Jesus was a young earth creationist

Thank you for your rebuttals, Con.Con:Premise 1: Early Jewish and Christian thought interpreted Genesis 1-3 as literal.Premise 2: Jesus did not reject this interpretation.Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus held a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3.This is essentially a fair representation of what I was saying, but I would like to try to explain my position better.Premise 1: Early Jewish and Christian thought interpreted Genesis 1-3 as literal.Premise 2: Early Jewish thought had incorrect interpretations of Scripture.Premise 3: Jesus corrected the incorrect interpretations (i.e. the resurrection, marriage in heaven, etc.)Premise 4: Jesus did not correct or offer new explanations to Genesis.Conclusion: It is more likely that Jesus' interpretation of Genesis 1-3 was in agreement with early Jewish and Christian thought.This deductive argument is not one from ignorance. It argues that Jesus more than likely was consistent with the thought of his fellow Jews. On the other hand, since nowhere does Jesus reject the literal interpretation, it is an argument from ignorance to say that His thought was not consistent with his fellow Jews.Con argues that Josephus explains how Moses uses philosophical and allegorical language in Genesis. This does not go against a literal understanding of Genesis 1-3. Rather, this is how most of the Old Testament is written. God acts within human history, and this has philosophical implications. For example, Eve is created from Adam's rib. This is regarded as literally true but also has the philosophical (or additional allegorical) element as showing that (as shown in the new Testament) man is the head of the woman, and the head of man is Christ. This can also be shown by the Hellenized Jew Philo, who treats the Scriptures as literal history but also uses them to explain philosophical implications. (1) I will concede that Philo did also write that God could have brought everything into a single moment of creation (and we should note that Philo came before Augustine, so Augustine "borrowed" this idea from Philo), yet he still described Adam as the first man and the beginning of creation. I am not advocating that Philo's interpretations are inspired, nor were they the most prominent of Jewish though. But even though these interpretations shorten the 6 days of creation to a single moment, Augustine and Philo would still be considered Young Earth Creationists, which is what this debate is centered around. To further show my point, Origen was another early Christian who interpreted scriptures much more allegorical than most, yet he still is quoted as saying, "After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated" (2)Con:"However, it is important to point out that the genealogies Pro refers to were not a part of the actual teachings of Jesus, nor has Pro demonstrated that Jesus actually referred to them anywhere in his teachings."This is completely true; Jesus never refers to the genealogies. But Con must concede that if the Gospels contain error (as in a falseness in the case of the genealogies), then we must cast doubt on the trustworthiness of any of the accounts of Jesus in the Gosples, and then neither of us can make a case in this debate as the true words of Jesus can never be known. However, I argue that the Gospels are an accurate and reliable account of Jesus history and lineage. If Con accepts the lineage, he must concede that Scripture teaches that Adam lived around 6000 years ago. If he denies the lineage contained in Luke, he must show how he can justify trusting in any of the Gospels if he doubts the credibility of one. (This is not impossible, because if he rejects Luke, even though he would also have to doubt Matthew and Mark as they probably arrived from the same source document, he may argue that only John is a credible source for the historical narrative of Jesus. If this is so, I look forward to seeing this argument).Con:"Furthermore, even under a young earth creationist perspective Jesus cannot actually be referring to the very beginning described in Genesis 1:1, since per this perspective, Adam and Eve came six days later. Jesus was obviously referring to the beginning and creation of mankind, and this holds no problem for a non-literal reading of the creation account."I argue that when Jesus refers to the beginning of creation, it refers to the entire six days of creation. This is consistent with Genesis:Genesis 2:4 "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."(My opponent may throw in an argument here, by arguing that since Genesis 2:4 states "in the day that the Lord...", then this may disprove a literal six day interpretation of Creation. Even if this is true, it either shortens all of creation so a single day or event, which is only consistent with a Young Earth Creation paradigm.I still argue that Mark 10:6 does not make sense under the Theistic Evolutionary paradigm, because men and women were never created; instead, the evovled over time.I still conclude that it is more likely that Jesus held to the general thouht of his day and age, and He did nothing to show any inconsistency with that, so any argument with Jesus not being a young earth creationist is one that is out of ignorance, or one that is made without any evidence. Also, even if he can prove that the traditional interpretation is not a literal six days, I have shown that the alternative was creation in a single moment, which still only fits Young Earth Creationsim.(1) http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com...(2) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... (Chapter XIX)