Noah's Ark

[Obliquinaut]

Just so you know:


SOURCE

Yeah, I've read more books than just hitting up Wikipedia. As I said, he may have existed as a person (although there is no contemporary documentary evidence for it), but I would draw the line at saying this person was a supernatural/natural being all God/all Man.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You do realize that there is a big difference between them agreeing that Jesus existed and believing the accounts in the Gospels, don't you?

For example every historian agrees that this man was that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States of America. But there are many stories about him that very few believe. The worst being Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

It used to amaze me that those that study the Bible seriously had a higher atheism rate than the general public. When I believed I thought that Biblical scholars should have the strongest beliefs. But as I studied more myself I saw why they had a higher rate. Studying the Bible and religion in general is a pathway to atheism.

Perhaps that is why the Catholic Church was so against private ownership of Bibles for so long.

That is understandable. If not led by the Holy Spirit study isn't much good, from a spiritual point of view. God grants understanding to those he calls and those who study as a way to seek him. The true is hidden from unbelievers.

1 Corinthians 2:6-8 King James Version (KJV)

6 "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I would draw the line at saying this person was a supernatural/natural being all God/all Man.

The demons even obey Jesus. (and the disciples of Jesus).

They the disciples and the demons know Jesus is Almighty Uncreated Creator, Eternal even beyond all time past and future, all at once.

But the demons cannot be saved.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You do realize that there is a big difference between them agreeing that Jesus existed and believing the accounts in the Gospels, don't you?

For example every historian agrees that this man was that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States of America. But there are many stories about him that very few believe. The worst being Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

Slow yer roll, there amigo. I'm from the Lincoln State and we ALL KNOW that Lincoln was 8' tall, ate coal every day for breakfast and created one diamond which was just discarded into outhouses all across his Court Circuit*. He wrote legally binding documents against farm animals, he built the house he was born in, and he could bend entire trees by hand.

So, you might wanna be careful if you want to start slaggin' Honest Abe or we're gonna have a "disagreement".

*to this day the people of many small rural Illinois towns flock to former outhouse sites to dig through the accumulated historical excrement looking for "Lincoln Diamonds".

 

[Obliquinaut]

That is understandable. If not led by the Holy Spirit study isn't much good, from a spiritual point of view. God grants understanding to those he calls and those who study as a way to seek him.

This is very interesting. I've heard variants of it so many times. It basically boils down to: If you believe before you study you will be able to make the study fit the belief.

I am saddened that God built some of us with the desire to LEARN and THEN understand or believe.

I wish that theists would drop this line of reasoning though because what it boils down to is: "I have the proper confirmation bias and you don't, ergo I did it right".

TRUTH shouldn't need you to believe it before you study it. But then, perhaps I hold truth to a higher standard than certain all-knowing beings.

 

[lesliedellow]

You do realize that there is a big difference between them agreeing that Jesus existed and believing the accounts in the Gospels, don't you?

That doesn't mean that atheists who constantly recycle nonsense from people like Gerald Massey or Godfrey Higgins can't be irritating. Usually they haven't got a clue about the origins of the garbage they are enthusiastically regurgitating, but they are quite sure that to be "skeptical" is automatically super sophisticated, and therefore they must have scholarly opinion on their side. Naturally, any scholar who doesn't agree with them is necessarily "biased" (even if that scholar happens to be an atheist or a Jew).

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realize that there is a big difference between them agreeing that Jesus existed and believing the accounts in the Gospels, don't you?

Yes.

I cut that sentence off at the comma, since the rest of it didn't matter to the point I was making; but here it is in its entirety:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.

Op. cit.

It used to amaze me that those that study the Bible seriously had a higher atheism rate than the general public.

It doesn't amaze me.

Paul warned not to get so caught up in physical reality that it subordinates the spiritual world.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [which includes the periodic table of the elements] of the world, and not after Christ.

As well as warned us not to get caught up in evolution ...

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Not to mention Linnaean philosophy, which can lead to atheism ...

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise [Homo sapiens], they became fools [atheists],

Solomon, a true blue scientist of his time who had apes imported for study ...

1 Kings 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

... concluded this ...

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

(Notice he calls evolution an "invention," not a "discovery"?)

((And also note that he used peacocks, not finches like Darwin documented in his book, The Preservation of Favoured Races.))

Thus Solomon calls evolution a discovery, and Paul calls evolution "endless genealogies" that does nothing but gender more pointless questions that doesn't lead to Godly edification.

 

[Goonie]

You do realize that there is a big difference between them agreeing that Jesus existed and believing the accounts in the Gospels, don't you?

For example every historian agrees that this man was that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States of America. But there are many stories about him that very few believe. The worst being Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

It used to amaze me that those that study the Bible seriously had a higher atheism rate than the general public. When I believed I thought that Biblical scholars should have the strongest beliefs. But as I studied more myself I saw why they had a higher rate. Studying the Bible and religion in general is a pathway to atheism.

Perhaps that is why the Catholic Church was so against private ownership of Bibles for so long.

Watch it, next you'll be telling us that Elizabeth Bennett was not a kick-ass zombie slayer!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But then, perhaps I hold truth to a higher standard than certain all-knowing beings.

That's a very very common deception.

The devil laughst everytime he gets anyone (multitudes) to believe that. He has hooked (usually forever) another soul, lost forever.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I said, he may have existed as a person ...

'May have'!?

Here it is again:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,

And that merely generates a "may have" in you?

Consensus of opinion you guys preach can take a hike here, can't it?

You think I don't catch this stuff?

Science can go to Hell.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Science can go to Hell.

That's where it started.
(mostly)
.... Yet thankfully, as you acknowledge, there is a remnent of true believers who are scientists also, and who seek and who speak the truth,
instead of the mandatory lies of society/ the devil/ perniciously.

 

[Obliquinaut]

'May have'!?

Yes I said "may have".

Here it is again:

Oh my! Well, if WIKIPEDIA says it I better stop being an atheist!

And that merely generates a "may have" in you?

Yup.

Consensus of opinion you guys preach can take a hike here, can't it?

Well, now, I am merely speaking for myself there. I would be glad to entertain compelling evidence that he did exist. Mainly because it wouldn't make a difference one way or the other to me.

I'd be just as happy to find that they had found contemporary documentary evidence that definitively proved some dude named "Joshua" (or the Hellenized variant thereof) lived in Judea ~2000 years ago! I'd even be fine if they found evidence of a thriving group of people who thought him a holy man.

You think I don't catch this stuff?

What stuff? I'm confused.

Science can go to Hell.

OK. Whatever.

Hmmm, that went sideways pretty quickly. Sorry if I hit a nerve.

 

[lesliedellow]

'May have'!?

Here it is again:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,

And that merely generates a "may have" in you?

It is possible to labour a point.

 

[Obliquinaut]

It is possible to labour a point.

He is attempting to utilize my lack of actual "care" as to what the concensus of New Testament scholars are in this area to make a point about how many of us refer to the concensus on things like Global Warming or Evolution, etc.

That might be a strong point to make, but not really of much value presently. I make no claim either way. I remain unconvinced but not really strongly so. If the majority of scholars say Jesus likely existed I'm A-OK with that. It really doesn't matter much to me.

It would be nearly impossible to get me to make a solid firm stand one way or the other about this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes.

I cut that sentence off at the comma, since the rest of it didn't matter to the point I was making; but here it is in its entirety:



Op. cit.
It doesn't amaze me.

Paul warned not to get so caught up in physical reality that it subordinates the spiritual world.

Sorry, he did not. I edited out the nonapplicable Bible verse.

As well as warned us not to get caught up in evolution ...

Nope, another failure. Same edit.

Not to mention Linnaean philosophy, which can lead to atheism ...

Nope, another failure and another edit.

Solomon, a true blue scientist of his time who had apes imported for study ...

Nope, more of the same.

... concluded this ...

Hardly, but keep trying.

(Notice he calls evolution an "invention," not a "discovery"?)

Please, don't tell stories about patriarchs. That might be interpreted as blasphemy.

((And also note that he used peacocks, not finches like Darwin documented in his book, The Preservation of Favoured Races.))

No, what Solomon did was clearly not "science".

Thus Solomon calls evolution a discovery, and Paul calls evolution "endless genealogies" that does nothing but gender more pointless questions that doesn't lead to Godly edification.

Making up nonsense and taking verses out of context and inappropriately reinterpreting them is no way to debate.

Try again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet thankfully, as you acknowledge, there is a remnent of true believers who are scientists also, and who seek and who speak the truth,
instead of the mandatory lies of society/ the devil/ perniciously.

Yes, indeed!

Scientists who have the Holy Ghost and are called to be scientists from [before] birth!

 

[Subduction Zone]

That doesn't mean that atheists who constantly recycle nonsense from people like Gerald Massey or Godfrey Higgins can't be irritating. Usually they haven't got a clue about the origins of the garbage they are enthusiastically regurgitating, but they are quite sure that to be "skeptical" is automatically super sophisticated, and therefore they must have scholarly opinion on their side. Naturally, any scholar who doesn't agree with them is necessarily "biased" (even if that scholar happens to be an atheist or a Jew).

I am not familiar with their work at all. But I see that both are of the Jesus as myth school, and I agree. There is very little "there there". I have seen people misinterpret the myths of other religion and try to claim that those were a basis for the Jesus story, and I do not take those too seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is possible to labour a point.

I get consensus of opinion* shoved at me all the time, like it should mean something.

* Unless of course, it's a rigged Pluto vote or [the man] Jesus Christ existing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seeking YHWH is the WAY, TRUTH and LIFE.

Most people go along with you to destruction , defilement and death forever.

Everyone chooses.

It is hard to take anyone seriously when they use unnatural imitation of Hebrew writing styles.

Seeking God may be the way to truth and life, but sadly the Bible does not seem to have the answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

He is attempting to utilize my lack of actual "care" as to what the concensus of New Testament scholars are in this area to make a point about how many of us refer to the concensus on things like Global Warming or Evolution, etc.

LOL ... now we're gonna Arab phone 'modern scholars of antiquity' to 'New Testament scholars'?

Typical scientist, aren't you?