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....

[SiNcE_1985]

How in the heck do you know what message(s) were preserved, and by who?

I'm glad you asked this question.

You already granted the historicity of Paul...and the authorship of 1 Corinthians isn't in dispute...as it is universally accepted that Paul wrote it.

That said..

In 1Corinth 15:3-7, Paul stated that the crux of verses 3-7 (Pre-Pauline Creed) was information that he received, presumably by the apostles.

He would have obviously received this creed after his conversion.

Scholars believe that Paul's conversion was between 3-5 years after the alleged Resurrection.

So, what does this mean?

It means that between between 3-5 years after the alleged resurrection, that creed is what was circulating amongst believers.

Paul said in verse 3 that he passed (past tense) on this creed to whichever congregation he was speaking to in Corinth.

So, the creed was passed to the church even before 1Corinthians was written.

I said all that too say this..

From the time that Paul first received the creed some 3-5 years after the alleged Resurrection and his conversion, to whenever Paul first passed on the creed to Corinth, to when Paul wrote his letter to Corinth about the creed...the central message of the creed was preserved, as it was originally formulated.

Paul wrote 1Corinthians between 50-55CE.

Jesus was crucified between 33CE-37CE.

Which means that, like I stated, the message was preserved for 20-30 years..and that is what you'd expect to occur if the originators of the message were still around and active, which they were.

Now, how is that an answering of a question ?

Since we do not know who the Gospel writers were, we do not know of their source information, or their motivation(s). Period!

Well, again...the case that is built as to who wrote the Gospels is convincing to me.

I find the Bible to be trustworthy.

You don't. I do.

To assert otherwise is pure wishful thinking.

It isn't. Based on the evidence presented, I am convinced.

Alternatively, if we did know, we would then at least know who these people hung out with, of their motivation(s), etc.

They hung out with other believers...and their motivations were what Jesus commanded them to do during the Great Commission.

Further, the "Gospels' were not a thing until 100's of years later

Um, no.

That can't be true.

Papias of Hierapolis stated that both Matthew/Mark wrote Gospels.

Considering Papias' works were between 95-110CE, it becomes obvious that if he knew of the works of those Gospels, then those works could not have succeeded his own works..which means that the dating of those Gospels would have to be within the first century CE, not 100 years later as you attest.

In fact, a case can be made that they were written before 70CE.

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

, when the council of Nicea was in place.

Negative. The Council of Nicea was 325CE.

Just about 300 years after the cross.

Next..

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.

Funny you mention this^.

Because that is PRECISELY what happened in Acts 15, with the Council of Jerusalem.

Acts 15:15

15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

*Continue reading to verse 34 to see the conclusion of the meeting*

What I find funny is, not only was there..

1. A regulating council which set things right as far as the right Gospel to preach..

but..

2. This council/meeting was focused on SALVATION, which is what you are all up in arms about.

It is also worth nothing that, once you read the narrative you will see my point which is that without Paul, Barnabas, and other believers present, those "others" (verse 1) who were spreading FALSE teachings would have eventually ran wild with those falsehoods and thus misleading people..and from there you would have likely had one of the first early denominations of Christianity.

But this didn't occur while the "big dawgs" were still on the scene and active.

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.

Opinions.

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.

I am led to believe that the origins of the information comes from eyewitnesses.

Luke said so himself in his preface...and I believe Luke.

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.

Opinions.

Genetic fallacy.

Genetic fallacy + opinions.

A double-whammy.

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

Um, that is false.

Constantine wasn't responsible for deciding what documents to make official.

The canons (official, sacred books of the Bible as we know today, for the most part), were canonized well after Constantine's reign.

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

So, try again.

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.

Wrong again.

I bring up abiogenesis/evolution in passing, only to draw a parallel, as I just did on this thread.

It wasn't meant to have a debate or even discuss further.

Paul was not part of the said "resurrection tour". He was not there.

Nonsense.

The qualifications for this "resurrection tour" was not based upon an "only those who were there can join" criteria.

But rather an "only those who believe can join" criteria.

So, based on that, Paul qualified and certainly met the criterion.

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....

It isn't just his vision, though.

It was the vision, followed by the voice, followed by 3 days of blindness.

So, a lot going on there.

My point is that the WTS conveys clear messaging.

You missed my point.

Every denomination conveys a clear message, which differs from other clear messages.

So again, WTS aren't any better or different.

Maybe if Jesus wrote the message himself?

Then what?

Apart from skeptics moving the goal posts to say "how do we know Jesus actually wrote it himself"...or, "Just because he wrote it, that doesn't mean its true"..or any variation of those two skeptical questions?

If Jesus wrote it himself, that still wouldn't stop people from misconstruing what he wrote, thousands of years later.

And nothing you've said thus far has convinced me that it would have.

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

Not only didn't you address the crux of what I said (because you probably knew there was no way out), but what you just said doesn't even logically follow.

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?

Someone did. Matthew did.

After all, if he didn't write about it, this wouldn't be an issue now, would it?

That aside, you are still arguing from silence.

Still fallacious reasoning.

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

Maybe, maybe not.

Is 'the church' actually reliable and trustworthy?

I do not attend church, nor do I view them/it as an authority.

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?

Let me put it to you this way..I am 100% certain that Supernatural, Omni-Being exists.

And I am 70% convinced that this Omni-Being has revealed himself through Jesus Christ.

So, that is a 170% convinced percentage out of a possible 200%.

So yeah, I am fine right here, thank you.

[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 ,

This is exactly my point JW. 1213 is earnest and he is possibly getting it dead wrong.

How do you know some people getting the bible "dead wrong" was not part of Jesus plan?

[1213]

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 ?
...

Thanks, that is a good point. I understand the scripture is speaking about eating blood, because of the whole Bible context and also because I don't think they had the idea of blood transfusion back then. But, it is true that it could be understood also to be about transfusing blood, or any contact with blood. That is why I can understand if people don't want to do so. And if one understands it like that, then it is better not to transfuse blood.

...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

[1213]

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.

Bible says, abstain from blood. What of those words is not clear to you? How would those words be clearer, if Jesus would say them to you?

In my opinion they are clear words and it would be best to avoid blood. However, I can understand that not all think it is also about blood transfusion, because Paul seems to be speaking about eating rules, and blood transfusion was not an issue back then. As you may know, it was forbidden to eat/drink blood. I believe Paul was just telling that the rule still is valid.

It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood.
Lev. 3:17

But, the clear words of the Bible are, "abstain from blood", which means people should avoid blood. Because Paul doesn't define it in some specific way, I think it means people should avoid also blood transfusion.

...Multiple Jehovah's Witnesses have died after refusing blood transfusions...

Died after is not the same as died because...

It is possible they could have died even after the blood transfusion. And actually it could be said that everyone dies after blood transfusion, maybe just not instantly.

[POI]

Which means that, like I stated, the message was preserved for 20-30 years..and that is what you'd expect to occur if the originators of the message were still around and active, which they were.

Paul states he received a vision, while walking from point A to point B, years after this alleged 'resurrection tour'. Paul later apparently speaks with fellows who state they were part of the actual 'resurrection tour.' None of these fellows are deposed. All we have are writings from Paul. We then have later small scraps, decades later. Much later, we finally have a full 'Gospel'. Aside from Paul's writings, the 'Gospels' are not a thing until basically centuries later, when the canonization process commenced. And as soon as we compare what is likely the first two "Gospels' - (Mark then Luke), we see irreconcilable differences between the two. At this point, it's basically almost (game over). Such claims can be dismissed, just like I would dismiss claims of multiple people attesting to a house haunting. And when/if they are properly deposed, all sorts of holes begin to form...

I find the Bible to be trustworthy.

This is logically impossible when comparing Mark to Luke alone,

They hung out with other believers...and their motivations were what Jesus commanded them to do during the Great Commission.

Even IF this were true, expressing messaging, and allowing such a process to eventually take place is nowhere near as reliable or effective as instead communicating his message to everyone himself. As I stated prior, it is assumed that all in which Jesus directly preached to, were not confused about what he clearly stated. They knew what he said. Which means they all had a fair shake, as to whether or not they would choose to follow or not. Why doesn't Jesus give every human the same courtesy?

In fact, a case can be made that they were written before 70CE.

My point is that until such chosen documents and selection were canonized, the Bible was not yet a thing. 'The church' determined which writings would be official, and which ones would not.

I am led to believe that the origins of the information comes from eyewitnesses. Luke said so himself in his preface...and I believe Luke.

Luke is not a reliable document, unless you ignore many things Mark says, and vice versa. Pick your poison.

Opinions.

Genetic fallacy.

Genetic fallacy + opinions.

A double-whammy.

Lots of misdirected "rubber-stamping" going on here... If Constantine, the ruler of Rome, had not made this religion official, you likely would have never heard of this specific collection of beliefs, unless you happen to run across it in a comparative religions course or other...

Wrong again. I bring up abiogenesis/evolution in passing, only to draw a parallel, as I just did on this thread. It wasn't meant to have a debate or even discuss further.

Sure, let's go with that

It isn't just his vision, though. It was the vision, followed by the voice, followed by 3 days of blindness. So, a lot going on there.

Not part of the "resurrection tour".... Thankx.

You missed my point. Every denomination conveys a clear message, which differs from other clear messages. So again, WTS aren't any better or different.

Was Jesus responsible for the contents of the Bible, or not? If yes, then the WTS conveys clearer messaging than what is directly read from the pages of the Bible. If Jesus is not responsible, then I guess we are done here?

Then what?

I would not have likely raised this topic. As I keep stating, the messaging would be clear. We would understand what Jesus preaches, and either opt to follow him or not, for various reason(s).

Not only didn't you address the crux of what I said (because you probably knew there was no way out), but what you just said doesn't even logically follow.

LOL! You raise an interesting point, in which I elaborated upon... Is Jesus "omni-perfect", or not? Some think he is, and some do not. Which camp do you reside under? If he IS, then the Bible would not logically exist. If he ISN'T, then the Bible would logically exist. My position is actually that if Jesus did exist, he is not 'omni-perfect.' Which is one of the many reasons the Bible does exist.

Someone did. Matthew did. After all, if he didn't write about it, this wouldn't be an issue now, would it? That aside, you are still arguing from silence. Still fallacious reasoning..... Maybe, maybe not.

More 'rubber-stamping' out-of-turn. You never addressed the core issue. Was reporting a thing during these times, or not? If so, are humans, who break out of their graves, too mundane for all reporters to report? It's quite convenient that only "Matthew" speaks of it...

And to the part in red, the 'maybe not' is doing some very heavy lifting....

I do not attend church, nor do I view them/it as an authority.

That is not my question. 'The church' is responsible for what is in the canon. Are they a reliable source? Hint hint, Mark vs. Luke do not logically jive with one another.

Let me put it to you this way..I am 100% certain that Supernatural, Omni-Being exists.

I would really love to know why?

And I am 70% convinced that this Omni-Being has revealed himself through Jesus Christ. So, that is a 170% convinced percentage out of a possible 200%. So yeah, I am fine right here, thank you.

Why?

[JehovahsWitness]

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 ?
...

... I don't think they had the idea of blood transfusion back then...

...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

My question is : Can one take blood into ones body by ANY means... orally , anally, transfusionally (or in in the future they invent telepathicaly) ... and claim to be obeying the word that is in scripture ie to ABSTAIN from blood ?



DO BIBLICAL PROHIBITIONS ONLY APPLY TO INVENTEDN TECHNOLOGY THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF WRITING?

It has been argued that because blood transfusions did not exist at the time of writing, blood transfusions should be exempt from the prohibition but is this reasonable?

If your doctor told you To "ABSTAIN from alcohol" but he said this a year before a new methods was invented to absorb alcohol through inhaling it or smoking it , would it be reasonable to conclude that this new method must be exempt because the Doctor couldnt have possibly imagined the technology of getting alcohol into your body? If the doctor recommended total abstinence, was he warning against the METHOD or the end result?

The bible tells Christians to ABSTAIN from blood, would this not cover all future technologies, methods and uses? Does the biblical prohibition on murder only apply to stabbing with a sword , since the writers could not have imagined the invention of a gun?

[POI]

How do you know some people getting the bible "dead wrong" was not part of Jesus plan?

Why would this be part of his plan?

[JehovahsWitness]

How do you know some people getting the bible "dead wrong" was not part of Jesus plan?

Why would this be part of his plan?

You are answering the question with a question. Even if you cannot think of a reason, do you KNOW that the above was not part of his plan?

[POI]

Bible says, abstain from blood. What of those words is not clear to you? How would those words be clearer, if Jesus would say them to you?

In my opinion they are clear words and it would be best to avoid blood. However, I can understand that not all think it is also about blood transfusion, because Paul seems to be speaking about eating rules, and blood transfusion was not an issue back then. As you may know, it was forbidden to eat/drink blood. I believe Paul was just telling that the rule still is valid.

It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood.
Lev. 3:17

But, the clear words of the Bible are, "abstain from blood", which means people should avoid blood. Because Paul doesn't define it in some specific way, I think it means people should avoid also blood transfusion.

Does this mean that if your daughter was assaulted, raped, stabbed, left for dead, later found, rushed to emergency, and 4 pints of blood was ordered to save their life, the 'righteous dad', who is there to offer consent, would refuse it? I just want to make sure we are clear, that there are NO exceptions here? To become "righteous", is to always refuse blood, no matter what.

It is possible they could have died even after the blood transfusion. And actually it could be said that everyone dies after blood transfusion, maybe just not instantly.

You are avoiding the logical conclusion. Since the inception of blood transfusions, JW's have refused them. Statistically speaking, some JW's will have died from refusing this service. Just like if a group was to be refusing some other lifesaving treatment or measure, some would eventually meet their demise from refusal.

Does a 'righteous' human always refuse, no matter what?

[POI]

How do you know some people getting the bible "dead wrong" was not part of Jesus plan?

Why would this be part of his plan?

You are answering the question with a question. Even if you cannot think of a reason, do you KNOW that the above was not part of his plan?

Are you arguing that Jesus may possibly have intentionally offered a confusing message?