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!

[brunumb]

Not so. Such a sign prohibits ALL firearms from the building. In order for the security guards to be an exception, your sign would need to say "No unauthorised firearms allowed inside the building".

Nonsense. The signs that I am speaking of does not apply to law enforcement, otherwise in emergency situations law enforcement personnel wouldn't be allowed inside the building without first disarming themselves, which is ridiculous and may be counter-productive to the situation.

ETA: By the way, the problem with analogies is that although they may help to get a point across, they don't necessarily validate the point that was being made.

The point is validated to me, with or without the analogy.

And the fact that out of all that was said, you choose to respond to this..is very telling.

No point wasting too much time because like all of what you said, it is just validated to you. That is what is particularly telling. You merely shrug off any critique and simply say that it is validated to you. All one can say to that is "big deal". Doesn't make it so. It's really just playing the old faith card.

By the way, authorised has particular significance, but there is no point going down another rabbit hole.

[POI]

The parable in question (sheep and the goats) begins with Jesus obviously giving a parable, but it doesn't tell us who his audience is.

So we have to go back a chapter (Matt 24) to see who was present when he began his teaching lessons.

And when we go back, we see that Matt 24 begins..

Matt 24 "Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings."

So between chapters 24 and 25, his disciples were only in attendance. The Holy Spirit told me to go back, and back I went.

------------------------

And not only that, but even before the sheep/goats parable, he gave a parable which we title "the parable of the Bags of Gold" Matt 25:14-30, and in this parable (long story short), the servants were expected to make a profit from the bags of gold that they were given, not give away the man's wealth.

Just sayin.

Again, you do not know who was coming and going? Nowhere in these Chapters does it specify that He preached exclusively to the 'disciples' alone ---> so they may later spread the Word (entire) to all the rest -- (who were not perpetually by His side for 3 years straight) Again, you demonstrate nothing more than faith, wishful thinking, assumption, and hope. It's quite possible some heard the 'sheep/goat' story, without also hearing about the necessity for belief. For which they walked away thinking they will be judged upon their works alone. I'd imagine if Jesus was on a 3-year-run of preaching, He would deliver sermons to whoever was around in earshot, at any given time. In attendance, I reckon there was a mix of believers, nonbelievers, skeptics, believers of other god(s), etc.... Further, everyone who was a believer did not drop everything to remain by His side for the entire 3-year-message. And hence, its likely some only received partial information. And when they did, I doubt that later on all the perpetual following disciples, who heard ALL of His messages entirely, assured they doubled back to fill all in the missing bits and pieces to all the ones who did not receive all "necessary information".

Just sayin...

Your responses become more conflicting, as you continue to forge ahead in this exchange??? Is belief a requirement, or not? You give both (yes) and (no) answers. (i.e.)

You make statements such as "only applies", while also stating belief is required.... You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Nonsense.

This is similar to a building with a sign that says "No firearms allowed inside the building".

The obvious exception to the rule is the armed security inside of the building.

The obvious exception to the requirement for salvation are babies, mentally handicap people, and those who have not had the pleasure of hearing the Gospel.

Guess what, you do not qualify for either....so Biblically speaking, you will be held accountable.

And the fact that we are even having this conversation goes to show where your heart and true intentions are.

Haha... You mention 'obvious exception' in regards to the (mentally handicapped, dead babies, or the ones who never heard of Jesus).

And yet, it's not this 'obvious', even to many intelligent and earnest Christians, who have read and studied their Bibles.... Can you sight the Verse(s) which state these three exceptions as "obvious exceptions" please????? You provided one Verse prior, which instead presents ambiguity....

1. If all of these three 'exceptions' grant a free pass to Heaven, then it would by quite altruistic to dispatch all infants, so they do not ever come to the age of enlightenment and possibly rebel.

2. You would also never proselytize, and leave as many oblivious to Jesus. This way, there would be no chance for them to reject the presented Word. As it seems quite possible the chances for unbelief would be higher than belief...

You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. The more you respond, the more you expose giant loopholes in your assertion that "belief is a requirement"

Right, so the Bible also mentions baptism, in the very same sentence, 'just because'... Please If baptism isn't part of that equation, seems He would not mention it in that same sentence, right along side of belief... Baptism would not have been mentioned there....

I can certainly see where the confusion lies, and I will explain the best way I can.

First of all, baptism IS part of the equation, but not in the way you think. Baptism is like the ceremony you partake in, AFTER you become saved.

It is like walking across the stage during a graduation ceremony. But you had already met the requirements to partake in the ceremony days/weeks prior, didn't you.

During that time (so it appears), when a person became saved, they wasted no time and became baptized...so the ceremony occurred shortly thereafter salvation.

And that is why Jesus linked belief with baptism, because that is how it would normally go.

But Jesus isn't saying that a person cannot be saved without baptism, but rather, he is merely stating the facts, that if a person believes and is baptized, the person will be saved. That is just the fact of the matter.

But that is not to say that a person who isn't baptized won't be saved..because all that is required to receive salvation is belief, which is why Jesus did not say that whoever isn't baptized will be condemned, but rather whoever don't believe is condemned.

Which, by the way, Jesus saying whoever doesn't believe is condemned only harmonizes with John 3:16, "whomever believes in him shall not perish (whoever believes in him won't be condemned).

Plus we have scriptures of people being saved without being baptized.

I gave you a couple chances, but you did not state the obvious and blaring problem here It is believed that Mark 16:9-20 is not part of the canon regardless. It seems fairly obvious the author of Mark 16:8 does not coincide with 9-20.

All you would have needed to say here, is that the Command "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" is not necessarily from Jesus/God at all But instead, you are coming up with yet another rationale, likely inspired by faith and hope alone.

Clear as mud, yes... But, I would expect nothing less, as the Bible is as clear as mud.

The United States Constitution (Bill of Rights), isn't always clear. But that doesn't stop patriots from being proud Americans.



The disciples were often confused, and some even left Jesus (John 6:60-66), but that didn't stop those who remained from following Jesus.

If you admit they were confused too, then this merely further substantiates my prior statement, that God/Jesus prides Himself in being the purveyor of confusion.

If belief is a requirement, then you cannot also have caveats, which you seem happily to provide This means belief is not a requirement. Capeesh?

It is God who has the caveats, not me. He makes the decisions not me. Take it up with the Almighty. I am just his faithful servant, spreading the word.

Well, If God really ever answered questions, I would surely ask Him and not you But He doesn't seem to?.?.?. If He speaks to you, then maybe you can relay to me what He is saying.

Well, when you read Scripture, you will find places where you cannot do enough Do you then rely upon 'grace'?

Pretty much. Yeah. Lord, have mercy on my soul.

Do you admit the topic of 'grace' looks to render sin almost arbitrary? (i.e.) You are deemed a sinner. " Each of our good deeds is merely a filthy rag." (Isaiah 64:6). Doh! If our deeds are rags, then I guess we can ignore Matthew 25? It's so confusing....

Well, you seem to want to water down Luke 14, and/or call it hyperbole. Maybe (belief) is hyperbole? Why cleave to belief, but hand-wave away giving up your possessions --- to assure that you do not take your primary focus off of Jesus?

Again, because I take the NT as a whole, instead of cherry picking a few pieces of verses and making doctrine out of it.

If you read Luke 14, seems pretty clear He wants you to prioritize Him above ALL ELSE. Seems reasonable, actually, that He tells His followers to give up as much as possible (everything to be hyperbole). This way, there is no chance you may take your focus off of numero uno --> (God) So, have you done that yet - given up 'everything'? It's better to be safe than sorry, isn't it? Your possessions here, on earth are temporary. If you stand to receive treasure in Heaven for an eternity, I would think you would want to assure that you follow all that Jesus requests, and not instead pick and choose

It would be a crying shame if you got to the place of judgement, and Jesus/other categorizes you as a "cafeteria Christian', and banishes you to a place of eternal torment; right alone side of me maybe

Along with the hand-waving of (giving up your possessions), you appear to also be hand-waving away what I said here as well....

I'm actually simplifying it... Again, God deems NO lie good. And yet, you will willfully and knowingly lie, all the time.

But I don't lie all the time, though.

See how your entire argument comes tumbling down based off one faulty premise.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence. I'll ask you again...

--- When your spouse asks you "what are you thinking"? Do you always tell her the truth?

--- Have you ever kept a surprise from anyone, where you had to tell them false information to preserve the surprise?

Again, Commandment #9 does not provide 'obvious' caveats to this rule

And though you may feel justified in most/all of these lies, God deems them all bad. If you cannot see what I'm saying here by now, then I guess I cannot help you further here on this point?.?...

Trying to figure out which part of the Biblical concept of "forgiveness" don't you understand.

Is it truly asking for forgiveness when you will willfully do it again and again and again?.?.?.

Again, all 'sin' is a transgression against God. Lies and murder and rape all fall under transgression. And yet, somehow you want to 'justify' the lies more-so than the murder and the rape? And to boot, 'rape' is not even listed in the top 10. (i.e.)

"Hey God, sorry I lied again, please forgive me again." (rinse/repeat)...
"Hey God, sorry I raped that little boy again, please forgive me again." (rinse/repeat)...

You either misunderstood my analogy, or are strawmanning me?

My point is that you can strive to believe something. But without evidence, for which you apprehend in a certain way, you cannot will a belief in that something. It's quite odd that God deems proper punishment, for lack in belief, eternal condemnation?

No, what it sounds like is you are trying to negate the requirement of belief in Jesus. Sorry, its not gonna happen.

Acts 4:11-12

11This Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’

12 Salvation exists in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

Consider verse 12. Can you tell me which part of verse 12 don't you understand.

We've already been over this... I told you, many posts ago, that earnest Christians ascribe to the following conflicting doctrines:

grace alone
grace by faith alone
grace by works alone
grace by faith/works
etc...

You acknowledged this confusion....

I gave you a piece of insight, for which you either intentionally, or unintentionally ignored?

Is it just to assign one to a place of eternal condemnation for something one cannot control (i.e.) belief? If so, why?

I trust you acknowledge that doubt to a claim is not by choice? If you disagree, then please simply will yourself to think Bigfoot is real, without some new piece of 'evidence' to cause you to infer or apprehend a new conclusion

- If your spouse asks you what you are thinking, you always tell her exactly what you are thinking. Right
- If you are assigned in a terrorist negotiation, you will never lie to the terrorist. Right
etc etc etc etc etc......................

I will keep in a buck with you, I have my own Biblical theory as to whether or not there can be a "good" lie.

I think there can be.

If you think there can be a 'good lie", than you seem to further prove you are just making up your own doctrine as you go along

[Tcg]

If you think there can be a 'good lie", than you seem to further prove you are just making up your own doctrine as you go along

Even the concept of a "good lie" reveals the cryptic nature of the Bible. Most would suggest that according to the scripture there is no such thing. Not bearing false witness and what not. And yet somewhere, I forget where, there is a passage about someone lying about the spies they were hiding. Oh, it was Rahab and Joshua's spies. Lying is bad most the time but not all the time. Sometimes you shouldn't, but once and awhile it is just grand. Not too often of course or it may become habit forming.


Tcg

[POI]

If you think there can be a 'good lie", than you seem to further prove you are just making up your own doctrine as you go along

Even the concept of a "good lie" reveals the cryptic nature of the Bible. Most would suggest that according to the scripture there is no such thing. Not bearing false witness and what not. And yet somewhere, I forget where, there is a passage about someone lying about the spies they were hiding. Oh, it was Rahab and Joshua's spies. Lying is bad most the time but not all the time. Sometimes you shouldn't, but once and awhile it is just grand. Not too often of course or it may become habit forming.


Tcg

Yeah, that pesky Bible sure is a tricky one... I guess when 'God' is offering His guiding hand, all bets are off. I guess "might makes right". A former expressed sin is no longer a sin, if instructed to do so by 'God' Himself. Some selective deeds are no longer 'sin'. As with your aforementioned case of Joshua 2....

Or how about with Numbers 31, for example....? The soldiers are instructed to 'keep the virgins for themselves.' Gee, I wonder what for? Which then sparks up further questions.... Such as, but not limited to...

1. If the land, for which they invaded was so bad, how were the winning/invading soldiers able to distinguish which ones were virgins? I mean, it's quite possible all the unmarried girls had already been raped anyways, being that the village was already so darn bad

2. And why not spare the little boys? I'm sure the little boys would soon have no memory of their now destroyed tribe's evil deeds. They could surely be retrained in true godly righteousness.

3. And even still, did God need to give these soldiers magical powers, to spot-check all the girls for true virginity, before slaughtering them because they had already been raped by one of their own?

So the next time we see, on the news, that a mother killed all her children, and her response is, "God told me to do it'; maybe it's just another exception to the rule of murder? That god does work in mysterious ways?.?.?.?

[Tcg]

If you think there can be a 'good lie", than you seem to further prove you are just making up your own doctrine as you go along

Even the concept of a "good lie" reveals the cryptic nature of the Bible. Most would suggest that according to the scripture there is no such thing. Not bearing false witness and what not. And yet somewhere, I forget where, there is a passage about someone lying about the spies they were hiding. Oh, it was Rahab and Joshua's spies. Lying is bad most the time but not all the time. Sometimes you shouldn't, but once and awhile it is just grand. Not too often of course or it may become habit forming.


Tcg

Yeah, that pesky Bible sure is a tricky one... I guess when 'God' is offering His guiding hand, all bets are off. I guess "might makes right". A former expressed sin is no longer a sin, if instructed to do so by 'God' Himself. Some selective deeds are no longer 'sin'. As with your aforementioned case of Joshua 2....

Or how about with Numbers 31, for example....? The soldiers are instructed to 'keep the virgins for themselves.' Gee, I wonder what for? Which then sparks up further questions.... Such as, but not limited to...

1. If the land, for which they invaded was so bad, how were the winning/invading soldiers able to distinguish which ones were virgins? I mean, it's quite possible all the unmarried girls had already been raped anyways, being that the village was already so darn bad

2. And why not spare the little boys? I'm sure the little boys would soon have no memory of their now destroyed tribe's evil deeds. They could surely be retrained in true godly righteousness.

3. And even still, did God need to give these soldiers magical powers, to spot-check all the girls for true virginity, before slaughtering them because they had already been raped by one of their own?

So the next time we see, on the news, that a mother killed all her children, and her response is, "God told me to do it'; maybe it's just another exception to the rule of murder? That god does work in mysterious ways?.?.?.?

Not to simplify these important details, but it reminds me of neighbors I had many years ago. They had a lab rottweiler mix they let run free. It often came into my yard displaying threating behavior. When I discussed the issue with these neighbors, they didn't see why it was a problem. It's like how some consider God, as long as it's their big bad dog they can't see why it is a problem.

Murder a few people and take their presumed virgin daughters as sex slaves? Sure, as long as that big bad God doesn't bite my daughter.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

If you think there can be a 'good lie", than you seem to further prove you are just making up your own doctrine as you go along

Even the concept of a "good lie" reveals the cryptic nature of the Bible. Most would suggest that according to the scripture there is no such thing. Not bearing false witness and what not. And yet somewhere, I forget where, there is a passage about someone lying about the spies they were hiding. Oh, it was Rahab and Joshua's spies. Lying is bad most the time but not all the time. Sometimes you shouldn't, but once and awhile it is just grand. Not too often of course or it may become habit forming.


Tcg

There's relative morality if you like. The distinction seeming to be that lying with good intent is not a sin, but damned lies because it suits the dictator is fine.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Again, you do not know who was coming and going? Nowhere in these Chapters does it specify that He preached exclusively to the 'disciples' alone ---> so they may later spread the Word (entire) to all the rest -- (who were not perpetually by His side for 3 years straight) Again, you demonstrate nothing more than faith, wishful thinking, assumption, and hope.

Ok, so if there were any passer byers who may have heard the message, then lets include them as those who received the message.

I am fine with that. Moving along.

It's quite possible some heard the 'sheep/goat' story, without also hearing about the necessity for belief. For which they walked away thinking they will be judged upon their works alone.

Again, they won't be judged for what they didn't know.

I'd imagine if Jesus was on a 3-year-run of preaching, He would deliver sermons to whoever was around in earshot, at any given time. In attendance, I reckon there was a mix of believers, nonbelievers, skeptics, believers of other god(s), etc.... Further, everyone who was a believer did not drop everything to remain by His side for the entire 3-year-message. And hence, its likely some only received partial information. And when they did, I doubt that later on all the perpetual following disciples, who heard ALL of His messages entirely, assured they doubled back to fill all in the missing bits and pieces to all the ones who did not receive all "necessary information".

Just sayin...

Nonsense. Jesus told the disciples to go out and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:16-20), which is what the disciples did.

And the book of Acts details what the message was, and how it was spread. Many people became believers, so obviously enough people heard the message that wanted to hear it, and accepted it if they chose to accept it.

Haha... You mention 'obvious exception' in regards to the (mentally handicapped, dead babies, or the ones who never heard of Jesus).

And yet, it's not this 'obvious', even to many intelligent and earnest Christians, who have read and studied their Bibles.... Can you sight the Verse(s) which state these three exceptions as "obvious exceptions" please????? You provided one Verse prior, which instead presents ambiguity....

The verse I provided was clear as day...and the other exception is common sense. If you don't believe that God's mercy is upon those who are mentally incapable of comprehending the Good News, then there is no wonder why you aren't a believer and thus unworthy of eternal salvation from a loving and merciful God.

1. If all of these three 'exceptions' grant a free pass to Heaven, then it would by quite altruistic to dispatch all infants, so they do not ever come to the age of enlightenment and possibly rebel.

Apparently, you and God have differing views on this topic.

2. You would also never proselytize, and leave as many oblivious to Jesus. This way, there would be no chance for them to reject the presented Word. As it seems quite possible the chances for unbelief would be higher than belief...

?

You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. The more you respond, the more you expose giant loopholes in your assertion that "belief is a requirement"

The more I appeal to the Bible, the more the concept of "belief is a requirement" is exposed.

I gave you a couple chances, but you did not state the obvious and blaring problem here It is believed that Mark 16:9-20 is not part of the canon regardless. It seems fairly obvious the author of Mark 16:8 does not coincide with 9-20. All you would have needed to say here, is that the Command "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" is not necessarily from Jesus/God at all But instead, you are coming up with yet another rationale, likely inspired by faith and hope alone

I am aware of that, but it is obvious that you didn't know that, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

My sources provide a reasonable response to to Mark 16:9-20 (regarding the baptism part), regardless of whether it was included in the earliest manuscripts.

The point is; even if it was, it still does not mean what you claim it means.

If you admit they were confused too, then this merely further substantiates my prior statement, that God/Jesus prides Himself in being the purveyor of confusion.

No, God/Jesus prides himself on the fact that, despite his messages being seemingly confusing to some...some will STILL continue to ride with him despite.

Well, If God really ever answered questions, I would surely ask Him and not you But He doesn't seem to?.?.?. If He speaks to you, then maybe you can relay to me what He is saying.

Yeah, just like you don't seem to believe in him. So if he is nonexistent to you, then you shouldn't worry about what this nonexistent being's requirements are, for a salvation that doesn't exist (to you).

Do you admit the topic of 'grace' looks to render sin almost arbitrary? (i.e.) You are deemed a sinner. " Each of our good deeds is merely a filthy rag." (Isaiah 64:6). Doh! If our deeds are rags, then I guess we can ignore Matthew 25? It's so confusing....

God loves us despite the dirty rags that we all are. Thus, back to John 3:16 "For God so LOVED the world".

Again, for the third time...right back to John 3:16.

If you read Luke 14, seems pretty clear He wants you to prioritize Him above ALL ELSE. Seems reasonable, actually, that He tells His followers to give up as much as possible (everything to be hyperbole). This way, there is no chance you may take your focus off of numero uno --> (God) So, have you done that yet - given up 'everything'? It's better to be safe than sorry, isn't it? Your possessions here, on earth are temporary. If you stand to receive treasure in Heaven for an eternity, I would think you would want to assure that you follow all that Jesus requests, and not instead pick and choose

I already provided an answer as to why said scripture is a hyperbole. No, I did not give up everything because I don't believe that is what Jesus' message is.

However, this does seem to be the message of an unbeliever in a religious forum some 2,000 years later, who, instead of receiving the Gospel with an open heart, would rather play "gotcha" games by giving false representations of the scriptures in what appears to be efforts to justify his own unbelief.

Which is all things you wouldn't necessarily need to do if you truly don't believe in God.

It would be a crying shame if you got to the place of judgement, and Jesus/other categorizes you as a "cafeteria Christian', and banishes you to a place of eternal torment; right alone side of me maybe

That would indeed be a crying shame.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence. I'll ask you again...

--- When your spouse asks you "what are you thinking"? Do you always tell her the truth?

--- Have you ever kept a surprise from anyone, where you had to tell them false information to preserve the surprise?

Again, Commandment #9 does not provide 'obvious' caveats to this rule

So basically, did I ever lie before?

Answer: Yes.

Moving along.

Is it truly asking for forgiveness when you will willfully do it again and again and again?.?.?.

If you truly mean it with your all of your heart, then it is truly asking for forgiveness.

Again, all 'sin' is a transgression against God. Lies and murder and rape all fall under transgression. And yet, somehow you want to 'justify' the lies more-so than the murder and the rape? And to boot, 'rape' is not even listed in the top 10. (i.e.)

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Who is the one that keeps mentioning lies and the concept of lying throughout our entire discourse? YOU. Not me.

You first mentioned it, and you keep mentioning it.

"Hey God, sorry I lied again, please forgive me again." (rinse/repeat)...
"Hey God, sorry I raped that little boy again, please forgive me again." (rinse/repeat)...

"Hey God, I don't believe in you, but why is your message so cryptic?".

"Hey God, you don't exist, but couldn't you be more clearer in your message".

"Hey God, there is no such thing as salvation through Jesus Christ, but what are the requirements for salvation; faith, or faith + works"?

We've already been over this... I told you, many posts ago, that earnest Christians ascribe to the following conflicting doctrines:

grace alone
grace by faith alone
grace by works alone
grace by faith/works
etc...

You acknowledged this confusion....

I gave you a piece of insight, for which you either intentionally, or unintentionally ignored?

Yeah, we've been through this...and I already told you were I stand.

I stated that my position is a faith + works system, because I believe that is what the Bible teaches.

But since you keep on harping on the works aspect of it (because you don't want to accept Christ) and continually keep downplaying the faith aspect of it, I shared with you a scripture where faith/belief is also (and obviously) key to the entire system.

Is it just to assign one to a place of eternal condemnation for something one cannot control (i.e.) belief? If so, why?

Accept Christ and be saved. If you can't do that, then let the chips fall where they may.

I trust you acknowledge that doubt to a claim is not by choice? If you disagree, then please simply will yourself to think Bigfoot is real, without some new piece of 'evidence' to cause you to infer or apprehend a new conclusion

Not interested in hypotheticals or meaningless scenarios. Accept Christ. That is the only scenario.

If you think there can be a 'good lie", than you seem to further prove you are just making up your own doctrine as you go along

Take it how you want to take it, sir.

[TRANSPONDER]

we are familiar with the religious mindset of 'if you are in the club, you can get away with anything' mentality. It isn't anything we'd regard as morality.

[brunumb]

2. You would also never proselytize, and leave as many oblivious to Jesus. This way, there would be no chance for them to reject the presented Word. As it seems quite possible the chances for unbelief would be higher than belief...

?

The way I see it, if you don't proselytise then people remain oblivious to Jesus and by default get a free pass to heaven. So people are ultimately better off if you don't tell them.

Also, with or without Jesus, not all of us are 'filthy rags' and undeserving of heaven.

[POI]

Again, they won't be judged for what they didn't know.

If this was the case, then DON'T TELL ANYBODY. We then all get free passes!

I'd imagine if Jesus was on a 3-year-run of preaching, He would deliver sermons to whoever was around in earshot, at any given time. In attendance, I reckon there was a mix of believers, nonbelievers, skeptics, believers of other god(s), etc.... Further, everyone who was a believer did not drop everything to remain by His side for the entire 3-year-message. And hence, its likely some only received partial information. And when they did, I doubt that later on all the perpetual following disciples, who heard ALL of His messages entirely, assured they doubled back to fill all in the missing bits and pieces to all the ones who did not receive all "necessary information".

Just sayin...

Nonsense. Jesus told the disciples to go out and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:16-20), which is what the disciples did.

And the book of Acts details what the message was, and how it was spread. Many people became believers, so obviously enough people heard the message that wanted to hear it, and accepted it if they chose to accept it.

I doubt 'oral tradition' is that reliable I doubt all heard the same messages, if any at all? I bet many heard many conflicting messages, or partial messages, or even no messages. And by the time Matthew was written, some many decades later, who the heck knows how much legend and lore had developed before anything at all was written to paper and canonized by the 'church'?.?.?.?.? Further, you seem to think all such parables were spoken at the same time, to the same people? It does not suggest as such... Again, this is your hope/faith at work....

Haha... You mention 'obvious exception' in regards to the (mentally handicapped, dead babies, or the ones who never heard of Jesus).

And yet, it's not this 'obvious', even to many intelligent and earnest Christians, who have read and studied their Bibles.... Can you sight the Verse(s) which state these three exceptions as "obvious exceptions" please????? You provided one Verse prior, which instead presents ambiguity....

The verse I provided was clear as day...and the other exception is common sense. If you don't believe that God's mercy is upon those who are mentally incapable of comprehending the Good News, then there is no wonder why you aren't a believer and thus unworthy of eternal salvation from a loving and merciful God.

Mentioning 'children' in a Verse is not 'clear as day', But nice try.

Oh, and if we are to rely upon 'common sense', then why list any Commandments at all?

Further, again, if belief IS a requirement, then the handicapped, dead infants, and the ones whom have not heard are not saved. And BTW, we've already read your 'firearms' analogy, which has already been debunked by another interlocutor. Please accept your given contradiction, or please come up with a better response.

1. If all of these three 'exceptions' grant a free pass to Heaven, then it would by quite altruistic to dispatch all infants, so they do not ever come to the age of enlightenment and possibly rebel.

Apparently, you and God have differing views on this topic.

No, God has no problem dispatching infants... Have you read the OT?

Not allowing an infant to grow up, and possibly not believe, based upon your doctrine, would be a guaranteed way to assure your child's salvation, right?

2. You would also never proselytize, and leave as many oblivious to Jesus. This way, there would be no chance for them to reject the presented Word. As it seems quite possible the chances for unbelief would be higher than belief...

?

Don't tell anyone about Jesus. The ignorant get a free pass, according to you. Which also, again, is in contradiction to stating belief is a requirement.

You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. The more you respond, the more you expose giant loopholes in your assertion that "belief is a requirement"

The more I appeal to the Bible, the more the concept of "belief is a requirement" is exposed.

Nope. You've already conceded three reasons why belief is not required. Sorry.

I gave you a couple chances, but you did not state the obvious and blaring problem here It is believed that Mark 16:9-20 is not part of the canon regardless. It seems fairly obvious the author of Mark 16:8 does not coincide with 9-20. All you would have needed to say here, is that the Command "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" is not necessarily from Jesus/God at all But instead, you are coming up with yet another rationale, likely inspired by faith and hope alone

I am aware of that, but it is obvious that you didn't know that, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

My sources provide a reasonable response to to Mark 16:9-20 (regarding the baptism part), regardless of whether it was included in the earliest manuscripts.

The point is; even if it was, it still does not mean what you claim it means.

Um, I've known this for years. I'm just letting you hang yourself, as we go. This should have been an easy layup for you... (i.e.) "Oh, that Verse was not from Jesus." If you already knew that, then why did you not mention it before? I myself doubt anything from the Bible is 'authoritative'. You do. See the difference?

Whoever wrote that Verse states that "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved." If baptism was not a requirement, it would not mention this, right along side belief in the the same assertion. The author states you need both. The fact that the author was sloppy, and did not mention both in the next part of the sentence does not matter. Why? Because you cannot have one without the other. No need to mention both again. ---> "Common sense"

If you admit they were confused too, then this merely further substantiates my prior statement, that God/Jesus prides Himself in being the purveyor of confusion.

No, God/Jesus prides himself on the fact that, despite his messages being seemingly confusing to some...some will STILL continue to ride with him despite.

Blind faith does not mean too much, does it? I would reckon many have not truly read their Bibles, and/or do not study it regularly. Many just follow the crowd, and/or only know parts, and/or were indoctrinated. And since we have many opposing doctrines, which you have already acknowledged, all the ones that follow cannot even agree on the basics of what they blindly follow. It's a good thing I'm now speaking to the one person that has the right doctrine. Oh, wait a minute, I was debating a Catholic last week, who is under the same exact impression as you. The week before that, it was a Universalist who thinks all are eventually saved. Heck, I've even debated proclaimed experts in hermeneutics, some of which read Genesis and translate a young earth, while others of this study translate an old earth... This was at one of the churches I used to attend. I asked that they both speak with me together, so we could sort out all the discrepencies, but they refused... Sighting that they "did not want to bring discord." Seems the search for truth would trump all such petty worries,,, But I digress....

Well, If God really ever answered questions, I would surely ask Him and not you But He doesn't seem to?.?.?. If He speaks to you, then maybe you can relay to me what He is saying.

Yeah, just like you don't seem to believe in him. So if he is nonexistent to you, then you shouldn't worry about what this nonexistent being's requirements are, for a salvation that doesn't exist (to you).

Who says I do not believe? As I stated prior, I place belief, in any claim, on a percentage scale. Didn't we already go over this? I believe in a "risen Jesus" about the same I believe in "Muhammad flying to heaven on a white horse"...

My belief in both assertions stands at <1% You already disclosed your belief in the same proposition is ~90%. Does the Bible state HOW much belief is enough? Has God told you?

And to answer your statement, if you believe that God exists, you should worry that I do not believe (enough). Unless <1% is already enough?

Do you admit the topic of 'grace' looks to render sin almost arbitrary? (i.e.) You are deemed a sinner. " Each of our good deeds is merely a filthy rag." (Isaiah 64:6). Doh! If our deeds are rags, then I guess we can ignore Matthew 25? It's so confusing....

God loves us despite the dirty rags that we all are. Thus, back to John 3:16 "For God so LOVED the world".

Again, for the third time...right back to John 3:16.

Nope, it goes right back to grace alone God's grace covers all the sin you commit, and/or do not repent for.... You have also already conceded (3) ways belief is not required You have also admitted your belief in Jesus is about 90%. Does God consider this "true belief"? Maybe anything under 100% is insufficient? Is God going to instead offer His grace, for your lack in full conviction?.?.?.?

If you read Luke 14, seems pretty clear He wants you to prioritize Him above ALL ELSE. Seems reasonable, actually, that He tells His followers to give up as much as possible (everything to be hyperbole). This way, there is no chance you may take your focus off of numero uno --> (God) So, have you done that yet - given up 'everything'? It's better to be safe than sorry, isn't it? Your possessions here, on earth are temporary. If you stand to receive treasure in Heaven for an eternity, I would think you would want to assure that you follow all that Jesus requests, and not instead pick and choose

I already provided an answer as to why said scripture is a hyperbole. No, I did not give up everything because I don't believe that is what Jesus' message is.

However, this does seem to be the message of an unbeliever in a religious forum some 2,000 years later, who, instead of receiving the Gospel with an open heart, would rather play "gotcha" games by giving false representations of the scriptures in what appears to be efforts to justify his own unbelief.

Which is all things you wouldn't necessarily need to do if you truly don't believe in God.

I disagree... I'm reading the text plainly. It does not matter whether I believe enough or not. Luke 14 alludes to the notion that you must get rid of any possession which you might covet. --- To assure Jesus is and always will be your 100% focus. If you own possessions, you may loose focus from Jesus once in a while, or more. This is 'common sense', from a plain reading of the text in Luke 14. Wait a minute, does your 'common sense' differ from mine? If so, how might we resolve this disagreement?

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be rejected without evidence. I'll ask you again...

--- When your spouse asks you "what are you thinking"? Do you always tell her the truth?

--- Have you ever kept a surprise from anyone, where you had to tell them false information to preserve the surprise?

Again, Commandment #9 does not provide 'obvious' caveats to this rule

So basically, did I ever lie before?

Answer: Yes.

Moving along.

You almost answered.... Instead of 'moving along', you might have instead asked, do you know you will willfully lie again in the future? For which I would assume the answer is also yes. Hence, is it truly asking for forgiveness, if you know you are going to willfully perform the same 'sin' again? Now just exchange (lie) with (rape). And please remember, lying made the top 10, and rape did not. Hence, it's plausible God detests lying more than rape?

Is it truly asking for forgiveness when you will willfully do it again and again and again?.?.?.

If you truly mean it with your all of your heart, then it is truly asking for forgiveness.

Actions speak louder than words. If a rapist rapes again, is it even possible he ever truly repented from the heart? Same goes for lying... If a liar lies again, is it even possible he ever truly repented from the heart?

Once a rapist, always a rapist. Once a liar, always a liar

Again, all 'sin' is a transgression against God. Lies and murder and rape all fall under transgression. And yet, somehow you want to 'justify' the lies more-so than the murder and the rape? And to boot, 'rape' is not even listed in the top 10. (i.e.)

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Who is the one that keeps mentioning lies and the concept of lying throughout our entire discourse? YOU. Not me.

You first mentioned it, and you keep mentioning it.

You keep avoiding the parallel analogy. That's all. I'm not sure why? Maybe it's a little too uncomfortable for you? Who knows? Hand-waving this topic away doesn't make the problem go away. It just means you wish to avoid it...

Is it just to assign one to a place of eternal condemnation for something one cannot control (i.e.) belief? If so, why?

Accept Christ and be saved. If you can't do that, then let the chips fall where they may.

You did not answer the basic 'common sense' question. Is it just to eternally condemn someone for unbelief?

I trust you acknowledge that doubt to a claim is not by choice? If you disagree, then please simply will yourself to think Bigfoot is real, without some new piece of 'evidence' to cause you to infer or apprehend a new conclusion

Not interested in hypotheticals or meaningless scenarios. Accept Christ. That is the only scenario.

Hahaha, this from someone who has no problem mentioning 'dishes', 'vacuuming', 'no firearms'. etc

Is belief a choice? If so, simply will an opposite belief in something you hold dear, as a test And when you admit that you cannot, I re-ask the same question above... Is it just to eternally condemn someone for unbelief?