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....

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #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?

For a few reasons.
1. To prevent the Bible from becoming an object of worship itself.
2. To invite humans to actively participate in God’s divine plan by sharing His message in their own words.
3. Because recording every aspect of His teachings would be impractical, Jesus entrusted the Church with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, allowing oral traditions to complement Scripture and carry His message through the ages.

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?

This is what happened to protestants, not to Catholics. We have the Holy Spirit and the oral traditions.

[JehovahsWitness]

Thats quite a dichotomy you have there

A true dichotomy would be A or not A. Based upon your responses, you either agree with my 'assumption', or disagree with my assumption. To disagree issues the following given alternative. One that backs you right into an intellectual corner.

I am not voicing agreement nor am I voicing disagreement,

Please state your position, or this conversation will not be productive.

upon what basis do you assume to reject the notion that things have not turned out exactly as Jesus intended?

1) To assume it was all intended, would mean Jesus is/was pleased that the vast majority of earnest attempting followers get/got the messaging completely wrong.

2) To assume it was not intended, is basically game over. Hence, I guess this is why you MUST choose option 1)

So, what is your position(s)?

A) Was Jesus pleased with the messaging of the Bible?

B) Did direct followers at least clearly understand what Jesus's intended message(s) were?

I've already said , if you want to ask me about my personal beliefs , feel free to do so in a more appropriate forum and I will certainly consider answering.

If you wish to ask me a personal question may I suggest a more appropriate forum:
viewforum.php?f=26

If you are asking for scriptural evidence
you might consider stating your request for bible passages clearly . Or again you might feel more comfortable doing so in the theology subform. LINK => viewforum.php?f=38

If the OP is based solely on your understanding bible passages do clarify.

[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.

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?????

I would have asked that you revisit my first post, and explain what you do not understand, but I will save you that, and see if I can simplify it even more.
However, please consider that you did not answer my question, but switch to something I have already addressed.

This may be a bit difficult, since I cannot use the Bible in this sub-forum. Please forgive me.

A man - a king - has a great deal of wealth - treasures unimaginable.
He wants to share that wealth, not with everyone, but only whom he deems worthy.
So, what does he do? he leaves clues that he knows requires an open mind and heart, in order to decipher, and he also is at the ready to give such ones help along the way.

While there are many people who want to benefit from the king's wealth, they want to do so on their own terms, and they do not meet the credentials the king is looking for.
They give the appearance, but their actions betray them.
To others looking on, it seems these ones are worthy, but what the king sees, they do not see, because they are looking through lens they think are so clear... but they are mistaken.

Are they worthy? Not to the king.
They may look worthy on the outside, but inside, there is a different picture. One the king can see.
Not that what the king can see is invisible. It would be, invisible to everyone else, had it not been for one thing... Knowing what the king is looking for.
Action, is a manifestation of the quality of the heart.

I have a feeling that you won't be able to put all the scriptures in place to fit this scene, but I am truly sorry. I do not understand what to post or not post in this sub-forum, where the scriptures are concerned.
If you are completely lost, you can revisit my first post, and see if anything there helps.

I hope you also understood from my last post, that a person declared worthy by God, is not unworthy.
Let me illustrate this also.
A boy plays in the mud, and his mom says he is not worthy to sit at the dinner table, unless he is clean.
She provides the soap, and point him to the shower.
The boy willingly accepts, and takes a shower.
The mother declares the boy clean, and worthy to sit at the dinner table.

The boy is unworthy.
No. The boy is worthy.
The boy that refuses to take the soap, and shower, is unworthy.

[John17_3]

Thats quite a dichotomy you have there

A true dichotomy would be A or not A. Based upon your responses, you either agree with my 'assumption', or disagree with my assumption. To disagree issues the following given alternative. One that backs you right into an intellectual corner.

I am not voicing agreement nor am I voicing disagreement,

Please state your position, or this conversation will not be productive.

upon what basis do you assume to reject the notion that things have not turned out exactly as Jesus intended?

1) To assume it was all intended, would mean Jesus is/was pleased that the vast majority of earnest attempting followers get/got the messaging completely wrong.

2) To assume it was not intended, is basically game over. Hence, I guess this is why you MUST choose option 1)

So, what is your position(s)?

A) Was Jesus pleased with the messaging of the Bible?

B) Did direct followers at least clearly understand what Jesus's intended message(s) were?

Are you accepting the bible as evidence? If so you might like to consider posting your question in a more appropriate forum.

I was thinking of making that suggestion, as well. Thanks.

[JehovahsWitness]

I was thinking of making that suggestion, as well. Thanks.

I have already tried to post scripture in this thread => [see post #5]

I will not be doing it again without an explicit request I do so from the poster if the OP along with a statement that it will be accepted as supporting evidence for the point I am making.

( my understanding we are allowed to post scripture in this forum. It just is not considered authorative )

[POI]

If the OP is based solely on your understanding bible passages.....

Slight correction... Many earnest wanna-be followers do not get the intended message. Why? The existence of countless denominations which diametrically oppose one another's understanding and beliefs....

As stated in post 128:

To not agree with my "assumption" is to instead take the position that not only is the Bible directed at deliberate confusion, but when Jesus gave direct messages to physical followers/other, they too were sometimes left with confusion.

So, what is your position(s)?

1) Was Jesus pleased with the messaging of the Bible?

2) Did direct followers at least clearly understand what Jesus's intended message(s) were?

[JehovahsWitness]

If the OP is based solely on your understanding bible passages.....

Slight correction...

What are you correcting ? I am seeking information.

• Is your " assumption" of Jesus intentions based on your interpretation of the bible?

• Are you requesting posters use bible passages in this thread and will you accept said passages as evidence for any given point?

[POI]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #135]

I have no problem with posting scripture. I do it all the time. I think it depends on the WHY, as to the reason you post it.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #135]

I have no problem with posting scripture. I do it all the time. I think it depends on the WHY, as to the reason you post it.

Do you have any scriptural support for the assumption Jesus wanted everyone to understand his message?

Feel free to provide the scripture(s) and be sure to stipulate WHY you are posting it.


JW

I also see you did not reply to => [ my post #5]

[POI]

Do you have any scriptural support for the assumption Jesus wanted everyone to understand his message?

Feel free to provide the scripture(s) and be sure to stipulate WHY you are posting it.

Before we even get there, do you acknowledge that countless earnest followers interpret these messages differently? This answer here is an obvious (yes).

Is your argument that Jesus did NOT want the Bible to convey very clear messages of truth? If so, do tell...

Alternatively:

2 Timothy 2:7 - Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.

James 1:5 - "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him"

Proverbs 2:6 - "For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding"

John 28:28 - "And he said to man, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding"