Prodigal's Isle

[Convert66]

Socrates,

I am pretty new around here so I do not know where you are coming from theologically; but, regardless of that I think you have your answer already. You have come this far, far enough to give it serious personal consideration. That may be the most compelling evidence you ultimatrely need. If God has lead you this far, it is likely time to leap.

All my best . . .

 

[DrPiano]

Hey Soc!

As you see, I’ve found my way over here, although I can’t promise I’ll be particularly active. Real life has me a bit snowed most of the time.

I think that this - the question of authority- is an excellent question to be exploring, because, in a sense, everything else turns on it. Did Jesus establish a church? And can we find that church today.

I’d point out a few passages that I think are relevant for your reflection.

1. The first is the passage about Peter (Matthew 16: 13-19):

Now when Jesus came into the district of Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter Rock], and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

A couple of notes. The first is that he changes Peter’s name in this passage. Throughout the Bible, we see that when God changes someone’s name, He does it for a particular purpose - and the name He chooses is particularly significant. For example, he changes Abram (exalted father) to Abraham (father of a multitude) when he makes a covenant with him to make him the father of many nations and to be the God of his decendants (Genesis 17). He changes Jacob (“he takes by the heel” - a not-so-nice euphamism for a cheater, a deceiver, a supplanter) to Israel (“he who strives with God” or, alternatively, “God strives”) after Jacob had a particularly interesting wrestling match with God. Jesus’ own name (Yeshua, Joshua, “God Saves”, see here), and his other titles (Christ = The Anointed One in Greek, Emmanuel = God with Us) have particularly significant meaning as well. So when Jesus, who is God, changes Simon’s name to Peter, to Rock, that has significance.
The second is what follows. After changing Simon’s name to Rock, and saying that he would establish his Church on this Rock, he gives him a special and unique role - the role of a steward. It is reminiscent (and I would argue intentionally so) of a passage in Isaiah:

I will thrust you [Shebna, the steward] from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and well bind your belt on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

So not only did Jesus change Simon’s name, then use that very name, but then he gave Peter a specific role - the role of the steward - within that Church.

(To Be Continued)

 

[DrPiano]

The second passage I’d like to raise for your consideration, Socrates, is one of Jesus’ last prayers before beginning his Passion (John 17):

I have manifested your name to the men whom you gave me out of the world; they were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you; for I have given them the words which you gave me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours; all mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.

I do not pray for those only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which you have given me in your love for me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world has not known you, but I have known you; and these know that you have sent me. I made it known to them in your name, and I will make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.

My biggest point here: UNITY. Over and over (most of the passages in bold), Jesus prays for unity. Unity among his disciples. Unity among the believers who will follow. Our Unity is what affirms our witness. And its a visible unity - one that the world can see. And that means a unity built into the structure, built into the theology. The difference between Luther and Catherine of Sienna or St. Francis of Assisi, or any of the other Catholic Reformers, was that Luther let his just opposition to an abuse of the Church’s doctrine lead him away from the Church. Have those abuses occurred? Absolutely! The Popes are not Impeccable. The Bishops are not Impeccable. The Priests are not Impeccable. And we as Catholics are most certainly not Impeccable. Abuses occur. They’re unfortunate. They certainly need to be addressed. But they are not a failure of the Church or her Teaching. They are a failure of the implementation (by some people) of that Teaching. (And/Or they’re a failure of a fallen human being. But then again, Jesus’ disciples weren’t impeccable either. One betrayed him. Another denied him three times. And yet the one who denied him was still given the keys to the kingdom and the job of leading the Church.) Luther chose to leave the Church. Calvin chose to leave the Church. But this need not have been. We need not have lost our unity - that thing which seems to be so important to Jesus here. And as the many reformers in the church have shown, one can correct the Church’s practice and not jump off the ship.

To transition to my next passage (one I’ll reference, but not quote), here’s something we start to see here: Jesus sends a specific group of people out. He sends his disciples, the 12. These were not the only people who followed him, who were his “disciples”, and not even the only ones who stayed loyal to him. Read, for example, in Acts (1:12-26), where we see that there were, presumably, many men who accompanied Jesus from the time of his baptism to the time of his ascension. Of that number they chose 2 to consider. And of those two they chose Matthias. Chose him for what? To become one of the 12 Apostles. Now… if this was just a “special group of disciples that Jesus chose because he liked them” with no real authority or responsibility, as I grew up believing, then why choose one to replace Judas. Why not continue on with 11? But, as we see, acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Peter and the other 10 knew that they needed to replace one so there would be 12. So we see a clear idea that when one apostle dies, another succeeds him and is granted his authority. That’s pretty significant. And points to there being a visible structure.

And how did the Apostles pass the the word that Jesus gave them on? I point to 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul says “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

And what does scripture call the “pillar and bullwark of the truth”? Check out 1 Timothy 2:14-15.

Anyway, some things to think about. I’d take these passages, and others, and go to a Eucharistic chapel. Sit in front of the Real Presence of Our Lord. Ask Him to help you see what he meant by them. Where do we see unity? Who left that unity? Where do we see successors of the Apostles? By all means, seek answers to your questions here. But ultimately, you’re going to have to wrestle with these passages. And I fully and completely believe that you will come to see that the Church Jesus established continues to this day in the Catholic Church, under the stewardship of the successor to Peter.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hi Soc,

Well indulgences are fully in line with the churches teachings about sin and purgatory.

The church distinguishes between the remission of guilt for a sin, and the punishment for a sin. When you go to confession, you guilt is absolved, but you still have to pay the penalty for your sin. The church, through the power of the keys, provides people with a way to do holy acts that would pay this penalty by the use of indulgences, which are usually pius acts, prayers, etc… that always presupose a properly purified attitude free from attachment to sin. That little proviso is a big one, since very few of us can ever acheive this state here on earth. Still, you can get a partial indulgence (a kind of downpayment on your sins.

If you have confessed your sins before you have died, but you have not completely purified yourself from sinful attachements, then you get purified in purgatory after you die.

So, to sum it up, the basis for this teaching is on the church’s authority to forgive sins, assign penalties for sins, and also ways to pay for the penalties, and also in the church’s understanding of sin, and purgatory.

Hope this helps.
God bless,
Ut

P.S. Here is a quote from the articles that describes a Biblical example of this.

Thanks, Thing. I’m still wondering if you have the answer to the question: If the granting of indulgences was not a sin, then why does the Catholic Church not do the same today?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [Peter]

Thing:

Yes, i understand the Catholic interpretation of the passage. This interpretation is a definite possibility:

a5.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this [Peter] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome [my church].”

(Matthew 16:18)
Another possibility is the interpretation you’ve heard some Protestants propose:

a6.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this [Christ who is the Son of God] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome [my church].”

(Matthew 16:18)

As is the possibility that i’ve heard other Protestants advocate:

a4.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this **[truth that I am the Christ and the Son of God] **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome [this truth].”

(Matthew 16:18)

The thing is, thing, that before i decide what is true, i want to decide what is possible. I suspect that only one of these three can be the truth, but it is also true that it is at least logically possible that any of the three can be the truth. It might be incorrect to hold (a6) or (a4), but it is not illogical, or irrational, or unreasonable to do so.

As a starting point and a way to begin on common ground, do you agree with this? If so, we can move on to investigate which of these three is not just possible, but also the most probable interpretation of our God’s words.

 

[Thing]

Thanks, Thing. I’m still wondering if you have the answer to the question: If the granting of indulgences was not a sin, then why does the Catholic Church not do the same today?

Hello Socrates. If you walk from the Somport Pass in the Pyrenees to Santiago de Compostella in North-West Spain, (about 500 miles), and provided you go to confession, Mass, and pray for the Popes intentions and just generally Live the Faith, giving alms and so forth, the Church will grant you a Plenary Indulgence.
If you read the Bible for 15 minutes the Church also grants you an indulgence.

The Church never ‘sold’ indulgences. What may have happened in one small region for a few years was that pilgrims would purchase a blank card (like a certificate saying that such and such had completed the pilgrimage) and at the completion of their sucessful plgrimage they produced the card and got it stamped.
Alternatively, at the end of a pilgrimage pilgrims may have been asked for donations.

I would be very interested to see a Church document outlining to bishops how they should actually and ‘really’ Sell Gods power to remove the effects of sin.

The granting of an Indulgence is always reliant on the person seeking the Indulgence, it is like it depends on a change of heart in the pilgrim; and that is not something that has ever been in the gift of the Church to sell.
Similar to confession, unless one is actually sorry, there is no forgiveness or absolution of sins possible. The Church cannot make you be sorry any more than they can sell you sorrow for sins. It just does not work like that.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I believe that based on this comment your don’t have an accurate understanding of indulgences. Your were given a link to the relevant article in the Catholic Encyclopedia in a prior post that will help greatly with this understanding.

The Church continues to offer indulgences for various pious practices. The abuses that Luther complained about have been corrected. To your points:
(1) Under its power to bind and loose, the practice of granting of indulgences was virtuous.
(2) Public opinion bears no weight when it come to defining morality.
(3) The Church continues to grant indulgence. In fact my parish church, Church of St. Paul in Ham Lake MN was designated a pilgrimage site. Visiting one of the pilgrimage sites was included as one of the activities for which an indulgence was granted.

None of them are true.

Fascinating! I had no idea the practice was not merely thing of the past! When i have the time, i should certainly learn more about this.



So, David, there were indeed abuses of the practice in the past. Were these abuses a matter of misinterpreting what the Catholic Church intended or a matter of disobeying what the church intended regarding indulgences?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hi Soc,

Well indulgences are fully in line with the churches teachings about sin and purgatory.

The church distinguishes between the remission of guilt for a sin, and the punishment for a sin. When you go to confession, you guilt is absolved, but you still have to pay the penalty for your sin. The church, through the power of the keys, provides people with a way to do holy acts that would pay this penalty by the use of indulgences, which are usually pius acts, prayers, etc… that always presupose a properly purified attitude free from attachment to sin. That little proviso is a big one, since very few of us can ever acheive this state here on earth. Still, you can get a partial indulgence (a kind of downpayment on your sins.

If you have confessed your sins before you have died, but you have not completely purified yourself from sinful attachements, then you get purified in purgatory after you die.

So, to sum it up, the basis for this teaching is on the church’s authority to forgive sins, assign penalties for sins, and also ways to pay for the penalties, and also in the church’s understanding of sin, and purgatory.

Hope this helps.
God bless,
Ut

P.S. Here is a quote from the articles that describes a Biblical example of this.

I’ll say it again, Ut: Fascinating!

Is there a list somewhere on line of how much i have to pay to pay for particular sins i want to commit? I mean, if i’m trying to figure out whether sinning is cost effective, such a list would be helpful.

 

[Thing]

Thing:

Yes, i understand the Catholic interpretation of the passage. This interpretation is a definite possibility:

a5.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this [Peter] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome [my church].”

(Matthew 16:18)
Another possibility is the interpretation you’ve heard some Protestants propose:

a6.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this [Christ who is the Son of God] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome [my church].”

(Matthew 16:18)

As is the possibility that i’ve heard other Protestants advocate:

a4.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this **[truth that I am the Christ and the Son of God] **I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome [this truth].”

(Matthew 16:18)

The thing is, thing, that before i decide what is true, i want to decide what is possible. I suspect that only one of these three can be the truth, but it is also true that it is at least logically possible that any of the three can be the truth. It might be incorrect to hold (a6) or (a4), but it is not illogical, or irrational, or unreasonable to do so.

As a starting point and a way to begin on common ground, do you agree with this? If so, we can move on to investigate which of these three is not just possible, but also the most probable interpretation of our God’s words.

It is no secret that there can be as many interpretations as there are readers.
Two things to consider, therefore.

1. Which is the simplist reading. (…the gates of hell will not prevail against My church, and I give you, Peter, the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. An honour, no doubt, which is not at odds with the honour of being told He will build His church on Peter after the honour of having his name changed from Simon to Peter.)
2. Bearing in mind that Christianity is a real Thing, then, it is reasonable to expect to find a real Christian history, somewhere. So, it is to the first Christian we go to see what they were taught, what the tradition of the Christians was.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hi Soc !

Nice to see you again here . I do appreciate your approach.

For my couple of cents after the valuable advice you received I could propose this simple ( hopefully not too
simplistic ) line-
I’d enjoy reading your own answers ( if this is socratically correct ).

…

Hello, P7! From what i understand of his teaching, Socrates believed that we have all the answers within us; we just need to ask the right questions to draw them out. Building on this idea, i’d say that we all have access to the Holy Spirit who can communicate the answers to us; we just need to ask the right questions to receive them from Him.

When i ask question of you, or someone else, i’m asking the same questions myself. I’ve personally learned much at this forum using this method, which you might call the Socratic Method. This meeting of minds has helped me consider things i might have never discovered on my own.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hello Socrates. If you walk from the Somport Pass in the Pyrenees to Santiago de Compostella in North-West Spain, (about 500 miles), and provided you go to confession, Mass, and pray for the Popes intentions and just generally Live the Faith, giving alms and so forth, the Church will grant you a Plenary Indulgence.
If you read the Bible for 15 minutes the Church also grants you an indulgence.

The Church never ‘sold’ indulgences. What may have happened in one small region for a few years was that pilgrims would purchase a blank card (like a certificate saying that such and such had completed the pilgrimage) and at the completion of their sucessful plgrimage they produced the card and got it stamped.
Alternatively, at the end of a pilgrimage pilgrims may have been asked for donations.

I would be very interested to see a Church document outlining to bishops how they should actually and ‘really’ Sell Gods power to remove the effects of sin.

The granting of an Indulgence is always reliant on the person seeking the Indulgence, it is like it depends on a change of heart in the pilgrim; and that is not something that has ever been in the gift of the Church to sell.
Similar to confession, unless one is actually sorry, there is no forgiveness or absolution of sins possible. The Church cannot make you be sorry any more than they can sell you sorrow for sins. It just does not work like that.

Would you say, Thing that confession and repentance and faith are not enough to remove the penalty of sin? that one must also add to these three penance?

 

[Thing]

I’ll say it again, Ut: Fascinating!

Is there a list somewhere on line of how much i have to pay to pay for particular sins i want to commit? I mean, if i’m trying to figure out whether sinning is cost effective, such a list would be helpful.

Sombody said once that love covers a multitude of sins. So, I suppose that the sins don’t go away by themselves, there ought/must be something *you *pay/do to remove sins.

Which begs the question, I suppose, of what happens if the sins are not removed. I mean, why say that love covers a multitude of sins if sins do not attract consequences. If sinning does not matter and if there are no consequences to the christian, then why say that this little thing called love will remove/cover a lot of sins…

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It is no secret that there can be as many interpretations as there are readers. …

The possibility of alternate reasonable interpretations is related to the clarity of the text so interpreted, isn’t it? Consider this text:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John 1:1, 14)

I can think of only one interpretation that fits the text–if Jesus Christ is the Word who became flesh, then He is the one true God. Don’t you agree?

 

[Thing]

Would you say, Thing that confession and repentance and faith are not enough to remove the penalty of sin? that one must also add to these three penance?

When the woman was going to be stoned to death, she was saved at the last minute.
But a condition was applied to her; go and do not do this sin again.

An Indulgence is an attempt to provide the pilgrim with a means to remove an attachment to sin after the sin has been forgiven in confession.

Christs words were, to go; and do not do this sin again. The pilgrims desire is to find a means to do just that, and many pilgrims to Santiago de Compostella in the middle-ages would pray when they reached Santiago that they would die there. So that they would not fall again into their sins. A thing they were acutely concious was a real possibility.
The Church has been given the power to act by Christ, whatever you bind on earth, an so the Church acts, and provides people with a means of freeing themselves from the consequences and the attachment to sin, once they have been freed from their sins through confession.
Like the woman, who must now attempt to live the remainder of her life away from that sin, it could not have been easy for her. Priests now would probably advise frequent confession, prayer and penance, indulgences and so on as food for her soul on the remainder of her pilgrimage through life.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…

1. Where should any Christian authority come from ? My guess: Christ

2)To whom did Christ pass authority ? My guess: the Apostles, constituted by Himself

1. Who did legitimately receive authority from the Apostles ? My guess: those they ordained to succeed them

4)Where can we find today the legitimate Christian authority ? My guess: in the legitimate successors of the Apostles.

1. Where are these successors in the western world ? My guess: _______________

Bypassing the Church and her authority, in order to get a seemingly direct contact with Christ, means IMHO, on the contrary, setting aside ( at least severely de-emphasizing) that central tenet of Christianity which is Incarnation, Christ’s own life among human beings, the Apostles’ unique experience alongside Him. …

P7:

The answer many Protestants give to (5) is, “…the catholic church.” Of course, they spell catholic with a small c.



Regarding the incarnation, doesn’t the word incarnation refer to the Son of God taking on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ?

 

[Thing]

The possibility of alternate reasonable interpretations is related to the clarity of the text so interpreted, isn’t it? Consider this text:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John 1:1, 14)

I can think of only one interpretation that fits the text–if Jesus Christ is the Word who became flesh, then He is the one true God. Don’t you agree?

Yet, are there not protestants who say the Bible is the Word of God.

Possibly JW’s do not believe Jesus is God or the Word of God.

I suppose one must also consider the particular histories of all these different interpretations. Is it possible they are simply too-clever reactions to something unpalatable.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

When the woman was going to be stoned to death, she was saved at the last minute.
But a condition was applied to her; go and do not do this sin again.

An Indulgence is an attempt to provide the pilgrim with a means to remove an attachment to sin after the sin has been forgiven in confession.

Christs words were, to go; and do not do this sin again. The pilgrims desire is to find a means to do just that, and many pilgrims to Santiago de Compostella in the middle-ages would pray when they reached Santiago that they would die there. So that they would not fall again into their sins. A thing they were acutely concious was a real possibility.
The Church has been given the power to act by Christ, whatever you bind on earth, an so the Church acts, and provides people with a means of freeing themselves from the consequences and the attachment to sin, once they have been freed from their sins through confession.
Like the woman, who must now attempt to live the remainder of her life away from that sin, it could not have been easy for her. Priests now would probably advise frequent confession, prayer and penance, indulgences and so on as food for her soul on the remainder of her pilgrimage through life.

Don’t the words, “go and sin no more” describe repentance rather than penance?

Let’s say i decide to go to confession after more than 25 years of not doing so. In the confessional i say, “Bless me father, for i have sinned. It has been 25 years since my last confession.”

The priest might say, “Do not wait so long before going to confession, my son.” (This would be his recommending repentance.) He might then ask me to pray the Lord’s prayer 10 times and pray to Mary 20 times. (This would be penance.)

Am i correctly understanding the difference between repentance and penance?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yet, are there not protestants who say the Bible is the Word of God.

Possibly JW’s do not believe Jesus is God or the Word of God.

I suppose one must also consider the particular histories of all these different interpretations. Is it possible they are simply too-clever reactions to something unpalatable.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses to whom i’ve spoke say that the error of the Catholic Church is one of mistranslation, not misinterpretation. Their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures quotes the passage this way:
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. … So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belonged to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

The leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, knowing that the passage clearly taught the Trinity, resorted to altering the translation to suit their teaching that Jesus was not God, but merely the Arc Angel Michael.

They did this because there was no ambiguity in the passage. The meaning was clear.

 

[Thing]

Don’t the words, “go and sin no more” describe repentance rather than penance?

Let’s say i decide to go to confession after more than 25 years of not doing so. In the confessional i say, “Bless me father, for i have sinned. It has been 25 years since my last confession.”

The priest might say, “Do not wait so long before going to confession, my son.” (This would be his recommending repentance.) He might then ask me to pray the Lord’s prayer 10 times and pray to Mary 20 times. (This would be penance.)

Am i correctly understanding the difference between repentance and penance?

Lets say that repentance means remorse or sorrow. Without real sorrow for your sins there is no point in going to confession. You won’t be absolved, even if the words are spoken to you, unless you are actually sorry. So you repent then you confess your sins, as per the Scriptures, then you are forgiven or absolved and your sins are blotted out.
Then you do your penance, which may be prayer, or it may be anything, it may just be a case of shutting up and listening to what God is trying to say to you.
Your forgiveness or absolution do not depend on doing the penance, yopu are forgiven at the words of absolution, your penance is your voluntary attempt to conform to Him.

 

[Thing]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses to whom i’ve spoke say that the error of the Catholic Church is one of mistranslation, not misinterpretation. Their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures quotes the passage this way:
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. … So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belonged to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

The leaders of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, knowing that the passage clearly taught the Trinity, resorted to altering the translation to suit their teaching that Jesus was not God, but merely the Arc Angel Michael.

They did this because there was no ambiguity in the passage. The meaning was clear.

Yes, a too-clever reaction. So you feel there is ambiguity. Do you ask what the first Christians thought of that verse. The other one.