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]

When you say "oral tradition", I think you mean "oral transmission"...which, in of itself, is not something to be skeptical of unless you can prove that the message by means of oral transmission is itself flawed, false, inaccurate, etc. You've yet to do that, but are instead saying "yeah, but there was a better way to do it", which leads us back to opinions.

All you've done here is to simply "re-brand" the same mechanism. We have 3+ decades of the 'telephone game' before anything was said to be written to paper by who-knows-who? Likely not the most effective way to proceed, if one wants to convey truth(s).

The case here is that the stories originated from either apostles (Matthew, John), or friends of the apostles (Mark, Luke). Once you begin to dissect the case, then you'll be able to have a clearer picture. As a believer, the unpacking of the case strengthen my faith...allowing me to go from blind faith, to reasonable faith with ease.

Sorry, nice try. The weight and credence to these supernatural claims hinge upon the veracity of 'eyewitness attestation.' Since the authors are deemed anonymous, it is illogical to make the conclusion you have made and is instead only wishful thinking. Faith is doing some heavy lifting here...

My point is, I don't wish to engage in multiple debates on one thread. As I'm sure you're aware, there can easily be debate topics and subtopics under one debate umbrella, and I don't want to go down any rabbit roles (as presumably may happen with the mentioning of Matthew 27). If you want to discuss other stuff within this scope, either create a thread or point me the direction of an existing thread.

Then your point is illogical, as we have already delved into many subcategories. You decide which ones you wish to engage, and which ones you do not. The question then becomes, why skip some of these sub-categories, and not others?

1) So then we'll have to discuss why we believe X author wrote Y Gospel. 2) As for Paul, depends what you mean by "resurrection tour", because as far as I'm concerned, he was on this tour...and arguably leading it.

1) We don't know who wrote any of the Gospels. Here lies the initial problem.
2) Paul's said experience would be little different than anyone today who claims to communicate with Jesus today in a vision or dream. And I doubt that even you believe all of these claims. The 'resurrection tour' was distinct, or apart, as described in the Gospels. Case/point, 'doubting Thomas'.

Um, not so fast. So basically, you are saying that no practicing JW has ever had a question or concern related to JW theology of which they consulted an elder to resolve. That is simply not true. Any ex-witness can arrest to that being untrue.

What I'm saying is that a JW is completely aware that they are not supposed to have blood transfusions or celebrate B-days, as the WTS clearly expresses. Alternatively, if I were to ask a "Christian" about a great many topics, the answers from "Christian" to "Christian' varies.

Opinions.

I bet your opinion would resemble mine here.... You are presented with (2) options:

1) The all powerful, all wise, all loving, and all perfect creator gives direct messages to each individual directly.
2) The all powerful, all wise, all loving, and all perfect creator tells others, and lets fallible oral tradition (plus) do the rest.

In your opinion, which option is more reliable, if the goal is to convey clear messaging? Remember, if you want something right, do it yourself.

Um, no. 1. Constantine decriminalized X religion. 2. Therefore, based on #1, I would have abandoned my worship of Y religion, to follow X religion. Does not logically follow..not necessarily, at least.

My point is that the religion would have never 'shook the world'.

We have clues, which may not be convincing to a skeptic such as yourself.

No, you have faith, which is what the Bible props up BTW.

First off, I am indeed a fan of zombie apocalyptic fiction/scenarios..but let's not make any mistake about it.. What was described in Matt 27 was not like a scene from The Walking Dead or Michael Jackson's music video of Thriller..where the undead comes out of their tombs and graves as decomposed corpses..and made their way in the slow, gruesome walking zombie fashion to Jerusalem and started to terrorize the city...biting necks and eating brains. No. What, from what I can tell occured was perhaps the resurrection of the saints in new, glorified physical bodies. We are not told how many there were, nor are we given the particulars of what happened. Needless to say, I don't have any evidence that it didn't happen, but since I trust the Bible, it happened. And lastly, if that is too difficult of a concept to accept, I could always resort to the belief that inanimate matter came to life and begin to talk, think, copulate, and change to other forms (abiogenesis + macroevolution).

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

LOL! My point is if such fellas were roaming the city, and the earth shook, I'm pretty sure such a story would pop up more than once. I doubt such events were mundane. And please stop with the red herring.

What you are using is called, in this case, an objection from silence. Fallacious.

Right. I guess only "Matthew" survived

The Gospel of Matthew apparently had enough credence for it to be made official, even 100 years later, despite your skeptical concerns.

By "the church".

2nd request:

What is the percentage that Jesus actually performed any supernatural acts?

[1213]

...The fact that you cannot answer, reveals that the Bible is not clear...

I think Bible is clear, it just doesn't say everything.

No, the Bible is not clear, as we have JWs believing that all blood transfusions are bad -- by citing the following verse(s): Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, Deuteronomy 12:23, and Acts 15:28-29.

By reading these verses, are the JWs (correct or incorrect)?

Is eating blood the same as blood transfusion? Why would someone think that they are the same, when Bible clearly doesn't say so? (Please notice, I am not saying blood transfusion is wrong, or not wrong, only that eating blood has nothing to do with it, by my knowledge).

But flesh with the life of it, the blood of it, you shall not eat.
Genesis 9:4

Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners among them, who eats any kind of blood, I will set my face against that soul who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 17:10

Only be sure that you don't eat the blood: for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 12:23

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell."
Acts 15:28-29

[POI]

...The fact that you cannot answer, reveals that the Bible is not clear...

I think Bible is clear, it just doesn't say everything.

No, the Bible is not clear, as we have JWs believing that all blood transfusions are bad -- by citing the following verse(s): Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, Deuteronomy 12:23, and Acts 15:28-29.

By reading these verses, are the JWs (correct or incorrect)?

Is eating blood the same as blood transfusion? Why would someone think that they are the same, when Bible clearly doesn't say so? (Please notice, I am not saying blood transfusion is wrong, or not wrong, only that eating blood has nothing to do with it, by my knowledge).

But flesh with the life of it, the blood of it, you shall not eat.
Genesis 9:4

Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners among them, who eats any kind of blood, I will set my face against that soul who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 17:10

Only be sure that you don't eat the blood: for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 12:23

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell."
Acts 15:28-29

Then the Bible is not clear about this topic. You are not answering my simple question. If you are deemed "righteous", is it okay to get a blood transfusion, yes or no? I've asked you 3 times now. Are the JWs right or wrong? JWs are dying, by simply refusing blood transfusions. Are they dying because they are performing a correct or incorrect reading of these Bible passages?

[Tcg]

More room in Heaven for folks like me, then.

Moderator Comment

This violates this guideline on preaching:

4. Do not proclaim where another person is going to go in the afterlife. Do not pronounce that God should judge another person with any sort of punishment.


Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[John17_3]

Those worthy are freed from confusion, because they know how to listen, and they gain freedom and peace. John 6:44, 45; John 8:31, 32 Luke 8:18

I find your response here interesting. The Bible states no one is worthy, which is why you need faith in Jesus (Romans 3). So I guess all are confused.

I'm happy to hear that you understand that all are deserving of death, and needed a savior.
Since the savior has come, and persons put faith in him, why do you declare unworthy, those whom God declares worthy? Galatians 2:15, 16; Galatians 3:8, 9, 23-25
You are aware that your declaration is invalid, because it has no authority, I hope. Only God has authority to decide that. Romans 8:33:24; Titus 3:4-7; 2 Thessalonians 1:4, 5

God sent his son, as John 3:16, For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
So, your guess is incorrect.

You missed my point. Since you too agree that no one is worthy, then all will also remain confused. Please explain this illogical conundrum. Maybe this is why faith is propped up?

I did not agree with that.
If someone is unclean, and told to wash, and are declared clean, they are not unclean, even though they were.
If someone is not worthy, and told to put faith in the one sent to cleanse them, and are declared worthy, they are not unworthy, even though they were.

What would be illogical, is to plant ourselves in the past, and refuse to move, and then refer to the present as the past. Isn't that so?

[POI]

I did not agree with that.
If someone is unclean, and told to wash, and are declared clean, they are not unclean, even though they were.
If someone is not worthy, and told to put faith in the one sent to cleanse them, and are declared worthy, they are not unworthy, even though they were.

What would be illogical, is to plant ourselves in the past, and refuse to move, and then refer to the present as the past. Isn't that so?

In post 56, you stated "Those worthy are freed from confusion"

Romans 3 clearly tells the reader that no one can be worthy, and are instead still redeemed through faith in Jesus, who is the only one worthy. Hence, if none of us humans are worthy, then all of us remain confused, under your logic.

[John17_3]

I did not agree with that.
If someone is unclean, and told to wash, and are declared clean, they are not unclean, even though they were.
If someone is not worthy, and told to put faith in the one sent to cleanse them, and are declared worthy, they are not unworthy, even though they were.

What would be illogical, is to plant ourselves in the past, and refuse to move, and then refer to the present as the past. Isn't that so?

In post 56, you stated "Those worthy are freed from confusion"

Romans 3 clearly tells the reader that no one can be worthy, and are instead still redeemed through faith in Jesus, who is the only one worthy. Hence, if none of us humans are worthy, then all of us remain confused, under your logic.

I don't understand what the problem is you are having.

Please quote the exact verse, in Romans 3, or reference it, because in Romans 3, I read that God declares them righteous (worthy) - the one putting faith in Jesus.
Yes, they are indeed freed of confusion.

[POI]

Please quote the exact verse, in Romans 3

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Romans 3 speaks about giving one a free pass, by granting grace to the unworthy -- who apply faith. This would not absolve the human from unworthiness. Jesus grants grace anyways, by faith alone. You are still deemed a sinner, which makes you unworthy. But, due to his cited conditional grace, he makes an exception for the ones who grovel to him.

[1213]

Then the Bible is not clear about this topic.

Bible is not even speaking about the matter, so I don't think it can be called unclear on the matter.

... is it okay to get a blood transfusion, yes or no[/color]?

I would say yes, if you don't reject God because of it.

Are the JWs right or wrong?

If they claim Bible forbids it, then I think they are wrong, because by what I know, Bible is not speaking about it.

But, I think they can still be right on that it is not good. Because Bible doesn't say it is wrong, I would leave that as a personal choice for everyone.

JWs are dying, by simply refusing blood transfusions.

Can you prove they die because of that?

[POI]

Bible is not even speaking about the matter, so I don't think it can be called unclear on the matter.

JWs disagree. Maybe if Jesus wrote it himself, we would not be having any of these problems.

I would say yes

JWs disagree.

If they claim Bible forbids it, then I think they are wrong

Thank you for finally answering.

Can you prove they die because of that?

Of course:

Multiple Jehovah's Witnesses have died after refusing blood transfusions, including:
Beverley Matthews
In 2000, Matthews died after refusing a blood transfusion that would have saved her life. She was suffering from toxic shock syndrome and hospital consultants told her she had a 30% chance of survival if she had a transfusion.

Heather Winchester
In 2019, Winchester died after refusing a blood transfusion at John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle. She lost a liter of blood during a medical procedure.

Dennis Lindberg
In 2007, Lindberg died after refusing blood transfusions that could have saved him. He was 14 years old and refused the transfusions over his parents' objections.

Joshua McAuley
In 2010, McAuley died after refusing a blood transfusion in the hospital. He was 15 years old and was crushed by a car that crashed into a shop.

Jehovah's Witnesses base their beliefs on three passages in the Bible that order them to abstain from blood. They reject red and white blood cells, platelets, and plasma, but they may accept minor fractions like albumin and globulin.

***********************************

I wonder if Jesus is happy that many die, due to unclear communication choices?