Things Jesus never said, No. 1

Things Jesus Never Said

“So, did Jesus believe in a six-day creation and a literal Adam? We don’t know. He simply did not fully address the question of how we are to interpret Genesis, or if he did, the record is not preserved. And I believe there’s a reason for that: It’s not important. That’s right, despite Ken Ham’s righteous declarations to the contrary, Jesus very clearly does not seem to think a literal view of Genesis is necessary to live a godly life according to his teachings. If he thought otherwise, then he would have said so.”

Read more: http://wp.me/p3nc5d-ok.

Creative Commons License
This work by godofevolution.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

  • Mike

    You show a lack of understanding of God and His Word. Jesus did say many things in The Old Testament as the tine God.

    • Hey Mike! Thanks for the comment! First of all, I do hope you understand that this picture is a humorous meme, not intended to make a serious point. That’s why it’s categorized under “Humor” and “Memes.” I agree that Jesus is the preexistent, immanent Word of God, through which was made everything that has been made. Beyond this, I didn’t really understand your assertion that I “show a lack of understanding of God and His Word,” so if your comment still applies and you’d like to clarify, I’d be happy to hear what you have to say. Thanks.

  • Sojourning Whyman

    Logical Fallacy: Argument from silence. to be consistent one could point out that He also didn’t say: “Spiritualize Genesis (or any part of scripture that you don’t like/understand) to fit in with the current school of thought- until that understanding becomes obsolete, in which case the rinse and repeat”

    I

    • The difference is that I don’t claim one’s views of Genesis are vitally important to being a “true Christian.” So the fact that Jesus never clearly instructed his followers to take a certain strict interpretation of the text is perfectly in line with my view. YECs, on the other hand, claim that a literal view of Genesis is extremely important — even the key to understanding the whole Bible and the Christian faith. Which makes Jesus’ complete and utter silence on the topic both notable and perplexing.

      • RightWingPooFlinger

        He did, however, TEACH FROM IT. He spoke of Adam and Eve, and of Noah; as literal, historical people. Did you somehow miss that? You speak as if Christ was liar. If you think that, you are NOT Christian. Argue as you wish, that is a fact.

        • In no way do I believe Christ was a liar. I do, however, believe you have seriously misconstrued and misunderstood his very few recorded references to Genesis.

          • RightWingPooFlinger

            it’s pretty simple. If you want to argue that He didn’t say those things, then knock yourself out. But don’t pretend you can have it both ways.

          • Yes, and Jesus also said the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world, and it grows into the largest of all garden plants, neither of which is true if you misinterpret his words by attempting to derive from them scientific, rather than theological, truth.

            Jesus never directly referred to Adam or Eve. He vaguely referenced them on one occasion in which he was not talking about creation at all, but making a purely theological point about divorce and God’s intentions for marriage. That’s hardly “speaking of Adam and Eve … as literal, historical people.” As for Noah, he mentioned him by name once. If I mention the name Bruce Wayne, are you going to assume that I believe Batman is real?

          • RightWingPooFlinger

            I just can’t help you, bro. You see what you want to see. Even presented with the text, you somehow find reasons to reject it. You try to divide Scripture against itself to suit your own sin. Go ahead, listen to that which your ears itch to hear.

          • I never expected you to be able to “help” me, but if I ever need some assistance in conservative poo flinging, I know just who to call.

  • Dean Finch

    Traditional Judaism has always accepted a young earth. I do believe that everyone believed in a young earth at the time. Now if the earth was really billions of years old (which would contradict the Bible by the way), I’m sure Jesus would have said something if it was important.

    Exodus 20:8-11
    “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”

    • Traditional Judaism has always accepted a young earth.

      Traditional Judaism and orthodox Christianity had always accepted the geocentric universe before Copernicus and Galileo came along. Just because something is traditional doesn’t mean it’s right. However, it’s certainly not true that traditional Judaism has always interpreted the Genesis creation accounts literally. Philo of Alexandria (first century) interpreted them allegorically and wrote that it would be wrong to believe creation took place in six literal days.

      Now if the earth was really billions of years old (which would contradict the Bible by the way),

      Sorry, where does the Bible say that the earth is not billions of years old? My Bible must be missing something, because it says nothing like that.

      Now if the earth was really billions of years old, I’m sure Jesus would have said something if it was important.

      I agree. So, obviously, it’s not important, and the millions of dollars Christians donate every year to modern science is a ludicrous waste of time and money.

      Exodus 20:8-11

      “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”

      http://www.godofevolution.com/the-strongest-biblical-evidence-for-young-earth-creationism-refuted/

  • Sojourning Whyman

    The rebuttal/ refutation:

    “The standard secular timeline, from an alleged ‘big bang’ some 15 billion years ago to now, is accepted by most people in the evangelical Christian world, even though many would deny evolution. Some would even say that to dispute billions of years is to place an unnecessary stumbling block in the way of any scientifically-minded potential converts.

    This is in contrast to the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator made flesh, as well as several of the biblical authors, which makes it plain that this is wrong—people were there from the beginning of creation. But in the evolutionary timeline, people have only been around for one or two million years—this puts them toward the end of the timeline. This means that He is most definitely claiming that the world cannot be billions of years old..

    …Today, the vast majority of Christians in not only secular academia, but also theological institutions, Bible colleges, etc. believe—and many teach—that the secular ‘billions of years’ is fact. When one tries to find out how they deal with these repeated references, responses vary. But the ‘explaining away’ that takes place (whenever the problem is not simply ignored) invariably makes it plain that the authority being deferred to is not the Word of God, but rather current secular opinion.”

    Read more here: http://creation.com/jesus-age-earth

    See also: http://creation.com/Did-god-create-over-billions-of-years

    And: http://creation.com/genesis-heavenly-things

    • One could just as legitimately state that Jesus never said (not even once) “Read Genesis figuratively”

      No, but since the vast majority of his theological and moral teachings were conveyed through figurative stories and metaphor, he didn’t seem to have much of a problem with the use of such devices, did he? And again, the difference is that I don’t claim one’s views of Genesis are vitally important to being a “true Christian.” So the fact that Jesus never clearly instructed his followers to take a certain strict interpretation of the text is perfectly in line with my view. YECs, on the other hand, claim that a literal view of Genesis is extremely important — even the key to understanding the whole Bible and the Christian faith. Which makes Jesus’ complete and utter silence on the topic both notable and perplexing.

      Thanks for the quote from creation.com, but I prefer to get my understanding of the Christian faith from the Bible, not from a group of people who profit off a particular, narrowly focused view of the Bible. If you can find any verses from Jesus’ actual words that you believe clearly teach the idea that the earth is young, I’ll be happy to respond to them.

    • Joedaddy

      Gods timeline and man’s is two different things. Thousands or maybe millions or maybe billions of man’s days pass and is only one of the spiritual world days. I’m not saying the world isn’t really old but you also know that carbon dating is not nearly am exact science right? There are many things that contaminate the samples. A few years ago I saw where a newly formed rock from a volcano tested as millions of years old. Obviously a follie. Our understanding of God and his timeline is like a worm trying to understand man. We can’t comprehend it. To think you can trys to put you on Gods level and that’s a HUGE mistake.

      • Hey Joedaddy, I would encourage you to do some real reading on radiometric dating from a non-young-earth-creationist source. Here’s a good primer, from a Christian scientist who specializes in this field: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens2002.pdf. It actually is an exact science, or at least as nearly so as anything in science could be. Sure, contamination is possible, but part of the dating process is a specific test that demonstrates whether the sample is contaminated or not.

        Also, the oft-repeated claim about volcanic rock being dated to millions of years old is basically the young-earth creationist equivalent of an old wives’ tale. In a nutshell, back in 1986, a young-earther used the wrong test, improperly, on a particular sample, and he got dates that were all over the place, which he claimed as evidence that radiometric dating doesn’t work. Well, no, the reason the dates were all over the place is because he screwed up the tests. He didn’t prove radiometric dating doesn’t work; he just proved he had no idea what he was doing. But nevertheless, his claims would be parroted by YECs for the next 30 years as “proof” radiometric dating is basically guesswork.

  • RightWingPooFlinger

    you’re joking, right? Christ appealed to Genesis multiple times. He taught with His authority from Scripture. But I don’t expect the hateful and soulless to grasp that simple fact.

    • you’re joking, right?

      That is usually the point of a meme. But I don’t expect the overly sensitive and humorless to grasp that simple fact.

      • RightWingPooFlinger

        and I don’t expect a rejectionist to remember that as Christians, we are called to defend the faith. That must have been just allegory in your church as well.

        • Defending the Christian faith is not the same thing as defending the crazy, unscientific nonsense that young-earth creationism proponents come up with. In fact, I’d argue the two are diametrically opposed.

          • RightWingPooFlinger

            you’d argue a lot of silly ideas. Knock yourself out.

          • Nothing I’ve ever said is as “silly” as saying defending the Christian faith is the same as defending the ridiculous notion that the universe is less than 10,000 years old.