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?

[1213]

"Why do you suppose Jesus spoke figuratively instead of being direct?"

Jesus also spoke directly, and if you would read the Bible, you could also see Jesus answering directly to that question:

The disciples came, and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He answered them, "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but it is not given to them. For whoever has, to him will be given, and he will have abundance, but whoever doesn't have, from him will be taken away even that which he has. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they don't see, and hearing, they don't hear, neither do they understand. In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says, 'By hearing you will hear, And will in no way understand; Seeing you will see, And will in no way perceive: For this people's heart has grown callous, Their ears are dull of hearing, They have closed their eyes; Or else perhaps they might perceive with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their heart, And should turn again; And I would heal them.'
Matt. 13:10-11

Perhaps you can clarify what Jesus meant below for us? Please be clear.
John 16:25 "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.

He means what he says, he has been speaking figuratively, but will later speak plainly.

[1213]

"And the word was God" - many debate this. Was Jesus God? What was "logos"?

The debate would be much simpler, if people would just read it as it is written, without adding own meanings to it.

"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven" - Can priests forgive sins then?

Jesus was speaking to his disciples. If priest is a disciple of Jesus, then he can forgive sins.

"This is my body" - can the bread he was breaking be his body? And if people repeat what he did will they conjure up Christ's body.

Also in that, the simple solution is to read what Bible says.

"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter heaven." Are unbaptised babies excluded from heaven then?

Born again of water, it is not said that it means that one is born anew by water baptism. Therefore unbaptized babies may enter heaven. Water has many meanings in the Bible.

Jesus answered her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst again; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life." The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water, so that I don't get thirsty, neither come all the way here to draw." Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here."
John 4:13-16

And then Jesus spoke to them. And because Jesus also says that his words are life, we could deduce that the water means words and person can be born anew from his words.

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

I imagine that you are much cleverer than I am and your brain assesses material in a way superior to my own humble instrument.

Thanks, but I dont think I am cleverer than others.

[William]

Jesus expected his followers to be able to work it out. The clarity came from within the individuals own critical thinking processes rather than relying upon being told and spoon-fed by whatever political or religious skulduggery one got such sustenance from.

The flaw in this is that believers should then be noted for the acuity of their intellectual processes while those unfortunates who reject the message, not understanding it, should be close to intellectual lifelessness. It hasn't been my experience.

We debate Christ's alleged statements because they are ambiguous. People choose a meaning appropriate to the Christian brand name, or to their own lack of belief. I don't see rocket science being involved.

It is not a flaw as you claim. Jesus warned that this very thing would occur.

You are correct that it is not rocket science. Science as far as we know, has nothing to do with it.

The idea wasn't ever to get folk to believe one thing or another, but that their beliefs would be taken into account, factored into the whole picture.

That science cannot detect the whole picture is here nor there. It should be obvious to those followers. Complaining that a concept is abstruse when that is it's very nature, is obviously disingenuous.

[William]

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

What is this introduction of a 'magical solution'? Is that the fundamentals of why the OPQ is being asked?

What 'magical solution' was promised by which we can point a knowing finger at it and declare it to be the answer to the problem?

What do you think is the 'problem' to which a 'magical solution' should be required whereby everyone is somehow of the same opinion?

Do you think that was what Jesus was about? Even if you do, are you following him?

One has to find out for oneself. Demanding one be shown by others, is not going to ever do that for you.

Apparently Christians agree with this, although I am sure you can find those who don't.

But so what. Even if they all told you that you had to experience it for yourself and come to your own conclusions, does not mean you will.
Then there are those who claim to have done so and garnered no results.

What are we to do? Deny our own results on account of those who have none?

[Diagoras]

The debate would be much simpler, if people would just read it as it is written, without adding own meanings to it.

<snip>

And then Jesus spoke to them. And because Jesus also says that his words are life, we could deduce that the water means words and person can be born anew from his words.

<bolding mine>

You have adequately demonstrated here how easy it is to add meanings to words.

[marco]

The debate would be much simpler, if people would just read it as it is written, without adding own meanings to it.

You mean: it would be simpler if people took your interpretation. Water has many meanings - and you pick the right one? Are priests Christ's disciples - "You are my disciples if you follow me...." Yes they are, but you may say they are not.

There are passages that are clear and there are passages that are ambiguous, allowing different Christian groups to interpret in their own way. It is useless to advise: "Just read as it is written." The Vulgate tells us that John wrote: Verbum erat Deus (the word was God) - while others would have deus, with no capital, making a world of difference. Those translating the King James version into English gave us their interpretation. Whose interpretation do you prefer to follow?

I am happy to hear you say that you are not cleverer than other people - so like the rest of us you interpret and your interpretation is subject to very human error.

[marco]

It is not a flaw as you claim. Jesus warned that this very thing would occur.

That was divinely perceptive. "Those that like me will be able to read something special; those that don't, won't. My sheep know me, as sheep do."

The idea wasn't ever to get folk to believe one thing or another, but that their beliefs would be taken into account, factored into the whole picture.

I love how folk today can jump into the Nazarene's brain and explain his thoughts and intentions. A gift from the Holy Spirit?

Complaining that a concept is abstruse when that is it's very nature, is obviously disingenuous.

Not abstruse - badly worded. Here is Jesus explaining, perhaps:
"I have come with a message for all but I'm going to put it in words that are awfully hard to understand - except by some lucky people. When I say false prophets will come I'm not going to tell you their names. It will be fun deciding whether Paul is good or bad. In other words I'm going to make a mess that generates dozens of different beliefs - but won't that be funny!" Maybe the Lord did have a sense of humour. Intentionally abstruse - from ghoulish Matthew? Or Christmas-angel Luke?

[Clownboat]

"Why do you suppose Jesus spoke figuratively instead of being direct?"

Jesus also spoke directly,

Correct, what we are wondering is why he didn't speak directly when he was speaking figuratively. Like in regards to whether he was God or not.

I'm also wondering why you made this statement making it sound like you have special knowledge or wisdom or something that escapes the rest of us when it comes to the claimed words of Jesus?

1213: I think that is interesting, if you dont understand what Jesus told. To me it is clear what he is speaking. So, what could be the reason why it is unclear to you, but clear to me?

You acknowledge that Jesus spoke figuratively, so why do you pretend that his figurative language is clear to you while it alludes the rest of us?

and if you would read the Bible

I have read the book and I was a born again, spirit filled, drunk in the holy ghost, street evangelizing Christian for 2 decades. Like you, I once pretended that I knew things about the book that escaped others.

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by marco]

That was divinely perceptive.

Perceptive. As I wrote;

"Jesus expected his followers to be able to work it out. The clarity came from within the individuals own critical thinking processes rather than relying upon being told and spoon-fed by whatever political or religious skulduggery one got such sustenance from."

I love how folk today can jump into the Nazarene's brain and explain his thoughts and intentions.

Is that why you wanted to know? Do you require some kind of evidence to back up that that Jesus wasn't trying to get folk to believe one thing or another, but that their beliefs would be taken into account, factored into the whole picture?

Not abstruse...

Hang on. - how is it that on the one hand one questions Jesus' lack of clarity, and on the other states he was not difficult to understand or obscure?

Perhaps it is best to take as many moments as one requires to evaluate from a modern perspective just how difficult it is to be understood by someone else, no matter how many words one uses.

Add to that, what the subject is Jesus was transmitting information about, and one should be able to clearly ascertain that jumping about on the sidelines complaining one does not understand amounts to nothing which can be valued as something useful or productive.

It just appears funny...

Go well.

[marco]

I love how folk today can jump into the Nazarene's brain and explain his thoughts and intentions.

Is that why you wanted to know? Do you require some kind of evidence to back up that that Jesus wasn't trying to get folk to believe one thing or another, but that their beliefs would be taken into account, factored into the whole picture?

It is amusing to hear that Jesus had "factored" things into the whole picture.

Not abstruse...

Hang on: how is it that on the one hand one questions Jesus' lack of clarity, and on the other states he was not difficult to understand or obscure?

I was taking exception to your word choice. Abstruse suggests that complexity prevents ordinary mortals from understanding when in fact the problem is not the complexity but the poorly worded format or the ambiguity. The words themselves are easy enough but even "water" and "sheep" carry odd meanings.

Perhaps it is best to take as many moments as one requires to evaluate from a modern perspective just how difficult it is to be understood by someone else, no matter how many words one uses.

I am finding practical illustrations of this here.

Add to that, what the subject is Jesus was transmitting information about, and one should be able to clearly ascertain that jumping about on the sidelines complaining one does not understand amounts to nothing which can be valued as something useful or productive.

I see no one jumping. Do you? I am discussing the character Christ and the words he's been given to illustrate his important message. I observe many people taking many different meanings. I am asking whether Jesus might have been clearer. Perhaps we should blame his script writers.

It just appears funny...

Yes, I try to be, sometimes, so it is good to be appreciated. Go well.