I'm wondering about Genesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1Lord1Faith said:
40.png
ChunkMonk:
It is not entirely allegorical. I believe the Catholic Church considers Abel a saint. It would be difficult for an allegorical, fictional character to be a living saint in heaven.
Click to expand...
There is a St. Abel, an Archbishop, who died in 751, but I don’t think that Genesis’ Abel is a canonized saint.
Click to expand...
You might want to reconsider that thought. Take a look at the text of Eucharistic Prayer I. 😉

(In addition, there are litanies to the saints that include various OT figures; Abel appears in some of these.)
 
From what I experienced on the original CAF, the vast majority of Catholics have
never heard or understood what is meant by the modern heresy of Arianism.

I am 79 and going back to when I was reading my very first adult biography of
Jesus, I immediately recognized Arianism even though I had to wait to find out
the proper name.
The chapter on the loaves and fishes emphasized that Jesus Christ was an amazing
charismatic preacher. He was able to persuade the crowd to share what little
food was available with their neighbor.

With this easy example of modern Arianism, one can easily recognize some of the
agenda of the Notable Progressive Christians. That is another issue where many
Catholics have no clue what is happening.

Apparently, I need to buy a new computer in order to get on this new website
thing. I am in the process of getting opinions as to what brand I should pick.
Actually, I need a new computer so I am hoping to get the best advice
considering that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I was a journalist before Google which means that I did my own research. What I
am seeing today, regarding Catholic knowledge of Catholic doctrines is not
pretty.
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
40.png
1Lord1Faith:
40.png
ChunkMonk:
It is not entirely allegorical. I believe the Catholic Church considers Abel a saint. It would be difficult for an allegorical, fictional character to be a living saint in heaven.
Click to expand...
There is a St. Abel, an Archbishop, who died in 751, but I don’t think that Genesis’ Abel is a canonized saint.
Click to expand...
You might want to reconsider that thought. Take a look at the text of Eucharistic Prayer I. 😉

(In addition, there are litanies to the saints that include various OT figures; Abel appears in some of these.)
Click to expand...
Yes, Abel is a representation of the first martyr to die for the sake of God. A starting point to continue from.

If you are saying that Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel were real persons then I’m done here.
 
I would not refer to the story of Adam and Eve or Cain and Abel as strictly allegory. It’s real, historical truth. That said, that real history is told in a simplified way with the use of symbols. There was a real “Adam” and a real “Eve”. They are ancestors of the entire human race. It was these real two people who personally sinned; it wasn’t a broader communal offense. But I see the fruit and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as symbols for the offense, not a scientific description of what happened. The garden may be a real, true, historical garden, and it’s also a symbol of the communion Adam and Eve had with God and with creation. The genealogy from Adam and Eve might be simplified as well rather than comprehensive.

Joe1, I recommend reading in full Kenneth Kemp’s paper Science, Theology, and Monogenesis. It can be downloaded legally at the link below. I don’t link it as an asbolute answer, but it does provide some food for thought on how we can think about true doctrine on the one hand and what the anthropological record seems to show on the other.

 
Last edited:
Please note. Something is wrong with the website for Stealth Arianism.

Therefore, I am giving up.

It is silly to post something which is unknown by the majority of Catholics.

Maybe someday in the future a Catholic or maybe two Catholics will recognize one
of the reasons there are empty pews. One example of current dangers is the
modern concept of “Rebuilding Christianity” as explained by Father Richard
Rohr.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
If you are saying that Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel were real persons then I’m done here.
Click to expand...
The Church maintains that there really were two first humans. That’s part of the Deposit of the Faith. They had children. That logically follows (if they were our “first parents”). If you’re having a problem with that – from a theological, rather than biological, perspective – then you’re gonna have a real hard time with Christian belief.

Now… does this mean that their names were actually “Adam”, “Eve”, “Cain”, and “Abel”? No; that’s just the monikers that the Genesis stories give them. Does this mean that there were real people who were the first humans with immortal souls? Absolutely.
 
Gorgias said:
The Church maintains that there really were two first humans. That’s part of the Deposit of the Faith. They had children. That logically follows (if they were our “first parents”). If you’re having a problem with that – from a theological, rather than biological, perspective – then you’re gonna have a real hard time with Christian belief.

Now… does this mean that their names were actually “Adam”, “Eve”, “Cain”, and “Abel”? No; that’s just the monikers that the Genesis stories give them. Does this mean that there were real people who were the first humans with immortal souls? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Read the posts in this thread that are from the person who started the thread.
Joe1 said:
How do we reconcile Genesis (creation story) with science?

Who wrote Genesis?

Did God create Dinosaurs? If so why isn’t it in Genesis?
Click to expand...
Joe1 said:
For example, in Genesis 4:17 it speaks of Cain’s wife. Where did she come from? They had a son (4:18) named Henoch who then begot Irad. Where did Henoch get his wife?
Click to expand...
Posters who start in with a literal bent aren’t going to clear anything up for him. The Church is slower than the viscosity of glass when it comes to acknowledging legitimate scientific theory. I’m sure you know why, but I’m guessing that the OP doesn’t.

Joe1’s question was not, What do Church documents say about the book of Genesis chapters 1-5?
 
Last edited:
Moses wrote the Penetauch, obviously Joshua finished it after his death… Since his death is near the end that isn’t a huge hurdle.

Look, I understand we’re supposed to think all Scripture was made up by Jewish slaves in Babylonian captivity but I actually believe in Scripture… How silly, right?
 
This post is directed to all, repeat all, CAF participants. It is not, repeat
not, directed to a single person.

From New Advent. This gem.
“Islam, reducing the Eternal Son to the rank of a prophet, and thus undoing the
Christian revelation.”

In a geographic location in America, there was the teaching regarding Jesus
as having the rank of a marvelous, divine like, prophet which was not equal to
the Most Holy Trinity. (Arianism) It seems to me it was the word “like” which
the early Catholic Church debated.

Apparently, I lived in the only geographic location where people recognized a
danger in Arianism.

My first adult biography of Jesus Christ used the “prophet among prophets”
approach instead of giving Jesus the credit of being the Second Divine Person of
the Most Holy Trinity. This is the basis for the symbolism mantra which invaded
the Catholic Church some years back. Currently, the symbolism mantra is known as
metaphor used in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis.

I did a thread on Transubstantiation wondering if Catholics really understood.
As I recall, hope my memory is correct, one of the reply posts pointed out that
Catholics are too lazy to think about Catholicism. Regardless what was said in
that old thread, it looks like many, not all, Catholics are somewhat lazy when
it comes to understanding modern Arianism as related to popular symbolism which
tampers with the basic Catholic truths which flow from the forgotten chapters of
Genesis. (CCC 389, last sentence)

I rest my case.
 
Last edited:
grannymh said:
Please note. Something is wrong with the website for Stealth Arianism.

Therefore, I am giving up.

It is silly to post something which is unknown by the majority of Catholics.

Maybe someday in the future a Catholic or maybe two Catholics will recognize one
of the reasons there are empty pews. One example of current dangers is the
modern concept of “Rebuilding Christianity” as explained by Father Richard
Rohr.
Click to expand...
In your original post was a link which spoke of Pelagianism but you mentioned Arianism in the pos, so it seemed not to apply. In this last link the topic is Stealth Arianism, but from reading it the author gives examples where the people would not admit a belief in Arianism, but rather what seems to be inconsistent with our faith, a lack of faith in Transubstantiation.
 
"grannymh:
… In a geographic location in America, there was the teaching regarding Jesus as having the rank of a marvelous, divine like, prophet which was not equal to the Most Holy Trinity. (Arianism) It seems to me it was the word “like” which the early Catholic Church debated. …

…This is the basis for the symbolism mantra which invaded the Catholic Church some years back. Currently, the symbolism mantra is known as metaphor used in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis.
Click to expand...
There is no religion except Christianity that is Trinitarian, but there are Unitarian (this is Arianism) and Binatarian (Semi-Arian) beliefs.
I never heard of a “symbolism mantra”.
 
“You see, once we diminish the identity of Christ as the Son of God, we are left
to view Him as simply a historical figure that was a nice guy, a respectable
teacher and a good example for how we are to live. Religion is then reduced to a
nice organization that does nice things for people as we seek a kind of
psychotherapy for self-actualization. And this is not only not what He came to
give us, but it’s something He made sure to leave no room for.”
 
Last edited:
grannymh said:
“You see, once we diminish the identity of Christ as the Son of God, we are left
to view Him as simply a historical figure that was a nice guy, a respectable
teacher and a good example for how we are to live. Religion is then reduced to a
nice organization that does nice things for people as we seek a kind of
psychotherapy for self-actualization. And this is not only not what He came to
give us, but it’s something He made sure to leave no room for.”
Click to expand...
Yes, a symbol is not equality. The modern form of Arianism is born of rationalism. There are three dogmas of faith from Vatican I that pertain,
On Faith and Reason:
  • If anyone shall say that, in Divine Revelation, there are no mysteries, truly and properly so-called, but that all of the doctrines of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles, by properly-cultivated reason; let him be anathema.
  • If anyone shall say that human sciences are to be so freely treated, that their assertions, although opposed to revealed doctrine, are to be held as true, and cannot be condemned by the Church; let him be anathema.
  • If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.
 
Thank you for the valuable three points from “On Faith and
Reason”.

Actually, these three truths apply to Progressive Christianity
or the older term Emerging Christianity. As I observed on the original
CAF, Catholics can be aware of the Notable Progressive Christians but, and I am
sorry about this, it does appear that some, not all, Catholics are a tad lazy
when it comes to defending Catholic truths. When I have posted this link,
Father Richard Rohr, “The fly in the ointment”, I do not recall anyone
standing up, yelling that this and that Catholic doctrine is being attacked.

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...ssing.html?soid=1103098668616&aid=yAlpFk3eNPc

The
same “so what” approach followed the Catholic Answers internet article.
“What
You Absolutely Need to Understand About Evolution” Apparently, some
Catholic apologists were out to lunch when or if this article was looked at
before publishing.

The obvious observation is that Pope Pius XII took
Vatican 1 so seriously that he presented a warning in the beginning of
Humani Generis.

At this point in time, I will leave this new CAF thing and
attend to other important Catholic projects.
I wish I could be a bit lazy
… Unfortunately, I belong to the dead generation which learned how
to handle basic Catholicism. Memories of wonderful teachers tell me to
keep going from one project to another.
 
Last edited:
FYI, posts can be flagged for being off topic. I don’t see what the last half dozen posts have to do with the OP’s question. If y’all want to yuk it up about Arianism just start a new thread. Or if I’m wrong, and you are “stealth” answering his question, be more clear; I’m sure he has no clue what you’re talking about. It seems like he has left anyway.
 
Last edited:
Joe1 said:
How do we reconcile Genesis (creation story) with science?
Who wrote Genesis?
Did God create Dinosaurs? If so why isn’t it in Genesis?
Click to expand...
Evolution is a scientific theory, however, the dogma of faith is that God created ex nihilo. Science does not know about such non material causes.
Traditionally, the authorship of Genesis is ascribed to Moses, the Lawgiver. However somebody else may have assembled what he said this into writing.
Yes God created dinosaurs, but that does not say when the dinosaur was created before or after man.
 
Last edited:
I’m still here. Thank you all for your answers. What’s this new form of Arianism?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top