Do you believe in evolution or what your holy book says?

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

Fair question TD

At the time, I guess they just weren't strong enough in their belief that he was the Messiah. Don't forget, for many years they had been 'shepherded' by spiritual leaders who placed more importance on position and status than the spiritual needs of the people. When Jesus came, he displayed them as the power hungry, selfish men they were, and they didn't like it. By this time they had such a strong hold on the people that it wouldn't have taken much to turn a crowd against him. I believe that the people who follow the Jewish faith today don't believe Jesus was the Messiah.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the account of the Hebrews leaving Egypt, but even after witnessing the 10 plagues, as well as the miraculous parting of the Red Sea, the Hebrews still continued to forget Jehovah, which is why He ended up leaving them. So instead of having the fleshly nation of Israel, He instituted the spiritual Israel, and this time only those who chose it became His.

But long story short, what BW said

[Dedicated Doula Gillian]

TD - recommend the dvd or book
"The Case for Christ" - Lee Strobel

[Epacris]

Hey TD, what are you doing, I've only just joined this thread and now it's gone way off where I was at... and I hadn't finished.

What I really want to say is, what I find so puzzling, as a scientist, is that science keeps getting drawn into all this religion stuff. Like I said, as a scientist, out in the field, in the practical application of our knowledge, based on Darwin's theory of evolution, religion doesn't even enter into it. It is completely irrelevant. There are no "alternative" ideas. Science is science and religion is religion. Science is absolutely not a form of religion, it's science.

I think atheists (which I guess I am calling a type of religion) in their arguments with religion have used science to counter creationism (and other ideas of that sort). And of course I am totally opposed to the teaching of creationism in science, it's not science it's religion. I am passionate about freedom of religion, by all means teach and believe whatever you want to believe, I fully support your in that (unless you're a destructive cult, but that's another thread).... in religion. But any religious teachings, in my humble but very passionate opinion, have no place in science.

Oh OK, I just thought I'd add, I had a quick conservation with DH, who is also a scientist/ecologist (see I do live and breathe this stuff all day every day )and he doesn't agree with me on this at all... so just reiterating again, this is just my personal opinion.

[Nelle]

Rachel with the whole Science is Science and Religion is Religion thing - my faith is sort of different to that. It's more a world view. My faith in God is how I understand the world. It's not something I DO, it's how I think and see things, my context. So I learn about science, but always God is my context.
No idea if that makes sense. It's late at night after a long day.

Peg - your statement that Jesus was an angel gets me curious - what do you base that on?

And TD, cool question, but probably the others have basically covered it - Jesus needed to die, if he was going to pay the punishment for sin (which is what the bible teaches happened). Plus I like the idea that his followers were very human - they were afraid of dying too. Would I have stood up for Jesus if I might have died...I'm not sure. Certainly afterwards many of Jesus' disciples ended up dying because of what they shared about him. But it gives me encouragement that I can chicken/freak out sometimes and still go on to do good stuff.

[Cricket]

I'm with Nelle on the worldview - faith is life. What I believe about God and the Bible inpacts the way I live and the way I think about everything. And really, evolutionary science works the same way. If you believe that life evolved and that humans are "high apes", it impacts the way you think about the world and everything else in life. Is human life sacred? Is there absolute truth? The answers to these and other questions have their root in your belief about the origins of life and the existance of God.

To return to the evolution thing briefly - development and speciallization within a species is evident. I'm not denying that. However, when these things happen, information is LOST. New information is not created. Diversity was possible within the genetic code of the creature, and due to environmental circumstances, individual animals with certain traits had the advantage over others, and so that trait became dominant, and the other genetic information was lost over time, or preserved in another variety of that species, living in different circumstances. I believe this is sometimes called micro-evolution. Macro-evolution, in which fish become birds, for example, and new genetic information is created, is an entirely different thing, and that is what evolution is based on. I do not believe this ever happened.

As a bit of an aside, when the man who was responsible for some of the work of mapping DNA received his Nobel prize, he was asked by a reporter "Knowing what you do about DNA, where do you think life came from? Did we evolve?" His answer was something to the effect of "Aliens must have come and planted seeds of life on our planet. This could not evolve by chance." So, he was unwilling to acknowledge a creator, but he could not accept evolution either. Scientists who hint that they believe in a creator are ridiculed by their peers, and any "non-evolutionary" theory of the origin of life receives no respect and no funding. (Google "expelled: no intelligence allowed") So any other perspective is generally not heard.

About Jesus' disciples allowing him to be crucified - it's a sad illustration of human nature. We're weak people. Peter thought he could stand - he promised he would stand and die with Jesus, but when it came to the crucial moment, he fell. He denied that he even knew Jesus. Later, though, he was able to stand and preach about Jesus to hostile crowds, through the strength that God gave him. He did later die for his faith. And, as others have said, it is encouraging to me that God still calls us to follow him despite our weakness, and can still use us to serve him.

About Jesus being an angel - I believe that is the Jehovah's Witness position? I would say that Hebrews demonstrates pretty clearly that Christ is more powerful and higher than an angel. The Bible says Christ was "in very nature, God."

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

The whole person of who Jesus is and our relationship with him is the big sticking point on why I am not converting to the JWs! I believe that Jesus is the Son of God - he is light from light and true God from true God. An angel, even an archangel, is less than that. So therefore how could Jesus be who the Bible claims he is if he's just a mere angel?

And anyone who says Richard Dawkins hasn't turned evolution into a religion obviously hasn't read those books of his! I can see fanaticism on both sides of the argument from various people and that's why I'll defend the other side to the hilt. Personally, I can doubt carbon dated (and always have; radioactive decay isn't the greatest way to date something) and exactly HOW and WHY any amoeba would think going multicellular was a good idea, as it were - but then again, I can see how evolution happens once you do have multicellular organisms. I can see how the heart evolved. How lungs evolved. How the circulatory system happened is awesome and wonderful and that's another thing I can't see happening without God, even if I can see some of the steps.

It's a fascinating and interesting study, but I just can't believe that we started from goo with NO extra help. That just seems crazy.

[Peg]

The whole person of who Jesus is and our relationship with him is the big sticking point on why I am not converting to the JWs! I believe that Jesus is the Son of God - he is light from light and true God from true God. An angel, even an archangel, is less than that. So therefore how could Jesus be who the Bible claims he is if he's just a mere angel?

Thats completely understandable. We've been told for so long that Jesus is God, why should we doubt it. This issue is what originally divided the early church into two opposing groups. So i understand your position.

But there really are scriptural reasons to at least consider the possibility. For instance, Micheal the Arch Angel is said to be the one who defeated Satan and his demons from the heavens in Revelation 12:7. Jesus wasnt mentioned there even though it was said prophetically of Jesus at

Psalm 110:1, 2: “The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: ‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, saying: ‘Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.’”

We know that it is Jesus who sits at Gods right hand. And according to Jesus, he also is the one commissioned to act on Gods behalf. Only the Lamb/Jesus is said to be crowned as the one who leads the angels to defeat Gods enemies at
Rev 6:1-2 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say with a voice as of thunder: “Come!” 2*And I saw, and, look! a white horse; and the one seated upon it had a bow; and a crown was given him, and he went forth conquering and to complete his conquest

Also he said this himself:
Matt 24:30*And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory

We have to honestly ask, if Jesus is NOT the arch angel, then why is the archangel performing the tasks that were assigned to the savior Jesus Christ?

Its a question worth thinking about at lease.

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

The whole person of who Jesus is and our relationship with him is the big sticking point on why I am not converting to the JWs! I believe that Jesus is the Son of God - he is light from light and true God from true God. An angel, even an archangel, is less than that. So therefore how could Jesus be who the Bible claims he is if he's just a mere angel?

If thats whats stopping you LZ, prepare to get baptised

We don't worship Jesus as a God - he even told the Jews several times that his power came, not from himself, but from 'Him that sent me', being Jehovah. However, we do hold him in higher regard than your run of the mill angel, because Jesus was the first. Jesus was the ONLY thing Jehovah created by himself - everything else was done with Jesus' help. Jesus is to be a ruler, as we see in Revelation, because the 144,000 will 'rule as kings and priests with him'. No other angel has that privilege, because there is no-one higher than Jesus, except Jehovah.

Is that how its been explained to you before, or have I confused the situation?

Epacris - well said, we should show you the same understanding you've shown us I'm sure the Bible must seem like science fiction to people who don't believe it!

[Peg]

Peg - your statement that Jesus was an angel gets me curious - what do you base that on?

I know this idea sounds strange, its bascially because we dont believe that Jesus is God. We believe that he is what he said he is...a Son of God.

I know there are differing beliefs about what angels are. If you look at the Hebrew and Greek words translated 'angel' (Heb. malakh/Gr.aggelos) they both mean “messenger.” The scriptures show that in heaven, there are myriads of angels and they are all called the 'sons of God' They are in the same spirit form as God and they work in harmony with Gods will as shown in

Psalm 103:20*"Bless Jehovah, O YOU angels of his, mighty in power, carrying out his word, By listening to the voice of his word.
21*Bless Jehovah, all YOU armies of his, You ministers of his, doing his will"
&
Job 38:7*"When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause? (the LXX translates the 'sons of God' as 'bands of angels' in this verse)

So an Angel is a spirit son of God who works in harmony with Gods will.
Could we say that Jesus filled that description? Yes we can. He himself said that he had come to do the will of God, and we know that he lived as a spirit in heaven before he came to earth because John said of him "the Word was with God" in John 1:1.

Thats the first line of reasoning. But a second has to do with the identity of 'Micheal the Arch Angel'
Because of Jesus position being highest in both earth and heaven, we believe that this Micheal is actually Jesus in his heavenly role. The term 'Arch Angel' actually means the highest in authority or the 'first and foremost'. In terms of the heavenly 'sons' of God, only Jesus could be the first and foremost.

Also this angel is said to be the leader of all the angels in heaven, he is also spoken of as the one who defeated Gods enemy Satan in when he used his authority to cleans the heavens of Satan.
Revelation 12: 7*And war broke out in heaven: Mi′cha‧el and his angels battled with the dragon...9*So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, ..10*And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ"

and in 1Thess 4:16 it says:

"because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice..."


So there is scriptual justification in identifying Jesus as Micheal the Arch Angel.
I hope i've made this clear and not too confusing...i tend to be like a dog chasing my tail at times