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]

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.

If only Jesus gave direct messaging to all himself

The scriptures reveal that the only ones deemed worthy are the faithful. And yet, many, who are faithful, do not carry the same fundamental beliefs as you. In fact, we have many completely opposing/conflicting beliefs, which all reside under the same collection of writings, which is comprised of the NT. Hence, your statement is objectively false. Why would Jesus be okay with this result? Why doesn't Jesus just give his direct messages to all, like he did with a select few? This way, we would all know exactly what he said, and we would also have the same starting point. Meaning, we would all either accept him, or reject him, based upon the same clear messaging.

[POI]

Why is the Bible not clear?

Ok, I can accept that it is not clear for you.

Nor for you. I had to explain, in many exchanges, about Romans 3. You now agree with me Why is Jesus/God reliant upon other humans to correct other humans when Jesus could have just given clear messaging to begin with? None of the ones said to have received direct messaging from Jesus rejected him based upon the reason of confusion to his messaging.

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.

I guess this means you do not have to accept Jesus as your Lord and savior then?

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

You stated "the reason for death is always something else."

The reason for many deaths IS blood loss.

Are there ANY exceptions to the rule of receiving blood products, or not?

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

So, based on..

1. Wide differences in Greek style.
2. Views between the two letters

Most scholars today conclude that Peter the Apostle was not the author of either epistle (1&2 Peter).

Lets see..

A. Wide differences in Greek style: Peter could have used a different scribe for each Epistle.

Different scribes = different writing styles.

Next...

B. Views between the two letters: Which means what? As long as the two letters aren't contradictory, then what you are describing as "different views" may be just simply "additional views", meaning information that was lacking in one letter is covered in the other.

As long as this additional information doesn't conflict with the other, then you cannot logically call it a "differing view".

Now, whether the Apostle Peter wrote the letters or not, the thought behind the letters comes from his brain, in my opinion.

Are you then saying Jesus did not want clearer evidence to his resurrection?

If the stories are true, then Jesus' actions/decisions were as clear as it needed to be...for him.

You: It isn't clear enough.

Jesus: It is as clear as its gonna be.

I'm with Jesus here.

Jesus did not want to assure that multiple independent actual eyewitness attestations were both available and preserved for later humans?

He did...and since everyone presumably didn't have pen & pad at there disposal to jot things down as it occurred..information was transmitted via word of mouth...which is obviously why the religion spread as fast as it did.

I know that may not be good enough for you, but for the religion as a whole (the preservation of the message)...it was good enough.

Which presents to be mere wishful thinking.

And I can say the same for your side: No Christianity = no Hell fire.

Wishful thinking.

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

Sure, they changed certain details to create conflict.

Lets go with that falsehood.

, we have irreconcilably conflicting scenarios presented.

Opinions.

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.

Sure, the single source is Jesus.

John is a Gospel, and most of the stuff in his Gospel is nonexistent in the synoptics.

So, even for arguments sake, that is at least two sources right there (Matthew, John).

Not to mention Paul. That's three. Not to mention the phantom "Q" sources.

So, what is the threshold that one needs to cross, as to the # of sources needed where you can go from "thats not enough", to "thats enough".

Answer: There is none.

Either you believe it, or you don't.

Bottom line.

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.

Again, for the umpthteeth time; even if Jesus wrote the message himself, those who are hellbent on unbelief wouldn't be stopped from using any skeptical variations of the following questions (or sentiments).

1. How do we know that Jesus actually wrote it?
2. Just because he wrote it, doesn't mean it is true.

Or whatever else skeptics like to be skeptical about.

And also, even if Jesus wrote it, that wouldn't guaranteed that thousands of years later, the message wouldn't be tarnished (thus, the many denominations of Christianity).

So again...I fail to see how your solution would resolve these issues.

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

That wasn't the goal, but that is the result of an imperfect world.

But look, we appreciate your concern...but you need not concern yourself with Christian affairs.

You are thinking to hard about stuff that you are not apart of and do not belong to.

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

Opinions.

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.

Well, thank goodness someone came into power that protected the Christians freedom to worship.

Wow, what a concept.

Also, thank goodness for the efforts of anyone who wishes to spread Christianity, which is what we were commanded to do by Jesus himself (Matt 28:16-20).

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

I await you to provide evidence of Christianity spreading through the Roman Empire primarily due to Constantine's conversion.

Because that was the claim.

Emperor Constantine is likely why Christianity became a thing

Yeah, Christianity wasn't a thing until Constantine came to power.

So, never mind the book of Acts which state how Christianity spread from Jerusalem throughout the massive Roman empire, because of Paul's & company traveling missionaries and letters going far and wide.

Never mind the Great Fire of Rome, which Christians were blamed for...which means that Christianity had reached the city of Rome (2546 miles from Jerusalem) by 64 CE.

Never mind the large-scale persecutions of Christians as early as the first century CE...and based on the historically-rich sources of Pliny the Younger, we know that Christianity had reached Turkey by 110 CE.

So, no...Christianity was hardly a thing until Constantine took over.

Not to mention, the various sects of Christianity that were running wild throughout the Empire, particularly Arianism, which was heresy floating around before Constantine even came into office, and which is what motivated the Council of Nicea in the first place.

Never mind those things.

Please do not let disingenuousness rear its ugly head but completely botching what are historical facts.

, and not instead merely some obscure expressed religion read or heard in passing today... You are a product of your environment.

Christianity was popular, before it was popular to be popular.

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.

Um, I believe in the reality of the Holy Spirit. Now, when does this spirit manifest itself, I don't know.

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.

So, let me get this straight..

TWS's message is clear (according to you)...but the source (Bible itself) of where they get their clear messages, is not clear?

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Are you saying it does not matter if some believe incorrectly, because God will apply grace?

Yes. Depends on the circumstances (variables), but ultimately yes...that is exactly what I'm saying.

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?

Circumstantial. Not every case is equal.

I will leave it up to God to sort out the who's, the why's, and the how's.

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.

Point?

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.

And?

Was 'Matthew' the only reporter during these times?

He may have been the only one to write a written account of that event.

[POI]

..... in my opinion.

'Opinions'....

Scholarship disagrees with you about "Peter". Sorry. On the other hand, scholarship agrees that Paul wrote Paul's stuff. Win some, loose some. Live by the sword, die by the sword....

If the stories are true, then Jesus' actions/decisions were as clear as it needed to be...for him. You: It isn't clear enough. Jesus: It is as clear as its gonna be. I'm with Jesus here.

Did or didn't Jesus want to leave clear evidence of his resurrection for all? If the evidence IS clear, then all who claim it is not, are liars. This would unfortunately include you, since you are of the 70% mark, which means you are a 30% liar.

1) He did...and since everyone presumably didn't have pen & pad at there disposal to jot things down as it occurred..information was transmitted 2) via word of mouth...which is obviously why the religion spread as fast as it did. 3) I know that may not be good enough for you, but for the religion as a whole (the preservation of the message)...it was good enough.

1) No, he did not. We have Paul, who was not part of the 'resurrection tour.' And we have anonymous authors, for which we do not know of their motivations and relations, unlike Paul.
2) Oral tradition is not a reliable method for spreading 'truth'. And again, it did not 'shake the world' until after Constantine.
3) The Bible's method is absolutely no better, in its messaging, than any other untrustworthy human concocted methodology. I guess this is the best Jesus could think of...

Sure, the single source is Jesus. John is a Gospel, and most of the stuff in his Gospel is nonexistent in the synoptics. So, even for arguments sake, that is at least two sources right there (Matthew, John). Not to mention Paul. That's three. Not to mention the phantom "Q" sources. So, what is the threshold that one needs to cross, as to the # of sources needed where you can go from "thats not enough", to "thats enough". Answer: There is none. Either you believe it, or you don't. Bottom line.

The bottom line is that the Bible claims it contains multiple independent "eyewitness" accounts/attestations, via the Gospels. But a rudimentary examination dispels that notion swiftly. Sorry. Hence, they are not trustworthy.

Again, for the umpthteeth time; even if Jesus wrote the message himself, those who are hellbent on unbelief wouldn't be stopped from using any skeptical variations of the following questions (or sentiments).

1. How do we know that Jesus actually wrote it?
2. Just because he wrote it, doesn't mean it is true.

Or whatever else skeptics like to be skeptical about.

And also, even if Jesus wrote it, that wouldn't guaranteed that thousands of years later, the message wouldn't be tarnished (thus, the many denominations of Christianity).

Again, for the umpthteeth time, if Jesus wrote and preserved the message himself, all readers would understand the messages and no longer doubt Jesus existed, wrote stuff, and the message would be clear to all. Just like presumably that anyone in which Jesus gave direct messages to, from the Bible, were not confused. All which would be left would be whether or not the reader would follow or reject his offer.

That wasn't the goal, but that is the result of an imperfect world. But look, we appreciate your concern...but you need not concern yourself with Christian affairs. You are thinking to hard about stuff that you are not apart of and do not belong to.

LOL! I'm making a very basic observation. Is Jesus pleased with the countless conflicting beliefs, all written in his name? Again, assuming he is an omni-god, this should not happen, right?

Well, thank goodness someone came into power that protected the Christians freedom to worship. Wow, what a concept. Also, thank goodness for the efforts of anyone who wishes to spread Christianity, which is what we were commanded to do by Jesus himself (Matt 28:16-20).

So, you finally now agree that Constantine IS the reason Christianity became global. Thanx I guess it's a good thing Islam was not around yet. You may be arguing why you believe Muhamad did fly to heaven on a winged horse.

I await you to provide evidence of Christianity spreading through the Roman Empire primarily due to Constantine's conversion. Because that was the claim.

Your claim was that Christianity 'shook the world.' Remember? And now you agree it "shook the world" after Constantine promoted it.

Christianity was popular, before it was popular to be popular.

Locally, a lot of local beliefs were popular, but are not so now. Constantine changed that.

Um, I believe in the reality of the Holy Spirit. Now, when does this spirit manifest itself, I don't know.

I just gave you way more evidence than the 4 Gospels combined. Hard evidence suggests about 100 or so people are apparently filled with the 'Holy Ghost.' Just like Paul apparently was. And yet, I'm not convinced, are you?

So, let me get this straight.. TWS's message is clear (according to you)...but the source (Bible itself) of where they get their clear messages, is not clear? Makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes perfect sense. Ask 100 folks how you are saved. You will get conflicting answers. If the message was clear, you and everyone else, would give the same answer. This is why I raised this topic. Alternatively, if the same 100 folks read a passage/assertion from TWS, you would observe more uniformity. This means TWS publications are clearer.

Yes. Depends on the circumstances (variables), but ultimately yes...that is exactly what I'm saying.

In regard to Jesus still applying grace for some who do not correctly understand his messaging, what circumstances does it depend upon? And more importantly, how do you know?

Point?

Why do I still need to keep clarifying here? God has the ability to give clear messaging, as he presumably did when he was alive. Why not give clear messaging to all, verses only some? Why not allow for all to have the same starting point, so that each individual can either accept or reject the clear messaging?

He may have been the only one to write a written account of that event.

If any reporters existed, outside of 'Matthew', and if such an event was to be seen, then "all-hands-on-deck' would have been in place for any and all reporters who report. Remember, the claim is that many roamed and many saw.

[SiNcE_1985]

'Opinions'....

Scholarship disagrees with you about "Peter". Sorry.

No apology needed, considering my hypothesis is that Peter had a scribe write for him.

So, pointing out that Peter didn't write it is irrelevant.

Failed gotcha moment

On the other hand, scholarship agrees that Paul wrote Paul's stuff.

Good scholars.

Win some, loose some.

"But you live, you live to fight another day."

Live by the sword, die by the sword....

Thanks for proving that just because you ain't a Christian, that shouldn't stop you from quoting Jesus.

Matt 26

"52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Did or didn't Jesus want to leave clear evidence of his resurrection for all?

You keep asking the same question and my answer won't change.

If the evidence IS clear, then all who claim it is not, are liars. This would unfortunately include you, since you are of the 70% mark, which means you are a 30% liar.

A liar is someone who makes a statement which he knows to be false.

Keyword: "Knows".

And I do not know Christianity is false nor have I ever claimed that it is.

So, try again.

1) No, he did not. We have Paul, who was not part of the 'resurrection tour.' And we have anonymous authors, for which we do not know of their motivations and relations, unlike Paul.

The plan was for the original message to get out, while being preserved in the process.

So yes, mission accomplished.

2) Oral tradition is not a reliable method for spreading 'truth'.

Opinions.

And again, it did not 'shake the world' until after Constantine.

Historically false.

3) The Bible's method is absolutely no better, in its messaging, than any other untrustworthy human concocted methodology. I guess this is the best Jesus could think of...

Opinions.

The bottom line is that the Bible claims it contains multiple independent "eyewitness" accounts/attestations, via the Gospels. But a rudimentary examination dispels that notion swiftly. Sorry. Hence, they are not trustworthy.

Opinions.

Again, for the umpthteeth time, if Jesus wrote and preserved the message himself, all readers would understand the messages and no longer doubt Jesus existed, wrote stuff, and the message would be clear to all. Just like presumably that anyone in which Jesus gave direct messages to, from the Bible, were not confused. All which would be left would be whether or not the reader would follow or reject his offer.

No, because thousands of years later there would be disagreement about what he said/meant, based on what he wrote.

That much wouldn't change.

Sorry, but your opinion, ESPECIALLY when it comes to how Jesus handles his business, just isn't needed.

It is unwarranted and irrelevant.

LOL! I'm making a very basic observation. Is Jesus pleased with the countless conflicting beliefs, all written in his name? Again, assuming he is an omni-god, this should not happen, right?

Same question, same answer.

So, you finally now agree that Constantine IS the reason Christianity became global.

No, we don't agree. Of course not.

The only thing I agree with is, is the points that I made..of which you completely ignored.

Next time you mention Constantine after this post, I am gonna paste what I said until you address it.

You can ignore it, but it certainly ain't going away.

Thanx I guess it's a good thing Islam was not around yet. You may be arguing why you believe Muhamad did fly to heaven on a winged horse.

Islam ain't surpass Christianity since it's inception.

Your claim was that Christianity 'shook the world.' Remember? And now you agree it "shook the world" after Constantine promoted it.

Disingenuous.

Why would I claim the world was shook after Constantine promoted Christianity, when I dedicated X amount of paragraphs making a case as to how Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire before Constantine.

Paragraphs of which you just happened to conveniently not address at all in your latest response?

Makes no sense.

Locally, a lot of local beliefs were popular, but are not so now. Constantine changed that.

Jesus Christ changed that.

I just gave you way more evidence than the 4 Gospels combined. Hard evidence suggests about 100 or so people are apparently filled with the 'Holy Ghost.' Just like Paul apparently was. And yet, I'm not convinced, are you?

I don't know who is/isn't filled with the Holy Ghost.

It makes perfect sense. Ask 100 folks how you are saved. You will get conflicting answers. If the message was clear, you and everyone else, would give the same answer. This is why I raised this topic. Alternatively, if the same 100 folks read a passage/assertion from TWS, you would observe more uniformity. This means TWS publications are clearer.

Yeah, and ask TWS how are you saved, and you'll be able to place their answer amongst those same conflicting answers that you speak of.

So again, they are not a special case.

And the assertions in their publications are based on what they believe to be Bible teachings, a book of which you claim is unclear.

So if their publications, which you speak highly of on being clear, is clear...then so is the Bible where they get their clear teachings from.

You can't have it both ways.

If the water is dirty, then everything that comes from it is dirty.

In regard to Jesus still applying grace for some who do not correctly understand his messaging, what circumstances does it depend upon? And more importantly, how do you know?

A thread/conversation for another day.

This is a rabbit hole.

Why do I still need to keep clarifying here? God has the ability to give clear messaging, as he presumably did when he was alive. Why not give clear messaging to all, verses only some? Why not allow for all to have the same starting point, so that each individual can either accept or reject the clear messaging?

Again, same question..my answer will not change.

If any reporters existed, outside of 'Matthew', and if such an event was to be seen, then "all-hands-on-deck' would have been in place for any and all reporters who report. Remember, the claim is that many roamed and many saw.

Continuous arguing from silence.

Fallacious.

[1213]

Ok, I can accept that it is not clear for you.

Nor for you. I had to explain, in many exchanges, about Romans 3. You now agree with me

Sorry, it is not clear to me, in what I agree with you?

Why is Jesus/God reliant upon other humans to correct other humans when Jesus could have just given clear messaging to begin with?

I don't think Jesus is reliant upon other humans. I am reliant upon Jesus and God to understand the message correctly.

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.

I guess this means you do not have to accept Jesus as your Lord and savior then?

To become righteous?

Righteous person accepts Jesus and it shows he is righteous.

The reason for many deaths IS blood loss.

No, the actual reason is what caused the blood loss.

Are there ANY exceptions to the rule of receiving blood products, or not?

In the Bible the rule is not to eat/drink blood in any way.

And because Bible is not speaking about blood transfusion directly, it is a matter that is left for people to decide, is it the same as eating blood, or is it a different matter. And to decide is it good and acceptable, we can use the Bible as a guide. For that it is good to check, what was the point in the original commandment and what is the reason to deny eating blood. If the same reason can be seen in the case of blood transfusion, then it is not ok.

Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners among them, who eats any kind of blood, I will set my face against that soul who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life (=the original word can be translated soul or mind also, as in some translations it is, and as for example Google translator would do) of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.
Lev. 17:10-11

That tells the reason not to eat is that the life, soul, or mind is in the blood. So, getting foreign blood could mean that you get a foreign mind. And it is not accepted in the Bible. This is why I would say, the actual commandment is not to mix up souls and it is not good to have blood transfusion that could bring foreign soul to a person. However, maybe it could be said that for example parents are not a foreign soul, in a way they have the same blood, and therefore it could be accepted between family members. I would let everyone to decide that on their own behalf.

In any case, I don't think Bible is unclear in this matter, it just doesn't speak about the blood transfusion. We have many things that are not directly told in the Bible and we have to make decisions on our own. In that we can use Bible as a guide and we can also pray God to help us understand what is the best solution.

But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be given to him.
James 1:5

[JehovahsWitness]

... if we go just by the "abstain from blood" it clearly means that people should avoid blood and it can also mean blood transfusion.

ACTS 15:28, 29a

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things:  to keep abstaining ...from blood

All Emphasis MINE

... I would say, the actual commandment is not to mix up souls ... maybe it could be said that for example parents are not a foreign soul, in a way they have the same blood...

So was an Israeilte allowed to drink the blood of a close relative?

[POI]

So, pointing out that Peter didn't write it is irrelevant. Failed gotcha moment

Most scholars believe it was written by someone else after Peter's death. Nice try though.

A liar is someone who makes a statement which he knows to be false. Keyword: "Knows".n And I do not know Christianity is false nor have I ever claimed that it is. So, try again.

I do not need to try again. If Jesus's message is crystal clear, then all would know. To say one doesn't know is then a lie. Thus, either:

a) His messaging is not really 100% clear
b) Anyone who does not agree with you, is a liar. Since you claim to know how one is saved.

The plan was for the original message to get out, while being preserved in the process. So yes, mission accomplished.

The Gospels were not considered authoritative for centuries. Prior to canonization, it was basically the wild west of stories, for decades/centuries. It's not like every single oral exchange was auto-regulated by "the divine", unless that is what you are claiming. Because, quite frankly, this is what one would have to believe.

Opinions.

Whenever you disagree, you make it known. Hence, I'm glad our positions align here, that oral tradition is not the best mode of reliable communication. It would instead be direct messaging given from Jesus, like when he was alive and spoke to some peeps.

Historically false.

'Shaking the world' would logically include the West, and/or the Americas. Christianity was introduced to the Americas when Europeans began to colonize the region in the 16th and 17th centuries. Emperor Constantine was the catalyst for this much later process. Beliefs and traditions are why many religions primarily adopt specific doctrines. You are a classic product of your environment.

Opinions.

Since you, again, offer no alternative position, we agree that the methodology used by Jesus was no better than any other human invented method already used. And in doing so, the message is confused by many/most, for various reason(s); such as because of the use of oral traditions, specific political motivations ('the church'), superstition, tradition, geography, indoctrination of offspring, etc....

Opinions.

Again, glad we agree here. It would be foolish to disagree that the claims of the Bible are not asserted from multiple eyewitness sources. And yet, once we investigate, we do not actually have multiple vetted (eyewitness) sources. We have Paul, who had an experience really no different than the video I provided. And then some later hearsay writings, motivated by who-knows-what-or-who?

No, because thousands of years later there would be disagreement about what he said/meant, based on what he wrote. That much wouldn't change. Sorry, but your opinion, ESPECIALLY when it comes to how Jesus handles his business, just isn't needed. It is unwarranted and irrelevant.

You are comparing Jesus to other humans. Jesus could clearly communicate his message, so all can understand; unless you admit he is not an omni-God? Everyone should be given the same chance. Meaning, to clearly understand his message and are then given the chance to accept or reject it. Otherwise, this Jesus fellow makes no logical sense. Why leave many earnest folks in the dark, especially when they strive to understand his word? As I told another, I once debated two hermeneutic scholars who fundamentally disagreed with many aspects of what Jesus was saying. This is a crappy result, if the goal is to offer a clearly communicated message. Hence, again, he is either 1) not perfect, or 2) he is perfect and deliberately intended for earnest confusion, which would still defy the claims of an omni-God.

Islam ain't surpass Christianity since it's inception.

Islam is 700 years behind Christianity, and the numbers are catching up. What will Jesus do when we have more believers in Islam, and his religion is no longer numero uno?

Disingenuous. Why would I claim the world was shook after Constantine promoted Christianity, when I dedicated X amount of paragraphs making a case as to how Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire before Constantine. Paragraphs of which you just happened to conveniently not address at all in your latest response? Makes no sense.

I already spoke to this. Many strong local beliefs happened. Christianity did not 'shake the world' until after Constantine. I have already explained umpteen times.

I don't know who is/isn't filled with the Holy Ghost.

Then maybe Paul wasn't either? If you still cannot even tell who is filled, while observing WAY BETTER given evidence, via the provided video, then I have to really wonder why (Paul & company) offer anything better?????????????????????????

Yeah, and ask TWS how are you saved, and you'll be able to place their answer amongst those same conflicting answers that you speak of. So again, they are not a special case. And the assertions in their publications are based on what they believe to be Bible teachings, a book of which you claim is unclear. So if their publications, which you speak highly of on being clear, is clear...then so is the Bible where they get their clear teachings from. You can't have it both ways. If the water is dirty, then everything that comes from it is dirty.

No no no, You continue to miss my point. If I was to present 'story time', and read passages from the Watch Tower, I would experience far less confusion from the crowd than I would receive if I were to instead read a parable, or from Revelations, or many other areas from the Bible itself. That's it! The authors of the TWS are able to convey clearer messaging to their intended audience. Why does Jesus strive to remain so cryptic, confusing, and provide a difficult read for many -- even including hermeneutic scholars who also do not all agree? TWS publications are easier to read and follow than the direct pages of the Bible. WHY?????

This is a rabbit hole.

Organically following the momentum of this exchange has already produced countless "rabbit holes". Why should this one be any different?

Where does the Bible say that Jesus offers his grace to some who do not understand what the Bible is saying?

Continuous arguing from silence. Fallacious.

More unwarranted rubber-stamping, in an attempt to deflect. Again, we are not speaking about a claim which states some dudes broke out of their graves in the middle of 'Nowheresville.' No, they did so in the city, for many to see. If we agree reporters existed, besides 'Matthew', all would have reported, unless you wish to argue that such events were mundane. Maybe such events were extremely mundane. Or maybe, only the 'Matthew' report survived. Luckily, we have 'Matthew' to the rescue. Not only did he witness all other miracles, but this one too.

[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.

What are they faithful to?

This was already provided to you above... To the religion of their geography. Just like you are.

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?

No silly. I do not subscribe to an idea of conditional grace by a god concept. You should avoid using words when you don't know what they mean (see the bold at the top).

[Clownboat]

1. How do we know that Jesus actually wrote it?

If a God were to write a message intended for all humans, do you really think that it would read like a human wrote it?
This being that can create universes, but can't write a message any better than a human?

Surely you see how nonsensical this claim is. Right?