Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Either Philo is a church father who appeared after NT authors as you claim, or he was a Jewish contemporary of Jesus and Paul as multiple people have pointed out to you.
The answer is here, wonder who was right....
Philo - Wikipedia
Philo was a Jewish philosopher and contemporary of Jesus, and never mentioned the existence of Jesus Christ. Philo was NOT a Church Father, and his views never reflected the beliefs of the Roman and Protestant Churches.
It's like talking to a YEC who demands you show him the monkey humans evolved from
Seperate topic of many repetitive threads.
There is
no unambiguous evidence either way.
The verses you quoted work just as well with an allegorical reading as they do a literal one:
Matthew 24:38-39
For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Source:
15 Bible verses about Noah's Ark
1 Peter 3:20-21who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Source:
15 Bible verses about Noah's Ark
Absolutely NO they are statements of the literal belief in a literal Genesi. Yes they may have allegorical interpretations, but this does not detract from Pauls' belief in a literal Genesis.
Given the above, why would anyone want to look at a text completely devoid of context using only a small part of the information available to us and in a manner that basically forces us to interpret it in a highly anachronistic manner as a kind of primitive scientific text?
(Especially strange considering you kept making the false assertion that it was near universal that people interpreted it literally at the time NT was written. Seems you actually do think noting context might offer insight when it supports you, but it is off topic when someone corrects you on that very point)[/QUOTE]
I have been corrected xero times.
Still waiting for references from the NT to support your assertions instead of rambling rhetoric.