Genesis reliable for faith?

[Gorgias]

I’m just quoting it’s plain language.

While ignoring its plain language in the next sentence. C’mon, now…

Why not just say that you don’t know

LOL! No… actually, I do know! You asked “what chance do we have, 2000 years later, to interpret it”, and I know that the promise of protection of the Church and her teachings means it isn’t just a chance, it’s a certainty that’s guaranteed!

And…what is the meaning of those narratives?

Which one? The catechism itself explains Genesis 3. Is there a particular narrative that you want explained?

Those paragraphs from the CCC don’t mention theology. I’m pretty sure that Scripture has primacy in theology.

sigh.

OK, I’ll play along:

• Just exactly what context do you think the catechism is discussing here?
• how would you define ‘theology’, outside the context of “what the Church teaches”?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You asked “what chance do we have, 2000 years later, to interpret it”

Stay focused. I asked “What story did God intend to tell?” in response to you saying that even if St. Paul made a mistake (in Scripture of all places) that “God’s Word would still hold – it tells the story that God intends (not what any particular person intends).“

While ignoring its plain language in the next sentence. C’mon, now…

Remember, I quoted the whole paragraph.

You’re saying there’s no conflict between the first and second sentence because the first sentence is to be taken literally and the second metaphorically?

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

OK, I’ll play along:

• Just exactly what context do you think the catechism is discussing here?
• how would you define ‘theology’, outside the context of “what the Church teaches”?

I don’t think this is important to the thread, but since you’re reluctantly playing along…

I was wrong about the primacy of Scripture in theology. I was thinking of a document I read some time ago which actually says, “the primacy of the Word of God.”

1. A criterion of Catholic theology is recognition of the primacy of the Word of God.

I wouldn’t say that theology is what the Church teaches. But that it’s the study of the Word of God. I think I got that one right.

1. Theology is scientific reflection on the divine revelation which the Church accepts by faith as universal saving truth.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

I wont make any excuses. Women were made from the rib of Man. The husband has the headship, he has the responsibility for the family. The woman is to be obedient (gasp shock horror gasp 21st century political correctness faint) to her husband.

We are Catholic, we live with this, we have faith in what Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture teach.

(dons flame suit)

 

[Gorgias]

All of the Bible is fully infallible.

“Inerrant”, not “infallible”. It’s important to not conflate the two; they mean different things.

This has been the teaching of the Church for all time.

Yep. But, it’s important to understand this properly and in light of its true meaning. When the Bible asserts the dome of the skies, do you say “yep…gotta be a dome – after all, the Bible says so, and it’s inerrant!”…?

No – rather, following the Church, I would hope that you would say that the Bible inerrantly passes on the message that God intends it to. But, that doesn’t mean that a literalistic interpretation of the text is “God’s intent”. After all, as you quoted from the catechism, “Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach[es] that truth which God… wished.”

It is quite clear that the inerrancy of the Scriptures has always been a doctrine of the Church. Any other belief is outright heresy. So it is out of the question that Paul is in error when he states that women should “keep silent in the churches.”

Nice try. Does Scripture likewise teach that it’s heretical to doubt the morality of throwing into the desert the woman who gives birth to your child? After all, that’s what Abraham did. Does Scripture teach that it’s heretical to doubt the morality to commit adultery? After all, that’s what David did. So… you cannot, in good faith, assert that what you find in Scripture is “in error” merely because someone in its narratives acts in a certain way.

Secondly, we will see that it would be illogical to maintain this opinion that certain parts of Scriptures are “cultural issues”.

Right. Because, after all, slavery and polygamy are absolutely morally acceptable, and aren’t at all “cultural issues” of the time and culture in which they are described in Scripture.

 

[Gorgias]

Stay focused. I asked “What story did God intend to tell?”

LOL! I think I’m a rather well-focused individual!

Is it unacceptable to think that, in a letter to a particular community, in a particular time and place, he was giving instruction to that particular community in its time and place…?

You’re saying there’s no conflict between the first and second sentence because the first sentence is to be taken literally and the second metaphorically?

I’m saying that, perhaps, you might consider whether you’re interpreting this passage as it was intended to be understood.

I wouldn’t say that theology is what the Church teaches. But that it’s the study of the Word of God. I think I got that one right.

You did. Your error, if you don’t mind me saying, is to limit the “Word of God” merely to Sacred Scripture and to exclude it from Sacred Tradition.

The woman is to be obedient (gasp shock horror gasp 21st century political correctness faint) to her husband.

Remember, too, that husbands are to be obedient (gasp shock horror gasp) to their wives!

 

[Vico]

So is Adam a real individual as is stated in Humani Generis , or is he “the whole human race” as is stated in the CCC? And does St. Paul believe Adam was real or symbolic?

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand.

The Catechism does not state that Adam is the whole human race. The personal sin of one man Adam became the original sin that is inherited by the descendants of Adam. See also the footnote 293: St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1., Adam was the universal cause that corrupted human nature:

Ad decimumoctavum dicendum, quod Adam in quantum fuit principium humanae naturae, habuit rationem causae universalis, et ita per eius actum corrupta est tota humana natura, quae ab eo propagatur.

 

[OurLadyofSorrows]

Remember, too, that husbands are to be obedient (gasp shock horror gasp) to their wives!

NO way, really? Show me the passage Praise God.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Remember, too, that husbands are to be obedient (gasp shock horror gasp) to their wives!

NO way, really? Show me the passage Praise God.

Ephesians 5:21 – the same word (hupotasso) is used here as it is elsewhere (Colossians, etc). Paul goes on to assert that this “subordination” is found not only in the “order” that hupotasso expresses, but also in spousal love.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Is it unacceptable to think that, in a letter to a particular community, in a particular time and place, he was giving instruction to that particular community in its time and place …?

That’s really not the whole point though. Some of these questionable things that are written in epistles may be tangentially cultural, and some aren’t. The point is that they are based on Genesis 3. Which makes them theology, not discipline.

A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

The justification for women being quiet and being saved by childbirth is clearly not cultural. It’s literally spelled out why he’s saying these things. It’s because man came first according to Genesis. Whether or not Paul believes Genesis to be literal or figurative doesn’t seem to matter.

Paul says that women can be saved through giving birth. His justification for this is from Genesis 3. Again, not cultural. It’s St. Paul’s theology, not St. Paul’s discipline.

The whole point of this thread is to question St. Paul’s theology. But for some reason you keep ignoring the fact that St. Paul is studying Genesis (that’s called theology) and premising some questionable stuff on it. Your ignoring Paul’s theology and then saying it was just a cultural discipline. It obviously wasn’t. It was his theology.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

To my mind, Orthodox scholars are very good in these regards. I submit to you these two videos. This one by Brad Jersak is illuminating and highly recommended. And this one too by the incomparable DB Hart is also quite instructive.

Those two talks were very good. Brad Jersak went over some things I’ve heard from within Catholicism regarding Scripture. He seems to be able to put ideas together in an coherent way.

DB Hart’s lecture I thought was informative. It contained a lot of info that I wasn’t aware of regarding exegesis throughout history, i.e. before and after Christ. His points on early Christian exegetical methods were enlightening.

 

[Magnanimity]

DB Hart’s lecture I thought was informative. It contained a lot of info that I wasn’t aware of regarding exegesis throughout history,

Same here. I definitely learned some things in Hart’s lecture. He’s a legit scholar, Notre Dame employs him. I loved when he broke down the ancient/medieval interpretive framework:

1. Look for a true reading of the text
2. In keeping with the tradition/mind of the church
3. Illuminated by the Holy Spirit &
4. Testifying to Christ

That was really eye-opening and very helpful. Glad you found it to be so too.

He seems to be able to put ideas together in an coherent way.

I agree. He is very coherent in this message. He’s not a scholar on the level of Hart, but he’s quite helpful. I like the part in that lecture where he goes into (Hart says this too) that the Bible itself is the testimony to the Revelation, which is Jesus himself. The scriptures can be thought of as the revealing of what has been revealed in Christ. So, as the Fathers knew, the scriptures and Tradition are meant to point us to the Son Himself that we may encounter Him more fully.

Very glad to hear you took something positive away from those vids!

 

[Gorgias]

The point is that they are based on Genesis 3. Which makes them theology, not discipline.

What – do you think that discipline doesn’t draw on Scripture for direction?

The justification for women being quiet and being saved by childbirth is clearly not cultural. It’s literally spelled out why he’s saying these things. It’s because man came first according to Genesis.

OK, so… take a deep breath and think about that assertion for a minute. We have access to the exact same text of Genesis that Paul did. We can see, as Paul does, that the text of Genesis 2 asserts that Adam was created first. However, the Church today does not make the assertions that Paul does. Are you really certain that this isn’t a cultural issue? If it isn’t, then why does the Church allow women to teach or have authority over men? C’mon…

Your ignoring Paul’s theology and then saying it was just a cultural discipline. It obviously wasn’t. It was his theology.

It was his interpretation of Scripture, conditioned by the context of the culture in which he was interpreting it.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

However, the Church today does not make the assertions that Paul does. Are you really certain that this isn’t a cultural issue? If it isn’t, then why does the Church allow women to teach or have authority over men? C’mon…

The same assertions about women that Paul made were essentially also made by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica. Aquinas bases them on the same verses from Paul that I’m using in this thread. So yeah, I’d say it’s a theological assertion, not a cultural one.

Furthermore, St. Paul’s faulty theology was made into Scripture, thereby cementing said faulty theology for many centuries. It sort of highlights the problems that arise from making use of terms like ‘inerrancy’ or ‘infallibility’; or even…sola scriptura

 

[Gorgias]

The same assertions about women that Paul made were essentially also made by Aquinas in the Summa Theologica . Aquinas bases them on the same verses from Paul that I’m using in this thread. So yeah, I’d say it’s a theological assertion, not a cultural one.

Umm… Aquinas’ culture held largely the same opinion of the role of women in society that Paul’s did. So, you really haven’t escaped the grasp of cultural custom that you seem to suggest that you have.

Furthermore, St. Paul’s faulty theology was made into Scripture, thereby cementing said faulty theology for many centuries.

That’s precisely the inaccurate stance that I brought to your attention. If you can’t say that Paul’s discussion of slavery makes that institution “cemented into theology by virtue of its presence in Scripture”, then you likewise can’t make the same claim regarding Paul’s stance on the role of women in society.

 

[Mishakel]

Why is any of this up for debate?

Who among you thinks Paul was speaking on the authority of Paul? Humans don’t like all kinds of things commanded by God. Why should this be any different?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Umm… Aquinas’ culture held largely the same opinion of the role of women in society that Paul’s did.

So you’re going to take this all the way to 1960? That’s the logical conclusion.

Aquinas used those verses in Corinthians as a justification for an all male priesthood. That’s no longer what the Church uses to justify an all male priesthood. Nevertheless, I’m talking about basing bad theology on top of bad theology. Genesis Corinthians Aquinas Magisterium

So, you really haven’t escaped the grasp of cultural custom that you seem to suggest that you have.

You’re still saying that Paul didn’t know any better than to interpret scripture through the lens of his own culture.

If you can’t say that Paul’s discussion of slavery makes that institution “cemented into theology by virtue of its presence in Scripture”,

Paul was against slavery. He encouraged one person to free his runaway slave (Philemon).

 

[Gorgias]

So you’re going to take this all the way to 1960? That’s the logical conclusion.

The “logical conclusion” is that what is cultural is cultural. We see that the cultural opinions of antiquity differ from the cultural opinions of western society in the 21st century, so… yeah. “Cultural”.

You’re still saying that Paul didn’t know any better than to interpret scripture through the lens of his own culture.

No, I’m not making the claim of what Paul knew. I’m merely making a claim about what Paul wrote. Subtle, but critical, difference.

Paul was against slavery.

Right. That’s why he commanded slaves to obey their masters, right?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

We see that the cultural opinions of antiquity differ from the cultural opinions of western society in the 21st century, so… yeah. “Cultural”.

Are you saying that the way women are viewed by the Church today is also a view based on modern culture? Is the Church’s position on slavery today also a cultural position?

Anyway Im afraid you’re missing the point, or you are refusing to entertain it. I also happen to think you’re incorrect about the extent to which you’re taking this ‘culture’ thing.

Here again… the point…Paul’s intent was a theological intent, not a cultural one. It’s aside the point that the culture of his time put women below men. I don’t believe Paul was interpreting scripture though the lens of his culture as you’ve claimed. His beliefs were clearly based on his understanding of theology. So you seem to not understand the premise of this thread. It would be nice if you would just give your opinion on the premise instead of trying to argue that the premise is wrong. I obviously don’t see it that way. I appreciate you questioning the premise; but at this point, if you won’t entertain the premise, I wonder why you keep going off on tangents.

If I haven’t articulated my premise well, I’ll try again. That way, we can better focus.

Are the first few chapters of Genesis a reliable source to build faith from? Given that so many notions that have come from it have failed to hold. See OP for specific references of Paul’s bad theology on roles of women which come directly from Genesis 3, and made their way into Corinthians which then became a basis for male only priesthood.

Furthermore, are some of the ways in which the Church reveals, or teaches, Revelation consistent with our limited capacity to understand God, and our ability to be inspired by the Holy Spirit? The ways in which I refer to are inerrancy of scripture, infallibility, teaching authority of Magisterium, and finally it’s historical intolerance of dissent.

 

[Gorgias]

Are you saying that the way women are viewed by the Church today is also a view based on modern culture? Is the Church’s position on slavery today also a cultural position?

I think I would nuance it differently: due to the change in cultural perceptions and demands, the Church is more able to assert effectively a stance on these issues that is more in line with divine morality.

Here again… the point…Paul’s intent was a theological intent, not a cultural one.

I get this. However, you’re missing the point that Paul – acting alone – does not define doctrine, according to the way we understand the transmission of doctrine. Moreover, not every word of Scripture has doctrinal content, so we cannot assert that the presence of his words in Scripture demands that his words be taken as doctrinally binding. I’m not addressing your premise directly, because I think it’s irrelevant to the question at hand. (Sorry, but that’s how I see it.) I mean, if you claimed that global warming is taking place because the moon is made of green cheese, would you demand that I address your ‘green cheese’ premise? Would I be beholden to address it? No, of course not!)

Are the first few chapters of Genesis a reliable source to build faith from?

They are. And yet, the question isn’t “from what source?” so much as it is “formulated by whom?”

The Church formulates doctrine. The Church has not stated, as a doctrinally-binding on faith and morals, that Paul’s assertions about women’s roles is irreformable doctrine. Therefore, we cannot simply point to Genesis 3 (let alone Paul’s commentary on it) and assert that there’s doctrine there which the Church hasn’t asserted!

The “male-only priesthood” is a different discussion, of course, than the discussion of whether women are permitted to teach and to hold authority over men.