Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christ making statements about Creation
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 16 of 83 (521183)
08-26-2009 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ochaye
08-25-2009 8:24 AM


More to the point is that just because Jesus believed in the flood (past tense) does not mean it was the same flood that the fundamentalists believe in. Luke 17:26-30 shows that it could have been a local flood that He believed in, not a universal flood. After all, the word "all" as in "destroyed them all" is also used for Sodom and there "all" only applies to the people in a local region.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ochaye, posted 08-25-2009 8:24 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ochaye, posted 08-26-2009 12:40 PM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 28 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 8:16 AM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 36 by themasterdebator, posted 09-05-2009 3:03 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 17 of 83 (521199)
08-26-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by greentwiga
08-26-2009 11:30 AM


The thought that Jesus was not a literalist, or was a literalist, but it doesn't matter if he was, is too much to contemplate.
If social scientists wish to investigate this remarkable phenomenon, I can give them a few ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by greentwiga, posted 08-26-2009 11:30 AM greentwiga has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 18 of 83 (522257)
09-02-2009 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by ochaye
08-25-2009 8:24 AM


Even if Jesus believed in a literal, historic flood, it does not mean that it happened.
The attitude of Jesus towards the Old Testament is what convinced me that I should read and believe the Old Testament. I reasoned that if it was OK for Jesus Christ it must be OK.
Less attractive to me is the implication that Jesus Christ was deceived, or mistaken about the facts (being Son of God).
But this thought came to me by gradual process and I can understand that others may not be at the juncture. But, Jesus seems to anticipate that His usage of references to historical Genesis to warn of the last days, is likely to be dismissed.
So to assure that His discussion is to be taken seriously, He adds:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall by no means pass away." (Luke 21:33)
In parallel passages to Luke 21 He refered to Noah's flood and Sodom's destruction - (Luke 17:27-30)
As to the question of can a person be Christian who is an evolutionist or theistic evolutionist ? Of course they can. The only requirement to receive eternal redemption is to believe into Christ.
The classic hymn "Just As I Am" captures this truth well in the line:
"Just as I am, though tossed about,
With many a conflict, many a doubt,
Fightings within and fears without,
Oh Lamb of God, I come, I come."
(I think I have it right).
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ochaye, posted 08-25-2009 8:24 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ochaye, posted 09-03-2009 4:48 AM jaywill has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 19 of 83 (522262)
09-02-2009 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
08-25-2009 7:55 AM


I think though, to make a case that Christ didn't believe in His own Jewish history, is a bit of a stretch, afterall, he uses the scripture to prove His own case, such as quotes from Isaiah and Daniel. It's clear that He believed the veracity of the scriptures, saying that they spoke of Him.
Wait a minute: so, a character in a book, uses other parts of the book, to prove he is who he says he is? Or does the book just say that?
How do I sign up for this jesus dude? he's the shit!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:55 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 6:14 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 20 of 83 (522368)
09-03-2009 12:45 AM


CS Lewis wades into the debate
Here is what CS Lewis, (who had no problem with evolution) writes in the book "Miracles".
quote:
Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology — the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jaywill, posted 09-03-2009 8:34 AM GDR has replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 21 of 83 (522378)
09-03-2009 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by jaywill
09-02-2009 6:57 AM


quote:
As to the question of can a person be Christian who is an evolutionist or theistic evolutionist ? Of course they can. The only requirement to receive eternal redemption is to believe into Christ.
There were Pharisees in Jerusalem who tried to persuade Christians that they needed to be circumcised if they were to be justified before God. Paul wrote of 'foolish Galatians' who believed that idea. There are likewise people today who try to persuade Christians that they need to take a particular view of early Genesis. The danger lies not in what one believes about early Genesis, but just in thinking that anything beyond faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross is needed, because it diminishes that work of Christ, and in effect says that he is not divine, that his righteousness is inadequate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jaywill, posted 09-02-2009 6:57 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jaywill, posted 09-03-2009 8:28 AM ochaye has replied
 Message 37 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 12:02 AM ochaye has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 22 of 83 (522405)
09-03-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by ochaye
09-03-2009 4:48 AM


There were Pharisees in Jerusalem who tried to persuade Christians that they needed to be circumcised if they were to be justified before God. Paul wrote of 'foolish Galatians' who believed that idea. There are likewise people today who try to persuade Christians that they need to take a particular view of early Genesis. The danger lies not in what one believes about early Genesis, but just in thinking that anything beyond faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross is needed, because it diminishes that work of Christ, and in effect says that he is not divine, that his righteousness is inadequate.
Let me comment on this. Personally, I don't recall anyone saying that for salvation's sake one had to have a particular view of Genesis. It may have happened. I have had some debates about Genesis. But I don't think I recall someone saying that one was not saved if one held a certain view of Genesis.
Maybe your experience is different.
Secondly, we should want to not only be saved, but also come into the full knowledge of the truth. This is according to God's desire.
"This is good and acceptable in the sight of our Savior God, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth." ( 1 Tim. 2:3,4)
I think eventually, after being saved in the sense of eternal redemption and the gift of eternal life, to continue on in God's economy we would want to come into the full knowledge of the truth.
To that end I would pray for myself and for others. That would include an adaquate and living understanding of Genesis that constitutes healthy teaching.
But I do agree that a view of Genesis should not become a modern "circumcisism" issue in terms of initial salvation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ochaye, posted 09-03-2009 4:48 AM ochaye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ochaye, posted 09-03-2009 9:17 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 23 of 83 (522406)
09-03-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
09-03-2009 12:45 AM


Re: CS Lewis wades into the debate
Here is what CS Lewis, (who had no problem with evolution) writes in the book "Miracles".
The C.S. Lewis I have read had a wry and cool attitude about some implications of Evolution. I recall him saying that people mostly believe in it because of metaphysical reasons.
I recall him saying in essence that it was a philosophy in which "goodness is what comes next."
Your quotation is interesting. I would however, like to read it in its full context.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 09-03-2009 12:45 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by GDR, posted 09-03-2009 10:56 AM jaywill has not replied

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 5239 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 24 of 83 (522411)
09-03-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by jaywill
09-03-2009 8:28 AM


quote:
Maybe your experience is different.
It is.
quote:
That would include an adaquate and living understanding of Genesis that constitutes healthy teaching.
And what is healthy? A literal view of early Genesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jaywill, posted 09-03-2009 8:28 AM jaywill has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 25 of 83 (522431)
09-03-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by jaywill
09-03-2009 8:34 AM


Re: CS Lewis wades into the debate
If you want to look it up it is part of a footnote that he wrote in Chap. 15 of his book called "Miracles". In my copy it is on the 4th page of the chapter.
Here is a quote from his book "THe Problem of Pain".
quote:
"For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of its humanity. But it was only an animal because all physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say 'I' and 'me,' which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgements of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jaywill, posted 09-03-2009 8:34 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 26 of 83 (522588)
09-04-2009 7:27 AM


About C.S. Lewis:
Although he wrote some good stuff he also lived at a time when there was no "creation science" and the only "science" avaliable was "evolutionary science". I find this very common with elderly christians as this was the only scientific explanation when they were young. The quotes in message 20 and 25 are pure speculation by lewis and do not have any scriptural support.
About Jesus believeing Genesis:
"46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" John 5:46-47
Yip, exactly.
Yes I believe you can be a christian while believeing in evolution, However I believe it is dangerous. Firstly, because you undermine the bible once and your likely to do it again. People lose their faith because of being taught evolution. You are also promoting an anti-biblical philosophy. You are saying that you believe man's word above God's (which is reminiscent of the Fall). And that God is a liar.
Even promoting these things, while it may not stop your faith, may very much weaken and stop the faith of a fellow christian.
Anyway it is not just Christ who takes Genesis literally, the other New and Old testament writers do so as well.
I'll finish this post with one of the ten commandments (these were inscribed by God himself!!)
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:8-11

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2009 8:02 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:21 PM Arphy has replied
 Message 38 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 12:13 AM Arphy has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 27 of 83 (522593)
09-04-2009 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Arphy
09-04-2009 7:27 AM


Faith and Literalism
Hi Arphy,
quote:
People lose their faith because of being taught evolution.
People also lose their faith after being told the Bible is inerrant and then subsequently getting a wake-up call that shows them it is not.
People also lose their faith after being fed falsehoods by "creation science" and subsequently realising that they were being duped.
Perhaps if you are concerned about loss of faith, people should not base their faith upon such shaky foundations.
quote:
You are also promoting an anti-biblical philosophy. You are saying that you believe man's word above God's (which is reminiscent of the Fall). And that God is a liar.
Of course, this is not what evolutionist-Christians believe.
The problem only exists at all if you insist upon a literal interpretation of Genesis. Millions of Christians, from St. Augustine onwards, have rejected the idea that Genesis was intended to taken literally. They view it as poetic and symbolic. That is not the same as saying that "God is a liar". The quotation from John you cite makes no statement on literal interpretation. It simply suggests that Jesus (or whoever wrote his lines) believed in the Old Testament. He may have believed in it, but that does not mean that he believed it in a literal sense. He may have been referring to a belief in its overall message. Only your interpretation makes this a comment on literalism or inerrantism.
You are creating a false dichotomy, man's word versus God's. In truth, there is no such conflict; the Bible may or may not be inspired by your god, but indisputably, it was written by men. The natural world on the other hand, was not and it continues to display the process of biological evolution.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 7:27 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 8:45 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 28 of 83 (522595)
09-04-2009 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by greentwiga
08-26-2009 11:30 AM


More to the point is that just because Jesus believed in the flood (past tense) does not mean it was the same flood that the fundamentalists believe in.
The verse you quote says that it was the flood of Noah's day!
Luke 17:26-30 shows that it could have been a local flood that He believed in, not a universal flood.
No it doesn't. how so?
After all, the word "all" as in "destroyed them all" is also used for Sodom and there "all" only applies to the people in a local region.
Yes, all of Sodom was destroyed. How does this support that when the bible says all the earth it actually means only a local area. The logic doesn't work. Otherwise you could just as well say that because noah's flood covered the whole earth therefore the destruction of sodom actually meant that the whole earth was judged with fire and brimstone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by greentwiga, posted 08-26-2009 11:30 AM greentwiga has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4433 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 29 of 83 (522604)
09-04-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Granny Magda
09-04-2009 8:02 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
People also lose their faith after being told the Bible is inerrant and then subsequently getting a wake-up call that shows them it is not.
People also lose their faith after being fed falsehoods by "creation science" and subsequently realising that they were being duped.
Perhaps if you are concerned about loss of faith, people should not base their faith upon such shaky foundations.
ok, maybe they might lose their faith, but again that is because 1.they believe that the bible is in error which is a lie.
2.They are "duped" by "evolutionary science".
As long as they act like the Beareans "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so." Acts 17:11 these situations above wouldn't happen.
The problem only exists at all if you insist upon a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Do you believe that God gave Moses the ten commandments? Is this symbolic as well? What isn't symbolic then? What about the red sea? Jericho? Did any of this happen?
In truth, there is no such conflict; the Bible may or may not be inspired by your god, but indisputably, it was written by men.
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction in right doing;
20First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,
21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 peter 1:20-21
Edited by Arphy, : see message 32

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2009 8:02 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2009 9:25 AM Arphy has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 30 of 83 (522617)
09-04-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Arphy
09-04-2009 8:45 AM


Re: Faith and Literalism
Okay Arphy, here is your problem as I see it;
1.they believe that the bible is inerrrant which is a lie.
So you believe that the Bible does contain errors? Interesting.
As long as they act like the Beareans...
You believe that Christians should test the Bible to see if it is true? Even more interesting.
With these two ideas under your philosophical belt, I can see absolutely no reason to believe Genesis to be literal. You agree that it could be errant. You also agree that it should be put to the test. Well I've got news for you bud; it has been tested and it flunked big time.
Back in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries, the primary explanation for the Earth and for life (amongst Western scholars at least) was Biblical. Theirs was the dominant idea. You know what? It fell apart under the sheer weight of contradictory evidence. There was no ideological war against religion. In fact almost all of the first real geologists and biologists were Christian. Genesis has been tested and failed.
What use is it if you claim to be willing to put scripture to the test if you ignore the results when they don't suit you?
2.They are "duped" by "evolutionary science".
If you are able to cite an example of the supposed errors in modern evolutionary science (that have eluded the world's most expert biologists), feel free to start a thread or take it to a thread where it is relevant. This might be a good bet; Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes . If you have any evidence of evolutionists "duping" people, I suggest you take it there (it's mostly creationist hoaxes so far...).
Do you believe that God gave Moses the ten commandments? Is this symbolic as well? What isn't symbolic then? What about the red sea? Jericho? Did any of this happen?
You are asking the wrong person. I am not and have never been a Christian.
2Ti 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God... blah, blah, blah...
a) Please don't just quote the Bible at me. It is no substitute for having a conversation.
b) You yourself just said that you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant. Then you quote Timothy and Peter apparently claiming the opposite. How are these statements anything other than incompatible?
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Added link.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 8:45 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 7:23 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 34 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 10:21 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024