Bible Error: Jesus Cures the Leper (page 3)

Bang

tdogg writes:

<< 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 replies:

We've been told enough to know the way to be whole (holy); it's about giving all you can for the good of others - but before many people will come to that place, they want 'proof'.
And the 'proof' isn't given to everyone who doesn't care but would be willing to be a slave if they got something for it. Remember that 'the wicked seek for signs' - friends of God are just that - just friends.

The Bible is so effective that I stand in awe of the way that the doctrinal views that don't include one's fellow become confused and deluded by it - it's absolutely awesome. Consider the JW understanding of the Scripture and the extreme efforts that they have gone to in trying to figure it out, yet remain more confused than the non-religious because they search the Scriptures and don't come to Christ. A deed done in this very day.

It is true that men have been given understanding as to what certain Scriptures mean, and that's for a reason, but you can rest safely in the comfort that it's not the JW 'annointed'.

Bang

JosephAlward

Well, well, Tdogg. You said that pretty well.

As for the leper, I don't give a damn about him, either; but to those who believe that the Bible contains the perfect word of god, the question of whether there were two lepers or one can become the most important one in the world. If there weren't two lepers, then either one of the gospel writers was told the wrong chronology by God, or else the writer wasn't inspired by God. If the former, then God is not perfect; if the latter, the Bible cannot be trusted to show the word of God. Either way, the foundation--the very basis of the fundamentalist's existence--is kicked out from under them. They will fight to the death to deny there is any inconsistency, contradiction, or error in the Bible.

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

Yerusalyim

JOE,

Lars declaring his interp of scripture to be the true one is the reason there are some 33,000 different Christian (so called) demoninations.

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?

Again, part of my faith in the resurrection is a spiritual experience of the Risen Christ. The story of the creation is spiritually true, GOD CREATED, I have NO DOUBTS about that. Whether He did so in 6 days (personally, he could have done it all in one) or whether he took 4 billion + years to get us where we are really isn't important.

Another reason to accept the bible's account of the Resurrection is that more than one person attest to having an experience with the Risen Christ. Plus my own spiritual experience of the Risen Christ (not something I can put into words easily understood here, sorry).

As a Catholic, yes, the bible is only PART of my faith experience. I trust in the Interpretation and the Traditions of the Church that existed even before the bible.

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

JosephAlward

Yeru has presented what I think may be the only "sensible" reason I know of for belief in a god: It is personal experience. Yeru, like so many before him, has experienced one or more events in his life which he attributes to a god-like agent or influence. His upbringing led him to associate this agent with the god described in his parents' Bible, perhaps (if this isn't exactly true in Yeru's case, it is nevertheless true for most folks). Now, if Yeru had been born in Iran, say, to Moslem parents, he likely would have attributed his experiences to the god described in the Koran, Allah, and he would be a muslim, not a Christian, and he likely would believe in that god and that Bible as fervently--perhaps more so, given the extreme emphasis on religion in the Islamic countries--as he believes in the god of the Christian Bible.

Yeru noted that Lars' attitude helps us understand why there are "33,000 different Christian denominations." I would take that further and say that there are as many religions and gods as there are people in the world to contemplate them. But is it really "sensible" to believe in these gods?

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

Satanus

Jeru

Finally, a christian who has actually seen jesus. You know. i've posed that question to a few of the know-it-all christians here, and they thought it was dumb. I guess thats the difference between book learning and actual experience. Don't get me wrong, i don't agree w your theology, but that, imo, is secondary to 'the spirit'.

SS

Yerusalyim

SaintS,

I didn't say "see" as with physical eyes, but had an experience of the Risen Christ.

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

JosephAlward

Yeru states, "I trust in the Interpretation and the Traditions of the Church that existed even before the bible."

Even before the Bible?

So you put your faith in men, not the Bible? If that's what you mean, then are not Catholics similar to Jehovah's Witnesses, who put their faith in men, their organization, and their interpretations?

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

Satanus

Yeru

You said, 'In faith I've had a spiritual experience of the resurrected Jesus'. I know this can be personal, and if you want to keep it that way, it's ok. I'm trying to understand if you had a vision type experience, or accepted in faith that jesus rose. I understand that the spiritual can't be percieved by means of the physical, but as much as we are spirit and into the spiritual world, we can at times get glimpes' of it. We have 5 senses, a spiritual sense would be another. With this other sense we could experience the spiritual and have a definite memory of it, comparable to percieving it with one or more of the other senses.

SS

Bang

Joseph writes to Yeru:

<< So you put your faith in men, not the Bible? If that's what you mean, then are not Catholics similar to Jehovah's Witnesses, who put their faith in men, their organization, and their interpretations? >>

Bang adds:

Well, No, the understood Word and the ways of life that followed (traditions) were in place before the 'Bible' was utilised as such. There wasn't really much 'interpreting' going on as everyone kinda knew what being a Christian was, but it was when confronted by those who wanted a different way that the 'interpretations' and statement positions came into it.

It's much the same these days, that everyone kinda knows how to be a Christian and the way a Christian lives, but again those who are fixated on 'interpreting' don't really want to be a Christian so much as get something, or escape a feared punishment, so people again are called to account on their positions, which many can't really explain too easily. JWs put their faith in another round of men who have dissented from the mind of Christianity, and follow ways that clash with the original values that are understood by people all over.

Bang

Bible Error: Jesus Cures the Leper

Share this