No he isnt.

Jesus is said to be the son of god not the son of Christ.

Christ being the translation to English from the Greek word christos (english spelling) equivalent to the jewish word for messiah.

He didnt proclaim himself as such either, in fact all of his teachings are what would have been seen as traditional Judaism and he followed with Jewish traditions and religious practices so surely those following him should also adopt the jewish religion.

It is scary to think that any politician would say they believe in magical powers

Q

How did we get life a started in the first place? - All experiments with best methodology and equipment have failed to create life. Some of the evidence points to an early atmosphere that was oxidising. Hint, Oxygen is what you don't want when forming complex compounds on the basis that if it is present it the chemicals will be more likely to form simpler oxides.

How are changes supposed to occur over time, when the mechanism proposed, genetic mutation is actually an error in copying. I have seen reference to good mutations, yet in nature we have yet to documents one.

Note: The example given in the video about bacterial resistance to antibiotic being an example of evolution is an old chestnut here. Bacterial resistance is caused by the interchange of plasmids

How did we get life a started in the first place?

It was a Lucky Dip
As the Universe broke up
and some mixes produced fish.

There is No God.

Being a Christian and believing in evolution does not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. The bible is a collection of writings from about 40 contributors, 30 in the Old Testament, and 10 in the New. The accounts in the Old Testament date from the earliest times and were originally transmitted orally, until over time they were written down and recognised by the Hewbrews as a mandate from God. Therefore, there is clearly a hell of a lot of room for misinterpretation, embellishment and pure fabrication. In particular in the Book of Genesis a single "day" could just as easily be a metaphor for thousands or even millions of years. Furthermore, the concept of "time" in the Old Testament may not be the same as that we have now, which would explain why some Old Testament characters are reputed to have lived for almost a thousand years!

The problem with that exegesis is that the issue is not with Genesis but with Exodus 20:11, which seems to tie down the days of creation to literal 24 hour days.

But that is my point: the bible is open to interpretation - that is precisely why there are so many different denominations of christianity based on this one book. Each denomination has cherry picked or rejected certain aspects of the bible, or interpreted it differently from another denomination. Furthermore the passage you have cited from Exodus lends no extra credibility to the belief that a day in biblical terms is 24 hours.

Also the written down version is based on oral tradition, and it is entirely likely that stories that have been handed down through hundreds of years will have been corrupted in the process. There is no doubt that certain events in the Old Testament are common to many religions other than christianity, for example the Great Flood which is chronicled in the Torah and the Qu'ran and is mentioned in other Eastern religions such as Sikhism, which lends credibility to the fact that at least some of the stories in the Bible are based on factual events. The account in the bible that the flood covered the face of the earth should not be taken literally since, at the time that the account was written, who knows what area ancient civilisations believed constituted the "face of the earth"?

In the Exodus piece the argument goes that God created the world in six literal days, and flags this in Exodus to set the pattern for the Jewish working week when he gives the regulations on observing the Sabbath.

As for the Flood, I would also like to bring in the Babylonian Flood tablets to show that there seems to be a collective memory in the human race of a massive flood.

Of course there are some that say that this is a memory of the filling in of the Black Sea when sea levels rose.

It is still just that, an "argument" - a matter of interpretation or belief of what constitutes "a day". The oral stories handed down through the centuries were vulnerable to corruption,superstition, embellishment, personal beliefs etc, and at the end of the day it is a matter of pure faith whether you believe God created the world in seven days, or seven millennia, or whether you believe anything in the bible at all! You say, yourself, that the Jews took the "days" in Exodus as literal 24 hour days in order to establish a pattern for the working week, and observation of the day of rest - the sabbath. This is equally true of the Christian belief in a 7 day week with a rest day on Sunday. This is a belief rooted in blind faith and literal interpretation of certain parts of the bible, other parts of which the Jews choose to ignore or dismiss, as do Christians!

Jesus had no problem believing in the Biblical account of creation. Are you telling me the messiah couldn't read his own autobiography right?

I think you'll find the New Testament is NOT Jesus's autobiography! It was written by around 10 different contributors, none of whom was Jesus himself!

What do you know, the famous angus58 ignore list is made up after all.

When did I say the New Testament was his autobiography? The creation story happens in the Old Testament. Regardless of his questionable divinity it is common knowledge that Jesus was a practicing Jew who studied the torah. And some believe he was God. The same God who inspired and/or directly wrote more or less the Old Testament.

Either way given who he was and the time he existed it is highly, highly unlikely Jesus believed in anything but the biblical account of creation.

This doesn't matter to some of his followers of course who still want their evolution cake with Jesus sprinkles.

Why don't you actually read what YOU wrote previously? You stated that the New Testament was Jesus's AUTOBIOGRAPHY when in fact it is NOT. (have to admit though, that did give me a good laugh:joker: I had visions of him book signing in Waterstones). You then used that as a reason to assert that he must then have believed the stories in the Old Testament. I responded by pointing out that Jesus is written ABOUT in the New Testament, and has no authorship of anything in it - in other words they are just stories and anecdotes from a load of OTHER people, they could just be allegorical stories in fact. We have no definitive evidence what Jesus actually believed or thought, only OTHER PEOPLE'S opinions and views.

Therefore, my original argument still stands, that the bible is not to be trusted or relied on as a definitive and true account of ANYTHING since it is based on oral traditions handed down and written down by fallible human beings, no doubt with their own agenda and therefore susceptible to corruption, embellishment, misinterprations, factual inaccuracies etc. However, if people choose to believe those bits of the bible that it suits them to, that's fine by me. People can believe what the hell they like. Personally, I don't believe any of it.

In your haste and desire to try and get some childish digs in at me you have assumed that I am a Christian who believes in the bible whereas I am not. Sadly as with most of your foolish assumptions you are wide off the mark. I was simply debating from the devil's advocate point of view, or are you not familiar with that style of debate? What on earth are they teaching kids these days? A rhetorical question, as clearly not much.

Back on topic, my point was that just because you are a christian does not necessarily mean you can't believe in evolution (which to me is the option which offers the most scientific and provable evidence). Or did that point escape you altogether:pat: There, now I can safely put you back on ignore - I was right about you the first time:xyxwave:

You're batshit insane. That's my assertion. I never said you were a Christian. I know you're not a Christian. I have seen your religious stance posted many times before. Furthermore none of the content of my post calls you out as a Christian. Maybe you should have taken these things into consideration before once again launching into a hysterical tirade. It's frighteningly unlikely that the historical Jesus believed in anything other the Torah.

Although I don't know why I'm saying this. You obviously cannot read this message considering you've pretended to put me back on your pretend ignore list.

True enough, but the funny thing is the Jewish community more or less accepted Darwin's theory of evolution overnight compared to the more dogmatic Christian community who hold to Creationist superstition and still keep it going today. Although one notable and bizarre exception is the shrieking Daily Mail harpie Melanie Phillips.

There are as many enlightened Christians as there are enlightened Jews who have no problem reconciling their faith with evolutionary theory. There are equally as many dogmatic Jews as there are dogmatic Christians who believe the absolute word of the Torah and Bible respectively. All are equally entitled to their beliefs.

Well the Church of England more or less accepts evolutionary theory now, but it's a relatively recent development. In fact it was only three years ago that they apologised for rejecting Darwin's theory of evolution and we all know what a fuss they made when the Origin of the Species was first published. With the Jewish community it has always been a non-issue, which is what makes Melanie Phillips such an anomaly. Her dislike of science is something you'd expect from a born-again Christian. For instance, she still believes there is a serious link between Autistic Spectrum Disorder and the MMR vaccine even today after the publication responsible for the study retracted their findings after the General Medical Council declared the research dishonest.

Some people get so entrenched into a position, they find it impossible to accept any evidence that contradicts their own beliefs. There's not much you can do about them except let them get on with it. They don't call it blind faith for nothing.

Yes there are quite a few members on this forum who have experienced the "entrenched mentality" of which you speak.

Brings a quote from old JC to mind. "Physician, heal thyself".

Oooh, the google, copy & paste merchant deigning to put in his twopennorth:joker: Don't you mean JC is purported to have said those words by his script writers? Get it right man.:pat:

Yeah... purported..... whatever. Its still a quote and still very valid.

Still doesnt change the fact you are close minded and bigotted. You spout off claiming your opinion is factually correct when more often than not its merely the biased ramblings of someone who is so wrapped up in their own little hate filled world that they wouldnt recognise the merits of someone else's comments.

Keep taking the tablets, lassie.