What's what

[marty54]

Someone writes the Genesis (Enoc if I’m not mistaken) and later is declared as inspired scripture thousands of years later. Catholic apologists say you sin if you do not believe the Old Testament.

Darwin comes up with the theory of evolution backed with scientific fact and is condemned. Dinosaur and even human remains date back further then the time span as given in the Old Testament.

Copernicus states that the world is flat and the catholic church condems him and we all know who was right.

Could someone please explain what’s what!!.

 

[Della]

Someone writes the Genesis (Enoc if I’m not mistaken) and later is declared as inspired scripture thousands of years later. Catholic apologists say you sin if you do not believe the Old Testament.

As it happens, you aren’t right. Enoch did not write Genesis. Moses is credited with having written it. And it is inspired Scripture so of course we are to believe in it and the rest of the Old Testament in matters of faith and morals. Strict history (as we modern people think of it) and scientific matters are not what it was written for.

Darwin comes up with the theory of evolution backed with scientific fact and is condemned. Dinosaur and even human remains date back further then the time span as given in the Old Testament.

Once again, you have been misinformed. Evolution is not “backed with scientific fact” nor was it “condemned” by the Catholic Church. The Church has nothing to say about dinosaurs or the early remains of humanoids. It does say that there was a real Adam and a real Eve who were the parents of all humans beings created in the image of God. And there is nothing in the scientific data that disputes that.

Copernicus states that the world is flat and the catholic church condems him and we all know who was right

.

Copernicus didn’t state that the earth was flat, nor was he condemned by the Church. You have your historical persons and information mixed up. It isn’t surprising considering you apparently have a lot of things mixed up. That’s not a criticism but an observation I’ve seen from the errors you’ve made in your statements.

Could someone please explain what’s what!!.

Well, it might be a good thing for you to do a bit of reading about these things from good sources. This very website has an excellent library of articles on all these subjects. You might want to check it out before making statements based on what you thing you know instead of on what is really true.

 

[Franciscan]

Someone writes the Genesis (Enoc if I’m not mistaken) and later is declared as inspired scripture thousands of years later. Catholic apologists say you sin if you do not believe the Old Testament.

Darwin comes up with the theory of evolution backed with scientific fact and is condemned. Dinosaur and even human remains date back further then the time span as given in the Old Testament.

Copernicus states that the world is flat and the catholic church condems him and we all know who was right.

Could someone please explain what’s what!!.

Hey Marty,

There’s a couple issues that you bring up but basicly we can break them down into the validity of the O.T. as inspired Scripture and the Magisterial teaching authority of the Church.

The main problem is that you are seeing things in an overly simplistic view. In an either/or mindset rather than a both/and mind set.

The Church teaches that the O.T. is true in matters of religious truth. Most of the stories can be seen as historically and scintifically accurate. But the current debate is whether the creation-Noah span is historically accurate. Since the Bible is not intended to be a history/science book we are given the freedom to either believe it as accurate or see it as more poetic. But we must see that regardless of which way we choose we are still bound by the religious truth of creation and adam and eve etc. (that There is one God who created everything good, that we were made in God’s image etc.).

So this part of the OT can be both poetic and true in matters of faith. I happen to believe that Adam and eve is mostly historicaly accurate.

Jesus referred to Adam and eve, St. Paul referred to them so we know that the religious truth of the whole OT is valid and inspired. The main reason is that Jesus taught that they were by his actions.

The other issue is the Church and Galileo. The Church never taught anything scientific as a binding teaching(using their Apostolic authority).

So you can both believe in the theories of science and believe in the Church’s teachings. MOst of the time there is no contradiction.

If you had as much faith in the Church as you do in evolution(which happens to require more faith) then you will less frustrated.

 

[marty54]

First of all dear DELLA I did write (if I am not mistaken) with regards Enoch, I stand corrected, in fact he wrote about the Angles and other celestial things.
But this does not change the fact you did not answer the matter, namely who decided that the OT is inspired Scripture?

The book caused only mild controversy at the time, and provoked no fierce sermons about contradicting holy scripture; Osiander’s preface, therefore, may have had some success. In 1546, however, a Dominican, Giovanni Maria Tolosani, wrote a treatise denouncing the theory and defending the absolute truth of scripture. Tolosani also claimed that Bartolomeo Spina, the Master of the Sacred Palace, had intended to condemn the theory but had been unable to press the issue because of ill health.

This quote is regards the book “De Revolutionibus orbium coelestuim” writen by Copernicus about his celestial theory which stated that the earth moves round the sun not the other way.
It was my mistake I meant round in my first (name removed by moderator)ut. Galileo was also of the same thought was condemed, but the church recently made a sort of apology regarding this.

The Church has nothing to say about dinosaurs or the early remains of humanoids. It does say that there was a real Adam and a real Eve who were the parents of all humans beings created in the image of God. And there is nothing in the scientific data that disputes that.

According to the church, in order for Adam and Eve go forth and multiply to habitate the world they had to resort to incest. Mother with sons, father with daughters, brothers with sisters so on and so forth.
Incest as far as I know is a mortal sin not only that but genetically creates problems.
Now do not tell me that GOD allowed Incest until such time GOD found it necessary to condem it, wouldn’t that make GOD inconsistent by the church’s logic, I do not believe GOD is so.

To Fransiscan:
I agree absolutely with your way of thinking, it makes more sense than what some people would like to force you to believe “You either believe or go to hell”
As regards St.Paul mentioning Adam and Eve one can easily reason that St. Paul was first of all a Jew brought up in the jewish religion and tradition, therefore he had no other sources to quote from, never mind scientifical theories.
As regards Jesus mentioning Adam and Eve please do refer me to place HE does(this said in sincerity), we must also keep in mind that as the Son Of GOD He knows the true origion of man but let us also consider the fact that He taught in parables so that the people of His time could understand Him.
Let us hypotetically imagine Jesus teaching those around Him about the origins of the world and man and came up with Darwin’s theory and the Big Bang.
Let’s be sincere with ourselves, does anyone believe that there would be Christianity today in such a case. Jesus taught in a manner that He could be understood, you cannot teach calculus in kindergarden, at least at present.

 

[Franciscan]

The Church leaders(The Magisterium guided by the same Holy Spirit who Inspired the writers of Scripture) at the Council of Hippo in the 300’s A.D.(approx). Finalized the Canon both OT and NT.

The Scriptures are both authored by humans and God(Known as Divine Inspiration- The Holy Spirit acted in and through the human authors).

So don’t be so fast to dismiss St.Paul based on his human backround.

In Matthew 19:4-5 Jesus quotes from Gn ch 2 when talking about Marriage. He reinstated the sacredness of Matrimony by saying in the beginning God intended marriage to be a binding covenant. The man and women he refers to are Adam and Eve.

On the last point, of course we cannot and do not consider Divine Revelation to be exaustive. The revealed mysteries in Divine Revelation/Scripture and Tradition is enough to get us to get to teach us how to live, what to believe and lead us to Heaven.

We definitely are limited by the capacity of our minds in understatnding the infinite nature of God and his mysteries.

But even science has limits because it deals with things that can be seen and tested. That’s why evolution is a theory rather than proven. What has been proven is micro evolution aka. natural selection. But Macro-evolution is now being abandoned at an amazing rate by even the most atheistic scientists.

 

[Della]

First of all dear DELLA I did write (if I am not mistaken) with regards Enoch, I stand corrected, in fact he wrote about the Angles and other celestial things.
But this does not change the fact you did not answer the matter, namely who decided that the OT is inspired Scripture?

I confess to being confused. There are no writings by Enoch that I am aware of–I have a B. A. in Bible and religious education, but still I might be missing something?

And it was the Catholic Church that declared the OT inspired Scripture, as it did the canon of the NT. The canon of Scripture was settled for good and all at the Council of Trent, but the canon had been ascertained centuries before that in the 4th century.

This quote is regards the book “De Revolutionibus orbium coelestuim” writen by Copernicus about his celestial theory which stated that the earth moves round the sun not the other way.
It was my mistake I meant round in my first (name removed by moderator)ut. Galileo was also of the same thought was condemed, but the church recently made a sort of apology regarding this.

It is well documented that the Church knew all about the various theories of celestial mechanics at the time of both Copernicus and Galileo. Several churchmen were also scientists. Copernicus’ theory wasn’t completely correct, nor was Galileo’s, as we now know, but no one knew for certain about these things at the time–no one. Galileo wasn’t condemned for his theory about the earth revolving around the sun but for declaring the Bible errant and he right. You have to remember that the Church was guarding against heresy not against theories about the movement of the earth. Also, Galileo insulted the pope who had been his supporter and arrogantly declared that his theory was the only correct one, which didn’t win him any friends at the time. And, as I stated above, he was only partly right and science is about discovering the truth about the physical world not about putting out theories. Yes?

According to the church, in order for Adam and Eve go forth and multiply to habitate the world they had to resort to incest. Mother with sons, father with daughters, brothers with sisters so on and so forth.
Incest as far as I know is a mortal sin not only that but genetically creates problems.
Now do not tell me that GOD allowed Incest until such time GOD found it necessary to condem it, wouldn’t that make GOD inconsistent by the church’s logic, I do not believe GOD is so.

At one time God also allowed men to have several wives, but in the New Covenant, it is not allowed. This is because a greater Man than Moses has come to reveal the Father to us–that Man being Christ. As to the genetics, it is speculated that Adam and Eve had a diversity of genetic material that we moderns do not have. I cannot prove this, nor would I try to, but it would answer this question. Still, the writer of Genesis wasn’t concerned with such things. His concern was telling us the basic facts that God created everything and how man came to have a broken relationship with him. The author had no concept of modern science, nor would he have cared if he did. His purpose wasn’t to give us all the details about the physical sciences but to tell us what is important for humans to know in order to be reunited with our Creator. The same can be said of Jesus. He didn’t come among us to tell us about the Big Bang Theory (if that theory is even correct–scientists are still debating the question), but the Good News–the restoration of our relationship with his Father. The physical sciences have their place, but they cannot tell us certain things, such as how should we behave and what is our ultimate end. Only religion and philosophy can really address those issues. And the same can be said of religion and philosophy–they are not intended to tell us the composition of jellyfish and the stars, but other things dealing with the spirit and soul of man.

 

[marty54]

The Church leaders(The Magisterium guided by the same Holy Spirit who Inspired the writers of Scripture) at the Council of Hippo in the 300’s A.D.(approx). Finalized the Canon both OT and NT.

"This Qur’ān is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds. Or do they say, “He forged it”? Say: “Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!”

Every religion seems to have a claim to Holy Revelation and Inspiration.
As a catholic I am bound to believe the Christian Bible but I cannot dismiss the fact that the Koran is very much like our Bible and has its good points.
What makes me believe in Jesus Christ is not the declarations of any Church Leaders or Church Fathers but the simple fact that Jesus Christ proclaimed He was The SON of GOD and proved it by His resurrection.
I am a Christian because it is the religion that teaches us to Love and forgive, to Love our enemies (very hard to do but…) and Love others as ourselves, and in this way I cannot see how GOD can condem none Christians for eternity if they keep these commandments.
GOD has to Love HIS enemies.

 

[Della]

Every religion seems to have a claim to Holy Revelation and Inspiration.
As a catholic I am bound to believe the Christian Bible but I cannot dismiss the fact that the Koran is very much like our Bible and has its good points.
What makes me believe in Jesus Christ is not the declarations of any Church Leaders or Church Fathers but the simple fact that Jesus Christ proclaimed He was The SON of GOD and proved it by His resurrection.
I am a Christian because it is the religion that teaches us to Love and forgive, to Love our enemies (very hard to do but…) and Love others as ourselves, and in this way I cannot see how GOD can condem none Christians for eternity if they keep these commandments.
GOD has to Love HIS enemies.

You seemed to have skipped to an entirely different topic here, Marty. But, have no fear, the Church certainly doesn’t condemn anyone to hell–it doesn’t have the authority to do that, in the first place, nor the desire to do so in the second place.

The Church teaches that there is truth in all religions–because God has put natural law into the hearts of mankind. Paul talked about this and Peter confirmed it. You really need to read your NT in the light of Church teaching to fully understand it, you know.

This is what the Church teaches concerning non-Catholics, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

And I have to disagree with you about believing in Jesus because the Church says so. The Church is the Body of Christ, entrusted by him to bring his message to the world for its salvation. And while it has its human side that fails miserably from time to time, it is divinely instituted by Christ himself and cannot/will not fail until the end of time. We have Jesus’ own words for it, and that is good enough for any Catholic to believe. Yes?

 

[Franciscan]

Every religion seems to have a claim to Holy Revelation and Inspiration.
**As a catholic I am bound to believe the Christian Bible **but I cannot dismiss the fact that the Koran is very much like our Bible and has its good points.
What makes me believe in Jesus Christ is not the declarations of any Church Leaders or Church Fathers but the simple fact that Jesus Christ proclaimed He was The SON of GOD and proved it by His resurrection.
I am a Christian because it is the religion that teaches us to Love and forgive, to Love our enemies (very hard to do but…) and Love others as ourselves, and in this way I cannot see how GOD can condem none Christians for eternity if they keep these commandments.
GOD has to Love HIS enemies.

Bare with me on this Marty… but WHY are you bound?Please answer.

 

[marty54]

Enoch, the son of Jared and father of Methuselah, a descendant of Adam through Seth and ancestor of Noah [1] He is believed to be taken away by God and became known as the angel Metatron. He is also a prophet in Islam known as Idris (Arabic: إدريس ). He is the protagonist of the several apocryphal books of the Old Testament:
1st Book of Enoch
2nd Book of Enoch from the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.
3rd Book of Enoch from the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.

Hope this help you get over your confusion Della?

At one time God also allowed men to have several wives, but in the New Covenant, it is not allowed. This is because a greater Man than Moses has come to reveal the Father to us–that Man being Christ. As to the genetics, it is speculated that Adam and Eve had a diversity of genetic material that we moderns do not have. I cannot prove this, nor would I try to, but it would answer this question.

Rather a lame argument considering the difference between polygamy and INCEST.
As regards the genetics of Adam and Eve only zealots will speculate such ideas.
But still you did not answer my question,How can GOD permit Incest at one time then declares it a MORTAL SIN another time.
GOD is not inconsistant only some apologists can be.

And for the record I never wrote that I believe in Jesus because the church said so, please when quoting do quote properly.

 

[marty54]

To Fransiscan

As a catholic I am bound to believe the Christian Bible

Maybe I did not explain myself properly, what I meant was that as a Christian no other Scripture can replace the teachings of the Bible.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

In regard to the polygamy of the Jewish people, which was a polygyny system, I am unaware of the practice being sanctioned by God in the 613 commandments. Judaism considers it a valid practice due to the silence on the relationship held by those righteous who practiced it. It wasn’t until 1000 years ago was it banned in Judaism by Rabbi Gershom in “the Light of the Diaspora.” There are different thoughts in why this was done. The Sephardic Jews did not accept this; but do not practice polygyny because they live in societies which forbid such a practice, and the Yeminite Jews who emigrated to Israel had a problem because the state of Israel forbids polygamy, and an exception was made for them because many of them were practicing polygamists.

If you read Saint Thomas Aquanis’s work- Summa Against the Gentiles- he postulates that there are three ends to the sacrament of marriage:

1. The need to procreate and educate those children
2. The need to foster a common life between spouses
3. The last has to do with the sacramental blessings fostered by the fidelity between the spouses

The third is what Christ bestowed on us- and it cannot be accomplished in anything but a monogamous relationship.
Remember, it was Christ who said that he did not come to destroy the Law; but to fulfill it- unlike our forebearers in faith, we were given sacramental gifts which fulfill our lives through the Grace of God. Marriage is one of them.

God never sanctioned one and then changed the answer- He allowed polygamy because it is not instrinctly evil and could be used to complete the first two reasons of marriage; but it was an incomplete form.

As for the practice itself, it was a reasonable to expect it- the middle eastern cultures have largely been nomadic, and polygamous polygyny is usually the cultural practice in these areas. If you look at the cultures of Tibet, Nepal and southern China- one could see that traditionally the practice was towards polyandry, which is when one wife has several husbands. This was most likely a necessity due to the limitations of food/water- so having only one wife allowed for fewer offspring. I believe the Celts of the British Isles were known to practice a form of serial monogamy. In otherwords, they would marry and then have to renew their “marriage contract” to continue it that relationship. And their have been many different forms of polygamy and marriage in general; but none as special or complete as the one God bestowed on His Church and His children.