-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Jesus a Creationist or Evolutionist?
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Warren Clark
Informer
the theory of evolution didnt exist back then. but if it did, i think he would be awesome enough to realize hey my dad did something good using nature. and then he would add a quote in the bible saying "evolution is not evil".
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
He never commented on it, so it would just be speculation.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Jesus rarely contradicted the received wisdom of his time.
It would have been anachronistic for him to have spoken about evolution.
It would have been anachronistic for him to have spoken about evolution.
I don't think the vast majority of our ancestors took Christian mythology literally. Biblical literalism is a more recent phenomena. Given that, it isn't a stretch to postulate Jesus wouldn't have been a Biblical literalist either and wouldn't see any incompatibility between Biblical mythology and modern science.
agreed,
james2ko
Well-Known Member
There's nothing specifically mentioned by Christ in reference to the creation account. Although, Christ did give allusion to the story of Noah as being literal (Mat 24:38-39). Therefore, we can logically surmise, He would feel the same about the creation account.
wants to know more on this.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
What would you like to know?
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
This is easy, Jesus was a YEC.
Here Jesus said that there were males and females at the beginning of creation.
Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female."
Here Jesus confirmed the flood story:
Matthew 24: 38-39 "For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away."
Here Jesus said that there were males and females at the beginning of creation.
Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female."
Here Jesus confirmed the flood story:
Matthew 24: 38-39 "For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away."
Many have noted that the idea of evolution would have been out of reach during that time. They did at least believe in procreation and that when you go back far enough you came from a few of that species. Not knowing how far back that really was would be understandable.
Something else to consider is whether Jesus thought he was actually The Creator. Also if he believed in spontaneous generation then 6 days was probably viewed as literal.
Something else to consider is whether Jesus thought he was actually The Creator. Also if he believed in spontaneous generation then 6 days was probably viewed as literal.
Shermana
Heretic
Jesus mentions Abel, so you'd assume that he was referring to the same story of Adam and Eve as being literal people for one thing.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Jesus probably like others in his day believed that the earth was flat so I highly doubt he had any idea what evolution was.
Shermana
Heretic
There is no proof or evidence that the Ancient Jews believed in a completely flat Earth, no matter how much you base it on the "four corners of the Earth" idea.
Myth of the Flat Earth
Was Jewish understanding completely literalism at that time?
I mean Jesus, imo, was also trying to engage in some sort of renewal where the laws weren't followed by the letter, but instead of with the heart of godly intention, which is a midrash/exegesis....
Mentioning someone doesn't mean they physically-literally exist,
much the same as I feel today about the Jesus accounts.....
I can't physically-literally know if He was physically-literally alive or what he wanted to teach us 100%,
but what I do know is that the allegory/metaphor/folk tale or real story has Literal-Truth in it that physically-literally manifests in my life...
The Christ lives on despite the authenticity of the accounts in my life.
To me Jesus mentioning historical or folk figures doesn't diminish where the Literal-Truth exists for me in his saying so and it doesn't change the depth in which I meaning make with them in my life.
So idk... I can't accept that just making reference to people means the mentioner believes they are physically-literally with us...
I mean.... you talk about Aliens, Big Foot and Lock Ness from time to time no?
Do you want to be interpreteted as believing ,physically-literally, in them?
You aren't wrong or anything, but this is my own exegesis on Jesus' mentioning them or any other people for that matter.
Truth doesn't always need to be historically factual to have meaning, in my world.
:namaste
SageTree
Shermana
Heretic
There is no reason to believe that Jewish understanding was anything BUT literal at the time. Modern Liberal interpretations may attempt to say that it was never intended to be read as literal, but that would be flying in the face of virtually all the Midrash for one thing. Even Paul, who I don't like, has use in demonstrating cultural understanding, and he pretty much believes Adam and the Garden to be literal concepts, hard to see it anyway otherwise.
Pardes refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism (or - simpler - interpretation of text in Torah study). The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the name initials of the following four approaches:
- Peshat (פְּשָׁט
- Remez (רֶמֶז
- Derash (דְּרַשׁ
- Sod (סוֹד
What do you make of this?
Shermana
Heretic
I'd say the concept of Remez and Sod being only metaphorical and NOT literal are more modern revisionist concepts that the old Midrashists would have no clue about and is a relatively recent invention. Philo did speak something about layers of meaning in the text, but he always implied that the literal meaning was literal in ADDITION to hidden meanings.