I hope you are not trying to say that if I doubt the weatherman's report that I should check with the Bible to be sure. I don't mean to take it literally but I can see how some people in this world take things literally when one reads something like this and one could easily understand what I just said in the first sentence. But I have to ask just in case.

No one sees the irony here?

~Zoo

KFC, there is a book I'd recommend to you - The Jesus Dynasty by James Tabor.  It's a very thoughtful and fascinating assessment of the historical Jesus, mostly based on the scriptures themselves.  It really helped me undersand how and why Christianity is what it is, for lack of a better phrase.

The reason I think it would be of interest is that Paul took just the opposite approach: Believe what you hear, not what you know.

Ha! Isn't this something that we all can relate to at one time or another?

Yes, the mass media is what most influences people's behavior and mentality and shapes their social habits. It provides not only information but formation and most of it ain't good.

KFC,

We agree the Holy Bible teaches absolute truth.

It's interesting that in 1Timothy 3:15, we see not the Holy Bible, but the Church, that is, the living community of believers founded upon St.Peter, the Apostles and their successors called "the pillar and ground of truth".

While I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the Bible in any way, this passage is intended to show that Christ established an authoritative teaching Church which was commissioned to "teach all nations, baptizing them..."   It's plainly evident from this and other passages (St.Matt. 16:18-19, 28:20 and St.John 16:13 that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the deposit of faith and morals and that He was referring to its infallibility when He called the Chruch the pillar and ground of truth.

As to the first part of your statement, you may rely upon the Bible alone, but I rely upon what the Holy Bible teaches and that is---- the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

hahaha no you have the right idea Charles.  She was just using the analogy of the weatherman and saying, using that example, that we are quick to believe what we hear without going on what we really deep down know inside.  She was using a physical example to hit home a spiritual truth.  Jesus did this alot.   Sometimes it's just easier to accept what we hear then to find out the real truth. 

Interesting Daiwa.  I'll check into that.  Never heard of that book. Either it's the same sort of idea but just a diff approach like you said or it's totally contradicting scripture.  If it's hearing....from God thru the scriptures then that would be ok.  I'll check it out and let you know. 

Scriptures are clear, most of the NT was written by Paul and he said to young Timothy to stick to the scriptures and don't go outside of them for spiritual truth.  I taught the book of Colossians a year or so ago and the thought was similar.  There were many many gnostic teachings going around at that time and Paul was telling the church of Colosse, not to listen to the false teachers spreading things that contradicted scripture.  So sticking to what you "know" and been taught already instead of what you hear (false teachers) would be appropriate here. 

while I appreciate your infput Lula, I don't want this to turn into yet another Catholic push.  You're turning it right back to man again.  The whole point is to get away from what man says and go search out the truth from the word of God.  It's not really that hard to do.  Man makes it hard. 

so what dylan really meant by "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" was hold the bible up and notice whether it gets wet, icy, hot and in which direction the pages flutter? 

fascinating.

Oh how often this happens. I can admit that when i first came here i was one of those who had the tendency to believe what I heard because I did not want to accpet that what i considered a reliable source would lie to me. Man, did I learn that lesson fast.

don't worry Charles, we all do.  It's called live and learn.  When we stop learning, we're dead. 

Then I hope you'll read The Jesus Dynasty.

The ironic thing is that Paul, who was a contemporary but never met Jesus, insisted that 'true Christians' accept his 'vision' of Jesus and his teachings rather than the reality of Jesus and his teachings as related by Jesus' brother (and successor) James and the other 11 Apostles.

First off he did meet Jesus.  Read Acts 9. 

Second of all he was well accepted and respected by the Apostles calling himself the least of them because he was a persecutor of them before he met Christ himself.   And the dramatic change was what helped the others to accept him as their own.  His power in healing and the gifts that God gave Paul also gave credence that Paul was a man chosen by God.  You really should read the book of Acts as penned by Luke.  It won't take long to read this and should be very informative for you.  So you can either take Luke's version or you can take modern man's version, one who was trying to discredit Paul by the sounds of it. 

What you just said, shows me that I can tell which side this book you reccomend is going to fall on.  But that's ok.  I still want to check it out. 

Peter himself elevated Paul's writings to the OT scriptures.  And I'm sure you know all about Peter. 

KFC,

You wrote the article entitled

and in it, made the following statement and asked the question....

I responded directly to the title of your article and to this one specific question saying:

Lula posts:

I don't  believe what I'm "hearing" from you in this article, namely "that the Bible is the one absolute Truth."

KFC POSTS:

And that's exactly what I did with you KFC and came up wtih 1Timothy 3:15.

It's not about me pushing Catholicism, it's about truth, even to those resistant to "hear" it. In this case, it's you!

This is the 15th century doctrine of Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) which alleges that the Bible as interpreted by individual believer is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian's sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. The doctrine of the Bible alone is not taught anywhere in the Bible and for good reason, Christians "heard" Christ's teachings first through His apostles and then through their successors through priestly ordination of "the laying on of hands."

In truth, the direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church which alone has the God-given mission to interpretate and teach both Scripture and Tradition. The Church takes her teaching from Divine Revelation, both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, called Sacred Tradition. 1Cor. 11:2, how did St.Paul deliver the unwritten teachings. The Gospel was spread through "hearing" it.  2Thess. 2:14-15; 2Tim. 2 This, I believe, may be what Daiwa was alluding to.

Becasue of bitter persecutions, the New Testament wasn't placed under one cover until 397 AD by the Catholic Council of Constantinople.      

And you should take your own advice...Go and search the truth by reading 1Timothy 3:15 and put that together with the rest of those scriptural passages and see what the HS brings to your mind.

Daiwa posts

Oops...I can see I was wrong about what Daiwa was alluding to!

I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar (I doubt I qualify as 'religious'), but:

Acts 9 refers to Paul having a vision of Jesus, not meeting him 'in the flesh.'  This visionary experience occurred while Paul was still actively cooperating in Roman efforts to suppress Jesus's followers and it was this experience that persuaded him that he had been chosen by Jesus to preach the 'good news' to the Gentiles.

From what I've read, there is no evidence that Paul ever met Jesus during Jesus's lifetime, or that he personally heard him preach, for that matter - if he did, he did not mention it himself.  No question he was ultimately accepted into the 'inner circle' by the Apostles and endorsed as a missionary to the Roman Gentiles, but this was only some time after Paul had this conversion experience.

Feel free to correct me with evidence to the contrary.  Not that you wouldn't.

hahahha...ok you're right about this one....especially since you asked so nicely...

First off.....was Christ resurrected in the flesh?  Where was his body?  Why hasn't it been found?  He said himself to touch him that he was flesh and bone.  Thomas did, remember? 

You're right about the experience.  That was some meeting he had on the way to Damascus.  The light of the glory of Christ even blinded him for a bit. 

But and this is a big but.....not only was Paul astonished and convinced he was chosen by God but so too were the other Apostles and those who were once afraid of Paul.

Your second paragraph is true and what I think as well.  Also, nothing he said either contradicted the OT, the gospels or the other Apostles. 

Are you aware that after Paul's experience he went into Arabia for three years alone to be with God?  After that he came and met with the Apostles.  It kind of sounds similar to John the Baptist who came out of the wilderness eating only locusts and wild honey.