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?

[William]

[Replying to post 48 by 1213]

But where it is said Jesus was the word?

In the bible.

It has Jesus saying himself that he is the word.

Incidentally, the bible doesn't make the same claim of itself...the nearest it gets is that all script ure is inspired by God...but if it became an either/or situation...

[Overcomer]

marco wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that it's unimportant to learn proper Biblical exegesis and to study the original languages as well as the culture of the time in which the Biblical books were written?

Here's the thing:

If you want to understand any historical document, you have to know about the people, the time, the location, etc. from whence it came.

If you want to study a specific genre such as poetry, you have to study the nuts and bolts of how poetry is written, the significance of the imagery used, the influences on the writer himself or herself, the time in which he/she was writing, etc.

I honestly don't see anything nonsensical about taking advantage of all the tools we have to understand what the Bible is saying, how its original audience would have understood it, etc. I think it is irrational to try to understand any text, be it religious or otherwise, without learning what is needed to do so correctly and intelligently. There's a reason why people study these things.

As for Jesus using parables about sheep, mustard seeds, coins, wayward sons, etc., there are a number of reasons for it:

1. These are images that his audience, no matter who they were, educated or uneducated, would understand.

2. In that culture, parables were a common form of communication. So Jesus was using a genre with which his audience was familiar. While the educated may have used academic language, Jesus used storytelling to connect with those who were not scholars.

3. Anybody could understand his parables on a straightforward level, but not everybody could understand them on a spiritual level. He was, in essence, dividing the wheat from the chaff.

With regard to that last point, it really doesn't matter how blatantly Jesus presented his truth because there were those who had no desire to follow him but rejected him for a variety of personal reasons. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, an act that you'd think would impress people and make believers of them. But how did the Pharisees react? They decided they had better get rid of Jesus sooner rather than later because people were starting to follow him instead of them (John 11:33-44).

There are people who don't want to have anything to do with God today who do the same thing. Jesus could perform miracles in front of them and they would find an excuse not to believe he is who he says he is. Jesus put it this way:

"Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matthew 13:13).

Simply put, those wanting to understand will understand. Those who don't won't. That's their prerogative.

For those who are interested in getting into the parables deeply, I recommend The Poet and the Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes by Kenneth Bailey.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/them ... s-in-luke/

[marco]

But where it is said Jesus was the word?

I see. You have a different interpretation. That illustrates my point.

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,

You do understand that Jesus is regarded as the incarnation of God; so there is God's incarnation in Jesus, and there is the Father. Again one must interpret. A shame Jesus wasn't clear.

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

No. Do you? One interpretation is Son of God, being God. Another is son of god, no capitals. Another is son of God, meaning God's creature. The fact we are discussing possibilities again illustrates my point in the OP.

. 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.

Others, including the present Pope, have made a lifetime study of the book and they come up with interpretations different from yours. Amazing, isn't it?

[marco]

marco wrote:

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.

Are you suggesting that it's unimportant to learn proper Biblical exegesis and to study the original languages as well as the culture of the time in which the Biblical books were written?

Of course I am not suggesting such a thing, which would be rather stupid given I have myself studied a variety of languages and enjoyed hearing the voices that died out thousands of years ago. I was referring to "sheep talk" so I cannot see how this applies to learned exegesis. It is the sheep, those that have childish ways of seeing things, that enjoy proper understanding. Here is John:

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."

To call people sheep is an arrogant pronouncement. I am referring to those condemned by Christ to bleat and follow, as if that were commendable.

Simply put, those wanting to understand will understand. Those who don't won't. That's their prerogative.

I can understand that experts in particular fields possess knowledge denied to hoi polloi. Those who want to see art in rubbish will find it; those that want to see God in the reported words of a wanderer will see their God, of whatever shape and size. So too some will smile or weep on incarnation and crucifixion identifying with the character in the play. And some will invent stories of death having lost its sting even as they weep over a buried loved one. The human mind is an amazing asset, ripe for belief if, as you say, people WANT to have a God. Voltaire said if there were no God it would be necessary to invent one; many do, be it Jehovah, Jesus or John Lennon.

[1213]

…It has Jesus saying himself that he is the word...

Sorry, I didn’t find where, please show the place?

[1213]

…
No. Do you? One interpretation is Son of God, being God. ...
…

Interesting, the problem with such interpretations is, there is nothing to support them. I don’t see any good reason to accept it.

[William]

…It has Jesus saying himself that he is the word...

Sorry, I didn’t find where, please show the place?

I had a look and couldn't find it either.

My bad.

The closest we come to it is in Johns testimony, which we at least can presume came from his direct interaction with Jesus - since at least the bible tells us that much - That Jesus spoke to those closest to him, things which were not all written down for us to read.

On those grounds, I think it is safe to presume Jesus told them he was the "Word of God" as in "The Creators mouthpiece" "The Fathers Son" whom - prior to becoming the son of man - had been 'shown things' by The Father to which he was instructed to share with humanity in a particular number of ways, one of which became what we know of as 'the Bible'...and as I wrote -

• the bible doesn't make the same claim of itself...the nearest it gets is that all script ure is inspired by God...but if it became an either/or situation...

Since there appears to be choice, if asked to choose, which would you refer to as "The Word of God'?

[marco]

…
No. Do you? One interpretation is Son of God, being God. ...
…

Interesting, the problem with such interpretations is, there is nothing to support them. I don’t see any good reason to accept it.

And you have something to "support" yours? It is called faith, and the Pope has it too but it tells him something else. Ultimately we have to rely on anonymous messengers carrying far-fetched messages.

[1213]

…The closest we come to it is in Johns testimony, which we at least can presume came from his direct interaction with Jesus - since at least the bible tells us that much - That Jesus spoke to those closest to him, things which were not all written down for us to read.

On those grounds, I think it is safe to presume Jesus told them he was the "Word of God" as in "The Creators mouthpiece" "The Fathers Son…
…Since there appears to be choice, if asked to choose, which would you refer to as "The Word of God'?

I think it would be best not to make guesses. For me it is enough to know what Jesus said in the Bible. I think it gives the right understanding. And Jesus said for example:

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

I think the word of God is simply the words God commanded Jesus to speak, because I don’t have reason to believe otherwise.

"My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
John 12:49

[Bobcat]

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?

God doesn’t allow sinners to know Him. He wants everyone to earn His acceptance.

Jesus stated how to understand the truth, God’s word.

“If you continue in my teaching you are truly my disciple then you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

“No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born from above.”

“The man who keeps the commandments he has from me is the man who loves me and the man who loves me will be loved by my Father, I too shall love him and reveal myself to him.”