Flood Legends
by Inquisitor 19 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Inquisitor
Drawing from the post by Kero-Kero (good one Kero2!!)
How does one explain Jesus' alleged support to the credibility of Noah's Flood? Does it mean then that rejection of the Noachian Flood is the rejection of Christ's thoughts?
INQ
-
Leolaia
Inquisitor....Biblical scholar Dale Allison writes in his book Resurrecting Jesus:
"Elsewhere I have written, 'A Jesus who proclaimed the nearness of the end in the first century must have been a real human being. This is no small point. Docetism may have been condemned long ago as a heresy, but it has never gone away. Much of the popular Christianity I have known seems to think that Jesus was at least three-fourths divinity, no more than one-quarter human being. If we go back to the ancient church, it wasn't much better. The theologians who confessed Jesus' true humanity balked at the implications....Here is one point at which the Fathers failed us' [See Miller, Apocalyptic Jesus, 147-48]. I teach at a seminary, and most of the student orthodoxy that I encounter is in fact ill-concealed docetism, which I hold in contempt: it is a lie.... Jesus comes from another time and place; I accordingly do not expect his beliefs simply to match mine. For me, Jesus' eschatological convictions belong to, for lack of a better word, mythology, even though such a thought is foreign to the way in which his own mind must have looked at the last things. He surely construed his eschatological expectations much as most premoderns construed Gen 1-3, that is, more or less literally. But just as the mythological character of Genesis does not bar us from interpreting and appropriating the text, so too is it with the old eschatological expectations" (pp. 146-147).
-
peacefulpete
If there was an historical person behind the Jesus legends and if he really said those particular words (unlikely on both counts) his use of an ancient parable to teach something most certainly does not give historicity to the parable. How many parents use fairy tales and such to teach?The real question is did the writer of Matthew (not in Mark and Luke used Matthew here) believe the story as historical.
-
Kero-kero
Here is an interesting site:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp
It is pro-flood and gives reasons and evidence for why the account of the global flood really did happen.
My problem with such sites as the above is it is biased to the creation account and the flood account, has their faith depends on it. I also have a problem with pro-evolutionists. Both are just theories.
-
peacefulpete
Welcome kero-kero, boy you must be a sweet person. If your interested in researching this type of topic I recommend this website ( Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy) above the one you posted. Those folks at answersingenesis are so blinded by religious extremism that they've gained a reputation for gross hishonesty and fuzzy logic.
-
-
Kero-kero
I just added the link has a point of interest. I am not apart of that religion or in anyway in total agreement with 'Answersing Genesis' On a personal level I find the idea of a Global Flood hard to believe.
When I posted the link I did say that my problem with such sites or organisation is that their faith depends on the global flood of Noah's Day being factual. Where-as I have doubts that such a thing actually happened.
-
Shining One
>The account of Noah's Flood has had its credibility beaten black and blue by current understanding of ancient history, geology and biology.
Uh, NO it hasn't. You are just reasoning from the evolutionary presupposition. The 'proofs' of the scientific data at present can be successfully defended from either viewpoint!
>Yet staunch Christians, including JWs, continue to assert that the existence of the many flood legends from all over the world proves that a global catastrophe must have occurred.
That is only one observable fact and is not the 'whole enchilada'.
>How would you respond to this line of reasoning specifically?
You've just seen the answer to that!
Rex -
Inquisitor
Uh, NO it hasn't. You are just reasoning from the evolutionary presupposition. The 'proofs' of the scientific data at present can be successfully defended from either viewpoint!
Link me up with "scientific data" that you feel has successfully defended the Noachian Flood account. I'm always open to new information, Shining One. Don't just tell me it is so. Your word is not Law.
Oh and btw, I have not only considered arguments presented from the evolutionists' point of view. I've also looked at some geological and archeological points against the Flood. Don't YOU "presuppose" my alleged "presupposition".>Yet staunch Christians, including JWs, continue to assert that the existence of the many flood legends from all over the world proves that a global catastrophe must have occurred. That is only one observable fact and is not the 'whole enchilada'.
What exactly is your issue with my statement (in italics)? You're not required to chime in at every full stop you know.
>How would you respond to this line of reasoning specifically? You've just seen the answer to that!
No, YOU'RE the only one who can see YOUR answer to my question. The rest of us are still tapping our feet for you to drop the forced metaphorical speech and try-hard witticisms and get down to dispensing some substantial information; especially when you seem to be the only person on this thread to disagree with the prevailing views. Like I said before, link me up with the information that you think I've neglected in my conclusions about the Flood. The ball is in your court, Shining One. INQ