Creationists contend Jesus supported their literalist view, but did He? See "What Jesus Said About the Creation Story and the Flood" at Faith & Reason Ministries, http://www.faithreason.org/
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Was Jesus a Creationist?
- Thread starter johndcal
- Start date
Um...Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I haven't heard literalists justifying their acceptance of a literal bible through Jesus's belief in it.
Being a non-literalist I can see how to use the arguments presented on this page if a literalist used them to convince me. Although, to date, no one has ever tried to convince me in this manner (not to say it doesn't happen, however). However, I'm of the opinion that the reason Jesus didn't talk much about creation/evolution/etc is because he had more important matters to attend to. Ultimately Jesus was concerned with the welfare of mankind and how we treat each other. No matter which side of the fence you squat on, I don't think anyone can deny that Jesus was trying to teach us how to treat each other; as opposed to teaching us about how the Universe was created.
Just my opinion.
Being a non-literalist I can see how to use the arguments presented on this page if a literalist used them to convince me. Although, to date, no one has ever tried to convince me in this manner (not to say it doesn't happen, however). However, I'm of the opinion that the reason Jesus didn't talk much about creation/evolution/etc is because he had more important matters to attend to. Ultimately Jesus was concerned with the welfare of mankind and how we treat each other. No matter which side of the fence you squat on, I don't think anyone can deny that Jesus was trying to teach us how to treat each other; as opposed to teaching us about how the Universe was created.
Just my opinion.
Jesus did not need to be a creationist. He was the Creator!
He knew what He did. He knew it was fact. He knew that Genesis was not misleading people. He may well have written the first chapter Himself...
The book the person starting the thread linked is in direct contradiction to the Bible. I strongly recommend against it.
He knew what He did. He knew it was fact. He knew that Genesis was not misleading people. He may well have written the first chapter Himself...
The book the person starting the thread linked is in direct contradiction to the Bible. I strongly recommend against it.
Meatros, if Jesus was simply trying to teach us how to treat each other, the first commandment would not have been to love God.
If He was only trying to show us how to treat each other, He would not have needed to die on the Cross.
If He was only trying to show us how to treat each other, He did not need to come down from heaven; He could have just sent a few angels with enough 'shock and awe' to get us to all behave better!
Jesus came to save us from ourselves. This is why we have to die to ourselves in order to be born again/saved. We can't hang on to our old natures, for they will murder us.
If He was only trying to show us how to treat each other, He would not have needed to die on the Cross.
If He was only trying to show us how to treat each other, He did not need to come down from heaven; He could have just sent a few angels with enough 'shock and awe' to get us to all behave better!
Jesus came to save us from ourselves. This is why we have to die to ourselves in order to be born again/saved. We can't hang on to our old natures, for they will murder us.
Why must we argue about everything? Notice how I said "the welfare of mankind and how we treat each other." I left off this part in my second statement because I figured it was a given. I suppose it's not though.
Also I viewed the website, what 'book' are you talking about? (I'm genuinely curious as I must have missed it).
Also I viewed the website, what 'book' are you talking about? (I'm genuinely curious as I must have missed it).
I have to agree with Helen. Jesus main purpose wasn’t to prove creation. Furthermore the verses that are listed. (Matthew 19:4-6; 24:37-39 and Mark 10:6) clearly reveals to the reader that Jesus did believe in creation.
The article quote above is why science needs to stay out of the Scriptures, especially with quotes as:
“remarks Jesus supposedly makes” Jesus DID make those remarks….duh
The author says he believes in the deity of Jesus Christ, but I wouldn't bet my paycheck. Again Helen gets it right. Jesus was there in the beginning and He guided the author of Genesis.
Obviously the author isn’t a Christian. When Jesus spoke in parables, He made sure His disciples knew that. Jesus’ words are EXACTLY what He said. The Holy Sprit guided the writer. In Daniel, Daniel asks “And I heard, but I understood not.” Meaning Daniel didn’t understand what he was hearing, but recorded it anyway. The Holy Sprit responds “…Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”
The author just blasphemed the Holy Bible. Still some will be too deceived to see it!!
[ May 13, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]
YEC adds to the word of God? I have yet to see a “YEC” add or take away from the Holy Bible, unlike many “OEC.” In what way can reading Genesis and taking Gods word literally, be taking or adding to the word of God? I turn to the Holy Sprit for knowledge, not science.
I don’t consider myself a “YEC.” If anything, I’m a Bible believing creationist and when God said no man shall add to or take away from this Book. I take His threat LITERALY.
I don’t consider myself a “YEC.” If anything, I’m a Bible believing creationist and when God said no man shall add to or take away from this Book. I take His threat LITERALY.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
This is the "Gospel" scenario of the author of the link at the top of this thread.
since we exist, we know it is possible for the universe to produce intelligent life
He tells us who God is - the NON-Creator, and who we are - Monkeys - and HOW we know our start was NOT as God tells us "Because we are HERE".
He tells us even - what the NEW Book of Revelation should say...
Additionally, it is not inconceivable that our own race may perish in a thousand or million or billion years, and another intelligent life form evolves on this planet before our sun dies (another 5 billion years).
This progression toward a total rejection of the Gospel is simply the "logical conclusion" of our friend who seeks to marry God's Word - to evolution. I applaud him on being so honest.
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The CreationIST is the one who "belives in the Creator" and trusts that the Creator CreatED just AS HE states in Genesis 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11. For Christ to BE a CreationIS He would have to first CEASE to be the CreatOR.
Christ not only supernaturally created the World in 6 days and rested the 7th - He ALSO was supernaturally incarnated into human form. NONE of which fits any of evolutionism's mythologies.
Christ quoted the Genesis 2 statements about the Details of Adam and Eve as "authorotative" and "trustworthy".
In Christ,
Bob
Christ not only supernaturally created the World in 6 days and rested the 7th - He ALSO was supernaturally incarnated into human form. NONE of which fits any of evolutionism's mythologies.
Christ quoted the Genesis 2 statements about the Details of Adam and Eve as "authorotative" and "trustworthy".
In Christ,
Bob
You are right, Meatros, it's not mythology. I've studied myths and legends for years. Both have almost always a core of truth or an event which is then dressed up either as a matter of story-telling, or religion, or both.
Evolution does not even have that core of truth. It's just story-telling based on rebellion against God.
It is also not even bad science -- it is generally not even science at all, as the data get shoehorned, by hook or by crook, into a pre-existing idea or theory.
Evolution does not even have that core of truth. It's just story-telling based on rebellion against God.
It is also not even bad science -- it is generally not even science at all, as the data get shoehorned, by hook or by crook, into a pre-existing idea or theory.
So this is your stance on evolution? The 'whole' point of evolution is to rebel against God? Why is it that you have to create an artificial definition of evolution in order to ad-hom it?
So now you are implying that the scientists who studied evolution are evil (by crook). What do you suggest is the solution? Round up all the scientists with their data and put them in a barn somewhere and burn them? If you stand back and take deep look at your feelings I pray that you'll realize that you are demonizing a concept and thereby further demonizing those who accept the concept.
The Galatian
Active Member
Odd idea that. Most scientists who accept evolution are theists. It's absurd to impute a motive like that to them.
If that were so, evolutionary theory would not change as the evidence shows a need to do so. Yet it does change in such cases.
"Creation science", on the other hand, rejects any evidence that does not fit into that belief.
This is the most important difference between creationism and science.
So this is your stance on evolution? The 'whole' point of evolution is to rebel against God? Why is it that you have to create an artificial definition of evolution in order to ad-hom it?</font>[/QUOTE]Meatros, an ad hominem is an attack against the man. I am not attacking you; I am totally against evolution in terms of common descent from one itsy bitsy unicellular organism, however. And yes, the BASIS for evolution is rebellion against God. If you choose to say you believe in God and also believe in an interpretation of the data which contradicts His Word, that puts you in an awkward position to say the least. In the meantime, look at what I actually said, and then at the way you interpreted it. Two different things, aren't they? That happens with evolution, too. What the data actually presents and the way it is interpreted by evolutionists are two different things.
So now you are implying that the scientists who studied evolution are evil (by crook). What do you suggest is the solution? Round up all the scientists with their data and put them in a barn somewhere and burn them? If you stand back and take deep look at your feelings I pray that you'll realize that you are demonizing a concept and thereby further demonizing those who accept the concept. </font>[/QUOTE]"by hook or by crook" is an expression which means "any way you can". It is not an accusation.
If you choose to burn people, or wish them burned, who you consider evil, that also is up to you. You are adding incredibly to what I have both said and implied. I have not judged the people, only the concept. It is evil. It is in direct opposition to God's Word and so evil is the only name I can think of that would apply to something like that.
Suppose someone said that you did not really have to love God. That we needed to reinterpret what Jesus said in light of whatever 'evidence' the person chose to present. Suppose that this person said that all Jesus really meant was that Jesus wanted each person to sort of pay their 'emotional taxes' and give Him homage and respect, but that we could live our lives the way we wanted to and that was fine.
Would you call that in direct opposition to the clear and concise meaning of what Jesus (and the apostles) said? And, as such, would you refer to that doctrine as evil?
That is exactly how I feel about evolution as the 'common ancestry' thing. It is in clear and direct opposition to God's Word and, because of that, encourages people not to believe what is in that Word if it is uncomfortable or not clearly understood 'in light of our modern understanding.' I call that evil. I didn't used to. I was an evolutionist at first. Like Galatian, I was a theistic evolutionist and considered creationism and YEC in particular to be the product of ignorance, stubborness, and perhaps some general idiocy thrown in.
Then I started reading a little more than I had had to read in courses at the university, and a little more than I had to read in texts for classes I was preparing to teach myself. I started reading primary literature and commentaries. And a struggle started inside that lasted five years +. It is very, very hard to change world views. Everything ended up shifting, until the evidence, and, initially, the evidence alone swung me from evolution to creation. Initially long ages creation, but, finally, young creation.
I have said before and I repeat that it is to my shame that I did not have the courage and faith to simply believe what God had caused to be written in the first place. But the one good thing about it is that I know where the evidence leads. Data is not contradicting God -- it is the spin/interpretation put on the data which does.
Nor do I think those who believe evolution is true are evil. I think the vast majority are deceived, however, and I pray God opens their eyes. However, those who preach evolution, who have seen the data and know better, these may well be evil people. They are certainly rebellious people. However that is up to God to deal with the people. I am not up for burning anyone -- that was your idea, sir. I would rather give each person a chance to see and know the truth.
You see, in science itself, most of those in the various fields are concentrating on specific areas of research or teaching, and that can keep a man or woman pretty busy. Too busy to read a lot of other material usually. So even if it doesn't look like evolution can be supported by their own work, the tendency is to figure that since it is presented as fact and only religious nuts must believe otherwise, then evolution's proof must lie in the other fields.
So, as Galatian claims, they may be 'theists' but that term, first of all, does not define the God of the Bible specificially (a Buddhist or Muslim is a 'theist'!), and, secondly, does not mean they have really looked into the issue of evolution vs. creation.
I am not demonizing believers in evolution. And I leave it to God to demonize those who teach it, when they know better.
I will simply fight the idea and endeavor to present the truth, both scientifically and biblically.
I didn't say you were ad-homing me in particular, I said you were creating an artificial definition of evolution in order to ad-hom it.
Actually no Helen, the basis for evolution is simple: organisms change.
The only awkward position I am in is the one you assume I am in.
I don't see how the two concepts are similar, but I'll play along. If someone proposed such a thing to me I'd tell them simply "I don't agree, but I'm not going to persecute you for your beliefs". I wouldn't sit back and try to reinterpret whatever evidence they presented me in a vain attempt to refute their position, nor would I demonize the science behind whatever evidence they had. I also wouldn't say they are evil or going to hell, as ultimately that's God's place to decide, not mine. I'd disagree with them, not try to reinterpret their beliefs.
Absolutely not, as the old saying goes: You catch more flys with honey then you do with vinegar.
You know, I've heard that quite a lot. Unfortunately I've never seen proof of it. If someone needs 'evidence' in order to sustain their belief in God then can it really be called faith?
Incidentally, what is your degree and how high did you go in college, also what college did you go to?
Yes and what about the people in the evolutionary biology field, do you think they are too busy?
You forgot to add "to me". Personally I prefer God's judgment on my Christianity, not yours. As I've repeatedly said, you (not you specifically) are not the definer of what it is to be a Christian-God is.
And this is supposed to mean what exactly? That the acceptance of evolution makes one no longer a Christian? You are condemning those who 'teach' or 'learn' evolution whether you choose to admit it or not.
I didn't say you were ad-homing me in particular, I said you were creating an artificial definition of evolution in order to ad-hom it.
Actually no Helen, the basis for evolution is simple: organisms change.
The only awkward position I am in is the one you assume I am in. </font>[/QUOTE]"hominem" refers to "man". One cannot ad hominem an idea.
Nor is my definition artificial. To back up to the idea that evolution simply means 'organisms change' is to avoid the concept being discussed altogether. No one is arguing that point. Of course organisms change. The point of the evolutionary discussion is "how much?" I submit that the extant evidence answers "only insofar as their genetic variation allows, and always around a genetic mean and never far from it." Evolution claims differently. Evolution claims that changes have so built on one another that a one-celled organism could -- given enough time -- become an ostrich or a redwood tree or a clam. My response to that is 'nonsense!' Ostriches may come with different variations, but they are always ostriches! Redwood trees to not become carrots. Clams to not evolve into butterflies. Kinds stay what they are, despite variations.
So please do not try to confuse the issue by claiming that evolution only means 'things change.' No one is arguing that point!
And yes, your posts alone show you are in an awkward position. You are trying to redefine the argument to a matter of simple change. You are confusing the term 'ad hominem' and trying to derail the argument by accusing me of that. Etc. etc. I think all these things show you are in an awkward position indeed to have to resort to that.
I don't see how the two concepts are similar, but I'll play along. If someone proposed such a thing to me I'd tell them simply "I don't agree, but I'm not going to persecute you for your beliefs". I wouldn't sit back and try to reinterpret whatever evidence they presented me in a vain attempt to refute their position, nor would I demonize the science behind whatever evidence they had. I also wouldn't say they are evil or going to hell, as ultimately that's God's place to decide, not mine. I'd disagree with them, not try to reinterpret their beliefs.</font>[/QUOTE]What you are telling me is that even the truth about God is something you are not willing to stand up for.
Yes, I do define that as an awkward position for someone who says he is a believer!
Absolutely not, as the old saying goes: You catch more flys with honey then you do with vinegar.</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, but you are not out for catching flies. You are not even willing to disagree with these folk! You seem to have put yourself in a position of just trying to live peacefully with the flies.
Personally, the truth is too important for me not to stand up for.
You know, I've heard that quite a lot. Unfortunately I've never seen proof of it. If someone needs 'evidence' in order to sustain their belief in God then can it really be called faith?</font>[/QUOTE]I have seen that evidence so often it turns my stomach, to be honest. Kids out of high school who have been raised in church as believers. Then university. And all the professors pooh pooh the biblical imperatives, whether it be creation, morality, or even the historicity of ancient Israel. And the kids -- these young adults -- figure their parents are just old fogeys or something who do not know what modern 'science' teaches. And so they are not only confused, but robbed of the confidence they once had that God was God and in control and could be trusted. Oh yeah, I've seen that a lot. One of the most common themes in the letters my husband gets is one of thank you for giving scientific substantiation for faith -- and this from young adults in their twenties who have been led into confusion by those in authority who have taught them to doubt the Bible.
I'm a first-grade drop-out. Only went a semester to first grade. What I am trying to say is that I am a nothing. I am an old lady in the hills of California who taught a little, learned a lot, and has done a little research on her own. No one to pay attention to if you don't want to. Just for the record, I did attend one jr. college, two colleges, and two universities. The JC was for a pick-up course needed after a transfer. But none of that means a thing if I am wrong in what I present as the truth, does it?
It is not who I am or anything about me that is important. I know that better than anyone, believe me. It is the truth that is important, and I will present that to the best of my ability whenever I can. In the meantime, simply by asking me that question, you are showing me that you are in with that entire crowd which has managed to follow me around from forum to forum for about five years now. Please, think for yourself. Ask questions for yourself. Please be more concerned about the truth than about other people. Other people cannot save you, no matter who they are.
Yes and what about the people in the evolutionary biology field, do you think they are too busy?</font>[/QUOTE]No, I think they are too trapped/deceived/blind. Either/or/and.
Granted, but I am under biblical orders to judge your actions and words. The evolution you are standing up for is a lie. Where your heart is, that is between you and God. However the definer of Christianity is Jesus, and the definition is clear in the Bible. Christians are born-again followers of Christ Jesus, our Lord and God.
And this is supposed to mean what exactly? That the acceptance of evolution makes one no longer a Christian? You are condemning those who 'teach' or 'learn' evolution whether you choose to admit it or not. </font>[/QUOTE]You are reinterpreting my words again. I was referring specifically to those who know better and teach evolution anyway. I did not say that the acceptance of evolution makes one no longer a Christian. I was an evolutionist and I was a Christian at the same time. However the Holy Spirit causes changes, and we are all being brought to the full truth in Christ step by step from wherever we started out. In addition, if one is truly a born-again believer, one cannot lose that position in Christ. One cannot be un-born from that place of salvation in Him. If one is a Christian and then comes to believe evolution is true, he may have been conned into believing a lie, but that is not something that threatens his salvation. It does, however, truly impede his walk with Christ in many ways. He has put himself, as a sheep, in the awkward and dangerous position of being a sheep belonging to the Shepherd, but straying from Him, too.
If you feel I am condemning you, that is your interpretation on what I said. I did not say that or imply it -- unless you are one of those who distinctly know the evidence against evolution and are choosing to teach it as the absolute truth anyway. If you are in that position, then you know you are teaching a lie and I can only pray, "God help you!"