Conventional Christianity

[Elijah John]

Pauline, conventional Christianity is complicated.
Consider these complications:

#1: That Jesus is entirely God, and entirely human.
#2: That God exists in three persons, but is still one God. 1+1+1= 1, not 3
#3: That in addition to simple repentance, blood must be spilled for God's forgiveness
#4: One cannot go to God directly but must go through a mediator.
#5: Sometimes the mediator has a mediator, as in Jesus and Mary
#6: The Holy Spirit and the Risen Christ serve VERY similar purposes in a believer's life.
#7: That the Law is impossible to keep, and is meant to show our need for a savior.
#8: The concept of original sin necessitates literal belief in Adam and Eve.
#9: ONLY Christ can be considered righteous, no other Godly people.
#10: If Jesus is God, then Mary is the "Mother of God". (does God have a "mother"?)
#11: That God allows himself to be killed, (temporarily) on the cross. (can God die?)
#12: That God's justice is satisfied by the death of a stand-in.
#13 That Jesus was perfect, not enough to be a righteous prophet. His imperfections are glossed over.
#14 The 2nd coming...wasn't the Messiah supposed to set things right the FIRST time around?

Questions for debate...did Jesus teach ANY of this? If so, please demonstrate.

And what other complications do you detect in conventional Christianity?

And finally, if one rejects the complications of conventional Christianity, does one reject God?

[JLB32168]

Pauline, conventional Christianity is complicated.

What if one doesn't think you're representing Paul's meaning correctly?

[Elijah John]

Pauline, conventional Christianity is complicated.

What if one doesn't think you're representing Paul's meaning correctly?

I corrected a couple of those that Tam pointed out, namely that Paul did not teach the dual nature of Jesus, nor did he teach the Trinity, per se.

Other misreprentations of Paul I may have missed?

[tam]

Peace to you EJ.

And to you, Tammy.

Seems we agree on much, but to address where we disagree:

The role of the Holy Spirit vs the role of the Risen Christ. Complicated and confusing, it seems ot me. When one repents and converts, which one should a person invite into their heart?

Okay, EJ, I must confess that I find this language confusing, and perhaps that is because there is so much theology surrounding this phrases. Perhaps I need some context. Can you show me a verse that speaks of inviting the holy spirit or the risen Christ into one's heart, after repenting and converting?


I think Ted summed up some of my thoughts on these matters. There is so much worked into and around simple statements, most of the time it is difficult to even know where to begin, or how to sort out the theology being added on. It may be why you find it confusing as well. It is one of the reasons Christ said "woe to you scribes!"

This is why it is best to just toss it all - and rebuild your faith upon Christ, and Christ alone.

If they are the same, then why the theological distinction? Which one empowers, which one sanctifies?

Again, if you could put this into context from something that is written, I might have a better idea of what you are asking.

My Lord reminds me of the verse "and you will receive power from on high", and he was speaking of giving holy spirit: the breath, blood, seed of Jah. This is holy because Jah is holy, so anything coming from Jah will be holy. But this is not a person. This holy spirit is also described as the water of life (from Revelation 22:17) that Christ gives. Which water (holy spirit) Christ did give when he breathed it out upon his apostles, and then again at Pentecost. That is the baptism of fire - the fire being this holy spirit/water of Life.

This holy spirit gives them power for a couple of reason that I can list: it comes with a gift (speaking in tongues, as in at Pentecost, or healing, or hearing spirits, or translating, or teaching, or love - which is also a fruit of the spirit - etc, etc.); and it reminds one of the things that Christ has taught, also bearing witness to the truth that one hears or receives (from Christ directly, or even from someone else).

**

I think perhaps much of the confusion comes in from the teaching that "Holy Spirit" is always a person (and the scribes always personified holy spirit, not based on the actual writing -which can be translated as 'he', but can also be translated as 'it' - but instead based upon their personal belief and traditional teaching of the trinity)

But the only person who is the Holy Spirit is Christ, Himself. Holy is a description, but Christ is the Spirit.

We can know that Christ is holy, because He is the Holy One (represented by the Holy Place in the temple, through which one must pass in order to reach the Most Holy Place - which is representative of the Most Holy One of Isreal: Jah). Christ is also the Spirit.

Paul knew this:

"Now the Lord is the Spirit." 2 Corinthians 3:17

Paul is speaking about Christ here, not God, and not some third person in a trinity.

Chris is the Spirit.
Christ is Holy.
Christ is the Holy Spirit.


So to sum up: there is the Holy Spirit, who is Christ. But there is also holy spirit - the breath, blood, seed of Jah; the water (of life) that Christ gives; that which is poured out from Christ onto the apostles in the baptism of fire.

I know that can sometimes (often) be difficult to grasp, but there is an analogy that shows the relationship of God, Christ, and holy spirit... in the relationship between Pharaoh, Joseph, and the grain, during the famine in Egypt.

Pharaoh = God
Joseph = Christ
the grain = holy spirit

Joseph (Christ) was second only to Pharaoh (God), by Pharaoh's (God's) decree. Pharaoh (God) put Joseph (Christ) in charge of all Pharaoh's (God's) belongings, including the great stores of grain (holy spirit) that the people needed to live (water of LIFE). The grain (holy) belonged to Pharaoh (God), but Pharaoh (God) gives it to Joseph (Christ), to give to whomever He (Christ/Joseph) chooses.

On point # 4, you cite John 14.6. That is John's interpretation, In Matthew, Jesus teaches DIRECT access to God in the Lord's prayer. And in Matthew, he teaches us to pray (hallow) in YHVH's name, in John, Jesus instructs us to pray in his own name. Why the difference?

This is not John's interpretation. These are Christ's words that the author of John wrote down.

As for prayer, one does pray to the Father, yes. There is no argument there. But unless one goes through Christ first, then that prayer need not be heard. Perhaps that means asking permission to come before the Father from Christ, as some do. Perhaps that is asking to approach God in the name of His Son, Jaheshua, so as to be heard. Perhaps that is being covered by the blood of Christ - so that God hears His Son (the blood speaks) first, and so grants entrance to the one approaching through that Son.


The example of prayer is not in any way suggesting that one can go to God without first going through (or being IN) Christ.


God may however hear the prayers of a righteous man - one who is giving to the poor and needy, etc, as He did with Cornelius, before Cornelius knew Christ. One might want to consider that Cornelius must also have prayed to know God and His Truth (something along those lines at least), because that is the prayer that was answered.

If you recall, the Ethiopian was also wondering who the prophet was speaking of in Isaiah - himself or another, and the Spirit told Phillip to go and explain it to the man.

-Also, to be fair to Paul, he did not teach that Jesus was entirely God and entirely human, nor did he teach the trinity, per se. Good point, I agree.

Cool.

-Regarding Jesus imperfection, the Bible records evidence of this. Going to John for the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sin, for starters.

Perhaps. But their discussion at the start implied that there was more to it than that, as John did not think Christ needed to be baptized.

Regarding the whole "be perfect" thing, it is clear from context that Jesus was teaching his disciples to hold higher standards, God's standards, and not conventional human standards. I don't think he was challenging them to be AS perfect as God, but to strive for, and embrace His standards.

He knew we could not be perfect, yes, though we are called to be so in that we are to love both friends and enemies ... but He was... in loving both friends and enemies: proven by giving his life for both, and for asking forgiveness from God for even those enemies who put Him to death.

And the Law, meant to "show us our sins"? It has that effect, but the reason it was given was to define what God expects from His people. The Law is an expression of the will of God. Not just prosecutorial, to point out our sinfulness and need for a savior. PAUL may have thought the law was mainly prosecutorial, but Moses did not, nor does it seem, did Jesus.

It has that effect because that is what it does - which would seem therefore to be prosecutorial, wouldn't it? Even if just of oneself?

Consider perhaps also that one who has the law (of love) written upon their heart has no need of a written law. Israel needed a written law because the law was NOT written upon their hearts.

I think Paul emphasized a great deal that the law is not what saves a person; especially to counter those who kept trying to put people back under the law, thinking that would save them, and therefore demoting Christ to... what? A footnote?

Also, you are right, Jesus considers some righteous, Paul doesn't. Pauline theology literalizes Isaiah and the Psalmist statements that there are "none righteous, no not one"

Actually, Paul does. Paul speaks of those same sheep that Christ spoke of, though he does not use the analogy to do so.

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people's secrets through [Jesus] Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2:13-16


Just as the sheep are declared righteous when Christ separates the sheep and the goats. (and again at the second resurrection, when some are resurrected to life based upon their words and deeds as written in their individual scrolls - which scrolls are a recording of their words and deeds from their life).

Prophetic hyperbole should not be confused with categorical statements of fact.

Not sure that that means, sorry EJ.

I don't agree with your concluding sentence that one rejects God if one rejects Christ. Judaism "rejects Christ" but it does not reject God. That is just one example.

Since this is a thread concerning what Christ taught verses what others have taught:

The one hearing you, hears Me; and the one rejecting you, rejects Me; and the one rejecting Me, rejects the One having sent Me." Luke 10:16

that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. John 5:23

Very truly I tell you, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me." John 13:20


Peace to you EJ,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by tam]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Tammy. Wow...so much, but let me just say that ALL this points to the complexity of conventional Christianity.

And many of these problems are resolved by embracing a simple, monotheistic view of Christianity instead. (which I am convinced is what Jesus taught)

Take the role of the Holy Spirit, I see it as YHVH's Holy Spirit, not a seperate person.

And when one dedicates their life to God, one is controlled and empowered BY YHVH's Spirit within, and among us.

Conventional Christians say alternately, interchangeably, that is the role of BOTH the risen Christ and the Holy Spirit. So, why the distinction? Two persons of the "Trinity" having overlapping roles?

This is confusing to a simple-minded, absolute Monotheist like myself.

The "problem" is illustrated by the verse in Revelation which Jesus is depicted as "knocking on the door' of one's heart...a verse used in conversion pamphlets on how to be "saved". Then there is Pentacost and the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" verses.

Is the Holy Spirit present in our hearts at conversion, or not? If so, why the "necessity" of recieving him again in the "baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Also you asked about my statement: "prophetic hyperbole should not be confused with statements of catagorical fact.". Means should not be taken literally.

Hyperbole is exaggeration to make a point. Isaiah and the prophets did this, and so did Jesus. It is a poetic device.

Folks back then were natural poets. They often used non-literal, figurative language. Especially the prophets.

So when the prophet says "there are none righteous, no not one"..does he mean literally and categorically there are NO righteous people, even in the Bible?

I don't think so. Or does he mean all have sinned? Probably, but even that is not to say "all are sin-NERS.."Sinner" implies that one embraces sin as a way of life and does not seek God, and not just occasional instances and mistakes.

[tam]

[Replying to post 13 by tam]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply Tammy. Wow...so much, but let me just say that ALL this points to the complexity of conventional Christianity.

You're welcome, EJ, and peace to you.

And many of these problems are resolved by embracing a simple, monotheistic view of Christianity instead. (which I am convinced is what Jesus taught)

Take the role of the Holy Spirit, I see it as YHVH's Holy Spirit, not a seperate person.

And when one dedicates their life to God, one is controlled and empowered BY YHVH's Spirit within, and among us.

Conventional Christians say alternately, interchangeably, that is the role of BOTH the risen Christ and the Holy Spirit. So, why the distinction? Two persons of the "Trinity" having overlapping roles?

This is confusing to a simple-minded, absolute Monotheist like myself.

I can certainly understand the confusion.

As to Holy Spirit/holy spirit: holy spirit is the breath, blood, seed of Jah. If I am understanding you correctly, this is basically what you believe. It is also the water (of life) that Christ gives; the fire with which one is baptized. Jah gave his holy spirit (His breath, blood, seed) to Christ without end, and Christ gives that holy spirit to whomever He chooses.


Sometimes, however, Holy Spirit is referring to Christ, Himself. He is the Holy One and Holy Spirit of God. He is the Spirit.

The "problem" is illustrated by the verse in Revelation which Jesus is depicted as "knocking on the door' of one's heart...a verse used in conversion pamphlets on how to be "saved". Then there is Pentacost and the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" verses.

I do not mean to digress from your point, EJ, but I must point out that 'of one's heart' does not exist in that verse; it is an addition to what Christ says.

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.

Is the Holy Spirit present in our hearts at conversion, or not? If so, why the "necessity" of recieving him again in the "baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Leaving aside the 'in our hearts'... receiving holy spirit is the baptism by fire. One does not receive holy spirit just by "converting" (which i will assume means a water baptism, sometimes meaning a baptism into a particular sect/denomination as well)

Also you asked about my statement: "prophetic hyperbole should not be confused with statements of catagorical fact.". Means should not be taken literally.

Ah. Thank you. Yes, I agree some thing are not to be taken literally.

Hyperbole is exaggeration to make a point. Isaiah and the prophets did this, and so did Jesus. It is a poetic device.

Folks back then were natural poets. They often used non-literal, figurative language. Especially the prophets.

So when the prophet says "there are none righteous, no not one"..does he mean literally and categorically there are NO righteous people, even in the Bible?

In addition to this, some other things to consider are that the prophet might have to use 'figurative' language to describe something true and literal, but for which they might not yet have literal (or scientific) words.

Chariot for vessel (a vessel that they might not yet have a word that we, today, might understand - say, for perhaps a plane or other vessel of some sort).

Also keep in mind that some words translated into another language do not always carry the full depth of their actual meaning. (and sometimes a prophet might be referring to a particular people at a particular time)

I don't think so. Or does he mean all have sinned? Probably, but even that is not to say "all are sin-NERS.."Sinner" implies that one embraces sin as a way of life and does not seek God, and not just occasional instances and mistakes.

[/quote]

Men make that implication, perhaps, but the implications of men have no bearing on what is true.

One who steals is a thief.

One who lies is a liar.

One who sins is a sinner.


Stating that is simply stating truth, not judging (although I will agree with you that man often judges when he states such a thing... such as, you are thief and you deserve "insert condemnation here".) It does not mean that it is the entirety of a person, though, or that one cannot be forgiven (or change, even, perhaps). One can be forgiven these things. One can also be made clean from these things in Christ.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

Islam and Judaism have avoided hero worship, Muslims do not worship Mohammed, and Jews do not worship Moses.

HAHAHA! Go on, pull the other one!

Wait, you're serious? So a Muslim, when he says that Mo was a perfect man, who never did any wrong, isn't worshipping Mo? When he says that one shouldn't draw a picture of Mohammed...that isn't worship? When they call him God's Prophet and any time his name is mentioned, say "Peace be upon him"...that isn't worship?
What about the Jews? Aren't the patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses and Joshua held up as exemplars of righteous moral behaviour?
I can see about granting some leeway for your comment regarding Jews...but I have to disagree 100% when it comes to Muslims.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

Islam and Judaism have avoided hero worship, Muslims do not worship Mohammed, and Jews do not worship Moses.

HAHAHA! Go on, pull the other one!

Wait, you're serious? So a Muslim, when he says that Mo was a perfect man, who never did any wrong, isn't worshipping Mo? When he says that one shouldn't draw a picture of Mohammed...that isn't worship? When they call him God's Prophet and any time his name is mentioned, say "Peace be upon him"...that isn't worship?
What about the Jews? Aren't the patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses and Joshua held up as exemplars of righteous moral behaviour?
I can see about granting some leeway for your comment regarding Jews...but I have to disagree 100% when it comes to Muslims.

Laughter aside, no Muslims do not worship Mohammed. They do not teach that he was perfect, nor do they teach that he never did anything wrong.

Overly defensive about his reputation to the point of atrocity sometimes, but not worship.

Nor do Jews worship their patriarchs. Maimonides for one, teaches that only the incorporal, Creator is due worship. And that is common Jewish understanding.

Only conventional Christians worship their founder Jesus. Muslims do not pray TO, or worship their founder, that would be the sin of "shirk".

Jews do not pray to, nor do they worship Moses, that would be idolatry. Veneration is not worship.

Muslims, Christians and Jews do more than venerate God, they worship him. (though conventional Christians worship Jesus too)

[Bust Nak]

HAHAHA! Go on, pull the other one!

Wait, you're serious?...

Moderator Comment
That's not exactly respectful to your opponent.

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.

[Claire Evans]

Pauline, conventional Christianity is complicated.
Consider these complications:

#1: That Jesus is entirely God, and entirely human.

John 10:30

I and the Father are one."

And Jesus being in the flesh shows He had the emotions of humans, faced the same trials and had the appearance of a human. I don't think there are other scriptures that say otherwise.

#2: That God exists in three persons, but is still one God. 1+1+1= 1, not 3

The Holy Spirit is the spirit of Jesus:

"If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (Rom. 8:9)

John 14:

18 “I will not leave you all alone. I will come back to you. 19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me. You will live because I live. 20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father and that you are in me and that I am in you. 21 Whoever knows and obeys my commandments is the person who loves me. Those who love me will have my Father’s love, and I, too, will love them and show myself to them.�


1 Corinthians 3:16

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

2 Timothy 1:14

Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.

These scriptures suggest that the Holy Spirit is interchangeable with Jesus and God. I don't see how the Holy Spirit can be a separate entity. An entity in its own right.

So It's two entity that makes up one unit which is the Holy Spirit. This is how I understand it.

#3: That in addition to simple repentance, blood must be spilled for God's forgiveness

Can I have scriptures, please?

#4: One cannot go to God directly but must go through a mediator.

Isn't the mediator the Holy Spirit? Without the Holy Spirit, we cannot communicate with God. Where does Paul say that a mediator has another mediator which is Jesus?

#6: The Holy Spirit and the Risen Christ serve VERY similar purposes in a believer's life.

The Risen Christ and the Holy Spirit are the same. Scriptures are definitely needed because it may be out of context.

#7: That the Law is impossible to keep, and is meant to show our need for a savior.

Which law? Can't be the Mosaic Law. Jesus ignored it when a prostitute was about to be stoned. It should really be God's standards that are impossible to keep at all times.

#8: The concept of original sin necessitates literal belief in Adam and Eve.

I don't see Jesus supporting this at all. After all, Jesus had brothers and sisters. Without sex, how are we to sustain the human population?

#9: ONLY Christ can be considered righteous, no other Godly people.

Ecclesiastes 7:20
"Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins."

So, in this context, no one is righteous because we all sin. No one gets any sort of righteousness in the sense that they can be moral and upright on their own without the Holy Spirit. So one is not righteous in their own right.

If we were righteous in that we could uphold the standards of God, then why have Jesus to die for our sins?

#10: If Jesus is God, then Mary is the "Mother of God". (does God have a "mother"?)

Even though Jesus and God are one, they took on different roles when Jesus was on earth. Mary was only the earthly mother of Jesus who took on the role of the Son. In order to say that Mary is the Mother of God would insinuate she is a Goddess incarnate to take on the role of the Mother of Jesus. A mother always precedes their child and God was always there. Did Paul claim that Mary was the Son of God? Jesus didn't.

#11: That God allows himself to be killed, (temporarily) on the cross. (can God die?)

God is a spirit. How can God die on the cross? As I've said, God and Jesus took on different roles. How could Jesus say, "Father, why have you forsaken me?" when it is God who is actually being crucified?

#12: That God's justice is satisfied by the death of a stand-in.

What scriptures of Paul's are you basing this on?

#13 That Jesus was perfect, not enough to be a righteous prophet. His imperfections are glossed over.

What? When did Paul say this?

#14 The 2nd coming...wasn't the Messiah supposed to set things right the FIRST time around?

It's not a case of not getting it right first time. He is not going to die for our sins again as was the purpose of His first coming. The second coming is to mete out justice and defeat Satan once and for all once the Anti-Christ has ruled.

I do not believe that if one doesn't agree with everything about conventional Christianity that they are rejecting God. Paul wasn't rejecting Christ when His beliefs challenged the early Christian beliefs.

[Elijah John]

I do not believe that if one doesn't agree with everything about conventional Christianity that they are rejecting God. Paul wasn't rejecting Christ when His beliefs challenged the early Christian beliefs.

And vice-versa, the early Christian believers who were in dispute with Paul, were not rejecting Christ either.

It is not so much my purpose to prove or refute every complication, but to demonstrate that they ARE complications.

There is a lot here, Claire. Some of my points are reinforced by your responses, others are not.

Regarding the 2nd coming, Jesus is expected to accomplish the 2nd time around what Jews expect of the Messiah in his FIRST (and only) advent. Namely setting things in order in a temporal sense, being established and ruling the world as God's righteous king, displacing all others.

-Paul said that "he who knew no sin was made sin for us" If I understand you correctly, we both reject this kind of thinking.

-If you agree that God cannot die, then it was not God who died on the cross, but Jesus. Therefore Jesus is not almighty and eternal God.

-If Jesus is God, then isn't the RCC right in declaring Mary the "Mother of God"? Seems a ridiculous notion that God has a mother, that is a Pagan notion, although Catholics don't mean it the same way Pagans do. But if Jesus is God, and Mary is his mother, isn't she then the "Mother of God"? A mother is mother to the whole child, not her half of the genetics only.

-You seem to be saying the "original sin" is sex. I have heard some say this, but I do not think that is how it is commonly understood. But if Paul's theology is based on Jesus sacrifice of him being the 2nd (perfect) Adam, then Paul's theology relies on a literal Adam, who with Eve, brought original sin to the world by their disobedience.

-One point I am making is that Jesus DIDN'T have to "die for our sins". That does not mean his martyrdom was in vain, but remember, Jesus declared God's forgiveness even before he was crucified. To say Jesus had to "die for our sins" implies the Father needed to be appeased. That does not speak well for the Father, and that blood thinking was, in fact, rejected by the prophets. (Hosea 6.6, which Jesus himself quotes)

-In John Jesus may have said "the Father and I are one" but that does not make him God, nor does it make him equal to the Father. Isn't it rather more plausible that he was speaking of oneness with the Father in a similar manner that he was praying his own disciples would be one with him, Jesus?

-The Law IS God's standard. The standard was given as an expression of the will of God. Not to show us that we need a savior because we supposedly cannot keep it.

Else, why didn't Moses say "Here's the Law of God, but it is only meant to show your need for a Savior, because you are sinners and cannot keep the Law." If that were the case, why the intricate system of sanctions for various infractions Of the Law?

-The verse is in Hebrews, and reads "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin". But that is contradicted by the Baptist, who performed baptisms of "repentance for the forgiveness of sins". Simple repentance, and returning to God's ways, His standards.

-Just because there IS a Holy Spirit, does not prove any "trinity". The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spririt of YHVH. Jesus was FILLED with the Holy Spirit (controled and empowered by) but is not THE, (nor is he interchagable WITH) the Holy Spirit.

Sorry if my responses are jumbled..I tried to address all or most of them, albeit in a haphazard manner.

Anyway...this whole thing is complicated. And that is the point I am making. Sure you can provide interpretations and explanations for every point, (and we do not disagree on some of them) But the fact is, pure Monotheism, and simple repentance/ forgiveness is more straightforward than is trinitarianism and substitutionary blood atonement.

To me the complications of conventional Christianity are unnessary and unhelpful, to others those complications are essential, but nonetheless, the ARE complications.

But pretty much all of the complications are theological necessities to uphold the notion that Jesus is supposedly God, while maintaining a semblance of monotheism.
And blood atonement while maintaining the notion of a merciful Father.

Just as one lie leads to another, then a web of lies...One or two complications leads to others, and a theological WEB of complications.