Was Jesus crystal clear?

[marco]

Jesus played with figurative language: lambs, shepherds, goats and sheep, harvesting, missing money, silly virgins, ungrateful lepers and nice Samaritans. He never said direct things like:

"I'm not God, just a representative who has learned scripture."

"The holy Spirit I speak of is the personification of inspiration and moral support."

"It was wrongly reported that my Father asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He would never ask such a wicked thing. Nor did he want infants slaughtered. "

"Heaven's not a physical place. You don't get there through ascensions."


Instead we are told his language can be understood only by those who have done a course in sheep talk. This to rational minds is nonsensical.

Why do you suppose Jesus spoke figuratively instead of being direct?
Can we regard his miracles as figurative too?

[William]

I would say that in context, Jesus was pointing out to those closest to him, that he had things to say plainly but first let the unusual language help to dislodge years of prior learning...humans are slow but not stupid...it requires symbolism to weaken the chains of [strike]symbolism[/strike]...

Well thank goodness lecturers do not adopt this circuitous path to passing on knowledge. Some humans are stupid and some are not; we don't know how many stupid people were among the apostles. The "unusual language" of metaphor and fable was perfectly common in Greek and Roman societies but they didn't pretend it was some esoteric code.

Lecturers do not adopt a circuitous path to passing on knowledge? Are you arguing that the knowledge Jesus passed on was the same as the knowledge lecturers pass on?

Even if there were stupid individuals among the following, they were not treated as if they could not learn.

Are you aware that human beings learn things in different ways, and that does not signify they are stupid because they cannot learn in all particular manner?

What the Romans and Greeks did with their fables is besides the point. It has no bearing on the OPQ - or none that has been shown...

The accusation that Jesus was 'pretending' is invalid opinion. Perhaps it comes through the kind of education one went through, but this alone does not make it any more valid.

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by marco]

We can search our entire life and not find. It is one of Christ's follies to say: "Seek and ye shall find; knock and the door will be opened." We can hope this is so but hope opens no doors.

How can you make such an accusation when you obviously don't know what Jesus was referring to?

I don't know if you're quoting from the Book of Wisdom or just making up an aphorism but I see no reason why a spectator cannot pick something up, just as Simon of Cyrene picked up Christ's cross. Milton observed that they also serve who only stand and wait. As for finding what we weren't looking for - it happens lots of times.

Are we following Simon of Cyrene or Milton? The accusation is against Jesus, and he was not advising standing on the sideline.

If you want to discuss the clarity and wisdom of Milton, perhaps start a thread for that purpose.

The OPQ asks 'why' and if the answer does not suppress the accusation, then it is not necessarily because the accusation is correct.

Let those who's minds are not unduly influenced by the accuser, seek and find. The accuser knows so little that the little the accuser knows, isn't actually worth knowing...

I am sure this has meaning but we have enough to do finding meaning in the Lord's pronouncements without introducing other enigmas.

That is primarily the problem with the accusation. The accuser claims to be "unaware" of the Characters involved in the story and the part they play.

As such, how is the accuser going to be accurate with the accusations? The enigma's are recognized by Jesus and eventually also by those who follow(ed) him - A larger thing is hidden which Jesus was revealing could be found by those who seek it out.

Ask most Christians "Who is The Accuser" and their answer will be uniform in similarity. That one is not aware of this to the point that it is a puzzling enigma for them, seems hard to believe is the truth of the matter.

[SallyF]

Why do you suppose Jesus spoke figuratively instead of being direct?
Can we regard his miracles as figurative too?

Well

We don't know that the possibly fictional Jesus character spoke at all

We only have the say-so of his post-Ascension propagandists.

Nonetheless, I suppose the propagandists used figuration so that the propaganda COULD be taken different ways by different readers.

Quite clever, really in my view.

If readers WANT to believe that "Jesus loves the little children of the world"

That message is there for them !

If readers WANT to believe that "some people NEED to be killed"

That message is there for them too !

I suspect they engaged a very capable Marketing Guru to put a very positive spin on the failed "King of Israel" Jesus character getting himself strung up with other criminals.


The figurativeness of Leader Jesus healing "blindness" is just too, too obvious.

[marco]

Lecturers do not adopt a circuitous path to passing on knowledge? Are you arguing that the knowledge Jesus passed on was the same as the knowledge lecturers pass on?

I was commenting on the rationale you imagined to be that of Jesus. I am comparing teachers, for Jesus, by report, was a teacher. Different teachers teach different things, so I guess I wasn't accusing Jesus of teaching astronomy.

Even if there were stupid individuals among the following, they were not treated as if they could not learn.

I don't know whether Jesus put on special classes for those who found his language hard. Or maybe they understood mystically.

Are you aware that human beings learn things in different ways, and that does not signify they are stupid because they cannot learn in all particular manner?

This has nothing to do with the OP. I possess common sense. And I have taught all types... successfully.

What the Romans and Greeks did with their fables is besides the point. It has no bearing on the OPQ - or none that has been shown...

It has a misunderstood bearing on what you said; that the figurative language used by Jesus was somehow different. I pointed out it wasn't. Others used figurative language.

The accusation that Jesus was 'pretending' is invalid opinion. Perhaps it comes through the kind of education one went through, but this alone does not make it any more valid.

I assume this is your own accusation or viewpoint and perhaps you are best able to address it. I can't see what he might be pretending about - his divinity maybe? Anyway it's not a view I uphold; I think Jesus sincerely believed in Jesus. As did Paul.


Do you have a view on Christ's clarity as opposed to mine?

[marco]

[Replying to post 10 by marco]

We can search our entire life and not find. It is one of Christ's follies to say: "Seek and ye shall find; knock and the door will be opened." We can hope this is so but hope opens no doors.

How can you make such an accusation when you obviously don't know what Jesus was referring to?

I can make it very easily since it is a patently untrue in its generality. You used the same generalisation and so I placed Christ's words with yours. You are both in error. We can seek and not find.

I don't know if you're quoting from the Book of Wisdom or just making up an aphorism but I see no reason why a spectator cannot pick something up, just as Simon of Cyrene picked up Christ's cross. Milton observed that they also serve who only stand and wait. As for finding what we weren't looking for - it happens lots of times.

Are we following Simon of Cyrene or Milton? The accusation is against Jesus, and he was not advising standing on the sideline.

If you want to discuss the clarity and wisdom of Milton, perhaps start a thread for that purpose.

It is always a good to check we haven't misunderstood before we offer unsolicited advice. I wasn't discussing Simon's clarity, nor Milton's. I was answering this statement of yours:

" He who stands at the sidelines with the pretense of 'wanting to know' but never personally really actually looking - isn't going to find. For who shall find what one is not looking for? "

Now first of all I cannot see that this refers to Christ. So take your own advice. Next, it seems to refer to those who stand away from the scene and take no part, therefore having no involvement. I offered two counterexamples. Your final question suggests that we don't find something if we're not looking for it, and this of course is nonsense. So I was no more talking about Christ's clarity than you were. I think a separate thread won't be needed. Thank goodness!

The OPQ asks 'why' and if the answer does not suppress the accusation, then it is not necessarily because the accusation is correct.

Hmmm. To respond with equivalent grammatical opacity the apodosis and protasis you employ defeat interpretation. At least we are in the relevant area of clarity, or lack of it.


I fear we have left poor Jesus on the sidelines, performing miracles unseen. The continuing question is why did he speak in terms that divide rather than unite? Did he really want Catholics to be in possession of his actual flesh while Protestants are denied the privilege? All for the sake of a few clear words.

[Elijah John]

Mohammed is sometimes referred to is the "seal of the prophets". The final prophet.

Why isn't Jesus, purported to be the "Son of God" not be considered such? Shouldn't the "Son of God" have the final say? Instead, we have the theologian and preacher Paul interpreting Jesus, and introducing his own blood-atonement theology and his own "different Gospel", (different from Jesus). And don't it beat all, Paul's correspondence to the various churches, (ripe with theology) are now considered Sacred Scripture.

Why, if Jesus was so clear? Why, if Jesus was the "Son of God". Shouldn't Jesus be the end all, and be all, and not Paul?

[SallyF]

Mohammed is sometimes referred to is the "seal of the prophets". The final prophet.

Why isn't Jesus, purported to be the "Son of God" not be considered such? Shouldn't the "Son of God" have the final say? Instead, we have the theologian and preacher Paul interpreting Jesus, and introducing his own blood-atonement theology and his own "different Gospel", (different from Jesus). And don't it beat all, Paul's correspondence to the various churches, (ripe with theology) are now considered Sacred Scripture.

Why, if Jesus was so clear? Why, if Jesus was the "Son of God". Shouldn't Jesus be the end all, and be all, and not Paul?

Possibly - and very, very simply - because

The Jesus propaganda was political and NOT theological at all.

Gabriel at the "Annunciation" spoke of the "King of Israel".

The crowd at the donkey parade called for the "King of Israel".

It looks VERY clear to me that the new Marketing Guru put a theological spin on the failed political campaign.

Occam's Razor comes to mind here .

[Swami]

Jesus played with figurative language: lambs, shepherds, goats and sheep, harvesting, missing money, silly virgins, ungrateful lepers and nice Samaritans. He never said direct things like:

"I'm not God, just a representative who has learned scripture."

"The holy Spirit I speak of is the personification of inspiration and moral support."

"It was wrongly reported that my Father asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He would never ask such a wicked thing. Nor did he want infants slaughtered. "

"Heaven's not a physical place. You don't get there through ascensions."


Instead we are told his language can be understood only by those who have done a course in sheep talk. This to rational minds is nonsensical.

Why do you suppose Jesus spoke figuratively instead of being direct?
Can we regard his miracles as figurative too?

The most important way to understand the teachings of Jesus is to experience it by putting them into practice. The reason why many skeptics don't believe in Jesus and don't understand his message is because they are unwilling to experience it.

[William]

Mohammed is sometimes referred to is the "seal of the prophets". The final prophet.

Why isn't Jesus, purported to be the "Son of God" not be considered such? Shouldn't the "Son of God" have the final say? Instead, we have the theologian and preacher Paul interpreting Jesus, and introducing his own blood-atonement theology and his own "different Gospel", (different from Jesus). And don't it beat all, Paul's correspondence to the various churches, (ripe with theology) are now considered Sacred Scripture.

Why, if Jesus was so clear? Why, if Jesus was the "Son of God". Shouldn't Jesus be the end all, and be all, and not Paul?

Are you saying that a lack of clarity on Jesus' part allowed an opportunity for Paul to come along and clarify things about Jesus, for others?

As I understand it, Jesus was clear enough that others would come along making false claims about such things, and he warns those who should know, to be vigilant - on their guard not to be taken in by such.

[Tcg]

The reason why many skeptics don't believe in Jesus and don't understand his message is because they are unwilling to experience it.

Clearly experience isn't the magic solution your unsupported assertion claims it to be. If it were those who have experienced Jesus' message, which includes both skeptics and believers, would have a unified understanding of his message.

You'd be lucky to get only two contradictory opinions from two of these experiencers.


Tcg