outhouse
Atheistically
while theres no "proof" ill agree
round earth was not common knowledge, theres no reason to believe the early authors had any idea of a round earth.
-
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
while theres no "proof" ill agree
round earth was not common knowledge, theres no reason to believe the early authors had any idea of a round earth.
I'll refrain from comment about allegory/non-literal investigation and will do some further reading for myself rather than take your word for it. Although I appreciate what you've added so far...
However, as I understand Philo asserts a two fold understanding of the Text, and he advocates that the second... the allegorical.... is the real meaning of the Text. So I guess we could go on about that, but this is the information and understanding that I have gathered myself.
:namaste
SageTree
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Here he is quoting the genesis account and applying it to marriage. this shows that he viewed the genesis account of adam and Eve as literal.
Matthew 19:4 In reply he said: Did YOU not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female 5 and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together let no man put apart.
Jesus also showed that he viewed the account about Noah and the 'flood' as a literal account.
Matthew 24:36 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
This quote also shows that he viewed the vegetation of the field as something God creates
Matthew 6:30 If, now, God thus clothes the vegetation of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much rather clothe YOU, YOU with little faith?
With the referenced verses I see Jesus giving instructions and using stories as a way to show how people should act. It doesn't really state that he took the figures literally. I could refer to spiderman and say this is how we should act because the holy marvel is wise. Doesn't mean I think spiderman is real. I do like how at one point Jesus references to them as the ancients but he often used it as if the OT were parables/metaphores which tell us something more than the literal text. Just like how he some how manages to reference the entire book of Isaiah as "prophecy".
gnostic
The Lost One
If Jesus was to live TODAY, and was given the education we have in our school and university, I think he would ditch literal interpretation of the biblical creation myth.
And if he was to see all the church and different sects today, I think he would also ditch Christianity as the lost cause.
And if he was to see all the church and different sects today, I think he would also ditch Christianity as the lost cause.
Shermana
Heretic
I disagree, I think he'd be able to soundly school everyone on why the Literalist account makes complete scientific sense and why the current consensus against is built on sand.
And he'd probably say that "Christianity" was never a good cause to begin with, tell all his antinomian "believers" that they're on their way to HE double hockey sticks, and live communally with his few Torah obedient followers.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
shermana said:
The only way that can happen is that we all closed our eyes to the natural causes over the natural phenomenon, and believe in hocus-pocus - one moment there were nothing, then
there is something there. The "scientific sense" required evidences that can be tested, repeatedly and independently. A literal account of the creation required humans to not exist 1st five days, then appeared out of nowhere, an adult male and alive, made out of earth, dust or clay. Great as a myth, but not in any way factual or testable.
And there is so many flaws with the Noah's Ark and Flood story, if you consider the account - LITERAL. The whole things are scientific impossible.
1) Where did the water come from? Where did the water go?
It stated that the Flood wiped out everything on the face of the earth, and the water covered the highest mountains. Everest may have been shorter than the current elevation of 8.8 km, but, 2300 years ago, Everest was still over 8.4 km at that time. So the water have to come from somewhere (and go somewhere when it was over). That amount of water (if we were to believe Genesis that it covered the highest mountains) just don't disappear.
And even if the water did rise as high as the Genesis indicated, it raised other questions/issues:
2) Could the size of the Ark possibly withstand the pressures from the water? - Everyone and every living creature would have died at that attitude, and in the confined and enclosed space of the ark, through freezing to death or through asphyxia.
- The amount of pressures of the water would have destroyed all plant life, and nothing could have being planted, because what soil would be left in such global flood? And that raised another question about food (see point 3).
3) Food and water? What did the animals eat and drink, being stuck in the Ark for a whole year?
HECK! What did the animals eat after the Flood? Even if those animals survive in the Ark, there wouldn't be any food left on the "dry land".
The literal interpretations of the creation simply defy the law of nature. So, if Jesus (today) was to tell us the creation happened as recorded in Genesis, literally, despite no evidences to support his claim, then I'd find Jesus' credibility as the messiah to be even more non-existence than before.
Last edited:
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
What a silly question.
Jesus believed that God created the earth and man. He was not a YEC. Why? He believed the "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", long before the creative periods or "days" took place. (Genesis 1:1)
And yes, he accepted the Flood and other accounts in Genesis as accurate history.
Shermana
Heretic
That's right, the concept is that Jesus was co-creator, that's what's being convoyed in Proverbs 8 and Wisdom of Solomon. It should read "All things were created THROUGH", not "by" in John. I'm assuming you're not a Trinitarian and are versed in Philo's idea of the Logos? And yes, he apparently believed the Flood was a real event, and referred to Abel as a real person.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
it wasnt common knowledge
the greeks believed it was flat and they also believed it was suspended on the back of a flying turtle! These ideas were taught as normal...thats why people in the middles ages stayed close to the shoreline when traveling in boats...they really believed they would fall off the edge of the earth.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Seriously? Not only did the Greeks know the earth was a sphere, they even calculated it's circumference with reasonable accuracy given the tools available. And people in the middle ages stayed close to the shorline because they didn't have the accurate timepieces necessary to calculate their longitude and could easily get lost.