• 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!

Christian Evolutionist debate (using scripture)

Eli G

Well-Known Member
I understand you are not a Christian ... but do not tell a Christian what to believe, Ok?

I know there are people who don't care what Jesus taught and still call themselves Christians. But that is obviously living a lie. On the other hand, many other inspired biblical writers mentioned the events of Eden as real events and to all those involved as people who really existed.

The Bible is not a science book, but neither is it a children's story book, as some of its enemies would have others believe. Unfortunately many believers have fallen into this trap.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I understand you are not a Christian ... but do not tell a Christian what to believe, Ok?
You understand I am not, exactly how? I certainly did not say I was or was not. Are you passing judgment on me? Let me ask you this question, was Jesus a Christian? Was he a follower of the Christian religion, or was he a follower of God?

And I am not telling you what to believe. I am however telling you that you cannot claim as you have, that someone cannot be a Christian if they don't believe the way you do about things. I absolutely can say that, speaking from a Christian perspective. Read Romans 14 as your first insight into this.

I know there are people who don't care what Jesus taught and still call themselves Christians. But that is obviously living a lie.
I think you have a lot to learn about what being a Christian is. Read Romans 14.

One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
Now, it seems clear to me you are unaware of this teaching. Otherwise, you wouldn't be judging other's as being true followers of Jesus or not, based upon whether they agree with your understanding of the book of Genesis as a scientific account of how God created the world. I, speaking from a Christian perspective, do not see that as a scientific account, but as an allegory, a metaphor that "God creates", not HOW God actually created.

But you don't seem to be able to allow that. Why is that? According to Paul, this seems to indicates a weakness in faith for a Christian to insist that others think and believe exactly as they do, in order to be considered a true follower of God.

On the other hand, many other inspired biblical writers mentioned the events of Eden as real events and to all those involved as people who really existed.
Imagine if they had spoken in scientific terms! No one would have been able to relate to it. So it's no big deal if they used the language and symbols of the day to communicate truths. These things don't need to be factual history, in order to speak greater truths. That's why I brought up the Good Samaritan parable. It's true what Jesus said, but not that the Good Samaritan was an actual historical personage. That would be utterly besides the point of the story.

So, so what then if others in the Bible referenced Adam and Eve. They were part of the symbol set, and they are today too. I speak of Adam and Eve all the time, yet I do not not believe they were literal historical persons, like the couple who live across the street from me are.

The Bible is not a science book, but neither is it a children's story book, as some of its enemies would have others believe. Unfortunately many believers have fallen into this trap.
Why do you assume if someone doesn't accept the Bible should be understood as historically and scientifically factual, that this means they are enemies of it? I don't consider myself an enemy of the Bible, nor certainly not an enemy of faith in God, or belief in Jesus. I believe one can fully embrace faith in God, and accept modern science at the same time. That is a reasonable faith to me. Not one that requires either a denial of faith for the sake of reason, nor a denial of reason for the sake of faith.

Regarding the Bible as a children's story book, in a sense, it is just that. The Apostle Paul said just that, didn't he? "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Children need to be taught with simple examples, stories, parables, fictional characters which teach higher truths, in order to develop and mature and become adults.

That's doesn't mean that the stories are crap, as some atheists who were burned by religion may see them. Not at all. They are lessons about behaviors and attitudes, not science and history lessons in the modern sense of those words. That they aren't to be taken literally, doesn't mean that they don't speak truth! The Good Samaritan story isn't a literal historical account either, but it definitely speaks a great truth, doesn't it?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I'll ask you then, since the other poster didn't answer me. I understand how science can put the Bible into perspective. It certainly helped do that for me. But how to you, in what ways, does the Bible put science into perspective?

For me it shows the limits of science. It shows how science is pushing into areas and seeking answers in the natural world and ending up with answers that many people see as the real answer but which are educated guesses, but which some people use as the truth to try to show the Bible to be untrue, and others are deceived into believing them to be the truth and are turned away from the Bible.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
True science has to do with true knowledge, demonstrated without a doubt.

If the Bible is information that our Creator arranged to guide humans, it is not possible that it contains any falsehood, much less that His approved servants have spread lies ... and even less Jesus.

So it is obvious for those who have full confidence (this is what FAITH means) that the Bible is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16,17) KNOW WITH FULL CERTAINTY that no human being, no matter how "scientific" they claim to be, can be better informed than our Creator.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
True science has to do with true knowledge, demonstrated without a doubt.
I'm sorry, that is not true science at all. Science is an open-ended, self-correcting, constant inquiry that relies on evidences to support its understandings. You're describing religious dogma, not science. Science is about investigation, not proclamations of absolute truth.

I think this is the source of your misgivings about science. You confuse it with your idea of what religion is.

If the Bible is information that our Creator arranged to guide humans, it is not possible that it contains any falsehood, much less that His approved servants have spread lies ... and even less Jesus.
The Bible is a collection of religious texts that religious leaders compiled for use in religious instruction. God did not choose which books to included in this library. Humans did that. It is more than possible it contains errors. It is factual that it does. But that does not mean that it is not useful for religious instruction. It's not about science and history. It's about spiritual principles and truths. Don't confuse the two, please.

So it is obvious for those who have full confidence (this is what FAITH means) that the Bible is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16,17) KNOW WITH FULL CERTAINTY that no human being, no matter how "scientific" they claim to be, can be better informed than our Creator.
I'm sorry, your understanding of these scriptures is misguided to think it means ignore sound information and knowledge, because you read the Bible a certain way and can't consider that you might be able to understand the Bible any differently than you do. There are countless Christians who accept God by faith, and accept science as valid when it comes to speaking about evolution. The two are only in conflict, when you confuse faith, with your personal beliefs and ideas about God. These are different things.

One can change their beliefs, through faith. But with a lack of faith, one is prone to hang onto their beliefs no matter what, even against evidence to the contrary, because they lack the security of faith. Beliefs are all they have. On the other hand, faith allows for one's beliefs to be wrong. It's trust of the heart, not trust of ideas we think are true at one time or another.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
For me it shows the limits of science. It shows how science is pushing into areas and seeking answers in the natural world and ending up with answers that many people see as the real answer but which are educated guesses, but which some people use as the truth to try to show the Bible to be untrue, and others are deceived into believing them to be the truth and are turned away from the Bible.
For instance? Would you say that accepting evolution is true, is being deceived and turning away from the Bible?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
For instance? Would you say that accepting evolution is true, is being deceived and turning away from the Bible?

No. Evolution shows us how God created all the different sorts of life.
There are a lot of ideas about the creation amongst Christians.
I do believe there were one pair of humans at initially however.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Jesus knew that the story of Adam and Eve is real (Matt. 19:4-6). Evolution denies not only the Genesis story and many other biblical statements that take the event for granted, but it also denies the teaching of Jesus himself.

Christians are not following people who deny what the Scripture says but they are showing those people that what they say contradicts the Bible.

The very genealogy of Jesus Christ and many of his ancestors is traced back to the first man, Adam (Luke 3:33-38). To deny Adam and Eve is to declare this genealogy an invention, a lie.

To deny part of the Scriptures is to DENY the Scriptures. To deny part of what Jesus says is to DENY Jesus.

Luke 9:26 For whoever becomes ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of man will be ashamed of this one when he arrives in his glory and that of the Father and of the holy angels.

Matt. 10:32 “Everyone, then, who acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father who is in the heavens. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens. 34 Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division (...)"

I am not judging those who view this matter differently, but I am helping them to think sensibly on the matter and rectify their thinking before it is too late for them. Biblical truth has many enemies, and they go around simulating intellectuality to kill the faith of believers.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No. Evolution shows us how God created all the different sorts of life.
There are a lot of ideas about the creation amongst Christians.
I do believe there were one pair of humans at initially however.
Why do you believe there were one pair of humans initially, if you accept that evolution is true? I have no problem speaking of Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity as a whole, but do you think literalizing them is necessary in order to believe we are created in the image of God?
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Why do you believe there were one pair of humans initially, if you accept that evolution is true? I have no problem speaking of Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity as a whole, but do you think literalizing them is necessary in order to believe we are created in the image of God?
Adam and Eve are NOT archetypes ... They were real persons.

Rom. 5:14 Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam transgressed, who bears a resemblance to the one who was to come.

Biblical chronology points to the creation of Adam as the beginning of humanity, and has a very well determined point in the real time line.

Gen. 5:1 This is the book of Adam’s history. In the day of God’s creating Adam he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them. After that he blessed them and called their name Man in the day of their being created.
3 And Adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam that he lived amounted to nine hundred and thirty years and he died.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Jesus knew that the story of Adam and Eve is real (Matt. 19:4-6).
I speak of Adam and Eve all the time, but I understand them as symbols of humanity as a whole. If I refer to Adam and Eve, and I don't think of them literally, why would you assume from that passage that Jesus did? It can't be simply because he cited them. I cite them too. So that can't be the reason for assuming he "knew the story was real". That's an assumption on your part.

But, even so, for argument's sake let's say he generally just didn't question it and just assumed they were real, like anyone else of his day might have. I mean, after all, Jesus did not have the knowledge of modern science available to him at the time, so most people would have just took those things as givens because that's what everyone believed to be true. There really wasn't knowledge to the contrary to them at the time. So, so what then? Does that mean we should ignore the evidence we have now, because ancient humans were unaware of it at the time these books were written?

Do you assume, that Jesus, the human being who claimed he did not possess omniscience, was in fact omniscient? Do you believe Jesus would have known everything about the natural world in scientific terms? Why? Upon what basis would you assume that? I can see none from scripture. So where are you getting that from?

Footnote, I do not believe that omniscience, even if were were to grant this to the human person named Jesus from the 1st century, means knowledge of all technical data and factoids. Omniscience is more a matter of seeing Truth versus illusion, not some Cosmic Encyclopedia. :)

Evolution denies not only the Genesis story and many other biblical statements that take the event for granted, but it also denies the teaching of Jesus himself.
No it doesn't! Evolution does not say "God did not create us". Science, or the Theory of Evolution says nothing about God, nor the book of Genesis. It only looks at the evidence we have from nature, and can see based upon that evidence, how things became created. Reading the story of Genesis literally, is not a requirement of faith in God or in Jesus.

The only thing the Theory of Evolution (ToE), does challenge, is a literalist interpretation of Genesis. Reading Genesis as a scientific account, is not a religious requirement. It's not something believers from antiquity themselves demanded be believed. You have church fathers of the 2nd century understanding its story as allegorical, and not literal. And that was pre modern science and the ToE.

So Christians today who do accept evolution are not denying the Bible, and certainly not denying Christ! Why do you put that on them? How is it that you entangle someone's faith, with how they interpret the book of Genesis, or any scripture for that matter? Do you believe that salvation is based upon correct beliefs?

Christians are not following people who deny what the Scripture says but they are showing those people that what they say contradicts the Bible.
Again, the only thing being contradicted, is some people's interpretation of scripture. Challenging your interpretation of Genesis, is not contradicting scripture. It's contradicting you. Big difference there, right?

The very genealogy of Jesus Christ and many of his ancestors is traced back to the first man, Adam (Luke 3:33-38). To deny Adam and Eve is to declare this genealogy an invention, a lie.
I wouldn't go from saying something is a creative invention, to calling it a lie like that. The purpose was not to speak to a modern audience who was trying to figure out the age of the earth! :) Their audience was a Jewish audience where tracing lineage was considered important for the sake of validating Jesus' heritage back to the proper bloodlines. It was NOT to satisfy Bishop Ussher in the 17th Century AD who was trying to play science with the Bible!

Ussher chronology - Wikipedia

Again, I don't see that saying Adam and Eve were not literal historical persons, but were archetypes of humanity, contradicts the intent of the authors who traced Jesus' lineage back to Adam (heck, even my lineage goes back to him too, as does yours and everyone else's! :) ). The intent was not to do science or literal history, like a modernist does. The intent was to speak of the validity of the Christian lineage back through Jewish history. John takes that even on step further, and traces Jesus back to Creation itself! What is the intent of the authors? And it certainly was not doing science and history.

To deny part of the Scriptures is to DENY the Scriptures. To deny part of what Jesus says is to DENY Jesus.
What does disagreeing with someone's interpretation of scripture, or their interpretations of what Jesus says, have to do with denying scripture or denying Jesus? Isn't that awfully presumptuous of you?

Luke 9:26 For whoever becomes ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of man will be ashamed of this one when he arrives in his glory and that of the Father and of the holy angels.
Understanding them differently, is not be ashamed of them! It's simply having a different understanding that you.

I am not judging those who view this matter differently, but I am helping them to think sensibly on the matter and rectify their thinking before it is too late for them. Biblical truth has many enemies, and they go around simulating intellectuality to kill the faith of believers.
Yes, you are judging them. You are saying I, and anyone else who doesn't read scripture the same as you do, in ways that require we have to deny the facts of science in order to believe like that, is denying scripture and denying Jesus. Yes, that is passing judgement.

Now as far as threatening us, "before it's too late for them", as you put it, are you saying that we are saved by correct beliefs? Is that a Biblical teaching? Can you point to where it says "You are justified by correct beliefs"? "Those who believe anything differently about God than me, shall be sent to the flames of hell,", you'll never find supported in scripture.

Don't equate Christians who have more flexible understandings of scriptures with being "enemies of the truth". Again, that is mighty presumptuous, judgemental, and false on your part. I believe your interpretation of Genesis is in error, but I don't call you an enemy of God. A babe, yes, but not God's enemy.

I consider your views in error, because that view requires you to deny solid scientific evidence. I also consider that detrimental spiritually to have to sever our rational minds in order to support beliefs we refuse to modify or change or let go of. Faith doesn't require obstinate ideas be clung to at all cost.

To be able to embrace both faith and reason, serves one's faith better than clinging tenaciously to outdated, outmoded ideas. That does not serve one's spiritual growth well.
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Adam and Eve are NOT archetypes ... They were real persons.
Do you know what an archetype is? From Wikipedia:

An archetype can be:

  1. a statement, pattern of behavior, prototype, "first" form, or a main model that other statements, patterns of behavior, and objects copy, emulate, or "merge" into. Informal synonyms frequently used for this definition include "standard example", "basic example", and the longer-form "archetypal example"; mathematical archetypes often appear as "canonical examples".
  2. the Platonic concept of pure form, believed to embody the fundamental characteristics of a thing.
  3. a collectively-inherited unconscious idea, a pattern of thought, image, etc., that is universally present, in individual psyches, as in Jungian psychology
  4. a constantly-recurring symbol or motif in literature, painting, or mythology. This definition refers to the recurrence of characters or ideas sharing similar traits throughout various, seemingly unrelated cases in classic storytelling, media, etc. This usage of the term draws from both comparative anthropology and from Jungian archetypal theory.
Adam and Eve represent the whole of humanity. They are "us", because we are them. We are their "children", meaning we all possess their nature, and they represent us. So, yes, Adam and Eve, "embody the fundamental characteristics of a thing".
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
You are not a Christian, so you can believe what you want about Adam and Eve... you won't be the only one to do so, since there have even given those names to some ape-man and ape-woman ...

I can't force anyone to believe anything; I can only give related biblical information, so readers can make better informed decisions. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses do, and thus we fulfill our task of helping others to know the biblical truth about the different issues related to our Creator, Jehovah God, the God who called Abraham and whom Jesus referred to as his God and Father.

John 8:53 You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died, are you? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God. 55 Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You are not a Christian
You're telling me I'm not a Christian? Based upon what? I've addressed this multiple times with you.

For the purposes of this thread, I can wear that label on a name badge, if you prefer (even though each of my words under "Religion" on my profile as "Love, Light, and Life, are straight out of the Bible in reference to the God described within its pages from the Apostle John). But I generally don't like identifying as any religion, as to my views tend to transcend religious boxes and pigeon holes (the way it should be, IMHO).

If you wish to know my qualifications as a Christian however, I have a degree in theology, was going into the ministry, I was a fundamentalist Christian for a number of years, left fundamentalist Christianity, moved to more mainstream, non-denominational Christian churches, then more progressive Christian churches, and now prefer to be independent from any organized forms of religion.

But my views most definitely embrace the Christian language and philosophy in my views of faith and experience. I just prefer not to brand myself with any religious labels.

Now, for you to judge me as not a Christian however, is entirely invalid on your part. I have been only speaking using Christian texts, understanding, and language in this discussion. Unless, you just like to judge all others who believe differently about the Bible than you do, as non-Christians? If so, that is very non-Christian of you. It's also ignorant and immature, as well as just plain old offensive.

, so you can believe what you want about Adam and Eve...
Which also happens to be the way many other Christians believe as well. So you can't just dismiss all of them like you want to with me. Unless you do as a matter of course for those you don't agree with. In which case, I'd say you're looking for faults with everyone but yourself. Which is the opposite of what you should be doing here.

you won't be the only one to do so, since there have even given those names to some ape-man and ape-woman ...
Knowing that humans emerged from early primates, is actually more miraculous to me than being magically created out of dust and spit in an afternoon. You don't see evolution as miraculous? I certainly do!

I can't force anyone to believe anything;
I'd say trying to scare them into believing it, "before it's too late for them", qualifies as using force. Yes, fear is not love. Fear is the opposite of love.

I can only give related biblical information, so readers can make better informed decisions.
I can give you the same biblical references, but with an entirely different understanding of them. I think the understandings which are more compatible with the factual knowledge we have about reality, are more useful and beneficial spiritually. Hiding from truth to preserves pet beliefs, is not beneficial, IMHO.

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses do, and thus we fulfill our task of helping others to know the biblical truth about the different issues related to our Creator, Jehovah God, the God who called Abraham and whom Jesus referred to as his God and Father.
But if that is like this discussion, where you dismiss legitimate points of views as "non-Christian" because they don't agree with how you or your friends interpret those same verses of the Bible, that's not exactly helping. It's forcing one point of view as the only truth, and dismissing all others as deceived, and on the wrong path.

I know what that looks like, as I used to be a fundamentalist like you are, and that's what we all believed. We were right, and everyone else was wrong. We were the true Christians, and all the rest were the false church. Sound familiar?

John 8:53 You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died, are you? The prophets also died. Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God. 55 Yet you have not known him, but I know him. And if I said I do not know him, I would be like you, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word.
I am observing his word as well. I just understand it differently than you do.

"By their fruits you shall know them", not by their theologies.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You are not a Christian, so you can believe what you want about Adam and Eve...
Even though these words were not addressed to me, they are very "telling", namely that Jesus' teaching for us to "judge ye not..." isn't important to you. Maybe you should rethink this.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Telling a non-Christian that he is not a Christian is judging him? How much was he hurt?

YOU ARE the one who is judging me for telling someone that he is no christian ... and he is not.

Every honest Christian has to know that a non-Christian does not understand the biblical truth as a believer, because he neither believes that the Word of God is inspired, nor does he care to what extent what the Bible says may be true, nor he is interested in biblical warnings or principles, nor is he interested in whether someone is a good Christian or not, ... Should I continue?
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Even though these words were not addressed to me, they are very "telling", namely that Jesus' teaching for us to "judge ye not..." isn't important to you. Maybe you should rethink this.
Interesting choice of words ... and using the same wording as you "they are very telling" since you seem to support a person who has posted things like this on the forum:
(...) I'm quite sure there were many scientific truths Jesus, as a human being who did not know everything according to his own words, was unaware of. Being the Son of God, did not mean he had magical knowledge of modern science. Divine Awareness, does not mean knowing tomorrow's lottery ticket numbers.

Are you saying we should base and limit our understanding of the world today, based upon a 1st century knowledge of the earth? If so, then I'm pretty sure Jesus would have had no idea of what a computer was, so you should get off it right now! :)


Jesus did not teach a lot of things we know today. That is not denying his teachings. Jesus was not a science teacher! :)


The way to discern a really follower of the teachings of Jesus, is not by their beliefs, but by their fruits. Jesus taught this. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their scientific knowledge.
If you have not noticed, I am going to make it clear enough for you to be aware of your position: this person has said in his own words that Jesus Christ did not know what he was talking about. It actually makes me wonder if you're a Christian.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
. It actually makes me wonder if you're a Christian.
I just recognize the source of such judgementalism that's contrary to what Jesus taught. Maybe you should take time and reread the Gospel and then put it into your heart.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Telling a non-Christian that he is not a Christian is judging him? How much was he hurt?
I've already told you it is offensive. So that should be your answer that your words are not respected or appreciated. I won't say you aren't a Christian. But I will say you don't act like one in the offenses you give to those who have been clear with you. I am happy to call myself a Christian for the sake of telling you I believe in the teachings of Jesus and follow them.

There are plenty of other Christians out there who believe the same things I'm telling you. Do you judge them as non-Christians too? If so, why? Because you believe only those who believe like you do are Christians? A mature Christian would call that immature.

YOU ARE the one who is judging me for telling someone that he is no christian ... and he is not.
They are calling you out as judging me, for the same reason I am calling you out. You are judging. Read Romans 14:

One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.​

I allow for a modernist understanding of Biblical materials. You do not. Because I allow for that, you say, I and all those like me are not loving, following, and obeying God? "Who are you to judge someone else's servant?, as Paul asked.

As I asked, do you believe only those who believe as you do, are valid Christians? What about Catholics? What about Lutherans? What about Methodists? All the false church to you, are they? You alone have the truth? And you don't find that one bit suspicious thinking? I sure do.

Every honest Christian has to know that a non-Christian does not understand the biblical truth as a believer, because he neither believes that the Word of God is inspired, nor does he care to what extent what the Bible says may be true, nor he is interested in biblical warnings or principles, nor is he interested in whether someone is a good Christian or not, ... Should I continue?
I am absolutely concerned with someone being a good Christian. Their actions are what are good or not. How they treat others, how they don't judge others, etc, are things that make them good Christians. NOT, believing the earth is flat and only 50 years old, or some other such anti-rational silliness.

There is zero requirement for Christians to believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible. There is zero requirement for Christians to all agree with each other in matters of belief. There is zero requirement for Christians to reject science because they have a particular way of reading the book of Genesis they are unwilling to reconsider. None of those things is what makes someone a Christian. What makes a Christian is simple. Love, not theology.

May I ask how many months you've been a Christian for? I ask because you don't seem very aware of these things.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If you have not noticed, I am going to make it clear enough for you to be aware of your position: this person has said in his own words that Jesus Christ did not know what he was talking about. It actually makes me wonder if you're a Christian.
This is false and misleading. Saying Jesus was simply speaking of things within the context of the knowledge of his day, is not saying he didn't know what he was talking about. Sure he did. He knew what others believed, and spoke from that knowledge.

Saying he didn't understand modern science, is not saying he was ill-informed. He wasn't. He just didn't know what we know, same as everyone else who lived back then in matters of science. That is not a put down whatsoever! It is a malicious lie to say that that is what I was suggesting. Shame on you.

When it came to speaking about matters of spiritual knowledge, Jesus was clearly an authority on that subject. His words still ring true today. Those are timeless truths, whereas science is specific knowledge he could not have known back then.

Do you forget that Jesus was a human? Do you think he was not a human? Do you think he was a god who came from the clouds with supernatural knowledge without the need for education? You know that scripture teaches that Jesus had to learn? Jesus had to grow. Why would he have to learn anything, why would there be anything to grow in him at all, if he knew everything all automatically like you imagine? You can't answer that, can you?

My recognizing the humanity of Jesus is not a put down to him. It actually is acknowledging what scripture teaches, as well as making common sense. How could any human relate to Jesus, if he was not human and needed to learn and grow and discover new things he didn't know like the rest of us? Does that make any sense to you? Is that even biblical? That's not a Jesus any human could relate to, anymore than they could relate to Zeus.
 
Last edited:
Top