Jesus was a young earth creationist

I apologize for forfeiting the previous round. I'll begin by addressing the points Pro made, and then present a case of my own Pro has given us two main arguments for affirming the resolution. First, he has made an argument from the common doctrines and interpretations of Jesus' time. I could probably construct this argument in a syllogism: 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. I have three responses. First, the conclusion does not follow with certainty from the premises. If the premises are correct, they establish that Jesus probably was a young earth creationist, but there could certainly be aspects of Jesus' teaching which were not included in the gospels. See for example, John 21:25 [1]: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Extrapolating from a negative ("Jesus did not reject this interpretation") will not quite reach the desired conclusion. Second, a literal interpretation of Genesis was not held as universally as Pro has indicated. For example, let us take a look at a passage from Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, to which Pro graciously provided a link [2]. "Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over (1) begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul." According to information in the first endnote, "Since Josephus, in his Preface, sect. 4, says that Moses wrote some things enigmatically, some allegorically, and the rest in plain words, since in his account of the first chapter of Genesis, and the first three verses of the second, he gives us no hints of any mystery at all; but when he here comes to ver. 4, etc. he says that Moses, after the seventh day was over, began to talk philosophically; it is not very improbable that he understood the rest of the second and the third chapters in some enigmatical, or allegorical, or philosophical sense. The change of the name of God just at this place, from Elohim to Jehovah Elohim, from God to Lord God, in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint, does also not a little favor some such change in the narration or construction. " It seems quite possible that Josephus believed a large portion of Genesis 1-3 to be enigmatical, allegorical, or philosophical, but not literal. St. Augustine also took a less than literal interpretation of the creation account. According to Christianity Today, Augustine believed that "God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of a dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds, which will grow and develop at the right time. Using more technical language, Augustine asks his readers to think of the created order as containing divinely embedded causalities that emerge or evolve at a later stage" [3]. Third Jesus often rejected common interpretations of scripture, such as common understandings of teachings regarding the sabbath (Mark 2:27-3:4). For these reasons, I think we cannot simply assume that Jesus favored a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. We must look at what he actually said about it. For his second point, Pro has included three passages in which Jesus speaks about creation. First, Luke 11:50-51. Pro argues that "Jesus puts the first muder with Abel. If the Theory of Evolution be true, and there be millions of years before Adam and Abel (who has already been dated at 4000 years before Jesus), then there was murder before Abel. Jesus could not have believed in billions of years." 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. The second passage is Mark 10:6. Contrary to Pro's claim, Jesus does not actually mention Adam and Eve. 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. Finally, regarding Matthew 24:37-38, this is a reference to Genesis 6, and does not prove that Jesus believed Genesis 1-3 to be literal, especially since Jesus does not comment on whether the flood was global or local, or go into any kind of detailed historical analysis which would tell us whether his teachings regarding the flood logically required him to be a young earth creationist. I will make two additional points, comprising a case against the resolution. Point 1: Jesus referred to Genesis only to make doctrinal, and not historical or scientific claims. Luke 11:50-51 is part of a larger passage in which Jesus is condemning the pharisees the scribes and pharisees for their hypocrisy (verse 44), not making historical or scientific claims (Luke 11:39-52). Mark 10:6 is part of a passage in which Jesus makes doctrinal points about divorce and adultery. Again, the creation account is not the central issue (Mark 10:1-9). Matthew 24:37-38 is part of a passage in which Jesus prophesies about the future (Matthew 24:4-51). The point is that Jesus never explicitly gave his view on the proper interpretation of Genesis. He only mentioned passage from Genesis in passing when they provided relevant support to his doctrines. There is no passage in which Jesus lays down the proper way of interpreting the creation account. Point 2: Those doctrinal points still make sense if a young earth creationist perspective is rejected. Even if Jesus was a theistic evolutionist, or an old earth creationist, etc., the points he was making in the three passages which Pro and I are debating still make sense. He was still perfectly right to condemn the hypocrisy of the scribes and pharisees, divorce was still contrary to God's plan (since the fact that he created mankind male and female holds regardless of how long it took), etc. I conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that Jesus was a young-earth creationist. He never clearly spoke on the issue, and the passages in which he referred to Genesis 1-3 in passing still make good sense on a theistic evolutionist or old earth creationist perspective. I look forward to hearing Pro's rebuttal. [1] All scripture quotations are from the King James Version [2] http://www.sacred-texts.com... [3] http://www.christianitytoday.com...