Was Jesus crystal clear?

[marco]

Jesus played with figurative language: lambs, shepherds, goats and sheep, harvesting, missing money, silly virgins, ungrateful lepers and nice Samaritans. He never said direct things like:

"I'm not God, just a representative who has learned scripture."

"The holy Spirit I speak of is the personification of inspiration and moral support."

"It was wrongly reported that my Father asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. He would never ask such a wicked thing. Nor did he want infants slaughtered. "

"Heaven's not a physical place. You don't get there through ascensions."


Instead we are told his language can be understood only by those who have done a course in sheep talk. This to rational minds is nonsensical.

Why do you suppose Jesus spoke figuratively instead of being direct?
Can we regard his miracles as figurative too?

[1213]

… Water has many meanings - and you pick the right one? …

So, do you think it is wrong, Bible doesn’t have many meanings to word water? I think it is clear by what Jesus says. And I don’t think it needs really interpretation, because Bible explains the meaning. Jesus didn’t give physical water, so it must have been something else. What he gave was his words. But ok, if you think it means something else, then I think you should rather take it as it is written, not my words, but what is said in the Bible.

[1213]

…
Correct, what we are wondering is why he didn't speak directly when he was speaking figuratively. Like in regards to whether he was God or not….

Jesus said for example that there is only one true God that is greater than him. How is that not clear?

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

Also, interestingly, the “figuratively� speech is direct to me.

[William]

[Replying to post 40 by marco]

It is amusing to hear that Jesus had "factored" things into the whole picture.

Yes - I think so too. Clever even...more clever than the expectancy that Jesus should have understood that we in the present age should find his words spoken in an ancient time, to lack clarity - and he should have adjusted his expression to suit that.

We in the know, understand that it is not the language he used, nor the way he chose to use it which causes any lack of clarity on his part.

Sideline commentary complaining one has no understanding is simply not an issue.

It is amusing to read, 'tis all.

I was taking exception to your word choice. Abstruse suggests that complexity prevents ordinary mortals from understanding when in fact the problem is not the complexity but the poorly worded format or the ambiguity.

So you are suggesting that Jesus in fact is crystal clear in his message but we have it incorrect.

Please, enlighten us to what it was you think Jesus was trying to say but used "poorly worded format"

It would be interesting to see if your words will then be able to tell us more plainly of these things Jesus Spoke of.

The words themselves are easy enough but even "water" and "sheep" carry odd meanings.

They are Abstruse to you? Is that what you are trying to say?

I am finding practical illustrations of this here.

Quite. It is natural enough.

I am discussing the character Christ and the words he's been given to illustrate his important message.

What makes you think his message is important? Do you understand it as so?

Thanks for the chuckles.

[marco]

Jesus said for example that there is only one true God that is greater than him. How is that not clear?

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

I have no idea how skilled you are in interpreting the English quoted above but it can mean
That they should know you, the only true God, Jesus Christ.

This means Jesus is the only true God, mysteriously ONE with the Father.

You choose a different INTERPRETATION.

[marco]

Yes - I think so too. Clever even...more clever than the expectancy that Jesus should have understood that we in the present age should find his words spoken in an ancient time, to lack clarity - and he should have adjusted his expression to suit that.

Perhaps we expect too much from the Son of God. How could he know what folk would be like hundreds of years from his time. It would need a miracle.

We in the know, understand that it is not the language he used, nor the way he chose to use it which causes any lack of clarity on his part

.

Blessed are they that know; they shall see God in Jesus.

So you are suggesting that Jesus in fact is crystal clear in his message but we have it incorrect.

It is interesting that you can cope with the language of Christ in translation and find so much trouble penetrating mine.

It would be interesting to see if your words will then be able to tell us more plainly of these things Jesus Spoke of.

I am not claiming to be the Son of God. There is no requirement on me to be infallibly clear; it is obvious that I'm not, but the fault, dear Brutus, is perhaps not all with Marco.

They [the words of Christ] are Abstruse to you? Is that what you are trying to say?

I normally succeed in saying things. This is a new experience for me to find I have been "trying to say" things. I objected to your use of "abstruse". That being so, your question does not apply. The different interpretations of various religious groups is what I am talking about, not my own limited understanding of language.

What makes you think his message is important? Do you understand it as so?

I am looking at the phenomenon of billions who believe his words are important, though one group might differ from another in defining that importance. I see Christ as a village character wandering somewhere on the outskirts of the Roman Empire, filled with scripture and keen to illustrate that he is a bigger fly than his family supposes. I am looking for flaws in the portrait people have painted. He is as important as Muhammad or Mozart, occupying as he does a place in the coloured fabric of human history.


The points you try to make seem to be constantly directed at trying to analyse my psyche and understanding while leaving Jesus undisturbed. The question is: Was Christ crystal clear in his message? Whether Marco is crystal clear is irrelevant. I do my best.

[marco]

… Water has many meanings - and you pick the right one? …

So, do you think it is wrong, Bible doesn’t have many meanings to word water? I think it is clear by what Jesus says. And I don’t think it needs really interpretation, because Bible explains the meaning. Jesus didn’t give physical water, so it must have been something else. What he gave was his words. But ok, if you think it means something else, then I think you should rather take it as it is written, not my words, but what is said in the Bible.

There are many branches of Christian belief, including your own. Each branch does what you say: reads the bible. Each branch then extracts a meaning, sometimes different from the one you have taken. How then can you say that all one has to do is read and take the right meaning? Catholics, the largest Christian denomination, would say that your interpretation is incorrect. An argument then follows.

The question here is: has Jesus caused all this division by not being sufficiently clear? If he was NOT God, then why use an ambiguous term like "Son of God", for the son of a god is surely a god? And what are we to make f Jesus being the word and the word was God? Things do not have the clarity you claim.

[William]

[Replying to post 45 by marco]

Perhaps we expect too much from the Son of God. How could he know what folk would be like hundreds of years from his time. It would need a miracle.

You are misunderstanding - That is not what I was referring to.
The expectancy that Jesus should have understood that we in the present age should find his words spoken in an ancient time, to lack clarity - and he should have adjusted his expression to suit that, is not a clever argument.

It assumes that human beings would be as we currently are, if Jesus had only spoke in a way that was crystal clear to folk of a possible future generation, without taking into consideration the timeline and ripple that unfolds the timeline...

That one does not see this, and chooses to argue with sarcasm has more to do with why one sees a lack of clarity in what Jesus is attributed with saying, than anything found in the script.

It is interesting that you can cope with the language of Christ in translation and find so much trouble penetrating mine.

It is unavoidable since you appear to have made your argument a moving target, a jumping jack flash of sorts, one moment deriding Jesus for lack of clarity, and the next - countering my clear argument by implying that you know what Jesus was saying while others are incorrect.
Such method, while amusingly impish, isn't overly helpful. It betrays an intention unaligned with the outward appearance of the overall avatar the user has created...

So the user of the avatar is suggesting that Jesus in fact is crystal clear in his message but we have it incorrect. It would be interesting to see if the users words through the avatar be able to tell us more plainly of these things Jesus Spoke of.

I am not claiming to be the Son of God. There is no requirement on me to be infallibly clear; it is obvious that I'm not, but the fault, dear Brutus, is perhaps not all with Marco.

Indeed, how can it be? "Marco" is merely an avatar used to conceal whomever is controlling "Marco"...

But, that fact to one side, what is to be seen in the expression of said user? That he is not a Son of God, and so shouldn't be expected to be understood? That the fault he accuses Jesus of having is somehow based upon the idea that the user is free from such faultiness? That if the user had been Jesus, he would have done things much better?



Or is it simply a case of the user showing us how clever he can be with a Jack Flash routine?

I cannot say, for the user is not being very clear, and justifies that by saying he is not a Son of God, so why should he be.

[1213]

…

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

I have no idea how skilled you are in interpreting the English quoted above but it can mean
That they should know you, the only true God, Jesus Christ.
…

Sorry, I don't see why to twist that so and why give own meaning to it and not read it directly as it is written? I don’t think Bible supports that interpretation in any way. And there simply is no good reason for it.

[1213]

…The question here is: has Jesus caused all this division by not being sufficiently clear? If he was NOT God, then why use an ambiguous term like "Son of God", for the son of a god is surely a god? And what are we to make f Jesus being the word and the word was God? ...

But where it is said Jesus was the word?

Bible speaks of many sons of God, Jesus is not the only one. And bye what Jesus said, all his disciples can be children of God. So, if Jesus is God because of that, are also all disciples of Jesus Gods because of that? That is not what Paul thought, because he told:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Timothy 2:5

But apparently you think that all disciples of Jesus are also Gods?

But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God's children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13

I can understand that if one cherry picks one line from the Bible, it may seem unclear. That is why I recommend to read the whole book, because it explains what it means, we don’t have to give own meanings, unless we want to found own religion around our own doctrines.

[William]

Yes - I think so too. Clever even...more clever than the expectancy that Jesus should have understood that we in the present age should find his words spoken in an ancient time, to lack clarity - and he should have adjusted his expression to suit that.

Perhaps we expect too much from the Son of God. How could he know what folk would be like hundreds of years from his time. It would need a miracle.

We in the know, understand that it is not the language he used, nor the way he chose to use it which causes any lack of clarity on his part

.

Blessed are they that know; they shall see God in Jesus.

So you are suggesting that Jesus in fact is crystal clear in his message but we have it incorrect.

It is interesting that you can cope with the language of Christ in translation and find so much trouble penetrating mine.

It would be interesting to see if your words will then be able to tell us more plainly of these things Jesus Spoke of.

I am not claiming to be the Son of God. There is no requirement on me to be infallibly clear; it is obvious that I'm not, but the fault, dear Brutus, is perhaps not all with Marco.

They [the words of Christ] are Abstruse to you? Is that what you are trying to say?

I normally succeed in saying things. This is a new experience for me to find I have been "trying to say" things. I objected to your use of "abstruse". That being so, your question does not apply. The different interpretations of various religious groups is what I am talking about, not my own limited understanding of language.

What makes you think his message is important? Do you understand it as so?

I am looking at the phenomenon of billions who believe his words are important, though one group might differ from another in defining that importance. I see Christ as a village character wandering somewhere on the outskirts of the Roman Empire, filled with scripture and keen to illustrate that he is a bigger fly than his family supposes. I am looking for flaws in the portrait people have painted. He is as important as Muhammad or Mozart, occupying as he does a place in the coloured fabric of human history.


The points you try to make seem to be constantly directed at trying to analyse my psyche and understanding while leaving Jesus undisturbed. The question is: Was Christ crystal clear in his message? Whether Marco is crystal clear is irrelevant. I do my best.

You are misunderstanding - That is not what I was referring to.
The expectancy that Jesus should have understood that we in the present age should find his words spoken in an ancient time, to lack clarity - and he should have adjusted his expression to suit that, is not a clever argument.

It assumes that human beings would be as we currently are, if Jesus had only spoke in a way that was crystal clear to folk of a possible future generation, without taking into consideration the timeline and ripple that unfolds the timeline...

That one does not see this, and chooses to argue with sarcasm has more to do with why one sees a lack of clarity in what Jesus is attributed with saying, than anything found in the script.

Sometimes it is 'marco' other times it appears to be jumping jack flash, but whoever it is behind the marco curtain, he is wondering why folk can't 'see' Jesus the way he 'sees' Jesus, and Christian folk have happily given their replies, which incidentally, appear similar enough.

So it shows somewhat that the one behind the marco avatar - the real person - thinks that somehow different folk interpret and generally understand Jesus 'differently' is a problem of some kind which needs our attention.

We reply graciously that it is not actually a problem and things Jack-Jump into sarcasm on the part of the marco avatar...

what are we Christian Folk supposed to think? That the accursed resorts to such is perhaps a mystery only The Father can understand with any clarity?