You could argue: Scientific evidence suggests that Creation did not occur as documented in the Bible. However, is there any scientific evidence that Christ did not rise from the dead? No. You can debate the plausibilty of both Creation and the Holy Trinity, but only one (Creation) has had some scientific proof refuting the biblical account. More scientific leaning Christians will point to the supporting evidence out there doubting Creationism. However, The Holy Trinity is a much harder nut to crack; scientifically.
I'll jump in with a Christian viewpoint, and I'm sure I'll regret it. I don't dispute the resurrection, since many followers risked their lives spreading the faith after he was gone. If Jesus was a fraud, I doubt that people would have devoted the rest of their lives to building Christianity. As far as creation, the scientific record refutes a literal Biblical creation story. Science answers the question of How, and my faith is not threatened by that. I think the wording of this thread is a little presumptuous, i.e,, Christians who "don't believe in Creation". Of course I believe in Creation, i.e, God creating the earth, just not the literal way some fundamentalists see it.
GT - Please read my link above. The best explanation considering all the evidence IS the resurrection.
Good posts, cid and chipper and mia. Regarding the resurrection, I too find myself having a hard time explaining why all of Jesus followers, following the events that transpired in Jerusalem and the period we recognize as pentecost, would have taken upon themselves the life they did unless something significant happened, something that literally changed their complete worldview. What happened that made these men and women, literally, be willing to give their own life for this message? We can debate the gospel and other accounts of the Resurrection till the cows come home. But the fact that these people, these Apostles, rather than distancing themselves from the movement of a man who was put to death by the government and rejected by the religious institution of his time, embraced their own death, not in a sense of hopelessness or despair, but in order to spread that message to the rest of the world says something. Something happened there. What? None of us really know. But something happened, and the teaching of those Apostles indicate that that something was what we understand as the Resurrection.
Red. Please don't make an a priori attack. Please deal with the content and do not just dismiss out of hand. Thanks!
I think you read too much into Jesus' analogy. Jesus was a Jew, spoke to Jews, and was, per the Jewish scripture, the Jewish Messiah. So it is fairly understandable that he would use the Torah to make and illustrate his points, because it would be a common cultural reference. But Jesus did not endorse the Creation myth any more than he endorsed grafting new vines onto old roots as proper vineyard management. Jesus was fairly explicit on what you need to believe and what you need to do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. A belief in the literal word of the Old Testament (including Genesis) was nowhere on that list. On the contrary, Jesus explicitly rejects the Pharisees' literal interpretation of the Old Testament. It is difficult to believe that Jesus would throw out huge portions of the Mosaic law, and yet retain a literal interpretation of the Mosaic creation story.
LL, Thanks again. I had not thought of that viewpoint. I think it is a viable one, however I don't believe the totality of quotes from Jesus is congruent with your theory. I found this blog entry on point. The Link "8:11 Jesus makes historical reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (told of in Genesis), referring to future events in which they will be involved." Wouldn't it be strange of Christ to believe in the historical reality of Adam & Eve and others and yet not believe the creation account a few verses earlier? Furthermore, Jesus prophesied about his own resurrection saying it would be the 'sign of jonah'. Awfully strange to equate the proof of his resurrection with something unfactual from the past. Again, I think you raise good points... but I think a greater deal of evidence supports the view that He was a creationist. Just saying that I trust Jesus because after all, I believe he conquered the grave & he was THE CREATOR. Col 1:16 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. "
I believe that God put animals on the planet, knowing about evolution. So I guess I believe in Creationism and Evolution. Is that pretty much ID?
The two are mutually exclusive. You can't believe in one and not the other. If you believe in God and all His creations, then you can't say He didn't create man and all things on Earth and space.
7 Iron, Pretty easy IMHO. Not long ago people believed everything in the bible, as science and education taught us more of the natural world, certain parts of the bible become 'obsolete'. Not quite sure how the virgin birth and resurrection are still holding up though, buts the gist of it. Same can be said for the moral aspect. The OT was bitching and didn't hold up too long. Everything else just splintered because groups of people tend to not agree on much.
I think Jesus as the divine Son of God would know whether the Genesis was true or not and who it was written by. He didn't have a problem blowing people's mind and he didn't have a problem challenging commonly held but incorrect ideas in the culture. He stated Moses wrote the Law (Genesis - Deuteronomy). He stated that the earth would pass away before one small part of the Law would pass away. Genesis 1 is Torah. If Jews don't believe in the creation account then they don't truly believe in Torah. I agree that you have to read each part of the Bible as it was literarily intended. But you shouldn't use literary style as a way to excuse rejecting it. To believe in Jesus and not the OT accounts which Jesus obviously did believe doesn't make any sense.
No religion is likely to make much sense to a nonbeliever. To me, this thread is a boring attempt to argue the reasonableness of being a Christian with the subtext that creationist Christians are already known to be unreasonable. The remark above calling some Christians hypocrites was unnecessary. If one is truly interested in a Christian worldview that embraces the resurrection but allows for evolution, call the local catholic church to learn when the next RCIA classes start. If one is more interested in internet quips, quip away. Science is, in the end, an empiric endeavor. It can not prove negatives; it can only report models that have successfully predicted outcomes in past trials. To suggest that science can ever have something definitive to say about whether the resurrection could have taken place is silly. The best we can do is to say that we don't have an explanation for how it could have occurred. That is why we call it a miracle. What do you think most people of the 17th century would have said about heart/lung transplants?
GT WT, you act as if the resurrection should be tested as a natural occurence. It isn't and should never be considered as such. That nature can not raise dead people is not a reason to disbelieve the gospel account. It is obviously something supernatural. Science not being able to discover a case of resurrection just proves that man can not make themselves come back from the dead. It makes absolutely no comment on God's capability to do so and its factual occurence circa 33AD.
uuuh, a lot of things that jesus did cannot be reproduced by science, so why fixate on the resurrection? i'm not sure if some of you are missing this but christians believe that jesus is the son of god and therefore pretty special.
