It is a hell of a lot more nuanced than that, but when someone attempts to edit that page to include those nuances it gets edited away by crybaby mods. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ Or read this: http://www.amazon.com/On-Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason/dp/1909697494 Or this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...xist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/ In any event, the sentence about "near unanimity" is misleading, as for me to say "ya there was a dude named Jesus who rabble-roused" is not the same as saying he was the Jesus of the Bible. The same way that there was probably a pretty good lumberjack named Paul, but he isn't Paul Bunyon and didn't create the Great Lakes. The truth is if one treats the Jesus of the Bible the same as other historical figures, we have more evidence of Odysseus or Hercules than we do for Jesus Christ.
LOL. I'm not sure how they got that picture from my book club. Weird. Your avi cracks me up; hilarious.
if you don't believe any of the miracles Jesus did then why do you even believe(or try to) that He rose from the dead? The miracles Jesus did while impressive are less impressive than rising from the dead. Do you believe that God exists? That he created the universe? If the answer is yes, then how do you question if he flooded the earth? Can he not take one planet, that he created, and flood it?
You don't think that is could be an accounting of the Black Sea Flood mentioned in numerous writings?
What is a "Christian"? Someone that believes a certain set of beliefs or someone that follows the words that Jesus said? For instance, a Marxist doesn't believe Marx is divine. A Buddhist (well, most) does not believe the Buddha was a god. Can a person say "I am a Christian because I read what Jesus said (love thy neighbor, meek shall inherit the earth, etc) and follow that without all the other stuff"? The first century had a ton of flavors of Christianity (particularly Gnosticism), what makes one particular one right and the others wrong? EDIT: And I apologize, I was not going to let myself get into this again, particularly in this thread about someone's doubts. I will not delete it however, but please feel free to ignore it.
of course he can take one planet and flood it if he wanted to, but that doesn't exactly square with the Christian all loving god, nor does it square with a god dedicated to giving humans free will.
God is love, yes, but he is a just God. In the days of Noah there was a lot of sin and corruption. Also it doesn't help that there were angels that left their first estate(heaven) to take women as their wives and produce children. The children were the giants of the day, but that's getting into a whole different discussion. God will not be mocked.
completely agree. I believe we are in the last days, now how long is that? I don't know. But it does say "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man".
Not picking on you droski but it seems to be a common thing for folks to call out the attribute of God's love and stop there. Yes, He is love but the Bible tells us that He has other attributes as well such as being perfectly just, merciful, gracious, jealous, righteous, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and sovereign among others. You may not agree with the action but Him being perfectly just and completely sovereign more than validate the of a flood without any issues at all.
