Scripture: What's myth and what's history?

[Catholic_Johnny]

So you see science as an ongoing public revelation by the Holy Spirit, continuing up until today (and presumably into the future)?

Of course, theistic evolutionists think the cosmos is in constant evolution even though that opinion was rejected by the Church in Humani Generis.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

StAnastasia and Gottle of Geer:

Does satan exist? Is he a person (spirit)? Is there a hell for the damned? Do demons oppress human beings?

Just wondering about your ‘theologies’…

 

[StAnastasia]

Of course, theistic evolutionists think the cosmos is in constant evolution even though that opinion was rejected by the Church in Humani Generis.

Of course it’s in constant evolution, and has been from the very moment of the Big Bang. From quarks to atoms to stellar nebulae to stars and galaxies to nucleosynthesis to heavier elements to rocky planets to life to intelligence to spiritual and moral response. Unceasing evolution! A universe folding in on itself, complexifying, evolving consciousness, responding to God’s gracious invitation to fuller existence.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia and Gottle of Geer:
Does satan exist? Is he a person (spirit)? Is there a hell for the damned? Do demons oppress human beings? Just wondering about your ‘theologies’…

I’ll answer you when you can cite one widely respected Catholic theologian – cited by his or her peers – who has rejected evolution and moved backward to articulate a Thomistic-Aristotelian view of the universe.

StAnastasia

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

I’ll answer you when you can cite one widely respected Catholic theologian – cited by his or her peers – who has rejected evolution and moved backward to articulate a Thomistic-Aristotelian view of the universe.

StAnastasia

Ahhh… now we’re getting somewhere. I take it ‘widely respected Catholic theologians’ do not believe in the devil. :ehh:

 

[StAnastasia]

Ahhh… now we’re getting somewhere. I take it ‘widely respected Catholic theologians’ do not believe in the devil. :ehh:

How do you derive that conclusion?

 

[StAnastasia]

As I recall, Fr. Zahm got into some very hot water as a result. What’s new ?​

Warmish water, but no condemnation of Evolution and Dogma was ever promulgated. The Vatican have no systematic campaign of persecution against evolution.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

Warmish water, but no condemnation of Evolution and Dogma was ever promulgated. The Vatican have no systematic campaign of persecution against evolution.

StAnastasia

Sorry, the Vatican had [have] no systematic campaign of persecution against evolution.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

How do you derive that conclusion?

Why don’t you just answer the question and remove all doubt?

 

[wildleafblower]

Your comparison of Saint Thomas Aquinas to the censured Teilhard is insulting to obedient Catholics, a gratuitous over reach, and very close to blasphemy. Like your patron ‘saint’, you lunge at evolution while losing all meaning of original sin.

Catholic Johnny, unless you have made Thomas Aquinas your God, I recommend you not throw around the term “blasphemy” quite so freely! Aquinas was a great thinker in his day, interpreting Catholic theology in light of the recently rediscovered Aristotelian corpus. Teilhard de Chardin was a great thinker in his day, interpreting Catholic theology in light of what we now know about the evolutionary history of the universe, which has completely superseded Aristotelian physics and biology.

A significant measure of the the influence of Teilhard is the extent to which theologians have incorporated and already moved beyond his thinking. I know of no theologians who have rejected evolution and moved backward to articulate an Aristotelian view of the universe. The hundreds of theologians with whom I’ve worked and interacted – including Teilhard’s fellow Jesuits – have taken evolution on board. You might participate in one of the meetings of the North American Teilhard Society some day, just to see how creatively people are workling with evolutionary themes in theology.

StAnastasia,

What have​

you said now ?

Thanks for quoting Catholic-bashing Jacko I’ve turned him off, as I was getting tired of his verbal peanut-throwing & lack of intelligent responses - I see I was right to do so.​

I doubt you’ll make any headway by mentioning anything quite so crude as the facts about Aquinas as he was in life, before he became the Great Panjandrum of Catholic thought. He was a great thinker - but he is not infallible, omniscient, inerrant or entirely free of illogic. A great saint - but not God.

Gottle of Geer, you needn’t be rude to Catholic Johnny. I have respect for him. He is a soldier protecting my country hence me. God bless you Catholic Johnny. I’m praying for your safety and all our United States soldiers! Futhermore, he wasn’t bashing anyone. He was presenting his point of view based on information. He is correct that Teilhard was censored by a Pope due to his theological ideas. I have spent six years doing research on him of which I have finally located his four missing journals.

I see you’re getting the same treatment as yours truly ​

Now, if our friends would only think theologically, rather than reaching at all the time for words of Popes, like Linus - good Papal name, that; *very *apposite - for his comfort blanket, we might actually get somewhere. Unfortunately Fundamentalists, though keen on protesting their orthodoxy, aren’t much good with theology - they have doctrines instead: not theologies

Oh, Gottle of Geer asking questions is considered the
“inquisition” to you too? I thought Catholic.com was supposed to be a place for truth and charity where we could ask questions of which mine have yet to be answered. And I do believe that these two documents will ease your comic book blues on theology:

ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

and

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS
ORGANIZED TO COMMEMORATE THE 40th ANNIVERSARY
OF THE DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION “DEI VERBUM”
Castel Gandolfo
Friday, 16 September 2005

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050916_40-dei-verbum_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050916_40-dei-verbum_en.html

StAnastasia and Gottle of Geer:

Does satan exist? Is he a person (spirit)? Is there a hell for the damned? Do demons oppress human beings?

Just wondering about your ‘theologies’…

You ask good questions Catholic Johnny. Let’s hope they will answer them for you. If not, a POPE has an answer for you. If they don’t reply then I guess we will know why! Quite frankly I think they should quote the POPE! Lord knows I’ve been doing it for eons.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Revelation tells us that Adam was a perfect man without defect, sin or intellectual limitation.
He was filled with the Divine logos, or the Reason of God.
Isaiah 55:8 tells us that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and that His ways are much higher than our ways.
But Adam began with this perfection and experienced a perfect relationship with God in a perfect environment while joined to Eve in a perfect matrimony.
The implications of a man created with the DNA of the entire human race in his blood (Acts 17:26) who had perfect knowledge are staggering. God spoke to them directly.
God gives all of the created terra firma to them as a gift - with the instructions to be fruitful, multiply, and exercise dominion over the earth.
Psalm 8 captures the theology of creation beautifully:

5 4 What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them? 6 5 Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor. 7 You have ***given them rule over the works of your hands, put all ***things at their feet: 8 All sheep and oxen, even the beasts of the field, 9 The birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatever swims the paths of the seas. 10 O LORD, our Lord, how awesome is your name through all the earth!

Man in his pristine condition is the exact opposite of what evolutionists imagine. Rather than a bit higher than an ape, man is a little lower a god (or an angel). Adam’s task of naming the animals is a sign of his massive intellect.

Now, imagine Adam living with this perfect knowledge (albeit marred by sin) for nine hundred and thirty years!

The idea that this brilliant one, father of all humanity, the originator of all science, laws and arts was somehow not able to assemble a simple genealogy or taxonomy of essential truths is ridiculous.

Adam and Eve possessed a deeper knowledge of the facts of Creation and were more than capable of promulgating these truths throughout the entire human civilization in written, oral and signal forms than anyone born subsequently.

St. Paul teaches the same to the Romans:

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Far from a feeble, missing link ape-man, Adam was crowned with the Divine Logic (logos), the Heavenly Reason, the First Revelation. Man has not gradually increased in wisdom as evolutionists suppose, but has degenerated from his pristine condition in Eden when the Book of All Things was transparently open to him and his descendants. Indeed, the Tower of Babel called forth the neccessity for God to divide the languages of the tribes and nations - “nothing shall be impossible for them now.”

The Toledoth Theory gives firm footing to the explanation of a brilliant Adam who passed the primeval record onto a posterity that knew the Truth of creation (Rom. 1:20), kept it as a record and successfully passed it on to Joseph who embedded it in the annals of Egypt where Moses recovered it.

Evolutionary theory cannot be harmonized with Divine Revelation without doing violence to the Word of God.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Gottle of Geer, you needn’t be rude to Catholic Johnny. I have respect for him. He is a soldier protecting my country hence me. God bless you Catholic Johnny. I’m praying for your safety and all our United States soldiers! Futhermore, he wasn’t bashing anyone. He was presenting his point of view based on information. He is correct that Teilhard was censored by a Pope due to his theological ideas. I have spent six years doing research on him of which I have finally located his four missing journals.

You ask good questions Catholic Johnny. Let’s hope they will answer them for you. If not, a POPE has an answer for you. If they don’t reply then I guess we will know why! Quite frankly I think they should quote the POPE! Lord knows I’ve been doing it for eons.

 

[StAnastasia]

No. God is bound to the “official channels” - had it been otherwise, He would not have spoken through the herdsman Amos of Tekoa, not through the artisan Jesus, not through fisherman & a tent-making rabbi. A peasant woman is as likely to be his mouthpiece as any number of clerics… And if He wishes to reveal His ways through Darwin or Mendel or Teilhard de Chardin, Marx, Gramsci, or any other, )​

Gottle of Geer, you make an interesting point – that God reveals through the most unlikely of sources. Now let me ask a question, and preface it by saying that I’m writing an theology article for a volume coming out in 2009 – I promise to acknowledge appropriately any help I get.

In your view, what is the range of revelation? Is it confined to scripture? If so, that rules out the revelations of Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima, Medugorje. Or is it confined only to “non-scientific” topics? If so, Aquinas’ writings constructed in the context of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic universe are no closer to “revelation” than are those of Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Hutton, Buffon, Laplace, Darwin, Mendel, Teilhard, or Pope John Paul II.

Now, this raises a couple of problems. If “revelation” once accepted by the Church is later contradicted by what science progressively reveals, what is the nature of that “revelation”? For example, the eschatological vision in the Book of Revelation – if taken literally - is clearly nonsense: 12:4 “And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:” If we admit that stars can’t fall to earth and that this is simply metaphorical or poetic language, that opens up the rest of the Bible to poetic or symbolic interpretation.

A second problem: if we allow extra-theological “revelation,” what counts and what doesn’t? If Newtonian gravity contradicts the Father’s understanding of why things fall, does that render either gravity or early Christian doctrine false? If evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1, does this reveal God’s progressive revelation, in which Darwin builds upon Genesis? If “revelation” is not extended to scientific or technological issues, is Pope Paul VI’s prohibition of so-called “artificial contraception” not a matter of revealed truth but merely one man’s ill-informed opinion? If SETI eventually discovers life – and especially rational life – on other planets, does this contradict the “revealed” vision that the universe revolves around humanity and its concerns?

I’m interested in what you think about this matter of the range of revelation. There will be no quiz on this – I’m just theologizing ad libitum!

StAnastasia

 

[craigmn3]

I think the entire bible is historical, it all happened. But it wasn’t written to us, to give us an historical account. Rather it was written to us to show us the nature of God.

So did the flood happen, of course, was it WORLD WIDE or just the the world as populated wide. We don’t know if two kangaroos were along for a ride, and the story was written to give us those facts, it was written to reveal the nature of God for us. Very little of the bible is written with just basic facts in mind.

 

[StAnastasia]

I think the entire bible is historical, it all happened. But it wasn’t written to us, to give us an historical account. Rather it was written to us to show us the nature of God.

So did the flood happen, of course, was it WORLD WIDE or just the the world as populated wide. We don’t know if two kangaroos were along for a ride, and the story was written to give us those facts, it was written to reveal the nature of God for us. Very little of the bible is written with just basic facts in mind.

Biblical scholars recognize that the bible is composed of a wide variety of literary genres, including myth, legend, history, apodictic and casuistic law, poetry, prophecy, wisdom, etc. Most biblical scholars recognize that the theme of the flood myth permeates religious writing and oral tradition. This is not surprising, as most civilizations originated in river valleys or other low-lying areas prone to period catastrophic flooding.

The flood myth as captured in genesis 6-8 bears a striking resemblance to Mesopotamian myth on th34 same theme. Archaeologists have now shown that prehistoric catastrophic flooding did occur in the Black Sea area, which might have been incorporated in regional mythology. There is no evidence from any science of a worldwide flood that wiped out all living creatures except those saved by some guy on a little boat.

StAnastasia

 

[craigmn3]

The flood myth as captured in genesis 6-8 bears a striking resemblance to Mesopotamian myth on th34 same theme.
StAnastasia

There is evidence of the flooding, it is repeated in other cultures and you still refer to it as a myth. Interesting.

 

[StAnastasia]

There is evidence of the flooding, it is repeated in other cultures and you still refer to it as a myth. Interesting.

I did not say flooding is myth – obviously flooding occurs annually on the Nile (at least before the Aswan dam was installed, on the Mississippi, the Amazon, the Congo, etc. What is myth is the story that the entire earth was covered to a depth of 29,035 feet.

StAnastasia

 

[mpartyka]

Be honest, you seem to me to be avoiding ADAM in your ‘quaint twenty-first century contemporary-evolutionary world view’ that appears to be contrary to that of BENEDICT XVI comments on The Apostle’s teaching on the relation between Adam and Christ unless you state otherwise.

Um…Did you miss this portion of Pope Benedict’s comments?

Evil does not come from the source of being itself, it is not equally primal. Evil comes from a freedom created, from a freedom abused. How was it possible, how did it happen? This remains obscure. Evil is not logical. Only God and good are logical, are light. Evil remains mysterious. It is presented as such in great images, as it is in chapter 3 of Genesis, with that scene of the two trees, of the serpent, of sinful man: a great image that makes us guess but cannot explain what is itself illogical. We may guess, not explain; nor may we recount it as one fact beside another, because it is a deeper reality. It remains a mystery of darkness, of night.

It doesn’t sound to me as if he’s speaking of Genesis 3 in literal terms. Rather, he seems to be painting Genesis 3 as a “great image” that points to the origin of the human condition but doesn’t fully explain it.

–Mike

 

[wildleafblower]

Hi mpartyka aka Mike,

You’ve quote-mined thus distorted the truth in your post 435 from the document that I earlier presented:

Anastasia, let’s face it, if you can read than obviously you are able to comprehend but have failed to respond so let me try it again. Do you agree with what Pope Benedict XVI wrote below? A simple answer from you will let me know if you agree with the POPE who is the teaching authority of the Church. Here it is:

BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Paul VI Audience Hall
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Saint Paul (15):
The Apostle’s teaching on the relation between Adam and Christ

Dear Brothers and Sisters, In today’s Catechesis we shall reflect on the relations between Adam and Christ, defined by St Paul in the well-known passage of the Letter to the Romans (5: 12-21) in which he gives the Church the essential outline of the doctrine on original sin. Indeed, Paul had already introduced the comparison between our first progenitor and Christ while addressing faith in the Resurrection in the First Letter to the Corinthians: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive… “The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15: 22, 45). With Romans 5: 12-21, the comparison between Christ and Adam becomes more articulate and illuminating: Paul traces the history of salvation from Adam to the Law and from the latter to Christ. At the centre of the scene it is not so much Adam, with the consequences of his sin for humanity, who is found as much as it is Jesus Christ and the grace which was poured out on humanity in abundance through him. The repetition of the “all the more” with regard to Christ stresses that the gift received in him far surpasses Adam’s sin and its consequent effects on humanity, so that Paul could reach his conclusion: “but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rm 5: 20). The comparison that Paul draws between Adam and Christ therefore sheds light on the inferiority of the first man compared to the prevalence of the second.

On the other hand, it is precisely in order to highlight the immeasurable gift of grace in Christ that Paul mentions Adam’s sin. One could say that if it were not to demonstrate the centrality of grace, he would not have dwelt on the treatment of sin which “came into the world through one man and death through sin” (Rm 5: 12). For this reason, if, in the faith of the Church, an awareness of the dogma of original sin developed, it is because it is inseparably linked to another dogma, that of salvation and freedom in Christ. The consequence of this is that we must never treat the sin of Adam and of humanity separately from the salvific context, in other words, without understanding them within the horizon of justification in Christ.

However, as people of today we must ask ourselves: what is this original sin? What does St Paul teach, what does the Church teach? Is this doctrine still sustainable today? Many think that in light of the history of evolution, there is no longer room for the doctrine of a first sin that then would have permeated the whole of human history. And, as a result, the matter of Redemption and of the Redeemer would also lose its foundation. Therefore, does original sin exist or not? In order to respond, we must distinguish between two aspects of the doctrine on original sin. There exists an empirical aspect, that is, a reality that is concrete, visible, I would say tangible to all. And an aspect of mystery concerning the ontological foundation of this event. The empirical fact is that a contradiction exists in our being.
snip due to space contraints - please read in its entirety]

Thus, the existence of the power of evil in the human heart and in human history is an undeniable fact. The question is: how can this evil be explained? In the history of thought, Christian faith aside, there exists a key explanation of this duality, with different variations. This model says: being in itself is contradictory, it bears within it both good and evil. In antiquity, this idea implied the opinion that two equally primal principles existed: a good principle and a bad principle. This duality would be insuperable; the two principles are at the same level, so this contradiction from the being’s origin would always exist. The contradiction of our being would therefore only reflect the contrary nature of the two divine principles, so to speak. In the evolutionist, atheist version of the world the same vision returns in a new form. Although in this conception the vision of being is monist, it supposes that being as such bears within itself both evil and good from the outset. Being itself is not simply good, but open to good and to evil. Evil is equally primal with the good. And human history would develop only the model already present in all of the previous evolution. What Christians call original sin would in reality be merely the mixed nature of being, a mixture of good and evil which, according to atheist thought, belong to the same fabric of being. B]This is a fundamentally desperate view: if this is the case, evil is invincible.

In the end all that counts is one’s own interest. All progress would necessarily be paid for with a torrent of evil and those who wanted to serve progress would have to agree to pay this price. Politics is fundamentally structured on these premises and we see the effects of this. In the end, this modern way of thinking can create only sadness and cynicism.

[snip-MUST read!]
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081203_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081203_en.html

 

[wildleafblower]

wildleafblower;4577678:

WildLeafBlower:
Thanks for your prayers and support - I appreciate it! My wife, daughters, Pastor and I had brunch with His Excellency Timothy Broglio

, Archbishop of The Dioceses of the Military Services Sunday morning. I asked him point blank about Papal Encyclicals. He said that a Papal Encyclical was an action of the Magisterium, the ordinary Teaching Office of the Church and that they are binding on all Catholics for all time. He told me that Papal Encyclicals are NOT ever ‘superseded’ by subsequent Encyclicals, and that they build upon rather than disagree with previous Encyclicals.

He also explained that theologians who disagree with the Papal Encyclicals have no authority to promulgate their opinions in the name of the Teaching Office of the Church.

Advent Blessings to all,
Johnny

Blessings to you and your family. Thanks for sharing your visit with the Archbishop with us and the link. This is the stuff that makes the Christmas season holy! Peace be with you and be sure to tell the guys on the base that in my community of 350,000 Roman Catholics we, along with all the people at my XMas party that was filled with people of different faiths (religions) and non-believers prayed in silence for our military men & their families. Wishing peace in the world with hope of ya all coming home soon. Best wishes to you and them.

By the way John, the bible isn’t a science book. And, I still notice that our answer on the previous page have yet to be answered. That in itself speaks volumes to those who are reading our postings. Let’s just say, the Vatican:Holy See is paying close attention as well as hundreds of others world-wide.

Pope Benedict. Wishing you the best of the best! Thanks for your help.