I believe that Paul reveled in the freedom he had in Christ. Having lived for so long, bound by law and requirements of his position. However, he was cautioning – not to respect cultural customs – but actions in the freedom of Christ that might cause others to “stumble”. For instance, having a glass of wine with a friend may be okay – however if that friend happens to be an alchololic and the wine brings them back under the control of alchohol – it isn’t. We have freedom in Christ AND a responsibility to behave in a manner that doesn’t cause others to fall.

The 2 specific ways I was talking about were: John’s way was brash and loud; probably like his personality (just a speculation). Jesus’ way is a little subtler (in this case); maybe more suited to his personality. Some prefer one way, some the other. I’m kind of a quiet guy. I like subtle. Maybe somebody else is more extroverted. They like loud. I may conclude that there are as many ways to communicate the truth as there are personalities, somebody else may not think so. Of course it is dangerous to take the context of an experience and try apply it to our current contexts. So we must try to wisely apply its meanings instead.

Paul told the folks in Corinth to respect the cultural customs of the locals when ministering to them. In this case food customs. To me (maybe not to you), one of the lessons here directly applies to all ministry. Respect (yet not convert to) the beliefs of others.

To be more specific if you’d like: as a meat consumer, in order to minister to a vegetarian (in certain circumstances) I need to respect her problem with eating meat. Others may disagree with the meaning I extracted from Paul’s letter just now, and how I applied it to my own experience. I can respect that too.

Your free-form interpretation of Biblical text fragments is interesting but wholly lacking in terms of understanding based on context. These verses you quote are more than just a potpourri of poetic jargon, catchy phrases and thoughts for the day to be freely interpreted and interpolated. For example the passage you quote from Revelation (3:20) is directed at the church – those who are already believers, and has little to do with John the Baptist’s “calling out” of King Herod (an unbeliever) as quoted above. The quote you mentioned earlier “Paul said it is wrong to cause a brother to stumble.” (Either Romans 14 or I Corinthins 10) were both references to eating food, either by religious regulation or that which had been sacrificed to idols. Paul’s point was that Christians who did not have a problem with eating certain foods needed to be sensitive to those who did. How you can then take such a verse from it’s context and then apply it to telling an unbeliever the Good News about Christ is a stretch I do do not believe is supported by scripture.

I am reminded of one of the very first lessons I learned on the subject of Biblical context when I was a new Christian. The teacher made the point using this example: The Bible says there is no God. Which is, of course true. Except that the complete sentence from Psalm 14:1 reads, “The fool says in his heart, there is no God”.

If we merely ascribe our own meaning or rely on personal implication from Biblical passages in lieu of seeking to understand scripture within it’s context (sometimes very hard to do, admittedly) then the words have no meaning because each of us can simply declare it to mean whatever we like. Which takes us back to harmonicminer’s original point. There may be “many infinite ways”, (aside: how can there be more than one infinite?) if the Truth is vague, undefined or is subjected to so much personal interpretation. But the Truth Jesus spoke of seems much more tangible and specific to me.

It should also be noted that the same Jesus who “taught Peace be with you” also said “Did you think I came to bring peace on earth? No I tell you, but division.” (Luke 12:49-53)

Obviously, given his personality it is doubtful John was capable of tempering his message. Yet, others give their message this way:
I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him, and he with me. -Revelation Of John (chapter 3 something).
Some stand at the door and wait for you to answer, others break the door down.

I thought I did address your question:

There are as many infinite ways of learning the Truth as there are infinite personalities to tell it.

For other uses, see Kahuna (disambiguation).
Kahuna is a Hawaiian word, defined in the Pukui & Elbert (1986) as a “Priest, sorcerer, magician, wizard, minister, expert in any profession.” (See also Ancient Hawaii)

Forty different types of kahuna are listed in the book, Tales from the Night Rainbow. Kamakau lists more than 20 in the healing professions alone, including for example Kahuna la’au lapa’au, an expert in herbal medicine and kahuna haha, an expert in diagnosing illnesses.

With the revival of the Hawaiian culture beginning in the 1970s, some native Hawaiian cultural practitioners call themselves kahuna today. Others, particularly devout Christians, disdain the term. The word has been given an esoteric or secret meaning by modern followers of Max Freedom Long and Huna to emphasise a priestly or shamanic standing.

God could not have selected a better candidate with the large enough heart and kahunas to baptize The Son Of Man! I’d love to hear some of the raging debates about war and peace those two must have had! If we are the salt of the earth, John The Baptizer was the rock salt; that really dirty stuff they’re spreading on the highways around here now.

There are as many infinite ways of learning the Truth as there are infinite personalities to tell it.

miner, I didn’t say God didn’t care, I just said that perhaps, maybe, sorta, just a little teeny weeny bit; these things don’t matter as much as we might think they do. But on the other side of the paradox, nothing could matter more. Both concepts rubbing against each other keep us all from getting too full of it.

Speaking of paradox, God’s warriors seek His peace and understanding.