Evolution makes Jesus a liar

[pro_odeh]

I briefly brought this up in another thread; Think about it ;But I could not resist answering the objections, so I made a new thread. This is shortly what I said:

Matthew 19:4 - And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Jesus said this. Now if you think that the 6 days in Genesis was actually millions of years, or that man evolved from animal, you are making Jesus a liar. And I think we all know what that has to say for our salvation!

Two things: everything Jesus says in the Gospel is reported many years after he said them, and thus is unlikely to be his exact words, but is more likely to be his meaning expressed in an easily memorable form.
It is reported by people

Things He said in the Gospels are reported by eyewitnesses, they were only written down (as far as we know) years later.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

In other words, you are saying that the writers of the Bible, inspired by God, got this wrong?

Secondly, Jesus, like every good speaker, was trained in the arts of rhetoric. That is, he knew how to speak in a memorable way, could use imagery and analogy and other literary tropes to express his thoughts, and doesn't have to speak literally.

Is that also in the Bible, that Jesus was TRAINED?
Anyway, what relevance does that have with these passages? Is male and female a metafor too?

Thirdly, why would Jesus be aware of evolution anyway? Methinks your Jesus isn't really human (which would be counter to the incarnation.)

Jesus is 100 % human, and 100 % God, only in that matter is the salvation possible!! this is part of the trinity teaching, if you have not looked into it, I suggest that you do!
Also, you are saying that God is not omniscient??

God bess!!

 

[neverforsaken]

by the time homosapiens were in the picture, they had both male and females. the only animals that i know of that arent male and female are microscopic in size. And just because they may have evolved, doesnt mean God didnt make them.

 

[artybloke]

Jesus is 100 % human, and 100 % God, only in that matter is the salvation possible!! this is part of the trinity teaching, if you have not looked into it, I suggest that you do!
Also, you are saying that God is not omniscient??

No, but I am suggesting that while he was on earth, Jesus was 100% human and "did not count equality with God a thing to be pursued": in other words, that Christ gave up all the attributes of divinity - including omniscience - in order to be fully human. While Christ's divine nature was present, he did not call upon it.

In otherwise, to use a phrase I first heard from the Orthodox, "what is not assumed is not redeemed." If Christ did not take on board our whole humanity - including our limitations of knowledge, and our being creatures of time - then that part of our humanity that he didn't assume isn't redeemed.

Regardless of whether he could do or not, I do not believe that Jesus called upon his divinity throughout his ministry. When he said "My God my God why have you forsaken me?" it was a real cry of despair; because he takes upon himself our despairs and our suffering, our suffering and our despairs can be redeemed. That, to me, is the scandal of the cross: that God became exactly like us (except without sin) and saved us in our human limitations.

Things He said in the Gospels are reported by eyewitnesses, they were only written down (as far as we know) years later.

Eyewitnesses who then told others, who told others, who told the writers of the Gospels. They would have remembered what he said in easily-digestable chunks.

Is that also in the Bible, that Jesus was TRAINED?

According to the tradition reported in the Gospels, he was debating with the priests at the age of 13. Many of his sayings reveal a knowledge of the scriptures and of rabbinical teaching that could only come from deep study, probably under the local rabbi at the very least. He was called Rabboni, which suggests that for many he had the status if not the office of a rabbi. Yes I believe he was trained; he was also an original enough thinker to come up with his own thoughts.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/mark10.htm

 

[rmwilliamsll]

http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/mark10.htm

thanks for the short informative essay link.


the question must be asked:
from the beginning of WHAT, is Jesus referring to?

apo de arkes ktiseos

see: http://custance.org/Library/Volume6/Part_III/Chapter2.html
for a defense of the gap theory with very low level textual analysis

see:
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html

for an explanation that it refers to the beginning of the creation of the two creatures-Adam and EVe and not the creation of the universe.

after all the context is marriage not a scientific account .


...

 

[Critias]

http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/mark10.htm

Rather interesting read. You have several errors in your essay. You also build on sand as your foundation by asserting Jesus wasn't really completely God which is in opposition to Paul's teachings.

In your creed, you have added "born of the Father" which refers before creation that Jesus was created and not the forever I AM as He said He was.

Phillippians 2:6-8 is completely misunderstood in your essay.

Your presupposition is that Jesus could not be fully God in His incarnation here on earth, therefore you read the Bible inserting this meaning into the text.

The complete Godhead existed in Jesus Christ bodily.

 

[PaladinValer]

That article doesn't suggest at all that Jesus wasn't completely God. Reread it.

As for the "born of the Father," the Creed given states just before "only-begotten." To be born in this case means that the Son derived from in nature of the Father, just as I derived from the nature of my mom.

And Christ did become human as well, with indeed all the frailties.

His linked essay is valid.

 

[Critias]

His statement is thus:

"In order to become truly man, Jesus gave up much of His divine attributes. Paul puts this in ways that seem dangerously close to saying He gave up his divinity itself:"

He goes on to talk of the Phillippians verse which he interprets with his presupposition of Jesus not having the complete Godhead within Him, bodily. Thus pitting Paul against his ownself, within his many letters.

He added the part "born of the Father" into the Creed when it is not there from the original creation of it. Born of the Father is to say Jesus is not the forever I AM. That He was indeed created, thus not part of the Trinity in an eternal sense.

You were derived or created inside your mothers womb. Before creation, Jesus was not created or derived from the Father. He always existed with the Father. This is pure agnostic teaching to say Jesus was created before creation by the Father.

My argument is not that Christ wasn't human.

Secondly, his essay seems to suggest that Jesus only knew Aramic, which is incorrect. Scrolls of the Old Testament at the time of Jesus were in Greek as well as Hebrew and Aramic. Most Jews spoke all three languages at this time.

Lastly, Mark 10, which most likely was written down by Mark giving the accounts of Peter's experiences with Jesus, is about marriage and divorce, but Jesus also says what God's original intent for man was in the beginning.

His essay here is nothing less than a challenge of Jesus' authority.

 

[PaladinValer]

No, Critias, the Creed gave both "begotten" and "born." Please learn to read in context.

Your posts make no logical sense.

 

[Critias]

From an Angelican site:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:"

From his website he says:
"the only-begotten son of God and born of the Father
before all worlds, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true
God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom"

The bolded, underline (emphasis mine) is an addition to the Nicene Creed that is not part of it.

Please, present your argument of why Jesus Christ did not embody the Godhead completely.
all things were made.

 

[pro_odeh]

No, but I am suggesting that while he was on earth, Jesus was 100% human and "did not count equality with God a thing to be pursued": in other words, that Christ gave up all the attributes of divinity - including omniscience - in order to be fully human. While Christ's divine nature was present, he did not call upon it.

In otherwise, to use a phrase I first heard from the Orthodox, "what is not assumed is not redeemed." If Christ did not take on board our whole humanity - including our limitations of knowledge, and our being creatures of time - then that part of our humanity that he didn't assume isn't redeemed.

Regardless of whether he could do or not, I do not believe that Jesus called upon his divinity throughout his ministry. When he said "My God my God why have you forsaken me?" it was a real cry of despair; because he takes upon himself our despairs and our suffering, our suffering and our despairs can be redeemed. That, to me, is the scandal of the cross: that God became exactly like us (except without sin) and saved us in our human limitations.

You see, that is what many people misunderstand. Jesus was 100% human and 100% God in the same time! Let me give you an illustration:

Eyewitnesses who then told others, who told others, who told the writers of the Gospels. They would have remembered what he said in easily-digestable chunks.

Or it was actually the apostle John who wrote the Gospel of John himself... But you still did not answer my question:
Are you saying that the writers of the Bible, inspired by God, got this wrong?

According to the tradition reported in the Gospels, he was debating with the priests at the age of 13. Many of his sayings reveal a knowledge of the scriptures and of rabbinical teaching that could only come from deep study, probably under the local rabbi at the very least. He was called Rabboni, which suggests that for many he had the status if not the office of a rabbi. Yes I believe he was trained; he was also an original enough thinker to come up with his own thoughts.

First of all, the whole teaching of Jesus was against everything the rabbis taught. He proclaimed to be the Messiah, that cannot be taught! It seemes yet again that you forget that Jesus was God. He already knew everything! He told of the end times, He explained Gods law, He teached them about Himself, and He talked about the creation...

Again I ask what relevance does that have with these passages? Is male and female a metafor too?

God bless!!

 

[theywhosowintears]

I briefly brought this up in another thread; Think about it ;But I could not resist answering the objections, so I made a new thread. This is shortly what I said:

Matthew 19:4 - And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Jesus said this. Now if you think that the 6 days in Genesis was actually millions of years, or that man evolved from animal, you are making Jesus a liar. And I think we all know what that has to say for our salvation!


Things He said in the Gospels are reported by eyewitnesses, they were only written down (as far as we know) years later.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

In other words, you are saying that the writers of the Bible, inspired by God, got this wrong?

Is that also in the Bible, that Jesus was TRAINED?
Anyway, what relevance does that have with these passages? Is male and female a metafor too?

Jesus is 100 % human, and 100 % God, only in that matter is the salvation possible!! this is part of the trinity teaching, if you have not looked into it, I suggest that you do!
Also, you are saying that God is not omniscient??

God bess!!

God bless back.

I can garuntee that in heaven you will be found to be correct...

Let's pray that all the TE's around here will be there to see it.

I pray that God is gracious and merciful, but I am worried as God did say "My Word I have honoured above My Name" in other words... what God said through the bible and though Jesus Christ the living Word...is extremely important to Him more important then His Name (His Name being a concept that includes His power, honour, identity, personality and infact His being) .

Peace

 

[theywhosowintears]

You see, that is what many people misunderstand. Jesus was 100% human and 100% God in the same time! Let me give you an illustration:

Or it was actually the apostle John who wrote the Gospel of John himself... But you still did not answer my question:
Are you saying that the writers of the Bible, inspired by God, got this wrong?

First of all, the whole teaching of Jesus was against everything the rabbis taught. He proclaimed to be the Messiah, that cannot be taught! It seemes yet again that you forget that Jesus was God. He already knew everything! He told of the end times, He explained Gods law, He teached them about Himself, and He talked about the creation...

Again I ask what relevance does that have with these passages? Is male and female a metafor too?

God bless!!

an aside, clarification of the term 'tempted'

tempted is the action of someone tempting and is the feeling of being tempted as well...

Christ is God- God does not tempt nor can He be tempted (James 2 from memory) So it is correct to say that Satan 'tempted' Christ in that he tried (unsucessfully) to tempt Christ. However Christ confronted and overcame temptation (ie: He did not get tempted by temptation He fought it beat it)


peace

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

No, but I am suggesting that while he was on earth, Jesus was 100% human and "did not count equality with God a thing to be pursued": in other words, that Christ gave up all the attributes of divinity - including omniscience - in order to be fully human. While Christ's divine nature was present, he did not call upon it.

In otherwise, to use a phrase I first heard from the Orthodox, "what is not assumed is not redeemed." If Christ did not take on board our whole humanity - including our limitations of knowledge, and our being creatures of time - then that part of our humanity that he didn't assume isn't redeemed.

In other words, we know better than Jesus.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

From an Angelican site:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:"

From his website he says:
"the only-begotten son of God and born of the Father
before all worlds, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true
God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom"

The bolded, underline (emphasis mine) is an addition to the Nicene Creed that is not part of it.

Please, present your argument of why Jesus Christ did not embody the Godhead completely.
all things were made.

"the only-begotten son of God and born of the Father
before all worlds"

and

" the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,"

are alternative translations of:

"Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula"

which I can gloss word for word as:

"Son [of] God onlybegotten, and out [of] [the] Father born before all worlds"

(words in square brackets are not in the Latin but rather their meaning is carried by the Latin grammar; for instance Latin seldom uses "of", but puts the noun in the genitive case instead)

I added nothing to the creed. "Born before all worlds" is there in the Latin.

 

[Numenor]

The complete Godhead existed in Jesus Christ bodily.

But some attributes of God were noncommunicable ie. omnipresence.

 

[pro_odeh]

an aside, clarification of the term 'tempted'

tempted is the action of someone tempting and is the feeling of being tempted as well...

Christ is God- God does not tempt nor can He be tempted (James 2 from memory) So it is correct to say that Satan 'tempted' Christ in that he tried (unsucessfully) to tempt Christ. However Christ confronted and overcame temptation (ie: He did not get tempted by temptation He fought it beat it)


peace

Thanks for pointing that out , as some could have misunderstood what I was intending to say...
God bless!!

 

[Critias]

But some attributes of God were noncommunicable ie. omnipresence.

But, if you do believe Jesus is God, then He was omnipresent while here on earth. Otherwise, you are taking the agnostic approach to who Jesus really was and is.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I briefly brought this up in another thread; Think about it;But I could not resist answering the objections, so I made a new thread. This is shortly what I said:

Matthew 19:4 - And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Jesus said this. Now if you think that the 6 days in Genesis was actually millions of years, or that man evolved from animal, you are making Jesus a liar. And I think we all know what that has to say for our salvation!

Hmmm… I do not see the problem here. No TE I know of has ever denied that the book of Genesis exists and yes I have read it just as Jesus asked in this quote. Now did Jesus say that I must read Genesis literally or I am doomed to hell? Not in any translation that I have ever read.

 

[Numenor]

But, if you do believe Jesus is God, then He was omnipresent while here on earth. Otherwise, you are taking the agnostic approach to who Jesus really was and is.

Can you explain then how me managed to be in Palestine and the North Pole at the same time?