Why can't everyone understand the Bible?

[2timothy316]

Those that read the Bible, rarely do they agree on what the Bible's message actually is. Why is that? Why didn't God make the Bible easy to understand for everyone? The Bible holds the key to the answer to this question right?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #37]

The trinity cannot be reasoned with. There is no reasonable explanation, and that's why the Church calls it a "mystery."

I do not think that is why it is called a mystery. You have been in enough trinity debates I am sure, to know that people present scriptures to back their position. Just as you do to back yours. That doesn't mean those scriptures are being used or understood properly, and in both cases, you and they have to ignore scriptures and reasoning that speaks against your understanding.

Regardless, Christ did not teach that He was Michael any more than He taught that He was one of three persons in God (the trinity). And what about the eating and drinking? We have Christ stating that anyone may eat, and that unless one eats His flesh and drinks His blood, one has no life in them. Then we have a religion teaching the exact opposite. That only very few may eat His flesh and drink His blood.

I see no difference between them defending their doctrines and you defending yours.

Now please explain just how you receive instructions from Christ.

For a living and speaking Christ, and hearing His voice, I explained here:

viewtopic.php?p=738377#p738377


But even in what is written, Christ does not teach that He is Michael, nor does He teach that the sheep He had yet to call would not ALSO be His brothers, His Church, His Body.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #37]

The trinity cannot be reasoned with. There is no reasonable explanation, and that's why the Church calls it a "mystery."

I do not think that is why it is called a mystery. You have been in enough trinity debates I am sure, to know that people present scriptures to back their position. Just as you do to back yours. That doesn't mean those scriptures are being used or understood properly, and in both cases, you and they have to ignore scriptures and reasoning that speaks against your understanding.

We have not "ignored scriptures" in any sense of the word. Everything we believe can be backed up solidly by all scriptures. Trinitarians will say the same, but their arguments can be dismantled easily. The problem is that they refuse to look at what we are explaining. We will look at any argument they put on and comment on it. I can't get most trinitarians to do the same with the scriptures I present.

The fact that they call it a mystery shows that they cannot understand the doctrine. The RCC itself said in their Catholic encyclopedia that there is no clear doctrine of the trinity in the Bible. They said that the doctrine wasn't a part of their worship until after the 4th century, and then there isn't really any scripture that speaks of the trinity except possibly Matthew 28:19. That scripture doesn't say anything about them being equal, so the trinity can't be proven by that verse.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #37]

The trinity cannot be reasoned with. There is no reasonable explanation, and that's why the Church calls it a "mystery."

I do not think that is why it is called a mystery. You have been in enough trinity debates I am sure, to know that people present scriptures to back their position. Just as you do to back yours. That doesn't mean those scriptures are being used or understood properly, and in both cases, you and they have to ignore scriptures and reasoning that speaks against your understanding.

We have not "ignored scriptures" in any sense of the word. Everything we believe can be backed up solidly by all scriptures. Trinitarians will say the same, but their arguments can be dismantled easily.

The same thing can be said of you when it comes to the 'two hope' doctrine. And the backing for "Jesus is Michael" is even more scarce than the backing for "Jesus is God".

The problem is that they refuse to look at what we are explaining. We will look at any argument they put on and comment on it. I can't get most trinitarians to do the same with the scriptures I present.

Yes I have noticed that many (not all) people commenting on your threads do not respond to the direct verses you present.

The fact that they call it a mystery shows that they cannot understand the doctrine. The RCC itself said in their Catholic encyclopedia that there is no clear doctrine of the trinity in the Bible.

So where is the clear doctrine that Christ is Michael? Where is the clear doctrine that there are two hopes/destinies/kinds of Christians - wherein some are brothers of Christ, and some are the Church, but most are not?

(I think mystery officially means something that has to be revealed, rather than something that cannot be understood.)

They said that the doctrine wasn't a part of their worship until after the 4th century, and then there isn't really any scripture that speaks of the trinity except possibly Matthew 28:19. That scripture doesn't say anything about them being equal, so the trinity can't be proven by that verse.

When was the "Jesus is Michael" doctrine part of anyone's worship?
When was the "two hopes/destinations for two different kinds of Christians doctrine" a part of anyone's worship?



Peace again to you.

[boatsnguitars]

Those that read the Bible, rarely do they agree on what the Bible's message actually is. Why is that? Why didn't God make the Bible easy to understand for everyone? The Bible holds the key to the answer to this question right?

I disagree with this premise. I have found that most people agree on what it is that the Bible says the majority of the time. There are a variety of tertiary issue – such as the role of women specifically in church leadership – that are murky in the scriptures. People often exaggerate the importance of some texts while suppressing the importance of others in order to come to a disagreement. However, in most areas most people agree on what the Bible teaches.

The subsequent discussions have proven you wrong.

[onewithhim]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #37]

The trinity cannot be reasoned with. There is no reasonable explanation, and that's why the Church calls it a "mystery."

I do not think that is why it is called a mystery. You have been in enough trinity debates I am sure, to know that people present scriptures to back their position. Just as you do to back yours. That doesn't mean those scriptures are being used or understood properly, and in both cases, you and they have to ignore scriptures and reasoning that speaks against your understanding.

We have not "ignored scriptures" in any sense of the word. Everything we believe can be backed up solidly by all scriptures. Trinitarians will say the same, but their arguments can be dismantled easily.

The same thing can be said of you when it comes to the 'two hope' doctrine. And the backing for "Jesus is Michael" is even more scarce than the backing for "Jesus is God".

The problem is that they refuse to look at what we are explaining. We will look at any argument they put on and comment on it. I can't get most trinitarians to do the same with the scriptures I present.

Yes I have noticed that many (not all) people commenting on your threads do not respond to the direct verses you present.

The fact that they call it a mystery shows that they cannot understand the doctrine. The RCC itself said in their Catholic encyclopedia that there is no clear doctrine of the trinity in the Bible.

So where is the clear doctrine that Christ is Michael? Where is the clear doctrine that there are two hopes/destinies/kinds of Christians - wherein some are brothers of Christ, and some are the Church, but most are not?

(I think mystery officially means something that has to be revealed, rather than something that cannot be understood.)

They said that the doctrine wasn't a part of their worship until after the 4th century, and then there isn't really any scripture that speaks of the trinity except possibly Matthew 28:19. That scripture doesn't say anything about them being equal, so the trinity can't be proven by that verse.

When was the "Jesus is Michael" doctrine part of anyone's worship?
When was the "two hopes/destinations for two different kinds of Christians doctrine" a part of anyone's worship?



Peace again to you.

Those two subjects will forever be a disagreement between us. I guess there's no point in discussing anything further.

You believe that there is someone that is equal to Christ and has privileges that Jesus Christ has and should be mentioned in what Jesus had to say in Matthew chapter 24. Why isn't it Michael who comes with his chosen ones at Armageddon? It says in Daniel that he will "stand up" for his people and the Great Tribulation will happen after that. There is no mention of a Michael doing that in what Jesus explained in Matthew 24. So where is Michael in all of this? If he is a separate being and also "the great Prince," where is he in that scenario? And there must be TWO great Princes? You do not give Jesus enough credit.

The two hopes are necessary to harmonize all scriptures. It takes a good thorough study of the Bible to really get the proper picture.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #37]

The trinity cannot be reasoned with. There is no reasonable explanation, and that's why the Church calls it a "mystery."

I do not think that is why it is called a mystery. You have been in enough trinity debates I am sure, to know that people present scriptures to back their position. Just as you do to back yours. That doesn't mean those scriptures are being used or understood properly, and in both cases, you and they have to ignore scriptures and reasoning that speaks against your understanding.

We have not "ignored scriptures" in any sense of the word. Everything we believe can be backed up solidly by all scriptures. Trinitarians will say the same, but their arguments can be dismantled easily.

The same thing can be said of you when it comes to the 'two hope' doctrine. And the backing for "Jesus is Michael" is even more scarce than the backing for "Jesus is God".

The problem is that they refuse to look at what we are explaining. We will look at any argument they put on and comment on it. I can't get most trinitarians to do the same with the scriptures I present.

Yes I have noticed that many (not all) people commenting on your threads do not respond to the direct verses you present.

The fact that they call it a mystery shows that they cannot understand the doctrine. The RCC itself said in their Catholic encyclopedia that there is no clear doctrine of the trinity in the Bible.

So where is the clear doctrine that Christ is Michael? Where is the clear doctrine that there are two hopes/destinies/kinds of Christians - wherein some are brothers of Christ, and some are the Church, but most are not?

(I think mystery officially means something that has to be revealed, rather than something that cannot be understood.)

They said that the doctrine wasn't a part of their worship until after the 4th century, and then there isn't really any scripture that speaks of the trinity except possibly Matthew 28:19. That scripture doesn't say anything about them being equal, so the trinity can't be proven by that verse.

When was the "Jesus is Michael" doctrine part of anyone's worship?
When was the "two hopes/destinations for two different kinds of Christians doctrine" a part of anyone's worship?



Peace again to you.

Those two subjects will forever be a disagreement between us.

No, not forever.

I guess there's no point in discussing anything further.

She says as she continues to discuss it (<-please take that in the friendly, lighthearted manner in which it is intended)

You believe that there is someone that is equal to Christ and has privileges that Jesus Christ has and should be mentioned in what Jesus had to say in Matthew chapter 24.

I believe no such thing. You think this about me because of things YOU attribute to Michael, but I do not make the same interpretations that you make. Of course at this point, you are just defending the doctrine of Christ being Michael, the same as a person who believes that [Jesus] is God is defend that doctrine... but it is all interpretation. The fact remains that Christ did not teach that He is God anymore than He taught that He is Micheal.

Why isn't it Michael who comes with his chosen ones at Armageddon? It says in Daniel that he will "stand up" for his people and the Great Tribulation will happen after that. There is no mention of a Michael doing that in what Jesus explained in Matthew 24.

It says in Daniel that Michael 'stands up'. Meaning that he takes some kind of action, but what that action is is not spelled out in Daniel.

So where is Michael in all of this? If he is a separate being and also "the great Prince," where is he in that scenario? And there must be TWO great Princes? You do not give Jesus enough credit.

Michael is ONE OF the chief princes. There are others: the prince of Greece, the prince of Persia, etc. Christ, however, is Prince OF princes. Also: King of kings. Lord of lords.

I am not robbing Christ of anything.

Christ is more than an angel. Hebrews states that it is not to angels that the world has been made subject. Jude speaks of both Christ and the archangel Michael in the exact same discussion. Revelation speaks of them BOTH. The resurrected Christ is still referred to as Himself (obviously). He is not ever referred to as Michael.

Christ is referred to as the Word of God.
Christ is referred to as the Lamb of God.
Christ is referred to as the Son of God.
Christ is referred to as King of kings and Lord of lords.
Christ is also referred to by His same name throughout the book of Revelation.

Michael is not referred to as any of those things because he is not Christ. Yes, Michael has angels... an archangel would have angels under his command, but he (Michael) is under the command of Christ, who is the Prince of princes.

The Adversary also has angels under his command: Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. Does that make the Adversary equal to Christ?

The two hopes are necessary to harmonize all scriptures.

The two hopes are necessary to harmonize a religion and its doctrines (including a failed doctrine).

The scriptures are just fine without it, and Christ did not teach it.

It takes a good thorough study of the Bible to really get the proper picture.

So says every religious person when their doctrine is brought into direct contradiction with what is written. I am sure you have seen it said on this forum.



**


No one gets the 'proper picture' just by studying the bible. Lots of people have done so and it would be naive (and arrogant at the same time) to think that you and your brothers are the only people out there who have done a thorough study of the bible.


If we want to know the truth, we must know Christ. He is the Truth and the Word of God, and the One to whom God told us to listen. He is the Truth WHO sets us free.


Peace again to you and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[bjs1]

Those that read the Bible, rarely do they agree on what the Bible's message actually is. Why is that? Why didn't God make the Bible easy to understand for everyone? The Bible holds the key to the answer to this question right?

I disagree with this premise. I have found that most people agree on what it is that the Bible says the majority of the time. There are a variety of tertiary issue – such as the role of women specifically in church leadership – that are murky in the scriptures. People often exaggerate the importance of some texts while suppressing the importance of others in order to come to a disagreement. However, in most areas most people agree on what the Bible teaches.

The subsequent discussions have proven you wrong.

It has not. What the discussion has revealed is that there is a tiny subset of people who disagree on the Bible, while an overwhelming majority agree on the vast majority of things that the Bible teaches. My statement that "most people agree on what it is that the Bible says the majority of the time" remains true.

[bjs1]

Understanding the Bible appears to be subjective. I can read a passage and what I understand the passage to say doesn't always match another person's understanding. Take John 17:23 for example. Many read this and think of the trinity. I do not and never have.

Personally, this would worry me a great deal.

If I were to read a passage of scripture and I saw something that almost everyone disagreed with, then I would be deeply concerned that I was mistaken.

Image that I read something (a verse from the Bible, or anything else). I thought it meant “X.” I met 99 other people who read the same words and one of them said, “Yes, it means X.” The other 98 people all said, “No, it means Y.” That would worry me.

I am more scared that I accepted something a majority agreed with just because a majority agreed, only to find out that the majority was wrong. It's happened before, it happens now and it will happen in the future.

That is possible, but exceedingly unlikely. Can you give an example of a time when 98% of people agreed on the meaning of a document, only to find out later that they were all wrong?

There are at least a billion that read support for the trinity in John 17:23 but those that don't are maybe in the hundreds of millions.

Saying that billions see this passage as a claim to the Divinity of Christ is true, but saying that hundreds of millions disagree seems like quite the exaggeration. The only way it works if we include people who have never read the passage and don’t know anything about it. If we limit our conversation to those who have studied the passage, then JW’s are by far the largest group of people who say that no aspect of the Trinity in John 17:23, and that is a group of less than 9 million. Where did you find these hundreds of millions who disagree with the common understanding of the words?

[myth-one.com]

Why can't everyone understand the Bible?

Because the words of the scriptures are sealed from mankind's understanding:

And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. (Isaiah 29:11-12)

The words of the scriptures will be unsealed in the time of the end:

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Daniel 12:4)

And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. (Isaiah 29:18)

You got it. In these last days the truth is becoming clearer and we can understand God's Word with the help of Jehovah's Holy Spirit. Jehovah's Witnesses are proclaiming these truths.

In the time of the end, the scriptures will be unsealed and thus understandable to mankind.

[2timothy316]

Understanding the Bible appears to be subjective. I can read a passage and what I understand the passage to say doesn't always match another person's understanding. Take John 17:23 for example. Many read this and think of the trinity. I do not and never have.

Personally, this would worry me a great deal.

If I were to read a passage of scripture and I saw something that almost everyone disagreed with, then I would be deeply concerned that I was mistaken.

Image that I read something (a verse from the Bible, or anything else). I thought it meant “X.” I met 99 other people who read the same words and one of them said, “Yes, it means X.” The other 98 people all said, “No, it means Y.” That would worry me.

I am more scared that I accepted something a majority agreed with just because a majority agreed, only to find out that the majority was wrong. It's happened before, it happens now and it will happen in the future.

That is possible, but exceedingly unlikely. Can you give an example of a time when 98% of people agreed on the meaning of a document, only to find out later that they were all wrong?

Easy.
https://www.healio.com/news/hematology- ... d-approved