Why is there lack of clarity in Christ's messages?

[marco]

If Jesus was sent on a divine mission, with "good news", then one characteristic we might suppose would be resounding clarity. We don't have that, as discussions here show.


We judge a teacher by the clarity of his explanations. "I tell you TODAY you will be with me in paradise." Is it too much to expect divine Jesus to have anticipated difficulties in these simple words? And of course there are umpteen passages that necessitate discussion that results in vastly different interpretations.

Jesus gave people a further means to argue and disagree: his "sheep" know his voice. Unfortunately, many different groups believe they are HIS sheep; individuals believe they are solitary lambs, under the guidance of the Good Shepherd.


Is it the case that all is vanity? That the whole mass of NT writing is riddled with confusion? One would have thought that if the Resurrection was so important then that, especially, would have been done unambiguously.


Why is there so much ambiguity about NT verses?

Why was Jesus - outside of his platitudes on love and neighbourliness - so unclear?

[2ndRateMind]

Why is there so much ambiguity about NT verses?

Why was Jesus - outside of his platitudes on love and neighbourliness - so unclear?

I can't say for certain, but I would like to propose two possible reasons why Jesus might have found it necessary to be circumspect:

1) The political climate of His day. Even in modern times, politicians like to be ambiguous, to mean all things to all people, and they do not generally even risk their lives to convey what seems to them to be truth.

2) The need to speak to everyone, regardless of spiritual stature and ideology. It is perhaps only possible to do this if one remains a little ambiguous, so that as one grows in faith, the meaning of His teachings undergo subtle changes in development, such that what the individual concerned takes is a different, but personally appropriate, lesson.

And I am not sure that Jesus was that unambiguous about His central message, anyway. We are to love God, and love each other. These two commandments are not platitudes, more a way of life that promises happiness for all. All the rest of scripture is detail and justification.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marco]

You seem to be moving into "interpretation" of the words

There are two sides: the writer and the reader. There are many passages that lend themselves to various interpretations. If you think that somebody somewhere gets the RIGHT meaning, can you say how this person is to be identified? I find it hard to accept that ambiguity is built into the verses.

Any attempt to apply those words as if they were meant to influence real world actions is very, VERY complicated, even dare Is say it, incomprehensible for all but a select few!

There's nothing incomprehensible about acting on what we think is the meaning of words. 'Suffer not a witch to live' seems straightforward, and the action of implementation seems cruel. You are proposing we set up a system and then see in what way we can get biblical verses to be in accord with our system. I believe with this approach, and a lot of labour, we could fashion a philosophy or a theology in perfect harmony with what we want and with what we believe the bible wants.


Others will object, but if we are right, we are right. Juvenal asked: Quis iudices iudicabit? Who will judge the judges? You will doubtless say Jehovah. Fair enough.

[JehovahsWitness]

You seem to be moving into "interpretation" of the words

There are two sides: the writer and the reader.

Yes I totally agree, that's my point.... far from nothing complicated about "love one another" readers interpret those words in various ways... most doggedly avoid dealing with the question, how would this apply to someone being drafted during wartime and instructed to use a gun to kill someone because they are of an enemy nation.

I'm sure some people would say that the words of the Carpenter from Galilee were impractical, inappropriate for real life living in this 21st Century even perhaps the words of of a loveable but laughable, lunatic.. they may well add a few quotations in Latin, some condescending mockery and a smidgen of sarcasm for the galleries ...


Well, I'm done here, I wish you a very good day Marcos,



JW

[marco]

Yes I totally agree, that's my point.... far from nothing complicated about "love one another" readers interpret those words in various ways... most doggedly avoid dealing with the question, how would this apply to someone being drafted during wartime and instructed to use a gun to kill someone because they are of an enemy nation.

Jesus was aware of wars and aware of people killing people. I don't recall his instructions about conscientiously objecting to going to war, a position taken by Betrand Russell. Given that Jesus was silent on war, we might heed Edmund Burke:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Go well

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 24 by marco]

English! No Latin? My my... and no reference how amused and befuddled you are by idiot believers!

Wonders will never cease,


Be Well too,


JW

[William]

[Replying to post 19 by marco]

Marco: I am saying that biblical ambiguity has led to division.

William: So? Political and cultural ambiguity lends itself to the same divisive houses.
You believe perhaps that evil will stand idle while good simply takes over?
Good survives through achieving things in secret - which is why the bulk of what Jesus did was not done publicly.
Perhaps let that notion sink in as you think on it marco.


Marco: You introduce the problem of detecting an entire picture from a single jig-saw piece. I cannot see how this has anything to do with my question.

William: The analogy was introduced because your question re 'lack of clarity' can be explained using it.


Marco: I am of course not arguing that it should be possible to deduce the entire bible message from a single verse.

William: I am of course, not arguing this is what your complaint is. As has been pointed out, your complaint amounts to the royal 'we' having no means of knowing for sure one way or the other, because "ambiguity".


Marco: It is commonly supposed that the bible is inspired, presumably by the Holy Spirit. Why, then, under such spiritual guidance do we argue over passages that might have been phrased in a better way?

William: Hence my pointing out that most of what Jesus did, was not done in the public arena.
Comprehend that, and perhaps ones habitual wasting time and energy on arguing 'the bible' will come to an end as better things step in to replace that.
The claim that 'the bible is inspired by the holy spirit' need not be taken seriously and - in that - the explanation as to why passages that might have been phrased in a better way, are not - becomes much more apparent.

[marco]

You introduce the problem of detecting an entire picture from a single jig-saw piece. I cannot see how this has anything to do with my question.

The analogy was introduced because your question re 'lack of clarity' can be explained using it.

Well I guessed this was the intention; it's the success of the intention I query.

Hence my pointing out that most of what Jesus did, was not done in the public arena.
Comprehend that, and perhaps one's habitual wasting time and energy on arguing 'the bible' will come to an end as better things step in to replace that.
The claim that 'the bible is inspired by the holy spirit' need not be taken seriously and - in that - the explanation as to why passages that might have been phrased in a better way, are not - becomes much more apparent.

I appreciate your patience in indulging my failure to follow. That Jesus worked behind the scenes doesn't really explain anything to me regarding the ambiguities we ( i.e. people taking part here in debating, not Queen Victoria) argue about. And yes, since I stopped subscribing to the Holy Ghost Fund when I was around 14, I can see that a non-divinely inspired text might have ambiguities.


The game, I believe, is to accept certain premises as true - the Bible is inspired; Jesus was a nice man; Mary was his mum.... and find flaws that arise from these premises.

[Tcg]

What about killing our fellow man in times of war? "Love one another" and then drop a bomb on them? Love them and then shoot them? Stab them? Slit there throats? (Ahhh if only war war not so... messy!)

Jesus' dad cleared this up for us quite nicely. If the fellow men in question are enemies of God or possess land God supposedly promised to his people, kill them all, accept in some cases, for young virgins.


We see in Revelation that Jesus himself has no problem with war and blood. Once again, if one is an enemy of God, death and destruction is not only justified, but required. Massive warfare enacted to fulfill God's lust for blood and Jesus is happy to swing the blade.



Tcg

[William]

Marco, The Much Puzzled: You introduce the problem of detecting an entire picture from a single jig-saw piece. I cannot see how this has anything to do with my question.

William: The analogy was introduced because your question re 'lack of clarity' can be explained using it.


Marco, The Much Puzzled : Well I guessed this was the intention; it's the success of the intention I query.

William: Like your complaint re Jesus, if what I am writing in argument against your own, isn't "getting through successfully" it is not likely because I am being too ambiguous.
We give opportunity to all within earshot to listen. Sometimes the message gets through - even if only partially - and other times it does not. We measure through the intent and will leave it to others to define the psychological wisdom and common sense behaviors of success.

We look for words which penetrate elsewhere; to a place within that is susceptible, innocent, faithful, and ever listening for a tonal hint of rational presence. When it is found, this place within " like an instrument entrained by a powerful resonance"will vibrate in accordance to that rational presence.

Q: In relation to you and Jesus, what exactly did he fail to get through to you?

And;

Q: Can you honestly say it is because he spoke too mystically for you particular tastes?
Maybe you would have been like those who followed him behind closed doors, where he explained his ideas to the less simple and more interested in learning the finer details of the whole puzzle?



Marco, The Much Puzzled : I am of course not arguing that it should be possible to deduce the entire bible message from a single verse.

William: Nor am I arguing that the piece you hold in your hand is just the entire bible. There is so much more to what is going on which makes up the whole picture, than simply 'the entire bible'.
Using your argument above, all I am saying is that one should not claim a 'lack of clarity' in Christ's message, based only upon bits and pieces which in particular, you have trouble seeing clarity in.

That is why I mentioned loving ones neighbors and asked what you find unclear about that aspect of the message of Christ.
That is why I reminded the reader that most things Christ did, are not even recorded in the bible...Why expect it to be so? Christians can live with that, maybe you can learn to as well?

Marco, The Much Puzzled : I appreciate your patience in indulging my failure to follow.

William: Well...you call it a 'failure'. My senses are not occupied looking out for either success or failure. Such things do not concern me. My patience with you is simply based on my observation that you are not a simple man.

Marco, The Much Puzzled : That Jesus worked behind the scenes doesn't really explain anything to me regarding the ambiguities we argue about.

William: The opportunity caused by the intention then outreaches to the reader in general. All is not wasted.
Obviously if the bible offers little in the way of explanation, coupled with the fact that the story tells us Christ did most of his teaching in private, then one can suspect answers might be found elsewhere, rather than not at all.

Marco, The Much Puzzled : And yes, since I stopped subscribing to the Holy Ghost Fund when I was around 14, I can see that a non-divinely inspired text might have ambiguities.

William: Yes indeed. Where does one go to get the divinely inspired and is such something which can be understood at levels which are not easily expressed and interpreted through with primitive words and expressions? Even for the most intelligent...Who made the rule that the divine should be non-ambiguous?

Given the subject matter - it stands to reason, ambiguity is going to play its part.
Is to give up trying the same as to become a non theist? Yoda says just DO...trying has more to do with success and failure. Those are the measurements of the simplest men. The Divine is not about those measurements, as far as I have learned to understand Divinity.

Marco, The Much Puzzled : The game, I believe, is to accept certain premises as true - the Bible is inspired; Jesus was a nice man; Mary was his mum.... and find flaws that arise from these premises.

William: This game you speak of. Is there anticipation there will have to be winners and losers?
Those are of course, items created through morality judgments. Success. Failure. Win. Lose. Finding flaws necessitates judgments based on morality.
Purely human.
The divine plays elsewhere...hidden from the simple man who only craves what he believes is justice.

[marco]

[Replying to post 29 by William]

Thanks for your response. It seems to be addressing my inability to understand biblical verses and the suggestion is that, if I persevere, light may shine. The lack of clarity I talk about in the OP has nothing to do with my particular struggles with the text; rather it is about the frequent occurrence of argument over what various verses mean, where the debate is not over the profundity of the text but the many meanings it can have.


For example: "Before Abraham was, I am." Did he need to say this in this way? I can happily find many meanings - are we to suppose only the elite find the right one? My quarrel isn't with obscurity - we can find that in James Joyce - but with ambiguity and lack of clarity.