Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2018 3:32 PM
284 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, Faith, GDR, ICANT, ooh-child, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (9 members, 275 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,342 Year: 17,165/29,783 Month: 1,153/1,956 Week: 150/506 Day: 86/64 Hour: 10/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Christ making statements about Creation
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 83 (520645)
08-22-2009 7:39 PM


In Message 126, Creation Guy wrote:

quote:
Christian - loosely means someone who follows the teachings of Christ. To another degree it would mean one who believes Christ was more than just a man - the Son of God. Now as the Son of God what he says is gospel, at least for we Christians.

That being said.
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Christ is recorded making statements about creation - The creation. Either Christ is mistaken which would negate his deity. Or he is correct.

As a Christian I would hope you would side with Christ. You can side with the teachings of man if you wish. Free will is yours.

What I cannot fathom is how you can say you are a Christian, but do not believe the words of Christ. You are trusting the suppositions and a belief they hold over acts they never saw (evolution)- over Christ?

I know of the theistic evolution and the two could not be more at odds. In one time is the miracle worker, in the other God is the miracle worker.

I'll end this post before I wander off too far - but being a Christian and being also a believer in evolutionism is at odds with one another at every level. At worst you are not a Christian (since you do not believe that He is God) see John 8:24), at best you are a confused Christian.

It is rough being a biblical fundamentalist.

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

This would lend credence to Genesis as well.


That being said.
Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

Christ is recorded making statements about creation - The creation. Either Christ is mistaken which would negate his deity. Or he is correct.

Let's look at it in context:

KJV Bible, Mark 10 writes:

2And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

3And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

The Pharisees at that time thought the Moses wrote Genesis and were familiar with the story, of course. Jesus is simply using something that they are familiar with to answer their question. This does not mean that Jesus must be making statements about his own opinion on the matter.

Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Same thing here, Jesus doesn't have to be saying that the flood actually ocurred in real life if he is just referencing a story, that he knows is fictional, but that the audience was familiar with and probably believed.

For an anology, consider that Jesus is talking with a modern nerd, instead of a Pharisee, and says:

"Just as the United Federation of Planets gave you the Prime Directive, you to shall not blah blah blah."

In the same way, this would not mean that Jesus is saying that the United Federation of Planets actually exists. He is just referring to something familiar.

You get my point?

As a Christian I would hope you would side with Christ. You can side with the teachings of man if you wish. Free will is yours.

What I'm getting at is that you have a false dichotomy here because Jesus doesn't have to be incorrect if he wasn't endorsing the statement as factual. Or at least, its a way to rationalize the two.

And I'm not trying to convince you that this must be right. I'm trying to explain how one can be a true christian and still accept evolution.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 1:01 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 6 by Phage0070, posted 08-23-2009 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:55 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 83 (520663)
08-22-2009 9:15 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Christ making statements about Creation thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 3 of 83 (520671)
08-23-2009 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
08-22-2009 7:39 PM


quote:
What I'm getting at is that you have a false dichotomy here because Jesus doesn't have to be incorrect if he wasn't endorsing the statement as factual. Or at least, its a way to rationalize the two.

And I'm not trying to convince you that this must be right. I'm trying to explain how one can be a true christian and still accept evolution.



Even if Jesus was endorsing the statement as factual, how does this conflict with theistic evolution? It simply says that God created males and females to be together--it says nothing about when or how God did this. I don't know any theistic evolutionist who would deny divine creation, so I don't see a conflict with Mk 10:6.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2009 7:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2009 1:24 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 83 (520673)
08-23-2009 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by kbertsche
08-23-2009 1:01 AM


Even if Jesus was endorsing the statement as factual, how does this conflict with theistic evolution?

quote:
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

I think they're interpreting this say that god created man as male and female in the very beginning when he made the Earth. Evolutionism says that the life that first arose on Earth was very primitive (i.e. asexual), and that sexual reproduction, thereby males and females, came much later.

I suppose you could counter-argue that with 'male and female' being the plan from the beginning, and that the evolution of them was their creation.

It simply says that God created males and females to be together--it says nothing about when or how God did this.

It says that males and females were created from the beginning... that's your when.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 1:01 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2594 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 5 of 83 (520680)
08-23-2009 3:40 AM


I have to ask, Catholic scientist, do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God ? I nthe sense that God inspired it.

--

I'm asking this because Luke does draw the genealogy of Jesus all the way to Adam (in fact, he ends it with: 'the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God'), while passing by Noah etc. without making any distinction between the ''fictional'' characters and the real ones, and so if you do believe that the Bible is God's word, them I mean why would he allow fictional characters in Jesus's genealogy ?

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 83 (520710)
08-23-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
08-22-2009 7:39 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Jesus doesn't have to be saying that the flood actually ocurred in real life if he is just referencing a story, that he knows is fictional, but that the audience was familiar with and probably believed.


Then it seems an incredibly poor choice to use a fictional story as an analogy to one that you want to present as being true. If the audience knows it is fiction then in essence Jesus is informing his audience that it is just a story; instructive and with moral tones, but not true. If the audience does *not* know it is fictional, then Jesus is equating another story with a lie they were too gullible to see through.

Either way it seems clear that Jesus is either incompetent or lying about the "coming of the Son of Man".


mike the wiz writes:

Rest-assured, I have thought it all through, as per usual.


ICANT writes:

If I don't know the answer what am I supposed to say I don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2009 7:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ochaye, posted 08-23-2009 5:33 PM Phage0070 has responded

  
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 7 of 83 (520722)
08-23-2009 2:48 PM


The logic that Jesus would refer to fictional characters in Genesis to support His teaching seems not strong in the following case:

"I say to you that it will be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that city" (Luke 10:12)

Jesus is saying that in some last judgment it would be more tolerable for the inhabitants of Sodom than for those of cities which turned away Christ and His apostles. This does not argue that a comparison would be made between actual people and fictional people in God's final judgment.

"And you Copernaum, who have been exalted to heaven, to Hades you will be brought down. For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matt. 11:23)

This argues for the evidence that the Genesis story of the destruction of Sodom was regarded as history to Jesus.

"Truly I say to you, It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." (Matt. 10:15)

He could not mean that it would be relatively more tolerable for fictional people at the last judgment than for real people.

Jesus also said that the Devil was a murderer from the beginning. It is logical that "the beginning" refers to something written in Genesis. The murder of Abel at the hands of Cain would be the best candidate for a murder in the beginning.

And that would indicate that Jesus took Genesis chapter 4 as history. Jesus also says "And Scripture cannot be broken." He must have believed the Old Testament Scriptures including Genesis.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 5:15 PM jaywill has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 8 of 83 (520748)
08-23-2009 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jaywill
08-23-2009 2:48 PM


quote:
The logic that Jesus would refer to fictional characters in Genesis to support His teaching seems not strong in the following case:
"I say to you that it will be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that city" (Luke 10:12)

Jesus is saying that in some last judgment it would be more tolerable for the inhabitants of Sodom than for those of cities which turned away Christ and His apostles. This does not argue that a comparison would be made between actual people and fictional people in God's final judgment.

"And you Copernaum, who have been exalted to heaven, to Hades you will be brought down. For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." (Matt. 11:23)

This argues for the evidence that the Genesis story of the destruction of Sodom was regarded as history to Jesus.

"Truly I say to you, It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." (Matt. 10:15)

He could not mean that it would be relatively more tolerable for fictional people at the last judgment than for real people.



Very good points. I think it is fair to conclude that Jesus considered Sodom to be a historical city.

Most Christians who consider the first few chapters of Genesis to be non-historical would agree with you. Most of these folks consider the historical part of the book to start in Gen 12, so would agree that Sodom is historical.

quote:
Jesus also said that the Devil was a murderer from the beginning. It is logical that "the beginning" refers to something written in Genesis. The murder of Abel at the hands of Cain would be the best candidate for a murder in the beginning.

And that would indicate that Jesus took Genesis chapter 4 as history. Jesus also says "And Scripture cannot be broken." He must have believed the Old Testament Scriptures including Genesis.



I see your logic, but this is not nearly as strong as your first point. It is conceivable that Cain and Abel were fictional examples of the sort of thing that the Devil inflicted on humanity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jaywill, posted 08-23-2009 2:48 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 08-25-2009 7:43 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3193 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 9 of 83 (520750)
08-23-2009 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phage0070
08-23-2009 12:28 PM


'Then it seems an incredibly poor choice to use a fictional story as an analogy to one that you want to present as being true.'

Like telling a parable, you mean?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phage0070, posted 08-23-2009 12:28 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Phage0070, posted 08-23-2009 6:47 PM ochaye has responded

    
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 83 (520754)
08-23-2009 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by ochaye
08-23-2009 5:33 PM


ochaye writes:

Like telling a parable, you mean?


Parables are more of a problem because anything can be claimed to be a parable. Whenever anything is proved to be false or is simply inconvenient, it becomes a parable. In essence it is an excuse to make it mean anything you please. They are not so bad if you can tell the difference between parables and non-parables... magic might be a clue-in, no....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ochaye, posted 08-23-2009 5:33 PM ochaye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ochaye, posted 08-23-2009 7:02 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3193 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 11 of 83 (520756)
08-23-2009 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phage0070
08-23-2009 6:47 PM


'Parables are more of a problem'

They sure are! They are a terminal problem to those who reckon that it's 'an incredibly poor choice to use a fictional story as an analogy to one that you want to present as being true.'

However hard they try to get round it.

Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phage0070, posted 08-23-2009 6:47 PM Phage0070 has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 12 of 83 (520963)
08-25-2009 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by kbertsche
08-23-2009 5:15 PM


It is conceivable that Cain and Abel were fictional examples of the sort of thing that the Devil inflicted on humanity.

Once again, in terms of the attitude of Jesus, He seems to have regarded it as history.

Here is another reason why Christ regarded Genesis 4 as history. In His long rebuke of the opposing Pharisees and scribes He concludes:

"So that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zachariah, son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Truly I say to you, All these things shall come upon this generation." (Matt. 23:35,36)

It is unlikely that Christ would hold them responsible for the blood shed of a fictional person by another fictional person. The crimes of persecution from Abel's murder to Zachariah's murder, must be counted by Jesus as history.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kbertsche, posted 08-23-2009 5:15 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by ochaye, posted 08-25-2009 8:21 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4621
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 13 of 83 (520968)
08-25-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
08-22-2009 7:39 PM


I think it is a sound point that you state that one can be evolutionist and Christian. I think that's true, or I would say it is based on experience of being evolutionist for a time while retaining my faith.

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.

I think we can conclude that He believed in the flood, I think you make hard work trying to make a case for an evolutionist Christ.

He believed in Moses, saying He spoke of Him. It would seem implausable to suppose that He would value the scriptures as truth, but deny a literal flood.

And why would he conquer death? Theologically that would become such a weak reason because if death was always there and blood and guts is "very good", then it follows that sine and death wouldn't have any theological meaning to Christ.

But yes, I think being a theistic evolutionist you can genuinely be born again.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2009 7:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ochaye, posted 08-25-2009 8:24 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 19 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2009 7:32 AM mike the wiz has responded

  
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3193 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 14 of 83 (520976)
08-25-2009 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by jaywill
08-25-2009 7:43 AM


'It is unlikely that Christ would hold them responsible for the blood shed of a fictional person by another fictional person. The crimes of persecution from Abel's murder to Zachariah's murder, must be counted by Jesus as history.'

This is to fail entirely to get the point. The point is that the opposition of the Pharisees to righteous people in one age will earn them condemnation and punishment for opposition to them in any age, in every age. Jesus mentioned the names of Abel, Zechariah and all the opposed prophets of Israel, to emphasise that the Pharisees were in diametric opposition to their own claimed culture and faith. That's an uncomfortable if unremarked lesson for many today, of course. Seeing a literal interpretation of Abel in this passage is quite beside that point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 08-25-2009 7:43 AM jaywill has not yet responded

    
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3193 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 15 of 83 (520978)
08-25-2009 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
08-25-2009 7:55 AM


'I think we can conclude that He believed in the flood'

Past, or future flood?

Even if Jesus believed in a literal, historic flood, it does not mean that it happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:55 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by greentwiga, posted 08-26-2009 11:30 AM ochaye has responded
 Message 18 by jaywill, posted 09-02-2009 6:57 AM ochaye has responded

    
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018