Did Christ really exist ?

[Skywalker]

There are angels, demons and God in fiction. There are also Hobbits and Sauron and many Gods and demigods.
Evidence shows they are all stories.

The Lord of the Rings copied the Bible. The Bible was written before Lord of the Rings.

 

[joelr]

What about the writing styles and theology in Paul's letters are wrong? I agree with you about corruption in the church. The pastors and the priests are human beings who make mistakes like everyone else. Regarding what you said about church additions, the Bible never mentions Paul being involved in the corrupted behavior of church leaders.

I think the apostles practiced similar Christianity similar to Messianic Jews, but Paul believed in the Old Testament concept of the Messiah as a suffering servant who died for the sins of the world, not in the concept of the Messiah as a political figure that existed among the Jews of Jesus's time who rejected Jesus, and rabbinic Judaism. What difference does it make if Paul followed Jewish law in terms of his teachings being true? He taught the message of Jesus, so from a Christian standpoint, whether someone follows the Old Covenant alongside the New Covenant doesn't make a difference. I believe Paul's vision of Jesus was credible because he had no signs of mental illness and he had nothing to gain from following Jesus. He was persecuted and jailed and he never talked about anything that glorified his past-he only glorified Jesus.

You can find many good PhD books about Pauls writings and how it's known some are forgeries.
Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia deals with some of the textual criticism.
The Mystery of Acts by William Purvoe is considered excellent on that subject.

Paul's conversion doesn't mean anything? Millions of people convert to religions? Many people even in modern times give their life for groups we know are not true.
His claim of seeing a flash could easily be hyperbole considering he converted. There are over 1 million Hindu who swear on seeing live miracles by Sai Babba in the early 1900's. These claims have no convincing power to a non-Hindu.
The points about Paul do not make a demigod real. He became convinced during a time people thought illness was a punishment from a God. God beliefs were standard and expected. People were also giving their life for Horus or whatever God they were worshipping.

 

[joelr]

Self-replicating. So? There are self-replicating molecules. Gotta have those molecules started somehow. Yeah, ending up at a basic RNA. (sarcasm, sorry)

First self replication isn't how molecules work. That is how organic molecules work and life is created. So that is a big step in understanding how life arose naturally.
The paper I linked to demonstrated not just replication but nucleotides with a base replicating with another compound to form a basic metabolism. Biologists are getting much closer. You can be as sarcastic as you like, they will still figure it out.

 

[Skywalker]

What is actually said about Canaanite child sacrifice:

"It is considered virtually impossible to reconstruct a clear picture of Canaanite religious practices. Although child sacrifice was known to surrounding peoples, there is no reference to it in ancient Phoenician or Classical texts. The biblical representation of Canaanite religion is always negative.[26]

Canaanite religious practice had a high regard for the duty of children to care for their parents, with sons being held responsible for burying them, and arranging for the maintenance of their tombs.[27]"

Again, you source a biblical archaeology site that says "The answer to this charge is obvious to Bible students."?? But the Bible isn't a historical book? It's a book of laws, wisdom and made-up supernatural entities? How hard is it to actually look into a field for real???
Read a paper?:

Canaanite Religion this is on Canaanite religion.

Then there is Yahweh who tells his people to defeat a city and take women and children for themselves a "plunder of war".
And in 6 other cities to kill all living things because they are all evil? Yahweh was no different than any other God back then, killing anyone not Hebrew.



But science has ruled it out.
Comparative mythology shows common myths do not point to historical events at all.
If it happened then the older accounts - Sumerian - would be the most accurate. Multiple Gods, names of Gods and people all different, different religion.
You have a computer, a car, technology, airplanes, medical tech, science has proven to be the most effective way to understand the world. A flood never happened.

People say God would have to apologize to Sodom and Gommorah if he didn't judge America. The reason God was so strict in his judgments is because God does all things decently and in order. God is not the author of confusion. God is a God of fairness. God isn't just love, He is also just. And He is no respector of persons. Thats why all living things in those cities were under the judgement of God.

 

[Skywalker]

First self replication isn't how molecules work. That is how organic molecules work and life is created. So that is a big step in understanding how life arose naturally.
The paper I linked to demonstrated not just replication but nucleotides with a base replicating with another compound to form a basic metabolism. Biologists are getting much closer. You can be as sarcastic as you like, they will still figure it out.

How did the eye arise naturally? Some of the most complex eyes have been discovered in the most simple of animals. How organic molecules work cant explain that. How do nucleotides and metabolism and biology and replication explain the origin of the eye?

 

[rational experiences]

Rational thinking human topic.

Every argument said by a living physical human life.

Reason to use words, to give status and to use status.

One male human life....an adult.
One female human life...an adult.

2 humans who have sex and reproduce from sperm and an ovary, a baby, who becomes a smaller human, who becomes a teenager who becomes an adult.

Human string living conditions. Without owning in fact any status where the first 2 human parents came from. All human's original parent.

2 human conscious bodies.....think differently.

Did and does human being males, as adults, who become Fathers who own a baby life and name it a life of a son exist?

Yes.

Did that human being history first own names or titles or use of titles?

No.

Rational thinking conscious answers. I will think back about all of human experiences and history.

Conscious answer to self by memory, Jesus a title did not exist rationally.

However a sacrificed changed human life in phenomena conditions, as caused by self, male, human, an adult human to my son life, my baby life to sacrifice my adult human life.......done to self.

Scientific wisdom and self advice.

Terminology or symbolism, a false science language was never even rationally a used everyday explanation of using words.

Science always owned a secret language. A false language and a taught false science language for only the humans taught or who understood.

Rational historic human advice to self. Humans were never named nor was any natural body owner of a name or inferred name. It just existed.

Consciousness, to use human memories today and in the past rationally.

So Jesus did not exist is a rational answer.

A human equal male adult Father to son baby bio life sacrificed however did.

And it was given a titled scientific language, a non truthful language. Not a real language but a descriptive analogy that quoted....humans in science invention caused it.

As a rational human response to a human thinking today and for circumstance human experience in the past.

Reason why I know. The crown of thorns I believed was a secret symbolic male reasoning in science. When I was brain irradiated....by an aware review gases burning outside....as I was inside my home when it occurred my brain prickled with an intense indescribable burning effect. So I concluded "science effect".

And then said, secret meaning, science language of the past.

I felt and saw black flashes of attacks on my legs whilst walking outside. Looked up secret science symbolisms quoting Christ and Anti Christ symbolic details, lots of black strange inferences to knives, swords, axes involving Christ symbolic male aware, human statements.

Concluded in the hurting whipping effect, yep must be what my human brother endured also....yet his physical changes reactive converting, as I was not unnaturally bleeding.

I used common human sense in my physical phenomena changes....self human stories, self advice, self advice against science causes to enable human life survival.

Basic common human sense. Phenomena is said to be a conjured caused, is not natural.

Natural to own the highest, healthiest and most spiritual human life...as a human.

Not the highest self, to be bodily changed. Knew it real was bodily changed in the natural atmospheric condition my whole life.

So when a human says and quotes in science God the stone philosophy about our planet and also quotes and a changed God in its Nature then attacks life, then I lived the stated human taught themes......science. The false languages.

Natural common sense, human spoken language is consciousness, and is the correct language.

To be sacrificed means you have to exist as a higher human healthy life body, to be attacked to own the discussion of it. How it is quoted or what scientific data is themed about the attack on life.....did not own the information for why the human self presence, highest caused it to self life body.

Other than a quote...my own Father in God themes did it to me. Which is a human quote on behalf of a human. And common sense says so.

 

[joelr]

Just because the Epic of Gilgamesh was written older than Noah's ark, that doesn't mean that its true. Correlation isn't causation. Geology hasn't ruled out a world flood. The Grand Canyon supports that there was a world flood. Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon: What Does the Evidence Really Say? - Articles

You definitely do not care about what is true. Creationist site? If all you care about is confirmation bias then just live in your constructed fantasy and fantasy sites will help support your false beliefs.

The flood is not supported by one actual real scientist. The Jewish priests didn't even agree on which source to use?


In summary, the 'original', Jahwist narrative of the Great Deluge was modest, a week of ostensibly non-celestial rain is followed by a forty day flood which takes a mere week to recede in order to provide Noah his stage for God's covenant. It is the Priestly Source which adds more fantastic figures of a 150-day flood which emerged by divine hand from the heavens and earth and took ten months to finally stop up. The Jahwist source's characteristically caprice and somewhat simplistic depiction of Yahweh is clearly distinguished from the Priestly source's characteristically majestic, transcendental, and austere virtuous Yahweh.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative

The Epic of Gilamesh is not true? Why would that be true? They are all myths? Of the 1000s of myths about dragons, world-snakes, giants, young gods killing old gods to create humanity.......is there one true version? Or are they all stories?


Geology HAS ruled out a world flood? How is denial something that you are comfortable with?
"
A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, paleontology and the global distribution of species.[3][4][5] A branch of creationism known as flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to argue that such a global flood actually occurred.[6"

Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

There's no evidence confirmation bias or emotional attachments played any role in the conversion of Paul.

Uh, except that he believes a new version of the savior god story but hasn't seen it except for a flash? What Paul believes has zero bearing on the truth of this story. Every religious myth has many people who converted and died for the god and so on.

 

[Skywalker]

You can find many good PhD books about Pauls writings and how it's known some are forgeries.
Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia deals with some of the textual criticism.
The Mystery of Acts by William Purvoe is considered excellent on that subject.

Paul's conversion doesn't mean anything? Millions of people convert to religions? Many people even in modern times give their life for groups we know are not true.
His claim of seeing a flash could easily be hyperbole considering he converted. There are over 1 million Hindu who swear on seeing live miracles by Sai Babba in the early 1900's. These claims have no convincing power to a non-Hindu.
The points about Paul do not make a demigod real. He became convinced during a time people thought illness was a punishment from a God. God beliefs were standard and expected. People were also giving their life for Horus or whatever God they were worshipping.

What people give their lifes for groups they know aren't true? Paul never killed anyone. The Muslim extremists who die harmed others. The Bible talking about Paul seeing a flash wasn't written as a hyperbole. The actions of Sai Baba could be explained by the power of suggestion or other explanations. Who gave their life for Horus?

 

[Skywalker]

What is actually said about Canaanite child sacrifice:

"It is considered virtually impossible to reconstruct a clear picture of Canaanite religious practices. Although child sacrifice was known to surrounding peoples, there is no reference to it in ancient Phoenician or Classical texts. The biblical representation of Canaanite religion is always negative.[26]

Canaanite religious practice had a high regard for the duty of children to care for their parents, with sons being held responsible for burying them, and arranging for the maintenance of their tombs.[27]"

Again, you source a biblical archaeology site that says "The answer to this charge is obvious to Bible students."?? But the Bible isn't a historical book? It's a book of laws, wisdom and made-up supernatural entities? How hard is it to actually look into a field for real???
Read a paper?:

Canaanite Religion this is on Canaanite religion.

Then there is Yahweh who tells his people to defeat a city and take women and children for themselves a "plunder of war".
And in 6 other cities to kill all living things because they are all evil? Yahweh was no different than any other God back then, killing anyone not Hebrew.



But science has ruled it out.
Comparative mythology shows common myths do not point to historical events at all.
If it happened then the older accounts - Sumerian - would be the most accurate. Multiple Gods, names of Gods and people all different, different religion.
You have a computer, a car, technology, airplanes, medical tech, science has proven to be the most effective way to understand the world. A flood never happened.

Im not saying that mythology points at historical events but since truth is mixed with lies, its possible that the story of Noahs flood existing in mythology has some truth in it, because mythology can be influenced by real life experiences that people went through. The Trinity is not multiple Gods. There is no equivalent of the name Yahweh. Computers and other technology have nothing to do with the flood in Genesis.

 

[joelr]

Just because someone is a pastor that doesn't mean I believe everything they say. The Bible says to search the Scriptures. Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

None of the pagan gods died to pay the price of the sins of the world so that they could be forgiven. Christ has nothing to do with pagan mythology.

Christ was literally a Pagan myth that was Judaized. Judaism has an infatuation with getting rid of sin (like it's a sin-force inside your body) so that played a role in the story. The point is the model was a demigod who resurrects and is a personal savior - gets you into the afterlife. In Judaism you have to get rid of sins first. Each savior is different, this is the actual point of religious syncretism.

"All these different kinds of dying and rising, all these different resurrections of dead men, gods, and demigods—so many kinds, so many versions, so popularly believed—demonstrates that the ancient public was everywhere enthralled with the idea of resurrection, or returning from the dead. And they believed countless myths of exactly that. And even turned some of those myths into hopeful models of worship for their own personal salvation: the risen god, bestowing on them the same gift of a future return to life. They would have debated what kind of future life they’d want to return to—in the same flesh that died, or flesh improved and made immortal, or a wholly new superior body altogether—but for every fancy, there was a myth to satisfy them. The Christians also debated what kind of resurrection they wanted to await them; they were no more unified on that point than the pagans. But they were no different from them either. The Christians were not selling something new. They were actually getting in on an already popular game."

 

[Skywalker]

Uh, except that he believes a new version of the savior god story but hasn't seen it except for a flash? What Paul believes has zero bearing on the truth of this story. Every religious myth has many people who converted and died for the god and so on.

Paul didn't have to know Jesus before he was crucified, for his conversion story to be true. Paul seeing Jesus wasn't a hallucination because there was no evidence that Paul had mental illness.

The Romans persecuted Christians and fed them to lions. This is history, not mythology.

 

[Skywalker]

Christ was literally a Pagan myth that was Judaized. Judaism has an infatuation with getting rid of sin (like it's a sin-force inside your body) so that played a role in the story. The point is the model was a demigod who resurrects and is a personal savior - gets you into the afterlife. In Judaism you have to get rid of sins first. Each savior is different, this is the actual point of religious syncretism.

"All these different kinds of dying and rising, all these different resurrections of dead men, gods, and demigods—so many kinds, so many versions, so popularly believed—demonstrates that the ancient public was everywhere enthralled with the idea of resurrection, or returning from the dead. And they believed countless myths of exactly that. And even turned some of those myths into hopeful models of worship for their own personal salvation: the risen god, bestowing on them the same gift of a future return to life. They would have debated what kind of future life they’d want to return to—in the same flesh that died, or flesh improved and made immortal, or a wholly new superior body altogether—but for every fancy, there was a myth to satisfy them. The Christians also debated what kind of resurrection they wanted to await them; they were no more unified on that point than the pagans. But they were no different from them either. The Christians were not selling something new. They were actually getting in on an already popular game."

What pagan god is a Creator and Savior who died for the sins of the world? The pagan gods dont have the holiness and justice that I read about God in the Bible. The greek gods married women. Jesus was born of a virgin because He was God incarnate. Jesus has nothing to do with the demigods of mythology. Hundreds of people saw Jesus after He resurrected. They didn't all have schizophrenia. Osiris is not based on historical events. Jesus resurrected in glory. Osiris resurrected as a zombie.

 

[joelr]

What people give their lifes for groups they know aren't true? Paul never killed anyone. The Muslim extremists who die harmed others. The Bible talking about Paul seeing a flash wasn't written as a hyperbole. The actions of Sai Baba could be explained by the power of suggestion or other explanations. Who gave their life for Horus?

If you are referencing martyrdom in the gospels, those are stories, wildly fictitious, not written by eyewitnesses, anonymous and written to be a dramatic fictive myth. Of course each person in a religion who dies for the religion believes it's true. Still doesn't mean it is?

Every religion still had martyrs. Here is just 1:

Martyrdom (called shahadat in Punjabi) is a fundamental concept in Sikhism and represents an important institution of the faith. The Sikh Gurus and the Sikhs that followed them are some of the greatest[peacock term] examples of martyrs who fought [30] against Mughal tyranny and oppression, upholding the fundamentals of Sikhism, where their lives were taken during non-violent protesting or in battles. Sikhs believe in Ibaadat se Shahadat (from love to martyrdom). Some famous Sikh martyrs include:[31]

• Guru Arjan, the fifth leader of Sikhism. Guru ji was brutally tortured for almost 5 days before he attained shaheedi, or martyrdom.
• Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth guru of Sikhism, martyred on 11 November 1675. He is also known as Dharam Di Chadar (i.e. "the shield of Religion"), suggesting that to save Hinduism, the guru gave his life.
• Bhai Dayala is one of the Sikhs who was martyred at Chandni Chowk at Delhi in November 1675 due to his refusal to accept Islam.
• Bhai Mati Das is considered by some one of the greatest martyrs in Sikh history, martyred at Chandni Chowk at Delhi in November 1675 to save Hindu Brahmins.
• Bhai Sati Das is also considered by some one of the greatest martyrs in Sikh history, martyred along with Guru Teg Bahadur at Chandni Chowk at Delhi in November 1675 to save kashmiri pandits.
• Sahibzada Ajit Singh, Sahibzada Jujhar Singh, Sahibzada Zorawar Singh and Sahibzada Fateh Singh – the four sons of Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th Sikh guru.[32]
  
  
  

 

[joelr]

What people give their lifes for groups they know aren't true? Paul never killed anyone. The Muslim extremists who die harmed others. The Bible talking about Paul seeing a flash wasn't written as a hyperbole. The actions of Sai Baba could be explained by the power of suggestion or other explanations. Who gave their life for Horus?

That is dishonest. To write off millions of accounts of miracles as suggestion or other explanations, then taking ONE PERSONS account of having a vision and claiming it's real. That is the biggest confirmation bias I have ever encountered. That is beyond absurd. This, is how people fool themselves.

 

[Skywalker]

You definitely do not care about what is true. Creationist site? If all you care about is confirmation bias then just live in your constructed fantasy and fantasy sites will help support your false beliefs.

The flood is not supported by one actual real scientist. The Jewish priests didn't even agree on which source to use?


In summary, the 'original', Jahwist narrative of the Great Deluge was modest, a week of ostensibly non-celestial rain is followed by a forty day flood which takes a mere week to recede in order to provide Noah his stage for God's covenant. It is the Priestly Source which adds more fantastic figures of a 150-day flood which emerged by divine hand from the heavens and earth and took ten months to finally stop up. The Jahwist source's characteristically caprice and somewhat simplistic depiction of Yahweh is clearly distinguished from the Priestly source's characteristically majestic, transcendental, and austere virtuous Yahweh.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative

The Epic of Gilamesh is not true? Why would that be true? They are all myths? Of the 1000s of myths about dragons, world-snakes, giants, young gods killing old gods to create humanity.......is there one true version? Or are they all stories?


Geology HAS ruled out a world flood? How is denial something that you are comfortable with?
"
A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, paleontology and the global distribution of species.[3][4][5] A branch of creationism known as flood geology is a pseudoscientific attempt to argue that such a global flood actually occurred.[6"

Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia

What about the scientist Doctor Leonard Brand of Loma Linda University and Doctor Davis Young?

Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood

Startling Evidence for Noah’s Flood
Footprints and Sand ‘Dunes’ in a Grand Canyon Sandstone!
by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling and Dr. Steve Austin on December 1, 1992
Originally published in Creation 15, no 1 (December 1992): 46-50.

Footprints and sand ‘dunes’ in a Grand Canyon sandstone provide startling evidence for Noah’s Flood.

‘There is no sight on earth which matches Grand Canyon. There are other canyons, other mountains and other rivers, but this Canyon excels all in scenic grandeur. Can any visitor, upon viewing Grand Canyon, grasp and appreciate the spectacle spread before him? The ornate sculpture work and the wealth of color are like no other landscape. They suggest an alien world. The scale is too outrageous. The sheer size and majesty engulf the intruder, surpassing his ability to take it in.’1

Anyone who has stood on the rim and looked down into Grand Canyon would readily echo these words as one’s breath is taken away with the sheer magnitude of the spectacle. The Canyon stretches for 277 miles (446 kilometres) through northern Arizona, attains a depth of more than 1 mile (1.6 kilometres), and ranges from 4 miles (6.4 kilometres) to 18 miles (29 kilometres) in width. In the walls of the Canyon can be seen flat-lying rock layers that were once sand, mud or lime. Now hardened, they look like pages of a giant book as they stretch uniformly right through the Canyon and underneath the plateau country to the north and south and deeper to the east.

Figure 1. A panoramic view of the Grand Canyon from the South Rim at Yavapai Point. The Coconino Sandstone is the thick buff-coloured layer close to the top of the canyon walls. Compare with Figure 2.

Figure 2. Grand Canyon in cross-section showing the names given to the different rock units by geologists.


The Coconino Sandstone
To begin to comprehend the awesome scale of these rock layers, we can choose any one for detailed examination. Perhaps the easiest of these rock layers to spot, since it readily catches the eye, is a thick, pale buff coloured to almost white sandstone near the top of the Canyon walls. Geologists have given the different rock layers names, and this one is called the Coconino Sandstone (see Figures 1 and 2). It is estimated to have an average thickness of 315 feet (96 metres) and, with equivalent sandstones to the east, covers an area of about 200,000 square miles (518,000 square kilometres).2That is an area more than twice the size of the Australian State of Victoria, or almost twice the area of the US State of Colorado! Thus the volume of this sandstone is conservatively estimated at 10,000 cubic miles (41,700 cubic kilometres). That’s a lot of sand!

Figure 3. Cross beds (inclined sub-layering) within the Coconino Sandstone, as seen on the Bright Angel Trail in the Grand Canyon.

What do these rock layers in Grand Canyon mean? What do they tell us about the earth’s past? For example, how did all the sand in this Coconino Sandstone layer and its equivalents get to where it is today?

To answer these questions geologists study the features within rock layers like the Coconino Sandstone, and even the sand grains themselves. An easily noticed feature of the Coconino Sandstone is the distinct cross layers of sand within it called cross beds (see Figure 3, right). For many years evolutionary geologists have interpreted these cross beds by comparing them with currently forming sand deposits — the sand dunes in deserts which are dominated by sand grains made up of the mineral quartz, and which have inclined internal sand beds. Thus it has been proposed that the Coconino Sandstone accumulated over thousands and thousands of years in an immense windy desert by migrating sand dunes, the cross beds forming on the down-wind sides of the dunes as sand was deposited there.3

Figure 4: A fossilized quadruped trackway in the Coconino Sandstone on display in the Grand Canyon Natural History Association’s Yavapai Point Museum at the South Rim.

The Coconino Sandstone is also noted for the large number of fossilized footprints, usually in sequences called trackways. These appear to have been made by four-footed vertebrates moving across the original sand surfaces (see Figure 4, left). These fossil footprint trackways were compared to the tracks made by reptiles on desert sand dunes,4 so it was then assumed that these fossilized footprints in the Coconino Sandstone must have been made in dry desert sands which were then covered up by wind-blown sand, subsequent cementation forming the sandstone and fossilizing the prints.

Yet another feature that evolutionary geologists have used to argue that the Coconino Sandstone represents the remains of a long period of dry desert conditions is the sand grains themselves. Geologists have studied the sand grains from modern desert dunes and under the microscope they often show pitted or frosted surfaces. Similar grain surface textures have also been observed in sandstone layers containing very thick cross beds such as the Coconino Sandstone, so again this comparison has strengthened the belief that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited as dunes in a desert.

At first glance this interpretation would appear to be an embarrassment to Bible-believing geologists who are unanimous in their belief that it must have been Noah’s Flood that deposited the flat lying beds of what were once sand, mud and lime, but are now exposed as the rock layers in the walls of the Canyon.

Above the Coconino Sandstone is the Toroweap Formation and below is the Hermit Formation, both of which geologists agree are made up of sediments that were either deposited by and/or in water. 5,6 How could there have been a period of dry desert conditions in the middle of the Flood year when ‘all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered’ (Genesis 7:19) by water?

This seeming problem has certainly not been lost on those, even from within the Christian community, opposed to Flood geologists and creationists in general. For example, Dr Davis Young, Professor of Geology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in a recent book being marketed in Christian bookshops, has merely echoed the interpretations made by evolutionary geologists of the characteristics of the Coconino Sandstone, arguing against the Flood as being the agent for depositing the Coconino Sandstone. He is most definite in his consideration of the desert dune model:

‘The Coconino Sandstone contains spectacular cross bedding, vertebrate track fossils, and pitted and frosted sand grain surfaces. All these features are consistent with formation of the Coconino as desert sand dunes. The sandstone is composed almost entirely of quartz grains, and pure quartz sand does not form in floods … no flood of any size could have produced such deposits of sand …’7

The BIble doesn't have those things. The Bible doesn't say that the Nephilm were giants-thats just a theory that some people believe.

 

[joelr]

How did the eye arise naturally? Some of the most complex eyes have been discovered in the most simple of animals. How organic molecules work cant explain that. How do nucleotides and metabolism and biology and replication explain the origin of the eye?

Problems with evolution and the eye is a common and typical tactic that apologists/creationists like to use to gain followers.
It's up to you to educate yourself. Go to the wiki page, explain to me why you didn't find any section that says they development of the eye isn't understood or is impossible to imagine having evolved.
It's a creationist trick.
The origin of the eye is from evolution which is a combination of several different things happening.
I would contrast your creationist teachings with actual evolution studies:
Evolution - Wikipedia

Jerry Coyne has a good lecture. You should at least listen to both sides and try to form your own beliefs.

I don't know what you mean by "can't explain organic molecules"? Of course we can? An amino acid is an organic compound, what do you think isn't explainable?
Amino acid - Wikipedia


Any of this stuff still has nothing to do with myths made up by people being true? Zeus and his son Hercules isn't going to be real no matter what happens with evolution. All of the bronze age stories are myths.

 

[joelr]

Im not saying that mythology points at historical events but since truth is mixed with lies, its possible that the story of Noahs flood existing in mythology has some truth in it, because mythology can be influenced by real life experiences that people went through. The Trinity is not multiple Gods. There is no equivalent of the name Yahweh. Computers and other technology have nothing to do with the flood in Genesis.

I don't care about the trinity or any theology. They are made-up concepts.
A food myth could have come from a local flood. Those happen. It also probably came from story telling. People have always loved fiction. We have movies and books. They had none of that. Re-telling of fantastic fiction was a source of fun. They had no writings, tv, radio, music, movies, computers, books, comic books...Telling fictive stories was their fun.

 

[Skywalker]

If you are referencing martyrdom in the gospels, those are stories, wildly fictitious, not written by eyewitnesses, anonymous and written to be a dramatic fictive myth. Of course each person in a religion who dies for the religion believes it's true. Still doesn't mean it is?

Every religion still had martyrs. Here is just 1:

Martyrdom (called shahadat in Punjabi) is a fundamental concept in Sikhism and represents an important institution of the faith. The Sikh Gurus and the Sikhs that followed them are some of the greatest[peacock term] examples of martyrs who fought [30] against Mughal tyranny and oppression, upholding the fundamentals of Sikhism, where their lives were taken during non-violent protesting or in battles. Sikhs believe in Ibaadat se Shahadat (from love to martyrdom). Some famous Sikh martyrs include:[31]

• Guru Arjan, the fifth leader of Sikhism. Guru ji was brutally tortured for almost 5 days before he attained shaheedi, or martyrdom.
• Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth guru of Sikhism, martyred on 11 November 1675. He is also known as Dharam Di Chadar (i.e. "the shield of Religion"), suggesting that to save Hinduism, the guru gave his life.
• Bhai Dayala is one of the Sikhs who was martyred at Chandni Chowk at Delhi in November 1675 due to his refusal to accept Islam.
• Bhai Mati Das is considered by some one of the greatest martyrs in Sikh history, martyred at Chandni Chowk at Delhi in November 1675 to save Hindu Brahmins.
• Bhai Sati Das is also considered by some one of the greatest martyrs in Sikh history, martyred along with Guru Teg Bahadur at Chandni Chowk at Delhi in November 1675 to save kashmiri pandits.
• Sahibzada Ajit Singh, Sahibzada Jujhar Singh, Sahibzada Zorawar Singh and Sahibzada Fateh Singh – the four sons of Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th Sikh guru.[32]
  
  

The gospels were not anonymous. They were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They are not stories just because they have miracles. If God exists, miracles can exist too. The creation of the world was a miracle. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels | Bible.org

Do Miracles Discredit the Gospels?
Skeptics question the accuracy of the Gospels because of the miracles. However, this is an issue of worldviews. Those who hold to a naturalistic worldview do not believe an omnipotent creator exists. All that exists is energy and matter. Therefore, miracles are impossible. Their conclusion, then, is that the miracle accounts in the Gospels are exaggerations or myths.

Those who hold to a theistic worldview can accept miracles in light of our understanding of God and Christ. God can intervene in time and space and alter the natural regularities of nature much like finite humans can in smaller limited ways. If Jesus is the Son of God, we can expect Him to perform miracles to affirm His claims to be divine. But worldviews are not where this ends. We also need to take a good look at the historical facts.

As shown previously, the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to the events of the life of Christ. Early dating shows eyewitnesses were alive when Gospels were circulating and could attest to their accuracy. Apostles often appeal to the witness of the hostile crowd, pointing out their knowledge of the facts as well (Resurrection: Fact or Fiction at Probe.org.

What the Sikh martyrs believed in wasn't based on real life historical events that could be verified.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't care about the trinity or any theology. They are made-up concepts.
A food myth could have come from a local flood. Those happen. It also probably came from story telling. People have always loved fiction. We have movies and books. They had none of that. Re-telling of fantastic fiction was a source of fun. They had no writings, tv, radio, music, movies, computers, books, comic books...Telling fictive stories was their fun.

The Trinity is like an egg. An egg has shell, white, yolk, but their essence is the same.