Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

sphenisc said:
Well, it's part of they're webpages called Evo101, so probably best regarded as a generalisation. They do explain their use of random elsewhere, which does contradict the TTW usage AFAIK.
Click to expand...
Ok - and what is the contradiction please?
sphenisc said:
"Adaptive mutation, also called directed mutation or directed mutagenesis is a controversial evolutionary theory."
The controversy is largely about how important its role is and under what circumstances it occurs.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
sphenisc said:
Yes, SSM are introduced by scientists, and they don't do it randomly.
Click to expand...
Okay - but we are talking explaining how evolution works in nature.
 
arthwollipot said:
Why? Why is the validity of words used by Creationists soooo important?
Click to expand...
You say he is a creationist but proved no evidence. I'll let you come back....
arthwollipot said:
You've expended a very large amount of time defending your use of these terms, we've forgotten your original thesis: that scientists are divided about evolution. Let's get back to that, shall we?
Click to expand...
You mean folk like yourself repeatedly pull me up on language that evolutionary biologists use.

There isn't much more say on the division in biology. As things stand I don't think it is anywhere near the extent of the division among Christians.
 
Poem said:
Ok - and what is the contradiction please?
Click to expand...

UCBerk describe "random" like this :

"Unpredictable in some way. Mutations are “random” in the sense that the sort of mutation that occurs cannot generally be predicted based upon the needs of the organism. However, this does not imply that all mutations are equally likely to occur or that mutations happen without any physical cause. Indeed, some regions of the genome are more likely to sustain mutations than others, and various physical causes (e.g., radiation) are known to cause particular types of mutations."

TTW seem to be regarding the capacity of organisms to in some sense control the timing and location of mutations on specific regions as non-random. I don't think they're saying that there is control of the direction of mutations towards improved fitness. So they're saying pretty much complementary things but labelling them "random" and "non-random" respectively.

Okay - but we are talking explaining how evolution works in nature.
Click to expand...

I've been talking about evolution, I haven't seen anyone put boundaries on what aspects of it are under discussion.
 
sphenisc said:
Being certain doesn't contradict being wrong, so I don't see how that doesn't support Lewis's position. Jesus was mistaken and he was certain about it. Ten minutes reading this thread should convince you that's not an unusual situation for people to find themselves in.
Click to expand...
I am confused by Lewis's stance. If he really did think that Jesus erred then I cannot understand how he could remain a Christian. Since Jesus voluntarily owns up to not knowing the day or hour, then he is actually doubling down on his prior certainty about his generation prophecy....so 'this is what I know - but this is what I don't know'.

I am wondering if Lewis has in mind the story of Jonah - where God says that Nineveh will be destroyed in 40 days but then that doesn't happen because they repent. Of course, that isn't the case with Israel and the destruction of the Temple in 70AD - they don't repent.

Most Christians do not think Jesus erred - but appear to be at a loss and divided as to how to explain the passage.
 
sphenisc said:
I've been talking about evolution, I haven't seen anyone put boundaries on what aspects of it are under discussion.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am misunderstanding you - but a scientist introducing a SSM is not mutation in an evolutionary sense - it's artificial mutation.
 
sphenisc said:
UCBerk describe "random" like this :

"Unpredictable in some way. Mutations are “random” in the sense that the sort of mutation that occurs cannot generally be predicted based upon the needs of the organism. However, this does not imply that all mutations are equally likely to occur or that mutations happen without any physical cause. Indeed, some regions of the genome are more likely to sustain mutations than others, and various physical causes (e.g., radiation) are known to cause particular types of mutations."

TTW seem to be regarding the capacity of organisms to in some sense control the timing and location of mutations on specific regions as non-random. I don't think they're saying that there is control of the direction of mutations towards improved fitness. So they're saying pretty much complementary things but labelling them "random" and "non-random" respectively.
Click to expand...
I'm finding it difficult to unravel these statements. They appear to be saying almost the same thing.
 
Poem said:
I am confused by Lewis's stance. If he really did think that Jesus erred then I cannot understand how he could remain a Christian.
Click to expand...

He seems to regard it as a necessary aspect of the Incarnation. For Jesus to be fully human he needs to have the limitations on knowledge and self-awareness that that entails. It does seem to be a form of Christianity that means not everything that Jesus says can be taken as gospel (pun intended). One where his statements to be tested, a sceptical Christianity if you like. He also says "The difficulties which I have so far discussed are, to a certain extent, debating points. They tend rather to strengthen a disbelief already based on other grounds than to create disbelief by their own force."
However embarrassing he finds the verse, it doesn't seem an insurmountable problem for him.
 
sphenisc said:
He seems to regard it as a necessary aspect of the Incarnation. For Jesus to be fully human he needs to have the limitations on knowledge and self-awareness that that entails. It does seem to be a form of Christianity that means not everything that Jesus says can be taken as gospel (pun intended). One where his statements to be tested, a sceptical Christianity if you like. He also says "The difficulties which I have so far discussed are, to a certain extent, debating points. They tend rather to strengthen a disbelief already based on other grounds than to create disbelief by their own force."
However embarrassing he finds the verse, it doesn't seem an insurmountable problem for him.
Click to expand...
That does seem a fair representation of Lewis's reasoning. It does just seem like special pleading...Lewis would believe the miracle of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead....and yet, when it suits him...when Lewis thinks Jesus erred - he emphasises Jesus's human limitations.

What Lewis does not explain is, if Jesus knew with certainty that he did not know the day and hour, then presumably he (Jesus) knew with equal certainty what he did know - the approximate number of years when he would return. I think you have already alluded to this.

I have mentioned before the penalty of death for false prophets - Deuteronomy 18:20-22

But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.” You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
 
Darat said:
Jesus is not a prophet in nearly all Christian religions. He is god.
Click to expand...
The Olivet discourse is also known as the Olivet prophecy....and Jesus is the only one prophesying.

Acts 3:22
For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.

The exact nature of Jesus being fully human whilst at the same time divine is, AFAIK, somewhat unknown.
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
The Olivet discourse is also known as the Olivet prophecy....and Jesus is the only one prophesying.

Acts 3:22
For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.

Poem said:
The exact nature of Jesus being fully human whilst at the same time divine is, AFAIK, somewhat unknown.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
In which Christian religion is Jesus not god but a prophet?
 
Poem said:
The Olivet discourse is also known as the Olivet prophecy....and Jesus is the only one prophesying.

Acts 3:22
For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.

The exact nature of Jesus being fully human whilst at the same time divine is, AFAIK, somewhat unknown.
Click to expand...
You're conflating the activity with the role/rank/status.

Christianity makes a distinction between mere mortals who have the gift of prophesy, and God Incarnate (who of course also has the gift of prophesy).

That's why it's important that Islam retcons Jesus as being *only* a prophet, so they can wedge Mohammed's cult into the "Abrahamic religions".
 
Poem said:
All I can say is that I have never seen an apologists take that angle. Certainly worth bearing in mind.
Click to expand...
Apologism? It's an interpretation. Pretty sure it is gleaned from Jesus saying the wages of sin is death, but he offered eternal life. Kind of suggests that physical death of the body is more a transition, and 'death' death is eternal.
 
Thermal said:
Apologism? It's an interpretation. Pretty sure it is gleaned from Jesus saying the wages of sin is death, but he offered eternal life. Kind of suggests that physical death of the body is more a transition, and 'death' death is eternal.
Click to expand...
Soz - should have written: I have never seen an apologist take that angle.

I have seen apologists suggesting that this is a reference to Jesus's transfiguration - especially because it occurs in the very next chapter....Matthew 17.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom