Christianity... and the fact of evolution

[2PhiloVoid]

That is a tough one, I admit, but I could speculate that it means the knowledge of when the last day/hour was hidden from the Son (Jesus) while on earth by design. No, I do not know the why to it all. It could equally mean that the humanity did not possess this knowledge and that the God side did. The three are one we do know. For me this topic falls under the category of "knowledge too wonderful for me to attain" as King David writes in the Psalms.
The fact that Jesus was all-knowing (perhaps not as touching upon the last day...we or at least I do not know) is evidenced in many other Bible passages...some of which I have already quoted to you.

How about this one: Matthew 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Didn't Jesus know why the Father had forsaken Him?

 

[Anguspure]

Genesis has nothing to do with science. It's a historical record of the creation of the universe and of all living things within the timetable God describes. Genesis explains why man was created, why sin and death came into the world, how mankind became so corrupt God wiped the slate clean and started over with one family, and how God personally interacted with man from the beginning.

Genesis makes truth claims that might be verified scientifically. For example the first verse claims that a Person created the heavens and the earth.
The principle of persons creating things could be tested scientifically by observation and repetition and an investigation as to things that aren't persons, that create other things, could be conducted so that a scientific conclusion as to the likelyhood of a Creator cause for the universe as opposed to a cause that is not a creator be arrived at.

 

[Anguspure]

How about this one: Matthew 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Didn't Jesus know why the Father had forsaken Him?

Read Psalm 22.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Genesis makes truth claims that might be verified scientifically. For example the first verse claims that a Person created the heavens and the earth.
The principle of persons creating things could be tested scientifically by observation and repetition and an investigation as to things that aren't persons, that create other things, could be conducted so that a scientific conclusion as to the likelyhood of a Creator cause for the universe as opposed to a cause that is not a creator be arrived at.

But...has a person ever created an entire universe? That's how the scientific verification would work.

 

[Anguspure]

So, you think Jesus knew advanced Calculus? Really?

Jesus created calculus.
Really!
This is what we believe about Him: The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Read Psalm 22.

Yes, I already know that. But that is beside the point for someone who reads the Bible as Plain Language. The requirement to understand that an allusion to a Psalm is being made by a Jewish mind in Matthew 27:46 doesn't communicate directly a "plain language" interpretation of the text. There's some communication "coding" going on that an expositor of the text in Matthew has to be aware of in order to understand what Jesus is getting at. But, it also doesn't displace the possibility that at that moment, Jesus actually may have "felt" His usual connection with the Father slip.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus created calculus.
Really!
This is what we believe about Him: The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

It might behoove you to try to understand what I "mean" by what I say rather than placing a judgment via a plain language assumption. Although I don't expect you to have read all of the preceding posts I made leading up to the one you commented on, in order to understand what I've been driving at, you would have to read some of my previous posts. It's this kind of thing that wears me out in trying to fellowship with other Christians, especially if I divulge that I "believe in evolution," or take a non-literal approach to Genesis 1.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anguspure said: ↑
Jesus created calculus.
Really!
This is what we believe about Him: The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Anyway, yes Jesus created a universe by which we could grapple it with Calculus....but He did that in His pre-incarnate form ...

 

[Anguspure]

But...has a person ever created an entire universe? That's how the scientific verification would work.

The question is whether the fundamental nature of reality is things (other than persons) or persons (or a mind).
If the fundamental nature of reality is things then then we should be able to establish that things other than persons , that are capable of existence beyond the universe space time (such as numbers for example), have inventive influence, or causal power.
Thus far this has not been established and it looks fantastically unlikely.
If the fundamental nature of reality is a person or persons, and persons have been observed to have inventive influence and causal power, then it follows that all things were caused by a person.
Actually creating a whole universe might be a whole lot less mysterious than we think. If the thinking of string theorists relating to matter being a vibration and the observations of quantum relating to observer determination have got anything to do with it then a mind with sufficient power could in fact "speak" a universe into existence.
And God said...

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible isn't a seamless piece that fell from the sky with an NIV sticker on it.

Ouch!

That one stung!

 

[throughfiierytrial]

How about this one: Matthew 27:46 "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Didn't Jesus know why the Father had forsaken Him?

He was suffering hell for all mankind. His cries inform us that the humanity of Jesus suffered and it also reveals to mankind exactly what took place on the cross. He was descending into hell...He was separated crying out to the Father and descended and in so doing all know from what is written in the Scriptures of that day both the agony Jesus suffered for each of us and gives us a glimpse of the agony of hell...it is torment to be separated from God. Many believe that this separation is alone hell enough!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Time itself was created at the beginning of the universe, and time itself, as well as space expanded into the very large space time that we inhabit.
This means a period of time equivalent to 6 terrestrial days (as is implied by Moses) may in fact appear to be a lot longer time from an observation point within the created universe.

This is one inference from General Relativity and has been expermientally verified. The Rabbi Maimonides, in the 12th century determined this from the first verses of Genesis and of course the work of Albert Einstein brought the idea into popular scientific thought.
This article is informative: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

So given the difference in perspective that relativity yeilds, who would be lying about how long things took to the person who claimed 6 days or the person who claimed a much longer time frame from their observation point? The answer is that neither is lying.

We can take the word of God literally because He is the Creator and the one who is telling the story from His perspective but we can also understand that time and space itself unfolded as it was created to make a space and time big enough for Gods creation to dwell within.

This is understanding and means that while we can confirm in our own minds that the observations of an apparantly old universe and earth are valid, we don't need head down some slippery slope of maligning the integrity of God.

It find it interesting, and a bit suspicious that you rely on Dr. Schroeder's non-plain-language explanation to try to justify his interpretative measure and hang onto a plain-language interpretation. Schroeder states:

We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks.

That might seem like a modern rationalization, if it were not for the fact that Talmudic commentaries 1500 years ago, brings this information. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), an expansion of the Talmud, all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam, and that the Six Days of Genesis are separate.
​

Anybody else on board with Dr. Schroeder here? Anyone?

 

[Uncle Tommy]

Edited: Further considering the issue.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

The question is whether the fundamental nature of reality is things (other than persons) or persons (or a mind).
If the fundamental nature of reality is things then then we should be able to establish that things other than persons , that are capable of existence beyond the universe space time (such as numbers for example), have inventive influence, or causal power.
Thus far this has not been established and it looks fantastically unlikely.
If the fundamental nature of reality is a person or persons, and persons have been observed to have inventive influence and causal power, then it follows that all things were caused by a person.
Actually creating a whole universe might be a whole lot less mysterious than we think. If the thinking of string theorists relating to matter being a vibration and the observations of quantum relating to observer determination have got anything to do with it then a mind with sufficient power could in fact "speak" a universe into existence.
And God said...

That's a real nonsensical word salad there.
Let's quit going for the wild, esoteric stuff, and go for plain ideas. String theory is something that changes often. So, one more time...let's ask the simple question...is there ANY repeatable evidence available that a person has ever created a universe? If yes, then I'd love to read the papers. If not, then...it seems that this sort of thing is impossible.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He was suffering hell for all mankind. His cries inform us that the humanity of Jesus suffered and it also reveals to mankind exactly what took place on the cross. He was descending into hell...He was separated crying out to the Father and descended and in so doing all know from what is written in the Scriptures of that day both the agony Jesus suffered for each of us and gives us a glimpse of the agony of hell...it is torment to be separated from God. Many believe that this separation is alone hell enough!

Oh, Gosh!!! Jesus went to hell? I disagree with that, but, here's the thing. If you want to believe that specific interpretation, I won't condemn you for it; in fact, I won't even call you a heretic. I'd just suggest, my sister in Christ, that you do some deeper theological study.

Jesus' quote of Psalm 22 clearly expresses His anguish while upon the cross; it also expresses His recognition that He was fulfilling that very Scripture (by being pierced), as well as His hope in the Father to be "delivered" from death.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Read Psalm 22.

That doesn't answer his question. The question was, "Didn't Jesus know why the Father had forsaken him?". So the mere fact that the question was prophesied does not invalidate the issue of what Jesus knew on the cross. Isn't it really just a distraction?

 

[pat34lee]

You do understand what an allegory is, don't you?

There is allegory and there is history. They are clearly defined where used.
Otherwise, as I said, it is impossible to tell history from fable.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It would demonstrate intelligent design -- and as I always say: Intelligent design can take a hike.

Oh I know it wouldn't be decisive . . . but you weren't the one to claim it as an argument, either. My point is, its not really an argument against evolution, since as soon as scientists make life creationists will go right on disbelieving in evolution anyway, and therefore it was always a false argument, and everybody should know it is a false argument.

In your case, everybody knows you don't even bother with logical arguments or evidence anyway.

 

[pat34lee]

the stuff that there's observable objective evidence agaist that makes more sense taken as metaphor and allegory anyway is where I draw the line.

Not to mention the myriad contradictions in "his word".

The only contradictions are in the translations and interpretations of the word.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't answer his question. The question was, "Didn't Jesus know why the Father had forsaken him?". So the mere fact that the question was prophesied does not invalidate the issue of what Jesus knew on the cross. Isn't it really just a distraction?

That's the only time you see Jesus refer to Him as "God."

God the Father has turned His back on His Son, and their relationship has temporarily been severed.

God is either your Father, or He is your God (Judge).

Don't die without Him.