Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
And again from your very own liturgy:

minasoliman said:
The Greek Liturgy of St. Basil states:

For having made man by taking dust from the earth, and having honored him with Your own image, 0 God, You placed him in a garden of delight, promising him eternal life and the enjoyment of everlasting blessings in the observance of Your commandments. But when he disobeyed You, the true God who had created him, and was led astray by the deception of the serpent becoming subject to death through his own transgressions, You, 0 God, in Your righteous judgment, expelled him from paradise into this world, returning him to the earth from which he was taken, yet providing for him the salvation of regeneration in Your Christ.
This is very similar to what St. Athanasius believed.

God bless.

Mina
Maybe, St. Basil likes to think of Paradise as having some animals and plants that were immortal.  But certainly not the world.
that quote says nothing about the state of the world outside of the Garden.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
The same St. Augustine that teaches we should be mindful of the science of our days, that our interpretation of Genesis may change?
once again, for about the bajillionth time in this thread -- Creationism is not anti-science! i am not advocating not being mindful of science. i just dont find the theory of evolution to be particularly scientific. and i don't think St. Augustine would believe in it either. people can throw around this reference from St. Augustine all day long, but it really proves nothing for either side, because we can't ask him how his opinion towards science would manifest itself in regards to evolution.

[quote author=minasoliman] The same St. Basil who your liturgical tradition, which I believe holds more weight by the fact that you pray it, quotes? [/quote]

are you referring here to the quote you just posted? That quote doesn't at all say what you want it to say.

[quote author=minasoliman] Even herbivores, which the Church fathers talk about eat and kill plants for food, and the plants regrow.  The Church fathers saw "life" in plants but they didn't see in plants the same "life" animals have.  But today in biological science, we find that indeed plants do have the same biochemistry, the same DNA, similar modes of reproducibility and mutations and disease, etc.  So we can't say today plants are without life.  So we find that it was okay to kill and eat plants in Paradise!  And so the Church fathers talked about eating plants, they don't lose life in the same way as animals do.  But in fact, they were scientifically mistaken.  Therefore, in today's understanding, their interpretations don't make sense. [/quote]

perhaps the Fathers are drawing the line between sentient and non-sentient beings? you can't really fault them for not having 21st century definitions ... but either way, you are speaking of the biological makeup of plants as we know them, not as they were in Paradise, because nobody knows that. we do know that plants were different in Paradise though. St. Symeon the New Theologian says:

Ethical Discourses 1.1
Notice that it is nowhere written, “God created paradise,” or that he said “let it be and it was,” but instead that He “planted” it, and “made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” [Gen. 2:8-9], bearing every kind and variety of fruit, fruit which is never spoiled or lacking but always fresh and ripe, full of sweetness, and providing our ancestors with indescribable pleasure and enjoyment. For their immortal bodies had to be supplied with incorruptible food.
1.4
This is the reason why, when God saw from before the creation of the world that Adam would be saved through re-birth, He subjected creation to him, and put it under a curse so that, having been created for the sake of man who had fallen into corruption, it should itself become corrupt and provide him annually with corrupted food. . . . Which is to say that creation was not of itself subjected to humanity, nor was it willingly changed over to corruption and made to bear
[quote author=minasoliman]
I can simply say the scientific evidence doesn't support their ideas anymore.  Many of them wrote what they thought of in their own opinion.  You see the words "I think" or "In my view" when they write.  Let us be mindful of other interpretations at the time. [/quote]

yes, sometimes the Fathers were giving opinions. Those instances fall under this passage by St. Basil:

Hexameron, 9.1
Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth.  If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor.  It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses.  He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us.  Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit?  Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls?
but when it comes to the use of allegory vs. literal, and the question of death i have found no wavering. their word are quite insistent. Again, St. Basil:

Hexameron, 1.9
Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit?  Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls?  It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture.  It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis.  Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.
[quote author=minasoliman]For you Fr. Seraphim.  For me, Bishop Alexander will be a Church father to quote from:

Some people draw the conclusion from the Bible’s account of Adam and Eve that, before the fall of the first man, neither death nor decay existed in nature: life all over Earth flowed smoothly without storms or cataclysms, animals of prey fed on grass, and neither insects, fish, nor animals died, but rather all of them enjoyed immortality together with man. This idealization of the primitive world has no basis.
[/quote]

false. it quite clearly has a basis in the Fathers. he may disagree with the Fathers, but its just plain false to claim there is no basis.

The very concept of death is full of human tragedy. Do we really have the right to apply the word death in the same sense to the plant or animal world? The departure of animals is not a death similar to the departure from life of Godlike man, who was made to be immortal. The division of a living cell, the loss of bacteria or an insect, or the halting of physiological processes in an ape is not the same thing as the demise of a human. Animals were not promised immortality, and they do not die because they broke the commandment. On the contrary, their death is just as natural a process as their birth. From the appearance of the first living cell in the world up until the creation of Adam, birth and death flowed in an uninterrupted stream. If it had been otherwise, the world would have become overpopulated with animals with nothing to feed upon soon after its creation. Only death and decay could pave the way for the birth of new creatures.
just because animal and plant death is not the same as human death does not mean that God desires their death. Bp. Alexander is falsely assuming that because human immortality is based upon keeping the commandments, then plant and animal immortality must also be based on keeping commandments, but who teaches this? where is he getting this idea? the Fathers are clear that the fate of creation is tied to man. St. Theophilus says:

to Autolycus Book II.XVII
And the animals are named wild beasts [qhria], from their being hunted [qhreuesqai], not as if they had been made evil or venomous from the first--for nothing was made evil by God, but all things good, yea, very good,--but the sin in which man was concerned brought evil upon them. For when man transgressed, they also transgressed with him . . . so in like manner it came to pass, that in the case of man's sin, he being master, all that was subject to him sinned with him. When, therefore, man again shall have made his way back to his natural condition, and no longer does evil, those also shall be restored to their original gentleness.
The fact that Adam was created outside of Eden already tells us that he must have been acquainted with death in the animal kingdom.
ummmm, only if there were animal death outside the Garden. but what do the Saints say?:

St. Symeon the New Theologian, Ethical Discourses 1.1, in On the Mystical Life, vol. 1, p. 21
God did not, as some people think, just give Paradise to our ancestor at the beginning, nor did He make only Paradise incorruptible. No! Instead, He did much more . . . Neither Eve nor Paradise were yet created, but the whole world had been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptible yet material and perceptible. It was this world, as we said, which was given to Adam and to his descendants for their enjoyment. Does this seem strange to you? It should not.
It may be assume that before the Fall of Adam there were no predators within the limits of Eden and only herbivores and harmless animals lived there. But beyond the limits of Eden, life flowed in its primordial rhythm. We know from paleontology that long before the birth of man there were predators even more fierce than today’s. From the very beginning, life and death alternated on all levels of existence — from microorganisms to the very largest animals. Just look at the skeleton of the prehistoric tyrannosaurus, whose teeth, sharp as a knife, reached lengths of 15 centimeters (6 inches). He certainly didn’t feed on grass!
skeletons show us the state of an animal at its death. that tells us nothing about the world before sin and death existed.

But in that case, how are we to interpret the words of the Apostle Paul: "For the earnest expectation of the creature eagerly awaits for the revealing of the sons of God... For the creature was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;.. because the creature itself also wall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom. Chapter 8:19-21)?

Is the Apostle not indicating here that death and decay in the world were the result of the Fall of Adam? It seems to us that here he is talking not about the past, but about the future. The Apostle’s basic idea is that nature is imperfect and perishable because man, the crown of creation, was expected to perfect himself spiritually. But since man fell morally, nature remained perishable and imperfect without reaching the ideal state it was destined for. When the faithful part of mankind is honored with immortality after the universal resurrection from the dead, then the rest of the physical world will be transformed into new heavens and a new earth (see II Pet. 3:13).
ok, but what do the Saint say?:

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 14
What is the meaning of "the creation was made subject to futility"? That it became corruptible. For what cause, and on what account? On account of you, O man. For since you took a body mortal and subject to suffering, so also the earth received a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles . . . He [the Apostle Paul] discourses concerning creation's bondage, and shows for whose sake such a thing has occurred -- and he places the blame on us. What then? In suffering these things on account of another, has creation been maltreated? By no means, for it has come into being for my sake. So then, how could that which has come into being for my sake be unjustly treated in suffering those things for my correction?
St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition 2.28
The creation of all things is due to God, but corruption came in afterwards due to our wickedness and as a punishment and a help. "For God did not make death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things" (Wisdom 1:13). But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam's transgression, in like manner as all other punishments. 
We have already cursorily mentioned the misunderstanding concerning Earth’s position in the galaxy. Since Moses describes everything from the point of view of an observer on earth, the impression is created that Earth is the center of the universe. Roman Catholic theologians defended this view with much pathos: "It is not fitting for the Earth, to which the Lord had to descend, to spin around in space like a child’s top." Fortunately, with time good sense triumphed and now no one can seriously repeat the old error about the universe’s rotation around Earth. This case vividly illustrates the problem that a biased understanding of some expressions in the Bible can cause when one is unaware of or ignores basic scientific data.
earth is indeed, spiritually the center of the universe. but as for its physical placement, that is one of those things that St. Basil talks about - its useless for our salvation

 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
I'm going to be very clear with you.  The saints are wrong.  Period!

There was death.  Leaving evolution out of the picture, the evidence clearly shows death existed long before apes even existed.  The fossil records are consistent about this and don't lie.  I don't care if you don't agree with evolution.  But surely you are also rejecting other sciences when doing this.

God created the cosmos with certain physical laws that were programmed into it.  These laws seemed to gear in the direction of humanity.  Death of plants and animals are a natural process, and these are shown by Church fathers.  Only man was given immortality as St. Athanasius teaches.

St. John Chrysostom, St. Theophilus, St. Augustine, and whoever else thought the world had no death in it before man were all wrong.

Whatever you want to believe in Paradise is up to you on the other hand.  If believing that immortal and incorruptible plants and animals existed in Paradise is necessary for your salvation, then I question your faith.  But nevertheless, let your faith be yours.  I only wonder if these things are necessary for the faith really?  Why would these particular plants and animals fall with man for man's wrongdoing?  It is clear both Adam and Eve ate from the tree, and not Eve or Adam alone.  Did they also give the fruit to the animals and plants to have them die with them?

What is important was man was greedy and sought independence.  However that happened, I don't know.  I've maintained belief in the Fall while not contradicting evolution.  It's amazing we have one Church father Nemesius of Emesa who sought very clearly to show the essentials of Christian faith mesh well with the "science" of their days, among other Church fathers who taught different things.

Thank God for St. Athanasius who trumps all these Church fathers, one person you haven't quoted at all in your futile blogs.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
I'm going to be very clear with you.  The saints are wrong.  Period!

There was death.  Leaving evolution out of the picture, the evidence clearly shows death existed long before apes even existed.  The fossil records are consistent about this and don't lie.  I don't care if you don't agree with evolution.  But surely you are also rejecting other sciences when doing this.

God created the cosmos with certain physical laws that were programmed into it.  These laws seemed to gear in the direction of humanity.  Death of plants and animals are a natural process, and these are shown by Church fathers.  Only man was given immortality as St. Athanasius teaches.

St. John Chrysostom, St. Theophilus, St. Augustine, and whoever else thought the world had no death in it before man were all wrong.
sorry, i dont have it in me to be so bold as you. i will bow to those who are purified, not those who have neat instruments.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Thank God for St. Athanasius who trumps all these Church fathers, one person you haven't quoted at all in your futile blogs.
1. i dont know how Oriental Orthodoxy works, but Eastern Orthodoxy doesnt desperately cling to one Father above everyone else. Isnt that rather like Calvinism?
2. in believing that humans were created immortal, St. Athanasius is just as much contradictory to evolution as everyone else I have put forth
3. another poster, i think Jonathan Gress, has already shown that you are probably stretching St. Athanasius too far
4. you base everything on one Father, whereas my blog has over 30 or 40 Fathers and Saints. whose argument is futile?
5. here ya go:

St. Athanasius, Agaisnt the Arians, 2.48
If then the Lord is in such sense created as a `beginning' of all things, it would follow that He and all other things together make up the unity of the creation, and He neither differs from all others, though He become the `beginning' of all, nor is He Lord of them, though older in point of time; but He has the same manner of framing and the same Lord as the rest. Nay, if He be a creature, as you hold, how can He be created sole and first at all, so as to be beginning of all? when it is plain from what has been said, that among the creatures not any is of a constant nature and of prior formation, but each has its origination with all the rest, however it may excel others in glory. For as to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants; thus too has the race made after God's Image come to be, namely men; for though Adam only was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole race.
everything of each kind came into being in one instant, by one command. whats the timeline for evolution again?

2.60
it having been shown to be true in an earlier part of this book, that no one creature was made before another, but all things originate subsisted at once together upon one and the same command.
same question
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
 Why would these particular plants and animals fall with man for man's wrongdoing?  It is clear both Adam and Eve ate from the tree, and not Eve or Adam alone.  Did they also give the fruit to the animals and plants to have them die with them?
creation was created for man. it has no purpose apart from man. thus its fate is tied to man's. immortal man belongs in an immortal creation. mortal man belongs in a mortal creation. one Father that I have cited, I forget who, said that the fallen creation helps to call man to creation, because he realizes what he lost.


and i could just as easily look at your faith and see that it hinges on raising up one Father above all others and thus question your faith. but come on, that'd be absurd of me to do.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
It's not really a diversion.  You criticize me of not following the majority of the Fathers.  I'm reading that the Church fathers of the first three centuries almost unanimously believed that the sons of God were angels.

I already gave you a quote on how St. Athanasius is scientifically wrong.  It just so happens, he was right about death existing with other animals even before the Fall.  So I wonder do you agree with the concensus patrum that angels had intercourse with humans (even St. Jerome who did not accept Enoch as Scripture)?
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Ortho_cat said:
Iconodule, I feel like we're going going back and forth in our current arguments without making much progress towards a mutual understanding. Perhaps I can present a new question. How much certainty/evidence/confidence do you think is required for a scientific theory to be considered reliable or trustworthy?

For example, lets consider bridge building. Humans have been building bridges for a long time. A properly educated engineer should be able to design a bridge that is reliable for virtually any application. Different bridges all across the world obey the same laws of structural mechanics, and therefore have a similar architecture. When we see a new bridge built across a large body of water (for example, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway in New Orleans, LA) We don't hesitate to drive over it because we have confidence in the engineers, the builders, and most importantly for this discussion, the science behind bridge-building. It has been shown time and again that bridges can be designed and constructed for specific applications and they perform reliably for these applications.
The visible world is not an illusion- it truly exists, but it does so entirely by the active creative and preserving power of God. Therefore, a methodology that attempts to "objectively" understand the visible creation, while ignoring God, is false. At the same time, because the visible world does exist, such a methodology will not be completely wrong in its observations or calculations- its perception will be distorted, but not completely wrong.

Yes, this modern atheist/ deist natural philosophy has produced many useful ideas and things which "work." At the same time, we can find other effective ideas and inventions emanating from other philosophies, many of which are still in use today. The ancient civilizations of Greece, Mexico, China, etc. all produced various discoveries, techniques, and inventions which "work" very well. Some say that the Mayan calendar is the most accurate in the world. At the same time, the calendar was created on some false premises and for false purposes. (And of course we still use a calendar today based largely on pagan advances in astrology.) Another incredible invention that comes to mind is the Greeks' Antikythera mechanism. And we all have great admiration for the mathematical advances of the Greeks (and other ancient civilizations), without embracing the philosophy of Pythagoras or other philosophers.

So it is possible to make things that "work" without subscribing to the philosophies of dualism or materialism. Scientists who were also Christians mastered mathematics and engineering and gave us some of the architectural wonders of the world, not the least of which is the Hagia Sophia.

Certainly we can't say that all science is unreliable or untrustworthy.
And certainly I have never said so. I merely said that the philosophy which is usually called "modern science" is false. But that is not the only science that there is. A science that understands the creation in light of God's immanent activity in it is more trustworthy.

What then, in your mind, is the key distinction between something like the structural mechanics of bridge building, and evolutionary biology?
The bridge has an immediate practical purpose. Since modern science is materialistic and of a thoroughly earthly persuasion, it's natural that making things that "work" in a worldly sense would be its strength. But its fatal weaknesses become clearer in the more theoretical or cosmological fields. Darwinism is plainly false because it is contrary to God's revelation.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
It's not really a diversion.  You criticize me of not following the majority of the Fathers.  I'm reading that the Church fathers of the first three centuries almost unanimously believed that the sons of God were angels.

I already gave you a quote on how St. Athanasius is scientifically wrong.  It just so happens, he was right about death existing with other animals even before the Fall.  So I wonder do you agree with the concensus patrum that angels had intercourse with humans (even St. Jerome who did not accept Enoch as Scripture)?
did you look at the website i linked? its quite clear that the teaching that angels had intercourse with humans is NOT the concensus patrum. this is an issue on which there is a noticeable divergence. but it is mainly the early writers who interpreted the "sons of God" this way, whereas this teaching fell out of the later Fathers and is not part of the Church's teaching. Many later Fathers, approaching the issue theologically, interpreted the "sons of God" as sons of Seth, as angels do not have bodies and cannot reproduce. This interpretation is put forth by St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Cassian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. if we were to try to define a concensus patrum on this issue it would be that the "sons of God" are sons of Seth, with some earlier writers being the outliers. it is clear that the Church does not teach that the "sons of God" are angels.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
It's not really a diversion.  You criticize me of not following the majority of the Fathers.  I'm reading that the Church fathers of the first three centuries almost unanimously believed that the sons of God were angels.

I already gave you a quote on how St. Athanasius is scientifically wrong.  It just so happens, he was right about death existing with other animals even before the Fall.  So I wonder do you agree with the concensus patrum that angels had intercourse with humans (even St. Jerome who did not accept Enoch as Scripture)?
did you look at the website i linked? its quite clear that the teaching that angels had intercourse with humans is NOT the concensus patrum. this is an issue on which there is a noticeable divergence. but it is mainly the early writers who interpreted the "sons of God" this way, whereas this teaching fell out of the later Fathers and is not part of the Church's teaching. Many later Fathers, approaching the issue theologically, interpreted the "sons of God" as sons of Seth, as angels do not have bodies and cannot reproduce. This interpretation is put forth by St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Cassian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. if we were to try to define a concensus patrum on this issue it would be that the "sons of God" are sons of Seth, with some earlier writers being the outliers. it is clear that the Church does not teach that the "sons of God" are angels.
You're missing the point.  There seems to be a drastic change in the way this verse was interpreted over the centuries.  You missed the point that you have for three hundred years, the Church seemed to be quite unanimous at the idea that Angels had intercourse.

Then you get a 50/50 mix in the 300s, and then by the 400s, it became unanimously that it doesn't make sense angels can have intercourse.

In other words, this was not an issue central to the faith, and so the Church fathers rather than follow the Church fathers before them used logic.  St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem were not the first Church fathers.  They were ancient, but relatively speaking, they were the first ones to imply that the earlier church fathers were wrong.

And the fact that you're adding St. Gregory Palamas, 13th Century, a jump and a leap from everyone else, you're lumping them together with the first and second century theologians.  That makes no sense.  I am using Bishop Alexander Mileant, God rest his soul, and you easily dismiss him.  There's something that necessary for the faith and others that are not.  St. Augustine recognized this, and so his literal interpretation of Genesis is malleable at best.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
It's not really a diversion.  You criticize me of not following the majority of the Fathers.  I'm reading that the Church fathers of the first three centuries almost unanimously believed that the sons of God were angels.

I already gave you a quote on how St. Athanasius is scientifically wrong.  It just so happens, he was right about death existing with other animals even before the Fall.  So I wonder do you agree with the concensus patrum that angels had intercourse with humans (even St. Jerome who did not accept Enoch as Scripture)?
did you look at the website i linked? its quite clear that the teaching that angels had intercourse with humans is NOT the concensus patrum. this is an issue on which there is a noticeable divergence. but it is mainly the early writers who interpreted the "sons of God" this way, whereas this teaching fell out of the later Fathers and is not part of the Church's teaching. Many later Fathers, approaching the issue theologically, interpreted the "sons of God" as sons of Seth, as angels do not have bodies and cannot reproduce. This interpretation is put forth by St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Cassian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. if we were to try to define a concensus patrum on this issue it would be that the "sons of God" are sons of Seth, with some earlier writers being the outliers. it is clear that the Church does not teach that the "sons of God" are angels.
You're missing the point.  There seems to be a drastic change in the way this verse was interpreted over the centuries.  You missed the point that you have for three hundred years, the Church seemed to be quite unanimous at the idea that Angels had intercourse.

Then you get a 50/50 mix in the 300s, and then by the 400s, it became unanimously that it doesn't make sense angels can have intercourse.

In other words, this was not an issue central to the faith, and so the Church fathers rather than follow the Church fathers before them used logic.  St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem were not the first Church fathers.  They were ancient, but relatively speaking, they were the first ones to imply that the earlier church fathers were wrong.

And the fact that you're adding St. Gregory Palamas, 13th Century, a jump and a leap from everyone else, you're lumping them together with the first and second century theologians.  That makes no sense.  I am using Bishop Alexander Mileant, God rest his soul, and you easily dismiss him.  There's something that necessary for the faith and others that are not.  St. Augustine recognized this, and so his literal interpretation of Genesis is malleable at best.
i understood exactly what you were saying. You asked if i abide by the concensus patrum that angels bred with men and i said there is no such concensus patrum, which is true. it may have been the dominant view at one time, but that fell away long ago. same story with chiliasm - many early Fathers believed in it, but that teaching fell away and is certainly not the teaching of the Church. the understanding of creation and paradise and the fall, on the other hand has remained consistent right up through our modern holy elders and Saints.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
It's not really a diversion.  You criticize me of not following the majority of the Fathers.  I'm reading that the Church fathers of the first three centuries almost unanimously believed that the sons of God were angels.

I already gave you a quote on how St. Athanasius is scientifically wrong.  It just so happens, he was right about death existing with other animals even before the Fall.  So I wonder do you agree with the concensus patrum that angels had intercourse with humans (even St. Jerome who did not accept Enoch as Scripture)?
did you look at the website i linked? its quite clear that the teaching that angels had intercourse with humans is NOT the concensus patrum. this is an issue on which there is a noticeable divergence. but it is mainly the early writers who interpreted the "sons of God" this way, whereas this teaching fell out of the later Fathers and is not part of the Church's teaching. Many later Fathers, approaching the issue theologically, interpreted the "sons of God" as sons of Seth, as angels do not have bodies and cannot reproduce. This interpretation is put forth by St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Cassian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. if we were to try to define a concensus patrum on this issue it would be that the "sons of God" are sons of Seth, with some earlier writers being the outliers. it is clear that the Church does not teach that the "sons of God" are angels.
You're missing the point.  There seems to be a drastic change in the way this verse was interpreted over the centuries.  You missed the point that you have for three hundred years, the Church seemed to be quite unanimous at the idea that Angels had intercourse.

Then you get a 50/50 mix in the 300s, and then by the 400s, it became unanimously that it doesn't make sense angels can have intercourse.

In other words, this was not an issue central to the faith, and so the Church fathers rather than follow the Church fathers before them used logic.  St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem were not the first Church fathers.  They were ancient, but relatively speaking, they were the first ones to imply that the earlier church fathers were wrong.

And the fact that you're adding St. Gregory Palamas, 13th Century, a jump and a leap from everyone else, you're lumping them together with the first and second century theologians.  That makes no sense.  I am using Bishop Alexander Mileant, God rest his soul, and you easily dismiss him.  There's something that necessary for the faith and others that are not.  St. Augustine recognized this, and so his literal interpretation of Genesis is malleable at best.
i understood exactly what you were saying. You asked if i abide by the concensus patrum that angels bred with men and i said there is no such concensus patrum, which is true. it may have been the dominant view at one time, but that fell away long ago. same story with chiliasm - many early Fathers believed in it, but that teaching fell away and is certainly not the teaching of the Church. the understanding of creation and paradise and the fall, on the other hand has remained consistent right up through our modern holy elders and Saints.
Then, I believe there will come a time when also the belief of a young Earth will also be abandoned and the belief that death before the Fall will also be abandoned.  I'm not sure what the Church believes about Paradise itself, but the fact that trees and plants and herbivores don't exist in Paradise today, I don't see that this belief that it existed in Adam's time holds much water to my salvation either.  Right now, we are in the 50/50 era of this discussion.  Perhaps, next century will show that this discussion might even be pointless.  It may not be the "consensus patrum" now, but perhaps in another two or three centuries, it will.

If the angels causing intercourse was the "consensus patrum" by 300 AD, only for it to change later, then I only see a precedence with this issue as well.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
It's not really a diversion.  You criticize me of not following the majority of the Fathers.  I'm reading that the Church fathers of the first three centuries almost unanimously believed that the sons of God were angels.

I already gave you a quote on how St. Athanasius is scientifically wrong.  It just so happens, he was right about death existing with other animals even before the Fall.  So I wonder do you agree with the concensus patrum that angels had intercourse with humans (even St. Jerome who did not accept Enoch as Scripture)?
did you look at the website i linked? its quite clear that the teaching that angels had intercourse with humans is NOT the concensus patrum. this is an issue on which there is a noticeable divergence. but it is mainly the early writers who interpreted the "sons of God" this way, whereas this teaching fell out of the later Fathers and is not part of the Church's teaching. Many later Fathers, approaching the issue theologically, interpreted the "sons of God" as sons of Seth, as angels do not have bodies and cannot reproduce. This interpretation is put forth by St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Cassian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. if we were to try to define a concensus patrum on this issue it would be that the "sons of God" are sons of Seth, with some earlier writers being the outliers. it is clear that the Church does not teach that the "sons of God" are angels.
You're missing the point.  There seems to be a drastic change in the way this verse was interpreted over the centuries.  You missed the point that you have for three hundred years, the Church seemed to be quite unanimous at the idea that Angels had intercourse.

Then you get a 50/50 mix in the 300s, and then by the 400s, it became unanimously that it doesn't make sense angels can have intercourse.

In other words, this was not an issue central to the faith, and so the Church fathers rather than follow the Church fathers before them used logic.  St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem were not the first Church fathers.  They were ancient, but relatively speaking, they were the first ones to imply that the earlier church fathers were wrong.

And the fact that you're adding St. Gregory Palamas, 13th Century, a jump and a leap from everyone else, you're lumping them together with the first and second century theologians.  That makes no sense.  I am using Bishop Alexander Mileant, God rest his soul, and you easily dismiss him.  There's something that necessary for the faith and others that are not.  St. Augustine recognized this, and so his literal interpretation of Genesis is malleable at best.
i understood exactly what you were saying. You asked if i abide by the concensus patrum that angels bred with men and i said there is no such concensus patrum, which is true. it may have been the dominant view at one time, but that fell away long ago. same story with chiliasm - many early Fathers believed in it, but that teaching fell away and is certainly not the teaching of the Church. the understanding of creation and paradise and the fall, on the other hand has remained consistent right up through our modern holy elders and Saints.
Then, I believe there will come a time when also the belief of a young Earth will also be abandoned and the belief that death before the Fall will also be abandoned.  I'm not sure what the Church believes about Paradise itself, but the fact that trees and plants and herbivores don't exist in Paradise today, I don't see that this belief that it existed in Adam's time holds much water to my salvation either.  Right now, we are in the 50/50 era of this discussion.  Perhaps, next century will show that this discussion might even be pointless.  It may not be the "consensus patrum" now, but perhaps in another two or three centuries, it will.

If the angels causing intercourse was the "consensus patrum" by 300 AD, only for it to change later, then I only see a precedence with this issue as well.
the idea of angels mating fell away for theological reasons - because angels dont have bodies. you're hoping that the concensus patrum will be changed for scientific reasons. pretty noticeable difference. perhaps we will one day discount Christ's miracles because science doesnt recognize healing powers in mud!
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
It's not really a diversion.  You criticize me of not following the majority of the Fathers.  I'm reading that the Church fathers of the first three centuries almost unanimously believed that the sons of God were angels.

I already gave you a quote on how St. Athanasius is scientifically wrong.  It just so happens, he was right about death existing with other animals even before the Fall.  So I wonder do you agree with the concensus patrum that angels had intercourse with humans (even St. Jerome who did not accept Enoch as Scripture)?
did you look at the website i linked? its quite clear that the teaching that angels had intercourse with humans is NOT the concensus patrum. this is an issue on which there is a noticeable divergence. but it is mainly the early writers who interpreted the "sons of God" this way, whereas this teaching fell out of the later Fathers and is not part of the Church's teaching. Many later Fathers, approaching the issue theologically, interpreted the "sons of God" as sons of Seth, as angels do not have bodies and cannot reproduce. This interpretation is put forth by St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Cassian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. if we were to try to define a concensus patrum on this issue it would be that the "sons of God" are sons of Seth, with some earlier writers being the outliers. it is clear that the Church does not teach that the "sons of God" are angels.
You're missing the point.  There seems to be a drastic change in the way this verse was interpreted over the centuries.  You missed the point that you have for three hundred years, the Church seemed to be quite unanimous at the idea that Angels had intercourse.

Then you get a 50/50 mix in the 300s, and then by the 400s, it became unanimously that it doesn't make sense angels can have intercourse.

In other words, this was not an issue central to the faith, and so the Church fathers rather than follow the Church fathers before them used logic.  St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem were not the first Church fathers.  They were ancient, but relatively speaking, they were the first ones to imply that the earlier church fathers were wrong.

And the fact that you're adding St. Gregory Palamas, 13th Century, a jump and a leap from everyone else, you're lumping them together with the first and second century theologians.  That makes no sense.  I am using Bishop Alexander Mileant, God rest his soul, and you easily dismiss him.  There's something that necessary for the faith and others that are not.  St. Augustine recognized this, and so his literal interpretation of Genesis is malleable at best.
i understood exactly what you were saying. You asked if i abide by the concensus patrum that angels bred with men and i said there is no such concensus patrum, which is true. it may have been the dominant view at one time, but that fell away long ago. same story with chiliasm - many early Fathers believed in it, but that teaching fell away and is certainly not the teaching of the Church. the understanding of creation and paradise and the fall, on the other hand has remained consistent right up through our modern holy elders and Saints.
Then, I believe there will come a time when also the belief of a young Earth will also be abandoned and the belief that death before the Fall will also be abandoned.  I'm not sure what the Church believes about Paradise itself, but the fact that trees and plants and herbivores don't exist in Paradise today, I don't see that this belief that it existed in Adam's time holds much water to my salvation either.  Right now, we are in the 50/50 era of this discussion.  Perhaps, next century will show that this discussion might even be pointless.  It may not be the "consensus patrum" now, but perhaps in another two or three centuries, it will.

If the angels causing intercourse was the "consensus patrum" by 300 AD, only for it to change later, then I only see a precedence with this issue as well.
the idea of angels mating fell away for theological reasons - because angels dont have bodies. you're hoping that the concensus patrum will be changed for scientific reasons. pretty noticeable difference. perhaps we will one day discount Christ's miracles because science doesnt recognize healing powers in mud!
There's no theological issue at all.  If they came and mated with humans, so what?  This doesn't change the Christian faith one bit, and certainly has no bearing on each person's salvation.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
It's not really a diversion.  You criticize me of not following the majority of the Fathers.  I'm reading that the Church fathers of the first three centuries almost unanimously believed that the sons of God were angels.

I already gave you a quote on how St. Athanasius is scientifically wrong.  It just so happens, he was right about death existing with other animals even before the Fall.  So I wonder do you agree with the concensus patrum that angels had intercourse with humans (even St. Jerome who did not accept Enoch as Scripture)?
did you look at the website i linked? its quite clear that the teaching that angels had intercourse with humans is NOT the concensus patrum. this is an issue on which there is a noticeable divergence. but it is mainly the early writers who interpreted the "sons of God" this way, whereas this teaching fell out of the later Fathers and is not part of the Church's teaching. Many later Fathers, approaching the issue theologically, interpreted the "sons of God" as sons of Seth, as angels do not have bodies and cannot reproduce. This interpretation is put forth by St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Cassian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. if we were to try to define a concensus patrum on this issue it would be that the "sons of God" are sons of Seth, with some earlier writers being the outliers. it is clear that the Church does not teach that the "sons of God" are angels.
You're missing the point.  There seems to be a drastic change in the way this verse was interpreted over the centuries.  You missed the point that you have for three hundred years, the Church seemed to be quite unanimous at the idea that Angels had intercourse.

Then you get a 50/50 mix in the 300s, and then by the 400s, it became unanimously that it doesn't make sense angels can have intercourse.

In other words, this was not an issue central to the faith, and so the Church fathers rather than follow the Church fathers before them used logic.  St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem were not the first Church fathers.  They were ancient, but relatively speaking, they were the first ones to imply that the earlier church fathers were wrong.

And the fact that you're adding St. Gregory Palamas, 13th Century, a jump and a leap from everyone else, you're lumping them together with the first and second century theologians.  That makes no sense.  I am using Bishop Alexander Mileant, God rest his soul, and you easily dismiss him.  There's something that necessary for the faith and others that are not.  St. Augustine recognized this, and so his literal interpretation of Genesis is malleable at best.
i understood exactly what you were saying. You asked if i abide by the concensus patrum that angels bred with men and i said there is no such concensus patrum, which is true. it may have been the dominant view at one time, but that fell away long ago. same story with chiliasm - many early Fathers believed in it, but that teaching fell away and is certainly not the teaching of the Church. the understanding of creation and paradise and the fall, on the other hand has remained consistent right up through our modern holy elders and Saints.
Then, I believe there will come a time when also the belief of a young Earth will also be abandoned and the belief that death before the Fall will also be abandoned.  I'm not sure what the Church believes about Paradise itself, but the fact that trees and plants and herbivores don't exist in Paradise today, I don't see that this belief that it existed in Adam's time holds much water to my salvation either.  Right now, we are in the 50/50 era of this discussion.  Perhaps, next century will show that this discussion might even be pointless.  It may not be the "consensus patrum" now, but perhaps in another two or three centuries, it will.

If the angels causing intercourse was the "consensus patrum" by 300 AD, only for it to change later, then I only see a precedence with this issue as well.
the idea of angels mating fell away for theological reasons - because angels dont have bodies. you're hoping that the concensus patrum will be changed for scientific reasons. pretty noticeable difference. perhaps we will one day discount Christ's miracles because science doesnt recognize healing powers in mud!
There's no theological issue at all.  If they came and mated with humans, so what?  This doesn't change the Christian faith one bit, and certainly has no bearing on each person's salvation.
angels are spirits, they have no bodies with which to mate. but if we're really going to devolve into this nonsense, how about just get back to me when the Church drops its literal interpretation of Genesis, which you're sure it will. we can talk then.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
It's not really a diversion.  You criticize me of not following the majority of the Fathers.  I'm reading that the Church fathers of the first three centuries almost unanimously believed that the sons of God were angels.

I already gave you a quote on how St. Athanasius is scientifically wrong.  It just so happens, he was right about death existing with other animals even before the Fall.  So I wonder do you agree with the concensus patrum that angels had intercourse with humans (even St. Jerome who did not accept Enoch as Scripture)?
did you look at the website i linked? its quite clear that the teaching that angels had intercourse with humans is NOT the concensus patrum. this is an issue on which there is a noticeable divergence. but it is mainly the early writers who interpreted the "sons of God" this way, whereas this teaching fell out of the later Fathers and is not part of the Church's teaching. Many later Fathers, approaching the issue theologically, interpreted the "sons of God" as sons of Seth, as angels do not have bodies and cannot reproduce. This interpretation is put forth by St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Cassian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. if we were to try to define a concensus patrum on this issue it would be that the "sons of God" are sons of Seth, with some earlier writers being the outliers. it is clear that the Church does not teach that the "sons of God" are angels.
You're missing the point.  There seems to be a drastic change in the way this verse was interpreted over the centuries.  You missed the point that you have for three hundred years, the Church seemed to be quite unanimous at the idea that Angels had intercourse.

Then you get a 50/50 mix in the 300s, and then by the 400s, it became unanimously that it doesn't make sense angels can have intercourse.

In other words, this was not an issue central to the faith, and so the Church fathers rather than follow the Church fathers before them used logic.  St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem were not the first Church fathers.  They were ancient, but relatively speaking, they were the first ones to imply that the earlier church fathers were wrong.

And the fact that you're adding St. Gregory Palamas, 13th Century, a jump and a leap from everyone else, you're lumping them together with the first and second century theologians.  That makes no sense.  I am using Bishop Alexander Mileant, God rest his soul, and you easily dismiss him.  There's something that necessary for the faith and others that are not.  St. Augustine recognized this, and so his literal interpretation of Genesis is malleable at best.
i understood exactly what you were saying. You asked if i abide by the concensus patrum that angels bred with men and i said there is no such concensus patrum, which is true. it may have been the dominant view at one time, but that fell away long ago. same story with chiliasm - many early Fathers believed in it, but that teaching fell away and is certainly not the teaching of the Church. the understanding of creation and paradise and the fall, on the other hand has remained consistent right up through our modern holy elders and Saints.
Then, I believe there will come a time when also the belief of a young Earth will also be abandoned and the belief that death before the Fall will also be abandoned.  I'm not sure what the Church believes about Paradise itself, but the fact that trees and plants and herbivores don't exist in Paradise today, I don't see that this belief that it existed in Adam's time holds much water to my salvation either.  Right now, we are in the 50/50 era of this discussion.  Perhaps, next century will show that this discussion might even be pointless.  It may not be the "consensus patrum" now, but perhaps in another two or three centuries, it will.

If the angels causing intercourse was the "consensus patrum" by 300 AD, only for it to change later, then I only see a precedence with this issue as well.
the idea of angels mating fell away for theological reasons - because angels dont have bodies. you're hoping that the concensus patrum will be changed for scientific reasons. pretty noticeable difference. perhaps we will one day discount Christ's miracles because science doesnt recognize healing powers in mud!
There's no theological issue at all.  If they came and mated with humans, so what?  This doesn't change the Christian faith one bit, and certainly has no bearing on each person's salvation.
angels are spirits, they have no bodies with which to mate. but if we're really going to devolve into this nonsense, how about just get back to me when the Church drops its literal interpretation of Genesis, which you're sure it will. we can talk then.
You didn't answer the question.  You answered why you disagree with it, not how it affects my salvation.

If you don't like how this discussion "devolved" to be honest, I'm only avoiding going in circles with the arguments we already made before.  So this only a new perspective of the same argument I've been making all along.  But if you don't like it, you don't have to answer.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I have a question for you.

I'd like you to quote mine the Church fathers for me on the idea of whether they believed Angels came and produced children through human women called the Nephilim?
dont you mean quote mine St. Athanasius? he's the only one that matters i thought ....

if anything, you've been quote mining to find people who you think are in agreement with St. Athanasius because you think he's infallible, whereas the Creationist POV can point to countless Fathers from every age of the Church. and anyways, St. Athanasius is incompatible with evolution also. he believes people were created immortal (whether by nature or by grace, either way they were immortal), and he believes the creation act of each day was instantaneous. so if you really fully follow St. Athanasius like you say you do you would have to drop evolution.

but anyways, this site: http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter5.htm has a chart that has it all laid out. whether or not the chart is entirely accurate im not sure, because although i like his page overall, i have found a few points of research that i would disagree with him about.

also, in post 2542 you said that St. Irenaeus is an infallible source that no one really disagrees with, but he believed the sons of God were angels ....

but isnt this just a diversion from the topic at hand?
It's not really a diversion.  You criticize me of not following the majority of the Fathers.  I'm reading that the Church fathers of the first three centuries almost unanimously believed that the sons of God were angels.

I already gave you a quote on how St. Athanasius is scientifically wrong.  It just so happens, he was right about death existing with other animals even before the Fall.  So I wonder do you agree with the concensus patrum that angels had intercourse with humans (even St. Jerome who did not accept Enoch as Scripture)?
did you look at the website i linked? its quite clear that the teaching that angels had intercourse with humans is NOT the concensus patrum. this is an issue on which there is a noticeable divergence. but it is mainly the early writers who interpreted the "sons of God" this way, whereas this teaching fell out of the later Fathers and is not part of the Church's teaching. Many later Fathers, approaching the issue theologically, interpreted the "sons of God" as sons of Seth, as angels do not have bodies and cannot reproduce. This interpretation is put forth by St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Cassian, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. if we were to try to define a concensus patrum on this issue it would be that the "sons of God" are sons of Seth, with some earlier writers being the outliers. it is clear that the Church does not teach that the "sons of God" are angels.
You're missing the point.  There seems to be a drastic change in the way this verse was interpreted over the centuries.  You missed the point that you have for three hundred years, the Church seemed to be quite unanimous at the idea that Angels had intercourse.

Then you get a 50/50 mix in the 300s, and then by the 400s, it became unanimously that it doesn't make sense angels can have intercourse.

In other words, this was not an issue central to the faith, and so the Church fathers rather than follow the Church fathers before them used logic.  St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem were not the first Church fathers.  They were ancient, but relatively speaking, they were the first ones to imply that the earlier church fathers were wrong.

And the fact that you're adding St. Gregory Palamas, 13th Century, a jump and a leap from everyone else, you're lumping them together with the first and second century theologians.  That makes no sense.  I am using Bishop Alexander Mileant, God rest his soul, and you easily dismiss him.  There's something that necessary for the faith and others that are not.  St. Augustine recognized this, and so his literal interpretation of Genesis is malleable at best.
i understood exactly what you were saying. You asked if i abide by the concensus patrum that angels bred with men and i said there is no such concensus patrum, which is true. it may have been the dominant view at one time, but that fell away long ago. same story with chiliasm - many early Fathers believed in it, but that teaching fell away and is certainly not the teaching of the Church. the understanding of creation and paradise and the fall, on the other hand has remained consistent right up through our modern holy elders and Saints.
Then, I believe there will come a time when also the belief of a young Earth will also be abandoned and the belief that death before the Fall will also be abandoned.  I'm not sure what the Church believes about Paradise itself, but the fact that trees and plants and herbivores don't exist in Paradise today, I don't see that this belief that it existed in Adam's time holds much water to my salvation either.  Right now, we are in the 50/50 era of this discussion.  Perhaps, next century will show that this discussion might even be pointless.  It may not be the "consensus patrum" now, but perhaps in another two or three centuries, it will.

If the angels causing intercourse was the "consensus patrum" by 300 AD, only for it to change later, then I only see a precedence with this issue as well.
the idea of angels mating fell away for theological reasons - because angels dont have bodies. you're hoping that the concensus patrum will be changed for scientific reasons. pretty noticeable difference. perhaps we will one day discount Christ's miracles because science doesnt recognize healing powers in mud!
There's no theological issue at all.  If they came and mated with humans, so what?  This doesn't change the Christian faith one bit, and certainly has no bearing on each person's salvation.
angels are spirits, they have no bodies with which to mate. but if we're really going to devolve into this nonsense, how about just get back to me when the Church drops its literal interpretation of Genesis, which you're sure it will. we can talk then.
You didn't answer the question.  You answered why you disagree with it, not how it affects my salvation.

If you don't like how this discussion "devolved" to be honest, I'm only avoiding going in circles with the arguments we already made before.  So this only a new perspective of the same argument I've been making all along.  But if you don't like it, you don't have to answer.
i didnt say it affected your salvation in the first place
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Well, I know you didn't.  That's why I'm asking you the question.  Does it affect my salvation or doesn't it?
 
Top