Anyone who reads that would understand that the bread is no longer bread and the wine is no longer wine because it has been changed in its essence to become the essence of what is the body and blood of Christ.
And if it is converted into something that is not the actual body and blood of Jesus, then the RCC ought to change its doctrine because that's what their doctrine teaches
Much like the "essence" of a car can be to drive from A to B, the "essence" of the bread & wine forms has its purpose as being the real body & blood of Christ, thus not just symbolism.
The educated people in the Mediterranean region back 2000 years ago would understand this approach since it had been around for several hundred years and is reflected in their language at that time. In English, it may seem to be strange wording, but not in Koine Greek back then.
If I write a letter, and 10 people read it and all come away with 10 different understandings of what the heck I meant, is the issue the 10 people, or is the issue more likely that I could've been more clear?
It depends on why they came to different conclusion. In the case of the Bible, if you remain in truth, there will be only one conclusion and it will be the same with all who remain in truth.
That doesn't make sense. If I've solved the puzzle, it's self-evident I've done so when you look at it. There's no debate to be had. No one can look at and say, nope that piece is out of place...if it were, it wouldn't fit and it would be obvious.
So the fact that Christians disagree about if and how it's been solved suggests that the analogy doesn't work here.
Actually, it does make sense, depending on how one is looking at the scenario.
Apparently, we are not using the same scenario, for rhe puzzle. Thus I can see how that would create a problem for you.
What do you think we are talking about, when we refer to the puzzle?
Are you seeing the puzzle as (a) the actual book with pages, or are you seeing the puzzle as (b) the truth found on those pages?
If you are looking at it as (a), then we apparently went two different directions, and one of us got lost.
So one of us would need to adjust, in order that we can meet up again, and be on the same page.
So maybe let's go back to where the separation might have occurred.
I'm thinking, we might have gotten separated here.
So let's consider the scenario again, from this point.
I have seen persons try to complete a puzzle, and, failed. At the end of the exercise, some pieces were damaged, and others were missing. The picture was colorful, but one could see it was not correct.
What was the problem?
Some persons look at a piece, decide it looks like it fit, and even though it does not slip into the slot "perfectly", they force it to fit.
Some have the pieces all over the place, so a piece ends up under their foot, and is swept somewhere, or sticking to the back of their arm, and they carry it somewhere, unaware.
Sometimes, believe it or not, they misplace the box, or use it for other purpose. Then when they get back to the puzzle. "Wait. Did you see the box?"
Whatever the case, there is nothing wrong with the puzzle, but the ones putting it together... 'they are not ready'.
With regard to your question about agreeing, please note that there is no reason to think that people who sit to fix a puzzle has to agree.
However, if say three or four people sit together, and are both organized, and united - that is, they seek to help each other, and they are not proud, insisting on their own way, you could imagine that that puzzle is more likely to come together, and be completed 'perfectly'.
On the other hand, imagine - let's make it more fitting... Imagine a puzzle of a million pieces, and you have, say... how many fifty? I don't know, but it those in the group are not organized. They are not united. They are proud - insisting on their own way "That fit's. That belongs there. Don't you move it." You could imagine the outcome.
Again, the problem is not the puzzle. The problem lies with the persons working on the puzzle.
Notice this scenario shows the difference between two groups - one humble, organized, and united... the other, the complete opposite.
The disorganized group damages, and misplaces, their pieces, and even throws away the box, while the organized group uses the box as a guide, and works together to ensure no one damages the pieces.
Hence, the puzzle cannot be as simple as the book with it's pages, as though everyone is working together on one puzzle.
Understanding the truth in the Bible, is the issue.
Are we on the same page now?
If a man is blind, what he needs is a man that can see... who has a flashlight... if he needs one.
So, the man who is blind would need to behave himself, and stop acting like a stubborn mule, and hold on to the man's hand, and be guided.
However, your scenario won't fit here, because a blind man, can never see, if he is on the right path. He would need to rely on someone for the rest of his life... unless he has Paul's experience, and the scales will fall off his eyes.
Similarly, God allegedly gave us the Bible, knowing full well that its message would be wildly misunderstood and there would be massive confusion, even among those who believe the book is accurate, as to its meaning. So he chose a method that inconsistently delivers his message. Why?
I am glad you used the word allegedly.
However, you are not wrong... entirely.
Yes. God knew that masses of people would be confused, and fighting over words, and doctrines, etc., but it was not his doing. I'll explain.
To understand why he used this method, despite, we need to pay attention to what is written. Do you mind if I write my book now?
By the way, remember... you asked.
I promise though, I will try to be as brief as I can be.
God is humble. It is an attribute that is inseparable to his dominant quality, love. 1 Corinthians 13:4
Therefore, God warms towards humble people. I think I said before, he sees the proud from a distance - he distances them.
(Psalm 138:6) . . . Though Jehovah is high, he takes note of the humble, But the haughty he knows only from a distance.
I also said before, only the humble gain access to God. John 6:44
I also referred you to this post... where God chooses whom he would use/ he does the choosing. Not us. His choice is the right one. Not ours.
So when for example, he chose Moses, and anyone opposed Moses, God spoke... loudly.
(Numbers 16:1-5) 1 Then Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Leʹvi, got up together with Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, of the sons of Reuben. 2 They rose up against Moses along with 250 Israelite men, chieftains of the assembly, chosen ones of the congregation, prominent men. 3 So they gathered together against Moses and Aaron and said to them: “We have had enough of you! The whole assembly is holy, all of them, and Jehovah is in their midst. Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah?” 4 When Moses heard this, he at once fell face down. 5 Then he said to Korah and to all his supporters: “In the morning Jehovah will make known who belongs to him and who is holy and who should approach him, and whomever he may choose will approach him.
(Numbers 12:1-3) 1 Now Mirʹi·am and Aaron began to speak against Moses because of the Cu****e wife he had married, for he had taken a Cu****e wife. 2 They were saying: “Is it only by Moses that Jehovah has spoken? Has he not also spoken through us?” And Jehovah was listening. 3 Now the man Moses was by far the meekest of all the men on the face of the earth.
Really?
Can you imagine... You are in a workshop, observing a potter over his potter's wheel, molding some clay, and he shapes it into this vessel.
Then all of a sudden, the clay says, "Why did you make me this way?" What? The clay telling the potter what to do. My my my.
Have a read of Isaiah 29:16 How you twist things! Should the potter be regarded the same as the clay? Should what is made say about its maker: “He did not make me”? And does what is formed say about its former: “He shows no understanding”?
Reasonable, don't you think? Also read Isaiah 45:9, 10
I like how apostle Paul details the situation...
(Romans 9:20-24) 20 But who are you, O man, to be answering back to God? Does the thing molded say to its molder: “Why did you make me this way?” 21 What? Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for an honorable use, another for a dishonorable use? 22 What, then, if God had the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, and he tolerated with much patience vessels of wrath made fit for destruction? 23 And if this was done to make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, what of it?
All of that being said, God - the "wise, beyond any human's understanding", used a good and reliable method for the following reasons.
- He is in control. The potter does not need the clay to tell him anything. He does what he pleases, and because he is righteous, all his works are good, and right. It was his choice.
Note. There was nothing wrong with the method, but other factors were involved in making it difficult, which God allowed.
Take for example the illustration Jesus gave of the wheat and weeds. (Matthew 13:24-30)
Nothing is wrong with planting wheat. It is a good thing.
However, an enemy tried, and succeeded in causing confusion, by overwhelming the wheat, with weeds.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with communicating by means of a messenger, or letter, but an enemy can make it difficult, and cause confusion, by pretending to be the true messenger, and trying to hide the true message.
This is what occurred. God was not oblivious to it, but he could accomplish his purpose regardless of the enemy's efforts.
- It clearly defines those who are humble, and willing to submit to his way of doing things. In other words, if someone is so presumptuously arrogant, as to tell the creator of the universe, that his way is not right, then that person is not the kind of material God is looking for.
So we can say, God uses a process of elimination.... just as a man does when determining which parts of the computer's are faulty.
Those kind of people have shown themselves to be the rebellious kind - like the first rebel, and God is identifying, and rooting those out.
(2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) 10 . . . for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.
(Matthew 13:13, 14) 13 That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see.
- By means of this method, and the factors he well knew were going to manifest, God shows his great care, and interest in the humble, and lowly - the meek of the earth, who seek righteousness, and meekness.
(2 Chronicles 16:9) For the eyes of Jehovah are roving about through all the earth to show his strength in behalf of those whose heart is complete toward him. . . .
God monitor the situation, sees the ones who are meek, and acts in their behalf - drawing them to him. John 6:44 You must be tired seeing that scripture. I've referred to it so often now.
Thus, God is in the position to choose the ones who will represent him.
I don't think so. Besides, there is a difference between saying something, and actually believing it.
Some "Christians" will deny things, and try to make excuses, saying things because they can say it, but as Paul said, ". . . such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps disguising himself as an angel of light. It is therefore nothing extraordinary if his ministers also keep disguising themselves as ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)
Clearly, we have been forewarned about such individuals. Do we accept that warning?, is the question.
This is another analogy that doesn't really work. We have clearly understood and defined criteria for determining the authenticity of currency (at least in most countries). Imagine a situation in which thousands of different groups, all claiming to represent the government, all printed money within your country (are you American? I've never asked), and all had different criteria for determining which currency is valid and which isn't. What's a consumer to do?
I think your analogy doesn't work. Here is why.
You are presupposing that people get to decide what is fake from what is not. That is not the case.
Would you depend on a blind man to tell you if your zipper is up, or down... if your t-shirt is on backward or not... if you are driving in the right lane, or not...?
Surely you would not.
Similarly, it is not the blind who will tell us what's fake or not.
There are, as you said, criteria for determining the authenticity of currency.
A Christian does not depend on the blind - religious or not, to determine what is fake or genuine.
The criterion has been clearly outlined, by the Christ, and through his body.
Now imagine a blind man saying he don't see any. Duh.
For example...
(Matthew 7:15-17) 15 “Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit.
And again...
(Matthew 12:33) “Either you make the tree fine and its fruit fine or make the tree rotten and its fruit rotten, for by its fruit the tree is known.
They are more.
(John 15:8) My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples.
(John 13:35) By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves.”
(Matthew 24:11) . . . Many false prophets will arise and mislead many;
Because a 'blind man' has difficulty determining counterfeit from real, does not mean the counterfeit is the same as the real. It just means the 'blind man' will die in his ignorance, when the counterfeit is destroyed in the fire.
Imagine... it is the early 16th century. Your dad runs a business, from which he earns a living and feeds the family. He has to go away on a long trip, and he trusts you, his son, of whom he says, "Your daddy ain't raise no fool, you hear?" Before he goes, he warns you, they are people who will bring counterfeit money...
What do you expect dad's next words are likely to be?
You probably agree, he would more than likely include these things...
1. Be on the lookout / keep a sharp eye out.
2. Be sure you are thoroughly familiar with the real deal, so you can detect the differences.
3. Son. I am counting on you. Remember. Your daddy didn't raise no fool, you hear.
Now imagine, people are giving you money, and you take one look at it, and give them the item.
Why wouldn't you do a thing like that? Because your daddy didn't raise no fool.
So what do you do instead?
1. You didn't ignore your dad's warning, but took it seriously.
2. You familiarized yourself with the real thing.
3. You carefully examine the markings, and make careful comparisons.
When your dad return, and sees you have some loot. He will say to you, "Well done son. I know, your daddy didn't raise no fool."
Jesus and his apostles - the daddy - gave clear warnings, and instructions.
His followers - the son -takes the warning seriously. They know, and can identify the counterfeit.
They don't look to blind people to do this for them. What?
The reason why there are so many different religions, claiming to believe the Bible, and follow its teachings, was repeatedly given in scripture. For example, (2 Timothy 4:3, 4) 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories. . .
Your job, is to know what's real, identify it, and therefore know what's counterfeit.
It's not a matter of "he says, she says". That's not the purpose of your thread, is it?
You have seen how that goes, and you have even said, to quote your exact words... So a thread I started to discuss why the Bible is unclear has descended into a debate about whether a particular doctrine is taught in the Bible....
Can we step back for a minute? Whichever side is correct, if God intended for us to just read the Bible to be able to glean his views... the question of the thread is, why does doing just that produce such contradictory results? Is it possible that perhaps the Bible is not so clear? Maybe even contradictory?
I am here answering those questions. So did you get the answer?
I thought I explained.
Actually, I did. Quote
A little exercise we can carry out...
Most person you see, arguing on scripture, ask them where they worship, or what religion the affiliate with.
If they tell you, they attend any religion, ask them why... see what they say.
They are divided, yet they attend each others services, and most will tell you, it's not the church, or God is in hearts, not buildings, or we are all worshipping the same God, we just have different paths.
What?
I can see you scratching your head. I am with you on that.
That should tell you something. They don't know. Some would even tell you they don't. They are still searching. Unquote
If they are still searching, they cannot be the ones to answer your questions.
That would be equivalent to you asking a blind man to tell you the difference between the counterfeit $100 bill you hold in your left hand, and the genuine one you hold in your right... without touching them.
The problem is that you're begging the question that your group is the "true" body of Christ. But all Christians already think, and claim, that they're in the true body of Christ. So we're back to square one. It's no detour, it's the central point of the thread. You, just like every other Christian who disagrees with you, think you've got the real deal. But none of you agree that each other has the real deal, lol. So all the things you claim about them being fake, they claim about you.
Since you put it that way, But all Christians already think, and claim, that they're in the true body of Christ. what else would you expect... that they would say otherwise?
You ought to really carry out the exercise.
If they are honest, there would be no back-peddling on their stance.
One cannot be searching, and honestly believe they are the body of Christ. What? Seriously?
Now I thought you said before that the issue with non-JWs isn't that they're not humble (sorry for the double negative). But you've now again said we can know the truth if we are humble, hungry for truth, and honest. Does that mean that anyone who disagrees with you isn't humble, isn't interested in knowing the truth, or isn't honest? If not, then those criteria don't seem helpful to determine who the "real" Christians are.
Hmmm. Don't worry. Communicating is not always a straight forward thing... even when it is. That's why we are on this thread, debating whether the message of the Bible has been communicated in a straightforward way.
I was responding to your point that some Christians attend each other's services. You seemed to see that as evidence that they don't know the truth. I was pointing out to you that some Christians agree with you on that point - but they're not JWs.
I think you assumed that I was saying that this is a mark of Christianity. As I said, you were mistaken.
I was really pointing out to you that you need to know and look at what "Christians" do, because it helps you to narrow down the broad brush that you apparently are painting with... which makes quite a lot of difference to the subject we are discussing.
For if you are talking about a fault with the Bible, it would not be reasonable to use a fault outside the Bible, to support that argument.
Right. You were saying that there are similarities... which is not really important, since it is expected that counterfeit is supposed to resemble the real thing.
I think many would agree on what constitutes good Bible study. That the Bible is inspired by God and contains doctrines which are to be believed.
I agree with that. However, I disagree that some of those doctrines are a mystery or can't be comprehended by reason. I also disagree that we need to explain those doctrines by adding words and phrases not found in the Bible.
For example, 'immortal soul' and 'Trinity'.
Some think they have discovered something and need to explain it outside of Scripture. I haven't found that necessary. Because the Bible explains itself. A little here and a little there.
If I write a letter, and 10 people read it and all come away with 10 different understandings of what the heck I meant, is the issue the 10 people, or is the issue more likely that I could've been more clear?
If I did an investigation, and found that the reason for the confusion was 1) Some of the readers were dishonest, and twisted the text for their own dishonest means, then 2) Some did not thoroughly examine the text for themselves, but followed the ideas, of the first set, and formed their own opinion, and 3) Some were misled into believing that one can form their own opinions, since there are so many views...
So out of those ten, nine were actually not confused because of the text itself, but because of error, on their part...
Would you be open to accept the results of my investigation, or would you close you mind to those results.
Actually, it does make sense, depending on how one is looking at the scenario.
Apparently, we are not using the same scenario, for rhe puzzle. Thus I can see how that would create a problem for you.
What do you think we are talking about, when we refer to the puzzle?
Are you seeing the puzzle as (a) the actual book with pages, or are you seeing the puzzle as (b) the truth found on those pages?
Ah okay, you appear to be confusing the analogy for the thing being analogized. The puzzle I had in mind was a jigsaw. The puzzle isn't the Bible, the Bible is the thing we're trying to find an analogy for. You may think the Bible is like a puzzle, but my point is that the analogy is imperfect in a key way needed for your point to cohere.
If you are looking at it as (a), then we apparently went two different directions, and one of us got lost.
So one of us would need to adjust, in order that we can meet up again, and be on the same page.
So maybe let's go back to where the separation might have occurred.
I'm thinking, we might have gotten separated here.
So let's consider the scenario again, from this point.
I have seen persons try to complete a puzzle, and, failed. At the end of the exercise, some pieces were damaged, and others were missing...Are we on the same page now?
No, I still don't think we are. In the analogy, if the humble, organized group have solved the puzzle, no one could declare they haven't. It would be self-evident they've done so by looking at their puzzle and seeing that all the pieces fit. The other group might not like their approach, etc. but they wouldn't be able to say the first group hadn't solved the thing.
Yet in the Bible's case, we have thousands of groups all "working on the puzzle," so to speak, and none have clearly solved it, as there's widespread disagreement between y'all regarding whether it's been done. So again, this is the key way that the Bible is not like a jigsaw. The situation is more complex. And thus, the problem of the OP - why would God choose to communicate his ideas in such a muddled way?
If a man is blind, what he needs is a man that can see... who has a flashlight... if he needs one.
So, the man who is blind would need to behave himself, and stop acting like a stubborn mule, and hold on to the man's hand, and be guided.
However, your scenario won't fit here, because a blind man, can never see, if he is on the right path. He would need to rely on someone for the rest of his life... unless he has Paul's experience, and the scales will fall off his eyes.
Precisely. Which is why giving the Bible to humanity, knowing they would be endlessly confused by it, is an odd and imprecise way to communicate his message, if he wants it to be clear.
I am glad you used the word allegedly.
However, you are not wrong... entirely.
Yes. God knew that masses of people would be confused, and fighting over words, and doctrines, etc., but it was not his doing. I'll explain.
To understand why he used this method, despite, we need to pay attention to what is written. Do you mind if I write my book now?
By the way, remember... you asked.
I promise though, I will try to be as brief as I can be.
God is humble. It is an attribute that is inseparable to his dominant quality, love. 1 Corinthians 13:4
Therefore, God warms towards humble people. I think I said before, he sees the proud from a distance - he distances them.
(Psalm 138:6) . . . Though Jehovah is high, he takes note of the humble, But the haughty he knows only from a distance.
I also said before, only the humble gain access to God. John 6:44
I also referred you to this post... where God chooses whom he would use/ he does the choosing. Not us. His choice is the right one. Not ours.
So when for example, he chose Moses, and anyone opposed Moses, God spoke... loudly.
(Numbers 16:1-5) 1 Then Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Leʹvi, got up together with Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, of the sons of Reuben. 2 They rose up against Moses along with 250 Israelite men, chieftains of the assembly, chosen ones of the congregation, prominent men. 3 So they gathered together against Moses and Aaron and said to them: “We have had enough of you! The whole assembly is holy, all of them, and Jehovah is in their midst. Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah?” 4 When Moses heard this, he at once fell face down. 5 Then he said to Korah and to all his supporters: “In the morning Jehovah will make known who belongs to him and who is holy and who should approach him, and whomever he may choose will approach him.
(Numbers 12:1-3) 1 Now Mirʹi·am and Aaron began to speak against Moses because of the Cu****e wife he had married, for he had taken a Cu****e wife. 2 They were saying: “Is it only by Moses that Jehovah has spoken? Has he not also spoken through us?” And Jehovah was listening. 3 Now the man Moses was by far the meekest of all the men on the face of the earth.
Really?
Can you imagine... You are in a workshop, observing a potter over his potter's wheel, molding some clay, and he shapes it into this vessel.
Then all of a sudden, the clay says, "Why did you make me this way?" What? The clay telling the potter what to do. My my my.
Have a read of Isaiah 29:16 How you twist things! Should the potter be regarded the same as the clay? Should what is made say about its maker: “He did not make me”? And does what is formed say about its former: “He shows no understanding”?
Reasonable, don't you think?
No, I don't. Just because you create a life, does not give you the right to treat that life however you please. Nor does creating a life make you morally superior to that life, or above criticism from that life. But that's probably beyond the scope of this thread.
All of that being said, God - the "wise, beyond any human's understanding", used a good and reliable method for the following reasons.
- He is in control. The potter does not need the clay to tell him anything. He does what he pleases, and because he is righteous, all his works are good, and right. It was his choice.
This is just "might makes right" reasoning. You're just claiming without demonstration that because God does x, x must be right. But that just begs the question. How is what God allegedly did here correct? What is the reasoning?
Note. There was nothing wrong with the method, but other factors were involved in making it difficult, which God allowed.
Take for example the illustration Jesus gave of the wheat and weeds. (Matthew 13:24-30)
Nothing is wrong with planting wheat. It is a good thing.
However, an enemy tried, and succeeded in causing confusion, by overwhelming the wheat, with weeds.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with communicating by means of a messenger, or letter, but an enemy can make it difficult, and cause confusion, by pretending to be the true messenger, and trying to hide the true message.
This is what occurred. God was not oblivious to it, but he could accomplish his purpose regardless of the enemy's efforts.
There are a couple problems with this. 1) If you're aware of obstacles to achieving a goal ahead of time, but you employ a method for achieving the goal that intentionally does not circumvent those obstacles, you can't very well blame the obstacles. This is like arriving late for an appointment because of a traffic jam you knew would be there (thanks to the magic of Google maps), but chose not to leave early or take another route. You're still late. You could've arrived on time had you chosen to, but you chose not to. So you don't get to blame external factors. Particularly not when you're literally omnipotent. 2) God didn't achieve his purpose, if his purpose was to communicate clearly. That's the whole problem of the OP.
- It clearly defines those who are humble, and willing to submit to his way of doing things. In other words, if someone is so presumptuously arrogant, as to tell the creator of the universe, that his way is not right, then that person is not the kind of material God is looking for.
So we can say, God uses a process of elimination.... just as a man does when determining which parts of the computer's are faulty.
Those kind of people have shown themselves to be the rebellious kind - like the first rebel, and God is identifying, and rooting those out.
(2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) 10 . . . for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.
(Matthew 13:13, 14) 13 That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see.
I don't understand how this is an explanation for the method. God wants people who are, "willing to submit to his way of doing things." Okay. The whole problem is that Christians can't agree on what "his way of doing this" is. So unless you're saying that all the Bible believers who aren't JWs are arrogant, and that's the reason they're not JWs, then I don't see how this explains anything.
- By means of this method, and the factors he well knew were going to manifest, God shows his great care, and interest in the humble, and lowly - the meek of the earth, who seek righteousness, and meekness.
(2 Chronicles 16:9) For the eyes of Jehovah are roving about through all the earth to show his strength in behalf of those whose heart is complete toward him. . . .
God monitor the situation, sees the ones who are meek, and acts in their behalf - drawing them to him. John 6:44 You must be tired seeing that scripture. I've referred to it so often now.
Thus, God is in the position to choose the ones who will represent him.
This seems to just be an expansion of the last bullet. Unless you're saying all non-JW Bible believers are not humble or not meek, then this doesn't actually explain God's reasoning.[/spoiler]
If I did an investigation, and found that the reason for the confusion was 1) Some of the readers were dishonest, and twisted the text for their own dishonest means, then 2) Some did not thoroughly examine the text for themselves, but followed the ideas, of the first set, and formed their own opinion, and 3) Some were misled into believing that one can form their own opinions, since there are so many views...
So out of those ten, nine were actually not confused because of the text itself, but because of error, on their part...
Would you be open to accept the results of my investigation, or would you close you mind to those results.
Yes, I'd be open to accepting those results, if your evidence was conclusive. You'd admit though, that's an incredibly unlikely scenario compared to the much more commonplace situation where a person just doesn't communicate as clearly as they could have, right?
Yes, I'd be open to accepting those results, if your evidence was conclusive. You'd admit though, that's an incredibly unlikely scenario compared to the much more commonplace situation where a person just doesn't communicate as clearly as they could have, right?
The views regarding messages that are given "as clearly as one could have", is a subjective opinion.
To give an example, how much clearer can I get than this...
Jehovah God is one.
This is my Son.
I am God’s Son.
The father is greater than I am.
You don't think other Christians/Christian groups regard JWs as non/pseudo-Christians?
I assure you...many of them do.
I think your analogy doesn't work. Here is why.
You are presupposing that people get to decide what is fake from what is not. That is not the case.
Would you depend on a blind man to tell you if your zipper is up, or down... if your t-shirt is on backward or not... if you are driving in the right lane, or not...?
Surely you would not.
Similarly, it is not the blind who will tell us what's fake or not.
There are, as you said, criteria for determining the authenticity of currency.
A Christian does not depend on the blind - religious or not, to determine what is fake or genuine.
The criterion has been clearly outlined, by the Christ, and through his body.
Now imagine a blind man saying he don't see any. Duh.
The problem is that the criteria haven't been clearly outlined, or else Bible believers would agree about them! You can claim, of course, that all non-JWs are blind and your group is the only one that sees. And, of course, numerous other Christian groups say that their group is the one that sees and your group is blind. They agree with you that the criteria have clearly been outlined by Christ and his body. Unfortunately, JWs don't make the cut. Again, this is the problem outlined in the OP.
Imagine... it is the early 16th century. Your dad runs a business, from which he earns a living and feeds the family. He has to go away on a long trip, and he trusts you, his son, of whom he says, "Your daddy ain't raise no fool, you hear?" Before he goes, he warns you, they are people who will bring counterfeit money...
What do you expect dad's next words are likely to be?
You probably agree, he would more than likely include these things...
1. Be on the lookout / keep a sharp eye out.
2. Be sure you are thoroughly familiar with the real deal, so you can detect the differences.
3. Son. I am counting on you. Remember. Your daddy didn't raise no fool, you hear.
Now imagine, people are giving you money, and you take one look at it, and give them the item.
Why wouldn't you do a thing like that? Because your daddy didn't raise no fool.
So what do you do instead?
1. You didn't ignore your dad's warning, but took it seriously.
2. You familiarized yourself with the real thing.
3. You carefully examine the markings, and make careful comparisons.
When your dad return, and sees you have some loot. He will say to you, "Well done son. I know, your daddy didn't raise no fool."
Jesus and his apostles - the daddy - gave clear warnings, and instructions.
His followers - the son -takes the warning seriously. They know, and can identify the counterfeit.
They don't look to blind people to do this for them. What?
The reason why there are so many different religions, claiming to believe the Bible, and follow its teachings, was repeatedly given in scripture. For example, (2 Timothy 4:3, 4) 3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled. 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories. . .
Your job, is to know what's real, identify it, and therefore know what's counterfeit.
It's not a matter of "he says, she says". That's not the purpose of your thread, is it?
You have seen how that goes, and you have even said, to quote your exact words... So a thread I started to discuss why the Bible is unclear has descended into a debate about whether a particular doctrine is taught in the Bible....
Can we step back for a minute? Whichever side is correct, if God intended for us to just read the Bible to be able to glean his views... the question of the thread is, why does doing just that produce such contradictory results? Is it possible that perhaps the Bible is not so clear? Maybe even contradictory?
I am here answering those questions. So did you get the answer?
You have given an answer, or attempted to. Just not a satisfactory one. But I suppose, I had very small hopes that I would achieve a satisfactory one, such is the nature of religious debates oftentimes. But I appreciate your insight, as it helps me understand your view.
I thought I explained.
Actually, I did. Quote
A little exercise we can carry out...
Most person you see, arguing on scripture, ask them where they worship, or what religion the affiliate with.
If they tell you, they attend any religion, ask them why... see what they say.
They are divided, yet they attend each others services, and most will tell you, it's not the church, or God is in hearts, not buildings, or we are all worshipping the same God, we just have different paths.
What?
I can see you scratching your head. I am with you on that.
That should tell you something. They don't know. Some would even tell you they don't. They are still searching. Unquote
If they are still searching, they cannot be the ones to answer your questions.
That would be equivalent to you asking a blind man to tell you the difference between the counterfeit $100 bill you hold in your left hand, and the genuine one you hold in your right... without touching them.
Right. So a Christian who attends other Christians' services are still searching.
Those still searching cannot answer my questions.
A true Christian is one who is not searching because they already know the truth, and therefore can answer my questions.
Thus, a Christian who attends other Christians' services are not true Christians.
This is the straightforward transitory logic of your argument. Yet when I summarized, "So the mark of a "true" Christian is...one who doesn't attend the services of Christians who disagree with them?" you replied, "No. Of course not..How could that be?"
Do you see why I'm not following?
Hmmm. Don't worry. Communicating is not always a straight forward thing... even when it is. That's why we are on this thread, debating whether the message of the Bible has been communicated in a straightforward way.
I think you assumed that I was saying that this is a mark of Christianity. As I said, you were mistaken.
I was really pointing out to you that you need to know and look at what "Christians" do, because it helps you to narrow down the broad brush that you apparently are painting with... which makes quite a lot of difference to the subject we are discussing.
For if you are talking about a fault with the Bible, it would not be reasonable to use a fault outside the Bible, to support that argument.
Why are you putting "Christian" in quotes? Is it not because we're discussing the difference between who you regard as a true Christian and who you regard as "Christian" only in name? If so, then if attending other Christians' services is not relevant to that assessment, then again, I genuinely don't know why you brought it up.
@Left Coast What do you consider the problem to be, in the disagreements and debates on scientific discoveries?
Do you think the problem is science, or does the problem lie with people? Or other?
The views regarding messages that are given "as clearly as one could have", is a subjective opinion.
To give an example, how much clearer can I get than this...
Jehovah God is one.
This is my Son.
I am God’s Son.
The father is greater than I am.
Well a) you could actually get a lot clearer. Jehovah God is one...one what? Jesus is God's Son...God and Jesus' mom had sex? The father is greater than him...greater how? b) But also, you know that's not all the book says.
The Father and I are one.
He who has seen Me has seen the Father.
Before Abraham was, I AM.
I'm not interested in hashing out some interpretive debate with you over particular texts, because that would lead down too huge of a rabbit trail. Suffice it to say, the reason there have been centuries of disagreement over these verses, and so many others, is because there is not one clear way they should be interpreted. Thus, again, the problem of the OP.
@Left Coast What do you consider the problem to be, in the disagreements and debates on scientific discoveries?
Do you think the problem is science, or does the problem lie with people? Or other?
Well a) you could actually get a lot clearer. Jehovah God is one...one what? Jesus is God's Son...God and Jesus' mom had sex? The father is greater than him...greater how? b) But also, you know that's not all the book says.
The Father and I are one.
He who has seen Me has seen the Father.
Before Abraham was, I AM.
I'm not interested in hashing out some interpretive debate with you over particular texts, because that would lead down too huge of a rabbit trail. Suffice it to say, the reason there have been centuries of disagreement over these verses, and so many others, is because there is not one clear way they should be interpreted. Thus, again, the problem of the OP.
So your argument is not that God could have used a different method, but that God should use the method of audibly being heard answering your every question.
Okay. we - that is @1213@LightofTruth and myself, have addressed the OP. The problem is not with God, his methods, nor the Bible.
No need to go into the many debates, because each one you mentioned has already been explained in the Bible itself. I'll just use one. How are they one? The Bible says specifically. 'In union'. It says a lot more too, but there is no need to get into those. The problem has been identified, already.
The problem is with men wanting their own way.
That's what I was trying to explain, based on the texts that shows, God knows the heart, and he makes it easy for you to reveal it clearly, so that no proud individuals may enter the world he is creating for those that love him - the meek.
Thus the terms in the Bible, sheep and goats.
When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne, and all the nations will be gathered before him. He will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.
Then the King will say to those on his right: ‘Come, you who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you.
Then he will say to those on his left: ‘Go away from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels'.
(Matthew 25:31-46)
Not really.
I responded to several questions you repeatedly asked me.
Nevertheless...
I believe the answer is obvious.
Since some things ...
1) cannot be proven absolutely
there are ...
2) subject to being wrong
thus ....
3) can be questioned
Hence, man can always, and will always debate.
It has nothing to do with God's ability, or inability, but involves the factors involving humans - their limited knowledge and understanding, and the element of dishonesty.
The Bible says, God's attributes are clearly seen. Yet there will be persons who will argue that it is not clear, and claim otherwise, because it cannot be proven absolutely.
It will be proven only when the cops come - when the ultimate proof is revealed... in this case, when God proves it.
They will have to know... he says.
(Jeremiah 16:21) So I will make them know, At this time I will make them know my power and my might, And they will have to know that my name is Jehovah. . .
So your argument is not that God could have used a different method, but that God should use the method of audibly being heard answering your every question.
My argument is that the method he used does not effectively communicate his message, whatever that is. If his not interested in being an effective communicator, that's his decision.
Okay. we - that is @1213@LightofTruth and myself, have addressed the OP. The problem is not with God, his methods, nor the Bible.
Nevertheless...
I believe the answer is obvious.
Since some things ...
1) cannot be proven absolutely
there are ...
2) subject to being wrong
thus ....
3) can be questioned
Hence, man can always, and will always debate.
It has nothing to do with God's ability, or inability, but involves the factors involving humans - their limited knowledge and understanding, and the element of dishonesty.
The Bible says, God's attributes are clearly seen. Yet there will be persons who will argue that it is not clear, and claim otherwise, because it cannot be proven absolutely.
It will be proven only when the cops come - when the ultimate proof is revealed... in this case, when God proves it.
They will have to know... he says.
(Jeremiah 16:21) So I will make them know, At this time I will make them know my power and my might, And they will have to know that my name is Jehovah. . .
Who decides whether someone can see something clearly? Doesn't...the person themselves have the best vantage point to determine that? So for many millions, God's attributes are not clearly seen. For millions of others, they agree with you that Gods attributes are clearly seen - they just don't agree with you on what those attributes are. This, again, is the problem in the OP.
@Left Coast take care... and thanks for the thread.
I enjoyed beating the stuffings out of the argument.
Seriously though, I can't answer, or try to help you any more than I have. I am certain there is no answer that will satisfy you.
Those who can't identify the weeds from the wheat, are the ones in trouble.
Remember, the wicked man sowed the weeds with that purpose in mind... and evidently has succeeded with the masses.
The wheat sower says, "I know my sheep, and they listen to my voice."
They are okay. ...and that's very few.
Remember Noah? It was just him, and seven others. Eight souls started fresh.
God started with two.
Today, there will be a few million, but that's more than enough, to make a paradise, that's going to last forever.
Enjoy.
