The Bible's Biggest Problem(s)?

[POI]

In a continuation of this topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990), which only discusses one important topic, I present a follow-up....

For Debate:

1) Why didn't Jesus write the NT Himself? Why leave this task up to fallible humans to write what was floating around, only after decade(s) of oral traditions? Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

2) Case/point: There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

3) If Jesus also recognizes that many/most were/are illiterate, and/or the many who are literate merely read at a lower grade level, and that differing languages can also blur the message(s), why not write the Bible in a cohesive way in which even the most rudimentary person can understand, in all languages?

This is, in part, the problem of communication....

[JehovahsWitness]

Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

That would depend on if Jesus thought himself to be the Son of God or not. If he believed he would be resurrected 3 days after his execution to immortal spirit life from which state he would be able to oversee and control the compilation of any accounts of his life, this may well have influenced a decision not to write a biography.

Does it logically follow that if Jesus had written an autobiography and subsequently ensured its preservation without redaction or embellishment, even knowing himself to be the son of a god with an immortal spirit life, the existence of such a text would resolve at least some of the objections currently applied to the versions of the Bible in use today?

I doubt it. How would it be scientifically verified that Jesus actually penned the originals? If he penned them on perishable materials (as per the gospel writers) woulld we not quickly find ourselves with the exact same objections as to copies we face today. The Apostle Paul literally signed some of his letters yet debate continue as to their authorship.

Short of an angelic host bursting into heavenly chorus every time a copy was touched, I seriously doubt any controversy would be elminated had Jesus sat up late by lamplight and penned an autobiography.



Logic,


JW

[bluegreenearth]

Does it logically follow that if Jesus had written an autobiography and subsequently ensured its preservation without redaction or embellishment, even knowing himself to be the son of a god with an immortal spirit life, the existence of such a text would resolve at least some of the objections currently applied to the versions of the Bible in use today?

I doubt it. How would it be scientifically verified that Jesus actually penned the originals? If he penned them on perishable materials (as per the gospel writers) woulld we not quickly find ourselves with the exact same objections as to copies we face today. The Apostle Paul literally signed some of his letters yet debate continue as to their authorship.

Short of an angelic host bursting into heavenly chorus every time a copy was touched, I seriously doubt any controversy would be elminated had Jesus sat up late by lamplight and penned an autobiography.

The criteria of the hypothetical was that Jesus would have ensured the preservation of his autobiography. Also, the question asked if the existence of the text would resolve at least some of the objections, not every objection. Accordingly, does it logically follow or is there a contradiction entailed somewhere?

[JehovahsWitness]

The criteria of the hypothetical was that Jesus would have ensured the preservation of his autobiography.

How would that be PROVEN? In short, how would we prove that what we are reading was in fact what he wrote?

.. the question asked if the existence of the text would resolve at least some of the objections, not every objection.

I don't believe it would have resolved any of the objections.

We have four gospels, they have been preserved ( as in they still exist and can be read). Bar an unsupported claim the hypothetical autobiography would have been "clearer", I don't see how Jesus penning a gospel would have changed anything from the reality we have today.

People would STILL be arguing that he didn't really write it, that it had been copied wrong and/or that he could not have possibly meant (a), (b) ..or (c)

Sure, we can make unsupported claims of an alternative parallel universe where people don't behave like people (there is surely a subforum for that somewhere) but otherwise, what difference would'it make?

[Purple Knight]

There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

Christians have an easy out for this because it's all solved if God doesn't punish anyone for earnest confusion.

The only way it's fully solved, however, is if God put a conscience in people that tells them nah that's not right when something has been altered by unscrupulous people into something genuinely immoral.

[bluegreenearth]

The criteria of the hypothetical was that Jesus would have ensured the preservation of his autobiography. Also, the question asked if the existence of the text would resolve at least some of the objections, not every objection. Accordingly, does it logically follow or is there a contradiction entailed somewhere?

As opposed to what? .. the preservation of four of his biographies? What would be observably different to the situation we have today. Bar an unsupported claim the hypothetical former would have been "clearer" and unaltered. Something that would be no more provable than the realitiy of the present day gospels.

Again, the question asked if the existence of an autobiography from Jesus would resolve at least some of the objections, not every objection. One of the objections to the present day gospels is that the debate about their authorship remains unresolved. Unlike the present day gospels, the criteria of the hypothetical was that Jesus would have ensured his authorship could never be reasonably disputed given the autobiography's extraordinary state of preservation. Accordingly, does it logically follow from the existence of such a text that it would at least resolve the current objection about the lack of an autobiographical account from Jesus himself to know his first-hand perspective?

[bluegreenearth]

The criteria of the hypothetical was that Jesus would have ensured the preservation of his autobiography.

How would that be PROVEN? In short, how would we prove that what we are reading was in fact what he wrote?

In the hypothetical, Jesus ensured the evidence necessary to answer that question would be available.

.. the question asked if the existence of the text would resolve at least some of the objections, not every objection.

I don't believe it would have resolved any of the objections.

We have four gospels, they have been preserved ( as in they still exist and can be read). Bar an unsupported claim the hypothetical autobiography would have been "clearer", I don't see how Jesus penning a gospel would have changed anything from the reality we have today.

People would STILL be arguing that he didn't really write it, that it had been copied wrong and/or that he could not have possibly meant (a), (b) ..or (c)

Sure, we can make unsupported claims of an alternative parallel universe where people don't behave like people (there is surely a subforum for that somewhere) but otherwise, what difference would'it make?

Same response as above. In the hypothetical, Jesus ensured that the evidence necessary to demonstrate the autobiography was written by him would be available. This scenario does not require people to not behave like people. Accordingly, does it logically follow from the hypothetical that the existence of such a text would resolve at least some of the objections?

[JehovahsWitness]

In the hypothetical, Jesus ensured that the evidence necessary to demonstrate the autobiography was written by him would be available.

Evidence "available" isn't necessarily evidence believed . After all, how do we know the needed evidence isn't presently available that the gospels are reliable accounts of the life and teachings of Christ?

Essentially the question is ... why did Jesus not make the world a fairytale fantasy world where people don't behave the way that people always behave?

Why did Jesus not override the natural sceptism of human beings, to ensure that everyone believes the evidence available that he wrote (and more importantly) supernaturally protected the copying procedure, so that everyone in earth believes the content of a single unconfirmed account of his life and teachings AND miraculously all assume same interpretation of said teachings.

ANSWER We can only speculate on the basis of any existing information we might have about him.

Does it logically follow that if Jesus had written an autobiography and subsequently ensured its preservation without redaction or embellishment, even knowing himself to be the son of a god with an immortal spirit life, the existence of such a text would resolve at least some of the objections currently applied to the versions of the Bible in use today?

ANSWER No I don't believe the existence of a divinely written and protected text would resolve any objections currently applied to the versions of the Bible in use today unless human nature is also altered and controlled..

It would just be one more book for skeptics to criticise.

[bluegreenearth]

In the hypothetical, Jesus ensured that the evidence necessary to demonstrate the autobiography was written by him would be available.

Evidence "available" isn't necessarily evidence believed . After all, how do we know the needed evidence isn't presently available that the gospels are reliable accounts of the life and teachings of Christ?

Essentially the question is ... why did Jesus not make the world a fairytale fantasy world where people don't behave the way that people always behave?

Why did Jesus not override the natural sceptism of human beings, to ensure that everyone believes the evidence available that he wrote (and more importantly) supernaturally protected the copying procedure, so that everyone in earth believes the content of a single unconfirmed account of his life and teachings AND miraculously all assume same interpretation of said teachings.

ANSWER We can only speculate on the basis of any existing information we might have about him.

In the hypothetical, Jesus ensured the necessary evidence existed to demonstrate he was the author of the autobiography. The term "necessary evidence" entails the requirement that it be sufficient to satisfy the natural skepticism of human beings. People still behave the way that people always behave in this scenario. People are skeptical until they acquire the necessary evidence. Accordingly, does it logically follow that the existence of such a text with all the necessary supporting evidence would resolve at least one objection?

Does it logically follow that if Jesus had written an autobiography and subsequently ensured its preservation without redaction or embellishment, even knowing himself to be the son of a god with an immortal spirit life, the existence of such a text would resolve at least some of the objections currently applied to the versions of the Bible in use today?

ANSWER No I don't believe the existence of a divinely written and protected text would resolve any objections currently applied to the versions of the Bible in use today unless human nature is also altered and controlled..

It would just be one more book for skeptics to criticise.

As previously explained, the hypothetical Jesus ensured the necessary evidence of his authorship is available such that the autobiography satisfies the skeptic's criteria for acceptance. Nothing about human nature is altered in this scenario. Accordingly, does it logically follow that the existence of such a text with all the necessary supporting evidence would resolve at least one objection?

[JehovahsWitness]

. Nothing about human nature is altered in this scenario. ...

Then there will be disagreement, debate and rejection of sufficient information based on a myriad of factors including (but not limited to) politics, self interest and just plain pig- headedness.

Any questions?

[JehovahsWitness]

The only way it's fully solved, however, is if God put a conscience in people that tells them nah that's not right when something has been altered by unscrupulous people into something genuinely immoral.

Sure, but how can one's conscience tell you there were 10 not 12 Apostles?