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]

It is not directly said in the Bible. Only scripture that I know that are close to this issue are these:

Now there were some present at the same time who told him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
Luke 13:1
But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written our decision that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from food offered to idols, from blood, from strangled things, and from sexual immorality."
Acts 21:25

I would not say it is not allowed, but I also would not want that to myself, because I think it may be bad.

Hence, the Bible has a communication problem. You, an earnest reader, cannot tell me.

if someone would fail because of the book, it would not be his fault and not deserve to be punished for the failure that was not his fault..

Do these folks receive grace? Case/point, above. you cannot tell me whether or not the Bible is okay with blood transfusions.

[1213]

It is not directly said in the Bible. Only scripture that I know that are close to this issue are these:

Now there were some present at the same time who told him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
Luke 13:1
But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written our decision that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from food offered to idols, from blood, from strangled things, and from sexual immorality."
Acts 21:25

I would not say it is not allowed, but I also would not want that to myself, because I think it may be bad.

Hence, the Bible has a communication problem. You, an earnest reader, cannot tell me. -

I don't think it is a communication problem, if Bible doesn't tell everything.

if someone would fail because of the book, it would not be his fault and not deserve to be punished for the failure that was not his fault..

Do these folks receive grace? Case/point, above. you cannot tell me whether or not the Bible is okay with blood transfusions.

People who have blood transfusion? If you mean by "receiving grace" that persons sins are forgiven, I believe also their sins can be forgiven. But, as told in the Bible, eternal life is for righteous. i don't know are they righteous, therefore I don't know will they get eternal life.

[POI]

I don't think it is a communication problem, if Bible doesn't tell everything.

In this case, it clearly is. You listed verses, and you do not know if this means God allows transfusions, or not.

People who have blood transfusion? If you mean by "receiving grace" that persons sins are forgiven, I believe also their sins can be forgiven. But, as told in the Bible, eternal life is for righteous. i don't know are they righteous, therefore I don't know will they get eternal life.

Can "righteous" people get blood transfusions, or not?

[SiNcE_1985]

Your response above is telling.... The term 'could' will do much heavy lifting.

As I've stated, if God wanted to convey truth, why use oral tradition as the main mechanism?

How is/was oral tradition the main mechanism when the written manuscripts were in circulation longer than the oral tradition?

Makes no sense.

Second, even if God did use oral tradition...if the aim was to use whatever method it would take to ensure that Christianity would become the world's largest religion in terms of number of followers...

Then God obviously succeeded...so you can't knock the method.

Oh, really? We know who wrote the 4 Gospels?

Do we know who wrote anything in antiquity?

No.

It is based on the preponderance of the evidence that we conclude the historicity of anything.

And we also know these 4+ individuals were direct eyewitnesses to all said supernatural events in which are claimed? Do tell?

Conversation for another day.

My point here was missed. The Watchtower's message is clear here. No blood transfusions. The Watchtower's messages are clear on topics in which it wishes to state a position upon. The Bible's message(s) is not as clear about certain things. "Salvation" being one of them... The authors of the WTS convey clear messages. The ones who later defect, do so because they can no longer continue in cognitive dissonance/other.

Um, your point was understood.

Everyone who holds Biblical beliefs, those beliefs are clear to them.

What is/isn't clear is subjective.

Speaking of JW's, it is clear to them that the Bible forbids a Christian to celebrate birthdays.

But guess what, it ain't so clear to me (and flat out a butchering of the Scriptures).

So, like I said; it is subjective.

The Pharisees did not 'do their own thing'
because they did not know what Jesus was saying. If they did, this would mean Jesus's direct verbal messages were also not clearly understood. Which is even worse than the topic I raised about the Bible alone. The Pharisees likely 'did their own thing', for other reason(s), like disbelief, pride, other...

That's the point, if they understood what Jesus was saying, then obvious the message was clear enough for them to understand...which goes against the "message not clear" narrative you've created with this thread.

Jesus/God decided to instead use fallible ancients to write down his important messages at a much later time???

Yeah, pretty much.

That's what I got out of it.

Then anyone who does not come to your conclusion about how one is saved, does so because?

This question reminds me of when a report asked NBA superstar Kawhi Leonard, after he led the Toronto Raptors to a title a few years ago..

Reporter: Kawhi, what do you think this championship means to the people of Toronto?

Kawhi: I don't know, you'd have to ask them.

Same thing here.

Anyone who does not come to my conclusion does so because?

I don't know, you have to ask them.

Then God, who was to deliver THE TRUTH, could think of no better way?

Jesus is the truth, and he was delivered.

And no, there was no better way than him.

Jesus would be doing all the writing and preserving, not fallible humans.

Sure, you can use that hypothetical all you like..but what you cant do is demonstrate how that way would have been more effective than the way it was done.

God's goal was to eventually win a popularity contest?

Every knee will bow.

How is that for popularity?

Will he be upset someday if Islam takes over as the most popular belief system? It is ~700 years behind since its beginning but is moving ever closer to the number one spot. But, I digress....

More room in Heaven for folks like me, then.

Even if I were to grant 80% that he even existed, the likelihood that he performed supernatural acts would be much much much lower. Just like the likely percentage of Alexander's existence, (as you have mentioned), does not also mean it is also the same likely percentage he WAS also the son of Zeus

Point conceded.

I do not need to try again. You stated 'shook the world'. This belief system did not spread to the rest of the world until well after Constantine's efforts.

Which itself would not have occured if the Emperor himself wasn't shook by the Jesus plague as well.

And you make it seem as if Constantine made/forced people to become Christian, which he didn't.

People still had the right to worship whomever/whatever they wanted.

Just so happened that most people went the Jesus route.

That is just the way the cookie crumbled.

When you wish to convey the truth, do not leave into the hands of a very fallible methodology. Basic logic... [/quote ]

Ok.

Paul was not there for the "resurrection tour."

I wasn't there for the Jackson 5's "Victory" tour (1984).

But I am aware of it and I can speak to those who were present and lived through the times.

So, moot point.

Also, we do not know who wrote the Gospels, which means we logically cannot know exactly where their source information came from?

We base who wrote the Gospels on what we do know, not what we don't know.

Why? We are speaking about one-time claimed events of supernatural origins. Case/point, what was "Matthew's" source for many coming out of their graves and walking through the city?

His source was himself. If I see a zombie and I tell people about it, then I AM the source of the information.

And why was this event alone not spoke about all over the place???

We do not know whether this event was "spoken" about all over the place, do we? That is simply an assumption on your part.


This event alone would create quite the ruckus. Wouldn't you think? Unless walking zombies was a normal thing in ancient times...

Conversation for another day.

LOL! Again, leaving such a task up to fallible humans.

God can not only use fallible humans to carry out his will...he can also use evil humans to ultimately carry out his will.

If the book was physically indestructible and presented with statements in which mere humans could not convey at the time, etc, then it would certainly raise an eyebrow or two.

Wow, it would only raise an eyebrow or two.

See, look at that; even if it was everything you claim it isn't, that still wouldn't be enough to believe..by your own admission.

Which is precisely why, when it comes to the Bible, it just simply is what it is.

Either you are gonna rock with it, or you aren't.

[POI]

How is/was oral tradition the main mechanism when the written manuscripts were in circulation longer than the oral tradition? Makes no sense. Second, even if God did use oral tradition...if the aim was to use whatever method it would take to ensure that Christianity would become the world's largest religion in terms of number of followers... Then God obviously succeeded...so you can't knock the method.

The Gospels are said to have been written no earlier than 30-40 years after Jesus died. This allows for at least 3 decades of oral tradition. Yes, the method can be easily knocked.

Do we know who wrote anything in antiquity? No. It is based on the preponderance of the evidence that we conclude the historicity of anything.

Yes, it is case by case. And in this case, the claim is said to come from eyewitnesses. And yet, we have no starting point. All we know is that we have decades of oral tradition, followed by scraps from un-identified writers, and much later followed by a theocracy to officially canonize select 'messages'.

Conversation for another day.

Interesting, you state "preponderance of the evidence", but then wish to pass at providing any. If we cannot identify the Gospel writers, this means we cannot identify their motivations and/or direct experiences either. We have no starting point. On the other hand, we do know Paul, and we also know he was not part of the so-called resurrection tour.

Um, your point was understood. Everyone who holds Biblical beliefs, those beliefs are clear to them. What is/isn't clear is subjective. Speaking of JW's, it is clear to them that the Bible forbids a Christian to celebrate birthdays. But guess what, it ain't so clear to me (and flat out a butchering of the Scriptures). So, like I said; it is subjective.

Point still missed... The WTS is clearer in their messaging to readers than the Bible. JWs are not unsure as to whether or not they can receive a blood transfusion or celebrate a B-day.

That's the point, if they understood what Jesus was saying, then obvious the message was clear enough for them to understand...which goes against the "message not clear" narrative you've created with this thread.

No. My point is that the BIBLE is not clear. Which means that the Bible was a dumb route to go, if Jesus wanted to convey truth. Just give it to everyone directly and have them decide for themselves. Like he did when he was alive and was in direct contact with many. To instead rely upon fallible humans to later pass on what he says, is dumb. If you want something does right, do it yourself. Give everyone the direct message from the horse's mouth. I'd reckon Jesus has the ability to communicate in a way all can understand, right? If not, then he cannot really blame the human, only himself.

Yeah, pretty much. That's what I got out of it.

Since Jesus relied upon fallible humans in an attempt to deliver truth, then Jesus does not logically actually care about properly communicating truth.

This question reminds me of when a report asked NBA superstar Kawhi Leonard, after he led the Toronto Raptors to a title a few years ago.. Reporter: Kawhi, what do you think this championship means to the people of Toronto? Kawhi: I don't know, you'd have to ask them.
Same thing here. Anyone who does not come to my conclusion does so because? I don't know, you have to ask them.

The point being..., the human concocted fallible messaging system allows for many earnest believers to not be clear in what the message is actually supposed to convey.

Jesus is the truth, and he was delivered. And no, there was no better way than him.

Empty and baseless statement...

Sure, you can use that hypothetical all you like..but what you cant do is demonstrate how that way would have been more effective than the way it was done.

Yes, I can. He could do it like he did it when he was alive. Tell everyone directly, in a way they would all understand, and allow for each individual to accept or reject the message.

Every knee will bow. How is that for popularity?

Another empty and baseless claim. It is also a direct deflection from my point. If Jesus's goal was merely to become the largest belief system, then someday, he may lose.

Point conceded.

Thanx. Now here comes the real question... What is the percentage that Jesus actually performed any supernatural acts?

Which itself would not have occured if the Emperor himself wasn't shook by the Jesus plague as well. And you make it seem as if Constantine made/forced people to become Christian, which he didn't. People still had the right to worship whomever/whatever they wanted. Just so happened that most people went the Jesus route. That is just the way the cookie crumbled.

You missed my point. If Emperor Constantine had followed another religion, then you may be providing apologetics for some other belief system.

I wasn't there for the Jackson 5's "Victory" tour (1984). But I am aware of it and I can speak to those who were present and lived through the times. So, moot point.

It is not a moot point. As stated above, we have no clue of where these Gospel writers got their source info? Why? Without identifying who these folks were, it's anyone's guess.

His source was himself. If I see a zombie and I tell people about it, then I AM the source of the information. We do not know whether this event was "spoken" about all over the place, do we? That is simply an assumption on your part.

LOL! I guess all the other reports were permanently destroyed. If a bunch of zombies paraded through the streets, why was this not a widely reported event? Were walking zombies the norm during these times? My point being, is that a bunch of people would witness zombies. They may not know of the reason they were walking but would tell others. The fact that no reports speak about it, is quite suspect. Maybe "Matthew' added this story for flavor? It's not like he could be "fact-checked" anyways Most would either be dead or long gone away by then. Matthew was not an official document, to be taken seriously, until 100's of years later.

Wow, it would only raise an eyebrow or two. See, look at that; even if it was everything you claim it isn't, that still wouldn't be enough to believe..by your own admission. Which is precisely why, when it comes to the Bible, it just simply is what it is. Either you are gonna rock with it, or you aren't.

'Opinions'

[1213]

I don't think it is a communication problem, if Bible doesn't tell everything.

In this case, it clearly is. You listed verses, and you do not know if this means God allows transfusions, or not.

I only said they are close to the issue. I don't say they speak about blood transfusion. I think it is clear that they are about something else. Is it not clear to you, do you think they are speaking about blood transfusion? Why?

Can "righteous" people get blood transfusions, or not?

If their conscience allows it. It is not directly forbidden in the Bible. One has to go by these advices:

"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are expedient. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be brought under the power of anything.
1 Cor. 6:12
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are profitable. "All things are lawful for me," but not all things build up.
1 Cor. 10:23
Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.
1 Thess. 5:21

That means, one has to think, is it good or not. If there is nothing wrong/bad with it, then it is ok.

[POI]

I don't think it is a communication problem, if Bible doesn't tell everything.

In this case, it clearly is. You listed verses, and you do not know if this means God allows transfusions, or not.

I only said they are close to the issue. I don't say they speak about blood transfusion. I think it is clear that they are about something else. Is it not clear to you, do you think they are speaking about blood transfusion? Why?

I asked you a question, point blank. The fact that you cannot answer, reveals that the Bible is not clear. This represents a communication problem -- pure and simple.

Can "righteous" people get blood transfusions, or not?

If their conscience allows it. It is not directly forbidden in the Bible. One has to go by these advices:

"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are expedient. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be brought under the power of anything.
1 Cor. 6:12
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are profitable. "All things are lawful for me," but not all things build up.
1 Cor. 10:23
Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.
1 Thess. 5:21

That means, one has to think, is it good or not. If there is nothing wrong/bad with it, then it is ok.

So, the answer to the simple question is (yes or no)?

[1213]

...The fact that you cannot answer, reveals that the Bible is not clear...

I think Bible is clear, it just doesn't say everything.

[POI]

...The fact that you cannot answer, reveals that the Bible is not clear...

I think Bible is clear, it just doesn't say everything.

No, the Bible is not clear, as we have JWs believing that all blood transfusions are bad -- by citing the following verse(s): Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, Deuteronomy 12:23, and Acts 15:28-29.

By reading these verses, are the JWs (correct or incorrect)?

[SiNcE_1985]

The Gospels are said to have been written no earlier than 30-40 years after Jesus died. This allows for at least 3 decades of oral tradition. Yes, the method can be easily knocked.

When you say "oral tradition", I think you mean "oral transmission"...which, in of itself, is not something to be skeptical of unless you can prove that the message by means of oral transmission is itself flawed, false, inaccurate, etc.

You've yet to do that, but are instead saying "yeah, but there was a better way to do it", which leads us back to opinions.

Yes, it is case by case. And in this case, the claim is said to come from eyewitnesses. And yet, we have no starting point. All we know is that we have decades of oral tradition, followed by scraps from un-identified writers, and much later followed by a theocracy to officially canonize select 'messages'.

The case here is that the stories originated from either apostles (Matthew, John), or friends of the apostles (Mark, Luke).

Once you begin to dissect the case, then you'll be able to have a clearer picture.

As a believer, the unpacking of the case strengthen my faith...allowing me to go from blind faith, to reasonable faith with ease.

Interesting, you state "preponderance of the evidence", but then wish to pass at providing any.

My point is, I don't wish to engage in multiple debates on one thread.

As I'm sure you're aware, there can easily be debate topics and subtopics under one debate umbrella, and I don't want to go down any rabbit roles (as presumably may happen with the mentioning of Matthew 27).

If you want to discuss other stuff within this scope, either create a thread or point me the direction of an existing thread.

If we cannot identify the Gospel writers, this means we cannot identify their motivations and/or direct experiences either. We have no starting point. On the other hand, we do know Paul, and we also know he was not part of the so-called resurrection tour.

So then we'll have to discuss why we believe X author wrote Y Gospel.

As for Paul, depends what you mean by "resurrection tour", because as far as I'm concerned, he was on this tour...and arguably leading it.

Point still missed... The WTS is clearer in their messaging to readers than the Bible.

Um, not so fast.

So basically, you are saying that no practicing JW has ever had a question or concern related to JW theology of which they consulted an elder to resolve.

That is simply not true.

Any ex-witness can arrest to that being untrue.

JWs are not unsure as to whether or not they can receive a blood transfusion or celebrate a B-day.

Well obviously, they wouldn't be unsure about something that they firmly believe in.

We are talking what is clear/unclear, which goes back to my point; if person X believes in Y theology, then Y theology is clear to person X..even at the lowest extent of clarity.

No. My point is that the BIBLE is not clear. Which means that the Bible was a dumb route to go

Opinions.

, if Jesus wanted to convey truth. Just give it to everyone directly and have them decide for themselves.

Like he did when he was alive and was in direct contact with many. To instead rely upon fallible humans to later pass on what he says, is dumb. If you want something does right, do it yourself. Give everyone the direct message from the horse's mouth. I'd reckon Jesus has the ability to communicate in a way all can understand, right? If not, then he cannot really blame the human, only himself.

This is all based on opinions and you have no way of proving whether your method would have garnered more effective results than the method used.

Since Jesus relied upon fallible humans in an attempt to deliver truth, then Jesus does not logically actually care about properly communicating truth.

Opinions.

The point being..., the human concocted fallible messaging system allows for many earnest believers to not be clear in what the message is actually supposed to convey.

And my point is; it is clear to those who believe whatever it is that they believe.

Empty and baseless statement...

About as empty/baseless as the opinions you've been offering.

Yes, I can. He could do it like he did it when he was alive. Tell everyone directly, in a way they would all understand, and allow for each individual to accept or reject the message.

And my point remains; that it did not prove to be as effective as you may think it would have been, even when he was alive.

Another empty and baseless claim. It is also a direct deflection from my point. If Jesus's goal was merely to become the largest belief system, then someday, he may lose.

Someday, cars will fly.

You missed my point. If Emperor Constantine had followed another religion, then you may be providing apologetics for some other belief system.

Um, no.

1. Constantine decriminalized X religion.

2. Therefore, based on #1, I would have abandoned my worship of Y religion, to follow X religion.

Does not logically follow..not necessarily, at least.

It is not a moot point. As stated above, we have no clue of where these Gospel writers got their source info? Why? Without identifying who these folks were, it's anyone's guess.

We have clues, which may not be convincing to a skeptic such as yourself.

But hey, that's what separates us from you.

LOL! I guess all the other reports were permanently destroyed. If a bunch of zombies paraded through the streets, why was this not a widely reported event? Were walking zombies the norm during these times? My point being, is that a bunch of people would witness zombies. They may not know of the reason they were walking but would tell others.

First off, I am indeed a fan of zombie apocalyptic fiction/scenarios..but let's not make any mistake about it..

What was described in Matt 27 was not like a scene from The Walking Dead or Michael Jackson's music video of Thriller..where the undead comes out of their tombs and graves as decomposed corpses..and made their way in the slow, gruesome walking zombie fashion to Jerusalem and started to terrorize the city...biting necks and eating brains.

No.

What, from what I can tell occured was perhaps the resurrection of the saints in new, glorified physical bodies.

We are not told how many there were, nor are we given the particulars of what happened.

Needless to say, I don't have any evidence that it didn't happen, but since I trust the Bible, it happened.

And lastly, if that is too difficult of a concept to accept, I could always resort to the belief that inanimate matter came to life and begin to talk, think, copulate, and change to other forms (abiogenesis + macroevolution).

The fact that no reports speak about it, is quite suspect.

What you are using is called, in this case, an objection from silence.

Fallacious.

Maybe "Matthew' added this story for flavor? It's not like he could be "fact-checked" anyways Most would either be dead or long gone away by then.

Matthew was not an official document, to be taken seriously, until 100's of years later.

The Gospel of Matthew apparently had enough credence for it to be made official, even 100 years later, despite your skeptical concerns.

'Opinions'

No, facts. It was your own admission which lead to my statement.