Divinely Inspired Ambiguity?

Dartman

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2017
1,311
221
71
Washington
✟27,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ah Ha! SDA. Should have known it.
That's a miss!
But the Adventist label is accurate!
So is Baptist and Anabaptist ..... but the truth is, I am Pentecostal ... in the TRUEST sense of that word. The Catholics actually "fell away" from us.
 
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,984
2,479
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,309.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
That's a miss!
But the Adventist label is accurate!
So is Baptist and Anabaptist ..... but the truth is, I am Pentecostal ... in the TRUEST sense of that word. The Catholics actually "fell away" from us.

I would love to see which strange, skewed history book gives you your Christian history. Even secular historians would laugh at what you just said.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,536
2,723
USA
Visit site
✟134,848.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Dartman

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2017
1,311
221
71
Washington
✟27,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would love to see which strange, skewed history book gives you your Christian history. Even secular historians would laugh at what you just said.
You do realize the Council of Nicea was NOT a majority of all the Bishops, right? There were just over 300 in attendance, (depending which count you accept), out of 1,800?
AND, of those 300 or so, not ALL accepted the version of the "trinity" defined by that council, AND the Arian camp actually achieved control of the Church, and suppressed the Athanasian camp until about 362.
And that council was 325 AD. ... roughly 175 years AFTER the so called "Apostles Creed", which MUCH more closely reflects the Jesus actually taught in Scripture!
So ANY claim that the "trinity" was a doctrine held by the early church is in direct contradiction with the actual history of the church, with the doctrine clearly stated in the earliest creed ....... and MUCH more significantly .... is in DIRECT contradiction with the "Jesus" actually explained, described and preached in the Scriptures!!!
There isn't a SINGLE example of ANY tenet unique to the "trinity" being explained to ANY audience in the Bible!!!
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Hillsage
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
7,024
3,750
✟287,812.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I think it's a mistake to say God should have written the bible a certain way, as if it were a systematic theology text. That was never the intent of the biblical writers. There is simply no supposing that the bible could have been written in a way which would encourage less division than already is. Human autonomy gives us the ability to misinterpret literally everyone's word.

So it's not that God was being deliberately ambiguous. We should consider first and foremost that the original authors had an intent and beyond that the words of Christ had an intent even if they could be understood in different ways. The fault lies with individuals who think they have apprehended these words when in reality they have not. I'll take the 'Catholic' interpretation which is the historic interpretation of the Church long before the reformation tried to reinvent the wheel.

I do think your observation lends itself against the idea that scripture is totally perspicuous, that we can totally understand it in of itself (the so called bible interprets itself school of thinking). We do not have access to the minds of the 1st century church who would have read the bible and understood it within it's proper context and thus we have to try and recreate that if we want to be faithful to the deposit. We have 21st century minds and thus we will read it differently, that cannot be helped. This doesn't pose a problem since I do not think the bible was ever intended to speak to one age but to all ages in concert, regulating innovations by long established precedents and allowing us the freedom to go back to the sources and establish a more correct meaning. I would suggest we conclude from this that God didn't intend the bible to a final authority in an absolute way, it's not a book of systematic theology, but a book which works within the Church to resolve difficulties.

You do realize the Council of Nicea was NOT a majority of all the Bishops, right? There were just over 300 in attendance, (depending which count you accept), out of 1,800?
AND, of those 300 or so, not ALL accepted the version of the "trinity" defined by that council, AND the Arian camp actually achieved control of the Church, and suppressed the Athanasian camp until about 362.
And that council was 325 AD. ... roughly 175 years AFTER the so called "Apostles Creed", which MUCH more closely reflects the Jesus actually taught in Scripture!
So ANY claim that the "trinity" was a doctrine held by the early church is in direct contradiction with the actual history of the church, with the doctrine clearly stated in the earliest creed ....... and MUCH more significantly .... is in DIRECT contradiction with the "Jesus" actually explained, described and preached in the Scriptures!!!
There isn't a SINGLE example of ANY tenet unique to the "trinity" being explained to ANY audience in the Bible!!!

If you want to suggest the doctrine of the trinity arose only within the council of Nicaea and had no build up in the ante Nicene Church to it's conclusion I think you would be hard pressed to make that case. Theology never arises in a vacuum but is a response to new ideas, we see it in the bible and every century up and until now.

Yes the Church before Nicaea (even slightly after it) did not hold to the Trinity as would be defined by later generations (Nicaea did not finalise Trinitarian theology) but it did hold positions which needed explaining in a way that only the idea of the Trinity adequately explains. If Jesus is God and the Father is God, how is it we confess one God? Do we have two Gods or one? What is the relationship between Father and Son? Is the Son totally equal ontologically with his father or lesser? Do they share the same essence? These were questions which built up by the proto-arians and found their answers in the ecumenical councils which the Church gradually embraced though you have rejected them and hence the Church of antiquity.

Also if the bible not mentioning certain aspects of faith is not warrant to dismiss an idea. The bible no where addresses Donatism yet that was an idea that ought to have been addressed.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did God intend the Bible to be unclear?

So it seems to me the New Testament is somewhat a product of scriptural ambiguity. That is, certain significant passages of scripture use imprecise language, which lends itself to differing and even contradictory interpretations. If we accept the premise that the Bible is the word of God and divinely inspired, then does this mean such lack of preciaion and the resulting disagreements about the meaning of key passages is divinely intentional?

One example:

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”​

The four words, "this is my body," are cause for a great divide amoung Christians. For instance, Catholics believe Christ to be saying:

"this is my [actual] body"
Thus they believe the Eucharist they eat at mass is actually the body of Christ, and a sacrament that contributes to their salvation. On the other hand, some other Christians believe Christ to be saying:

"this is [like] my body"​

Hence they see the bread as merely a symbol and deny the Catholic belief in the sacrament and divide over it.

The thing is, if anything is divinely inspired, these four words are, for they were spoken by God himself! So why not say five words instead of four and stop the future divide before it begins?

A good thought to have about the body of Christ given for us in the Eucharist is that the two main viewpoints amount to finally the same central truth in the most fundamental sense. His body was truly given for us. Whether one uses the abstraction that an essence of His body is literally in the elements, or His body literally, or that He is spiritually present, all amount to the same difference, as I see it.

His Body, given for you.
The New Covenant in His Blood, shed for you.

One could come to that realization, in the profound sense, and then a true fact of it is come on you.

John chapter 6 is good for anyone to read, and anyone is deepened and given needed things from it.

I feel we have to be remembering that we cannot fully encompass the divine in our mere abstractions also! His reality is higher than our words.

When the holy gift of the Eucharist is offered to me, I sometimes have trembled at what is being offered, the weight of it, at being in the presence of His holiness. This good fear drove out the useless abstractions, and helped me at times when I needed it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,172
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,592.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Did God intend the Bible to be unclear?

So it seems to me the New Testament is somewhat a product of scriptural ambiguity. That is, certain significant passages of scripture use imprecise language, which lends itself to differing and even contradictory interpretations. If we accept the premise that the Bible is the word of God and divinely inspired, then does this mean such lack of preciaion and the resulting disagreements about the meaning of key passages is divinely intentional?

One example:

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”​

The four words, "this is my body," are cause for a great divide amoung Christians. For instance, Catholics believe Christ to be saying:

"this is my [actual] body"
Thus they believe the Eucharist they eat at mass is actually the body of Christ, and a sacrament that contributes to their salvation. On the other hand, some other Christians believe Christ to be saying:

"this is [like] my body"​

Hence they see the bread as merely a symbol and deny the Catholic belief in the sacrament and divide over it.

The thing is, if anything is divinely inspired, these four words are, for they were spoken by God himself! So why not say five words instead of four and stop the future divide before it begins?

I'm reminded of how Christ said the truths are understood by small children, but (often) hidden from the learned --

Luke 10, v21 -- At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do."

Notice how this lines up with the absolute requirement that we "change" and become like little children in key ways.

Matthew --
1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Luke -- 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”
 
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,984
2,479
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,309.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
He clearly told them that he wasn't referring to his literal flesh and his literal blood.

John 6:63
New International Version
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life.

Stop and think of what you just said. If the "flesh counts for nothing," then the Crucifixion is meaningless.
 
Upvote 0

Dartman

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2017
1,311
221
71
Washington
✟27,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I do think your observation lends itself against the idea that scripture is totally perspicuous, that we can totally understand it in of itself (the so called bible interprets itself school of thinking). We do not have access to the minds of the 1st century church who would have read the bible and understood it within it's proper context and thus we have to try and recreate that if we want to be faithful to the deposit. We have 21st century minds and thus we will read it differently, that cannot be helped. This doesn't pose a problem since I do not think the bible was ever intended to speak to one age but to all ages in concert, regulating innovations by long established precedents and allowing us the freedom to go back to the sources and establish a more correct meaning. I would suggest we conclude from this that God didn't intend the bible to a final authority in an absolute way, it's not a book of systematic theology, but a book which works within the Church to resolve difficulties.
I believe the Scriptures disagree with your conclusions;

2 Tim 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

2 Tim 3:13-17 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Peter 3:14-16 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.


Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

I do not know you, or your beliefs, but I have found that most people attempting to discredit the accuracy of Scripture, have found that it says something they don't like.
Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Dartman said:
You do realize the Council of Nicea was NOT a majority of all the Bishops, right? There were just over 300 in attendance, (depending which count you accept), out of 1,800?
AND, of those 300 or so, not ALL accepted the version of the "trinity" defined by that council, AND the Arian camp actually achieved control of the Church, and suppressed the Athanasian camp until about 362.
And that council was 325 AD. ... roughly 175 years AFTER the so called "Apostles Creed", which MUCH more closely reflects the Jesus actually taught in Scripture!
So ANY claim that the "trinity" was a doctrine held by the early church is in direct contradiction with the actual history of the church, with the doctrine clearly stated in the earliest creed ....... and MUCH more significantly .... is in DIRECT contradiction with the "Jesus" actually explained, described and preached in the Scriptures!!!
There isn't a SINGLE example of ANY tenet unique to the "trinity" being explained to ANY audience in the Bible!!!
If you want to suggest the doctrine of the trinity arose only within the council of Nicaea and had no build up in the ante Nicene Church to it's conclusion I think you would be hard pressed to make that case.
1) I am utterly convinced the doctrine of the trinity was beginning to rear it's ugly head in Paul's time, hence his tearful warnings in Acts 20:28-30 and his statement in 2 Thess 2, that the "falling away" was "already at work".
2) The council of Nicaea wasn't the "conclusion", the trinitarian misunderstanding of the spirit of God wasn't fully developed until the end of the 4th century.
Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Theology never arises in a vacuum but is a response to new ideas, we see it in the bible and every century up and until now.
I heartily agree!
The development of the trinity was utterly dependent on pagan Greek theology and philosophy. Look how many of the "fathers" of the trinity were students of Greek philosophy!
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Did God intend the Bible to be unclear?

So it seems to me the New Testament is somewhat a product of scriptural ambiguity. That is, certain significant passages of scripture use imprecise language, which lends itself to differing and even contradictory interpretations. If we accept the premise that the Bible is the word of God and divinely inspired, then does this mean such lack of preciaion and the resulting disagreements about the meaning of key passages is divinely intentional?

One example:

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”​

The four words, "this is my body," are cause for a great divide amoung Christians. For instance, Catholics believe Christ to be saying:

"this is my [actual] body"
Thus they believe the Eucharist they eat at mass is actually the body of Christ, and a sacrament that contributes to their salvation. On the other hand, some other Christians believe Christ to be saying:

"this is [like] my body"​

Hence they see the bread as merely a symbol and deny the Catholic belief in the sacrament and divide over it.

The thing is, if anything is divinely inspired, these four words are, for they were spoken by God himself! So why not say five words instead of four and stop the future divide before it begins?
I think it takes a God to know or understand or comprehend clearly and straightly "all" of it... And that kinda is also it's point and the conclusion were supposed to arrive at... We can know in pieces and parts, cause were not a, and most definitely not "The" God...

Christ said he came to cause division, (For a sorting work right before harvest time)... And bring a sword... And would baptize with fire, fire of the Holy Spirit that is from the Father...

Were not god's or a, or "The" God, so... we each know in part, not in whole, through a glass dimly or darkly...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,536
2,723
USA
Visit site
✟134,848.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Stop and think of what you just said. If the "flesh counts for nothing," then the Crucifixion is meaningless.
Jesus was referring to the LITERAL eating and drinking of his body and blood that those who had been rightfully offended were referring to. That is the context of his reply. Eating blood was prohibited under Mosaic Law and cannibalism was not approved as well. He clarified by telling his disciples that he had been speaking not in a literal way but in a spiritual way.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not at all what the first Christians believed. Why do you think that you are correct and they are wrong?
Jesus said He was a door and the true vine.
That does not mean He is a literal door with hinges on it or that He is an actual plant.

Jesus was misunderstood most of the time because He was speaking in spiritual terms like with Nicodemus. Nicodemus thought like you in regards to the words of Jesus. Nicodemus originally thought Jesus was talking in physical terms with him when in reality he was talking in spiritual terms.

Also, most in the RCC camp and it's sister churches believe the Eucharist to be a salvation issue. Clearly if it was this important than Jesus and His followers would stress the importance in partaking in the Eucharist to maintain their salvation. However, I do not see that taught in Scripture, though. But good luck trying to make the Bible say that (when it really doesn't).


...
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
BTW ~ I do believe in the Trinity. I believe the Scriptures teach this truth.
I also believe Sanctification (holy living) is the second stage or step in the salvation process in addition to God's saving grace (i.e. asking Jesus to forgive you of your sins and believing in Jesus Christ as your Savior and believing that He died and was risen your behalf).

But nowhere does the Bible describe the Eucharist like the RCC describes and nowhere does the Bible say that the Eucharist is for salvation as the RCC believes.


...
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Understood. Eating with one's mind, not one's mouth.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.
In other words, it would be eating the Word of God with one's mind, heart, body, and soul.
The milk of the word is believing the Word.
The meat of the word is obeying the Word.
Both milk and meat provide nourishment for our soul and spirit (i.e. our spiritual life).

You said:
So is your point that the words, "eat my flesh" was a common figure of speech Jesus' audience would have readily understood?

As a whole or majority... no. Only a select few would understand.
Remember, Jesus said narrow is the way that leads unto life and FEW be there that find it.



...
 
Upvote 0

Adstar

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2005
2,184
1,382
New South Wales
✟49,258.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
No.



Adstar said:: """But anyway let each one accept what they shall accept and reject what they reject... God knows His own and in the end everyone will know if they are Gods or not.."""



That would be fine if God really doesn't require any specific belief or action to escape hell, but I'm not certain that's the case. Are you?

God requires people to believe Jesus and trust in the Atonement Jesus secured by His death on the cross to secure their eternal salvation...

So yes indeed people are required to believe and trust Jesus... When i made that statement you quoted what i was saying that in the end the truth will be known and the liars will be exposed.. Yes the liars who rejected the truth and substituted them for lies shall face a terrible eternity in the Lake of fire, they shall not escape... In the end those who accept the Love of the truth will be saved.. And those who reject the Love of the truth shall be condemned.. I accept that because it is Gods will.. I am not happy about anyone being condemned, I wish that all would be saved,, But the Bible tells me that some shall be saved and some condemned and as a Christian who trusts in the will of God i accept that...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hillsage

One 4 Him & Him 4 all
Supporter
Jun 12, 2009
5,244
1,767
The land of OZ
✟322,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
He clearly told them that he wasn't referring to his literal flesh and his literal blood.

John 6:63
New International Version
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life.
He actually confirmed that twice with His last temptation.

Mark 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.

And the Father also confirmed it, again;

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Did God intend the Bible to be unclear?
On many things - I believe that answer is YES.

As Paul said at the end of 1 Cor 13: we see thru a glass darkly.
 
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,984
2,479
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,309.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Jesus was referring to the LITERAL eating and drinking of his body and blood that those who had been rightfully offended were referring to. That is the context of his reply. Eating blood was prohibited under Mosaic Law and cannibalism was not approved as well. He clarified by telling his disciples that he had been speaking not in a literal way but in a spiritual way.

He said no such thing.

And we know that He said no such thing because the Apostles went out and taught the world that the Eucharist is truly His Flesh and Blood. Find me one Early Father who denies this (other than wanton heretics).
 
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,984
2,479
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,309.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Also, most in the RCC camp and it's sister churches believe the Eucharist to be a salvation issue. Clearly if it was this important than Jesus and His followers would stress the importance in partaking in the Eucharist to maintain their salvation. However, I do not see that taught in Scripture, though. But good luck trying to make the Bible say that (when it really doesn't).

So this is a bald-faced lie:

Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

As well as this being a lie:

Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

It's amazing how the Bible-thumper types will insist upon understanding the words of the Scriptures literally until they get to John 6. Then all of a sudden, Jesus is not to be understood "literally" but "spiritually."

By the way, there is no such thing as "spiritual language" in the Bible. Do you know what a metaphor is? How about parables and analogies?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
15,202
5,877
✟296,775.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
The four words, "this is my body," are cause for a great divide amoung Christians. For instance, Catholics believe Christ to be saying:

Confusion in the Bible is by design:

Matthew 10:34-35
Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

This is to separate the wheat from the tares, the goats from the sheep. The real from the fake Christians. Only few will be considered genuine -- Matthew 7:14. Many will be denied salvation -- Matthew 7:22-23.
 
Upvote 0