/lit/ - Literature

>>21601807
And yet he wasn’t omniscient enough to elaborate in just one or two verses whether or not Catholicism is true and prevent all the wars and arguments beginning with the Protestant reformation. This is how I know that he either wasn’t omniscient, or simply didn’t care that he confused most Christians and that they would all disagree on even the most fundamental teachings

>>21601848
Are you saying this as a criticism of Jesus in Mark specifically?

>>21601858
No, just saying he wasn’t that omniscient. If the Catholic Church is false, then Jesus should not have said anything about Peter being the rock and confusing everyone. If Catholicism is true, he should have been much more specific. No two Christians agree on everything because all of it is vague and contradictory

>>21601807
If only you shared even one iota of that omniscience you'd have been blessed with the wisdom to make your off-topic religion thread on >>>/his/ where it belongs, or failing that, /x/ with the other fiction-theories.

>>21601848
matt 16:18 is crystalline

>>21601807
Yes, indeed, Jesus' omniscience is displayed in various passages throughout the Gospels. The scene of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where he rides on a colt and is hailed as the King of Israel, is an example of this. The fact that he knew in advance that a colt would be available for him to ride on, and that it would be tied at a specific location, is a demonstration of his divine knowledge. Similarly, the scene of the Last Supper, where Jesus tells his disciples to prepare for the Passover meal and it is already waiting for them, is another example of his omniscience on display. These passages emphasize the idea that Jesus was not just a man, but also the Son of God with divine knowledge and power.

>>21601848
The human capacity for endless interpretation would have confounded any form of words that He used. This is why He granted a teaching authority to the apostles, as centered upon the Petrine Ministry.

>>21602835
Then he should have made this point more clearly, that the Catholic Church would do all the interpretation and would be guided by God. Yet neither Jesus nor Paul talked about this

Oh I remember that fairy tale!
Kinda dumb they had to write it 4 times.

2/10 the entire book is kinda shit.

>>21601807
>Jesus’ omniscience on display is sweet.

I came across an interesting alternative way of making sense of those passages, mentioned almost in passing in the book Church of Spies by Mark Riebling:

>... They met in safe houses, which Jesus accessed by hidden separate entrances, and whose locations they revealed to each other through coded signals, such as following a man with a jug of water through Jerusalem. Christ took these measures not to evade the Roman political authorities, but to elude the Jewish high priesthood, then held by the Annas family, of whom the Talmud records: ‘A plague on the House of Annas: A plague on their spying.'”

>>21602858
It doesn't matter how clearly he made it. Any form of words put to the test through centuries of interpretation will be subject to contested interpretation. The only way to end the contest is with something like a Supreme Court, as in the US, or the office of Peter as in the Catholic Church.

>>21602883
The thing with the catholic church and the foundation of such an organisation is that what happens if it becomes corrupted, wrong and heretical? If they alone have the power of interpretation and they misuse that power, well there goes your church on earth. If they can misinterpret or misuse their power, why is God okay with this setup? It is not a question of free will since A. Innocent mistakes in the written work can happen. B. If the church changes something and then a follower believes it wrongly, why should they be punished? They could not have known differently.

The second point is why would God be okay with different interpretations existing and then people being attacked over it? I understand there is an element of free will here since you can purposefully believe whatever interpretation you like but the history of 2000 years of interpretation batlles verus the idea that God's word is still out there, unchanged doesn't make me feel much like it does or can.

It's kind of funny that Mark is sometimes used by atheists to say that Jesus-as-God was a later innovation, and that Mark, as the earliest Gospel (they say), contains no mention of Jesus claiming to be God. It certainly doesn't have John's "the Father and I are one."

And yet Mark Chapter 2 has this passage:

>One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

>He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

>Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Modern people who aren't familiar with Judaism will miss the significance of this. The Sabbath is God's day. That's why the Jews celebrate it and do no work upon it. It was the day specifically set aside as belonging to God and the honor and worship of God, since it was the day God rested as per Genesis.

So to claim to be "Lord of the Sabbath" is to claim to be God. Mark, too, claims that Jesus is God.

>>21601872
>then Jesus should not have said anything about Peter being the rock and confusing everyone.
Hmm, that's not what Matthew 16:18 says. I get what you're trying to say here but there's no possible way Christ didn't know people would misinterpret His words. In fact in John chapter 6 a lot of people left Jesus after He made some statements that they misinterpreted and got offended by. I don't think that was accidental, rather, the people who are not fit for God - or perhaps just not ready yet - will hear what they want to hear and miss what God is really saying in these passages. That's why Jesus often says, let him who has ears hear. The implication is that there are going to be people who misunderstand, these being the proverbial people who do not have ears, as opposed to those that do have an ear to hear.

Christ also said in John chapter 10:

"But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice."
(John 10:2-4)

So basically, those who are His will hear. Those who are not will not grasp the meaning of the parables or the teachings, and the miracles done before their eyes won't even convince them. Like it says in John chapter 12:

"But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
(John 12:37-40)

So you see, if people would just take Jesus at His word, they would be able to understand. The problem is many people are blinded and always inject their own false meaning into everything. That's why they misinterpret things like Matthew 16:18, and many other things besides, reading what's not actually there. Anyone that truly has ears to hear can understand regardless. I can prove it, since Jesus said so all of those times, and I know that God never does anything in vain or for no reason. Those whom God has blinded and hardened (for good reason, as typical of God who is infinitely good) are unable to see, hear, or be converted. It's no surprise you've got people running around saying all kinds of ridiculous things about the Bible then, or living their lives in complete opposite of what it says. That situation is purposeful by God due to God's infinite wisdom. Their inability to grasp is a sign that God has judged them.

>>21603508
God's word says that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). So technically there is only one truth.

It’s a really good read. I didn’t skip a beat reading it directly after finishing The Sun Also Rises.

>>21603743
>if people would just take Jesus at His word

The interpretation problem is you _cannot_ take Jesus at His word, because His word is not objectively clear; no word is. Case in point, assembly A "takes Jesus at His word" and is convinced they do so, and condemn assembly B, and vice-versa.

Positing objective meaning is great and all, but history shows us it does/cannot exist. Hence post-modernity.

>>21601807
Thanks for thread, gonna read Mark

>>21604493
>Hence post-modernity.
Is false.
>The interpretation problem is you _cannot_ take Jesus at His word, because His word is not objectively clear;
Yes it absolutely is. I know the interpretation problem well, I hear people talk about it all the time. It's not God's fault that people choose not to actually listen, it's their own. In 2 Peter 1:20 it says, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

I am well aware of the things you are trying to say. The problem is, they are said by people who are part of the group that doesn't understand. They have missed the part of the Bible that tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. See John 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:12-14 for example. There are many more references to this fact as well. If someone has God to teach them, then they can understand. Otherwise you're right, people suffer from the "interpretation" problem. But it's not because His word isn't clear.

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

>Case in point, assembly A "takes Jesus at His word" and is convinced they do so,
How do you /know/ that, anon? You aren't them, so how do you actually know they are believers at all? There are lots of people who make false professions of faith. I believe the truth that any individual who diligently seeks the Lord will find the truth. They will be guided because of God helping them to understand. The problem is, there's lot of people who don't do this. Sure, some claim to, but don't. If they did, they would get help; Instead they just don't.

>Positing objective meaning is great and all, but history shows us it does/cannot exist.
Some will try to discourage you, say that it's impossible. They will say things like this and probably even believe it is the case. But that's only because they refuse to diligently seek the Lord. God can help, especially where other human beings fail. It's up to each person to actually ask.

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."
(Luke 11:9-10)

God's word is clear, He is not the author of confusion. But many people are like the person in 1 Cor. 2:14, the natural man who cannot understand because they are not taught by the Lord. The believer however will be given the truth.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."
(First John 2:27)

But remember, Christ told us there are few that be saved. (Luke 13:23ff.)

>>21603644
John is a masturbatory high Christology fanfic. It should not be categorized with Mark, Matthew and Luke.

>Spending mental energy on this fake as shit fairy tale garbage.

Never change, /lit/.

>>21601807
>Mark
that's in every gospel you fucking larper

>>21602608
Which sect is it in favour of? Some strain of orthodoxy?

Imagine nitpicking Jesus, the man who had flawless logic in comparison to all the other blatantly faulty religions.
My man, give it a rest.

>>21603508
These are all fair points. I can only imagine - and my imagination is obviously fallible and limited - that a judgment was made that more good would come out of establishing a long-lived, unified, hierarchical institution with teaching authority than it would with the possible alternatives, and despite the fact that large hierarchical institutions inevitably bring along a host of problems in their wake. When functioning properly, they can do a lot of good - more than any individual can - but when not, can cause a lot of damage.

I would note that one could likewise speculate as to the wisdom, timing and practicality of how the whole Messiah business was handled.

> If the church changes something and then a follower believes it wrongly, why should they be punished? They could not have known differently.
I believe that God will judge justly and mercifully in all such cases. Indeed, He cannot do otherwise.

Why does Mark's Jesus seem so insistent on making sure his status as Messiah is kept secret? The main reason I can think of is that Jesus wouldn't want to get hijacked for a political Messianic movement that would upset the authorities before his time comes, but that seems like an odd point to stress so hard in Mark considering that Mark is considered to be written primarily for Gentiles and Matthew is considered to be written for Jews who would care about the Messianic context the most.

>>21606604
>large hierarchical institutions inevitably bring along a host of problems in their wake. When functioning properly, they can do a lot of good - more than any individual can - but when not, can cause a lot of damage.
It's like Plato's Statesman. More unified power is the best form for anything when done well, but the most destructive form for anything when done poorly.

>>21606629
The answer is simply because that's what happened. Sometimes it doesn't have to be complicated.

>>21601848
Maybe he didn’t but mark didn’t understand and forgot and didn’t write it down

>>21601848
Fpbp