CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22nd December 2008, 04:38 PM
Bertrand
 
Posts: n/a
Default Where did Adam lived and died

Ron,
I am currently working on reconciling the most recent discoveries in the fields of archeology and genetics regarding the origin of mankind and investigate potential matches with the scriptures of the genesis.
Many scholars have argued for generations about the location of the garden of Eden. Some say it is in Mesopotamia, others in Anatolia, others in Jerusalem and yet others in Africa.
As far as Adam's traditional burial place goes, tradition has it that his bones rest under the golgotha where Jesus died, hence the representation of skull and bones under many representations of the cross. Do you know where this tradition comes from? Is it reliable?
If Adam is buried near Jerusalem, i guess we have to assume that he lived near by, no?
Thanks

Bertrand
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 22nd December 2008, 05:11 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Emmerich did say something about the life of Adam and Eve, although I am not sure how much symbolic the visions of Adam's time period are.
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 22nd December 2008, 05:29 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
Ron,
I am currently working on reconciling the most recent discoveries in the fields of archeology and genetics regarding the origin of mankind and investigate potential matches with the scriptures of the genesis.
Many scholars have argued for generations about the location of the garden of Eden. Some say it is in Mesopotamia, others in Anatolia, others in Jerusalem and yet others in Africa.
As far as Adam's traditional burial place goes, tradition has it that his bones rest under the golgotha where Jesus died, hence the representation of skull and bones under many representations of the cross. Do you know where this tradition comes from? Is it reliable?
If Adam is buried near Jerusalem, i guess we have to assume that he lived near by, no?
Thanks

Bertrand
See pages 56, 94, 174 of this ebook:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/ebooks...us-Passion.pdf

The garden of Paradise is guarded by Angels, and is inaccessible to us, therefore, it cannot be any place on the face of the earth.
[Genesis]
{3:23} And so the Lord God sent him away from the Paradise of enjoyment, in order to work the earth from which he was taken.
{3:24} And he cast out Adam. And in front of the Paradise of enjoyment, he placed the Cherubim with a flaming sword, turning together, to guard the way to the tree of life.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 22nd December 2008, 05:31 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

On another subject, you haven't posted or read the group recently, so you might not be aware of this thread:
http://catholicplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2766
listing required beliefs for membership

Please read and either post your agreement here:
http://catholicplanet.net/forum/show...?t=2815&page=4

or PM or e-mail me if you need to discuss or clarify any points.


thanks,


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 22nd December 2008, 10:12 PM
Bertrand
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron,
Regarding the burial place of Adam, i have read the book from Catharina Emmerich but this tradition is much older as the skull and bones appears in very ancient representations of the cross but i cannot find the source of the tradition.

Regarding your "charter" i am aware of it and i did reply because i have certain reservations, more specifically:
3a: The Bible is [ ] entirely inerrant [ ] on every other topic whatsoever about which Sacred Scripture makes an assertion.

As a devout catholic i cannot give the same weight to the old testament as i give to the new testament. The teaching of Christ which on many occurences contradicts past Jewish traditions has to overrule any other previous writings. Christ is the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end of all christian beliefs. The heart of the law is the absolute love of God, mercy and love for one's neighbor.
In fact i find many of the posts on this site diffused with Jewish and protestant beliefs most specifically on the topics of violence, vengence, punishment, judging others, anger, and harshness of heart (for instance i dont want to repeat some of the things i read about our president elect or liberals or democrats). The writers are often completely certain they are doing the right thing because justification for such behaviors is often drawn from violent events of the old testament, yet it is exact opposite to the teaching of our Lord.


5.a. Papal infallibility
I love my church and i respect the pope. Yet, in the past many popes have erred and showed the bad exemple. This is normal, we are all sinners.
Here is a little bio of pope Stephen VII:

Stephen VII, was Pope from May 896 to July or August 897.
He had been made bishop of Anagni by Pope Formosus. The circumstances of his election are unclear, but he was sponsored by one of the powerful Roman families, the house of Spoleto, that contested the papacy at the time. Stephen is chiefly remembered in connection with his conduct towards the remains of Pope Formosus, his last predecessor but one. Doubtless under pressure from the Spoleto contingent, the rotting corpse of Formosus was exhumed and put on trial, in the so-called Cadaver Synod (or Synodus Horrenda), in January 897. With the corpse propped up on a throne, a deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff, who was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for receiving the pontificate while he was the bishop of Porto, among other revived charges that had been levelled against Formosus in the strife during the pontificate of John VIII. The corpse was found guilty, stripped of its sacred vestments, deprived of three fingers of its right hand, clad in the garb of a layman, and quickly buried; it was then re-exhumed and thrown in the Tiber. All ordinations performed by Formosus were annulled.
The trial excited a tumult. Though the instigators of the deed may actually have been Formosus' enemies, Lambert of Spoleto and his mother Ageltruda, who had recovered their authority in Rome at the beginning of 897 by renouncing their broader claims in central Italy, the outrage ended in Stephen's imprisonment and his death by strangling that summer.

Finally i have reservations on some of what you wrote on the topic of sexual conduct. Frankly i'm not sure i feel like discussing this with you. I love my wife and i dont want to do anything to cause her pain or sorrow. That should be enough. I think this part of your charter wanders too far off the gospels.

In summary, i would like to say that i enjoy the discussions of the site in the area of faith, tradition and eschatology and i would be sorry if the dialog were to be cut off. Nevertheless i respect any decision you want to take in that matter.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23rd December 2008, 01:59 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

[Mt]
{5:17} Do not think that I have come to loosen the law or the prophets. I have not come to loosen, but to fulfill.
{5:18} Amen I say to you, certainly, until heaven and earth pass away, not one iota, not one dot shall pass away from the law, until all is done.
{5:19} Therefore, whoever will have loosened one of the least of these commandments, and have taught men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever will have done and taught these, such a one shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

The teachings of Christ fulfill and extend the teachings of the OT, but His teachings do not contradict those teachings. Much of the violence in the OT is part of an historical narrative about Israel, including sins that led to violence. The fact that such events are described does not imply that God approves of each and every act by every sinner in the narrative.

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text....” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n. 21)

“...they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.... For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

So, it is required belief of all Catholics, not merely a required belief of this group, that Sacred Scripture is entirely inerrant in all that it asserts as true. The faithful may legitimately disagree to some extent as to what exactly is being asserted by Scripture, but one cannot hold that Scripture, even in the OT, asserts anything false or sinful.

As for Papal Infallibility, this applies only to teaching of the Pope that meet certain conditions:

1. “the Roman Pontiff”
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)
3. “he defines”
4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
5. “must be held by the whole Church”

A Pope can sin personally, can err in personal opinions, and can err to a limited extent in his non-infallible teachings, without any harm to the doctrine of papal infallibility.

I'll probably wait until the new year to decide what to do about your account, if that's OK.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 23rd December 2008, 09:48 AM
Sacredcello's Avatar
Sacredcello Sacredcello is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: California
Posts: 954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
In fact i find many of the posts on this site diffused with Jewish and protestant beliefs most specifically on the topics of violence, vengence, punishment, judging others, anger, and harshness of heart (for instance i dont want to repeat some of the things i read about our president elect or liberals or democrats). The writers are often completely certain they are doing the right thing because justification for such behaviors is often drawn from violent events of the old testament, yet it is exact opposite to the teaching of our Lord.

Dear Bertrand,

I know what you mean about some of the harsh and judgmental posts that are written by members of Catholic Planet about our president elect, liberals and democrats. Why do these people have such hatred in their hearts toward those with a different political view? I suspect that it is their ego at work, rather than a belief in Jewish law. Ron, however, always has a way of stating things that is utterly balanced and not biased toward one political view. I appreciate this very much. It gives me confidence in some of his harder-to-accept writings on sexual ethics. It is not difficult to understand, but it is different than what we hear from other mainstream Catholic sources.

The message of Garabandal is not lost on me, however, and I understand and appreciate that "many priests, bishops and cardinals are on the path to perdition and are taking many souls with them." Isn't it possible that this list also includes laypeople who teach NFP, but erroneously teach that certain illicit sexual acts are licit within the context of the marriage act?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 23rd December 2008, 07:12 PM
Bertrand
 
Posts: n/a
Default

perhaps;
that is why i used the expression "i have reservations" which leaves the door open to agreement. I do not claim i have all answers and on certain topics i prefer to keep the right to reserve my judgement. What i do know is that i can recognize a heart full of kindness and compassion when i meet one. then i say to myself: "This is a man that pleases God."

As far as Ron is concerned, i do acknowledge his broad knowledge and i was impressed by some of his previous predictions but he is a lay person and i am not sure if he has the authority to decide what is compliant and what is not.
I grew up in France and i have lived in the US for 17 years. As i said I have noticed significant differences between the catholic church here and there. In europe there is a much bigger emphasis on charity, poverty and humility. Here people (including priests) are very harsh on sexual ethics but always find all kinds of excuses to justify killings (death penalty, foreign wars) and wealth accumulation. In Europe, the ultimate exemple of conduct is Saint-Francis the "prince of disciples" who got the closest in the pure imitation of Christ and this why he got the stigmata and was given the former throne of Lucifer: "Lucifer lost it because of his pride, Francis received it because of his humility". I was shocked when i noticed once that My uncle in law (a priest in NY) held Saint Francis as "an obscure extreme of the church".
My opinion is that Catholic America is much closer to protestantism than Catholic Europe. This is not a surprise given the weight of protestant churches in this country. Ron's teacher himself (Peter Kreeft) was a calvinist before converting.

I say that without animosity. As everyone here, i want to learn, grow and get closer to Christ.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 23rd December 2008, 11:42 PM
Rob Rob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sicily, Italy
Posts: 966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
I grew up in France and i have lived in the US for 17 years. As i said I have noticed significant differences between the catholic church here and there. In europe there is a much bigger emphasis on charity, poverty and humility. Here people (including priests) are very harsh on sexual ethics but always find all kinds of excuses to justify killings (death penalty, foreign wars) and wealth accumulation.

My opinion is that Catholic America is much closer to protestantism than Catholic Europe. This is not a surprise given the weight of protestant churches in this country. Ron's teacher himself (Peter Kreeft) was a calvinist before converting.

I say that without animosity. As everyone here, i want to learn, grow and get closer to Christ.

Different christian countries put more emphasis on different aspects of life according to culture, that's shouldn't be surprising, the core teachings remain the same.
There are also differences in the way churches view and experience the same truths of Faith, expressed in many ways, just look at the differences between the western and eastern churches.

I have read your post about the differences between Old and New Testament, ad that you cannot give equal weight to both. I agree that events and customs described are different, yet you should try to look at the moral law behind every precept, only in that way you will discover the beuty of the Old Testament.
I always regard the Old Testament and the things desribed in it as foreshadowing of the New, they each complete each other.

On the point of papal infallibility I don't see the point you are trying to make. We all know how much sin and corruption existed in the Church during the Middle Ages, yet Jesus promised to the successors of Peter that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. They could be evil, but their ability and authority to teach was never undermined by the evil deeds they made.

Remember how the High Priest Caiaphas did utter a true prophecy on Christ even though he was evil, just because he was the High Priest on that year? That example, inserted in Divine Scripture by God is a reminder that the personal sinfulness of the pope does not undermine his ability to teach or confirm infallible truths.

{11:49} Then one of them, named Caiaphas, since he was the high priest that year, said to them: “You do not understand anything.
{11:50} Nor do you realize that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the entire nation should not perish.”
{11:51} Yet he did not say this from himself, but since he was the high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation.


Certainly a saint pope is able to teach and lead it's flock in a more substantial way, yet a more sinful pope must still be able, to carry out his duty as shepherd of all people, because that role has been given to him by Divine Providence and it includes the gift of the Magisterium and infallibility, otherwise he would not be pope.


God even promised to David that one of his successors would always sit on the throne of Jerusalem. The kings of Jerusalem foreshadow the pope; God is telling us that despite the sinfulness of the many kings after David, there will be always a pope guiding the Church and therefore every function and role associated with the office of the pope (which necessarily includes infallibility).

{7:12} And when your days will have been fulfilled, and you will sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who will go forth from your loins, and I will make firm his kingdom.
{7:13} He himself shall build a house to my name. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom, even forever.
{7:14} I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. And if he will commit any iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and with the wounds of the sons of men.
{7:15} But my mercy I will not take away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before my face.
{7:16} And your house shall be faithful, and your kingdom shall be before your face, for eternity, and your throne shall be secure continuously.’


Don't be taken down by the many sins or imperfections that we as a Church have, they can't take away the Doctrines or the Faith we are build upon. Faith requires assent even to things we do not fully understand but we cannot place our own ideas above Faith otherwise who do we really believe in, Christ or ourselves?

Peace to you

Roberto
__________________
For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain (Phil 1:21)

Last edited by Rob : 23rd December 2008 at 11:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.