Bible Error: Jesus Cures the Leper

by JosephAlward 28 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  conflicted

  The bible is supposed to be the inspired word of God.
  Each one of the apostles wrote a gospel, some wrote more than one, but only the ones that are 'truely inspired' are included in the holy scriptures.
  And I am supposed to believe that those four gospels , less than one third of the total gospels written, are the best and most accurate.

  When I see blatant contradictions like this I am supposed to take them with a grain of salt, "maybe there's a hidden message in there", or "maybe this part isn't to be taken leterally", or "maybe the chronology isn't as important as the message".
  And after all this I'm supposed to take the rest at face value? - I think not.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Joe,

  Thank God St Augustine doesn't speak for the whole church, huh. I don't deny that God could have created the world in six days, I just think he put more thought into it.

  As to why I believe the Resurrection, but not necessarily the creation story, that's easy and there are several reasons. The most important one is faith. In faith I've had a spiritual experience of the resurrected Jesus. Secondly, is it important HOW God Created or THAT God Created. Just so the resurrection, is important HOW God did this, or THAT God did this. I say it is important THAT God created, further, I find it important THAT Christ was resurrected. Notice in the bible that only those with faith experienced the resurrected Christ.

  YERUSALYIM
  "Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
  [Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]
• 

  JosephAlward

  Yeru,

  You clearly imply that your faith is not so strong as to permit you to unequivocally accept that the account of the six-day creation is literal, but yet you seem also to imply that you can accept other parts of the Bible on faith, especially the account of the resurrection.

  What is it about the resurrection accounts that allows you to believe them? Or, is your faith not based on the Bible but on something else? Or, is your faith based partly on the Bible and partly on other sources? If partly on the Bible, how do you know which parts of the Bible to take on faith? If one part of the Bible can be false, how would you be able to determine whether the part you take to be "true" on faith is really true?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Bang

  Augustine knew that the Scriptures were without error, he just didn't know all about all of it down to the last word. However, he was a leader in dispelling the literal / fundamental views of the time. In his time many literal understandings, such as a weeks creation 6000 years back, were quite easy to accept without question. Surely we can see that a certain amount of literal understanding will always be accepted, such as Christ and the apostles walked.

  Good science should be accepted and considered as a helping hand to broader understanding.

  Bang
• 

  JosephAlward

  Lars thinks that "the gospels are a complex revelation of secrets that can only be understood by the anointed ones" and furthermore, Lars shouts, "JESUS SAYS SO!".

  Jesus said so?

  Jesus told his disciples that he spoke in parables so that outsiders would not understand the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but the gospels, which report what Jesus allegedly said, were written long after Jesus had died. Thus Jesus couldn't possibly have believed that the gospels contained secrets only to be understood by special chosen ones, because the gospels didn't exist at the time Jesus walked the earth. And, even if Jesus did know what was in the gospels before they were written, he only taught that secrets relating to the kingdom of heaven should be kept; he said absolutely nothing about keeping secrets about mundane matters such as whether one, or two lepers were cured by Jesus.

  If Lars were, indeed, one of the special ones God chose to understand well what his Bible says, then one would expect that Lars would know this.

  That he apparently doesn't know this, or knew it but didn't know how to explain well what he knew, is good evidence here that Lars is not anointed, not guided by a god to understand and explain well the teaching in the Bible.

  Furthermore, Lars thinks that because Jesus wanted to keep the secrets about salvation away from outsiders, that the historians who later would write about Jesus would naturally also keep from its readers information about how many lepers Jesus healed before--or after--curing the mother-in-law. Where does he get such ideas? What possible value could come from our not knowing such a trivial thing?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Larsguy

  Hi Joseph,
  I have no explanation or excuse for you beyond what I told you. You seem to want to complicate this situation.

  All I said was that the gospel writers often gave separate accounts in a similar manner but that you had to pay attention to the details which let you know they were separate events. There are other examples of this.

  So if one gospel spoke of a leper being healed before Peter's mother-in-law was healed, and another one afterward, then the gospels are merely clearing up the details of these two separate events. What's the big deal with Jesus healing a leper before and after he cured Peter's mother-in-law.

  The ACADEMIC reality, though, is that if the gospels are speaking of separate events then there is no contradiction or ERROR as you claim. Now you may not agree with that, but you can't prove it's not true. So it's just your interpretation against my interpretation at this point, with your biased interpretation finding an error here in two separate gospels that you have confused over the same event.

  So you have no grounds for dismissing anything here academically.

  To put it on your level, Joseph, this is a LEGITIMATE LOOPHOLE and I'm using it! GOT IT?

  So find yourself another ERROR that you can make stick because this one ain't happening for you.

  You need to do more than just try and propagandize beyond your lack of literary expertise.

  As far as me being anointed and all that and understanding scripture, it is apparent that you are the one who is confused and befuddled by the gospels, but I'm having no problems whatsoever. And that's because as the Bible says, those of a fleshly sort can't understand the scriptures anyway, so I don't expect you to do anything but be confused and annoyed by the gospels because it is not granted for you to understand these things on an anointed prophet's level.

  So the the end of this is simply that I told you these were two separate events and you say they are not, this is just a mistake, and that's fine. You're entitled to your wrong opinion like anyone else. But it's not changing my mind on this matter whatsoever. I know you're wrong and I'm right and you just have to deal with that.

  But the fact that you have resorted to criticizing me on other bases other than dealing with the original question proves I made my point.

  As far as me being an anointed prophet not meeting your standards, that's up to you and your choice and your opinion. Sorry I don't meet your standards. But there is not ONE SINGLE BIBLICAL ITEM that you can win an argument with me on. You've lost this argument and you will lose all others, because you simply don't have the ability to refute the scriptures.

  And that's basically all I have to do as a prophet is tell you how the LOOPHOLES work and I'm done.

  I gave you an explanation of how to get around your invented "error"; you don't want to accept my explanation. That's not my problem.

  I proved you wrong. You lost your argument. So I'm done.

  It's been fun.

  L.G.
• 

  JosephAlward

  I think it is very telling that Lars didn't address the main point I raised in the post to which he responded.

  Why does Lars think that Jesus said that the "the gospels are a complex revelation of secrets that can only be understood by the anointed ones"?

  Jesus couldn't have said this, as I explained in the previous post. How could Lars not have known this elementary fact, especially if he's guided by God to have a better understanding of scripture than just about anyone else, according to Lars?

  What about that, Lars? How could it have been possible that Jesus said, as you claimed, that "the gospels can only be understood by the anointed ones"?

  In regard to what Lars thinks is his bullet-proof defense against attacks against the inerrancy of the Bible, Lars principal defense is simply to declare that he is a prophet, and therefore cannot be wrong, and that's the end of it. With this type of logic, every nut in the world can declare himself to be in sole possession of religious truth and believe himself capable of defeating the most determined skeptical challenges. All Lars has to do to win is declare himself the winner, and that's the end of it, he thinks. It's funny, but it's also very sad, I sincerely mean that.

  I guess what really matters is whether Lars is truly happy in the make-believe world he's created for himself; as long as he is never given control over the lives of others, he should be allowed to believe what he chooses to believe. If he's not harming anyone, I wish him all the happiness he can find with his belief system.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  JosephAlward

  Because Lars believes he is a prophet and has special God-given powers to understand and explain the secrets of the Bible, he should be able to answer the following five questions:

  1. Why did neither of the two writers tell us that there were two lepers cured, one before the visit to the mother-in-law, and one after the visit?

  2. Does Lars think that the existence of two lepers, not just one, was the type of secret that the Bible writers would want to keep from everyone but the likes of Lars?

  3. Why does Lars not think it's nearly miraculous that each of the "two" lepers said exactly the same thing to Jesus?
  
  "Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean."
  "I am willing," he said.

  Isn't this fact completely consistent with just one leper, rather than two who just happened to speak exactly the same? If not, why not?

  4. Why doesn't Lars believe that a more reasonable explanation of the apparent discrepancy lies in the tendency of the gospel writers not to pay too much attention to chronology?

  5. Why does Lars insist that there had to be two different lepers, rather than just one? Is it because that he's already committed himself publicly to the Two Leper Theory, and is unwilling to admit that there's a better explanation that doesn't impact the Bible's inerrancy whatsoever?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  tdogg

  Who cares about the damned leper? This is a minute detail and really a waste of time to argue about. However....the point that only certain men have the ability to understand the Bible is utterly absurd. Can someone seriously claim that the Bible is supposed to be Gods word to man but only as interpreted by certain men? How in the hell are men supposed to know which other men are understanding the Bible correctly? Are you suggesting that we are to have faith in Gods word but first we must have faith in some man to tell us exactly what it means? How are we to know which men to have faith in? Well...it is in the Bible you say? But, I can't understand the Bible because I don't have someone to tell me what it means. So now I have to find a man to tell me which man I can find to tell me what the Bible says. So maybe I am just 'fleshy', whatever that is supposed to mean, and I am predestined to not understand. If the Bible is a serious effort by the Almighty to talk to us, it doesn't appear to be a very effective means of communication.
• 

  Bang

  I'm still waiting to here Larsguys understanding of the unjust judge parable, but anyway,
  does anyone here know who the 'leper' symbolises.
  Joseph, Lars?

  Bang