Theistic evolutionism and Scripture

[Orogeny]

Tim, Why would I want to post anything further for discussion with you? You attack my sources and ignore the arguments.

Why would you post sources that I have discussed in other threads on multiple occsions? You are new here, but this topic isn’t. I have dealt with Berthault on multiple threads. You are not the first to bring up that deceiver.

Don’t base your faith on a man who is intentionally deceptive.

Anyone, anywhere, at anytime who posits that Jesus is lying, manipulating His hearers with myths, fables or stories, quotes unhistorical fictions as prophetic truths, and denies Jesus’ full credulity of every jot and tittle of the Septuagint (Old Testament Bible) is in danger of grave and irrecoverable error.

Be real carefull here. I have not suggested, anytime, anywhere, that Jesus was a liar. You, my friend, are making a very serious allegation based on ignorance of my beliefs. Don’t go there.

Your claim that Jesus didn’t use stories completely ignores much of the Gospels when He teaches using parables. You know, stories.

The idea that Tradition is unreliable or that Jesus didn’t use historical examples is the testimony of demons and fools.

You know, I have about 3,200 posts on this forum. I challenge you to find ONE of my posts where I ever claim that Tradition (not tradition) is unreliable. ONE. Should be a simple task. Otherwise, please do the honorable thing and retract that claim.

Peace

Tim

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Why would you post sources that I have discussed in other threads on multiple occsions? You are new here, but this topic isn’t. I have dealt with Berthault on multiple threads. You are not the first to bring up that deceiver.

Don’t base your faith on a man who is intentionally deceptive.Be real carefull here. I have not suggested, anytime, anywhere, that Jesus was a liar. You, my friend, are making a very serious allegation based on ignorance of my beliefs. Don’t go there.

Your claim that Jesus didn’t use stories completely ignores much of the Gospels when He teaches using parables. You know, stories.You know, I have about 3,200 posts on this forum. I challenge you to find ONE of my posts where I ever claim that Tradition (not tradition) is unreliable. ONE. Should be a simple task. Otherwise, please do the honorable thing and retract that claim.

Peace

Tim

I am new, Tim. I cannot wade through your 3000+ posts. And I can not retract my statement. And conflating parables which are intentionally abstract with citation’s from salvation history - the Garden of Eden, the Flood, Sodom and Gommorrah, parting of the Red Sea, etc… is as dishonest as you accuse Dr. Berthault of being.

I am new, I do not have the time for 3000 posts, but I will counter your assertions everytime I find them when they cause the innocent to stumble or the credulous to doubt.

…but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

[Orogeny]

I am new, Tim. I cannot wade through your 3000+ posts. And I can not retract my statement.

No, you WILL not retract your statement. Since you WON’T search my posts, I am telling you that I have never done what you accuse me of. Now, either you can accept that or call me a liar. Which is it?

And conflating parables which are intentionally abstract with citation’s from salvation history - the Garden of Eden, the Flood, Sodom and Gommorrah, parting of the Red Sea, etc… is as dishonest as you accuse Dr. Berthault of being.

YOU said that Jesus didn’t use stories to manipulate (teach) His disciples, not me. Is a parable a story, Johnny?

I am new, I do not have the time for 3000 posts, but I will counter your assertions everytime I find them when they cause the innocent to stumble or the credulous to doubt.

Good. Just remember, you are not more Catholic than I am.

Peace

Tim

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

No, you WILL not retract your statement. Since you WON’T search my posts, I am telling you that I have never done what you accuse me of. Now, either you can accept that or call me a liar. Which is it?YOU said that Jesus didn’t use stories to manipulate (teach) His disciples, not me. Is a parable a story, Johnny?Good. Just remember, you are not more Catholic than I am.

Peace

Tim

I believe my quote was directed towards a generic objective:

Anyone, anywhere, at anytime who posits that Jesus is lying, manipulating His hearers with myths, fables or stories, quotes unhistorical fictions as prophetic truths, and denies Jesus’ full credulity of every jot and tittle of the Septuagint (Old Testament Bible) is in danger of grave and irrecoverable error.

If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, no harm done. The safe position for all peoples everywhere is to believe what Jesus believed. Ascribing a fictional character to Jesus’ references to real events is forbidden by the Church (even if it is inviolately perpetrated upon the faithful by clergy and laity alike) is real sin.

One need only to look at the “rational, conventional thought” in 1st century Judea to find where it led: the crucifixion of Christ. They that would deface and disfigure the Son of the Living God by ascribing fictitious meanings to His divinely inspired references to real events are scattering the flock of God and shall not be held guiltless.

 

[Orogeny]

I believe my quote was directed towards a generic objective:

So, do you accept my claim or am I a liar? Or will you do the search and then retract your claim against me?

Peace

Tim

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

So, do you accept my claim or am I a liar? Or will you do the search and then retract your claim against me?

Peace

Tim

What claim?

 

[Orogeny]

What claim?

That I ever claimed that Tradition is unreliable. You made that claim in response to my post and in a subsequent post you declined to search my posts as I suggested, indicating that you in fact lump me into that claim.

So, do you accept my statement that I have never claimed that Tradition is unreliable or am I a liar?

Peace

Tim

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

That I ever claimed that Tradition is unreliable. You made that claim in response to my post and in a subsequent post you declined to search my posts as I suggested, indicating that you in fact lump me into that claim.

So, do you accept my statement that I have never claimed that Tradition is unreliable or am I a liar?

Peace

Tim

If you have suggested anywhere that any scriptural statement is less than the facts He presents it is an error. If you suggest that Jesus is merely wielding signs and symbols and not real history, you are grossly misrepresenting the Son of God. That is gross, serious sin, and nothing to gloss over or joke about.

 

[Sparrows]

I just want to make sure that this debate proceeds in goodwill and charity.

We are all Catholics here.

We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.

In all fairness, CJ, this quote refers to the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. It isn’t directly related to the issues we are debating. We are all agreed that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are historical events.

However,

Neither did he pardon the ancient world when he unleashed the waters of the flood upon the world of wicked people, but protected only Noah, the preacher of righteousness along with seven others. God also condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, reducing them to ashes, to serve as a warning to the wicked in the future (2 Peter 2).

And,

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Corinthians 15).

Tim, what is your interpretation of these passages? Allow me to outline a couple of options:

1. Jesus, who is all-knowing, understood that the Genesis stories were mythical but used them in the same way as his parables: to teach important theological and moral truths. But the apostles, as men of their time, believed Genesis to be literally true and wrote about them as one would write about historical events.
2. Both Jesus and his apostles understood that the Genesis accounts were mythical but used them, like parables, for didactic purposes.

Are there any other interpretations?

Regarding Adam in particular,

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that 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 (Pope Pius XII).

How do we reconcile this teaching, and the monogenistic teachings of Sts. Paul and Augustine, that there were other humans (eg, in the land of Nod) in existence at the time of Adam?

 

[Orogeny]

If you have suggested anywhere that any scriptural statement is less than the facts He presents it is an error. If you suggest that Jesus is merely wielding signs and symbols and not real history, you are grossly misrepresenting the Son of God. That is gross, serious sin, and nothing to gloss over or joke about.

So which is it? Am I a liar based on my statement or do you accept my statement as truthful?

Peace

Tim

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

We are all Catholics here.

In all fairness, CJ, this quote refers to the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. It isn’t directly related to the issues we are debating. We are all agreed that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are historical events.

You do err. This refers to St Peter’s testimony that the FATHER endorsed the teaching of the SON who supported the LITERAL meaning of Moses and Eliah’s testimonies.

How can you not see this in its simplicity?

Do you realize that there will be a judgment? And that those who taught or promulgated against Divine Revelation will be harshly judged?

“The heaven is my throne. The earth is my footstool. Have not my hands created all these things?
But who is the man I will look to?
The contrite and humble who tremble at my word.”
Isaiah 66

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

We are all Catholics here.

That does NOT mean we are all Christians here.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, what is your interpretation of these passages? Allow me to outline a couple of options:

1. Jesus, who is all-knowing, understood that the Genesis stories were mythical but used them in the same way as his parables: to teach important theological and moral truths. But the apostles, as men of their time, believed Genesis to be literally true and wrote about them as one would write about historical events.

This is much in line with the way that I would think that the passages were written.

1. Both Jesus and his apostles understood that the Genesis accounts were mythical but used them, like parables, for didactic purposes.

Interestingly, I believe that most Jews didn’t read the creation story in Genesis as a literal history, so it is possible, regarding the creation story at least, that this option is also true.

How do we reconcile this teaching, and the monogenistic teachings of Sts. Paul and Augustine, that there were other humans (eg, in the land of Nod) in existence at the time of Adam?

I don’t know. It seems that the current Pope reads that a bit differently since he accepts evolution as the mechanism of human development.

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

That does NOT mean we are all Christians here.

What does that mean?

Peace

Tim

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

This is much in line with the way that I would think that the passages were written.Interestingly, I believe that most Jews didn’t read the creation story in Genesis as a literal history, so it is possible, regarding the creation story at least, that this option is also true. I don’t know. It seems that the current Pope reads that a bit differently since he accepts evolution as the mechanism of human development.

Peace

Tim

May GOD ALMIGHTY have mercy on you. Your open and brazen contradiction of the Son of God is a mortal sin. You are NOT in communion with the Holy Spirit if you truly hold these beliefs. Christ was not crucified for myths, stories and allegory, but to fulfull the Law of God so that all could benefit from redemption.

Christ will soon return and those that discount the integrity of His first coming will be subject to the judgment of God Almighty.

Do you not see clearly how Jesus refutes the sadducees in the Gospels? And yet you enter in to destroy the flock of God to appease your unspiritual, ratioanl mind?

 

[Orogeny]

May GOD ALMIGHTY have mercy on you. Your open and brazen contradiction of the Son of God is a mortal sin. You are NOT in communion with the Holy Spirit if you truly hold these beliefs. Christ was not crucified for myths, stories and allegory, but to fulfull the Law of God so that all could benefit from redemption.

Christ will soon return and those that discount the integrity of His first coming will be subject to the judgment of God Almighty.

Do you not see clearly how Jesus refutes the sadducees in the Gospels? And yet you enter in to destroy the flock of God to appease your unspiritual, ratioanl mind?

Peace be with you, too.

Johnny, you seem to be setting yourself in a position that you may want to avoid. Being the ultimate decider of faith and morals belongs to the Church alone.

Think about that before you reply.

Peace

Tim

 

[wildleafblower]

I hit the Vatican:Holy See today and noticed some good news! Pope Benedict’s catechesis on Saint Paul has been ongoing for weeks. May I suggest that everyone read what the Pope has written. Here’s the latest:
BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Paul VI Audience Hall
Wednesday, 3 December 2008

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
In our continuing catechesis on Saint Paul, we now consider the Apostle’s teaching on the relation between Adam, the first man, and Christ, the second Adam (cf. 1 Cor 15:22.45; Rom 5:12-21). Paul’s teaching on the sin of Adam and its disastrous consequences for the human family is meant to emphasize the surpassing gift of grace bestowed on humanity by Jesus Christ. Seen in this light, the doctrine of original sin explains the misery of our human condition, yet Paul also underlines the moral responsibility of each man and woman for this tragic reality. “All have sinned”, the Apostle tells us, “and all fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). Yet now, by faith in Christ, we have been justified and are at peace with God (cf. Rom 5:1). Christ, the new Adam, by his obedience to the Father’s will, has set mankind free from the ancient burden of sin and death. In Baptism, he has given us a share in his saving death and resurrection, and made us adoptive children of the Father. The new life and freedom which we have received by the grace of Christ impels us to bear witness to the sure hope that all creation will be freed from its bondage to corruption, and share in the glorious freedom of the children of God (cf. Rom 8:19ff.).
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

Peace be with everyone. As people who love Jesus we should be
:hug3: each other. Remember it’s almost Christmas day! May God bless you both, Tim and Johnny.

Off I go to X-Mas shop for the kids in my neighborhood! Love those kids! They bring me barrels of laughter. They also love my musical light show every night which I have going on outside the house that is filled to the brim with decorations.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

We are all Catholics here.

In all fairness, CJ, this quote refers to the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. It isn’t directly related to the issues we are debating. We are all agreed that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection are historical events.

Sparrows, I wanted to offer a less shrill response to your assertion above. The context is St. Peter testifying in his epistle about his (and James and John’s) eyewitness account to Moses and Elijah appearing to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. Peter is saying THIS LITERALLY HAPPENED. And Jesus’ communion with Moses (the Law) and Elijah (the Prophets) is a sign of His fulfillment of the Word of God that had been revealed until that time.

Peter is vehemently establishing the literal truth of what the 3 Apostles experienced when they witnessed Jesus’ transfiguration.

We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming 9 of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father 10 when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 We 11 ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 2 Peter 1

Tim, Sparrows: I apologize to both of you for my unChristian and strident tone. I was too exercised emotionally about things. Please forgive me.

 

[Orogeny]

Tim, Sparrows: I apologize to both of you for my unChristian and strident tone. I was too exercised emotionally about things. Please forgive me.

No problem, brother. You and I are trying to get to the same place. We just don’t happen to agree on some of the details of the journey.

Peace

Tim

 

[Sparrows]

The context is St. Peter testifying in his epistle about his (and James and John’s) eyewitness account to Moses and Elijah appearing to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Oh, thanks for clarifying. Still, as I had assumed, the quote you posted had to do with the life of Christ and not with the pre-Abraham chapters of Genesis.

Tim, Sparrows: I apologize to both of you for my unChristian and strident tone. I was too exercised emotionally about things. Please forgive me.

No problem, CJ. I interpreted it as your zeal for the word of God!