Did Jesus evolve? for Flying Penguin, and other Christians from either side:

In an earlier thread where I, a non-believer, was defending the position that acceptance of science does not require one to abandon the Bible, when David aka Flying Penguin astutely pointed out that the Genesis 2 creation story has Eve formed from a sleeping Adam's rib.

Needless to say, this damaged my position that evolution was compatible with a sensible reading of Genesis. After consideration, I suggested that Eve was a "miraculous intervention", in an already divinely ordained creation process. Very unsatisfying to myself, and I'm sure, to David.

Further reflection brought me to this question: Jesus, the man - could it be that HE evolved from an ape-like ancestor? Clearly, the birth of Jesus is taken as miraculous under most readings of the Christian Bible. The interesting part to me is that even under this miraculous scenario, he had a natural human mother!

Being a non-believer, I am disinclined to speculate on the "meaning" of the Bible, but I cannot help but speculate on the potential "meaning" that Christians might find in the story of the Nativity. Could it be that the story of Jesus divine/natural birth (from a woman...) complements and points to a divine/natural origin of humanity?

Any thoughts?

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

If God was to have truly experienced being a human, then I would think, logically, he should experience it as wholly as possible, including being born as a human. Which makes me wonder a bit, did Jesus remember being born? I certainly don't. I recall an article where scientists showed it's actually impossible to remeber one's own birth because the brain is so undeveloped.

It also would have been intriguing to see Jesus raise a family, to more fully experience being human. Didn't that Last Temptation movie cover that a bit? I never saw it. (Jesus as a grandfather, imagine how'd he spoil his grandkids!) Anyway, just some silly thoughts.

- Joe

__________________
"It is often easier to fight for one's principles than live up to them."
- Adlai Stevenson

Thanks Joe V... now you've got the Judd's stuck in my head....

Grandpa, tell me 'bout the good old days....

Thanks a million. Good thing I've got the MP3 - that's a sure-fire cure.

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

Off the subject, _Last Temptation_ was an awesome movie; I credit it with a substantial portion of the hard part of my coming to terms with faith.

On the subject: It doesn't mean much to say that "Jesus evolved", any more than it means much to say that "Jerry Smith evolved". Could Jesus have been born into an evolved, rather than a created, species? I don't see why not; if He could be born human at all, I don't think the evolved/created distinction is going to be a big issue.

__________________
Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I follow Christ; therefore I am
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
. I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39

You are right about that. "Was Jesus born into a species that evolved" doesn't have quite the snap to it for a subject line though.

You notice that my post didn't really address that particular issue directly. It was the starting point of my thought that lead me to the nativity, then back to the origin of man. I was raised Southern Baptist, and the idea that "Jesus was a primate" would have struck me very odd in my youth.

I wonder how many people who can't accept evolution have a reservation for just that reason: that is they cannot imagine Jesus as having "come from monkeys" (so to speak). If so, would the fact that his was a divine birth by immaculate conception help accommodate such concerns? Would an argument that points to him being born of a woman and not man (when Eve, arguably, was a separate creation) unlink Jesus from our primate cousins in their minds enough to allow them to tolerate scientific finds?

I just thought it might be an interesting ramble...

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson

You talking about the physical shell that is required to operate physically in a material universe. So, did His shell evolve? Why not?

My thoughts are that once you accept that even one supernatural event has taken place (i.e. a divine/natural birth) at some point in history, there is no reason to think that another supernatural event (e.g. Creation) might not have also occurred. I think that's somewhat along the lines of what you are getting at with your correlation. At least, that's what I  infer by accepting the divine/natural birth of Jesus.

As you are well aware, Creation is supernatural by definition  -- it involves a God that is separate and distinct from His creation (e.g. natural laws.) If you accept the birth of Jesus to the virgin Mary, it is not a large leap of faith (relatively speaking) to also accept that the universe and species could have originated from an intelligent designer (e.g. God.)

The biggest "hump" to get over is that from a materialistic universe to a non-materialistic universe. Once you are over the hump, there is no prima reason to think that Creation could not have taken place.

So, how does one decide for sure? For a Christian, there are two significant "tools" that we use to decide whether we accept or reject an idea like Evolution.

1) The teaching of Scripture and our interpretation of it

2) Reason (based on the teachings of science, logic etc)

Sometimes 1) and 2) seem to directly contradict each other; in the case of Evolution, this initially seems to be the case. And if there is a direct contradiction, it must be either our reasoning which is incorrect (quite possible) or that our interpretation of scripture is incorrect (also quite possible.)

The more certain a Christian is of either one, the less they will be of the other. Given a 50/50 scenario, the Christian would probably favour the interpretation given by 1).

Personally, I see some reasonably clear contradictions between Evolution and my interpretation of the Bible. I also see some scientific reasons to believe that Evolution may not have taken place (though I admit, if we accept materialism to be true, it is the best theory out there). Therefore, until given reasons to believe otherwise (i.e. a significant change to 1) or 2) I am satisfied with what I believe the Bible says -- that the universe and species came from an Intelligent Designer and that that Designer is God.

 

__________________
Blessed are the merciful; for they shall be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God.
... Jesus

I keep getting the impression that most people can't accept that they evolved from monkeys, let alone Jesus. The notion that we evolved from some primordial ooze repels them, but I personally find it very humbling to consider what it took for us to be here today. Humans generally are a tenacious bunch. If you take evolution seriously, you can see why.

- Joe

__________________
"It is often easier to fight for one's principles than live up to them."
- Adlai Stevenson

Joe-

Good point. In fact, the idea that I could have formed from cosmic dust and eventually evolved into what I am today, is much more impressive to me, and speaks more of God to me, than to imagine I poofed into existence one day 6,000 years ago.

s0uljah,

You're 6000 yrs old?!?!?!



Tinker