Ridiculous Claims

[BeauJangles]

3 minutes ago, Coliseum said:

A cat is positioned in a room. Four men, blindfolded, who have never seen a cat, are brought in. Each one is led to each of the four extremes around the cat. One man stands at the head, another the tail, another one side, and the last man at the opposite side. The blindfold is removed, and each man describes what he sees when he looks at the stationary cat. The first describes the head, but cannot see the other three sides. Another describes the tail, but cannot see the other three sides. And so on...

Each man sees the truth about what he describes---but not the whole truth.  For that to happen, he would have to walk around the cat. Only God can do that in every person's circumstances. Only God knows the whole truth, even though we "see dimly" parts of it.

This has been done before. It's quite old as well. Anyway, here it is. 

Blind Men and the Elephant – A Poem by John Godfrey Saxe
Here is John Godfrey Saxe’s (1816-1887) version of Blind Men and the Elephant:

It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approach'd the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," -quoth he,-
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said- "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL,

So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

 

Blind Men and the Elephant – Philosophical Parable
The Blind Men and the Elephant is an ancient parable used today as a warning for people that promote absolute truth or exclusive religious claims. The simple reason is that our sensory perceptions and life experiences can lead to limited access and overreaching misinterpretations. How can a person with a limited touch of truth turn that into the one and only version of all reality?

 

Blind Men and the Elephant – Theological Truth
When it comes to the moral of the Blind Men and the Elephant, it seems that today’s philosophers end their agenda too quickly. Doesn’t the picture of the blind men and the elephant also point to something bigger -- The elephant? Indeed, each blind man has a limited perspective on the objective truth, but that doesn’t mean objective truth isn’t there. In fact, truth isn’t relative at all… It’s there to discover in all its totality. In theology, just because we have limited access to Truth, that doesn’t mean any and all versions of Truth are equally valid. Actually, if we know the Whole Elephant is out there, shouldn’t this drive us to open our eyes wider and seek every opportunity to experience more of Him?

Learn More!

[unworthyservant]

2 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

The new testament is a commentary on the old and reveals much of God's mind and goals.

Justin, I was with you until this closing remark. You are absolutely correct in that truly understanding the NT Scripture requires a pretty thorough understanding of the OT and especially prophecy. I don't believe that the NT is simply a "commentary" of the OT as it is the chronicling of Christ's fulfillment of the Law and the teachings of the Apostles on that matter. While much of it could be seen as commentary on certain OT texts (only because it is the basis for much of the teachings) it could also be seen as a continuation that simply refers to the texts.

[unworthyservant]

24 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

Blind Men and the Elephant – A Poem by John Godfrey Saxe

A great old teaching tool and thanks for posting. I hadn't heard it since I was a kid (and that was a while back)

[BeauJangles]

Just now, unworthyservant said:

A great old teaching tool and thanks for posting. I hadn't heard it since I was a kid (and that was a while back)

Same here, and it's all over the net apparently. You're welcome, by the way. It's a classic.  

[unworthyservant]

2 hours ago, BeauJangles said:

I'm not quite sure where this is supposed to go, or even what relevant purpose it is.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I figured it's just to illustrate the point that is made so well in the Elephant and the Blind Men story. It's just hard to beat those old classics at demonstrating a point. When they were written the written word was the only means of conveying such things so folks then sure were more creative writers.

[Justin Adams]

17 minutes ago, unworthyservant said:

it could also be seen as a continuation that simply refers to the texts.

Agreed. It is not 'merely' a commentary, but without the backbone of the Tanach, it is pretty well misunderstood. Few are students of the Tanach because they have been taught incorrectly I think.

They both go together very well. and the apostles' repurposing the Tanach (their bible) brings it all to life.

[lftc]

4 hours ago, Coliseum said:

If your assumption is regarding salvation, I agree; but the comment never mentioned salvation---nor was it my intention. Look at the many different ways the Gospel writers described the same truths. They shared what they saw in their own way. They did not describe a different way, but chose different words to echo the same event. My comment had nothing to do with salvation, but about one true event which took place described by different people. 

Reading your well written original post and reading this post, I think I see that you are illustrating that differences in the Gospels can be matters of perspective or timing variations?  Or perhaps you are using the Gospel reconciliation as a further example of the foundational concept of the importance of recognizing what facts about an issue are established and what facts are assumed.

Either way, it is important to consider in a forum where people are debating topics of importance.  So thanks for bringing it up.

Were you seeking to establish another point? 

[appy]

The only thing I get from all the posts in this thread by the opster collectively and from the title of the thread is that he/she is saying in a round about way; that the 4 gospels in the bible are unsubstantiated writings even though the opster didn't mention that, that is the impression we have. There are writings of Jesus' crucifixion by non Christian authors who were eye witnesses of the events that occurred at the time of Jesus' ministry. Even though some of the writings are brief there is no mistaking about who the writers were referring to. Jesus' ministry and death on the cross was not done in secret, it was well known. Julius Africanus, quoted Thallus who was a roman historian around 33 A.D. wrote of the event that occurred at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. It certainly can be discerned that Thallus was there to witness it. His description of darkness and an earthquake matches scripture in the gospels which also mention the darkness and earthquake.

“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down.
 

Biblical parallel

Matthew 27:45  From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land

Matthew 27: 51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split

Amos centuries before prophesied the event

Amos 8:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord GOD, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day:

Cornelius Tacitus in Annals (XV,44) agree that the crucifixion occurred when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea from 26-36 AD. There are others who also mention Jesus and Christians in their writings who were NOT Christians themselves

Once a person hears information, it is then up to that person to decide what to do with it.  They can either except it or ignore it...  that is it.  Their choice and their decision alone.   No one else can be responsible for that person's decision.  A Christian's job is to share what they know, NOT force others to except it.  I fully believe the gospel. I believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. 

 

 

 

[JustPassingThru]

I think you might of overlooked or maybe considered another point, ...the author knew the truth, so since truth as opposed to differing opinions is what I believe this thread is about, yes that is true on the human level, ...however in the context of Biblical Truth, ...the Author, the Holy Spirit, of the Word of God is so far above human opinion that human opinion can't even be considered as a reliable source of the Truth.

In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.

Jesus is not the Truth, Jesus, the Word, ...is TRUTH, ...it's who/what He is.

But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.  John 14:26

Lord bless

[Coliseum]

@lftc

I admire your response for this reason: you were gracious enough not to assume categorically anything. In fact, you used the word "perhaps." What you surmised, as far as you were able to, is correct. More than that, you were even willing to ask if I was trying to establish another point. These are excellent communication skills, and I want to thank you for bringing them to the table.

Initially, my original comment had nothing to do with the Gospel, but rather how people interpreted the truth when they did not have all of the information available. It certainly  could apply to the Gospel of Christ. When people lack information, they cannot rightfully assess anything. The three friends who were brought to the site could not have known the money I buried was removed, and they---like so many---assumed that we lied. Based upon what they knew, they could have been right, but without all of the information, they could have been wrong. They assumed what they knew was sufficient, but they were dead wrong! 

Many of us do the same thing when we read the Scriptures, and as you so beautifully said, "...recognizing what facts about an issue are established and what facts are assumed." 

Thank you!