If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[DesertBerean]

Many "moderate" and even some self-identified "conservative" Christians here on TW seem to be very comfortable with the theory of evolution and the natural selection of species. These same conservative/moderate Christians also believe that human beings are "sinners" who are in need of a savior. Are these two beliefs compatible? Here's the question:

"If human beings are evolved from lower life forms, why do we need a Savior? If we and all other animals on earth have evolved from the same primordial slime, why do we humans need a Savior but the great apes, cows, and chickens do not?"

If one exists who can "save" us, sure! But the crux of our discussion is whether or not good evidence exists to suggest that such a supernatural entity exists.

You moved the goalposts! Now we have to prove that a supernatural entity exists, not why we need such a being.

[psstein]

Stein, I have a question for you. You have indicated that you believe that the following events as recorded in the Gospels are most likely not historical:

---the guards at the Tomb
---the dead saints roaming the streets of Jerusalem.
---Jesus' prophecy that he would rise from the dead after three days and three nights in the grave.
---the three hour eclipse of the sun.

How does this fit into your belief that the original "Jesus Story" was closely guarded for accuracy from the very beginning? In other words, if these embellishments made it into the Gospels, why couldn't other embellishments such as an empty rock-hewn tomb and the detailed appearance stories have also made it into the Gospels without eyewitnesses raising holy "hell" that additions/embellishments had crept into the story?

The guards at the tomb were meant to refute the Jewish polemic that Jesus' body had been stolen. I'm not arguing that the tradition was rigidly controlled, but I'm also not supporting the Bultmannian/Jesus Seminar idea that the tradition basically ran amok, and that massive amounts of discourse were made up. I see most of the parables as authentic. In short, I'm staking out the middle ground between "everything was controlled" and "nothing was controlled."

To answer the rest of your questions, I'm citing from Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Many differences, especially in sayings material, must be deliberate interpretative alterations or additions, by which a tradent sought to explain or to adapt the teaching when the Post-Easter situation seemed to require this. Such changes, it should be noted, are entirely compatible with word-for-word memorization of, for example, aphorisms of Jesus... Such changes would be quite compatible with a formal process of transmission, since it would be authorized tradents who, from their own familiarity with the tradition, would be competent to make such changes (286).

Basically, Bauckham's argument (that I think has some merit) is that the issues that show up are results of adapting the narratives for the purposes of the times. For example, the Gospel of Matthew was likely written for Jewish Christian communities. Perhaps the Jews were claiming that someone had stolen Jesus' body. The dead saints walking around could be an attempt to show that Jesus is (as the Apostle Paul remarked) the first fruits of the Resurrection.

[Gary]

You moved the goalposts! Now we have to prove that a supernatural entity exists, not why we need such a being.

Ok, now I see your point.

Yes, if God will rescue use from our misery in this life, then lets appeal to him for help as our "rescuer". That seems like a no-brainer. And let's also ask him to rescue our primate cousins, the great apes, who are also suffering horribly due to poaching and infringements by farmers on their habitat.

But my question involved the term "Savior" which I assumed everyone would agree means someone who serves as a "sacrificial lamb" who undergoes suffering in an act of atonement for the wrong doings of human kind, to attain eternal life on our behalf. I don't see why we need a savior if the "fall" in the Garden did not occur, or are you claiming that the Fall did occur, just not in the way that the Book of Genesis describes it. The Book of Genesis states that there was no death prior to the Fall. Evolution states that prior to the arrival of homo sapiens, death had been occurring for millions of years.

Please clarify.

[Gary]

The guards at the tomb were meant to refute the Jewish polemic that Jesus' body had been stolen. I'm not arguing that the tradition was rigidly controlled, but I'm also not supporting the Bultmannian/Jesus Seminar idea that the tradition basically ran amok, and that massive amounts of discourse were made up. I see most of the parables as authentic. In short, I'm staking out the middle ground between "everything was controlled" and "nothing was controlled."

To answer the rest of your questions, I'm citing from Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.



Basically, Bauckham's argument (that I think has some merit) is that the issues that show up are results of adapting the narratives for the purposes of the times. For example, the Gospel of Matthew was likely written for Jewish Christian communities. Perhaps the Jews were claiming that someone had stolen Jesus' body. The dead saints walking around could be an attempt to show that Jesus is (as the Apostle Paul remarked) the first fruits of the Resurrection.

So what you are saying is that the various authors of the Gospels added some details to the "Jesus Story" that weren't historically factual but were pertinent to the theological issues enveloping the Christian community at the time. The authors did not make up these details to deceive anyone. The eyewitnesses (if they were still alive) accepted these "theological additions" because they knew that the purpose of the Gospels was not for the purpose of writing a history book but for the purpose of promoting the spread of the Gospel and strengthening the faith of the members of the community who knew that these details were theological fiction.

Do I have that correct?

If so, isn't it possible that the same thinking might have been involved in adding a non-historical trial in front of Pilate, a non-historical "Joseph of Arimathea", a non-historical Empty Tomb, and non-historical appearances in Upper Rooms and seashores? Again, any remaining eyewitnesses would have accepted these non-historical details too for what they were: theological constructions, not claims of historical facts.

[DesertBerean]

Ok, now I see your point.

Yes, if God will rescue use from our misery in this life, then lets appeal to him for help as our "rescuer". That seems like a no-brainer. And let's also ask him to rescue our primate cousins, the great apes, who are also suffering horribly due to poaching and infringements by farmers on their habitat.

But my question involved the term "Savior" which I assumed everyone would agree means someone who serves as a "sacrificial lamb" who undergoes suffering in an act of atonement for the wrong doings of human kind, to attain eternal life on our behalf. I don't see why we need a savior if the "fall" in the Garden did not occur, or are you claiming that the Fall did occur, just not in the way that the Book of Genesis describes it. The Book of Genesis states that there was no death prior to the Fall. Evolution states that prior to the arrival of homo sapiens, death had been occurring for millions of years.

Please clarify.

The Fall was because of the act of disobedience that Adam and Eve committed. They brought on themselves and their generations the consequences of their disobedience. We don't know how long Adam and Eve lived before they fell, but the record suggest it wasn't long. So the fall wasn't long after the beginning. As for why us and not the animals as well, the Scriptures state the animals were made for us, while we were made for God, and in HIS image.

[Gary]

The Fall was because of the act of disobedience that Adam and Eve committed. They brought on themselves and their generations the consequences of their disobedience. We don't know how long Adam and Eve lived before they fell, but the record suggest it wasn't long. So the fall wasn't long after the beginning. As for why us and not the animals as well, the Scriptures state the animals were made for us, while we were made for God, and in HIS image.

Yes, but the Book of Genesis states that Death did not exist prior to the Fall. Evolution states that death has existed long before the arrival of homo sapiens (human beings). Both can't be true. Either the Genesis story is wrong or Evolution is wrong. Would you agree?

[KingsGambit]

Either the Genesis story is wrong or Evolution is wrong. Would you agree?

Those are two possible options, but a third is that "death" refers to spiritual death rather than physical death. This interpretation actually makes a lot of sense within the context of Genesis because the text doesn't seem to indicate that Adam and Eve literally died that very day.

[psstein]

So what you are saying is that the various authors of the Gospels added some details to the "Jesus Story" that weren't historically factual but were pertinent to the theological issues enveloping the Christian community at the time. The authors did not make up these details to deceive anyone. The eyewitnesses (if they were still alive) accepted these "theological additions" because they knew that the purpose of the Gospels was not for the purpose of writing a history book but for the purpose of promoting the spread of the Gospel and strengthening the faith of the members of the community who knew that these details were theological fiction.

Do I have that correct?

In essence, yes, though you're missing some of the fine distinctions I tried to make. These weren't really thought of as "fiction." Scholars have known for 150 years that the gospels don't just record the stories of Jesus. They also speak to the concerns of the Christian communities. For example, John 21 is an attempt to allay fears that Jesus isn't returning any time soon. Matthew 16:28 is another example of this- the community is being persecuted, but it shouldn't be concerned about persecution. Jesus is coming back soon and the world will be put to rights.

However, in general, these kind of things can also be attributed to how the material was spread in the first place- through preaching. Mark 13:14 states "let the reader understand," possibly an exhortation to explain something to the crowd. Generally, when you have an oral culture, stories vary, but the gist of the story remains the same.

If so, isn't it possible that the same thinking might have been involved in adding a non-historical trial in front of Pilate, a non-historical "Joseph of Arimathea", a non-historical Empty Tomb, and non-historical appearances in Upper Rooms and seashores? Again, any remaining eyewitnesses would have accepted these non-historical details too for what they were: theological constructions, not claims of historical facts.

The trial in front of Pilate is likely historical. Brown's Death of the Messiah and Meier's A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1 make a powerful case for its authenticity, though there are some stylized elements in the gospel narrative. As for the appearance stories, I disagree. The resurrection narratives seem to bespeak competing traditions. The Markan narrative excludes Peter from the rest of the disciples (maybe the Romans didn't like Peter). The Lukan narrative has Peter discovering the grave clothes. The Johannine narrative has a race between the Beloved Disciple and Peter in order to reach the tomb first.

I tend to think that Mark's ending is actually a result of the way Mark constructed his gospel, rather than lack of knowledge about any appearances. I can go into that in some more detail if you want.

[Gary]

In essence, yes, though you're missing some of the fine distinctions I tried to make. These weren't really thought of as "fiction." Scholars have known for 150 years that the gospels don't just record the stories of Jesus. They also speak to the concerns of the Christian communities. For example, John 21 is an attempt to allay fears that Jesus isn't returning any time soon. Matthew 16:28 is another example of this- the community is being persecuted, but it shouldn't be concerned about persecution. Jesus is coming back soon and the world will be put to rights.

However, in general, these kind of things can also be attributed to how the material was spread in the first place- through preaching. Mark 13:14 states "let the reader understand," possibly an exhortation to explain something to the crowd. Generally, when you have an oral culture, stories vary, but the gist of the story remains the same.



The trial in front of Pilate is likely historical. Brown's Death of the Messiah and Meier's A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1 make a powerful case for its authenticity, though there are some stylized elements in the gospel narrative. As for the appearance stories, I disagree. The resurrection narratives seem to bespeak competing traditions. The Markan narrative excludes Peter from the rest of the disciples (maybe the Romans didn't like Peter). The Lukan narrative has Peter discovering the grave clothes. The Johannine narrative has a race between the Beloved Disciple and Peter in order to reach the tomb first.

I tend to think that Mark's ending is actually a result of the way Mark constructed his gospel, rather than lack of knowledge about any appearances. I can go into that in some more detail if you want.

I think you misunderstood me. I am not denying the historicity of appearance claims. I accept that appearance claims developed very shortly after Jesus' death. What I am suggesting is that maybe the appearance stories, as told by the Gospel authors, are theological fictions. The purpose of these stories was to inspire early Christians to have faith in the resurrection of Jesus, not an attempt to rewrite history.

So isn't it possible that the "eyewitnesses" (if any where still alive in 70 AD when the first Gospel was written) read the Gospel of Mark, noticed that there were details in the story that they had never heard of before, but did not challenge the "inspiration" of these texts because they understood that the purpose of these books was not to teach first century history but to enrich the faith of believers and to encourage the spread of the Gospel?

"I tend to think that Mark's ending is actually a result of the way Mark constructed his gospel, rather than lack of knowledge about any appearances. I can go into that in some more detail if you want."

I agree that it would be very odd for Mark not to have believed in appearances. We have evidence from Paul that the Creed quoted in First Corinthians 15 was in use in the Church very early in the history of the Church and this list includes multiple appearances. So the absence of appearances in Mark is not proof that Mark had never heard of appearances. However, it is possible that Mark had never heard of the appearance stories as written by later authors of the three other gospels. Bottom line: we don't know what Mark believed about appearances.

But the Empty Tomb is a big issue. Would you agree that the Empty Tomb might have been a theological embellishment, either by "Mark" himself, or by a leader/group in the Church who was attempting to put more "meat on the bones" of the Christian resurrection claim?

[DesertBerean]

Yes, but the Book of Genesis states that Death did not exist prior to the Fall. Evolution states that death has existed long before the arrival of homo sapiens (human beings). Both can't be true. Either the Genesis story is wrong or Evolution is wrong. Would you agree?

My suggestion is Adam and Eve did not continue in their innocence for very long before their fall and the consequences, which includeddeath. I DID hear a suggestion that animals did die during this time before the Fall. Well, maybe...otherwise our first parents wouldn't understand the concept of death.

And KG is correct, spiritual death began there as well. Since A & E were made in the image of God, I suggest this had a serious impact on their nature, allowing sin to distort us at the very core and causing God to separate from their disobedient attitudes. I'm not fully read on this problem and I don't think anyone can really see the full answer.

And I still contend the issue of evolution has noting to do with our need for salvation.

[Gary]

My suggestion is Adam and Eve did not continue in their innocence for very long before their fall and the consequences, which includeddeath. I DID hear a suggestion that animals did die during this time before the Fall. Well, maybe...otherwise our first parents wouldn't understand the concept of death.

And KG is correct, spiritual death began there as well. Since A & E were made in the image of God, I suggest this had a serious impact on their nature, allowing sin to distort us at the very core and causing God to separate from their disobedient attitudes. I'm not fully read on this problem and I don't think anyone can really see the full answer.

And I still contend the issue of evolution has noting to do with our need for salvation.

Ok. So what you are saying is this:

---Evolution and the natural selection of species is true.
---Human beings are the result of a long process of natural selection, evolving from lower life forms over millions of years.
---God chose, for reasons known only to him, to intervene at one point in time in the process of natural selection, at a point in time when homo sapiens existed and selected two homo sapiens (a male and a female) which he then made in his image in their ongoing evolutionary development, and gave them souls, something that no other animal possessed.
---Shortly after giving these two homo sapiens souls, free will, and the ability to recognize moral right and wrong, unlike any other animal species on the planet, the homo sapiens chose to rebel against God, and therefore God decided that he needed to punish them with hardships in this life and eternal damnation (of some sort, which we will leave undefined) in the next.
---He also decided at the same time, that to provide homo sapiens an escape from eternal damnation, he would send the second person of himself to earth, to be tortured and killed, to pay the penalty for homo sapien disobedience.

Is that accurate?

[DesertBerean]

No. Here, I've taken your post and changed it in the bolded areas. (I misplaced some bolding but I think I fixed it all.)

Here's the thing I probably did not make clear enough. While we ARE creatures like animals, we ARE NOT animals. We're HUMANS.

--- Evolution and the natural selection has no bearing on our need for salvation (never mind that I don't believe in it anyway)
--- Human beings are the result of special creation by God Himself
---God chose, for reasons known only to him, created a male and a female which he then made in his image and gave them souls, something that no other creature possessed.
---Shortly after giving these two souls, free will, and the ability to recognize moral right and wrong, unlike any other creature they chose to rebel against God, and therefore God separated himself from them and imposed hardships in this life and permitted eternal SELF- damnation in the next.
---He had already intended to provide them an escape from eternal damnation, by sending the second person of himself to earth, to be tortured and killed, to pay the penalty for their disobedience, and RISING FROM THE DEAD to defeat the penalty of death for those who turned back in obedience to Him.

[Gary]

No. Here, I've taken your post and changed it in the bolded areas. (I misplaced some bolding but I think I fixed it all.)

Here's the thing I probably did not make clear enough. While we ARE creatures like animals, we ARE NOT animals. We're HUMANS.

" Evolution and the natural selection has no bearing on our need for salvation (never mind that I don't believe in it anyway), and, Human beings are the result of special creation by God Himself"

YOUR version of evolution (which does not exist outside of your brain) may have no bearing on humans' need for salvation, but the true version of evolution most certainly does, because you cannot claim that homo sapiens are the result of a special creation by God himself when we know as established scientific fact that homo sapiens E-V-O-L--V-E-D from lower life forms over BILLIONS of year!!!! You cannot be "specially created" and evolve! That is nonsensical.

In conclusion:

--- you do not believe in theistic evolution.

---Our discussion was pointless.

---I would like to discuss this issue with someone who actually believes it, and not someone making up any collection of baloney just in an attempt to shut me up.

[Gary]

In essence, yes, though you're missing some of the fine distinctions I tried to make. These weren't really thought of as "fiction." Scholars have known for 150 years that the gospels don't just record the stories of Jesus. They also speak to the concerns of the Christian communities. For example, John 21 is an attempt to allay fears that Jesus isn't returning any time soon. Matthew 16:28 is another example of this- the community is being persecuted, but it shouldn't be concerned about persecution. Jesus is coming back soon and the world will be put to rights.

However, in general, these kind of things can also be attributed to how the material was spread in the first place- through preaching. Mark 13:14 states "let the reader understand," possibly an exhortation to explain something to the crowd. Generally, when you have an oral culture, stories vary, but the gist of the story remains the same.



The trial in front of Pilate is likely historical. Brown's Death of the Messiah and Meier's A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1 make a powerful case for its authenticity, though there are some stylized elements in the gospel narrative. As for the appearance stories, I disagree. The resurrection narratives seem to bespeak competing traditions. The Markan narrative excludes Peter from the rest of the disciples (maybe the Romans didn't like Peter). The Lukan narrative has Peter discovering the grave clothes. The Johannine narrative has a race between the Beloved Disciple and Peter in order to reach the tomb first.

I tend to think that Mark's ending is actually a result of the way Mark constructed his gospel, rather than lack of knowledge about any appearances. I can go into that in some more detail if you want.

"The trial in front of Pilate is likely historical. Brown's Death of the Messiah and Meier's A Marginal Jew, Vol. 1 make a powerful case for its authenticity, though there are some stylized elements in the gospel narrative."

Is this a scholarly consensus, a majority opinion of scholars, solely the opinion of the two scholars you mention, or simply your opinion?

[psstein]

I think you misunderstood me. I am not denying the historicity of appearance claims. I accept that appearance claims developed very shortly after Jesus' death. What I am suggesting is that maybe the appearance stories, as told by the Gospel authors, are theological fictions. The purpose of these stories was to inspire early Christians to have faith in the resurrection of Jesus, not an attempt to rewrite history.

As I said, the appearance stories bespeak competing traditions.

So isn't it possible that the "eyewitnesses" (if any where still alive in 70 AD when the first Gospel was written) read the Gospel of Mark, noticed that there were details in the story that they had never heard of before, but did not challenge the "inspiration" of these texts because they understood that the purpose of these books was not to teach first century history but to enrich the faith of believers and to encourage the spread of the Gospel?

Yes and no. The eyewitnesses likely would've been preaching the gospel message until their deaths, whether by persecution or natural causes. This is pure guesswork here, but whatever changes were made were to adapt the message for the audience. For example, Matthew's infancy narrative (let's assume that Jesus didn't tell the disciples about his birth) is intended to display Jesus as the new Moses. This supercessionist narrative fits the concerns of the Matthean community. The gospels are not simply "our faith in Jesus," but also Greco-Roman biography. There are certain parts of the story, however, that don't exactly fit the needs of the community nor of earlier Judaism (what's called the criterion of dissimilarity).

I agree that it would be very odd for Mark not to have believed in appearances. We have evidence from Paul that the Creed quoted in First Corinthians 15 was in use in the Church very early in the history of the Church and this list includes multiple appearances. So the absence of appearances in Mark is not proof that Mark had never heard of appearances. However, it is possible that Mark had never heard of the appearance stories as written by later authors of the three other gospels. Bottom line: we don't know what Mark believed about appearances.

I disagree. We actually know a little bit about what Mark believed about appearances. Mark believed that Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee, as is portended in Mark 16:7. He betrays knowledge of a Galilean appearance tradition. Again, I think there are better reasons for Mark's lack of appearances than simply "Mark didn't know of the later appearance traditions." As I said earlier in the thread, Mark's gospel has a ridiculously fast pace. It's the shortest gospel by far and uses fairly simple Greek. The ending of Mark is somewhat of a mystery to me- perhaps he assumed that the reader would fill in the gaps.

But the Empty Tomb is a big issue. Would you agree that the Empty Tomb might have been a theological embellishment, either by "Mark" himself, or by a leader/group in the Church who was attempting to put more "meat on the bones" of the Christian resurrection claim?

Certain elements of the empty tomb are certainly embellished (e.g. Jesus is buried in Joseph's personal tomb, which has never been used before, etc.). However, historically speaking, the burial narrative is rather in keeping with what we know about Jewish burial practices. In terms of theological embellishment, I don't think so, and here's why: the empty tomb seems to be a cornerstone of the early Resurrection faith. The apostles seem to have believed, despite every disposition, that Jesus had truly risen bodily from the dead. See the kerygmatic statement in Acts 10:39-43. While Luke does occasionally make up material for speeches, this speech likely has an authentic core.