I was doing some browsing today on http://watchtowerletters.com and discovered a very thought provoking point. The fact is that the flood of Noah's day does not stand up to scientific scrutiny or common sense. This becomes all the more apparent when considering an ancient story like the Epic of Gilgamesh. Basically, if Jesus talked about the flood of Noah's day, which is obviously just a myth, then Jesus himself is obviously just a myth.
Matthew 24:37-39 Proves That Jesus is Fictional
Likewise with literal Adam and Eve, created in 4026BC. That absolutely didn't happen. If not, then the whole original sin and redemption don't follow from the story either.
In fact even the Bible claims that Jesus is the bigger Adam or something. Since Adam is a mythical person, so is Jesus.
Apparently quite a few Christian churches seem to be able to make their theology work regardless, but I don't see it.
The Jesus of the Gospels is a Myth. It is my personal opinion that a charismatic Preacher named Jesus of Nazareth did exist, and that the myth was based upon him, it may be too that we do have preserved in the Gospels some of his original teachings.
I have heard the argument from Bible believers, those who are well aware that the whole Flood story is myth or allegory, that Jesus may have been referring to it in the same way as we may say " In the days of Robin Hood...."
This is a paper thin argument, as Jesus' listeners would have assumed the Flood story to be true, and here Jesus is using it to make a point as though it is true, which if he knew it were not,would make him very close to being a liar.
If you then argue that Jesus did not know the story was a myth, then he is simply not the Son of God is he ?
if Jesus talked about the flood of Noah's day, which is obviously just a myth, then Jesus himself is obviously just a myth
This is a complete non sequitur.
This is a complete non sequitur.
It may be in the sense that Jesus may not be a myth, but it does prove the honest, straight talking Jesus of the Bible is a myth, surely?
OP there is only Watchtower logic about your premise that if the flood did not exist then Jesus' words are false.
It is a scientific given that the Biblical flood could not have happened but quoting myths as if they are realities is the religious norm.
What we are dealing with here are words attributed to Jesus written way after he was supposed to have lived.
In the first and second centuries there were lots of christ cults, god-men and saviours. It was in the interest of the leaders of a christ cult to include in their text, the endorsement of Noah's flood by its particular god-man hero.
Bear in mind that the earliest non-canonical christian writings do not give the name Jesus but call him Lord. The name "Jesus" certainly appears by the third quarter of the second century according to Melito of Sardis however his works like all manuscripts and especially "christian" ones, were subject to being edited by later tamperers and zealots such as Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. Manuscripts can be altered at each re-writing, to add a name or attribute a belief to a character was easy peasy--just make sure you destroy the earlier copies.
We have the Roman Catholic church at Emperor Constantine's urging to thank for the unification of all Christian (and pagan) cults under the name of Jesus in the fourth century. By then the idea that Jesus existed was not in doubt in the minds of the faithful. The poor people had no choice but to believe in authority.
Although I do believe that the biblical Jesus did not exist, the reasoning given involving the Jesus speaking about the flood of Noah's day lacks reason.
The bigger clue is that the Epistles of Paul were written decades before the gospel accounts. There is some serious "cart before the horse" issues with this. Not to mention that there is no other record of Jesus outside the gospels.
Hb:It is a scientific given that the Biblical flood could not have happened but quoting myths as if they are realities is the religious norm.
It proves though, that the bible as such can not be inspired of God, or proofread for factual error by agents of the deity.
That would be a high standard to require, but big claims justify asking for big proofs.
If I refer to "the boy who cried wolf" does that prove I am naive enough to believe that the boy actually existed or that I am a mythical being or neither?
Weak arguments for a mythical Jesus are ten a penny.