What does God's promise to Noah mean?

[MrSnaith]

The church is prefigured by Noah’s Ark which alone saves from the flood. Okay. So it’s the CHURCH that’s saving me? Not Jesus who died to redeem my sins?

You’re doing it again. The Church and Christ are indivisible. Properly speaking, you cannot talk about the work of Jesus without simultaneously speaking of the work of the Church. He IS the Church.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Good Morning Fran,

Actually, this is incomplete. The Church is both visible and invisible. The Church, the Body of Christ, includes all those members of the Catholic Religion, those who are Baptized Christians, but not members of the Catholic Religion, and those who have gone before us and now reside in Heaven (and I would argue also those in Purgatory). So, the Church is actually “larger” than the visible Church, but what I was referring to before was actually the Roman Catholic Church. But, let’s also remember that there are many non-Roman Catholics who are in union with the Papacy. Though they are not Roman Catholic, they too hold the fullness of Faith.

(Sorry. Computer problems - still not resolved. Of course, the OTHER ONE is to blame. lt Kind of reminds me of the story of Adam and Eve.)

I’m good with all of the above. Let’s just please include all those persons who believe (the greek believe) in Jesus. Which you did list above. CCC 836 to 838 would cover this.

What if? Baptism imprints on the soul of the Baptized an indelible mark which makes one a child of God. That is our rebirth. But, as always comes with free will, we may choose to walk away from our inclusion in God’s family. But, that mark never goes away. We will always remain a child of God, even if we turn our backs on Him. That doesn’t mean we’re saved no matter what. In the end, the rotten wood will be cut off, but Baptism is our entry into Grace, and the Body of Christ.

Not too many people who know about the imprint of Baptism. Which is why I love CAF.
Could we just clarify that God’s grace does fall on all of humanity. Otherwise it wouldn’t be possible for anyone to come to know God. Although, of course, there are special graces for those desiring to follow God.

By bringing them the Gospel of life, by offering prayers and sacrifices and suffering for them that they may receive the Graces necessary for salvation. If you don’t think we have a hand in saving others, read Paul’s letters again. Here, I’ll look up the verses that indicate this and get back to you.

You don’t need to look up the verses, unless you want to for the readers. We can TRY to save others. The graces for salvation are present, it’s just that not everyone wants to accept them.

We should never have to “rely” on these things. All of these things exist to deepen and enrich our Faith. That’s it. Faith is a Grace conferred by God, and transmitted through the Sacraments. The Sacraments, not the CCC, etc. But let’s not put the teachings of the Magesterium and the Saints down. These are what give us our certainty in Faith, when confusion and error arise. God didn’t give us these gifts arbitrarily.

Here’s where I have my problem. I understand very well what you’re saying here. I’m not putting any teachings down. However, I must say that I base my faith on Jesus. What confusion and error could possibly arise? If we want to get into every little nuance, which we do here on CAF and which I enjoy, okay. But the only things we NEED to know to be on the right road seem to be in the bible. I can’t depend of the magisterium for my faith, or any of the saints. It has to be something between me and Jesus.

I find that too many people depend on the church. Then they’re disappointed for some reason and leave. And they also leave God! Those who were depending on God may leave the church but they keep God. I’ve seen to much of this having taught catechism and coming into contact with many different people.

I have friends right now who tell me that they’re ready to leave the chuch f it grants communion to remarried couples. This is a whole different argument, but just to explain what I mean.

BTW, did you know that many ask for baptism to be ‘undone’? This is an interesting concept! They’re soooo upset with the church. Our priest has explained that this cannot be done - because of that imprint you spoke about that takes place at baptism.

Fran

 

[MrSnaith]

Could we just clarify that God’s grace does fall on all of humanity. Otherwise it wouldn’t be possible for anyone to come to know God. Although, of course, there are special graces for those desiring to follow God.

Sure, actual grace is conferred on all, but Sanctifying Grace is only available to those who have been baptized, recognizing of course those baptisms beyond water baptisms (desire, blood).

We can TRY to save others. The graces for salvation are present, it’s just that not everyone wants to accept them.

Of course.

However, I must say that I base my faith on Jesus.

…Who is the Church.

What confusion and error could possibly arise?

Why don’t you ask the Protestants denoms?

But the only things we NEED to know to be on the right road seem to be in the bible. I can’t depend of the magisterium for my faith, or any of the saints.

True about the saints, false about the Magesterium. If it weren’t for the authority of the Magesterium, you wouldn’t even have a Bible.

It has to be something between me and Jesus.

…Who is the Church.

I find that too many people depend on the church. Then they’re disappointed for some reason and leave. And they also leave God! Those who were depending on God may leave the church but they keep God. I’ve seen to much of this having taught catechism and coming into contact with many different people.

I have friends right now who tell me that they’re ready to leave the chuch f it grants communion to remarried couples. This is a whole different argument, but just to explain what I mean.

Such people aren’t reacting to the Church. The Church is inerrant. These people are reacting to the dead wood that is presenting itself as the Church. And if people have a problem with the teachings of the Magesterium… well it’s His Magesterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. We shouldn’t be surprised if people have a problem with Him. He told us they would.

BTW, did you know that many ask for baptism to be ‘undone’? This is an interesting concept! They’re soooo upset with the church. Our priest has explained that this cannot be done - because of that imprint you spoke about that takes place at baptism.

Fran

I didn’t know people ask for this. It’s kind of strange, though. If you (not you, you, but hypothetical you) don’t believe in the power and authority of the Church, then why the hang up on needing baptism to be “undone”? Strange, but not surprising.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

filled with vitality from their semi-divine origin

The giants/Nephilim/etc are not of semi-divine origin (see commentary in Challoner or Original Douay-Rheims). Sons of men = descendants of Cain. Sons of God = children of Seth. They result from the intermarriage between descendants of Cain and Seth.

Taken by itself, it’s an interesting story about God preserving Noah’s household. God makes a covenant with Noah that he will never flood the Earth again through water, and he shows the sign through a rainbow. What is the “big connection” here, though, to the narrative of salvation in human history? There’s a reason Noah is in the Bible.

You are probably aware of the following, but on the off chance you’re not, I’ll mention it anyway in case you might find it helpful to your study.

A good rule of thumb when looking for connections in the Bible is to start with what I call the “Rule of Four” (I don’t know the real name, perhaps an actual Bible Scholar can chime in here).

Things tend to happen in sets of four in the Bible (not always, but more than enough to make the rule pretty useful), as to why this is, that’s for another post.

But things happen not just in sets of four, but in particular sets of four that are organized in a particular way. Of the set of four: 3 things will be similar and the 4th will be related but dissimilar. Of the three similar things, two will be more like each other than the third.

Let’s take the Story of Noe for some examples of this: He lets off four birds (there is our set of four) one is a Crow or Raven the other four are Doves (there are our three similar things, one dissimilar). Of the three doves two return (one with a branch) and the third doesn’t (our two more similar than the other). There are four men on the Ark: Noah and his three sons (Cham, Shem, Japeth) (three similar one different but related), of the three sons, two cover his nakedness and the third doesn’t.). It’s always an enjoyable read to go through a passage in the Bible and see where the rule applies.

With respect to the Noah story generally: one could use the rule to compare either the Four Covenants God made with Israel in the Old Testament (that were replaced by Christ’s New Covenant). God’s covenants in the OT were with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. Noah’s covenant was a promise to all people (not just the Israelites) while the other three were specific to the Hebrew nation. So there is our dissimilar covenant. As between Abraham, Moses and David, the Covenants of Abraham and Moses seem more similar to each other to me (do these things: circumcision and Mosaic Law) than that with David (don’t do this thing) but perhaps other folks have a different and possibly better opinion on that.

Alternatively you can look at the Four “Adams” in the Bible: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Christ. Abraham is only the “Adam” to one people (the Hebrew nation) so is the similar but dissimilar one. Adam and Noah are more like each other, each with three sons, one of whom goes astray, and Christ is similar to Adam and Noah in being an “Adam” to all people, but dissimilar (for all the reasons we are aware of).

Anyway, just some thoughts on a Saturday morning that will hopefully offer some small insight. If it doesn’t, well hopefully it didn’t take too long to read I find the rule of four useful but I will be the first to admit that like any “tool” of biblical interpretation it has many limitations, some of which are probably on display in this post.

Yours in Christ,

Trevor

 

[frangiuliano115]

Sure, actual grace is conferred on all, but Sanctifying Grace is only available to those who have been baptized, recognizing of course those baptisms beyond water baptisms (desire, blood).

Good.

Why don’t you ask the Protestants denoms?

Okay. I’m really going to take the time to explain this / even though this keyboard is giving me grief.

I always thought Catholics pretty much believed the same ideas. Even if maybe not all doctrine/dogma was accepted by everyone. I know many who claim to be catholic who do not accept one dogma or another - let alone doctrines.

Then I come here to CAF to keep my brain alert since I don’t do much teaching anymore (catechism to kids and now bible to some adults - basically because no one else will do it and it’s needed in the parish) and I find such differing view on BASIC beliefs. I can hardly believe it. Some don’t believe hell exists, some believe God will forgive everybody, some question how God could do certain things, some deny evil, some deny the sin nature (concupiscence), some quote saints who said some pretty weird stuff and would not be in accord with the magisterium teaches.

I could understand how you could, maybe, not agree 100% with everything the church teaches. Although you pray about it and keep studying, but some of these things are BASIC catholic teachings. And my list is not complete.

Okay. So now take protestant denominations. Each one has different doctrines. But you know what? If you belong to one of these churches, you’ll find that everyone in that church believes in each basic doctrine taught. And, basically, all the Christian teachings are the same.

So, I’m thinking how nice it would be to walk into a church and sit next to somebody who believes as I do! I sit next to people in church and I don’t KNOW what they believe!

Your beliefs are pure, but do you deal with people that I’ve described above? I’m starting to have some difficulty with this. Not enough catechising in our church, not enough proper preaching from the pulpit, not enough knowledge. Our bishop is trying to change this, but it’s slow going because not too many are interested! Better we should just all think whatever we want!

True about the saints, false about the Magesterium. If it weren’t for the authority of the Magesterium, you wouldn’t even have a Bible.

Well, it was written and put together. It would have gotten done. Let’s say the magisterium got it done. I’m okay with that.

…Who is the Church.

We’re not going to agree on this.
The church is Jesus
but Jesus is not the church.
Jesus is Jesus.
Jesus is in the church.
Is the church in Jesus?

If you mean that Jesus is the head of the Body and the Body (mystical) is part of Jesus, then I agree. I somehow see a difference between that and The Church / the Rome church, I mean.

Such people aren’t reacting to the Church. The Church is inerrant. These people are reacting to the dead wood that is presenting itself as the Church. And if people have a problem with the teachings of the Magesterium… well it’s His Magesterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. We shouldn’t be surprised if people have a problem with Him. He told us they would.

Which church is inerrant? Not our local parishes! That’s what these people who abandon the church are abandoning. They don’t know all this theology like you do. They’re upset at one thing or another. I could only tell them not to abandon God. And maybe this is why I see this difference and how I understand it.

I didn’t know people ask for this. It’s kind of strange, though. If you (not you, you, but hypothetical you) don’t believe in the power and authority of the Church, then why the hang up on needing baptism to be “undone”? Strange, but not surprising.

People ask to be ‘unbaptized’ because they’re mad at the church, or they want to be pure atheists, or they’re becoming involved with something else - the Monsignor mentioned cults. So maybe these people DO believe in the power of the church but would like to be released from it. Also, sometimes consecrated hosts get stolen. One church a few tows down from me had to be locked up because of this. I mentioned that hosts only cost about $5. for 500 and he said the thieves want consecrated hosts. Wonder why???
I live in a small town in Europe. Nice place. But there are weird people who don’t love our God even here.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

The giants/Nephilim/etc are not of semi-divine origin (see commentary in Challoner or Original Douay-Rheims). Sons of men = descendants of Cain. Sons of God = children of Seth. They result from the intermarriage between descendants of Cain and Seth.

You are probably aware of the following, but on the off chance you’re not, I’ll mention it anyway in case you might find it helpful to your study.

A good rule of thumb when looking for connections in the Bible is to start with what I call the “Rule of Four” (I don’t know the real name, perhaps an actual Bible Scholar can chime in here).

Things tend to happen in sets of four in the Bible (not always, but more than enough to make the rule pretty useful), as to why this is, that’s for another post.

But things happen not just in sets of four, but in particular sets of four that are organized in a particular way. Of the set of four: 3 things will be similar and the 4th will be related but dissimilar. Of the three similar things, two will be more like each other than the third.

Let’s take the Story of Noe for some examples of this: He lets off four birds (there is our set of four) one is a Crow or Raven the other four are Doves (there are our three similar things, one dissimilar). Of the three doves two return (one with a branch) and the third doesn’t (our two more similar than the other). There are four men on the Ark: Noah and his three sons (Cham, Shem, Japeth) (three similar one different but related), of the three sons, two cover his nakedness and the third doesn’t.). It’s always an enjoyable read to go through a passage in the Bible and see where the rule applies.

With respect to the Noah story generally: **one could use the rule to compare either the Four Covenants God made with Israel in the Old Testament (that were replaced by Christ’s New Covenant). God’s covenants in the OT were with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. **Noah’s covenant was a promise to all people (not just the Israelites) while the other three were specific to the Hebrew nation. So there is our dissimilar covenant. As between Abraham, Moses and David, the Covenants of Abraham and Moses seem more similar to each other to me (do these things: circumcision and Mosaic Law) than that with David (don’t do this thing) but perhaps other folks have a different and possibly better opinion on that.

Alternatively you can look at the Four “Adams” in the Bible: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Christ. Abraham is only the “Adam” to one people (the Hebrew nation) so is the similar but dissimilar one. Adam and Noah are more like each other, each with three sons, one of whom goes astray, and Christ is similar to Adam and Noah in being an “Adam” to all people, but dissimilar (for all the reasons we are aware of).

Anyway, just some thoughts on a Saturday morning that will hopefully offer some small insight. If it doesn’t, well hopefully it didn’t take too long to read I find the rule of four useful but I will be the first to admit that like any “tool” of biblical interpretation it has many limitations, some of which are probably on display in this post.

Yours in Christ,

Trevor

Hello Trevor Dewey,

I think you’re just using your ‘rule of four’ here.

Just to clarify that there are more than 4 covenants in the O.T.

And you know how we say that the O.T. looks forward to the New and the N.T. completes the old? Well, the New Covenant is completed in the N.T. after Jesus’ crucifixion, but it’s declared in the O.T.
Jeremiah 31:31

Hmmm. That’s not clear. The New Covenant completes all the old ones: However, since the New Covenant is a Testament (New Testament) it cannot take effect until Jesus dies - same as any testament, or will.

Fran

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

Hmmm. That’s not clear. The New Covenant completes all the old ones: However, since the New Covenant is a Testament (New Testament) it cannot take effect until Jesus dies - same as any testament, or will.

Fran

Hi Fran,

I didn’t invent the idea, I first read a variation on it in a book by Valentin Tomberg and the (2-1)-1 concept in a book by Alejandro Jodorowsky (though he was applying it to classical thought generally - e.g. the four elements/humors/etc not really to the Bible except to note that the Four Gospels follow the pattern: 3 gospels are similar, one is different (Gospel of John), of the two that are similar Mark and Luke are more similar to each other than either is to Matthew)

Cheers

T

 

[MrSnaith]

Good.

Okay. I’m really going to take the time to explain this / even though this keyboard is giving me grief.

I always thought Catholics pretty much believed the same ideas. Even if maybe not all doctrine/dogma was accepted by everyone. I know many who claim to be catholic who do not accept one dogma or another - let alone doctrines.

Then I come here to CAF to keep my brain alert since I don’t do much teaching anymore (catechism to kids and now bible to some adults - basically because no one else will do it and it’s needed in the parish) and I find such differing view on BASIC beliefs. I can hardly believe it. Some don’t believe hell exists, some believe God will forgive everybody, some question how God could do certain things, some deny evil, some deny the sin nature (concupiscence), some quote saints who said some pretty weird stuff and would not be in accord with the magisterium teaches.

I could understand how you could, maybe, not agree 100% with everything the church teaches. Although you pray about it and keep studying, but some of these things are BASIC catholic teachings. And my list is not complete.

Okay. So now take protestant denominations. Each one has different doctrines. But you know what? If you belong to one of these churches, you’ll find that everyone in that church believes in each basic doctrine taught. And, basically, all the Christian teachings are the same.

So, I’m thinking how nice it would be to walk into a church and sit next to somebody who believes as I do! I sit next to people in church and I don’t KNOW what they believe!

Your beliefs are pure, but do you deal with people that I’ve described above? I’m starting to have some difficulty with this. Not enough catechising in our church, not enough proper preaching from the pulpit, not enough knowledge. Our bishop is trying to change this, but it’s slow going because not too many are interested! Better we should just all think whatever we want!

Well, it was written and put together. It would have gotten done. Let’s say the magisterium got it done. I’m okay with that.

We’re not going to agree on this.
The church is Jesus
but Jesus is not the church.
Jesus is Jesus.
Jesus is in the church.
Is the church in Jesus?

If you mean that Jesus is the head of the Body and the Body (mystical) is part of Jesus, then I agree. I somehow see a difference between that and The Church / the Rome church, I mean.

Which church is inerrant? Not our local parishes! That’s what these people who abandon the church are abandoning. They don’t know all this theology like you do. They’re upset at one thing or another. I could only tell them not to abandon God. And maybe this is why I see this difference and how I understand it.

People ask to be ‘unbaptized’ because they’re mad at the church, or they want to be pure atheists, or they’re becoming involved with something else - the Monsignor mentioned cults. So maybe these people DO believe in the power of the church but would like to be released from it. Also, sometimes consecrated hosts get stolen. One church a few tows down from me had to be locked up because of this. I mentioned that hosts only cost about $5. for 500 and he said the thieves want consecrated hosts. Wonder why???
I live in a small town in Europe. Nice place. But there are weird people who don’t love our God even here.

Fran

Hey Fran,

I’ve appreciated this conversation, but I want to close it out, so to speak. It’s kind of a substantial derailment from the OP. I think basically, we agree. I understand your frustrations with regards to catechesis. I very much understand it.

I think our understanding of Church is at a slight variance. If you would like to explore this further, I invite you to send me a private message. I don’t see it as a major difference, but I worry that… the way I’ve understood what you’ve said about it tends in the direction of possible abandonment of it. Please don’t take this to be a judgment about your faith, because it’s not meant to be. I’m only telling you my gut reaction to how you’ve presented your arguments, or at least my reading of them.

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful and engaging talk.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi Fran,

I didn’t invent the idea, I first read a variation on it in a book by Valentin Tomberg and the (2-1)-1 concept in a book by Alejandro Jodorowsky (though he was applying it to classical thought generally - e.g. the four elements/humors/etc not really to the Bible except to note that the Four Gospels follow the pattern: 3 gospels are similar, one is different (Gospel of John), of the two that are similar Mark and Luke are more similar to each other than either is to Matthew)

Cheers

T

No, I’m sorry Trevor. I didn’t mean to speak on the “rule of four”. That’s fine.

I was referring, rather, to the covenants. The writer is using the main ones, 4, apparently, but I just wanted to clarify for readers that there are more than 4. He picked the most important ones to make his point in his book.

God bless
Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hey Fran,

I’ve appreciated this conversation, but I want to close it out, so to speak. It’s kind of a substantial derailment from the OP. I think basically, we agree. I understand your frustrations with regards to catechesis. I very much understand it.

I think our understanding of Church is at a slight variance. If you would like to explore this further, I invite you to send me a private message. I don’t see it as a major difference, but I worry that… the way I’ve understood what you’ve said about it tends in the direction of possible abandonment of it. Please don’t take this to be a judgment about your faith, because it’s not meant to be. I’m only telling you my gut reaction to how you’ve presented your arguments, or at least my reading of them.

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful and engaging talk.

Yeah. I hate ongoing posts too.

It all started with saying the ark was the church and I said it was Jesus. Jesus is our promise from the O.T. The New Covenant. So, that idea is not too far off, but I guess the rest was.

I respect your thoughts.

Be seeing you around!

Fran