Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Loudmouth]

yeah, it's one thing about cladistics I don't like, this sort of refusal to call them by what they are, like monkeys and primates and such, it ignores things like old world/new world monkeys and such in some ways, but still wants to call birds dinosaurs, no real consistency.

There is plenty of consistency. Whatever you call the common ancestor of a clade, you also call all of the branches that connect to that node. It is by far the most consistent method available.

The most arbitrary and inconsistent is the colloquial use of paraphyletic taxons, followed by Linnaean taxonomy.

 

[Doveaman]

Yes, incarnate means embodied, or, more precisely, enfleshed. The human Jesus was God Incarnate. However, the human Jesus is no longer around.

Are you saying that Jesus is no longer human?

Jesus became the son of God through his human incarnation, and he still remains the son of God through his human incarnation.

 

[lesliedellow]

Are you saying that Jesus is no longer human?

Jesus became the son of God through his human incarnation, and he still remains the son of God through his human incarnation.

If that is what you think, you can wave goodbye to Nicene orthodoxy.

 

[Doveaman]

If that is what you think, you can wave goodbye to Nicene orthodoxy.

Nicene who?

These highlighted parts of the creed I don't get. Maybe you can give me some clarity:

"We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father."

What's the difference between begotten and made?

And how could the Son be begotten of the Father without a mother?

And was Jesus of a different essence before he became the begotten Son?

 

[lesliedellow]

begotten from the Father before all ages,

Since all eternity past, the Son has received his being from the Father.

begotten, not made;

The Son receives his being from the father (begotten) but he is not a creature (made). There was never a time when he dud not exist.

of the same essence as the Father.

The Son shares in the Fathers being. I.e. he is not another god along side the Father.

 

[Doveaman]

Since all eternity past, the Son has received his being from the Father.

Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus was the Son since all eternity past?

You cannot have a father and son existing form all eternity past because a father always precedes a son and must therefore exists before the son.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father" -- (John 1:1-14).

In the beginning was the Word, not the SON.

The Word existed since all eternity past.

The Word then became the incarnate begotten Son of the Father when he became flesh.

The Son receives his being from the father (begotten) but he is not a creature (made). There was never a time when he dud not exist.

This is a contradictory statement.

If the Son received his being from the Father, then the Son did not exists until he received his being as a Son from the Father.

The Son, therefore, could not have existed since all eternity past.

 

[lesliedellow]

Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus was the Son since all eternity past?

John 1.

You cannot have a father and son existing form all eternity past because a father always precedes a son and must therefore exists before the son.

All language about God is necessarily analogical, because God is beyond human comprehension. In saying that the Second Person of the Trinity is the Son of the Father, it is meant that the relationship between the first and second person of the Trinity is analogous to that between a human son and father. It does not mean that the Son came from the Father's sperm.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father"

-- (John 1:1-14).

In the beginning was the Word, not the SON.

Read a bit further down. You can call the Second Person of the Trinity the Word, or you can call him the Son, or even Jesus. You are just playing with semantics.

The Word existed since all eternity past.
The Word then became the incarnate begotten Son of the Father when he became flesh.

This is a contradictory statement.

The word became incarnate, but he did not then become the Son.

If the Son received his being from the Father, then the Son did not exists until he received his being as a Son from the Father.

The Son receiving his being from the Father is something which is ongoing in eternity. You are are again trying to crassly equate it with human birth.

 

[Doveaman]

John 1.

John 1 tells us that in the beginning was the Word, not the Son.

All language about God is necessarily analogical, because God is beyond human comprehension.

I don't know where you got that idea.

It is true that mere humans cannot comprehend God, but God has given us the ability to comprehend him:

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"—but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. -- (1 Cor 2:9-10).

In saying that the Second Person of the Trinity is the Son of the Father, it is meant that the relationship between the first and second person of the Trinity is analogous to that between a human son and father.

So Jesus is not literally the Son of the Father, it's only an analogy.

It does not mean that the Son came from the Father's sperm.

It does not matter if he came from sperm or Spirit. The point is that the mother of Jesus was impregnated by the Father of Jesus. That's not a mere analogy. It happened literally.

Read a bit further down. You can call the Second Person of the Trinity the Word, or you can call him the Son, or even Jesus. You are just playing with semantics.

I am not playing anything. I am simply referring to the same scriptures you are:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father" -- (John 1:1-14).

Jesus is the Word who became flesh as the only begotten Son of the Father. In that order.

The word became incarnate, but he did not then become the Son.

Yes he did. He became the Son when he was conceived by his Father in the womb of his mother.

The Son receiving his being from the Father is something which is ongoing in eternity.

Sounds like you are making stuff up.

Jesus is already fully the Son. Fully God in fully flesh. There is nothing more to add to his being.

You are are again trying to crassly equate it with human birth.

Hey, Jesus did have a human birth. He was conceived in the womb of a woman and born of a woman, making his birth human just like ours.

Scripture also tells us that Jesus was not the Son since eternity past because eternity past has no beginning:

"For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"? -- (Heb 1:5).

"So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You." -- (Heb 5:5).

Jesus became the begotten Son of God "Today" in our time so that he could become our human High Priest as an advocate between humans and God.

 

[lesliedellow]

So Jesus is not literally the Son of the Father, it's only an analogy.
It does not matter if he came from sperm or Spirit. The point is that the mother of Jesus was impregnated by the Father of Jesus.

I stopped reading there. A god who has sex with a human being is an idea which belongs well and truly to paganism.

 

[Job8]

I see this all the time, it's become one of those knee jerk responses, but we did in fact evolve from monkeys if evolution is true.

How can this be called *clarification*? Looks more like somebody's making a monkey out of you.

 

[sfs]

How can this be called *clarification*?

Because it makes clear something that is often unclear: we did evolve from something that most people would call a monkey. That's what a "clarification" is.

Looks more like somebody's making a monkey out of you.

Huh?

 

[Job8]

Because it makes clear something that is often unclear: we did evolve from something that most people would call a monkey. That's what a "clarification" is.

Well that's an obfuscation. Mankind did not evolve from any other creature, since Adam and Eve were direct creations of God. BELIEVE IT!

 

[sfs]

Well that's an obfuscation. Mankind did not evolve from any other creature, since Adam and Eve were direct creations of God. BELIEVE IT!

Sorry, but putting things in caps doesn't make them happen. No, I don't believe for a second that Adam and Eve were direct creations of God. Unless you can give me some reason for thinking they were, that situation is not likely to change. (And no, "my reading of Genesis says so" is not a reason as far as I am concerned.)

 

[Job8]

Sorry, but putting things in caps doesn't make them happen. No, I don't believe for a second that Adam and Eve were direct creations of God. Unless you can give me some reason for thinking they were, that situation is not likely to change. (And no, "my reading of Genesis says so" is not a reason as far as I am concerned.)

Well then your Reading of Romans 5:12-21 should settle the matter.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Hieronymus]

I see this all the time, it's become one of those knee jerk responses, but we did infact evolve from monkeys if evolution is true.

This may seem pedantic, but by definition the common ancestor between monkeys and humans was infact a monkey, we would call it a monkey if we saw it today, it would fit all the criteria for being a monkey. it wasn't a modern one, but it was still a monkey.

The split from monkeys happened after new world and old world monkeys split, so humans are descended from old world monkeys wich would make our ancestors monkeys.

And you believe this?
Why?

 

[Hieronymus]

Are we animals, or aren't we?

Technically, yes.

If so, do we have animal instincts?

Definitely.

 

[Hieronymus]

Ape includes human.

According to whom?

 

[Aldebaran]

You don't have to "buy into" it. You have to behave according to society's rules or accept society's consequences.

Does that include buying into the teaching of the idea that our ancestors were monkeys? I wonder what consequence I will face if I don't accept that type of teaching...

 

[Hieronymus]

John 1 tells us that in the beginning was the Word, not the Son.
I don't know where you got that idea.

Maybe by reading beyond verse 3, brother.

 

[sfs]

Well then your Reading of Romans 5:12-21 should settle the matter.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

I don't see anything in there about the special creation of Adam. (Not that I think that everything Paul wrote was correct.)