Was Jesus A Creationist?

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

(Mark 10:6) "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."

This week, one of the hot news stories out of the United Kingdom was about Richard Dawkins' statement that he was an agnostic. Richard Dawkins the author, lecturer and hero of those who think God is a silly concept sat in a moderated discussion (some say a debate) with Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. If you remember, Dr. Rowan Williams was the clergyman who presided at the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.

In the aftermath of this "debate" the media fixated on whether Richard Dawkins really is the "World's Most Famous Atheist." During this televised event, Dawkins classified himself as an "agnostic" rather than an "atheist." But just to make sure everyone understood his position, he mentioned that he was almost certain God does not exist.

Does it really matter whether Dawkins is an agnostic or an atheist? Although the media thinks this is big news, they completely overlooked the one item that should have been newsworthy for the Christian audience. According to the article in The Telegraph, the Archbishop "said that he believed that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless 'in the image of God.' " This stems from the other statements in which the Archbishop denied the literal account of creation in Genesis. If you read the sentence carefully, he really believes we ascended in an evolutionary process. In other words, we evolved into the image of God. Unfortunately, once you throw out the literalness of the Genesis account, you also have to throw out the words of Jesus Christ.

In a 2006 interview, we find Dr. Williams believes creationism is a "category mistake" and should not be taught. In Mark 10:6, Jesus makes a profound statement proving He believes in the literal creation account found in Genesis. In fact, if you combine this with the other places where Jesus references Genesis you discover that He did not believe the Biblical account was an allegory at all, unlike the current Archbishop of Canterbury. There are many today who are " theistic evolutionists." But it is an impossible position to maintain while believing in the teachings of Jesus. If we allow for Jesus to make a "category mistake" here, where else does He teach in error? If Jesus made any errors in His viewpoint of the Scriptures, not only does it call into question all of His teachings, it also makes Him less than God. He becomes just another rabbi with some radical opinions. It is extremely important that Jesus believed and taught in a literal creation account from Genesis.

It doesn't really matter whether Richard Dawkins is an agnostic or atheist. At the end of the day, it all ends up in the same place: unbelief. But we do need to recognize and distinguish ourselves from churchmen who cloak themselves in the logic of scientific theory. The media had no problem with the Archbishop because it really wasn't news that he held this position on creation. But those who want Christianity represented to the world and believe in a literal Biblical interpretation better take heed who is taking their side in the public arena. And we all better beware whether the pulpit is filled with someone who believes the teachings of Jesus.

The Renewed Mind - http://www.mychangedmind.com/

Live a different life by thinking differently about life!

The Doctrine of the Incarnation and the Fact About Jesus' Sexuality

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Brown had raised several questions about the divinity of Jesus especially regarding His sexuality and the fact that he physically resurrected. Many Christians express their disgust and respond to the possibilities raised by Brown with such indignation. Many Christians would rather accept a lie to protect the sentiment of their traditional beliefs than face the fact of any historical evidence. Many do not have any profound reason to retain those beliefs, yet they are afraid to accept any radical change that may violate their sentiments. Richard Holloway in "Doubts and Love" called this a strong generic predisposition of christian fanaticism.

My focus in this short appraisal is to test the claim put forward by Brown that Jesus had sexual experiences (Please refer to the gospel according to Mary Magdalene); whether it dilutes the fact of the divinity of Jesus.

Brown's conjectures about the possibility of Jesus' sexual experience may not necessarily dilute the belief in the divinity of Jesus. It only attempts to change the way to believing in the divinity of Jesus. If Jesus was truly man, there may be nothing essentially wrong to imagine that he may have had sexual experiences (Brown) and this point does not intrinsically mean that his divinity is unjustifiable. In fact sex is part of being truly human; we only feel guilt about our sexual experiences because of our moral perversions.

Many Christians are afraid to confront the possibility of Brown's conjectures. Yet it is generally admitted that Jesus was, at least, truly man if not truly God. The fact of his true humanity gives evidence to the historical realities of his existence..."that he was born of a woman, lived in a society, had a vocation and experienced death". This sequence of events is experienced by every man living in history.

Whether or not there are historical evidences to support the claim of His sexuality, or the claim itself is a form of "doctrinal blackmail", it is still of no significant spiritual consequences. Sex, marriage and procreation are all human experiences. God created man with his sexuality. The reason for the incarnation may just be that: God entered human history as a man in Jesus; fully and truly man, to live and experience humanity, and justify the possibility of perfection in the human experience (be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect).

Sexuality is not essentially a sign of imperfection. Hence Christians need not fear to accept the possibility of Jesus sexual experiences whether or not it is true. In fact, it is a confirmation that Jesus actually had a place in the human history. It takes the fact of the incarnation beyond an exaggerated metaphor ('Elijah was a man like us'...likewise Jesus). That is, he experienced humanity.

It is only because many of us are blinded by the sentiments of our moral perversions that we unconsciously but actively deny the humanity of Jesus. The consequence of this attitude finds expression in the fact that, many of us Christians spend all the time talking about Jesus and our believe in Him instead of imitating his actions. It seems many of us are more of Jesus' advocates than Jesus-like people (Christians).