He even says in Gen4:13-14-how difficult. Because the earth was soaked with his brother’s blood- it is a suiting punishment to be denied the use of the earth.The mark of Cain is not a reward but a sign of protection. God does not want Cain killed. Punishment here as in Exodus is measure for measure. Cain not experiencing death did not know that striking Abel would result in death- a thing unknown to him.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Hi, friend.On the flip side. yes, a literalist also misses the spirituality of Genesis. However, they still get the basics of it.
If you read my commentary on Genesis 2:7, you can see its hardly literal.
I say its a danger because it may lead people to have heretical beliefs. Someone who takes it as fiction could also dismiss Original Sin, who Eve was, or the Fall of man. All of which are taught by the Church as real events some time in primeval history.
Believing it literally will, IMHO, hinder deeper spiritual knowledge Genesis but won’t promote heresy unless they also think the Catholic Church is a heretic for not teaching the literal interpretation…
Also, maybe a new thread is in order for a discussion on the “Virgin birth” so you don’t get off topic. Even my own posts begin straying a bit from the OP.
Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.
That being said…
Well, I’ve spent decades on the question, and I am convinced, as sure as I believe that the Catholic Church is God’s preferred conduit to salvation, that, whereas there may have been a first sin by one of the first ensouled hominids in our species, that event is not, per se, “Original Sin,” and that that event, per se, did not have consequences for mankind.
I believe that Original Sin is the state of alienation from and unworthiness before God which attaches to ensouled flesh upon which an intellect and a free will have been conferred because, if there is no grace, we, in our contingency, will do nothing but seek sin, so that grace, and a Savior to purchase that grace from God’s Own brutal perfect justice, is necessary for salvation.
I think that the purpose of the story is to allegorize that deepest of all concepts.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
My friend Juliamajor, I’ll get to your material later. The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I like your take on this passage. And it’s funny, for I see it as revealing God to us, more than it reveals our own origins (although I’m not disclaiming your thoughts, I’m just pointing out how two people can find two completely different things in the same passage).
You see, after reading Genesis 1, we see God as this All-Powerful Being Who can create by simply stating something. I see God’s awesome power in Chapter 1. And then, in Chapter 2, we see God, our Loving Father, Who patiently crafts us out of the dust and lovingly breathes His very own Life into us (much akin to your description of the painting with his painting).
Chapter 1 reveals God Almighty, whereas chapter 2 reveals God our Father!
N
NotWorthy
Guest
No, I don’t deny that Jesus was born. I think you’ve narrowed birth to “no breach of integrity, no birth”. That’s a false presumption with God. It would be like saying, “There is no way to create something out of nothing, hence, God couldn’t have created the universe”.
Peter, you and I both know that all things are possible with God, so I simply find your thesis false on the “breaching integrity” part.
I"m not sure if I’m getting bogged down in the details of your post and missing your point. If I deny what the Church teaches, there are two questions:
a) Am I doing it knowing that it goes against the Church?
b) Am I doing it out of ignorance, misunderstanding the Church’s teaching.
Now, if the answer is a), then I have to ask:
Am I trying to teach others this “falsehood” knowing that it goes against the grain of Church doctrine.
If I’m doing that, then I feel that I am committing a grave sin, and I simply do not wish to do that. Nor do I wish you to do that, which is why I’m trying to point out your (what I feel are) false teachings, for you write in the form of someone who knows what they are talking about - in other words, you seem to try to be teaching us the truth.
Simply watching how Chrstine777 soaks up everything you write on Typology only goes to show how damaging your teaching can be, if it is false.
Do you see what I a trying to say?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
No, I’m simply admitting that the Church does not know whether she died or not. There are two traditions, both accepted by the Church, that Mary was assumed prior to her death and that Mary died and was assumed prior to the corruption of her flesh. If Pope Pius writes of this, he is simply giving his opinion (he is not teaching infallibly), or we may be reading his opinion in error!
Regarding Mary’s death, there is a tomb of Mary in Jerusalem. And there is the tradition among early Catholics that when the Apostles all came to view Mary’s body in her tomb, that when they opened the lid, she simply wasn’t there. This seems to imply that they expected to find her dead body, wouldn’t it?
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Hi, friend.
Note well: Everything added by me in this thread is my opinion. Even quotations and cites are my opinion, because my use of the third party material may not be correct.
That being said…
Nah! You’re wrong. It’s not a power of God issue. It’s an important semantics issue.
Most words are just customs. Custom establishes meaning. This is absolutely true of Scripture. Scripture says that Jesus was “born.” It uses precisely the same two Greek words, geneo and tikto, to describe Jesus’ birth that it uses to describe John the Baptist’s birth. Additionally, Luke says that Jesus “opened” the womb; Scripture says that when Mary engaged in the sacrifice of the two turtledoves made to purify new mothers of the blood of childbirth, what she did was in accord with God’s law. It wouldn’t have been if she had not bled. Finally, Wisdom 7:5-6 says that all kings are born alike. "
Beaming down" out of His mother violates the rule.
Sorry, but I’m going with the Church’s teaching in Scripture – not some process that really does make Christ "different,’ somewhat not human, no matter how you characterize it.
Peter Dawson
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Even that is not that simple.
Pope Liberius apparently approved of one of the formulas of the great Arian Heresy for the Trinity.
Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria was the only bishop in the Catholic Church to expressly disapprove.
St. Jerome wrote something like, “The world went to be Christian and woke up Arian,” or words to that effect.
Then, Liberius condemned his own prior teaching.
I asked everybody here, “Did Athanasius sin?”
No one answered.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Knowing what I’ve been taught about Jesus, can you explain this last statement?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
How can I answer this without having a clue what you are talking about? What “one of the formula’s of the great Arian Heresy for the Trinity” did Pope Liberius apparently approve? St. Jerome’s comment and Bishop Athanasius’ stance and comments on the Arian Heresy, I understand.
P
Peter_Dawson
Guest
Nobody knows exactly which formula Liberius approved, because Rome apparently destroyed the statement after Liberius condemned his own statement.
We know that Athanasius violently disagreed with it.
Jerome implied that the teaching turned the Catholic Church into the Arian Church.
And Liberius himself issued a teaching condemning his own prior teaching.
- Status