Could all humans begin from just two people?

Gelecski7238 · Nov 19, 2020

Aleksander Ulyanov said: ↑

No, of course not, biologically impossible.

Who would they reproduce with? Each other?

Best estimate I've seen is about 98 people

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/how-many-humans-would-it-take-keep-our-species-alive-ncna900151.

I've seen other estimates that go from 80 to 160. There is evidence in the genetic record that humans were once reduced to just about that around 10,000 years ago possibly by a world-class volcanic eruption
Click to expand...

The most popular cited genetic bottleneck is that of the catastrophic Mt. Toba eruption about 70,000 years ago. Other studies suggest bottleneck occurrences at 1.2 million ya (involving evolutionary split), 150,000-200,000 ya (mitochondrial Eve), various out-of-Africa migration trends, and the y-chromosome bottleneck 7000 ya. The low level of human genetic diversity is cited by those interested in supporting the Biblical story of Noah's flood, about 4500 ya. If there is a 10,000 ya genetic pattern, it has not yet been incorporated into the bottleneck topic search data, although it makes sense to suspect one under the conditions of megafauna extinctions during repeated radical transitions in and out of the ice age period. Because of conflicting criteria and complicated factors, all cited bottlenecks are controversial and under contention by at least one expert or another.

Aleksander Ulyanov · Nov 19, 2020

Gelecski7238 said: ↑

The most popular cited genetic bottleneck is that of the catastrophic Mt. Toba eruption about 70,000 years ago. Other studies suggest bottleneck occurrences at 1.2 million ya (involving evolutionary split), 150,000-200,000 ya (mitochondrial Eve), various out-of-Africa migration trends, and the y-chromosome bottleneck 7000 ya. The low level of human genetic diversity is cited by those interested in supporting the Biblical story of Noah's flood, about 4500 ya. If there is a 10,000 ya genetic pattern, it has not yet been incorporated into the bottleneck topic search data, although it makes sense to suspect one under the conditions of megafauna extinctions during repeated radical transitions in and out of the ice age period. Because of conflicting criteria and complicated factors, all cited bottlenecks are controversial and under contention by at least one expert or another.
Click to expand...

I meant Mt Toba sorry about 10,000, not 70,000. Poor memory and what's 60,000 years among friends?

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

Buri said: ↑

There are MANY religious stories with a man/woman start, they're metaphors. These same copies of each other also have god look, oddly enough, just like us. This is a projection of our own traits onto a deity.

We have plenty of fossil records showing where modern man evolved.
Click to expand...

https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/what-is-image-of-god/

What Is the Image of God?
Image of God, Part 2
by Steve Ham on August 15, 2015
Abstract
If you are looking for an explicit definition of what exactly constitutes the image of God in Scripture, you won’t find one. Like many other doctrines, we understand the meaning and application of truth from careful contextual study of the relevant biblical usages in the Old and New Testaments. Unfortunately, doctrinal positions are sometimes obtained based on presupposed commitments to extra-biblical, human ideas. This article seeks to expose biblical reasons to reject outside influences of evolutionary thinking regarding the nature of man. In contrast, the biblical data demands that mankind is uniquely created in the image of God, distinct from all other creatures, and reflects the very character of God in our spiritual being.

The Great Distinction
Read Part 1 of this series: “Evolution and What the Image of God Is Not.”

“The image of God in humanity is critical to our understanding of what makes us human.”1 Genesis 1:26–28 is the key passage of Scripture whereby foundational teaching on the image of God begins. The Hebrew language of verse 27 makes it clear that God’s image in mankind depicts humanity as distinct from animals.2

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27, emphasis added)
The Hebrew word for “man” in this text is adam (אדם). Depending on context, the word can mean “man,” “mankind,” or the name “Adam.”3 The sub-categories of humanity are used with different words and the distinction is visible in both Hebrew and English. These sub-categories of mankind are “male” (zakar זכר) and “female” (neqebah נקבה). The language usage is profound and makes a significant point that the image of Goddistinction is made between mankind and all other creatures, not between the sub-categories of male and female.

It is only regarding the creation of mankind that God says, “Let us make man in our own image,” and God only directly breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 1:26, 2:7). Everything in the text of Genesis 1 and 2 denotes the intimate actions of God in creating mankind (both the first man and the first woman) compared to the general nature of creating everything else.

The Image of God Is Not Our Bodies
The human body is something that makes the human creaturely, and not necessarily something that constitutes a distinction. Animals and humans have bodies that show aspects of common design. While unique in their own way, both humans and animals can have such features as eyes, noses, legs, and arms that point to our common Creator. It is the unique creation of mankind in the image of God that distinguishes us from all other creatures.

At an appointed time in history, the Son of God stepped into His creation taking on the form of a man (Philippians 2:7). He added humanity without losing deity. Scripture also reveals that God is Spirit (John 4:24). It would appear that taking on a human body is part of what has given Jesus the ability to relate with human beings rather than it being an attribute of God as a display of His image. John tells us that Jesus became flesh to show us God’s glory (John 1:14). This is the glory that mankind was meant to reflect when we were created in God’s image.

Other Scriptures would suggest that a human body is not essential to image bearing. It would be difficult to suggest that the disembodied souls under the throne in Revelation 6:9–11 have ceased to be image bearers on the basis that they are awaiting their resurrection bodies. Perhaps the same may be considered for Moses and Elijah who were talking with Jesus at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1–3).

This is not to say that the human body should not be highly valued. God created Adam and Eve with bodies, and their bodies were part of His “very good” creation. In Christ, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19) and we are to use them as instruments of righteousness (Romans 6:12–13).

Adam and Eve were creaturely (creatures of God but not animals), as evidenced in their human body. They were image-bearers, as evidenced in their very being. The image of God is primarily a distinctive privilege of inexpressible value that mere animals do not share.

The Image of God Is Not Our Experience
Neo-orthodox theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner both developed theories about the image of God based on human experience. Neither Barth nor Brunner believed Genesis to be a true account of creation history. The experiential understanding of image-bearing proposes that mankind reflects God’s image in the union of relationship. As mankind becomes aware of relational identity between male and female, an awareness of the concept of relationship with God becomes reality.4The image of God then is essentially a relational identity (our ability to relate to God and one another) rather than an ontological essence of being. As previously stated, Genesis 1:26 shows that male and female are gender distinctions within a sub-category of mankind created in God’s image and likeness. Relational union between men and women is not a definition of what it means to be made in the image of God but is a result of bearing the image of God. To show this, Old Testament theologians Dr. Russell Fuller and David Casas have explained the importance of the preposition “in” by stating, “But the preposition ‘in’ is significant here. It depicts the standard or pattern in which God created: God created man in (the pattern of) His image.”5Everything that follows this statement in Genesis 1:26, including the distinctive male/female relationship, is a secondary element to the fact that man and woman each already bear the image of God and reflect the nature of God. When God said “Let us make,” the declaration of mankind in God’s image was made before they were alive to experience relationships as image bearers.

The Image of God Is Not Our Function
Genesis 1:26–28 seems to read as a series of sequential statements starting with the statement about God creating mankind (both male and female) in His image and then describing the things that mankind is to do. God first declared mankind in His image and then in sequence gave them instructions for living. Adam and Eve were already in God’s image and likeness before they were given instructions for dominion, filling and multiplying.6 These instructions then seem to be a result of being an image-bearer and not a statement of actual being (ontological component).

While Psalm 8:6–8 also refers to dominion, this does not necessitate an argument for dominion as a component of the image of God. Moreover, this text would also imply not who man is, but what responsibility and privilege he has been given as an image-bearer who is made lower than heavenly beings. This is something exemplified in Christ as echoed in Hebrews 2:5–9. While it would seem that function is closely related to image-bearing, it is not necessarily a part of its definition.

The recent articles about the image of God on the BioLogos website7 predominantly describe image bearing as a relational and/or functional component that is compatible with naturalistic processes (evolution).8 They propose that as human beings develop psychological capacity, they gain the appropriate faculties to cope with the functions of having dominion. On this basis, the blogs posted on the BioLogos site also propose that as man and culture change, the nature of image bearing also changes in how it functions in new environments. Put simply, mankind evolves image-bearing functionality in changing environments. Evolutionary presuppositions have influenced the BioLogos authors’ definition of the image of God.

A functional view of the image of God based on evolutionary presuppositions will ultimately have an impact on how one understands sin and salvation. It is therefore no surprise to view further BioLogos articles from authors dismissing the atoning sacrifice of Christ and suggesting that Jesus’ purpose in becoming human was not His sacrificial death but to be the ultimate example of human life (function).9 While as the very image of God Jesus certainly does show us how to live, the Bible explicitly teaches that He came to die in order that we might be transformed in our very beings as He substituted His righteousness for our sinfulness (Isaiah 53:10–11; Mark 10:45; Romans 5:8; Philippians 2:5–10; Titus 2:14).

The Image of God as God’s Righteous Attributes
Paul’s discussions of the new man and old man give us great insight into what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). It is an image that bears the righteousness and holiness of God. When Scripture describes all of God’s attributes, it is in the context of God being the perfection of such attributes. For example, God is love, and God’s love is perfect. Humanity shares many of God’s attributes, and we were originally created to reflect God’s perfect character in righteousness and holiness. While God has character traits that He does not share with humanity (e.g., God is self-existent, omniscient, omnipotent), we can still see His shared attributes in humanity today, even though they are distorted by sin. Attributes such as love, self-awareness, justice, grace, and mercy are distinct from attributes associated with animals. They are part of the very being of humanity.

It is true that as we look at humanity today, we see a great difference between the holiness of God’s character and human character. We have distorted the very nature of God’s character in humanity because of our rejection of God’s holiness and rule in our lives.

Throughout church history there has been much debate about the effect of sin on the image of God in man. Even so, there are three unifying truths. First, the Bible teaches that even after sin, mankind is still created in God’s image (Genesis 9:6; James 3:8–9). Second, sin has devastatingly affected the image of God in man (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 59:1–4). And third, it is only through Jesus Christ’s substitutionary atonement and Resurrection that mankind can be forgiven, transformed, and conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:28–30; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:5–10; 2 Corinthians 3:18).

Conclusion
Evolutionary presuppositions have tragic effects on Christian anthropology (the study of humanity). If mankind has evolved the characteristic capacities for dominion and relationship that make us function as God’s image-bearers, then our greatest need is to continue evolving such capacity that is ultimately seen in the example of Jesus Christ. Sadly, the doctrines of sin and salvation are destroyed. If, however, mankind is uniquely made in the image of God as part of His original “very good” created order, then our sin problem is a reality that is only solved by the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ who is the very image of God. Through Christ alone we can be made right before God and conform to the image of His Son that we were originally created to be.
Click to expand...

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

Montegriffo said: ↑

Men were not created by god.
God was created by men.
Click to expand...

https://answersingenesis.org/are-humans-animals/gods-image-difference-maker/

God’s Image—The Difference Maker
What Makes Us Special?
by David Casas and Russell Fuller on October 1, 2014; last featured May 19, 2019
Are we just another animal? We can argue about DNA, brain size, and upright stature, but Genesis 1 emphasizes an infinitely greater privilege that sets mankind apart.

Implications of an Anti-Biblical View
Atheism views man as simply a material being like all other animals. In many ways, this is the predominant view of popular culture: man may have “evolutionary advantages” over animals in reason, communication, and some physical abilities but is not a spiritual or sacred being with a purpose and destiny higher than that of the animals.)

In this view, man lives and dies like the beast. Thus concentration camps, gulags, killing fields, and abortion clinics are all monuments to atheism. Such degraded views of man—particularly in denying that man is made in the image of God—inevitably industrialize human misery.

Biblical Worldview
God’s Word, in contrast, views man as the pinnacle of God’s handiwork. On the sixth day of Creation, as His final work, God created man as a physical and spiritual being. His physical aspect was formed from the ground (Genesis 2:7) and his spiritual aspect came from God (Ecclesiastes 12:7). The animals, created on Day Five, resemble man in that they were also formed from the ground (Genesis 2:19) and have the breath of life (Genesis 1:30, 6:17, 7:15, 7:22; Ecclesiastes 3:19). But although the animals resemble man in certain aspects, man surpasses them because God breathed directly into man and because He made man in His own image. Thus God crowned man with glory and majesty to rule over the works of His hand (Psalm 8:5–6).

But what exactly is the image of God and what are the implications of man being made in His image? The answers and applications of such questions are essential to the Christian because they dictate human happiness or wretchedness—and often life and death. The image of God consists of the spiritual part of man that reflects the character of God and is the only firm basis for advocating the dignity of man, the sanctity of life, and the gracious redemption of sinners.
Click to expand...

Montegriffo · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

https://answersingenesis.org/are-humans-animals/gods-image-difference-maker/
Click to expand...

Right.
God made the world in 7 days and created man on the 6th.
Also, the tooth fairy leaves money under your pillow and Santa Claus comes down the chimney once a year to fill the stocking you hang for him. Don't forget the cookies and a glass of sherry.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

Montegriffo said: ↑

Right.
God made the world in 7 days and created man on the 6th.
Also, the tooth fairy leaves money under your pillow and Santa Claus comes down the chimney once a year to fill the stocking you hang for him. Don't forget the cookies and a glass of sherry.
Click to expand...

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/birth/wintertime-worship-santa-claus-or-jesus-christ/

Christians and Santa Claus: a Biblical View
by Roger Patterson on December 15, 2009; last featured November 29, 2013

War on Christmas
This article and others are featured in our new book, which discusses the truth about Christmas and the Christian’s response to a culture that seems to be declaring war.

As I drive through my neighborhood in December, I am confronted with giants dancing on my neighbors’ lawns. A 6-foot-tall Scooby-Doo sways in the breeze donning a red knit cap. An inflatable carousel that wouldn’t fit in my living room spins a snowman, a reindeer, and an elf in an endless circuit. Santa Claus can be seen in plastic light-up form, inflated fabric, plywood silhouette, and various other renditions—including catching a bass on a large fishing pole. Oh! Look! That yard has a manger scene surrounded by reindeer and candy canes and soldiers and snowmen and . . . you get the point.

Noah's Ark Guide - FREE

Get equipped with biblical answers to questions about Noah's ark and the global flood.

DOWNLOAD NOW

If you brought someone from Russia to my neighborhood, what would they infer from the inflated and illuminated army? I sincerely doubt that it would convey the message of the Creator entering His Creation to redeem it from the Curse of sin. The manger scenes might raise a question, and the lit Cross in my yard with the message “A Savior Is Born” would hopefully draw the visitor’s attention. But these are certainly lost among the troop formations. So, is this season about celebrating dancing snowmen and blinking lights or a Savior and the hope He brings?

Sadly, our culture has shifted its focus to the dazzling decorations and away from a dazzling Savior. Commercialism has swallowed whatever Christmas used to be before it was this. Battles are fought over the very name of the holiday, and Santa Claus is embraced more freely than the infant Jesus. 1 Santa is an icon in modern culture, and his image is used to sell everything from soda to sports cars. Let’s consider what we can learn from God’s Word regarding Christians and Santa Claus—in light of the true meaning of Christmas.

The Origins of Santa Claus
As with many things in our culture, Santa has his beginnings in a Christian past. As the legends have it, the concept of Santa is rooted in the real Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, dating to the fourth century. Nicholas inherited a large amount of money and used much of his fortune to help the poor. Nicholas gave freely to meet the needs of people around him, fulfilling the commands of Christ to aid the poor.

After his death, the Catholic Church recognized him as a saint—hence the common American usage of St. Nick as a substitute for Santa. The red clothing is likely founded in the red robes worn by bishops. The white beard and other trappings (e.g., reindeer, sleighs, elves, etc.) are likely adopted from various cultural influences being mingled together over the centuries. If you study the celebration of Santa (a.k.a., St. Nick, Kris Kringle, Father Christmas, and Sinterklauss) around the world, the similarities are obvious, as shoes are substituted for stockings and the North Pole for the mountains of Lapland.

Wintertime Worship: Santa Claus or Jesus Christ?
The mythical Santa is clearly founded in a man who honored Jesus Christ with his life and his possessions. Nicholas gave freely of his riches to benefit those who were less fortunate than himself. This is clearly a fundamental Christian principle, as we see care for the poor proclaimed throughout Scripture (e.g., James 2:1–17).

Is that the same idea we see in the Santa Claus celebrated today? The popular song extols children to stop shouting, pouting, and crying in order to earn Santa’s favor and his gifts. This is clearly not the attitude that we see in the biblically motivated actions of the original St. Nick—and a far cry from a biblical attitude of raising children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I have personally overheard mothers using gifts from Santa to manipulate their children into behaving in a way that pleases the parent at the time. Such manipulation is entirely unbiblical. As Christians, we should discipline our children for sinful behavior because it is an offense against God, not because it is inconvenient or embarrassing for us. Using gifts from a mythical figure can only serve to promote a form of moralism that is alien to the gospel of Jesus Christ. If our actions are done to earn rewards for ourselves, are we not acting selfishly? This is not an attitude we should seek to instill in our children.

Our motivation for being obedient to God’s commands should be out of an attitude of gratitude for the grace He has shown us. The gospel speaks of God’s work in forgiving us of our sins—not because of the righteous acts which we have done, but because of what Christ did on the Cross for us (Titus 3:4–7). Nothing that we can do can make us righteous before God or make us deserving of His good gifts.

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8–10)
Does the promotion of Santa lead to an exaltation of Christ? Since Jesus and Santa Claus bring competing messages, I would suggest the answer is no. As Jesus Christ continues to be marginalized by society, our goal should be to magnify Him in our homes that our children would be impressed with His kindness to us shown on the Cross. This is the message the original St. Nicholas would have communicated.

Mommy, Is There Really a Santa Claus?
A Christian parent must thoughtfully consider that Scripture is full of commands against deceiving others (e.g., Exodus 20:16; Psalm 101:7; Ephesians 4:25; 1 Peter 2:1–3). Persistently proclaiming the existence of a man in a sleigh with flying reindeer as fact can only lead to deceit. Please understand that I am not saying there is no place for imagination, but the level of emphasis on Santa appears to cross the line. The active teaching of Santa as a real person who performs real miracles to reward children for acting a certain way, in full knowledge that he is a myth, can only be described as deceit.

Any parent who teaches their children much of what is popular about Santa knows that they will eventually learn that it was all a lie. Lying is a sin and cannot be justifiedon biblical grounds. Have we bowed to cultural pressures to have our children conform to the ways of the world, or do we celebrate Santa so that Christ can be exalted? Rather than dealing with the root of sin against God, who is the definition of “good,” the “goodness” promoted by Santa finds its roots in the humanistic philosophy of behavior modification.

As children grow, they will undoubtedly begin to hear others speaking of the mythical nature of Santa. They will ask and will expect an answer from the parents they have trusted. Since some may not wish to totally skirt the issue of Santa Claus (and it is difficult to do anyway), consider how it is possible to allow children to learn about the real St. Nicholas—and maybe even share in some of the fun of make-believe—while remaining honest with your children.

Glory Robber?
If Santa Claus has taken the glory from Jesus Christ in your family’s celebration of Christmas, maybe it is time to seriously consider changing the emphasis. I understand that these are matters of conscience in many ways and that sincere Christians will come to different conclusions on Santa Claus. What I would ask is that you examine your decisions in light of what Scripture teaches. If our conscience convicts us of sin in our hearts, we can bring that to God in repentance and know that He will freely forgive us because of what Christ has done.

This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:5–10)
Rather than offering a platform to chastise Christians with views contrary to this article, I hope you will think and pray about how to bring Jesus Christ the worship He is due during this season when we recognize His incarnation. Let us all make the Word of God the authority in our decisions about celebrating this, and every, holiday—giving God the glory He alone deserves.
Click to expand...

Montegriffo · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/birth/wintertime-worship-santa-claus-or-jesus-christ/
Click to expand...

You must have missed the post where I commented on people posting reams and reams of scripture rather than having opinions of their own.
Just to save you the effort I'll tell you right now that I don't bother reading any of it.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

modernpaladin said: ↑

If God created the first human, then God would've had to become human to fully understand humans. In doing so, he would learn what it means to be human.

I chose yes.
Click to expand...

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/incarnation/the-hypostatic-union/

The Hypostatic Union
by Troy Lacey on September 14, 2012

Did Jesus want to die for us, or did He try to find a way out of it? How did He submit to the Father’s will? Troy Lacey, AiG–U.S., responds.

Hello,

I had a question about the will of Christ! I have read a lot of things lately that seem to suggest that Christ didn’t want to die for us and just submitted to the will of the Father. Hebrews 5:7–10 and Matthew 26:39–42 describe what I’m struggling with! Did Christ want to die for us? Did God Die cause how can God die? Did Christ try to find a way out of dying for us? Was it Jesus will too, to die for us or was he just submitting to the Father?

I know this is not about Genesis but you guys seem to know what you’re talking about! Thanks.

Hello H.R., thanks for writing in to Answers in Genesis, and for your kind words about our ministry. Your series of questions all are intimately tied up with what theologians call the hypostatic union of Christ. The hypostatic union refers to the perfect union of Christ’s two natures—one fully human and one fully divine. What this doctrine teaches is that these two natures are united in one person in the God-man. Jesus is not two persons, nor is He God part of the time and the man at other times. He is one person. The hypostatic union is the joining of the divine and the human in the one person of Jesus. Admittedly, this is a complex subject, but that’s to be expected since we are finite beings attempting to comprehend the infinite God.

This doctrine was precisely stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).

The Son of God, the second Person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof; yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

To answer your question, we must keep the hypostatic union in mind. If we fail to properly grasp this concept, then it can lead to gross theological error and even a denial of the full humanity and full divinity of Christ, significantly harming the gospel. Here is a chart explaining some of the false views people have developed about Jesus, along with some of the ramifications of these views.

Some Unbiblical Views of Jesus Christ
View Time Fully man Fully God Explanation of Error / Consequence
Docetists 1st century Denied Affirmed Jesus only appeared to be a man. / If true, then Jesus would not have been a descendant of Adam, so He could not have been our High Priest to die for the sins of the people (Hebrews 2:17).
Ebionites 2nd century Affirmed Denied Jesus received the Spirit at His baptism. He was not preexistent. / If true, then Jesus was not truly God and is not worthy of worship.
Arians 4th century Affirmed Denied Jesus was a created being, thus He was not truly God. / If true, then Jesus is not worthy of worship, and He would have lied when claiming to be one with the Father (John 10:30).
Appollinarians 4th century Denied Affirmed Jesus had a human body, but in the place of a human mind was the divine Logos. / If true, then Jesus would not have been fully human, could not have been tempted in all points as we are (Hebrews 4:15), and He could not be our High Priest.
Nestorians 5th century Essentially denied Essentially denied Denied the unity of the person of Christ by holding to two separate persons—a human person controlled by the divine person. / If true, then only a mere man died on the Cross, not the God-man, Jesus Christ.
Eutychians 5th century Essentially denied Essentially denied Denied the distinction of the two natures of Christ. / The blending of these two natures would create a new third nature, so Christ would not have had a human nature or a divine nature, thus He was neither fully God nor fully man.
We know that Jesus did want to make final atonement for sinners. We also know that Jesus knew He had to die to accomplish this. Passages such as Genesis 3:15; Psalm 22:1, 16–18; Isaiah 53:5–11; and Daniel 9:26 testify that Christ would suffer and be killed. The passage in Isaiah makes it clear that the Messiah would be killed as a sacrifice for our sin.

What is also shown in Scripture, however is that Jesus willingly went to the Cross, and that He wanted to be the once for all sacrifice for our sins, and wanted the Holy Spirit to come to indwell believers. Let’s examine a few passages which highlight this.

Jesus Christ willingly went to the Cross.

“And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” (John 10:16–18)

Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. (John 13:1)

Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2)

Jesus Christ wanted to die for mankind’s sins.

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:10–11)

Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day.” (Luke 24:46)

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2:17)

Jesus Christ wanted to send the Holy Spirit, which required Him to go back to the Father.

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (John 16:7)

However, because Jesus was fully human, that nature did not wish to die, as in reality all humans nourish and cherish their own flesh (Ephesians 5:29). In the Matthew 26:38–42 and Hebrews 5:7–10 passages, we get a glimpse of this human response from our Savior. In praying to the Father, Jesus essentially asked if there was an alternative way to save sinners, when He stated, “If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me.” In complete obedience, He resigned Himself to the Father’s will. In His humanity, He did not want to suffer and be crucified, but since there was no other way for sinners to be saved, He faced death willingly. This certainly destroys the idea that there are “many paths to God” so prevalent today. It is an affront to Christ, who endured the Cross and its shame.

Read the passage below and keep in mind the many Old Testament prophecies about Christ’s death, as well as what Jesus said about His upcoming death, and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. (Romans 5:5–11)

In His humanity Jesus did not want to die—He did not enjoy the thought of being beaten and crucified. He did not relish the thought of being scorned and spit upon, yet He looked beyond all this to the joy that was set before Him—to be the One who would reconcile mankind to God. He also knew that His sacrifice would not only justify sinners in the sight of a Holy God, but it would also make it possible for Him to send the Spirit to indwell us. The Spirit also instructs believers in righteousness and makes it possible for us to understand Scripture and become more Christ-like (John 16:8–15, 1 Corinthians 2:13–16, Galatians 5:16).

So in one sense, Jesus, in His humanity, did not want to die, but He knew it was necessary for him to do so if mankind was to be saved. However, being fully God, Jesus did want to die for His enemies so that they would be saved and reconciled.
Click to expand...

Montegriffo · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/incarnation/the-hypostatic-union/
Click to expand...

This post breaks forum rules.

Quotes, links, and images should be used to support a member's opinion, not to replace it - all posts containing them should also contain the poster's own comments as to their relevance.
Click to expand...

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

Montegriffo said: ↑

This post breaks forum rules.
Click to expand...

Jesus was both God and Man. He was born of a virgin because He was God incarnate. When Jesus was given to Mary he was a man and God.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

Please be careful with your cites. You may have read Mark 2:27, but you didn't read Mark 2.

Your passage in Mark has absolutely nothing at all to do with time.

The issue being discussed has to do with when (or whether) it is ok to break religious law.

Pharisees were questioning Jesus about religious law.

Jesus pointed out that his followers may have been hungry and thus picked corn to eat on the Sabbath. In fact, jesus upped the ante and said that they may have been hungry enough to need to eat the sacrificial offerings reserved by religious law for priests alone! I'm sure that had an impact!

A way to express that is that the Sabbath is there for humans. It provides a focus that is to be taken seriously. But, it's not there as an immutable law of God.
Click to expand...

Regarding what you said about the Sabbath, the Old Covenant isnt what Jesus gave-Jesus gave us the New Covenant. Christians are not obligated to be Jewish. Even though there are Messianic Jews and Messianic Gentiles and Hebrews Christians and secular Jews and Jews in the cultural and ethnic sense, there would be no Judaism today if the Old Testament Jews followed Christ. Its not wrong for a Christian or anyone to follow Jewish law, but legalism isnt godly.
https://answersingenesis.org/presuppositions/dangers-hebrew-roots-movement/

Dangers of the Hebrew Roots Movement
by Tim Chaffey on March 17, 2018
Share:
Abstract
The Hebrew Roots Movement has influenced hundreds of thousands of Christians in recent decades, and many more have encountered arguments from those in that group. The movement places a strong emphasis on Hebrew traditions and the Law of Moses. This article will describe the nature of the Hebrew Roots Movement, examine some of its major beliefs in light of relevant biblical passages, and challenge those who have been influenced by its teachings.

At-a-Glance

Certain Jewish teachings are elevated to the level of Scripture.

The Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM) misunderstands the extent and scope of the Mosaic law.

The “Jerusalem Council” rejected the notion that Gentile believers must follow the Law of Moses.

The Apostle Paul refuted many of the most popular teachings of the HRM.

The Growing Dangers of the Hebrew Roots Movement
In recent years, an increasing number of Christians have adopted teachings associated with the Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM). Properly defining this movement is difficult because it has no central hierarchy or leader and no official statement of faith for members to endorse. While this article will explain and critique some of the major teachings connected to this movement, we recognize that some adherents to the HRM may not agree with all of the positions outlined here.

Editors Note 07/06/2018: While the previous sentence appeared in the original article, some of the wording in the remainder of the article gave the impression to some readers that every adherent to the HRM was being painted with a broad brush. Since this was not the intent of the article, certain revisions have been made to clarify this point. Also, several people responded to the original article claiming that it misrepresented their beliefs. However we received many responses from HRM proponents seeking to defend the beliefs and practices described in the article. Obviously, these individuals did not believe we mischaracterized their views; they simply disagreed with our understanding of the relevant biblical passages.]

What Is the Hebrew Roots Movement?
Broadly speaking, followers of the HRM believe that all believers in Christ are obligated to follow Jewish laws and practices from the books of Moses. In some groups, extrabiblical rabbinic teachings and traditions are elevated (if not in official doctrinal beliefs then in practice) to the same level as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

Although they often speak of keeping the “law,” they are usually inconsistent in how this is understood and defined. For example, certain laws are either broken or neglected while a great deal of attention is placed on keeping the Sabbath (Friday sunset through Saturday sunset) and celebrating the feasts mentioned in Leviticus 23. These issues will be discussed in more detail below.

It is difficult to document the movement’s history because of its lack of organizational structure, but the modern HRM has been influenced in some ways by Seventh-Day Adventism and the Worldwide Church of God during the lifetime of its founder, Herbert W. Armstrong. Additionally, the HRM has been influenced by the practices of Messianic Jews, but the similarities between the groups are superficial and should not be conflated. In fact, some Messianic Jewish organizations have denounced the beliefs of the HRM.1

The past few decades have witnessed a growing influence of this movement among conservative Christians. It is not unusual to see some HRM proponents give themselves Hebrew names, identify as Torah observant, write “God” as “G-d,” eat only kosher foods, claim that the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew (or at least several books were), condemn numerous Christian traditions as pagan, and dismiss teachings from Paul’s epistles. Some have gone so far as to challenge orthodox Christian beliefs such as the Trinity and even the deity of Jesus Christ. Fundamentally, the HRM teaches that many modern Christian beliefs and practices were introduced to the church by pagan Greeks. This is why they generally do not like to be identified as Christians. Instead, they believe that they need to recover the first century Hebrew roots of Christianity.

One writer summarized the HRM in the following way:

It is a very modern movement that insists that we must resurrect first-century Judaism (our Jewish Roots) and the milieu and lifestyle of first-century Jews and impose them on both Jewish and non-Jewish believers. This is not just an academic study to better understand Scripture and its setting but is rather a movement of restoration that claims that the church has moved off its Jewish foundation and must return to a more Jewish way of life to be authentic.2

So how should the claims of the HRM be discerned? Is it simply an up-and-coming movement destined to become another Christian denomination, albeit one with a strong emphasis on Jewish culture and practices? Or are some of its teachings dangerous and divisive, worthy of correction and rejection? The remainder of this article will call attention to some of the serious errors promoted by the HRM. Again, keep in mind that the HRM is not monolithic, that is, its followers often disagree on how much of Jewish culture and beliefs should be practiced. So each point in the following critique may not apply to every person in the HRM.
Click to expand...

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html
Click to expand...

That's more than I'm willing to read when I don't see any point that you're making.

If you think that counters something I said, please show me where and I'll definitely be interested.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

That's more than I'm willing to read when I don't see any point that you're making.

If you think that counters something I said, please show me where and I'll definitely be interested.
Click to expand...

You were talking about Old Testament law.

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

Regarding what you said about the Sabbath, the Old Covenant isnt what Jesus gave-Jesus gave us the New Covenant. Christians are not obligated to be Jewish. Even though there are Messianic Jews and Messianic Gentiles and Hebrews Christians and secular Jews and Jews in the cultural and ethnic sense, there would be no Judaism today if the Old Testament Jews followed Christ. Its not wrong for a Christian or anyone to follow Jewish law, but legalism isnt godly.
https://answersingenesis.org/presuppositions/dangers-hebrew-roots-movement/
Click to expand...

I'm asuming you are giving a more full description of what I said.

Let me know if you think I got something wrong.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

WillReadmore said: ↑

I'm asuming you are giving a more full description of what I said.

Let me know if you think I got something wrong.
Click to expand...

You were talking about the Sabbath and the Old Testament and I responded to that discussion topic.

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

You were talking about Old Testament law.
Click to expand...

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.

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...

A lot of things in the Bible that are hard to understand, like Jesus was sinless and his parents couldnt find him, have an explanation.

lemmiwinx · Nov 19, 2020

How could humans come from just two people? I mean those two people had to have a mommy and a daddy didn't they? Unless you play the God card at which time the argument becomes specious at best.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

lemmiwinx said: ↑

How could humans come from just two people? I mean those two people had to have a mommy and a daddy didn't they? Unless you play the God card at which time the argument becomes specious at best.
Click to expand...

Cain married his sister.

The reason some people marry their cousins is because cousins arent related closely enough where spending a certain amount of time with each other is appropriate, therefore, while I dont think its right, its possibly to marry them. Marriage has to do with its not appropriate to be friends with the opposite gender in the same way that you are friends with the same gender.

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

Spooky said: ↑

Because our opinions are all based on what the Bible teaches?
Click to expand...

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.

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

lemmiwinx said: ↑

How could humans come from just two people? I mean those two people had to have a mommy and a daddy didn't they? Unless you play the God card at which time the argument becomes specious at best.
Click to expand...

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/cain/who-was-cains-wife/

Who Was Cain’s Wife?
Share:

Find out how we are all descendants of Adam and Eve in this clip from One Blood One Race, part of the Foundations DVD series.

And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. (Genesis 4:17)
Perhaps no woman mentioned in Scripture has caused more confusion among Christians. Despite the fact that we have regularly addressed this issue in numerous books, articles, and presentations, the issue of Cain’s wife is still one of the most common questions we receive. Who was she, and why have so many believers struggled to give a biblical answer to this inquiry?

The simple answer is that Cain married his sister or another close relation, like a niece. This answer may sound revolting for those of us who grew up in societies that have attached a stigma to such an idea, but if we start from Scripture, the answer is clear.

1 Corinthians 15:45 tells us that Adam was “the first man.” Genesis 3:20 states that Eve “was the mother of all the living” (NASB), and Genesis 5:4 reveals that Adam and Eve “had sons and daughters” (besides Cain, Abel, and Seth).

There were no other people on earth as some have claimed. God did not create other people groups from which Cain chose a wife, as we are all made of one blood (Acts 17:26). If He had made others, these people would not have been able to be saved from their sins, since only descendants of Adam can be saved—that’s why it was so important for Jesus to be Adam’s descendant.

Why is the church not nearly as effective in reaching the lost as it was only a generation ago? Get the DVD series for an answer to this question and many others.

Doesn’t the Bible forbid marriage between close relations? It does, but the laws against marrying family members were initially given as part of the Mosaic covenant, approximately 2,500 years after Godcreated Adam and Eve. Due in part to genetic mistakes, these laws were necessary to help protect offspring from mutations shared by both parents.

But that’s incest! In today’s world, this would be incest. But originally there would have been no problem with it. Looking back through history, the closer we get to Adam and Eve, the fewer genetic mistakes people would have, so it would have been safer for close relatives to marry and have children.

Christians who have a problem with this answer need to remember that Noah’s grandchildren must have married brothers, sisters, or first cousins—there were no other people (1 Peter 3:20; Genesis 7:7). Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:2, 12); Isaac married Rebekah, the daughter of his cousin Bethuel (Genesis 24:15, 67); and Jacob married his cousins Leah and Rachel. Clearly, the Bible does not forbid the marriage of close relatives until the time of Moses.

Also, it is rather ironic for evolutionary skeptics to mock the biblical position that all people are descendants of the first man and woman. These evolutionists believe that all living organisms are descendants of the first living cell that somehow sprang to life from non-living material.

When we start from Scripture, it is easy to see who Cain’s wife was. God’s Word has the answer to this question and so many others like it; we just need to trust what He has revealed.
Click to expand...

The Amazing Sam's Ego · 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...

You can believe in the Bible and believe in science, but you cant make a god out of science. There's only one God.

https://www.gotquestions.org/scientism.html

What is scientism?

Question: "What is scientism?"

Answer: According to Duke University Philosophy Professor Alex Rosenberg, scientism is the worldview that all atheists share. It “is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything, that . . . science provides all the significant truths about reality. . . . Being scientific just means treating science as our exclusive guide to reality” (The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions , W. W. Norton & Company, 2011, p. 6–. In other words, our religious or philosophical beliefs do not appropriately inform our understanding of a given claim. Only science defines our reality.

Followers of scientism hold to the idea that science alone is trustworthy and that science alone can provide answers to moral questions. The result of this belief system is that its supporters, in their support for abortion, for example, attempt to find a scientific basis to say that human embryos are not human; and they present controlled breeding programs such as eugenics as scientifically valid, despite the moral repulsiveness of such programs.

University of Miami Philosophy Professor Susan Haack goes a step further, saying that scientism is “an exaggerated kind of deference toward science, an excessive readiness to accept as authoritative any claim made by the sciences, and to dismiss every kind of criticism of science or its practitioners as anti-scientific prejudice” (Defending Science—Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism, Prometheus Books, 2007, p. 17–1. Such scientific extremism could be described as a sort of religious radicalism. Indeed, scientism is often used to explain away the existence of God.

Interestingly, science often uses things that are not “scientific,” such as introspection or memory, in order to provide knowledge; thus, we can rightly ask, how can non-science observations lead the proponent of scientism to accept the resulting hypothesis as valid? What is the basis for the truth proposition without the ability to make purely scientific measurements unaffected by bias? Scientism raises more philosophical questions than it answers.

One philosophical issue raised is the fact that the thesis of the correctness of natural science is not itself a product of natural science, so it does not meet its own criteria. If we cannot know, scientifically, that scientism is true, why should we believe scientism in the first place?

We as human beings have moral and religious beliefs. Just as scientism sees fit to define itself with knowledge from outside the scientific realm, those who are not adherents of scientism inform their beliefs with knowledge from outside the scientific realm, viz., from religion and philosophy. And there is much in life that cannot be measured, quantified, or defined scientifically—everyday issues concerning trust, love, and relationships, for example, are beyond the realm of science. As C. S. Lewis wrote, “To be incommunicable by Scientific language is, so far as I can judge, the normal state of experience” (Christian Reflections, “On Religious Language,” 1967, p. 13.

The weakness of scientism can be seen in the debate between evolution and creationism. Neither evolution nor creationism can be proved via controlled laboratory experiments using well-defined principles of the scientific method; therefore, how can one reject either one out of hand simply through the application of fundamental beliefs? Scientism relies upon untestable assumptions yet still draws conclusions that its adherents feel are favorable, and Christians draw conclusions using observations of life, behavior, and even thought patterns influenced by the Holy Spirit.

At the end of the day, scientism, with its over-valuation of science, is a religion, just as Christianity is a religion. One offers hope for the future and eternal life. The other does not. When the Book of Life spoken of in Revelation 20:12 is opened, you will want your name to be found there, with the names of all the others who have trusted Jesus Christ. It is Jesus who saves, not our understanding of science.
Click to expand...

The Amazing Sam's Ego · Nov 19, 2020

lemmiwinx said: ↑

How could humans come from just two people? I mean those two people had to have a mommy and a daddy didn't they? Unless you play the God card at which time the argument becomes specious at best.
Click to expand...

Everyone came from Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve didnt evolve, God created them. Evolution is impossible. Everything has to come together at once and fully formed.

https://www.gotquestions.org/naturalism.html

What is naturalism?
Question: "What is naturalism?"

Answer: Naturalism is the belief that all that exists in the universe is physical, material matter. There is no soul; we are just a complex collection of neurons. There is no Creator; there is evolution. And experiences like pain, pleasure, beauty, and a sense of self do not really exist. They are merely physiological reactions.

The philosophy of naturalism leads to several incomplete ways of thinking about the world. One of the most important concerns the philosophy of telos, or purpose. The Christian worldview holds that the purpose of a thing must be given to it by a higher authority. Since naturalism teaches there is no higher authority (no deity), it deduces that mankind, creation, and individuals have no purpose in life.

Evolution, which the vast majority of naturalists believe, both supports the idea of having no purpose and tries to skirt around it. Naturalists believe that evolution explains how life on Earth came to be without the work of a supernatural element. But evolution also tries to return a sense of purpose to that life. Instead of mankind having an existential, spiritual purpose, evolution proposes that it is our genes which have a purpose—to propagate and multiply their genetic signature into the cosmos. This is not a true "purpose," however. Genes survive and multiply when and if conditions are right for them to do so. The "purpose" embodied by "survival of the fittest" comes down to dumb luck as much as any other element of evolution.

Naturalism, with its insistence that there is no soul, no mind, and no self, also teaches that there is no choice. Like the hurricane caused by the flap of a butterfly’s wings a half a world away, every impulse we have, every action we take, every word we say is determined by the events that came before. Whether or not we are controlled by our genes' drive to reproduce, we are incapable of choosing our beliefs, our worldview, or our favorite flavor of ice cream. This fatalistic philosophy becomes a problem in the realm of ethics; if our actions are out of our control, can criminals be held responsible for their crimes? It also reveals the hypocrisy of evolutionists who spew vitriol on creationists; if prior events determine our beliefs, how can theists be blamed for believing in God?

Naturalism also refers to a fairly benign methodology of research. Scientists, both atheistic and Christian, use naturalism to discover more about our world. It is the general assumption that everything has a physical or natural explanation, and investigating the natural elements will reveal that explanation. This is an advance on the pagan religions that taught that sex rituals would ensure a healthy harvest or that a black cat could cause bad luck. And it’s a rejection of the "God of the gaps" argument that says God is only involved in those things we cannot see or explain. The naturalistic methodology instead posits that, if we can’t explain something, we just haven't found the answer yet. It’s still an incomplete worldview, however. There is sufficient evidence that life could not have begun without outside interference. We can discover our world through the scientific method while still acknowledging the activity of a Creator.

It is true that our actions and beliefs are largely influenced by events we have been exposed to. That’s why God exhorts us to meditate on His Word (Deuteronomy 11:18) and keep our thoughts on things above (Colossians 3:2). The Bible also teaches that we have a distinct soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12) and that mankind has a specific purpose (Genesis 1:26-31). In the end, naturalism is just a fancy way to deny the existence of God (Psalm 14:1).
Click to expand...

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

Cain married his sister.

The reason some people marry their cousins is because cousins arent related closely enough where spending a certain amount of time with each other is appropriate, therefore, while I dont think its right, its possibly to marry them. Marriage has to do with its not appropriate to be friends with the opposite gender in the same way that you are friends with the same gender.
Click to expand...

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".

WillReadmore · Nov 19, 2020

The Amazing Sam's Ego said: ↑

You can believe in the Bible and believe in science, but you cant make a god out of science. There's only one God.

https://www.gotquestions.org/scientism.html
Click to expand...

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.

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?!

Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

Montegriffo Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

Montegriffo Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

Montegriffo 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

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

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

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

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?!

Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

Montegriffo Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

Montegriffo Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

Montegriffo 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

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

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

The Amazing Sam's Ego Banned at Members Request

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

WillReadmore Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches