# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[pneuma07]

P7:

Taken, and also *accepted *as true? I was thinking of this passage:… it is impossible for God to lie …

(Hebrews 16:18)

Interesting that it happens to be the 18th verse of the 16th chapter. Coincidence?



Thus there is apparent harmony among the three premises i mentioned. Yet premise (3) is proven false by Sacred Scripture, if we are to believe the author of Hebrews. This is one reason why i think that an apparent harmony is not, in and of itself, proof of the truth of the premises believed to be harmonious. One of the three might appear to be harmonious, yet be false.

For nothing is impossible with God." Luke 1:37

Genesis 18:14 "Is anything too difficult for the LORD?

Nothing is too difficult for You Jer 32:17

but with God all things are possible Matthew 19.26

But: Titus 1:2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,

is with your quotation of Heb 6.18.

Then ? Some non christians would tell us we have deep contradictions here.

I do not think so. Fisrt we could say the “nothing” is not an absolute one, but one which is qualified, eg by Heb 6.18 and titus 1:2.

But, more specifically so, because IMHO, the thrust of all the quotations together is one:
God keeps His promises.
In scripture there are seeming contradictions.

That said, I do accept, besides taking it, your point. It could in general be that three statements might appear harmonius, yet being two false and one true, or vice versa.

But what i repeat in our own case is that ECFs do not speak about harmony. They collectively state the three readings of petra. Each of the three is stated as sound. None of them is object of exclusion, attack.

If these men were wise, then the modern exclusion of Petros=petra, with all those broadsides against it, does not appear wise.

Well, as Socrates said,A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense. Let us try to understand him.

(Theaetetus, 152)

So let’s try to understand what the early Church Fathers believed, for they are not likely to talk nonsense. Do you have a particular quote you’d like to share with me (perhaps where an early Church Father quotes Jesus’ words to Peter) so that we might think through it the wise man’s thoughts together?

IMHO what helps us more is the thrust of the ECFs , rather than single passages. But if you ask for a single quotation providing food for thought, we could maybe try with;

Sermon 26 ( or 76, in other lists) by St Augustine

" For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in heaven.” Then He added, “and I say unto you.” As if He had said, “Because you have said unto Me, ‘You are the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto you, ‘You are Peter.’” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church.

"For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers ( this central part is the one often quoted by non catholic brothers).
…

1. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced “blessed,” bearing the figure of the Church, holding the chief place in the Apostleship, a very little while after that he had heard that he was “blessed,” a very little while after that he had heard that he was “Peter,” a very little while after that he had heard that he was to be “built upon the Rock,” displeased the Lord…
2. …Yet see this Peter, who was then our figure; now he trusts, and now he totters; now he confesses the Undying, and now he fears lest He should die. Wherefore? because the Church of Christ has both strong and weak ones; and cannot be without either strong or weak; whence the Apostle Paul says, “Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak.” In that Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” he represents the strong: but in that he totters, and would not that Christ should suffer, in fearing death for Him, and not acknowledging the Life, he represents the weak ones of the Church. In that one Apostle then, that is, Peter, in the order of Apostles first and chiefest, in whom the Church was figured, both sorts were to be represented, that is, both the strong and weak; because the Church does not exist without them both."

We have here IMHO that

• in teaching that Christ is to be considered the Petra and Petros is so called from Christ, and built on Christ ( which is beautiful BTW, IMHO)
• in teaching that Peter is the type of the One Church (same as above, IMHO) …
  Augustine teaches us petrine primacy.
  Repeatedly and clearly.
  And teaches that it is a primacy in love. And that it is a very real primacy, not just a matter of place of honor. “Chief place” of New Advent translates “principatus”. This is a strong word for a primacy. It can look like “rule”, “supremacy”.

Many people, quoting out of context the central passage, suppose and let suppose that this sermon by Augustine …disproves petrine primacy !

We could also see a famous passage stating petra=Peter’s confession.

 

[pneuma07]

P

Yes, i do believe that Matthew 16:19 appears clearer than verse 18 of the same chapter. And i’d like to continue the discussion of the verse where we left off before having the door so rudely shut in our faces by the Moderator.

If you are willing, i’d like to ask you another question about Jesus meaning when He said:“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:19)

You and i agreed that Christ was speaking only to Peter in verse 19. So please tell me, IYHO, was He giving the keys to the kingdom of heaven only to Peter, or to the other Apostles who were following Him, too?

IMHO He was giving the keys specifically to Peter.
What do the keys mean ? Here is a classic exposition:

"what difference is there between the promise which Our Lord here makes to S. Peter to give him the keys, and that which He made to the Apostles afterwards? For in truth it seems to have been but the same, because Our Lord explaining what he meant by the keys said: And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose, &c- which is just what he said to the Apostles in general: Whatsoever you shall bind, &c (Matt. xviii. 18). If then he promises to all in general what he promises to Peter in particular, there will be no ground for saying that S. Peter is greater than one of the others by this promise.

I answer that in the promise and in the execution of the promise Our Lord has always preferred S. Peter by expressions which oblige us to believe that he has been made head of the Church. And as to the promise, I confess that by these words: And whatsoever thou shalt loose, Our Lord has promised no more to S. Peter than he did to the others afterwards Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. For the words are the same in substance and in meaning in the two passages. I admit also that by these words: And whatsoever thou shalt loose, said to S. Peter, he explains the preceding: And I will give to thee the keys, but I deny that it is the same thing to promise the keys and to say: Whatsoever thou shalt loose. Let us then see what it is to promise the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

And who knows not that when a master, going away from his house, leaves the keys with some one, what he does is to leave him the charge and governance thereof. When princes make their entrance into cities, the keys are presented to them as an acknowledgment of their sovereign authority.

It is then the supreme authority which Our Lord here promises to S. Peter; and in fact when the Scripture elsewhere wishes to speak of a sovereign authority it has used similar terms. In the Apocalypse(i. 17, 18) when Our Lord wishes to make himself known to his servant, he says to him: I am the first and the last and alive and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell. What does he mean by the keys of death and of hell, except the supreme power over the one and the other?
…But is the commandment which in Isaias (xxii.) is given to Eliacim which is parallel in every particular with that which Our Lord gives to S. Peter. In it there is described the deposition of a sovereign-priest and governor of the Temple: *Thus saith the Lord God of hosts: go get thee into him that dwelleth in the tabernacle, to Sobna who is over the temple; and thou shalt say to him what dost thou here? And further on: I will depose thee. See there the de position of one, and now the institution of the other. And it. shall come to pass in that day that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, and I will, clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand : and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house David upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open. *

Could anything fit better than these two Scriptures?"

From “the catholic controversy ( V,3)” by Francis de Sales

In Christ
P7

 

[Pax]

Thats to bad Pax michael frances banned me I suppose he doesn’t want me to deliberate with you. You know save the catholic faith further embarrassment by burning another user name at the stake. AKA fryertuk ,Jonh one one, ect ect ect. I just love the Spiritual workout you all give me. Getting stronger every day. I had a nice rebuttal about Ezk and your baptism, but I lost it in a C/P. I will say where is the Peter and the catholic church teaching the Word of God in the text though? It says the same thing Jer 31:31 says.

The quotes pertain to baptism and have nothing to do with the Pope.

 

[Pax]

I think that the Gnostics were right at home in the CC. I mean you do have the mary mother goddess sinless and perfect just like Jesus. Which means that Jesus was not brought into the world by the same flesh and blood that everyone else had.

Spirit of ambiguity my be the modern equivalent

This simply a baseless assertion fostered by anti-Catholic sentiment rather than facts.

 

[silencethelamb]

IMHO He was giving the keys specifically to Peter.
What do the keys mean ? Here is a classic exposition:

"what difference is there between the promise which Our Lord here makes to S. Peter to give him the keys, and that which He made to the Apostles afterwards? For in truth it seems to have been but the same, because Our Lord explaining what he meant by the keys said: And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose, &c- which is just what he said to the Apostles in general: Whatsoever you shall bind, &c (Matt. xviii. 18). If then he promises to all in general what he promises to Peter in particular, there will be no ground for saying that S. Peter is greater than one of the others by this promise.

I answer that in the promise and in the execution of the promise Our Lord has always preferred S. Peter by expressions which oblige us to believe that he has been made head of the Church. And as to the promise, I confess that by these words: And whatsoever thou shalt loose, Our Lord has promised no more to S. Peter than he did to the others afterwards Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. For the words are the same in substance and in meaning in the two passages. I admit also that by these words: And whatsoever thou shalt loose, said to S. Peter, he explains the preceding: And I will give to thee the keys, but I deny that it is the same thing to promise the keys and to say: Whatsoever thou shalt loose. Let us then see what it is to promise the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

And who knows not that when a master, going away from his house, leaves the keys with some one, what he does is to leave him the charge and governance thereof. When princes make their entrance into cities, the keys are presented to them as an acknowledgment of their sovereign authority.

It is then the supreme authority which Our Lord here promises to S. Peter; and in fact when the Scripture elsewhere wishes to speak of a sovereign authority it has used similar terms. In the Apocalypse(i. 17, 18) when Our Lord wishes to make himself known to his servant, he says to him: I am the first and the last and alive and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell. What does he mean by the keys of death and of hell, except the supreme power over the one and the other?
…But is the commandment which in Isaias (xxii.) is given to Eliacim which is parallel in every particular with that which Our Lord gives to S. Peter. In it there is described the deposition of a sovereign-priest and governor of the Temple: *Thus saith the Lord God of hosts: go get thee into him that dwelleth in the tabernacle, to Sobna who is over the temple; and thou shalt say to him what dost thou here? And further on: I will depose thee. See there the de position of one, and now the institution of the other. And it. shall come to pass in that day that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, and I will, clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand : and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house David upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open. *

Could anything fit better than these two Scriptures?"

From “the catholic controversy ( V,3)” by Francis de Sales

In Christ
P7

Maybe you could explain to me where we see someone besides the LORD leading and in charge of the new covenant. The verses previous to the one below from Ezk is speaking about how Israel has gone astray. The LORD will preform this work to preserve His name. We then see Him having command of the situation. In both examples just how do you find room for Peter leading the church? God, threw Jesus making this possible, putting His Spirit in men and causing them to walk in His ways. To your interpretation that Jesus just turned the whole thing over to Peter and the pope. To finalize my question why did God say such a thing about the new covenant then not do it, but instead give the whole new way of ministering to men threw the Spirit right back into men hands again? In both verses He says that “I will” not Peter will or my appointed man will shepherd you. That is exactly what the church is to catholics god manifest on earth and that is what the church teaches. If you say you what to lead people to Christ, thats fine, but the CC goes way beyond leading to Christ, it replaces Christ and the HS. Jesus instructed us to reason together reasoning with the CC is impossible, many dont buy into it simply because it is impossible to justify with the NT. The church knows this and is just fine with that fact. Like its statement about Marys Immaculate Conception and Assumption.
The Protestant “Bible only” theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false.
Confronted with statements like that you make my choice easy, I’ll stick with scripture. All of your carefully worded presentations from the scripture supporting your doctrine means nothing, the bottom line to a catholic is its just a tool used to sell the pope, from their on out scripture is useless you believe what Rome says.

Ezk 36-25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,[a] says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD:** I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,**’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
35 Thus says the LORD,

 

[silencethelamb]

This simply a baseless assertion fostered by anti-Catholic sentiment rather than facts.

The only anti-Catholic sentiment as you call it, is simply the result of both catholics doctrine and actions threw history. I prefer to call it catholic teachings verses Apostolic teachings or scripture verses tradition. Facts are exactly what S4J is looking for but he will never find the hard case in scientific or philosophical reasoning. A couple of verses of scripture and lots of historical facts from the CC is most certainly the CC strong point.

S4J is looking for the smoking gun from scripture that all luke warm skeptics have looked for and never find. To these people the CC makes all the seance in the world. The CC even tells them, we are the smoking gun evidence not scripture.

 

[Pax]

Soc in Christ, I’ll try to answer your questions to me and will have some observations and questions as well.

The question of ambiguity may not have a clear answer. It is clear that the apostles did not always understand what Jesus meant. We cannot conclude, however, that in all of those instances that Jesus was speaking ambiguously. Sometimes the disciples were just really slow in catching on and Jesus in frustration even said, "“Are you also still without understanding?”[Matt 15:16]. Jesus spent three years with the disciples and then forty days in his glorified state prior to sending the Holy Spirit to them in power on Pentecost. This preparation and culmination at Pentecost put the friends of Jesus in the “know” about the true word and from them the “true word was taught.”

I read the gospels and Jesus words are not confusing to me in those instances where we see that the apostles lacked understanding. Those instances are explained to us sometimes in Jesus own explanation of a parable or by way of the gospel writers explanation of the events. That is not to say that everything is crystal clear to me. It is only to qualify some points made by you and I for clarification and focus. So here are my basic points.

1. The gospels themselves and the NT letters eliminate some ambiguities that might exist in Jesus words.
2. The apostles after Pentecost did not suffer from ambiguous understandings.
3. When disputes arose the Church leadership settled the disputes by way of Church councils.

I do not believe that the gospel writers have hid the truth or that their narratives are particularly ambiguous. What I mean by this is as follows: The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are synoptic. They do not tell us everything that Jesus said or did. By their nature they leave things out and even John tells us that of the

“many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”[Jn 21:25]

It isn’t so much that there is ambiguity as much as there is not a highly detailed lawyer’s analysis to cover every detail and possibility of thought. If we get creative enough we can conjure many possibilities. The Gnostics had there own scriptures(?). Unfortunately, they wrote their own stuff rather than depending upon the true word as written and the “true word as taught.”

The thing that I find interesting about the Gnostics is that John warns the early Christians about them. The warning to the early Christians concerning the Gnostics has application as a warning to all Christians against any and all heretics for all times.

1 John 2:18-25 is written about the Gnostics and it says:

“Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.”

This passage of scripture is telling us the following:

1. The anti-Christ is coming and is already working.
2. These anti-Christs are not to be listened to because they are false teachers.
3. They are recognized as false teachers because they have left the Church and its teachings. They even deny that Jesus is the Christ.
4. If they were not false teachers in the spirit of anti-Christ they would have continued in the fellowship of the church, but since they have left they are therefore easily recognized as false teachers.
5. The believers have already been given the truth and know the truth. There is no need for them to be taught something new. [No secret knowledge from the Gnostics]
6. No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.
7. The word abide means “remain(s)” and John says: "Let what you heard from the beginning abideremain] in you. If what you heard from the beginning abidesremains] in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.

This entire passage is a warning to believers concerning false teachers in the spirit of the anti-Christ. Moreover, the warning clearly indicates that the truth that these believers were taught from the beginning must “remain” in them for them to remain in the Father and the Son. If they remain faithful they will receive eternal life. The “true word as taught” must remain in them.

When John is talking about the heretics* going out from us, he means that the heretics have gone out from/left the Church. Notice that the Church does not leave the truth. It is the heretics that leave and strike out on their own. I believe that this may be the key to recognizing and discerning the truth vs. falsehood or some compromise of the truth. It is essential to see where, when, and how this has happened over time.

I will ask you a few questions Soc based on the following:

1. Before the Reformation all Christians believed doctrine A.
2. Subsequent to the the Reformation all Christians still believed doctrine A.
3. Doctrine A was never disputed, but was always agreed upon by all Christians even when the founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution.

Question 1. Would this be a true Christian doctrine beyond any doubt or could it be a false doctrine?

Question 2. If I disagreed with doctrine A and preached against it would I be a heretic against the one true faith?

Question 3. Would it be reasonable to state that the churches/denominations that remained faithful to doctrine A would be considered as teaching the “true word as taught”?

Question 4. Would it be reasonable to say that the churches/denominations that remained faithful to doctrine A are the best candidates for being the one true church and one true teacher of the Christian faith?

Question 5. What if only one church/denomination remained faithful to doctrine A. Would that church be the one true church?

God bless.*

 

[Pax]

The only anti-Catholic sentiment as you call it, is simply the result of both catholics doctrine and actions threw history. I prefer to call it catholic teachings verses Apostolic teachings or scripture verses tradition. Facts are exactly what S4J is looking for but he will never find the hard case in scientific or philosophical reasoning. A couple of verses of scripture and lots of historical facts from the CC is most certainly the CC strong point.

S4J is looking for the smoking gun from scripture that all luke warm skeptics have looked for and never find. To these people the CC makes all the seance in the world. The CC even tells them, we are the smoking gun evidence not scripture.

silencethelamb in Christ,

This is just a lot of rhetoric and anti-Catholic opinion, but thank you for expressing your view.

 

[silencethelamb]

Well Socrates4Jesus one thing should be becoming evident to you after 4600 post.
The main difference in Evangelicals and Catholics should now stand out clearly. Evangelicals teach the Father Son and Holy Spirit, Just as the Apostles did. Catholics will always start with the bible and quickly leave it to quote the fathers of their church. Soon after that you will be thanking and hailing Mary, and oohing and awing the pope.

 

[silencethelamb]

silencethelamb in Christ,

This is just a lot of rhetoric and anti-Catholic opinion, but thank you for expressing your view.

IMO post 261 is nothing but rhetoric From “the catholic controversy ( V,3)” by Francis de Sales

I notice you did not address my question about why God would send His Son to establish a new convenient and just hand it right back over to your men in the CC. post 264
Did He change His mind or is someone in error? The rock is clearly seen as Jesus in both scriptures every reference and by everyone outside the CC, including the EO. Seems they didn’t play ether.

 

[silencethelamb]

You know I was going to comment on one of your post back where you used this verse.

I do not believe that the gospel writers have hid the truth or that their narratives are particularly ambiguous. What I mean by this is as follows: The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are synoptic. They do not tell us everything that Jesus said or did. By their nature they leave things out and even John tells us that of the
“many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”[Jn 21:25]

You then offered it as evidence saying what Jesus said and did, but the verse never says “said” it simply says did. His works what He did, could not be contained not what he taught.

My mistake it was utunumsint using that verse and adding the word **said **and did

Now, although I believe that the New Testament contains the fullness of revelation, I also believe that it does not self interpreting. And the reason it is not self interpreting is that the Gospels did not record everything that Jesus said and did.

Could you please indicate in the original greek or english translation where the word said is found?

 

[Pax]

You know I was going to comment on one of your post back where you used this verse.

You then offered it as evidence saying what Jesus said and did, but the verse never says “said” it simply says did. His works what He did, could not be contained not what he taught.

My mistake it was utunumsint using that verse and adding the word **said **and did

Could you please indicate in the original greek or english translation where the word said is found?

You are correct in stating that the English translations of the Greek do not specifically refer to what Jesus “said” but specifically mention what Jesus “did.” Now anyone that would contend that the phrasing of the verse precludes things that Jesus said is simply being silly and is attempting to nit pick the message.

Please be advised that Jesus “spoke” and that is something that he “did.” Likewise, it is ludicrous to assume that if Jesus “did” so many things that it would take all of the books in the world to contain them that there wouldn’t be anything said about these things by Jesus. In other words, you must assume that Jesus never said a word while doing all of these things, and that is simply an untenable view.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

IMO post 261 is nothing but rhetoric From “the catholic controversy ( V,3)” by Francis de Sales

I notice you did not address my question about why God would send His Son to establish a new convenient and just hand it right back over to your men in the CC. post 264
Did He change His mind or is someone in error? The rock is clearly seen as Jesus in both scriptures every reference and by everyone outside the CC, including the EO. Seems they didn’t play ether.

You need to think through this a bit more. You are making illogical statements and falsehoods about God’s covenant. The New Covenant established by Jesus is with men. It is not a matter of establishing a new covenant independent of men and then handing it back over to men. This is simply a false notion on your part.

You have an opinion on Matthew 16:18 and I respect that. IMHO your opinion is incorrect and has been refuted. You are quite wrong in suggesting that everyone outside the Catholic Church denies the Catholic view of Matthew 16:18. I suggest you read the book Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess. They mention and quote a number of prominent Protestant scholars that agree with the Catholic view of Peter and the rock in Matthew 16:18. The only thing they disagree with is the ecclesial implications of that fact.

I find it interesting that you would find any credibility in “anyone” even if they are outside of the Catholic Church on this issue since you utterly refuse to accept the writings of the early Church fathers. Why would any opinions either way have any credibility in your mind if you cannot accept the testimony of the ECF’s?

God bless.

 

[silencethelamb]

You are correct in stating that the English translations of the Greek do not specifically refer to what Jesus “said” but specifically mention what Jesus “did.” Now anyone that would contend that the phrasing of the verse precludes things that Jesus said is simply being silly and is attempting to nit pick the message.

Please be advised that Jesus “spoke” and that is something that he “did.” Likewise, it is ludicrous to assume that if Jesus “did” so many things that it would take all of the books in the world to contain them that there wouldn’t be anything said about these things by Jesus. In other words, you must assume that Jesus never said a word while doing all of these things, and that is simply an untenable view.

God bless.

Be advised yourself my friend

prv 8-2 Surely I am more stupid than any man,
And do not have the understanding of a man.
3 I neither learned wisdom
Nor have knowledge of the Holy One.
4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name,
If you know?
** 5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.**

Isaiah 8:19 And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
21 They will pass through it hard-pressed and hungry; and it shall happen, when they are hungry, that they will be enraged and curse their king and their God, and look upward. 22 Then they will look to the earth, and see trouble and darkness, gloom of anguish; and they will be driven into darkness.

1 cor 2-13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[silencethelamb]

You need to think through this a bit more. You are making illogical statements and falsehoods about God’s covenant. The New Covenant established by Jesus is with men. It is not a matter of establishing a new covenant independent of men and then handing it back over to men. This is simply a false notion on your part.

You have an opinion on Matthew 16:18 and I respect that. IMHO your opinion is incorrect and has been refuted. You are quite wrong in suggesting that everyone outside the Catholic Church denies the Catholic view of Matthew 16:18. I suggest you read the book Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess. They mention and quote a number of prominent Protestant scholars that agree with the Catholic view of Peter and the rock in Matthew 16:18. The only thing they disagree with is the ecclesial implications of that fact.

I find it interesting that you would find any credibility in “anyone” even if they are outside of the Catholic Church on this issue since you utterly refuse to accept the writings of the early Church fathers. Why would any opinions either way have any credibility in your mind if you cannot accept the testimony of the ECF’s?

God bless.

Nice bob and weave. The description of the NC states a personal relationship with God threw the Spirit of God someting that never excised in the OT thats why its the new Covenant. So from Ezk and Jer why do you beleive that the LORD and the Lord only function threw Peter and the Pope?

“accept the testimony of the ECF’s”?
“utterly refuse to accept the writings of the early Church fathers”.

The sheep know the shepherds voice. You have properly defined the distinct difference in your statement above. “accept the testimony of the ECF”
I dont recall seeing that verse, “accept the testimony of another”. See post 273

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, I was speaking in general terms but now you’re forcing me to get wordier yet!

Much of it is experiential-like the experienced gained by arguing with JWs or various Christians over the meaning of Scripture- each side coming up with quite plausible, and often contradictory, interpretations- until you finally realize the futility in trying to arrive at the full truth of the gospel by reading scripture alone.

Really? I’ve spent many hours discussing the Bible with both Jehovah’s Witnesses and members of the LDS Church and never came to that conclusion. Please tell me what a JW or Mormon told you that you found quite plausible.

But this creates a dilemma. How does one know the truth-where would authority lie? At this point in time the arguments for a historical connection to a visible institution established by God-a place where the doctrinal buck could stop-begins to make a lot of sense.

Evangelicals tell me the buck stops with the authors of the Bible.

Other experiences revolved around my objection to the Church’s misbehavior at various times in history. Every time a new Protestant church spins off another Protestant church, the idea is that the new church is going to do things right while the old one wasn’t. Something like this also applies to various “holiness” movements, both within or without the Catholic Church. Now, holiness is a good thing to desire but it’s another thing to think one has actually arrived there. At a meeting in a Pentecostal church I once attended, I remember the pastor telling us that after he was born again, he was a “new creation in Christ” and never wanted to sin again. Later his infidelity was to cause his church to split-right after constructing a new multimillion dollar sanctuary. This type of experience, combined with an increasing awareness of, and admission to, my own failings, caused me to understand that the Church’s people, including her leaders, are not impeccable. And Jesus’ teaching in Matt 23:1-3 spells out the principle that, while teachings can be correct, the teachers may not be heeding it themselves. So, the doctrine that says that the CC is right only on matters of faith and morals begins to make sense.

If by “right only on matters of faith and morals” you mean practicing what one preaches, the Catholic Church has it’s hypocrisy, too. I’ve never heard of a pedophile being removed from the office of priest for his unspeakable crime against children and God. In contrast, i’ve never heard of a pastor who had an extramarital affair keeping his position of pastor. In fact, i’ve personally known two extremely gifted pastors who were removed from their positions due to such sexual misconduct.

I didn’t see much value in the Sacraments until later either. For example, while I always thought the admonition in scripture to “confess your sins one to another” was a good thing, which I often practiced, this was not necessarily a practice of Protestant Churches. In the CC, on the other hand, there is a “place to go”- the confessional-where we’re to reconcile with God through the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession. And it makes sense. God uses people to do his work here on earth, whether spreading the gospel or helping/ministering to people in one way or the other, and this Sacrament is no different. We’re spiritual but also physical beings in need of concrete action in order to resolve issues we’re dealing with. There’s a dynamic that takes place when, after seriously sinning in some way, we know internally-experientially- the guilt/separation from God that this results in-in like manner to the separation from God that took place at the fall. So when this situation occurs, the Church teaches that we’re not to participate in communing with God directly by receiving the Eucharist. What’s already happened inside is admitted to and reflected outwardly. Then, when we humble ourselves and confess and are forgiven and restored/reconciled by His grace, we can know , in a definitive concrete manner, that we’re able to commune with Him again-and do it. Through this we live the dynamic interplay of sin and forgiveness-and can proceed onward to a more perfect state.

I have no problem with confessing one’s sin to a spiritual leader. Much of any Protestant pastor’s time is devoted to private or marital or family counseling. And confessing sins should not be reserved only for the confessional or only behind the closed door of a pastor’s office. James was not writing only to pastors when he wrote, “confess your sins to each another”.
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

(James 5:16)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

And this connects back to the Pentecostal pastor again. His theology was wrong to begin with. We’re not changed instantly into saints by a “born again” experience. The CC teaches that we’ll generally continue to struggle against the tendency to sin-or concupiscence- for our whole lives. Conversion, in Catholicism, is a process, by which we’re molded into the beings God desires, but not without our cooperation.

Yes, i’ve spent a great deal of time asking questions from you and others about this. It seems to me that Evangelicals make a distinction between salvation and sanctification. Salvation, to them, is being saved from the penalty of sin. It is an event in their lives when they first believe, or an event when they believe once more after falling from grace. Sanctification, the Evangelical believes, is being saved from the presence of sin. It’s not an event; it’s a process. Now, one might say this is just semantics–whether one believes salvation and sanctification are one or two does not matter. But here is where it does matter, and why it is not merely semantics: Evangelicals believe salvation is what gets them to heaven and sanctification has absolutely nothing to do with getting into heaven.

And this is another departure from Protestantism. Perfection is necessary in Catholic teaching on salvation. “No sinners will enter heaven” according to scripture. Heaven is not even realizable to a sinner –as he’s simply someone who’s still attached to things other than God first and foremost.

You might be surprised to learn that Evangelicals believe the same. Yet, they say perfection has nothing to do with what to do, it has only to do with how God sees them. Practically, they still sin. Positionally, God sees them as sinless, for the righteousness of Christ himself is imputed to them. This is one reason they believe that salvation as nothing to do with sanctification and everything to do with trusting Christ alone.

God didn’t create man only to have him fall and then at some arbitrary time later on be artificially restored-bypassing man’s will and with no apparent reason for the whole drama of centuries of human strife.

Agreed. And most Evangelicals agree, too. However, some Evangelicals are also Calvinists and do not agree. I don’t find much support for their view in Sacred Scripture.

Gods purpose in casting man out of the garden is* formative*-for man to gain the wisdom to choose correctly-to have the time and opportunity to come to learn of his dependence on Him, rejecting the evil we know here on earth and embracing love, i.e., coming to love Him with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself- this is perfection and only then does man become a being worthy of the end God has in mind-and capable of it.

I find no reason to doubt what you say is true.

And this is also where purgatory comes into play-a merciful final purification, if necessary, where refining our wills-to where ours agree with His because we’ve finally recognized the perfect beauty and wisdom of His will-takes place and we’re no longer drawn to anything less than Him-and our happiness can be complete. All of this has become clearer over the centuries-to a Church who must ultimately apply the revelation she’s been given to herself-to her own real life experiences- in order to end up in a more mature and holier state as a result –and so with a greater understanding of the revelation than when she first received it.

cont:

Yes, and i think Purgatory makes sense. Heaven or hell only seems unjust.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

cont from previous post:

The Eucharist. Catholics don’t just pay lip service to this Sacrament-it’s central to our service, i.e. the Mass.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Cor 11:26-29

The Real Presence can be discerned. An awesome sacrament in which God condescends to place Himself in our hands-for our good. As with Reconciliation and all sacraments, the physicality of the matter is integral-God concretely meeting us where we are. We believe literally in His presence and power acting in our lives-sacraments being one route He’s provided.

I understand. And i hope you can understand why i find Christ’s words ambiguous on such an important teaching. I actually spent two discussion threads, and more than 1,700 posts, considering the Eucharist, only to find, in the end, that Sacred Scripture was not clear enough to make a rational, unbiased decision for or against the Catholic position.

Original sin. I know that the existence of lies and selfishness and arrogance and self-righteousness that are so much a part of this world is not the way it “should be”- IOW they’re a reflection of an innocence lost. I know that evil is real-and that it’s out of sync with the rest of creation-because of the sheer unreasonableness of it. The doctrine of OS faces this fact-not trying to make friends with evil by calling it an illusion or unavoidable. OS means that mans righteousness, rather than Gods, rules in this world, because man was given the freedom to reject Gods authority in determining righteousness for him. We live with the consequences of this first act and with our own disordered actions as a result of our own preference for god-like autonomy. All fail in some way by not living up to the standards of true righteousness-by overriding the standards of their very own created natures. The Catholic teaching on original sin and the effect of the fall on human nature is worked out with depth compared to much in Protestant theology, where it’s been formally addressed at all.

Suffering is another issue. While I’ve tried to avoid pain as much as possible in this life, I’ve certainly given up on any kind of utopian ideal here, recognizing that suffering is inevitable. And suffering is something that Protestant churches aren’t always so comfortable dealing with. At the extreme, the “prosperity movement” thinks God wants his children living in mansions here on earth, adorned with gold and diamonds, lives of comfort and splendor. On a somewhat related note, I remember the same Pentecostal pastor-I learned more than I realized from him, I guess- chastising his flock for not having enough faith to stop a member from dying of cancer. The CC, in any case, acknowledges the inevitability of suffering and even embraces it –valuing it for building character and for emulation of Christ. And to combat concupiscence, she encourages at least some amount of self-denial, more if so inclined, and for like reasons includes vows of chastity, poverty, etc in some of her orders. I’d rather belong to a Church where suffering is embraced and turned into a good instead of looked upon the world’s way, as a thorn to be avoided at all costs.

None of this is to say, ‘my church is better than yours’. All of this is to say, ‘there never was a reason to leave the CC, and there’s plenty of reason to stay -and so any great work now done outside by non-Catholic churches would better be done inclusively- within her purview for the sake of unity, both in terms of community and doctrine.

All good reasons to believe! I find nothing irrational or unreasonable in your belief. Yet, Evangelicals have good reasons to believe what is contrary to Catholicism, and i find nothing irrational or unreasonable in their beliefs. And Sacred Scripture is no help to me, for it is unclear. As you said, i need an authority i can trust. Can you tell me why that authority should be the Catholic Church?

 

[Thing]

IMO post 261 is nothing but rhetoric From “the catholic controversy ( V,3)” by Francis de Sales

I notice you did not address my question about why God would send His Son to establish a new convenient and just hand it right back over to your men in the CC. post 264
Did He change His mind or is someone in error? The rock is clearly seen as Jesus in both scriptures every reference and by everyone outside the CC, including the EO. Seems they didn’t play ether.

“Simon, … you are rock…” - Jesus Christ, 1st century AD.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’m not so sure that there are differing rewards in heaven. Remember this parable from Matthew 20: It would suggest to me that God will reward us all in equal fashion. Its not that I’m against a meritocracy in Heaven. I just don’t know that its true or necessary. Is there something better than ever lasting joy? And don’t you think the Saints would be content with what God gives them?

1 The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4 and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’
5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o’clock, and did likewise.
6 Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’
7 They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’
8 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’
9 When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage.
10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.
11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner,
12 saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’
13 He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. 4 Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
14 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’
16 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."

But compare it to this parable from the Luke’s gospel:

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.a]‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’ 14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’
15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.
16"The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’
17” ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’
18"The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
19"His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’
20"Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
22"His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’
24"Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’
25" ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’
26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

(Luke 19)
Christ’s words,

“bring them here and kill them in front of me”

appear to be symbolic of judgment and hell. His words,
" ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’ "
and
"The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’
"His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

appear to be symbolic of degrees of reward in eternity–one being rewarded with greater responsibility than the other.

This makes sense; doesn’t it? Peter should certainly be given more responsibility in the new heaven and the new earth than you or i? Or do you disagree and believe you should have the same position in heaven and on the new earth as he does?