• • Tropical Plumes: This expansion pulled volatile, moisture-heavy tropical weather patterns straight from the Indian Ocean across the Arabian Peninsula and directly into Mesopotamia. [1, 2]
  • Torrential Summer Downpours: Instead of just getting mild winter rains, Mesopotamia was slammed with severe, uncharacteristic summer rainstorms. [1, 2, 3]

• • The Double Inundation: In the spring, when the winter mountain snow naturally melted, it was suddenly hit by these heavy, warm rainstorms. [1, 2]
  • Flash Floods: This caused the rivers to swell with catastrophic volume. Because the Mesopotamian plain is incredibly flat, the water could not drain quickly. A single massive storm upstream could send a violent wall of water rushing south, completely washing away early villages. [1, 2, 3]

"All the windstorms, exceedingly powerful, attacked as one, at the same time, the flood swept over the cult-centers... For seven days and seven nights, the flood had swept over the land, and the huge boat had been tossed about by the windstorms on the great waters." [1]

Some scholars speculate that 1 Peter might be an attempt by a later generation of Christians to harmonize Peter and Paul which at that point would have meant agreeing with Paul.

Most scholars do not think it was written or dictated by Peter. Although I've never studied the question in any depth, I typically go with the consensus of most scholars as a sensible approach. But if I thought Peter wrote or more likely dictated in broad strokes the content of the letter, would that affect the my estimation of the likelihood that Mark and Matthew acted somehow as authors of their gospels? It's possible they could also have used some type of secretary, but Matthew's clear dependence upon the Greek of Mark's gospel, which is almost universally attributed to post 70 CE, makes it unlikely in the extreme.

Mark 4 (NIV)
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/4.htm
35 That day when evening came, he said to his disciples,
“Let us go over to the other side.”
36 Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat.
There were also other boats with him.
37 A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped.
38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion.
The disciples woke him and said to him,
“Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves,
“Quiet!
Be still!”
Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
40 He said to his disciples,
“Why are you so afraid?
Do you still have no faith?”
41 They were terrified and asked each other,
“Who is this?
Even the wind and the waves obey him!”

Frederick Dodson, _You Can Heal Anyone_ (2022), 137pp., on 17

The most amazing part of this verse is that Jesus was expecting his students to be able to stop the storm.
It's mind-boggling how most "Christian" churches teach the exact opposite of this.
They teach that you cannot stop the storm; only God can stop it.
But Jesus taught that humans are equipped to do it.
He expected it of them and got frustrated when they wouldn't exercise their powers.
...
In John 14:12, we read:
"Most assuredly, I say to you,
he who believes in Me,
the works that I do he will do also;
and greater works than these will he do."

If I were to teach this in church I'd be kicked out of most churches for being a heretic.
That's how corrupted "religion" is.
Yes, believe it or not, this Bible verse, quoting Jesus says YOU can do it.
And that is my experience, too.
YOU are equipped with powers, by birth.
You have more than you know, more than you use.

Stephen said
Agreed. Perhaps we will wise up and do like the rest of nature and derive our energy from that big beautiful blazing ball in the sky. 
What is the old cynic's quote?
Humans can always be counted on to do the right thing. After they've tried everything else.
The problem is that we're really lousy at deferring short term pleasures for long term gains.
  

Why is it that we have to try everything else first?

One problem is that it's not just about our short term pleasures, though that's an issue as well.

It's also about our short term real life and death survival needs. People need food today, not a week or a month or two from now. People need shelter, not next weekend, but right now. People need clothing; it's not an option, it's an immediate need. There are real parts of this world where heat is a real life-and-death need. There's also transportation, which a lot of people need to get the things that they really, really need. Then there's infants and children who have a whole lot of real needs, and which is entirely another subject.

All we can do is do the best we can and make the transitions as best and as quickly as we can. Hopefully there are enough people doing this so we can make things better in and on real time.

Stephen said
The question was never about whether Christians needed to follow the Law.

Well there was clearly some controversy amongst early Christians.  And it seems pretty obvious that the Apostle Paul and the writer of the Gospel of Matthew did not agree on this issue.  As the church became increasingly dominated by Gentile converts, Paul's view won the day. Subsequently Matthew has been reinterpreted to mean the opposite of what it actually says, that Christians must follow the Torah even more stringently than the Pharisees.  Strangely, "fulfill" has come to mean " do away with"!
  

There are two issues here:

One is about how much Jewish Christians should continue to follow all of the Jewish Laws as opposed to Gentile Christians. Should, or is it okay for Jewish Christians to continue eating kosher and things like that? Perhaps one of the questions might be if Jewish and Gentile Christians are going to eat together, who is going to do the cooking? Wouldn't it be okay for Gentile Christians to eat kosher once in a while when they are having a meal with Jewish Christians?

The other issue is about following the Law more stringently than the Pharisees. Bart has mentioned this in some of his talks. He states that Jesus said that people should take the Law to an even higher level. The Law says, "Do not murder"; Jesus says, "Don't even get angry". The Law says, "Don't commit adultery"; Jesus says, "Don't even look at a person that way". The Law says, "an eye for an eye"; Jesus says, "turn the other cheek". There are some other things like this that take the Law to a higher level, and perhaps one could say make it more "stringent" or complete.

Stephen said
His disciples said to him: "On what day will the kingdom come?" "It will not come when it is expected. No one will say: 'See, it is here!' or: 'Look, it is there!' but the Kingdom of the Father is spread over the earth and men do not see it."
- Gospel of Thomas Saying 113
  

Great finding, because the Nabataeans use double names (embracing the host culture) and are all over the world at this point. Soon, Phillip the Arab will be the Emperor of Rome, and he is said to be the first emperor to practice the ancestor cult of Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.....p_the_Arab

Phillip the Arab, Marcus Julius Philippus, comes from Arabia Petraea, the territories the Romans acquired from Nabataea, and Petra was the capital at the time of  Nabataean King Malichus (a name meaning King, which is the anointed one.)

The Nabataeans are a path people, it is only their Kingdom that had people embedded all over the world. 

It stacks meanings.

I wonder why bi-culturalism seems less easy to grasp, it's a little like the idea of holding "two thoughts at once."

What is the old cynic's quote?

Humans can always be counted on to do the right thing. After they've tried everything else.

The problem is that we're really lousy at deferring short term pleasures for long term gains.

Stephen said

Helen Young said
Stephen
 
Well, regardless, we shouldn't be destroying this Earth.
  

Well, in truth, the earth is not in danger. It has been rolling along for billions of years and will survive for billions more. What we are destroying is our place on the earth which got along fine before us and will do so after us. What is happening is best described, not as a murder, but as a suicide.
  

I guess it's not the Earth itself that is in danger, but the surface of the Earth and what makes it habitable. It's suicide, but in the process, we are going to take an awful lot of other life forms with us. It is the "murder" of a real lot of other life forms as well.

I'm not one of these - everybody go freeze, starve, and die - environmentalists. But I do think we should do everything we possibly can to avoid global catastrophe.

From a conservative point of view, we are going to need all the forms of energy that we can produce in order to have a balanced, peaceful, and sustainable future.

It goes without saying that clean, sustainable, nonpolluting energy forms are the best and the best for creating a sustainable and decent future. Conservation and non-wasteful practices are also very important here.

Is it murder or suicide or both? Either way, I don't think it's a good idea.

DavidFord 
What's involved in a Xtian being "too fundamentalistic"?
  

Things like having to believe in:

A God that requires a human sacrifice (for any reason).

That we are all so sinful that we all deserve the death penalty. (Idk what made a person deserving of the death penalty back in the 1st century, but I have a pretty good idea what constitutes it now in the US and in the West).

That women aren't equal and should have the same amount of say, voice, and influence as men.

A flat earth that was created 6000 years ago.

That only two people were living on Earth and in Mesopotamia 6000 years ago, when the archaeological evidence clearly proves and shows otherwise.

A sun that revolves around the earth.

The emblematic cannibalism that is suggested in the eucharist.

That Paul of Tarsus, someone who never met Jesus during his earthly ministry and who only actually quotes Jesus like 3 times, is right all that time and is always speaking and conveying the word of God.

That the entire bible is entirely and nothing but the word of God.

That a married person can't say "no" to their spouse at any time. This includes when they may have really, really good reasons for saying no. (Things like not wanting another child, not being able to afford another child, having a heart condition, having an injury or an illness, not wanting to take the real risks involved in pregnancy and childbirth, being totally disgusted and turned off by their spouse.... I'm sure there is more that could be added here).

That fear, instead of awe & love, is the right attitude and relationship that we should have towards God.

Talking snakes

-----------------------------------------------------------

I could go on, there's more. But this is enough to make the point for right now.

Thanks for reading

Everybody wants to go to the moon. Geez. 

"maybe Christians are too fundamentalistic, and that is the problem?"

What's involved in a Xtian being "too fundamentalistic"?