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 addressed your issues

By addressed, you mean you merely punted the ball away. The basic axiomatic observation was not challenged. Yes, have a super excellent day.

Cheers!

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

And there may be a wide vary of reasons why this is the case, while you are only focusing on one of those reasons as if it's the end all, be all.

This is the false dilemma fallacy.

So between that one^, the genetic fallacy, non sequiturs, arguments from silence...and I'm sure more are coming.

That aside, no..let's stick to salvation. One thing at a time.

I will provide you clear scripture of it, cool?

You want clear scripture and I'm trying to provide it to you...ain't that what this is about?

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?

Check what the WTS say about it, since what they say is clearer than the Bible.

See the other thread, as mentioned in the OP then

Dodgy.

[Tcg]

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.

Moderator Intervention

You are ignoring the following guidelines for this subforum:

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

If you disagree with the Guidelines and/or cannot debate without attempting to use the Bible to prove a point or position true, kindly do not debate in this sub-forum. Instead, use Theology, Doctrine and Dogma OR Holy Huddle sub-forums in which the Bible IS regarded as authoritative and can be used as proof of truth.

Also, kindly review Forum Rules regarding preaching and proselytizing.

2. Do not use the forum as simply a way to present people with the gospel or any other religious or anti-religious message. This is a debating forum, not a convenient place to overtly proselytize.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[John17_3]

I addressed your issues

By addressed, you mean you merely punted the ball away. The basic axiomatic observation was not challenged. Yes, have a super excellent day.

Cheers!

I "merely punted the ball away"?
That's not a personal attack, is it?
Perhaps i should not even ask that.
Do take care bud... as in buddy.

[POI]

And there may be a wide vary of reasons why this is the case, while you are only focusing on one of those reasons as if it's the end all, be all. This is the false dilemma fallacy. So between that one^, the genetic fallacy, non sequiturs, arguments from silence...and I'm sure more are coming. That aside, no..let's stick to salvation. One thing at a time. I will provide you clear scripture of it, cool? You want clear scripture and I'm trying to provide it to you...ain't that what this is about?

Again, with all the unfounded rubber-stamps. My only point is that many believe differently than you. And that many apply just as many earnest efforts as yourself. If Jesus has the ability to make all understand, especially the ones who try, then he is failing in making some individuals understand. Unless, again, you wish to retract the belief of an omni-God?

Check what the WTS say about it, since what they say is clearer than the Bible.

'Dodgy'. Allow me to try again:

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?

Dodgy

Cut/paste from post 994. Here is where this thread has left off:

Current answer key:

A) Unconditional grace - (Jesus already did all the dirty work, everyone goes now since he had to die for all, as all fall short)
B) Faith/belief - (accept him as your savior, ask him for guidance, apply trust in him)
C) Works - (necessary acts or tasks in which Jesus also deems 'good', and may also not include the attributes of B)
D) Both B) and C)
E) No one goes, no one is worthy
F) Other, which does not already include the topics of B) and/or C)

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

I posted this response to Transponder, but see it as a pressing viewpoint to all believers who care to engage:

Even if a believer gave the most stellar argument or put forward the best case possible, the starting point is the problem. This starting point is the Bible itself. When the topic of "salvation" is said to be placed directly into the mouth of Jesus, Jesus gives differing answers at differing times. Case/point:

In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus expresses the differences between a "sheep" and a "goat". The "sheep" are chosen while the "goats" or not. The description given of the "sheep" does not involve or include Jesus-faith, or answer B), anywhere. Jesus instead emphasizes works, or answer C). This passage reads as if works alone can earn favor. In other areas of the Bible, when Jesus is again to have a direct say about salvation, Jesus emphasizes Jesus-faith, or answer B). These passages would include John 14:1, John 20:29, Romans 10:9-10., etc.........

And this is before we discuss if BOTH are needed, or answer D) - Jesus-faith and works? And if it is answer D), as many seem to pick, then how much of each is required? I mean, is your faith directly measured by your number of good works/deeds? Is it other?

And on top off all of this, what is to come of the folks who cannot apply these requirements? Are they given grace/immunity? If so, then do we ignore the above, or is the answer really A) - unconditional grace since Jesus already sacrificed himself and we humans cannot really truly earn salvation regardless?

The over-arching point being, stating you are a Christian alone means very little. You have three distinct branches (Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic). And then these three main branches splinter off into almost countless sub-sections. Many of which, have opposing specific requirements for salvation.

Why would 'Jesus' be pleased with the message he left behind about arguably the most important topic of all, salvation? This question has been placed to Christians here, countless times, and I have yet to really see any answer, if at all, which suffices.

[POI]

So much for the statement "Leaving this thread. Bye".

I addressed your issues

By addressed, you mean you merely punted the ball away. The basic axiomatic observation was not challenged. Yes, have a super excellent day.

Cheers!

1) I "merely punted the ball away"?
2) That's not a personal attack, is it?
3) Perhaps i should not even ask that.
4) Do take care bud... as in buddy.

1) Yes, you punted the ball, by not addressing the observed illogical axiom.
2) I don't think so, it is instead a metaphorical observation of your observed action(s) in this exchange.
3) It's up to you.
4) Are you sure this time?

[John17_3]

So much for the statement "Leaving this thread. Bye".

I addressed your issues

By addressed, you mean you merely punted the ball away. The basic axiomatic observation was not challenged. Yes, have a super excellent day.

Cheers!

1) I "merely punted the ball away"?
2) That's not a personal attack, is it?
3) Perhaps i should not even ask that.
4) Do take care bud... as in buddy.

1) Yes, you punted the ball, by not addressing the observed illogical axiom.
2) I don't think so, it is instead a metaphorical observation of your observed action(s) in this exchange.
3) It's up to you.
4) Are you sure this time?

Oh yes. I did say I was leaving the thread.
Human nature, I quickly forget. Bye.

[1213]

Are you being too hyper-literal?

I think all the problems and unclear matters comes form that people are not literate enough. Also all cases you show comes from not being literate.

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?

if of any one the work doth remain that he built on it , a wage he shall receive; if of any the work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; and himself shall be saved, but so as through fire.
1 Corinthians 3:1415

That is speaking of how one has built on the foundation of Jesus and how it will be judged one day. If someone has built badly and it burns up, the person my still be saved. It is not speaking of "a passing intermediate state after physical death for purifying or purging a soul", literally.

And the scriptures from Matthew, I don't see how anyone gets the idea of purgatory from them. Can you explain?

And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming.
Matthew 12:32
Be agreeing with thy opponent quickly, while thou art in the way with him, that the opponent may not deliver thee to the judge, and the judge may deliver thee to the officer, and to prison thou mayest be cast, verily I say to thee, thou mayest not come forth thence till that thou mayest pay the last farthing.
Matthew 5:25-26

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

Bible tells for example:

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their con-science testifying with them, and their thoughts among them-selves accusing or else excusing them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:12-16

That does not say how the person became righteous, only that person can be counted righteous, if he shows certain evidence for it. By that person can be counted righteous, even if he would not have heard of Jesus and therefore could not have faith in him yet.

in Biblical point of view righteousness is like a state of mind, that comes visible in actions. That can be achieved from what Jesus said, or it may be that person gets in some other way. But in any case, it will come visible in the actions of a person. And from those actions it can be seen, is a person righteous or not. Faith is also one action, and actions are only the result, not the cause.

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?

The problem in this case is not the Bible, but that humans can understand things wrongly, no matter how clear the text is. But, I don't know why Jesus didn't talk about blood transfusion directly, maybe he taught it is not an important issue.

...
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.

To me it is very clear what the Bible says. The blood transfusion thing is just something that is not in the Bible, which is why it may be difficult for some to know is it ok. In this case safest way is to not accept it, because Bible doesn't say it is acceptable.

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.

???????

Yes, i think it is possible that a person who is righteous accepts it. It is possible that even righteous people make mistakes.

[POI]

I think all the problems and unclear matters comes form that people are not literate enough. Also all cases you show comes from not being literate.

This response would mean that all Catholics are illiterate. Surely this is not what you really mean, is it?

I don't see how anyone gets the idea of purgatory from them. Can you explain?

Yes -> http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-st ... gJrSfD_BwE

That does not say how the person became righteous, only that person can be counted righteous, if he shows certain evidence for it. By that person can be counted righteous, even if he would not have heard of Jesus and therefore could not have faith in him yet.

The person apparently becomes righteous through Jesus-faith. Romans 3 tells the reader how to become righteous, which is by Jesus-faith. Can the reader become righteous any other way besides Jesus-faith?

maybe he taught it is not an important issue.

If it is not an important issue, then why would you apply any restrictions from blood transfusion(s) yourself??? Why do JWs follow this rule at all, if it is not important enough to mention?

To me it is very clear what the Bible says. The blood transfusion thing is just something that is not in the Bible, which is why it may be difficult for some to know is it ok. In this case safest way is to not accept it, because Bible doesn't say it is acceptable.

Your answer is unclear. If the Bible does not tell people to abstain from blood products intervenously, then why the heck do JWs always abstain from receiving blood products intervenuously?

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.

Why would it matter, if God does not think it is important enough to mention? a) Is it okay, b) are there certain restrictions, or c) is it not okay? We are not getting anywhere here....

Yes, i think it is possible that a person who is righteous accepts it. It is possible that even righteous people make mistakes.

Since all that is required is Jesus-faith to become righteous, and all sin, then all other sin is basically irrelevant anyways. So why would it matter regardless?

[Purple Knight]

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.

I can't read a message that isn't there. If you stay on this forum for any length of time you'll see I'm more charitable to the religious point of view than any other atheist on the forum. I care if I am wrong and want to know. I investigate. I assume the other person is right and ask, "What then?" and honestly look for that. But in the case of "God exists" I haven't found it.

It's not because the Bible can't be, in its entirety, true. It's not because magic powers like Jesus had can't exist. I know very well that there is more in Heaven and Earth than is dreamed of in my philosophy.

It's because a bad person can't be God.

I'm a bad person. And no matter what powers I had, even if I was omnipotent, I would not be God. Same goes for the entity in the Bible described as God.