reconciliations of the divinity of Christ w/ a non-literal reading of Genesis

[© Tweed the Younger]

go

[asexual trans victimologist]

The image of the Creator is a reference to rational/spiritual/emotional life generally rather than human biology specifically.

Off the top of my head. I'm sure I'd explain this more clearly and maybe nuance it more if I weren't in the middle of something right now and had more time to think about it.

[Return of the Mack]

go

Depends on what you mean by "non-literal".  If by "literal" you're referring to defining each word by its primary meaning, regardless of context and/or alternative definitions, then Genesis is going to fall apart internally, before being compared with Christ's nature.

But, if by "non-literal" you mean viewing Genesis as simply an analogy (and not as a historical account with deeply embedded allegorical meanings), then you're going to make a mockery out of the entire Bible, because the rest of the Bible, including Jesus’ comments, treat it as an historical account.

Both of the above approaches (being too literal, or being too non-literal) are extreme and lead to irreconcilable contradictions, either internally or holistically.

[Harry]

Jesus didn't realize the earth is billions of years old, since humanity was hundreds of years from making that discovery in Jesus's time. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was omniscient about then-undiscovered scientific facts.

[Return of the Mack]

Jesus didn't realize the earth is billions of years old, since humanity was hundreds of years from making that discovery in Jesus's time. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was omniscient about then-undiscovered scientific facts.

If Jesus was the creator of the universe, don't you think he (God) knows about the laws that govern the universe, as Job 38:33 points out?  What undiscovered scientific facts are not already known by God?

[asexual trans victimologist]

Jesus didn't realize the earth is billions of years old, since humanity was hundreds of years from making that discovery in Jesus's time. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was omniscient about then-undiscovered scientific facts.

If Jesus was the creator of the universe, don't you think he (God) knows about the laws that govern the universe, as Job 38:33 points out?  What undiscovered scientific facts are not already known by God?

You're venturing into the territory of how precisely Christ's divine nature and His human nature interact, here.

[shua]

"In the beginning was the Word,"  "by him all things were created" - leaves a lot of room for the when and the how.  Maybe it was Christ who gave us that burst of energy and entropy in space that created time.   
Was Christ descended from primates?  It's maybe not the most pleasant thought, but the incarnation is no less possible in that case. If we are not just human but also hominid, then Christ partakes in that also, and bestows divine grace to it.

[afleitch]

"In the beginning was the Word,"  "by him all things were created" - leaves a lot of room for the when and the how.  Maybe it was Christ who gave us that burst of energy and entropy in space that created time.   
Was Christ descended from primates?  It's maybe not the most pleasant thought, but the incarnation is no less possible in that case. If we are not just human but also hominid, then Christ partakes in that also, and bestows divine grace to it.

It's not a matter of 'if'; we are.

[shua]

"In the beginning was the Word,"  "by him all things were created" - leaves a lot of room for the when and the how.  Maybe it was Christ who gave us that burst of energy and entropy in space that created time.   
Was Christ descended from primates?  It's maybe not the most pleasant thought, but the incarnation is no less possible in that case. If we are not just human but also hominid, then Christ partakes in that also, and bestows divine grace to it.

It's not a matter of 'if'; we are.

Generally speaking, dialectic is a mode of thought, or a philosophic medium, through which contradiction becomes a starting point (rather than a dead end) for contemplation.

http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/dialectic.htm

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In Romans, Paul interpreted the account of Adam and Eve's fall as literal.  Since Paul had been a Pharisee and thus probably knew the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) better than anyone else, I would trust that it was literal.  Then agaim, he could have made a mistake, though I highly doubt it.  As for creation, my church mostly believes that Gd created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh day.  I don't think they were necessarily literal "days", but I think God could have done it that way of He wanted to (and maybe did.)