T
twinc
Guest
are Catholics expected to accept that all human beings are descendants of Adam and Eve,according to Christ,the Church Fathers,Tradition and scriptures - twinc
- Status
B
bingbang
Guest
I believe they are supposed to accept this actually.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
You can answer all of your questions on this point by using this searchable Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Here are a few quick answers.
Authority of Scriptures and Tradition: Yes, we are required to accept both.
The Church Fathers: Only insofar as their teachings have been accepted by the Church. They were not inspired, unlike the Apostles, so not everything they taught was authoritative. For example, Justin Martyr personally believed in premillennialism (but not a pre-tribulation rapture). The Church later repudiated premillennialism, so we know Justin Martyr was wrong on that point.
Adam and Eve: see here.
Here are a few quick answers.
Authority of Scriptures and Tradition: Yes, we are required to accept both.
The Church Fathers: Only insofar as their teachings have been accepted by the Church. They were not inspired, unlike the Apostles, so not everything they taught was authoritative. For example, Justin Martyr personally believed in premillennialism (but not a pre-tribulation rapture). The Church later repudiated premillennialism, so we know Justin Martyr was wrong on that point.
Adam and Eve: see here.
F
Fidelis
Guest
E
edwest2
Guest
T
twinc
Guest
considering what Scripture says at Gen.7:17-24 and what has been accepted by Christ,the majority of Church Fathers and Tradition are Catholics expected to accept that Noah’s Flood was global and not just local - twinc
T
thistle
Guest
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! NO! NO! NO! Not another thread from you about The Flood. How many have you now opened on this subject. Give it a rest!
L
Light1111
Guest
Another thread somewhere in this forum (I apologize; I don’t remember which one) stated that the Church has said that we don’t have to take the Bible literally, and believe in it word-for-word – that it may function as a parable in some cases, or literal accounts in others . . .is this true?
T
twinc
Guest
please,please,please.just answer the question and provide some useful information for a change instead of blockages and deviations etc - how many more times are you going to do this - give it a rest - at least let others answer - twinc
T
thistle
Guest
Why aren’t you honest about what you want to discuss. You mislead people by thread titles and invariably you simply want to discuss the flood. You have opened many threads most of which are about the flood. Why do you need so many? Its because people get bored with you bringing it up so often and then when the threads lapse due to lack of interest you open another on the same subject!
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The problem is, twinc, that when you open two separate threads with the very same title, it’s confusing.
It’s even more confusing when the first thread which was supposed to be about Adam and Eve did indeed become a discussion, by you, on “The Flood.”
IF you wanted to address that topic, it would have been better for you to not only give THIS thread a different title, but also to link to the other thread and mention that you were opening a separate thread to address “The Flood” so that the first thread you addressed which you started with Adam and Eve could address Adam and Eve.
Let me help. This is a link to that thread --which I happened to note because I actually responded to that one, and was quite surprised to see THIS thread with the very same name but fewer responses.
Here is the link to your other thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=497623
**
And Gen7 :17-24 is about the flood.
So it is disingenous at the least for you to make two supposedly separate threads, to start out one with a different topic, to have them both end up with the same topic, and then to try to deflect (when another poster notes this) into an attack on said poster.
I believe DUPLICATE THREADS are not permitted under the rules of the forums.
It’s even more confusing when the first thread which was supposed to be about Adam and Eve did indeed become a discussion, by you, on “The Flood.”
IF you wanted to address that topic, it would have been better for you to not only give THIS thread a different title, but also to link to the other thread and mention that you were opening a separate thread to address “The Flood” so that the first thread you addressed which you started with Adam and Eve could address Adam and Eve.
Let me help. This is a link to that thread --which I happened to note because I actually responded to that one, and was quite surprised to see THIS thread with the very same name but fewer responses.
Here is the link to your other thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=497623
And ends with this: Posted by twinc:
**
**
And Gen7 :17-24 is about the flood.
So it is disingenous at the least for you to make two supposedly separate threads, to start out one with a different topic, to have them both end up with the same topic, and then to try to deflect (when another poster notes this) into an attack on said poster.
I believe DUPLICATE THREADS are not permitted under the rules of the forums.
T
twinc
Guest
2 - that Noahs Flood was global and not local[Gen.7:17-24]
3- that Eve was taken from Adam’s side
4-more later,meanwhile any answers ,yes or no,and why
5-twinc
T
twinc
Guest
it is not at all as sinister or ulterior motivated,except for some it seems - all that is required is a yes or no answer and why - twinc
T
twinc
Guest
it is not sinister or ulterior motivated - except for some it seems - all that is required is a simple yes or no answer and why - twinc
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
How about an explanation as to why you have two different threads, same title, in which you started off the one with a different question then segued to the very same topic you started off THIS thread with?
Either your first thread which started discussing belief in Adam and Eve as first parents should discuss just that–and you should make a note in it that discussion of the flood can be found on this thread (and provide a link). . .or the moderators should be made aware of the situation so that they can either merge the two threads for a discussion of your Flood, or can lock one or both as they choose.
No ulterior motives, not being sinister–and you should respond with either a yes you will let them know or no you won’t, and why.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
P.S. I will be delighted to give my opinion (since you ask for opinions) when and if the moderators have decided which of these two **duplicate threads of yours on the topic of what Catholics are expected to accept regarding the Flood AKA Genesis 7 **will be the one and only thread for said discussion.
T
twinc
Guest
4 - that the creation days are the same as the 3 days till resurrection and the forty days of the Deluge - more later - twinc
T
twinc
Guest
The primary rule of Biblical interpretation,made clear by St.Augustine and long recognised in Tradition,was reiterated by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus[1893];“carefully observe the rule so wisely laid down by St.Augustine ----not to depart from the literal and obvious sense,except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity permits”[Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus[1920] and Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu[1943] and Humani Generis[1950] all later wrote in support of Pope Leo XIII] - the onus of proof is therefore upon the person who contends that another sense is superior to the literal and obvious sense[Creation Rediscovered] - twinc
T
TMC
Guest
I am confused, are you asking or telling? The Church has had a lot to say about biblical interpretation in the 1600 or so years since Augustine, and even since Humani Generis.
If you are asking, I would respond that I think that there is ample reason to believe that many, if not all, of the examples you cite are occassions where the plain literal meaning of scripture is not the intended meaning. In fact, in many cases the literal meaning and the “obvious sense” are not the same.
- Status