Theistic Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

wblastyn

Jedi Master
Jun 5, 2002
2,664
114
38
Northern Ireland
Visit site
✟11,265.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I am currently undecided on what I actually believe, I know evolution is a fact and a theory so I don't think Genesis can be taken literally for evolution to work, but then Moses and Jesus seemed to have taken Genesis literally.

How do theistic evolutionists interpret Genesis?  How do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact Moses and Jesus seemed to have taken Genesis literally?

I'm not trying to say theistic evolution is wrong or anything like that, sorry if it seems that way.  I'm just trying to figure out what I believe.

 

 
 

wildernesse

Use less and live more.
Jun 17, 2002
1,027
5
44
Georgia
Visit site
✟16,673.00
Well, I'm not certain why Moses is important to the question--is there a claim that he was privy to God's mind about everything?

As for Jesus, I would say that it would not have made a lot of sense for him to explain the origin of the world to the people of his time. Also, Jesus came to stop the separation of humanity and God--not to tell us about the origin of the universe. I don't think it is necessary to explain the big bang in order to say: 1)God loves you and wishes you the best. 2) The best way is love your neighbor. 3) You don't always do this and that separates you from God, but God forgives you.

I don't take Genesis literally. I think that there are still lessons to learn from Genesis, but that doesn't mean that I think those things actually happened the way that it's portrayed.

--tibac
 
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,358
431
20
CA
Visit site
✟28,828.00
Faith
Catholic
Jesus and Moses didn't take the passages literally. The people of the ancient world understood that religious stories were not necessarily historically perfect because the point of the stories were to convey religious, spiritual, and moral truths. For example, the kings mentioned in the Bible aren't necessarily the ones historians would write about because the Hebrews used the stories to teach morality rather than history. It is only when literalists exist that the passages appear to be literal interpretations.
 
Upvote 0

Andrew

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2002
4,974
22
✟13,840.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Jesus and Moses didn't take the passages literally.

gosh, then there must be a lot of things he didnt take literally to. Where do you draw the line? What abt Jesus' genealogy that goes back to Adam. If Adam wasnt literal, how about all the other names? Do you even know what a genealogy is supposed to be? It's historical fact otherwise you dont call it a genealogy.

Adam and the last Adam?

As for Jesus, I would say that it would not have made a lot of sense for him to explain the origin of the world to the people of his time.

IOW you are saying Jesus thot they were to dumb to understnd Darwinism? oh come on, dont think we're that dumb.
 
Upvote 0

wblastyn

Jedi Master
Jun 5, 2002
2,664
114
38
Northern Ireland
Visit site
✟11,265.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
IOW you are saying Jesus thot they were to dumb to understnd Darwinism? oh come on, dont think we're that dumb.
They wouldn't even have understood what a cell was or even basic biology (as in the biology that we consider basic today), so how can you expect them to understand evolution. 

 

Also, Jesus was fully human, so He would not have been all-knowing because He gave that divine attribute up at the incarnation, which is why He did not know when the world would end, etc.
 
Upvote 0

wildernesse

Use less and live more.
Jun 17, 2002
1,027
5
44
Georgia
Visit site
✟16,673.00
Today at 10:33 AM Andrew said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658141#post658141)

gosh, then there must be a lot of things he didnt take literally to. Where do you draw the line? What abt Jesus' genealogy that goes back to Adam. If Adam wasnt literal, how about all the other names? Do you even know what a genealogy is supposed to be? It's historical fact otherwise you dont call it a genealogy.

Adam and the last Adam?

I don't think that the genealogies must be literal. Many historical geneologies of kings and important people trace back to the beginning of time, or are related to many "famous" people. It is a sign of their greatness.

I think that Jesus being the last Adam works quite well non-literally.

IOW you are saying Jesus thot they were to dumb to understnd Darwinism? oh come on, dont think we're that dumb.

Seeing as most people are too dumb or uneducated to understand most of scientific thought today (myself included), I don't think that it is that far of a stretch to say that the educated and uneducated masses of 2000 or so years ago wouldn't have understood evolution or modern cosmology.

--tibac
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

- Augustine, in his work De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis")

Augustine understood that the evidence of reason and the senses must be primary in matters concerning the physical world.
 
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,358
431
20
CA
Visit site
✟28,828.00
Faith
Catholic
Today at 04:33 AM Andrew said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658141#post658141)

gosh, then there must be a lot of things he didnt take literally to. Where do you draw the line? What abt Jesus' genealogy that goes back to Adam. If Adam wasnt literal, how about all the other names? Do you even know what a genealogy is supposed to be? It's historical fact otherwise you dont call it a genealogy.

Adam and the last Adam?



IOW you are saying Jesus thot they were to dumb to understnd Darwinism? oh come on, dont think we're that dumb.

Jesus didn't believe that they were too dumb. He believed that taking the time to explain the historical details while trying to make a religious point would be a waste of time. When someone mentions a sunrise, they know that the Sun doesn't go around the Earth, but they accept the inaccurate language because people know what they mean. To claim that they actually believed in geocentrism would be a distortion.
 
Upvote 0

wblastyn

Jedi Master
Jun 5, 2002
2,664
114
38
Northern Ireland
Visit site
✟11,265.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Augustine understood that the evidence of reason and the senses must be primary in matters concerning the physical world.

So basically Augustine is saying creationism is actually dangerous to Christianity? I agree with that.

It's funny how creationists are trying to "help" everyone discover the truth - that God zapped everything into existance 6000 years ago, and evolutionists are either liars or deceived, when in fact they are harming Christianity by pushing intellectual people away.

Jesus didn't believe that they were too dumb. He believed that taking the time to explain the historical details while trying to make a religious point would be a waste of time. When someone mentions a sunrise, they know that the Sun doesn't go around the Earth, but they accept the inaccurate language because people know what they mean. To claim that they actually believed in geocentrism would be a distortion.

Would Jesus have known about evolution, etc while on earth, since He gave up His divine attributes at the incarnation?  I mean, He didn't know when the end of the world would be.

 
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Christology is a part of the scriptures all on it's own.
How can we try to know what Jesus thought and knew?
If he was God, did he know all that was and was going to happen?

From what I can gather it appears that Jesus was a man of his times, he would have direct knowledge of the people in his family and his heritage, of the politics of the time, and clearly the issue of the church.

I don't believe that Jesus would have been discussing Adam and the origins of mankind at all. He was clearly more interested in how we live our lives and in our well being and coming to know ourselves and our God.

I also wonder if he would have had knowledge of the beginning of the world in the Godly sense, this would have come inder the humanity of Jesus rather than the divine part of his essence.

What say you forum mates ???

David
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yesterday at 04:33 AM Andrew said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=658141#post658141)
IOW you are saying Jesus thot they were to dumb to understnd Darwinism? oh come on, dont think we're that dumb.

No, but:
1. We were, are, and probably will be that *ignorant*, that God can't just tell us everything; it would take too long to explain the terms.
2. It had no relevance to His mission here. Why waste time on something we can easily figure out for ourselves?
 
Upvote 0
Hi lucaspa,

I think that Jesus understood himself to be "going back to the father" in a sense, his declaration to the thief on the cross that they would be in heaven together for example is indicative of his utter conviction ( in human terms) of his destiny.
It could be suggested that he was aware of his mission, and that human fear overtook him in the garden.
He certainly knew Judas and Peter were going to betray him, but was this based on foreknowledge or just knowing the weaknesses and character of his disciples?

I think that Jesus would have an understanding of his mission and his place in creation; of his role in Judeo-Christian history perhaps, as imparted at his baptism in the Jordan by John the Baptist.

David
 
Upvote 0
Lucaspa,
The issue of whether Judaism had a view of heaven does not stand up; for me at least.
Jesus was aware I would say that "He" was the new beginning, and that the old church was dead. This is the meaning of the parable about the tree being withered on his journey into Jerusalem. From this perspective then his view of Heaven would be different from the Jewish one. My understanding also is that the thief would definately not be seen as going to heaven at all by the Jews of the time.

This radical interpretation of the Judas issue sounds more like modern politics than what has been recorded, and is always the danger when we transport our social systems of the present time onto the past.

My understanding is that Jesus had no doubts whatsoever that he had a mission.
Being baptised by John was perhaps the start of it; but this is open to debate, and he was only too clear that there was pain involved somwhere along the line; particularly with the agony in the garden. This is clearly an indication of some foreknowledge.

David
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.