Was God's Intent To Be Cryptic?

[POI]

Was God's/Jesus's Word(s) meant to sometimes be vague/mysterious?

Are humans just too stupid to collectively associate the correct intended conclusions behind some of these claimed Bible passages?

Should the reader of the Bible's claims, be at mere face value, even if the seemingly axiomatic claim does not look to comport with later human discovery?

Should the reader conclude, if the claimed passage does not align with discovery, that this is not what God actually meant?

Why would God not want His message(s) to be abundantly clear, which is evident by the reality that we have many mutually opposing sects in Christianity?

I'll stop here....

Thank you in advance!

[We_Are_VENOM]

Oh, now telling others is required too? Interesting....

Is telling others required, or not? You tell me?

See how you keep stepping all over yourself, the deeper we go...?

Do what Jesus tells you to do.

You seem to have a short memory. Did you already forget the 'belief scale with Muhammad on the white horse"? Plus, you already assert that, deep down, I believe. Hence, maybe my works alone, and God's grace, is what will save me.

See how you keep stepping all over yourself, the deeper we go...?

You seem to have a short memory..because you raised that point before, and i pointed out that the distinction between the belief that Jesus exists, and the belief that Jesus exists as Lord and Savior.

Two different things.

And when I state that deep down inside atheists believe, I mean that they believe in a god, not necessarily the Christian God.

Does the number of believers make something true? No

Straw man, because that wasnt my point. You stated that you doubt oral tradition is reliable..and I am basically saying that it is reliable to us (believers).

I was just merely stating a fact.

Is decades of oral tradition really reliable? Likely not

Subjective.

Do we even know what the original manuscripts assert? No

Which is true of any ancient work of literature.

Do we know what source(s) were used to write these original manuscripts, for which we do not even have? No

We make our case based on what we do know.

I'll stop here.

I agree.

The Gospels were not written until decades later. There would be no way for them to know exactly what was said, and when? The writer(s) was/were not there themselves to verify multiple parables being given to the same group. Again, at best, the writer's source would be from oral tradition alone. And at worst, the original manuscript authors were told what to write from overzealous believers of the church; for which we have many. It's called faith. But as we know, faith is not reliable.

The fact that the Gospels were not written until decades later is no problem, considering the fact that the book of Acts details how the Christianity STILL managed to rise and spread, despite no Gospels to appeal to.

And then we have Paul's epistles, which also predate the Gospels..and which also corroborates key elements of the Gospels.

So again, not a problem.

Aren't you a 'child' of God?

Google:

What is the definition of "Child of God"? a highly disciplined, fundamentalist Christian sect, active especially in the early 1970s

Disingenuous. Moving along.

Hahaha. I'm afraid you brought it up, so now you must justify it... Moving forward...

Are the 10 Commands God's most important, in His given rules, or not?

If so, is intentionally breaking one of these rules considered a larger transgression, (vs) the ones not on this list? Cough cough, lying...

If not, then why list a top 10 at all?

God did not say nor imply "these are my top 10 most important commandments".

That is what you are assuming. And you know what is said about people who assume, right?

If belief is a requirement, then the handicapped, dead infants, and the ones whom have not heard are not saved.

Sure, keep thinking that. Moving along.

You also already conceded that you do not know if "once saved always saved" counts.

I also conceded that salvation is found in one person, Jesus Christ.

Quite the cryptic Book, as we forge ahead

That is the fun part, trying to dissect the mystery of God's word.

Not only is it fun, but it fits my personality and makes me feel even closer to God.

I thought we already established their destination? All dead infants get a 'free pass'. Since "God" is the one said to have ordered the killing of infants all over the OT, and infants receive a free pass, just dispatch them all. Guaranteed admission. Viola!

Cool. So on judgement day, run that great idea by God.

Or are you now going to argue that dead infants don't get a free pass?

Not a matter of what I argue...it matters what Jesus said.

What this passage alone acknowledges, is that you have absolutely NO CLUE what the originals even state, and who added what, and when?

Which applies to virtually every piece of ancient literature.

The oldest copies, are copies of copies of copies; with no way of knowing what was originally written.

The more copies you have, the more you can piece together what was probably said in the originals.

And EVEN IF we did have the originals, this still means little more, as we have no idea of the source. And even if we did know the source, we must acknowledge the source was from a minimum of decades oral tradition alone. And this was Jesus's chosen method of communication for the most 'important' lessons in humans history?

The question is; do we have good, solid reasons to conclude that the Gospels originated from eyewitnesses.

Yes, we do. If you think otherwise, then we simply disagree.

I thought you weren't into analogies? Anywho...

It depends on whether it will make my grand point even grander.

A true-blue proclaimed Christian can effectively argue it's like a driver's test. You need to pass both the written (and) driving portion.

And then following up, the DMV says, "You will not get your license without the written portion." Does this mean you do not have to also pass the driving portion? Of course you need to, "common sense."

Then the question becomes; are there drivers who received their license without having passed the driving portion?

If the answer is no, then it is common sense that passing the driving portion isn't a requirement to obtain your license.

Baptism is mentioned all over the Bible. Maybe it's a 'requirement'?

It will be a requirement if it is stated that it is a requirement.

I dont see it being stated as such.

Conversation over????

I thought it was common knowledge that the Bible has its cryptic moments and peoples interpretation of these moments is where the contentions lie.

I thought that was common knowledge even during Jesus' ministry.

But i guess some religious forum member some 2,000 years later apparently had this sudden revelation that will break the case wide open.

Repeat from above...

Did you already forget the 'belief scale with Muhammad on the white horse"? Plus, you already assert that, deep down, I believe. Hence, maybe my works alone, and God's grace, is what will save me.

Maybe not.

John 3:16-18.

Repeat from above/above...

Did you already forget the 'belief scale with Muhammad on the white horse"? Plus, you already assert that, deep down, I believe. Hence, maybe my works alone, and God's grace, is what will save me.

See distinction above.

BTW, I would not be here, engaging with you, if I was not continually surrounded by humans who asserting "Christ". If the surrounding assertion was for Thor, I would be on a religious debate forum about the concept of 'Thor' instead I have doubt in Thor too, but maybe Thor's grace will save me anyways?

Maybe, maybe not.

'Common sense'. I already told you... Give away anything you may possibly covet. Never take your complete focus off of Jesus. If you ever admire a possession, then you loose focus on numero uno. Have you done this? In the grand scheme of things, it won't hurt much; but it may be to your demise, if you do not.

Answered this..and you repeat the same thing. Moving along.

Let's re-issue your response, by simply replacing (lie) with (rape).

"I can probably count on one hand how many times I've (raped) someone this entire year...and I take efforts to not place myself in positions where I have to (rape)."

"A" for effort?

My point is, the effort has to count for something. A persons struggle with sin is personal and I do not have the mind of God nor am i in the position to judge.

All sin is wrong and we should all take measures to overcome whatever demons that are haunting is.

Again, lies made the top 10 list, and rape did not.

Already responded to this.

Are you golden in your efforts? If not, are you going to count on God's grace? Because please remember, the Bible lists no shortage of the word grace too? Maybe grace is enough?

When God forgives us, that is grace. So yes, I count on God's grace.

You still did not answer the question.

Is it just to eternally condemn someone for unbelief?

Your question was answered with the scripture provided.

If you read the verse and didn't comprehend the verse to be an answer of YES to your question, then I don't know what to tell ya.

But even if the above Verses were the be-all-end-all, where would the mention of 'grace' fit? If you must follow certain rule, there would be little need for the mention of 'grace'.

That is kinda the point. You don't receive the perk of grace until you believe. It isn't until you believe that you become covered by the blood of Jesus, thus God's grace and mercy is now upon you.

Refuse to accept/follow (or) refuse to believe???? BIG difference there.....

Is there a big difference?

How can you follow Jesus without believing in him? And how can you believe in him but don't accept/follow him?

You can have the last word...this was all an interesting exchange.

In closing, I just want to point out that belief/faith is the very foundation of everything Christian related.

The Bible gives us great examples of the fundemental principle that when you have faith (believe) great things happen.

1. Again, the thief on the cross. He professed faith in Jesus and was instantly granted eternity in paradise with Jesus. (Lk 23:43)

2. The sick woman. She had an illness and wanted Jesus to heal her...but due to the crowd, she could barely get near him. She thought to herself that all she needed to do was touch his garment, and she would be healed. And due to her faith, she was healed. (Lk 8:40-48).

3. Centurion's servant healed. A Roman Centurion had a sick servant and had some folks go to Jesus to request that Jesus come to his house to heal the servant. As Jesus was on his way to the Centurion's house, the Centurion sent his other servants to tell Jesus to dont even bother coming to his house, just "say the word" and his servant will be healed. Jesus admired the soldier for having such faith, and the soldier's servant was healed. (Lk 7:1-10)

Many more examples of this. Belief/faith opens up the door to not only wonderful blessings in this life, but it is the pinnacle of getting you where this guy was going (Lk 23:43).

[POI]

The format got jacked somehow....

U: Do what Jesus tells you to do.
Me: All of it, some of it, a little bit of it, or other?

U: And when I state that deep down inside atheists believe, I mean that they believe in a god, not necessarily the Christian God.
Me: If all you meant, was that atheism doesn't exist, then you would need to prove this claim. Thus far, all you can likely do, is quote Romans, or some other Biblical passage So good luck...

U: You stated that you doubt oral tradition is reliable..and I am basically saying that it is reliable to us (believers).
Me: Nope. This is what you had said...."Both are deemed reliable to the millions of Judeo-Christians who've been following." For which I asked/answered.... Does the number of believers make something true? No... I get what you are saying. You are saying/admitting that millions of people rely upon faulty methodologies to 'validate' a claim. For which I asked, does it even matters, at all, that millions do this? Meaning, why even make this benign claim if it adds nothing to the conversation, or your 'justification'?

U: Which is true of any ancient work of literature.
Me: Two things... 1. Jesus, in all His wisdom, knows to rely upon the highly fallible methods of antiquity and/or oral tradition to convey the most important messages in human history? 2. Is it possible to more concretely infer 'true things' from antiquity verses 'much more questionable claims'? (i.e.) natural verses supernatural claims --- for starters? Seems as though God/Jesus opted not to use any other methodology for 'evidence', then what humans could already do on their own.

U: We make our case based on what we do know.
Me: And apparently, some conclude faith alone. But as I'm sure you realize, 'faith' can be applied to any claim. Is faith reliable?

U: The fact that the Gospels were not written until decades later is no problem, considering the fact that the book of Acts details how the Christianity STILL managed to rise and spread, despite no Gospels to appeal to. And then we have Paul's epistles, which also predate the Gospels..and which also corroborates key elements of the Gospels. So again, not a problem.
Me: Does how many people believe a claim, validate a claim? Does how quickly a claim spreads, validate a claim? Oral traditions spread for all sorts of claims. Some later get written to paper, others do not. Is the story of Jesus the only one written to paper from oral traditions? And even if it was, would this matter? The fact of the matter is, as I stated prior, we do not know of the source(s) for the Gospels. And even if we did, at best, the origin of the source was from oral tradition alone. This is a fact, as we know the Gospels were written decades later, at minimum. We also know they have been messed with, via your conformation in Mark 16:9-20 alone Ooops! I mentioned the Gospels because these are the accounts which assert Jesus rising from the grave, with 'evidence'. Paul was not there. But speaking of Paul, He's the one that also asserts that had Jesus not risen, your faith is in vain -- (paraphrased).

The rest got lost

[POI]

Here's the rest:

U: Disingenuous. Moving along.
Me: Thanks for calling me a liar. I think you keep missing my point... The term 'children' does not define the age. Children, depending on age and ability, can be held accountable for their actions. Since the Bible is so gosh darn vague, how could you know what this Verse means exactly?

U: God did not say nor imply "these are my top 10 most important commandments".
Me: Interesting.... If they are all just as equal then I guess not mixing fabrics is just as important and not murdering?

U: Sure, keep thinking that. Moving along.
Me: I will, because we have at least (3 caveats) to your former stated rule. And you acknowledged them. So yea, we both can 'move along' in agreement.

U: Not only is it fun, but it fits my personality and makes me feel even closer to God.
Me: It's fun attempting to determine whether or not your believed upon God will actually pick you, verses instead sending you to burn?

U: Cool. So on judgement day, run that great idea by God.
Me: I doubt God has a suggestion box But do you reconcile that all dead infants get a free pass, or not? Or do you care to now redact your prior 'assumption'? Is a dead baby, a saved baby, or not? If yes, belief a not a requirement. If not, then all dead babies go to hell, since they would need to believe. Baptism anyone...?

U: Not a matter of what I argue...it matters what Jesus said.
Me: Well, as I stated prior, since Jesus won't answer anything here and now, I'm asking you. Do you know what Jesus thinks? We have the Bible, but as you have also confirmed, more than once, the Bible does not seem to resolve anything Is God's intended to be the purveyor of confusion, or was this just an accident?

U: Which applies to virtually every piece of ancient literature
Me: Again, Jesus has resorted the the fallible human methods to convey His truth... Interesting...

U: The more copies you have, the more you can piece together what was probably said in the originals.
Me: Um, I think you missed my point here.... Allow me to expand... When you START with a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, (of which we also know changes have been made in the subsequent found copies), you really have little to go upon. And again, at best, all you would have, is the original, taken from 'oral tradition' alone. So no, there is nothing to 'piece together', when your starting point is vastly tainted.

U: Yes, we do. If you think otherwise, then we simply disagree.
Me: You can disagree, but all you have is faith to 'validate' your position. And faith is not reliable. We have no eyewitnesses, as defined by the basic definition of 'eyewitness'. We instead have second hand accounts and/or hearsay, as well as oral tradition. Not the greatest of starting points, when you wish to hinge all your hopes and dreams upon the 'most important messages in human history'.

U: It depends on whether it will make my grand point even grander.
Me: Thanks for the added caveat. You seem to be quite good at this.... Goalpost movement....

U: I dont see it being stated as such.
Me: Right, as long as you ignore some Scripture. Which assertions do you take to 'heart', and which ones do you push to the side? You are forced to be a 'cafeteria Christian'. Sorry, it's not your fault. It's the fault of all the ones who canonized this mess.

U: I thought it was common knowledge that the Bible has its cryptic moments and peoples interpretation of these moments is where the contentions lie.
Me: It's a little more than that. You do not even know how you are saved. Me mentioning, that God is the purveyor of confusion, is not a new concept.

U: Answered this..and you repeat the same thing. Moving along
Me: Giving (an) answer does not mean you gave (an) answer. By this, I mean you are arguing apples, while I'm arguing oranges. Let's try this, yet again, since this might be extremely important to your salvation. Give away anything which may take ANY focus off of Jesus. If you have any possessions, which you enjoy, your enjoyment of these items means you are taking the focus off of Jesus. Get rid of them. Read Luke 14, entirely, in context... If you choose to ignore this, on any level, you have further proved that you are a cafeteria Christian. Sorry. I did not make the rules, I'm only regurgitating them.

U: All sin is wrong and we should all take measures to overcome whatever demons that are haunting is.
Me: Nice (gloss over) there.... If all sin is equal, then your intentional lies are just as 'evil' to God as rape. If you intentional rape, only five times, is this okay? And is rape the same as lying; or less, or more? And HOW do you know?.?.?.?.?.?.?.? If all sin is wrong, is all sin equal? If not, then you will begin to trip all over yourself, yet again.

U: When God forgives us, that is grace. So yes, I count on God's grace.
Me: Does God ever absolve anyone for unrepented sin, or, must you repent of any/all committed sin? If it's the former, this would logically be grace. So maybe the ones, how do not repent, because they do not believe, are given grace. If it's the later, then 'grace' does not sound very 'graceful'. This would mean if a Catholic was on their way to confessional of their most recent sins, and died in a car wreck on the way there, they're hosed.

U: If you read the verse and didn't comprehend the verse to be an answer of YES to your question, then I don't know what to tell ya.
Me: I wanted to hear the answer from you, not some Verse.

U: That is kinda the point. You don't receive the perk of grace until you believe. It isn't until you believe that you become covered by the blood of Jesus, thus God's grace and mercy is now upon you.
Me: You missed my point again. whatever the human does not do, God applies His grace in it's place. Maybe the Universalist is right? You've already conceded dead infants get grace, the handicapped get grace, the ignorant get grace... Who knows where else God offers his grace?

U: How can you follow Jesus without believing in him? And how can you believe in him but don't accept/follow him?
Me: For starters, it's called satan and a third of the angels who deliberately chose not to accept/follow, but believed He is real.

U: You can have the last word...this was all an interesting exchange.
Me: And thanks for giving me the last word (which remains to be scene) I appreciate this exchange. This exchange has, many times, demonstrated that Christians have absolutely no clue what it takes to be saved. But what we do know, is that the Bible sure makes many pronouncements. Some 'good', some 'bad', some 'strange', and some 'weird'. I was raised with this Book, but opted not to read it until just a few years ago. I must say, I had to stop, quite often, due to the contradictions, and claims which look to directly contradict later human discovery.