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?

[marco]

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.

And if one includes "all those things" one becomes boringly verbose. I took my reply as sufficient for the purpose.

I don't see any need to agree that punctuation has be an actual issue sandwiched in with the main complaint.

We're not listening to Aramaic, I know; we are dealing with a translation. The words we see are subject to various meanings according to how they are actually said, and so when we add a comma, we are adding our interpretation.


Before Abraham, was I AM is different from Before Abraham was, I am.


Then the second rendering can be split into various meanings. I am happy to accept you have climbed all these obstacles and arrived at the only sensible meaning

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

I think I coped with this, William. I didn't "forget" - the name of God, I AM, is the entire point of the arguments about the statement.

Speaking in codified language sometimes is necessary, if you don't want evil human actions to immediately stamp you out.

But with legions of angels to back you up, this consideration is insignificant. Are we saying Jesus was unequal to the petty opposition of humans? I understand he died because he chose to, rather than summon heavenly help.

In any event, making his message obscure or codified would not have helped his apostolic sheep, unless he endowed them with raised IQs. Who knows?

Besides, my explanations are not challenged seriously by you or anyone else...so while I 'could be wrong' I also could well be right.

You have a view - what is there to say?
This is where we came in -we have lack of clarity.



On life and meaning there is more sustenance in Omar Khayyam:

"Tis all a Chequer-board of nights and days
Where Destiny with men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the closet lays.�

[JJ50]

I suspect we would never have heard of Jesus if that guy Paul hadn't written about him, and created Christianity. I don't think the world would be any worse off if that religion didn't exist.

[Waterfall]

I suspect we would never have heard of Jesus if that guy Paul hadn't written about him, and created Christianity. I don't think the world would be any worse off if that religion didn't exist.

Namaste

Lets drink some beers and think about this book:

http://thelightuniversal.org/shorterroad.html

http://thelightuniversal.org/page75.html

Or what about Alan Watts:

[marco]

I suspect we would never have heard of Jesus if that guy Paul hadn't written about him, and created Christianity. I don't think the world would be any worse off if that religion didn't exist.

Yes, there is truth in this but Cervantes, creator of Don Quixote, said: "There is no book so bad that it does not have something good in it.� We are fortunate that some have built their lives on what good there is in the Bible. The wonderful organisation, the Samaritans, is an example.

[marco]

Lets drink some beers and think about this book:


http://thelightuniversal.org/page75.html

Let's leave the beer aside and think about this quote to which you directed us:


"if the blood of the unblemished offering is sprinkled upon the altar of Jehovah, it then atones for or cleanses the guilt of sin of those who make the offering; but if the blood is shed in the open field, then they have “gone a-whoring� after evil spirits, and Jehovah condemns them to be “cut off� from among the people."


Let's be thankful we are in the 21st century when enlightenment has come and bull's blood no longer impresses us or our gods.

Or what about Alan Watts:

He is not here to discuss his views.

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by marco]

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....

marco: And if one includes "all those things" one becomes boringly verbose.


William: Think it through. All those things exist as evidence.
Not mentioning them because 'they don't need to be mentioned' means you might as well not mention anything, for all the honesty such critique exhibits.
The mark is missed marco, because you think it too unimportant to include all the evidence.
No wonder there is lack of clarity.
If only you used the 'verbose' rule, you might not have wandered off into pointing out problems of punctuation...but to use that argument in order to fashion false premise doesn't help said argument.
One wants clarity on the subject of GOD, one cannot have that and the excitingly concise.
The simplicity of the reasoning is in that the human subject of GOD has to be naturally complex. There is no getting around that fact.

marco: I took my reply as sufficient for the purpose.


William: It is not your replies, but your replies, and also your OPQ which is being shown as insufficient. The question is based upon lack of ability to put the pieces of the puzzle together. In this case, it is not even observing the detail of the one piece of the puzzle you hold.

marco: We're not listening to Aramaic, I know; we are dealing with a translation. The words we see are subject to various meanings according to how they are actually said, and so when we add a comma, we are adding our interpretation.


Before Abraham, was I AM is different from Before Abraham was, I am.


William: One clue in all this is that ordinarily Jesus refers to GOD as 'The Father' and "My Father".
Even so, it is easy enough to understand that Jesus was presenting the Jews with an idea of GOD they had previously not encountered.
When one places the pieces together, one can understand that IF Jesus was sent by Jehovah, THEN Jehovah is not as the Judiciary presented Jehovah.
Jesus was intent on consistently pointing that out as his public witnessed. One can even argue it contributed the most to him eventually being arrested, etc...[strike]Some folk[/strike] The Judiciary seriously did not want such information out in the public domain, and thought nothing of murder as one way of preventing that kind of carry-on from happening.
Ignoring most of the information we have that on account of it being verbose doesn't help ones understanding of the situation as reported.

marco: I am happy to accept you have climbed all these obstacles and arrived at the only sensible meaning


William: Are you also happy to accept that the lack of clarity you perceive in Christ's Message is natural enough given the circumstances and subject matter, as has been pointed out?
Speaking in codified language sometimes is necessary, if you don't want evil human actions to immediately stamp you out.

marco: But with legions of angels to back you up, this consideration is insignificant.

William: The major theme of the story explains this adequately enough marco. Perhaps you have missed it because you have judged the story too verbose for your personal tastes?
The simply man sees adequacy therein...otherwise his mind wanders into the [strike]devil territory[/strike]...I mean...The Dark Side.
This way they are kept at lease in relative light - like with the moon...those less simply do not require Angels to defend them from the Judicious Ones.

marco: I understand he died because he chose to, rather than summon heavenly help.


William: That's appears to be how that story unfolded, Yes...yes.
He did grumble too that his Dad had forsaken him...I get the impression he got over it just as quickly...
Perhaps it was role-play? After all, he did claim he was not speaking of his own human enough desires. His claim was he spoke for GOD. Thus he was role-playing in at least that sense of the meaning...
So what is it he told us was from The Father? A simple or a complicated thing?
Take your pick and run with that.

marco: In any event, making his message obscure or codified would not have helped his apostolic sheep, unless he endowed them with raised IQs. Who knows?


William: We know because it is all wrapped up in the same story we each hold as that puzzle piece.
His Apostles were not counted as sheep but as shepherds. One step up the food chain...
It appears that they did a great job seeding the Roman Empire with Judicious Reasoning, and the succeeds of that is not deniable.
All said and done though. One can only lead the sheep to water. If the Judicial choose to smear their poop all over a good thing just for the sake of covering it up in darkness, then whatever good men have to say about it is obviously defile-able.Should we call on the Angels to come now and sort this out, or are we quite capable enough of wiping mere human pooh off the idea of GOD altogether without Divine Intervention?
Besides, my explanations are not challenged seriously by you or anyone else...so while I 'could be wrong' I also could well be right.

marco: You have a view - what is there to say?


William: Well already you have said of my view;
"I am happy to accept you have climbed all these obstacles and arrived at the only sensible meaning "
and also of Jesus;
" I understand he died because he chose to, rather than summon heavenly help. "
There are - it appears - still 'things to say'.

marco: This is where we came in -we have lack of clarity.


William: Who - you and I?
I beg to differ. There is much clarity. It is not the clarity of the water that prevents one from drinking. Unless of course the water actually IS dirty?
Is this now your complaint marco? What I am offering you by way of my clear explanations, is like unto 'dirty water' to you?
Or are you referring to something else?
Is there some 'full circle' moment we have achieved, in which I have somehow missed the relevance of?
Otherwise, I am confident that I have clearly answer the OP question as to why is there lack of clarity in Christ's messages. To the simply hearten the message looks clear as the waters from Crystal River. The same water looks murky and untrustworthy to the less simple.That is why Jesus spent so much time with his would-be apostles behind closed doors.
He had to convince them that his water was worth drinking. Apparently it worked and the consequence is different strokes for different folks. Nothing to waste time on losing sleep over.

marco: On life and meaning there is more sustenance in Omar Khayyam:

"Tis all a Chequer-board of nights and days
Where Destiny with men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the closet lays.�

William: That is one players meaning of life for his pieces, for the universe and for everything.

I myself do not find any Joy in that point of view.

Each to their own.

(/Ä\)

[marco]

Think it through.

I do, and I write having done so. There is a time for long explanation and a time for brevity, which is apparently the soul of wit. We are dealing with ambiguity and various things contribute to this, including tone and punctuation. A reference that says: "You'll be a lucky man to get John Smith to work for you" is an example of what I mean. We debate Scripture because it possesses so many meanings, each leading to a different church. Here is clarity: "I am God, end of story." Everything else would follow. By explaining inadequately he allows us to question his qualifications.

The question is based upon lack of ability to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

Are we dealing with general human inadequacy here or specifically mine? If words are offered us, we would expect that they be clear, especially if they have been edited by God. However, if the aim is to cause division and argument I accept that Christ - or his biographer - was successful.

Ignoring most of the information we have that on account of it being verbose doesn't help ones understanding of the situation as reported.

I never suggested this absurdity.

Nor this:

Perhaps you have missed it because you have judged the story too verbose for your personal tastes?

Otherwise, I am confident that I have clearly answer the OP question as to why is there lack of clarity in Christ's messages.

You have suggested why Marco might have difficulties with defining an entire picture from a single piece. On the subject of lack of clarity that leads to Christian division you seem to have preferred the idea there IS clarity, and presumably no division. It is not what we see around us; and on the example I gave where Christ presented a conundrum (Before Abraham was I am) you have patiently explained a meaning to me, as you see it, thereby announcing clarity.


We have reached a cul-de-sac in this confusing attempt at finding clarity. Best return to the OP and start again.

[ttruscott]

If Jesus was sent on a divine mission, with "good news", then one characteristic we might suppose would be resounding clarity.

The sum of all Bible religion is the call to separate from those who deny YHWH and the idea of HIS holiness so they may be judged.

This has taken a very long time due to the stubbornness of the sinful believers to whom the call to separate is directed. The judgement of the evil ones has been postponed in case it destroys the lives of those sinners under YHWH's promise of salvation.

How much longer would it take if the proof of YHWH's deity was so clear and obvious that even those who hated HIM saw the advantage of pretending to be devoted to keep the postponement going forever by confusing the issue as to whom the sinful believers must separate from?

That is why the good news needs the input of the Holy Spirit to have a deep personal meaning, not just to cut through the stubbornness of the sinful believers but to keep the non-believers happy in the dark.

[William]

marco: It is not what we see around us; and on the example I gave where Christ presented a conundrum (Before Abraham was I am) you have patiently explained a meaning to me, as you see it, thereby announcing clarity.

WillIam: My point continues to be ignored by you.

The answer I have given to the OPQ is pertinent, even though you yourself have chosen not to acknowledge it.
The reader - as usual - can make up their owns minds.

(/Ä\)

[marco]

The answer I have given to the OPQ is pertinent, even though you yourself have chosen not to acknowledge it.

You responded to "lack of clarity" by introducing a jig-saw analogy which I consider does not apply. The issue is the argumentation over meaning; your concern seems to be to instruct me in how to interpret passages.

I acknowledge everything that is relevant to the OP, and I aattempt to treat other items with some fairness, without andering off into further irrelevance.