That Boat Don't Float!!

[ZephyrWiccan]

No, I can't 'imagine it had whatever I'd like'.

I'm a literalist -- remember?

And why am I being told I can imagine it has whatever I like?

I'm not the one giving it a propeller, keel and sails; then calling it a ship; then claiming 'that boat don't float'.

The presence or absence of those things, whether you want to call it a boat or ship or structure or UFO, or WHATEVER you want to call it, do not change the fact that a wooden structure the size of the ark CANNOT float without either its entire insides being held together by internal framework (no room for the animals then), or some sort of metal supports lining the innards, and using mechanical pumps to pump out leaking water.

 

[AV1611VET]

The presence or absence of those things, whether you want to call it a boat or ship or structure or UFO, or WHATEVER you want to call it, do not change the fact that a wooden structure the size of the ark CANNOT float without either its entire insides being held together by internal framework (no room for the animals then), or some sort of metal supports lining the innards, and using mechanical pumps to pump out leaking water.

Is that so?

Well -- if you want to go down the road of should-have-why-didnt, try explaining this doosey:

Da 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

Kinda looks to me like, when God is involved, science & mother nature get sent to time-out for awhile.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Is that so?

Well -- if you want to go down the road of should-have-why-didnt, try explaining this doosey:

Da 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

Kinda looks to me like, when God is involved, science & mother nature get sent to time-out for awhile.

If you assume that any of this nonsense actually happened, then you can make up just about anything you want.

 

[ZephyrWiccan]

Is that so?

Well -- if you want to go down the road of should-have-why-didnt, try explaining this doosey:

Da 3:27 And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.

Kinda looks to me like, when God is involved, science & mother nature get sent to time-out for awhile.

Sounds like the power of 'shrooms in that passage to me.

I'm not going down any road of 'should hav why didn't'.

I'm going down the road of "DIDN'T-COULDN'T" Your Ark could not, and did not, float.

There was no Global Fludde for it to even attempt to do so in the first place.

Sorry to show you your fairy tales are false, bud.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you assume that any of this nonsense actually happened, then you can make up just about anything you want.

I have a question for you, Nathan, that's off-the-wall.

Your expertise is requested here.

Is it gramatically correct to capitalize a word that refers back to two persons, if one of the two require capitalization, but the other doesn't?

Which is correct?

1. God and man are two things mentioned in the Bible.
2. God and man are two Things mentioned in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm going down the road of "DIDN'T-COULDN'T" Your Ark could not, and did not, float.

And let me guess -- Jesus could not, and did not, walk on water -- right?

There was no Global Fludde for it to even attempt to do so in the first place.

Then why was Noah aboard the Ark for over a year?

 

[ZephyrWiccan]

And let me guess -- Jesus could not, and did not, walk on water -- right?

There is no evidence to suggest he did. In fact tehre is little evidence that a Jesus of the exact description of your mythological book actually existed.

It is more than likely the description your book gives was amalgamated by the followers of a doomsday prophet of the time.

Then why was Noah aboard the Ark for over a year?

There was no Ark and no evidence of a Noah, so your question is pointless. Sort of me asking why Frodo threw the ring into the fires of Mt Doom if Mt Doom does not exist.........

 

[AV1611VET]

It is more than likely the description your book gives was amalgamated by the followers of a doomsday prophet of the time.

Which, of course, has no evidence either; but don't apply your own standards to yourself, or you might 404.

After all, if a no-evidence Jesus is supported by a no-evidence doomsday prophet, then ... um ...

 

[ZephyrWiccan]

Which, of course, has no evidence either; but don't apply your own standards to yourself, or you might 404.

After all, if a no-evidence Jesus is supported by a no-evidence doomsday prophet, then ... um ...

Try a read through this:

jesusneverexisted .com/surfeit. htm (can't post links so remove the spaces when you copy and paste.

Very interesting part in one of the sidebars:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Too strange to be a coincidence! [/FONT]​

According to the Biblical account, Pilate offered the Jews the release of just one prisoner and the cursed race chose Barabbas rather than gentle Jesus.

But hold on a minute: in the original text studied by Origen (and in some recent ones) the chosen criminal was Jesus Barabbas – and Bar Abba in Hebrew means ‘Son of the Father’!

Are we to believe that Pilate had a Jesus, Son of God and a Jesus, Son of the Father in his prison at the same time??!!

Perhaps the truth is that a single executed criminal helped flesh out the whole fantastic fable.
Gospel writers, in scrambling details, used the Aramaic Barabbas knowing that few Latin or Greek speakers would know its meaning.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No evidence is quite correct. Very little is recorded about Jesus (at least that exists) and his life. Most evangelical Christians really have no idea or understanding as to the scant evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus. They would whave you believe that the gospel writers sat down and wrote their accounts while Jesus was alive or shortly after. In fact, however, the gospels were written 100-200 years after the death of Jesus.

 

[ZephyrWiccan]

No evidence is quite correct. Very little is recorded about Jesus (at least that exists) and his life. Most evangelical Christians really have no idea or understanding as to the scant evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus. They would whave you believe that the gospel writers sat down and wrote their accounts while Jesus was alive or shortly after. In fact, however, the gospels were written 100-200 years after the death of Jesus.

Precisely!

 

[AV1611VET]

Very interesting part in one of the sidebars:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Too strange to be a coincidence! [/FONT]​

According to the Biblical account, Pilate offered the Jews the release of just one prisoner and the cursed race chose Barabbas rather than gentle Jesus.

But hold on a minute: in the original text studied by Origen (and in some recent ones) the chosen criminal was Jesus Barabbas – and Bar Abba in Hebrew means ‘Son of the Father’!

Are we to believe that Pilate had a Jesus, Son of God and a Jesus, Son of the Father in his prison at the same time??!!

Perhaps the truth is that a single executed criminal helped flesh out the whole fantastic fable.
Gospel writers, in scrambling details, used the Aramaic Barabbas knowing that few Latin or Greek speakers would know its meaning

Cursed race?

So why didn't the Romans, who were trying so desperately to nip the spread of Christianity in the bud before it got started, just go get this body out of the tomb and present it?

1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

In addition, the King James Bible portrays Jesus Christ as our risen Lord and Saviour, not anyone else.

Why would I listen to some guy (Origen) that Peter S. Ruckman calls a "walking, barefoot, [censored]"?

 

[Hespera]

No evidence is quite correct. Very little is recorded about Jesus (at least that exists) and his life. Most evangelical Christians really have no idea or understanding as to the scant evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus. They would whave you believe that the gospel writers sat down and wrote their accounts while Jesus was alive or shortly after. In fact, however, the gospels were written 100-200 years after the death of Jesus.

And -tell me if this is true- every word that he supposedly said can be spoken in about two minutes.

Suddenly appeared at about age 30, spoke for two minutes and that is...it?
What a waste!

Is that really it? Aside from the "miracles" with fish and so on.

 

[Hespera]

Cursed race?

So why didn't the Romans, who were trying so desperately to nip the spread of Christianity in the bud before it got started, just go get this body out of the tomb and present it?

1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

In addition, the King James Bible portrays Jesus Christ as our risen Lord and Saviour, not anyone else.

Why would I listen to some guy (Origen) that Peter S. Ruckman calls a "walking, barefoot, [censored]"?

probably because, if such a person existed he would have been, like the others executed in similar shame and disgrace, left on display till the corpse rotten away and the bones crumbled. no need to go looking in a cave with a rock in front.

and if there was said cave, how hard for someone to go steal a corpse.

this aint rocket science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Very little is recorded about Jesus (at least that exists) and his life.

Praise God for that!

Judging by how people view Him today,* I'm glad they [allegedly] didn't.

And besides, how do you know? where you there?

According to Luke, everybody and their neighbor's neighbors were writing about Him.

God just didn't preserve the writings and they went the way of the Periodic Table.

* A "deceiver" -- just like He was called @ His trial. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Montalban]

There is no evidence to suggest he did.

Except in the Bible

In fact tehre is little evidence that a Jesus of the exact description of your mythological book actually existed.

As historian John Romer once pointed out that there's even less written evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great

However, for Jesus we also have evidence in the sudden outpouring of a movement coinciding with the time he existed. The movement of Christians in spreading their belief is historical.

 

[Montalban]

All so you guys can call it a "ship"?

It doesn't matter. You attempts at pedantics for some yet unknown point are an exericse to amuse yourself.

I can send a package by truck and it is still 'shipped'.

I suppose when you order something over the net and you pay for "shipping and handling" you'll demand your money back because it didn't actually travel by ship, but by plane, or train.

Did you have a point somewhere in this?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The Romans weren't really all that concerned with Jesus. In fact, being hung on a cross was a death reserved for political rabble rousers. Judas and Simon belonged to the radical group known as the zealots, and is very likely that Jesus aligned himself also with the zealots. Rome was interested in keeping economic stability in Palestine, not so much concerned with Juadism, and least of all not christianity.

 

[ZephyrWiccan]

Cursed race?

Asl Luther

So why didn't the Romans, who were trying so desperately to nip the spread of Christianity in the bud before it got started, just go get this body out of the tomb and present it?

1Co 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

In addition, the King James Bible portrays Jesus Christ as our risen Lord and Saviour, not anyone else.

Why would I listen to some guy (Origen) that Peter S. Ruckman calls a "walking, barefoot, [censored]"?

Because, 1. There was no tomb.

and 2. If there was, who is to say that the followers of the doomsday prophet didn't take it and make a story claiming he russurrected?

There is no Jesus Christ of the bible as far as evidence goes.

Who cares what King James bible says? It's over a thousand years after the fact!

 

[ZephyrWiccan]

Except in the Bible

The claim is not the evidence.

As historian John Romer once pointed out that there's even less written evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great

He was wrong.

However, for Jesus we also have evidence in the sudden outpouring of a movement coinciding with the time he existed. The movement of Christians in spreading their belief is historical.

Evidence of a belief. Not of a man.