Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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
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 replied
 Message 6 by Phage0070, posted 08-23-2009 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2009 7:55 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
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 seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 83 (522715)
09-04-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Arphy
09-04-2009 7:27 AM


Hello Arphy,
Welcom to EvC. I like your avatar.
Thanks for bringing up another possibility of Jesus saying the OT is literal and inerrant.
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
I like to use full context:
John 5, KJV writes:
36But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41I receive not honour from men.
42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
This can be read as Jesus referencing the OT as something familiar to the people he's talking to all the while not condoning it as literal truth.
It seems that Jesus could be saying that if they believed in Moses then they should believe in him and if they don't then they won't. This doesn't have to mean that Jesus is saying that Moses must have really written all that.
Like my example in the OP...
Me in the OP writes:
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?

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 33 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 8:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 83 (522881)
09-06-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Arphy
09-04-2009 8:10 PM


Moses did write the pentateuch
I'm not convinced, but I don't care to argue that here. It doesn't matter to the topic.
It seems that Jesus could be saying that if they believed in Moses then they should believe in him and if they don't then they won't.
ok, so why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses?
It seems like Jesus was saying that if they couldn't believe Moses, then they wouldn't be able to believe Him.
You get my point?
ok so if a fictional work gives a command we should beleve it? We only take commands from real people not hypothetical people. Just because some fictional work commands something shouldn't influence my actions.
Jesus used "fictional work" a lot, aka parables, so yeah... fictional works are capable of giving us commands that we should believe in.
Remember, I'm not demanding that you accept my interpretation as the right one, I'm claiming that it should be allowed as a possibility. So that one can be both Christian and evolutionist, or lessly "not-Creationist".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Arphy, posted 09-04-2009 8:10 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 7:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 83 (522882)
09-06-2009 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by truthlover
09-06-2009 12:02 AM


Whoa!
hey truthlover! long time not see (9 months!)
You're looking well. How's the camp coming along? How are the kids?
So Jesus can be "divine" and give himself on the cross as a "finished work," but not know whether there was a genesis flood or not?
Can you really think both things, or am I misunderstanding you?
It seems that me and you are working under the same assumptions in this thread.
Mind you, I believe in evolution, and I believe in a local, not worldwide, flood. I'm not a literalist, and I'm not very worried about scientific errors in the Bible, but if Jesus is the Son of God, he has got to know how the world was made and whether it flooded or not.
Doesn't he?
I think he would. Which is why I doubt he supports a literal creation interpretation. And I haven't found any passages yet that must suggest otherwise.
By the way, I really liked Message 29 that you wrote.
You should contribute more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 12:02 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by truthlover, posted 09-06-2009 1:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 83 (524542)
09-17-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Arphy
09-06-2009 7:44 AM


It seems that Jesus could be saying that if they believed in Moses then they should believe in him and if they don't then they won't.
ok, so why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses?
It seems like Jesus was saying that if they couldn't believe Moses, then they wouldn't be able to believe Him.
I don't think you answered my question. why do you think that it was important to jesus that they believe moses?
I think I did answer your question. It was important to Jesus that they believed Moses because if they couldn't believe Moses then they couldn't believe Him.
Jesus used "fictional work" a lot, aka parables, so yeah... fictional works are capable of giving us commands that we should believe in.
parables can give illustrate commands that exist anyway but the commands don't originate because of the story. Perhaps "doctrines" would be a better word to substitute in for "commands".
Hrm. So then in Message 33 you're saying:
quote:
ok so if a fictional work gives a command doctrine we should beleve it? We only take commands doctrine from real people not hypothetical people. Just because some fictional work commands indoctrinates? something shouldn't influence my actions.
So what are you saying here? That no doctrine comes from fictional stories or people so that since some doctrine came from the story and/or person then it/they cannot be fictional? Is that your argument?
So that one can be both Christian and evolutionist, or lessly "not-Creationist".
Again, I'm not saying that a person is a christian because they believe in evolution, but i do think it is a dangerous position and is no longer "biblical-woldview"
I can be a "biblical-worldview". But what it can't allow for is a literal and inerrant Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Arphy, posted 09-06-2009 7:44 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024