If Jesus had mutations, how was His sacrifice perfect?
If Jesus had no mutations, how can anyone say He evolved?
If Jesus had no mutations, how can anyone say He evolved?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Jesus was the Son of _Man_ not Men, does it follow He had less mutations or none?
- Thread starter Gottservant
- Start date
- Status
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
This is what happens when your theology is built upon anti-evolutionism rather than scripture.
Upvote
0
artybloke
Well-Known Member
What about a mutation makes someone or something "imperfect?"
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? Or "imperfect"?
Did Jesus look like a normal semitic human being of the 1st century AD or did he look like some ideal human being?
In which case, whose ideal? The Aryan ideal? The Greek ideal? The Victorian ideal?
Some of these arguments seem to get increasingly desperate.
What does "perfect" mean, anyway? Or "imperfect"?
Did Jesus look like a normal semitic human being of the 1st century AD or did he look like some ideal human being?
In which case, whose ideal? The Aryan ideal? The Greek ideal? The Victorian ideal?
Some of these arguments seem to get increasingly desperate.
Upvote
0
How could one possibly know?
By definition, the virgin birth is a miracle. How God selected the chromosone set is undiscoverable.
God could have made mutations to suit his fancy. He could merely have selected a set of chromosones from Mary to be 1/2 of what Jesus was. He could have created the whole set and implanted the embryo. He could have let Mary and Joseph have sex and controlled the outcome.
It simply isn't knowable.
By definition, the virgin birth is a miracle. How God selected the chromosone set is undiscoverable.
God could have made mutations to suit his fancy. He could merely have selected a set of chromosones from Mary to be 1/2 of what Jesus was. He could have created the whole set and implanted the embryo. He could have let Mary and Joseph have sex and controlled the outcome.
It simply isn't knowable.
Upvote
0
So you you guys think Jesus could make his own vitamin C since he didn't have the defective gene? What about all those broke genes that used to code for our sense of smell. Maybe Jesus had super smelling powers. Maybe he also had a tail. Too bad we don't have any of his blood/DNA because then we could also use it to see God's chromosomes. I bet his chromosome size must be amazing, even larger than rice!
I've never thought about such an insightful question.
I've never thought about such an insightful question.
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
Interestingly, "son of man" doesn't actually apply to men at all. You'll notice that this phrase in particular is the one that got him in trouble with the Jewish court as nothing else could possibly have invoked the concept of heresy. It's actually referring to a passage in the prophets (Isaiah? It's been a long time) and invokes the idea of him being God himself. It's really the reference that got him in trouble and you shouldn't be fooled by the literal meaning of "son of a man."
Anyway, it's yet another reason the OP is flawed -- it assumes that the phrase refers to one man, not multiple men when in fact the phrase refers to Jesus' divinity.
[EDIT]A little google searching suggests that this is rather controversial. The argument I'm referencing is that Jesus was citing Daniel, but "son of man" is certainly used to denote humanity elsewhere. Either way, I don't think there's any way at all to define "perfect" as somehow "without mutation." I mean, what exactly is the perfect human DNA sequence? If we all had the perfect sequence would we all be perfect like Christ (and if we someday replicate this sequence will we be cloning Christ?) I find it much more likely that Christ's DNA had next to nothing to do with his divinity.[/EDIT]
Upvote
0
I read once (no cite) that Son of Man invokes the concept of messiahship. I don't know the basis for that.
Upvote
0
staveoffzombies
Senior Member
- Dec 18, 2006
- 710
- 33
- 40
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
No offence, but it doesn't make sense to suggest that different posts are identical in value. If they were all zero in value, I would only have posted one.
Back to topic, I have to say that people's confusion on the basic premise of a perfect sacrifice is a little worrying. Do you need to be witnessed to again?
People assume you can believe evolution and still believe in Christ, as if for some reason evolution doesn't try to explain the birth of Jesus differently to the way He would. You can't. Jesus to evolution is an accident and you should all be wary of that. If you assert evolution, you deny the Holy Spirit.
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Is there anything that can be done to stop the deluge of crazy stream of conciousness threads like this one?
I personally ignore them, but they tend to knock quality threads that don't start with a nonsensical OP off the first page.
I personally ignore them, but they tend to knock quality threads that don't start with a nonsensical OP off the first page.
Upvote
0
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
afaik it's a reference to Daniel 7 where there is a prophetic messianic vision of "one like a Son of Man"
Upvote
0
- Oct 30, 2003
- 8,898
- 476
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
By this logic if you assert cell mitosis then you also deny the Holy Spirit. I'm sure the fallacy of this kind of reasoning is plain for all to see, note how no other Creationists are backing gottservant here.
Upvote
0
staveoffzombies
Senior Member
- Dec 18, 2006
- 710
- 33
- 40
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
So by accepting evolutionary theory...that means I somehow have to deny the virgin birth? How do you figure that?!
Upvote
0
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
Note again, this thread isn't really denying evolutionary theory, it's denying the presence of mutations in Jesus. Interestingly enough, all TEs here would probably admit that God could very well have created Jesus with any set of mutations God wanted. I mean, it was a virgin birth, but it was also not a clone of Mary so God obviously threw in SOME specially created genes.
That Jesus had one set of genes or another, really says absolutely nothing about whether mutations happen in populations or whether some organisms are more likely to reproduce than others within a population.
That Jesus had one set of genes or another, really says absolutely nothing about whether mutations happen in populations or whether some organisms are more likely to reproduce than others within a population.
Upvote
0
You assert that God works through natural causes for the purposes of Creation, rather than supernatural ergo you assert that the Holy Spirit was not responsible for the birth of Jesus, but Mary.
Although you are in error, stipulating otherwise is nothing more than an ad hoc attempt to salvage a failing theory.
You've been given an alternative (before the bogus theory even appeared) you should believe in it!
Upvote
0
I disagree, Jesus' genes show that mutations do not occur where sin is limited. Moreover Jesus' perfect life shows that where sin does not compel an individual, there is no reason to think that consummating a marriage factors into their thinking (thus throwing out the window any certainty that evolution will always happen).
If you can't fit Jesus into the theory of evolution, there is something wrong with the theory of evolution, not Jesus. Praise the Lord!
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
