Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Is the Bible wrong about time and the orgins of man and woman?
date
newest »
newest »
Or we can just trust the Bible as it is written. I prefer that method.
Interesting verse, Rod. I'm inclined to agree with you that Jesus believed Adam and Eve were made at the "beginning of creation." I can't think of any reason why he wouldn't believe that.
But does Jesus only believe TRUTH? He is God after-all.Isn't it funny that Mark said, that Jesus said, that Moses said, that God (the Holy Spirit) said, there is no evolution of man.
Yet many Christians blindly trust all opposing scientists on this issue.
God created Man and Woman as He said in Genesis, but Rod, we are evolving as we speak. We'd better or the environment (in it's broadest, most inclusive sense) will get ahead of us and we'll perish. Drat! And I so wanted to see Lee tackle the tribulations.
Wait a minute. Are you insinuating that Jesus knew everything, was never wrong about anything? Did he not think Moses wrote the Torah? We know better. Did he not think he would be returning before his apostles could even cross Judea? He guessed wrong.Besides, what do you want people to do who know a young earth to be false?
Some scientists state that we are getting worse Robert. Is there anywhere in the Bible that it states we are getting BETTER at anything? I think it's safe to say LEE WILL HAVE TO TACKLE THE TRIBULATIONS. I just hope he does it with a positive liberal attitude. "Smile!"
Lee please show me the verse that clearly states that Jesus thought Moses personally wrote down every letter/dot/graph/smiley face...of the Torah.Then we have to carefully decide what exactly is the full torah in all it's Moses like glory.
I am tackling you all the best I know how. Sometimes with a smile, sometimes without.
Whether we are getting better or worse as a species is a side argument, Rod, and I won't dispute we may be getting worse. The point I'm making is the environment is always changing from pollutants to new super-pathogens. Medicine can only do so much. Our DNA is our blueprint for making defenses. If we currently can't make antibodies or other defense mechanisms against a bacterial or viral invader then new sequences of DNA need be opened to create the enzymes that create the biochemical production line that CAN create that fresh antibody. That's either adaptation or evolution depending on whether the DNA sequence is already present in our genome or must be programmed from scratch.
I agree Robert that our body fights. Many loose this fight. Are we getting stronger? Or just slowly running out of places to hide?I'm still waiting to grow gills and possibly wings. That'll be cool. With my luck - what I have and cheerish will fall off (starting with my hair...then a limb or two.)
Thank you for the continued tackling Lee.Although i really wish you would just love the Bible in every way possibly. Since it is our only source that points to Jesus.
If the Bible ain't trustworthy - i'm changing religions. No reason to worship a deity who hasn't perfectly made his intentions known.
But does Jesus only believe TRUTH? He is God after-all.Hey Rod. This is a good quote to lead into a discussion on the dual-nature of Jesus. I am with you, Jesus is "God after-all". But he is also human.
My thought is that if liberals miss, or diminish, the "Jesus is God" side then conservatives diminish the "Jesus is human" side. Jesus was human - he was born of a woman, screaming and crying and covered in all that birth goop. He nursed at Mary's breast. He had BO and boners and diarrhea and all the other things that make us human.
I think any discussion of how Jesus' human and God natures relate is inherently difficult and if we say too much we end up saying something heretical. But to go to the question of what Jesus knew/believed - I would say since he was human it is clear he believed some wrong things. By this I mean, we ought to assume he believed much as a first century human. Jesus could not have lectured on quantum physics or whatever other knowledge was not available then. Philippians 2:5-11 is clear that in becoming human, Jesus laid aside the rights as God. There are things the Father knows (the final day and hour) that Jesus did not know in his incarnation.
I tend to agree with you on that score David. The emphasis is often placed on the divinity of Christ, even by those who, in word, claim to believe equally in his full humanity. I wonder about Jesus' knowledge from time to time. I eventually want to make a full and complete study of it. Generally when I ask people questions about it they get REALLY, REALLY angry.
I am not willing to say definitively, for instance, that he was pretending to not know who had touched him in Luke 8:45.
But more importantly, as David mentioned, there are certain propositions that he just didn't know, and in order to hold the positions he did hold, he would have to remain ignorant of those propositions. For instance:
'Jesus will not return on February 1, 2013.'
I do not think he knew that this was true. And this goes for every day except the actual day of his return. If he knew that he would not return on all of these days, then by elimination he would know the hour and the day, which he said he did not.
This is an enormous amount of data of which he was ignorant, and of which he MUST have been ignorant in order to not know the day.
The big question for me, though, is could he have been wrong about a factual thing, and not just ignorant. And this is where I tend to get myself into BIG trouble, just for thinking about it. And, as I try to type it out, I realize that I can't say anything without opening up a truckload of worms and waxing overly long-winded.
Unfortunately I have to do the dishes now. So I am out of here...
This is pretty much the same discussion that Christians always get into, isn't it? I see it as a waste of time. No one will change their minds and its interesting that stuff like this is brought up just to question others salvation.
David, I am not saying this has anything to do with salvation. I mean, it defies perfect understanding so if perfect understanding is required we're all screwed.That said, the sort of Jesus you believe in affects how you live. If you diminish the human-ness of Jesus you get the sort of Jesus who doesn't care about the world; you get an escapist gospel that says believe and go to heaven. But if Jesus really was human, if he bled and pooped and all that, then that points us back to the goodness of creation. God created and lived in creation so our call is to care for God's creation, help those in need and all the sorts of things Jesus actually did.
It is one thing to NOT know something. Jesus admits a few things he does not know.It is another thing to embrace a lie. I don't recall Jesus ever doing this.
If Jesus had one SIN: then he is not the perfect lamb. We are not truly redeemed. Otherwise anyone who was better than average could have been up on that cross.
I just want to preface this by saying that these are meant to be taken as musings. I wouldn't dare say that this is what I actually believe. It is not possible for God's will to fail to come about.
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain that Jesus die upon the cross.
Yet Jesus said that with God all things are possible, and in the context of this belief he made his request to be spared the cross, which was contrary to God's will and therefore impossible. It is only because he thought of escape as a possibility that he made the prayer. His sinlessness does not come from the fact that he had no misperceptions about what was and was not possible, but how his will responded to that misperception. He submitted himself to the cross and to his father's will regardless of the fact that as far as he knew he might be allowed to live.
Adam and Eve did not sin because they believed the devil when he said that they would be like gods if they ate the fruit - it did not come from the fact that they believed a false proposition. It came from the fact that they disobeyed God. It doesn't matter what the fruit can do, or whether they were wrong or right about its powers; they had a command to obey. Jesus' righteousness does not come from omniscience, it comes from his obedience to his father.
We've considered elsewhere whether or not the devil could truly understand God. And I would say that he could not possibly, or else he would not think that he could win. If he truly understood God he would know that a successful rebellion against an omnipotent being is an absurdity. On the other hand, if Jesus did not even think that it was possible for him to turn the stones into bread, how could he have been truly tempted by it? When I am hungry I am tempted by cheeseburgers, because I know that I can get one. But I have never been tempted to turn by socks into slices of bacon. Jesus was tempted by the stones because he thought he could change them.
Yet God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain that those stones would not become bread. Jesus was tempted because he thought something was possible when it was not.
But he obeyed God regardless. It is his faith, and not his perceptions or misperceptions that makes him the perfect lamb. Even in the face of a lie, like the thought of turning the stones to bread or escaping the cross, Jesus did the very opposite of embrace the falsehood as Adam and Eve did when they were presented with temptation.
But again, this is all theoretical. And I know that one can easily find wiggle room in alternate interpretations of 'possibility' if one must.
David, I just reread my post and realized I wasn't clear. I was talking about the creation being brought up, not Jesus. I agree with your points on that topic.
Jake - thank you for the thoughtful post, much to chew over. One issue that popped out rightfully belongs in the "Does Satan Understand God" topic, but I think it belongs here, too. If Satan understood JESUS he wouldn't have bothered trying to tempt him as he was bound to fail. It should have been like playing Bridge............pass if you don't have the cards!
It is one thing to NOT know something. Jesus admits a few things he does not know.It is another thing to embrace a lie. I don't recall Jesus ever doing this.
The problem is Rod that you are defining what Jesus did not know (as a human) and what he wrongly believed (as a lie) based on what your own opinion is.
Take the subject you started with - the origins of man and woman. To someone who thinks evolution is the best explanation of how we got here, they would easily say Jesus said what he said because he was a first century human with no knowledge of evolution. He is not believing a lie, he is believing based on his human knowledge.
But to you, you believe evolution is a lie, therefore you take Jesus' words as more than just his human knowledge but instead as God's word on the matter.
No Christian thinks Jesus believed a lie,as you put it. In other words, whether you believe evolution is true or not, on other grounds, will dictate what you believe Jesus means in the phrase you mentioned.
David wrote: "But does Jesus only believe TRUTH? He is God after-all.Hey Rod. This is a good quote to lead into a discussion on the dual-nature of Jesus. I am with you, Jesus is "God after-all". But he is a..."
I have to emphatically disagree with you sir. Jesus did spend time on earth as a man, but yet remained God. When He spoke to Pharisees or giving instructions to His disciples, He spoke with authority, authority as the Son of God in a sinless, I repeat Sinless human body. To say that Christ believed in wrong things is to make him a sinner. If you are sinless, you are perfect, and if you are perfect then you can't ever be wrong. Can you?
Yes God allowed Himself to have limitations as a man, but He did not sin. To imply that Jesus had boners is to imply He lusted, in which lust is a sin, and if Jesus was a sinner then you believe He was man only and not God. Which means we are still waiting for the Savior to die for our sins. Remember before Adam sinned, he was perfect, without sin, meaning no boners, no lust no Sin!
So Jesus was the second Adam, except He spent His entire life not sinning. Jesus is God and equal to the Father.
The Father is greater in authority to the Son, not person. So because the Father knows one thing that Christ doesn't, that make Him less than God? No it doesn't. The Holy Ghost don't know the appointed day either when Christ returns, does that make the Holy Ghost less than God? No it doesn't.
Here's an analogy for you...there are three men, one is the founder of a corporation, then you have a CEO and a CFO. Now suppose the founder knows something (an update) that the company plans to do but doesn't tell the CEO & CFO right away. Now does that mean the CEO & CFO are not men because the guy in charge knows something that they don't? Of course not, they are all equal as men.
Question: If you know something I don't, does that mean we are not equal as men?
I repeat God the Father is greatest in authority, not in person. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal as God. Only the Father knows the day of Christ returning because that day is set by His authority, or else why would He send Christ to judge? If Christ is not equal to the Father then He can't judge, can He?
Mack wrote: "Remember before Adam sinned, he was perfect, without sin, meaning no boners, no lust no Sin!"While some boners involve lust, I do not think that this is universally the case. So I think the example David gave, while striking in the face of the almost inhuman way we have been trained to view Jesus, is very effective. I don't think it necessarily implies that Jesus sinned.
But I am sure we can debate this further.
And now I've seen everything.
Jake wrote: "I just want to preface this by saying that these are meant to be taken as musings. I wouldn't dare say that this is what I actually believe. It is not possible for God's will to fail to come abou..."
I wanted to say that I actually agree with these comments sir! They may indeed be more than theoretical.
Sacre bleu! We are going to debate boners further?? At least the Atheists may not think we're quite so boring.
Jesus couldn't ever be wrong? Mack, I'm curious how you view the following. It's pure curiosity, I won't argue.1. Jesus appears to have thought Moses wrote the Torah, but we know better today.
2. Jesus appears to have thought he would be coming back before his disciples could even cross Judea in their evangelizing. Did he come back, or did those lazy evangelists give up?
3. Jesus appears to have failed in attempts to heal people in his hometown, and in another instance required two tries to heal a blind man. Is the Bible wrong about this?
4. Jesus once told a Gentile woman that she was like a dog wanting the children's bread. But he changed his mind. Was he wrong before?
Robert wrote: "We are going to debate boners further??"It was only a matter of time.
Lee wrote: "Jesus couldn't ever be wrong? Mack, I'm curious how you view the following. It's pure curiosity, I won't argue.1. Jesus appears to have thought Moses wrote the Torah, but we know better today.
2..."
Pure curiosity, I doubt that. I believe you want to argue or else you wouldn't bring this up.
(1)My point is when Jesus referred to the Old Testament he called it the scriptures, not Torah. John 5:39: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” God knows what books or scriptures Moses wrote. Why? Because He, being God, instructed Moses what to write. John 5:46-47: “(46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. (47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” Jesus is God and so God (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) instructed the men who wrote the bible what to write. 2 Peter 1:20-21: “(20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
(3)I am honestly offended by this statement because to say Jesus failed at something is to say he’s not perfect thus not equal to the Father and in other words you are saying that God is not perfect. Jesus is perfect. Jesus is God. So God is perfect. Remember Jesus (God) gives everyone freewill to believe in Him or to reject Him. So what you are referring to is not Jesus failing them but the people failing to believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Matthew 13:57-58: “(57) And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house. (58) And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.” So because the people had no faith in Jesus, He did not heal them. It doesn’t say He could not do it. Jesus has the power, but the power can only be received by faith in Him. The same goes for salvation. As for the blind man and that it took two tries, the passage you are referring to is Mark 8:22-26. This blind man showed faith in Jesus which is why he is healed. That passage pictures the disciples slowly but surely coming to the realization of Christ as the Messiah which is mentioned a few verses later. Mark 8:29: “And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.” So my concern is of your misinterpretation of scripture. The bible is never wrong. Remember the scriptures are infallible. John 17:17: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
(4)Matthew 15:24-28: “(24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (25) Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. (26) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. (27) And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. (28) Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.” In Matthew 15:21-28 a gentile seeks Jesus to heal her daughter who was possessed by a demon. Now I posted these verses to show you that Jesus was testing her faith. Children meaning Jews and dogs..Gentiles...symbolically of course. Jesus wasn’t wrong about anything here it was a test of the woman’s faith which is why He concluded: “O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.” The woman’s daughter was healed because of her faith in Jesus.
I didn't answer number 2 because frankly I am not sure what are you talking about there because whatever it is you are talking about is being misinterpreted here. So please refresh my memory about number 2.
Now Mr. Lee, I haven't been with this group long, but I have looked at your page and read some of your comments here in recent posts and I have concerns about you.
Question: Are you being used by God to contend for the faith, or are you being led by the devil to go against it?
You seem to focus on Jesus' humanity, but I am concern you are out of focus. Do you compare Jesus with other men who were sinners? Although Jesus spent time on earth as a man...He did not sin, so there is no other "man" to compare Him to. Adam and Eve were sinless, but only for a brief period of time. Jesus, however, never sinned so He remains sinless always because He can't or won't or however you want to put it...He is sinless. His divine nature as God kept His humanity from sinning. He had some limitations by being a man, but His nature was and always be like His Father.
No, I'm really not into arguing, as we've been over these scriptures before in this forum. But it helps me understand how you interpret scripture so I know how to read the things you write. Don't worry if you have concerns about me. So does everyone, from militant atheist to strict fundamentalist.
#2 is Matthew 10:23
#3, you are reading Matthew's version. It's Mark's Gospel that offends you, in 6:5. Matthew rewrote Mark, presumably believing that it's better to think Jesus WOULDN'T heal people than that he COULDN'T. I disagree, I think "wouldn't" is worse than "couldn't", but that's a matter of how we perceive Jesus.
I am not saying that Matthew was not spinning it to sound better than 'couldn't,' but it seems to say, at least in the translations I'm reading, that he 'did not...because of their unbelief.' This does not necessarily imply that he could have but didn't want to. But again, that is just from the translations that I have at hand.
Lee wrote: "No, I'm really not into arguing, as we've been over these scriptures before in this forum. But it helps me understand how you interpret scripture so I know how to read the things you write. Don't..."
You have me misinterpreted...I ask and pray and fast continually for God to give me understanding of His Word. I am not offended by any parts of the bible. I believe the bible to be God's inerrant Word.
Not offended by what the Bible says, but offended by the idea that Jesus failed? OK, if I put it together that Jesus is all-knowing, then I can see how you might think: Jesus knew he couldn't heal them, so he didn't try, thus he didn't fail?
I don't really understand how Jesus not knowing something means he wasn't God in human form. I have no problem with Jesus not knowing everything until after the resurrection.Also, as has already been mentioned, boners don't equal lust. Saying that Jesus never woke up with one would make me feel like he wasn't human... Just saying.
I think Jesus wouldn't/couldn't heal is missing the point. The populace was not receptive to His message, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." (Romans 9:18). Shaking the dust off one's sandals seems applicable.
I disagree, Calvin. I see a huge difference between wouldn't and couldn't. May I assume you align with Matthew against Mark, then? I think that's two votes for "wouldn't" and one for "couldn't" if I read Jake right.
In a Calvinistic view, 'could not' implies that the volition of God is against it, since he decrees everything from eternity, and so Jesus could not do it because God would not do it. But since Jesus, in that view, aligns his will with the Father, is one with the Father, and wills as the Father wills, the could not and the would not would be identical.
fascinating theology! Does it not make you wonder if Jesus wished he could help those people that God refused to help? btw, nowhere does Jesus imply that it is he, or God, who provides the healing power. Always it is because of the belief/faith of the recipient. Here, Jesus' "failure" is because of their unbelief. I find that fascinating: It's like God made a natural law and then stepped out of the picture: "If you believe in me, it'll work." I guess the Calvinist would say they were predestined to not believe, thus were unhelpable.
I have to emphatically disagree with you sir. Jesus did spend time on earth as a man, but yet remained God...Yes God allowed Himself to have limitations as a man, but He did not sin. To imply that Jesus had boners is to imply He lusted, in which lust is a sin, and if Jesus was a sinner then you believe He was man only and not God. Which means we are still waiting for the Savior to die for our sins. Remember before Adam sinned, he was perfect, without sin, meaning no boners, no lust no Sin! I am not entirely sure which part you disagree with. I hold to the traditional view of the dual-nature of Jesus Christ. But as I said, if you start to talk on the details of how it works you end up moving into heresy one way or the other. I could easily accuse you of Docetism. I think most evangelical Christians lean toward the Docetic side. Your fear that Jesus had a human body with all its odds and ends demonstrates this.
I did not say Jesus lusted, you did. I said he was a human which meant he had erections and sweated and had diarrhea. Jesus was fully human, that's part of what makes it so amazing - God became human, warts and all.
Did Jesus have warts? He was the perfect lamb...so maybe not. :cD
Jake wrote: "In a Calvinistic view, 'could not' implies that the volition of God is against it, since he decrees everything from eternity, and so Jesus could not do it because God would not do it. But since Jes..."Well-said.
mark 10:6
6"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. 7"FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,…
Most Christians maybe do not accept this verse. They think it should be rewritten to say:
Many millions of years after the beginning of time...after much death and development...God eventually got around to lying and saying "...in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them...it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Would it be funny to watch someone argue with God. And have God say -
God: Where did you ever hear such a stupid story?
Man: Jesus said it in Mark 10.
God: Where did Jesus get that from?
Man: It says Jesus was quoting Moses.
God: Where did Moses get that from?
Man: Didn't Moses get it from you?
God: Ummmmmh? Maybe. I don't clearly recall at this point.