The Flood (2)

[AV1611VET]

You really try to stir up contention around here, don't you?

I started a thread on this so I can use it to pwn people who beg for outside confirmation of Jesus' existence.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

The documents listed in your cited link do not count as evidence because they are not contemporary. I would have thought this was a given.

So if my friend dies, then ten or twenty years later I write a history of him that does not qualify as evidence? I don't care about 'contemporary' as the way you seem to be using it does not equate to a rational argument and becomes arbitrary. If I were to write about my friend during his life, or about his death after he is dead how does that I am an eyewitness to his life and said events somehow change? It does not. Similarly eyewitness accounts recorded of Jesus life certainly qualify as evidence. It is absolutely irrational to automatically discard any evidence written in regard to someone simply because it is done after said person has died. So no. That is not a given, in fact a lot of history is like that.

Jesus, however, has no such documentation. Why?

Because he did not write himself.

Because we are discussing the historicity of Jesus. Beyond this forum, I don't give an air-borne faeces whether he existed or not.

Gross.

Do elaborate.

Very well. Let us take John for example. Papias records that John lived into his nineties. That is admittedly very old for the time... even for now its not bad, but anyway, John's Gospel is supposed to have been written around 90 + AD, Not a big deal. We know that John was also significantly younger than Jesus maybe as much or even more than 15 years, so he was probably born around 10/12 AD. John was also an eyewitness. But as I am sure you know that is the oldest of the four cannonized Gospels, so what was that about not being able to write them?

I'm a scientist. If the evidence suggested that pigs fly, I'd open an patent wingchops

Awesome. I have a history minor, and a science major specifically biology, so this kind of thing is right up my alley. I hope I didn't sound too condescending or anything, but this "Jesus Myth" stuff is really equatable with pseudoscience from a historical perspective. Most of the "Christ Myth" or "Christ Conspiracy" advocates have been wholly discredited, or have retracted their advocations.

 

[TheBear]

I started a thread on this so I can use it to pwn people who beg for outside confirmation of Jesus' existence.

But this thread is about a global flood. Remember?

(You use "pwn" at your age? )

 

[AV1611VET]

But this thread is about a global flood. Remember?

Sorry --- I do tend to get sidetracked easily --- my apologies!

(You use "pwn" at your age? )

Check out LLoJ, he literally pwned some Internet expert in some medieval game of some sort somewhere.

Lamb, please verify this --- I can't remember your screen name.

 

[TheBear]

I want to see a uniform layer of fossils, of animal and plant species, all mixed in the same layer, aprox 4,000 years ago. There should be plenty to find. Start a research project. A finding like that would confirm that something killed off most life, aprox 4,000 years ago. It would be considered supporting evidence by the flood believers. Even for the nay-sayers, it would be a mitigating argument for the flood.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

I started a thread on this so I can use it to pwn people who beg for outside confirmation of Jesus' existence.

you might like this

 

[Split Rock]

How about you pouters who whine that Jesus didn't exist because there's no "extrabiblical" confirmation tell me how you "know" Millard Fillmore was the 13[sup]th[/sup] president of the United States; using the same criteria that you guys are begging for?

I don't think this is a good example AVET. I would be very surprised if we did not have extensive contemporary documentation of Millard Fillmore's presidency. This would include documents written and signed by him. Unfortunately, we have nothing similar from Jesus' own hand.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think this is a good example AVET. I would be very surprised if we did not have extensive contemporary documentation of Millard Fillmore's presidency.

I wouldn't, either; but it's all from within our borders. Just like the Gospels --- all done within the borders; but some people want "outside the borders" verification of Jesus' resurrection, etc.

 

[TheBear]

What was the topic again? Oh yeah, the flood.

 

[Baggins]

did you even read my link!?...

I had a cursory glance to see which PRATTs ( points refuted a thousand times ) it was using.

Did you read mine

 

[Baggins]

all your page does is ask questions, it doesnt really even have any reasons against the flood!

mine at least shows reasons as to how it began!

-Cameron

Yours is just a funfest of lies and bad science.

I suggest you pick one point that you think amply demonstrates that the flood really happened, start a thread on it, describe it in your own words and then link to supporting evidence.

Once I have finished laughing I will refute it.

I have been a geologist in academia and industry for 24 years, i doubt there any points that you could bring up that I haven't heard before and couldn't refute in a paragraph or two.

In fact here you go.

Explain how the White cliffs of Dover formed using the flood model.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How about you pouters who whine that Jesus didn't exist because there's no "extrabiblical" confirmation tell me how you "know" Millard Fillmore was the 13[sup]th[/sup] president of the United States; using the same criteria that you guys are begging for?

I have never heard of Fillmore before, but let us do some research.

Wikipedia has several photographs of the man:

Of his campaign poster:

These two alone convince me of his existance: there is a contemporary photograph of the man, and it agrees with his likeness on an equally contemporary document.

Now, I have only been researching the man for five minutes, and I have other things I need to be doing (besides posting here, that is), but I daresay there is historical evidence that proves his existance beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[MoonLancer]

ouch.... thats what I call a smack down.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Explain how the White cliffs of Dover formed using the flood model.

Imagine a structure that, when hit at with a year long flood, becomes the White Cliffs of Dover. That thing was what God Created. QED

 

[AV1611VET]

These two alone convince me of his existance: there is a contemporary photograph of the man, and it agrees with his likeness on an equally contemporary document.

Good --- then this convinces me of Jesus' existence:

​

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Good --- then this convinces me of Jesus' existence:

​

On which page is the photograph of Jesus again? I cannot seem to find it in mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

[edited]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[/list]Answers to above:

1. True

2. Omnipotence means you can do what YOU want. God wanted a creation who would WANT Him...NOT one that HAD to love Him but WANTED to love Him...NOT one that HAD to follow Him but WANTED to follow Him. God knew the risks and He took them because He knew that some would follow Him.

Then your reconcile the problem of evil by rejecting the omnibenevolence of God. Simple enough.

Question: why does God want us to love him?

4. False - As seen by 2

See above. An omnibenevolence de dicto necessarily desires the absence of evil. You reject the notion that God has such a desire, and hence reject the omnibenevolence of God.

5. False - Pure speculation from a mortal being who has not taken the time to learn about the omnipotent God that created him and therefore does not understand Him.

On the contrary, it directly follows from my proof. That is, to reject my conclusion requires you to show a fallacy in my logic, and/or demonstrate that at least one of my premises is unsound (the latter of which you can't do, since they are de dicto necessarily true).

That is, (5) is follows directly from (1) and (4), and so you must refute (1) and/or (4) before you can justify your rejection of (5).

Counter-intuitivity is not a detriment to a logical proof.

He has.

On the contrary, evil still exists: I myself am suffering from a pain in my left shoulder blade (not the most objectionable of evils, but nevertheless...).

So why does God allow evil to exist?
Is he incapable of removing said evil?
Or does he not want to remove said evil?

From your above words, it is clear that you do not contend that God want to remove evil from the world, if only because it is secondary to the potential existance of entities who choose to love God.

That is, you do not believe God to be omnibenevolent insofar as you do not believe he does wants the absence of suffering.

 

[Prince Lucianus]

The bible must be placed in the same group of texts like the Kalevala, Edda or El Cid.
Geographical and historical correct parts, mixed with mythological and supernatural stories we can't check.

As an example: We know Caesar and Alexander of Macedon existed, because we find confirmation about them from several different sources. The same holds true for people with a lesser historical impact.
But, there are also persons with a bigger historical impact which can not be confirmed to have actually existed. Agamemnon, Aeneas and even Homer are most likely people who never existed, although never doubted centuries later. Wilhelm Tell was long believed to have been a real person in Swiss' history.

So, although the bible is a really good source for historical research, historians need to be very skeptical to take things at face value. It's just a work promoting a particular belief, which were written often at the time, which became a best seller.
Since we can't check if it's accurate or not, as often is with biased works, we have to remain skeptical.

Anyway, wasn't this a flood thread

Lucy

 

[Wiccan_Child]

WC glossed over the fact that I said "same criteria" --- and even underlined it; which tells me he doesn't want to debat it.

When I asked for evidence for the existance of Jesus, I made sure to ask for verifiable, contemporary, historical documentation.

The photographs of Fillmore are verifiable, contemporary, historical documents.

The KJV of the Bible is neither verifiable, contemporary, nor historical.

That is, it does not fulfill the same criteria. Try again.