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....

[JehovahsWitness]

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"

• WHY have you posted these scriptures?

• What do you think they mean ?

• what position is it that you feel they support and how?

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.

[POI]

1)

• WHY have you posted these scriptures?

2)

• What do you think they mean ?

3)

• what position is it that you feel they support and how?

1) Because you asked "Do you have any scriptural support for the assumption Jesus wanted everyone to understand his message?"
2) Is it, or is not obvious, as to what they mean?
3) If it was obvious, you would not need to ask.

My turn, third request:

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?

[POI]

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

To make a long story short, God states all are 'unworthy'. Conditional grace is issued (however), by way of Jesus-faith, via Romans 3. Again, you state that "those worthy are freed from confusion". This would essentially mean that the faithful would no longer be confused. Why? Conditional grace is applied anyways, to the faithful. Thus, according to your rationale, if you remain confused, you are not truly faithful. But this is illogical, because this would mean that only one very specific sect or denomination is truly faithful, and the rest are impostures/liars/mistaken. It would also be illogical because some, under the correct specific doctrine, may not actually have Jesus-faith, but still may carry the same set of beliefs as the others, in the same sect, who do have faith.

Thus, your quoted statement fails.

[POI]

For a few reasons.
1. To prevent the Bible from becoming an object of worship itself.

Then you admit we have found absolutely no relics related to Jesus? Because many apply these claimed relics and locations, (like his tomb, the shroud, other), as objects of worship. Further, wouldn't it be a small price to pay, to instead assure that everyone got the correct message? More may even believe, as it would be written in a way in which no human could. And doesn't Jesus want all to believe? If everyone believed, more would also decide to follow -- (even for earnest reasons and not just because they feel coerced). Why not convey clear messaging, like all the ones who received direct messages from Jesus himself. The rest do not get a fair shake.

2. To invite humans to actively participate in God’s divine plan by sharing His message in their own words.

But countless denominations do quite a bit more than 'sharing'. It's a great idea, but Protestants do not think Catholics are saved. I know this because when I used to attend such congregations, I would regularly witness family members converting AWAY from Catholicism, and the pastor would state, "today you have been saved." So, yea... Nice idea and all, but topics like religion and politics get very heated, especially when both sides think they are both RIGHT. Why would Jesus be pleased that family members will denounce other family members, for applying the wrong set of beliefs, while also reading from the same collection of books?

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.

But 'the church' mucked it all up. Compare Mark with Luke... They are logically incompatible with one another.

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

See above, how I spoke about how all "denoms" think theirs is right, and the others are wrong.

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

Not so fast.

Not only do we have Paul stating he met with some of the big dawgs (particularly Peter and James)...but we also have Peter acknowledging Paul and his letter(s)

2 Peter 3:15-16

Obviously, both are under the same umbrella and preaching the same Gospel... resurrection and all.

There is some debate over the authorship of 2 Peter but I'm convinced the source of the information comes from the apostle Peter, as the book states.

We then have later small scraps, decades later. Much later, we finally have a full 'Gospel'.

And where do you think the scraps came from?

Full books.

Or do you think that back then, it was common to write documents on pieces of chippy scrap paper, in fragments?

Aside from Paul's writings, the 'Gospels' are not a thing until basically centuries later, when the canonization process commenced.

Nonsense.

I will reemphasize this point (since you conveniently ignored it)..

Papias stated that both Matthew and Mark wrote a Gospel...which means that at the very least, there were two Gospels in circulation in the mid 1st century CE.

So, just because certain sacred holy texts weren't canonized until centuries later and compiled to make one collection of holy books (the Bible), does not mean that those books weren't individually circulating and making their rounds on their own merits well beforehand.

And as soon as we compare what is likely the first two "Gospels' - (Mark then Luke), we see irreconcilable differences between the two.

That may be what you see, but that's not what we see.

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...

Opinions.

This is logically impossible when comparing Mark to Luke alone

Opinions.

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.

Opinions.

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?

We've already established based on your prior blunder that given the omnibrutes of God, he cannot act in an unwise or foolish way.

So, your asking of such a question is a waste, as the decision that was made was the best decision that could have been made, given the knowledge of all possible variables that an omniscient God would have and that a finite human being such as yourself could not possibly know or understand.

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.

Third time; there were certain individual books that believers deemed as holy/sacred, and were in circulation before some of those same books were canonized centuries later.

That is why you have some of the early church fathers quoting from Gospels well before the canonization began.

So it may be time for you to drop this silly objection, because it means nothing.

Luke is not a reliable document

Opinions.

unless you ignore many things Mark says, and vice versa. Pick your poison.

Specifics?

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...

He did not make Christianity the "official Roman religion".

He decriminalized Christianity...in other words, after centuries of being persecuted for their beliefs, Christians, under Constantine's rulership, were able to worship freely without the fear of imprisonment, torture, or death.

Basically, a "freedom of religion" state.

And still, the Genetic Fallacy is a place from which you continue to argue.

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

Yeah, but he had his own Jesus experience.

Good enough for him, and good enough for me.

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?

The question is; does the WTS (their theology), in of itself, line up with the teachings of the Bible?

It is not matter of being clear...it is a matter of being accurate.

The passage I shared (Acts 15) which set the stage for the Council of Jerusalem (another thing you conveniently ignored), those "others" that were spreading false teachings..

Their message was "clear", but was it "accurate"?

No, it wasn't.

JWs teachings are clear...but it is accurate?

No.

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).

Sounds like you opt to not follow him, based on what you understand.

So, end of discussion.

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.

Opinions.

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...

Yeah, great question.

While the zombies were roaming the city of Jerusalem, why didnt everyone take their IPhones out and start recording it??

Great point.

That is not my question. 'The church' is responsible for what is in the canon. Are they a reliable source?

I thought you meant the church today.

We can do our own due diligence in deciding whether or not the said books in the canon should there.

For the most part, we (believers) are all in agreement; that the church got that part right, at least.

The opinions of outsiders/unbelievers is irrelevant.

Hint hint, Mark vs. Luke do not logically jive with one another.

Opinions.

I would really love to know why?

Based on what I deem convincing/persuasive argumentation and evidence.

Why?

Same answer as above.

[JehovahsWitness]

2) Is it, or is not obvious, as to what they mean?
3) If it was obvious, you would not need to ask.

No, it is not obvious to me what your understanding of the scriptures are and how you believe they support your point. This is because I am not a mind reader and I cannot read your mind.


SECOND REQUEST

If you would like to articulate in words (rather than telepathy) , WHY you feel these scriptures support your case (preferably in complete sentences ) I will be happy to consider redponding. Until then your scripture posting does little to further the discussion.

• Do you consider bible passages satisfactory evidence to prove your point ?

• What do you think the scriptures you quoted mean ?

• what position is it that you feel they support and how?

.

My turn...

I don't know what you mean by "my turn" since your reply was a mere deflections which did not further the discussion. I am posting my request for the second time. (See above)

[POI]

There is some debate over the authorship of 2 Peter but I'm convinced the source of the information comes from the apostle Peter, as the book states.

This is my point. Aside from Paul, we do not know who wrote what, and what was their motivation(s)? Since such 'eyewitness' attestation is so dang important here, it would have sure been nice if Jesus found a way to preserve original source(s), so we would know if they are linked or not

And where do you think the scraps came from?

Dunno? That's the honest answer. Wishful thinking and hope will assuredly create the stance that everything lines up to the believer's advantage. However, since we know the Gospels are not trustworthy, it really becomes a non-starter anyways.

Papias stated that both Matthew and Mark wrote a Gospel...which means that at the very least, there were two Gospels in circulation in the mid 1st century CE. So, just because certain sacred holy texts weren't canonized until centuries later and compiled to make one collection of holy books (the Bible), does not mean that those books weren't individually circulating and making their rounds on their own merits well beforehand.

Many people wrote 'Gospels'. Some were kept, and some were left out. And when you begin comparing Mark to Luke, they do not jive with one another in a logical sense. Hence, you must either discard one of them, or both, logically.

That may be what you see, but that's not what we see.

Sprinkle in some or a lot of 'faith'', and anything is possible.

Opinions.

If you want something done right, do it yourself. You mentioned "Alexander the Great"... His objective was to gain new land/territories. One of Jesus's objectives was to convey truth to his peeps. Hence, it would make sense that Alexxander did not commission writings. On the other hand, it makes little sense for Jesus not to, and to also do it himself, as he would know humans are extremely fallible.

We've already established based on your prior blunder that given the omnibrutes of God, he cannot act in an unwise or foolish way.

It wasn't a 'blunder', but a hypothetical to demonstrate a point. An omni-god would not instruct fallible humans to write and convey message(s) of truth. Hence, something has to give. A) Either he is not omni - (which raises more questions than answers), or maybe B) he didn't even exist - (which is completely game over). Which crappy path do you pick, A) or B)? There is no option C), unless you can give us your 'opinion' as to why allowing for the Bible to manifest, in the way it actually did, was THE BEST and ONLY way to convey perfect communication regarding truth?

Third time; there were certain individual books that believers deemed as holy/sacred, and were in circulation before some of those same books were canonized centuries later. That is why you have some of the early church fathers quoting from Gospels well before the canonization began. So it may be time for you to drop this silly objection, because it means nothing.

My point is that 'the church' is not trustworthy. We know this, when we start to compare Mark with Luke.

Specifics?

I'm thinking about creating a new topic about it. You object, so I guess I'll see you there, if/when created.

He did not make Christianity the "official Roman religion". He decriminalized Christianity...in other words, after centuries of being persecuted for their beliefs, Christians, under Constantine's rulership, were able to worship freely without the fear of imprisonment, torture, or death. Basically, a "freedom of religion" state.

Here is where context becomes important. And luckily, the author (me) can explain what is meant by 'he made'. I do not mean he 'forced all to become.' No, I mean 'he legalized it'. And since the Roman empire was still a thing, though starting to decline a bit, followers followed. Meaning, to follow the beliefs of an emperor... Sprinkle in tradition, and also ultimate migration to the west, and viola, here (you) are. Isn't it funny how core beliefs in religion are mostly segregated by region? You are the rule, not the exception. In India, on the other hand, you'd be the exception. You are a product of both your environment and tradition. Just like I used to be....

Yeah, but he had his own Jesus experience. Good enough for him, and good enough for me.

Yes, and many do now, but are they believable?

JWs teachings are clear...

This was my ONLY point here. Theirs is clear, Jesus's 'original version' is not.

Sounds like you opt to not follow him, based on what you understand. So, end of discussion.

That's not the point. Many fall away, due to not correctly understanding, because the message is obviously not clear to many, even though they are literate and want to learn. Jesus is okay with that? Why not just give his direct message(s) to all, like he did when he was alive? This way, all have the same starting point.

Yeah, great question. While the zombies were roaming the city of Jerusalem, why didnt everyone take their IPhones out and start recording it?? Great point.

Your avoidance here is telling... Was reporting a thing, or not? Remember, these folks were said to roam the city, not somewhere in the middle of "Nowheresville". Was reporting a thing, or not? If so, I guess all these reports were lost or destroyed It's a good thing 'Matthew' was preserved though.

[Tcg]

If you would like to articulate in words (rather than telepathy) , WHY you feel these scriptures support your case (preferably in complete sentences ) I will be happy to consider redponding. Until then your scripture posting does little to further the discussion.

I don't know what you mean by "my turn" since your reply was a mere deflections which did not further the discussion.

Moderator Comment

Please cease the condescending 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.

[JehovahsWitness]

.


SECOND REQUEST

If you would like to articulate in words (rather than telepathy) , WHY you feel these scriptures support your case (preferably in complete sentences ) I will be happy to consider redponding. Until then your scripture posting does little to further the discussion.

• Do you consider bible passages satisfactory evidence to prove your point ?

• What do you think the scriptures you quoted mean ?

• what position is it that you feel they support and how?

.

My turn...

I don't know what you mean by "my turn" since your reply was a mere deflections which did not further the discussion. I am posting my request for the second time. (See above)

Deepest apologies no offense was intended. If I could re-word the above : What I am asking in my clumsy and inarticulate way is, would you would provide a supportive argument for the scripture you have posted so that a response can be provided.

Again I am very sorry I expressed myself inappropriately, and will try to do better next time, please forgive me.

Kind regards,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[JehovahsWitness]

[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.

While enjoyed your post, may I ask you what is your take on the "Great Schism" when it comes to claims of uninterupted unity?