Pigeon wrote:Why are we arguing about the flood? Isn't the debate supposed to be about Jesus?I know, I know, arguing Biblical accuracy...except that it's still irrelevant, because al that matters for the purposes of this discussion is the New Testament, or possibly just the gospels.
And this flood would not be just for 30 days
How are the carnivores going to eat, what about species that mate by killing each other, does this include plants, do we save the poisonous animals, what species of plants do these things eat, all this is knowledge that no human being has had until very recently in human history.
But if it did, surely no human had the knowledge or incentive to document this event, and even if they did, all records would be lost in the flood after the guy died.
And this flood would not be just for 30 days40.
This would not have just *poof* came out of nowhere in like 2 days. This would at least take a few thousand years to rise and fall. No human could've survived this time period.
That is completely false. A lot of old folk knowledge, which for decades (if not centuries) has been dismissed as being the result of fanciful ignorance has been found to be scientifically valid.
Two words: ORAL HISTORY.
If you accept that this story was passed on by oral tradition which it most certainly was not, the story would be so distorted after hundreds of thousands of years (which it would not have survived anyways) that the documented story in the bible would be just about as hooplah as nyan cat shooting rainbows out his ass.
If you're going to disparage something, at least do it accurately.
I mentioned this before: If liberal scholars applied the same standard of rejection of the historical evidence for Christ to other ancient historical personages, such as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, those two would be rejected as myth as well.
None of the accounts were first-hand, they basically repeated the stories of those who claimed to have been there.
There were dozens of crazy, apocalyptic Jewish preachers in Jerusalem during this era, many of whom were crucified. It's quite likely that one of them was named Yoshua ["Yoshua" is the Hebrew translation of "Joshua", by the way, not "Jesu/Jesus"] or something similar. Most modern Biblical scholars recognize that the persona of Christ was most likely patched together from a bunch of old prophecies and Hebrew archetypes; the teacher, the leader, the sufferer, the voice of God.
Nero fastened the guilt [...] on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of [...] Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome...
They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald [...] cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.'
The Christians [...] worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.
I don't really care what you guys have to say.
How convenient for you tr3x that when confronted with a well-reasoned detractor you can refuse to respond and yet still claim victory.
You then choose to throw it in his face, writing off his conclusion as derived from "mere" faith, something you consider essentially worthless, and characterising him as a bad-faith debater, one likely to "disregard any facts to the contrary".
© 2004 - 2014, Young Writers Society is proudly powered by phpBB • YWS logo created by Jordan Bobo • Header images © Vlad Studio