T
tomarin
Guest
I always assumed everyone in the Bible knew everyone else in the Bible because … well they’re all in the Bible!
- Status
W
Wandile
Guest
She most likely wrote most of what’s there. We just aren’t sure what isn’t hers. Don’t exaggerate the issue with her writings please.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I’m not exaggerating. We have a difference of opinion on the reliability of the writings. I don’t think her writings are reliable, and I’m permitted by the Church to think that.
Please respect the opinions of others.
Please respect the opinions of others.
R
rose321
Guest
Respectfully, interesting you mentioned that! Opinion only in pondering
on this Titled Topic question about Noah, thus one sought out many different sources, understanding on Noah…OT Jewish Scriptures…what do they have to say. Hoping I understand them correctly…as follows…They do not take Noah literally either?Midrash gives more details…
…After the flood Noah was very angry and upset…questions
God…How, how could you do this? Why? How could you?
…God in returns… rebukes Noah, questions him back. You
ask now?
God stating… Why Noah, did you built your ark in silence, never asking me why? Nor Question me before, why are you Noah asking me now…after it is done?
…They state… only… in OT Scriptures one will find other
Humans, arguing, questioning, asking why, defending, standing up to Power … ask God why
Example…Abraham (Sodom, Gomorrah), Moses ( Aaron) Jeremiah did not want to be
chosen …asking God why me, he did not want to be chosen… etc
Noah story…teaches us…
God says he is …sorry…(mistake?)…God makes a Promise he will never do it again.
Noah Story was a …Model for Human Behavior…for us all, maybe?
Noah story also teaches us to stand up, ask questions, ask why, defend, teach us to argue over any Power that seeks to destroy …Life…maybe? just found it interesting…
God Spoke, Spoken since the beginning of time to whom he chooses?
NT also Matthew 16:17 You did not learn that from any human being, for flesh and blood did not teach it to you, but my Father…
John 7:16 The word that you hear is not my own, but it is from the Father who sent me.
John 6:45 did not learn that from me Peter, but from my Father…
Noah grandfather was who? Oral teaching and traditions, handed down…
Peace
Last edited:
K
KevinK
Guest
If we’re not sure what she wrote and didn’t, he is not exaggerating.
M
Metis1
Guest
A great many biblical scholars, both Christian and Jewish alike, believe the Flood accounts (there’s actually more than one) are likely allegory as taking it literally makes not one iota of sense based on what we now know. Instead, it appears to be a reworking of the Gilgamesh narrative that rejects Babylonian beliefs and inserts Jewish beliefs. This is what all societies do, btw, and if one want to see a classic example of that, use Wikipedia to see the transition of “Santa Clause” over the centuries as he goes from a religious figure to a secular one.
The fact that later authors used Noah as a real figure really doesn’t change much of anything except for those who view all accounts in a literalistic fashion, which the Church does not advocate. Nor does the Church demand we see the scriptures as being entirely inerrant.
The importance of the Flood narrative is not the exactness of events that are illogical but, instead, the basic messages of Jewish beliefs in regards to morals and values. That’s the real importance of the Flood narratives because that leaves us lessons that we can apply today.
As far as “original sin” is concerned, Catholic theologians today are all over the place on this because it really doesn’t make much sense if taken in the traditional way. For example, if one of your grandfathers committed murder, should we arrest and then stone you? Or, since Adam & Eve sinned (supposedly), how is it that God would massacre innocent children during Noah’s time? Is that really a moral lesson for us to learn and maybe emulate?
To me, I think “original sin” is more a reflection that we will sin at time because of our “free will”, and such sin does affect other people and also society as a whole, including for generations.
The fact that later authors used Noah as a real figure really doesn’t change much of anything except for those who view all accounts in a literalistic fashion, which the Church does not advocate. Nor does the Church demand we see the scriptures as being entirely inerrant.
The importance of the Flood narrative is not the exactness of events that are illogical but, instead, the basic messages of Jewish beliefs in regards to morals and values. That’s the real importance of the Flood narratives because that leaves us lessons that we can apply today.
As far as “original sin” is concerned, Catholic theologians today are all over the place on this because it really doesn’t make much sense if taken in the traditional way. For example, if one of your grandfathers committed murder, should we arrest and then stone you? Or, since Adam & Eve sinned (supposedly), how is it that God would massacre innocent children during Noah’s time? Is that really a moral lesson for us to learn and maybe emulate?
To me, I think “original sin” is more a reflection that we will sin at time because of our “free will”, and such sin does affect other people and also society as a whole, including for generations.
R
rose321
Guest
I believe Noah existed as a human being, but is the story a metaphor, kinda maybe like the book of Job? Jesus himself gave us stories to learn from did he not? Like using the coin? saying he was the gate? a door? A way of teaching us also? Story on planting our seeds? Peace…
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I see it as two issues:
As in, Yes, there was a man named Noah, descended from Adam, who made a covenant with God, and went through some sort of a destructive flood event from which God delivered him while killing off huge swaths of other humanity, if not all of it; but maybe the flood event did not occur exactly as written in Scripture.
Each person gets to make their own decision on this though, as the Church does not require us to believe in a literal Noah or a literal flood.
- Did a real Noah exist?
- Was the story of Noah as told in the Scripture literal?
As in, Yes, there was a man named Noah, descended from Adam, who made a covenant with God, and went through some sort of a destructive flood event from which God delivered him while killing off huge swaths of other humanity, if not all of it; but maybe the flood event did not occur exactly as written in Scripture.
Each person gets to make their own decision on this though, as the Church does not require us to believe in a literal Noah or a literal flood.
Last edited:
R
rose321
Guest
Tish_Bearself…Thank you greatly and appreciate you taking the time, to enlighten me also on the Church requirements which has been expressed!! Peace…
W
Wandile
Guest
Orginal sin is a dogma of the church. It’s not up for negotiation.
M
Metis1
Guest
It could be reversed but is unlikely, imo. But one should remember that any specific dogma is not mandatory to be accepted unless it’s ex cathedra or passed by council, which is why some Catholic theologians do question “original sin”, not that it’s intrinsically wrong but that it may be misdirected. God being some sort of genocidal maniac, thus killing innocent people that includes children, is simply too malicious for me to accept.
If “God is love”, which I do believe God is, then that kind of supposed behavior on His part simply is unacceptable to me.
BTW, an excellent Catholic book that covers this freedom we have is “Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide”, although I don’t know if it’s still in publication.
If “God is love”, which I do believe God is, then that kind of supposed behavior on His part simply is unacceptable to me.
BTW, an excellent Catholic book that covers this freedom we have is “Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide”, although I don’t know if it’s still in publication.
Last edited:
W
Wandile
Guest
Dogmas are those doctrines which have been made binding on all the faithful under the pin of anathema by a council or Solemn declaration of the Pope. Orginal sin was defined by the council of Trent. It cannot be denied nor overturned even in the slightest.
Last edited:
L
lilypadrees
Guest
Quite simply, Noah walked with God. And God spoke to him.
M
Metis1
Guest
As an official teaching of the Church, true, but we still retain free will as parishioners, and I exercise that. And I do know of at least one Catholic theologian that I have read (Dutch-- Edvard ________?) in his catechism as a sub-note where he gives the official Church position but then at the end of the catechism he shows an alternative interpretation that he personally gravitates towards. Seems to me that Fr. Raymond Brown also takes a point of view that’s more along my way of thinking as is that with the Dutch theologian.
Simply put, the official version is not only illogical, it’s also genocidal. Trouble is that it would be hard for the Church to change this and admit that maybe they didn’t get it right the first time. Look how long the Church took to finally admit that Galileo was right after all.
My guess is that if had all the bishops and popes over recent decades and asked them in a confidential questionnaire whether they believe we are cursed through “original sin” that only baptism can remit in order to be saved that they would not be agreeing with the original teaching. It simply doesn’t make sense imo.
Simply put, the official version is not only illogical, it’s also genocidal. Trouble is that it would be hard for the Church to change this and admit that maybe they didn’t get it right the first time. Look how long the Church took to finally admit that Galileo was right after all.
My guess is that if had all the bishops and popes over recent decades and asked them in a confidential questionnaire whether they believe we are cursed through “original sin” that only baptism can remit in order to be saved that they would not be agreeing with the original teaching. It simply doesn’t make sense imo.
W
Wandile
Guest
Actually no. Dogmas are not up for debate at all under the pin of mortal sin being heresy and the pin of anathema. You believe them if you claim to be catholic. The Dutch school of theology is well known for its heretical tendencies even when they issued their infamous catechism.
M
Metis1
Guest
Since I don’t see it that way, then there’s no where to go with this.
BTW, the Church no longer calls it “mortal sin” but calls it “serious sin”.
The issue of “heresy” only applies to those who may intentionally teach that which goes against the Church, which is why Catholic theologians are able to skirt that by not publishing through the Church accreditation process itself.
Also, we need to see the Church, not as being a static entity that never changes, but as one that still is a “work in progress”. For example, ecumenism was basically impossible for us up until Vatican II. Now we even have joint services with Jews and Muslims.
Now we look at how we deal differently with the ToE, with the Church now embracing it as long as it’s understood that God was and is behind it all. The Church has embraced science, which it was reluctant to do centuries ago. By and large, we also look at issues like the Flood and Creation narratives differently than centuries ago since our understanding and acceptance of science is more prevalent.
My main orientation is science since I am a retired anthropologist, and I recently converted back into the Church as I was M.I.A. for about 20 years. When I explained it to my priest that I will always have questions since that’s my nature, he told me welcome back and that I could resume the sacraments. Therefore, thus the source of so much of my questioning.
Anyhow, take care.
BTW, the Church no longer calls it “mortal sin” but calls it “serious sin”.
The issue of “heresy” only applies to those who may intentionally teach that which goes against the Church, which is why Catholic theologians are able to skirt that by not publishing through the Church accreditation process itself.
Also, we need to see the Church, not as being a static entity that never changes, but as one that still is a “work in progress”. For example, ecumenism was basically impossible for us up until Vatican II. Now we even have joint services with Jews and Muslims.
Now we look at how we deal differently with the ToE, with the Church now embracing it as long as it’s understood that God was and is behind it all. The Church has embraced science, which it was reluctant to do centuries ago. By and large, we also look at issues like the Flood and Creation narratives differently than centuries ago since our understanding and acceptance of science is more prevalent.
My main orientation is science since I am a retired anthropologist, and I recently converted back into the Church as I was M.I.A. for about 20 years. When I explained it to my priest that I will always have questions since that’s my nature, he told me welcome back and that I could resume the sacraments. Therefore, thus the source of so much of my questioning.
Anyhow, take care.
W
Wandile
Guest
It’s still called mortal sin. Regardless, whatever name you call it, the meaning is the same. Sin that makes you lose sanctifying grace.
CCC 1854 : “Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture…”
Not true at all. Heresy is as per CCC 2089:
“ Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”
The church is not static but her faith doesn’t change. Only the way in which she expresses it. The substance or essence of it remains the same as truth is objective and does not change.
Ecumenism was practiced before Vatican II. See the council of Florence and various reunion efforts. We don’t have Joint Eucharistic celebrations though as that is reserved for the faithful alone. Ecumenical services are glorified summits where leaders sign meaningless statements that say pretty much nothing.
The church never rejected it. I personally do.
The church was never against science and even had some emienent scientists amongst its ranks throughout the centuries. In fact as early as the days of Origen the church was synthesizing science and faith.
This is sumply not true and frankly unprovable. The flood narrative in its essence must be believed because of the dogmatisization of the theology around it like orginal sin and the plan of salavation and our own Lord literally addressing Noah and his existence.
May God bless you
Last edited:
T
thebible
Guest
But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
Genesis 6:8
Genesis 6:8
- Status