Why is there lack of clarity in Christ's messages?

[marco]

If Jesus was sent on a divine mission, with "good news", then one characteristic we might suppose would be resounding clarity. We don't have that, as discussions here show.


We judge a teacher by the clarity of his explanations. "I tell you TODAY you will be with me in paradise." Is it too much to expect divine Jesus to have anticipated difficulties in these simple words? And of course there are umpteen passages that necessitate discussion that results in vastly different interpretations.

Jesus gave people a further means to argue and disagree: his "sheep" know his voice. Unfortunately, many different groups believe they are HIS sheep; individuals believe they are solitary lambs, under the guidance of the Good Shepherd.


Is it the case that all is vanity? That the whole mass of NT writing is riddled with confusion? One would have thought that if the Resurrection was so important then that, especially, would have been done unambiguously.


Why is there so much ambiguity about NT verses?

Why was Jesus - outside of his platitudes on love and neighbourliness - so unclear?

[William]

William: It was pointed out to the reader that if one chooses to ignore some information from their overall analysis, they create the ambiguity for themselves.

marco: Yes, if people choose to err, they err.

William: Choosing to err infers the person knows that they are incorrect but still choose to be incorrect.

marco: The OP is about the variety of meanings and the arguments that arise from biblical statements

William: I have not argued otherwise. I have acknowledged that your own meanings and arguments arising from biblical statements, require that you ignore (chose to err) some of those statements...

marco: I think most people do bring points from the entire picture to support their views. Doubt remains.

William: Doubt is removed when the entire picture is always foremost in ones understanding. Taking pieces of the entire picture and using them to promote another picture removed from the original, is what creates doubt.
You have misunderstood the point Christ was making.
Jesus made it clear that people would twist his words for their own purpose. He did not claim that only theists would do this. The point I was making is that - given the whole story we all have access to - that pointing fingers at Christ and alleging 'lack of clarity' is - clearly - a trumped-up charge.

marco: And does this condemnation carry Christ's imprimatur?

William: What condemnation are you referring to marco?

marco: Once again let me say: I am not complaining that I personally find certain statements ambiguous. I am pointing out that certain statements ARE ambiguous to the hosts of debaters from whose debates various theologies - not mine - have sprung. What I think of a statement is irrelvant. When you tell me to relate a phrase to the entire work, that is common sense, but it does not erase ambiguity, else whenever people debate, an examination of the entire work would remove dissent. It does not. Yes, they might just be stubborn or deliberately accepting a false reading - that is another theory.

William: This has to imply then that it is not at all any lack of clarity on Christs part...and the OP is implying Christ was ambiguous, correct?
Otherwise your argument now appears to be saying that Christ was in fact quite clear, and it is simply the way people choose to interpret Christ, which is the cause of the ambiguity.
It is no defense to point at the 'Christians' and claim 'because they said and did 'this', one said and did 'that'. At the end of the day, such will be no defense.
Your argument has been shown to be an illegitimate interpretation marco.

marco: I didn't realise I was in danger of punishment for pointing out that people argue over meaning.

William: You have to be more clear on what you are actually pointing out marco. If you are claiming that Christ was unclear, then yes - if the story turns out to be true, then one can agree you will have to answer to Christ, that allegation you make regarding Christ.

marco: Is the doctrine of the Trinity crystal clear?

William: What do you think Jesus meant by the words he spoke regarding his relationship with The Father?
Are they clear enough for you to understand the idea of 'The Trinity'? If you took the whole story into account without leaving things out, would it be more clear to you?


marco: Should we accept it as axiomatic or are those who accept it being perverse, when obviously there is no Trinity?

William: Can you show that what you say is 'obvious' is indeed, obvious...without taking the whole story into account?

marco: When Christ said: "I'll be back before some of you are dead" was he referring to some private showing, to happen with a handful of apostles or did he mean Finality would come to the earth pretty soon?

William: No. The obvious thing Christ meant was that some of the apostles would not die and would live from then until The Father gave the order for Jesus to return 'In Glory' (as a public display).


marco: I accept that if Jesus was a god then we can say there's no ambiguity and the fault is with the reader. I don't believe he was.

William: Your beliefs about Christ are not evidence that Christ is not GOD.
I am open to hearing any arguments you have on why you hold such beliefs. Perhaps these will help the reader understand why you created this thread, and why you create other threads of similar nature.


marco: If there is some celestial book where my argument - or my claim that ambiguity exists - is shown as flawed, I have no access to it and I marvel that you have.

William: I have access to no such book. The access I have is in the data of ALL the pictures which make up the whole piece of the puzzle. If the peice of the puzzle can be said to represent 'the book' you speak of, then yes - I can agree to that, but caution you against 'marveling' about something which by rights, all have equal access to.


marco: Of course I don't see how making irrelevant points, however true they may be in their own situations, qualifies as rebuttal.

William: Likewise, I don't see how making irrelevant thread OPs however true they might seem to the author in his/her own situation, qualifies as honest premise.
Your OP premise is that which I am rebutting - e.


marco: I asked why there is lack of clarity.

William: Yes you did...


marco: Your rebuttal is: There is no lack of clarity.

William: Accompanied by sound logical argument as to WHY that is the case.


marco: Devout Jehovah's Witnesses and devout Catholics agree, contrary to appearances; all they've to do is relate the one jigsaw piece to the entire corpus of work. They do so, as we can see from many supporting statements, but they do NOT get clarity. They get an interpretation.


William: Then what you are really arguing for is NOT the lack of clarity in Christs message, but in actuality, that there is lack of clarity in branch-theology about Christs message.
If so, then this tells the reader that your question and thread subject should have been about that in the first place. iow...

"Why is there lack of clarity in Christian interpretations of Christs messages?"

Rather, you approached the whole question with the implication in the premise that it was Christs message which was at fault, rather than the way the message has been interpreted...not only by Christian theists but also by non-Christian non-theists.

My argument is that Christs message is NOT ambiguous when all aspects of the story are taken into consideration.
Thus, if Christians or non- Christians use parts of Christs message to create ambiguity, then according to Christs message, they will be judged BY Christ, FOR that.

[marco]

My argument is that Christs message is NOT ambiguous when all aspects of the story are taken into consideration.
Thus, if Christians or non- Christians use parts of Christs message to create ambiguity, then according to Christs message, they will be judged BY Christ, FOR that.[/color]

As I said in the OP, parts of what Christ said are not disputed as to their meaning. There are other parts that are disputed. You are saying the ambiguity is in the interpretation, not in the statement itself. That is completely wrong.

The interpretation, for example, by the RC Church of Christ's words "This is my body" is absolutely, unambiguously clear. The statement is taken to mean what it apparently says: "This IS my body." No ambiguity in that.


But others maintain Christ did not mean his words to be taken literally. Christ used a bold metaphor. By considering this as a part of a jig-saw in which the entire picture is made clear, you suppose the meaning of the statement becomes clear. It doesn't. Try it and see.


If you were to move through Christ's statements and offered your interpretation of each one, do you suppose everyone would agree with you? And if they didn't, would you then assume YOU were right and all others wrong?

I have taken this argument to the limits of its usefulness.

[William]

marco: Devout Jehovah's Witnesses and devout Catholics agree, contrary to appearances; all they've to do is relate the one jigsaw piece to the entire corpus of work. They do so, as we can see from many supporting statements, but they do NOT get clarity. They get an interpretation.

William: Then what you are really arguing for is NOT the lack of clarity in Christs message, but in actuality, that there is lack of clarity in branch-theology about Christs message.
If so, then this tells the reader that your question and thread subject should have been about that in the first place. iow...

"Why is there lack of clarity in Christian interpretations of Christs messages?"

Rather, you approached the whole question with the implication in the premise that it was Christs message which was at fault, rather than the way the message has been interpreted...not only by Christian theists but also by non-Christian non-theists.

My argument is that Christs message is NOT ambiguous when all aspects of the story are taken into consideration.
Thus, if Christians or non- Christians use parts of Christs message to create ambiguity, then according to Christs message, they will be judged BY Christ, FOR that.

marco: As I said in the OP, parts of what Christ said are not disputed as to their meaning. There are other parts that are disputed. You are saying the ambiguity is in the interpretation, not in the statement itself. That is completely wrong.

William: No. I have not been arguing that at all marco. Clearly I have been arguing that when one takes statements on their own, naturally enough there will be ambiguity created because of that.
Clearly I have argued that ANY message requires being treated according to it wholeness rather than it parts.
A spark-plug does not explain an engine.

marco: The interpretation, for example, by the RC Church of Christ's words "This is my body" is absolutely, unambiguously clear. The statement is taken to mean what it apparently says: "This IS my body." No ambiguity in that.

William: But that is an interpretation, so your argument shifts from what Christ said, to what the Catholic institution interprets Christ as having meant by what he said...
Understanding that often, symbolism was used by Christ as a big part of his teaching, should allow the individual to see therein, the symbolism of the bread and wine...

marco: But others maintain Christ did not mean his words to be taken literally. Christ used a bold metaphor. By considering this as a part of a jig-saw in which the entire picture is made clear, you suppose the meaning of the statement becomes clear. It doesn't. Try it and see.

William: The meaning isn't in any selected statement, but in the whole. The whole also includes the bulk of what Jesus did which we are informed is not even recorded in the bible.
As such, one can look for pieces of the jigsaw elsewhere as well...
But alongside the grand scheme of that which is, how is one interpretation better than another, in regard to your example? Why does it matter? How is it important?

marco: If you were to move through Christ's statements and offered your interpretation of each one, do you suppose everyone would agree with you? And if they didn't, would you then assume YOU were right and all others wrong?

William: The argument you make would apply to everyone, not just Christ.
It is just the way of all things to do with subjectivity and there is simply no escaping that.
Things I express can and are interpreted by the reader as they choose to, just as things you and everyone else expresses can be interpreted any way we each choose to.
If you think Jesus was being literal regarding the bread and wine, that is your interpretation.
Just because you can interpret something any way you choose does not mean that anyone you are interpreting is being overly unclear.
That is what seems to be what is unclear to you...
The appropriate manner in which to present the sagacious, is consistently.

marco: I have taken this argument to the limits of its usefulness.

William: And I have shown the OP argument to be useless as any kind of relevant point against Christ, even for the fact that there are differing Christian interpretations.

[marco]

If so, then this tells the reader that your question and thread subject should have been about that in the first place. iow...

"Why is there lack of clarity in Christian interpretations of Christs messages?"

There is absolutely no lack of clarity in Christian interpretations. There is debate because many of Christ's statements can be taken in several ways.

My argument is that Christs message is NOT ambiguous when all aspects of the story are taken into consideration.
Thus, if Christians or non- Christians use parts of Christs message to create ambiguity, then according to Christs message, they will be judged BY Christ, FOR that.

Well it is not an argument but a declaration not based on what we see. It is ludicrous to suggest people actually CREATE ambiguity, and several times more ludicrous to suggest Christ is going to exact punishment for lack of comprehension. If there is NO ambiguity, there is no argument. There IS argument, so there is ambiguity.

William: No. I have not been arguing that at all marco. Clearly I have been arguing that when one takes statements on their own, naturally enough there will be ambiguity created because of that.
Clearly I have argued that ANY message requires being treated according to it wholeness rather than it parts.

You say this as if you are imparting mystical knowledge. Obviously, to make sense of statements, reasonably clever people will seek meaning for them in other places. If we take a few words: "My father's house has many mansions" and apply modern meaning to mansions, ignoring any figurative interpretation and ignoring anything else Christ has had to say about God, then we will probably get a wrong interpretation. I am hardly disputing this. Let us bless theologians and others with as much know-how as you demonstrate, and take it as read that these people will have digested the Bible.

But that is an interpretation, so your argument shifts from what Christ said

My argument hasn't shifted at all. Of course it's an interpretation and possibly a valid one. The Catholic Church takes this meaning but you take another. And you must be right?
Your argument about symbolism is irrelevant. I guess Jesuits are well versed in symbolism too. It is useful to assume that your adversaries have at least minimum intellectual requirements.

But alongside the grand scheme of that which is, how is one interpretation better than another, in regard to your example? Why does it matter? How is it important?

To ME, one Christian reading is as unimportant as another. A few centuries ago one interpretation could have got somebody burned, so interpretation is rather important if one is involved in religion. My question remains: why could Christ not have made his statements clearer, to avoid all the dissent? You would answer: What dissent? I am reminded of Nelson at Copenhagen saying: "I see no signal."


Yes, we can all make ambiguous statements but we are not all Christs.