Origin of G-d

[grannymh]

They did share common myths. And God reveals Himself to those who truly seek Him.

The ancient Sumerians had some of the commandments reflected in their beliefs pertaining to property and stealing.

Confucius, although born later, through the revelation of God in his culture, was able to define all the commandments pertaining to neighbor…but Confucius was unable to define the revelation of God for His sake to mankind.

It is to the Jewish race that the Lord revealed Himself beginning with Abraham, …to Moses, the Covenant of the Land…the Decalogue…never broken but progressed one epoch at a time where Judaism is fulfilled in the Messiah, Christ Who restores us to God, frees us from slavery to sin and death and gives us a new life now.

The ancient peoples had shared myths in regards to the beginning of mankind.

There are variations of ‘Adam and Eve’.

These myths try to answer questions of who made us, why were we made, where are we now, where are we going, and how we will end up.

But the greater reality is that Truth of God can exists in myth.

And He reveals Himself as stated in a post here, progressively…but without contradictions and denials and destruction and war against humanity.

Point 1.
These myths try to answer questions of who made us, why were we made, where are we now, where are we going, and how we will end up.

This is a generally very good observation.

Point 2.
But the greater reality is that Truth of God can exist in myth.

This is can be problematic when it comes to understanding fundamental Catholic teachings regarding God in the first three sacred chapters of Genesis – which can be described as metaphorical myths.

Thus, I am curious. What specific Truth of God actually exists in which myth?

I can think of one truth, “God exists” Genesis 1: 1. However, it is difficult to expand “myths” into basic Catholicism.

Thus, I would appreciate Catholic examples of point 2.
Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

It is to the Jewish race that the Lord revealed Himself beginning with Abraham, …to Moses, the Covenant of the Land…the Decalogue…never broken but progressed one epoch at a time where Judaism is fulfilled in the Messiah, Christ Who restores us to God, frees us from slavery to sin and death and gives us a new life now.

May I respectfully point out that the Lord God revealed Himself at the dawn of human history. Genesis 2: 15-17. However, the understanding of that revelation needs the basic principle that there cannot be two totally divine, all powerful, supremely first equal beings at the same time. Therefore: Adam, as the first spiritual creature, had to live in free submission to the One Creator God in order to retain humanity’s original friendship relationship with Divinity. (CCC 396 & CCC 1730)

 

[KathleenGee]

I am simply repeating the interesting thought, the Truth of God can exist in myths shared by our faith formation director.

Granny, is it true that mankind can be traced through DNA back to our original parents? Thought I read that one time.

My point going back was that there is this consistency in God, the Unmoved Mover Who doesn’t change, the only constant in this world. Romans speaks of human beings with free will and intellect capable of perceiving God without religion in this world through reason and nature.

In Islam, Allah is not consistent, creates both good and evil, has no purpose, gives no purpose to his subjects…and just this ability to create good and evil implies within itself rather a sense of a false god…that competes within his own conflicting creation…that although Islam claims belief in one god, the behavior and inner contradictions is more reflective of Greek gods and their own conflicting behaviors towards each other.

Genesis certainly reveals God – in the Jewish tradition – that we were inherently made for the purpose of God’s love, and that He would allow man to dominate and subdue the earth, that man is given free will, not enslaved, and although the first couple disobeyed and did not trust God by eating the forbidden fruit, and worse, – to be like gods, God forgave them.

God gave the first parents hope.

They were cast out of earthly paradise. But through hope, the Tree of Life was ever before them…the Tree, where the Cross was made, that was then transplanted in our hearts as Church, and the Fruit of the Tree of Life now the Eucharist where His Heart beats constantly in the world through the Cross. The Cross, the Heart beating as the only constant in this world…a beautiful reflection on Good Friday by the papal preacher before the Pope this past Easter season.

 

[grannymh]

I am simply repeating the interesting thought, the Truth of God can exist in myths shared by our faith formation director.

There are some myths and legends which do speak about this or that which is similar to some of the Truths of God at the dawn of human history. Adam and Eve had many descendants including some that rebelled against their parents. Because of this, I prefer to examine the specific Truth of God in a specific point in a specific legend and then check the context. So far, my limited experience has shown inconsistencies.

On the other hand, ancient myths and legends are very important because they attest to human’s inherent instinct that the “super-natural” exists.

Granny, is it true that mankind can be traced through DNA back to our original parents? Thought I read that one time.

.
The current human genome would have the *basic *human characteristics going back to our original parents because we are descendants of those sole original human parents.

 

[jimkhong]

This challenges the Catholic teaching that the human species was founded by a population of two.

Is there a Catholic teaching on this? Or is it just a preference (meaning, not something codified into Catholic Catechism via the Magisterium) among Church theologians for unigentium: that the current human specie arose from a single evolution as opposed to an alternative theory of human evolution popular some 50 years ago where humans separately evolved in different parts of the world. As such, the currently prevailing Out of Africa theory (ie., that homo sapiens sapiens evolved from a single small population of several thousands in a single location in Africa, likely in the south west) is acceptable to this thinking, although no Catholic is required to believe it as it is not Magisterium

 

[jimkhong]

Also there’s an article in wikipedia on ancient Chinese monotheism…

The orthodox faith system held by most dynasties of China since at least the Shang Dynasty (1766 BCE) until the modern period centered on the worship of Shangdi (literally “Above Sovereign”, generally translated as “God”) or Heaven as an omnipotent force.[73] This faith system pre-dated the development of Confucianism and Taoism and the introduction of Buddhism and Christianity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Chinese_view

While correct, I should also caution against taking Chinese view on theism as dealing with the same issue as we are.

We Chinese are a very practical people. Historically Chinese culture has been more concerned with the practical ordering of society. Philosophical questions are usually at the service of achieving this objective. Chinese religion/philosophy generally deals rituals and actions to ensure harmony of human society. The greater force whose wrath will be invoked if this harmony is disrupted is Shangdi (heavenly emperor) or Tienshan (heaven). They are merely convenient shorthand for the greater force above all of us.

And while the divinity is well supported by the necessary mythologies and origin stories, there is little philosophical speculation on the nature of the divinity like that extent in India and the West. This is not to say there such speculation did not take place: they did but outside the mainstream Chinese thought and are tolerated as long as they do not disrupt Confucianist rituals.

Which is why in Catholicism, we use the term Tienchu, to denote the God of love. The term denotes a multi-faceted God whose intention for humankind can be studied at many various levels, and as such, is a break from the traditional Chinese notion of divinity, which would have limited us severely in exploring the philosophy of God.

 

[jimkhong]

In Islam, Allah is not consistent, creates both good and evil, has no purpose, gives no purpose to his subjects…and just this ability to create good and evil implies within itself rather a sense of a false god…that competes within his own conflicting creation…that although Islam claims belief in one god, the behavior and inner contradictions is more reflective of Greek gods and their own conflicting behaviors towards each other.

I would hesitate to say that in Islam, Allah has no purpose. It is more likely that Muslims view God as so far above them that it is no point to try to understand his purpose and point of view. In fact to do so may invite the accusation that one is trying to be God himself.

It is more correct to say that Allah gives no purpose to his subjects (your words) save for (my addition to your words here) the purpose of following his revelation. A muslim is called to implement God’s commandment in all matters to the letter, as contained in the Quran. That does not mean Muslims are all literalists. It is instrumental however that a Muslim literalist (eg., Salafists) would define himself as being required to follow all God’s commandment even if it doesn’t make sense to do so. This differs from Christian literalist who still do make an attempt to justify their beliefs, even if only in context of other scriptural verses. The muslim on the other hand, is not supposed to ask why.

 

[grannymh]

Is there a Catholic teaching on this? Or is it just a preference (meaning, not something codified into Catholic Catechism via the Magisterium) among Church theologians for unigentium: that the current human specie arose from a single evolution as opposed to an alternative theory of human evolution popular some 50 years ago where humans separately evolved in different parts of the world. As such, the currently prevailing Out of Africa theory (ie., that homo sapiens sapiens evolved from a single small population of several thousands in a single location in Africa, likely in the south west) is acceptable to this thinking, although no Catholic is required to believe it as it is not Magisterium

Encyclical Humani Generis of the Holy Father Pius XII, 1950, paragraphs 36 and 37.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

ENCYCLICALHUMANI GENERIS

OF THE HOLY FATHER
PIUS XII
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN,
PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS,
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION
WITH THE HOLY SEE
CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS
THREATENING TO UNDERMINE
THE FOUNDATIONS
OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Paragraph 36.
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Paragraph 37.
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Footnotes:
11.
Cfr. Allocut Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science, November 30, 1941: A.A.S., vol. XXXIII, p. 506.
Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.

---

While this Encyclical pre-dates both the Multiregional Theory and the Out of Africa Theory, it actually refers back to Charles Darwin and his evolution model. The term “polygenism” requires an indiscriminate random breeding population.

 

[Jerusha]

Thanks for that encyclical. It is a difficult problem. Now we understand why Israel was so important in God’s plan.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Granny for the encyclical that only further affirms that it is to the Jewish race our questions can begin to be answered that can only be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the end of revelation.

 

[Lucretius]

Is it true that the G-d of Abraham was originally one of many from pre-existing beliefs, possibly a storm-god typical of ancient Near Eastern myths? The word “Israel” is based on the name El rather than Y----- [HaShem (lit. “The Name”)].

The name of God given to Moses is the Hebrew copula (to be), which is a clear indication of where It came from. “El” is the generic word for God, and God in the Bible isn’t really referred to as “el” unless in a larger title (like “Most High”), or in the plural, “Elohim.” That Wikipedia article is simply incorrect.

You must understand: God reveals himself to people, and people try to understand what has been revealed to them by reference to what is familiar to them. So, some of the Divine Revelation in the earlier texts of the Old Testament were expressed in the Mesopotamian mythological concepts that the Hebrews were familiar with, just like how, say, the book of Wisdom or the Gospel of St. John is expressed using Greek philosophical concepts. But they are not mere rip offs: rather they often turn the very meaning of the pagan myth on its head!

We do the same thing today: we try to understand the transcendence of God using concepts like justice, mercy, goodness, etc., when in truth these concepts only barely approximate the infinite reality that is God. That’s why God often seems to be paradoxical and even contradictory: we are trying to make sense of him with concepts derived from our experiences with created things, which only share a degree of likeness to God, some more than others.

God transcends these concepts, and so what is contradictory or paradoxical from our perspective is unified in God, just like how in normal experience, the nature of particles and waves are contradictory, but in our experiences with the quantum realm, they are not.

And when we say the Scriptures are inspired by God, we mean that God agrees with every word of it: this doesn’t mean he shares in the same mindset and intention the human authors had when they were writing it.

If you want a correct understanding of the relationship between paganism and the Church, I recommend reading Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man:

cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html

archive.org/details/EverlastingMan

You can also look at and abstract my general perspective and approach on these sort of questions in my article on the naming of Easter, in order to apply them to your specific topic, here:

disqus.com/home/channel/globalreligions/discussion/channel-globalreligions/the_name_of_easter/

Also, if humans have been around for about 200,000 years and the earth has existed for billions of years, why did G-d only reveal Himself around 4,000 years ago?

Maybe that’s around the time when they invented writing to be able to write it down? Or maybe they were just bodily human, but didn’t possess souls yet? There are multiple explanations.

Christi pax.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for that encyclical. It is a difficult problem. Now we understand why Israel was so important in God’s plan.

It sounds like there is a mistake as to which encyclical is referred to.
Israel is not mentioned in the presented paragraphs 36 & 37–from post 28…
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Link:
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 

[grannymh]

May I gently point out that God first revealed himself to humanity in the first three fascinating chapters of Sacred Scripture. For example: Genesis 2: 15-17 tells what God said to Adam who is not a people.

One of my favorite scenes is where God looks for Adam. Genesis 3:9. When we open our hearts to God, we can hear Genesis 3-9 calling us.

 

[jimkhong]

Encyclical Humani Generis of the Holy Father Pius XII, 1950, paragraphs 36 and 37.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

ENCYCLICALHUMANI GENERIS

OF THE HOLY FATHER
PIUS XII
TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN,
PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS,
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION
WITH THE HOLY SEE
CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS
THREATENING TO UNDERMINE
THE FOUNDATIONS
OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Paragraph 36.
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Paragraph 37.
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

Thanks, that is a good reference. I note that the Church did not forbid any of the alternative theories of evaluation except polygenism. This is also not favoured by the scientific community but for different reasons of course. Neither did the Church favour any of the alternative theories, which is wise as it is outside the area of the Church and in any case, the scientific position is constantly evolving.

 

[grannymh]

Here are some key words in bold from the Encyclical Humani Generis

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Paragraph 36.
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields,** take place** with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

Paragraph 36 is more a description of a process than a direct conclusion**. **

And it is true that natural science is evolving. For example, the Human Genome Project.

When one carefully examines the evolution model of the current Science of Human Evolution, **the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter **includes large random breeding “Homo” populations genetically evolving into more random breeding populations. The last population (human) point on a cladogram is automatically opposed to a single original human population of two who have God’s blessings. Genesis 1: 28-31.

This is an interesting website page. Note opening sentence and “Misconceptions about humans”.
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_07

The Homo/Pan Split could be considered the speciation event. Obviously, it is not Genesis 1: 27.

 

[Jerusha]

I am considering Genesis 6, which is an ancient story of the Nephilim and may be the story of the genetic mixing of Homo Neanderthalis and Homo Sapiens. Scientifically speaking, they are different species. sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/modern-human-females-and-male-neandertals-had-trouble-making-babies-here-s-why Homo Sapiens came out of Africa, and Homo Neanderthalis was already in Europe/Asia and adapted to the climate. Homo Sapiens genetics rejected the Homo Neanderthalis Y chromosome in favor of Adam and Eve’s. Although we have ample evidence that Homo Neanderthalis was sentient, they were not, according to my flawed thinking, human. They and their children became the gods and heroes of Greek mythology.

The Jews grappled with this problem and received the inspiration that God allowed this to happen and some questions are unanswerable. Alternatively, they may have believed that the flood (although local) was God’s punishment upon humans for this mixing.

Some radical theories, but worth posing.

Just as the story of Exodus may be an account of the events in Egypt surrounding the explosion of the island of Santorin/Thera/Atlantis.