02 Apr '06 22:49>3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI took out the sentence on the number of denominations. Nevertheless, a cursory look at differences between denominations show that they are quite often based on differences in exegesis (though that need not be the only cause).
The number of denominations need not have anything to do with the clarity of the message. The rest is your repeating a position that you continue to fail to support in any way. I say that based on the text, the historical record and the supporting evidence that it was never intended by Jesus that his message be only accessible to a privileged few who wer ...[text shortened]... ansmit their vast knowledge down to the peasants by fiat. Present some evidence to the contrary.
As to my presenting a position that I "fail to support" - the only position I've presented is that what's obvious to the common man (where? In America? In India? In Africa?) today need not have been obvious to a 1st cent. Jew and vice-versa. This is obvious.
An example I cited earlier ("Call no man 'Father'😉 would be a case in point. For a 1st cent. Jew accustomed to factions arising in Pharisaic Judaism, where the leaders would be called the 'Father' of that faction, the statement would be obvious. Not so obvious for a 21st cent. American.
Everyone knows the story of the Good Samaritan. But why did Jesus choose a Samaritan to the hero of that story? What was the impact that parable had on a 1st cent. Jew? Most modern readers in the Western world are aware, to some extent, of the manner in which Jews viewed Samaritans back in those times. If you picked up a person from India or Africa to whom the term 'Samaritan' means nothing, the parable would lose half its impact.
When you say Jesus meant his message for all men and all time, you're being too simplistic. Yes, the underlying message was meant to be universal - it doesn't mean the words themselves are universal. You cannot just pick up any random person from any random place at any random point of history, just hand him a copy of the Gospel in his language and expect him to pick up the basic message (let alone nuances in meaning and import) without any assistance whatsoever.
EDIT: This reminds me of the time my eight year-old brother was reading the verse where Jesus cries on the cross, "Eli, eli! Lema Sabachtani?" and broke out laughing - the word 'eli' in my native tongue means 'rat'.
EDIT 2: When you pick up a copy of the Bible today to read what it says, you have the benefit of years of CCD or RE or Sunday School that you bring with you to the text (and, even when you don't, there are aspects of these preserved in your language and culture due to its Christian heritage). It is precisely there where you assimilate the "expertise" of (say) the RCC, or Martin Luther, or some other exegete.
Do you deny this?