Doc's bishopric Sunday School (Noun or adjective? One word or two?)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.22 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-05-2013, 10:23 AM
RE: DOC'S HOLISTIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (WHERE WE TEACH THE WHOLE BIBLE)
(03-05-2013 09:36 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  The only clear description of an illness in the Bible is that of the epileptic boy in Mark 9:18. Even here, the Bible gets it wrong and calls the poor lad "demon-possessed".

Doc

Well perhaps there was much less illness then? Maybe god inflicted more illness on his creation as they sinned? There were no carnivores before the original sin right? Seems like a natural progression to me. Maybe that's why god neglected to put any real advice in the bible to help his creation out with regards to disease.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 10:29 AM
RE: DOC'S HOLISTIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (WHERE WE TEACH THE WHOLE BIBLE)
Hey Doc,

I finally finished your book, congratulations on an excellent job!

By the end you substantiated to me what I always perceived and that is the Bible's "medical" assertions are either all woo or misunderstood by the goat herders at that time.

I recommend it for it's a terrific source for future arguments. Bowing

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
03-05-2013, 10:34 AM
RE: DOC'S HOLISTIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (WHERE WE TEACH THE WHOLE BIBLE)
(03-05-2013 09:36 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  The only clear description of an illness in the Bible is that of the epileptic boy in Mark 9:18. Even here, the Bible gets it wrong and calls the poor lad "demon-possessed".

huh ... Huh ... whaddabout leprosy? ...

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 10:41 AM
RE: DOC'S HOLISTIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (WHERE WE TEACH THE WHOLE BIBLE)
(03-05-2013 10:23 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  
(03-05-2013 09:36 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  The only clear description of an illness in the Bible is that of the epileptic boy in Mark 9:18. Even here, the Bible gets it wrong and calls the poor lad "demon-possessed".

Doc

Well perhaps there was much less illness then? Maybe god inflicted more illness on his creation as they sinned? There were no carnivores before the original sin right? Seems like a natural progression to me. Maybe that's why god neglected to put any real advice in the bible to help his creation out with regards to disease.

Devilsadvoc8,
Interesting theory. Of course, according to the Bible, the world was perfect with no illnesses before the Fall of Man, with all diseases appearing instantly and simultaneously when Adam ate the fruit. To carry your analogy further, all carnivores appeared overnight too, didn't they? But the theory of the progressive decline of the world's health as a result of God's decree is new as far as I am aware. Does that mean that God is responsible for "newer" illnesses such as hepatitis and HIV?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-05-2013, 11:14 AM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2013 11:23 AM by docskeptic.)
RE: DOC'S HOLISTIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (WHERE WE TEACH THE WHOLE BIBLE)
(03-05-2013 10:34 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-05-2013 09:36 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  The only clear description of an illness in the Bible is that of the epileptic boy in Mark 9:18. Even here, the Bible gets it wrong and calls the poor lad "demon-possessed".

huh ... Huh ... whaddabout leprosy? ...

GirlyMan,
The descriptions of "leprosy" in the Bible are the most muddled and least clear of any diagnosis in the Bible.

For example, in the Bible, leprosy is described as turning the skin of the afflicted “white as snow” (2 Kings 5:27) and could even affect the hairs growing within the affected patch of skin, turning them white as well (Lev. 13:10, 20). It could also begin in a precursor lesion, such as a boil or a burn (Lev. 13:18, 24). Leprosy could be present in clothing and leather garments (Lev. 13:37–48) and could also affect the walls of buildings (Lev. 14:37). It could be inherited or passed on to a victim's children as punishment (2 Kings 5:27). It could be healed by washing seven times in the river Jordan (and apparently, only in this river, 2 Kings 5:1-27).

The description of the disease in the Bible, therefore, differs significantly from the recognized clinical signs and symptoms of leprosy today and it is not at all clear that the leprosy mentioned anywhere in the Bible is the same as the leprosy, otherwise known as Hansen’s disease, we know of today.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
03-05-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: DOC'S HOLISTIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (WHERE WE TEACH THE WHOLE BIBLE)
(03-05-2013 10:29 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Hey Doc,

I finally finished your book, congratulations on an excellent job!

By the end you substantiated to me what I always perceived and that is the Bible's "medical" assertions are either all woo or misunderstood by the goat herders at that time.

I recommend it for it's a terrific source for future arguments. Bowing

Full Circle,
Thank you very much. You made my day!
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2013, 06:32 AM
RE: DOC'S HOLISTIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (WHERE WE TEACH THE WHOLE BIBLE)
Doc: Class, today we are going to start a new section on the miracles of Jesus. These miracles prove that he was the Christ and deserve close scrutiny. Let us begin with one of his simpler miracles, that of healing Peter's mother-in-law of a fever. The story is told in Matthew 8:14-15, Mark 1:29-31, and Luke 4:38-41.

devilsadvoca8: That must be why Peter denied Jesus thrice!

Doc: Ha! Ha! (muttering, Like I haven't heard that one a million times before). Yes, scholars deduce that Luke the doctor must have written the gospel named after him, because he described the fever as 'great' and only doctors made that kind of distinction.

devilsadvoca8: But didn't Luke get his information from Paul, who got it from Peter?

Doc: Yes.

devilsadvoca8: Then this was a third-hand account and we have only the word of a fisherman that the fever was high. And being a male in a paternalistic, misogynistic society, would Peter have even taken her temperature? Wasn't it more likely that Peter's wife or some other woman told Peter that his mother-in-law's temperature was high, further compounding the problem?And if he did take her temperature, how did he know it was high without a thermometer? Subjective measurements of fever are notoriously inaccurate. Maybe it was an ordinary viral infection that was getting better around the time Jesus stepped into the house. Or maybe she was already better but lay around enjoying the attention an invalid receives before seeing an opportunity for greater glory by being 'healed' by Jesus, further enhanced by rising up and serving him a meal.

And why did Jesus 'rebuke' the fever? That would suggest that he believed the fever to have sentience or to be caused by a demon and could be threatened by him to leave the victim. How would this make Jesus different from a shaman or a witch doctor?

Doc, rubbing his chest, rummages in his desk for an antacid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
04-05-2013, 08:23 AM
RE: DOC'S HOLISTIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (WHERE WE TEACH THE WHOLE BIBLE)
(04-05-2013 06:32 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Doc: Class, today we are going to start a new section on the miracles of Jesus. These miracles prove that he was the Christ and deserve close scrutiny. Let us begin with one of his simpler miracles, that of healing Peter's mother-in-law of a fever. The story is told in Matthew 8:14-15, Mark 1:29-31, and Luke 4:38-41.

devilsadvoca8: That must be why Peter denied Jesus thrice!

Doc: Ha! Ha! (muttering, Like I haven't heard that one a million times before). Yes, scholars deduce that Luke the doctor must have written the gospel named after him, because he described the fever as 'great' and only doctors made that kind of distinction.

devilsadvoca8: But didn't Luke get his information from Paul, who got it from Peter?

Doc: Yes.

devilsadvoca8: Then this was a third-hand account and we have only the word of a fisherman that the fever was high. And being a male in a paternalistic, misogynistic society, would Peter have even taken her temperature? Wasn't it more likely that Peter's wife or some other woman told Peter that his mother-in-law's temperature was high, further compounding the problem?And if he did take her temperature, how did he know it was high without a thermometer? Subjective measurements of fever are notoriously inaccurate. Maybe it was an ordinary viral infection that was getting better around the time Jesus stepped into the house. Or maybe she was already better but lay around enjoying the attention an invalid receives before seeing an opportunity for greater glory by being 'healed' by Jesus, further enhanced by rising up and serving him a meal.

And why did Jesus 'rebuke' the fever? That would suggest that he believed the fever to have sentience or to be caused by a demon and could be threatened by him to leave the victim. How would this make Jesus different from a shaman or a witch doctor?

Doc, rubbing his chest, rummages in his desk for an antacid.

I think your interpretations here are a bit off. You're basing your ideas of what Peter would have done based on your dislike of what the society was like, seems like a house of cards. You can't just assume the Bible's incorrect because you assume the society was flawed and because Peter happened to be a part of said society. That makes for two different jumps in logic that shouldn't occur.

As for Jesus rebuking the fever He also rebuked the sea (Luke 8:24) and said the rocks themselves were able to cry out. (Luke 19:40) All it shows is that there may be more sentience in creation than commonly attributed, and that being God He was able to command all aspects thereof. There's no need to assume a demon was involved.

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: DOC'S HOLISTIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (WHERE WE TEACH THE WHOLE BIBLE)
(04-05-2013 08:23 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(04-05-2013 06:32 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Doc: Class, today we are going to start a new section on the miracles of Jesus. These miracles prove that he was the Christ and deserve close scrutiny. Let us begin with one of his simpler miracles, that of healing Peter's mother-in-law of a fever. The story is told in Matthew 8:14-15, Mark 1:29-31, and Luke 4:38-41.

devilsadvoca8: That must be why Peter denied Jesus thrice!

Doc: Ha! Ha! (muttering, Like I haven't heard that one a million times before). Yes, scholars deduce that Luke the doctor must have written the gospel named after him, because he described the fever as 'great' and only doctors made that kind of distinction.

devilsadvoca8: But didn't Luke get his information from Paul, who got it from Peter?

Doc: Yes.

devilsadvoca8: Then this was a third-hand account and we have only the word of a fisherman that the fever was high. And being a male in a paternalistic, misogynistic society, would Peter have even taken her temperature? Wasn't it more likely that Peter's wife or some other woman told Peter that his mother-in-law's temperature was high, further compounding the problem?And if he did take her temperature, how did he know it was high without a thermometer? Subjective measurements of fever are notoriously inaccurate. Maybe it was an ordinary viral infection that was getting better around the time Jesus stepped into the house. Or maybe she was already better but lay around enjoying the attention an invalid receives before seeing an opportunity for greater glory by being 'healed' by Jesus, further enhanced by rising up and serving him a meal.

And why did Jesus 'rebuke' the fever? That would suggest that he believed the fever to have sentience or to be caused by a demon and could be threatened by him to leave the victim. How would this make Jesus different from a shaman or a witch doctor?

Doc, rubbing his chest, rummages in his desk for an antacid.

I think your interpretations here are a bit off. You're basing your ideas of what Peter would have done based on your dislike of what the society was like, seems like a house of cards. You can't just assume the Bible's incorrect because you assume the society was flawed and because Peter happened to be a part of said society. That makes for two different jumps in logic that shouldn't occur.

As for Jesus rebuking the fever He also rebuked the sea (Luke 8:24) and said the rocks themselves were able to cry out. (Luke 19:40) All it shows is that there may be more sentience in creation than commonly attributed, and that being God He was able to command all aspects thereof. There's no need to assume a demon was involved.

Jzyehoshua,
Welcome to the thread. I truly do appreciate your input. If you would not mind, please explain the significance of your name.

The purpose of my thread is to provide an alternative, naturalistic explanations for some of the miracles listed in the Bible (and to entertain). A viral fever resolving on its own is a far more likely and common occurrence than a miraculous healing.

Please explain what you mean by "there may be more sentience in creation than commonly attributed". If Jesus rebuked the Sea of Galilee and it responded to him, then what in the sea did the responding? If I drew off a glass of water from the Sea of Galilee, would it contain some "sentience"? If not, how much sea is required to contain sentience? Are rocks sentient, too?

Jesus certainly did attribute illness to demons. See his healing of the epileptic boy described above or his healing of the woman "who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all", Luke 13:11.

Even granting that Luke was the author of Luke, he still wrote his gospel at least 40 years after the facts, if not much more. Also, Luke was not an eye-witness to the "miracle" described above. He got his info. from Paul who got it from Peter. Even if Peter took his mother-in-law's temperature himself, this is still hearsay and cannot pass for evidence. How can we place any credence in Luke's accounts, then?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like docskeptic's post
05-05-2013, 04:49 AM
RE: DOC'S HOLISTIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (WHERE WE TEACH THE WHOLE BIBLE)
Doc: Let us consider another miracle of Christ recorded in Mark 8:22-26. Here Jesus heals a blind man by spitting into his eyes thereby proving that he (Jesus) was indeed the Christ.

Girlyman: Is this the episode where, after his 'healing', the blind man said that he saw "men like trees, walking"? Whatever that meant, it certainly meant that he was not fully healed and Jesus had to lay hands on the man again after which he could see properly. Why could Jesus not heal the man properly the first time?

Doc (thinking, Must talk to that boy's parents about his name): Maybe the man was lacking faith? Maybe the blindness was so severe that Jesus also had to heal the visual center in the man's brain as a second step? I don't know! I'm just a teacher.

Girlyman: Why use spit, then? Wouldn't that have been most unhygienic? Why not just say a word and effect the healing? And how would Jesus differ from the Emperor Vespasian who also cured a blind man by means of his spit? Or from St. Francis of Paola who created two eyes and a mouth on the face of a child born without these orifices by tracing the outlines of these organs on the child's blank face with his spit?
Since Pliny the Elder also documented the use of spit as a sovereign cure for many illnesses and since Pliny and Jesus were roughly contemporaneous, wouldn't that suggest that Jesus was merely a child of his times and not a Son of God?

Doc, clutching his chest: Chest pain... must... get... nitro... Hold on, Elizabeth! I'm coming, honey. It's the big one! No wait... it's just gas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like docskeptic's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: