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....

[POI]

...Both of you are earnestly trying to translate what the Bible means, when you read passages. And you two come to differing conclusions sometimes. ..

Yet, what is said in the Bible, is the same for all. The conflict is in the conclusions, and people can have wrong conclusions. I don't think it is God's or Bible's fault. And in conflict case, the best solution is to go back to what is actually said in the Bible.

If you and JW are earnest in your convictions, and one or both of you are wrong, does God pardon, or offer grace, for the one(s) who interprets the verses incorrectly?

Literate is to remain in what is actually said, without adding own interpretations or conclusions. If all would remain in just what is said, all would have the same idea. However, people often want to know what some scriptures "really" mean, which is why the interpretations or conclusions.

Would you be deemed a successful instruction giver, if you were hired to write an instruction manual, and an earnest reader, who fails to comprehend what you wrote, winds up in eternal torment for failure to comprehend what you wrote?

"Can exist" is not the same as "exists". Nowhere in the Bible it is said that one can ignore the love your neighbor part.

In this specific case, it does. Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25 give specific exceptions to the general "golden rule". Sorry. Deal with it.

I don't think it necessary has to have the word, if it truly speaks about the matter that is called with the word.

Great. Then I have explicitly spelled out why it is the case.

Bible doesn't mention the word chattel, which is why I think it would be best not to use the word, especially because what Bible describes seems to be little different than what you think it means.

But the term chattel accurately describes many of the attributes in which the Bible endorses. Such as, slaves can be beaten with impunity. Slaves can also be kept as property for life. Slaves can be bred, and the slave offspring are to be the master's property as well.

I think they should be understood as the Bible explains them.

Since all Catholics acknowledge a Trinity, all Catholics are wrong?

[SiNcE_1985]

Yet, another classic example of damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Negative. Saul/Paul wrote his own stuff.

That is Paul.

What about the Gospels? Different story.

Hence, skeptics can only really question what they think may have been left out of the later canon, or, edited after the canon was established 100's of years later. In essence, how much of what was written by Saul/Paul was original to him and how much of it is left unmolested? Further, Paul was a human, so expectations would be lower of him.

Yeah, but no other book of antiquity is held up to the same scrutiny.

I don't see anyone asking why didn't Alexander the Great write his own life story...or George Washington.

You see, when you are good, you write about yourself.

But when you are great, others write about you.

Jesus didn't have to write about Himself, but his everlasting impact and influence had others writing about him, and dying for him.

We have no starting point for an alleged Jesus. Thus, we do not even have this much.

Yeah we do.

1 Corinth 15:3-7 is a great starting point.

Early stuff.

I'm asking why the followers of Jesus cannot agree. The Sadducees, Essenes, and Pharisees were presumably not. Please try again.

And my point was/is...people weren't agreeing with Jesus even when he was alive, so much less when he is gone.

This is a cop-out response. Sorry.

You've been asking variations of the same question multiple times, on multiple threads...for the past few years.

Some questions don't require in depth responses.

The Bible says what it says..take it or leave it.

[Tcg]

The Bible says what it says..take it or leave it.

Moderator Clarification

In this subforum, we leave it, at least absent further support:

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[POI]

Yeah, but no other book of antiquity is held up to the same scrutiny.

I'd logically say other books are not to be held to the same level of scrutiny. Why? The Bible is supposed to be THE book(s) of truth, which instruct THE morals, and THE path for salvation. Well, is it just another collection of human contrived books alone? Is the Bible not authoritative after all?

I don't see anyone asking why didn't Alexander the Great write his own life story...or George Washington.

Because these folks are human beings alone. Jesus is said not to be just a mere human with some 'good ideas' alone.

You see, when you are good, you write about yourself. But when you are great, others write about you.

No. If Jesus is asserted to be THE authority, in telling folks how to do this/that/other, it would be less of a mess if it was at least confirmed to come from the one who is said to be both the law maker as well as the law enforcer.

Jesus didn't have to write about Himself, but his everlasting impact and influence had others writing about him, and dying for him.

Did Jesus want to avoid the problem of communication, or not? The known method is pretty bad, wouldn't you agree? (i.e.) Decades of unfettered oral traditions, which were eventually written to paper by who-knows-who, which was later canonized by 'the church' 100's of years later?

If Jesus was smart, he certainly would write and preserve it himself. This would resolve the following:

1) No more doubt as to whether or not Jesus even exists. Like there is little doubt about if Paul existed. This would all but eliminate the 'Richard Carriers' and the 'David Fitzgeralds' of the world, who publish mythicist writings.
2) Jesus should be smarter than any mere human. Jesus would then be able to clarify his message to be more cohesive for all believers. This way, his messages for how to be saved, and what is and is not moral, is clearer.
3) Jesus' message could not be completely corrupted by humans. Either by decades of oral traditions alone, human error in memory, deliberate scandal, other other other...

Yeah we do.

No. We don't. See above.

And my point was/is...people weren't agreeing with Jesus even when he was alive, so much less when he is gone.

His followers/disciples did not agree?

You've been asking variations of the same question multiple times, on multiple threads...for the past few years.

Some questions don't require in depth responses.

The Bible says what it says..take it or leave it.

The fact of the matter is, Jesus does not care about communication.

[1213]

...If you and JW are earnest in your convictions, and one or both of you are wrong, does God pardon, or offer grace, for the one(s) who interprets the verses incorrectly?...

I believe God can forgive many things. And in the Bible it is not required that people must be perfect. I think the crucial things is, why one is wrong, what are the reasons behind the wrong ideas. If it comes from unrighteousness, that is a problem.

Would you be deemed a successful instruction giver, if you were hired to write an instruction manual, and an earnest reader, who fails to comprehend what you wrote, winds up in eternal torment for failure to comprehend what you wrote?

I believe people end up in second death and are utterly destroyed, if they are unrighteous. If person fails to understand correctly something, it doesn't necessary mean the person is not righteous.

But the term chattel accurately describes many of the attributes in which the Bible endorses.

Many, but not all, which is why your argument fails.

Since all Catholics acknowledge a Trinity, all Catholics are wrong?

I think some of them are, when they have non Biblical doctrines. However, I don't think they all are necessary wrong.

[SiNcE_1985]

I'd logically say other books are not to be held to the same level of scrutiny. Why? The Bible is supposed to be THE book(s) of truth, which instruct THE morals, and THE path for salvation.

Indeed..the Bible is all that & a bag of chips

Well, is it just another collection of human contrived books alone? Is the Bible not authoritative after all?

No & yes.

Because these folks are human beings alone. Jesus is said not to be just a mere human with some 'good ideas' alone.

So, because..

1. Jesus is said not to be just a mere human with 'good ideas' alone..

2. That therefore, Jesus should have written his very own autobiography.

Non sequitur.

No. If Jesus is asserted to be THE authority, in telling folks how to do this/that/other, it would be less of a mess if it was at least confirmed to come from the one who is said to be both the law maker as well as the law enforcer.

Opinions.

Did Jesus want to avoid the problem of communication, or not? The known method is pretty bad, wouldn't you agree? (i.e.) Decades of unfettered oral traditions, which were eventually written to paper by who-knows-who, which was later canonized by 'the church' 100's of years later?

Scripture is clear that..

1. Even during Jesus' earthly ministry, people were still confused by his teachings (John 3:1-21).

2. Even during Jesus' earthly ministry, some of his own followers left and no longer followed him because of his teachings (John 6:60-70).

3. As mentioned prior, during his earthly ministry, people were still out doing their own thing (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes) DESPITE his presence with them.

So, if these things happened WHILE Jesus was on earth, then I doubt that a book handwritten by Jesus would change anything some 2,000 later.

And again, this isn't about ways things could have been done better (asks the skeptic).

This is about goal posts moving, and confirmation biases.

If Jesus was smart, he certainly would write and preserve it himself. This would resolve the following:

1) No more doubt as to whether or not Jesus even exists. Like there is little doubt about if Paul existed. This would all but eliminate the 'Richard Carriers' and the 'David Fitzgeralds' of the world, who publish mythicist writings.

First off, there is very little doubt about whether Jesus existed in scholarly academic circles.

Those guys you mentioned are the small minority...just like you have a small minority of folks that doubt the reality of the Jewish Holocaust.

You will always have naysayers, and even people who make their living by way of going against the grain.

And speaking of Richard Carrier, I've already seen him get handled by the likes of Dr. William Lane Craig and Pastor Damon Richardson in debates pertaining to relatable subject matter.

That's what happens when views such as his goes up against actual scholarship.

But I digress.

2) Jesus should be smarter than any mere human. Jesus would then be able to clarify his message to be more cohesive for all believers. This way, his messages for how to be saved, and what is and is not moral, is clearer.

Opinions.

3) Jesus' message could not be completely corrupted by humans. Either by decades of oral traditions alone, human error in memory, deliberate scandal, other other other...

Jesus' message could and more than likely would be corrupted by humans regardless of whether he wrote it or not.

Like I said before; damned if he did, damned if he didn't write the books himself.

I fail to understand how Jesus, writing the book himself (based on that fact alone), would prevent someone from corrupting or misconstruing his teachings some decades or even centuries after he wrote it.

It does not follow.

His followers/disciples did not agree?

Some deserted him (John 6:60-70).

The fact of the matter is, Jesus does not care about communication.

Opinions.

[POI]

So, because..

1. Jesus is said not to be just a mere human with 'good ideas' alone..

2. That therefore, Jesus should have written his very own autobiography.

Non sequitur.

Your non sequitur is a non sequitur. Here's the correction:

1. Jesus is said not to be just a mere human with 'good ideas' alone.
2. Jesus is also said to be both the law maker, as well as the law enforcer.
3. Jesus's objective is also said that he wants to convey/impose such law(s) to all humans.
4. Jesus opted not to ensure any of these laws were conveyed using reliable means, nor did he bother to assure these laws were preserved.
5. Jesus instead opted for his rules and messages, or the 'law', to be conveyed by fallible humans by way of unrestricted oral traditions and later written by who-knows-who - (which means we do not know of these particular folks' motivations), and then canonized by an emperor centuries later.

Opinions.

Well, your "opinion" agrees with me, in the sense that the Bible is not any other claimed human contrived book. Hence, my 'opinion' is that IF Jesus cared to convey truth, Jesus would not only write it himself - (to avoid any human corruption, or any inaccuracy, or other), but Jesus would also assure that his message(s) were secured/preserved. To instead allow for fallible humans to complete this task demonstrates negligence.

Scripture is clear that..

You have already begun upon a false premise. 'Scripture' is placed into question because you and I already agree many/all of these documents may certainly be corrupted to a small or a large degree. Hence, we know not as to what is clear in 'Scripture.'

As mentioned prior, during his earthly ministry, people were still out doing their own thing (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes) DESPITE his presence with them.

So, if these things happened WHILE Jesus was on earth, then I doubt that a book handwritten by Jesus would change anything some 2,000 later.

And again, this isn't about ways things could have been done better (asks the skeptic).

This is about goal posts moving, and confirmation biases.

This topic was created to piggyback upon another topic, regarding 'how one is saved?'. The ones who believe cannot agree on 'salvation.' Again, I'm not talking about the ones 'doing their own thing'. I'm instead speaking about the ones who believe and follow. Jesus cared not to assure the message(s) were clear. Otherwise, something as important as the topic of 'salvation' would be unified and crystal clear among the earnest followers. Thus, please do not straw man me.

First off, there is very little doubt about whether Jesus existed in scholarly academic circles.

Those guys you mentioned are the small minority...just like you have a small minority of folks that doubt the reality of the Jewish Holocaust.

You will always have naysayers, and even people who make their living by way of going against the grain.

And speaking of Richard Carrier, I've already seen him get handled by the likes of Dr. William Lane Craig and Pastor Damon Richardson in debates pertaining to relatable subject matter.

That's what happens when views such as his goes up against actual scholarship.

But I digress.

My point here is that folks like Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald do not question the existence of Saul/Paul because he is a more demonstrable figure in human history and can also be demonstrated to write stuff. Paul's epistles are not in question as to whether or not Paul even existed and also had a hand in writing some/all of his own works. Jesus has less of a starting point, as we cannot even account for this much... Which I find odd, being that Jesus is not only supposed to be the most important figure in history, but also not just a mere human.

2) Jesus should be smarter than any mere human. Jesus would then be able to clarify his message to be more cohesive for all believers. This way, his messages for how to be saved, and what is and is not moral, is clearer.

Opinions.

Since you have no response here, I'll take this response as a concession.

Jesus' message could and more than likely would be corrupted by humans regardless of whether he wrote it or not.

You are omitting a large portion. He could also preserve it. So no, Jesus could write it, make it clear to his followers, and preserve it. But he DIDN'T.

I guess you agree that the way in which Jesus opted to allow for his message to actually get passed on -- is negligent.

Like I said before; damned if he did, damned if he didn't write the books himself.

Correction. Damned because he didn't. Period.

I fail to understand how Jesus, writing the book himself (based on that fact alone), would prevent someone from corrupting or misconstruing his teachings some decades or even centuries after he wrote it.

It does not follow.

See above, where I speak about Jesus preserving it alone.

Some deserted him (John 6:60-70).

Assuming the above verse(s) are true, you've missed my point. The ones who "deserted him" at least understood what he was actually saying.

The fact of the matter is, Jesus does not care about communication.

Opinions.

I'll take this as another concession. Thanx!

[Tcg]

Scripture is clear that..

1. Even during Jesus' earthly ministry, people were still confused by his teachings (John 3:1-21).

2. Even during Jesus' earthly ministry, some of his own followers left and no longer followed him because of his teachings (John 6:60-70).

3. As mentioned prior, during his earthly ministry, people were still out doing their own thing (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes) DESPITE his presence with them.

Some deserted him (John 6:60-70).

Moderator Clarification

The guidelines for this subforum are also clear:

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.

It's time you stopped ignoring them.


Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[POI]

...If you and JW are earnest in your convictions, and one or both of you are wrong, does God pardon, or offer grace, for the one(s) who interprets the verses incorrectly?...

I believe God can forgive many things. And in the Bible it is not required that people must be perfect. I think the crucial things is, why one is wrong, what are the reasons behind the wrong ideas. If it comes from unrighteousness, that is a problem.

I already clarified here. Assuming JW is completely wrong, and also assuming JW is earnest, does JW receive grace anyways?

Would you be deemed a successful instruction giver, if you were hired to write an instruction manual, and an earnest reader, who fails to comprehend what you wrote, winds up in eternal torment for failure to comprehend what you wrote?

I believe people end up in second death and are utterly destroyed, if they are unrighteous. If person fails to understand correctly something, it doesn't necessary mean the person is not righteous.

Please re-read my question. You did not answer it.

But the term chattel accurately describes many of the attributes in which the Bible endorses.

Many, but not all, which is why your argument fails.

LOL! I've expressed the caveats/exceptions, so no, my argument does not fail. To the contrary, you have no defense against my demonstrated position regarding the Bible's endorsement for specific forms of chattel slavery,

Since all Catholics acknowledge a Trinity, all Catholics are wrong?

I think some of them are, when they have non Biblical doctrines. However, I don't think they all are necessary wrong.

Then your response is illogical. To be a Catholic, is to recognize the Trinity.

[SiNcE_1985]

Your non sequitur is a non sequitur. Here's the correction:

1. Jesus is said not to be just a mere human with 'good ideas' alone.
2. Jesus is also said to be both the law maker, as well as the law enforcer.
3. Jesus's objective is also said that he wants to convey/impose such law(s) to all humans.
4. Jesus opted not to ensure any of these laws were conveyed using reliable means, nor did he bother to assure these laws were preserved.
5. Jesus instead opted for his rules and messages, or the 'law', to be conveyed by fallible humans by way of unrestricted oral traditions and later written by who-knows-who - (which means we do not know of these particular folks' motivations), and then canonized by an emperor centuries later.

I concede your points and still ask, how does it follow that therefore, Jesus should have written the Bible/NT himself?

Well, your "opinion" agrees with me, in the sense that the Bible is not any other claimed human contrived book. Hence, my 'opinion' is that IF Jesus cared to convey truth, Jesus would not only write it himself - (to avoid any human corruption, or any inaccuracy, or other), but Jesus would also assure that his message(s) were secured/preserved. To instead allow for fallible humans to complete this task demonstrates negligence.

I've addressed the crux of this point already...and I am led to believe that despite your implication to the contrary; that his message was carefully preserved, at least within the text.

You have already begun upon a false premise. 'Scripture' is placed into question because you and I already agree many/all of these documents may certainly be corrupted to a small or a large degree. Hence, we know not as to what is clear in 'Scripture.'

Not so fast.

We agree that the message has been corrupted, but not the textual message.

That being said, JW's are the only sect of "Christianity" of whom I'm aware that have deliberately altered the Bible to fit their own theology, with their New World's Translation (NWT) of the Scriptures...which is a translation that is only used by them (no other Christian group studies from it), and a translation that they will only study from (they won't read from any other translation).

They've been called out on it (and exposed) in academic and theological circles.

That aside, the text says what it says, although there are at least two additions to the text that are questionable but overall, the text is now as it was then, based on the earliest manuscripts.

However, the message has been corrupted in the sense of false/wrong interpretations of the text that has been preached and taught, thus misleading many.

This topic was created to piggyback upon another topic, regarding 'how one is saved?'. The ones who believe cannot agree on 'salvation.' Again, I'm not talking about the ones 'doing their own thing'.

That's the point.

Those Jewish sects I mentioned, are analogous to the different denominations of Christianity in today's age.

Those Jewish sects only existed because, despite them all being Jewish, they did not agree on certain particulars of Judaism...just like what we have with Christianity today.

And that was when Jesus dwelled among them!!

So how much more when he is no longer present some centuries later.

I'm instead speaking about the ones who believe and follow. Jesus cared not to assure the message(s) were clear. Otherwise, something as important as the topic of 'salvation' would be unified and crystal clear among the earnest followers. Thus, please do not straw man me.

Yeah, and I was speaking about ones who believed and followed Judaism (after all, Jesus was a Jew, wasn't he ) to draw a parallel to the points you've been raising with Christianity.

My point here is that folks like Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald do not question the existence of Saul/Paul because he is a more demonstrable figure in human history and can also be demonstrated to write stuff. Paul's epistles are not in question as to whether or not Paul even existed and also had a hand in writing some/all of his own works.

Yet, there is an active thread on this forum which casts doubt on the existence of Paul, right now as we speak.

Jesus has less of a starting point, as we cannot even account for this much... Which I find odd, being that Jesus is not only supposed to be the most important figure in history, but also not just a mere human.

It's amazing how one man, who had such a lesser starting point, was able to shake the world.

And he didn't write one word

Since you have no response here, I'll take this response as a concession.

Even if it was a stand that came with popcorn and pretzels, it still wouldn't be a concession.

You are omitting a large portion. He could also preserve it. So no, Jesus could write it, make it clear to his followers, and preserve it. But he DIDN'T.

A wealthy person could go in the kitchen and make himself dinner.

But why do that when you have chefs?

Again, when you are great, others will write about you.

When you are just merely good or an average joe, you write about yourself.

I guess you agree that the way in which Jesus opted to allow for his message to actually get passed on -- is negligent.

The concept of how Jesus conducted his business wouldn't be negligent, even if it drank a fifth of whiskey and got behind the wheel of a tank.

Correction. Damned because he didn't. Period.

Opinions. Funny

But opinions.

See above, where I speak about Jesus preserving it alone.

I'll ask again, please tell me how Jesus could have preserved his message in a way that would have prevented people from running wild with it decades/centuries later.

Assuming the above verse(s) are true, you've missed my point. The ones who "deserted him" at least understood what he was actually saying.

Um, not so fast.

Even if the verse is not true and thus fiction, it is clear that they deserted him precisely because they did not understand...they called his words "difficult/hard".
....

All that aside, bruh...I see a glimmer of hope with you.

Always did.

You strike me as one whom, wants to believe, but just can't get over that skeptical hump.

Do I have you correctly before I recommend you something?