Pope Pius X decreed that:
“Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.
Teaching of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? -- Reply: In the negative.
So the Pope says that Catholics have to believe that the talking serpent story is true as a matter of faith. Do they?
Is it a serious sin not to believe in a talking snake?
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
polonius wrote: Truscott posted:
RESPONSE In 1909 the Catholic Church following the theological thinking of the day insisted that all Catholics believe literally in a talking snake in the Bible.IMO,
P. knows there was no literal talking snake and he is having us on. I suggest that he has read Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. and knows that the appellation snake or serpent is often used for the person Sartan.
Pope Pius X decreed that:
“Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.
Teaching of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? -- Reply: In the negative.
How do you know there are no talking snakes? The Catholic Church has taught otherwise in 1909. See above.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Post #12
[Replying to post 11 by polonius]
Many of us know how to read the Bible as a whole.
Most of us are not Catholic.How do you know there are no talking snakes? The Catholic Church has taught otherwise in 1909. See above.
Many of us know how to read the Bible as a whole.
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9161
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 186 times
- Been thanked: 105 times
Post #13
More info please. Where is this teaching found?FWI wrote:No, it is not…polonius wrote:Is it a serious sin not to believe in a talking snake?
Mainly, because the snake didn't talk! In Genesis 1:25 and 30, there is a clear distinction between the beasts of the field and everything that creeps on the ground. Thus, it should be obvious that the beast, which talked in Genesis 3 is not referring to a snake, but to a beast…The idea of a snake didn't come into play, until the penalty phase of the example. Which, doesn't show a "comeback" or complaint from the beast of the field, who was changed into a snake.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 4069
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Post #14
Yes it was a beast that it names a serpent.FWI wrote:No, it is not…polonius wrote:Is it a serious sin not to believe in a talking snake?
Mainly, because the snake didn't talk! In Genesis 1:25 and 30, there is a clear distinction between the beasts of the field and everything that creeps on the ground. Thus, it should be obvious that the beast, which talked in Genesis 3 is not referring to a snake, but to a beast…The idea of a snake didn't come into play, until the penalty phase of the example. Which, doesn't show a "comeback" or complaint from the beast of the field, who was changed into a snake.
Its penalty was that it would be cursed above all beasts, part of which was that it would now be a beast that crawled on its belly.
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Post #15
FWI wrote:
Thus, it should be obvious that the beast, which talked in Genesis 3 is not referring to a snake, but to a beast…The idea of a snake didn't come into play, until the penalty phase of the example.
The serpent is introduced before the fall and is called a serpent starting with it's first introduction:
- Genesis 3:1 - Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?�
- Genesis 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die!"
The Bible clearly presents a talking snake.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
Post #16
Tcg wrote:
Tcg posted:
Question: But since it is clearly stated in the Bible, do we have to believe it is true?The serpent is introduced before the fall and is called a serpent starting with it's first introduction:
Genesis 3:1 - Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?�
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Post #17
polonius wrote:Tcg wrote:
Tcg posted:
Question: But since it is clearly stated in the Bible, do we have to believe it is true?The serpent is introduced before the fall and is called a serpent starting with it's first introduction:
Genesis 3:1 - Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?�
My post was offered to correct an obvious chronological error in an argument denying that the Bible refers to a talking snake.
We don't have to believe this teaching or any other is true.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom