Jesus' ape-like ancesters.

[Gold Dragon]

So at what point did God create in His image? Was God continually creating until He go it right?

As Vance correctly answered for me, it was man that was created in God's image, not all living things.

When did God create man in his image? He created man in His image whenever it was that man first existed.

 

[GodSaves]

So it would be logical to conclude that when man reached man, he was not created as man but evolved to be a man. So how was man created in God's image, if man was not created but rather he evolved to manhood?

 

[Gold Dragon]

So it would be logical to conclude that when man reached man, he was not created as man but evolved to be a man. So how was man created in God's image, if man was not created but rather he evolved to manhood?

Evolution involves physical characteristics and genes. If we agree that God has no physical form (aside from Christ who was obviously not the first human), then being created in his image has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Vance]

So it would be logical to conclude that when man reached man, he was not created as man but evolved to be a man. So how was man created in God's image, if man was not created but rather he evolved to manhood?

The species h. Sapiens sapiens became Man whenever God chose to breathe "life" collectively into Adam (which means, by one definition, "mankind"). We have no idea when this happened, but until that point, the species would not have been "Man" in the image of God, with a special relationship with Him.

Or it could also be that God, at some point created, or chose, a literal "Adam" and breathed into him, from whom all life descended, all the rest the existing hominid species eventually dying out.

Or it could be that God created within evolution (or created evolution so that there was) a particular moment in time in which h. Sapiens would reach that point at which the "breathe of life" effectively developed within the species, allowing them to be "in the image of God".

Or it could have happened in a way we have not even thought of (which is most likely).

 

[GodSaves]

Why not have it happen the way the Bible teaches it to happen? Aren't all these different idea's just saying it doesn't really matter that they all can lead one correctly?

 

[Vance]

Why not have it happen the way the Bible teaches it to happen? Aren't all these different idea's just saying it doesn't really matter that they all can lead one correctly?

1. Because the Bible doesn't teach exactly how it happened.

2. Right, it doesn't matter in the least exactly how or when God breathed life into Man. Only that He did. Which is why it did not need to be spelled out in scientific or historical detail, but could be told in non-literal language to convey the truly important messages God had for us.

 

[GodSaves]

So you believe in Amorality for the Scriptures then. You said all different interpretations are correct in leading one properly.

 

[TwinCrier]

So neanderthal man is actually not a man, but an animal, is that correct?

 

[Gold Dragon]

So neanderthal man is actually not a man, but an animal, is that correct?

From a biological perspective, homosapiens are also animals.

But the distinction between man and animal used in the bible, being made in God's image, is not something that can be determined by observing fossilized bones.

 

[TwinCrier]

I concur with that statement

 

[versastyle]

So you believe in Amorality for the Scriptures then. You said all different interpretations are correct in leading one properly.

The reading and interpretation of scripture isn't a moral question. This is an odd statement.

 

[GodSaves]

My statement is that he doesn't believe there is a right or wrong way to reading Scriptures that all interpretations are correct and lead one properly. Amorality meaning there is no right or wrong.

 

[versastyle]

My statement is that he doesn't believe there is a right or wrong way to reading Scriptures that all interpretations are correct and lead one properly. Amorality meaning there is no right or wrong.

I see what you are saying. Sorry, I've just never seen someone refer to reading certain ways as being a moral question.

I think it actually should be stated "He believes there is no objective and correct way to translate and interpret all scripture."

 

[theFijian]

This is what evolution does to Jesus. It reduces him to at his incarnation taking on the form of human flesh only millions of years removed from being ape. This is an insult to our savior and it disgusts me

Which do you think is more removed:

a) Man -> Ape
b) God -> Man

Why does a) disgust you and not b) when b) is clearly farther removed than a)?

 

[GodSaves]

I think mhess13 was saying this is what disgusts him:

1. Jesus evolved from an ape.
2. He cannot associate God not far removed from being an ape.

 

[Vance]

So you believe in Amorality for the Scriptures then. You said all different interpretations are correct in leading one properly.

Um, no. Again, that bad habit of misrepresenting what I am saying.

I never said all interpretations are correct in leading one properly. It does matter what God said, and there IS a correct interpretation. What I said is that it doesn't matter at all how and when God breathed life into Man (which is why God does not specify exactly how or when in scientific or historical terms). That was very clear from my post, but you are choosing purposefully to misrepresent what I am saying. Again.

 

[GodSaves]

I said:
Aren't all these different idea's just saying it doesn't really matter that they all can lead one correctly?

You said:
Right

I know you said more after 'right,' but it looked to me that this right was an answer of yes to the above question. If that wasn't what you meant, I apologize, but that is how it looked to me.

 

[herev]

So it would be logical to conclude that when man reached man, he was not created as man but evolved to be a man. So how was man created in God's image, if man was not created but rather he evolved to manhood?

When you make cookies from a roll of cookie dough already made for you, you are creating cookies. But, if you make cookies from scratch, is that not still creating cookies?
God created humanity regardless of how or how long, so he still made man in his image. I really don't understand this argument. maybe I'm misunderstanding you

 

[InnerPhyre]

Adam was not an ape. He was a human. By the time God made Adam, mankind had evolved from apes already. Adam was the first human to have a soul. that's what it means to be made in God's image. God is pure spirit. He has no arms, legs, feet, etc. The soul that He gave us is His image.

 

[gluadys]

So then is Adam simply the first ape to be given a soul, therefor making him human, a different species?

No. Scientifically, what makes Homo sapiens a different species are the physical differences between us and other species in the genus Homo. Being a separate species is a scientific definition, not a spiritual status.

We don't know at what point Humanity was given a spiritual being. We don't even know if this was a gift to our species alone or to other species in our genus as well such as H. neanderthalensis or H. erectus or our new little species H. floriensis.

But the spiritual reality is not dependent on the physical state.