NO BIG BANG WITHOUT GOD, SAYS POPE FRANCIS

Brietbart ^ | by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D. 27 Oct 2014, 8:30 AM PDT | by THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, PH.D. 27 Oct 2014, 8:30 AM PDT

[RaceBannon]

The Big Bang “doesn’t contradict the intervention of a divine Creator, but demands it,” Pope Francis said Monday morning, because the beginning of the world “is not the work of chaos.” The Pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, gathered in the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.” God is not some sort of wizard, said Francis, but rather “the Creator who brought all things into being.” The origin of the world derives directly “from a supreme Principle of creative love,” he added. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

[BroJoeK]

:-)

[spirited irish]

In addition to post #179 there’s this:

“God is not a magician, with a magic wand”: Pope Francis schools creationists

The pontiff admits he believes in evolution and the Big Bang, says science and religion can peacefully coexist

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/28/pope_francis_believes_in_evolution_and_big_bang_theory_god_is_not_a_magician_with_a_magic_wand/

[Fledermaus]

This Pope confuses me. There is another thread where he is quoted saying “god isn’t a magician with a magic wand”.

[The_Reader_David]

The New Testament canon is not a matter of much dispute (though the Apocalypse of St. John was still controversial well after 331 AD -- St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Homilies plainly regards it as non-canonical, and bases his discussion of eschatology solely on the apocalyptic passages of Daniel and the than the rest of us, as does the Codex Siniaticus.

I mentioned the "Gospel of Thomas" precisely because it was the judgement of the Church -- under the direction of the Holy Spirit -- which found it to be as you put it unorthodox (a charitable word for heretical) -- a judgement rendered prior to the fixing of the canon of Scripture, not some deductive comparison with doctrine proved from the canonical Scriptures.

As to "all those other books I listed," they are part of the Old Testament, and I should find it very surprising if Eusebius had omitted them from his now-lost "Christian Bible". In his extant writings, Eusebius credits the traditional story of the translation of the Septuagint, and thus would have held it to be divinely inspired Scripture. The oldest extant Christian Bible, the Codex Siniaticus, certainly contains many of them, oddly having First and Fourth Maccabees, but not Second or Third (though it also includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas among its New Testament books). Appeals to early canons before any conciliar decision of the Church, are, thus, fraught with difficulty for anyone wanting to defend Luther's abridgement of the canon.

I should also point out, given the ostensible topic of the thread, that the only absolutely plain testimony to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, as opposed to creation from pre-existing matter in pre-existing space and time, is found in Second Maccabees 7:28. Attempts to gloss the Hebrew bara as a special technical word for creation ex nihilo founder on it use to mean creating or making in the more ordinary sense out of something already there (or even "to fatten") in other passages of the Hebrew Scripture. For those of use with the complete canon of Scripture as set forth by the Council of Carthage and ratified by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, creation ex nihilo, is a Biblical doctrine. Not so much for Christians who want Luther's short canon so they can condemn asking the intercessions of the saints, praying for the dead and other bits of the patrimony of the ancient and undivided Church that they fancy were made up by the Popes of Rome.

[The_Reader_David]

Hmm, a passage got cut out of my reply — I’m not sure how, it looked right in the preview. The first paragraph should have ended:

...Daniel and the Gospels, and the Ethiopians have a rather longer New Testament than the rest of us, as does the Codex Siniaticus.

[The_Reader_David]

Actually there is a problem with simultaneously holding two literalist positions: no death before sin, with death meaning ordinary death — the separation of body and soul (for those of us with a soul) and cessation of body functions to the point it is irreversible by ordinary natural processes, rather than spiritual death, as it must for your counterargument to evolution to hold — and “day” always meaning twenty-four hour period, as it must for account in Genesis 1 to preclude modern cosmology.

To hold that death means ordinary death, not spiritual death and day always means twenty-four hour period is to make God a liar and the serpent in the Garden the truth-teller.

Adam and Eve did not die in the ordinary sense in the twenty-four hour period after they eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil — indeed the Scriptures tell us Adam lived 800 years after fathering Seth (making irrelevant to my point how much of the 130 before was after the Fall).

[Justice]

HAD to of been passed down orally, and to a MUCH more primitive man than Moses

Not necessarily more primitive than Moses.

Noah, for example, was a pretty smart guy to be able to organize the ship and the creatures which would inhabit it. (Let's see a modern day man do that!)

These guys apparently lived lives much longer than ours so didn't need written history; the span of history included in their lives would preclude much false information from being passed on.

In addition, the written histories which undoubtedly existed then were much closer to the time of creation than we are. Much was there which would have been accurate albeit one would still have to wade thru the filter of sin which might "revise" history much as the revisionists are still with us today. Moses would have had the discernment to sift out the the false from the true.

And I don't know where you get the idea that spirits were simply "germs". Do you think Jesus spoke to and cast out "germs"?

[Faith Presses On]

The Catholic Church “evolved” away from the original Church’s beliefs. That’s how it has only unmarried clergy now. I believe the bread and wine are Jesus’ body and blood nut not as the Catholic Church says it is.

[BroJoeK]

TRD: "I mentioned the "Gospel of Thomas" precisely because it was the judgement of the Church -- under the direction of the Holy Spirit -- which found it to be as you put it unorthodox (a charitable word for heretical)"

Well... the first surviving mentions of Thomas' gospel come from Hippolytus of Rome (circa 235 AD), who called it a "heresy" and Origen of Alexandria (also circa 235 AD) who called it "heterodox".
Hippolytus was a Roman theologian, presbyter, bishop, critic of, and even anti-pope to Popes Zephyrinus, Callixtus I (217–222), Urban I (222–230) and Pontian (230–235).
His constant criticisms earned him exile, martyrdom in 235 AD, and posthumous recognition as a saint.

Origen was a student of Hippolytus, today is considered a "Father of the Church", but not a saint because he was himself anathematized at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553 AD.
Reason: some, ah, er, ahem, "unorthodox" views of his own.

So, FRiend, what is the proper word? "Unorthodox", "Heterodox", or "Heretical"?
Doesn't a lot depend on who, precisely, was in political power at any particular moment?

TRD: "Appeals to early canons before any conciliar decision of the Church, are, thus, fraught with difficulty for anyone wanting to defend Luther's abridgement of the canon."

My purpose here is not to defend Luther or anybody else, only to demonstrate that the basic Christian canon had already acquired shape long before the Church in Rome exercised authority over anybody outside the walls of Rome, and as the case of poor "anti-pope" Hippolytus shows, not even undisputed authority within them.

So, the Roman Church did not create the Bible, and has no special authority over it.

TRD: "I should also point out, given the ostensible topic of the thread, that the only absolutely plain testimony to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, as opposed to creation from pre-existing matter in pre-existing space and time, is found in Second Maccabees 7:28. "

Interesting point, I was not aware of any specific "ex nihilo" language in the Bible, Old or New Testament, not familiar with Maccabees...
But isn't "ex nihilo" found in thinkers like Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas?
And if not, may I ask, why is such an idea floating around, almost universally?

[YHAOS]

“Of course it is. Thats the point.”

That’s what I thought too.

[YHAOS]

Thanks for your learned exposition on creation ex nihilo. This is what I was looking for.

[The_Reader_David]

Since, as an Orthodox Christian, I certainly regard the "Roman Church" -- I'd prefer Latin church, following the usage of the Orthodox Fathers at the time of Rome's schism, since we Orthodox have a parallel claim to Romanity, having gotten the Empire, while they get the city -- as having no special authority with regard to the Scriptures (and indeed since their schism from the Church, as having no authority).

However, while the Patriarchate of Rome was Orthodox, (we can dispute dates, but certainly before 1009 which is the earliest date at which Rome could have been dropped from the Diptychs of Constantinople), as part of the universal Church, they had a say in the selection of the canon, and like authority to all the other patriarchates and the local churches outside the Empire as regards the interpretation of the Scriptures and their application to the life of the Church. Of course, it was within the Patriarchate of Rome that the local Council of Carthage in 419 set down the canon of Scripture, which was subsequently given universal force by the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, meeting in Constantinople, in 692. Of course, this was not because of any special authority, but because the Marcionite heresy, which roiled the Patriarchate of Rome and had set down its own canon of Scripture, called for a decisive refutation on all points, so fixing the Church's own canon of Scripture had become an issue of local importance.

The Latins, with their peculiar theory of papal authority, regard the canon as having been fixed in 419, since the Acta of Carthage received the assent of the local patriarch, the Pope of Rome.

And the correct word is heretical -- it comes from Greek roots meaning going one's own way. I would note that only heretics regard Origen as a "Father of the Church". (Resurrected in spherical bodies???!!! Anathema!)

[:-)===== (Orthodox monastic smiley)

[BroJoeK]

Thanks for the great history lesson!
In the contest between Greek and Latin, my sympathies go with underdog Greeks, and among Greeks with the old iconoclasts.

Of course, any church has a right to declare which books belong in its canon.
As for a proper name for those who disagree with a particular church’s choices, I would relegate the word “heresy” — with its ancient memories of wars, mass murders and burnings at the stake — to history.
“Unorthodox” is a perfectly accurate word those who disagree with the majority of believers.

North America was by and large founded by such people, and I firmly believe they should be treated with the highest respect — so “unorthodox” not “heretics”.

:-)