Debunking the literal truth of Noah and the great flood

@JEROME phil,

We return to the same questions that the faithful can not answer.There is no proof that christ existed.There are no independent historic facts to confirm he was a historic figure.No record of herod's child search,no record of a court to judge him, his amazing miracles or his immediate impression on any writers of the time.It takes a decade before he is even mentioned from the followers of this new creed,of which there where many new creeds.It takes Paul to make it more than it is and at least forty years, maybe more, before the gospels are written.The similarities confirm they are copies of the first.Those that dont fit the description are destroyed and the myth grows,till a pagan Caesar rigs a court to confirm the official dogma.Why would they need to vote on a subject so relevant as his divinity?
Now the RC church spend an awful lot of time trying to deny these facts by deceit and down right lies but the evidence is there for all to examine.
There is more evidence of a flood than there is Jesus.

@xris,

xris;80167 wrote:

We return to the same questions that the faithful can not answer.There is no proof that christ existed.

But history does not require absolute proof. If it did, our text books would not exceed twenty pages in covering the whole of human history.

Historians attempt to recreate the past as accurately as possible. Almost all scholars agree that it is far more likely that an historic Jesus existed than it is that an historic Jesus did not exist. To run around and say there is no proof is beside the point - Ockam's Razor, he existed.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

xris;80167 wrote:

There are no independent historic facts to confirm he was a historic figure.

Except for, you know, the various independent historic mentions of Jesus. None are absolute facts, but given the preponderance of these mentions, and the Christian mentions outside of the scripture, and the volumes upon volumes of scriptural testimony, it is far more likely that Jesus existed than otherwise.

Can we doubt whether he existed? Sure. But any reasonable person must reach the conclusion that his historic existence is more likely than his historic non-existence.

xris;80167 wrote:

No record of herod's child search

Except for the remains of hundreds of children from that period that are otherwise inexplicable.

xris;80167 wrote:

no record of a court to judge him

But there is record of those records being lost.

xris;80167 wrote:

There is more evidence of a flood than there is Jesus.

No sir, there is absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood.

Your rejection of Jesus' historic existence is a quibble and flies in the face of volumes upon volumes of scholarly work done over the past two hundred years by secular as well as religious scholars. Rejection of the historic existence of a man named Jesus is tantamount to rejection of the existence of black holes because we have never actually seen one.

I say all of this as someone who argues that a Christian can reject the historic existence of Jesus and still be a Christian. His historic existence is spiritually irrelevant. His historic existence is only relevant to me as an historian, not as a Christian.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;80252 wrote:

But history does not require absolute proof. If it did, our text books would not exceed twenty pages in covering the whole of human history.

Historians attempt to recreate the past as accurately as possible. Almost all scholars agree that it is far more likely that an historic Jesus existed than it is that an historic Jesus did not exist. To run around and say there is no proof is beside the point - Ockam's Razor, he existed.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Except for, you know, the various independent historic mentions of Jesus. None are absolute facts, but given the preponderance of these mentions, and the Christian mentions outside of the scripture, and the volumes upon volumes of scriptural testimony, it is far more likely that Jesus existed than otherwise.

Can we doubt whether he existed? Sure. But any reasonable person must reach the conclusion that his historic existence is more likely than his historic non-existence.

Except for the remains of hundreds of children from that period that are otherwise inexplicable.

But there is record of those records being lost.

No sir, there is absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood.

Your rejection of Jesus' historic existence is a quibble and flies in the face of volumes upon volumes of scholarly work done over the past two hundred years by secular as well as religious scholars. Rejection of the historic existence of a man named Jesus is tantamount to rejection of the existence of black holes because we have never actually seen one.

I say all of this as someone who argues that a Christian can reject the historic existence of Jesus and still be a Christian. His historic existence is spiritually irrelevant. His historic existence is only relevant to me as an historian, not as a Christian.

Nothing else in history is so important to confirm.Every other historic event of significance has been recorded by historians or scribes of that time .There are no contemporary reports of Jesus,none at all.
Scientific theories do not require worship or dogma that effects a large proportion of the worlds population.
There are people who believe Robin Hood was a historical figure and King Arthur has become a myth from Celtic legend.Given enough press in an age of information famine, anything that represents hope in time of need will be grasped and expanded.
I have remarked before that i believe a MAN existed who gave us a new message but fundamentalists need to be told that given there is no proof of the man they should be less dogmatic in their faith driven fervour.
I know your views Thomas, my intentions was for those who are blinded by an arrogance that destroys the message.

@xris,

xris;80310 wrote:

Nothing else in history is so important to confirm.Every other historic event of significance has been recorded by historians or scribes of that time .There are no contemporary reports of Jesus,none at all.

You should check that link I provided if you do not think there are contemporary accounts of Jesus. First, the various Gospels, canonical and apocryphal alike, constitute such accounts. Second, there are several other sources referring to Jesus, and I do not mean Josephus.

xris;80310 wrote:

Scientific theories do not require worship or dogma that effects a large proportion of the worlds population.

Neither does acknowledging that a man named Jesus existed, who preached in Israel roughly 2,000 years ago. Again, I am not making these claims as spiritual assertions, but as historical assertions.

xris;80310 wrote:

There are people who believe Robin Hood was a historical figure and King Arthur has become a myth from Celtic legend.Given enough press in an age of information famine, anything that represents hope in time of need will be grasped and expanded.

What's your point? The Arthurian legends are derived from real Celtic resistance against Roman invasion.

And there is far more evidence for Jesus.

xris;80310 wrote:

I have remarked before that i believe a MAN existed who gave us a new message but fundamentalists need to be told that given there is no proof of the man they should be less dogmatic in their faith driven fervour.

I think you've got this backwards.

Regardless of Jesus' historic existence, the spiritual lessons remain intact. Fundamentalists need to grow up and stop reading scripture like five year old children. Their theology has nothing to do with history. Again, Jesus' historic existence is irrelevant to the spiritual lessons attributed to Jesus.

If you believe a man called Jesus existed and preached, then you should know better than to claim that there is no evidence of said man.

@Didymos Thomas,

The point im making is that legend becomes myth,myth becomes facts for many.My agreeing to admit there could be a man called jesus does not give him anymore credibility as a historic fact.I have read your link in anticipation and there is no proof of his existance in that faithful inspired wickie .Circumstantial by those who desire his existance, is not proof.I ,as you know detest the dogma driven necessities and it derives it authority in the certainty he existed.

@JEROME phil,

JEROME;77115 wrote:

Mr. McDougall writes:

As evidenced by your own immodest speculations, I doubt very much that your thinking ever extends beyond the stony (and brittle) confines of your own bloated cranium...with all due respect, sir.

What scientific rationale, then, leads you to presuppose that the existence of Mt. Everest, or the mountains of Judea for that matter, precedes the Noahic flood?

JEROME

That is a good point, since that is being assumed.

@xris,

xris;80390 wrote:

The point im making is that legend becomes myth,myth becomes facts for many.

Which is quite true, xris. But this has nothing to do with my points to which you keep responding. I am making a purely historic argument.

xris;80390 wrote:

My agreeing to admit there could be a man called jesus does not give him anymore credibility as a historic fact.I have read your link in anticipation and there is no proof of his existance in that faithful inspired wickie

Again, history does not require absolute proof. Instead, historians look at available information an attempt to reconstruct what they can. According to damn near every scholar, there was an historic Jesus. Why you continue to accuse historians of faith based biased on such a universally accepted opinion is beyond me.

Further, your criticism of Wikipedia is way off base. You are talking about a progressive, liberal encyclopedia that is more accurate than any other encyclopedia in the English language. While certainly not perfect, it is a good source for our purposes. The site has spawned spin offs like conservapedia because it is so progressive.

xris;80390 wrote:

Circumstantial by those who desire his existance, is not proof.I ,as you know detest the dogma driven necessities and it derives it authority in the certainty he existed.

But the historic opinion is not faith based, xris. Even secular scholars agree, almost universally, that Jesus existed.

@Didymos Thomas,

Thomas if wickie is to believed we can always find an alternative, view with a more independant outlook...Christ myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those who have dared to make such a proposal in the past where usually burnt at the stake, so history has been maintained by brute force.Now The RC church have lost that ability, it still endevours to hide such truths by the clever use of the web.
You cant maintain any real value in the belief that jesus was a figure of certainty other than by faith.I would not deny anyone the right to believe but its the consequences by those who abide by the dogma, that i oppose.
The values from christianity must balanced with the horrors and I for one see it has been outweighed by its excesses, especially of the RC church.
Theologists hide behind the details and many must realise it is only of academic interest rather than the real search for truth.

@xris,

xris;80497 wrote:

Thomas if wickie is to believed we can always find an alternative, view with a more independant outlook...Christ myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That Wikipedia article makes it clear that scholarly opinion is strongly against the myth theory. So the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth seems highly probable. It is not certain, of course, but why do you consider the issue of non-certainty so important? Surely the point is not that religious authorities act coercively on the basis of a less-than-certain proposition, but that they act coercively at all. Their behaviour would be just as bad if the existence of Jesus were certain.

@ACB,

ACB;80520 wrote:

That Wikipedia article makes it clear that scholarly opinion is strongly against the myth theory. So the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth seems highly probable. It is not certain, of course, but why do you consider the issue of non-certainty so important? Surely the point is not that religious authorities act coercively on the basis of a less-than-certain proposition, but that they act coercively at all. Their behaviour would be just as bad if the existence of Jesus were certain.

For them the certainty is what drives their dogma,without it they would have no authority.I say again no one can give any evidence of his existance,everything about his image is second hand.I dont want to deny anyone's faith but i will fight tooth and nail against a dogma that injures so many lives.

@xris,

As well you should fight against harmful dogma - despite our constant disagreement, often heated, that is one element of your position I have immense respect for. It's a point we share.

But, instead of denying what is historically well established, perhaps you should try productive means of fighting harmful dogma.

@Didymos Thomas,

I would love that strategy if it worked.It works for reasonable men of faith but those who are determined of their authority, i have to play the part i dont always wish to.
We see it time and time again this strict adherence to their interpretation of scripture and we have organisations who are blind to the real needs of their brethren because of certain decrees dictated over two thousand years ago.
I have very, very good friends who are devout catholics and they refuse to even acknowledge their devotion to outlandish dogma.Most immerse themselves in ritual and ignore the bits that are painful.Its very annoying to find educated friends so bemused by habit of faith, rather than honest debate.Thomas i vent my feelings more here than in real life, its a release of my frustrations.I'm sorry if i use you as the anvil of my feelings.

@xris,

But arguing for an obscure, largely dismissed hypothesis regarding the historical Jesus is not going to change the hearts and minds, either, xrs.

Hey, I don't mind being an anvil from time to time. But I just think an intelligent man such as yourself would be more inclined to seek out tactics that have some hope of working for progress on our mutual aim. Namely, example.

@Alan McDougall,

God so loved THE WORLD not a particular group of fundamentalist tyrants of which the dark ages and the burning alive of innocent old ladies as witches is a prime example

The god of Numbers 31 is not my GOD he/it is a murderer of innocent woman, and children and the author of rape.

His real name is Evelian and it masquerades as god

@Alan McDougall,

The God of the Book of Numbers is the God of Moses, YHWH.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas:

You write on another thread:

Quote:

There is monism in eastern philosophy, but I am not comfortable categorizing Taoism as monist. To add such a label is to assert that Tao can be known intellectually, which runs contrary to teachings in the Tao-Te-Ching and in Chuang-Tzu. [bold, underline, and italics mine]

Let me see if I understand this comment of yours correctly, dear Didymos. Are you saying that the Taoist Scriptures are composed of words possessing a definite sense? Are you saying that one cannot believe, assert, and confess that the Tao-Te-Ching and the Chuang-Tzu speak of the Tao as being "known intellectually"? Are they no longer to be considered true, genuine, or bonafide Taoists? What if they are to hold to this their belief with such a contrite sincerity, piety, and devotion that it makes even the angels of heaven blush with ungovernable shame?

It seems that here you have, either unwittingly or shamelessly, unveiled your own bias, partiality, and predilection regarding the matter of religion. For how is it that you can, on the one hand, affirm that a "Christian" may disbelieve that the Scriptures (as established by Christ and His Church) have no relation, association, or correspondence to God's will or command, and that a "Christian" may believe that Christ never even existed in flesh (that flesh which suffered, died, and rose again for the salvation of all men), while, on the other hand, deny that one can speak of the Taoist's texts in any other way than one, namely, that the Tao cannot be intellectually known, but only experienced? Can one assert the contrary and hold to an intellectually knowable Tao that cannot be experienced (add to this, of course, their utmost sincerity, humility, piety, etc...)? Is it your practice to judge religious texts with opposing standards, or are you merely negligent and/or ignorant of your utter folly?

Therefore, it appears that your unique brand of articulating incontrovertible theological principles is in need of a proper title--so as to distinguish it from the proper articulation of incontrovertible theological principles (i.e. Christian Dogmatics). However, you need not fret nor worry, dear Didymos, as I have already prepared a most fitting title for you: Taogmatics.

JEROME

@JEROME phil,

JEROME;81517 wrote:

Let me see if I understand this comment of yours correctly, dear Didymos. Are you saying that the Taoist Scriptures are composed of words possessing a definite sense? Are you saying that one cannot believe, assert, and confess that the Tao-Te-Ching and the Chuang-Tzu speak of the Tao as being "known intellectually"? Are they no longer to be considered true, genuine, or bonafide Taoists? What if they are to hold to this their belief with such a contrite sincerity, piety, and devotion that it makes even the angels of heaven blush with ungovernable shame?

No, you do not understand me.

Study these books and then come talk to me about them.

@Alan McDougall,

JEROME,

If God asked you to murder a little Moslem child living accross the street would you obey him?????

A direct answer now please don't fudge it with a thousand scriptural verses!!

Yes........................................?
or
No..........................................?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;81559 wrote:

No, you do not understand me.

Study these books and then come talk to me about them.

Then it seems that I have understood you precisely, dear Didymos, as you, rather than contend for the obscurity of the Taoist texts (as you do the Christian texts), refer me to them as though they will, by virtue of their own perspicuity, disclose their meaning, namely, that the teaching of the Tao is not intellectually known, but only experienced.

However, to merely dismiss your error (and my having pointed it out to you) by demanding that I first "study these books" before I am able to "speak with you about them", as though this bare demand would relieve you of your blunder, is neither applicable nor pertinent to my objection.

For you see, dear Didymos, it is not my argument that the Taoist texts teach what is contrary to their obvious meaning (in fact I quite agree that the Taoist religion is primarily an empirical one--or at least claimed to be by its adherents), rather I have merely adopted the argument you use against the Holy Scriptures and applied it to the Taoist scriptures. Therefore, I need not possess any knowledge whatsoever of the Taoist texts (though I have taken introductory courses in the study of world religion that have given me a rudimentary knowledge of them), nor any other "holy books" of the East (or West for that matter), as I am not arguing over their meaning, but only that meaning which you ascribe to them, and only that which you deny the Christian Scriptures, namely, the clarity of language that demands an objective and definite sense regardless of what subjective perversions of the text may occur by individual persons.

Furthermore, why is it that you, upon being asked the meaning of the Christian texts refer the asker back to the "individual", and, contrariwise, upon being asked the meaning of the Taoist texts refer the asker to that very text in question? Why is it that I am accused of "circularity" when I refer to the Holy Scriptures as the basis for their own meaning and authority, whereas when you refer to the Taoist texts as the basis of their own meaning and authority, you deem yourself exempt from all criticism, commentary, and judgment?

In addition, what if I prefer not to recognize the Taoist texts as authoritative? What if I choose--as an "individual"--to recognize other texts as truly speaking of the Tao, despite their blatantly contradicting the recognized Tao Te Ching and Chaung Tzu? In fact, what if I were to merely write my own Taoist text (I will call it the Jer O Me) and devote myself to it in all "humility", "piety", "sincerity", "honesty", and the like? Why would you discount me my "individual" right to claim myself a Taoist?

You Taogmaticians can be so intolerant:saddened:

JEROME

---------- Post added 08-06-2009 at 12:54 PM ----------

Alan McDougall;81576 wrote:

JEROME,

If God asked you to murder a little Moslem child living accross the street would you obey him?????

A direct answer now please don't fudge it with a thousand scriptural verses!!

Yes........................................?
or
No..........................................?

Where do I begin, Mr. McDougall?

Firstly, the revelation of God to man is closed, having been fulfilled by the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, and through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Therefore, any claim to private revelation can be safely discarded as nothing more than enthusiast twaddle.

Secondly, you ask the question as though God delights in the death of the wicked, and as though His first will is not the repentance and faith of all men in the God-Man Jesus Christ.

Thirdly, your question is both unreasonable and muttonheaded, seeing that it does not seek an honest response, but only to "trap", as it were, the enemy in its coils.

Fourthly, why should I reply to any question you pose to me, given that you have yet to respond to several dozen I have posed to you many days, even weeks, ago?

Therefore, your question can be likened to the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" inquiry, and only if the one addressed is without a wife, thereby making it equally irrelevant, extraneous, and astonishingly (even for you) doltish.

JEROME

@JEROME phil,

Funny that, I would think most of the population would not hesitate in saying no, i will not kill for anyone, as an act of obedience.It is relevant when you consider your god tested his prophet beyond understanding and asked him to kill his child.Your reluctance to answer gives a clue to your mind set,the mind set we fail to understand.

Philosophy Forum

Debunking the literal truth of Noah and the great flood

Quick Links

My Account

able2know