Different Storytellers

[LittleLes]

John 1: 32-34:

"John testified further, saying, "I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him. I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit.' Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God."


However,

Luke 7:18-20

The disciples of John told him about all these things. John summoned two of his disciples and sent them to the Lord to ask, "Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?" When the men came to him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?'"


Did John the Baptist forget that Jesus was suppose to be the Messiah?Or are we dealing with different stories?

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 01:26 PM']RESPONSE:

Lets see, 2 women and 1 angel, then 3 women and 1 angel, then 4 or more women and 2 angels, and finally 1 woman and 2 angels.

And Elizabeth forgot to mention to her son, John the Baptist, that his cousin was the Messiah.

Is this sort of thing history or multiple legends?
[right][snapback]663977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


no, really, i get that your only arguements on these points are based on assumptions of what you think people could've/should've done 2000 years ago. unless you have a time machine. in which case i'd like to rent it out for a week and go undo my last relationship.



[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 01:29 PM']RESPONSE:

Again the fundamental all-or- nothing belief fallacy.

And do you believe a relationship with Jesus should be based on the acceptance of fiction in place of fact?
[right][snapback]663985[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 01:31 PM']RESPONSE

They told him a great many fibs, as having come from God.
[right][snapback]663987[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

so what exactly is stopping you from leaving?

One thing that cant be denied is our free-will, and God's want for us to freely choose to love him. If you think the catholic church is preventing you from doing this, why not go worship in your own way. you wouldnt be the first. there are plenty of church doors around ready for a petition or two to be nailed to them.

it makes me think of 2 things. one: that for some reason you feel theres part of the church thats "right" thats "worth saving" so you're goal is to just clean up all the "wrong". - i really dont think this is it, because your attitude shows a great disdain and belittling of the church.

the other thing is that you just want to pick fights with catholics and show them that what they believe in is stupid and wrong and pointless. your certainly arnt trying to "savE" us, but just make us look stupid.

apparently in the HUGE amount of time you were catholic you didnt get the fact that catholics LOVE people like you. WE LOVE BEING PERSECUTED. we get OFF on it.

so since you only seem to respond to one part of threads like this, please answer this "why not just leave?"

and if your gracious enough, how bout "since the catholic church is wrong, what do you propose is the correct way to worship our Lord and live a life in christ? or are we all spose to simply be atheistic consumers like the world wants?"

Edited July 29, 2005 by Sirklawd

[Carnanc]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 01:26 PM']RESPONSE:

Lets see, 2 women and 1 angel, then 3 women and 1 angel, then 4 or more women and 2 angels, and finally 1 woman and 2 angels.

And Elizabeth forgot to mention to her son, John the Baptist, that his cousin was the Messiah.

Is this sort of thing history or multiple legends?
[right][snapback]663977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


these things I suppose could be important, but as far as the fundamental truths of the faith go they are extra details. Just because the average person can't take these seeming contradictions and sort out exactly what was the number of women and angels, doesn't mean that they need to reject everything the bible says in regard to who Christ is, and what his resurrection means for us. I agree, it is a little disconcerting at first to see these is the text, but I think we can agree that every single word in the bible is not ment to be taken literally. The most important teachings of the bible are clear.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='slywakka250' date='Jul 29 2005, 01:50 PM']
I agree, it is a little disconcerting at first to see these is the text,  but I think we can agree that every single word in the bible is not ment to be taken literally.  The most important teachings of the bible are clear.
[right][snapback]664018[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Really? Then you agree that inspiration is not incompatible with at least some error?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 02:26 PM']RESPONSE:

Lets see, 2 women and 1 angel, then 3 women and 1 angel, then 4 or more women and 2 angels, and finally 1 woman and 2 angels.
[right][snapback]663977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


This was already addressed, troll.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 02:29 PM']RESPONSE:

Again the fundamental all-or- nothing belief fallacy.

And do you believe a relationship with Jesus should be based on the acceptance of fiction in place of fact?
[right][snapback]663985[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then what do you know about Christ? What does He mean to you?

Please answer the question.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 03:29 PM']Again the fundamental all-or- nothing belief fallacy.

And do you believe a relationship with Jesus should be based on the acceptance of fiction in place of fact?
[right][snapback]663985[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
A relationship with Jesus is based on FAITH. Reason alone is not good enough to "prove" that God exists. It's not enough to "prove" that the Scriptures are divinely inspired.

When it comes to whether or not the Gospels are "fact or fiction," you're entitled to your own opinion. You don't have to be Catholic, you don't have to believe in the Gospel.

Just know that your present actions and your lack of faith will have eternal consequences, unless you turn to God.

If you're not willing to listen to what the Catholic Church has to say, if you're not willing to read the Bible with an open mind, then why bother posting on this board? Why not just go and become a Buddhist or something. No one here is forcing you to believe anything.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 29 2005, 02:02 PM']Then what do you know about Christ?  What does He mean to you?

Please answer the question.
[right][snapback]664040[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You are deviating from the present topic. If you want to pursue this question, might I suggest that you start another thread.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 11:44 AM']RESPONSE:

It has to do with  how much of the Gospel of Luke is creditable history or fictional.

Unless you have no difficulty basing your faith on fiction. :
[right][snapback]663636[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No it doesn't.

You miss the big picture les, the point, and in general almost everyting else.

The Scriptures are written so people can understand them, little things which appear to be off are not off. The problem is in your PRIVATE interpretation of Scripture, NOT scripture.

Please reread my post. It has NOTHING to do with salvation, the bible is a tool to help us to learn Christ's way to salvation.

Christianity is not a buffet.

Edited July 29, 2005 by ironmonk

[LittleLes]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jul 29 2005, 03:01 PM']
A relationship with Jesus is based on FAITH.    Reason alone is not good enough to "prove" that God exists. 
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 2 declares:

2. On revelation
". If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

"Reason alone is not good enough to "prove" that God exists" you say??

I'm afraid that in disagreeing with Vatican I, and ecumenical and therefore infallible council, you incur an anathema. Sorry

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 04:50 PM']RESPONSE:

The First Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 2 declares:

2. On revelation
". If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

"Reason alone is not good enough to "prove" that God exists" you say??

I'm afraid that in disagreeing with Vatican I, and ecumenical and therefore infallible council, you incur an anathema. Sorry
[right][snapback]664263[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Certainly the Council's decree is true, it is possible to know God through reason without revelation - although one cannot know Him [i]fully[/i] without it.

Do you hold to this canon (it's actually canon 1), Les? If so, do you also hold to canons 2 and 4?
[quote]2. If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient,
that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him: let him be [b]anathema[/b].[/quote]
[quote]4. If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy [b]council of Trent[/b] listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired: let him be [b]anathema[/b].[/quote]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 29 2005, 04:07 PM']Certainly the Council's decree is true, it is possible to know God through reason without revelation - although one cannot know Him [i]fully[/i] without it.

Do you hold to this canon (it's actually canon 1), Les?  If so, do you also hold to canons 2 and 4?
[right][snapback]664318[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

Perhaps we can say I hold to Canon 2 and 4 with the same degree of certitude as Photosynthesis, based on what he says, holds to Canon 1. :

Actually, I hold to something because its true, not because I'm told by somebody that I must. If something can be shown to be in error, I'm under no obligation to believe it.

Of course the true believers take another view.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 05:32 PM']RESPONSE:

Perhaps we can say I hold to Canon 2 and 4 with the same degree of certitude as Photosynthesis, based on what he says, holds to Canon 1. :

Actually, I hold to something because its true, not because I'm told by somebody that I must. If something can be shown to be in error, I'm under no obligation to believe it.

Of course the true believers take another view.
[right][snapback]664375[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I've heard many a definition for the term "true believer." What is your definition of the term?

[Paladin D]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 04:24 PM']RESPONSE:

You are deviating from the present topic. If you want to pursue this question, might I suggest that you start another thread.
[right][snapback]664196[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You out of all people.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 29 2005, 04:50 PM']I've heard many a definition for the term "true believer."  What is your definition of the term?
[right][snapback]664403[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Actually, I picked up the term from Eric Hoffer's book of the same title.

It deals with the psychology of those who attach themselves to mass movements, whether in religion, politics, economics, etc.

He makes the observation that most of these movements end in the suffix " -ism" and inspite of the belief system involved, all share a lot in common. It seems strange, but capitalism, communism, Catholicism, Mohamadism, Republicanism, etc., etc, make very similar demands on their respective memberships.

One feature is a sense of personal power experienced by those who belong, and the consequent fear of loss if one cannot belong . Hence the need to obey and conform with the mores of the group.

Another is the unquestioning acceptance of a belief system or what one is told by the leadership. This, too, is tied into belonging. Members simply have to reject out of hand anything which contradicts "central dogma," regardless of how overwhelming the evidence. Alligience is the core value.

As a review notes: "The True Believer is a visionary, highly provocative look into the mind of the fanatic and a penetrating study of how an individual becomes one. Eric Hoffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983."