If Orthodox Catholics believe that Adam and Eve had two sons, Cane and Abel,....

[Vagabond]

And they believe in Creation, how do they explain the human race?

I've always been too embarrassed to ask anyone else.

Mumsnetters..... please explain.

Adam's rib......? Seems a poor excuse, frankly.

As others have said Catholicism is far less bible based than all other strands of Christiantiy so I'm a bit bemused as to why the thread title is specific to 'Orthodox' Catholics.

The OT is hardly ever referred to in Catholic teachings.

Well, at least I can't whinge about being ignored :0

Thinking about it, it could well be that I recalled 60 years after Jesus' death rather than 60 AD. Even so, with life expectancy, Mark was highly unlikely to have been a contemporary. Matthew and (Luke's) are widely considered to be copied (at least in part) from Mark. Matthew's gospel is widely considered to have been written around 70 AD and John's in the 90's AD or even the second century. I find it difficult to see how they could have been disciples of Jesus.

Smiley was supposed to be a big grin, sorry ? I'm new here

Contemporary scholars widely accept that Mark was a witness to the events. What they have differing opinions on is who exactly that witness was. Saying 'Mark was highly unlikely to have been a contemporary' has no basis in accepted historical fact. (see Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition). p. 24-27.)

The other dates you've given are not 'widely considered'. They are the latest dates purposed by some scholars. Conservative scholars say Matthew was written around 50 AD, Luke around 59 AD and John 50s AD. (see NIV Study Bible)

*proposed not purposed, sun causing brain melt.

Agreed UnMember, the dates are dates proposed by some scholars ? as are the dates proposed by Theissen, Gerd and Merz and the other conservative scholars proposing the earlier dates.
Not sure who the contemporary scholars you refer to are contemporary to? Us or Mark?

I thought Mark was the only Gospel written by a witness.

ignorant and forgetful

Unmember- you know some very interesting stuff! Is this your day job?

Don't all the synoptics share some elements of the Q text, possibly suggesting it predates all three? Or am I completely misremembering?

@Kayano ? Yes, I seem to remember being told that at school too (convent educated, but so far beyond lapsed now I'd expect thunderbolts if I crossed a church threshold). I found the subject very interesting when it came up on the other forum, so did a bit of reading about it then.
Have to get some work done this afternoon but I'll be back later. Nice to meet you.

I know the debate has moved on...but hey ho!

"God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. God?s action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends.... Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation." from the vatican no less

Not compatible with theory of evolution by the process of natural selection, as outlined by Darwin in 1859.

:o Nah. I'm an aspie nerd who did theology for my first degree (didn't finish it). I am the fount of all useless knowledge.

Kayano I believe you're right. Matthew's gospel author is unknown but it is believed he used 3 sources, Mark's gospel, unidentified source Q, and source M which is thought to be the apostle Matthew. Luke uses Mark's gospel, source Q and source L which is the oral tradition of the time.

John's gospel is the most debated. Some modern scholars think it was John the apostle, others think not and the rest think he had some hand in it but didn't actually write it.

I have an assignment due in tomorrow for my current (5th) attempt to complete a degree. Better leave this thread and get on with it or I'll be back in a few years on my 6th attempt. :o

So Mark doesn't use source Q? Ah. Is Q thought to be contemporaneous with Mark?

@LeBFG Of course it's compatible. Everything flows from the big bang, hydrogen inrush, event one, whatever you want to call it. If you believe God caused the big bang, then clearly it follows logically that he was therefore the ultimate cause of everything that followed. That doesn't imply either intelligent design or creationism or lack of independent will/action, or lack of randomness.

I agree with Kevin Bridges view of creation :o. Basically God DID create the world, and then he fucked off, cos being God he has other properties to look after.:) So we have been left with a giant "empty".

Anyway God (or his son) is going to come back one day and say "look at the state of this place, and have a "word" with the Archbishop of Canterbury,The Pope and all the other religious people he left in charge.

They are probably all going to get grounded. :o

So Mark doesn't use source Q? Ah. Is Q thought to be contemporaneous with Mark?

I'm not here, I'm doing my assignment. But if I were here I say no, Mark doesn't use it and I don't think it is contemporaneous with Mark. I believe it's earlier. I think it's thought to be various sources of direct quotations from Jesus which were written down at the time.

That's just reminded me of this song by Michelle Shocked:

God Is A Real Estate Developer :
God is a real estate developer
With offices around the nation
They say one day he'll liquidate
His holdings up on high
I say it's all speculation

He may be an absentee landlord
This may be a low rent universe
The roof may need repairs
But at least the floor is there
And the rent is not due til the first

So save one last dance for the Savior
When that final Hail Mary is said
Life is a dancehall
That's why we've got all those
Little angels dancing 'round with pinheads

The Lord Almighty Ltd
And his chosen elect
Sit on the Up on High Development Board
Quoting the Bible as they hoard
The Good Book has a new look, I suspect

Ah, I see. when you're back, you can pick up these thanks.

OP, in Genesis it says somewhere that Adam and Eve had lots of children. Cain and Abel were just two of the memorable ones.

I think this thread has moved on since the OP though

Seth was another one of their kids I believe

"Don't ask religious people for facts or reasons or evidence. They can't cope with it."

My faith is based on evidence.

Lots of answers to tough questions here:

www.christianityexplored.org/tough-questions

Metabilis3 - I guess you're trying to say that seemingly random mutations in genes that may generate variants conferring an advantage to the bearer in fact occur under the knowing, guiding hand of god? Or he has set up a system where he has allowed a random process to start?

Both of these would be indistiguishable from what we observe but can already explain with Darwinism.

In the first, this a pretty interventionist god! Why didn't he just get on and just make the bleedin humans and animals? I prefer the Darwin bit because it is a whole lot simpler -

In the second, your pope himself would disagree: that it is wrong to think there "evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning...If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature" . It also implies a pretty uninvolved god.

hackmum -- Rashi and Rambam commentary were around quite a while before Darwin and Wallace, as well as the previous commentaries on it. The traditional common understanding of Genesis within Judaism remains unchanged having been that the creation story is not historical for a few thousand years now.

There are various traditional complex understandings involving the difference in physics and metaphysics, among other things, but that goes well beyond my area of study.