Priest says OT is all "just stories"

[razredge]

Let me begin with the Catholic doctrine that Jesus Christ is True Man and True God. Now add in that Catholics believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. This is because Jesus as True Man conquered death by His own resurrection. Atonement is for the act of sinning and not for the result.

All well and good, but the resurrection of the body and life everlasting are not in this world but the world to come. Adam and Eve supposedly would have life everlasting in this world so logically if Christ’s death made full reparation for Adam’s sin, all death (or at least human death) would have ceased.

.

That is a wrong assumption.

How so? Wasn’t the Garden paradise?

It is my humble observation that you are not starting from Catholic doctrines, i.e., Divine Revelation. That has to be why it is difficult for you to understand why there are two real founders of humanity, one real devil and organic fruit as representing the devil’s real temptation. The basic story line of Creator and Creature is missing for many, not all, Catholics on CAF. That is why so many Catholics on CAF are unaware of what was going on in the first three chapters of Genesis. In addition, the fallout from Matthew Fox and others has affected many priests who also were not grounded in basic Catholic doctrines.

No wonder Catholics question the reality of Adam…they simply have no clue about his status.

I know the traditional Catholic doctrines (since after all I was brought up Catholic and was taught them), however I now reject the existence of Adam and Eve since the scientific evidence conclusively disproves such a hypothesis - much like the Church had to abandon geocentrism, young earth creationism etc due to scientific discovery.

As for original sin I ascribe to Pope Benedict’s views on the topic.
Matthew Fox seems to be some kind of hippie nut trying to merge New Age beliefs with Christianity.

 

[TryingToLearn]

All well and good, but the resurrection of the body and life everlasting are not in this world but the world to come. Adam and Eve supposedly would have life everlasting in this world so logically if Christ’s death made full reparation for Adam’s sin, all death (or at least human death) would have ceased.
.

You are viewing it from our time limited perspective. God transcends time, the world to come is already present when you are outside time and space as God is. The concept is not fully comprehensible to a finite mind limited to time and space.

 

[razredge]

You are viewing it from our time limited perspective. God transcends time, the world to come is already present when you are outside time and space as God is. The concept is not fully comprehensible to a finite mind limited to time and space.

Irrelevant, Adam’s sin and its resulting effect occured in time (directly following the act) so presumably any reversal of the act and the effect should also occur in time (and also directly follow the act).

 

[TryingToLearn]

Irrelevant, Adam’s sin and its resulting effect occured in time (directly following the act) so presumably any reversal of the act and the effect should also occur in time (and also directly follow the act).

Not irrelevant at all. When we celebrate the Eucharist, the veil between Earth and Heaven is so thin as to allow us to briefly be united in time to the one sacrifice. We are present at the sacrifice that happened, has happened and will always happen in Heaven. Along with the resurrection, second coming and everything that is, was, and ever will be. Being connect to the Church Triumphant that is present in Christ in the eternal, all encompassing now means that it has happened.

Us being trapped in the valley of tears is our problem, our journey. My ignorance of eternity does not limit God, nor does your ignorance of the ignorance of any other finite human being. He transcends and every act that occurred in time has, will and is ever present in our unchanging and eternal God that is completely outside of space and time. And makes the entire dynamic of time relative to timeless eternity incomprehensible to you or me.

 

[razredge]

Very nice, but still irrelevant - i’m talking about things from our perspective, which we are familiar with and know, unlike God’s - and from our perspective my argument seems reasonable.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Very nice, but still irrelevant - i’m talking about things from our perspective, which we are familiar with and know, unlike God’s - and from our perspective my argument seems reasonable.

Unfortunately, that is the root cause of your problem.

When you read any book it is absolutely necessary to take the author’s perspective into account. God is the Author of the Bible and Creation, you must take His perspective into account. The Church is the teacher of His perspective.

 

[grannymh]

All well and good, but the resurrection of the body and life everlasting are not in this world but the world to come. Adam and Eve supposedly would have life everlasting in this world so logically if Christ’s death made full reparation for Adam’s sin, all death (or at least human death) would have ceased.

emphasis mine

It is time to figure out the difference between “this world” and God’s world.

.

How so? Wasn’t the Garden paradise?

Lots of vacation spots are considered “paradise” according to advertising.
It is important to figure out the difference between the time frame of the “garden” and the time frame of God’s world.

I know the traditional Catholic doctrines (since after all I was brought up Catholic and was taught them), however I now reject the existence of Adam and Eve since the scientific evidence conclusively disproves such a hypothesis - much like the Church had to abandon geocentrism, young earth creationism etc due to scientific discovery.

This type of answer is so very typical of most, not all, CAF posters. It indicates that some of the basic information about Catholicism was **never **taught them.

As for original sin I ascribe to Pope Benedict’s views on the topic.

Pope Benedict’s position on Original Sin is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Out of context quotes brings in advertising money.

Matthew Fox seems to be some kind of hippie nut trying to merge New Age beliefs with Christianity.

Wikipedia gives the background of Matthew Fox.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Unfortunately, that is the root cause of your problem.

When you read any book it is absolutely necessary to take the author’s perspective into account. God is the Author of the Bible and Creation, you must take His perspective into account. The Church is the teacher of His perspective.

Friend, you go to far.
G_D, in the Body of Our Lord is the author of the Gospels, as they were originally written.
Some minor alterations and additions have crept in by the hands of ‘correctors’ and illustrators.
As for the rest, it is by the hand of Man, some inspired, and some maybe not so inspired.

Your claim is about as admissible as the claims that the Holy Quran was dictated in its entirety to Mohammad by the Angel Gabliel, and by that standard, your claim should be judged.

Faith is a mystery.
There is No certainty, other than perhaps death and taxation.

That is the way G_D built the Universe.
Uncertainty is a necessary part of its existence.
Inside this universe no-one can see the future, and that includes G_D in the body in this universe.
Outside of time and space, it is of course, a different matter.

 

[grannymh]

Irrelevant, Adam’s sin and its resulting effect occured in time (directly following the act) so presumably any reversal of the act and the effect should also occur in time (and also directly follow the act).

Please explain the difference between this world’s time and the spiritual principle (soul) in the human nature of the first human person.

 

[Gorgias]

Irrelevant, Adam’s sin and its resulting effect occured in time (directly following the act) so presumably any reversal of the act and the effect should also occur in time (and also directly follow the act).

Yet, we don’t know for sure that God’s plan included the eternal existence of our mortal bodies. It’s not unreasonable (or inconsistent with Christian belief) to posit that God’s plan was always for us to cast off our physical bodies and take on spiritual bodies. If that were the case, then the effect of original sin is exactly a reversal of this eternal destiny. In other words, Christ’s sacrifice reversed this eschatological death sentence and restored the possibility of eternal life; the effects of the sin of Adam and the redemption by Christ are exactly in line with each other…

 

[grannymh]

So in that understanding, Adam, is just a man, Eve, is just a woman.
Again, read the story, a little beyond the beginning, and the Children of Adam and Eve take to husband, or wife, children, not of Adam and Eve. So this is not the beginning of the beginning, but the beginning of a recovery from a near total annihilation. An incident which today’s scientists agree actually happened.

One needs to start humanity’s genetic time line from its beginning by reading the beginning starting with *Genesis 1.1. *

Please pause at Genesis 1: 27 - 31. Since it is assumed that everyone is very familiar with the first three chapters of Genesis, one can continue the story of the descendants of Adam in Chapter 3: 20. “The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.” Please note that the writer did not name everyone of “all the living.”

The way Adam and Eve became the first parents of all the living was by the transmission of their human nature through propagation. To insure the proper transmission of human nature, their children married those who had the same human nature, bone of their bones and flesh of their flesh. In other words, the siblings in the first generation married each other while their parents continued to give birth to more children. This is known as overlapping generations. For example, due to the blessed fertility (remember Genesis 1: 28) a nephew could be older than his uncle. I have two friends in overlapping generations. I sincerely doubt that this happens currently.

At this point, one needs to check the genetic time line which means starting with the new species, we humans, fathered by Adam. No matter which way one studies Adam’s anatomy and spiritual soul, Adam does not have similar body and soul ancestors. First is first. The Creator is not restricted by the material anatomies He created. Please keep in mind that there is a huge difference between the spiritual and material worlds.

Humans, precisely because their nature is an unique unification of both the spiritual and material worlds, can only descend from the first fully-complete humans, biblically known as Adam and Eve. As the first of their species, Adam and Eve’s genes passed on to their children would not be in the same state as today’s genetic diseases which have developed over many years. As science demonstrates, major gene mutations take time to develop and become fixed in a population. Plus, not all mutations are bad. For example, recent research showed special adaptations which allow individual populations to live in extremely high altitudes.

Practically speaking, because of the “chance” way genetic heredity can work, it took a large number of generations which experienced certain kinds of diseases before the scientific cause was recognized. As society realized the cause, in order to avoid the disease, it banned marriage within chosen degrees. Even so, the law of chance regarding transmission of certain genes prevailed. And throughout history, cousins have been able to marry cousins.

Since dramatic change is not part of the first possible mutation of a gene, the children of Adam and Eve could marry within the blessing given in *Genesis 1: 28. *Each couple born of Adam and Eve would begin their own separate line of descendants. These separate lines would beget “cousins” who would beget their own separate line of descendents. Due to overlapping generations in very large families, the need for brother to marry sister disappeared quickly. Eventually, to insure that brothers and sisters did not marry, laws regarding proper marriage partners were put in place.

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

One needs to start humanity’s genetic time line from its beginning by reading the beginning starting with *Genesis 1.1. *

Please pause at Genesis 1: 27 - 31. Since it is assumed that everyone is very familiar with the first three chapters of Genesis, one can continue the story of the descendants of Adam in Chapter 3: 20. “The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.” Please note that the writer did not name everyone of “all the living.”

The way Adam and Eve became the first parents of all the living was by the transmission of their human nature through propagation. To insure the proper transmission of human nature, their children married those who had the same human nature, bone of their bones and flesh of their flesh. In other words, the siblings in the first generation married each other while their parents continued to give birth to more children. This is known as overlapping generations. For example, due to the blessed fertility (remember Genesis 1: 28) a nephew could be older than his uncle. I have two friends in overlapping generations. I sincerely doubt that this happens currently.

At this point, one needs to check the genetic time line which means starting with the new species, we humans, fathered by Adam. No matter which way one studies Adam’s anatomy and spiritual soul, Adam does not have similar body and soul ancestors. First is first. The Creator is not restricted by the material anatomies He created. Please keep in mind that there is a huge difference between the spiritual and material worlds.

Humans, precisely because their nature is an unique unification of both the spiritual and material worlds, can only descend from the first fully-complete humans, biblically known as Adam and Eve. As the first of their species, Adam and Eve’s genes passed on to their children would not be in the same state as today’s genetic diseases which have developed over many years. As science demonstrates, major gene mutations take time to develop and become fixed in a population. Plus, not all mutations are bad. For example, recent research showed special adaptations which allow individual populations to live in extremely high altitudes.

Practically speaking, because of the “chance” way genetic heredity can work, it took a large number of generations which experienced certain kinds of diseases before the scientific cause was recognized. As society realized the cause, in order to avoid the disease, it banned marriage within chosen degrees. Even so, the law of chance regarding transmission of certain genes prevailed. And throughout history, cousins have been able to marry cousins.

Since dramatic change is not part of the first possible mutation of a gene, the children of Adam and Eve could marry within the blessing given in *Genesis 1: 28. *Each couple born of Adam and Eve would begin their own separate line of descendants. These separate lines would beget “cousins” who would beget their own separate line of descendents. Due to overlapping generations in very large families, the need for brother to marry sister disappeared quickly. Eventually, to insure that brothers and sisters did not marry, laws regarding proper marriage partners were put in place.

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
From the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

I love, and I envy your innocent faith.
Unfortunately for me, my path has been set differently: not to accept without question, but to question everything. The real surprise is that we both come back to the same basis.
If you are happy with your path of innocence, do not leave it, because the path of questions is difficult.
Difficult, but more satisfying, for it results in knowledge, rather than faith.

Genesis was not written as a vehicle for faith, but as an explanation of the origin of things, just like Kipling’s ‘Just So Stories’.
It is a postulation built on the premises of its day.
The ‘Faith’ message was not put in it deliberately, but was an artefact of the compilers, much as when an Irishman greets you, he does not say ‘Hi’, but he says ‘Dia duit’ which translated is ‘G_D be with you’, and he says it naturally, and unashamedly. He is a Catholic Christian, assumes you are, and blesses you as a brother. It is impossible for him to speak without imprinting his Christianity on everything he says. ‘It is a fine day, Thanks be to G_D’ rolls of his tongue as naturally as he draws breath.
It is of little wonder that the theology of the Children of Israel is spread thick on the purported history of the World.
It was never intended to be a vehicle of faith, and should not be seen as such. It was an honest attempt to explain the origins of their people. If there was any hidden agenda, it was to unite the people.
That does not mean that it cannot be used to discern the faith of the Children of Israel, for indeed the accidental witness is obvious for all to see.
What we must not do is to automatically assume that it is a deliberate witness.

 

[grannymh]

I love, and I envy your innocent faith.
Unfortunately for me, my path has been set differently: not to accept without question, but to question everything. The real surprise is that we both come back to the same basis.
If you are happy with your path of innocence, do not leave it, because the path of questions is difficult.
Difficult, but more satisfying, for it results in knowledge, rather than faith.

Genesis was not written as a vehicle for faith, but as an explanation of the origin of things, just like Kipling’s ‘Just So Stories’.
It is a postulation built on the premises of its day.
The ‘Faith’ message was not put in it deliberately, but was an artefact of the compilers, much as when an Irishman greets you, he does not say ‘Hi’, but he says ‘Dia duit’ which translated is ‘G_D be with you’, and he says it naturally, and unashamedly. He is a Catholic Christian, assumes you are, and blesses you as a brother. It is impossible for him to speak without imprinting his Christianity on everything he says. ‘It is a fine day, Thanks be to G_D’ rolls of his tongue as naturally as he draws breath.
It is of little wonder that the theology of the Children of Israel is spread thick on the purported history of the World.
It was never intended to be a vehicle of faith, and should not be seen as such. It was an honest attempt to explain the origins of their people. If there was any hidden agenda, it was to unite the people.
That does not mean that it cannot be used to discern the faith of the Children of Israel, for indeed the accidental witness is obvious for all to see.
What we must not do is to automatically assume that it is a deliberate witness.

A bit of clarification.

Genesis has 50 chapters. It is the first three chapters of Genesis which presents knowledge of human origin and human nature. This is more than a “faith message”. Catholicism considers the truths in those first three chapters as Divine Revelation. The path to these truths is filled with questions; yet, because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Gospel of John, Chapter 14) the answers to these mysteries of truth have been defined and declared by the Catholic Church.

Deep, basic knowledge about us as human persons can be found in those first three chapters of Genesis, if only we have the courage to study the teachings of Catholicism.

 

[The_Holy_War_11]

I believe they are true

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hi Bethany!

Here are some thoughts from Augustine that I thought you might appreciate:

“ome allegorize all that concerns Paradise itself… These and similar allegorical interpretations may be suitably put upon Paradise without giving offense to any one, while yet we believe the strict truth of the history, confirmed by its circumstantial narrative of facts” (, Bk. 13, Ch. 21The City of God).

“Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church… But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed” (, Bk. 15, Ch. 27The City of God).

“From the blessing of the two sons of Noah, and the cursing of the middle son, down to Abraham, or for more than a thousand years, there is, as I have said, no mention of any righteous persons who worshipped God. I do not therefore conclude that there were none; but it had been tedious to mention every one, and would have displayed historical accuracy rather than prophetic foresight. The object of the writer of these sacred books, or rather of the Spirit of God in him, is not only to record the past, but to depict the future, so far as it regards the city of God; for whatever is said of those who are not its citizens, is given either for her instruction, or as a foil to enhance her glory. Yet we are not to suppose that all that is recorded has some signification; but those things which have no signification of their own are interwoven for the sake of the things which are significant. It is only the ploughshare that cleaves the soil; but to effect this, other parts of the plough are requisite. It is only the strings in harps and other musical instruments which produce melodious sounds; but that they may do so, there are other parts of the instrument which are not indeed struck by those who sing, but are connected with the strings which are struck, and produce musical notes. So in this prophetic history some things are narrated which have no significance, but are, as it were, the framework to which the significant things are attached” (, Bk. 16, Ch. 2The City of God).

“But just as, I think, they err greatly who are of opinion that none of the records of affairs in that kind of writings mean anything more than that they so happened, so I think those very daring who contend that the whole gist of their contents lies in allegorical significations. Therefore I have said [that prophetic utterances] are threefold, not two-fold. Yet, in holding this opinion, I do not blame those who may be able to draw out of everything there a spiritual meaning, only saving, first of all, the historical truth. For the rest, what believer can doubt that those things are spoken vainly which are such that, whether said to have been done or to be yet to come, they do not beseem either human or divine affairs? Who would not recall these to spiritual understanding if he could, or confess that they should be recalled by him who is able?” (, Bk. 17, Ch. 3The City of God)

I just saw your posts on another thread and I also just finished listening to a sermon this morning that I thought might be a blessing for you: A Song of Darkness (right-click to “Save Target As…”).

With love in Christ,
Pete

“For the forgotten, the Father’s heart says, ‘Come!’”

 

[patg]

I believe they are true

Of course they are “true”, the issue many disagree on is that they are also mostly fiction - myths, legends, poetry, aphorisms, etc. The church dogmatically states that the bible contains many literary forms besides history and does not requires us to believe literalistically. Fiction is a perfectly valid vehicle for revelation.

 

[grannymh]

Of course they are “true”, the issue many disagree on is that they are also mostly fiction - myths, legends, poetry, aphorisms, etc. The church dogmatically states that the bible contains many literary forms besides history and does not requires us to believe literalistically. Fiction is a perfectly valid vehicle for revelation.

Three basic Catholic doctrines (Divine Revelation) flow from the first three chapters of Genesis. The first is that all humanity descended from two sole parents. The second is that the contracted state of Original Sin is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam. The third is that a Savior is promised, one Who will redeem all people.

Regardless of how these three truths are presented, the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1.; CCC 404)

 

[razredge]

Unfortunately, that is the root cause of your problem.

When you read any book it is absolutely necessary to take the author’s perspective into account. God is the Author of the Bible and Creation, you must take His perspective into account. The Church is the teacher of His perspective.

Sigh - your ‘God transcends time, so an effect doesn’t need to closely follow a cause in our limited perspective’ distraction does not match up with the Bible where effects do indeed directly follow their causes most of the time. ie. Adam & Eve are expelled from Eden after they eat the fruit from the wrong tree.

Now, if Adam & Eve’s act had a direct, immediate consequence and if Christ’s atoning death is an exact mirror image of that act, shouldn’t it also have a direct, immediate consequence?

emphasis mine

It is time to figure out the difference between “this world” and God’s world.

You know what I mean - this world means this planet as opposed to all existence (heaven included) or the world to come.

.

Lots of vacation spots are considered “paradise” according to advertising.
It is important to figure out the difference between the time frame of the “garden” and the time frame of God’s world.

What distinction between time frame of the garden and what time frame of God is ever implied in Genesis?

This type of answer is so very typical of most, not all, CAF posters. It indicates that some of the basic information about Catholicism was **never **taught them.

Namely?

Pope Benedict’s position on Original Sin is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Out of context quotes brings in advertising money.

You wish it was! And the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not infallible - indeed it can’t be since it claims monogenism is true and it is not an out of context quote, since the text reproduced is substantial enough to be read in context.

 

[razredge]

Please explain the difference between this world’s time and the spiritual principle (soul) in the human nature of the first human person.

That question doesn’t even make sense, it’s like asking me what’s the difference between the space-time continuum and my dog.

Yet, we don’t know for sure that God’s plan included the eternal existence of our mortal bodies. It’s not unreasonable (or inconsistent with Christian belief) to posit that God’s plan was always for us to cast off our physical bodies and take on spiritual bodies. If that were the case, then the effect of original sin is exactly a reversal of this eternal destiny. In other words, Christ’s sacrifice reversed this eschatological death sentence and restored the possibility of eternal life; the effects of the sin of Adam and the redemption by Christ are exactly in line with each other…

Sigh - yes, but that’s what I said in the first place, that Adam & Eve were not physically immortal and that physical death did not enter the world due to original sin - it was present long before the Fall. Granny and the others take issue with that.

Of course they are “true”, the issue many disagree on is that they are also mostly fiction - myths, legends, poetry, aphorisms, etc. The church dogmatically states that the bible contains many literary forms besides history and does not requires us to believe literalistically. Fiction is a perfectly valid vehicle for revelation.

Exactly, this kind of bible literalism seems to be mainly a problem in the US where the Catholics seem to be adversely influenced by the Fundamentalists.

 

[grannymh]

Sigh - your ‘God transcends time, so an effect doesn’t need to closely follow a cause in our limited perspective’ distraction does not match up with the Bible where effects do indeed directly follow their causes most of the time. ie. Adam & Eve are expelled from Eden after they eat the fruit from the wrong tree.

Now, if Adam & Eve’s act had a direct, immediate consequence and if Christ’s atoning death is an exact mirror image of that act, shouldn’t it also have a direct, immediate consequence?

An exact mirror image of that act. How so?
As I will say again later. God decides if something should be immediate or not. It would be nice if you accepted God’s ways; however, your acceptance is not necessary.

By the way, did you ever find out what the sin of Adam is which is symbolized by an organic piece of fruit?

You know what I mean - this world means this planet as opposed to all existence (heaven included) or the world to come.

And this means – the material world, our planet, is very different from the spiritual world which also exists on our planet as well as being eternal life. Thus, when one talks about human nature, one needs to be aware of the difference because both the material *and *spiritual form one human nature.
.

What distinction between time frame of the garden and what time frame of God is ever implied in Genesis?

As a creature, Adam had to live in free submission to His Creator. The reward for this was the “tree of life.” In other words, Adam would have eternal life with God, provided he lived in obedience to God during his temporal time in the garden.

Namely?

That the realm of the Catholic Church is faith and morals and not heliocentricism and the age of the earth.

You wish it was! And the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not infallible - indeed it can’t be since it claims monogenism is true and it is not an out of context quote, since the text reproduced is substantial enough to be read in context.

My suggestion is to check out the Catholic Catechism especially paragraphs 18-22, “Practical Directions for Using this Catechism” Then take a look at the footnotes for various paragraphs. Doing all this will help one understand what is considered Catholic doctrine and what is “support” of that teaching.

The Catholic Church depends on the Holy Spirit for declaring the truth of monogenism. While your agreement would be nice, it is not necessary.