Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[gluadys]

But, Adam and Eve had the choice to sin.

Exactly. And having the same nature, Jesus also had that choice. That is why he could be tempted.

We don't have that choice because we have to contend with a fallen nature that makes us slaves to sin.

So, are we born sinless?

Yes and no. Obviously we have not committed any sin at the time we are born and in that sense we are born sinless. But we are also born fallen; our human nature is tainted by original sin. We have no choice about not sinning. No human person reaches a stage of knowing what sin is without recognizing that s/he has sinned.

Why is it that not 1 TE has been able to understand this verse? It is as if the English language is too hard to understand or something. Point to where the verse says Jesus gave up equality with God.

Philippians 2:5-8
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion [size=-1][/size]as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

First off, do you understand what the text in orange is saying? He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. How is this saying He gave up equality with God? That is verse 6.

Yes, it says that prior to his incarnation, in his identity as God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, he was co-equal to the Father. Being God, he did not consider it to be robbery to be named equal to God.

Do you understand the rest of the verse? The phrase which the KJV translates as "made himself of no reputation" is literally "emptied himself" in Greek. And this is called in theology the "kenosis" (emptying) of Christ in his incarnation. Being equal with the Father, he could hold on to that equality and it would not be robbery, but he chooses not to hold on to that equal station. He empties himself of whatever attributes of divinity are necessary to take on human likeness and experience humility, obedience and death for our sakes.

Another translation of the Greek is that he did not consider equality with God "a thing to be grasped, or held on to." The NRSV says "a thing to be exploited". The contrast then is between the equality that is his by right, and his choice to relinqush it in becoming human. The creed of St. Athanasius refers to this as "having equality with God in respect of his divinity and being inferior to God in respect of his humanity."

He could not be truly human without accepting this inferiority. And if he were not truly human he could not do what he needed to do. Any more than he could if he were not truly God.

He did become human. If He was exactly like us, then He couldn't do what He came to do. He had to be the second Adam, not like us. You are arguing to reduce Jesus to being just like us, and He wasn't. He experienced what we do, but He wasn't exactly like us.

That is what incarnation means. He was exactly like us except without sin, as the writer to the Hebrews says. Being without sin, he was not quite like us--but rather an unfallen human. He was also God, but not exactly like God not yet incarnate either.

His nature is mentioned often by St. Paul. St. Paul stated Jesus embodied the Godhead completely. Not partially, but fully and completely.

Agreed.

With your assertion that He was only half-god, you are arguing against St. Paul and all NT writers.

But I have not asserted he was only half-god. What I have asserted is what is asserted in all orthodox Christian doctrine: that he was fully God and fully man. So it is not me who is disputing the apostles or the scriptures or the creeds here. Please withdraw this false accusation.

I remember a thread where you agreed with another that (Vance I believe) that Jesus could have been born of man, Mary being either raped or slept with Joseph. Thus affirming Jesus was born in sin.

If that occurred (and I am not affirming that), Jesus would still not be born in sin as this would negate the purpose of the incarnation. What the Spirit of God makes holy is holy, no matter what the circumstances of his conception. The important thing is that 1) he was exempted from original sin, and 2) he is an incarnation of God. It was to show this that he was born of a virgin.

 

[gluadys]

I never saw this thread, please supply a link to support what you're accusing people of.

No need. On this Critias' memory is correct.

My point is that I do not believe the virgin birth was necessary for Jesus to be free of original sin. Nor was it necessary for him to be the incarnate Son of God. So, proving that Mary was not a virgin would not invalidate who Jesus was.

The point of the virgin birth was to show that he was the sinless incarnation of God.

I have no quarrel with the doctrine, just with the sort of mechanical thinking that says a virgin birth was necessary to keep Jesus free of original sin. It may be necessary for our comprehension, but not because God was incapable of incarnating in a person normally conceived.

After all, it is not as if original sin is a genetic defect.

 

[gluadys]

If you wish to consider the whole thing myth, thats fine, but you're pushing the boundaries of what Jesus obviously accepted as authoritative.

And you are assuming that Jesus would not consider myth authoritative.

 

[gluadys]

Flower plants which I was referring to ; should have made it more clear. Yet many insects are linked and design for flowers. This is an example of creatures out of place in the fossil record..

Not unless you show that the insects which existed before flowers were dependant on flowers for survival.

 

[Smidlee]

Not unless you show that the insects which existed before flowers were dependant on flowers for survival.

So this is how you would explain away a Cambrian rabbit. In nature (which is what science is suppose to be about) insects and flowers/plant are clearly linked. Also some insects are design to camouflage themselves with plants.

 

[gluadys]

So this is how you would explain away a Cambrian rabbit. In nature (which is what science is suppose to be about) insects and flowers/plant are clearly linked. Also some insects are design to camouflage themselves with plants.

The insect/flower link is not universal among insects and plants. Some insects depend on flowers, but not all of them. And not all flowers depend on insects for pollination. So in order to establish that insects which existed before flowers are out of place, you have to show that they depended on flowers. If they could survive without flowers, they were not out of place.

As for the insects which use plant camouflage, you could only establish them as out of place if you successfully showed they existed before the plants did.


And a rabbit in the Cambrian would be much more difficult to explain. A terrestrial vertebrate showing up in strata where every other animal is marine and invertebrate? Uhnh-unh.

 

[shernren]

Actually there is something found out of place. Almost all (95%) insects showed up 100 millions before plants/ flowers. Insects shows no sign of evolution since they are found in the fossils. Poor insects had to wait millions of year for plants to appear.

What gluadys is saying is that it is not illogical for insects, per se, to appear before flowers, per se. It would be illogical for insects specifically adapted for flowers to appear before flowers. To give a concrete example, I wouldn't be too surprised if cockroaches showed up in the fossil record before flowers. Cockroaches don't need flowers anyway, except indirectly (when they consume our food resources that are formed from the seed of flowering plants). But I would be surprised if, say, a bee with pollen in its pockets did show up before there were flowers to produce pollen. Are there any specific answers like that?

However, using your own definition, look at 1B, a parable. Every instance of a parable is said to be so and was never tried to be passed off as true events. You have no evidence that Genesis is saying anything but true events, other than you're belief that it is to weird to be true. If you had something in or around scripture that gave any hint that it was to be taken as a myth, i would accept it. Genesis does not give hints to that fact, nor did any of the hebrews of the time take it as such, so if this "myth" is trying to be passed off as plain truth (which context says it is) then it is deceiving.

How do you know that the Parable of the Prodigal Son was a parable? After all, Jesus started by saying "There was", not "Let's imagine there was" or "Let Me tell you a story about". Ditto the Parable of the Good Samaritan, where Jesus simply said "A man was". Jesus certainly used parable-phrases in other parables, for example He explicitly said that the Kingdom of God was like something in Matthew's Kingdom parables, so how do you know that the above parables are parables, since they don't have those phrases?

 

[Critias]

Exactly. And having the same nature, Jesus also had that choice. That is why he could be tempted.

What you seem to negate is the fact that Jesus had a choice. I have seen you and others say Jesus never had a choice in any situation He was in. This takes some denying of the Gospel accounts of His life.

We don't have that choice because we have to contend with a fallen nature that makes us slaves to sin.

Actually, we do have a choice. We are fallen, but we can still choose to sin or not. It is because we fallen, thus making us weak that we sin.

Paul's teaching is so awesome. I love to spend hours reading what he teaches and trying to apply it to my life. Paul said, and we would do well to follow, 'I beat my body and make it my slave so I am not disqualified for the prize'.

We are sinful beings, but we have a choice to sin or not. Saying we don't is a copout and not taking responsibility. And those who are in Christ are no longer a slave to sin, but a slave to El Shaddai.

Yes and no. Obviously we have not committed any sin at the time we are born and in that sense we are born sinless. But we are also born fallen; our human nature is tainted by original sin. We have no choice about not sinning. No human person reaches a stage of knowing what sin is without recognizing that s/he has sinned.

The Psalmists will disagree that we are born sinless. With such a statement it is easy to see why you don't see a problem with Jesus being conceived by Mary and Joseph or Mary being raped.

Psalms 58:3; 51:5

Yes, it says that prior to his incarnation, in his identity as God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, he was co-equal to the Father. Being God, he did not consider it to be robbery to be named equal to God.

And your conclusion would be that in the likeness of man, He thought it was robbery to be equal to God?

Do you understand the rest of the verse? The phrase which the KJV translates as "made himself of no reputation" is literally "emptied himself" in Greek. And this is called in theology the "kenosis" (emptying) of Christ in his incarnation. Being equal with the Father, he could hold on to that equality and it would not be robbery, but he chooses not to hold on to that equal station. He empties himself of whatever attributes of divinity are necessary to take on human likeness and experience humility, obedience and death for our sakes.

I disagree, Jesus did keep and remain equal to Himself, God. First off, what did Son of God mean in those days, do you know? In case you don't, Son of God, as in Christ(Greek) or Messiah(Hebrew) - the Annointed One - was commonly understood as being equal to God and God Himself.

Your thesis is that Jesus thought it was robbery to be equal with Himself(God) while here on earth in the likeness of man. The Bible doesn't support this assertion.

Who did Peter say Jesus was? Son of God.

What name did Jesus say people will come and proclaim themself as? Christ.

If Jesus thought it robbery, then He wouldn't have allowed His disciples to call Him the Christ. Jesus Himself said, I am the Son of God.

Another translation of the Greek is that he did not consider equality with God "a thing to be grasped, or held on to." The NRSV says "a thing to be exploited". The contrast then is between the equality that is his by right, and his choice to relinqush it in becoming human. The creed of St. Athanasius refers to this as "having equality with God in respect of his divinity and being inferior to God in respect of his humanity."

I agree with the St Athanasius creed in that statement. The problem with your view point is that you don't think Jesus was God with all attributes in divinity while here on earth. He think He was void of some of them or all of them.

Jesus knew, which is testified by many people's reactions, that people could not grasp the fact that He was the Son of God, God Himself.

Jesus' humanity, such as being made in the likeness of man, He allowed Himself to experience life as we do, without sin. But, He wasn't like us, He walked on water, He raised people from the dead, healed people, and had greater wisdom than all those who were experts in the Law. At 12 He educated those who were leaders of the Law. These were done by His power as He said, He lays His life down and He has the power to bring Himself back to life.

So, if He thought it was robbery to be equal to God, He wouldn't make such statements. If He was emptied, He could not do what He did by His own power.

Apostles did great works, but it wasn't in their own name. They had no power of themselves. They called on Jesus' Name and by Jesus' power they did great things.

Even the demons knew who He was on sight. Satan knew who He was. And Jesus responded that man does not live on bread alone, but on the word of God.

He could not be truly human without accepting this inferiority. And if he were not truly human he could not do what he needed to do. Any more than he could if he were not truly God.

So, who sets the standards to be human, you or God?

If God so does set them, and you don't understand them, does that invalidate God's work?

That is what incarnation means. He was exactly like us except without sin, as the writer to the Hebrews says. Being without sin, he was not quite like us--but rather an unfallen human. He was also God, but not exactly like God not yet incarnate either.

He wasn't in the form of God, but He was and is God.

Agreed.

But I have not asserted he was only half-god. What I have asserted is what is asserted in all orthodox Christian doctrine: that he was fully God and fully man. So it is not me who is disputing the apostles or the scriptures or the creeds here. Please withdraw this false accusation.

You assert He is half-god when you say He emptied His divine attributes to be human, meaning He was void of His Godness. This is against Paul's teaching that He contained all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Col. 2:9)

If you actually study what it means by fullness it means the infinite attributes essential to such a nature.

If that occurred (and I am not affirming that), Jesus would still not be born in sin as this would negate the purpose of the incarnation. What the Spirit of God makes holy is holy, no matter what the circumstances of his conception. The important thing is that 1) he was exempted from original sin, and 2) he is an incarnation of God. It was to show this that he was born of a virgin.

Jesus would be born in sin as the Psalmist affirms. If it be God's choosing to supernatural exchange the soul of the baby in Mary's womb with that of Jesus Christ, so be it. But, the Bible doesn't teach this.

What seems to be lost in your understanding is that the Soul or Spirit of Jesus Christ was that of God. Unless you care to dispute the Trinity now.

The important thing to remember is what the Bible actually teaches and adhere to it, whether you understand or not. Like a child that trusts her father, so too should we be in trusting our Heavenly Father even when we don't understand.

 

[stumpjumper]

Actually, we do have a choice. We are fallen, but we can still choose to sin or not. It is because we fallen, thus making us weak that we sin.

Paul's teaching is so awesome. I love to spend hours reading what he teaches and trying to apply it to my life. Paul said, and we would do well to follow, 'I beat my body and make it my slave so I am not disqualified for the prize'.

We are sinful beings, but we have a choice to sin or not. Saying we don't is a copout and not taking responsibility. And those who are in Christ are no longer a slave to sin, but a slave to El Shaddai.

Hmm. Interesting discussion between you and Gluadys.

Critias, I agree with your post above yet I find it hard to reconcile with Lutheranism which I know we both are. Lutherans assert that God loved us even though we were sinners. Personally, I find the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on The Mount to be directed at people who could rise above their sinful nature and lead sinless lives. Maybe it is an ideal not one that man can attain bit who knows what the future holds.

On the whole though, Gluadys is not saying, at least from my POV, that Jesus was not divine but is putting forth a trinitarian point of view. From the council of Chalcedon onward it was asserted that Jesus was both God and Man and it is a mystery. I fail to see where Gluadys strays from that view.

 

[gluadys]

Exactly. And having the same nature, Jesus also had that choice. That is why he could be tempted.

What you seem to negate is the fact that Jesus had a choice.

I don't think any further comment is necessary.

Actually, we do have a choice. We are fallen, but we can still choose to sin or not. It is because we fallen, thus making us weak that we sin.

I am a Calvinist on this point. I know not everyone is.

And your conclusion would be that in the likeness of man, He thought it was robbery to be equal to God?

Humans are not equal to God. You say later you agree with Athanasius that Jesus was indeed inferior to God in respect of his human nature. And I expect you also agree with Jesus himself when he says "My father is greater than I." John 14:28

I disagree, Jesus did keep and remain equal to Himself, God. First off, what did Son of God mean in those days, do you know? In case you don't, Son of God, as in Christ(Greek) or Messiah(Hebrew) - the Annointed One - was commonly understood as being equal to God and God Himself.

That is not the case. Jewish theology has never understood the Messiah to be equal to God or anything other than a human agent acting under God.

I agree with the St Athanasius creed in that statement. The problem with your view point is that you don't think Jesus was God with all attributes in divinity while here on earth. He think He was void of some of them or all of them.

IOW I believe in a real incarnation, not the mere appearance of an incarnation.

At 12 He educated those who were leaders of the Law.

You think scripture says that? I think you had better re-read Luke. It says nothing about him educating the leaders of the Law.

If He was emptied, He could not do what He did by His own power.

Precisely. He depended on the power of his Father.

So, who sets the standards to be human, you or God?

If God so does set them, and you don't understand them, does that invalidate God's work?

What do these questions have to do with the topic?

He wasn't in the form of God, but He was and is God.

Right!

You assert He is half-god when you say He emptied His divine attributes to be human, meaning He was void of His Godness. This is against Paul's teaching that He contained all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Col. 2:9)

If you actually study what it means by fullness it means the infinite attributes essential to such a nature.

But I have said that I agree with Paul. Jesus was and is God. In the incarnation he was God made human. He was God because he was God, that is who he is, always. He was human, and therefore less than God because he chose to be human for us and our salvation. He died a human death on the cross--something God, by nature, cannot do, yet it was God who was crucified. He was the fullness of the Godhead bodily, yet wholly human and like us, except for sin.

Jesus would be born in sin as the Psalmist affirms.

To be born in sin is not the same as committing sin--which we cannot do before we are born. I don't think the Psalmist disagrees with that.

If it be God's choosing to supernatural exchange the soul of the baby in Mary's womb with that of Jesus Christ, so be it. But, the Bible doesn't teach this.

I agree.

What seems to be lost in your understanding is that the Soul or Spirit of Jesus Christ was that of God.

The Soul or Spirit of Christ was that of God and of man. If Jesus was human in the body only he was not fully human. If he was God in spirit only, he was not fully God. Remember Paul, whom you quoted earlier. In Christ was contained all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

The body is not a mere container of spirit reacting to the spirit as a puppet to the puppet master. It is an integral part of human nature which always influences and sometimes controls the spirit.

Unless you care to dispute the Trinity now.

All I have said above is consistent with Trinitarianism. Indeed, it is founded on Trinitarianism.

The important thing to remember is what the Bible actually teaches and adhere to it, whether you understand or not. Like a child that trusts her father, so too should we be in trusting our Heavenly Father even when we don't understand.

Agreed. Our point of difference is about what the Bible actually teaches.

 

[Critias]

Hmm. Interesting discussion between you and Gluadys.

Critias, I agree with your post above yet I find it hard to reconcile with Lutheranism which I know we both are. Lutherans assert that God loved us even though we were sinners. Personally, I find the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on The Mount to be directed at people who could rise above their sinful nature and lead sinless lives. Maybe it is an ideal not one that man can attain bit who knows what the future holds.

On the whole though, Gluadys is not saying, at least from my POV, that Jesus was not divine but is putting forth a trinitarian point of view. From the council of Chalcedon onward it was asserted that Jesus was both God and Man and it is a mystery. I fail to see where Gluadys strays from that view.

God does love us even though we are sinners. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we can ever rise above our sinfulness so that we sin no more. My point is that we can choose to do right or wrong. Thus we can choose to sin or not. That doesn't mean if we choose to not sin that we are sinless, we are not. And we never have been, not now and not when we were born.

What I understand Gluadys to be saying is that Jesus was without some or all of His attributes that make Him God. Paul teaches against this, as I have pointed out. Paul says that He had all of His attributes, or fulness, while in bodily form. What is left is either to accept Paul's teaching or reject it.

I will continue later on in the next day or two to comment on her latest post.

 

[gluadys]

What I understand Gluadys to be saying is that Jesus was without some or all of His attributes that make Him God. Paul teaches against this, as I have pointed out. Paul says that He had all of His attributes, or fulness, while in bodily form. What is left is either to accept Paul's teaching or reject it.

I will continue later on in the next day or two to comment on her latest post.

I think I see where the problem in communication lies now. Perhaps my position would be better expressed thus: in his incarnation as a human, Jesus was less than God as human, but still God and equal to God as divine. The kenosis is not a surrendering of divinity or the attributes of divinity, but a limit voluntarily accepted on the exercise of the attributes of divinity in order to be fully human. In his incarnation, Jesus fully accepted all the limitations of humanity except sin.

Is that more acceptable from your POV?

 

[Critias]

I think I see where the problem in communication lies now. Perhaps my position would be better expressed thus: in his incarnation as a human, Jesus was less than God as human, but still God and equal to God as divine. The kenosis is not a surrendering of divinity or the attributes of divinity, but a limit voluntarily accepted on the exercise of the attributes of divinity in order to be fully human. In his incarnation, Jesus fully accepted all the limitations of humanity except sin.

Is that more acceptable from your POV?

From my point of view, Jesus had all of His attributes that make Him God while here on earth. He was never in the position of "He couldn't do", but rather chose how it would be.

On His incarnation, He didn't give up anything in the sense that He became void of something and was unable to do anything even if He so choosed.

It is obvious that He chose to learn, He chose to be allowed to be tempted and feel our emotions. Even before His incarnation, He had emotions and experienced them, such as anger, jealousy, compassion, and love.

These were by His choice, not because He had no choice. There are accounts in the Gospels where He was surrounded by people who were trying to kill Him and He just dissappeared. He allowed His disciples to call Him Lord, a proclamation reserved only for God. He was called the Son of God which was commonly understood as being God.

At age 12 He astonished the trained Rabbis. I tend to take this as they learned something from Jesus' wisdom. At this age, a boy would be well versed in the Old Testament, yet Jesus astonished them. If only we today are as well versed in Scripture as a Jewish boy at the age of 12 had to be.

My position is that Jesus was never void of any attribute at any time, but chose to use them when He chose to and didn't when chose not to. He Himself laid His own life down, it wasn't taken from Him. At any moment He could have stopped the beating and the crucifixion, but He did not. He became obedient even until death for our sakes, not because He had to, but because He loves us that much.

 

[gluadys]

From my point of view, Jesus had all of His attributes that make Him God while here on earth. He was never in the position of "He couldn't do", but rather chose how it would be.

Whereas I think more that he chose, in his divinity, to be unable to choose in his humanity. It is a question of whether he chose incarnation once or whether he chose incarnation moment by moment all during his human life. I think both perspectives have something going for them.

At age 12 He astonished the trained Rabbis. I tend to take this as they learned something from Jesus' wisdom. At this age, a boy would be well versed in the Old Testament, yet Jesus astonished them. If only we today are as well versed in Scripture as a Jewish boy at the age of 12 had to be.

They were indeed astonished at his understanding. But it says that it was Jesus who listened and asked questions--who sought to be educated, not to educate. Whether the rabbis learned anything is not stated. As a former teacher, I can attest that a teacher can be amazed at a student's grasp of a subject without the student becoming a teacher. Where one student is still tripping over fundamentals, another may have an intuitive grasp of complexities well beyond what is in the text.

It is in this sense--in the maturity of his understanding well beyond a lad of his years--that I tend to see the rabbis' astonishment at Jesus in the temple.

My position is that Jesus was never void of any attribute at any time, but chose to use them when He chose to and didn't when chose not to. He Himself laid His own life down, it wasn't taken from Him. At any moment He could have stopped the beating and the crucifixion, but He did not. He became obedient even until death for our sakes, not because He had to, but because He loves us that much.

Could he? In Gethsemane he prayed that his father would take this cup away from him. Why ask his father to do what he could do himself?

I agree that he laid down his life of his own volition and became obedient to death for our sakes, not because he had to, but for love of us. It is more a question of when did he make that choice? And if it was irrevocable once made.

You are suggesting that Jesus could have chosen right up to the moment of his last breath, to put a stop to the crucifixion. I won't say you are wrong on this, because frankly, I don't know. I don't think anyone other than God knows the mystery of the human-divine relation of God incarnate. But IMHO I think it more probable that the choice was made earlier.

 

[stumpjumper]

I'm not looking this up in the Bible so I may be wrong but Jesus did display deference to God the Father while he was incarnate.

In the raising of Lazarus Jesus prayed to God the Father before going into the tomb. On the Cross he recited the Psalm that begins "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" At the beginning of his ministry, you have the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus. I think all of these are more consistent with a Jesus that forsook some of his divine attributes while incarnate.

I do not disagree with the trinity. In fact, I have recently finished a good book "Death on a Friday Afternoon" that delves into the trinity more than I would have previously gone but even in that book it shows a Cristology that has Jesus accepting humanity from Mary and divinity from God the Father. Yet, there is a deliniation between the two no matter how mysterious.

 

[shernren]

I don't have the time to make a proper and full response right now but can I ask something Critias? Do you have other verses which back up your usage of Colossians 2:9 to support that doctrine? When I read Colossians 2:9 in the context of Colossians 2, it does not seem that Paul makes that statement about the attributes of Jesus as God, but rather the identity of Jesus as God. What I see and read is that he is speaking out against legalism (vv20-23) and false worship of angels (v18) by pointing out the centrality and finality of Jesus' death on the cross - and this centrality and finality only depends on Jesus being God on the cross, surely, and not so much on Jesus being, say, omniscient while He was on the cross.

(What problems were the Colossian church facing that prompted Paul to make the statement in terms of "in bodily form"? Or is trying to find this interpreting Scripture by using knowledge outside Scripture - is it wrong? )

Could he? In Gethsemane he prayed that his father would take this cup away from him. Why ask his father to do what he could do himself?

C.S. Lewis points to this prayer of Jesus as showing that Jesus had given up His omniscience at least at that point, for having a human psychology (even one without sin) it must have been impossible for Him both to pray that the Cup should be taken from Him and to know in inerrant omniscience that it could not be possible. I tend to agree. Thoughts on this?

 

[Talcara]

Hi shernren,

C.S. Lewis points to this prayer of Jesus as showing that Jesus had given up His omniscience at least at that point, for having a human psychology (even one without sin) it must have been impossible for Him both to pray that the Cup should be taken from Him and to know in inerrant omniscience that it could not be possible. I tend to agree. Thoughts on this?

Just chipping in my two cents here, lads:

I wouldn't agree with his position (as much as I respect C.S. Lewis). Just out of interest, where exactly did you get your information from?

If we can't trust that Jesus was inerrant during His time on Earth, then on what grounds should we trust Him when He talks about heavenly things and how to reach it? If you claim because He was there [in heaven], then you must equally claim that Jesus has similarly the same authority when He speaks on things that relate to the early chapters of Genesis because He was there and He created the whole world and universe (He provides evidence from Genesis 2 when He talks about marriage, He compares His second coming with that of the Great Flood, etc, etc).

I believe that Jesus prayed that pray in Gethsemane because He began to be sorrowful and troubled (according to TNIV). The TEV says that grief and anguish came over Him and that the sorrow in His heart is so great that it almost crushes Him (Matthew 26:37-38). He knew that there was no other way for mankind to be saved other than His death, He prayed what He did to the Father out of anguish. We do a similar thing today. For example, let's say that you're going through a hard time. I don't know about you, but sometimes I just throw myself on the ground and just cry out to God in anguish. I the answer to what I cry about, yet I ask God just to let Him know how I feel and, depending on the circumstance, to let off some steam and recieve the strength to carry on.

I believe that Jesus was just letting God know the anguish that He feels inside. Yet He says to the Father, "Not as I will, but as you will" (Matthew 26:39, TNIV). In other words, He was saying that He wanted to do God's will over His unwillingless to go to the cross ("the flesh is weak" (Matthew 26:41)). In prayer to His Father in heaven He found the strength He needed, both to embrace the Father's will and to accept the suffering that must come His way in order to carry out that will.

That's in my opinion anyway. Possibly wrong, but still - I'd need to look at some commentaries that specifically address this point before I fully commit myself.

 

[Talcara]

Hi stumpjumper,

I have an appointment at the doctors in about half an hour, so I can't give a fully response. Stay tuned though! What I will briefly say now about my position is that I deny (reject) evolution on both scientific grounds and because it goes against the Bible and destroys the foundation and meaning of Jesus' death on the cross - not to mention that it is inconsistent with many, many other biblical statements and doctrines (e.g. Exodus 20:11), why we wear clothes, marriage, etc, etc. Of course, the latter two may/may not apply to everyone's belief on this forum as there are so many different versions of theistic evolution.

 

[Critias]

I don't have the time to make a proper and full response right now but can I ask something Critias? Do you have other verses which back up your usage of Colossians 2:9 to support that doctrine? When I read Colossians 2:9 in the context of Colossians 2, it does not seem that Paul makes that statement about the attributes of Jesus as God, but rather the identity of Jesus as God. What I see and read is that he is speaking out against legalism (vv20-23) and false worship of angels (v18) by pointing out the centrality and finality of Jesus' death on the cross - and this centrality and finality only depends on Jesus being God on the cross, surely, and not so much on Jesus being, say, omniscient while He was on the cross.

(What problems were the Colossian church facing that prompted Paul to make the statement in terms of "in bodily form"? Or is trying to find this interpreting Scripture by using knowledge outside Scripture - is it wrong? )

The meaning of the Greek word Pleroma means this within the context it is used, infinite attributes that make God, God. Paul teaches here that within Jesus, bodily, was all the fullness of God. This is used to establish who Jesus was and that He was not just a prophet or half god, He was fully and completely God in all the fullness of His infinite attributes as well as being completely human.

Those who question this, are those who state that a human is this or that. Even some say to be human is to sin, thus Jesus was sinful if He was fully human. The fact of the matter is, we don't define what a human is, the Creator does.

If we cannot understand this mystery, we would do well just to believe instead of rejecting it. (not saying anyone is)

Can you find anywhere in Scripture where God gives up being what makes Him God? That means void of His attributes and cannot use them even if He wants to. I guarantee you, you cannot. You can find where God chooses not to use His attributes, but still has them able to use them at anytime of His choosing.

There are many verses that within the Gospels that shows Jesus' attributes of God.

C.S. Lewis points to this prayer of Jesus as showing that Jesus had given up His omniscience at least at that point, for having a human psychology (even one without sin) it must have been impossible for Him both to pray that the Cup should be taken from Him and to know in inerrant omniscience that it could not be possible. I tend to agree. Thoughts on this?

I have no problem saying that Jesus didn't use His attributes at given times in His life so that He experienced human life. If you read the Gospels, there are times when He speaks as God and times when He speaks as a man. He is able to take up His attributes and raise men from the dead, heal the sick, walk on water, calm the storm. The discples said, who is this man that even the weather listens to Him.

It is my opinion that when He preached, He preached with the Authority of God because He is/was God. He was able to read men's minds and know what was in their hearts. Is this a normal human trait? No. He was different then us and at the same time human like us.

The whole reason He came is because not one of us could do what He did. He had to be different then us to do what He did. Yet, He had to be like us. But like, doesn't mean the same.

 

[shernren]

I have an appointment at the doctors in about half an hour, so I can't give a fully response. Stay tuned though! What I will briefly say now about my position is that I deny (reject) evolution on both scientific grounds and because it goes against the Bible and destroys the foundation and meaning of Jesus' death on the cross - not to mention that it is inconsistent with many, many other biblical statements and doctrines (e.g. Exodus 20:11), why we wear clothes, marriage, etc, etc. Of course, the latter two may/may not apply to everyone's belief on this forum as there are so many different versions of theistic evolution.

Oh dear. Not to be offensive but I can smell PRATTle (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) a mile away. Please tell me this isn't going to be another AiG copy-pastefest. (The "clothes" part gave it away. Would someone coming up with original arguments really believe that TEs don't have a theological reason to wear clothes?)

Am hoping to be proven wrong, though.

If we can't trust that Jesus was inerrant during His time on Earth, then on what grounds should we trust Him when He talks about heavenly things and how to reach it? If you claim because He was there [in heaven], then you must equally claim that Jesus has similarly the same authority when He speaks on things that relate to the early chapters of Genesis because He was there and He created the whole world and universe (He provides evidence from Genesis 2 when He talks about marriage, He compares His second coming with that of the Great Flood, etc, etc).

There is a difference between "inerrant" and "omniscient". To give the simplest example possible, the Bible is seen as inerrant by most, but not even a YEC would call the Bible "omniscient". Nobody here suggests that Jesus lied, or that Jesus deliberately withheld information. But for us TEs we believe that just because Jesus used the creation ideas of the day doesn't mean He endorsed them. The Bible uses geocentric language without expressly promoting geocentrism and I believe that some of Jesus' sayings represent the same attitude towards the scientific plausibility of the creation story. (The Great Flood was in Genesis 6-8, not 2, and a local flood that nonetheless wiped out all humanity has a few theological problems, admittedly, but not many enough to call it a heresy or even an unprofitable doctrine.)

The meaning of the Greek word Pleroma means this within the context it is used, infinite attributes that make God, God. Paul teaches here that within Jesus, bodily, was all the fullness of God. This is used to establish who Jesus was and that He was not just a prophet or half god, He was fully and completely God in all the fullness of His infinite attributes as well as being completely human.

To give a blatant counterargument, Jesus was not omnipresent.

I have no problem saying that Jesus didn't use His attributes at given times in His life so that He experienced human life. If you read the Gospels, there are times when He speaks as God and times when He speaks as a man. He is able to take up His attributes and raise men from the dead, heal the sick, walk on water, calm the storm. The discples said, who is this man that even the weather listens to Him.

It is my opinion that when He preached, He preached with the Authority of God because He is/was God. He was able to read men's minds and know what was in their hearts. Is this a normal human trait? No. He was different then us and at the same time human like us.

The whole reason He came is because not one of us could do what He did. He had to be different then us to do what He did. Yet, He had to be like us. But like, doesn't mean the same.

(emphasis added; not quote-mining!)

Well, it seems our positions aren't too far apart - I would personally believe that Jesus didn't use His attributes at all times during His life so that He experienced normal human life. This is precisely why many during His lifetime felt justified to ignore His claim to divinity. He did not use the Godhood He possessed, and that was mistaken by many to mean that He did not in fact possess Godhood. It was only as the disciples experienced His resurrection and ascension - by which time He had already fulfilled His death, and so was free to reassert His Godhood - that they truly understood that this was indeed God-Man.

Many people would point to Jesus' miracles and authority as signs that He displayed His Godhood on earth. But I would be inclined (though speculatively) to believe that in fact, this was due to the powerful anointing of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus. Jesus never grieved, offended or quenched the Holy Spirit in any way, and so we can expect that His communion with the Holy Spirit was very, very intimate. I believe that this was how Jesus worked His miracles, not through any power or authority of His own, but through the power and authority of God the Holy Spirit. In this case, what people would marvel at was not His own power and authority, but the power and authority of the Holy Spirit and His closeness to the Holy Spirit so that He understood perfectly God's will and when to call upon the Holy Spirit's power. Today we see to a lesser degree Christians who are empowered by the Holy Spirit to heal, to cast out demons, to preach with authority, to receive "words of revelation" about somebody's thoughts or condition to help them pray - all things that Jesus began on earth. It is the Holy Spirit who works through modern-day Christians; I wouldn't be surprised if it was also the Holy Spirit working through Jesus in 1st-Century Palestine.