Could all humans begin from just two people?

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

JESUS was talking about old testament law - the law of the Sabbath. I only pointed out what he said.

The pharisees were questioning Jesus about the followers of Jesus who were breaking the law of the Sabbath in Mark 2.
Click to expand...

They questioned Jesus because they didnt want to believe that He was the Messiah, but Jesus didnt contradict Old Testament laws. Jesus came to save us and to teach us how to live.

https://www.gotquestions.org/heal-on-the-Sabbath.html

Why did Jesus heal on the Sabbath?

Question: "Why did Jesus heal on the Sabbath?"

Answer: The gospels record several occasions when Jesus performed a healing on the Sabbath day. In most of those instances, the healing was followed by a confrontation with the religious leaders (Mark 3:1–6, Luke 6:6–10; 13:10–17; 14:1–6; John 5:1–18). In another passage, Luke 4:38–41, Jesus heals after teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, but no confrontation is recorded, as the miracle was performed in a private home. Jesus knew the Pharisees’ rules regarding the Sabbath, so why did He choose to heal on that day?

It is important to note that Jesus was not violating the law of God when He healed on the Sabbath. He was surely acting against the Pharisaical interpretation of the law and against their particular rules. But the Holy One of God, who came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17), did not violate the law. The basic reason that Jesus healed on the Sabbath was that people needed His help. Need knows no calendar.

Jesus healed on the Sabbath in order to reveal the hypocrisy of the Pharisees’ religion. In three passages where Jesus’ healing led to a confrontation, Jesus references how the Jews “worked” on the Sabbath by taking care of their animals, and that work was sanctioned by the Pharisees. In an agrarian society, animal care was a major part of a normal day. Jesus points out their willingness to work on the Sabbath to help an animal: “Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?” (Luke 13:15), and He rightly calls out their hypocrisy for denying aid to “a daughter of Abraham” (verse 16). If your religious rules allow for helping animals on the Sabbath, then it should definitely allow for helping people.

When Jesus healed on the Sabbath, He was also challenging the religious leaders with the question of doing good or evil on the Sabbath: “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4). The leaders remained silent and refused to answer. His healing gave them the answer. Doing good and saving life is lawful, even on the Sabbath. Using the Sabbath rule to do evil or to kill is an ungodly perversion of the law.

Let’s take a look at the law in question. The Torah is the law proper. But the Pharisees also added their traditions to the law God had given. The religious leaders’ traditions that they combined with the biblical law became as important to them as God’s actual Word. Jesus stood against such additions to the law, rebuking the teachers of the law for “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7, ESV).

The Pharisees’ Sabbath restrictions forbade the following activities: writing, erasing, and tearing; conducting business transactions; shopping; cooking, baking, or kindling a fire; gardening; doing laundry; carrying anything for more than six feet in a public area; moving anything with your hand, even indirectly (with a broom): a broken bowl, flowers in a vase, candles on a table, raw food, a rock, a button that has fallen off (you could move things with your elbow or your breath, but not with your hand). And this is just a partial list.

Compare the complexity and micromanaging of the Pharisees’ rules with the original rule in God’s Word: “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Exodus 20:8–11). It was simply manmade traditions that defined Jesus’ healing as “work.” So when Jesus healed on the Sabbath, He was challenging the Pharisees’ beliefs as being from man and not from God.

Another reason Jesus healed on the Sabbath was to remind people of why God instituted the Sabbath day of rest. The Sabbath was meant to benefit people as much as to glorify God: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). The Sabbath helped people recuperate (mentally and physically) after a week of work and redirect their focus from the daily routine to God. Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath was therefore very much compatible with God’s purpose for the Sabbath.

Confronted with Jesus’ undeniable power to heal and restore, the religious leaders passed up their chance to reflect on the possibility that they were wrong. Instead, they dug in their heels and doubled down on their untenable position. Their stubbornness is a good reminder for us of our need to examine our beliefs and ensure they are biblical and in line with the Word of God.
Click to expand...

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-and-the-Law.html

Did Jesus contradict the Law in Matthew 5:21-22?

Question: "Did Jesus contradict the Law in Matthew 5:21-22?"

Answer: In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says several times, “You have heard that it was said . . .” and follows it up with “But I tell you. . . .” Using the formula, Jesus creates a contrast between the Law of Moses (as interpreted by the Pharisees and scribes) and His own command. In doing this, Jesus is obviously claiming an authority greater than that of the scribes. But it also seems like He is negating the Law.

Rest assured, Jesus did not contradict the Law in any point. In the same sermon, Jesus makes sure no one misunderstood: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17).

Jesus’ point in the Sermon on the Mount was that God sees the heart, and that we are actually held to a higherstandard than external conformity to a set of rules. The Pharisees taught that, as long as you did the right things, you were “holy.” Jesus said not so; “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20).

Jesus is teaching the necessity of having a heart to follow God. Putting on an act and going through the motions of serving God is dishonest. It is also futile, because God sees through the masks we wear (see Mark 7:6). A person who pretends to be holy on the outside yet nurtures a sinful heart is a hypocrite. The Pharisees, who everyone thought were holy, were guilty of just such dissimulation. God doesn’t want more religious activity; He wants a heart dedicated to Him. Holiness starts on the inside.

In Matthew 5:21-22, for example, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.” The external command was “do not murder.” This is a good command; we should not murder people. But we make a mistake if we think that’s where our responsibility ends. Jesus said, in essence, God sees your heart. If you have hatred in your heart, then you are just as guilty as the murderer in God’s eyes. The Pharisees’ attitude was, “I am good; I haven’t murdered anyone.” Jesus countered, “No, you are guilty because there is murder in your heart.”

It’s the difference between the letter of the Law and the spirit behind it. Keeping the letter of the Law doesn’t make you righteous (see Galatians 2:16). None of us can keep the whole Law perfectly, anyway. God requires a heart transformation; we must be born again (John 3:7).

God is looking for more than the external practice of religion. People might seem holy to other people, but that’s not the standard. Over and over, the Bible stresses purity of heart before the One who examines the heart (1 Chronicles 29:17; Psalm 24:4; 51:10; Matthew 5:8; 2 Timothy 2:22).

The Law was good and proper. Its purpose was to define sin and delineate holiness. Jesus was not in any way negating the Law; He was showing us the reason for the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law in that He was the only person to ever keep the whole Law, even in His heart, without sin (Hebrews 4:15).
Click to expand...

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

The only reason for proscribing marriages between cousins is that it doesn't work out well genetically.

Biologists who study this say that a population of less than 2,000 humans would be in trouble genetically.

I'd point out that in Genesis, Cain was banished, he wailed that "everyone who finds me will slay me". Who are these others? He then went to live with the people of Nod, the origins of whom the Bible does not describe.

These are just some of the justifications for recognnizing the Adam/Eve story as important as allegory, but NOT has history or biology.

I have NO idea what you mean with your discussion of "friends".
Click to expand...

Christian morals is about respecting yourself and others. The reason wedding parties are gender segregated is because that amount of time spent socializing between people of the opposite gender, is not appropriate. Christian morals are givens that everyone agrees with and everyone would say is common sense. The Bible doesnt present Adam and Eve as an allegory, but as real people. We all are guilty of Adam's sin because he had dominion and we would have done the same as he did if we were in the Garden of Eden.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Adam-and-Eve-story.html

Is the Adam and Eve story to be understood literally?

Question: "Is the Adam and Eve story to be understood literally?"

Answer: Let us assume for a moment that the Adam and Eve story is not to be understood literally. What would be the result? Would Christianity remain essentially the same with a non-literal understanding of the story of Adam and Eve? No. In fact, it would have serious implications for virtually every tenet and doctrine of the Christian faith. If Adam was not a real man, then sin did not enter the world through one man as Romans 5:12 states. How, then, did sin enter world? Further, if the New Testament is wrong about how sin entered the world, what else is it wrong about? If Romans 5:12 is wrong, how do we know that the entirety of Romans 5:8–15 is not wrong? If the story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally—if they did not really exist—then there was no one to rebel, there was no fall into sin. Satan, the great deceiver, would like nothing better than for people to believe that the Bible should not be taken literally and that the story of the fall of man is a myth. Why? Because once we start denying parts of the Bible, we lose our trust in the Bible. Why should we believe anything God’s Word says if we cannot trust everything that it says?

Jesus taught that God created one man and one woman (Mark 10:6) and mentions Abel, a son of Adam and Eve in Luke 11:51. Was Jesus wrong in His beliefs? Or did Jesus know there were no literal Adam and Eve and He was simply accommodating His teaching to the beliefs of the people (i.e., lying)? If Jesus is wrong in His beliefs, He is not God. If Jesus is intentionally deceiving people, He is sinning and therefore cannot be the Savior (1 Peter 1:19).

That is why this is such a serious issue. To deny the literalness of Adam and Eve is to place oneself in opposition to Jesus and the apostle Paul. If one has the audacity to claim he is right and Jesus and Paul are wrong, then Jesus is a sinner, not God and not the Savior; the apostle Paul is a false prophet; and the Bible is not inspired, inerrant, or trustworthy.

The Bible clearly presents Adam and Eve as literal people who existed in a literal Garden of Eden. They literally rebelled against God, they literally believed Satan’s lie, and they were literally cast out of the Garden (Genesis 3:24). They had literal children, all of whom inherited the sin nature, and that nature was passed down to succeeding generations to this very day. Fortunately, God promised a literal Savior to redeem us from that sin nature (Genesis 3:15). That Savior is Jesus Christ, called the “last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), who died on a literal cross and literally rose again. Those who believe in Christ will have literal salvation and spend eternity in a literal heaven.

Christians who deny the story of Adam and Eve essentially deny their own faith. Rejecting the literal interpretation of the Bible’s historical narratives is a slippery slope. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then were Cain and Abel not real? Did Seth exist, and did he father a godly line that led all the way to Abraham and eventually to Jesus Himself? Where in Luke’s genealogy (Luke 3:23–38) do the names stop referring to literal people and start referring to mythical characters? To dismiss Adam and Eve as non-literal is to deny the accuracy of Luke’s gospel, cast aspersions on Moses’ record, and remove the foundation of the rest of the Bible.

God’s Word claims to be true (Psalm 119:160). Jesus Christ declared God’s Word to be truth (John 17:17). All of God’s Word is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17). These declarations include the biblical account of Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

They questioned Jesus because they didnt want to believe that He was the Messiah, but Jesus didnt contradict Old Testament laws. Jesus came to save us and to teach us how to live.

https://www.gotquestions.org/heal-on-the-Sabbath.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-and-the-Law.html
Click to expand...

Isn't that what I said?? How important is it for you to create a disagreement here?

It hits me as pretty understandable that the Pharisees would question anyone who is overturning the religion of which they were the leadership.

In fact I think we have to make room for the idea that not all Pharisees saw breaking the law of the Sabbath as necessarily always a serious crime. I don't believe all Judaism sees it that way today, though the reasons for ignoring these laws may need to be very serious. And, the same is true for Islam. So, I'm not ready to consider that the Pharisees would be totally outraged by what Jesus stated. What Jesus changed and what he did not change could be an interesting topic.

I would propose that the Pharisees in Mark 2 were pretty mild mannered compared to Christians of today who face opposing religious views. The Pharisees actually LISTENED!!

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

Christian morals is about respecting yourself and others. The reason wedding parties are gender segregated is because that amount of time spent socializing between people of the opposite gender, is not appropriate. Christian morals are givens that everyone agrees with and everyone would say is common sense. The Bible doesnt present Adam and Eve as an allegory, but as real people. We all are guilty of Adam's sin because he had dominion and we would have done the same as he did if we were in the Garden of Eden.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Adam-and-Eve-story.html
Click to expand...

I have been to a good number of Christian weddings and never have I see gender segregation.

And, I see NO evidence to suggest Adam and Eve were actual individuals created as the first humans. The evidence from the Bible and from science is totally counter to that.

Frankly, the allegorical interpretation of the Adam/Eve story is stronger and more meaningful than a literal interpretation could possibly be. I don't know why any Abrahamic faith would want to limit Genesis 1 to being history - an interpretation that is less meaningful and full of internal conflicts that really can't be resolved.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

I have been to a good number of Christian weddings and never have I see gender segregation.

And, I see NO evidence to suggest Adam and Eve were actual individuals created as the first humans. The evidence from the Bible and from science is totally counter to that.

Frankly, the allegorical interpretation of the Adam/Eve story is stronger and more meaningful than a literal interpretation could possibly be. I don't know why any Abrahamic faith would want to limit Genesis 1 to being history - an interpretation that is less meaningful and full of internal conflicts that really can't be resolved.
Click to expand...

Im talking about bridal showers and bachelor parties.

The Bible supports that Adam and Eve were real people, and it has a lot of scientific information in it. I dont agree with you saying the Bible and science is counter to Adam and Eve being real people.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

Isn't that what I said?? How important is it for you to create a disagreement here?

It hits me as pretty understandable that the Pharisees would question anyone who is overturning the religion of which they were the leadership.

In fact I think we have to make room for the idea that not all Pharisees saw breaking the law of the Sabbath as necessarily always a serious crime. I don't believe all Judaism sees it that way today, though the reasons for ignoring these laws may need to be very serious. And, the same is true for Islam. So, I'm not ready to consider that the Pharisees would be totally outraged by what Jesus stated. What Jesus changed and what he did not change could be an interesting topic.

I would propose that the Pharisees in Mark 2 were pretty mild mannered compared to Christians of today who face opposing religious views. The Pharisees actually LISTENED!!
Click to expand...

Do you think that the Pharisees would have been against Jesus if they all believed in Him?

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

I'm not attempting to displace your God. When it comes to the supernatural, the huge numbers of religions are available for help.

BUT, when we need to understand how this universe works, science is the appropriate tool.
Click to expand...

God created science and the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God.

https://www.gotquestions.org/vast-universe.html

Why did God create such a vast universe and other planets if there is only life on Earth?
Answer: The question of whether God created life on other planets is certainly fascinating. Psalm 19:1 says that "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork." Everything that God has made, be it you and me, or wildlife, or angels, or stars and planets, has been created for His glory. When we see a breathtaking view of the Milky Way or peer at Saturn through a telescope, we are amazed at the wonders of God!

David wrote in Psalm 8:3, " I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained." When we see the vast number of stars, then read that scientists have discovered thousands upon thousands of galaxies, each containing millions of stars, we should be standing in reverent fear of a God so immense to make all that and call it the work of His fingers! Furthermore, Psalm 147:4 tells us that "He counts the number of the stars, He calls them all by name." It is impossible for mankind to know how many stars there are, not to mention the “name” of every star! "Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together" (Isaiah 48:13).

Space and planets were created for God’s glory. We know that stars and planets outside our solar system exist, and these, too, were created for the glory of God. A constantly expanding universe is yet another conjecture that has yet to be proven. The next star farther than the sun is over 4 light-years away, and that isn’t even a measurable fraction of the size of the known universe, expanding or not.

As to whether there is life on other planets, we simply do not know. So far, no evidence of life on the other planets of our solar system has been found. Considering the nearness of the end times, it is unlikely that man will progress far enough to visit other galaxies before the Lord’s return. Wherever life exists or doesn’t exist, God is still the Creator and Controller of all things, and all things were made for His glory.
Click to expand...

Spooky · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

The Bible wasn't written to teach science.

If you want to know how this universe works, you have to look!

Reading the Bible and then claiming to know how this universe works IS to assume that the Bible exists to teach us science. And, that just doesn't even slightly make sense.
Click to expand...

Good thing I didn't claim I know how the universe works then.

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

Do you think that the Pharisees would have been against Jesus if they all believed in Him?
Click to expand...

Mark doesn't seem to focus on what the Pharisees thought.

They asked him a question and I think the answer Jesus gave was solid.

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

Spooky said: ↑

Good thing I didn't claim I know how the universe works then.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with you stating what you know - no problem there. We can both be wrong about religion and we can both be wrong about science, since we're humans.

It's more that if the question is in the realm of science and the answer is in the realm of relgion, there is going to be confusion - at the least.

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

God created science and the universe. The heavens declare the glory of God.

https://www.gotquestions.org/vast-universe.html
Click to expand...

OK. It was mankind that created scientific method, which is what usually gets referred to as science.

Scientists can look back to the rapid expansion of the "big bang" 13+ billion years ago. But, if you want to suggest that God created the big bang, science doesn't have the evidence to say yeah or nay to that.

My own view is that there isn't a god who would have created photons traveling toward Earth in patterns that make us believe there are stars and galaxies that don't actually exist.

To my view, that would be a fabulous lie for Him to have created

Do you think god would do the work to trick humans in that way?.

Spooky · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

I'm fine with you stating what you know - no problem there. We can both be wrong about religion and we can both be wrong about science, since we're humans.

It's more that if the question is in the realm of science and the answer is in the realm of relgion, there is going to be confusion - at the least.
Click to expand...

Not sure if that is true. Science seems to corroborate religion.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

Spooky said: ↑

Not sure if that is true. Science seems to corroborate religion.
Click to expand...

Many scientists believe in God. They recognize that there is so much design and purpose in everything in creation and nature and everything that exists that the only explanation is that there is a God.

https://godtv.com/renowned-physicist-says-there-is-a-god/

Renowned Physicist Says, ‘There Is A God.’
Science and religion don't always see eye-to-eye, but Michio Kaku believes otherwise.
GET DAILY INSPIRATION

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence,” so says, world-famous theoretical physicist Michio Kaku who claimed he has found evidence that God exists, his reasoning caused a stir in the scientific community.

Kaku is no stranger to breaking new ground.
When he was in a California High School he assembled a particle accelerator in his parents’ garage for a science project. His admitted goal was to generate “a beam of gamma rays powerful enough to create antimatter.” At the National Science Fair in Albuquerque, New Mexico,

Born and raised in California, Kaku is a second-generation Japanese-American who has a long educational history including, the University of California, Berkely and Harvard University where he earned a Ph.D. and is a noted lecturer in the scientific community.

In an interview he surprised his interviewer by making a statement that most top physicists believe in a God because of how the universe is designed. He says the universe is one of order, beauty, elegance, and simplicity.

Kaku further stated that the universe did not have to be this way as it could have been something ugly and chaotic. In short, “the order we see in the universe is evidence of a Creator.”

“Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

When responding to a question about the meaning of life and God, Kaku surprised his interviewer when he revealed that most top physicists do believe in God because of how the universe is designed. Ours is a universe of order, beauty, elegance, and simplicity.

He explained the universe didn’t have to be this way.
…it could have been ugly and chaotic. In short, the order we see in the universe is evidence of a Creator.

Kaku is one of the creators of the revolutionary String Theory, he reportedly came to this his conclusions with what he calls “primitive semi-radius tachyons.” These are theoretical particles that have the ability to “unstick” matter or the vacuum space between particles, leaving everything in the universe free from any influence from the surrounding universe.

This physicist seems to prove the passage from Psalms 90:2, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.”

Kaku agrees with Einstein that God is like a mathematician.
Click to expand...

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

Spooky said: ↑

Not sure if that is true. Science seems to corroborate religion.
Click to expand...

Great!

I should have added before that if the question is from the realm of religion and the answer is from the realm of science, that is also going to get confusing.

Montegriffo · Nov 19, 2020

Spooky said: ↑

Not sure if that is true. Science seems to corroborate religion.
Click to expand...

How does it?
If you have empirical evidence of the existence of god I'd love to see it.
Any of the thousands of gods will do it doesn't have to be the Christian god.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

OK. It was mankind that created scientific method, which is what usually gets referred to as science.

Scientists can look back to the rapid expansion of the "big bang" 13+ billion years ago. But, if you want to suggest that God created the big bang, science doesn't have the evidence to say yeah or nay to that.

My own view is that there isn't a god who would have created photons traveling toward Earth in patterns that make us believe there are stars and galaxies that don't actually exist.

To my view, that would be a fabulous lie for Him to have created

Do you think god would do the work to trick humans in that way?.
Click to expand...

The scientific method isnt against belief in God. Many scientists believe in God. Apologist and author Lee Strobel came to a belief in Jesus through science.

Regarding the big bang and the scientific beliefs about the universe, I dont believe that this present universe is eternal and its questionable if the universe is expanding. I believe that the details of the big bang are logical, but the idea that the big bang created everything apart from God doesnt make sense. Everything has such a design and a purpose. The Big Bang would be arbitrary. I believe that the heavens declare the glory of God. Lee Strobel talks in "a case for a Creator" how its impossible for dna molecules to just evolve into organisms.

https://www.gotquestions.org/big-bang-theory.html

Did God use the “Big Bang” to create the universe?
Question: "Did God use the ‘Big Bang’ to create the universe?"

Answer: Prior to the twentieth century, before the Big Bang theory had been developed, philosophers and scientists debated whether the universe had a beginning. Some argued it had always existed: that it was “infinitely old.” This agreed with the worldview of ancient philosophers and then-current atheism. On the other hand, there were logical reasons to think the universe could not be “infinitely old,” such as causality. For most of history, there was no empirical evidence proving the universe had an objective “beginning.” Atheism particularly held to the idea of an “infinitely old” universe as a reason to dismiss God as unnecessary.

This situation changed drastically in the first half of the twentieth century, as several discoveries were made leading to the formation of the Big Bang theory. Over several decades, those who preferred the idea of an eternal universe made many attempts to explain away hard evidence, but to no avail. The result was secular science lending tremendous support to the creation account of the Bible.

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, published in 1916, suggested the universe either had to be constantly expanding or constantly contracting. So, Einstein added a “cosmological constant” to his equations, for no other reason than to maintain the possibility of a static, eternal universe. Einstein later called this the “biggest blunder” of his career.

The work of Edwin Hubble in the 1920s proved the universe is expanding. This finding contradicted Einstein’s cosmological constant and left non-believing astrophysicists unhappy. Their discomfort was made even worse with the contributions of Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest and astronomer. Lemaître noted that the combination of general relativity theory and Hubble’s discoveries implies a beginning. If the universe is currently expanding, then at some time in the past, the entire universe would have been contained in some infinitesimally small point. This idea is foundational to the Big Bang theory.

Over the next several decades, physicists tried to salvage the eternality of the universe by proposing everything from the Milne model (1935) to the steady state theory (194. In many (if not most) cases, these models were proposed explicitly because the implications of a non-eternal universe were “too religious.”

The year 1964 brought about the Nobel Prize-winning discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation—something predicted by the earliest Big Bang theorists in the 1940s. For all intents and purposes, that discovery made the “beginning” of the universe an inescapable fact of modern science. The question was no longer “did the universe have a beginning?” but “how did the universe begin?”

Apparent evidence for the Big Bang, regardless of how one interprets it, is a stunning example of science and theology intersecting. According to objective, empirical science, all space, time, and energy came into existence together in a single moment: a “beginning.” Before this event, whatever it was, there was no time. There was no space. Then, suddenly, an exceedingly dense, incredibly hot, infinitesimal ball of something—everything—appeared somewhere, somehow for reasons unknown and began to expand rapidly with our whole universe inside of it. If true, the Big Bang theory all but confirms the view espoused by Judeo-Christianity for thousands of years.

Astrophysicist Dr. Robert Jastrow phrased it this way in his book God and the Astronomers (New York: W.W. Norton, 1978, p. 116): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Why? Because, as Jastrow explained in a subsequent interview, “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact” (“A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, pp. 15, 1.

It is important to note that, prior to the development of the Big Bang theory, disbelief in God was tied closely to the idea of an eternal, un-caused, and un-created universe. Afterwards, however, non-believers began to claim that these advances in science actually disproved God. What had always been interpreted as clear support for a Creator—and resisted for that very reason—almost overnight turned into the claim that atheists had been right all along.

This attitude, unfortunately, led to a corresponding reaction from the creationist community. Just as many astrophysicists felt that the expanding universe theory was a ploy to inject religion into science, many Christians have come to feel that the Big Bang theory is an effort to undermine the biblical account of creation. Other Christians, however, feel that the Big Bang theory is consistent with the Bible’s account and welcome such compelling evidence for the universe having a beginning.

With that said, it is important to understand that the Big Bang theory is just that—a theory. The exact nature or cause of that “beginning” has not been explicitly proved by empirical science, nor can it be.

Did God use the “Big Bang” to create the universe? The idea itself—that the universe came into existence in an instantaneous expansion—is compatible with biblical creationism, as long as there is recognition that the ingredients and forces of the big bang were created by God “out of nothing” (see Hebrews 11:3). Scripture only says that God created the heavens and earth (Genesis 1:1), speaking the universe into existence (Psalm 33:6; Hebrews 11:3). Could some of the evidence that appears to point to a “big bang” actually be pointing to God’s initial creative act? Possibly.

At the same time, the Big Bang theory, as it is commonly presented by the scientific community, contains atheistic presuppositions and contradicts the biblical creation account. In that sense, no, God did not use the “Big Bang” to create the universe.
Click to expand...

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

Many scientists believe in God. They recognize that there is so much design and purpose in everything in creation and nature and everything that exists that the only explanation is that there is a God.

https://godtv.com/renowned-physicist-says-there-is-a-god/
Click to expand...

Yes, science has lots of Christians - and other religions, too.

But, the real issue is whether religion enters their science - the Bible, the Qur'an, the revered works of Judaism, the truths of Hinduism and Buddhism, crystals, NDEs, etc., etc.

And, there is no way for that to happen. Science just doesn't have a way for that.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

Montegriffo said: ↑

How does it?
If you have empirical evidence of the existence of god I'd love to see it.
Any of the thousands of gods will do it doesn't have to be the Christian god.
Click to expand...

The Christian God is the only God with such a love for his creation lost in sin (everyone knows sin is real) that He became a man to die for their sins to redeem His creation lost in sin. Jesus was like a lawyer who took the place of a criminal. Jesus is the Messiah talked about in the Jewish Scriptures. The Old Testament says that the Messiah would be a Creator and a Savior, who takes the punishment for the sins of the world to redeem us.

https://www.gotquestions.org/suffering-servant-Isaiah-53.html

Is the “The Suffering Servant” prophecy in Isaiah 53 about Jesus?

Question: "Is the ‘The Suffering Servant’ prophecy in Isaiah 53 about Jesus?"

Answer: Perhaps the greatest of all Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures / the Old Testament) concerning the advent of the Jewish Messiah is found in the 53rd chapter of the prophet Isaiah. This section of the Prophets, also known as the “Suffering Servant,” has been long understood by the historical Rabbis of Judaism to speak of the Redeemer who will one day come to Zion. Here is a sampling of what Judaism has traditionally believed about the identity of the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah 53:

The Babylonian Talmud says: "The Messiah, what is his name? The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, ‘surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b).

Midrash Ruth Rabbah says: "Another explanation (of Ruth 2:14): He is speaking of king Messiah; ‘Come hither,' draw near to the throne; ‘and eat of the bread,' that is, the bread of the kingdom; ‘and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,' this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.'"

The Targum Jonathan says: "Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high and increase and be exceedingly strong."

The Zohar says: "’He was wounded for our transgressions,' etc....There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Sons of Sickness; this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgression of the law: and this is that which is written, `Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.'"

The great (Rambam) Rabbi Moses Maimonides says: "What is the manner of Messiah’s advent....there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place' (Zechariah 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc....in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will harken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived."

Unfortunately, modern Rabbis of Judaism believe that the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 refers perhaps to Israel, or to Isaiah himself, or even Moses or another of the Jewish prophets. But Isaiah is clear - he speaks of the Messiah, as many ancient rabbis concluded.

The second verse of Isaiah 53 confirms this clarity. The figure grows up as “a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground.” The shoot springing up is beyond reasonable doubt a reference to the Messiah, and, in fact, it is a common Messianic reference in Isaiah and elsewhere. The Davidic dynasty was to be cut down in judgment like a felled tree, but it was promised to Israel that a new sprout would shoot up from the stump. King Messiah was to be that sprout.

Beyond doubt, the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 refers to Messiah. He is the one highly exalted before whom kings shut their mouths. Messiah is the shoot who sprung up from the fallen Davidic dynasty. He became the King of Kings. He provided the ultimate atonement.

Isaiah 53 must be understood as referring to the coming Davidic King, the Messiah. King Messiah was prophesied to suffer and die to pay for our sins and then rise again. He would serve as a priest to the nations of the world and apply the blood of atonement to cleanse those who believe. There is One alone to whom this can refer, Jesus Christ!

Those who confess him are his children, his promised offspring, and the spoils of his victory. According to the testimony of the Jewish Apostles, Jesus died for our sins, rose again, ascended to the right hand of God, and he now serves as our great High Priest who cleanses us of sin (Hebrew 2:17; 8:1). Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, is the one Isaiah foresaw.

Rabbi Moshe Kohen Ibn Crispin said, “This rabbi described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah. This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so.”
Click to expand...

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

Spooky said: ↑

Not sure if that is true. Science seems to corroborate religion.
Click to expand...

Creationism is supported by science. Bible genealogy records support that there is a young or a young ish earth. Macroevolution is not possible. Micro evolution is possible. Nothing has ever went from plant to a bird.

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/top-ten-myths-about-creation/

Top Ten: Myths About Creation
Myth 10: Creationists Don’t Believe Species Change

A popular caricature of creationists is that we teach the fixity of species (i.e., species don’t change). And since species obviously do change, evolutionists enjoy setting up this straw-man argument to win a debate that was never really there in the first place.

Prior to the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species especially, some Christians did claim that species were immutable. But part of the problem is that the word species did not mean the same thing then as it does now—nor was there ever any reason to assume fixity in the first place.

Creationists have long been amazed by the diversity within each created kind (or baramin, roughly on the family level). We know that species do change—but only within the original kinds God created roughly 6,000 years ago.

Species changing via natural selection and mutations is perfectly in accord with what the Bible teaches. Such changes are not evolution—they remind us that God put enough information in the genome of each original kind to live and flourish in a cursed world.

For more information:

Fixity of Species

Do Species Change?

Zonkeys, Ligers, and Wolphins, Oh My!

Myth 9: Intelligent Design Is Creationism
Although some evolutionists claim that the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) is a sort of Trojan horse for creationism to get into schools, those in the IDM are not necessarily even Christian, let alone creationists.

Creationism begins with the belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word to us. The Bible provides the framework by which we understand the world. Because the Bible teaches that there is a Creator and that the earth is young, creationists base all our research on this foundation.

Conversely, the IDM holds that certain aspects of living things and the universe can best be explained by being the work of an intelligent designer. The identity of this creator and whether or not the Bible is true are non-factors. While creationists may agree with some aspects of intelligent design theory, those who do conflate IDM with creationism likely do not understand either.

For more information:

Is the Intelligent Design Movement Christian?

The Intelligent Design Movement

Intelligent Design -- is it Christian?

Myth 8: The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook
The Bible isn’t a science textbook in the sense that it describes exactly how the laws of the universe function, but it does make a number of statements that touch upon scientific principles. And what it does touch on is factually accurate.

Underneath this myth is the assumption by many scientists that only natural (and not supernatural) causes can explain reality. God could not have created, for example, because special creation is denied, not by fieldwork or research, but by biased presuppositions.

If the Bible does contain the true history of the universe as inspired by the One who created it, then doing science without a biblical worldview often leads to false or imperfect conclusions. A scientist can make astounding discoveries and not believe God’s Word, but a full understanding of the universe begins with Genesis.

For more information:

Does the Bible Say Anything about Astronomy?

What Is Science?

Can Creation Models Be Wrong?

Myth 7: Creationists Have a Narrow/Literal View of the Bible
This is only partially true. Creationists believe that the Bible was written to be understood. And since we believe that God cannot lie and gave us the Bible to instruct us, we also assume that His Word is clear and accurate. In other words, there’s no reason to think that someone needs to “read into” what the words actually say.

On the other hand, the Bible is not written in one particular style throughout. There are a variety of styles, including historical narratives and poetry. Beyond that, the people God inspired to record His words employed various figures of speech. Jesus Himself was adept at hyperbole and parables, for example.

Thus, creationists approach the Bible in a straightforward fashion. We don’t take idioms or poetic descriptions literally; we see them for what they are. We also do not ignore the intent of the text to align with popular ideas or philosophies.

For more information:

Why Do You Take the Bible Literally?

Could God Really Have Created Everything in Six Days?

Myth 6: Creation Has Been Disproven
Instead of engaging in cordial debate, some evolutionists prefer to say that creation has been disproven and refuse to listen to any discussion. After all, creationism is an “old” idea that has been replaced—for the most part—by evolution in schools, universities, and the media.

We would say, instead, that evolution was disproven long before Charles Darwin came on the scene. How? The One who spoke everything into existence told us how He created—and it wasn’t over billions of years though natural processes.

The real issue here is not one of proof or disproof, but of spiritual ramifications. If God is the creator, He is also the judge. Evolution allows many people a way to deny God’s authority—seeing creation as being “disproven” helps them ignore the clear signs of a Creator (Romans 1:20).

For more information:

Science “So Called”

The Creator Clearly Seen

Science and Faith

Myth 5: Creationists Are Anti-Science
It’s much easier to vilify those who disagree than to deal with their arguments. For this reason, many anti-creationists paint us as being against science or wanting to drive science back into the “Dark Ages.”

The truth is that many creationists love science because they love God. Exploring the universe means getting a glimpse into the amazing things Godcreated. There are creation geologists, botanists, astronomers, chemists, physicists, and more who all love the work they do.

On the other hand, creationists do attack ideas and frameworks that deny God’s authority and place as Creator. Most of these ideas stem from the belief that nature is all there is, thus denying God from the outset. The Bible, in fact, commands us to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).

For more information:

Do Creationists Reject Science?

Must Science Exclude the Supernatural?

The Ultimate Standard

Myth 4: There’s No Evidence for Creation
There’s proof for creation right where you are while reading this. Your seeing eyes, your understanding brain, the air around you, all testify to the ingenuity of our God.

Of course, evolutionists see those same features as pointing to the power of natural processes to sculpt the universe and life. To them, such forces are sufficient to explain how we came to be.

Evidence itself is simply evidence. It isn’t an objective source of truth and must be fitted into the overall picture we have of how things work. Whereas evolutionists see the layers in the Grand Canyon as showing millions of years, for example, creationists see those same layers as a reminder of the recent global Flood.

Some aspects of our universe, however, make much more sense in light of the creation account, including design features and reasons to think the earth must be young. They don’t “prove” what the Bible says is true, but they do line up with it.

For more information:

What’s the Best “Proof” of Creation?

Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True?

Is There an “Ultimate Proof of Creation”?

Myth 3: Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature
We like gravity just the way it is—thank you very much. And we are grateful for the laws of physics and chemistry that make life possible. In fact, we see the laws of nature as evidence of God’s sustaining hand in the universe. Those laws operate consistently because He is unchanging.

What we do deny, however, is that common descent via evolution is a “law” or “fact.” Natural selection, mutations, and genetic changes are all observable processes (that fit the creation model quite well), but descent from a common ancestor is a framework and not a law of nature.

Ultimately, we expect the universe to be orderly and logical because we start from the Bible. The laws of nature are not sufficient in and of themselves to create the universe and life; instead, they point to the Creator.

For more information:

Don’t Creationists Deny the Laws of Nature?

A Reader Challenges Our Claim of a Logical, God-Created Universe

Principles of Laws of Nature

Myth 2: Creationists Ignore the Evidence for Evolution
Among the many charges leveled against creationists is the claim that we “cherry-pick” the data we like and ignore what we don’t. However, as mentioned earlier, the evidence is not the issue—it’s the conclusions that evolutionists make about that evidence.

Answers in Genesis and other creationist organizations do our best to address the most recent news reports, scientific research, and controversial claims. For example, we deal with a number of important stories twice a week on our Live Answers News program and throughout the week in other articles and blog posts.

However, just because evolutionists tell us how we should interpret a particular find does not mean that their interpretation is the best one. Creationists pick out the hard facts and expose the parts that are opinion or based on assumptions. This is not ignoring what we don’t like; it’s separating the wheat from the chaff.

For more information:

The “Evolutionizing” of a Culture

Hasn’t Evolution Been Proven True?

Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution?

Myth 1: Creationists Want Creationism Taught in Public Schools and Evolution Out
Some evolutionists like to drum up support and outrage by claiming that creationists are out to ban evolution from public schools and anywhere else we can. The only problem is that it’s not true.

While we can’t deny that some Christians would like to see Charles Darwin banished from academia, few creationist organizations are in that crowd. AiG would prefer, instead, that teachers have the freedom to present the creation view if they choose. We have no desire to force someone to teach what they don’t agree with. Many evolutionists have abused the court system in an effort to squelch debate and silence dissent; we have no desire to use the same tactics.

Beyond this, we also think that every Christian should understand the basic tenets of evolution. While the Bible tells us that God created in six days, most people have been influenced by Darwin’s writings—even if they don’t realize it—because his ideas are ubiquitous in our culture. So, understanding evolution will help all of us be more effective in our witness.
Click to expand...

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

The scientific method isnt against belief in God. Many scientists believe in God. Apologist and author Lee Strobel came to a belief in Jesus through science.

Regarding the big bang and the scientific beliefs about the universe, I dont believe that this present universe is eternal and its questionable if the universe is expanding. I believe that the details of the big bang are logical, but the idea that the big bang created everything apart from God doesnt make sense. Everything has such a design and a purpose. The Big Bang would be arbitrary. I believe that the heavens declare the glory of God. Lee Strobel talks in "a case for a Creator" how its impossible for dna molecules to just evolve into organisms.

https://www.gotquestions.org/big-bang-theory.html
Click to expand...

I have NEVER suggested that scinece is anti god.

Science doesn't consider that the big bang was a creation event. It did kick off the incredible expansion of what existed. This "creation" thing is just a common misunderstanding - or a matter of unfortunate terminology.

Physics is a big deal. The forces for various kinds of order and progression are seen to apply across the entire universe. Order shouldn't be surprising.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

Yes, science has lots of Christians - and other religions, too.

But, the real issue is whether religion enters their science - the Bible, the Qur'an, the revered works of Judaism, the truths of Hinduism and Buddhism, crystals, NDEs, etc., etc.

And, there is no way for that to happen. Science just doesn't have a way for that.
Click to expand...

Jesus is mentioned in the Tanakh of Judaism. Hes the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. The Tanakh says that the Messiah will be God and a Savior, but people dont want to admit that they need a Savior, so they make up false ideas of who God is. The Old Testament says that the iniquity of us all was laid upon the Messiah.

https://jewsforjesus.org/jewish-res...cy/the-messiah-would-be-the-suffering-servant

The Messiah Would Be the Suffering Servant
Reference: Isaiah 52:13–53:12
Fulfillment: Matthew 8:16–17, Matthew 20:28, Matthew 26:28, Matthew 27:59–60, Mark 10:45, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, John 12:37–38, Acts 8:32–35, Romans 10:16, Hebrews 9:28, 1 Peter 2:21–25

Introduction
Isaiah 52:13–53:12 has been a contentious passage between Jews and Christians over the centuries. Is it about Israel? Is it about the Messiah? Is it about someone else? Because of this, and also because the passage has been so influential for many Jewish people who have come to believe in Jesus, we will expand the usual short commentary into a longer four-part article. (For convenience, we’ll refer to the entire passage, as others often do, as simply “Isaiah 53.”)

Part I: What Has the Jewish Community Said About Isaiah 53?
An Early Suffering Messiah
The targums are interpretive translations (sometimes referred to as paraphrases) of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic. They date from around the time of Jesus on into the following centuries and have a variety of names. Targum Jonathan is a targum of the prophets, usually dated around the second century AD. This targum identifies the servant of Isaiah 53 as the Messiah; however, it also attributed the sufferings described in that chapter to the nation and the victory to the Messiah.

In the synagogue, the Torah and its accompanying portion from the rest of the Tanakh are generally read in a one-year cycle. In the past, however, a three-year cycle was also used, and in the early cycle of synagogue readings, it seems that a messianic interpretation was given in which the Messiah suffers. Says Asher Soloff, “We know that messianic homilies based on Joseph’s career (his saving role preceded by suffering), and using Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, were preached in certain old synagogues which used the triennial cycle.”1

Scholar Jacob Mann similarly says, “The addition of 53.4–5 [to the cycle of synagogue readings] was evidently of a Messianic purport by reason of the theory of a suffering Messiah. The earlier part the Haftarah (52.7ff.) dealt with the redemption of Israel, and in this connection the tribulations of the Messiah were briefly alluded to by the recital of the above 2 verses.”2

But the sufferings of the Messiah in Jewish contexts have often – though not always – been different than the Christian idea of a vicarious atonement (meaning an atonement by a death made in substitution for one’s own death). For example, the “suffering Messiah” referred to in the Mann quote above may reflect the idea of a Messiah ben Joseph who suffers and dies in battle in preparation for the reign of Messiah ben David. In that conception, the sufferings of the Messiah are not atoning and certainly not vicarious (in our place).

In his Dialogue with Trypho (second century AD), Justin Martyr’s Jewish dialogue partner seems to admit the possibility of a suffering Messiah but cannot agree that it is Jesus.

A Variety of Opinions
By the third century AD, Origen in his work Contra Celsum (Against Celsus), portrays his Jewish opponent as interpreting Isaiah 53 refer to the people of Israel, whereby Israel’s suffering and worldwide dispersion are for the purpose of gaining proselytes.3 Thus speaking very broadly, it seems that two kinds of interpretations – national and individual-messianic – were found in the Jewish community of the first few centuries.

Actually, if we go back to the first century, Acts 8 in the New Testament gives evidence for a third kind of interpretation that we can call biographical, in which Isaiah 53 is taken to refer to Isaiah himself or another contemporary figure:

And the eunuch said to Philip, ‘About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’

– Acts 8:34

Back to an Individual Interpretation
An individual interpretation is found in the Babylonian Talmud (compiled in the sixth century AD) in Sanhedrin 98a. There, the Messiah is spoken of as a “leprous one,” and Isaiah 53:4 is cited. Similarly, Ruth Rabbah (mid-first millennium AD) cites Isaiah 53:5 and the Tanhuma (perhaps ninth century AD, though incorporating earlier material) quotes Isaiah 52:13. Both interpret the verses in regard to the “King Messiah.” These are not fully formed commentaries but Midrashic snippets, compiled before the medieval era of Jewish biblical commentary writing had begun.

The Polemics of Medieval Times
Indeed, by medieval times and following, Isaiah 53 played a key role in both Jewish and Christian apologetics and polemics. Most of that discussion focused on whether the servant was Israel or the Messiah. We have already seen that the national interpretation can be found in earlier times alongside the individual interpretation. In medieval times, though, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and David Kimhi (known by his acronym as the Radak), made the national interpretation “go viral” in the eleventh century and following. Today that is the usual interpretation within the religious Jewish community.

Joel Rembaum notes this “shift in the emphasis of the Jewish interpretation.”4 According to him, the shift was catalyzed by (1) the Christian argument that the Jewish diaspora was “proof of God’s punishment”;5 (2) the then-standard Christian messianic interpretation of the chapter as portraying Jesus (thus the need for the Jewish community to offer a differing viewpoint); and (3) the “one-sided struggle” against Christians – for example, in the Crusades.6 This last factor led Jewish commentators to attempt to give meaning to the Jewish suffering that, which accompanied the Crusades in the form of pogroms and massacres. Rashi’s commentary was very possibly compiled following the First Crusade, responding to the events of his time. The national interpretation of Isaiah 53 offered a reason for the great suffering that the Jewish people were enduring. Thus, both the refutation of Christian views and comfort for the people of Israel enabled Rashi’s interpretation to become mainstream.

Interestingly, Rembaum tells us that in Rashi’s view, the Suffering Servant atones for humanity’s sins. This “universal vicarious expiation”7 is a new thought introduced by Rashi. In light of the Crusades, so explains Rashi, the Jews are innocent sufferers and the Gentiles are guilty, but Israel’s sufferings actually atone for the nations of the world. By this time in history, Judaism was teaching that martyrdom, such as what Jews underwent during the Crusades, had atoning value. But now this idea of atonement was applied not just to the sins of Israel but to those of the world – a thought “found nowhere in earlier Jewish sources.”8

Rembaum goes on to speak about three medieval Jewish ways of interpreting the nation’s suffering: the first he calls cathartic (the suffering expiates the sins of Israel); the second is missionary (the diaspora allows Israel to bring Torah to the nations – this was the view argued by Origen’s Jewish interlocutor in Contra Celsum); and the third is soteriological (that is, effecting salvation). In this last view, atonement is for the nations, the persecutors of Israel; this is influenced by a Christian “coloration.” Ibn Ezra adds a fourth interpretation, retaliatory: the nations’ persecution of Israel is a sin justifying God’s punishment, though this is not to do so much with the purpose of Israel’s suffering as with its eventual result.

Recent Developments
An interesting, if isolated, development occurred in the 1990s when some among the ultra-Orthodox Jewish group known as the Lubavitcher Hasidim quoted Isaiah 53 in support of the view that their leader Rebbe Menachem Schneerson was the Messiah. A stroke that left him speechless was interpreted according to Isaiah 53:7: “Like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.”9 The Messiahship of Schneerson has not been universally held by all Lubavitchers, and the entire notion caused an outcry among some other Orthodox Jews. Notably, David Berger took sharp issue with any idea that Schneerson could be the Messiah, even to the point of saying that the idea was outside the pale of Judaism.10

Finally, because the Scripture continues to be read weekly in synagogues worldwide, it is worth noting that according to one Jewish author:

Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians, [Isaiah 53] is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons (Haftarot) of the Deuteronomy Sabbaths. These seven lessons are called the “Seven (Chapters) of Comfort,” and are taken from the preceding and following parts of the book: the omission is deliberate and striking. (H. L.)11

In general, the polemic discussions between Jews and Christians have tended to center more on the particulars of interpreting individual verses and words than on the larger context in Isaiah. The national interpretation continues to dominate Jewish thinking on the subject, especially when expressed in response to missionary arguments. However, modern Jewish scholars continue to offer various other interpretations of the servant’s identity, including that the servant is Jeremiah, Hezekiah, and others. In many cases, these scholars echo the conclusions of some Christian scholars, though also reinvigorating some earlier Jewish interpretations as well. And some have still maintained a messianic interpretation, such as Herz Homberg (eighteenth to nineteenth century) and some early twentieth-century prayer books (called machzorim) for the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).12

This commentary takes the view that Isaiah 53 is messianic, both in its individual verses and in its larger context. In the following section, we’ll take a detailed look at the message of the passage.

Part II: The Message of Isaiah 53
Isaiah 53 is not an isolated chapter but is part of a larger context in the book of Isaiah. To understand this passage, we need to also understand its context.

Isaiah 53 is the final of four “Servant Songs” that occur in Isaiah. The four are:

Isaiah 42:1–9

Isaiah 49:1–13

Isaiah 50:4–11

Isaiah 52:13–53:12

Looking at all four passages shows us one reason why there is a debate over whether Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel or to an individual (such as the Messiah). Israel the nation is, in fact, called the servant of the Lord in some of these passages. In Isaiah 49:3, for example, we read, “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’”

Let’s step back a moment. Why did God create the nation of Israel in the first place? One reason was to be a “light to the world” (see Isaiah 49:6) in order to show God’s glory, His reality, and His redemption to the nations of the world. To that end, God gave Israel the Torah and asked Israel to “serve” Him (that is, be a servant of the Lord) and obey Him. From the days of the Exodus to the last pages of the Tanakh, the hope was that all the nations of the world would come to worship the God of Israel, the true God of all peoples.

Being a light to the world, however, proved to be a tall order. Isaiah 42:1–9 pictures the servant as bringing justice to the nations, never being discouraged until that happens, and being “a covenant for the people, a light for the nations” – not to mention giving sight to the blind and freeing the prisoners.

Isaiah 49:3 identifies Israel as the servant, yet two verses later, he seems separate from the nation since he is “to bring Jacob back to him [God]; and that Israel might be gathered to him.” Then in verse 6, the servant not only is meant “to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel,” but to again be “a light for the nations.” Though Israel is the servant, in some way, the servant is not Israel.

In 50:6, we read of the suffering of the servant (identified as such in Isaiah 50:10). This then leads into the fourth Servant Song, in which the servant’s suffering is described in detail.

How does it fit together? It seems that the collective servanthood of Israel is crystallized in a particular Israelite who will not only influence the nations of the world, but who will also restore Israel to its own relationship with God. It has been remarked that the ministry of the individual servant eventually will allow Israel (the nation) to take its intended place as God’s servant as a light to the world. In New Testament terms, what Jesus has accomplished not only brings salvation to the nations but also brings salvation to his own Jewish people, allowing them to fulfill their intended role.
Click to expand...

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

Creationism is supported by science. Bible genealogy records support that there is a young or a young ish earth. Macroevolution is not possible. Micro evolution is possible. Nothing has ever went from plant to a bird.

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/top-ten-myths-about-creation/
Click to expand...

I'm not going to respond to giant piles of spam like this.

If you want to pick something and discuss it, please do.

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

Jesus is mentioned in the Tanakh of Judaism. Hes the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. The Tanakh says that the Messiah will be God and a Savior, but people dont want to admit that they need a Savior, so they make up false ideas of who God is. The Old Testament says that the iniquity of us all was laid upon the Messiah.

https://jewsforjesus.org/jewish-res...cy/the-messiah-would-be-the-suffering-servant
Click to expand...

That AND your spam is totaly irrelevant to the qestion concerning whether there is any way for science to accommodate religious opinion.

You pointed out that there are LOTS of people of LOTS of religions who are scientists.

BUT, they all leave their religion our of their science - there isn't any other possibility within science.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

I have NEVER suggested that scinece is anti god.

Science doesn't consider that the big bang was a creation event. It did kick off the incredible expansion of what existed. This "creation" thing is just a common misunderstanding - or a matter of unfortunate terminology.

Physics is a big deal. The forces for various kinds of order and progression are seen to apply across the entire universe. Order shouldn't be surprising.
Click to expand...

Physics doesn't mean that there isn't a God. You can have faith in God and believe in physics.
https://www.gotquestions.org/God-and-quantum-physics.html

Is belief in God compatible with quantum physics?

Question: "Is belief in God compatible with quantum physics?"

Answer: Quantum physics, also known as quantum mechanics, is an application of mathematics used to describe the behavior of matter and energy at an unimaginably tiny scale. Even more than other specialized fields within the sciences, it is extraordinarily difficult to explain quantum theories in layman’s terms. Not only does quantum mechanics involve higher-level physics, but much of what happens at the quantum level is counterintuitive. That is, it does not follow the same flow of cause and effect we see at larger scales. Merely expressing what occurs at the quantum level sometimes requires an exceptional grasp of mathematics and physics.

The theories of quantum physics help explain why changes in physical objects at nanoscopic scales only occur in discrete amounts, known as quanta, as well as why these objects appear to act as both waves and particles. Quantum mechanics also shows that, at these tiny distances, cause-and-effect relationships work according to probabilities rather than determined, specific results. Like most other physical theories, quantum physics was developed over many decades through the work of many different scientists. As models go, however, it is a relatively recent one, having only been accepted by the general scientific community for the past one hundred years or so.

In common experience, quantum physics rarely makes a noticeable impact. Part of the difference between classical and quantum physics is that quantum-level interactions occur according to a probability curve, not a well-defined, absolute cause-and-effect response. However, as a system includes more and more interactions, the probability of some extreme result lessens. Thus, large-scale systems are, in fact, well-defined and absolute and can be predicted with accuracy. The value of quantum mechanics lies in explaining these tinier transactions, which is useful in theoretical physics and high-level design, but practically meaningless to the average person’s daily experience.

Two aspects of quantum physics are often cited when discussing God or religion. The first is the nature of observed cause and effect in quantum-level interactions. Actions and reactions at the quantum level can appear to violate barriers such as the speed of light and/or to occur without a logical relationship between cause and effect. Depending on how one chooses to interpret the observations, this property either makes God’s existence seem more likely, as it provides an unpredictable opening for some unknown “choice”; or it makes God’s existence less likely, since it makes what is normally considered impossible just a question of long odds.

The second common issue relating quantum physics to spirituality is the Many Worlds hypothesis. This stems from the wave-particle duality demonstrated by quantum physics and the necessity for probability rather than an objective, determined system. Since there are many possible states of a measured system and no objective way to know which ones do or do not exist, some philosophers claim that all of them exist, simultaneously, in parallel universes. Of course, there is no possible physical evidence to support this. The theory persists mostly because it serves to deflect fine-tuningand intelligent design arguments, as well as evidence suggesting a universe of a finite age.

The Bible claims God’s handiwork can be seen in creation (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20). The early pioneers of modern physics were mostly theists, particularly Christians, and they didn’t see their discoveries as eliminating God. Rather, they saw them as illuminating God’s methods. John Polkinghorne is an example of this in action, specifically involving quantum physics. Polkinghorne, a lifelong Christian, is one of the scientists responsible for discovering the sub-nuclear particles known as quarks, a critical part of the quantum model. He retired after twenty-five years teaching at Cambridge in order to become an Anglican priest. His scientific credentials are such that even aggressive anti-theists, such as Richard Dawkins, are at a loss to write off his faith as delusion or confusion.

Ultimately, what impact quantum mechanics has on one’s view of God has little to do with physics and much to do with personal intentions. The scientific method has been an extremely successful way of discovering how God accomplished certain parts of His creative work. Learning the physical mechanisms of the universe doesn’t change the fact that there is a Designer and Creator who put them into place. Quantum physics, like any other scientific discipline, is perfectly compatible with the Bible’s teaching of God.
Click to expand...

https://www.gotquestions.org/science-God.html

Do faith in God and science contradict?

Question: "Do faith in God and science contradict?"

Answer: Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Science is a method that mankind can use to gain a greater understanding of the natural universe. It is a search for knowledge through observation. Advances in science demonstrate the reach of human logic and imagination. However, a Christian’s belief in science should never be like our belief in God. A Christian can have faith in God and respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not.

Our belief in God is a belief of faith. We have faith in His Son for salvation, faith in His Word for instruction, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance. Our faith in God should be absolute, since when we put our faith in God, we depend on a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient Creator. Our belief in science should be intellectual and nothing more. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on science to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited, mortal men. Science throughout history has been wrong about many things, such as the shape of the earth, powered flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even reproduction. God is never wrong.

Truth is nothing to fear, so there is no reason for a Christian to fear good science. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate the wonder of creation. Expanding our knowledge helps us to combat disease, ignorance, and misunderstanding. However, there is danger when scientists hold their faith in human logic above faith in our Creator. These persons are no different from anyone devoted to a religion; they have chosen faith in man and will find facts to defend that faith.

Still, the most rational scientists, even those who refuse to believe in God, admit to a lack of completeness in our understanding of the universe. They will admit that neither God nor the Bible can be proved or disproved by science, just as many of their favorite theories ultimately cannot be proved or disproved. Science is meant to be a truly neutral discipline, seeking only the truth, not furtherance of an agenda.

Much of science supports the existence and work of God. Psalm 19:1 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” As modern science discovers more about the universe, we find more evidence of creation. The amazing complexity and replication of DNA, the intricate and interlocking laws of physics, and the absolute harmony of conditions and chemistry here on earth all serve to support the message of the Bible. A Christian should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” who put human knowledge above God.
Click to expand...

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

That AND your spam is totaly irrelevant to the qestion concerning whether there is any way for science to accommodate religious opinion.

You pointed out that there are LOTS of people of LOTS of religions who are scientists.

BUT, they all leave their religion our of their science - there isn't any other possibility within science.
Click to expand...

Physics could not have created the universe. That sounds too pantheistic to make sense. I dont believe in pantheism because God created the universe. God cant be the universe because God created the universe. Pantheism is kind of self contradictory.

Log in or Sign up

Could all humans begin from just two people?

Could G-d in a sense learn or evolve and still be G-d???

Yes

No

That is a really unusual question.... but intriguing?!

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

Montegriffo Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Could all humans begin from just two people?

Could G-d in a sense learn or evolve and still be G-d???

Yes

No

That is a really unusual question.... but intriguing?!

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

Montegriffo Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

Share This Page

Useful Searches