what religion was jesus?

its ok man, I waited like 3 days to remind you anyway I can wait a few more

 

From Adam’s creation to the birth of Seth--130 years
Then to the birth of Enosh--105 years
To the birth of Kenan--90 years
To the birth of Mahalalel--70 years
To the birth of Jared--65 years
To the birth of Enoch--162 years
To the birth of Methuselah--65 years
To the birth of Lamech--187 years
To the birth of Noah--182 years
To the Flood--600 years
Total--1,656 years

The 1,656 years of this period are set out in Genesis 5:1-29; 7:6,


From the beginning of the Flood
to Arpachshad’s birth--2 years
Then to the birth of Shelah--35 years
To the birth of Eber--30 years
To the birth of Peleg--34 years
To the birth of Reu--30 years
To the birth of Serug--32 years
To the birth of Nahor--30 years
To the birth of Terah--29 years
To the death of Terah, when
Abraham was 75 years old--205 years
Total--427 years

The basis for these figures is Genesis 11:10 to 12:4.

I could go on but this should be enough to show what I mean by a traceable genealogic timeline in the Bible.

 

Hate to break it to you, but you are a creationist. It is called Progressive Creation, or Old Earth Creation. Hugh Ross is an example of someone who proposes the day-age theory where a "day" equals an geological age. It doesn't really work because the sun is created after the plants! (The likes of dwayne Gish use the plant-sun thing to explain that it had to be only 24 hour periods otherwise they'd die. I say it is ancient science and poetry trying to explain God's creation.

I am a creationist too, as with probably a lot or all christians out there in that we believe that god created the universe, ordained and sustains natural laws. I believe God created through evolution in a teleological process. I am a creationist and I believe in evolution.

 

Thanks for your patence! I'll probably just PM it to you, don't want to burden all of hip fourms with the boring details of my life.

 

That isn't a geneology. Also, I find the 'exact' dates for the Abrahamic covenant, the Exodus, the Flood, and the creation of Adam and Eve highly suspect. How did you arrive at them?

 

Once again, NO I'm not a "Creationist" because the theory of “Creationism” carries with it certain beliefs that I just don't have. Such as your comment; "It doesn't really work because the sun is created after the plants!".

I believe that the statement at Genesis 1:1 where it says; “In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” means that both the heavens, which would include the Sun, and the Earth could have been created millions or billions of years ago.

Now the description that begins in Genesis 1:2 and continues on to verse 31 is a description of what the preparation of the earth for life would look like from the view point of someone standing on the earth and that preparation took about 42,000 years, a “day” being some 7,000 years.

Again as for as your comment; "It doesn't really work because the sun is created after the plants!". In verse 3 of Genesis chapter 1 shows that light from the Sun was already filtering though to the Earth and I’m sure you know that plants get enough light from the Sun to grow even on overcast days. What is described in verse 14 is a clearing enough of the cloud cover to determine that there were at least two light causing bodies in the sky.

 

This is more of a reply to Monkey Boy, your answer for the geneology is found in post #162.

 

OWB, you misunderstood me. I differentiated between 3 types of Creationism. The one you do not support which you think I said you did is called Young Earth Creation (YEC) and is supported by people like Duane Gish.

The ony I believ you do support is like Hugh Ross' Progressive Creation or Old Earth Creation. In this theory Genesis 1:11 is true, but "day" is meant to mean day metaphorically like "Day of the Lord" and means a much longer period. Would you agree with this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism

I am a proponent of Evolutionary creation.

 

I agree with most of your geneology except the 1656 years to the flood. This is cleary meant to correspond to a cycle of time not a linear time period. There are many religions that use this number and/or variations of it.

 

Oh ok, my apologies. I'll give it a look, thanks.

 

he was a christian in that he believed he was christ. although he was raised a jew and did attend judaism, his belief system was most certainly christian. however, i think he also practiced judaism. so i guess his belief system was christian, but he practiced judaism. which has me lean towards him being christian.

 

Not a problem, It's not I haven't done the same myself.

 

If you'll look at Post #162, it shows a person to person traceable genealogic timeline from Adam to the flood of 1656 years.

 

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you and with my pea brain it probably won’t be the last time.

I guess if you look long and hard enough you might find a type of “Creationism” that I might agree with but the problem comes when you call yourself a “Creationist”, then it’s a little like calling yourself a “Christian”, people immediately assume that you believe all sorts of weird things that the Bible doesn’t support. I like to say that I agree with what the Bible says and leave at that and not worry about what I believe is called or who else might agree with me.

As for the young earth theory, the Bible does not say how old the Earth or the Universe is and if God wanted to make the Earth and Universe yesterday, he certainly has the power and ability to do so and to make it look like they’ve been around for billions of years, I just don’t think he did.

As for Evolutionary creation, from what I’ve read in the Bible, it just doesn’t seem to be what the Bible is saying.

 

Shoot, I was really lookin' forward to it!

 

Yeah, I agree with the baggage surrounding the term "Creationist", but wouldn't refusing to use it enforce the false dichotomy of Creation or Evolution?

Honestly, if you call yourself a Progressive Creationist, Gap Creationist, or something like that you'll get a chance to educate people. I use the term Creationist to refer to myself just so I can "mythbust".

I dunno, the Bible doesn't really have much to say on the subject IMO. What I mean is that besides from the Creation Myth in Genesis 1-2 there are few references to origins. There are however references to "The Creation Declaring the Glory of God" which I see no problem with, but modern science can allow us to reinterpret scripture. I do accept Scripture as capital T-truth on matters of spirituality and morals and ethics, historical and scientific concordism are fallacies IMO. Through the use of science, experts have devised a good theory of oigins and development of life on earth. Our new understanding of where a more literal interpretation of Scripture fails can allow us to reinterpret it without changing its essential truths.

 

lookin' forward to it? Shoot, I was there and it wasn't all that interesting!

But if you want I'll shoot you a copy when I get it done and shoot Indy Hippy his copy.

 

I have more than I handle, myth busting what people think the Bible says and what they think a “Christian” is, without taking on “Creationism” as well.

As for the Bible saying very little about our origins, in the grand scheme of things it’s not very important, now is it. The Bible tends to spend more time on the more important things and less on these minor things.

Now for your calling it the Creation Myth, Jesus himself didn’t seem to think of it that way, in fact he seemed to speak of it as if it was something that really happened. Should we believe Jesus in this matter?

 

everybody knows jesus was a jew..man doesnt anyone know what that means anymore..

 

Whatever you're comfortable with, man. I didn't mean to be nosy, just havin' fun. You're one of the regulars, with a good mind, and in my book, a colorful character (no insult intended), which is why I find you interesting.