Can we claim Jesus descended from an Ape and be Christian?

[Radrook]

Seems a bit strange to claim that the Son of God could ultimately trace himself back to a lower animal via Adam via the process of Evolution. IMHO

 

[Albion]

We do affirm that he was a complete human, just like the rest of us--except, of course, that he also had a complete divine nature, too. That being the case, I don't see anything strange or disturbing about this particular matter.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Seems a bit strange to claim that the Son of God could ultimately trace himself back to a lower animal via Adam via the process of Evolution. IMHO

I'm not sure why it's strange. There is nothing more "worthy" about human beings than any other part of the contingent creation that makes them "proper" targets for God's incarnation in Christ; rather, it is the divine choice of vessel itself which confers the worth.

Therefore, the notion that human persons were popped into existence in the form we currently occupy does not lend more or less propriety to humanity as the vessel of God's incarnation than if we assume, alternatively, that we have evolved over millions of years into the form we now occupy. In either case, it is decision of God--not the innate value of the vessel itself--that makes the appropriation of humanity by God in Christ an appropriate occurrence.

 

[Radrook]

We do affirm that he was a complete human, just like the rest of us--except, of course, that he also had a complete divine nature, too. That being the case, I don't see anything strange or disturbing about this particular matter.

Well, of course evolutionists who claim to be Christians and who see Christ descending ultimately from an ape don't see anything weird nor wrong nor unscriptural about it. Otherwise they would not propose it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seems a bit strange to claim that the Son of God could ultimately trace himself back to a lower animal via Adam via the process of Evolution. IMHO

Well, why not? If Jesus is the Creator--which I believe He is--it doesn't seem to me to be out of character for Him to take an interest in what it is to be fully human while at the same time fully God. I think Hebrews 2:14-15 seems to hint as much, even if it isn't specifically regarding the subject of evolution.

However, I'm not so sure that even Jesus, in His incarnate state, "knew" about the basic idea of evolution, being that He had a rural, Jewish upbringing. Unless, perhaps, he actually did procure a copy of Lucretious' book, "On the Nature of the Universe."

2PhiloVoid

 

[Radrook]

Well, why not? If Jesus is the Creator--which I believe He is--it doesn't seem to me to be out of character for Him to take an interest in what it is to be fully human while at the same time fully God. I think Hebrews 2:14-15 seems to hint as much, even if it isn't specifically regarding the subject of evolution.

2PhiloVoid

Of course it would seem that to be fully human one would need to be descended from the lower animals from the evolutionist standpoint. Once that evolution framework is accepted as an indisputable fact, then Jesus must be forced to fit into it by default if one wants to be a Christian. Nice try. However, and unfortunately, for the proponents of that idea, Genesis doesn't support it.

You see, Genesis makes a clear distinction between animals and humans by describing man as in his image. Which of course means that man reflects his heavenly qualities of Love, Justice Wisdom, and being much more powerful than any animal on this Earth will ever be.

Man is referred to also as a son. No animal is ever referred to in that special way in Genesis nor anywhere else in the scriptures. Of course, angels are called sons but they are classified as above man and as in a kind of older brother family relationship to us.

Neither is the prior creation of animals as described in Genesis a justification to assume ancestry of man since the Genesis account shoots that idea down by reminding us repeatedly that each reproduced only after their own kind. So the proposition requires blatantly ignoring that clear statement and proposing the complete opposite.

So the whole ape to Adam to Jesus idea is totally unscriptural.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course it would seem that to be fully human one would need to be descended from the lower animals from the evolutionist standpoint. Once that framework is accepted as an indisputable fact, then Jesus must be made to fit into it by default if one wants to be a Christian. Nice try. However, and unfortunately, for the proponents of that idea, Genesis doesn't support it.

You see, Genesis makes a clear distinction between animals and humans by describing man as in his image. Which of course means that man reflects his heavenly qualities of Love, Justice Wisdom, and being much more powerful than any animal on this Earth will ever be.

Man is referred to also as a son. No animal is ever referred to in that special way in Genesis nor anywhere else in the scriptures. Of course, angels are called sons but they are classified as above man and as in a kind of older brother family relationship to us. So the whole ape to Adam to Jesus idea is totally unscriptural.

I never said I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. You did, RR, but I didn't. The whole thing isn't incompatible as far as I'm concerned. Besides, the purpose of the Book of Genesis was more than likely as a polemic against the crass polytheism and reverse creation that was extolled in the myths of surrounding nations.

So, pardon my allusion to Galileo, but I don't think the book of Genesis has as much to do with explaining the nature of nature as it does with simply establishing that it was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who did the creating. The exact method of God's creation is up for grabs...and thereby, we shouldn't read anything more into the theology of the Imageo Dei than that when we see men and women, we know they reflect something about God's infinite genius.

But, you're welcome to your own interpretation, to some extent.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Seems a bit strange to claim that the Son of God could ultimately trace himself back to a lower animal via Adam via the process of Evolution. IMHO

We do not judge the Ways of the Lord, if the Lord wanted 13 billion Years to Create this amazing universe, Who are we to judge him?,

Isaiah 29:16

16 What a strange thought is this! As well might clay scheme against the potter; handicraft disown its craftsman, or thing of art call the artist fool.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

The exact method of God's creation is up for grabs...

Not only is it up for grabs, it is unknowable, precisely because there is no "method". However we explain our existence within the universe, it will ultimately be a material explanation that fits within the domain of the creation. That is, God doesn't "use" evolution, or spontaneous emergence of life, or any other naturalistic method to "create". The proclamation of creatio ex nihilo is the most profound statement, in that it encapsulates the utter mystery of creation, how the eternal, self-existent God can (and did/does/is) create that which is "other-than" God. The actual "mechanics" that we use to describe our observations of our existence within the universe are, therefore, not materially relevant to the mystery of God's creative acts.

 

[Hieronymus]

Seems a bit strange to claim that the Son of God could ultimately trace himself back to a lower animal via Adam via the process of Evolution. IMHO

It's preposterous and clashes with much of Scripture.

 

[Radrook]

I never said I believe in a literal Adam and Eve. You did, RR, but I didn't. The whole thing isn't incompatible as far as I'm concerned. Besides, the purpose of the Book of Genesis was more than likely as a polemic against the crass polytheism and reverse creation that was extolled in the myths of surrounding nations.

So, pardon my allusion to Galileo, but I don't think the book of Genesis has as much to do with explaining the nature of nature as it does with simply establishing that it was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who did the creating. The exact method of God's creation is up for grabs...and thereby, we shouldn't read anything more into the theology of the Imageo Dei than that when we see men and women, we know they reflect something about God's infinite genius.

But, you're welcome to your own interpretation, to some extent.

2PhiloVoid

No I am NOT welcomed to my own interpretation and nor is anyone else.

"Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" Proverbs 30:6.

The Bible isn't open to all or any interpretation as some believe. There are clear parameters in the Bible which strictly prohibit that anything-goes idea.

Actually, the only literary book which I ever heard being tagged as open to all and any interpretation is the Bible. Usually the accusation is proposed by persons who have heard someone else who heard someone else who heard someone else say it on the Internet and who took it for granted that it is true without ascertaining its validity. No, the Bible is not amenable to whatever interpretation suits the reader because such interpretations would invariably be unwarranted by the context-either the immediate context or the whole biblical message context.

The book of Genesis isn't amenable to being understood as indicating or teaching that man came via lower animals because it clearly makes a very sharp purposeful distinction between the twain and created a genetic barrier of kind reproducing after own kind. To say otherwise is to impose an idea alien concept on Genesis.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not only is it up for grabs, it is unknowable, precisely because there is no "method". However we explain our existence within the universe, it will ultimately be a material explanation that fits within the domain of the creation. That is, God doesn't "use" evolution, or spontaneous emergence of life, or any other naturalistic method to "create". The proclamation of creatio ex nihilo is the most profound statement, in that it encapsulates the utter mystery of creation, how the eternal, self-existent God can (and did/does/is) create that which is "other-than" God. The actual "mechanics" that we use to describe our observations of our existence within the universe are, therefore, not materially relevant to the mystery of God's creative acts.

Hi 'Alex,'

I understand what you're saying. But, I do think Howard J. Van Til (1999, see Moreland and Reynolds) has an interesting view on how we can slip evolution into the conceptual theological structure of the term, "Creation." He calls it the "the Fully Gifted Creation." Whether it's true or not isn't the kind of thing we can really get at and verify, as you've already stated above. But, I think his view point is an interesting conjecture.

Reference
Moreland, J. P., & Reynolds, J. M. (1999). Three views on creation and evolution. Zondervan.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Radrook]

It's preposterous and clashes with much of Scripture.

Would like to see an example of a clash. Thanks!

 

[Hieronymus]

John 1:1-3 for example, otherwise Genesis 1 day 6 obviously.
Is that enough?

[edit]
The creation of man is referred to in many other verses, like in Exodus' 4th Commandment.
"In His Image"

 

[tatteredsoul]

Bending of respective religious belief's to fit academia (as opposed to science.)

Not surprising in Christianity, but I am now seeing it more in other staunch philosophies and religions. It reminds me of how people amend arguments so as to not look odd, or unique.

Christ as a descendant of a monkey is borderline blasphemy to me. How could He descend from the thING He created? Did we already forget His birth was extra ordinary for human standards (no earthly father?)

And as Hieronymus quoted, in the begging was the word who WAS WITH GOD, AND IS GOD (not primate or descendant of.) And, man was made separate in class from other animals as per Genesis 1: it did not say God took a "rib" from Caesar the Chimp and made man.

How do we come to these fusions of doctrine?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No I am NOT welcomed to my own interpretation and nor is anyone else.

"Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" Proverbs 30:6.

The Bible isn't open to all or any interpretation as some believe. There are clear parameters in the Bible which strictly prohibit that anything-goes idea.

Actually, the only literary book which I ever heard being tagged as open to all and any interpretation is the Bible. Usually the accusation is proposed by persons who have heard someone else who heard someone else who heard someone else say it on the Internet and who took it for granted that it is true without ascertaining its validity. No, the Bible is not amenable to whatever interpretation suits the reader because such interpretations would invariably be unwarranted by the context-either the immediate context or the whole biblical message context.

The book of Genesis isn't amenable to being understood as indicating or teaching that man came via lower animals because it clearly makes a very sharp purposeful distinction between the twain and created a genetic barrier of kind reproducing after own kind. To say otherwise is to impose an idea alien concept on Genesis.

Hmmm... Well, Radrook, far be it from me to want to disagree with you and cause a stir (or even a row), but here we go...

So, what are these marvelous laws of hermeneutics and exegesis that we find comprehensively and judiciously placed in the Bible and which, if we can just accept them, should bring all of Christiandom back into interactive congruity, despite the 2,000 of haggling and blood-letting that has thus far taken place?

2PhiloVoid

 

[Radrook]

Hmmm... Well, Radrook, far be it from me to want to disagree with you and cause a stir (or even a row), but here we go...

So, what are these marvelous laws of hermeneutics and exegesis that we find comprehensively and judiciously placed in the Bible and which, if we can just accept them, should bring all of Christiandom back into interactive congruity, despite the 2,000 of haggling and blood-letting that has thus far taken place.

2PhiloVoid

The Bible tells us clearly that there is a difference between animals and people.
It sets a barrier of kinds generating only their own kind.
You claim that this confuses you and confuses millions of others.
Since I find absolutely nothing confusing about it, please explain how it is that it manages to confuse YOU.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Bible tells us clearly that there is a difference between animals and people.
It sets a barrier of kinds generating only their own kind.
You claim that this confuses you and confuses millions of others.
Since I find absolutely nothing confusing about it, please explain how it is that it manages to confuse YOU.

No, I asked you first. You made the assertion that the Bible is clear as to it's interpretive principles, so YOU need to back up your assertion(s). I'm not here to play "pin the tail on the donkey."

Personally, I've had to do a lot of study through the years to get to a point where I think I can understand the Bible. Yet, here you are, telling me that all this ponderous study is--essentially--unneeded. So, if it's so simple, then you can simply point to the various principles of interpretation that are laid out in the Bible, and VIOLA, I'll be a better man for it.

Have you ever read a book on hermeneutics, Radrook? If so, which one?

Additionally, as one who is familiar with the theory of evolution, man did not evolve directly from apes. (I'm guessing you already know this?)

Sophisticatedly Yours,
2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seems a bit strange to claim that the Son of God could ultimately trace himself back to a lower animal via Adam via the process of Evolution. IMHO

Here's another thought to add in. To say that the Son of God could trace Himself back to a lineage from a prehistoric state is not to say anything specific about Jesus being the incarnate Logos--the Logos who was previously abiding with the Father and separate from His creation. So, I can agree that it shouldn't be the case that a Christian can or would say that Jesus, as the Son of God, would have bothered much to explicate whether His humanity could be traced back to pre-historic or primordial times.

On the other hand, to believe that the theory of evolution helps to explain the formation and development of our world in no way implies a limit on God or a less than good status for his creation. A person should be able to be a Christian and still subscribe in a general way to the idea that Jesus' body was made from the ongoing processes of evolution--as long as we understand that that is hardly everything He was and is.

2PhiloVoid

 

[alexandriaisburning]

No I am NOT welcomed to my own interpretation and nor is anyone else.

Whether you feel yourself "welcome" to it or not, your own interpretation is precisely what the end result will be. While there are volumes and volumes of study aids that lend support for understanding (or trying to understand) context, genre, and the general role of the subjectivity of human thought in the process of interpretation, ultimately we are left with a dilemma: interpretation is never absolute, never objective...the end result is often what we thought we were going to find. Suspending all of one's conscious (not to mention subconscious!) interpretive biases is a difficult task indeed.

No, the Bible is not amenable to whatever interpretation suits the reader because such interpretations would invariably be unwarranted by the context-either the immediate context or the whole biblical message context.

This is assuming a lot. For example, the "biblical message context" is an open question altogether. The coincidence of the books of the Christian scriptures being bound together in a common volume does not, in and of itself, suggest or guarantee that there should be a meta-narrative that infiltrates every chapter and verse, providing an interpretive matrix for understanding the parts, as well as the whole. Such a belief is imposed upon the text, not only by those who compiled the canon (clearly they felt that there was a common message underlying the various writings), but more importantly by those who use this interpretive assumption in their analysis and subsequent theologizing. But let's not pretend that this "ruler" is an objective reality that is self-evident; no, it is a value judgment enshrined by those who believe that the Scriptures are, in some way or another, a unified testament to the working out of God's salvation in human history.

The book of Genesis isn't amenable to being understood as indicating or teaching that man came via lower animals because it clearly makes a very sharp purposeful distinction between the twain and created a genetic barrier of kind reproducing after own kind. To say otherwise is to impose an idea alien concept on Genesis.

Then don't do that. I see no reason why one can't affirm the usefulness of evolutionary theory for describing the natural processes that occur within the universe, while concomitantly affirming the mythos of the creation stories. Just as you don't feel Genesis is amenable to an imposition of evolutionary theory, perhaps you might consider that it is equally not amenable to the interpretation that you would seek to impose...