Scholars Corner

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St. Augutine and some of the Greek Fathers believed that “'echad” could be understood to mean “one” day and not the “first” day.

I cannot recall that being taught of the other days, that is, “sheniy,” “shaliyshiy,” “rabi’iy,” “chamiyshiy,” and “shishshiy” (two thorugh six).

However, it seems to be implied in St. Augustine’s Literal Meaning of Genesis. I do not know if I remember correctly or not.

My question: Is it correct in the creation accounts of Genesis to see One, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth in place of the First Day, the Second Day, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? St. Augustine seems to say that it all happened at once but in explain is parts to us.

Can a scholar help clear up my understanding?

Thank you!

Sorry, it is difficult to for me to phrase my questions.

Be forgive my transliteration, I do not know how to do such a thing. I copied it the best that I could.
I don’t have any Hebrew, but I recall a smattering of Arabic, which is a similar Semitic diaslect.
As I recall, the Arabic names for the weekdays are:
Ahad = day one = Sunday
Ithnain = day two = Monday
Thelatha = day three = Tuesday
Aarba = day four = Wednesday
Kamsa = day five = Thursday
Sitta, or Jumaat = Day six, or assembly day = Friday
Sabtu = day seven = Saturday.
You will note that the pronunciations are similar to the Hebrew you have quoted.
Incidentally, I have no recollection of the singular numeral being used as the indefinite artical as is common in English and German. My recollection is that Loke Latin, there are NO artocles, either definite, or indefinite. A demonstarive pronoun is sometimes used to emphasize a particular object, ie. ‘a certain man’, but the word used, translates as ‘certain’, not as an article.
Thus Echad means either the first day, the first day of the week, the first week of a pentecost, the first pentecost in a year, the first year in a jubillee…
 
I have been reading and praying since that post.

What I am trying to ask: Is one a cardinal or ordinal number?

From what I am able to discern, it is an cardinal number.

What is the first thing that one needs to build a car? The motor

First here is cardinal.

However the first things one might need is a frame and wheels to on which to place the motor. So the motor might be place on the car third or fourth.

First here is ordinal.

As of now, I think St. Augustine would teach creation was all at once.
Thanks for your help.
 
I have been thinking and praying about this for some time.

I think that St. Augustine teaches that one is a cardinal number here and not a ordinal number.

Example: when one goes to build a car the first thing one needs is a motor. First/one is a cardinal number here.

When one actually builds the car one might first use a frame and wheel. Then first/one is an ordinal number.

Well, thanks for the help!!!

St. Augustine, from what I can discern, teaches creation happen instantaneously, at least from the time side of creation.

The division of days is for our comprehension.
 
I have been thinking and praying about this for some time.

I think that St. Augustine teaches that one is a cardinal number here and not a ordinal number.

Example: when one goes to build a car the first thing one needs is a motor. First/one is a cardinal number here.

When one actually builds the car one might first use a frame and wheel. Then first/one is an ordinal number.

Well, thanks for the help!!!

St. Augustine, from what I can discern, teaches creation happen instantaneously, at least from the time side of creation.

The division of days is for our comprehension.
Dear Jim,
I think you are trying to force Hebrew into a Latin/Greek/English strait jacket.
The Arabs call Sunday: ‘Al ahad’, which translated is either ‘the first’ or ‘the one’. Arabic does not differentiate between the two as far as I know.
The Hebrew word: ‘echad’, which you quote for Sunday is the same ‘echad’ used in the Shema, to say ‘G_d is ONE’
 
The scholars that participate on this forum are blended in with those who are not. Often you can get great answers to questions but also you get some folks with good intentions who give their 2 cents worth but really don’t have the background to give an educated answer, which takes you time to sift through all the replies to find what you need.
I’m not sure what the exact definition of “scholar” here, but most of the replies I’ve seen here are reasonably “educated.”
 
I have been thinking and praying about this for some time.

I think that St. Augustine teaches that one is a cardinal number here and not a ordinal number.

Example: when one goes to build a car the first thing one needs is a motor. First/one is a cardinal number here.

When one actually builds the car one might first use a frame and wheel. Then first/one is an ordinal number.

Well, thanks for the help!!!

St. Augustine, from what I can discern, teaches creation happen instantaneously, at least from the time side of creation.

The division of days is for our comprehension.
well, of course, God creates instantaneously, but there’s more to CREation than just this. According to some ECF traditions, the days of CREation are also about the REcreation of man, that his, his redemption. So that salvation history unfolds in seven [eight, because the days of creation are extended to eight] “ages”. It’s also interesting to note that at the other end of Divine Reve, in the apoc, the beast likewise has seven delineations that are also extended to eight (see Revelation 17:1-11);
 
St. John of the Cross says mountians are the saints (Living Flame of Love, Stanza 2, # 5), at least in some passages.

He uses Ecclus. 43: 4.

I need help understanding him.

I believe him to be correct.

Thanks!!!
 
thistle’s quote from the CCC solves the question.

Does the following solve it with bible only?

Does the following solve one point of the Protestant movement?
LOVE + FAITH = RIGHTEOUSNESS

St. Matthew 22: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

I Corinthians 13: 13 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I Corinthians 13: 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Ephesians 6: 10 Finally, draw your strength from the Lord and from his mighty power. 11 Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens. 13 Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground. 14 So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, 15 and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all (the) flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit.

I Thessalonians 5: 8 But since we are of the day, let us be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love and the helmet that is hope for salvation.

LOVE + faith = RIGTHEOUSNESS

St. Matthew 22: 36-40
I Corinthians 13: 13
I Corinthians 13: 2
I Thessalonians 5: 8
Ephesians 6: 14
Love is First!
Love is Greatest!
 
Might any of you great people know the origin the way we define sacrament: “An outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.”

Where did it start?

What is the original phrase?

Or answer the poorly phrased questions for me in the correct manner!!!

THANKS!!!
 
Sacrament: an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.

Does the sign cause the grace?

Or, does the grace cause the sign?
For complete understanding of its etymology I recommend Summa Theologica as reference.:

The sacraments thus far considered were merely signs of sacred things. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, accepted today by many Episcopalians, the sacraments of the Christian dispensation are not mere signs; they do not merely signify Divine grace, but in virtue of their Divine institution, they cause that grace in the souls of men. “Signum sacro sanctum efficax gratiae” – a sacrosanct sign producing grace, is a good, succinct definition of a sacrament of the New Law. Sacrament, in its broadest acceptation, may be defined as an external sign of something sacred. In the twelfth century Peter Lombard (d. 1164), known as the Master of the Sentences, author of the manual of systematized theology, gave an accurate definition of a sacrament of the New Law: A sacrament is in such a manner an outward sign of inward grace that it bears its image (i.e. signifies or represents it) and is its cause – “Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat” (IV Sent., d.I, n.2). This definition was adopted and perfected by the medieval Scholastics. From St. Thomas we have the short but very expressive definition: The sign of a sacred thing in so far as it sanctifies men - “Signum rei sacrae in quantum est sanctificans homines” (III:60:2).
 
I’m not sure what the exact definition of “scholar” here, but most of the replies I’ve seen here are reasonably “educated.”
In present day usage of the word, it refers to a person who studies. One only needs to know the source of knowledge in relation to certain issue at hand and be able to summon it as an aid in the learning process. In today’s technology one can lift an entire library and dump it into a thread in a few seconds. The challenge is to contribute to the learning process.
 
Chancellare

Thank you!

Please forgive my lack of comprehension.

A sacrament is in such a manner an outward sign of inward grace that it bears its image (i.e. signifies or represents it) and is its cause –

Is sacrament the cause of the sign?

Is sign the cause of the sacrament?

Does the sign point to anagogical realities?

Does the sign point to grace realities?

Does sign point to both grace and anagogical realities?

Again, thank you for your kind help.
 
Chancellare

Thank you!

Please forgive my lack of comprehension.

A sacrament is in such a manner an outward sign of inward grace that it bears its image (i.e. signifies or represents it) and is its cause –

Is sacrament the cause of the sign?

Is sign the cause of the sacrament?

Does the sign point to anagogical realities?

Does the sign point to grace realities?

Does sign point to both grace and anagogical realities?

Again, thank you for your kind help.
Seamus Sully,
I must beg off at the point of hermeneutics. I am more a student than a teacher. As such, human reaction to understanding knowledge is more interesting to me than the knowledge itself.
 
Do we hear God’s love?

Are there Biblical passages that state that we hear or believe God’s love?

Is God’s voice or word or talk the same as the virtue of love?

Do we hear the Holy Spirit?

When God pours His love into our hearts, is it done with words or talking or His voice or something similar?

THANKS!!!
 
Are all human beings New Creations in Christ?
‘Create’ from ‘creo, creare, creavi, creatum’ vt to create, produce, beget; to elect (to an office); to cause, occaision.
But compare:
‘Beget’ from ‘gigno, gignere, genui, genitum’ vt to beget, bear, produce; to cause.
There is a huge amount of overlap in the classical meanings of these two verbs, especially when used in respect of the production of human beings.
This overlap then produces huge difficulties to those reading the Gospel of John, and teachings based on that Gospel, for the difference in these two verbs is called upon to differentiate between the origin of Our Lord, and the rest of us. The common inference is that Our Lord is begotten of G_D, whereas the rest of us are created of G_D, but as I said, the two verbs are alike in meaning in this context.
Now the first three Gospels, report that Our Lord was definite that any of his disciples could, with faith, do any of the deeds which HE did, and indeed, when Peter failed to complete his walk on the water, he was not rebuked for his presumption, but for his lack of faith.
Clearly Our Lord was telling them that physically HE was no different from them, it was only his faith, and certain knowledge which set him apart, and that was within their reach to gain.
Again, then what do we mean when we use the verb ‘create’ in this context, as opposed to ‘beget’
In context, the usual differentiation is:
Creation is production, ex nullis, or from nothing but the Will of G_D, whereas,
Begetting is modification, by effort, of something already created.
Now are we a new creation?
Plainly No.
We are begotten of the creation, as indeed was the physical presence of Our Lord. However, the spiritual entity of Our Lord, the spirit which inhabited the temple of HIS BODY is a different matter. That is the Divine Presence Incarnate. For the rest of us, the spiritual presence is just the keeper of the temple. That is not to say that the temple of Our Lord did not have a keeper, but that that keeper knew his place, unlike ours, which considers itself to be the master of the universe!
Now if we set the keeper in its place, and invite in the Divine Presence, is that a creation or a begetting. Yes it is from nothing but the will of G_D, but then, how is that different from Our Lord?
But is that Divine presence separate from Divinity, No.
It is just an extension of the Divinity, so is that a creation, or is it better seen as a begetting, as life begotten is not truely new life, but rather it is life extended.
 
Copland

I have a tough question, please help!

In the Fathers, do they teach that God’s talking to us is love?

Does God communicate His love in words?

Or, are God’s words love?

Are God’s words words of love?

Does preaching come from Love?

I am sorry I cannot ask the question more clearly.

THANKS, if you see this…
Yes.

God’s Word is love.

And yes, we hear the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

First comes love, then comes faith.
 
One of my many questions: Is the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden God’s love?
Hi
These are not to me literal things, all allegoric/metaphoric.
The tree of life
Garden of Eden
God’s love
Satan/serpent
Even the dialogue between GodAllahYHWH and Adam is not literal.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
 
From a Christian understanding, God’s love is literal.

At least as far as I know, we believe that God’s love is literal.

The Tree of Life does have a literal understanding.

The Garden of Eden does have a literal understanding.

Satan and the Serpent or Dragon or Sea Monster does have a literal understanding.

I do not know how to explain such things.

I know that our Christian faith teaches that all Biblical comparisons do have a literal interpretation or literal understanding.

I am not educated enough to explain those.

I could say some things about them, but I would be giving my understanding. Therefore I will not do that now.
 
From a Christian understanding, God’s love is literal.

At least as far as I know, we believe that God’s love is literal.

The Tree of Life does have a literal understanding.

The Garden of Eden does have a literal understanding.

Satan and the Serpent or Dragon or Sea Monster does have a literal understanding.

I do not know how to explain such things.

I know that our Christian faith teaches that all Biblical comparisons do have a literal interpretation or literal understanding.

I am not educated enough to explain those.

I could say some things about them, but I would be giving my understanding. Therefore I will not do that now.
As far as I know, in most Catholic thought, “literal” means “according to the author’s intent.” So if someone says, “I’ve been climbing the walls lately,” a “literal” interpretation would be that they are bored, edgy, and so on. An overly literalistic interpretation, in that case, would miss the “literal” meaning.

If symbolism is used in the Scriptures, the “literal” interpretation would take into account the symbolic meaning intended by the author. (This is not necessarily to imply that the Garden of Eden story is intended to be symbolic; however, it seems that it could be.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top