# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I never claimed to be non-partisan. I believe deeply in the Truths taught by the Catholic Church. You are here for Catholic answers, and that is what I try to provide.

As for the question about whether it is damaging for Protestants to be sure of their interpretation, of course it is damaging - not because they are sure of themselves but because they are wrong. Do you see being perpetually unsure of your position as being a strength?.
Well, if what Evangelicals teach is not true, then i’d rather be an Evangelical who was unsure, rather than one who was sure, he was right. The same is true regarding Catholicism. If what the Catholic Church teaches is not true, then i’d rather be a Catholic who was unsure, rather than one who was sure, he was right.

It seems, then, that being a partisan who is sure he is right and unwilling to consider the possibility that he might be wrong is a bad thing if one is wrong, but a good thing if one is right. Right?
 
Hmmmmm - however, we should remember that papal authority doesn’t necessarily imply constant infallibility - I think there was a ruling about it.

St. Peter was given the keys to heaven for his essential clear sightedness - but he was far from perfect, and didn’t appear to act infallibly all the time. Didn’t he reject Jesus 3 times, and chop off someones ear against Jesus’s wishes?

It’s his essential clarity of vision, beyond that of the norm, which grants his primacy. But that doesn’t stop St. Paul arguing with him over details, does it?

As to the original statement, Jesus * refers to himself* as being deliberately obscure with regard to the parables, and as to the degree of his (and in general, Gods) obscurity most clearly in John’s Gospel. If he were absolutely deliberately and clearly obvious, we would all follow him out of self interest, whether saint or sinner, to the detriment of creation as a whole.

It’s one of the purposes of justification by faith, as I understand it.👍
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

You staying awhile banana man, or just jogging by?

😃
 
You really give me too much credit, Joe! Do you think that in the last two millennium little ol’ me is the only one who put two and two together and came up with the idea that Jesus might have been using a common Jewish idiom in John, chapter 6?

🙂
Hey Soc, If you are correct, perhaps you could give me the names of these people spanning 2000 years of Christianity, inside or outside the church built by Jesus, that put two and two together and came up with the idea that Jesus might have been using a common Jewish idiom in John, chapter 6. If you can then I will acquiesce; if you cannot, then yes, I’m afraid I’m gonna have to give you all of the credit for this theory my friend. I"m not gonna let you off the hook that easy. LOL…😃
 
Pneuma07, you said to Soc:

From what we see about the different views in the modern, as well as in ancient time, what clearly appears is that God did not choose to preserve individual believers from speaking errors. There is no general infusion of the same degree of knowledge of truth, or any infallibility of the individual believer.

It appears God did not choose such a direct continuous intervention. Rather He decided to fish, and then shepherd, human beings through human beings. He selected and sent, the Apostles. No evangelization would be needed if the Spirit routinely directly called people. No teaching, if the Spirit instructed all those who just adhered to a first message by the sent ones.

Spreading and guarding the Gospel was entrusted to a group of men, a structured group. And this group was one, not many. Isn’t this the essential original model ?
And the Spirit can be expected to assist this process.

BTW the ECFs appear in overall harmony with each other within the Church, and in strong contrast with all the forms of heresies of their times.

**I agree with Soc; well said!!! 👍

CCC - 1556 - To fulfil their exalted mission, “the apostles were endowed by Christ with a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and by the imposition of hands they passed on to their auxiliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration.”

What you said is so biblical, yet so many sola scriptura advocates insist that it’s not, even if you show them the passages. :confused:

**
 
Originally posted by pneuma07

I Cannot see protestantisms as able to offer a single vision on Church History. …

Again, you are so right. Most non-Catholics, including some of my own family members, totally disregard what the early church leaders believed and taught which of course continued through ordination (the imposition of hands) - as per sacred scripture; even men who were taught directly by the Apostles.

Like Soc said, for them, the dark ages began almost immediately, rendering Jesus’ words of spiritual perpetuity null and void. The holy bible is the be all end all for them when it comes to authority, yet all non-Catholic churches have their own magisterial ministers/elders who teach, guide and minister their flock; a bit of an oxymoron if you ask me.

Proving sola scriptura to be counter-productive and un-authoritative on its own, is quite simple. For example, my niece who belongs to one Lutheran church, believes in the metaphorical interpretation of John 6; an evangelical Lutheran pastor who I met here at CAF believes what the Catholic church believes. I asked both: who was right and who was wrong and you can just imagine what they said, all the while claiming that the holy bible was the basis for their determination. Sola scriptura clearly fails the litmus test.
 
Well, if what Evangelicals teach is not true, then i’d rather be an Evangelical who was unsure, rather than one who was sure, he was right. The same is true regarding Catholicism. If what the Catholic Church teaches is not true, then i’d rather be a Catholic who was unsure, rather than one who was sure, he was right.

It seems, then, that being a partisan who is sure he is right and unwilling to consider the possibility that he might be wrong is a bad thing if one is wrong, but a good thing if one is right. Right?
SOC:
Its all a matter of grace and our acceptance of that Grace.

By the Grace of God we are led to the truth and then by our own free will, we can either accept it or not. Once you have the truth, you should embrace it with all your strength, all your soul, all your mind and all your heart,

God has led you here so that you could learn the truth. Its now up to you to embrace it.

By the way, It might be instructive for you to consider the courtroom drama you authored yesterday. How did you portray the Protestant Persecutor? You had him/her challenging Catholic beliefs in a most derogatory fashion with no effort at all to support their positions. At the end, you were condemned to Hell by them without the only reason being that you were considering Catholic positions.

It might also be instructive for you to consider how you portrayed yourself. You actually come across as scared of the PP. You start off by saying you are considering Catholic positions but by the end you are quickly acquiescing to the pressure they are putting on you.

I have no doubt that this courtroom drama is in many ways a reflection of what you are feeling - significant pressure from your Protestant friends and family members to stay the course. But you also recognize that they are giving you no rational support for their positions, only anti-catholic biases. And in the end, they are condemning you to hell because of your beliefs, but they give you no answers as to why Catholic beliefs would be condeming. This was the subject of the other thread. If you beleive that Fatih in Jesus’s redemptive power is all that is needed for Salvation, how could becoming a Catholic condemn you. We believe in Jesus’ redemptive power.

I know this is scary for you and that you feel you need to be able to defend yourself to your Protestant friends and family members. We’ve already given you more than enough to persuade anyone that is willing to listen. In your heart, you know that. Some will simply never accept your decision and you will lose some friends, no doubt. But ask yourself this: wouldn’t a real friend support you. After all, a real friend loves…

In the end, this will be between you and God, not between you and your firends. You can make new friends, and you will. But there is only one God, he is leading you to the truth and it is now up to you to accept it.

I think a helpful thing for you at this point is to engage some of the Converts on these pages. Many, if not most of them have gone through the same anxiety as you are. Ask them about their experience and how they managed the relationships with their Protestant friends and families. I’m sure it wasn’t always easy for them, but I’ll bet you they all said in the end it was worth the plunge.
 
SOC:
Its all a matter of grace and our acceptance of that Grace. By the Grace of God we are led to the truth and then by our own free will, we can either accept it or not. Once you have the truth, you should embrace it with all your strength, all your soul, all your mind and all your heart. God has led you here so that you could learn the truth. Its now up to you to embrace it. …
Your words remind me of Jesus’ words:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

(Matthew 22:36-40)
And i suppose there is a very real connection with loving Jesus and loving the truth. So i tell you the truth that the truth to which i have been led is that Jesus’ words are ambiguous. That truth has been hard to accept, but i’ve embraced it. At least i thought what i embraced was genuine. But now you are telling me i’ve hugged a lie, and i suppose you also imply that it is not Grace but the Father of Lies that has guided me!

That’s a concern, for some Catholics in this discussion have admitted that they have embraced the same idea, too. Jesus’ words ARE ambiguous to those who READ them, they tell me, but their meaning was clear to Peter and to his Apostolic Successors to this day. The only way to know the true meaning of His words is to trust these successors.

My question for you, PC, is this: Do you think it was Grace that led some of the Catholics in this discussion to admit they have embraced the idea that Jesus’ words are ambiguous? or do you think that they are resisting the truth, too?

🤷
 
Your words remind me of Jesus’ words:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

(Matthew 22:36-40)
And i suppose there is a very real connection with loving Jesus and loving the truth. So i tell you the truth that the truth to which i have been led is that Jesus’ words are ambiguous. That truth has been hard to accept, but i’ve embraced it. At least i thought what i embraced was genuine. But now you are telling me i’ve hugged a lie, and i suppose you also imply that it is not Grace but the Father of Lies that has guided me!

That’s a concern, for some Catholics in this discussion have admitted that they have embraced the same idea, too. Jesus’ words ARE ambiguous to those who READ them, they tell me, but their meaning was clear to Peter and to his Apostolic Successors to this day. The only way to know the true meaning of His words is to trust these successors.

My question for you, PC, is this: Do you think it was Grace that led some of the Catholics in this discussion to admit they have embraced the idea that Jesus’ words are ambiguous? or do you think that they are resisting the truth, too?

🤷
Well, we all agree that without the benefit of Catholic tradition, you can misread scripture, so to that extent, scripture can be ambiguous. And it is clear that parts of scripture are harder to understand than others. For instance, I am convinced that no one will understand Revelations completely until the events come to pass. That is the nature of prophesy. So, I’m on board with those that understand these facts to mean that Scripture is ambiguous. At the same time, I will tell you that if you understand Catholic Tradition, it is supported unambiguously by scripture.
.
 
… By the way, It might be instructive for you to consider the courtroom drama you authored yesterday. How did you portray the Protestant Persecutor? You had him/her challenging Catholic beliefs in a most derogatory fashion with no effort at all to support their positions. At the end, you were condemned to Hell by them without the only reason being that you were considering Catholic positions.

It might also be instructive for you to consider how you portrayed yourself. You actually come across as scared of the PP. You start off by saying you are considering Catholic positions but by the end you are quickly acquiescing to the pressure they are putting on you.

I have no doubt that this courtroom drama is in many ways a reflection of what you are feeling - significant pressure from your Protestant friends and family members to stay the course. But you also recognize that they are giving you no rational support for their positions, only anti-catholic biases. And in the end, they are condemning you to hell because of your beliefs, but they give you no answers as to why Catholic beliefs would be condeming. This was the subject of the other thread. If you beleive that Fatih in Jesus’s redemptive power is all that is needed for Salvation, how could becoming a Catholic condemn you. We believe in Jesus’ redemptive power.

I know this is scary for you and that you feel you need to be able to defend yourself to your Protestant friends and family members. We’ve already given you more than enough to persuade anyone that is willing to listen. In your heart, you know that. Some will simply never accept your decision and you will lose some friends, no doubt. But ask yourself this: wouldn’t a real friend support you. After all, a real friend loves…

In the end, this will be between you and God, not between you and your firends. You can make new friends, and you will. But there is only one God, he is leading you to the truth and it is now up to you to accept it.

I think a helpful thing for you at this point is to engage some of the Converts on these pages. Many, if not most of them have gone through the same anxiety as you are. Ask them about their experience and how they managed the relationships with their Protestant friends and families. I’m sure it wasn’t always easy for them, but I’ll bet you they all said in the end it was worth the plunge.
PC:

Do you think one is wise to accept the opinion of a novice? Or does it make more sense to follow the advice of an expert? For example, let’s you tried to start your computer, and instead of starting Windows you see a blue screen with the following message in large white letters,**STOP: 0x0000007B
**A friend of yours, who is a good Catholic and extremely bright when it comes to theology but a novice when it comes to computers, tells your computer has a virus. He recommends reformatting the hard drive (which will delete all of your files) and reinstalling Windows.

Another person, who is not Catholic and ignorant of theological matters, is a computer repair technician. He tells you that some device driver has made Windows unbootable. He suggests using the Last Known Good option when booting your computer to resolve the issue.

Whose advice are you more likely to follow, and why?

🤷
 
PC:

Do you think one is wise to accept the opinion of a novice? Or does it make more sense to follow the advice of an expert? For example, let’s you tried to start your computer, and instead of starting Windows you see a blue screen with the following message in large white letters,**STOP: 0x0000007B
**A friend of yours, who is a good Catholic and extremely bright when it comes to theology but a novice when it comes to computers, tells your computer has a virus. He recommends reformatting the hard drive (which will delete all of your files) and reinstalling Windows.

Another person, who is not Catholic and ignorant of theological matters, is a computer repair technician. He tells you that some device driver has made Windows unbootable. He suggests using the Last Known Good option when booting your computer to resolve the issue.

Whose advice are you more likely to follow, and why?

🤷
I was suggesting talking to converts, not for the truth about Catholicism, but for how they managed their decision to convert with their friends and relatives. But by the way, many converts understand the faith extremely well, having investigated it thoroughly before swimming the Tiber.
 
I was suggesting talking to converts, not for the truth about Catholicism, but for how they managed their decision to convert with their friends and relatives. But by the way, many converts understand the faith extremely well, having investigated it thoroughly before swimming the Tiber.
Yes, but you have not answered the question–would you trust the advice of a novice instead of an expert? Why or why not?

🤷
 
Your words remind me of Jesus’ words:
“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

(Matthew 22:36-40)
And i suppose there is a very real connection with loving Jesus and loving the truth. So i tell you the truth that the truth to which i have been led is that Jesus’ words are ambiguous. That truth has been hard to accept, but i’ve embraced it. At least i thought what i embraced was genuine. But now you are telling me i’ve hugged a lie, and i suppose you also imply that it is not Grace but the Father of Lies that has guided me!

That’s a concern, for some Catholics in this discussion have admitted that they have embraced the same idea, too. Jesus’ words ARE ambiguous to those who READ them, they tell me, but their meaning was clear to Peter and to his Apostolic Successors to this day. The only way to know the true meaning of His words is to trust these successors.

My question for you, PC, is this: Do you think it was Grace that led some of the Catholics in this discussion to admit they have embraced the idea that Jesus’ words are ambiguous? or do you think that they are resisting the truth, too?

🤷
Due to the fall we all begin in ignorance. None of us like this fact because one aspect of OS involves man preferring to believe he’s right: a self-righteousness as opposed to a God-based righteousness, a rejection of God and His light. Being led back into the light is a process, which continues throughout our lives (God always has much more for us to learn even as we generally tend to think we’ve arrived no matter where we happen to be at any given time). In any case, as this relates to Catholicism, a person can become “more Catholic” as they grow in the knowledge of God and come to understand and agree with her teachings progressively.
 
Yes, but you have not answered the question–would you trust the advice of a novice instead of an expert? Why or why not?

🤷
I don’t understand the relevance of the question to our exchange. If I wanted to know what it’s like to be a novice, I would ask the advice of a novice. If I wanted information on a subject, I would of course seek out the person who knows the most about it.
 
Due to the fall we all begin in ignorance. None of us like this fact because one aspect of OS involves man preferring to believe he’s right: a self-righteousness as opposed to a God-based righteousness, a rejection of God and His light. Being led back into the light is a process, which continues throughout our lives (God always has much more for us to learn even as we generally tend to think we’ve arrived no matter where we happen to be at any given time). In any case, as this relates to Catholicism, a person can become “more Catholic” as they grow in the knowledge of God and come to understand and agree with her teachings progressively.
I agree with this 100%.
 
Yes, but you have not answered the question–would you trust the advice of a novice instead of an expert? Why or why not?

🤷
I would trust the expert! In the case of the Catholic church, these representatives are accredited representatives by virtue of their unique position in history, as opposed to their unique scholarly prowess.

My goal as a floundering Christian was to find the church in the world today, built on Pentecost, by Jesus Christ as opposed to mere men, regardless of their exceptional and unique scholarly prowess, knowing full well that Jesus built only one church and conferred upon His one church the holy spirit to guide His one church into the fullness of truth, until the end of time. The rest is faith in the notion that you can trust the one church built by Jesus, to which He is the head and savior, to which not even Satan can vanquish.
 
=Mystic Banana-Hmmmmm - however, we should remember that papal authority doesn’t necessarily imply constant infallibility - I think there was a ruling about it.
**
The Current Code of Canon Law**

ARTICLE 1: THE ROMAN PONTIFF

Can. 331 The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.
**
Can. 332 §1** The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election. Accordingly, if he already has the episcopal character, he receives this power from the moment he accepts election to the supreme pontificate. If he does not have the episcopal character, he is immediately to be ordained Bishop.

Can. 333 §1 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.

§2 The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.

**§3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff. **

Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.

§2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 749 §1 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.

§2 The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals; likewise, when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.

**§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated. ****

Can. 750** Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.

**Can. 752 **While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

Can. 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ’s faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.

**Can. 754 **All Christ’s faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions; this is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops.

Hope this clairifies the issue?

Love and prayers,
 
I do believe that is the most helpful thing you have said thus far! Please tell me, did you pray before your post, or is someone now praying for you? (Or perhaps someone is praying for me?) Seems a bit of Divine Intervention going on here!

👍
Dear Soc,
that’s so encouraging.🙂

I did not have any specific prayer, or expectation, before that post . I must admit that you have been in my prayers these weeks, and I remember a couple of times when I also asked to be able to help you.
I also guess I am not the only one praying for you here.

I t could be helpful if you wanted to tell in your own words what breakthrough you consider we achieved in that post 🙂
 
Yes, thanks for reminding me. I have to say that for Evangelicals, the Dark Ages begin at the end of Acts. They do not even go so far as to confirm the Acts of the Apostles beyond the end of the Book of Acts. All that is know is what the Bible records, and what happened in modern times. For them, everything else of ancient history is clouded in darkness and mystery.
I dare to suggest that enlightening that darkness could be very helpful for many Evangelicals. And…. not that helpful for Evangelicalism.

Beginning for example by producing a single credible narrative about the famous faithful remnants, which everybody could scrutinize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top