Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But He said He existed before Abraham. He is the one who spoke with Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, Noah. He is "the Word of God." God, who is invisible spirit communicated to humanity through Christ. So, of course Jesus witnessed the world-wide flood and more than likely helped Noah by giving him wisdom to build the ark. he was a carpenter you know.
Come on AREQUIPA, that idea doesn't float.
Why would Noah build a small boat to escape a flooding of the Black Sea (I don't know why you say "Red Sea",) and put animals on the boat? If you knew in advance that the valley you were living in (He wasn't even living in the Black Sea area at the time of the flood anyway) was going to flood, wouldn't you forgo building a boat, and just grab the ole lady, and kids and animals and go to higher land? I surely would. Your scenario does not make sense with someone confronted with a localized flood.
I agree that a localized flood would make no sense, when interpreting the biblical tale. Considering this, Christians are challenged with a litany of issues with a global flood, many of which were brought up in the Nye/Ham debate last night. The biblical flood is really a no-win for those who believe the OT. I'm not really sure why you don't simply avoid the topic altogether.
But He said He existed before Abraham. He is the one who spoke with Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, Noah. He is "the Word of God." God, who is invisible spirit communicated to humanity through Christ. So, of course Jesus witnessed the world-wide flood and more than likely helped Noah by giving him wisdom to build the ark. he was a carpenter you know.
But not a metallurgist, vet, shipwright, agriculturalist or indeed a capitalist with a distinctly cavalier view to the expendable workforce. Indeed towards all of humanity and the animals who didn't get onto the ark. In fact Jesus doesn't sound at all like a person who would have approved of the destruction of all creation apart from a selected few.
He sound more to me like someone who was talking about things that supposedly happened a long time ago and there was quite a bit that he didn't know. He knew that someone had touched his robe, but he didn't know who. He asked God to let him off crucifixion, which if he knew everything as much as God, he wouldn't have even bothered to ask. He wouldn't have initially refused to help the Syrio -Poenecian woman if he knew that he was going to help her in the end. The evidence of the bible is that Jesus only knew what God wanted him to know. Therefore, it wouldn't be in God's interests to let on that the OT wasn't true.
And apart from that is the possibility that Jesus used the tales to make his point whether he thought them likely or not. You cannot use Jesus as evidence that Genesis is factual. If a lot of Christians believe them to be metaphorically true, why not Jesus? You have no business telling Jesus how to think on the basis of your literalist beliefs.
Quote:
Come on AREQUIPA, that idea doesn't float.
Why would Noah build a small boat to escape a flooding of the Black Sea (I don't know why you say "Red Sea",) and put animals on the boat? If you knew in advance that the valley you were living in (He wasn't even living in the Black Sea area at the time of the flood anyway) was going to flood, wouldn't you forgo building a boat, and just grab the ole lady, and kids and animals and go to higher land? I surely would. Your scenario does not make sense with someone confronted with a localized flood.
I agree that idea doesn't float (and I don't know why I said Red Sea rather than Black ) That is why I don't believe that the Black sea flood theory can explain the Noah story. You are looking for a total global flood to float the Genesis story, and I am looking to the Mesopotamian flood legends. neither of us are seeing any credibility in the local Black sea flood theory as having anything to do with the Noah -story. I hope you will bear that in mind next time the Ark or flood comes up and someone points to this Black sea thing as proof that the Bible story is true.
Anyway, there are a lot of problems with Christianity itself that keeps me from going to any Christian church or following some Christian belief on my own. For example; in Catholicism the only way to go to heaven is through Jesus. There are many millions, and perhaps even billions of people who are completely unfamiliar with Jesus, and are bound for hell simply because they were born in the wrong place on the globe.
I know this is off topic, but you are stuck in level one atheism and you still confuse man made religion with the concept of a God. Aquinas never referred to religion or the bible when he tried to prove the existence of God.
In any event, Catholicism is a cultural tradition and a religion. Traditions and religions are not supposed to make sense, that is part of the fun. With regards to your statement above in bold. This is what the catechism says regarding non-Christians (see bold):
Quote:
The Church and non-Christians
839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325
The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329
840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330
842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:
All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332
844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
I agree that a localized flood would make no sense, when interpreting the biblical tale. Considering this, Christians are challenged with a litany of issues with a global flood, many of which were brought up in the Nye/Ham debate last night. The biblical flood is really a no-win for those who believe the OT. I'm not really sure why you don't simply avoid the topic altogether.
It is too bad Ken Ham doesn't see that the earth could be millions of years old. If he understood Genesis 1:1 to 1:2 he could see that first of all "God created the heavens and the earth" and that later on "the earth **became** chaos and vacant."
It was 6 or so thousand years ago that God made the earth habitable again with the 6 days or restoration.
It is too bad that Nye makes fun of Noah's ark as if it is an impossibility, that if people who know all about ship building could not build a sea-worthy wooden ship smaller than the ark then therefore Noah could not make an ark the size stated in the Bible. But that is making a grand reach not based on facts but only based upon one's ignorance. Bill Nye does not really REALLY know of Noah's capabilities. He just ASSUMES Noah was incapable. That is not very scientific. But of course I remember when Nye first came out with his show he would always start his show out by saying "I'm not really a scientist." Correct me if I didn't quote him right.
If Nye is right about Noah and the ark then Jesus is wrong as is the Old Testament. This is why we don't simply avoid the topic altogether. It is important.
But not a metallurgist, vet, shipwright, agriculturalist or indeed a capitalist with a distinctly cavalier view to the expendable workforce. Indeed towards all of humanity and the animals who didn't get onto the ark. In fact Jesus doesn't sound at all like a person who would have approved of the destruction of all creation apart from a selected few.
He sound more to me like someone who was talking about things that supposedly happened a long time ago and there was quite a bit that he didn't know. He knew that someone had touched his robe, but he didn't know who. He asked God to let him off crucifixion, which if he knew everything as much as God, he wouldn't have even bothered to ask. He wouldn't have initially refused to help the Syrio -Poenecian woman if he knew that he was going to help her in the end. The evidence of the bible is that Jesus only knew what God wanted him to know. Therefore, it wouldn't be in God's interests to let on that the OT wasn't true.
That is because you don't know Jesus.
You see, when Jesus comes back to set up the start of His 1000 year reign, He is coming back as a lion (figuratively speaking). He is going to do battle with the kings of the earth. Many will be killed. Jesus will be victorious.
Not only that, but after the 1000 year reign of Christ there will be another battle:
Revelation 20:7-9 And whenever the thousand years should be finished, Satan will be loosed out of his jail." (8) And he will be coming out to deceive all the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to be mobilizing them for battle, their number being as the sand of the sea." (9) And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and surround the citadel of the saints and the beloved city. And fire descended from God out of heaven and devoured them."
How many are "the sand of the sea"? Maybe millions? Maybe billions?
Quote:
And apart from that is the possibility that Jesus used the tales to make his point whether he thought them likely or not. You cannot use Jesus as evidence that Genesis is factual. If a lot of Christians believe them to be metaphorically true, why not Jesus? You have no business telling Jesus how to think on the basis of your literalist beliefs.
Because Jesus never spoke of the flood and ark as being a metaphor. He said "EVEN AS," "THUS ALSO." You know, there is an equivalent corollary existing between the former statement and the latter.
Mat 24:37 For even as the days of Noah, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind."
Luke uses a similar corollary relationship:
Luk 17:26 And according as it occurred in the days of Noah, thus will it be in the days of the Son of Mankind also."
It really will be like Jesus said it will be like when He returns. He used Noah, the ark and the flood and how people lived in Noah's day as a corollary of what it will be like when He returns.
Quote:
I agree that idea doesn't float (and I don't know why I said Red Sea rather than Black ) That is why I don't believe that the Black sea flood theory can explain the Noah story. You are looking for a total global flood to float the Genesis story, and I am looking to the Mesopotamian flood legends. neither of us are seeing any credibility in the local Black sea flood theory as having anything to do with the Noah -story. I hope you will bear that in mind next time the Ark or flood comes up and someone points to this Black sea thing as proof that the Bible story is true.
Your Black sea theory does not work. There were possibly billions of people on Pangea in the day Noah was building the ark. He knew his crew was the only survivor of mankind on the planet. How did he come to this knowledge? Because he knew. He traveled.
Now if the flood just occurred in the Black Sea area and from that we get a story of a world-wide flood in which all the people of that world were destroyed, it does not work. The people in that Black Sea area would bump into Aunt Mildred and Uncle Shembala a couple miles outside the flood zone and know not all were killed off. They would have run into thousands of people and know all did not die off. Therefore the Black Sea flooding cannot possibly be the story behind the Noah's Flood story.
That is because you don't know Jesus.
You see, when Jesus comes back to set up the start of His 1000 year reign, He is coming back as a lion (figuratively speaking). He is going to do battle with the kings of the earth. Many will be killed. Jesus will be victorious.
Not only that, but after the 1000 year reign of Christ there will be another battle:
Revelation 20:7-9 And whenever the thousand years should be finished, Satan will be loosed out of his jail." (8) And he will be coming out to deceive all the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to be mobilizing them for battle, their number being as the sand of the sea." (9) And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and surround the citadel of the saints and the beloved city. And fire descended from God out of heaven and devoured them."
How many are "the sand of the sea"? Maybe millions? Maybe billions?
Because Jesus never spoke of the flood and ark as being a metaphor. He said "EVEN AS," "THUS ALSO." You know, there is an equivalent corollary existing between the former statement and the latter.
Mat 24:37 For even as the days of Noah, thus shall be the presence of the Son of Mankind."
Luke uses a similar corollary relationship:
Luk 17:26 And according as it occurred in the days of Noah, thus will it be in the days of the Son of Mankind also."
It really will be like Jesus said it will be like when He returns. He used Noah, the ark and the flood and how people lived in Noah's day as a corollary of what it will be like when He returns.
Very well then. Since the Noah story can't be true (according to all the evidence we have looked at, then Jesus did not know any better. I doubt that many would agree with such conclusions. Nor would they buy your belief that the OT stories are literal. Either way, neither I nor those who see the Flood and Eden as metaphors would buy your argument that Jesus testifies to the literal correctness of the Flood. I know that you do, but what you believe doesn't bother me in the least. The only thing that does is what evidence you can bring forth and appeal to Jesus believed it does not persuade me nor, I suspect a lot of other Christians who cannot buy the tall stories in Genesis.
Quote:
Your Black sea theory does not work. There were possibly billions of people on Pangea in the day Noah was building the ark. He knew his crew was the only survivor of mankind on the planet. How did he come to this knowledge? Because he knew. He traveled.
Now if the flood just occurred in the Black Sea area and from that we get a story of a world-wide flood in which all the people of that world were destroyed, it does not work. The people in that Black Sea area would bump into Aunt Mildred and Uncle Shembala a couple miles outside the flood zone and know not all were killed off. They would have run into thousands of people and know all did not die off. Therefore the Black Sea flooding cannot possibly be the story behind the Noah's Flood story.
You are Losing It old son. I hardly understand the point you are trying to make here, and you clearly don't understand mine. The Black sea theory is nothing to do with the Genesis flood. Can we agree at least on that?
Ha! Page 28.# 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Stubborn. That's a word I would consider as to those who still do not believe, after all the scientific proof (yes, I said "scientific proof" that a global flood occurred.
Rather than accept the man who has been there and done that from the link above, all they do is make fun of, or blather on as if nothing was proved at all. That's called stubborn.
YOU were the one who first raised the Black sea theory of Ballard as some kind of 'scientific' proof. Now you describe it as 'dumbest'. You can't even keep coherent track of your own arguments. Having failed to make any but trivial points, you resort to using the New testament to prove the Old. I'd say that you have nothing left but Literalist faith and stubborn denial.
This has been a good thread.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-05-2014 at 11:14 AM..
Another problem Nye has was when asked the question about the age of the earth, he said it relates to the age of the stars. But that is not really so in the real world.
For instance, even if the stars, the furthest stars we see via Hubble, are billions of light years away, this does not PROVE the earth is billions of years old. There are new stars forming as I write this in the Orion Nebula area. Those stars cannot be billions of years old that are now forming.
It could be the earth came billions of years after the so-called Big Bang. It could be the earth is millions of years old but not the same age as the furthest stars.
Very well then. Since the Noah story can't be true (according to all the evidence we have looked at, then Jesus did not know any better. I doubt that many would agree with such conclusions. Nor would they buy your belief that the OT stories are literal. Either way, neither I nor those who see the Flood and Eden as metaphors would buy your argument that Jesus testifies to the literal correctness of the Flood. I know that you do, but what you believe doesn't bother me in the least. The only thing that does is what evidence you can bring forth and appeal to Jesus believed it does not persuade me nor, I suspect a lot of other Christians who cannot buy the tall stories in Genesis.
No, since the Noah historic account is true, according to all the evidence we have looked at, then Jesus did know what He was talking about.
If Christians don't believe Jesus as to His statement about Noah, the ark and the flood then neither should they believe Him as to dying for our sins. It's as simple as that.
Quote:
You are Losing It old son. I hardly understand the point you are trying to make here, and you clearly don't understand mine. The Black sea theory is nothing to do with the Genesis flood. Can we agree at least on that?
Ha! Page 28.# 275
Re-read what I wrote till you understand it. It's not that hard for a simple minded person to understand.
Quote:
YOU were the one who first raised the Black sea theory of Ballard as some kind of 'scientific' proof. Now you describe it as 'dumbest'. You can't even keep coherent track of your own arguments. Having failed to make any but trivial points, you resort to using the New testament to prove the Old. I'd say that you have nothing left but Literalist faith and stubborn denial.
This has been a good thread.
I never said what Ballard said was the "dumbest". You can't even quote me correctly. Go back to what I was talking about.
Here is my direct statement from post #516 in this thread about "dumbest":
Quote:
The black sea flood is the dumbest idea as if that is what sparked the flood of Noah's day historical account. I mean, really? That's like saying aunt Mildred's family died in a flood and that story grew and grew to include the entire world? Really?
Notice the entire statement in the first sentence in the quote above. I didn't say "The Black Sea theory by Ballard is the dumbest theory for the world wide flood." I said: "The Black Sea flood is the dumbest idea AS IF THAT IS WHAT SPARKED THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY HISTORICAL ACCOUNT."
Try to learn how to read.
You were saying that the Black Sea flood was the basis for the story of Noah's flood story. That's dumb.
Do Catholics believe that Noah’s Ark is a factual event?
The story of Noah’s Ark, Genesis chapters 5 through 9, recounts a devastating flood that destroyed the world and all living creatures except for a just man named Noah, his family, and the pairs of living creatures that he brought on board with him before the rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights.
Interestingly enough, there are a number of epic stories of a great flood that can be found in various cultures around the world. No doubt, the story of Noah is based on a factual event since archaeologists have found evidence of great floods that took place during biblical times.
This does not mean, however that every detail of the story of Noah’s Ark is factual. We have no reason NOT to believe that a just man named Noah saved his family and many living creatures from a flood that devastated the known world at that time. However, it is hardly conceivable that a simple man like Noah could build an ark of such huge proportions and then gather two of every known living creature – one male and one female – and house them safely within it and feed them and dispose of their waste over a period of 40 days. That’s quite a zoological fete!
The less-than-factual character of this story, however, in no way diminishes the truth and sacredness of its message. At times, biblical authors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used figurative language to communicate God’s truth. It is indeed possible for something to be truthful but not necessarily factual. When Scripture says that “God is my rock,” (Psalm 18:2) we are not to believe that God is literally a rock.
The image, while not intended to be literal, expresses a truth about God using figurative language – like a rock, God is strong, steadfast, solid, and can be leaned on! Likewise, the story of Noah’s Ark employs a great deal of figurative language to express an absolute truth about God and our relationship with him: when we sin, it is as if we are drowning, however, God will spare us if we live justly as Noah did.
Do Catholics believe that Noah’s Ark is a factual event?
I was raised Catholic and every Catholic I knew believed Noah's Ark as a factual event.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) That is why I don't believe that the Black sea flood theory can explain the Noah story. You are looking for a total global flood to float the Genesis story, and I am looking to the Mesopotamian flood legends. neither of us are seeing any credibility in the local Black sea flood theory as having anything to do with the Noah -story. I hope you will bear that in mind next time the Ark or flood comes up and someone points to this Black sea thing as proof that the Bible story is true.
I hardly understand the point you are trying to make here, and you clearly don't understand mine. The Black sea theory is nothing to do with the Genesis flood. Can we agree at least on that?
