Creation or Evolution theories

Ok, if those Sons of God are not Angels ( and I do not remember them ever being called that) - who are they and why there is no mentioning about them further down the road?

The only one Son of God I know - is our Lord Jesus Christ - God Almighty Himself!

 

Hm

I shall get my bible out and post the response to this Mother Superior. There is only one Son for a start.. Jesus himself.. Also, we are all sons of God, in a different sense..

As for it not being Sarah.. Have you read the bible? I shall post that too. What she did was awful. She talked Abraham in to trying to send the maidservant away. An angel appeared to her and told her to go back and said that God would make a great nation out of Ishmael. God made it up to them because of Sarah's wrong doing.

 

God never ever wills sin and for one human being to harm another. That is a terrible thing to say.

 

Where is the UCCB website? Do you have a link please?

 

I was studying all this at a Catholic Bible study Course not so long ago, run by a Parish with a very good and saintly and wise priest there. This course had been approved. There was no mention of giants or what not... Not at all..

I too read my bible from a tiny child. It is a part of me now. However, I still wanted to do this course, I am hungry for what others can teach me when it is sound teaching.

 

I believe a letter was left out, The USCCB--the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

http://www.usccb.org

 

ahhhh.. Thank you Hope

 

Here's a little bit about these Nephilims from EWTN.

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=455303&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=

It appears there are multiple interpretations on who they were.

 

Thank you Jimmy, this is indeed my understanding and what I was taught. It is also self explanatory in the bible.

 

Yes, good find Jimmy, hope it's kosher to copy from there, if not please delete:

Genesis records a strange hybrid which resulted from sexual unions between the "daughters of men" and the “sons of God.
6:1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
While many scholars prefer to dismiss this entirely as myth which is borrowed from pagans cultures of the ancient near east, it is more appropriate to look for some truth and reality behind this mythical sounding text. Some of the Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria suggested that the “sons of God” may refer to righteous descendants (men) of Seth who took descendants (women) of Cain as wives. In such a case, “sons of God” associates the men with the goodness of God whereas “daughters of men” would be intended as a contrast to this. This is typical of ancient Semitic expressions which must not be interpreted literally as we understand such constructions but in accord with the customary use of language at the time. Knowing the background of Cain as a killer and the bad blood of his descendants, it is no wonder that such unions would be regarded in a negative light, which unions led to a situation in which humanity was corrupted and unacceptable to God. On the other hand, it is said of Seth and his line that these were the first to reverence the Name of Yahweh. The word “Nephalim” literally means “fallen ones” which sense would be consistent with an interpretation that views this group as a corrupt mixture of good and bad blood. Other commentators have suggested that the “sons of God” were (fallen) angels who somehow mated with human women, but this does present metaphysical complications in light of the natures of each. For now, I find the Patristic solution the most satisfying

 

Mary's Child-it was God's will that she cast Hagar out. (Jesus obeyed our Lady at the wedding at Cana, just as Abraham is obeying Sarah) God said, OBEY SARAH.

Hagar and Ishmael Sent Away

8 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast.

9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking,

10 and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son.

12 But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring[b] will be reckoned.
13 I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”

14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the Desert of Beersheba.

15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes.

16 Then she went off and sat down about a bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there, she[c] began to sob.

17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there.

18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.”

19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink.

20 God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer.

21 While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.

​

 

Mary's child, do not insult me and ask me if I have read the Bible when I'm obviously quoting the Bible...

I suggest that it really doesn't MATTER what you think or I think was awful, it is what it is. Try reading the Bishop's website and quit interpreting it yourself. The parallel births of the boys also is a foreshadowing of Jesus and John the Baptist in the Gospel of Luke.

And actually it was considered Abraham's wrong doing (just like Adam) because HE wasn't being the leader of the family like God called him to be. He didn't trust. He ALLOWED himself to be led around instead of asking God what to do (like we are suppose to do when we live in a Covenant /Sacramental marriage).

 

A great documentary, actually my favorite on the subject. In 1 hour time one can learn and understand a lot.

 

Conor Cuningham is a very substantive (if at times difficult) thinker associated with the Anglo-Catholic 'Radical Orthodoxy' school of theology (John Milbank et al.), with which I am well acquainted. They're basically building on the critique of atheist humanism in the work of theologians such as Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar. If you can get past the often impenetrable writing style there is certainly much food for thought in their work. However, they have a problem in that being essentially an academic movement, they operate in an intellectual climate in which mystical theology is a taboo. Which means that they do not have the same openness to mysticism as their models (recall Balthasar's relationship with Adrienne von Speyr or his support of Medjugorje in later years). This means that there is a curious combination: a courageous attempt to recover Christian orthodoxy in a full-blooded sense while remaining methodologically committed to a hyper-intellectual approach which cannot avoid a certain demythologization (Radical Orthodoxy has a tendency to skirt around problems of 'what actually happened' by appealing to French post-structuralism for its hermeneutics).

 

Personally I do not see why MV writings (or even an approved saint's theology) has to be 100% kosha.
Maybe I am wrong but the Church has never pronounced that anyone's writings are of supernatural origin - except perhaps the Bible and even that has to be understood as having different genre's (some not pretending to be histporical) which must be respected.

 

Thanks for the info, Peter. I think I like his approach although, as you say, I find it very difficult to conciliate Radical Orthodoxy (which seems to easily dismiss science) with a Natural Theology and Natural Philosophy accepting evolution. I like what he does in the docu. Regarding mysticism and private revelations, I can understand they cannot be easily accepted as reliable source of theological material among those intellectuals. We had a clear example of that in recent discussions, right?.

 

Right ... although what is interesting to me is that it wasn't always the case. Much of my own historical research (which is how I became acquainted with the Christian mystical writings of the 20th century) has focused on the French intellectual Catholic revival of 1900-1950, and what gives real food for thought is that the leading intellectual lights of France during the period were extremely open to the mystical. Léon Bloy - quoted by Pope Francis in his first homily as Pontiff, Claudel, Bernanos, Maritain, scholar of Islam Louis Massignon ... all stellar minds but whose worldview was profoundly shaped by La Salette. Perhaps the last figure in this line was the philosopher Jean Guitton, who was capable of talking about the visions of Marthe Robin, quantum physics and Husserl's phenomenology in the same sentence!! For me the main conclusion from this is that the current antipathy of the academic community towards private revelation, apparitions and the like says more about the dominance of rationalism in Western culture (particularly within scholarship) than the authenticity of those revelations.

 

I would add... rationalism could also help to discern the authenticity of those revelations... that, I think, is actually my approach.

 

I didn't insult you Mother Superior, but for you to say that God did something when it was Sarah was wrong. There are many interpretations of this. And as for me listening to to you or anyone saying that it was angels that were marrying into these people I refuse to believe that.

I don't have to go to that site. Jimmy found somewhere else where it is in fact interpreted very different and this is what I have been TAUGHT not interpreted myself.

But you know what, if stating the truth is going to cause me insults and accusations and anger from others. Then I shall stand tall and proud.

Yes indeed it was Abraham's wrong doing at the instigation of his wife. She chose to use (did the maidservant actually have a choice) the maidservant to give Abram a child and when she had her own, suddenly she wanted rid of this other child. Absolutely, they were both at fault. But Sarah is just as guilty if not more so..

 

MS7 I have just re-read my post and yes, I did say Have you read the bible? For that I do apologize, it was wrong. Face to face, we would be able to see that we have having a debate and don't intend to insult each other.

I shouldn't have said that and I can see why you got offended. My apologies again..