Evolution makes Jesus a liar

[artybloke]

Or it was actually the apostle John who wrote the Gospel of John himself...

No.

But you still did not answer my question:
Are you saying that the writers of the Bible, inspired by God, got this wrong?

Unless you believe that God dictated every word of the Bible or dropped it from heaven on golden tablets, then I don't see inspiration as precluding the possibility that the writers could make mistakes. As they frequently did.

First of all, the whole teaching of Jesus was against everything the rabbis taught.

There is very little in Jesus' teaching that is against the rabbinical teaching of his time, though he was (correct me if I'm wrong, someone) more in line with the more liberal Rabbi Hillel. The whole dispute about marriage was a rabbinical arguement, on which for once he took the more hardline approach.

What Jesus was against was the legalistic applications of the Pharisees.

He proclaimed to be the Messiah, that cannot be taught!

Nor was he exactly the first (and certainly not the last) to proclaim himself the Messiah. There were numerous self-proclaimed candidates for that Job, one of whom ended up causing the destruction of Jerusalem! ("He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy," as Brian's mother would say.) The idea of the Messiah was very much in the air in the first century BC & AD, and it was taught by the rabbis.

seemes yet again that you forget that Jesus was God. He already knew everything!

You see, this is basically incipient Docetism. To say that Jesus at any time called upon his divine attributes (which were present) is actually to say that the incarnation is a cheat. It's not God becoming man at all; it's God pretending to be man. That makes the whole of Christ's sacrifice null and void. Jesus had to be like us in all things including our limited human knowledge, otherwise it would mean nothing. God cannot feel pain; Jesus could. Even God cannot sin, Jesus could have sinned (but didn't.) God does not need to go the bathroom, Jesus had to. It's as simple and as down to earth as that. If you make Jesus omniscient, then you cancel the incarnation.

 

[shernren]

Hi pro_odeh, I'm not sure if I've seen you here before but hello anyway! I would agree completely with your diagram. Note that none of the "God" attributes on it depended on Jesus' omniscience. As far as I know, only three occurrences were recorded for us when Jesus won disciples with His omniscience. The first was when He saw Peter far away (if I'm not mistaken; I'm away from my usual tools); the second when He told the Samaritan woman her dirty past, the third was when He told Peter where to fish. All His "I know something I shouldn't! " moments seem to have been limited supernatural facts given to Him: in other words a manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the form of words of knowledge. Many modern Christians do the very same in prayer meetings. When they pray they often seem to hit the dot as they pray over the very problem area people are being prayed for, without being told. I don't think it inconceivable that Jesus did a lot and knew a lot through the Holy Spirit, even while rescinding His omniscience.

C.S. Lewis argues that His omniscience was withdrawn at least at Gethsemane, because it could not have been psychologically possible for Him to both pray to be spared from the cross, and to have known that it was not possible. While I don't think it's an ironclad argument, it's a pretty good one.

The verse you quoted for omniscience, John 21:17, is Peter's confession, and after Jesus was resurrected. I believe that Jesus "took back all He'd given away of His divinity" by then.

We never submit anywhere that Jesus was/is/will be any less than God. What some do believe is that He kept His Godhood under wraps; that He "tied His hands behind His back" in Alister McGrath's words.

I like a useful analogy someone gave on the youth thread. Imagine a video game. Chances are there's a "god mode" in it where you cannot get damaged, cannot die, get everything in your inventory right from the start, etc to make things easy for the development team to test. Now imagine that the game's programmer sits down for a game. He could turn on the god mode any time he wants; but what's the point? This time, he wants to know how the ordinary player will feel when playing the game. So he keeps god mode off and sweats his way through the game, barely surviving, though he could wipe everything out in a single blast the moment he felt like it.

It's somewhat the same with Jesus I believe. He came down to learn the life of frail humanity, so that He would be a credible Judge and Son before the universe. (And I'm not making this up. Go read Hebrews.)

 

[jaybee]

Hi all,

just wanted to throw my 5 cents in...


2 Tim 3:16 " All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness "

Thats all scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Unless you believe that God dictated every word of the Bible or dropped it from heaven on golden tablets, then I don't see inspiration as precluding the possibility that the writers could make mistakes. As they frequently did.

This is the crux of the matter for me. Why can't God ensure that exactly what he wants is put in the bible ? Would the creator of the universe allow mistakes that affect major doctrines to slip in ? I don't think so.

Inspiration doesn't mean that every word was written by God, but he inspired holy men through dreams and visions, and sometimes direct communication to set these things down.

How can we as imperfect men choose which part of the bible that God gave us to believe ? What defense do we have then against people saying "The part about Jesus is just a morality story and all we have to do is be nice to each other".

Jesus shows consistantly that he believes what happened in the old testament really happened ( So as it was in Noahs day etc... As spoken of by Daniel the prophet ).

Do we know more than Jesus on the trustworthiness of scripture ? Are we wiser than the writers of the New Testaments who also believed in the OT ? Can we really be arrogant enough to choose what we want to believe out of the bible ?

I pray not.

For me, if I question any part of the bible then I may as well throw it away.

Now don't get all silly on me, of course there are stories, parables, and rehotoric in there. But Genesis is not included in there.. I have never seen anything that indicates Genesis should not be taken anything other than literally.

As for the nature of Christ. Christ had access to His heavenly father who was able to supply him with all the miracles He needed, just as we through Christ have access to the Father to those same miracles. He was God and yet human. If he was only human and not divine how could his death atone for all ? But as artybloke said.

Jesus had to be like us in all things including our limited human knowledge, otherwise it would mean nothing

cheers !

jaybee

 

[artybloke]

Why can't God ensure that exactly what he wants is put in the bible ?

Well he could. He could have created robots who did exactly as they were told. But he didn't. He created human beings, who are fallible, and he used human beings, who are fallible to carry his message. Perhaps God doesn't want to make things easy for himself.

Do we know more than Jesus on the trustworthiness of scripture ? Are we wiser than the writers of the New Testaments who also believed in the OT ? Can we really be arrogant enough to choose what we want to believe out of the bible ?

We know more than Jesus and the writers of the Gospels about science, history, psychology and many other subjects. We know the real value of pi (which the Bible gets wrong.) We also know the difference between speaking literally and using literary and rhetorical techniques.

 

[PaladinValer]

Folks, why don't you ask what Arty actually believes in stead of assuming everything?

That link has nothing unorthodox about it. And I am known on this forum to be extremely picky about heresies.

 

[pro_odeh]

Hi shernren!
I think I answer your objectuions somewhat in the following text, but let me give a few coments...
If Jesus was 100 % God, He would not need the Holy spirit to tell Him anything! If Jesus was not 100 % God when He was on Earth, there is no way we could have salvation. If you want me to explain how, let me know, and I'll be glad to do so.

No.

Or yes.
But anyway, they were inspired by God. And He would not get anything wrong!

Unless you believe that God dictated every word of the Bible or dropped it from heaven on golden tablets, then I don't see inspiration as precluding the possibility that the writers could make mistakes. As they frequently did.

There are NO errors in the Bible! but I believe jaybee gives a good answer to this. But you are saying that you got it right, and the writers of the Bible, inspired by GOD, got it wrong?

There is very little in Jesus' teaching that is against the rabbinical teaching of his time, though he was (correct me if I'm wrong, someone) more in line with the more liberal Rabbi Hillel. The whole dispute about marriage was a rabbinical arguement, on which for once he took the more hardline approach.
What Jesus was against was the legalistic applications of the Pharisees.

John 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
Jesus wasn't so found of their understanding of the Bible either: Matthew 23:17 Matthew 23:19 Luke 11:40 Luke 24:25
There is very much in Jesus' theaching that was against it. He elaborated the commandments like in Matthew 5:28 - But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.He teached the Trinity to them.
No no, Jesus' theaching was far from learned, He knows everything!

Nor was he exactly the first (and certainly not the last) to proclaim himself the Messiah. There were numerous self-proclaimed candidates for that Job, one of whom ended up causing the destruction of Jerusalem! ("He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy," as Brian's mother would say.) The idea of the Messiah was very much in the air in the first century BC & AD, and it was taught by the rabbis.

Yes, but they did not belive that He was the Messiah, because of His teachings. He said that He was God. That is partly why Jesus was crucified.

You see, this is basically incipient Docetism. To say that Jesus at any time called upon his divine attributes (which were present) is actually to say that the incarnation is a cheat. It's not God becoming man at all; it's God pretending to be man. That makes the whole of Christ's sacrifice null and void. Jesus had to be like us in all things including our limited human knowledge, otherwise it would mean nothing. God cannot feel pain; Jesus could. Even God cannot sin, Jesus could have sinned (but didn't.) God does not need to go the bathroom, Jesus had to. It's as simple and as down to earth as that. If you make Jesus omniscient, then you cancel the incarnation.

We are 100 % humans. We cannot pick and choose our attributes when we want, that is why we are 100 % human, so was Jesus. But He has two natures, He was at the same time 100 % God. It's not something He can turn off and on when He wishes. No, He knew all things, and He also grew in wisdom.

Well he could. He could have created robots who did exactly as they were told. But he didn't. He created human beings, who are fallible, and he used human beings, who are fallible to carry his message. Perhaps God doesn't want to make things easy for himself.

Jesus is referred to as the Word. Now, if you want to claim that the Bible is full off mistakes, go ahead, but know that you are saying the same thing about Jesus!

We know more than Jesus and the writers of the Gospels about science, history, psychology and many other subjects. We know the real value of pi (which the Bible gets wrong.)

wrong! The Bible is wothout any mistakes or contradictions! The Bible has the correct value for pi: http://www.1john57.com/1kings723.htm

We also know the difference between speaking literally and using literary and rhetorical techniques.

So does God, and the writes of the Bible!

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.

No, Jesus said that we can only come to the Father through Him. Because He did not sin, but still took upon Him our sins. Here Jesus says that God made man and woman at the beginning. Now, all TE would claim that before this there were millions of generations of evolution. That makes Jesus a liar, and THAT would send you to hell, if Jesus was a liar. Then there would be no salvation possible. But He was not!

God bless!!

 

[PaladinValer]

There are inaccuracies within Scripture. For example the Slaughter of the Innocents never occurred in history. It was a midrash to liken Jesus to Moses, which it does quite handedly.

Of course, Scripture isn't about history. It is about faith, doctrine, and salvation. These are what it is infallible on, not about anything else.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Jesus is referred to as the Word. Now, if you want to claim that the Bible is full off mistakes, go ahead, but know that you are saying the same thing about Jesus!

Tosh. Jesus is ho logos. The Bible is hoi graphoi. Not the same thing. One can have errors without the other doing so.

 

[PaladinValer]

Karl +100

Only Jesus is the Word.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

"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.

Critias - I am waiting for an apology for your scurrilous allegation that I added to the creed.

 

[Critias]

Critias - I am waiting for an apology for your scurrilous allegation that I added to the creed.

My apologies Karl.

I still disagree with you. The Creed was originally written in Greek, not Latin, and is stated as 'eternally begotten' not born.

Jesus Christ has always been, He doesn't have a beginning as the English word "born" indicates. He is begotten of the Father which means He exists because of the Father. It doesn't mean He has a birth before the creation of all worlds, it means He has always existed with the Father because of the Father.

Born, the english word, indicates that He is not eternally begotten. Whether it was you or the source you have pulled from that changed this, the fact remains that is has been altered. Born is not the correct english word for translation of this part of the Creed.

Thank you for your email, demanding me to come and apologize. I apologize that I said you changed it, but it has been changed, whether you did it or another.

By the way Karl, I never used vulgar or abusive language when I said I believe the Creed you presented has been changed. So, I never scurrilously accused you, but rather accused you. Again, for the record, my apologies.

 

[pro_odeh]

There are inaccuracies within Scripture. For example the Slaughter of the Innocents never occurred in history. It was a midrash to liken Jesus to Moses, which it does quite handedly.

Of course, Scripture isn't about history. It is about faith, doctrine, and salvation. These are what it is infallible on, not about anything else.

Could you please tell me where in scripture you are referring to? The passages...
God told you where His Word was infallible and not?
God bless!!

 

[PaladinValer]

A study of history told me.

And unless you literally believe bats are birds and rabbits chew their cud, you'll have to agree as well that the Bible is inaccurate on some things.

Then again, every time, those are worldly things. Who gives a darn if it is wrong about those? Its a HOLY book; it is about theology, not anything else.

 

[gluadys]

In other words, we know better than Jesus.

In respect to his human knowledge, yes. In respect to his human wisdom, no. In respect to his divine knowledge and wisdom, no.

And I agree with artybloke that it is unlikely that he called on his divine knowledge to supplement his human knowledge. That would violate the purpose of the incarnation.

 

[gluadys]

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.

No. While Jesus was on earth, he was no more omnipresent than any other human being. God the Father and the Holy Spirit continued to be omnipresent, but not God the Son while he was incarnate.

Remember "incarnate" means "made flesh", and flesh cannot be omnipresent.

That is why Jesus tells the disciples that he must return to the Father. Only when he is restored to his place as God the Son, can he be omnipresent among his followers. He could not be omnipresent in the church as a flesh and blood human being.

 

[shernren]

Hi shernren!
I think I answer your objectuions somewhat in the following text, but let me give a few coments...
If Jesus was 100 % God, He would not need the Holy spirit to tell Him anything! If Jesus was not 100 % God when He was on Earth, there is no way we could have salvation. If you want me to explain how, let me know, and I'll be glad to do so.

I don't agree with you. I believe that Jesus restrained His divinity on earth. Note He never lost it. Here's an ad hoc example. My mother is the afternoon supervisor of a particular school near mine. Let's say that I had went to the same school she teaches in. I would then be the afternoon supervisor's son. Let's say I want to know my exam results. I could theoretically go into her room, knock on her door, check her computer and voila! - I'd be the first to know. But chances are I'd just wait for my class teacher to tell me. Why? Because I don't use my position as her son, in school.

I believe that it was similar with Jesus. Perhaps He could have unleashed His divinity. But I don't think He ever did, until the Death and Resurrection. I think there are a few clues that point me to that conclusion: firstly, Jesus needed to be baptized in the Jordan, and needed to have the Holy Spirit descend on Him, before He could start ministering and discipling people. Secondly, Jesus promised that His disciples would do even greater things than Him, at the Last Supper as recorded in John. Why was that? If Jesus had performed His miracles by His divinity He could never have made that promise, since we can never have anything close to His divinity! But I believe Jesus made that promise because He knew that when the Holy Spirit came to replace Him, the Holy Spirit would endow His disciples with even greater power and gifts than He had endowed to Jesus Himself! Although this is simply my speculation I don't see much reason to say I'm wrong.

 

[jaybee]

Hi all,

And unless you literally believe bats are birds and rabbits chew their cud, you'll have to agree as well that the Bible is inaccurate on some things.
Then again, every time, those are worldly things. Who gives a darn if it is wrong about those? Its a HOLY book; it is about theology, not anything else

For an answer about the "rabbit" here is a link...
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2192
And my point is who decides what is theology etc, and what to believe ? Are they superior to God in deciding what to believe in his book ?

Well he could. He could have created robots who did exactly as they were told. But he didn't.

Hi artybloke.. although I agree with most of what you are saying,your arguement here doesn't make any sense as the bible doesn't tell us that God created robots, but does tell us that all scripture is profitable for doctrine. 2 Tim 3:16

It doesn't say, "most scripture is profitable for doctrine except the parts you feel uncomfortable about or the bits you don't like", its says all scripture.

Here is some more of what the bible says about the word of God we have in its pages.

2 Peter 1:20,21 "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." - we are told that we can't just decide what we think of prophecy, the bible interprets itself. Did the Holy Spirit move these holy men inaccurately ? I don't believe so.

Ps 119:105 " Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path"

Prov 30:5,6 " Every word of God is pure, He is the shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar" - this seems self evident, don't make up stuff and add it to what God has said. For me, adding to his words includes theistic evolution which is not found in the bible.

John 17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth" - Gods word is not just a guide, it is the absoute truth. This is spoken by Jesus.. is he wrong on this point ?

It is about faith, doctrine, and salvation. These are what it is infallible on, not about anything else.

For me the fact that the bible is inerrant is doctrine ! So who are we to decide what is right or not ? What if someone said that Jesus didn't really "rise" from the tomb, it was rhetoric to describe christianitys rise ? Would they be right ? Wouldn't that affect our salvation ? In the same way if the bible is wrong occasionally then whats the point of reading it ?

For me, the bible is all or nothing, its all we have to tell us about God, and this is an important point. People often say, "Well it feels right", or " I trust my judgement". Well how ?

I don't know about the rest of you but I have gone out to buy something and ended up buying something I didn't need. I know that I am tempted when a girl in revealing clothing walks past... can I trust my own feelings and judgements ? NO ! And if I can't trust Gods word, what can I trust ?

Thanks for reading this if you got this far before switching off !

 

[artybloke]

Are they superior to God in deciding what to believe in his book ?

God didn't write the Bible. Humans did. It's also His world, in case you haven't noticed, and His world says that life evolved.

but does tell us that all scripture is profitable for doctrine. 2 Tim 3:16

It doesn't say, "most scripture is profitable for doctrine except the parts you feel uncomfortable about or the bits you don't like", its says all scripture.

a) Note that it says "profitable", in some versions, "useful"; it doesn't say inerrant, or even infallible. It also says that it is useful for doctrine and for reproof; it doesn't say it's useful for history or science. Creationism isn't doctine; it's **** science.

b) Which scriptures are we talking about? Neither the Jewish canon nor the Christian canon had been decided upon when whoever wrote the letter to Timothy sometime in the early 2nd century wrote that. Was he refering to the Gospels, the OT, the letters of St. Paul etc?

c) Note that he doesn't tell anyone how the scriptures are to be read. He doesn't say "this bit is to be taken literally and this is to be taken symbolically, this is poetry, this isn't." He just says they are useful. And he doesn't even define what he means by useful.

So who are we to decide what is right or not ?

The church, as the Bride of Christ, decides what is scripture and what is not. The church as a whole, not some individual denomination, not some powerful preacher. This has been true since the church began. The church decides doctrine, and scriptural inerrancy was never a part of church teaching until the early 20th century.

 

[jaybee]

and His world says that life evolved.

Can you show me this from the Bible ?

Personally looking at the world, the world also tells me that its about the Simpsons, greed, power, money and sex. I don't trust what the world tells me about God.Only what the bible says.

Creationism isn't doctine

Doctrine is derived from the Latin word doctrina meaning "teachings." Something taught as a the principle or creed of a religion.
For me, Genesis teaches that God created in 6 literal days. Not millions of years. Its really plain.

God didn't write the Bible

Just to repeat
2 Peter 1:20,21 "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

I trust God to get it right.How can we know if any of our doctrines are right if we doubt whats in the bible ?

The church, as the Bride of Christ, decides what is scripture and what is not. The church as a whole,

I guess I should ask if you mean any specific church, or if we get a vote or something.
The bible interprets itself. It is God speaking to man. I want to read it myself and decide what God says in his word, not put others opinions over the word of God.

The church decides doctrine, and scriptural inerrancy was never a part of church teaching until the early 20th century.

Sola scriptura (Latin by Scripture alone) was actually part of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the Church's only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines

cheers !

jaybee

 

[artybloke]

The whole Bible isn't prophecy. Scripture isn't the only source of prophecy.

I guess I should ask if you mean any specific church, or if we get a vote or something.

I mean the church as a whole. Not some poxy little demonination. And no we don't get a vote. That's how it happened in the early church: they decided under the guidance of the Holy Spirit which was and wnich wasn't scripture.

Sola scriptura is not inerrancy. And I'm no Protestant.