Noah way?

[AV1611VET]

Trust me, if Satan or any other deity has been manipulating me behind my back and I find out, hell hath no fury over me!

That's fancy talk, Sarah.

Truth is though that Satan could chew you up and spit you out.

Even Michael the Archangel is no match for Satan.

 

[MarkT]

But you said you were angry!

Good Grief!

Dizredux

Not with people who disagree with me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's fancy talk, Sarah.

Truth is though that Satan could chew you up and spit you out.

Even Michael the Archangel is no match for Satan.

You have never met me in person; I am 105 pounds of pure intimidation; I have made people over twice my size back down from shear presence.

If I do end up in hell, Satan's gonna regret it.

 

[Dizredux]

Jesus used poetic language all of the time. I see nothing about Jesus saying the he believed in the flood. I can see him using the "Flood" to describe the actions of Man.

That is how I see it too. Jesus was a superb communicator and would often use terms his audience could relate to thus his many metaphors and parables.

Dizredux

 

[AV1611VET]

I am 105 pounds of pure intimidation;

My pastor believes that Sampson was probably a 98-pound weakling that would disappear from view if he turned sideways.

(Those are my words though. )

 

[Dizredux]

Not with people who disagree with me.

Mark, I just see a lot of anger in your posts and it concerns me. That much anger is generally not good for the individual.

Dizredix

 

[PsychoSarah]

My pastor believes that Sampson was probably a 98-pound weakling that would disappear from view if he turned sideways.

(Those are my words though. )

Meh. I am remembered by presence alone, I have no distinguishing physical features as far as I can tell.

In any case, if I am faced with Satan, first thing I am going to do is try for a nut shot; just cause. How neat would that be to say "I kicked Satan where it hurts, because I felt like it"?

 

[EternalDragon]

Meh. I am remembered by presence alone, I have no distinguishing physical features as far as I can tell.

In any case, if I am faced with Satan, first thing I am going to do is try for a nut shot; just cause. How neat would that be to say "I kicked Satan where it hurts, because I felt like it"?

That would be like trying to kick Pinhead. He'd probably slice your foot off before you got anywhere near him.

 

[TLK Valentine]

My pastor believes that Sampson was probably a 98-pound weakling that would disappear from view if he turned sideways.

(Those are my words though. )

Because why not, right?

 

[MarkT]

Jesus used poetic language all of the time. I see nothing about Jesus saying the he believed in the flood. I can see him using the "Flood" to describe the actions of Man.

The problem with that is the disciples who heard him referred to the flood too. They didn't think he was using poetic language; Peter even being so bold as to call it a fact. 2 Peter 3:5-6.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with that is the disciples who heard him referred to the flood too. They didn't think he was using poetic language; Peter even being so bold as to call it a fact. 2 Peter 3:5-6.

That may be. He was only human after all and liable to make mistakes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because why not, right?

Because for the reason that his unusual strength would not have been so unsual had he looked like Mr. America.

 

[MarkT]

That may be. He was only human after all and liable to make mistakes.

Matthew 24:38
For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,

If Noah was a real person then so was the flood a real event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Matthew 24:38
For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,

If Noah was a real person then so was the flood.

That has been gone over already. Merely poetic language to say that man has not changed in the rights and wrongs that he does.

You will have to do much better than that.

ETA: Noah was not a real person. The flood was not a real event.

 

[MarkT]

That has been gone over already. Merely poetic language to say that man has not changed in the rights and wrongs that he does.

You will have to do much better than that.

ETA: Noah was not a real person. The flood was not a real event.

Jesus referred to Noah's day. Did Jesus think Noah was a real person?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus referred to Noah's day. Did Jesus think Noah was a real person?

You can't tell by that little bit. It could have very easily been a poetic description of days of old.

Since we know there was no flood you are left with a few possibilities.

Jesus was a man and did not know any better.

This seems to me to be the best answer.

Jesus was the Son of God and was being poetic.

This to me seems to be the only reasonable theological explanation.

Jesus was the Son of God and was being dishonest. This seems to me to be totally unrealistic.

 

[MarkT]

Mt. 24: 38,39

For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mt. 24: 38,39

For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man.

Once again, merely a poetic description of how man has not changed if you read it in context. No real implication that Jesus believed in the existence of Noah.

You need to do better than that.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't tell by that little bit. It could have very easily been a poetic description of days of old.

Since we know there was no flood you are left with a few possibilities.

Jesus was a man and did not know any better.

This seems to me to be the best answer.

Jesus was the Son of God and was being poetic.

This to me seems to be the only reasonable theological explanation.

Jesus was the Son of God and was being dishonest. This seems to me to be totally unrealistic.

I take it you don't think Ezekiel was speaking about a real Noah?

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Nor Luke?

Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Nor the writer of Hebrews?

Hebrews 11:7a By faith Noah,

Nor Peter?

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Everyone's out of step but Johnny ... right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I take it you don't think Ezekiel was speaking about a real Noah?

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Nor Luke?

Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Nor the writer of Hebrews?

Hebrews 11:7a By faith Noah,

Nor Peter?

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Everyone's out of step but Johnny ... right?

I really don't care that much about Zeke. You keep forgetting how terribly he failed with the Tyre prophesy.

And Peter was just a man and even your book says that all men are imperfect. So yes, there is no problem with Peter being in error.

And no, it is not a case of everyone being out of step but me. That would be ridiculous. The flood was debunked over 200 years ago by geologists that originally believed in the flood. Since then all we have found is more evidence that shows there was no flood.


Why on Earth would you think I was alone in my beliefs? You have mentioned two bronze age people who did not know any better and one possible god that speaks in parables and allegories all of the time.

Do you have anything with any meat to it?

And Luke probably did not write the gospel of Luke, just in case you forgot.