Bottom line: Can a Christian believe in evolution and still be saved?

[Rachel20]

I think this slippery road is what they are mainly afraid of... that you will finish with "do we even need literal Jesus"?

And there was, in fact, a literal (historical) Jesus. If being made in God's image means man was made to walk uprightly (figurative for righteously), then it's no coincidence he also literally walks uprightly? Maybe the one mirrors the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And there was, in fact, a literal (historical) Jesus. If being made in God's image means man was made to walk uprightly (figurative for righteously), then it's no coincidence he also literally walks uprightly? Maybe the one mirrors the other.

The evidence for Jesus does exist. It is just not as well supported as some Christians claim. But what little evidence that does exist only supports the existence of a natural Jesus. Not a supernatural Jesus.

 

[Rachel20]

But what little evidence that does exist only supports the existence of a natural Jesus.

"little evidence" ? There is so much evidence, that "it's not even an issue for scholars of antiquity" ~Bart Erhman (an agnostic)

 

[renniks]

Sorry, but if one does that then one in effect refutes the entire Bible. If you say "It is all true or none of it is true" then finding one event that did not happen as told in the Bible and the whole thing falls apart. And there are quite a few events that did not happen as told in the Bible.

Only according to those who don't accept God's word as authoritive.
As I said if you pick and choose why would you choose to believe the crucial part?
Is a talking snake less likely than a man rising from the dead?

 

[timothyu]

only supports the existence of a natural Jesus. Not a supernatural Jesus.

Is a conduit to the Father super-natural?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is a conduit to the Father super-natural?

That would be on heck of a wire.

But seriously, it would probably be supernatural. Nor does there appear to be any evidence for such a conduit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"little evidence" ? There is so much evidence, that "it's not even an issue for scholars of antiquity" ~Bart Erhman (an agnostic)

Except when one looks at the evidence it is not that convincing.

There do not appear to be any concurrent records of Jesus. The oldest ones all tend to be over a generation after the fact. And none of them are eyewitness accounts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only according to those who don't accept God's word as authoritive.
As I said if you pick and choose why would you choose to believe the crucial part?
Is a talking snake less likely than a man rising from the dead?

Why should anyone accept the Bible, which you do not even know is "God's word" as authoritative. You may believe it to be God's word, but I am very very sure that you cannot support that claim. You can only believe it. Believing is not knowing. If you knew that it was God's word you could support your belief with a rational argument.

Since we can show events such as Noah's Ark never happened with evidence why would one believe something that is not supported by reality?

 

[Astrid]

And there was, in fact, a literal (historical) Jesus. If being made in God's image means man was made to walk uprightly (figurative for righteously), then it's no coincidence he also literally walks uprightly? Maybe the one mirrors the other.

Sometimes bears walk upright

 

[Rachel20]

Except when one looks at the evidence it is not that convincing.

It's convincing to this agnostic scholar. So what you really mean is that it's not convincing to you.

 

[Astrid]

"little evidence" ? There is so much evidence, that "it's not even an issue for scholars of antiquity" ~Bart Erhman (an agnostic)

Evidence for what? Supernatural events?

 

[Rachel20]

Sometimes bears walk upright

But man never walks on all fours

 

[renniks]

Why should anyone accept the Bible, which you do not even know is "God's word" as authoritative. You may believe it to be God's word, but I am very very sure that you cannot support that claim. You can only believe it. Believing is not knowing. If you knew that it was God's word you could support your belief with a rational argument.

Since we can show events such as Noah's Ark never happened with evidence why would one believe something that is not supported by reality?

This thread isn't about atheism vs theism.
Christians by definition have to accept the Bible as God's word. There's over 300 prophecies that were foretold and came true just in Jesus. We know approximately when some of them were written and it was long before Jesus lived on this earth.
It's rational to believe that is evidence of the Bibles authority. Jesus himself used the Bible as an authority also so his followers should follow his example.

 

[Astrid]

Only according to those who don't accept God's word as authoritive.
As I said if you pick and choose why would you choose to believe the crucial part?
Is a talking snake less likely than a man rising from the dead?

The prob there is thr dubious claim that this or that
actually is Gods word- and that anyone has the Truth
about exactly what the Word means.
Considering how much of what is so claimed just
does not match reality, id say something in there is clearly inauthentic..

 

[Subduction Zone]

This thread isn't about atheism vs theism.
Christians by definition have to accept the Bible as God's word. There's over 300 prophecies that were foretold and came true just in Jesus. We know approximately when some of them were written and it was long before Jesus lived on this earth.
It's rational to believe that is evidence of the Bibles authority. Jesus himself used the Bible as an authority also so his followers should follow his example.

No, you are wrong. There are over 300 verses that were reinterpreted after the fact, but when read in context they are not about Jesus. By the way, quote mining works both ways. If you can quote mine the Bible to support Jesus others can quote mine the Bible to disprove God. Both parties are wrong when they do this.

Here is a challenge, please pick your best prophesy that when read in context was about Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's convincing to this agnostic scholar. So what you really mean is that it's not convincing to you.

Actually he is an atheist. He has even admitted that, though he likes the term agnostic better. His conclusion is that he probably existed, and I do agree. But the evidence for him is not as strong as Christians claim. Ehrman would have agreed with everything that I said. In fact he has made all of those claims himself. I did not say or imply that Jesus did not exist. I merely pointed out that the evidence is not as strong as Christians like to believe. And of course Ehrman does not think that Jesus did miracles or rose from the dead. In fact he will point out that Jesus was probably not buried in a tomb. In those days part of the punishment of Roman crucifixion was leaving the body up and putting it in a public grave. Hebrew crucifixion was different. They would take the body down and bury it. Roman crucifixion is known much better than Hebrew crucifixion, but they both did exist.

 

[TLK Valentine]

This thread isn't about atheism vs theism.

Christians by definition have to accept the Bible as God's word.

Um, no... Christians by definition have to accept that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. There's no "definition" that requires the rest of the baggage.

There's over 300 prophecies that were foretold and came true just in Jesus. We know approximately when some of them were written and it was long before Jesus lived on this earth.

And the people who wrote about Jesus had all of those prophecies laid out in front of them.

It's rational to believe that is evidence of the Bibles authority. Jesus himself used the Bible as an authority also so his followers should follow his example.

And equally rational to believe otherwise. So here we are.

 

[renniks]

No, you are wrong. There are over 300 verses that were reinterpreted after the fact, but when read in context they are not about Jesus. By the way, quote mining works both ways. If you can quote mine the Bible to support Jesus others can quote mine the Bible to disprove God. Both parties are wrong when they do this.

Here is a challenge, please pick your best prophesy that when read in context was about Jesus.

So it was just coincidence that he fullfilled 300 prophecies? The odds are astronomical no matter the original context

 

[renniks]

And equally rational to believe otherwise. So here we are.

People are capable of deciding all sorts of things are rational. Like scientists belief in eternal matter. So claims of non theists side being the rational ones aren't really rational.

 

[renniks]

And the people who wrote about Jesus had all of those prophecies laid out in front of them.

But now they had a new understanding of what was being said because they saw the fullfillment.
You can't pick and choose which ones are true. Not if you are going to believe in the biblical Jesus.