Where Did Humans Come From?

[ViaCrucis]

So you don’t believe in 3 literal days in the first 3 days of creation?

I don't consider the days of creation to be literal. Like many other Christians of the last two thousand years, I think the point of the days of creation serve a more important purpose than to try and confuse biblical readers by speaking of evenings and mornings without the presence of celestial objects.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JAL]

St. Augustine wrote De Genesi Ad Litteram ("the literal meaning of Genesis) but meant it in the sense of "what it actually says" rather than "A literal account of events." Is that what you mean here?

Paul isn't always clear/straightforward. Does that make him non-literal?

Genesis is a literal account of events, in my opinion, but not perfectly clear/straightforward.

If may opine, I think it seems a little weak of Augustine to insinuate that Genesis features six chronological days only because we "mere humans" are too stupid to comprehend what REALLY happened: an instantaneous creation. While I admit that atemporality is a foggy concept, He hardly needed to spell out 7 consecutive days to accommodate for our stupidity. Augustine could have made a better argument there, he should have argued that the 7 consecutive days (whether literal or not) pre-ordain the standard human work-week (Exodus 20:11). Maybe Augustine did eventually make that argument - I didn't read the whole tract.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't consider the days of creation to be literal. Like many other Christians of the last two thousand years, I think the point of the days of creation serve a more important purpose than to try and confuse biblical readers by speaking of evenings and mornings without the presence of celestial objects.

-CryptoLutheran

What about Jesus’ parables? Do you think they were intended to confuse those who didn’t believe what He was teaching?

 

[Andrewn]

You side with your new revision of God's word. As noted before, nothing in Genesis denies what science has found.

How do you interpret the creation of light in the first day? Could it be the Big Bang?

 

[The Barbarian]

How do you interpret the creation of light in the first day? Could it be the Big Bang?

Maybe so. It's interesting that the first thing in our universe was radiation, while the Bible says "Let there be light."

Lemaitre was a Catholic priest, but he had the numbers and data to support that conclusion.

 

[The Barbarian]

If may opine, I think it seems a little weak of Augustine to insinuate that Genesis features six chronological days only because we "mere humans" are too stupid to comprehend what REALLY happened: an instantaneous creation.

An instantaneous creation was Augustine's belief. He asserted that the universe was created in an instant and that all things unfolded from that initial creation as God made it to do. Which sounds reasonable to me.

That's what we're still seeing, after all.

 

[The Barbarian]

What about Jesus’ parables? Do you think they were intended to confuse those who didn’t believe what He was teaching?

I think they were intended to instruct those inclined to listen. It's clear enough that people often misunderstand the meaning of parables. The Good Samaritan is often taken as encouraging us to help those in need. But people forget that Jesus said it to answer the question "Who is my neighbor?"

 

[eleos1954]

That sounds far fetched. It sounds like a typical refutation of Catholicism that’s not supported by scripture. Why did Jesus name Simon “Petros” which so happens to mean Rock? And He just coincidentally told Peter this statement in Matthew 16:18?

well ... my friend ... who saves you? the church, Peter, Mary or Jesus?

 

[eleos1954]

Well, let's see what Jesus said...

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I'll go with Jesus on this one. Sorry.

well ... my friend ... who saves you? the church, Peter, Mary or Jesus?

 

[JAL]

Why did Jesus name Simon “Petros” which so happens to mean Rock? And He just coincidentally told Peter this statement in Matthew 16:18?

Prophets often speak to individuals in such encouraging manner: "He who prophesies speaks to men for their edification, encouragement, and comfort" (1 Corin 14:3). God is even willing to change a person's name, for edification. For example, "To them he gave the name Boanerges, which means “sons of thunder”" (Mark 3:17). Similarly God changed the names of Abraham, Jacob, and Paul. Such edifying manner of speech is how the Lord talks to His kids, especially if they seem slated to play a major role in the kingdom, like the 12 apostles/prophets were.

Prophetic edification is routinely addressed to one individual even though fulfilled in several. Here's another example:

"You [Nathaniel] will see greater things than that.” 51 He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” (John 1).

You think Nathaniel alone saw such visions? If so, take a hard look at Jacob's ladder.

Conclusion: Peter wasn't the only rock upon which God built His church. Anyone who makes much ado of Christ's statement to Peter has failed to understand 1 Corinthians 14:3.

 

[BNR32FAN]

well ... my friend ... who saves you? the church, Peter, Mary or Jesus?

Our salvation is synergetic, it is the result of our cooperation with God’s will. Just to clarify I’m not Catholic. I’m a nondenominational who has a tendency to lean towards the Eastern Orthodox doctrines pertaining to salvation.

I noticed you didn’t answer my question? Why did Jesus name Simon “Petros”? Was it merely a coincidence what Jesus said to him in Matthew 16:18?

 

[JAL]

I noticed you didn’t answer my question? Why did Jesus name Simon “Petros”? Was it merely a coincidence what Jesus said to him in Matthew 16:18?

I noticed you didn't refute my post? To establish Peter's preeminence, isn't it necessary to refute my post?

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, let's see what Jesus said...

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I'll go with Jesus on this one. Sorry.

well ... my friend ... who saves you?

Let's ask Jesus again...

Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

How would that show that Jesus was wrong?

Do you think Jesus had the authority to delegate His authority to Peter, as He did in Matthew?

 

[JAL]

Do you think Jesus had the authority to delegate His authority to Peter, as He did in Matthew?

In your view, how much authority is being delegated here? All authority in heaven and earth? Christ can certainly delegate such to Peter - if He plans to control him to a somewhat robotic degree! Otherwise the delegation would be a dangerous, irresponsible act on the Lord's part.

Let's suppose God granted Peter more authority than the other apostles. Ask yourself the following.
Did Moses surpass his brothers in authority and spiritual stature? Yes. Does that fact establish an OT papacy? No.

Most Christians do not understand how authority is supposed to work. As mentioned at post 546, there is only one possible authority in life: the rule of conscience:

If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should opt for B.

No possible exceptions to this rule. Therefore a prophet such as Peter or Paul - and his written corpus - has authority over me only to the extent that the Inward Witness (or some other influence) has caused my conscience to feel convicted/convinced/certain of his authority.

 

[The Barbarian]

In your view, how much authority is being delegated here? All authority in heaven and earth? Christ can certainly delegate such to Peter - if He plans to control him to a somewhat robotic degree! Otherwise the delegation would be a dangerous, irresponsible act on the Lord's part.

And yet, He said it. I have to believe that He is not irresponsible.

Let's suppose God granted Peter more authority than the other apostles. Ask yourself the following.

Did Moses surpass his brothers in authority and spiritual stature? Yes. Does that fact establish an OT papacy? No.

Merely establishes that Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind or loosen whatever on Earth or in Heaven. That's a lot.

Maybe the Holy Spirit can indwell and insure that a person does God's will. I think that's true.

 

[JAL]

Maybe the Holy Spirit can indwell and insure that a person does God's will. I think that's true.

You're describing the next life. As for this life:

"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Mat 14:38).

And yet, He said it. I have to believe that He is not irresponsible.

Ok it's just a difference of opinion, then. I don't believe for a moment that a responsible God delegates all possible authority to men saddled with a sinful nature.

Merely establishes that Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind or loosen whatever on Earth or in Heaven. That's a lot.

I'm not infallible. I seem to have no way of determining for sure how much authority is involved there - and to what extent the other apostles partook. Nor do I know the conditions, for example Jesus said anything asked in His name will be granted, and it is a misunderstanding, in my view, to oversimply that precondition.

 

[The Barbarian]

And yet, He said it. I have to believe that He is not irresponsible.

Ok it's just a difference of opinion, then.

His opinion counts most with me.

 

[JAL]

And yet, He said it. I have to believe that He is not irresponsible. His opinion counts most with me.

On more than one occasion, you presume to equate your interpretation with fact. Are you infallible? Are you the pope?

 

[The Barbarian]

I have to believe that (Jesus) is not irresponsible. His opinion counts most with me.

On more than one occasion, you presume to equate your interpretation with fact.

It's rather hard to deny that He said it. I don't think there's a way to show that He is irresponsible.

Are you infallible? Are you the pope?

I'd be open to your evidence that He didn't say it, or that He was wrong to say it. What do you have?

 

[JAL]

I have to believe that (Jesus) is not irresponsible. His opinion counts most with me.



It's rather hard to deny that He said it. I don't think there's a way to show that He is irresponsible.



I'd be open to your evidence that He didn't say it, or that He was wrong to say it. What do you have?

Again, you and I do not share the same convictions as to precisely what He meant.