The Bible's Biggest Problem(s)?

[POI]

In a continuation of this topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990), which only discusses one important topic, I present a follow-up....

For Debate:

1) Why didn't Jesus write the NT Himself? Why leave this task up to fallible humans to write what was floating around, only after decade(s) of oral traditions? Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

2) Case/point: There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

3) If Jesus also recognizes that many/most were/are illiterate, and/or the many who are literate merely read at a lower grade level, and that differing languages can also blur the message(s), why not write the Bible in a cohesive way in which even the most rudimentary person can understand, in all languages?

This is, in part, the problem of communication....

[POI]

That is not my rational, because I did not say that the faithful would no longer be confused, because Conditional grace is applied anyways, to the faithful.

Romans 3 grants conditional grace to the faithful, and no one else. These folks would then logically be the only folks, who are absolved or granted immunity, from confusion, under your given statement. Care to retract your given statement yet?

[John17_3]

It would be way above humans' ability to understand, and grasp.

What you are saying here is that the God you believe in, is incapable of expressing a clear message for all to understand.

That's not what I am saying.
God is not a human.
Because God is not a human, it does not mean God is incapable of communicating a clear message for all to understand.

The teacher of a class of students may have all the answers, and know how children think, but because she does not spell out everything for the children, does not mean she doesn't know how to, or is incapable of doing so.
She chooses to communicate in the way she does, for reasons that are necessary to accomplish her goal.

God, likewise chooses to communicate his message, in the way he chooses, in order to accomplish his goal.
Consider one example, in the Bible book of John. John 6:28-71
Obviously, jesus knew how to break down what he said, in baby steps.
He deliberately chose to say what he did, in order to achieve his goal, and he did. He sifted the honest-hearted, and humble, from those not deserving.

So instead, his best alternative was to allow for an extensive amount of oral traditions to take place, only to later be written down to paper by fallible humans.

That's correct.
It achieves his objective.

In essence, here is the failed dichotomy:

A) God would write an incoherent message system to humans

Or...

B) God allowed for a widely non-unifying message

B
The honest-hearted, humble ones are given the unifying message. Hence, why they alone are united everywhere on the globe. Even if they are imprisoned for decades.

When it comes to communication, this does not prove to be a problem for God, as seen from the preceding.

Yes, it does prove a problem of communication. I demonstrated the problem only after your first given point. There is no need to address any more of your points. Your argument here is that we only have two choices. A) Confusion because of God's inability to convey a coherent message to all humans. Or, B) leave it to fallible humans to muck it up.

Sounds like a terrible strategy, unless God really did not want to convey a clear message to all humans.

I think you got the point then.
The scriptures reveal that God has determined that those unworthy of life will not get it, because they are not deserving, and so, they will remain in confusion. Matthew 13:10-16; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
Those worthy are freed from confusion, because they know how to listen, and they gain freedom and peace. John 6:44, 45; John 8:31, 32 Luke 8:18

Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and declared, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was well-pleasing in Your sight.
1 Corinthians 1:27-29

It is not logical that a God would be behind a book that had a message for everyone, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret his said message.

I would agree.

[John17_3]

That is not my rational, because I did not say that the faithful would no longer be confused, because Conditional grace is applied anyways, to the faithful.

Romans 3 grants conditional grace to the faithful, and no one else. These folks would then logically be the only folks, who are absolved or granted immunity, from confusion, under your given statement. Care to retract your given statement yet?

That is not what i said.
I do not know how you managed to link freedom from confusion with conditional grace.
There is no valid reason for retracting what I said.

[POI]

That is not my rational, because I did not say that the faithful would no longer be confused, because Conditional grace is applied anyways, to the faithful.

Romans 3 grants conditional grace to the faithful, and no one else. These folks would then logically be the only folks, who are absolved or granted immunity, from confusion, under your given statement. Care to retract your given statement yet?

That is not what i said.
I do not know how you managed to link freedom from confusion with conditional grace.
There is no valid reason for retracting what I said.

What you said was ---> "those worthy are freed from confusion".

The ones now deemed <worthy> are the <faithful>, according to Romans 3. I explained, in post 143, why this is illogical.

[1213]

Why is the Bible not clear?

Ok, I can accept that it is not clear for you. To me it is clear. If it is not clear to you, you are the one who could answer that question.

The Bible says people do, via Jesus-faith: "righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Romans 3. ....

Yes, if person is faithful, he can be counted righteous. I don't think that is the same as righteous is given by refusing or accepting something.

Hemorrhage is the cause of death for many.

But the reason for hemorrhage is something else than not accepting blood transfusion.

[SiNcE_1985]

This is my point. Aside from Paul, we do not know who wrote what, and what was their motivation(s)?

I got Peter, apostle of Jesus, writing 2 Peter.

Since such 'eyewitness' attestation is so dang important here, it would have sure been nice if Jesus found a way to preserve original source(s), so we would know if they are linked or not

You are assuming that your way would have been the better way...which you've yet to prove why/how that is the case.

Dunno? That's the honest answer. Wishful thinking and hope will assuredly create the stance that everything lines up to the believer's advantage.

The honest answer is; based on the evidence presented, we are going this way with it (the believers way).

However, since we know the Gospels are not trustworthy, it really becomes a non-starter anyways.

Opinions.

Many people wrote 'Gospels'. Some were kept, and some were left out.

Right, it was a selective process.

You've already dinged the process by your being critical of how things weren't preserved enough to your liking...yet, when they were being careful about deciding which books belonged and which didn't, that isn't good enough for you either.

So, when they weren't careful (your opinion), you ding them. But when they are careful, you still ding them.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

That is why they (and God) did things their way..because you can't please a skeptic..so since you can't please them, do it your way and those of whom the spirit moves will find their way to it and those who don't agree with it, oh well.

And when you begin comparing Mark to Luke, they do not jive with one another in a logical sense. Hence, you must either discard one of them, or both, logically.

Opinions.

Sprinkle in some or a lot of 'faith'', and anything is possible.

Reasonable faith.

If you want something done right, do it yourself.

"Right" is subjective.

You mentioned "Alexander the Great"... His objective was to gain new land/territories. One of Jesus's objectives was to convey truth to his peeps. Hence, it would make sense that Alexxander did not commission writings. On the other hand, it makes little sense for Jesus not to, and to also do it himself, as he would know humans are extremely fallible.

Humans are fallible...but the rest of that is opinions.

It wasn't a 'blunder', but a hypothetical to demonstrate a point. An omni-god would not instruct fallible humans to write and convey message(s) of truth.

And you know this, how?

Opinions.

Hence, something has to give. A) Either he is not omni - (which raises more questions than answers), or maybe B) he didn't even exist - (which is completely game over). Which crappy path do you pick, A) or B)? There is no option C), unless you can give us your 'opinion' as to why allowing for the Bible to manifest, in the way it actually did, was THE BEST and ONLY way to convey perfect communication regarding truth?

Nonsense.

I don't know all the variables involved and neither do you.

All that we (believers) know is, the truth, as presented to us, is enough to convince us.

And that is all that matters.

My point is that 'the church' is not trustworthy.

Opinions.

We know this, when we start to compare Mark with Luke.

I compared them and find both trustworthy.

I'm thinking about creating a new topic about it. You object, so I guess I'll see you there, if/when created.

You shall.

Here is where context becomes important. And luckily, the author (me) can explain what is meant by 'he made'. I do not mean he 'forced all to become.' No, I mean 'he legalized it'.

So what?

That is like saying, if the recreational use of heroin became legal in the United States, then all of the sudden more people would become heroin users.

No.

If I have no desire to use heroin now, I'm not gonna magically have the desire to use it if it becomes legal.

That is why your reasoning is fallacious (genetic fallacy).

And since the Roman empire was still a thing, though starting to decline a bit, followers followed. Meaning, to follow the beliefs of an emperor...

Roman Citizens: You (Great Emperor) are now following Christianity, so WE shall follow Christianity!!!

Nonsense. No evidence of this happening.

Sprinkle in tradition, and also ultimate migration to the west, and viola, here (you) are. Isn't it funny how core beliefs in religion are mostly segregated by region? You are the rule, not the exception. In India, on the other hand, you'd be the exception. You are a product of both your environment and tradition. Just like I used to be....

Don't matter how you get there.

Yes, and many do now, but are they believable?

What can I say.

When the Holy Spirit moves you, you move.

This was my ONLY point here. Theirs is clear, Jesus's 'original version' is not.

Opinions.

That's not the point. Many fall away, due to not correctly understanding, because the message is obviously not clear to many, even though they are literate and want to learn.

Jesus is okay with that?

And many also "fall in" to the system because the message is clear to them.

Jesus is ok with that.

Those that fall away, they will be dealt with according to the knowledge and sovereignty of an Omni-Creator.

Why not just give his direct message(s) to all, like he did when he was alive? This way, all have the same starting point.

He did. The red words in the New Testament was his direct words to all, and when you read the words it will be as if he was speaking to you while he was alive on earth.

Your avoidance here is telling...

Yeah, and your continual arguing from silence is also telling.

Was reporting a thing, or not?

If it wasn't reported, we wouldn't be having this convo.

So yes, reporting was a thing, obviously.

Remember, these folks were said to roam the city, not somewhere in the middle of "Nowheresville". Was reporting a thing, or not? If so, I guess all these reports were lost or destroyed It's a good thing 'Matthew' was preserved though.

Well then, apparently God saw to it that his message was preserved after all...contrary to what you've been saying.

[Clownboat]

That is not my rational, because I did not say that the faithful would no longer be confused, because Conditional grace is applied anyways, to the faithful.

Since most religious people belong to the religion of their geography, would this conditional grace be applied to the religious followers of other religions as well? I ask because they are obviously faithful.

[John17_3]

That is not my rational, because I did not say that the faithful would no longer be confused, because Conditional grace is applied anyways, to the faithful.

Since most religious people belong to the religion of their geography, would this conditional grace be applied to the religious followers of other religions as well? I ask because they are obviously faithful.

What are they faithful to?
I do not know what this conditional grace is, or who invented it though. Do you know what it is? Can you explain it to me please?

[John17_3]

That is not my rational, because I did not say that the faithful would no longer be confused, because Conditional grace is applied anyways, to the faithful.

Romans 3 grants conditional grace to the faithful, and no one else. These folks would then logically be the only folks, who are absolved or granted immunity, from confusion, under your given statement. Care to retract your given statement yet?

That is not what i said.
I do not know how you managed to link freedom from confusion with conditional grace.
There is no valid reason for retracting what I said.

What you said was ---> "those worthy are freed from confusion".

The ones now deemed <worthy> are the <faithful>, according to Romans 3. I explained, in post 143, why this is illogical.

Here is what I said.
The scriptures reveal that God has determined that those unworthy of life will not get it, because they are not deserving, and so, they will remain in confusion.
Those worthy are freed from confusion, because they know how to listen, and they gain freedom and peace.

I believe the context of the last statement is seen from the first, and is not the same as that being discussed at Romans 3.
In any case, I believe the idea that you are presenting, may be what is illogical.

[POI]

I got Peter, apostle of Jesus, writing 2 Peter.

This would represent more application of mere wishful thinking on your part. Below is from the same source location in which you use to rubberstamp me:

The vast majority of biblical scholars think the two epistles do not share the same author, due to wide differences in Greek style and views between the two letters. Most scholars today conclude that Peter the Apostle was the author of neither of the two epistles that are attributed to him.

You are assuming that your way would have been the better way...which you've yet to prove why/how that is the case.

Are you then saying Jesus did not want clearer evidence to his resurrection? Jesus did not want to assure that multiple independent actual eyewitness attestations were both available and preserved for later humans?

The honest answer is; based on the evidence presented, we are going this way with it (the believers way).

Which presents to be mere wishful thinking.

Right, it was a selective process. You've already dinged the process by your being critical of how things weren't preserved enough to your liking...yet, when they were being careful about deciding which books belonged and which didn't, that isn't good enough for you either. So, when they weren't careful (your opinion), you ding them. But when they are careful, you still ding them. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. That is why they (and God) did things their way..because you can't please a skeptic..so since you can't please them, do it your way and those of whom the spirit moves will find their way to it and those who don't agree with it, oh well.

Since evidence suggests the Gospel writers copied some of each other's works', word for word, and then also changed certain details to create conflict, we have irreconcilably conflicting scenarios presented. Which means we have a high degree of certainty, which suggests that the Gospels originate from a single source alone. This would not lend support to the said stories, as said to be attested to from multiple 'eyewitnesses'; and therefore, makes the claim unconvincing. This is what we have in the Bible, with the synoptic Gospels.

"Right" is subjective.

As stated prior, the ones in which Jesus told directly were not confused about what he was saying. Confusion to his words is instead by the ones who did not receive his words directly. Hence, just give direct word to all. Either write the message himself, or, give it verbally himself. This way, all have the same starting point.

And you know this, how?

Are you saying Jesus's goal was to have multiple conflicting sects/denoms, many of which are earnest believers?

Nonsense. I don't know all the variables involved and neither do you. All that we (believers) know is, the truth, as presented to us, is enough to convince us. And that is all that matters.

So basically, all you have is some very wishful thinking.

So what? That is like saying, if the recreational use of heroin became legal in the United States, then all of the sudden more people would become heroin users. No. If I have no desire to use heroin now, I'm not gonna magically have the desire to use it if it becomes legal. That is why your reasoning is fallacious (genetic fallacy).

More nonsensical rubberstamping... Constantine the Great was the first Christian emperor and established a formal model for a "Christian imperial theocracy". He also believed he was chosen "by God" to protect the Catholic Church and spread Christianity.

Roman Citizens: You (Great Emperor) are now following Christianity, so WE shall follow Christianity!!! Nonsense. No evidence of this happening.

Then you must start rejecting the source in which you repeatedly use to provide your responses. --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanti ... ristianity

Emperor Constantine is likely why Christianity became a thing, and not instead merely some obscure expressed religion read or heard in passing today... You are a product of your environment. And the said source(s) for such claimed miracles are tainted. We will address this in the other thread created.

What can I say. When the Holy Spirit moves you, you move.

What can you say...? I just gave you way more proof, attested to by multiple independent individuals, of direct 'Jesus experiences.' And yet, I doubt you take this video very seriously. Which begs the question... Why do you compartmentalize the Bible? Meaning, you have much less evidence from the Bible, and yet, you still believe.

Opinions.

Yes, an opinion you share with me. Thank you. TWS is clearer in its messaging to its readers than the pages of the Bible itself.

And many also "fall in" to the system because the message is clear to them. Jesus is ok with that. Those that fall away, they will be dealt with according to the knowledge and sovereignty of an Omni-Creator.

Are you saying it does not matter if some believe incorrectly, because God will apply grace? Because, if he does not apply grace in this situation, then the ones who genuinely discern the wrong message are still damned; just like the unbeliever/disbelievers. Further, how would you even know this, other than wishful thinking alone?

He did.

No, he did not. The NT was not a thing when Jesus was alive. Jesus gave direct messaging himself to some, and not others. The ones who received direct messaging were not confused about what he said. The ones not confused either accepted or rejected. But, the rejection was not because of confusion of the given message.

Yeah, and your continual arguing from silence is also telling.

What is most telling, is your prior response, where you stated ==> (maybe, maybe not). The (maybe not) option carries much heavy lifting in this asserted scenario. An assertion where many were said to rise from their graves to walk through a city, of where many were also said to witness.

If it wasn't reported, we wouldn't be having this convo.

Was 'Matthew' the only reporter during these times?