The Bible's Biggest Problem(s)?

[POI]

In a continuation of this topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990), which only discusses one important topic, I present a follow-up....

For Debate:

1) Why didn't Jesus write the NT Himself? Why leave this task up to fallible humans to write what was floating around, only after decade(s) of oral traditions? Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

2) Case/point: There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

3) If Jesus also recognizes that many/most were/are illiterate, and/or the many who are literate merely read at a lower grade level, and that differing languages can also blur the message(s), why not write the Bible in a cohesive way in which even the most rudimentary person can understand, in all languages?

This is, in part, the problem of communication....

[POI]

I don't think Jesus is reliant upon other humans.

Jesus did not write the words of the Bible. He "inspired" them. Fallible humans actually wrote them. And these written words, as we explore the topic of salvation alone, are confused by countless earnest wanna-be followers. Why would Jesus be pleased with his given message, which many cannot correctly understand?

Righteous person accepts Jesus and it shows he is righteous.

Then your prior statement is false. You must accept or reject, period.

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

My point is the cause of death, for many, is blood loss. And JW's are S.O.L. if any of them are ever in a major car wreck, or assaulted/raped by someone with a knife, or born with Hemophilia, etc etc etc.........

And because Bible is not speaking about blood transfusion directly, it is a matter that is left for people to decide, is it the same as eating blood, or is it a different matter.

Too bad the Bible is not clear.

Again, if a 10-year-old JW is raped and stabbed, and is slowly bleeding out internally, the emergency department is going to want to transfuse blood to keep them alive. This will keep them alive, in the meantime, until surgical intervention can later repair the laceration(s). Is a righteous person allowed to take this exception, in receiving blood products? Yes or no? if the Bible was clear, you could give me a (yes) or a (no). You can't, so my point has been made. The Bible is not clear.

[SiNcE_1985]

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

Surely you see how nonsensical this claim is. Right?

If people are unwilling to believe the claim that God created the universe, then they'll also be unwilling to believe the claim that God wrote any messages.

We are just moving the goalposts at this point, in true skepticistic (new word) fashion.

[SiNcE_1985]

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

Opinions.

That, followed by I don't know about most.

The question is, what case can be made that it was written after Peter's death.

I don't see any presented evidence that it was...but I do have evidence that it wasn't.

I do not need to try again. If Jesus's message is crystal clear, then all would know.

"I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".

It is clear to me that the 7 day creation account are literal 24-hour days.

But, thousands of years later, some people have come to interpret the creation account as each day being thousands of years (or at least a thousand years for each day).

I guess Jesus (and the Bible authors) were supposed to caveat every little conceivable misconstrued way an fallible human being would interpret the message.

So I guess in the Genesis creation account, the author was supposed to say "So the world was created in 6 literal 24 hour days".

No, no. Not at all.

To say one doesn't know is then a lie. Thus, either:

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

1. A man doesn't know calculus
2. Therefore, the man is a liar.

Non sequitur.

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

Irrelevant, because the church apparently grew throughout Roman Empire by the 50'sCE, without the Gospels.

So basically, the religion of whose primarily character is (Jesus Christ), spread far and wide before his biographies (The Gospels) were even written, much less circulating.

Behold, the power of God.

Whenever you disagree, you make it known. Hence, I'm glad our positions align here, that oral tradition is not the best mode of reliable communication.

This is about the third or fourth time you've disingenuously claimed that I agreed with you, when I didn't.

It would instead be direct messaging given from Jesus, like when he was alive and spoke to some peeps.

?

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

As promised..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never mind those things.

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

Keep up the Constantine stuff, and these facts that you ignored are locked and loaded...just a copy & paste away.

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

You can continue raising the same points all you like, my answer will not change.

Again, glad we agree here.

Yet another false agreement. That is, what...the 4th time?

I'll keep a running tally on just how many times you will falsely accuse me of agreeing with you.

It would be foolish to disagree that the claims of the Bible are not asserted from multiple eyewitness sources.

Speaking of eyewitnesses, I'm rocking with Luke...

2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

You may not rock with Luke, but that is part of what makes me a believer, and you a skeptic.

And yet, once we investigate

Speaking of investigate, I'm rocking with Luke...

"3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning.."

I believe Luke, not skeptics living some thousands of years later.

, we do not actually have multiple vetted (eyewitness) sources.

Would you become a believer if we did? If not, then what we "have" doesn't matter.

We have Paul, who had an experience really no different than the video I provided. And then some later hearsay writings, motivated by who-knows-what-or-who?

Opinions.

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

My answer to your concern will not change. You can say it as much as you want.

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

Many are/will be lead estray.

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

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

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

I am being baited closer and closer into a rabbit hole.

You can have that convo with someone else, respectfully.

No no no, You continue to miss my point. If I was to present 'story time', and read passages from the Watch Tower, I would experience far less confusion from the crowd than I would receive if I were to instead read a parable, or from Revelations, or many other areas from the Bible itself.

What? I don't see how you fail to see this blunder.

The passages that you read from the WTS, are based on their interpretation of the scriptures, the SAME scriptures that you allege are unclear.

So obviously, they (WTS) are smarter than you are if they can read a parable, or Revelations, and get a "clear" understanding from it and you can't

That's it! The authors of the TWS are able to convey clearer messaging to their intended audience.

Ohh, I get it. So TWS are able to gain clear understandings of something that is unclear (The Bible).

Gotcha.

I'm being sarcastic, btw.

Why does Jesus strive to remain so cryptic, confusing, and provide a difficult read for many -- even including hermeneutic scholars who also do not all agree? TWS publications are easier to read and follow than the direct pages of the Bible. WHY?????

Jesus messages couldn't have been too cryptic or confusing, otherwise, TWS wouldn't be able to gain clear knowledge from it and take this knowledge and apply it to their publications..because if that were the case, you wouldn't be on here marveling at the clarity of their teachings, now would you?

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

Because as I said before; less is better. More is awry.

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

I don't know if are aware of this, but in Judeo-Christianity, God is a God of grace, mercy, and patience.

Were you not aware of this?

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

First off, your arguments from silence here is really enough said.

It is a fallacious argument to say, or insinuate that just because no one wrote about X event, that therefore, X event did not occur.

So, no one is deflecting...I am simply calling it what it is.

Second, if you want to get in depth with Matthew 27...start a thread on it.

You are raising several objections, most of which have nothing to do with the OP.

And quite frankly, I have no desire to discuss Matt 27, because it is either you believe it, or you don't...if you already reject Christianity then discussing this issue won't move the pendulum either way...so it is a waste of time, in my opinion.

[POI]

what case can be made that it was written after Peter's death. I don't see any presented evidence that it was...

"Many scholars believe the "Epistles of Peter" (particularly the second epistle) were written after Peter's death because the text references other New Testament writings, like Paul's letters, which are considered to have been written later in time, suggesting the Peter letters were compiled after the development of a broader Christian canon, likely placing their composition after Peter's traditional martyrdom date in the early 60s AD"

"I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you". It is clear to me that the 7 day creation account are literal 24-hour days. But, thousands of years later, some people have come to interpret the creation account as each day being thousands of years (or at least a thousand years for each day). I guess Jesus (and the Bible authors) were supposed to caveat every little conceivable misconstrued way an fallible human being would interpret the message. So I guess in the Genesis creation account, the author was supposed to say "So the world was created in 6 literal 24 hour days". No, no. Not at all.

Jesus would know, better than any human, how to achieve and convey transcendent understanding for all. Unless, again, you wish to concede that he is not an omni-fellow?

1. A man doesn't know calculus
2. Therefore, the man is a liar.

Non sequitur.

Another mis-represented "rubber-stamp"...

1. If Jesus is able to clearly express his intended message to all, then...
2. Anyone who states they do not clearly understand is a liar.

Irrelevant, because the church apparently grew throughout Roman Empire by the 50'sCE, without the Gospels. So basically, the religion of whose primarily character is (Jesus Christ), spread far and wide before his biographies (The Gospels) were even written, much less circulating. Behold, the power of God.

1. AGAIN, many local beliefs were/are strong. The religion did not shake THE WORLD, (which would include the west), until many centuries later.
2. The Gospels were not authoritative until Constantine made them so.
3. Gospels were not written until decades of unfettered oral traditions were already in play.
4. Since your argument is that the church grew throughout the entire Roman Empire, direct said witnesses could not possibly assure all said stories were kept straight.
5. By the time the Gospels were written, which was well after all were dead, and the Gospels are anonymous, we cannot identify of where their source information was obtained -- (from direct said witnesses, or from hearsay).
6. The church is not trustworthy, as you read Luke and compare it to Mark.

This is about the third or fourth time you've disingenuously claimed that I agreed with you, when I didn't.

Giving an answer of 'opinions', tells me you concede, as you apparently have no problem stating your alternative case(s), whenever you have them. If you care not to dispute something, just skip it entirety.

?

When Jesus preached directly, people were not confused about what he was conveying. These folks were given an earnest shake and were left with a decision of either a) following or b) rejecting him. Why not give all this same opportunity?

As promised.. "Yeah, Christianity wasn't a thing until Constantine came to power. So, never mind the book of Acts which state how Christianity spread from Jerusalem throughout the massive Roman empire, because of Paul's & company traveling missionaries and letters going far and wide. Never mind the Great Fire of Rome, which Christians were blamed for...which means that Christianity had reached the city of Rome (2546 miles from Jerusalem) by 64 CE. Never mind the large-scale persecutions of Christians as early as the first century CE...and based on the historically-rich sources of Pliny the Younger, we know that Christianity had reached Turkey by 110 CE. So, no...Christianity was hardly a thing until Constantine took over. Not to mention, the various sects of Christianity that were running wild throughout the Empire, particularly Arianism, which was heresy floating around before Constantine even came into office, and which is what motivated the Council of Nicea in the first place. Never mind those things. Please do not let disingenuousness rear its ugly head but completely botching what are historical facts." Keep up the Constantine stuff, and these facts that you ignored are locked and loaded...just a copy & paste away.

And they will be ignored because they are irrelevant to what I'M saying. A religion cannot logically "shake the world", if it has not yet even been heard on one side of the planet The other side of the planet did not hear of a Jesus, until the 1600's. Constatine made this possible.

Speaking of eyewitnesses, I'm rocking with Luke... 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. You may not rock with Luke, but that is part of what makes me a believer, and you a skeptic.

What makes you a believer requires that faith does quite a bit of heavy lifting.

Would you become a believer if we did? If not, then what we "have" doesn't matter.

This is a fair point. Case/point, the video of many having 'Jesus experiences'... I doubt them. I'm pretty sure, that in your heart of hearts, you doubt them too. I'll will explain more below...

But your question is merely a hypothetical one anyways, as we likely do not have multiple direct eyewitness attestations, via the Gospels accounts anyways to examine. And if we did, none of these folks were deposed in any way. Which is why theists will argue that they were all martyred, and that no one dies for a lie. But being that the sources in which state these things are the 'sources' in question, and we really having nothing else, then we must remain skeptical.

Opinions.

Faith, or wishful thinking in this case, holds for the position that any other author has been identified, besides Paul. Paul is responsible for ~40% of what we now call the NT. The rest, not sure?

Many are/will be lead estray.

My point here, is that maybe do not boast about Christianity being the biggest, as this will likely not always be the case.

I am being baited closer and closer into a rabbit hole. You can have that convo with someone else, respectfully.

LOL! This from someone who just asked me that if we did have many direct witnesses, would I believe it...

We have stronger evidence today, that countless people have similar experiences, verses Paul's claimed experience. And yet, you are I hardly give this presented better evidence a second thought. Why is Paul's claimed experience any better than the countless current witnessed experiences in which you and I ignore? I'll tell you why... Because you were indoctrinated into thinking Paul's WAS real. If you cannot tell if one is being touched by the holy ghost or not, then you have absolutely no more of a reason to think Paul's were legit.

What? I don't see how you fail to see this blunder. The passages that you read from the WTS, are based on their interpretation of the scriptures, the SAME scriptures that you allege are unclear. So obviously, they (WTS) are smarter than you are if they can read a parable, or Revelations, and get a "clear" understanding from it and you can't

You continue to miss my point here. The author of the Watchtower writes clearer messages than the authors of the Bible. Period. Maybe if the author(s) of the Watchtower wrote it, there would not be so much confusion? What I'm saying is that mere humans write clearer messages than claimed 'God inspired' messages.

Jesus messages couldn't have been too cryptic or confusing, otherwise, TWS wouldn't be able to gain clear knowledge from it and take this knowledge and apply it to their publications..because if that were the case, you wouldn't be on here marveling at the clarity of their teachings, now would you?

Going back to the OP, believers cannot unanimously agree on how one is saved, while reading from the same book(s). I guess the ones who do not agree with you are dumb. Even if this was the case, God would know this and write it in a way in which even the dumb would clearly understand.

I don't know if are aware of this, but in Judeo-Christianity, God is a God of grace, mercy, and patience. Were you not aware of this?

I'm aware of the argument that God offers conditional grace, but not unconditional, as all are not accepted. The question remains, does one of the conditions for grace include misunderstanding his words? If so, how do you know?

First off, your arguments from silence here is really enough said. It is a fallacious argument to say, or insinuate that just because no one wrote about X event, that therefore, X event did not occur. So, no one is deflecting...I am simply calling it what it is. Second, if you want to get in depth with Matthew 27...start a thread on it. You are raising several objections, most of which have nothing to do with the OP. And quite frankly, I have no desire to discuss Matt 27, because it is either you believe it, or you don't...if you already reject Christianity then discussing this issue won't move the pendulum either way...so it is a waste of time, in my opinion.

Great, I guess we can roll with the faithful conclusion that many undead roamed the city, and many saw it, and reporters skipped reporting it.

[1213]

I don't think Jesus is reliant upon other humans.

Jesus did not write the words of the Bible. He "inspired" them. Fallible humans actually wrote them.

Yes, and I believe humans could not have done that without God and Jesus, therefore Jesus is not reliant upon other humans.

And these written words, as we explore the topic of salvation alone, are confused by countless earnest wanna-be followers. Why would Jesus be pleased with his given message, which many cannot correctly understand?

I don't see any Biblical reason why people could not understand. But, I can understand if people are lost, if they would have only what you say about the matter. I recommend people to actually read the Bible. It can solve the problems people have with this issue.

Righteous person accepts Jesus and it shows he is righteous.

Then your prior statement is false. You must accept or reject, period.

Please explain why do you think so?

And because Bible is not speaking about blood transfusion directly, it is a matter that is left for people to decide, is it the same as eating blood, or is it a different matter.

Too bad the Bible is not clear.

It is sad if it is unclear to you. To me it is clear. And I think it is wrong to call it unclear, if it just doesn't answer directly to every question.

Again, if a 10-year-old JW is raped and stabbed, and is slowly bleeding out internally, the emergency department is going to want to transfuse blood to keep them alive. This will keep them alive, in the meantime, until surgical intervention can later repair the laceration(s). Is a righteous person allowed to take this exception, in receiving blood products? Yes or no? if the Bible was clear, you could give me a (yes) or a (no). You can't, so my point has been made. The Bible is not clear.

Again, if Bible doesn't answer all possible questions, it does not mean it is not clear. Bible is clear on everything it says, at least for me. But blood transfusion is not a matter that Bible is speaking of.

If one thinks blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, then he should not do that.

[1213]

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

ACTS 15:28, 29a

The reason why I said "if we go just by the" is that then there is no limits of what it means. It would mean then that we should also abstain from our own blood. Clearly we are not to abstain from our own blood entirely in every way, because the disciples didn't get rid of their own blood. And I think the Bible shows what it meant with abstaining from blood, if we read more than just the "abstain from blood".

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

Bible tells people should not eat blood. There is no limit to that, which is why it means, people should not eat even blood of their relatives.

"'Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners among them, who eats any kind of blood, I will set my face against that soul who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life. Therefore I have said to the children of Israel, "No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who lives as a foreigner among you eat blood."
Lev. 17:10-12

If you think this means no blood transfusion in any case, I have no problem with it and no reason why you should change your mind.

[POI]

Yes, and I believe humans could not have done that without God and Jesus, therefore Jesus is not reliant upon other humans.

Again, if Jesus did not write it himself, then it logically follows that he required others to write his words for him. This requires that he is reliant on humans. And humans are fallible. Such a chosen path has demonstrated mass confusion, as we have almost countless opposing beliefs, while all referring to the same collection of books. Why is Jesus pleased with this result?

I don't see any Biblical reason why people could not understand. But, I can understand if people are lost, if they would have only what you say about the matter. I recommend people to actually read the Bible. It can solve the problems people have with this issue.

I created a thread and asked how one is saved. Many earnest Bible reading folks did not give the same answer as you. Does this mean all these folks are lost? Maybe many of them think the same of you, including Jesus? Maybe it is you, who is lost?

Please explain why do you think so?

You stated --> "People don't become righteous by refusing or accepting something"

You agree that you have to accept Jesus to become righteous. Which means your prior statement is false. Accepting something is required.

It is sad if it is unclear to you. To me it is clear. And I think it is wrong to call it unclear, if it just doesn't answer directly to every question.

Not providing more clarity has caused many JWs to die, due to blood loss. Had these individuals received blood, they would have lived longer.

1) Did Jesus not care to provide more clarity, to avoid more needless death(s)?
2) Jesus was simply not aware that someday, blood transfusions would exist?
3) Other?

If one thinks blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, then he should not do that.

But, is this person right or wrong? An incorrect choice can have dire consequences. This 10-year-old could be stuck in between a rock and hard place. a) Refusing blood will cause the raped 10-year-old's death. b) Accepting the blood can cause her eternal torment. Since you are presumably righteous, I'm asking you. Do you give your 10-year-old daughter the lifesaving blood, or not?

[SiNcE_1985]

"Many scholars believe the "Epistles of Peter" (particularly the second epistle) were written after Peter's death because the text references other New Testament writings, like Paul's letters, which are considered to have been written later in time, suggesting the Peter letters were compiled after the development of a broader Christian canon, likely placing their composition after Peter's traditional martyrdom date in the early 60s AD"

Not so fast.

A case can be made that no new testament book was written later than 70CE.

So, I don't know what is meant by "written late in time" here.

And we also don't know which of Paul's writings are being referred to.

And what you quoted, in my, yes; opinion..is that it seems like a rushed and far-reaching case..and I need more of an elaboration.

Jesus would know, better than any human, how to achieve and convey transcendent understanding for all.

Well, if Jesus would know, and he "knew", then he acted according to what he know/knew.

Meanwhile, here you are some 2,000 years later on a message forum, discussing stuff that you don't know.

See the difference?

Unless, again, you wish to concede that he is not an omni-fellow?

No, I do not wish to concede that point.

And I am saying that for the record, so I don't have you later falsely accusing me of conceding stuff that I never did.

Another mis-represented "rubber-stamp"...

1. If Jesus is able to clearly express his intended message to all, then...
2. Anyone who states they do not clearly understand is a liar.

1. I clearly articulated my intended message, to my 14 year old son about Calculus expressions.

2. My son does not understand the expressions.

3. Therefore, my son is a liar.

Non sequitur. Faulty logic.

1. AGAIN, many local beliefs were/are strong. The religion did not shake THE WORLD, (which would include the west), until many centuries later.

Exactly, the end result is the death and resurrection of one man, some 2,000 years ago, grew until it became the world's #1 religion in terms of followers...from the east to the west...the north to the south.

That is world-shaking.

2. The Gospels were not authoritative until Constantine made them so.

There is no historical record of Constantine being involved in the formulation of the Biblical canon.

You are being disingenuous.

3. Gospels were not written until decades of unfettered oral traditions were already in play.

So what? No viable point is being made here.

4. Since your argument is that the church grew throughout the entire Roman Empire, direct said witnesses could not possibly assure all said stories were kept straight.

Nonsense.

Paul passed down the Pre-Pauline creed to the Church in Corinth..which he received from the apostles.

This was some 25-30 years after the cross, which means the message was preserved from that time, since that time, and beyond that time.

Next..

5. By the time the Gospels were written, which was well after all were dead, and the Gospels are anonymous, we cannot identify of where their source information was obtained -- (from direct said witnesses, or from hearsay).

False.

The Gospels were written by either apostles (Matthew, Luke), or friends of the apostles (Mark, Like).

6. The church is not trustworthy, as you read Luke and compare it to Mark.

Opinions.

Giving an answer of 'opinions', tells me you concede, as you apparently have no problem stating your alternative case(s), whenever you have them. If you care not to dispute something, just skip it entirety.

I've been going down enough rabbit holes during this convo..and I am careful to avoid others.

When Jesus preached directly, people were not confused about what he was conveying.

Some were confused.

Cornelius was confused. The Pharisees were confused...and even Jesus' own disciples were confused.

So, this false narrative you are pushing, as if the message was as easy as A-B-C and 1-2-3 during Jesus' earthly ministry is false, and is giant hole punched in your "if Jesus had written things down clear, everyone would understand" narrative.

It just doesn't mesh with what the Bible says.

And they will be ignored because they are irrelevant to what I'M saying. A religion cannot logically "shake the world", if it has not yet even been heard on one side of the planet The other side of the planet did not hear of a Jesus, until the 1600's. Constatine made this possible.

Um, when I said Christianity shook the world, I am speaking in terms of it's global effect, from its inception, to NOW.

As far as Constantine, I will let you continue being wrong...as being wrong doesn't seem to bother you.

What makes you a believer requires that faith does quite a bit of heavy lifting.

You said there were no eyewitnesses, Luke says their were.

So hey, it's either you believe Luke or you don't.

This is a fair point. Case/point, the video of many having 'Jesus experiences'... I doubt them. I'm pretty sure, that in your heart of hearts, you doubt them too. I'll will explain more below...

But your question is merely a hypothetical one anyways, as we likely do not have multiple direct eyewitness attestations, via the Gospels accounts anyways to examine. And if we did, none of these folks were deposed in any way. Which is why theists will argue that they were all martyred, and that no one dies for a lie. But being that the sources in which state these things are the 'sources' in question, and we really having nothing else, then we must remain skeptical.

Either you believe it, or you don't.

You don't.

Faith, or wishful thinking in this case, holds for the position that any other author has been identified, besides Paul. Paul is responsible for ~40% of what we now call the NT. The rest, not sure?

Paul was always pushing the frontlines. Shout out to Paul.

My point here, is that maybe do not boast about Christianity being the biggest, as this will likely not always be the case.

Christianity is the world's #1 religion in terms of # of followers...making it the biggest religion in the world.

This is simply a fact.

It is what it is.

LOL! This from someone who just asked me that if we did have many direct witnesses, would I believe it...

Which was a sidebar question, not conversation.

We have stronger evidence today, that countless people have similar experiences, verses Paul's claimed experience. And yet, you are I hardly give this presented better evidence a second thought.

No thoughts needed. I don't mind fellowshipping with other believers, but generally speaking, I don't invest my time concerning myself about the affairs of others, as it relates to their walk with God.

I believe in divine intervention, and I also believe in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Now, who God decides to let his Spirit dwell in, is up to him...and I am certainly not the Holy Spirit police, going around deciding who does/doesn't have it.

That seems to be a focal point of yours, when in my opinion, it shouldn't.

Why is Paul's claimed experience any better than the countless current witnessed experiences in which you and I ignore? I'll tell you why... Because you were indoctrinated into thinking Paul's WAS real. If you cannot tell if one is being touched by the holy ghost or not, then you have absolutely no more of a reason to think Paul's were legit.

I have no interest in this discussion.

You continue to miss my point here. The author of the Watchtower writes clearer messages than the authors of the Bible. Period. Maybe if the author(s) of the Watchtower wrote it, there would not be so much confusion? What I'm saying is that mere humans write clearer messages than claimed 'God inspired' messages.

Your point is illogical.

If the Bible is so unclear, then the WTS wouldn't be able to gain clear teachings from an unclear source (The Bible).

So obviously, what you call an unclear source (The Bible), is what they call a clear source (The Bible).

I really cant explain it any clearer than that.

Going back to the OP, believers cannot unanimously agree on how one is saved, while reading from the same book(s). I guess the ones who do not agree with you are dumb. Even if this was the case, God would know this and write it in a way in which even the dumb would clearly understand.

My answer will not change.

I'm aware of the argument that God offers conditional grace, but not unconditional, as all are not accepted. The question remains, does one of the conditions for grace include misunderstanding his words? If so, how do you know?

I said yes to the question, and no on going down the rabbit hole.

Great, I guess we can roll with the faithful conclusion that many undead roamed the city, and many saw it, and reporters skipped reporting it.

1. Reporters didn't write about it.

2. Therefore, the reports skipped reporting it.

Non sequitur.

[POI]

Not so fast. A case can be made that no new testament book was written later than 70CE. So, I don't know what is meant by "written late in time" here. And we also don't know which of Paul's writings are being referred to. And what you quoted, in my, yes; opinion..is that it seems like a rushed and far-reaching case..and I need more of an elaboration.

Isn't it funny how Jesus can do no better than humans? "The Bible" struggles with the same inherent problem as all other publications of ancient antiquity. Both you and I agree, (to the level of ~95%), that Paul both existed and wrote his own stuff. Which means we need to instill very little faith, only 5% worth of faith to hold this position. How much more faith do you need to have, to hold to the position that Peter not only existed, but was the purveyor or his own writings? Meaning, he wrote them himself or hired someone to be his ghost writer, while he was alive to boot? You do not need to answer... My point remains, aside from Paul, we have much less confidence in really knowing who wrote what, when, and what was their source(s)? In essence, the skeptic is left with Paul, (who had an experience really no different than the ones presented in the video), and then a bunch of much less confirmed claims of the 'supernatural'. Weeee!

Well, if Jesus would know, and he "knew", then he acted according to what he know/knew. Meanwhile, here you are some 2,000 years later on a message forum, discussing stuff that you don't know. See the difference?

If Jesus is omni, he logically would write stuff in a way in which someone in the first century would not question any more than the 20th. All would clearly understand the messages and believe it, as the Bible tells folks (paraphrased) 'even the devil knows he's real, and shutters.' Why not give everyone a "Damascus road experience" or a 'doubting Thomas' moment? Why are some asked to walk by faith and some are not? Why not give all clear messaging, and some not? Why is not all starting from the same place, in that they know he's real, they clearly know what he wants, and are then given the opportunity to accept or reject, like even 'Satan'? The problem of communication is a logical one to consider, as most do not clearly understand, in spite of a claimed omni-God.

No, I do not wish to concede that point. And I am saying that for the record, so I don't have you later falsely accusing me of conceding stuff that I never did.

Then why would an omni-God not give messaging in a way in which all, who chose to read it and try to understand it, do not clearly understand?

1. I clearly articulated my intended message, to my 14 year old son about Calculus expressions.
2. My son does not understand the expressions.
3. Therefore, my son is a liar.

Non sequitur. Faulty logic.

This is the problem with the English language, in that context and word usage is very important. Your use of the word 'clear' is not how I'm using it. When I say 'clear', this is to mean the recipient understands the message given. Not instead merely that the words spoken are clearly heard alone. But thanks for another attempt at a rubber-stamp When I say "clearly express", I mean the recipient clearly understands. Unlike the Bible, you can ask me what I mean when I write something. (rhetorical) - Even hermeneutic scholars cannot agree on some things written in the Bible really say. Case/point, start at Genesis and move forward. Go figure....

Exactly, the end result is the death and resurrection of one man, some 2,000 years ago, grew until it became the world's #1 religion in terms of followers...from the east to the west...the north to the south. That is world-shaking.

I guess you now get it. This religion did NOT "shake the world" quickly. It did not "shake the world" until the 17th century. Thanks to Constantine and friends, it eventually did. No one on the west heard of a Jesus before then.

There is no historical record of Constantine being involved in the formulation of the Biblical canon.

That's not what I said here. I said he made them authoritative. Constantine was the catalyst, or the source for what was to later come. It became the official religion of Rome.

(for consideration):

"while Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 312 is generally accepted, historians debate the true motivations behind it, with many arguing that his conversion was primarily politically driven, aiming to unify the Roman Empire under his rule by embracing a religion gaining widespread popularity among the population."

***********************

But remember, popularity does not logically lead to truth. Otherwise, if/when Islam takes over as the new #1 in popularity, it is then more true

So what? No viable point is being made here.

I've touched on the point, ad nauseum. Since we do not know who wrote the Gospels, we cannot then logically identify their source(s). Unlike Paul. Since you argue that such beliefs were spreading like wildfire across a region, by way of oral tradition, which version did these later subsequent author(s) use as their source(s)?

Nonsense. Paul passed down the Pre-Pauline creed to the Church in Corinth..which he received from the apostles. This was some 25-30 years after the cross, which means the message was preserved from that time, since that time, and beyond that time.

Then Paul was a very busy guy, and was also able to be in many places at once. Your counter is that any/all oral traditions were all carefully monitored to assure these re-tellings remained accurate across the entire Roman Empire, until they were ultimately written to paper, and much later canonized by 'the church'. 'Nonsense.'

False. The Gospels were written by either apostles (Matthew, Luke), or friends of the apostles (Mark, Like).

For this to be possible, you would have to first demonstrate when they were written. And being the Bible falls under the same category of ancient antiquity as all other writings, you cannot unfortunately assert this conclusion, but instead only apply faith. It is possible that some of all were written after these folks died. Unlike Paul.

Some were confused. Cornelius was confused. The Pharisees were confused...and even Jesus' own disciples were confused. So, this false narrative you are pushing, as if the message was as easy as A-B-C and 1-2-3 during Jesus' earthly ministry is false, and is giant hole punched in your "if Jesus had written things down clear, everyone would understand" narrative. It just doesn't mesh with what the Bible says.

Context again needs clarification here. Getting back to the OP, is Jesus able to give a clear message as to how one is saved? You think the message is clear, and so do others, who oppose your position. If the message really was clear, you would all agree. As I stated in the other thread, Jesus is able to be clear when he wants to be. Case/point, if I was to ask any Christian 'is gay sex is permitted by God?', I doubt I would get any conflicting answers.

Jesus didn't give Cornelius instruction which lead to a confusion, an 'Angel' did. And even if it was from Jesus, this is not the type of 'confusion' I'm speaking about. The Pharisees rebelled/rejected Jesus, because Jesus went against their beliefs. They were not 'confused' about what he was doing or saying in the way I mean. They could not reconcile that Jesus was doing things in which contradicted their existing beliefs.

Um, when I said Christianity shook the world, I am speaking in terms of it's global effect, from its inception, to NOW.

You have changed your story then.

It is what it is.

If when Islam surpassed Christianity, then what? My point is that a 'number of faithful believers' popularity contest means nothing, in relation to 'truth', unless by happy accident.

I have no interest in this discussion.

Too bad, as it cuts to the core of the discussion, IMO. Jesus did not bother to contact all. Only some. So, instead left behind some cryptic messages, to also be written by fallible humans.

Why does a claim from Paul receive more veracity than ones directly seen in a church? You were the one who has repeatedly asked me if I would believe something if this/that/other. We both do not question Paul's sincerity. But is it actually true? All we have is the Bible

Your point is illogical. If the Bible is so unclear, then the WTS wouldn't be able to gain clear teachings from an unclear source (The Bible). So obviously, what you call an unclear source (The Bible), is what they call a clear source (The Bible). I really cant explain it any clearer than that.

You continue to miss my point. I will keep trying... The author(s) of the WTS write clearer messages than the author(s) of the Bible. Too bad the Bible was not written by the fellas who wrote the WTS.

I said yes to the question, and no on going down the rabbit hole.

Well, this question is very much NOT a rabbit hole. If you and I acknowledge that not all that read these words, come to the same conclusions, does Jesus provide conditional grace for the ones who do not understand? The entire objective of this thread is to ask why Jesus did not convey clearer messaging. Was this intentional, or not? If it was, does he provide grace for the ones who do not get it? If it was not intentional, and God has the ability to have everyone understand, then the ones who say they don't are liars. This would then mean that one sect is not lying, and the rest are.

1. Reporters didn't write about it.
2. Therefore, the reports skipped reporting it.

Non sequitur.

LOL! Still at it. No worries... I've already been all over this. If reporter(s) existed, in the city, this would certainly be report-worthy, right?

What is YOUR position, being that the claims stated that both many roamed and many also saw?

a) Reporters did not witness, and therefore, did not report
b) No one who saw, told the reporters who did not see
c) Reporters reported, and they were lost/destroyed. But luckily, 'Matthew' was preserved, which is a coincidence, being that "Matthew' is also the reporter of many other said supernatural events.
d) other

[SiNcE_1985]

Isn't it funny how Jesus can do no better than humans?

When you have chefs in your kitchen, they do the cooking, not you.

"The Bible" struggles with the same inherent problem as all other publications of ancient antiquity.

Opinions.

Both you and I agree, (to the level of ~95%), that Paul both existed and wrote his own stuff. Which means we need to instill very little faith, only 5% worth of faith to hold this position. How much more faith do you need to have, to hold to the position that Peter not only existed, but was the purveyor or his own writings?

Putting a percentage on it is irrelevant because no matter the %, it is enough for me to believe it.

Meaning, he wrote them himself or hired someone to be his ghost writer, while he was alive to boot? You do not need to answer... My point remains, aside from Paul, we have much less confidence in really knowing who wrote what, when, and what was their source(s)?

I agree with you here (for a change).

However, "less", as you put it, is on a sliding scale...and I am still on the "convinced" side of the scale as it pertains to the who, what, when of the Gospels.

In essence, the skeptic is left with Paul, (who had an experience really no different than the ones presented in the video), and then a bunch of much less confirmed claims of the 'supernatural'. Weeee!

Opinions.

And when I say "opinions", I do not say so to be evasive or dismissive.

It is literally your opinion, one of which I share a radically different one.

But as I keep saying, that is what separates the believers from the skeptic.

If Jesus is omni, he logically would write stuff in a way in which someone in the first century would not question any more than the 20th.

Opinions

All would clearly understand the messages and believe it, as the Bible tells folks (paraphrased) 'even the devil knows he's real, and shutters.' Why not give everyone a "Damascus road experience" or a 'doubting Thomas' moment?

What did Jesus say after Thomas believed?

Verse 29..

"You see, therefore you believe. Blessed are those who have not seen, and still believe".

So, we are blessed for not seeing what Thomas saw, and still believing.

I'm essence, Jesus already shut your question down.

As far as Paul's road to Damascus experience, there have been people who've testified to such experiences (dramatic, divine experiences), but of course, no one expects people on your side of the coin to believe them.

I've had personal divine experiences as well, and I don't expect you to believe it...it is one of those "believers only" things.

As far as why doesn't Jesus give it to everyone...I don't know.

But what i do know is, the Scriptures say that man should be able to sense the existence of God by the marvel of the universe alone, and that man is without excuse for not believing in spite of it.

So, how about starting there, and then seeing if we can work our way toward Christianity.

Why are some asked to walk by faith and some are not? Why not give all clear messaging, and some not? Why is not all starting from the same place, in that they know he's real, they clearly know what he wants, and are then given the opportunity to accept or reject, like even 'Satan'?

You aren't helping yourself by asking "why this, why that".

Because you are only setting yourself up for a..

"Just because we don't know why, doesn't mean there isn't an answer for why" response from me.

Anyway, you just said in the Mark/Luke thread that your approach with 1213 is different than your approach with me.

"Why"?

You have your reasons, don't you?

Well, if you can have your reasons (which is unbeknownst to me at the time) for dealing with us differently, then what is the issue with God dealing with people in different ways?

You have your reasons, and God has his.

The problem of communication is a logical one to consider, as most do not clearly understand, in spite of a claimed omni-God.

Opinions.

Then why would an omni-God not give messaging in a way in which all, who chose to read it and try to understand it, do not clearly understand?

Everyone has a fair chance to understand, even if it isn't the same fair chance to understand.

This is the problem with the English language, in that context and word usage is very important. Your use of the word 'clear' is not how I'm using it. When I say 'clear', this is to mean the recipient understands the message given.

What is/isn't clear is subjective for previously given reasons.

Not instead merely that the words spoken are clearly heard alone. But thanks for another attempt at a rubber-stamp When I say "clearly express", I mean the recipient clearly understands. Unlike the Bible, you can ask me what I mean when I write something. (rhetorical) - Even hermeneutic scholars cannot agree on some things written in the Bible really say. Case/point, start at Genesis and move forward. Go figure....

Or, some people just have bad reading and/or listening comprehension...and bad interpretations and false teachings are a result of this.

And your logic is faulty.

Person 1: This verse means X.

Person 2: No, it doesn't. This verse means Y.

You: Then the Bible isn't clear, because if it was, both of you would agree on what the verse means.

Me: Or, could it be that the Bible is clear, one of them may have bad reading comprehension skills.

Ever think about that one?

I guess you now get it. This religion did NOT "shake the world" quickly. It did not "shake the world" until the 17th century.

Who said anything about speed? All I said was it shook the world. It shook the world then, and it's shaking it now.

Thanks to Constantine and friends, it eventually did. No one on the west heard of a Jesus before then.

Sure, go with that falsehood. I'll leave you to it.

That's not what I said here. I said he made them authoritative. Constantine was the catalyst, or the source for what was to later come.

Ok, so please provide evidence of Constantine having a hand in which Christian books were to be made authoritative.

It became the official religion of Rome.

Oh, so Rome became a theocracy? I didn't know that..any evidence for this, or are we just talking?

I already know the evidence is non-existent, just having fun with it now.

(for consideration):

"while Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 312 is generally accepted, historians debate the true motivations behind it, with many arguing that his conversion was primarily politically driven, aiming to unify the Roman Empire under his rule by embracing a religion gaining widespread popularity among the population."

Ehhh. Just a bogus hypothesis which is no better of an opinion than mines or yours.

But remember, popularity does not logically lead to truth. Otherwise, if/when Islam takes over as the new #1 in popularity, it is then more true

I agree.

I've touched on the point, ad nauseum. Since we do not know who wrote the Gospels, we cannot then logically identify their source(s). Unlike Paul.

And as I keep saying; we do not "know" who wrote the Gospels, but based on what I believe to be convincing evidence, I stand where I stand on the issue.

Since you argue that such beliefs were spreading like wildfire across a region, by way of oral tradition, which version did these later subsequent author(s) use as their source(s)?

Please clarify your question.

Then Paul was a very busy guy, and was also able to be in many places at once.

Have you ever heard of a courier (for the letters)?

And it wasn't just Paul....and yes, missionary work is very busy and takes pure dedication.

Your counter is that any/all oral traditions were all carefully monitored to assure these re-tellings remained accurate across the entire Roman Empire, until they were ultimately written to paper, and much later canonized by 'the church'. 'Nonsense.'

That is exactly what happened. Disciples and believers were dispatched throughout the empire, ensuring that the message was preserved and when it wasn't, it was dealt with immediately.

That is what the Council of Jerusalem was about, and what some of the content of Paul's letters were about; false teachings that were starting to creep in.

For this to be possible, you would have to first demonstrate when they were written.

No problem with doing that. Just not here.

Rabbit hole.

And being the Bible falls under the same category of ancient antiquity as all other writings, you cannot unfortunately assert this conclusion, but instead only apply faith. It is possible that some of all were written after these folks died. Unlike Paul.

I simply disagree.

Context again needs clarification here.

The context was clear..

Getting back to the OP, is Jesus able to give a clear message as to how one is saved?

Yeah. John 14:6. Seems rather clear to me.

Now, if you disagree with it being clear, then back to my point; what is/isn't clear is up to the individual.

Because the verse is clear to me.

You think the message is clear, and so do others, who oppose your position. If the message really was clear, you would all agree.

Um, no. A verse can be clear as day, but that won't stop a person with faulty understanding from thinking otherwise.

As I stated in the other thread, Jesus is able to be clear when he wants to be. Case/point, if I was to ask any Christian 'is gay sex is permitted by God?', I doubt I would get any conflicting answers.

Now ask any Christian is salvation through Jesus Christ?

See if you get any conflicting answers.

Jesus didn't give Cornelius instruction which lead to a confusion, an 'Angel' did. And even if it was from Jesus, this is not the type of 'confusion' I'm speaking about.

My apologies. I meant Nicodemus. My bad.

The Pharisees rebelled/rejected Jesus, because Jesus went against their beliefs. They were not 'confused' about what he was doing or saying in the way I mean. They could not reconcile that Jesus was doing things in which contradicted their existing beliefs.

Not so fast.

When Jesus said "Destroy this Temple and I would raise it in 3 days" (John 2:19).

Scripture explains that they clearly didn't understand what he meant.

And notice you didn't address my disciples mention, because that would be a waste.

You have changed your story then.

No. It shook the world then, and it's shaking the world now.

If when Islam surpassed Christianity, then what? My point is that a 'number of faithful believers' popularity contest means nothing, in relation to 'truth', unless by happy accident.

I agree. I will just pointing out a fun fact.

Too bad, as it cuts to the core of the discussion, IMO. Jesus did not bother to contact all. Only some. So, instead left behind some cryptic messages, to also be written by fallible humans.

Opinions.

Why does a claim from Paul receive more veracity than ones directly seen in a church? You were the one who has repeatedly asked me if I would believe something if this/that/other. We both do not question Paul's sincerity. But is it actually true? All we have is the Bible

I have no knowledge on what goes on inside of any given church.

And I don't know what is true/false in any given circumstance as it relates to who receives the Holy Spirit and who doesn't.

Dont know how many times I'll have to say this.

You continue to miss my point. I will keep trying... The author(s) of the WTS write clearer messages than the author(s) of the Bible. Too bad the Bible was not written by the fellas who wrote the WTS.

But WTS doesn't view the Bible as unclear.

Sounds like this is a "you" problem.

Well, this question is very much NOT a rabbit hole. If you and I acknowledge that not all that read these words, come to the same conclusions, does Jesus provide conditional grace for the ones who do not understand? The entire objective of this thread is to ask why Jesus did not convey clearer messaging. Was this intentional, or not? If it was, does he provide grace for the ones who do not get it? If it was not intentional, and God has the ability to have everyone understand, then the ones who say they don't are liars. This would then mean that one sect is not lying, and the rest are.

Rabbit hole.

LOL! Still at it. No worries... I've already been all over this. If reporter(s) existed, in the city, this would certainly be report-worthy, right?

What is YOUR position, being that the claims stated that both many roamed and many also saw?

a) Reporters did not witness, and therefore, did not report
b) No one who saw, told the reporters who did not see
c) Reporters reported, and they were lost/destroyed. But luckily, 'Matthew' was preserved, which is a coincidence, being that "Matthew' is also the reporter of many other said supernatural events.
d) other

Whoever saw the phenomenon told others about it.. thus, they reported to others what they saw.

They didn't have smartphones to do FaceBook lives.

Now, either you believe it, or you don't.