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]

I really ought to stay out of this but I'm obliged to observe that the above Is the problem. our Venomous pal has to excuse, explain, interpret dismiss and make stuff up in order to try to make this work, even though really it doesn't.

It works for me. I will tell you what doesn't work for me..

Atheism/agnosticism.

Particularly with this idea that the disciples discussed this with people so they get all that they didn't get from Jesus.

Um, first of all..I never insinuated that "the disciples discussed this with people SO they get all they didn't get from Jesus", as if there was this conservative effort for the disciples to go out and fill in the blanks to people who didn't get certain info from Jesus.

That wasn't the point. The point was; since PK is acting all sympathetic towards those who may have not heard certain aspects of what it takes to be saved...my point was, if these people didn't hear it from Jesus, they could have heard it from his disciples, who were also out there preaching.

Third, you can't conclusively rule out that Jesus didn't cover all ground wherever he went, despite having not been recorded in the Gospels.

Fourth, you don't have to buy my explanations, since I doubt any explanation will sit right with you. Remember, the goal is not to accept anything, but reject everything.

So why didn't the writers of the Bible get it?

Didn't get what?

Why is there so much that appears to be a directive that you have to Interpret as metaphorical?

I don't know...but then again this question is irrelevant due to the fact that again, I truly doubt that even if the Gospels were written to your specification (whatever that is), that you would be no close to becoming a believer than you are now.

It would still be a slew of other "why" sort of questions. Goal post movement.

Why is there so much important theological stuff in John that the others didn't even hint at?

All Gospels hint at this; Jesus is Lord and Savior, and to accept him is to be granted eternal life.

Why, in short, did God communicate what was needed in a book so cryptic that it takes a large measure of Faith to not conclude that it is the flawed work of men and is not very convincing?

I will tell you what takes a large measure of faith..

Atheism/agnosticism

And I don't have enough faith to be either.

[Tcg]

I will tell you what takes a large measure of faith..

Atheism/agnosticism

And I don't have enough faith to be either.

Actually, that is backwards. One must possess faith to not be either. Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. Agnosticism is the admission that one can't know that god/gods exist. Faith is the only way to bypass these.


Tcg

[Tcg]

All Gospels hint at this; Jesus is Lord and Savior, and to accept him is to be granted eternal life.

Those "hints" are so subtle as to be none existent. A simply word search using the words, "accept eternal life", or alternatively, "Lord savior eternal life" result in absolutely zero results. None, nilch, nada.


Tcg

[POI]

.

Your points don't resolve my question.

But they do. If the disciples were going around preaching as Jesus was, then the folks that missed key elements of what Jesus said prior would have gotten it from the disciples at other times.

Okay, I guess this is worth repeating... It becomes quite the assumption to state the disciples circled back to the ones, who merely heard the sheep/goat story, to fill in all the missing blanks about the necessity for belief

If such a Jesus existed, He traveled from point to point. Not all followed Him. Hence, some would hear some stuff said by Him, and then He would moved on. Not all were getting all details consistently. And I doubt all other necessary messages were making their way back to the ones successfully and reliably, via oral tradition

Then those people will be judged by God based on the little (of the message) that they did receive, and not what they didn't receive.

Ignorance (willful ignorance) won't be held against us. But knowledge will.

This response is in direct contradiction to what you stated in post #49 (i.e.): "Accept his Son as Lord and Savior" So is belief/repent NOT a requirement now?

Negative. I've explained above...

Then I must of missed it.

Yes, you did.

You have given a false analogy.

In your argument, it would be that at least one of those two tasks is compulsory by all. If one does one task, and one does another task, one did not do the compulsory task.

Maybe they must BOTH wash a certain amount of dishes?

Did Mother say they must BOTH wash a certain amount of dishes? See, you are adding to the scenario and giving hypotheticals when it isn't necessary.

That is part of the problem...and the fact that you are even asking the question, is why there is so much confusion.

It is Satan inspired, which goes back to the event at the Garden of Eden where Eve would rather listen to sideline questions and scenarios instead of simply obeying God.

Is belief/repent an absolute requirement, or not? In your scenario, which one is about belief/repent? Is it the dishes, or is it the vacuuming?

The real question IS, what did Jesus really say? I know what the Gospel of Mark says here:

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

But notice he did not say "whoever does not believe AND ISN'T baptized will be condemned".

Hmmm.

Hahaha. Are you serious? You asked me where the Bible asks that you be baptized... I gave you the Verse. And in regards to your reply... Seems like the Verse does indicate that belief is a requirement. And yet, you seem to be backing away from this 'requirement'? You are now trying to smuggle in the 'well, ignorance and/or lack in cognitive capacity may be exceptions.' Interesting indeed....

Negative. He tells would-be followers/disciples---

Luke 14 states:

33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

Now, was this a metaphor of sorts, or, to be taken literal???? Maybe YOU have not given up 'everything'?.?.?.?.?.?.?

Obviously, Jesus was speaking in a hyperbole sense.

Because if you take it literally, then what is left after "everything". Nothing, correct?

So disciples of Christ wouldn't even have clothes on their backs, and that is obviously not what Jesus would have intended.

This scripture can be interpreted as you have to be willing to give up everything, even your life, for Christ.

Interesting... So how do you know you have given up enough for Him? Further, maybe many other assertions are meant to be 'hyperbole'? Is the necessity for belief/repent 'hyperbole'?

Well, it depends.... A true follower might give up everything? Maybe you do not qualify?

I don't believe it should be interpreted that way...but if I stood along side of you at the judgement seat of Christ, and the question was..

"Who has done more for my kingdom" and the question was posed to both of us..

I am confident that I will be looked at more favorably by God than you would be.

Well, since you know nothing of my works, I have no idea how you feel qualified to make such an assessment? Especially since you now admit belief/repent is not a necessity.

Seems you have missed my point. You stated you must follow His Commandments. Not lying is one of the 10. But you will willfully lie, until you die As a stated prior, I doubt ANY lie is deemed 'good'.

I got your point. As I stated, there is a difference between slipping up and lying every so often...and being a habitual liar.

One is a life long practice, and another one is a mistake you make (or simply walking off the tracks) every so often.

Big difference. Apples and oranges.

I already addressed this... Is there such a thing as a 'good' lie? Lying is not merely sometimes 'slipping up' You will likely have multiple encounters of willful lies; to preserve relationships, not tick off customers, and/or ticking off your boss, etc.... And yet, the 9th Commandment states not to lie, period, (no exceptions). This is impossible... Unless you want to end up alone and jobless. You stated to follow His Commandments. And yet, you will lie with full intent -- (believer or not). I trust you are smart enough to concede this point, and realize that such a given criteria is not possible by anyone. Which then instead begs the topic of "God's grace". Which then brings up yet another contradiction. (i.e.) Does 'grace' negate 'willful sin'? In other words, why mention a bunch of "thou shall not commands" when God's grace is going to cover you anyways?

Wait a minute? You stated belief is required. Now you want to argue for exceptions?

I shared with you the scriptural reason for the exceptions, which were the words of Jesus. It is his exception, not mines.

Great, so your assertion, in post #49, is not to be taken seriously. Belief is not an absolute requirement.

Interesting. Maybe your current faith is not enough? Dare not question the Bible too much more; for you may come away with >90%, moving forward

I said 100% is what we should thrive for, didn't I?

Well, you can strive for belief in Santa Claus, but without qualified evidence, no matter how much you want or strive, it won't matter My point is that you may not want to probe too much more into the pages of the Bible, as your faith in Jesus may continue to drop below 90%? And maybe 100% faith is required. For which, you may already be in trouble?

Nice unfalsifiable answer But as I noted above, you CANNOT abstain from sin. Please reference the prior 'lie' examples alone.

I also stated that (in my opinion) it is a matter of how hard we tried to abstain from sin. When sin attacks us, some people fight back. Some fight more than others.

However, some just take the butt whooping with no effort to defend themselves.

Big difference, and God can certainly distinguish between the two.

Well, again, you will not try to abstain from lying to preserve your relationships, your job, etc... And again, there is no such thing as a 'good' lie, according to the Bible.

[JoeyKnothead]

I just find it odd that an omniscient, omniable God has to rely on the very humans he considers so fallible to get his message across.

I mean, he can poof him up an entire universe, he just can't present himself for discussion, or even poof him a Bible up when we all get born.

Cryptic ain't the half of it.

[nobspeople]

I just find it odd that an omniscient, omniable God has to rely on the very humans he considers so fallible to get his message across.

I mean, he can poof him up an entire universe, he just can't present himself for discussion, or even poof him a Bible up when we all get born.

Cryptic ain't the half of it.

I've been saying that for years.
Can make the entire reality, yet can't build his own church, pay his own bills, show his own message... the list is almost endless.
The common retorts are 'god works through us' (which is crap, IMO; why would something perfect work through imperfect beings?) and something akin to 'we need to do god's work, he doesn't need us to do it' (excuse at worst, bullpie at best).
But people will say and do anything to excuse their worthless, waste of a god it seems.

[We_Are_VENOM]

All Gospels hint at this; Jesus is Lord and Savior, and to accept him is to be granted eternal life.

Those "hints" are so subtle as to be none existent. A simply word search using the words, "accept eternal life", or alternatively, "Lord savior eternal life" result in absolutely zero results. None, nilch, nada.


Tcg

We've been through this before, Tcg. You are obviously splitting hairs here, which is a crying shame.

To believe in Christ is to accept him...which is obvious to anyone who has the ability to comprehend what they read.

So like I said; the message is simple, accept Christ.

This was the message, and this is the message...regardless of anyone's smug/contemptuous attitude towards it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Post by TRANSPONDER » Wed Nov 24, 2021 2:50 am

I really ought to stay out of this but I'm obliged to observe that the above Is the problem. our Venomous pal has to excuse, explain, interpret dismiss and make stuff up in order to try to make this work, even though really it doesn't.

Particularly with this idea that the disciples discussed this with people so they get all that they didn't get from Jesus. So why didn't the writers of the Bible get it? Why is there so much that appears to be a directive that you have to Interpret as metaphorical? Why is there so much important theological stuff in John that the others didn't even hint at? Why, in short, did God communicate what was needed in a book so cryptic that it takes a large measure of Faith to not conclude that it is the flawed work of men and is not very convincing?

I really ought to stay out of this but I'm obliged to observe that the above Is the problem. our Venomous pal has to excuse, explain, interpret dismiss and make stuff up in order to try to make this work, even though really it doesn't.

It works for me. I will tell you what doesn't work for me..

Atheism/agnosticism.

Particularly with this idea that the disciples discussed this with people so they get all that they didn't get from Jesus.

Um, first of all..I never insinuated that "the disciples discussed this with people SO they get all they didn't get from Jesus", as if there was this conservative effort for the disciples to go out and fill in the blanks to people who didn't get certain info from Jesus.

That wasn't the point. The point was; since PK is acting all sympathetic towards those who may have not heard certain aspects of what it takes to be saved...my point was, if these people didn't hear it from Jesus, they could have heard it from his disciples, who were also out there preaching.

Third, you can't conclusively rule out that Jesus didn't cover all ground wherever he went, despite having not been recorded in the Gospels.

Fourth, you don't have to buy my explanations, since I doubt any explanation will sit right with you. Remember, the goal is not to accept anything, but reject everything.

So why didn't the writers of the Bible get it?

Didn't get what?

Why is there so much that appears to be a directive that you have to Interpret as metaphorical?

I don't know...but then again this question is irrelevant due to the fact that again, I truly doubt that even if the Gospels were written to your specification (whatever that is), that you would be no close to becoming a believer than you are now.

It would still be a slew of other "why" sort of questions. Goal post movement.

Why is there so much important theological stuff in John that the others didn't even hint at?

All Gospels hint at this; Jesus is Lord and Savior, and to accept him is to be granted eternal life.

Why, in short, did God communicate what was needed in a book so cryptic that it takes a large measure of Faith to not conclude that it is the flawed work of men and is not very convincing?

I will tell you what takes a large measure of faith..

Atheism/agnosticism

And I don't have enough faith to be either.

I had three goes at responding but I had to repost my post as I needed to check what I was actually saying since you nitpick and misdirect so much.

Firstly I didn't suggest that the disciples deliberately went out to fill in the blanks but that's a nit pick because the point is that if Jesus or the disciples filled in the blanks, why didn't the writers of the Bible get it.

Get what you say? What do you think? Everything it was necessary to know to be saved. I went on to explain that and the problem that this needs to be interpreted apparently. If you need to say (as you do) that some things need to be Interpreted, it's to Your specifications the gospels fail to match up. We atheists/agnostics don't have a problem with it. hich is why you have a problem with atheism/agnosticism; because they bring up doubts and questions you'd prefer to ignore. .

I can pass over to foolish accusation about atheists would never believe even if the evidence was good (it isn't), and to have atheism takes faith (it doesn't) as it's just projection and misdirection and of course you fail to address the points. I am sure there are those who will see the evasions such as wagging the basic claim about (Jesus is Lord and saviour) and ignoring the point about a cryptic Bible that needs to be interpreted or interpreted out of sight, like giving all you have to the poor and following Jesus as distinct from keeping everything you have and snarling at atheists.

People are not dumb, chum and they know a misdirection, evasion and avoidance of an answer when they see it.

[TRANSPONDER]

I will tell you what takes a large measure of faith..

Atheism/agnosticism

And I don't have enough faith to be either.

Actually, that is backwards. One must possess faith to not be either. Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. Agnosticism is the admission that one can't know that god/gods exist. Faith is the only way to bypass these.


Tcg

Of course but our venomous pal is clearly not trying to make a valid point, he is going on the attack like a Fox Newscaster caught in a lie or hypocrisy. The old 'I don't have enough Faith to be an atheist is a tatty old piece of idiot smearing (hardly an apologetic) that it isn't a bother and the attempt at misdirection can be ignored while the actual point is pursued...which they hate.

[TRANSPONDER]

.

Your points don't resolve my question.

But they do. If the disciples were going around preaching as Jesus was, then the folks that missed key elements of what Jesus said prior would have gotten it from the disciples at other times.

Okay, I guess this is worth repeating... It becomes quite the assumption to state the disciples circled back to the ones, who merely heard the sheep/goat story, to fill in all the missing blanks about the necessity for belief

If such a Jesus existed, He traveled from point to point. Not all followed Him. Hence, some would hear some stuff said by Him, and then He would moved on. Not all were getting all details consistently. And I doubt all other necessary messages were making their way back to the ones successfully and reliably, via oral tradition

Then those people will be judged by God based on the little (of the message) that they did receive, and not what they didn't receive.

Ignorance (willful ignorance) won't be held against us. But knowledge will.

This response is in direct contradiction to what you stated in post #49 (i.e.): "Accept his Son as Lord and Savior" So is belief/repent NOT a requirement now?

Negative. I've explained above...

Then I must of missed it.

Yes, you did.

You have given a false analogy.

In your argument, it would be that at least one of those two tasks is compulsory by all. If one does one task, and one does another task, one did not do the compulsory task.

Maybe they must BOTH wash a certain amount of dishes?

Did Mother say they must BOTH wash a certain amount of dishes? See, you are adding to the scenario and giving hypotheticals when it isn't necessary.

That is part of the problem...and the fact that you are even asking the question, is why there is so much confusion.

It is Satan inspired, which goes back to the event at the Garden of Eden where Eve would rather listen to sideline questions and scenarios instead of simply obeying God.

Is belief/repent an absolute requirement, or not? In your scenario, which one is about belief/repent? Is it the dishes, or is it the vacuuming?

The real question IS, what did Jesus really say? I know what the Gospel of Mark says here:

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

But notice he did not say "whoever does not believe AND ISN'T baptized will be condemned".

Hmmm.

Hahaha. Are you serious? You asked me where the Bible asks that you be baptized... I gave you the Verse. And in regards to your reply... Seems like the Verse does indicate that belief is a requirement. And yet, you seem to be backing away from this 'requirement'? You are now trying to smuggle in the 'well, ignorance and/or lack in cognitive capacity may be exceptions.' Interesting indeed....

Negative. He tells would-be followers/disciples---

Luke 14 states:

33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

Now, was this a metaphor of sorts, or, to be taken literal???? Maybe YOU have not given up 'everything'?.?.?.?.?.?.?

Obviously, Jesus was speaking in a hyperbole sense.

Because if you take it literally, then what is left after "everything". Nothing, correct?

So disciples of Christ wouldn't even have clothes on their backs, and that is obviously not what Jesus would have intended.

This scripture can be interpreted as you have to be willing to give up everything, even your life, for Christ.

Interesting... So how do you know you have given up enough for Him? Further, maybe many other assertions are meant to be 'hyperbole'? Is the necessity for belief/repent 'hyperbole'?

Well, it depends.... A true follower might give up everything? Maybe you do not qualify?

I don't believe it should be interpreted that way...but if I stood along side of you at the judgement seat of Christ, and the question was..

"Who has done more for my kingdom" and the question was posed to both of us..

I am confident that I will be looked at more favorably by God than you would be.

Well, since you know nothing of my works, I have no idea how you feel qualified to make such an assessment? Especially since you now admit belief/repent is not a necessity.

Seems you have missed my point. You stated you must follow His Commandments. Not lying is one of the 10. But you will willfully lie, until you die As a stated prior, I doubt ANY lie is deemed 'good'.

I got your point. As I stated, there is a difference between slipping up and lying every so often...and being a habitual liar.

One is a life long practice, and another one is a mistake you make (or simply walking off the tracks) every so often.

Big difference. Apples and oranges.

I already addressed this... Is there such a thing as a 'good' lie? Lying is not merely sometimes 'slipping up' You will likely have multiple encounters of willful lies; to preserve relationships, not tick off customers, and/or ticking off your boss, etc.... And yet, the 9th Commandment states not to lie, period, (no exceptions). This is impossible... Unless you want to end up alone and jobless. You stated to follow His Commandments. And yet, you will lie with full intent -- (believer or not). I trust you are smart enough to concede this point, and realize that such a given criteria is not possible by anyone. Which then instead begs the topic of "God's grace". Which then brings up yet another contradiction. (i.e.) Does 'grace' negate 'willful sin'? In other words, why mention a bunch of "thou shall not commands" when God's grace is going to cover you anyways?

Wait a minute? You stated belief is required. Now you want to argue for exceptions?

I shared with you the scriptural reason for the exceptions, which were the words of Jesus. It is his exception, not mines.

Great, so your assertion, in post #49, is not to be taken seriously. Belief is not an absolute requirement.

Interesting. Maybe your current faith is not enough? Dare not question the Bible too much more; for you may come away with >90%, moving forward

I said 100% is what we should thrive for, didn't I?

Well, you can strive for belief in Santa Claus, but without qualified evidence, no matter how much you want or strive, it won't matter My point is that you may not want to probe too much more into the pages of the Bible, as your faith in Jesus may continue to drop below 90%? And maybe 100% faith is required. For which, you may already be in trouble?

Nice unfalsifiable answer But as I noted above, you CANNOT abstain from sin. Please reference the prior 'lie' examples alone.

I also stated that (in my opinion) it is a matter of how hard we tried to abstain from sin. When sin attacks us, some people fight back. Some fight more than others.

However, some just take the butt whooping with no effort to defend themselves.

Big difference, and God can certainly distinguish between the two.

Well, again, you will not try to abstain from lying to preserve your relationships, your job, etc... And again, there is no such thing as a 'good' lie, according to the Bible.

I said it before, you do good posts. And you point up the points about the confusion, need to interpret and even make up doctrine to explain, define, interpret and even cherry pick to make sense of a cryptic tome which, if there was a god that wanted to save people that authored this Book, it would be a less cryptic book. I forgot last post Venom suggested that it's ok...the disciples went around filling in the blank (not deliberately but I never suggested they did, or even Jesus spoke all the missing stuff. But that was fine for the people then (who of course were Jews - who were damned en masse in Matthew 27.24 - on, the inscription on the statue to anti -semitism. So it didn't save them, and if it's not in the Bible, it can't save us. Venom may say that Jesusfaith is all you need, but Paul himself found out (in corinthians) that the Grace he preached in Romans is losable without good works, and the good works are set out in the gospels. Give your stuff to the poor. 'No, I love my stuff more than Jesus' so I'll just Interpret it to mean 'love Jesus and the rest is metaphor'. I just love to see believers rewrite the Bible suit themselves. I said this to theist apologist on my former board - that atheist apologists have more respect for the Bible than believers do; at least we take what it says as what it says, not what we'd like it to say.

Just a day ago I pointed out that Luke alters the message at the tomb... 'No, No'. But it's right there, in print. And no believer who knows their Bible by heart has ever noticed it. It's why I talk of the 'ghost Bible' they quote from - one that says what they would prefer it to say.