Was Jesus a Creationist?

Was Jesus a Creationist? It depends on what that word means. Of course, being the creator in the flesh, Jesus know that all we are and see was created by God.

But He also knew exactly to what extent the OT was literal and was not. But He never spoke to that issue. He referred to the OT scriptures respectfully, drew lessons from them. If He considered them to be parables in some instances, that did not stop Him from using them anyway.

 

I'm actually not speculating or guessing. What I am doing is betting you haven't the vaguest idea of what I'm talking about.

Actually you are misrepresenting my views, therefore it's "less compelling". I'm asking for what your views are, I'm not stating mine, so your misdirection onto me shouldn't come into this discussion.

Again, total assumption. You are attempting to misdirect the conversation instead of actually answering the question. I'm aware of this magician's trick and I'm not buying it. I didn't say I rejected the Biblical account, in fact I'm accepting it as fact in regards to this question-a point I've made several times now. So please on with your answer.

While I'm not arguing about the age of the meteor, as it's irrelevant to the conversation, I will be asking for cites, so please provide some.

Careful now, you appear to be dodging and weaving in order to create a strawman. The question is simple: Explain how it's possible that the earth is young and that mankind lived after several meteors hit the planet. Keep in mind that these meteors are each capable of rendering the planet lifeless. Also, I want cites; biblical or scientific and I would appreciate if you kept your "compromised christian" rants out of your answer.

 

Now this is not what you said before.

First time around you made the blanket statement that meteors are high in nickel. You have now made two completely different statements.

Do you have any data that supports your assertion that river deltas should be higher in nickel given an old earth including the assumptions that are made in coming to this conclusion?

 

Yes -

Bob

 

The problem is that Christ and the NT authors appeal to the "DETAILS" the "VERY DETAILS" that the Atheist evolutionist argues are the "MOST" untrue aspect of the supposed OT myths. Instead of appealing to THE principle but not the untrustworthy DETAILS - the NT text appeals to the pesky DETAILS as the BASIS for arguments made in the NT. This is NOT what we expect to find from those who "knew the OT details to be flawed, false or vapor".

Your argument fails on that point.

Christ is NOT said to be "Maker of a planet and one living cell" But rather "Maker of the heavens and the earth - the seas and ALL THAT IS IN THEM".

A more expansive statement can not be had. It drives the point of creation "God SPOKE and IT WAS" HE commanded and it stood fast.

The model of "something made out of nothing" and the model of "6 cycles of evening and morning" stand without objection in the text scripture.

Jesus was the Father of Creationism from day ONE.

Bob

 

It's not surprising that you can't find any evidence that Jesus said Genesis is literal. He apparently never said anything at all about that.

The fact that Jesus cites figurative verses does not convert them to literal ones.

 

Bobryan-are you going to explain the meteor craters or are you going to continue to dodge them?

Remember you're whole young earth argument falls apart if you can't explain them.

 

from Galatian: It's not surprising that you can't find any evidence that Jesus said Genesis is literal. He apparently never said anything at all about that.

The fact that Jesus cites figurative verses does not convert them to literal ones.

That is one of the most bizarre arguments in the world, Galatian, but you keep bringing it up. I have never heard any President of the United States say the Revolution was literal history, but that does not make it allegorical! When something is known to be true history by any group of people, no one is going to make the startling announcement that it is true. If, however, something is presumed to be true by a group of people and someone in authority knows it is not true, then it behooves that person in authority to inform the populace of the truth of the situation. Especially if that person in authority claims that He IS the truth. Jesus referenced Genesis events as literal truth. He used their historical example as warnings. One does not do that with allegories and legends. No one, for instance, who tries to establish himself as knowledgeable is going to cite The Wizard of Oz regarding American history, even though it was written as an allegory of the political events of the time. People cite real events that others know are real events if they are trying to deal with lessons that history teaches, as Jesus was.


from Meatros:
Bobryan-are you going to explain the meteor craters or are you going to continue to dodge them?

Remember you're whole young earth argument falls apart if you can't explain them.

Baloney. First of all, he does not have to explain the craters. Others have done so perfectly well. Secondly, the young earth argument stands or falls on its own as the truth or a lie, regardless of what Bob knows. Quit baiting and hounding.

 

The only other's who have explained craters perfectly well are those who accept an old earth. The other arguments that I've heard; either have no support (biblically or scientifically) or don't make sense.

It's interesting how you get on my case for baiting, but not his. The fact is the craters present a serious objection to the Young Earth Argument and failure to explain it presents a very big problem.

Bobryan baits/hounds Christians who accept science's view of an old earth; yet he doesn't bother to explain the inconsistences in the belief of a Young Earth.

I mean, is he (or anyone), who says we must accept an young earth, really expecting us to believe in the face of evidence to the contrary?

 

Meatros:

I presume that is in the opinion of evolutionists
ONLY. I find the views of Old Worlders dry and
boring, if not just pretentious.

 

Scientists, not only evolutionist. You need to divorce yourself from lumping people into groups like that.

Personally I don't care how you find "old worlders", it doesn't effect my salvation.

All the "Young Earthers" that I've discussed meteor craters with prefer to ignore the issue, or to handwave it away. None I've argued with have ever given much of a satisfactory explanation though. Would you care to be the first?

 

Whoa, young earth/old earth and evolution are two different topics.

It's interesting to see the debate. Now I know why I prefer to stay out of them. As soon as you remotely entertain the idea of anything outside of an earth that started in 4004 bc, you get "heathen" pasted on your forehead.

 

Actually Johnv:

As soon as one says that they are a Creationist,
the Evolutionists apply the word "looney".
Meatros has this habit of insisting that
"scientists" and "evolutionists" are synonymous.
The fact is that there are scientists who were
creationists in years past and there are
scientists who are creationists presently.
They may not be in the majority; however, neither
is Christianity.

Fence sitting is not an attibute praised by GOD.

 

Was Jesus a Creationist? He is the Creator!

 

Maybe you should speak for only yourself. I have never called you looney, nor have I witnessed anyone calling you looney.

You a fabricating things here. I have repeatedly and insistantly told you not to group all scientists into one group. Now you are accusing me of it?

Who's arguing to the contrary? Scientists are composed of individuals and as such they have a wide range of beliefs.

Actually Christianity is the majority religion IIRC; perhaps not your narrow brand, but Christianity none-the-less.

 

So what page of the Bible does reality start
and the fiction end? Where does Christianity
start? Just point it out and I'll throw the
rest away?

 

Quit bearing false witness fellow Christian! Where EXACTLY did I say the bible was fiction???

 

As soon as one says that they are a Creationist, the Evolutionists apply the word "looney".
I know you mean well, but I've never heard that. Besides, "creationist" simply means that one believes that there was a creator. "Evolutionist" simply means that one believes that life changes over time. I've found that 6-day literalists have often hijacked the "creationist" label for themselves, and have added other inferences to the word "evolutionist". I've seen posts in this very forum that asserts that the only "creationist" is one who believes in a six 24 hour day creation.

Meatros has this habit of insisting that
"scientists" and "evolutionists" are synonymous.
In all fairness, I haven't seen him do this.


The fact is that there are scientists who were
creationists in years past and there are
scientists who are creationists presently. They may not be in the majority; however, neither
is Christianity.
Many scientists are creationists, but still accept that the best thories that support the body of evidence are evolutionary theories. Evolution is simply a theory that says how something appeared to happen. It doesn't say whodunnit. I don't see them as interfering. Only when the additional inferences to the words are used do they interfere.

Fence sitting is not an attibute praised by GOD.
I don't consider this a topic of fence sitting. It's difficult for most Christians to accept the idea that God created the world in 6 days, and then made it appear that it was created over vast periods of time. Such would mean that God is deceptive. Better to believe that Genesis is allegorical and God be true, rather than Genesis be literal and God be deceptive.

 

Meatros:

Exactly when Noah stopped being a man who built
the ark to survive the Flood, dear sir...
Reality and truth are one and the same. I
intend to go to a real place when I die----
how about you (I hear allegories tend to be rather
empty)

 

The story of Noah has nothing to do with Genesis1. Bringing it up simply coulds the issue.