Noah way?

[MarkT]

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.

Noah was the son of Lamech. Lamech was the son of Methu'selah. Methu'selah was the son of Enoch. Enoch was the son of Jared. Jared was the son of Ma-hal'alel. Ma-hal'alel was the son of Kenan. Kenan was the son of Enosh. Enosh was the son of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam.

Peter was the chief apostle. Did Peter believe Noah was a real person?

 

[EternalDragon]

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.

Those passages are not poetic and "in context", they are speaking of the real event of Jesus' return. So if you read it in context, it is speaking of real people and real events, past and future.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Noah was the son of Lamech. Lamech was the son of Methu'selah. Methu'selah was the son of Enoch. Enoch was the son of Jared. Jared was the son of Ma-hal'alel. Ma-hal'alel was the son of Kenan. Kenan was the son of Enosh. Enosh was the son of Seth. Seth was the son of Adam.

Peter was the chief apostle. Did Peter believe Noah was a real person?

Noah is a character in a book of myth. It does not really matter who his mythological parents were.

Peter was largely uneducated too and his belief in Noah would have very little to do with his acceptance of Christ.

You keep forgetting the challenge. It was show a reason to believe that Jesus believed in Noah.

Or you could always ask how scientists know that the flood is a myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those passages are not poetic and "in context", they are speaking of the real event of Jesus' return. So if you read it in context, it is speaking of real people and real events, past and future.

Just making a broad statement is not evidence of anything.

I can show the evidence that says there was no flood. It seems that you cannot even show evidence that Jesus believed in Noah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is laughable is that on another Thread the statement that the mustard seed was the smallest seed is being defended since it was a "parable".

You guys want Jesus's teachings to be parables only when it is obvious to even you that he was wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

And no, it is not a case of everyone being out of step but me.

I disagree.

What happened to the Hebrews passage I quoted?

You didn't comment on that.

 

[AV1611VET]

... the mustard seed was the smallest seed ...

That's not what the Bible says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree.

What happened to the Hebrews passage I quoted?

You didn't comment on that.

Sorry, missed that.

The same applies. You found three or four people who were naturally unaware of the mythological past of their beliefs.

What was that supposed to prove?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not what the Bible says.

The Bible disagrees with you:


Mark 4:31 It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth.

 

[MarkT]

Noah is a character in a book of myth. It does not really matter who his mythological parents were.

Peter was largely uneducated too and his belief in Noah would have very little to do with his acceptance of Christ.

You keep forgetting the challenge. It was show a reason to believe that Jesus believed in Noah.

Or you could always ask how scientists know that the flood is a myth.

Peter was taught by God. In his second letter, he blasted the deniers of the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Peter was taught by God. In his second letter, he blasted the deniers of the flood.

No. Where do you come up with such nonsense? And even if he was taught by God that does not mean that he is free of error.

Once again you should be asking how we know that there was no flood.

 

[MarkT]

No. Where do you come up with such nonsense? And even if he was taught by God that does not mean that he is free of error.

Once again you should be asking how we know that there was no flood.

Read the Bible. Peter said scoffers would come denying the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the Bible. Peter said scoffers would come denying the flood.

I don't care what Pete said. It was not scoffers that first proved that there was no flood. Now if uneducated people keep pushing a myth without paying attention to the many many pieces of evidence against that myth and act "holier than thou" in the process you cannot blame them if some scoffing results.

Perhaps Peter new the flood was a myth and he was trying to keep the myth alive. Once again, he was human and apt to fail when his own prejudices got involved.

 

[MarkT]

I don't care what Pete said. It was not scoffers that first proved that there was no flood. Now if uneducated people keep pushing a myth without paying attention to the many many pieces of evidence against that myth and act "holier than thou" in the process you cannot blame them if some scoffing results.

Perhaps Peter new the flood was a myth and he was trying to keep the myth alive. Once again, he was human and apt to fail when his own prejudices got involved.

He said we should remember the predictions of the Lord Jesus. Scoffers will come denying the flood.

So Jesus believed in the flood.

 

[evoeth]

He said we should remember the predictions of the Lord Jesus. Scoffers will come denying the flood.

The book that wants you to believe it is true says that people will come who doubt it? No way!

 

[MarkT]

The book that wants you to believe it is true says that people will come who doubt it? No way!

Way!

 

[Subduction Zone]

He said we should remember the predictions of the Lord Jesus. Scoffers will come denying the flood.

So Jesus believed in the flood.

Sorry, that would be a logic fail on your part.

Again, Pete was a man. Men can make errors. You should try to learn about the evidence that says there was no flood.

 

[MarkT]

Sorry, that would be a logic fail on your part.

Again, Pete was a man. Men can make errors. You should try to learn about the evidence that says there was no flood.

He said we should remember the Lord's predictions, that men will deny the ancient Scriptures. There's no logical fail on my part. Jesus believed the Scriptures. He believed in Noah and the flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He said we should remember the Lord's predictions, that men will deny the ancient Scriptures. There's no logical fail on my part. Jesus believed the Scriptures. He believed in Noah and the flood.

Disproving the "ancient scriptures" is not denying them. So that is a failed prophecy.

Yes, Petey believed in Noah and the flood. If Jesus believed in them then you are saying that he was just a man. That is fine with me.

So did Jesus believe in the Flood?

Are you sure that you want to claim that Jesus was just a man like you and me?

 

[MarkT]

Disproving the "ancient scriptures" is not denying them. So that is a failed prophecy.

Yes, Petey believed in Noah and the flood. If Jesus believed in them then you are saying that he was just a man. That is fine with me.

So did Jesus believe in the Flood?

Are you sure that you want to claim that Jesus was just a man like you and me?

Mt. 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[c] but the Father only. 37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. 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, 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.

Remember the commandment, 'you must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.'