Why did Jesus need to die?

[Lily_Bernans]

No.

Don’t be embarrassed. Unless you’ve been or are a theology student I wouldn’t expect you to be. I don’t have time to write about it tonight as I have to finish something for tomorrow, but you can read about it on Google if you type in “Lonergan Law of the Cross.” It’s very difficult reading, but well worth it once you get the hang of it.

 

[ericc]

Where does Occam’s Razor tell you their sons found any women to marry?

Their wives were with them. Gen 7:7.

 

[ericc]

Read the article. He explains how Adam and She’s children and their children etc. have souls.

I did assume that they had souls otherwise you wouldn’t have a clean slate to start mankind all over again.

And I don’t believe in a global flood.

Even if not, just a local or regional flood to kill all other souled or nonsouled beings will give the same impact.

But we are required to believe Gen 9:19. We can’t have remnants of non-souled people running around, can we?

So now, the question is : Were Noah’s sons/wives the ones that started mankind or were there other beings? Are 3 sets of parents considered polygeny?

 

[Faith1960]

I did assume that they had souls otherwise you wouldn’t have a clean slate to start mankind all over again.

Even if not, just a local or regional flood to kill all other souled or nonsouled beings will give the same impact.

But we are required to believe Gen 9:19. We can’t have remnants of non-souled people running around, can we?

So now, the question is : Were Noah’s sons/wives the ones that started mankind or were there other beings? Are 3 sets of parents considered polygeny?

I assume there were other ensouled beings, but I don’t know. I .think I’ll bow out of this thread now before I start worrying about religion, again.

I just emailed Ed Feser and if he responds I will let you know. If not, I’m out.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Their wives were with them. Gen 7:7.

If Adam and Eve were the only man and woman, where did their sons’ wives come from? Did the sons of Adam and Eve marry their sisters? If Adam and Eve were the only parents, it seems to me their sons would have to marry their sisters. There would be no other parents around.

 

[Vico]

If Adam and Eve were the only man and woman, where did their sons’ wives come from? Did the sons of Adam and Eve marry their sisters? If Adam and Eve were the only parents, it seems to me their sons would have to marry their sisters. There would be no other parents around.

St. Augustine wrote:
…it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one’s sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify. (The City of God XV.16)

 

[adrift]

St. Augustine wrote:
…it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one’s sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify. (The City of God XV.16)

Abraham married his sister

 

[Gorgias]

I teach at a Catholic college and I don’t know one biblical scholar who doesn’t believe in polygenism. All of them do here.

You’re talking about the ‘polygenism’ that the Church says we’re not to assent to – that is, a theological polygenism that says that there weren’t (only) two first human (i.e., ensouled) parents?

Or, rather, do you mean simply the scientific theory that there was never a bottleneck of less than 10K hominins? (That wouldn’t be ‘polygenism’ in the theological sense, and could be reconcilable with Catholic teaching… and, as it were, would be horribly misleading to call by the name ‘polygenism’ (without further explanation) in the context of a discussion on a Catholic forum. )

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You’re talking about the ‘polygenism’ that the Church says we’re not to assent to – that is, a theological polygenism that says that there weren’t (only) two first human (i.e., ensouled) parents?

Or, rather, do you mean simply the scientific theory that there was never a bottleneck of less than 10K hominins? (That wouldn’t be ‘polygenism’ in the theological sense, and could be reconcilable with Catholic teaching… and, as it were, would be horribly misleading to call by the name ‘polygenism’ (without further explanation) in the context of a discussion on a Catholic forum. )

A scientific theory. Sorry. I’m used to talking with the professors who taught me, and I know they know what I mean, so sometimes my posts lack a necessary explanation. Thank you for providing it.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

St. Augustine wrote:
…it was quite allowable in the earliest ages of the human race to marry one’s sister, it is now abhorred as a thing which no circumstances could justify. (The City of God XV.16)

Thank you. I guess they married their sisters, and I guess that makes sense!

catholicexchange.com/who-were-cain-and-abels-wives

 

[St_Redemption]

I’m not saying there was no Adam and Eve. There might have been, but it seems odd that God would create just two.

EDIT

I should’ve read through the whole thread first

 

[Gorgias]

Assuming that being the case, won’t that cause problem in accounting for the fallen-ness of the human race for those that haven’t got a soul.? Unless the Flood clean up that part of the population.

No; resorting to a literal global flood isn’t required – nor (IMHO) does it make sense.

I think someone here offered one possible theory that could be discussed: that God ensouls those who have a parent who has a soul. In that way, we retain both the notion that all (ensouled) humans descend from our two first human parents and we don’t run afoul of the notion of the “lack of hominin bottleneck”.

(Could the non-soul population be the part of the daughters of men in Gen 6:4 then?)

No; there’s nothing in that verse that suggests that this is the case.

 

[Gorgias]

But we are required to believe Gen 9:19.

That doesn’t imply that we need to believe in it as a literal, historical narrative. The writer of the narrative is attempting to account for the tribes with whom his people come in contact, so he uses these three as the basis for the identities of the groups around him. That doesn’t mean that we need to take it as scientific, historical fact.

We can’t have remnants of non-souled people running around, can we?

That’s not a problem, is it? If we’re conjecturing that God ensouls the child of anyone who has a human (i.e., ensouled) parent, then we’re good.

So now, the question is : Were Noah’s sons/wives the ones that started mankind or were there other beings? Are 3 sets of parents considered polygeny?

No, I don’t think that’s the question, since it presumes a literalistic interpretation of [all of] Scripture, which the Church doesn’t presume in its Scriptural hermeneutic.

 

[Faith1960]

If Adam and Eve were the only man and woman, where did their sons’ wives come from? Did the sons of Adam and Eve marry their sisters? If Adam and Eve were the only parents, it seems to me their sons would have to marry their sisters. There would be no other parents around.

Yes, but…there was never a human bottleneck of fewer than 10,000 people. They weren’t all on the Ark.

 

[ericc]

If Adam and Eve were the only man and woman, where did their sons’ wives come from? Did the sons of Adam and Eve marry their sisters? If Adam and Eve were the only parents, it seems to me their sons would have to marry their sisters. There would be no other parents around.

Yes indeed there would be incest in the initial round. Which wasn’t prohibited then.

Of course after the first round of incest, many other combinations are possible:

1st generation with 2nd generation (Uncle/niece)
1st gen with 3 rd gen (grand uncle/ grand niece)
2nd gen with 2nd gen (cousin/cousin)

and so on.

 

[ericc]

That doesn’t imply that we need to believe in it as a literal, historical narrative. The writer of the narrative is attempting to account for the tribes with whom his people come in contact, so he uses these three as the basis for the identities of the groups around him. That doesn’t mean that we need to take it as scientific, historical fact.

So we are back to the literal vs non-literal debate

Again.

 

[Gorgias]

So we are back to the literal vs non-literal debate

Again.

Yes, of course! Your arguments presume a hermeneutics of hyper-literal historicism… which the Church does not presume.

 

[eddie_too]

Jesus needed to die because it was the Father’s will. Jesus asked the Father to take this cup from Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, but accepted that the Father’s will be done.

does God need to explain or give us a reason for His will? Is it possible that we might not even understand God’s decision even if He explained it? Are we being less like Jesus, who accepted the Father’s will without explanation, when we question the Father’s will?

the authors of the New Testament in various places give various reasons why Jesus is the Sacrificial Lamb. For instance, Jesus died that we might live.

 

[eddie_too]

while it is true that it is difficult to understand all of the reasons God might have for the nature of His revelations to us, and God’s self-sacrificial death of our Lord is one of the major revelations, we find the saints discussing God’s will on this subject throughout the history of the Church. thus, it is not wrong to meditate on God’s will and what lies behind or within it. if we remain within the parameters given us by the Church during our meditations on the mysteries of God’s will, such meditation can be very edifying, efficacious and up lifting.

as an example, my meditations and studies have led me to more than one reason for our Lord’s death. the whole point of the Incarnation is to save souls and redeem mankind. as part of that salvific mission, the Lord reaches out to us so that we might believe in Him and be saved.

the Lord throughout salvation history had spoken directly to His patriarchs and prophets, most specifically to noah, Abraham and moses. the Lord had sent angels to His chosen people. yet, despite these interventions and revelations, mankind remained mired in sin.

we know even with the Incarnation and all that goes with It, many remain without faith. still, many others believe and repent placing their faith, hope and love in Jesus and are saved.

what is it that those who believe encounter in the Incarnate Word? they encounter the knowledge that God so loved us that He chose to make Himself less (being human is so much less than being divine) so that we might be made wholly what He created us to be. the Lord’s words are the words of He who came down from heaven and His words alone are sufficient for some of us. yet, is becoming man, giving us His words, His teachings and His actions all that He could do to show His love? as we who believe know, the answer is no, simply becoming Incarnate was not all God could do. He also could, as the Incarnate Word, sacrifice Himself on the cross. Jesus not only talked the talk, He lived the talk. Jesus taught us to love one another and then He taught us what this love meant.

even then however, after lowering Himself to become man, after sacrificing His life on the cross, was there more God could do? and here is the crux of the matter, there was more. Jesus could demonstrate that He was indeed the Lord of Life; and, that He had conquered death through His Resurrection. st. paul makes this point quite vividly when he says if Jesus did not rise from the dead our faith is in vain.

so, at least for me, if Jesus had not died, He could not have been resurrected and it is in the Resurrection that we receive the grace to believe most fully.

we know Jesus did not have to die. He could have ascended in to heaven at any time during His time on earth, but He could not have been resurrected unless He first died.