The Vatican Evolves

[Gotholic]

I'd like to see it, just for laughs.

I can't find the website that had the Bible passages.

Yes, I've heard of the catechism. Your passage proves nothing other than offering an explanation of original sin. No where does it say Adam should be seen as a literal historic figure.

It did say it but not directly. So try this one instead...

From the Catechism of The Catholic Church:

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265[/b]

I believe now it is safe to say that any priest at your school who said that Original Sin was no more than a fairy tale has been refuted. The Catholic Church does indeed believe it was an actual event.

And quite frankly, I'm glad the priests at my school weren't patronising enough to try and teach any of us that the story of creation was literal, because even if they still managed to lose me as a practising Catholic, they didn't lose my respect for them by making a genuine attempt to discuss theology without resorting to ludicrous fairytales.

The story of Creation may be taken figuratively such as how the world was created. But did we literally have an Adam and Eve and Original sin? Yes, according to the Catholic Church.

The story of creation is an anachronism, an explanation for simpler times when people's view of the world was a lot more insular. A person can accept that God created the world without having to accept he did it in 7 days and plonked two people in the middle of a big garden.

Yes, but they must accept that there were actually two people and both committed Orignal Sin, which caused death among other things.

This is why all religions must evolve, because the longer they cling onto these archaic ideas as fact the more irrelevant they become to society.

I can not speak for all religions but I know for a fact the Catholic Church never evolved when it comes to her faith.

Whatever. The nature of Catholicism has adapted itself, albeit slowly, as society has evolved.

How so?

Not really. Christ's teachings are rather impressive and admirable, but they read as no more divine than any other liberal hippy. He was even persecuted by the conservatives of his time for speaking out and because he wanted to reform the religious establishment of the time.

His divinity is fairly irrelevant to his teachings, and as far as I know Christ's divinity was ascribed to him some time after his death.

I wonder where you school got its priests. It is ludicrous to say Jesus was called divine some time after his death. Your comment reminds me of the erroneous claims made by the book called The Da Vinci Code.

Jesus declared himself divine as you can see...

If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

John 14:7-10

I and the Father are one.

John 10:30

Why is that, I wonder?

An explanation:

Traditional Christianity affirms that the laws or Torah of the Old Testament is the word of God, but Christians deny that all of the laws of the Pentateuch apply directly to themselves as Christians. The New Testament indicates that Jesus Christ established a new covenent relationship between God and his people (Hebrews 8; Jeremiah 31:31-34) and this makes the Mosaic covenant in some senses obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). A change of covenant can imply a change of law. Mark deduced from Jesus' teaching that the pentateuchal food laws no longer apply to Christians ("thus he declared all foods clean" -- Mark 7:19). The writer of Hebrews indicates that the sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood foreshadowed Jesus Christ's offering of himself as the sacrifice for sin on the Cross and that once the reality of Christ has come, the shadows of the ritual laws cease to be obligatory (Heb 8:5; 9:23-26; 10:1). On the other hand, the New Testament repeats and applies to Christians a number of Old Testament laws, including "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18; compare the Golden Rule), "Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul and strength" (Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema) as well as every commandment of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments (Exod 20:1-17) except the Sabbath commandment.

Source

 

[Bobby Hogg]

I can't find the website that had the Bible passages.

It hardly matters. In the Bible men experienced God as visions. To suggest that God has a fixed physical description based on these visions is ludicrous. especially given God is a non-physical entity, or at least does not dwell on our plane.

It did say it but not directly. So try this one instead...

From the Catechism of The Catholic Church:

Now you are contradicting your original point. So the story of Creation is not literal, according to the Catechism. We are in agreement, at last.

I believe now it is safe to say that any priest at your school who said that Original Sin was no more than a fairy tale has been refuted. The Catholic Church does indeed believe it was an actual event.

I think it's safe to say that you've become confused somewhere along the line.

I said all along that my priests taught me the story of Creation was a parable explaining original sin. You tried to suggest the story of Creation as laid out in the Bible literally happened.

The point they are referring to, I would suggest, is when man evolved consciousness and learned he had free will. I think blaming women for it is a bit unnecessary, however.

The story of Creation may be taken figuratively such as how the world was created. But did we literally have an Adam and Eve and Original sin? Yes, according to the Catholic Church.

Stop wasting people's time. You're shifting the goalposts.

Yes, but they must accept that there were actually two people and both committed Orignal Sin, which caused death among other things.

No, I don't think they must. I think they must suggest that the human race at some point became conscious and people were given individual free will.

I can not speak for all religions but I know for a fact the Catholic Church never evolved when it comes to her faith.

How so?

Well, it's changed in a lot of ways. I can't imagine you could be truly ignorant of them.

I wonder where you school got its priests. It is ludicrous to say Jesus was called divine some time after his death. Your comment reminds me of the erroneous claims made by the book called The Da Vinci Code.

Jesus declared himself divine as you can see...


John 14:7-10


John 10:30

The claim made by the Da Vinci Code wasn't so much erroneous as it didn't offer the correct context.

Early Christianity was philsophically divided over the issue of Christ's divinity. Some thought claiming Jesus Christ was God was blasphemous and, above all, impossible because if He was divine then He would be incapable of displaying human frailties and experiencing suffering at the hands of men.

The school of thought was that Jesus Christ offered a way of achieving a closeness to God by behaving in a certain way and "opening your heart to God" so to speak, that Jesus Christ contained the essence of what could raise man above the rest of humanity and become closer to God.

Of course, the other theory is that Jesus Christ was God.

There was no orthodox, defined position on this in the early centuries BC until the synod of Nicea was called to settle the debate once and for all. It was decided that Christ be seen as divine. The interpretations of Christ's words people suggest are espousing His own divinity were never definitive, given the nature of the deliberately ambiguous phrases He used, which also lose some of their meaning in literal translations to other languages.

Your quotes has absolutely no context and ignore the other text that have Christ telling His disciples that they can also achieve the same closeness to God and "divine" powers by following Christ's own words and deeds, and achieving the same serenity and certainty of mind.

 

[Gotholic]

It hardly matters. In the Bible men experienced God as visions. To suggest that God has a fixed physical description based on these visions is ludicrous. especially given God is a non-physical entity, or at least does not dwell on our plane.

I only suggested that someone could say that God could has a physical description based off the Bible. The Bible does give it passages that support this. But do I take those accounts literally? No.

But some people do.

Now you are contradicting your original point. So the story of Creation is not literal, according to the Catechism. We are in agreement, at last.

I'm contradicting my own point? Far from it. You originally said:

No where does it say Adam should be seen as a literal historic figure.

I gave more clarification that Adam and Eve are historic figures.

I think it's safe to say that you've become confused somewhere along the line.

I said all along that my priests taught me the story of Creation was a parable explaining original sin. You tried to suggest the story of Creation as laid out in the Bible literally happened.

I'm saying that Original Sin did actually happen and that Adam and Eve were our first parents. And that death came as a result of the sin of our first parents. You have stated that you were taught that the story of Creation was no more than a fairy tale.

Whether or not God literally created the earth in 6 days and so on and so forth is up to the individual it is not dogmatic that one must believe it literally or not. But I'm not arguing that a catholic must take the Creation account as a whole literally. But a catholic must take it literally that we are all descendents of Adam and Eve and that death came as a result of Original Sin.

The point they are referring to, I would suggest, is when man evolved consciousness and learned he had free will. I think blaming women for it is a bit unnecessary, however.

The Catholic Church does not blame women.

Stop wasting people's time. You're shifting the goalposts.

I think not! I have been consistent. I have always maintained that Adam and Eve were real and that Original Sin did take place.

No, I don't think they must. I think they must suggest that the human race at some point became conscious and people were given individual free will.

You can choose to believe what you want that's your prerogative. But the Catholic Church teaches that Adam and Eve were given free will at the moment of their creation.

Well, it's changed in a lot of ways. I can't imagine you could be truly ignorant of them.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "nature" but the Catholic Church has always been consistent when it comes to her faith. The same can not be said of her behavior as I have said before.

The claim made by the Da Vinci Code wasn't so much erroneous as it didn't offer the correct context.

It was quite erroneous. It even said that the council went throught a "narrow" vote. Only two out of more than 300 bishops did not sign the creed that reaffirmed that Jesus was divine.

Early Christianity was philsophically divided over the issue of Christ's divinity. Some thought claiming Jesus Christ was God was blasphemous and, above all, impossible because if He was divine then He would be incapable of displaying human frailties and experiencing suffering at the hands of men.

The school of thought was that Jesus Christ offered a way of achieving a closeness to God by behaving in a certain way and "opening your heart to God" so to speak, that Jesus Christ contained the essence of what could raise man above the rest of humanity and become closer to God.

Of course, the other theory is that Jesus Christ was God.

There was no orthodox, defined position on this in the early centuries BC until the synod of Nicea was called to settle the debate once and for all. It was decided that Christ be seen as divine. The interpretations of Christ's words people suggest are espousing His own divinity were never definitive, given the nature of the deliberately ambiguous phrases He used, which also lose some of their meaning in literal translations to other languages.

Most of the early Christians thought that Christ was divine. It is not true that Christians did not view Jesus as God prior to this event.

Let me clarify...

A dispute that had arisen by a priest from Egypt named Arius who began to deny that Jesus was God. This caused a scandal by repudiating the faith of Christians everywhere. Arius had gained some followers (known as Arians) and eventually the controversy between the Arians and the traditional Christians got intense. So the Council of Nicae was called together by Constantine to settle the matter. Peronally, Constantine tended to support the Arians, but he did recognize the atuhority of the bishops in articulating the Christian faith. The bishops of the Council reaffirmed the traditional Christian teaching that Jesus was fully divine. So it was the bishops of the Council who reaffirmed the traditional Christian teaching against Arius and his followers. Constantine recogonized the bishops authority to do so even though he sided with Arius.

The early Christians were not divided over Christ's divinity until the time of Constantine. The writings of the Church Fathers (and even non-Christian historians) before the time of Constantine show that Christians regarded Jesus as God.

The following quotations predate the Council of Nicaea:

Ignatius of Antioch: "For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God's plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (Letter to the Ephesians 18:2 [A.D. 110]).

Tatian the Syrian: "We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

Clement of Alexandria: "The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning-for he was in God-and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

Tertullian: "God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God" (The Soul 41:3 [A.D. 210]).

Origen: "Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

Your quotes has absolutely no context

I try to keep it plain and simple. If you actually think the context would refute those quotes then go right ahead.

Here are some more quotes:

Jesus' opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18).

When quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58), invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God-"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus' feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" And Paul tells us that Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form even though he could have remained in equal glory with the Father, for he was "in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6).

and ignore the other text that have Christ telling His disciples that they can also achieve the same closeness to God and "divine" powers by following Christ's own words and deeds, and achieving the same serenity and certainty of mind.

Please provide the book, chapter, and verse. Although, I doubt anything you give would contradict Christ's divinity.