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....

[John17_3]

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.

No. This is your belief. Not the Bible.
If sin separates one from God, but God provides a means by which he can be close to the sinner, is the sinner still separated from God?
Let's hear your answer, and then compare that with the Bible's answer, and we will see the difference.

Remember, we are not discussing the fact that one misses the mark, but rather how that one is viewed... by God.

[John17_3]

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?

I believe you were asked to prove your claim. Not to claim that your claim is true.
Please provide the source of these claims. Are they from surgeons?

As regards being clear.
The Bible is clear on God's position regarding blood.
There is no question that God does not want persons to use blood - to abstain from it. The Bible is also clear that blood is to be used for only one purpose - to atone for sin.

There are other things in the Bible that are clear, but it depends on the maturity of the person to see it. Not physical maturity, but spiritual maturity.
Spiritual babies are on milk of God's word, but spiritual mature ones are on solid food - the meat of God's word, and are able to see clearly what God communicates. (Hebrews 5:11-14)

Here is an example.
The Bible does not mention recent things like cigarettes, but there are scriptural principles which clearly give God's view on the use of these.
While a spiritual baby might be unclear, a spiritual mature one sees it clearly, and just as we won't claim that the educational books out there are unclear, because a baby cannot understand them, it is not reasonable to accuse God of not being clear, on the basis that there are spiritual babies, needing to mature... where they can then munch on the meat.

I hope you agree.

[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.

No. This is your belief. Not the Bible.
If sin separates one from God, but God provides a means by which he can be close to the sinner, is the sinner still separated from God?
Let's hear your answer, and then compare that with the Bible's answer, and we will see the difference.

Remember, we are not discussing the fact that one misses the mark, but rather how that one is viewed... by God.

Before I address your response, please allow me to give some backstory...

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

(Rhetorical Q): Are you starting to get it yet? Please re-read the (3) original post questions and then truly ask yourself... Is Jesus actually pleased with the message(s) given to humans? For starters, we have (3) distinct denominations: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. And under that, we have countless sub-divisions. All of which fundamentally issue infighting about salvation and other factors. Please also be advised this topic was created to branch off from this unresolved topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990).

Thus far, we have many differing responses, many/most from earnest. literate, and educated professed Christians. And yet, many responses oppose one another. The topic of 'how one is saved' alone is not an easy-to-answer question, as evidence by the aforementioned thread. There exist no games, no goalpost moving, or no shenanigans here. The question is earnest, from a fella, (me), who was raised in Catholicism, and then later 'converted' to 'non-denominational', or a sub-division of a Protestant. My believe system had to drastically change, leaving me feeling guilty or scared that my prior chosen team of Catholicism would leave me short of God's choosing. And this was when I was earnest in this stuff. I say, if you want something done right, do it yourself. When this Jesus character was presumably waking the earth, he preached to many. The ones who rejected him weren't doing so because they could not understand what he was saying. Many instead rejected him due to disbelief of what he was clearly saying, or because of pride, or other. Not due to confusing the intended message.

The point being, the ones who were in direct contact with Jesus had an earnest opportunity. They received the message clearly. They had a fair opportunity to accept or reject him, based upon clear messaging/understanding. But now, there only exists the Bible. Humans objectively have a much differing starting points, in that many/most are starting from an incorrect premise. Why? As mentioned above, we have countless denominations, all of which disagree with one another. And yet, most are earnest in their endeavors, but most are objectively starting from an incorrect starting location. Further, many earnest folks are issuing a strawman, as many may even later reject interpreted message in which Jesus never intended to give to humans in the first place.

In essence, maybe many "atheists", skeptics, scoffers, other, including myself, may have rejected a message in which Jesus never meant for humans to interpret. So, the fundamental question looms forth... Why didn't Jesus write the message(s) himself, to assure all at least clearly understood all that needed to be said, like the ones he came in direct contact with? He instead allowed for the hot-garbage path taken, which is to allow for decades of unfettered oral tradition, followed by later text written by anonymous and fallible humans, and then canonized by 'the church' centuries later.

If you were in charge of assuring your message(s) were to be given clearly to all to who you state you love, would you have opted for this methodology? I doubt it. Thus, why would an all-loving Jesus character be satisfied? Okay, I will get off my soapbox now and address your response....

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

Again, your claim is "those worthy are freed from confusion". Is your argument that once Jesus grants conditional grace, by way of certain individuals applying faith, confusion will then be released from the ones who properly apply the faith? Please do not tell me this is the case. Why? Because of the aforementioned thread, which includes Catholics, Protestants, and maybe even Orthodox members. All three groups have apparently succeeded in accomplishing the needed task in Romans 3, and yet, confusion about salvation still exists. Thus, your statement of "Those worthy are freed from confusion" is objectively incorrect. Unless you wish now to argue that the ones still confused about the path to salvation are not truly faithful?????

[POI]

I believe you were asked to prove your claim. Not to claim that your claim is true.
Please provide the source of these claims. Are they from surgeons?

I think the path you are choosing to go here is questionable... If JWs refuse all life-saving blood products, wouldn't it be statistically logical to surmise that some JWs will perish, due to blood loss? The answer here is yes!

As regards being clear. The Bible is clear on God's position regarding blood.
There is no question that God does not want persons to use blood - to abstain from it. The Bible is also clear that blood is to be used for only one purpose - to atone for sin.

Then 1213 disagrees, as the aforementioned Bible verses mention consumption. Transfusions are not consumed, but instead infused. Is consumption supposed to include infusion? In the medical world, in which I work in, application of all 'medications' require an ordered route. PO is my mouth, or consumption. IV is through the veins. These routes are distinct from one another. Is your argument that the Bible is haphazardly lumping these two routes together?

There are other things in the Bible that are clear,

Obviously not, as countless earnest, literate, and educated Christians would greatly disagree with the topic of blood transfusions alone.

but it depends on the maturity of the person to see it. Not physical maturity, but spiritual maturity.

Hmm...? This would mean that all Christians, who think receiving IV blood products is okay, are not "spiritually mature"?

[Tcg]

No. This is your belief.

Moderator Comment

Please refrain from personal comments.

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.

[Tcg]

There are other things in the Bible that are clear, but it depends on the maturity of the person to see it. Not physical maturity, but spiritual maturity.
Spiritual babies are on milk of God's word, but spiritual mature ones are on solid food - the meat of God's word, and are able to see clearly what God communicates. (Hebrews 5:11-14)

Here is an example.
The Bible does not mention recent things like cigarettes, but there are scriptural principles which clearly give God's view on the use of these.
While a spiritual baby might be unclear, a spiritual mature one sees it clearly, and just as we won't claim that the educational books out there are unclear, because a baby cannot understand them, it is not reasonable to accuse God of not being clear, on the basis that there are spiritual babies, needing to mature... where they can then munch on the meat.

I hope you agree.

Moderator Comment

Please cease the demeaning comments. Additionally, stop presenting the Bible as if it were authoritative in a subforum where that is not assumed to be the case.

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.

[SiNcE_1985]

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?

Not so fast.

First off, the telephone game won't be effective (or as effective) if/since the original sources of the information were still around and preserving the pureness of the message (the Gospel) and ensuring that heresies and other nonsense wasn't creeping in.

That is PRECISELY what happened during those 20-30 years after the cross...since the disciples were still alive during those 3+ decades.

Likely not the most effective way to proceed, if one wants to convey truth(s).

Since your premise^ was wrong, then this conclusion is unfounded.

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...

And my sentiment is that even though on the surface, the authors are anonymous, we can build a case as to why we believe X author wrote Y book.

It goes from blind to reasonable once you actually take the time to look into it.

Then your point is illogical, as we have already delved into many subcategories.

Exactly, which is why i'm saying less is better, more is awry.

You decide which ones you wish to engage, and which ones you do not.

Yeah, and I'm also deciding when to get things back to its proper perspective.

That Constantine stuff was..

1. Too far left field.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Illogical.
4. Erroneous (on your part).

The question then becomes, why skip some of these sub-categories, and not others?

Because some of them are closer to the main focal point than others.

1) We don't know who wrote any of the Gospels. Here lies the initial problem.

Yeah, but again; we're not basing it on what we don't know...but rather; what we do know.

So there lies the solution.

You may not agree with our assessments here, which means that we don't agree with you either.

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'.

Please clarify your point.

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.

Well, just like everything else in life, Christianity is also on a spectrum scale.

If Christ is in the middle of the spectrum, then how far left/right that any particular group, sect, or denomination is to the middle is up for question.

I said that to say this; if Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed on the "Christianity" spectrum, and their beliefs conflict with other sects...then guess what? They themselves are part of the problem, not the solution.

So, using them as an exception fails, since they are in fact part of the problem.

And to address your bigger point; everyone is "aware" that they are to do or NOT to do X,Y,Z...according to what their particular theology expresses.

So, JW's are just like everyone else in that regard.

Certainly no better.

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.

Your argument has just self-destructed.

If this being is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent, and simply perfect in all his ways (according to your own definition), then it logically follows that this being cannot make a wrong, unwise decision...making his decision to choose #2 over #1 the best decision of the two.

Your sentiment that this creator's use of fallible human beings is wrong, means that your #2 statement is illogical.

Tsk, tsk.

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

Opinions.

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

Reasonable faith.

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.

First off, earthquakes happen all the time.

Second, you made it seem as if it was a The Walking Dead episode and I was merely pointing out that that wasn't the case.

Third, you are continuing to argue from silence...which is fallacious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Right. I guess only "Matthew" survived

?

By "the church".

So what? And?

Genetic fallacy coming in 4,3,2..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

2nd request:

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

70%.

And enough for me to hop on the bandwagon.

[POI]

Not so fast. First off, the telephone game won't be effective (or as effective) if/since the original sources of the information were still around and preserving the pureness of the message (the Gospel) and ensuring that heresies and other nonsense wasn't creeping in. That is PRECISELY what happened during those 20-30 years after the cross...since the disciples were still alive during those 3+ decades.

How in the heck do you know what message(s) were preserved, and by who? Since we do not know who the Gospel writers were, we do not know of their source information, or their motivation(s). Period! To assert otherwise is pure wishful thinking. Alternatively, if we did know, we would then at least know who these people hung out with, of their motivation(s), etc. Further, the "Gospels' were not a thing until 100's of years later, when the council of Nicea was in place. It's not like there was some regulating council going around and assuring oral transmissions were preserved and kept to the original story, prior to canonization. Please, spare me.... Humans are fallible. Period. Jesus is supposedly not fallible. Jesus should have wrote and preserved messages of such importance. All you've got is wishful thinking, at best. Oral tradition is a horrible method to rely upon in an attempt to convey accurate messaging... Especially of this apparent magnitude.

And my sentiment is that even though on the surface, the authors are anonymous, we can build a case as to why we believe X author wrote Y book. It goes from blind to reasonable once you actually take the time to look into it.

Sorry, no. See above. Also, the textbook definition of an "eyewitness" does not align w/ what the Bible offers. And without bonafide eyewitnesses, you got nutt'n.

That Constantine stuff was..

1. Too far left field.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Illogical.
4. Erroneous (on your part).

Sorry, it is not erroneous, for 2 reasons:

1. Constantine is likely the only reason you have even really heard of Jesus, other than in passing -- like you may hear about him and other ancient beliefs in a comparative religions course.

2. Constatine is responsible for deciding what documents to make 'official'. After that, the religion took off.

Because some of them are closer to the main focal point than others.

LOL! This from the same person who brings up "abiogenesis" and "evolution" time and time again No, you opt to address topics in which you think you can challenge.

Please clarify your point.

Paul was not part of the said "resurrection tour". He was not there. Paul's experience would be no different than anyone today who states they saw Jesus in a dream, or had a vision. And those claims are a dime a dozen. And are all these claims believable? Prolly not....

Well, just like everything else in life, Christianity is also on a spectrum scale. If Christ is in the middle of the spectrum, then how far left/right that any particular group, sect, or denomination is to the middle is up for question. I said that to say this; if Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed on the "Christianity" spectrum, and their beliefs conflict with other sects...then guess what? They themselves are part of the problem, not the solution. So, using them as an exception fails, since they are in fact part of the problem. And to address your bigger point; everyone is "aware" that they are to do or NOT to do X,Y,Z...according to what their particular theology expresses. So, JW's are just like everyone else in that regard. Certainly no better.

My point is that the WTS conveys clear messaging. The Bible does not. Maybe if Jesus wrote the message himself?

Your argument has just self-destructed. If this being is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent, and simply perfect in all his ways (according to your own definition), then it logically follows that this being cannot make a wrong, unwise decision...making his decision to choose #2 over #1 the best decision of the two. Your sentiment that this creator's use of fallible human beings is wrong, means that your #2 statement is illogical. Tsk, tsk.

Then I guess Jesus doesn't really exist, since the Bible exists. Problem solved, Thankx!

First off, earthquakes happen all the time. Second, you made it seem as if it was a The Walking Dead episode and I was merely pointing out that that wasn't the case. Third, you are continuing to argue from silence...which is fallacious.

If dudes broke out of their graves, I'm pretty sure this would be widely reported, if reporting was even a thing.?.? Such an event would definitely be worth writing about. But no one did?

?

I'm sure other people reported such a crazy event too, and only 'Matthew' survived, ala 'the church'.

So what? And?

Is 'the church' actually reliable and trustworthy?

70%. And enough for me to hop on the bandwagon.

Wow! We were quite simpatico, when it came to the existence of both Paul and Jesus. Why the massive disparity when it comes to the probability of actual Jesus miracles?

[JehovahsWitness]

Is eating blood the same as blood transfusion?

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 blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality...Acts 15:28-29

Acts does not tell Christians not to eat or drink blood, it says to ABSTAIN from blood. Various translations:
http://biblehub.com/acts/15-29.htm



QUESTION Can a Christian ABSTAIN from blood while transfusing it into his body ?

TO ABSTAIN

to choose not to do or have something : to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice.

https://www.merriam-webster.com

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS and ...VACCINES ,

[POI]

Is eating blood the same as blood transfusion?

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 blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality...Acts 15:28-29

Acts does not tell Christians not to eat or drink blood, it says to ABSTAIN from blood. Various translations:
http://biblehub.com/acts/15-29.htm



QUESTION Can a Christian ABSTAIN from blood while transfusing it into his body ?

TO ABSTAIN

to choose not to do or have something : to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice.

https://www.merriam-webster.com

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS and ...VACCINES ,

This is exactly my point JW. 1213 is earnest and he is possibly getting it dead wrong. If Jesus would have taken the care in writing these holy documents himself, I doubt 1213 would be so confused. Jesus instead left the task of communication to very fallible humans. Many earnest Christians are likely breaking God's law, out of something that may very well be Jesus's fault. Why? He bothered not to write this collection of truth documents himself.

So, here we are, with the problem of communication. Jesus could have avoided this problem and chose not to. Why?