Why did God kill those Egyptian first-born sons

[kenwcrow]

What type of God would kill the first-born of Egypt?
Context is everything in biblical interpretation. The ancient Egyptians served many false gods. The Plagues that were set upon the people of Egypt were relative to the gods of the land demonstrating that God was the true God and that their gods were weak, ineffective, and false.

Turning the Nile to blood, Exodus 7:14-25. Isis was the Egyptian god of the Nile. Khnum was the guardian of the Nile.
Frogs, Exodus 8:1-5. Heget was the goddess of birth and had the head of a frog.
Gnats, Exodus 8:16-19. Set was the god of the desert.
Flies, Exodus 8:20-32. Re was the sun god. Uatchit was a god possibly represented by the fly.
Death of Livestock, Exodus 9:1-7. Hathor, goddess with a cow’s head. Apis was the bull god.
Boils, Exodus 9:8-12. Sekmet, goddess that had power over disease. Sunu, the god of pestilence.
Hail, Exodus 9:13-35. Nut, the goddess of the sky. Set, god of storms.
Locusts, Exodus 10:1-20. Osiris, god of crops.
Darkness, Exodus 10:21-29. Re, the sun god. Horus, a sun god. Hathor, sky goddess.
Death of firstborn, Exodus 11:1 - 12:30. Min, god of reproduction. Isis, goddess who protected children. Pharaoh, considered a god.1
The death of the first-born (Exodus 12:29) was not only a final blow to Pharaoh and all of Egypt demonstrating the powerlessness of Pharaoh and the truth of God’s Word, but it was also used as a prophetic typology. In the account of the death of the first-born, all who had the blood of a lamb placed on their door posts would escape the judgment of God on the households. This blood on the doorpost was representative of the actual blood of Christ who is called the Lamb of God. Therefore, God allowed the first-born to be killed as a judgment upon Pharaoh, as a proof of God’s superiority, and as a prophetic representation of the death of His Son, Jesus. It was a representation of the gospel message that the true first-born of God who would later die for the sins of the world and that all who are covered by the blood of Christ will be saved from their bondage to sin. It does not indicate that God is mean, especially if we realize that all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). It illustrates that God was arranging history to bear witness of the greatest act of love: the crucifixion.

 

[Lev23]

Those sons were innocent. Some of them were even babies. Why did God do such an unjust act?

Some would answer that He did that because he’s God or showing his authority. Then why did he sacrifice those innocent kids? That’s not just or loving.

I am not challenging the Bible but just seeking the truth.

If you want the truth you are asking the wrong question.

Why did Pharaoh harden his heart more and more towards the Word of God and the hebrews after each particular plague that lead up to the plague of the firstborns?

I realize this is an old post…

 

[David_Allen]

From the point of view of justice the first thing we see in the Bible is in the Old Testament. It is not mercy, but an eye for an eye.

Remember how God punished all the Jews for the sin of David the King? Now fast forward and see God forgives His people, for the sacrifice of Christ the King. The fate of the people is linked to the actions of the king and somehow that is just. You would not complain that you get to avoid hell, because King Jesus suffered and died for you, but how is that just?

Now go back and look at the story of the Egyptians and the Jews. The Jews were the slaves of the Egyptians for generations. Was that just? The Egyptian pharoah ordered the execution of all of the firstborn sons of the Jews and it was carried out. Only Moses escaped, by being cared for by Pharoah’s daughter. If all the Jews of the Old Testament were punished for David’s sin of taking a census, then what should happen to the Egyptians for the sin of Pharoah for murdering all of the firstborn sons of the Jews? What does justice demand?

Your problem is not with God’s justice. You expect Him to be merciful and not repay the Egyptians for their crime.

I thought about why God killed the first-born sons and now I see a great answer. Many atheists throw things like this in your face so it’s nice to have good answers.

There is mystery here. We can’t grasp all of what is being presented. We do not know the eternal fate of the souls of the Egyptian children and adults who were firstborn sons.

The physical history of the Jews prefigures something spiritual. As they were led out of slavery after the first Passover, the event you are thinking about, they spent forty years in the desert on the way to the physcal promised land, prefiguring the spiritual promised land, heaven.

Jesus died for our sins and we long and pray for the coming of His Kingdom, but it is not here yet. He can reign in souls, but the world is a mess. Our sins can be forgiven, but we are wnadering in the wilderness still. The world is full of darkness and struggle as the Jews struggled in the desert with no homeland.

Pharoah in this spiritual lesson of history in typology is Satan. He was the head of all of the slave drivers who enslaved and whipped the people, as the human race is enslaved in sin by a cruel master and demons. God is more powerful than the devil and sets His people free and destroys the demons and those horsemen who try to prevent the freedom of His people.

We are to see in this physical history overlayed by spiritual and divine events a reflection of our own spiritual lives.

I thought about why God killed the first-borns and it bothered me, but now I see a great answer. Atheists throw questions like this in your face so it’s nice to have good answers.

 

[johnbres2]

The Church says that whenever we read the Bible, we must keep in mind historical context. The tradition of Catholic Biblical interpretation also implies the active employment of reason by the reader. Yes…my analysis steps over the line a bit, but as a *non-Marxist *follower of Liberation Theology, I read the sacred text in this manner, generally speaking. Its truths for me are just as cogent as they are for the literal interpreter. I just believe that God’s majesty, power and glory are so unfathomable, that literal translation isn’t necessary in most cases. The best ‘proof’ of the truth of Catholicism is HISTORY, much more than anything else.

I agree completely with this analysis. The Egyptian children were not literally killed. Rather, the interpretation must be spiritual. One’s most cherished hopes and dreams are embodied in one’s “first born son.” The Egyptians were defying God’s will, and consequently their most cherished hopes and dreams were dashed. I don’t think it has anything to do with the Jews per se; rather, any group that defies God’s Truth will see their hopes and dreams crushed.

 

[patg]

Those sons were innocent. Some of them were even babies. Why did God do such an unjust act?

Some would answer that He did that because he’s God or showing his authority. Then why did he sacrifice those innocent kids? That’s not just or loving.

I am not challenging the Bible but just seeking the truth.

Here are 2 possible ways of looking at this:

1. God is above the concept of “the end never justifies the means” - it only applies to lower life forms (like us). I’m not too comfortable about worshiping a god who slaughters innocent children just to get his way.

or

1. God wasn’t really all that involved with this - the event was only *attributed *to God by the authors because, of course, the ancient people attributed everything beyond their understanding to God. The church does accept that the scriptures contains various literary forms, including legends. And there is no requirement that any of us believe in the literal historicity of this tale - just as in the creation accounts, the flood, etc.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

Didn’t God give Pharaoh about, I don’t know, 9 chances to let the people go? When the people of Egypt and Pharaoh did not the heed to these warnings, of course things will come to them. So this is in fact just, because this is what man brought upon himself, not God.

God was the author of life, and God has the right to take the children’s souls back to the kingdom of heaven, IMO, God did not kill those children, but He saved them. Sound crazy, but God saved them from sins, from evil, and in case if Pharaoh still not repent, God would save them from the plagues to come.

IMO, I think the only way to convince Pharaoh would only to take his son’s life, to let him experience to same pain and loss that the Hebrews experienced.

 

[shocktrooper]

1. God wasn’t really all that involved with this - the event was only *attributed *to God by the authors because, of course, the ancient people attributed everything beyond their understanding to God. The church does accept that the scriptures contains various literary forms, including legends. And there is no requirement that any of us believe in the literal historicity of this tale - just as in the creation accounts, the flood, etc.

patg-

Are you suggesting the entire Passover/Exodus is legend or just the plagues? I am interested in hearing more. And where do you stop if you take this approach? There is no indication in the text that this was written in a genre other than “history”.

This seems like a nice modern interpretation to deal with the “myth” of a big bad God in the OT and how to reconcile him with the all loving God in the NT.

Thanks.

 

[patg]

patg-

Are you suggesting the entire Passover/Exodus is legend or just the plagues?

I am suggesting that we have to look at it in the culture and tradition of the authors. Of course it initially sounds like “history” to us but we have no independent historical evidence for it and even our concept of history is much different. I’m just suggesting that it is mostly legend with some historical core (like most legends).

I am interested in hearing more. And where do you stop if you take this approach? There is no indication in the text that this was written in a genre other than “history”.

Yes it sounds like that at first reading. That is why the church encourages the use of historical-critical methods and analyzing the literary form of the story.

This seems like a nice modern interpretation to deal with the “myth” of a big bad God in the OT and how to reconcile him with the all loving God in the NT.

I think that it doesn’t have to be God who changed and who has to be reconciled. Rather, it is the people’s *understanding *of God that changed through the gradual evolution of salvation history. The scripture are a vehicle of revelation. As the church states, a variety of literary forms are valid vehicles - myth, legend, poetry, parable, and even history. The Jewish people developed an understanding of God that eventually led us away from the big bad God. When you attribute every event on earth to God’s direct intervention, God picks up the blame for a lot of awful things that we now know have natural causes.

If you try to take this story literalistically, you end up with some really difficult questions about God that aren’t compatible with our current understanding and you have endless arguments like the ones in this forum.

You might want to look at the book used in many Catholic adult ed classes:*And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms *by Margaret Ralph

 

[shocktrooper]

That is why the church encourages the use of historical-critical methods and analyzing the literary form of the story.

Doesn’t the Church also teach that the Tradition of the Fathers needs to be adhered to also? I do not recall anyone of them taking this event as “legend”. Also, the Church teaches that Moses was the primary author of the Pentateuch. How does this allow for legend to evolve. I think you take the position you do because you subscribe to JEDP, which is completely speculative.

Someone please let me know if a new forum should be opened on what is below. I wanted to post it here so that others can know the ideology of the author that others are recommending.

I have read Dr. Ralph’s book. I do not like it because she seems to be a rationalist in hiding. She reduces miracles to “act’s of power”, whatever that means, she strips all the history out of the Gospels by saying they were written with a “post Resurrection” viewpoint, which I agree they were written after the Resurrection, but she makes the claim that the writers wrote back into the very simple human stories, things that would cause others to perceive Christ as the Son of God instead of what the Church teaches- that Christ really did and say what is attributed to Him in the Gospels. In other words, she thinks the authors wrote things into the story to fool people into believing in Christ. I am not sure how she feels comfortable in projecting this type of deception on the Gospel writers. She seems to also take this position of stories developing over time and changing from the original because she, once again, removes Matthew and John as being the authors of their respected Gospel. It is a very common theme for her to pull the authority behind the writings out from under them so that she can do what she wants with them. No eyewitness apostolic authorship means they are second hand accounts and wide open for speculative theology.

For example, she very slyly reduces the feeding of the 5000 to a sharing story without saying it outright.

And my biggest problem with that book is her kicking the door open on polygenism when she discusses Romans 5. I don’t believe that polygenism is a topic that the faithful are at liberty to teach. She does not teach polygenism as being true but she does allow for the reader to conclude that it is o.k. for us to believe that Adam and Eve were not real historical figures, and that they are "symbols"of a number of people. She makes this claim in one of her earlier chapters.

Just read page 272 in “And God Said What?”, by Dr. Margaret Nutting Ralph, page 272.

I can give the quote if it is permissible on the forum. Can I give the quote or will I be breaking some rule. I am new here.

 

[AHapka]

God is above the concept of “the end never justifies the means” - it only applies to lower life forms (like us). I’m not too comfortable about worshiping a god who slaughters innocent children just to get his way.

God gave us life. It belongs to Him. He has the right to take it back whenever and however He pleases.

It’s like if you loan someone something with the understanding that you can come pick it up whenever you want. It doesn’t belong to them or anyone else to take, it still belongs to you to take.

Also, as far as “the end never justifies the means.” God does not do evil to get His means. He did not do evil. By definition, he cannot.

The big problem we are looking at is this: we (as humans) still tend to think of death here as a bad thing. We are looking at this from the point of those kids dying being the worst thing that could happen to them. That is far from the truth. The worst thing is spending your eternity in Hell. If those kids died before committing any mortal sins, they are in Heaven now. Eternal goodness and life and no pain ever.

The goal is not living a long life on this world. The goal is living a long life with Him in the next.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

I think, Zhang, that you have created a false rational dilemma for yourself.

You are defining “justice” apart from God’s will. There is no such thing as justice outside of God’s will. God is the judge. If you start setting rules for God, you will be scandalized when he doesn’t match your vision.

The important thing is to try to figure God out on his terms, not ours.

 

[patg]

Doesn’t the Church also teach that the Tradition of the Fathers needs to be adhered to also? I do not recall anyone of them taking this event as “legend”. Also, the Church teaches that Moses was the primary author of the Pentateuch. How does this allow for legend to evolve. I think you take the position you do because you subscribe to JEDP, which is completely speculative.

The above may all be true and you may believe it but it is not dogmatic teaching.

Someone please let me know if a new forum should be opened on what is below. I wanted to post it here so that others can know the ideology of the author that others are recommending.

This author/book has been discussed many times here. I only recall a few negative comments (many fewer than for many of the authors we discuss). It (and the 2nd edition) has been used in the Catholic adult ed classes I have been involved for maybe 20 years

I have read Dr. Ralph’s book. I do not like it because she seems to be a rationalist in hiding. She reduces miracles to “act’s of power”, whatever that means, she strips all the history out of the Gospels by saying they were written with a “post Resurrection” viewpoint, which I agree they were written after the Resurrection, but she makes the claim that the writers wrote back into the very simple human stories, things that would cause others to perceive Christ as the Son of God instead of what the Church teaches- that Christ really did and say what is attributed to Him in the Gospels.

You are incorrect. She follows exactly what the church teaches, especially in the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI. You can read this and an excellent commentary by the translator online.

You may not like her because she was a student of Raymond Brown and teaches his ideas in a more popular format. He wrote the same things under the *imprimatur *and nihil obstat and was twice appointed to the PBC.

In other words, she thinks the authors wrote things into the story to fool people into believing in Christ. I am not sure how she feels comfortable in projecting this type of deception on the Gospel writers.

You need to read the* Instruction* mentioned above.

She seems to also take this position of stories developing over time and changing from the original because she, once again, removes Matthew and John as being the authors of their respected Gospel.

There is nothing wrong with this - it is very logical and not against any church dogmas.

It is a very common theme for her to pull the authority behind the writings out from under them so that she can do what she wants with them. No eyewitness apostolic authorship means they are second hand accounts and wide open for speculative theology.

The gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts as clearly state in the Instruction. The church merely states that they are of apostolic origins - a very imprecise term which does leave open valid conclusions such as Dr. Ralph’s.

For example, she very slyly reduces the feeding of the 5000 to a sharing story without saying it outright.

There is no “dogma of the feeding of the 5000”. You are free to accept numerous interpretations and you don’t have to like hers.

And my biggest problem with that book is her kicking the door open on polygenism when she discusses Romans 5. I don’t believe that polygenism is a topic that the faithful are at liberty to teach. She does not teach polygenism as being true but she does allow for the reader to conclude that it is o.k. for us to believe that Adam and Eve were not real historical figures, and that they are "symbols"of a number of people. She makes this claim in one of her earlier chapters.

Just read page 272 in “And God Said What?”, by Dr. Margaret Nutting Ralph, page 272.

I can give the quote if it is permissible on the forum. Can I give the quote or will I be breaking some rule. I am new here.

I’ll take a look at that.

 

[shocktrooper]

The gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts as clearly state in the Instruction. The church merely states that they are of apostolic origins - a very imprecise term which does leave open valid conclusions such as Dr. Ralph’s.
There is no “dogma of the feeding of the 5000”. You are free to accept numerous interpretations and you don’t have to like hers.

patg, I know what I listed is mostly still open for debate among the faithful, minus her position on Adam and Eve being mere symbols and not historical figures, and also her agnostic take on mono vs. polygenism. This is why I steer clear of her teachings. She just doesn’t seem to be very concerned about what the Church teaches about certain things, or at a minimum, she likes to walk that tight line. In my opinion, she has crossed it but what I think has no weight.

I’ll take a look at that.

Please do. Thanks.

Also, on the Gospel of John, I believe Pope Benedict XVI mentions the author in Verbum Domini. Correct me if I am wrong.

The Prologue of John’s Gospel as a guide

With this Apostolic Exhortation I would like the work of the Synod to have a real effect on the life of the Church: on our personal relationship with the sacred Scriptures, on their interpretation in the liturgy and catechesis, and in scientific research, so that the Bible may not be simply a word from the past, but a living and timely word. To accomplish this, I would like to present and develop the labours of the Synod by making constant reference to the Prologue of John’s Gospel (Jn 1:1-18), which makes known to us the basis of our life: the Word, who from the beginning is with God, who became flesh and who made his dwelling among us (cf. Jn 1:14). This is a magnificent text, one which offers a synthesis of the entire Christian faith. From his personal experience of having met and followed Christ, John, whom tradition identifies as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (Jn 13:23; 20:2; 21:7, 20), “came to a deep certainty: Jesus is the Wisdom of God incarnate, he is his eternal Word who became a mortal man”.[13] May John, who “saw and believed” (cf. Jn 20:8) also help us to lean on the breast of Christ (cf. Jn 13:25), the source of the blood and water (cf. Jn 19:34) which are symbols of the Church’s sacraments. Following the example of the Apostle John and the other inspired authors, may we allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit to an ever greater love of the word of God.

Pax Christi.

 

[Crumpy]

What type of God would kill the first-born of Egypt?
Context is everything in biblical interpretation. The ancient Egyptians served many false gods. The Plagues that were set upon the people of Egypt were relative to the gods of the land demonstrating that God was the true God and that their gods were weak, ineffective, and false.

Turning the Nile to blood, Exodus 7:14-25. Isis was the Egyptian god of the Nile. Khnum was the guardian of the Nile.
Frogs, Exodus 8:1-5. Heget was the goddess of birth and had the head of a frog.
Gnats, Exodus 8:16-19. Set was the god of the desert.
Flies, Exodus 8:20-32. Re was the sun god. Uatchit was a god possibly represented by the fly.
Death of Livestock, Exodus 9:1-7. Hathor, goddess with a cow’s head. Apis was the bull god.
Boils, Exodus 9:8-12. Sekmet, goddess that had power over disease. Sunu, the god of pestilence.
Hail, Exodus 9:13-35. Nut, the goddess of the sky. Set, god of storms.
Locusts, Exodus 10:1-20. Osiris, god of crops.
Darkness, Exodus 10:21-29. Re, the sun god. Horus, a sun god. Hathor, sky goddess.
Death of firstborn, Exodus 11:1 - 12:30. Min, god of reproduction. Isis, goddess who protected children. Pharaoh, considered a god.1
The death of the first-born (Exodus 12:29) was not only a final blow to Pharaoh and all of Egypt demonstrating the powerlessness of Pharaoh and the truth of God’s Word, but it was also used as a prophetic typology. In the account of the death of the first-born, all who had the blood of a lamb placed on their door posts would escape the judgment of God on the households. This blood on the doorpost was representative of the actual blood of Christ who is called the Lamb of God. Therefore, God allowed the first-born to be killed as a judgment upon Pharaoh, as a proof of God’s superiority, and as a prophetic representation of the death of His Son, Jesus. It was a representation of the gospel message that the true first-born of God who would later die for the sins of the world and that all who are covered by the blood of Christ will be saved from their bondage to sin. It does not indicate that God is mean, especially if we realize that all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). It illustrates that God was arranging history to bear witness of the greatest act of love: the crucifixion.

This post comes close to the meaningful, historical answer that I want to contribute.

The first-born son in Egypt was important to the religious practices in Egypt that had to with the journey of the parents to the afterlife, in the Egyptian concept.

So, the death of the first-borne was a demonstration of the power of the Israelite God, as many have said, yes, more powerful than the Egyptian god(s).

It is important to understand the general thrust of the Hebrew Bible. The general teaching is that THERE IS NO OTHER GOD but YHWH, the God of Israel. So, we shouldn’t be too comfortable with saying that YHWH was stronger than “other gods” as if those other gods existed, and as if the Bible was saying that they existed.

It’s better to say that there was no ‘god’ of Egypt that was protecting those Egyptian sons. Through Moses, YHWH was demonstrating that YHWH exists.

This was the tenth and final plague. Each of the other plagues was an attack on the belief of the Egyptians.

This is what is “behind” the slaughter of those Egyptian sons. There was yet another demonstration that there WERE no Egyptian gods. That was the destruction of Pharoah and his army in the sea, as they were pursuing the Israelites.

That was a demonstration of the power of the one and only God, not only to the Egyptians, but to the Israelites who were disheartened by the approach of this big army chasing them.

This is why God sent an angel to kill the Egyptian first-born sons, to demonstrate that there is only on God. The Egyptians worshipped dead, man-made idols. Destroying that belief was “behind” the whole thing.

Yes, as several posts have tried to say, God is sovereign.

 

[patg]

And my biggest problem with that book is her kicking the door open on polygenism when she discusses Romans 5. I don’t believe that polygenism is a topic that the faithful are at liberty to teach. She does not teach polygenism as being true but she does allow for the reader to conclude that it is o.k. for us to believe that Adam and Eve were not real historical figures, and that they are "symbols"of a number of people. She makes this claim in one of her earlier chapters.

Just read page 272 in “And God Said What?”, by Dr. Margaret Nutting Ralph, page 272.

Here is the quote, in context:

"Let us approach the question form another angle. At this point in time we do not know positively whether the human race descended from one couple (mono-genesis) or from more than one couple (poly-genesis). If science were to prove beyond any doubt that we did not all descend from one couple, would we either have to reject the conclusion of science or reject the teaching in Paul’s letter? "

If you only read the second sentence*, *you would logically conclude that she is doubting the teaching of the church. However, if you read the phrase “knowing positively” as “knowing scientifically” rather that “knowing by faith” it all makes better sense. Today, the church cannot prove through scientific evidence that mono-genesis is a fact - we are required to believe it as a matter of faith.

If you look at the statement in the whole context of the chapter, you see that mono-genesis vs. poly-genesis is not related at all to the topic of this chapter - she is discussing the differences between teachings and presumptions in the scriptures. The genesis stuff is just an example topic used in the discussion of the real topic of the chapter.

I’ll ask her for clarification on this the next time I see her (maybe tonight).

Pat

 

[shocktrooper]

Here is the quote, in context:

"Let us approach the question form another angle. At this point in time we do not know positively whether the human race descended from one couple (mono-genesis) or from more than one couple (poly-genesis). If science were to prove beyond any doubt that we did not all descend from one couple, would we either have to reject the conclusion of science or reject the teaching in Paul’s letter? "

If you only read the second sentence*, *you would logically conclude that she is doubting the teaching of the church. However, if you read the phrase “knowing positively” as “knowing scientifically” rather that “knowing by faith” it all makes better sense. Today, the church cannot prove through scientific evidence that mono-genesis is a fact - we are required to believe it as a matter of faith.

If you look at the statement in the whole context of the chapter, you see that mono-genesis vs. poly-genesis is not related at all to the topic of this chapter - she is discussing the differences between teachings and presumptions in the scriptures. The genesis stuff is just an example topic used in the discussion of the real topic of the chapter.

I’ll ask her for clarification on this the next time I see her (maybe tonight).

Pat

Patg,

First off, you are missing a few paragraphs. She questions St. Paul’s teaching by saying that he may not be correct. Here is the full context.

From her book is in red below- page 272

“For a person who reads Genesis 2:4 through 3:24 as history this passage causes no difficulty. A historical Adam is responsible for human beings’ state of sin and a historical Jesus is responsible for redemption. However, if one reads Genesis 2:4 through 3:24 not as history but as a symbol story dealing with the problem of suffering, the present passage causes some consternation. Doesn’t Paul insist on the fact that sin entered the world through one man?

Let us approach the question from another angle. At this point in time we do not know positively whether the human race descended from one couple (monogenesis) or from more than one couple (polygenesis). If science were to prove beyond any doubt that we did not all descend from one couple, would we have to either reject the conclusion of science or reject the teaching in Paul’s letter? Would Paul’s letter be nullified?

In order to answer this question we must state clearly just what it is Paul is teaching. In this passage Paul is teaching the pervasiveness of grace. All are saved through Jesus. In order to explain this teaching, Paul uses the Old Testament as an analogy, as he did in our previous examples. He is comparing the first Adam to the second Adam in order to emphasize the totally contradictory effects of their roles. Just as the whole world had been in sin, now the whole world is justified. Paul’s teaching about Christ is true whether or not his statement that all sin entered the world through one man’s fall is historically accurate.”

Patg, I somewhat agree with your assessment. She could have easily made the point she was trying to make without throwing St. Paul under the bus. You need to remember that St. Paul was an inspired author of the New Testament. I would be cautious about saying he made presumptions that may or may not be correct. I made the same argument to a buddy that praises Dr. Ralph (not really). Science will never be able to prove whether humans came from one set or multiple sets of parents. It is impossible. She should have made it clear what the Church teaches on this topic but she did not. She simply threw the door open and never shut it behind her. I would bet that she does not hold to a monogenism teaching and this is her way of sneaking it in.

How can she, patg, hold to the Church’s teaching when she removes the Church’s stance that Adam and Eve were real people and not just symbols? She brings this up when discussing Romans 5 so that she can vindicate her belief on Genesis being the genre of “myth”. If St. Paul is right, then she is wrong. She has to discredit St. Paul or show that he was not teaching about how mankind arrived on the scene, before anyone can take her seriously. The problem for her is still present since St. Paul and others make similar claims throughout the bible and in other Epistles. Reading Scripture with a hermeneutic of faith does not allow for her teaching (or lack there of) here.

It would be great if you could report back to us what she believes concerning this matter. I would love to hear what she has to say about it.

I hope I am wrong.

Pax Christi.

 

[patg]

It would be great if you could report back to us what she believes concerning this matter. I would love to hear what she has to say about it.

She wasn’t around last night so I’ll keep looking for her. I basically see it all as an insignificant piece of trivia. The mono vs. polygenism theories have absolutely nothing to do with my relationship to God. It doesn’t affect my faith in the slightest if God “ensouled” one first couple or a hundred first couples.

I think the church is very low-key about it also, almost to the point of ignoring it, at least in general public teachings. I certainly never heard a discussion of it until after over 50 years of being cathiolic.

 

[rdscheirer]

I just saw this post and read the first few - God visited on Pharoah what Phararoah visited on the Jews with Moses having to be placed in the basket- he killed the firstborn of the Jews therefore he suffered his own edict. The Bible is full of the fact that the punishment for the crime against God is more of the same- see Exodus when the people got tired of Manna and God gave them Quail to catch and eat and they finally became overcome with eating quail.

 

[shocktrooper]

She wasn’t around last night so I’ll keep looking for her. I basically see it all as an insignificant piece of trivia. The mono vs. polygenism theories have absolutely nothing to do with my relationship to God. It doesn’t affect my faith in the slightest if God “ensouled” one first couple or a hundred first couples.

I think the church is very low-key about it also, almost to the point of ignoring it, at least in general public teachings. I certainly never heard a discussion of it until after over 50 years of being cathiolic.

Well, it is surely not insignificant. Keep in mind the Church has no need to repeat a teaching that it has already given. I do believe they are trying to ignore it but they certainly have not lifted any of it’s past and still current teachings.

Let me know what Dr. Ralph has to say about this, please.

Pax Christi

 

[rdscheirer]

Shocktrooper- it has been determined by DNA testing worldwide that there is an “Eve”- we get our mitochondrial DNA from our mother- the mitochondria are “little cells within cells” if you were, that generate the energy for the cell. Every person in the world has the same mitochondrial DNA as evetyone else.