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....

[SiNcE_1985]

If there is a divine creator, what we would expect is a divine message, which could be a book but it could also be something else. So it's perfectly natural to consider whether a book might be divinely inspired first, before thinking about whether the universe might be created.

However you need to get there, get there if you can.

[John17_3]

Here is what I said.
The scriptures reveal that God has determined that those unworthy of life will not get it, because they are not deserving, and so, they will remain in confusion.
Those worthy are freed from confusion, because they know how to listen, and they gain freedom and peace.

I believe the context of the last statement is seen from the first, and is not the same as that being discussed at Romans 3.
In any case, I believe the idea that you are presenting, may be what is illogical.

If only Jesus gave direct messaging to all himself

The scriptures reveal that the only ones deemed worthy are the faithful. And yet, many, who are faithful, do not carry the same fundamental beliefs as you. In fact, we have many completely opposing/conflicting beliefs, which all reside under the same collection of writings, which is comprised of the NT. Hence, your statement is objectively false. Why would Jesus be okay with this result? Why doesn't Jesus just give his direct messages to all, like he did with a select few? This way, we would all know exactly what he said, and we would also have the same starting point. Meaning, we would all either accept him, or reject him, based upon the same clear messaging.

Are you saying that you get to determine what Jesus does, and therefore you are right, and everyone who says otherwise is false?
If so, you are correct, and what I have said is false... in your imagination. I can live with that.

[SiNcE_1985]

At the end of the day, had Jesus, who you presume is omni, wrote it himself, and assured his message was preserved, and also assured that his message(s) transcended all language barriers, then I never would have raised this topic. I, like some, would be in a position to accept or reject his clearly understood messaging

Do you understand John 3:16?

If no, what don't you understand?

If yes, do you believe/accept it?

If no, then you are rejecting it, and you do so based on your understanding of it.

[POI]

Thank you for the examples. The problem with all of these is, they are doctrines that are not in the Bible. Bible doesn't speak of Trinity, or three persons of God. Bible doesn't say that the salvation is only through Catholic Church, nor about purgatory. Neither Bible tells that the bread and wine transforms to Jesus.

Are you being too hyper-literal? Let's start with the term "purgatory." Sure, this term is not mentioned in the Bible. But neither is the term 'cross-dressing'. And yet, we can find passage(s) which tell men not to wear women's clothing, and vice versa.

Catholics may cite verses, such as 1 Corinthians 3:1415, Matthew 12:32, and 5:25-26 as evidence to justify a 'purgatory.' If Jesus was to provide direct communication himself, and assure all understand, like he did for some, maybe 1 billion or so Catholics would not be so confused?

I don't think i am ignoring it. righteousness can be given the way Romans tells it. That does not mean person can't be counted righteous any other way.

Does the Bible mention any other way to become "righteous", besides the expressed necessity to apply faith in Jesus, via Romans 3?

I think it is possible that person is righteous, if he does not allow it and I think it is also possible that person can be righteous, even if he allows that. But, it is possible that I am wrong in this.

Another prime example as to why the Bible is not clear. You cannot answer the question. Yet again, we are speaking about an event in which millions engage in every year. For the Bible to skip such a large topic leaves the skeptic asking WHY Jesus would skip such as large topic?

1) Is it because he did not know that someday, millions would receive blood products every year?
2) Or maybe, he opted to skip what would someday be both a very relevant and common topic?
3) Or maybe, the JWs are right, and blood products are to always be refused?

Please pick one...

I think I already explained it. Bible tells blood carries soul/mind/life, I would not want my family member to get their soul mixed with someone else's. In a way I think family members share the same blood already, therefore it would not be exactly the same. However, it may still be wrong to get blood even from family members. This is only to show the difference.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too 1213. You object to Catholic principles, in the sense that the Bible does not directly say something specific regarding their unified beliefs. But then speculate on another topic, in which the Bible also does not directly speak about. And again, this is another prime example of the Bible not being clear, as you admit you are not sure. And yet again, it is odd that Jesus would not care to elaborate on a topic in which may affect millions every year.

Let's try another question you cannot answer: Would a 'righteous' person ever donate blood, (yes or no)?

I think it is possible, if the action is done with right thoughts. I personally could not accept it to me with good conscience, because I think it goes against God's will.

???????

[POI]

Do you understand John 3:16?

Sure, I understand John 3:16. If this was all the Bible said about the topic of 'salvation', you would have a good point. But it ain't. Is belief alone enough, or not? Assuming it is not, because then the "devil" is also accepted, then you need a little more than this one verse now, don't you? Commence with the confusion

If yes, do you believe/accept it?

Again, even the devil can believe and accept that Jesus died, rose again, and did so to atone for human sin. Is belief that it happened all that is required?

If no, then you are rejecting it, and you do so based on your understanding of it.

Insufficient communication may very well be why I reject it. Alternatively, if information was presented in a way in which I did understand, I would be in YOUR position, where I infer it really did happen. I would then be given the same opportunity as you. I would then know Jesus did actually rise again to atone for sin. I would then be met with the applied compulsory proposition, knowing that rejecting him would alternatively result in my eternal demise. I am not currently given this option because I doubt this proposition even exists in actual reality. And this may very well be due to Jesus's lack in providing proper communication.

Jesus assured you know he exists, why not assure all understand, like you and the devil?

[POI]

Are you saying that you get to determine what Jesus does, and therefore you are right, and everyone who says otherwise is false?

Nope. I'm making a basic observation about your rationale, and then question that rationale. Here is the ignored response again.

1) The scriptures reveal that the only ones deemed worthy are the faithful. And yet, many, who are faithful, do not carry the same fundamental beliefs as you. In fact, we have many completely opposing/conflicting beliefs, which all reside under the same collection of writings, which is comprised of the NT. Hence, your statement is objectively false.

2) Why would Jesus be okay with this result? Why doesn't Jesus just give his direct messages to all, like he did with a select few? This way, we would all know exactly what he said, and we would also have the same starting point. Meaning, we would all either accept him, or reject him, based upon the same clear messaging.

[Tcg]

If so, you are correct, and what I have said is false... in your imagination. I can live with that.

Moderator Comment

You've violated the following rule:

1. Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

If you aren't able to address the issues at hand, it's best to refrain from replying rather than to violate our rules.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[SiNcE_1985]

Sure, I understand John 3:16. If this was all the Bible said about the topic of 'salvation', you would have a good point. But it ain't. Is belief alone enough, or not? Assuming it is not, because then the "devil" is also accepted, then you need a little more than this one verse now, don't you? Commence with the confusion

Ok, fair enough.

Yeah, the devil believes in the existence of Jesus, but the devil doesn't believe/accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior.

See the difference?

Now, I can provide CLEAR scripture for the necessity of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior.

It will be as clear as the sun in Phoenix on a hot summer day.

You'll have your clear scripture, and you'll have a choice to accept or reject this clear scripture.

So, you will have what you claim is lacking...so then what?

More goal post moving?

Insufficient communication may very well be why I reject it. Alternatively, if information was presented in a way in which I did understand, I would be in YOUR position, where I infer it really did happen. I would then be given the same opportunity as you. I would then know Jesus did actually rise again to atone for sin. I would then be met with the applied compulsory proposition, knowing that rejecting him would alternatively result in my eternal demise. I am not currently given this option because I doubt this proposition even exists in actual reality. And this may very well be due to Jesus's lack in providing proper communication.

Jesus assured you know he exists, why not assure all understand, like you and the devil?

Again, I'll provide CLEAR scripture on the acceptance of Jesus needed for salvation.

It will be clear, so clear that all groups who call themselves "Christian" will agree...so no conflict here.

So now what, are you ready?

[POI]

Ok, fair enough. Yeah, the devil believes in the existence of Jesus, but the devil doesn't believe/accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. See the difference? Now, I can provide CLEAR scripture for the necessity of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. It will be as clear as the sun in Phoenix on a hot summer day. You'll have your clear scripture, and you'll have a choice to accept or reject this clear scripture. So, you will have what you claim is lacking...so then what? More goal post moving?

I believe you misunderstand the point of this thread. I may or may not agree with you, regarding what the Bibe states about "salvation". But this is not my over-all point. The point is that many earnest believers believe differently than you do. Which means one of you two, even if such a scenario truly exists, is objectively wrong. Is Jesus okay with this result, being that many earnest followers got the wrong message? Does he apply conditional grace to any of the ones which do not adhere to the correct set of rule(s) for salvation?

When you look at the other aforementioned thread, which is the reason this topic was created, you will see that many earnest Christians do not agree. And I wonder.... If such a Jesus exists, why would he not care, unless knowing the real way to salvation is not a deal breaker?

Again, I'll provide CLEAR scripture on the acceptance of Jesus needed for salvation. It will be clear, so clear that all groups who call themselves "Christian" will agree...so no conflict here. So now what, are you ready?

See the other thread, as mentioned in the OP then

[John17_3]

Are you saying that you get to determine what Jesus does, and therefore you are right, and everyone who says otherwise is false?

Nope. I'm making a basic observation about your rationale, and then question that rationale. Here is the ignored response again.

1) The scriptures reveal that the only ones deemed worthy are the faithful. And yet, many, who are faithful, do not carry the same fundamental beliefs as you. In fact, we have many completely opposing/conflicting beliefs, which all reside under the same collection of writings, which is comprised of the NT. Hence, your statement is objectively false.

2) Why would Jesus be okay with this result? Why doesn't Jesus just give his direct messages to all, like he did with a select few? This way, we would all know exactly what he said, and we would also have the same starting point. Meaning, we would all either accept him, or reject him, based upon the same clear messaging.

I addressed your issues, but ... you are not accurately representing what I said.
I don't know what to say here. So, take care. Leaving this thread. Bye, and have an enjoyable day.