If Noah's flood was a legend why should anyone trust Jesus?

[Jonahdog]

The moron making the commentary cherry-picked a few lines from a vast body of work and ignored the substantive explanations given fit what we see in the rock layers.

He picked a few deas that are just plain silly, made then sillier, and pretended he had addressed flood theory.

He also ignored the fatal flaws in the evolutionary model.

A creationist complaining about someone cherry picking. Priceless!

 

[Caino]

Do you have proof?



I didn't speak of the age of the earth in the OP and neither does the Bible.



That isn't necessarily significant is it?



And the theory of evolution was written by saints?

Sure, study "Higher Criticism", a relatively young field of critically dissecting the Bible writings and inconsistencies. The church used to kill anyone who dared to challenge it's claims.

As for the flood, it's seems to me that the very human speculation that God became disappointed in something he did (create man) would lead him to destroy the Satan that (mislead the whole world)???? But instead, according to the not-so-well-thought-out-story, God saves Satan, destroys men, women, children, babies, pregnant moms, grandma, granddad etc. Everyone and everything except an ancestor of the priest who wrote the story WINK. This 800 year old Noah, the only righteous man in all the world, returns to dry land, begins to rapidly repopulate the earth, but not before being found passed out drunk and naked in his tent.

Problem 2. The flood didn't work, man is as wicked as ever AND, the Satan creature that God keeps on a short leash still seems to be causing problems.

I've never believed that story, not even for a fraction of a second. Yet, I believe in Christ, he is hear now among us. Go figure.

 

[Sonnet]

Sure, study "Higher Criticism", a relatively young field of critically dissecting the Bible writings and inconsistencies. The church used to kill anyone who dared to challenge it's claims.

As for the flood, it's seems to me that the very human speculation that God became disappointed in something he did (create man) would lead him to destroy the Satan that (mislead the whole world)???? But instead, according to the not-so-well-thought-out-story, God saves Satan, destroys men, women, children, babies, pregnant moms, grandma, granddad etc. Everyone and everything except an ancestor of the priest who wrote the story WINK. This 800 year old Noah, the only righteous man in all the world, returns to dry land, begins to rapidly repopulate the earth, but not before being found passed out drunk and naked in his tent.

Problem 2. The flood didn't work, man is as wicked as ever AND, the Satan creature that God keeps on a short leash still seems to be causing problems.

I've never believed that story, not even for a fraction of a second. Yet, I believe in Christ, he is hear now among us. Go figure.

Well, figuring out why you would trust Jesus...and yet not trust Him is what this thread is about.

If the Noah story did not occur, then surely Jesus should have said so? Surely? As we know, many folk are put off of faith in Christ BECAUSE the geologists are telling us that the Noachian flood DID NOT happen. Why trust Him if He was wrong on that?

All He had to say, so as to avoid any confusion, was that it was not a real event. He didn't.

 

[6days]

I've never believed that story, not even for a fraction of a second. Yet, I believe in Christ, he is hear now among us.

Picking and choosing what to believe, and what to disregard about Christ; you have a created a god for yourself.

Ex. 20:4 "You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea."

 

[This Charming Manc]

That compromise leads to a weakened or destroyed gospel.

I don't agree here area number of thoughts on why not.

*If Christ and other Bible authors refer to Genesis as real history, then why should we believe other things they said?

Did they? Is this view of historical facts something that was commonplace then? I think this view of fable and legend being authoritative is something that post dates scientific method (300 years old).

The biblical writers were not attesting to the scientific truth of the histroical claims but the spiritual truths within the fable.

* If first Adam was allegorical, then why did Last Adam have to suffer physical death?

Because sin and the fall are not allegories or fables, we may have a fable that describes the origin of such, but nay student of mankind cannot doubt the nature of sin and the fall.

*If Adam and Eve were mythical, then at what point in the genealogies does it become historical?

Maybe at the point we have eyes witnesses writing records ( to my mind moses)

* Since all Christian doctrine is founded in the first few books of Genesis, we are basing our faith and doctrine on fables?

Spiritual truth and scientifically verifiable history are two different things. if its God inspired its God inspired, the history of it isn't as important.

* Is it ok to apply your logic to everything else in the Bible...IE, why not believe the physical resurrection was a fable?

There a difference between stories written 1'000's of years after the event by non eye witnesses, and eye witness accounts which seek to give testimony of a event that they perceived

ETC ETC.... Your belief is a compromise to scripture. It compromises what Christ taught.

No it compromises what a modern (scientific) minds understanding what Christ taught.

 

[Town Heretic]

Why not? Afraid to have your beliefs questioned?

Your notion of questioning seems to mostly be condescending ridicule topped with a turn on the old "Bronze Age goat herders bit" at the end. Or gems like:

...belief in Christianity is just not rational

Which if true would mean you're not going to reason anyone out of it and your presence would be for some other purpose, supra.

Like suggesting that an ardent fundamentalist calling you a fool and telling you that hell awaits you is questioning your beliefs and waiting for the healing to begin.

On the older insult, as if you'd turn down penicillin had a nomad discovered it.

You should be happy to have godless heathens here, gives you a chance to win over their souls.

Mind the bears.

 

[Jonahdog]

Your notion of questioning seems to mostly be condescending ridicule topped with a turn on the old "Bronze Age goat herders bit" at the end. Or gems like:


Which if true would mean you're not going to reason anyone out of it and your presence would be for some other purpose, supra.

Like suggesting that an ardent fundamentalist calling you a fool and telling you that hell awaits you is questioning your beliefs and waiting for the healing to begin.

On the older insult, as if you'd turn down penicillin had a nomad discovered it.


Mind the bears.

Stripe, in particular deserves all the condescending ridicule he gets.

Belief in god, especially the Biblical god is not rational, especially as espoused by those who require a literal Genesis you find here. They are willing to ignore any rational evidence that, yes, conflicts with the myths of a certain group of nomads. And note that a nomad did not discover penicillin. but if it had been and it worked, not a problem.

 

[Caino]

Well, figuring out why you would trust Jesus...and yet not trust Him is what this thread is about.

If the Noah story did not occur, then surely Jesus should have said so? Surely? As we know, many folk are put off of faith in Christ BECAUSE the geologists are telling us that the Noachian flood DID NOT happen. Why trust Him if He was wrong on that?

All He had to say, so as to avoid any confusion, was that it was not a real event. He didn't.

Simple, Jesus didn't come to earth to reform Judaism or circumvent the evolution of human wisdom. He came to reveal the Father in greater detail. That revelation of the Loving Father effectively discredited the dim concepts of an angry, jealous erratic God of the OT. Jesus reveled truth and let the error die on the vine.


Besides, God gave you common sense to think these things through. Why should God have to come to earth to tell you what should be obvious?

 

[Town Heretic]

Stripe, in particular deserves all the condescending ridicule he gets.

Does he? Well, if you feel that way you should write him a letter. But you're being far more broad than that.

Belief in god, especially the Biblical god is not rational,

That's not a rational statement. In fact, many of the finest minds man has produced have done just that, read and been intimately familiar with that book without coming to your conclusion...now it might be that you're that far advanced beyond their ability and blinders. Or it might be that you have your own.

As between to two propositions, which is the most likely?

especially as espoused by those who require a literal Genesis you find here.

You don't have to be irrational to take Genesis literally. You simply have to begin with a very different context than you will as an atheist. But that's true of the resurrection as well, or anything qualifying as miraculous.

They are willing to ignore any rational evidence that, yes, conflicts with the myths of a certain group of nomads.

Truth is truth. It doesn't have an expiration date and it doesn't matter if a man living in a cave or herding sheep possessed it or it came to you sitting under a lotus tree.

And note that a nomad did not discover penicillin.

lain: Do we really need to note that?

but if it had been and it worked, not a problem.

Then you should revise your approach, because it seemed an important point to you. Important enough to use again before concluding its irrelevance just now.

 

[PureX]

Belief in god, especially the Biblical god is not rational, especially as espoused by those who require a literal Genesis you find here. They are willing to ignore any rational evidence that, yes, conflicts with the myths of a certain group of nomads.

This is the classic nonsensical foolishness of an immature atheist. As you are using the irrationality of some theists to condemn the motives and beliefs of all. Which is, itself, irrational. While, at the same time, you are placing yourself in the absurd position of being the determiner of what is and is not rational for all humanity.

And you think THEY'RE being foolish???

 

[Caino]

Picking and choosing what to believe, and what to disregard about Christ; you have a created a god for yourself.

Ex. 20:4 "You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea."

You make an idol out of the books written by holy men. I still remember that day you told me that if the Bible said the moon was made of cheese you would believe it.

I admire your persistent faith 6days, I'm not trying to be ugly to you, I just think you have misapplied your faith into books instead of the Living God.

When you use the term "pick and choose" you are implying dishonesty, that someone would deliberately ignore some parts that they thought were true. I've never thought that much of the Bible was factually accurate. As far as I'm concerned I would like to rescue Jesus from the Bible.

 

[6days]

*
If Christ and other Bible authors refer to Genesis as real history, then why should we believe other things they said?

Did they? Is this view of historical facts something that was commonplace then? I think this view of fable and legend being authoritative is something that post dates scientific method (300 years old).The biblical writers were not attesting to the scientific truth of the histroical claims but the spiritual truths within the fable.*

The view that Genesis is a historical account was accepted by Christ, who is also the Creator. He quoted from and referred to Genesis more than any other scripture. Jeaus mentioned humans at the beginning of creation. He asks how you can believe in Himsrlf (Jesus), if you reject what Moses wrote.

Manc...... there have always been people trying to dismiss what Moses wrote. Even Peter in scripture is making arguments against the 'evolutionists' of that era - the epicureans.*And there have always been Christians who have defended what scripture plainly teaches.*

Martin Luther argued..."When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are."

*
*If first Adam was allegorical, then why did Last Adam have to suffer physical death?

Because sin and the fall are not allegories or fables, we may have a fable that describes the origin of such, but nay student of mankind cannot doubt the nature of sin and the fall.

But that makes scripture illogical. If physical death, pain and suffering are not the penalty for first Adams sin, then the death pain and sufferring of Last Adam becomes uneccesary.*

Atheists seem to understand that if they can destroy the account of Adam and Eve, then they have sucessfully destroyed the gospel. Here is a link to an atheist website where they show how illogical it is for a Christian to believe Genesis is a fable.*https://askanatheist.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/jesus-couldnt-have-died-for-original-sin/

*
If Adam and Eve were mythical, then at what point in the genealogies does it become historical?

Maybe at the point we have eyes witnesses writing records ( to my mind moses)

In Luke 11:51, Jesus refers to Abel as a real person.*

In order for Christians to accept evolutionism, they need dismiss the creation account...the flood account...other scripture referring to the flood and creation as a historical event....they need change the gospel dismissing the reason why we have physical death; and why Christ had to physically die...and they need dismiss the foundation for every Christian doctrine.*

 

[Caino]

I can believe in Jesus even though I reject the idea that the people who were corrupt enough to kill Jesus wrote divinely inspired documents of perfection the other 364 days of the year!!!!!! News flash: the same kinds of Jewish people who sought to undermine Jesus are on this very site today!

 

[Town Heretic]

I can believe in Jesus even though I reject the idea that the people who were corrupt enough to kill Jesus wrote divinely inspired documents of perfection the other 364 days of the year!!!!!! News flash: the same kinds of Jewish people who sought to undermine Jesus are on this very site today!

I suppose the orthodox response would be that you don't have to rely on the perfection of men, only the intent of God and His ability to manifest that, to find the right hands.

 

[PureX]

I suppose the orthodox response would be that you don't have to rely on the perfection of men, only the intent of God and His ability to manifest that, to find the right hands.

Oooooh! Magic!

"Don't believe the facts of reality, trust in the magic idol!"

Sorry, but this is what I see you saying, here. And if anything discredits Jesus, it's the insistence that he preached this kind of forced dishonesty, masquerading as faith.

 

[Town Heretic]

Oooooh! Magic!

Are you modeling that maturity you were talking to Jd about?

"Don't believe the facts of reality, trust in the magic idol!"

Because if you are you might need to work on it a bit more.

Sorry, but this is what I see you saying, here.

That makes two of us then.

And if anything discredits Jesus

Which nothing actually does, so...

it's the insistence that he preached this kind of forced dishonesty masquerading as faith.

Dishonesty is knowing one thing to be true (something that might boggle a relativist, but work with me a bit for the sake of argument) and stating something contrary to it. Nothing in this would fit that bill, however it makes you feel.

I don't particularly get caught up in arguments over where the Bible is being literal and where it's using a literary device, etc. I don't particularly understand why anyone would. If you think the next fellow has strayed off the reservation then consider whether or not his steps have led him into danger. If not, who cares? If he doesn't think he should dance or drink alcohol or if he wants to hold service on Saturday, more power to him.

At the heart of every approach to God and existence is the miraculous.

As a former card-carrying, slightly bemused atheist, let me dissuade you from the notion that holding on to only that miracle in foundation makes you appear more reasonable than the fellow who believes God rained manna or wrote the law into stone tablets, etc. There's a premise, supernatural in origin, at the heart of any belief in God. If you're in that group then the difference between you and the guy who believes Jesus rode a dinosaur might feel like a great gulf to you, but the other fellow is only smiling through gritted teeth.

 

[PureX]

Are you modeling that maturity you were talking to Jd about?

Because if you are you might need to work on it a bit more.

It's called sarcasm, and was not aimed at you; only at the argument you were presenting. And I didn't assume it was your argument, because you implied that it wasn't.

Dishonesty is knowing one thing to be true (something that might boggle a relativist, but work with me a bit for the sake of argument) and stating something contrary to it. Nothing in this would fit that bill, however it makes you feel.

Dishonesty is also the practice of denying any and all evidence to the contrary of what one wishes to believe is true. Because doing so is a deliberate denial of that which leads us to the truth of things.

I don't particularly get caught up in arguments over where the Bible is being literal and where it's using a literary device, etc. I don't particularly understand why anyone would. If you think the next fellow has strayed off the reservation then consider whether or not his steps have led him into danger. If not, who cares? If he doesn't think he should dance or drink alcohol or if he wants to hold service on Saturday, more power to him.

I agree. Whatever 'works' for him, works for him. Until it doesn't, and he becomes a problem to himself and everyone around him. Then what? This kind of dishonest religiosity and ideological idol-worship is creating a lot of problems for people these days. A lot of unnecessary bitterness and fear and strife. I may not be able to do much about it, but I can at least shed some light on it when I'm able. Maybe someone will be enlightened, who knows?

At the heart of every approach to God and existence is the miraculous.

Semantics.

There's a premise, supernatural in origin, at the heart of any belief in God.

Inexplicable, not supernatural.

If you're in that group then the difference between you and the guy who believes Jesus rode a dinosaur might feel like a great gulf to you, but the other fellow is only smiling through gritted teeth.

I am not in that group. Nor do I need to be, to be Christian.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's called sarcasm,

You've never spent much time with teenagers then. Or, some jokes are knock-knocks and some require a bit more of the reader.

and was not aimed at you; only at the argument you were presenting.

I never once thought you were calling me magical. But look, diminishing a sober and fairly gentle difference with "Oooooh, magic!" merited the response. I'm not rending garments, only noting a problem with what bothers you given what can't, ultimately.

And I didn't assume it was your argument, because you implied that it wasn't.

What I was aiming at was noting the pointlessness of that sort of division within those who believe in miracles (by which I mean an abrogation of natural law or an interruption of natural process by the willful and sentient originator of that law and process, God).

Dishonesty is also the practice of denying any and all evidence to the contrary of what one wishes to believe is true.

Who gets to decide what's denying evidence and what's seeing the thing called that and finding it insufficient? No, better to leave off that sort of thing all together. It never amounts to much outside of an invitation to discord, stumbling, and poor conduct that convinces no one of anything worthwhile. If it isn't salvific let it go.

I agree. Whatever 'works' for him, works for him. Until it doesn't, and he becomes a problem to himself and everyone around him. Then what?

If it doesn't work for him he'll change. A problem for others? How, exactly? Then whatever, depending on what sort of problem he is, I suppose.

This kind of dishonest religiosity and ideological idol-worship is creating a lot of problems for people these days.

Just because you don't like it or don't see it, it doesn't follow that it's any of those things.

A lot of unnecessary bitterness and fear and strife. I may not be able to do much about it, but I can at least shed some light on it when I'm able. Maybe someone will be enlightened, who knows?

Everyone who thinks they have a thing right feels that way. I'm sure Jd feels that way.

Semantics. Inexplicable, not supernatural.

The atheist and the theist have a fundamentally different context for how things came to be and continue. This is that line of demarcation.

I am not in that group. Nor do I need to be, to be Christian.

Unless you consider the resurrection of a body three days dead to be something other than the intervention of God into the otherwise natural process of decay, you're in the group.

 

[Sonnet]

Simple, Jesus didn't come to earth to reform Judaism or circumvent the evolution of human wisdom. He came to reveal the Father in greater detail. That revelation of the Loving Father effectively discredited the dim concepts of an angry, jealous erratic God of the OT. Jesus reveled truth and let the error die on the vine.

Really?

Mat 5
17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

The Law would be the first five books of scripture.

Besides, God gave you common sense to think these things through. Why should God have to come to earth to tell you what should be obvious?

What is obvious?

 

[Sonnet]

I can believe in Jesus even though I reject the idea that the people who were corrupt enough to kill Jesus wrote divinely inspired documents of perfection the other 364 days of the year!!!!!! News flash: the same kinds of Jewish people who sought to undermine Jesus are on this very site today!

Which authors?