Where do you think sin came from?

[josie_L]

There seems to be a difference of opinion here. I’m uncertain as to the true “Catholic position” and even there is one I’ve no idea if Catholics are obliged to adhere to it.

Confusedly,
Mick

I don’t see any contradiction in what I have written and what Lily has said. Most Scientists have come to the conclusion that all of humanity is descended from one man and one woman. Theistic evolution espouses this, and it conforms to the Bible. Did you research theistic evolution? I know has a Catholic you are not obliged to believe in theistic evolution, the point of my post was to show it was not in contradiction to Sacred scripture/traditiion.

 

[SSTeacher]

Where is the difference of opinion? Theistic evolution doesn’t negate the fact that all of humanity could have descended from two individuals, whether those individuals came about through evolution from another species or creation ex nihilo.

Do a google on ‘mitochondrial Eve’ or ‘MRCA’ (most recent common ancestor) - it appears that a lot of non-religious scientists seem to think that all of humanity possibly descended from one common male and/or one common female ancestor.

When in doubt, consult the Catechism. It certainly is a standard codification of required belief for all Catholics, a ‘sure norm’ as JP2 put it. Not that all Catholics, regrettably, are familiar with it as they should be. It removes all doubt -

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”.250 This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.251

So we had ONE pair of ‘first parents’, not an unidentified larger group.

I don’t see any contradiction in what I have written and what Lily has said. Most Scientists have come to the conclusion that all of humanity is descended from one man and one woman. Theistic evolution espouses this, and it conforms to the Bible. Did you research theistic evolution? I know has a Catholic you are not obliged to believe in theistic evolution, the point of my post was to show it was not in contradiction to Sacred scripture/traditiion.

I have no difficulty with the theory of evolution and I don’t mind if Richard Dawkins chooses the prefix “atheistic” or if Francis Collins chooses the prefix “theistic.” I’m simply trying to understand how Catholics arrive at their conclusions.

My reason for posting this question is that I hope to get an idea of how Catholics understand the teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue.

We Evangelicals can explain our thinking and our presuppositions very easily. We read Scripture literally unless it’s obvious that a literal interpretation is out of the question. Thus it is easy for me to explain to anybody, including a child, that Adam and Eve were real people and our first parents and back it up by pointing to the Bible, which is the word of God.

If I were to become a Catholic, though, I’m not sure that I could still say this. So, my question is directed toward grasping the official Catholic position (if, in fact, there actually is one) and trying to comprehend how that position was reached.

I’m sorry if it seems as though I’m being dense. Telling me to google a topic or referring me to the Catechism of the Catholic Church isn’t helping me to understand the Catholic approach because the obvious question is to ask how Catholics reached their conclusions prior to the availability of the Internet or the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s not as if this question just came up last week.

All this is but preparatory to my main question, of course.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[fhansen]

I have no difficulty with the theory of evolution and I don’t mind if Richard Dawkins chooses the prefix “atheistic” or if Francis Collins chooses the prefix “theistic.” I’m simply trying to understand how Catholics arrive at their conclusions.

We Evangelicals can explain our thinking and our presuppositions very easily. We read Scripture literally unless it’s obvious that a literal interpretation is out of the question. Thus it is easy for me to explain to anybody, including a child, that Adam and Eve were real people and our first parents and back it up by pointing to the Bible, which is the word of God.

If I were to become a Catholic, though, I’m not sure that I could still say this. So, my question is directed toward grasping the official Catholic position (if, in fact, there actually is one) and trying to comprehend how that position was reached.

I’m sorry if it seems as though I’m being dense. Telling me to google a topic or referring me to the Catechism of the Catholic Church isn’t helping me to understand the Catholic approach because the obvious question is to ask how Catholics reached their conclusions prior to the availability of the Internet or the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s not as if this question just came up last week.

All this is but preparatory to my main question, of course.

Cordially,
Mick

It should be clear from the Catechism and other quotes from Catholic sources that the Catholic Church officially teaches that there was one set of parents that all races descended from. And that they committed the original sin that caused corruption, death, and subsequent sin to enter creation. That is as far as the Church goes doctrinally on evolution-related issues, other than that God created the world, which flies in the face of Dawkins and others deluded faith-based “anthropic principle”. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have no official statements on any of this.

 

[LilyM]

It should be clear from the Catechism and other quotes from Catholic sources that the Catholic Church officially teaches that there was one set of parents that all races descended from. And that they committed the original sin that caused corruption, death, and subsequent sin to enter creation. That is as far as the Church goes doctrinally on evolution-related issues, other than that God created the world, which flies in the face of Dawkins and others deluded faith-based “anthropic principle”. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have no official statements on any of this.

I see SS’s point know, he wants to know WHY the Church teaches this as opposed to, say, sticking to a literalistic interpretation of the whole of Chapters 1-whatever of Genesis.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If evolution is a fact and the Genesis account of creation isn’t literally true when and how did sin become a part of the human condition?

Thoughtfully,
Mick

Moral evil is not a real thing - so it can’t be said to do anything. An absence has no qualities & can perform no acts. As for having an origin - what origin can a non-being have ?​

 

[fhansen]

I see SS’s point know, he wants to know WHY the Church teaches this as opposed to, say, sticking to a literalistic interpretation of the whole of Chapters 1-whatever of Genesis.

Sorry to SS, I didn’t read that thoroughly. But I still don’t understand. As Catholics we believe that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” and that her role has always been to interpret whatever resources she has at hand, including Scripture, when defining the faith. So when she speaks through her Catechism, for one, she’s laying down her belief in much the same manner as an individual adherent to Sola Scriptura does. And an Evangelical interpreting Scripture is still faced with the same issues-that of knowing when Scripture is speaking literally and when it’s not-and, whether we like it or not, it’s not always so easy to know this. So the Church teaches, and Catholics believe if they follow Christs’ Church, the all important-doctrine that one set of actual parents of all races committed one actual act of disobedience against God and where’s the difference? The only difference is that an Evangelical considers Scripture to be their authority and Catholics believe the Church to be their authority.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

If evolution is a fact and the Genesis account of creation isn’t literally true when and how did sin become a part of the human condition?

Thoughtfully,
Mick

I believe it is the inevitable by-product of free will.

Only divine intervention could prevent sin, and this would mean compromising free will.

 

[josie_L]

I have no difficulty with the theory of evolution and I don’t mind if Richard Dawkins chooses the prefix “atheistic” or if Francis Collins chooses the prefix “theistic.” I’m simply trying to understand how Catholics arrive at their conclusions.

We Evangelicals can explain our thinking and our presuppositions very easily. We read Scripture literally unless it’s obvious that a literal interpretation is out of the question. Thus it is easy for me to explain to anybody, including a child, that Adam and Eve were real people and our first parents and back it up by pointing to the Bible, which is the word of God.

If I were to become a Catholic, though, I’m not sure that I could still say this. So, my question is directed toward grasping the official Catholic position (if, in fact, there actually is one) and trying to comprehend how that position was reached.

I’m sorry if it seems as though I’m being dense. Telling me to google a topic or referring me to the Catechism of the Catholic Church isn’t helping me to understand the Catholic approach because the obvious question is to ask how Catholics reached their conclusions prior to the availability of the Internet or the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s not as if this question just came up last week.

All this is but preparatory to my main question, of course.

Cordially,
Mick

Whatever truths have been espoused by the Holy Spirit, has come to us through sacred scripture/tradition and the magisterium of the Church, but also remember CC will be brought into the fullness of truth until the second coming of Christ. The Church’s doctrines are being developed as she progresses on her Journey of Faith (the development of doctrine). The Church came to her conclusions in regard to Genesis by the Holy Spirit, and yet the truths found in the first book of the Bible have not yet been revealed in its fullness. What the Church states is the Truth, what it has not established will in time be revealed by the Holy Spirit.

In other words, if you are looking for a solid position in which the Church has plainly taken in respect to Genesis, then the answer would be no (you have already be given answers by other posters as to what the Church has already established as truth in Genesis).

Also, has I mentioned earlier, is that Truth is found in faith and reason, and thus Science is going to play its part in revealing the Truth. Look at what Science has accomplished in the past to our understanding of the Universe (none of which contradicts the deposit of faith). The Church has grown in wisdom by using Reason as well as Faith. She will continue that legacy.

I am not sure that this answers your question, but I hope it sheds some light. God Bless.

 

[LilyM]

Sorry to SS, I didn’t read that thoroughly. But I still don’t understand. As Catholics we believe that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” and that her role has always been to interpret whatever resources she has at hand, including Scripture, when defining the faith. So when she speaks through her Catechism, for one, she’s laying down her belief in much the same manner as an individual adherent to Sola Scriptura does. And an Evangelical interpreting Scripture is still faced with the same issues-that of knowing when Scripture is speaking literally and when it’s not-and, whether we like it or not, it’s not always so easy to know this. So the Church teaches, and Catholics believe if they follow Christs’ Church, the all important-doctrine that one set of actual parents of all races committed one actual act of disobedience against God and where’s the difference? The only difference is that an Evangelical considers Scripture to be their authority and Catholics believe the Church to be their authority.

Interesting point - I guess, since the Church speaks with Christ’s voice, asking ‘why’ is a bit like hearing Christ say ‘Moses allowed you divorce for the hardness of your hearts, and ‘adultery’ actually means even LOOKING at a woman lustfully’ and tapping Him on the shoulder and saying ‘Lord, but scripture says we can divorce, why aren’t you interpreting it literally? And scripture doesn’t say ‘adultery’ includes lust in the heart, why are you saying that it does?’

At some point we have to trust that Christ, through His church, teaches us HOW to interpret things and what to take literally. Just as you trust that Christ, through the Holy Spirit, teaches either you personally or your pastor or whoever, HOW to interpret things and what to take literally.

By the way, SSTeacher, you’re not serious about ‘we take scripture literally unless it’s impossible to do otherwise’, are you?

It’s perfectly possible to take the ‘pluck out your eye if it offends you, cut off your hand if it offends you …’ literally, as Origen showed by going to the extreme of castrating himself But you don’t, do you?

It’s quite possible to take ‘give ALL you have to the poor’ literally - but you don’t do that either.

Not to mention the clincher - ‘This is my Body’ which taken literally can surely mean nothing other than transubstantiation

Now I’m sure you didn’t come to the conclusion that those passages weren’t to be taken literally ALL on your own, someone told you. And I’m sure in the case of one or more of them that person did no more than simply say ‘oh yes, that’s hyperbole/allegory/whatever’ without giving detailed info about how they reached that conclusion, no?

 

[SSTeacher]

The Catholic position is that while Genesis might not be true in every particular, we ARE obliged to believe that all of humanity descended from two individuals, a man and a woman, albeit they may not have been named Adam and Eve etc etc.

I’m seeking clarification on the *** etc. etc. *** Who in the Catholic Church decided Genesis might not be true in every particular, exactly which sections did he or she decide might not be true, when was this conclusion reached, and are Catholics who have strong reservations about the theory of evolution being used as a tool to draw people – particularly children – away from God allowed to follow their consciences without condemnation from officialdom?

And that these two individuals brought Original Sin into the world by their disobedience to God.

This notion comes from Genesis, which perhaps explains how it is that I’m trying to figure out the reason for the Catholic reluctance to accept Genesis in its entirety. The idea of the fall – the first sin – is apparently acceptable yet “Genesis might not be true in every particular.” It seems to me that there’s an unknown influence at work, here.

Wonderingly,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

LilyM;4885146:

I see SS’s point know, he wants to know WHY the Church teaches this as opposed to, say, sticking to a literalistic interpretation of the whole of Chapters 1-whatever of Genesis.

Sorry to SS, I didn’t read that thoroughly. But I still don’t understand. As Catholics we believe that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” and that her role has always been to interpret whatever resources she has at hand, including Scripture, when defining the faith. So when she speaks through her Catechism, for one, she’s laying down her belief in much the same manner as an individual adherent to Sola Scriptura does. And an Evangelical interpreting Scripture is still faced with the same issues-that of knowing when Scripture is speaking literally and when it’s not-and, whether we like it or not, it’s not always so easy to know this. So the Church teaches, and Catholics believe if they follow Christs’ Church, the all important-doctrine that one set of actual parents of all races committed one actual act of disobedience against God and where’s the difference? The only difference is that an Evangelical considers Scripture to be their authority and Catholics believe the Church to be their authority.

I really must apologize for the feeble job I’m doing trying to explain what I’m driving at. I’m not questioning why in the sense you’re taking it. I’m asking you to explain how you get to your conclusion. If it’s because the pope says so, then that’s an acceptable answer. I’d just like to know which pope and if his teaching is binding upon all Catholics. If it’s because the Catholic Church teaches it, I want to know if the document adduced is binding upon all Catholics. I’m not questioning the authority of the Catholic Church from the outside. I’m speculating as to how I would accept Catholic teaching on this matter if I were on the inside. Perhaps I’m missing something. I’m seeing the Catholic Church picking out some bits of Genesis and apparently rejecting others and I don’t know the reason. I’m not suggesting that the Catholic Church doesn’t have right to do this, mind you. I’m simply asking what is wrong with endorsing the position that Genesis is historical and true.

Logically,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Interesting point - I guess, since the Church speaks with Christ’s voice, asking ‘why’ is a bit like hearing Christ say ‘Moses allowed you divorce for the hardness of your hearts, and ‘adultery’ actually means even LOOKING at a woman lustfully’ and tapping Him on the shoulder and saying ‘Lord, but scripture says we can divorce, why aren’t you interpreting it literally? And scripture doesn’t say ‘adultery’ includes lust in the heart, why are you saying that it does?’

What you have written makes perfect sense for somebody who approaches with Catholic presuppositions but I have not yet come to the view that the Catholic Church speaks with Christ’s voice.

At some point we have to trust that Christ, through His church, teaches us HOW to interpret things and what to take literally.

You’ve reached that point and I haven’t. That’s why I’m asking about the how and not the why.

Just as you trust that Christ, through the Holy Spirit, teaches either you personally or your pastor or whoever, HOW to interpret things and what to take literally.

Indeed. There’s no such thing as a Lone Ranger Christian and we all ought to be teachable. But who to choose as a teacher? You’ve chosen the Catholic Church. I’m considering my choices.

By the way, SSTeacher, you’re not serious about ‘we take scripture literally unless it’s impossible to do otherwise’, are you?

Yes, I am.

It’s perfectly possible to take the ‘pluck out your eye if it offends you, cut off your hand if it offends you …’ literally, as Origen showed by going to the extreme of castrating himself But you don’t, do you?

No, I don’t and I can now see that my choice of words was very poor. Perhaps that’s why I’m having so much trouble.

It’s quite possible to take ‘give ALL you have to the poor’ literally - but you don’t do that either.

No, I don’t.

Not to mention the clincher - ‘This is my Body’ which taken literally can surely mean nothing other than transubstantiation

For somebody who approaches with Catholic presuppositions, it certainly seems like a clincher.

Now I’m sure you didn’t come to the conclusion that those passages weren’t to be taken literally ALL on your own, someone told you.

I’m perhaps a bad example. Although I don’t subscribe to the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I do currently align myself with the doctrine sometimes facetiously referred to as Sola Interpeter. I have been and still am my own pope. But I’m fed up with it. Hence my inquiry into the truth claims of the Catholic Church.

And I’m sure in the case of one or more of them that person did no more than simply say ‘oh yes, that’s hyperbole/allegory/whatever’ without giving detailed info about how they reached that conclusion, no?

Again, I’m a bad example. I have asked these kinds of questions ever since I entered the Evangelical world in the year 2000 and I’ve made certain that it’s my considered opinion that has prevailed. As a result, I’ve now come face to face with the fact that my opinion is backed up by nothing more substantial than my opinion. It’s not enough.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[LilyM]

I’m seeking clarification on the *** etc. etc. *** Who in the Catholic Church decided Genesis might not be true in every particular, exactly which sections did he or she decide might not be true, when was this conclusion reached, and are Catholics who have strong reservations about the theory of evolution being used as a tool to draw people – particularly children – away from God allowed to follow their consciences without condemnation from officialdom?

Oh some of it goes right back, for example, to Augustine in the 300s - who for starters argued that the ‘seven days’ couldn’t have been seven literal 24-hour days. That position became more and more argued with newer evidence. I believe referring back to the fact that some Jewish scholars didn’t take it literally either. As well as support from other scriptural verses such as ‘1000 years to the Lord is as a day, and a day as 1000 years’, that permit of a less-than-literal interpretation of such things as the Genesis ‘days’.

And so the church finally took a position through different documents such as Vatican 2’s Verbum Dei (on scripture). By the way, the position is rarely, and isn’t in the case of Genesis, that we MUST take this verse or that as NOT being literal, rather that we can CHOOSE whether or not to believe that some things, such as the seven-day creation, are literal or not. There are plenty of Catholics who DO believe in a literal seven-day creation and they are permitted to do so.

And evolution (as long as it is theistic) in and of itself doesn’t lead anyone away from God - in fact a persistence with literal creationism in the face of quite substantial evidence for evolution would do MUCH more harm and drive many more people away. At least those who believe that science and human intellect are in themselves gifts from Him (although not the be-all and end-all).

Science, in positing explanations for the world that don’t involve God isn’t claiming that God doesn’t exist, and it of itself doesnt draw us away - in fact the Vatican has always been one of the greatest supporters of such sciences as astronomy (Galileo notwithstanding - after all, the Catholic monk Copernicus theorised about heliocentrism before him and got into no trouble for doing so!)

See the Church doesn’t make a habit of analysing scripture line-by-line and coming up with a single one-and-one-only ‘official’ interpretation for every jot and tittle of it. Scripture clearly is designed so that it does, or can, have multiple meaning in a lot of places. So the Church isn’t going to reject any scholarly interpretation or analysis that isn’t CLEARLY untenable or contrary to revealed truth.

With Adam and Eve - it IS held to be necessary to believe in a single originating pair of parents probably because the idea of a larger group of ancestors all simultaneously being guilty of ‘original sin’ is untenable. And that it would seem strange that one man, Christ, could so perfectly atone for the Original Sin committed by a GROUP of people. It’s just not as neat a fit as God would make it.

As another practical example of how Church reasoning tends to work, it is infallibly-declared (by the Council of Nicea among others) revealed truth that Jesus is God. This view is based partly on scripture which tells us so, partly on the work of scholars who analysed that scripture and showed that it was the only tenable belief.

So based on a) scripture and b) magisterial teaching of the Council, the Church isn’t going to permit an interpretation of ‘why do you call me good? Only God is good’ that holds that it proves that Jesus ISN’T divine. But apart from that it probably isn’t going to forbid even fairly out-there interpretations of that verse that brilliant minds might come up with.

It’s a more-or-less laissez-faire approach that you’re not used to.

 

[LilyM]

What you have written makes perfect sense for somebody who approaches with Catholic presuppositions but I have not yet come to the view that the Catholic Church speaks with Christ’s voice.

You’ve reached that point and I haven’t. That’s why I’m asking about the how and not the why.

Indeed. There’s no such thing as a Lone Ranger Christian and we all ought to be teachable. But who to choose as a teacher? You’ve chosen the Catholic Church. I’m considering my choices.

Yes, I am.

No, I don’t and I can now see that my choice of words was very poor. Perhaps that’s why I’m having so much trouble.

No, I don’t.

For somebody who approaches with Catholic presuppositions, it certainly seems like a clincher.

I’m perhaps a bad example. Although I don’t subscribe to the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I do currently align myself with the doctrine sometimes facetiously referred to as Sola Interpeter. I have been and still am my own pope. But I’m fed up with it. Hence my inquiry into the truth claims of the Catholic Church.

Again, I’m a bad example. I have asked these kinds of questions ever since I entered the Evangelical world in the year 2000 and I’ve made certain that it’s my considered opinion that has prevailed. As a result, I’ve now come face to face with the fact that my opinion is backed up by nothing more substantial than my opinion. It’s not enough.

Respectfully,
Mick

You’re not a bad example at all - you’re a typical example, it’s just that most ‘sola scriptura’ Protestants never DO realise that they really aren’t sola scriptura at all. And in fact that strict sola scriptura is impossible. As the Ethiopian said to Philip about the scriptures ‘how can I understand unless someone (with authority, presumably) explain it to me’.

By the way - take the literal words ‘this (bread) IS MY BODY’. On the pure face of them they can’t mean anything other than that the bread He was holding WAS NO LONGER really bread (otherwise He would have said either ‘This bread is My body’ or ‘This is bread and is My body’ or even ‘this represents my body’) but substantially is only His body - ie transubstantiation.

Any determination that it is symbolic or supports consubstantiation doesn’t come from the words themselves, so is not a literal interpretation, but rather comes from mere opinion.

 

[josie_L]

I really must apologize for the feeble job I’m doing trying to explain what I’m driving at. I’m not questioning why in the sense you’re taking it. I’m asking you to explain how you get to your conclusion. If it’s because the pope says so, then that’s an acceptable answer. I’d just like to know which pope and if his teaching is binding upon all Catholics. If it’s because the Catholic Church teaches it, I want to know if the document adduced is binding upon all Catholics. I’m not questioning the authority of the Catholic Church from the outside. I’m speculating as to how I would accept Catholic teaching on this matter if I were on the inside. Perhaps I’m missing something. I’m seeing the Catholic Church picking out some bits of Genesis and apparently rejecting others and I don’t know the reason. I’m not suggesting that the Catholic Church doesn’t have right to do this, mind you. I’m simply asking what is wrong with endorsing the position that Genesis is historical and true.

Logically,
Mick

The Church has rejected nothing (Genesis is true just not literally true in every detail), she is however, following the Holy Spirit into all truth. This is in Scripture: John 16:12-15. Your literal interpretation, of Genesis would not be considered heretical within the Church, however, you confirm a truth or understanding of Genesis which at the moment has not been confirmed by the Church. If you wish to understand how the Catholic Church views the first book of Genesis (and sin) I would suggest you read the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, from page 82 to 117.

I’m not sure how attached you are to a completely literal interpretation of Genesis, but do you really believe that the apple that was eaten by Adam and Eve was really an apple or just symbolic, and is it really important either way. Isn’t the import of that passage to relay the disobedience of the first man and woman who through the sin of pride wanted to be like God. Are you not miring yourself into the outer details, instead of focusing on the substance.

 

[josie_L]

Oh some of it goes right back, for example, to Augustine in the 300s - who for starters argued that the ‘seven days’ couldn’t have been seven literal 24-hour days. That position became more and more argued with newer evidence. I believe referring back to the fact that some Jewish scholars didn’t take it literally either. As well as support from other scriptural verses such as ‘1000 years to the Lord is as a day, and a day as 1000 years’, that permit of a less-than-literal interpretation of such things as the Genesis ‘days’.

And so the church finally took a position through different documents such as Vatican 2’s Verbum Dei (on scripture). By the way, the position is rarely, and isn’t in the case of Genesis, that we MUST take this verse or that as NOT being literal, rather that we can CHOOSE whether or not to believe that some things, such as the seven-day creation, are literal or not. There are plenty of Catholics who DO believe in a literal seven-day creation and they are permitted to do so.

And evolution (as long as it is theistic) in and of itself doesn’t lead anyone away from God - in fact a persistence with literal creationism in the face of quite substantial evidence for evolution would do MUCH more harm and drive many more people away. At least those who believe that science and human intellect are in themselves gifts from Him (although not the be-all and end-all).

Science, in positing explanations for the world that don’t involve God isn’t claiming that God doesn’t exist, and it of itself doesnt draw us away - in fact the Vatican has always been one of the greatest supporters of such sciences as astronomy (Galileo notwithstanding - after all, the Catholic monk Copernicus theorised about heliocentrism before him and got into no trouble for doing so!)

See the Church doesn’t make a habit of analysing scripture line-by-line and coming up with a single one-and-one-only ‘official’ interpretation for every jot and tittle of it. Scripture clearly is designed so that it does, or can, have multiple meaning in a lot of places. So the Church isn’t going to reject any scholarly interpretation or analysis that isn’t CLEARLY untenable or contrary to revealed truth.

With Adam and Eve - it IS held to be necessary to believe in a single originating pair of parents probably because the idea of a larger group of ancestors all simultaneously being guilty of ‘original sin’ is untenable. And that it would seem strange that one man, Christ, could so perfectly atone for the Original Sin committed by a GROUP of people. It’s just not as neat a fit as God would make it.

As another practical example of how Church reasoning tends to work, it is infallibly-declared (by the Council of Nicea among others) revealed truth that Jesus is God. This view is based partly on scripture which tells us so, partly on the work of scholars who analysed that scripture and showed that it was the only tenable belief.

So based on a) scripture and b) magisterial teaching of the Council, the Church isn’t going to permit an interpretation of ‘why do you call me good? Only God is good’ that holds that it proves that Jesus ISN’T divine. But apart from that it probably isn’t going to forbid even fairly out-there interpretations of that verse that brilliant minds might come up with.

It’s a more-or-less laissez-faire approach that you’re not used to.

This was very well-written. I hope SSteacher, understands more because of it.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I’m asking you to explain how you get to your conclusion.

I don’t think it’s what you are looking for but this is how I have.

ECCLESIASTICUS

3:18-3:22. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious…3:26. And the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity.

6:18. My son, from thy youth up receive instruction, and even to thy grey hairs thou shalt find wisdom.

6:19. Come to her as one that plougheth, and soweth, and wait for her good fruits:

6:20. For in working about her thou shalt labour a little, and shalt quickly eat of her fruits.

6:21. How very unpleasant is wisdom to the unlearned, and the unwise will not continue with her.

6:22. She shall be to them as a mighty stone of trial, and they will cast her from them before it be long.

6:23. For the wisdom of doctrine is according to her name

, and she is not manifest unto many, but with them to whom she is known, she continueth even to the sight of God.

6:24. Give ear, my son, and take wise counsel, and cast not away my advice.

6:25. Put thy feet into her fetters, and thy neck into her chains:

6:26. Bow down thy shoulder, and bear her, and be not grieved with her bands.

6:27. Come to her with all thy mind, and keep her ways with all thy power.

6:28. Search for her, and she shall be made known to thee, and when thou hast gotten her, let her not go:

6:29. For in the latter end thou shalt find rest in her, and she shall be turned to thy joy.

6:30. Then shall her fetters be a strong defence for thee, and a firm foundation, and her chain a robe of glory:

6:31. For in her is the beauty of life, and her bands are a healthful binding.

6:32. Thou shalt put her on as a robe of glory, and thou shalt set her upon thee as a crown of joy.

6:33. My son, if thou wilt attend to me, thou shalt learn: and if thou wilt apply thy mind, thou shalt be wise.

We do not know the life of Jesus (13-30) anymore than we know why the universe was created. Some things likely will never be known for certain. Why Jesus lived we know, but how the universe was created we have to learn on our own if we are able. It’s like building a tower to reach heaven.

I certainly don’t dismiss scientific discoveries, in fact I materially support them. I am confident that science cannot contradict or prove God wrong to include humanity. It’s entertaning to think about mysteries but the difficulty is knowing what to do with the knowledge once you get it.