Noahs ark

[LoG]

No he didn't. He merely used the story as an illustration. Besides which, how would he know? He was a 1st century human being with a 1st century mind.

Anything else is Arianism.

The view that Jesus was a human being with a 1st century mind is Arianism.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

The view that Jesus was a human being with a 1st century mind is Arianism.

I think that Artybloke was saying that if one does not believe that Jesus was fully human, it is Arianism.

According to Arius, Jesus was a supernatural creature not quite human and not quite divine.

By this we see if one believes anything other than Jesus being both fully human AND fully divine, it is an Arian heresy.

 

[LoG]

I think that Artybloke was saying that if one does not believe that Jesus was fully human, it is Arianism.

By this we see if one believes anything other than Jesus being both fully human AND fully divine, it is an Arian heresy.

So then one who believes that Jesus had a first century mind other then a "eternal mind" like that of God, has lapsed into the "Arianism heresy.

What do you think Artybloke's response to that would be?

 

[karen freeinchristman]

So then one who believes that Jesus had a first century mind other then a "eternal mind" like that of God, has lapsed into the "Arianism heresy.

What do you think Artybloke's response to that would be?

I don't know, and we await in anticipation! It is a mystery to us what effect being fully divine had on Jesus' knowledge, being fully human.

But if we are going to say that because Jesus referred to Noah, that this is proof it was a literal historical happening, we aren't going to be able to answer that satisfactorily, because he may or may not have been alluding to it that way.

 

[artybloke]

So then one who believes that Jesus had a first century mind other then a "eternal mind" like that of God, has lapsed into the "Arianism heresy.

What do you think Artybloke's response to that would be?

If Jesus knew more than the rest of the people around him when he was on earth and fully human, then the cross is void, he basically had a "get-out-of-jail" card, his suffering and death weren't real but only pretend, and our salvation is imaginary.

Look up the concept of "kenosis": Christ emptying himself of divine attributes in order to take on the whole of suffering humanity and save every aspect of us. Including our lack of ability to know everything. Phillipians 2, I think.

 

[LoG]

If Jesus knew more than the rest of the people around him when he was on earth and fully human, then the cross is void, he basically had a "get-out-of-jail" card, his suffering and death weren't real but only pretend, and our salvation is imaginary.

Look up the concept of "kenosis": Christ emptying himself of divine attributes in order to take on the whole of suffering humanity and save every aspect of us. Including our lack of ability to know everything. Phillipians 2, I think.

To get into this would necessitate derailing this thread into a debate on Kinotic Theology.which in the context of this discussion is not necessary. Even if Jesus for the sake of argument had the mind of a first century man, his words were under inspiration of the Eternal Spirit. If we don't have faith of that, then there is no foundation for believing anything He said.

If he had been referring to Job, it might have been possible to consider it a story or myth since there are no references to Job's geneology or time period. This isn't the case with Noah. Most of the first century jews would like Jesus have been able to directly trace their lineage back to this actual person.

Considering all the ancient writings supporting the Flood from many different sources and considering that naturalists and archeologists for thousands of years described evidence of that same flood in their writings, I find it highly suspect when the predominently atheist scientists suddenly "lose" that evidence over the last 100 years.

The real amazement for me however is how quickly Christians themselves put their faith in the words of this minority of scientists and mythologize the bible so it still has some validity for them. How long before they believe the Physchology scientists that say God is not necessary for salvation from the human condition? Uhmm wait, a lot of them already do.

Maybe Jesus's words in Luke 18:8 weren't so far off the mark:

Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

 

[DeltaOne7487]

Regarding Noah, I think there are far too many similarities between the Mesopotamian and Sumerian flood stories and that of Noah for the story to be taken literally. The larger problem for me comes from the previous accounts of a catastrophic flood predate those recorded in Genesis.

The fact is this, these various accounts are actually proof of the flood.

Take into account that men seperated after Noah's time to all nations, and wrote some sort of an account of the flood...different versions, different ideas, dates times...you name it.

But every single one, even if written imperfectly without the aid of God's Spirit, [which Moses did have...hence the Bible is Inspired] they all gave what they knew that it was indeed fact.

Heiroglyphics also in Egypt talk of a flood.

Touché.

I admire your defence of Genesis. You have a thorough understanding of the issues and evidence, and take the time to reason your arguments very solidly. I think that the Aboriginals (the indigenous people of my country) also have stories that speak of the global flood.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

The real amazement for me however is how quickly Christians themselves put their faith in the words of this minority of scientists and mythologize the bible so it still has some validity for them. How long before they believe the Physchology scientists that say God is not necessary for salvation from the human condition? Uhmm wait, a lot of them already do.

Maybe Jesus's words in Luke 18:8 weren't so far off the mark:

Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Oh, I see. You're calling our faith into question now! I won't even carry on the discussion under these circumstances.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Oh, I see. You're calling our faith into question now! I won't even carry on the discussion under these circumstances.

I know Lion of God did not mean any disrespect.

Those of us that do believe in the scriptural account of creation and Noah's ark have our intelligence questioned all the time, as well as our faith.

Antybloke said the biggest threat to Christianity is people believing what the bible says about the flood and creation. I think the opposite is true.

 

[LoG]

Oh, I see. You're calling our faith into question now! I won't even carry on the discussion under these circumstances.

Not a question of whether we have faith but what we are putting our faith in. I believe certain things about the scriptures that differ substantially from what was taught to me growing up. That came about because I came to realize that I was putting my faith into the interpretation that was taught by the denomination I was in at the time. As I grew older and learned to think for myself, I realized that their interpretations didn't line up with what I was reading. I had been putting my faith into what man said instead of what God said.

When it comes to ToE and the lack of a Flood, I realized that I would be doing the same thing again if I believed in those theories. I would be taking the word of men who I didn't know and allow it to change my viewpoint of God and His Word. After 48 years of life, I have come to realize that these supposed "experts" are no more intelligent than any of us and just as prone to error and hidden agendas as the rest of the human race. Does their 4-5 years of University education make them any more qualified to render an opinion then one who has studied the evidence pro and con with an open mind for 35+ years? There has not been any piece of evidence that I have come across in that time that makes me doubt that the flood was a real event. That doesn't mean I believe it happened the way that Answers in Genesis presents it, but just because their viewpoint is not wholly believable doesn't make TalkOrigin's viewpoint correct by default.

Personally I believe in the Earth being much older than 6000 years and has had previous creations which the Bible hints at but that viewpoint does not take away from seeing the Word as being a literal history of this creation. Rather than simply assuming that parts of the bible are myth the christian needs to see how God's Word is literally correct. That mindset will open one's heart to the evdence that God is continually presenting to those who seek.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I know Lion of God did not mean any disrespect.

Those of us that do believe in the scriptural account of creation and Noah's ark have our intelligence questioned all the time, as well as our faith.

Antybloke said the biggest threat to Christianity is people believing what the bible says about the flood and creation. I think the opposite is true.

I appreciate your reply, TrustAndObey, but I think there are greater threats to Christianity than either one of those (but that is for another thread!).

Rather than simply assuming that parts of the bible are myth the christian needs to see how God's Word is literally correct. That mindset will open one's heart to the evdence that God is continually presenting to those who seek.

See, this is where you are getting things wrong. We who have come to that conclusion have not simply assumed it. And my heart is wide open - God does continually present evidence to me. You are the one who is doing the assuming here, that we have hardened our hearts and stubbornly cling to our myth mindsets.

 

[LoG]

See, this is where you are getting things wrong. We who have come to that conclusion have not simply assumed it. And my heart is wide open - God does continually present evidence to me. You are the one who is doing the assuming here, that we have hardened our hearts and stubbornly cling to our myth mindsets.

No Karen, I don't assume you have just assumed it. I'm sure you believe what you think is the right way to look at it. Unfortunately there are a great many Christians who do the same for no other reason then someone told them this was the truth. They have never studied up on it themselves.

I don't believe however that you speak for everyone when you say "we have hardened our hearts and stubbornly cling to our myth mindsets" I have in past done a lot of debating on these topics and have seen minds shut tight even when presented with good evidence attesting to the validity of some aspect of the bible. This was by ones professing themselves to be bible believers.

I apologize for having offended you. It wasn't my intent but reverted back to the type of dialogue that is common in the Origins forum., which is why I stopped going there in the first place.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

That's OK.

 

[artybloke]

Even if Jesus for the sake of argument had the mind of a first century man, his words were under inspiration of the Eternal Spirit.

Irrelevant. That did not make him any less a first century human being, with a 1st century mind that did not see things in terms of 21st century post-enlightenment concepts such as scientific accuracy, and the materialist idea that truth can only be expressed as fact.

This, as far as I'm concerned, is the main heresy of creationism: not simply that creation "scientists" are either liars or very very confused, but that that they have already compromised the Gospel by making it dependent on a materialist concept of truth.

In other words, their view of truth is nothing more than positivism: the idea that truth can only be expressed as fact. I don't believe Jesus was at all interested in whether Noah existed or not, because to him it wasn't important. It would never have occured to him to try and distort facts the way creationists do, because he would never have considered such materialist thinking as being possible. He grew up in a world full of stories, that expressed truth through parables, myths, legends, poetry; not through scientific investigation.

So did the anonymous authors of the Noah stories.

Not a question of whether we have faith but what we are putting our faith in.

Quite right; and you are hoisting your faith, not in Jesus, not even to the Bible, but to a wrong-headed materialistic positivist interpretation of scripture.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

He grew up in a world full of stories, that expressed truth through parables, myths, legends, poetry; not through scientific investigation.

So did the anonymous authors of the Noah stories.

Exactly! And this is why we have such a hard time nowadays in understanding and agreeing on this whole issue of truth! It has been so many generations since we've been that kind of 'oral tradition'- and story- oriented culture, that we aren't even capable of looking at the OT the way that they would have done.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Exactly! And this is why we have such a hard time nowadays in understanding and agreeing on this whole issue of truth! It has been so many generations since we've been that kind of 'oral tradition'- and story- oriented culture, that we aren't even capable of looking at the OT the way that they would have done.

Soooo... are you saying that oral traditions convey facts verbatim, or that they are subject to change and evolution?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Antybloke, are you saying that Jesus was JUST a man and couldn't perform miracles?

He had a lot more knowledge than just what He got from "fairytales", He created everything in this world. He'd know if the flood really happened or not, don't you think?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Antybloke, are you saying that Jesus was JUST a man and couldn't perform miracles?

He had a lot more knowledge than just what He got from "fairytales", He created everything in this world. He'd know if the flood really happened or not, don't you think?

Sure he would.

Of course, whether he would choose to bog down his ministry by explaining the inconsequential errors of oral tradition, rather than hammering out the message that we need to love one another, is another issue entirely

 

[LoG]

Sure he would.

Of course, whether he would choose to bog down his ministry by explaining the inconsequential errors of oral tradition, rather than hammering out the message that we need to love one another, is another issue entirely

Considering He did in a number of instances where the interpretations of those traditions had gone of kilter, he very likely would have had there been other errors to explain.

Besides, where is the proof that they depended on oral tradition?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Besides, where is the proof that they depended on oral tradition?

Um... well... how about there being no written Hebrew accounts contemporary with the events they are meant to describe before the Jew's settled in Israel?

How about the similarities between the Jewish Flood story and OTHER regional variations on the Flood story... all of which appear to come from a common root tradition, but all vary considerably from one another?

As for JC dedicating his ministry to correcting Bible errors... I note he saw fit not to explain the bit about 4 legged birds, or pi=3, or much other OT silliness