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]

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.

It is comforting to know that God is patient with deafness and clearly makes allowance for his son's lack of clarity. Perhaps that's why he sent Muhammad.

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.

I lose patience with this whole set -up involving deliberate concealment of important information. Is heaven such a primitive place, lacking sophistication?

To return to the issue: lots of what Christ said can be interpreted in various ways by Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, JWs and Heathens. If this is "deliberate" it strikes me as infantile, and I think the picture we have been given of Jesus places him above such silly trickery. Just as he erred in thinking he'd be back soon, so he stumbles from time to time in his attempts to expound his doctrines. Consequently we have many groups all shouting: "But THIS is what Jesus said!"

[2ndRateMind]

Consequently we have many groups all shouting: "But THIS is what Jesus said!"

Uh huh. But there is strength in the richness of diversity. Otherwise, God might have made us all perfect, and all, therefore, identical. We would have nothing left to achieve for ourselves. I think we all would very quickly grow bored of such a world.

Best wishes, 2RM

[marco]

Consequently we have many groups all shouting: "But THIS is what Jesus said!"

Uh huh. But there is strength in the richness of diversity. Otherwise, God might have made us all perfect, and all, therefore, identical. We would have nothing left to achieve for ourselves. I think we all would very quickly grow bored of such a world.

The hatred that Northern Irish Protestants have demnstrated for Catholics is perhaps something we could do without. The religious wars in Europe, the massacre of the Huguenots and Christian animosity towards Jews, as God-slayers, we could do without. Perhaps if Jesus had restricted himself to "Love each other" instead of saying we must hate our father etc. then that woudl have sufficed, boring though love can be.

[2ndRateMind]

Consequently we have many groups all shouting: "But THIS is what Jesus said!"

Uh huh. But there is strength in the richness of diversity. Otherwise, God might have made us all perfect, and all, therefore, identical. We would have nothing left to achieve for ourselves. I think we all would very quickly grow bored of such a world.

The hatred that Northern Irish Protestants have demnstrated for Catholics is perhaps something we could do without. The religious wars in Europe, the massacre of the Huguenots and Christian animosity towards Jews, as God-slayers, we could do without. Perhaps if Jesus had restricted himself to "Love each other" instead of saying we must hate our father etc. then that woudl have sufficed, boring though love can be.

Interesting, Marco, that you should think love can be boring. For me it is equal parts pain and joy, and entirely ecstasy. But I entirely agree we can do with without the expressions of hatred. Someone should maybe email Hollywood: 'more and better sex, less violence, please'. That might put us all in the right frame of mind to move from eros to agape.


Best wishes, 2RM.

[William]

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


marco: You responded to "lack of clarity" by introducing a jig-saw analogy which I consider does not apply.

William: And I showed the reader where it does indeed apply.


marco: The issue is the argumentation over meaning; your concern seems to be to instruct me in how to interpret passages.

William: That is untrue.
My response has been to point out that you have chosen to disregard some of the evidence because it does not favor your particular presentation of Christ.
The jigsaw piece analogy was introduced as a way of demonstrating this for the reader.
It doesn't matter to me personally who asked the question - "Why is there lack of clarity in Christ's messages.", the answer will always be the same.


marco: 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.

William: What you refer to as 'further irrelevance' is that which you have chosen to ignore, even when it was pointed out to you. That dear marco - in secular terms - is not regarded as a fair manner in which to seek truthful answers.
Cherry-picking pieces out of the story and then putting your own personal spin on those, grossly distorts the actual story to the point that it becomes nothing more interesting that any other scarecrow. It is still made of straw.

These become ones own Chequer-board pieces - tucked away at night and brought out again to play with the following day, moving hither and tither creating an illusion for the player that they are winning arguments fairly and squarely.
Some readers will naturally be attracted to that kind of play...those readers are not the ones who will be interested in what I have to write...

marco:To return to the issue: lots of what Christ said can be interpreted in various ways by Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, JWs and Heathens.

William: I see you have chosen not to include non-theists on your list of people who interpret the stories how they choose to interpret the stories, even leaving some facts out lest the facts interfere with said interpretation

marco: I lose patience with this whole set -up involving deliberate concealment of important information. Is heaven such a primitive place, lacking sophistication?


William: It is not The House Of Elohim that is doing this. It is how the information is interpreted once it is released.
As has been pointed out, evil men will murder to prevent the information from seeing the light of day.
The House of Elohim are not responsible for your or my actions and reasons for those actions which led to our personal interpretation of their data.

marco: If this is "deliberate" it strikes me as infantile, and I think the picture we have been given of Jesus places him above such silly trickery.


William: It wasn't 'silly trickery' marco. That is your interpretation of it. That is your judgment call. In order to make that call you HAVE to ignore data otherwise available to all of us.
THAT - I grant - would be a fair assessment of 'silly trickery' and Jung explains it as projection.

Jung Just as we tend to assume that the world is as we see it, we navely suppose that people are as we imagine them to be. All the contents of our unconscious are constantly being projected into our surroundings, and it is only by recognizing certain properties of the objects as projections or imagos that we are able to distinguish them from the real properties of the objects. Cum grano salis, we always see our own unavowed mistakes in our opponent.

marco: Just as he erred in thinking he'd be back soon, so he stumbles from time to time in his attempts to expound his doctrines.


William: None of us have the slightest bit of evidence that Jesus erred. You certainly have provided none to back up your assertions.

marco: Consequently we have many groups all shouting: "But THIS is what Jesus said!"


William: marco - I see you are also numbered among these ones who claim to say "But THIS is what Jesus said!"...kind of negates your argument if you are agin such behavior...to be fair...

[marco]

Interesting, Marco, that you should think love can be boring.

I don't, 2ndRateMind. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek and echoing your suggestion that we would all get bored without division.

That might put us all in the right frame of mind to move from eros to agape.

I'm not sure there is a necessity to move; rather one experiences all the types of love. To each its season. Loving our neighbour, or our enemy may not be eros but I think it falls far short of the ideal: rather it is conscious kindness. I drop money in someone's hat not from love, but sometimes from a surge of compassion: there but for the blind hand of fate go I. Go well

[marco]

And I showed the reader where it does indeed apply.

You tried. This particular reader didn't see any illumination. But if Christ can be vague, surely William can be forgiven for doing the same.

Consequently we have many groups all shouting: "But THIS is what Jesus said!

marco - I see you are also numbered among these ones who claim to say "But THIS is what Jesus said!"...kind of negates your argument if you are agin such behavior...to be fair...

You've misunderstood the point I was making. Because Jesus lacked clarity in some of his statements, people will extract different meanings. It's not a fault on their part, just a consequence of Christ's vagueness.

At the end of the day I don't see how anyone can contest what I said in the OP, since the evidence is all around us in our arguments and our various, legitimate interpretations.

[2ndRateMind]

Interesting, Marco, that you should think love can be boring.

I don't, 2ndRateMind. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek...

Sorry

Best wishes, 2RM.

[William]

marco: You responded to "lack of clarity" by introducing a jig-saw analogy which I consider does not apply.

William: And I showed the reader where it does indeed apply.


marco: You tried. This particular reader didn't see any illumination.

William: It was pointed out to the reader why this is the case for anyone who chooses to leave out particular parts of the story which would otherwise assist one in having ones question answered. The clarity is there for those who make that effort to find it.
It was pointed out to the reader that if one chooses to ignore some information from their overall analysis, they create the ambiguity for themselves. They build a straw-man argument...
...Cherry-picking pieces out of the story and then putting your own personal spin on those, grossly distorts the actual story to the point that it becomes nothing more interesting that any other scarecrow. It is still made of straw.

marco: But if Christ can be vague, surely William can be forgiven for doing the same.

William: Neither Christ nor William are being vague. Sometimes one can build a straw argument against another which then has one feeling that they are obligated to have to decide whether to forgive the other or not.
All along the other has really done no thing which actually requires forgiveness.

marco: Consequently we have many groups all shouting: "But THIS is what Jesus said!

William: marco - I see you are also numbered among these ones who claim to say "But THIS is what Jesus said!"...kind of negates your argument if you are agin such behavior...to be fair...


marco: You've misunderstood the point I was making. Because Jesus lacked clarity in some of his statements, people will extract different meanings. It's not a fault on their part, just a consequence of Christ's vagueness.

William: You have misunderstood the point Christ was making.
Jesus made it clear that people would twist his words for their own purpose. He did not claim that only theists would do this. The point I was making is that - given the whole story we all have access to, pointing fingers at Christ and alleging 'lack of clarity' is - clearly - a trumped-up charge.

marco: At the end of the day I don't see how anyone can contest what I said in the OP, since the evidence is all around us in our arguments and our various, legitimate interpretations.

William: If we count a life as a 'day', at the end of a life if one has trumped-up charges against Christ, one will have to face the consequences, according to the story.
Yes - it is not easy to work out - but one is best to leave one's judgments aside - lest ones judgments be judged.
It is no defense to point at the 'Christians' and claim 'because they said and did 'this', one said and did 'that'. At the end of the day, such will be no defense.
Your argument has been shown to be an illegitimate interpretation marco.

[marco]

It was pointed out to the reader that if one chooses to ignore some information from their overall analysis, they create the ambiguity for themselves.

Yes, if people choose to err, they err. The OP is about the variety of meanings and the arguments that arise from biblical statements. I think most people do bring points from the entire picture to support their views. Doubt remains.

You have misunderstood the point Christ was making.

And does this condemnation carry Christ's imprimatur?
Once again let me say: I am not complaining that I personally find certain statements ambiguous. I am pointing out that certain statements ARE ambiguous to the hosts of debaters from whose debates various theologies - not mine - have sprung. What I think of a statement is irrelvant. When you tell me to relate a phrase to the entire work, that is common sense, but it does not erase ambiguity, else whenever people debate, an examination of the entire work would remove dissent. It does not. Yes, they might just be stubborn or deliberately accepting a false reading - that is another theory.

It is no defense to point at the 'Christians' and claim 'because they said and did 'this', one said and did 'that'. At the end of the day, such will be no defense.
Your argument has been shown to be an illegitimate interpretation marco.

I didn't realise I was in danger of punishment for pointing out that people argue over meaning. Is the doctrine of the Trinity crystal clear? Should we accept it as axiomatic or are those who accept it being perverse, when obviously there is no Trinity? When Christ said: "I'll be back before some of you are dead" was he referring to some private showing, to happen with a handful of apostles or did he mean Finality would come to the earth pretty soon?

I accept that if Jesus was a god then we can say there's no ambiguity and the fault is with the reader. I don't believe he was.

If there is some celestial book where my argument - or my claim that ambiguity exists - is shown as flawed, I have no access to it and I marvel that you have. Of course I don't see how making irrelevant points, however true they may be in their own situations, qualifies as rebuttal.

I asked why there is lack of clarity. Your rebuttal is: There is no lack of clarity. Devout Jehovah's Witnesses and devout Catholics agree, contrary to appearances; all they've to do is relate the one jigsaw piece to the entire corpus of work. They do so, as we can see from many supporting statements, but they do NOT get clarity. They get an interpretation.