Debate with Skabedab

Archibald Sayce was no Church Father, Reverend Bandas was not Pope · Kevin Responded - On Something Else ... · Debate with Skabedab · Other exchanges under same video · Other on Kevin Davis's First Video with Rev. Rudolph Bandas

AA AA

@nomorelies7755

Kevin is saying the geneologies are incomplete and is entertaining the idea there used to be humans before Adam and Eve. First parent means exactly first parent. In addition, if there was lots of death and decay of humanoids before the fall, we have to admit that death was not a consequence of the fall and admit God designed the world for decay, disease, and death from the get-go. I can't reconcile this with the creation being "good".

Catholic Family Podcast

@catholicfamilypodcast5501

To clarify, these are not Kevin's words but those of Reverend Rudolph Bandas, with an Imprimatur from 1943.

These writings do not bear the mark of Infallibility, but they do bear the mark of the Church's approbation and should be accepted as such.

AA AA

@nomorelies7755

Vatican II never happened overnight and there was a lot of modernism in the church in the 20th century. Having lots of experience in the Novus Ordo, I know for a fact this would shake the faith. This writing contradicts previous councils and statements.

This is essentially admitting to the fact God could have originally designed the world to be full of death, disease, and decay and there was no fall so to speak. Adam would not be the first man at all in this instance.

skabedab

@skabedab

I think the books is supposed to be an apologetic work against people who make it seem like science equals knowledge and faith equals blind obedience without reason.

Reverend Bandas merely states that if there were men before Adam and Eve, they would be dead by the time of the creation of man. Upholding the doctrine of all men descending from this one pair and in the process, the doctrine of original sin. Though it becomes apparent that the Reverend is not in favour of such hypotheses. Since he clearly states that these kinds of hypotheses are only brought forth by people who deny a spiritual soul and who believe in a strictly material evolution from animal to man.

While I am in no way a propoent of the theory that there was men before there was Adam, I do not think that decay is irrenconcilable with a good creator. St. Thomas teaches on that matter:

"I answer that, ... God wills no good more than He wills His own goodness; yet He wills one good more than another. Hence He in no way wills the evil of sin, which is the privation of right order towards the divine good. The evil of natural defect, or of punishment, He does will, by willing the good to which such evils are attached. Thus in willing justice He wills punishment; and in willing the preservation of the natural order, He wills some things to be naturally corrupted." (Summa, First Part, Q19 A9)

Fr. Timothy Geckle

@fr.timothygeckle1119

Be patient and don't make rash assumptions. The book specifically says that it cannot be accepted that there were human beings before Adam and Eve. Man is a special creation of God.

Fr. Timothy Geckle

@fr.timothygeckle1119

The genealogies obviously come after Adam and Eve. How are you gathering that this is saying that there were people before Adam and Eve?

AA AA

@nomorelies7755

@fr.timothygeckle1119 Thank you. I can see it was trying to refute the atheists but also entertaining these ideas at the same time. It looked like it was entertaining the idea of the humans before Adam and Eve all dying out before Adam and Eve were a single pair. There were no humanoids either because then it would be death, disease, decay, and survival of the fittest before the fall for intelligent beings (meaning there was no fall) and wouldn't explain how Eve came from Adam (Eve came from Adam in the narrative, not from another set of parents) or how Adam was first parent. Since Adam's life began with his first breath, it's also safe to say he did not have parents. If so, we're denying life in the womb as well.

skabedab

@skabedab

@fr.timothygeckle1119 I think he is referring to 2 distinct topics. One being men before Adam and Eve, the other being that the geneologies being incomplete.

AA AA

@nomorelies7755

@skabedab
This.

skabedab

@skabedab

@nomorelies7755 The problem with the geneology of Christ is that they differ in Luke and in Matthew. So one can not at the same time maintain that the purpose of the geneology is to give an exhaustive account like you would do in genealogy and that God is the Author. Because then, God would contradict himself.

We do know through our faith that God is the Author. So the purpose must be something else. The author of the book gives a reasonable explanation that is consistent with jewish customs, namely to make groups of symbolic numbers and to skip some people, so it fits that number.

On the part of God, the purpose is clear: It is to prove that Christ is descendant from Adam, from Abraham, from Juda and from David. Because it was to them that God gave his promise. It is just to prove that Christ is the promised messiah.

So I would argue that the explanation given in the book is not so much as to comrpomise with modern sciences as much as it is to give an explanation to what might be perceived by many as a logical flaw in Holy Scripture, when in fact, they miss the point of Scripture: To give an account of salvation history, not to give an accurate account of material things.

AA AA

@nomorelies7755

@skabedab
There's a theory that one may be Mary's genealogy and the other Joseph's genealogy. When you deny the accurate account of material things, you start denying things like the Exodus or Noah's flood or denying that different people in the scriptures were actually real. Novus Ordo modernists like to call everything metaphor. For example, saying Adam had parents denies that he was alive at first breath and saying Eve had parents denies she was made from Adam.

AA AA

@nomorelies7755

@skabedab And I agree the purpose of the genealogy is to connect Christ, the new Adam but the redeemer, to the genealogy of the old Adam who plunged us into the fall and to connect Him to the line of King David and to the line of Father Abraham and also prove he was from the line of Judah. Christ was from the line of kings but had humble beginnings.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@catholicfamilypodcast5501 "Reverend Rudolph Bandas, with an Imprimatur from 1943."

By what bishop?

Did he or the bishop participate in Novus Ordo afterwards?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@skabedab "if there were men before Adam and Eve, they would be dead by the time of the creation of man."

Dead for what sin, before Adam sinned?

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@skabedab "The problem with the geneology of Christ is that they differ in Luke and in Matthew."

Not a problem.

They do not give the same lineage.

Matthew gives Joseph his physical lineage, Luke a steplineage, which is also physical lineage for the blessed virgin.

This was explained very long ago, and not in terms that can be used to justify lineages of Genesis 5 or 11 or both giving just a tiny part of even one lineage.

skabedab

@skabedab

@hglundahl I do not find the argument compelling at all. Where is St. Joachim, the father of Mary in this lineage? He was of the House of David as well.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Leaving the answer to Father Haydock @skabedab !

His commentary on Luke 3 includes:

Remarks on the two Genealogies of Jesus Christ.

To make some attempt at an elucidation of the present very difficult subject of inquiry, we must carry in our minds, 1. That in the Scripture language the word begat, applies to the remote, as well as the immediate, descendant of the ancestor; so that if Marcus were the son, Titus the grandson, and Caius the great-grandson of Sempronius, it might, in the language of Scripture, be said, that Sempronius begat Caius. This accounts for the omission of several descents in St. Matthew. 2. The word begat, applies not only to the natural offspring, but to the offspring assigned to the ancestor by law. 3. If a man married the daughter and only child of another, he became in the view of the Hebrew law the son of that person, and thus was a son assigned to him by law. The two last positions shew in what sense Zorobabel was the son both of Neri and Salathiel, and Joseph the son both of Jacob and of Heli, or Joachim. ...

In other words, he is there under another name.

skabedab

@skabedab

@hglundahl "This accounts for the omission of several descents in St. Matthew."

This is what is claimed in the book: That some immediate descendants are omitted. So Father Haydock says the same thing, that in the geneology, not every person is listed.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@skabedab the word "several" does not have the same meaning in his English as now, it means more than one or two.

There is a very far cry between "not every" and "only few out of the whole" ...

skabedab

@skabedab

@hglundahl This is from the online ethymology dictionary: "Compare Anglo-Latin severalis, a variant of separalis. The meaning "various, diverse, different" (as in went their several ways) is attested from c. 1500; that of "more than one" is from 1530s, growing out of legal meanings of the word, "belonging or assigned distributively to certain individuals" (mid-15c.), etc. Also used by mid-17c. as "a vague numeral" (OED), in which any notion of "different" appears to have been lost."

When Haydock lived, the word "several" was used as either "more than one" or even "a vague numeral". That means several is not at all defined as a "only a few". That means it could be that only a few people are omitted in the geneology or it could mean that quite a big number is ommited in total. And it would make sense to omit everyone that does not have a major part in salvation history, except for continuing the lineage.

The major truth behind the geneology of Christ is that he is truly a descendant of the Patriarchs and of the house of David. By legal adoption through Joseph and by blood through Mary. This truth is not at all denied in the book, so there is no objection from a theological point of view.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@skabedab you are presuming the older meaning had been replaced by the other one in Haydock's time - no, they were concurrent.

I know "several" needs to mean "more than one" because I have counted the omissions in Matthew, they are 4 generations.

skabedab

@skabedab

@hglundahl No I am not presuming that. I say that we can not say if only a few are ment, like for example 3-4 direct offspring, or if in some cases it is even more, like 10. The word "several" is not so exact and leaves room for interpretation.

The point I am arguing against here is that you make it seem like the Author is some kind of modernist, when his interpretation is not against the Catholic faith at all. I understand your interpretation and you have every right to believe it that way. But to attack a different theological position and make it seem like it is quasi heresy is not a good thing to do.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

In some cases, @skabedab word meanings are determinable from factual context.

The people who have perused the genealogies and genealogy relevant material in the OT, have concluded that between King Solomon and Joseph, 4 generations are missing.

4. Not 10. Three generations after queen Athalia + one more at the Babylonian captivity. That's it.

"or if in some cases it is even more, like 10."

Not a shred of evidence for that being the case in either of the genealogies.

Haydock is not allowing for anything missing from that of St. Luke. The one exact reason why Haydock concludes these four generations are missing is, he knows of the places in the OT where these generations are mentioned.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@skabedab "This accounts for the omission of several descents in St. Matthew."

So, he is not admitting to any omission of generations in St. Luke.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@skabedab "and make it seem like it is quasi heresy is not a good thing to do."

Unless one has seen it lead to precisely heresy.

skabedab

@skabedab

@hglundahl This might be. And I respect Haydocks conclusion. I myself favor that explanation. I myself am for the literal meaning whenever it is in any way possible.

But on the other hand, I do not condemn other interpretations, as long as they are consistent with Catholic teaching and neither does the Church.

I just found this. Another decision from the Bible Commission in 1911 (still under Pius X.):

"2153 VI. Whether from the fact that the author of the first Gospel pursues especially the dogmatic and apologetic aim, namely, of demonstrating to the Jews that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets, and descended from the lineage of David, and from the fact that when arranging the deeds and words which he narrates and sets forth anew, he does not always hold to the chronological order, it may be deduced that these matters are not to be accepted as true; or, also, whether it can be affirmed that the accounts of the accomplishments and discourses of Christ, which are read in the Gospel itself, have undergone a kind of alteration and adaptation under the influence of the prophets of the Old Testament, and the status of the more mature Church, and so are by no means in conformity with historical truth?--Reply: In the negative to both parts" (Denzinger 2153)

So the purpose of the Gospel of Matthew is to dogmatically and apologetically demonstrate to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the prophets and descended from David. It is also stated as a fact, that the Gospel does not always hold to a chronological order, to achieve that purpose. But from this fact it can not in any way be deduced that it is not true.

On the same occasion, the Bible comission taught the following:

"2154 VII. Whether in particular the opinions of those persons should be rightly considered as devoid of solid foundation, who call into question the historical authenticity of the two first chapters, in which the genealogy and infancy of Christ are related; as also of certain opinions on dogmatic matters of great moment, as are those which have to do with the primacy of Peter [Matt. 16:17-19], the form of baptizing, together with the universal mission of preaching handed over to the apostles [Matt. 28:19-20], the apostles' profession of faith in the divinity of Christ [Matt. 14:33], and other such matters which occurred in Matthew announced in a special way?--Reply: In the affirmative." (Also from Denzinger)

So it is not allowed to doubt or call into question the authenticity or historicity of the genealogy of Christ nor his infancy. The same is true for the primacy of Peter and other truths contained in the Gospel of Matthew. If Matthew leaves out 4 generations, the authenticity of Christs genealogy is not questionable. The truth that Christ is of the lineage of David is not affected by the omission of some minor characters in the lineage. And even if most of the characters in the lineage would be left out, like: Adam begot Noah, Noah begot Abraham, Abraham begot Juda, Juda begot David, David begot Joseph; the truth would still be there: Jesus is of the lineage of David.

So the author of the book above is not in any way attacking Catholic teaching at all, or calling it into question. He rather says that we do not have to stress too much about if all these people were direct descendants in the way that one is the literal son of the other. It could be that even the majority in the list is omitted. This still wouldn't affect the truth that Christ is of David.

If you hold that the earth or at least humanity is very young, then of course, omitting a vast majority of people might be a problem. But if you hold that humanity is older, then not having this kind of explanation is a bigger problem for you. The Church has not decided on this question. Yes, the ancient exegetes were mostly of the opinion that the numbers presented are to be taken literally and earth as well as humans are very young. But to take another aproach has never been condemned. After all, it does not really matter nor does it take away from salvation history if something takes a shorter or a longer period of time.

Again: I myself am in strong favor of a literal interpretation. I believe that the numbers presented in genesis are literal numbers and humanity is not older than 5000 years. But at the same time, since the Church did not rule on that particular matter, it is not okay to attack the other standpoint.

To close here, I am going to quote Pius XII. on biblical exegesis:

"The Catholic exegete, impelled by an active and strong love of his science, and sincerely devoted to Holy Mother Church, should by no means be kept from attacking difficult questions as yet unresolved, again and again, not only to refute what is raised in opposition by adversaries, but to strive also to find a solid explanation which is in faithful accord with the doctrine of the Church, namely with what has been taught about Sacred Scripture free of all errors, and also satisfies in due measure certain conclusions of the profane sciences.

But let all the other sons of the Church remember that the attempts of these strenuous workers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with an honest and just heart, but also with the highest charity; indeed, these men should beware of that zeal, which is by no means prudent, whereby it is thought that whatever is new, for this very reason should be attacked or brought into suspicion" [Encyclical "DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU", AAS 35 (1943), 319]

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@skabedab "It is also stated as a fact, that the Gospel does not always hold to a chronological order, to achieve that purpose."

No. It is stated as a fact that - in fact elsewhere - the chronological order is not always observed in the Gospel, not that this is involved in the genealogy.

St. Matthew's passages may not always follow the chronological order between them, but in each passage, and a genealogy is one, the chronology would be good.

"If you hold that the earth or at least humanity is very young, then of course, omitting a vast majority of people might be a problem. But if you hold that humanity is older, then not having this kind of explanation is a bigger problem for you."

If you hold that humanity is so old that Genesis 5 and 11 between them, for the span between Adam and Abraham, not only omits 5 % (as Matthew) but more like omits 95 %, then you have overturned historicity of Genesis 3.

That's a much huger problem than stating "heresy" is "heresy" before the Church has decided so.

Pope St Agathon lauded the men who had - before the council of Ephesus and before his own intervention - called Nestorius a heretic.

"and humanity is not older than 5000 years."

It was 5199 years when Christ was born, see the Christmas Proclamation (traditional form, obviously).

Your quote from Divino Afflante could be due to Pius XII's involvement in a Honorius-like abandonment of truth condemning error in favour of the error of Adam having physical ancestry, of leaving it uncondemned.

skabedab

@skabedab

@hglundahl "No. It is stated as a fact that - in fact elsewhere - the chronological order is not always observed in the Gospel, not that this is involved in the genealogy."

I never claimed that this passage is aimed at the genealogy.

And I think it is quite uncharitable to compare Pius XII. and Honorius in that way.

I said my piece. Agree to disagree

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Ah, @skabedab - I am uncharitable to Pius XII?

I think I am less that, than any other Sede to pretended Popes between Pius XII in Humani Generis 1950 and John Paul II in the early 1990's.

These Popes or Antipopes cannot usually be tied down to universalism. They cannot be tied down to hyperecumenism, to extending non-Feeneyism into making non-Catholic religions ordinary means of salvation. But Pius XII can be tied down to refusing to condemn "Adam had biological ancestors" and John Paul II to directly favouring the thesis.