Evolution of what?

[TLK Valentine]

I'm not saying that as you purport above using that language. But it's simply not logical to say one believes in Jesus and then say evolution is the way he came about. The two don't mix. But if you think they do -- perhaps you or those supporting your viewpoint might explain how the two blend.

Perhaps you need a more reliable path to Jesus than a literalized Bible?

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps you need a more reliable path to Jesus than a literalized Bible?

How do you view Jesus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

oops. (What correct history are you saying the Bible has?) But anyway, you're talking about the birth of Jesus, right? Please can you be specific as the differing accounts? Thank you.

We can tell by the stories that they took place at different times. Matthew has the birth of Jesus while Herod the Great was still king of Judea. That puts it at before 4 BCE. Luke has the birth of Jesus during the Census of Quirinius. We know when that was and it was in 6 CE. Some people try to claim that Luke also has the birth of Jesus during Herod's time, but if you read Luke 1 carefully you will see that there is only the prophecy of his birth then. To be honest the author of Luke probably wanted the birth to be during Herod's time, but he forgot his history. After all that was a good 80 years before the book was written.

 

[Audie]

Condemning another is against jesus. you are not accepting bible, as it say NOT to cast the first stone (judge and impose judgment)

"14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

No problem. Each should have a chance to see for themselves.

What you did was judge, that is against jesus' teachings (bible).




i copied the same:

But the chapter is about:

Matthew 24​

​

New International Version​

​

​

The Destruction of the Temple and Signs of the End Times​

24 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”



That location is the very problem of the middle east divide.

So,every legal system is anti god.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Maybe light came first

 

[YoursTrue]

We can tell by the stories that they took place at different times. Matthew has the birth of Jesus while Herod the Great was still king of Judea. That puts it at before 4 BCE. Luke has the birth of Jesus during the Census of Quirinius. We know when that was and it was in 6 CE. Some people try to claim that Luke also has the birth of Jesus during Herod's time, but if you read Luke 1 carefully you will see that there is only the prophecy of his birth then. To be honest the author of Luke probably wanted the birth to be during Herod's time, but he forgot his history. After all that was a good 80 years before the book was written.

It gets a bit detailed as I am examining it. So, because I am not a genius, I must go over details slowly and carefully as possible. So who was Quirinius? He was the Roman governor of Syria at the time of the census ordered by Caesar Augustus. That was why Jesus was born in Bethlehem. (Luke 2) I go slowly and don't like to argue, so if you have questions or a difference from what I am slowly writing, please let me know. But I am trying to go through the reasoning slowly.
So Luke chapter 2:1-7 says (English Standard Version) --
"In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn."
It isn't so easy for me to coordinate the scriptures so I have to go slowly, if possible. So Luke's account says that Jesus was born during the time Quirinius took a census.

 

[John53]

I think you're taking this out of context because -- either what the Bible says about Jesus is true or it is not. It's not a "me" problem at all. (Why would you think so?) Again -- if evolution of humans coming from fish and prior then apes with some unknown common ancestor is true then clearly the writing in the Bible about Jesus is not true. You can't believe both. But if you think you can, you or someone who believe both might explain.

You obviously can accept evolution and believe in Jesus because many people do. The problem is you can't accept they do.

 

[YoursTrue]

You obviously can accept evolution and believe in Jesus because many people do. The problem is you can't accept they do.

I have come to terms with that, since I have not really seen a cogent explanation by those who accept both. The Bible is replete with lineages going right up to Jesus from Adam and Eve and other miracles. Let's just say some people believe both. The question then is, how about you? Do you accept both?

 

[McBell]

I think you're taking this out of context because -- either what the Bible says about Jesus is true or it is not.

False dilemma

It's not a "me" problem at all. (Why would you think so?)

If the only reason you reject evolution is to protect your beleifs, then it is in fact a you problem.
Now given you have not presented anything to indicate that there is a reason other than protecting your beliefs...

Again -- if evolution of humans coming from fish and prior then apes with some unknown common ancestor is true then clearly the writing in the Bible about Jesus is not true.

Honestly, I fail to see where your problem is.
at least concerning Jesus and evolution.
According to the Bible Jesus is a tale of gods direct intervention in human affairs.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Or even biology.

You can't believe both.

YOU might not be able to believe both, but not everyone insults their god like you do.

But if you think you can, you or someone who believe both might explain.

Since it has not done any good thus far, what makes you think it will do any good now?
For whatever reason, YOU have this false dilemma stuck in your mind.

So yeah, it is a YOU problem.

 

[McBell]

I have come to terms with that, since I have not really seen a cogent explanation by those who accept both. The Bible is replete with lineages going right up to Jesus from Adam and Eve and other miracles. Let's just say some people believe both. The question then is, how about you? Do you accept both?

This just boggles the mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

You obviously can accept evolution and believe in Jesus because many people do. The problem is you can't accept they do.

The word accept here is a bit off center, since I do believe many accept evolution yet also say they believe in Jesus. The question then is, which may be difficult to answer by those who believe or accept (?) both ideas -- how do they believe in, or accept the account about Jesus if they accept (believe in) the concept of evolution? What do you believe about Jesus?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This just boggles the mind.

It seems like an obsession to me.

The parallel to the creationist argument against science is built on the same frame. Can't demonstrate belief, so the attack is on the science hoping beyond hope that something sticks to the wall and creationist belief wins by default.

Same thing here. Can't demonstrate that the Bible must be interpreted literally cover to cover, so they attack other Christians who follow different interpretations. Obsessively it seems.

 

[John53]

I have come to terms with that, since I have not really seen a cogent explanation by those who accept both. The Bible is replete with lineages going right up to Jesus from Adam and Eve and other miracles. Let's just say some people believe both. The question then is, how about you? Do you accept both?

And they have come to terms with their beliefs, it's your problem not theirs. They're just not arrogant enough to tell others they can't possibly believe what they say they do.

You know full well I am an atheist so I have no idea what the point of your question is, you already know the answer.

 

[McBell]

It seems like an obsession to me.

The parallel to the creationist argument against science is built on the same frame. Can't demonstrate belief, so the attack is on the science hoping beyond hope that something sticks to the wall and creationist belief wins by default.

Same thing here. Can't demonstrate that the Bible must be interpreted literally cover to cover, so they attack other Christians who follow different interpretations. Obsessively it seems.

The blatant misuse of the word "cogent" is the biggest thing (IMO) that makes it so mind boggling.

 

[YoursTrue]

False dilemma


If the only reason you reject evolution is to protect your beleifs, then it is in fact a you problem.
Now given you have not presented anything to indicate that there is a reason other than protecting your beliefs...


Honestly, I fail to see where your problem is.
at least concerning Jesus and evolution.
According to the Bible Jesus is a tale of gods direct intervention in human affairs.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Or even biology.


YOU might not be able to believe both, but not everyone insults their god like you do.


Since it has not done any good thus far, what makes you think it will do any good now?
For whatever reason, YOU have this false dilemma stuck in your mind.

So yeah, it is a YOU problem.

OK, I see you do not understand the contradiction between the two. And that's ok because we are all allowed beliefs of sort. It's not a false dilemma to "protect my beliefs" as you assert. I have presented the fact that many pages of the Bible show ancestors of Jesus from Adam on to Jesus, also miracles throughout. It is not a false dilemma but a true one. Unfortunately I guess we'll have to table the conversation now about the dates you bring up about Jesus' birth. Wouldn't matter much anyway because most likely you'll argue Mary wasn't a virgin and that the story is basically mythical. Unless you want to tell me something different. So -- while I was looking forward to a reasonable discussion with you about the birth and dates I will suspend for the time being. Bye for now, take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

And they have come to terms with their beliefs, it's your problem not theirs. They're just not arrogant enough to tell others they can't possibly believe what they say they do.

You know full well I am an atheist so I have no idea what the point of your question is, you already know the answer.

No, I do not remember that you said you are an atheist. I'll try not to forget that.
You have come to terms with your belief, others can sometimes to terms with their beliefs and believe in Jesus linking him to evolution or not. I have given my explanation. Some believe in Jesus and evolution. Others do not. You do not believe in Jesus or God and that is your prerogative.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And they have come to terms with their beliefs, it's your problem not theirs. They're just not arrogant enough to tell others they can't possibly believe what they say they do.

You know full well I am an atheist so I have no idea what the point of your question is, you already know the answer.

The literalist cannot come up with any valid rejection of science, so the next thing is to attack others that accept science. Christians that recognize science realize this must mean that people don't really understand the Bible as well as they think they do and a literalist interpretation is the wrong interpretation.

The other way is to reject reality and double down and declare that anyone that doesn't believe like brand X isn't a true Christian. Well, I personally don't find Brand X to be that much.

 

[YoursTrue]

The blatant misuse of the word "cogent" is the biggest thing (IMO) that makes it so mind boggling.

Why? Is it reasonable, in your mind, to believe in Jesus as written in the Bible?

 

[John53]

No, I do not remember that you said you are an atheist. I'll try not to forget that.
You have come to terms with your belief, others can sometimes to terms with their beliefs and believe in Jesus linking him to evolution or not. I have given my explanation. Some believe in Jesus and evolution. Others do not. You do not believe in Jesus or God and that is your prerogative.

Like usual you completely miss the point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And they have come to terms with their beliefs, it's your problem not theirs. They're just not arrogant enough to tell others they can't possibly believe what they say they do.

You know full well I am an atheist so I have no idea what the point of your question is, you already know the answer.

It all just reinforces my original conclusion that it isn't about God or the Bible, but about a particular person or group's view that is being defended as if it exists as some divine revelation.

The question isn't about a defensive position, but rather what that position is really defending.