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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ecclesiastes 1 makes the point well: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.!"
But I am not sure it is right except in the poetic suggestion that man repeats his mistakes through history and our novelties are a variation on an old theme.

?

I am not talking about the profundity in what Christ said. There is depth, but it is not impenetrable. I am referring to statements that can have a variety of meaning; to phraseology that lends itself to misinterpretation; to a seemingly deliberate choice of words that raises argument; for example, "Before Abraham was, I am."

Right, and that is why you don't make doctrine out of one single verse. It is the totality of all the other Trinity Proof texts that allow us to interpret John 8:58 that way, and not the reliance on the single verse itself.

Would that someone had stepped forward and said: "By which you mean exactly?" The dumbness of the disciples is neither here nor there.

It isn't just the "dumbness" of the disciples, as if you (or anyone else) can know for certain what Jesus meant as you read his words throughout the Gospels. The fact that you created this thread perhaps goes to show that you aren't that much brighter than the disciples.

One digs in vagueness to no avail. What happens is we populate the earth with multiple branches from the vine that is Christianity. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our poor understanding, but in the master's delivery.

If there was a better way to do it, it would have been done.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 31 by For_The_Kingdom]


Moderator Comment

Do not comment on other posters intelligence.

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.

[marco]

Right, and that is why you don't make doctrine out of one single verse.

I am not suggesting such a thing nor is the OP directed at my personal odyssey through the storms of Scripture. I observe there is much argument over meaning. It is to this that "lack of clarity" refers, since people leave the debates no wiser and no clearer.

It isn't just the "dumbness" of the disciples, as if you (or anyone else) can know for certain what Jesus meant as you read his words throughout the Gospels.

It it imperative that a speaker makes his meaning clear. Poor speakers cannot; divine speakers presumably can..... if they are divine.

If there was a better way to do it, it would have been done.

You would have thought so, and yet he didn't manage a better way. We must draw our own conclusions. He was teasing; he was being deliberately vague; he was having an off-day or he wasn't who he said he was.

[Wootah]

[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

Moderator Warning


Msg me if you think a warning too harsh. But I cant imagine you thinking this post was valid.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

I would just like to apologise Marco, my post was unbecoming and I was wrong to say what I did. To be fair you are always very gracious and I am not. I am a work in progress and you, more than anyone on this site are helping me to progress with your honest appraisals of the value of faith based belief. What can I say? I messed up, I'm sorry.

I'll stick to what I do best in future, presenting my beliefs as sincerely as I know how.

Please accept my apologies,


JW

[marco]

I would just like to apologise Marco, my post was unbecoming and I was wrong to say what I did.

That is most courteous JW and no harm was done. I have learned a lot from your informative posts. If we all agreed then we might have fixed smiles, but no interesting debate. My warm wishes.

[William]

Marco: Thanks for your response.

William: No problem. I am enjoying the interaction. It is interesting.


Marco: It seems to be addressing my inability to understand biblical verses and the suggestion is that, if I persevere, light may shine.

William: Not at all. You most obviously understand biblical passages apart from the ones which appear to be ambiguous...which isn't a crime of stupidity...


Marco: 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.

William: Be that as it may, how it needs to be a big enough problem for anyone to feel that they have to complain, can be met with kindness in pointing out what i kindly have pointed out...


Marco: For example: "Before Abraham was, I am."

William: I know that you know the bible. Therefore you should be capable of working out who "I AM" is, when referred to...Panentheism adds to this idea, another layer of understanding. "WE" are "I AM".


Marco: Did he need to say this in this way?

William: What way do you think he should have needed to say it?As already explained, it was simple folk Jesus mostly addressed publicly. Do you use expressions academics can understand, when you interact with children?
Does referring to GOD as "The Father" really tell one anything about GOD?


Marco: I can happily find many meanings - are we to suppose only the elite find the right one?

William: Please list your many meanings for the way it is said. I can only find one meaning which would be the most logical to adopt.
Perhaps a True Scotsman might claim one has to be an elite in order to understand the phrase you gave as an example, but ordinary kin like you and I can and should be able to understand if we apply ourselves in an intelligent manner.


Marco: My quarrel isn't with obscurity - we can find that in James Joyce - but with ambiguity and lack of clarity.

William: Jesus makes it plain that he wasn't able to give away secrets to those who haven't the aptitude to receive them.
Again, I point to the aspect of the story which tells us that most of what he taught was in private.
Is your argument implying that spiritual concepts should be easily comprehend-able, in all cases?

[marco]

"Before Abraham was, I am."

I know that you know the bible. Therefore you should be capable of working out who "I AM" is, when referred to...

That is one interpretation and incidentally, it would be punctuated as: "Before Abraham, was I AM." i.e. before Abraham there was God. If this is what Christ intended to say, then I think he was preaching to the converted, plus one.

Since Christ made the equation I am the Truth, then I = truth, which gives the meaning that before Abraham there was truth. This has the advantage of not creating a God out of Jesus.

Some however think Jesus was the incarnation of God and that he existed before Abraham, so the statement is literally true.

And if we want to be dramatic we can take it that Christ existed before Abraham in some non-physical way, or indeed that he was alive before Abraham.

All very confusing, even when we realise the significance of the phrase "I AM."


This is ONE example. There are many. That you can extract a meaning, as you have done here, does not mean (a) your meaning is correct (b) we have disproved there is ambiguity. We have discussed the opening words of John's gospel over many pages, and still confusion reigns. So I think I am right in wondering why there is lack of clarity.

Jesus makes it plain that he wasn't able to give away secrets to those who haven't the aptitude to receive them.

And how does one obtain this aptitude? By first believing, THEN understanding as many recommend?

[Zzyzx]

.

Jesus makes it plain that he wasn't able to give away secrets to those who haven't the aptitude to receive them.

And how does one obtain this aptitude? By first believing, THEN understanding as many recommend?

Of course, in theology it is apparently 'First reach a conclusion, then look for evidence to justify your conclusion'.

Other fields of study tend to look at evidence first, then base a conclusion on what the evidence indicates.

One need not 'believe in gravity' to enable them to observe a rock fall . . .

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by ]

marco: That is one interpretation...If this is what Christ intended to say, then I think he was preaching to the converted, plus one.

William: What makes you think that the converted don't need preaching to on the subject? Christ was saying more than that. His use of the phrase you have chosen to critique, is in conjunction with other things he was saying. You will need to include those things with your analysis, or you will miss the mark...0h.


marco: ...incidentally, it would be punctuated as: "Before Abraham, was I AM." i.e. before Abraham there was God.

William: Apparently they spoke differently way back then...but I personally don't see any need to agree that punctuation has be an actual issue sandwiched in with the main complaint.
Auto-Correct is a modern day privilege.

marco: Since Christ made the equation I am the Truth, then I = truth, which gives the meaning that before Abraham there was truth. This has the advantage of not creating a God out of Jesus.

William: In that you have forgotten whom is said to have spoken those words...A GOD, no less.
If:
I = truth
Then:
AM = GOD
Thus;
Before Abraham The truth = GOD. I = AM


marco: Some however think Jesus was the incarnation of God and that he existed before Abraham, so the statement is literally true.

William: It could well be the literal truth. Jesus = the same being who declared those words when he was asked by a Human for an answer to a question.
Jesus would have been connecting those dots in his declaration. "Take note my simple good sheep. I am the Good Shepard. I am the true version of GOD. I am not the counterfeit version the Judicial teaches you about."
Those were the times. That was what was going on.
Going public had its grave dangers. That is one reason we are informed that most of Jesus' work was done other than in public.
Speaking in codified language sometimes is necessary, if you don't want evil human actions to immediately stamp you out.


marco: And if we want to be dramatic we can take it that Christ existed before Abraham in some non-physical way, or indeed that he was alive before Abraham.

William: Maybe. There is no particular reason why not. It goes with the general story.
He may also have been Abraham in a prior incarnation. Generally where the GOD get his characters from has to do with where he breathes his breath.

marco: All very confusing, even when we realise the significance of the phrase "I AM."

William: That is why I have mentioned that Panentheism adds to this idea, another layer of understanding. "WE" are "I AM".
This way we can be less confused about who we are and where we derive.


marco: This is ONE example. There are many. That you can extract a meaning, as you have done here, does not mean (a) your meaning is correct (b) we have disproved there is ambiguity. We have discussed the opening words of John's gospel over many pages, and still confusion reigns. So I think I am right in wondering why there is lack of clarity.

William: I have not argued that you are wrong. I have argued that there is no way it could have been any other way. That appears to be where we part company.
Besides, my explanations are not challenged seriously by you or anyone else...so while I 'could be wrong' I also could well be right.
It is the same as when I think about climate change. Is it "true" or "false"?
Ultimately it is not what I choose to believe one way or the other, or even why I decide to choose as I will.
It is more about honoring - at least- the available information, as a package. In that, while there is much to decipher (like any good mystery) the pieces altogether paint the most obvious picture. Giving up based upon the knowledge that 'I could be wrong' before I even start , isn't going to help solve my story.
Bottom line, what harm can such do?
Jesus makes it plain that he wasn't able to give away secrets to those who haven't the aptitude to receive them. Simply put - it becomes apparent that with some secrets that some individuals would rather not know...

marco: And how does one obtain this aptitude? By first believing, THEN understanding as many recommend?

William: There are no shortcuts.
The aptitude comes from wanting to know what is the truth. I speak from my own individual subjective reality. I can only guess at what the answer might be re your own aptitude, and prefer not to go there. Jesus is more known to me anyway, than I am known to you or you to I.
That is clear enough the truth...