Quote:

---

Nobody said it was "scrabbled together out of thin air"

---

That's exactly what "you're" saying, in reference to the flood.

You're saying it didn't happen; a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

Reading the Story about the Ark/flood, you will understand that it is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air.

---

The Good Samaritan is another allegory (parable) Jesus told.

Quote:

---

Jesus knew it was an oft-told story among the Jews. Jesus, being a consumate storyteller, used the idea of a major flood engulfing a id-obsessed humanity and the raining down of fire and brimstone on inhospitable city inhabitants as alerts to change their selfish ways and become more loving toward others.

---

None of which is indicated in the passage. You're just making it up as you go along. You don't have a clue as to what Jesus knew or believed in that regard.

Quote:

---

The Good Samaritan is another allegory (parable) Jesus told.

---

I'm sorry, but that is completely nonsensical. There was never a thought that the story of the good Samaritan was anything other than a parable. With Noah and Lot, Jesus drew upon OT stories believed by everyone to be true.

Quote:

---

You're the absolute liar here. You quoted many Bible verses saying unbelievers go to hell. Are you now denying that you did that? What, then, is your current belief on where unbelievers go after death?

---

Nah. You're lying like a dog. I've never, ever said that children go to hell.

Quote:

---

The Good Samaritan is another allegory (parable) Jesus told.

---

You missed the point. Here I will repost. I would post the account of the flood/Ark but it would take up too much space. The full account, of the insignificant dimensions and pitch, rooms, roof, etc

Quote:

---

What you find in the Gospels is historical.—I’ve always been intrigued by the way in which Luke begins chapter 3. Now, he’s writing a Gospel. He’s not writing a history book. He’s not writing a biography, although there’s biographical material. He’s writing a Gospel. He’s writing good news. And this is how he starts his third chapter: “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias [the] tetrarch of Abilene…”I won’t read any further on. What in the world are you doing here, Luke? He’s setting the reality and the truth of the Gospel within the historical context of the time. He’s reminding the reader—the thinking reader—that this is not something that has been scrabbled together out of the air. These are real events, in real time, involving real people.

---

Quote:

---

I have certainly accomplished that an all-human life-ending planet-wide flood never happened.

---

Answer to a question that was not asked. The question was, if the great flood is supposed to be an allegory, then what moral meaning was it conveying?

Quote:

---

Even worse for your point, the Ketef Hinnom Silver Scrolls indicate a much earlier date for the OT.

---

Quote:

---

Oh, please - that has nothing - NADA - to do with Genesis. Stop lying - you're supposed to be a Christian.

---

Thank you for demonstrating that you know nothing of those silver scrolls.

I sure do wish one of you would take a stab at these questions.

This is the text in question from Matt. 24. "37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

1. What indication in that passage do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in referencing the unexpected judgment that came in the day of Noah?

This is a similar text from Luke. "Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot-- they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Lk. 17:28-30). Please note that it is being used to make the exact same point about the revelation (coming) of the Son of Man. Coincidence??

1. What indication do you see in the passage showing that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical, assuming that your personal bias is not a satisfactory answer?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in appealing to the judgment of God upon Sodom and it's relationship to His second coming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waltero

You missed the point. Here I will repost. I would post the account of the flood/Ark but it would take up too much space. The full account, of the insignificant dimensions and pitch, rooms, roof, etc

---

Of course, allegories often have lots of details to give them more substance and believability. (I've read the story of the Flood countless times.)

Quote:

---

more substance and believability.

---

"Believability" in what?

I sure do wish one of you would take a stab at these questions.

This is the text in question from Matt. 24. "37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

1. What indication in that passage do you see that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in referencing the unexpected judgment that came in the day of Noah?

This is a similar text from Luke. "Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot-- they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Lk. 17:28-30). Please note that it is being used to make the exact same point about the revelation (coming) of the Son of Man. Coincidence??

1. What indication do you see in the passage showing that Jesus did not regard it to be genuinely historical, assuming that your personal bias is not a satisfactory answer?

2. An even bigger question. What point do you think Jesus was trying to make in appealing to the judgment of God upon Sodom and it's relationship to His second coming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Answer to a question that was not asked. The question was, if the great flood is supposed to be an allegory, then what moral meaning was it conveying?

---

Love one another. NOW!

Quote:

---

I sure do wish one of you would take a stab at these questions.

---

I did awreddy. See post #272.

Quote:

---

Love one another. NOW!

---

And how do you get that? And if that was his goal, then why didn't He use a story of love such as Ruth and Naomi, or Abraham and Isaac? Why would He appeal to two stories of judgment if His meaning was to love each other? That doesn't make sense.

Quote:

---

I did awreddy. See post #272.

---

No, you did not. You appealed to some supposedly special knowledge you claim to have about what Jesus knew about these stories. But you never appealed to anything in the passages themselves that would indicate Jesus considered them to be purely allegorical.

Quote:

---

The Good Samaritan is another allegory (parable) Jesus told.

---

Yes, and more likely than not, it took place, in real time, with real people.
boggles the mind don't it. You and your "allegories". Maybe we need to take another look at Matthew 13:10?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And how do you get that?

---

Um, I thought you understood what an allegory is. You've never read a fable or parable or allegorical story to a child? And then asked that child to tell you what that story really is telling us?

Quote:

---

No, you did not. You appealed to some supposedly special knowledge you claim to have about what Jesus knew about these stories. But you never appealed to anything in the passages themselves that would indicate Jesus considered them to be purely allegorical.

---

Jesus used colorful allegories/parables to teach truths to uneducated people. In other words, Jesus had the wisdom to simplify the profound spiritual truths He needed to share with humanity and put them in the form of relatable stories that are easy to understand.

Quote:

---

Jesus used colorful allegories/parables to teach truths to uneducated people

---

You really need to take another look at Matthew 13:10

If I buy you a Bible will you read it?

Quote:

---

Um, I thought you understood what an allegory is. You've never read a fable or parable or allegorical story to a child? And then asked that child to tell you what that story really is telling us?

---

Evasion, your name is Wondergirl.

Quote:

---

Jesus used colorful allegories/parables to teach truths to uneducated people. In other words, Jesus had the wisdom to simplify the profound spiritual truths He needed to share with humanity and put them in the form of relatable stories that are easy to understand.

---

You are still just rambling on and on about what you think might be true, but you have shown nothing in those two passages that would indicate that Jesus considered the stories to be fictional and thus purely allegorical. So I take that to mean that you are strictly guessing and have gained nothing from the stories that would show them to be fictional.

Now of course Jesus used parables which were fictional accounts, but there is no reason anywhere you can point to to show that He also considered OT stories to be fictional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Evasion, your name is Wondergirl.

---

That's because I sometimes wondered about the people I dealt with in the library where I worked. And now on AMHD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are still just rambling on and on about what you think might be true, but you have shown nothing in those two passages that would indicate that Jesus considered the stories to be fictional and thus purely allegorical. So I take that to mean that you are strictly guessing and have gained nothing from the stories that would show them to be fictional.

Now of course Jesus used parables which were fictional accounts, but there is no reason anywhere you can point to to show that He also considered OT stories to be fictional.

---

Not all of them were fiction. Just the allegorical ones are.

"How did you get that?" It's a simple question. You elected not to answer it which is your choice. Jesus rather plainly intended them to be understood in a different manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

"How did you get that?" It's a simple question. You elected not to answer it which is your choice. Jesus rather plainly intended them to be understood in a different manner.

---

According to you. And we know how you think.

Jesus is describing His second coming. He picks, in both instances, stories which portray judgment arriving suddenly and unexpectedly for those who are not following Him. And you decide that love is the idea He is promoting, a word, or for that matter an idea, which is found nowhere in either passage???

Well...OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Jesus is describing His second coming. He picks, in both instances, stories which portray judgment arriving suddenly and unexpectedly for those who are not following Him. And you decide that love is the idea He is promoting, a word, or for that matter an idea, which is found nowhere in either passage???

Well...OK.

---

That was Jesus' entire message, the reason He came to live among us -- Love.