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

:

---

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 :doh:

:

---

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.

OK so it's my turn to crack open the please, please understand, I am not trying to be deliberately argumentative, I am genuinely interested in having a conversation, so I can increase the depth of my understanding and compassion and consideration for all. :hug:

:

---

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.

---

I am really unsure of what you are saying here. Are you saying that Christianity and science are mutually exclusive, you just can't be both?

:

---

Is human life sacred? Is there absolute truth?

---

Again, I really have no idea what you mean? You don't have to be religious AT ALL to value the sanctity of human life? And truth? And just because you are a Christian, it doesn't mean you a "good" person, likewise, not all atheists are evil? :p

:

---

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.

---

I just wanted to say that this is not scientifically correct and not the experience that I have, as a scientist, working with endangered species, populations and ecological communities out in the field. I am not some boffin in a lab mixing brightly coloured liquids together. I am out there in the bush formulating and implementing rehabilitation plans, counting and collecting (with the appropriate licenses of course) making sure these species are preserved for posterity (as dead samples in a herbarium) because they are on the brink of extinction. I hope so much that I don't see it (extinction) in my lifetime, but unfortunately I fear I will. :(

:

---

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.

---

I totally agree, atheists can be just as fundamental as any fundamentalists from any religion.

:

---

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.

---

Also, I think you are all well aware now that I hold Darwin and his wako theory very close to my heart and soul. How would you feel if I said: "Believing in God (or insert you chosen spiritual being here) just seems crazy." And please know that I am posing this question (how would you feel?) in an effort to evoke some sensitivity and compassion, seeing as this is in the general religion section and not in the Christianity section. I would NEVER actually say that to anyone about what they believe. :hug:

And JIC you're worrying about me and how I'm feeling, I'm fine, really, I'm just asking. :hug:

:

---

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 :rofl:

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 :hug: I'm sure the Bible must seem like science fiction to people who don't believe it!

Hmmm.... having some trouble with the quote thing here. Hope it's still sort of understandable!


"I am really unsure of what you are saying here. Are you saying that Christianity and science are mutually exclusive, you just can't be both?"

No, what I am saying is that my faith is the way I look at everything in life. It is the foundation. It determines truth in every area. So, if I have a belief based on the Bible, which is in conflict with what a scientist or whoever else is telling me, I will stick with the Bible. I believe that the Bible contains the real truth, and that "true" science will never contradict it. God wrote the Bible, and God made the world. There can be no contradictions.


"Again, I really have no idea what you mean? You don't have to be religious AT ALL to value the sanctity of human life? And truth? And just because you are a Christian, it doesn't mean you a "good" person, likewise, not all atheists are evil?"

No, I did not intend to imply that atheists were evil or did not value human life. What I am saying is that my morals are a part of my world view, based on the Bible. I find the answer to life's questions, and the meaning for my life there. I know Who made me, why I am here, and where I am going. This is all a part of my faith in God. It is all a part of my belief that the Bible contains absolute truth. It has nothing to do with my believing that I am a good person or not. I know I'm not a good person. (The Bible also tells me that, very clearly, and to a point that I would prefer to deny.) I am saying that I value human life because God made it. He gives life, and he can take it - no one else. Science, ethics, politics, finance,..... etc - they are all woven together in life, and the "glasses" through which I view them all is the Bible. You also have a world view, by which you make your decisions - your value system. It will influence your view of everything in life, from science to whatever.


"I just wanted to say that this is not scientifically correct and not the experience that I have, as a scientist, working with endangered species, populations and ecological communities out in the field. I am not some boffin in a lab mixing brightly coloured liquids together. I am out there in the bush formulating and implementing rehabilitation plans, counting and collecting (with the appropriate licenses of course) making sure these species are preserved for posterity (as dead samples in a herbarium) because they are on the brink of extinction. I hope so much that I don't see it (extinction) in my lifetime, but unfortunately I fear I will. "

I said that one "kind" of animals (say, reptiles) has never evolved into another "kind" (say, birds.) You say that you have a different experience? I'd like to see or hear of a proven example. I believe that God created a number of genetically diverse creatures in the beginning, each according to it's kind. These creatures "evolved" if you will, into the wide variety of individual creatures we have today, each suited to it's environment - something like the billions of people in the world today, all with their own features and characteristics, each came from the original two created humans. This happened over a matter of thousands of years, not millions.

"Also, I think you are all well aware now that I hold Darwin and his wako theory very close to my heart and soul. How would you feel if I said: "Believing in God (or insert you chosen spiritual being here) just seems crazy." And please know that I am posing this question (how would you feel?) in an effort to evoke some sensitivity and compassion, seeing as this is in the general religion section and not in the Christianity section. I would NEVER actually say that to anyone about what they believe."

I'm sorry that you are feeling attacked by some of the comments in the thread, Epacris. It certainly isn't my intention to attack you. :hug:

About Jesus being an angel.....


Hebrews 1:
- "For to which of the angels did God ever say 'You are my Son, today I have become your Father'?"
- "When God brings his firstborn into the world, he says 'Let all God's angels worship him'"
- "But about the Son he says 'Your throne, O GOD, will last forever and ever....'"

Isaiah 9:
- For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given..... And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

John 1:
- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God."

Phillipians 2:
- Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus, who being in very nature, God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, and being made in human likeness. And, being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross."

When the Pharisees questioned Jesus about his authority, he told them that "Before Abraham was, I AM" and they picked up stones to stone him, because they knew and understood that he was claiming God's covenant name "I AM" for himself.

Revelation 1:
"'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God...... And when I turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man......and he said "'Do not be afraid, I am the first and the last....'" They make the same claims about who they are - both are eternal.

Revelation 19:
- "Then the angel said to me 'Write" Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb.....' and I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you..... Worship God!'" and we also see in Revelation 5 (among other places) all of heaven worshippingthe Lamb - Jesus Christ. He is worshipped as God, and if he isn't God, this is blasphemy.

Just questioning Cricket, are you saying that those who don't believe in the Trinity doctrine are blasphemous? As a JW I don't believe in the Trinity, and I can also quote scriptures supporting my belief, but I would never call anyone who does believe it blasphemous :hug:

Of course, if I've misinterpreted your post just let me know :)

What I'm trying to say, is that if someone worships anything or anyone other than God, the Bible calls that blasphemy, or idolatry. We may only worship God (first and second commandments, and many other texts). So if we're going to worship Jesus (and the Bible says we should!), he must be God, IMO. Not trying to offend anyone here, just saying what the Bible says.

This discussion is so interesting and shows that even interpretations of the bible can vary greatly. I think it is better to see all information as subjective and debatable rather than absolute truth, just as this thread demonstrates both science and the bible are debatable. This thread proves there is no absolute truth, but the only information that is 'most true' or suited to each individual and culture.

Arcadia, if there's no absolute truth, then my whole way of living is pointless, and every moment I've spent believing in God is a waste of time. I don't think I can make something true or untrue just by having an opinion on it. Anything's debatable, but I think the point of the debate is to get to the truth.

I know not everyone believes in absolute truth, but for me, if there's no absolute truth then my faith in an absolutely true God doesn't make much sense.

We all disagree, but I think many of us have come to terms with the fact that someone is wrong. And we have respectful discussion within that understanding. I mean - it's fine to say that something is 'most true' for people, but at the end of the day, when it comes to me and a Jewish or Muslim or Athiest friend - only one of us will be right - because of what our faiths are based on. Either there is a God or there's not. Either Jesus is God or he's not. He can't be God for me and not exist for someone else. It sounds like an aggressive point of view, but it's just matter of fact to me. If someone else is right, then I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then someone else is wrong. I've heard about many paths to the same God, but given that many faiths don't subscribe to that theory - even if many paths is right, that would make the faith wrong.

I love that we can have kind and respectful discussion in here. I love our community for that. I think we're all searching for the truth, but I don't think we're all right. xo

:yeahthat:
I agree absolutely Nelle - SO well put :clap:

:yeahthat: Great post, Nelle. Thanks so much for putting that out there.

Have to agree with Nelle and everyone else. There IS an absolute truth, we may not necessarily know all of it, but it is there.

I like that we can discuss and compare our truths respectfully. It's not often that it is possible to do so.

BW

:

---

We all disagree, but I think many of us have come to terms with the fact that someone is wrong. And we have respectful discussion within that understanding. I mean - it's fine to say that something is 'most true' for people, but at the end of the day, when it comes to me and a Jewish or Muslim or Athiest friend - only one of us will be right - because of what our faiths are based on. Either there is a God or there's not. Either Jesus is God or he's not. He can't be God for me and not exist for someone else. It sounds like an aggressive point of view, but it's just matter of fact to me. If someone else is right, then I'm wrong. And if I'm right, then someone else is wrong. I've heard about many paths to the same God, but given that many faiths don't subscribe to that theory - even if many paths is right, that would make the faith wrong

---

This reminds me of a particular Rowan Atkinson skit where he is welcoming people to Hell, but I will keep the details of that one to myself ;). But along these lines, because there can only logically be the conclusion that someone must be wrong, then surely any moral arguments which are based on religious teachings must be discounted? Surely only secular, logical "harm-based" analyses are the only ones capable of withstanding scrutiny? For example, if you say abortion is wrong because God says so, but it later transpires that there is no God, then the previous argument is invalid. In which case you would have to rely on an analysis of abortion which does not rely on religion. I know this is a bit OT, but this whole thread seems to be.....

(I must disclose my athesim in all fairness but I don't think this detracts form my point. I support people having their own religious beliefs but reject strongly any suggestion that a person's religious stance gives them the right to dictate issues of morality and how that impinges on my own decisions.)

Well, I'm gunna keep it simple and just answer the original question. I believe in the evolution theory :-) although I'd like to hope there is more out there and that there is something after this life.

Thanks for the great post Nelle, and I think we will have to agree to disagree. I prefer to see everyone opinion as 'right', albeit in their own way, rather than there being a right and wrong. I think I prefer shades of grey.
For me, to say there is an absolute truth implies there is no room for change and interpretation, and for me this is impossible and is against the very grain of our experiences as growing, changing creatures. I know many of you believe in a predetermined path, so I can see how this is a moot point, because we only change according to gods will...

I believe life would be simpler for me if I could follow Christianity...but it wasn't for me.

:grouphug: to anyone I may have offended. I love being able to share these thoughts in such an open environment.

[qs=Cricket]What I'm trying to say, is that if someone worships anything or anyone other than God, the Bible calls that blasphemy, or idolatry. [/qs]

Hi Cricket, I just wanted to say that you've made a very important point about Christian worship. Its for this very reason that we take the trinity doctrine very seriously because what the trinity doctrine does is introduce 3 'individuals' all worthy of worship....yet, as you've stated, only God is to be worshiped.

A lot of people think the same way as you do which is why they studied the trinity doctrine, turned it inside out and upside down in order to determine if worshiping a trinity is contrary to what we know God requires....that is to worship him alone. The early christian church became divided over this very issue because when the trinity was introduced, it was not based on any of the NT writings....it was based on pagan religions. And the fact is that worshiping a trinity IS in direct contradiction to what God requires which is why many reject it. However, this does not mean that we do not view Jesus as our Lord and King. We certainly do. The thing is that he is only our Lord and King because Jehovah has placed him in that position in order to redeem us from sin and death. Knowing that means we continue to worship God alone and thus avoid breaking the command to worship God alone.

The end result of Jesus kingship is explained for us by the Apostle Paul and he clearly shows that there will come a time when Jesus will relinquish his position as our Lord in order for mankind to be reunited with God the Father.

1Cor 15:24 "Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25*For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26*As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27*For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28*But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone"

Jesus whole purpose is to reunite mankind with God the Father. If we are not worshiping God the Father, then we are missing the whole point of what Jesus is trying to accomplish.

I wonder if it's worth a thread figuring out the differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and (I dunno what to call it) - mainstream Christianity? I'd love to learn more, but I think it is a conversation that deviates off the path of TD's questions. Is anyone interested?