# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[joe370]

Great? Not sure about that! Willing? Yes, once i know that She teaches the Truth.

Soc, if I can prove to you that the C.C. is the church built by Christ, on Pentecost, circa 33 AD, to which Jesus is the Head and Savior, which is forever guided by the Holy Spirit, to which even the gates of hell cannot vanquish, would you consider admitting that she, as the bride of Christ, teaches truth, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, no doubt through every century; after all, she is forever being attacked by the anti-Christ?

That’s what did it for me!

 

[fhansen]

Sounds reasonable to me. But there is still the great oak blocking the road to the river: Protestants suggest that the Successors of Peter lost their way, and lost the truth. Having become so deceived, the Holy Spirit had no choice but to preserve the remnant of the Church by way of the Protestant Reformers. I understand you disagree (and perhaps you’ve already told me why, but i’ve forgotten), but please tell me why you disagree with them.

I’d ask him which particular scripture-based Reformed opinions should be followed. Total depravity, or not? Baptismal regeneration, or not? What about adult baptism only as per Anabaptists? Or Sabbath worship as per Adventist teachings? Imputed righteousness? OSAS? Double predestination? Justification by faith alone? Real Presence?

If the HS somehow just couldn’t quite manage to prevent Catholic/Orthodox Churches from losing their way,** then there is no Christian Church-anywhere.
**

 

[joe370]

Sounds reasonable to me. But there is still the great oak blocking the road to the river: Protestants suggest that the Successors of Peter lost their way, and lost the truth. Having become so deceived, the Holy Spirit had no choice but to preserve the remnant of the Church by way of the Protestant Reformers. I understand you disagree (and perhaps you’ve already told me why, but i’ve forgotten), but please tell me why you disagree with them.

Help me out here Soc!!! Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that they are correct. Firstly, could you please ask them to tell you when this great deception/apostasy took place, regarding TRUTH? Secondly, please direct me to this one reformed church (remnant) - that has spanned the centuries along side the reputed apostate C.C., that is responsible for preserving the church built by God to this very day, which is forever guided by the holy spirit? I mean if this is true, I must be worshiping in the wrong church, as well as being guilty of Eucharistic idolatry - correct?

If you only answer one of my questions, please let it be this one!!!

 

[paul_c]

Sounds reasonable to me. But there is still the great oak blocking the road to the river: Protestants suggest that the Successors of Peter lost their way, and lost the truth. Having become so deceived, the Holy Spirit had no choice but to preserve the remnant of the Church by way of the Protestant Reformers. I understand you disagree (and perhaps you’ve already told me why, but i’ve forgotten), but please tell me why you disagree with them.

Why would the holy spirit and Jesus, who said he would be with the church until the end of the Age, allow the Chruch to lose the truth?

 

[joe370]

**But i cannot help but wonder if anyone can ever be too clear. It seems to me that clarity is to truth what giving is to love: To express the truth, one can never give too much clarity. To express love, one can never give too much charity. Don’t you think?
**

Well put Soc, and I couldn’t agree more! If I may detract from the more pertinent questions of this thread for just a brief moment. What are some things that you find difficult to embrace in protestant circles; is sola scriptura one of them? Even as a former Lutheran this man-made doctrine never made any sense to me.

And

Do you belong to any one particular church or are you still waiting for more conclusive results, as to which church is the “pillar and foundation of truth,” built by God, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, if you don’t mind me asking?

 

[hamilte3]

Interesting. Are you saying, Ham3, that if Jesus was clearer, we’d no longer be free to choose to believe?

Yes, because I believe Jesus gave us everything we need for salvation and I don’t think he’d be ambiguous. My conclusion to your question would be that what we are observing is simplicity that is the simplicity of God and clarity that is sometimes beyond our grasp because of our will. God’s Word transforms our will and sometimes those passages become perfectly clear. Much like the birth of Christ. He preached just by being born. By become human, he obviously loves us. But the complexity of human wisdom is only the lack of the beatific vision which is vision of God and answers it all. I have no quotes though! I’m not that well versed I think or have a bad memory.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Fari enough. Do you feel like you are under pressure by your Protestant friends and family because you are considering converting to Catholicism?

Sure.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

What is a "virtual protestant? I would agree with him! Jesus said:

*“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” *

I would then proceed to ask him: How do you go about eating this spiritual food? According to sacred scripture we are to eat it, in the form of bread and wine. I would then ask him to read Matthew 26:

*"Then he took the cup, *gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

And then I would ask him: what is in the cup? Soc, what is in the cup my friend, as per Jesus Christ???

You left out the word friend. Virtual is an adjective modifying friend, not an adverb modifying Protestant.



I think you are misunderstanding him. What he (his user name on the other forum is Joker) was suggesting is that

spiritual = symbolic

So when Jesus said this,

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

(John 6:63)

our God and Savior was saying that He was speaking symbolically, as He did in chapter’s 3 and 4 of John’s Gospel.

So i’m wondering how you would respond to Joker.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc, if I can prove to you that the C.C. is the church built by Christ, on Pentecost, circa 33 AD, to which Jesus is the Head and Savior, which is forever guided by the Holy Spirit, to which even the gates of hell cannot vanquish, would you consider admitting that she, as the bride of Christ, teaches truth, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, no doubt through every century; after all, she is forever being attacked by the anti-Christ?

That’s what did it for me!

Well, we’re all wired differently, so what does it for you might not do it for me; but then again it might do it for me. Let’s see!

One premise you appear to propose, Joe, is that when Jesus said this,
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

what He really meant was something like this,And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the [Church will not fail to continue to teach the truth].

Am i correct in interpreting what you are saying?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’d ask him which particular scripture-based Reformed opinions should be followed. Total depravity, or not? Baptismal regeneration, or not? What about adult baptism only as per Anabaptists? Or Sabbath worship as per Adventist teachings? Imputed righteousness? OSAS? Double predestination? Justification by faith alone? Real Presence?

If the HS somehow just couldn’t quite manage to prevent Catholic/Orthodox Churches from losing their way,** then there is no Christian Church-anywhere**.

True, there is disagreement among Protestants. Evangelicals, Fundamentalist Baptists, Calvary Chapel members, and others would say that these Protestants are in error, too. They, like Catholics, believe a different Gospel–one that cannot save them from hell. These different denominations all have a common believe in one and the same Gospel. Some of their most well known current teachers are listed here:

oneplace.com/

They are one, they say, in the essentials of the historic Christian faith.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Why would the holy spirit and Jesus, who said he would be with the church until the end of the Age, allow the Chruch to lose the truth?

Good question, PC! Why indeed? Do you think that Jesus’ words preclude this from occurring?

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

 

[fhansen]

True, there is disagreement among Protestants. Evangelicals, Fundamentalist Baptists, Calvary Chapel members, and others would say that these Protestants are in error, too. They, like Catholics, believe a different Gospel–one that cannot save them from hell. These different denominations all have a common believe in one and the same Gospel. Some of their most well known current teachers are listed here:

oneplace.com/

They are one, they say, in the essentials of the historic Christian faith.

The difference is that Evangelicals et al disagree with other, purportedly hell-bound, Protestants over the meaning of scripture whereas the CCs authority doesn’t derive from there to begin with.

 

[utunumsint]

You left out the word friend. Virtual is an adjective modifying friend, not an adverb modifying Protestant.



I think you are misunderstanding him. What he (his user name on the other forum is Joker) was suggesting is that

spiritual = symbolic

So when Jesus said this,

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

(John 6:63)

our God and Savior was saying that He was speaking symbolically, as He did in chapter’s 3 and 4 of John’s Gospel.

So i’m wondering how you would respond to Joker.

So every time we read the words spirit, we should read it to mean “Symbolic”?

Should we start baptising in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Symbol?

Why does Spirit mean symbolic suddenly in this particular case? Is there any other NT examples where the words spirit mean symbolic?

God bless,
Ut

 

[paul_c]

Good question, PC! Why indeed? Do you think that Jesus’ words preclude this from occurring?

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)

Of course they do. Jesus will not allow his church to fail. He set it up to teach the truth and administer the sacraments and he watches over it to ensure that it does.

 

[utunumsint]

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that the way Paul and John use the word “spirit” is not complicated. I’m sure it is. But I just don’t see it as meaning symbolic anywhere. Sometimes it is the spirit of truth, sometimes it is the spirit of wisdom. Often the spirit is spoken about as dwelling in the body. Separation of spirit and body means death.

For Paul, in Romans, he says this:

8:9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
8:10: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
8:11: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
8:13: For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
8:22: For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
8:23: And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Another very complex passage that speaks of our death in Christ, but also a body death that we must strive to attain within ourselves in the form of mortification. And again in Collosians:

2:23: Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
3:1: If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
3:2: Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
3:3: For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
3:4: When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.
3:5: Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
3:6: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
3:7: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.
3:8: But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

So we can see that the flesh here means the passions and evil thoughts that cause us to sin. In this way, it is clear that the flesh profits naught.

But Christ’s flesh, although sharing in our fallen human nature, never caused Christ to sin. So obviously Christ is not talking about his own flesh in John 6:63 but of the sinful inclinations of his listeners. His flesh is the flesh of the spotless lamb, the pure sacrifice of God. It does profit us much. Or else, why would God have raised it?

Luke 24:38: And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
24:39: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
24:40: And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
24:41: And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

And why would John later on insist on the following:

1st John 4:1: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
4:2: Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
4:3: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

So from this, it seems that when we read these passages in John:

6:63: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

We must read it in the sense of sinful flesh. Not Christ’s flesh. And then what follows is this: The profit that Christ’s Spirit gives to us human beings is nothing less than the resurection from the death and eternal life. Resurected flesh, very different from the fallen flesh that we currently have that must be put to death through moritification, and through real physical death.

7:39: (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

God bless,
Ut

 

[clmowry]

I’d gladly come aboard the lifeboat from the CCS Catholic Faith

if you might through me a lifesaver of truth that I might grab onto. If you are able to rescue me, I’ll be eternally grateful, for I’m not sure how long I can hold out against the dangers that lurk just beneath the ominous waves.

Let me toss out a few lifesaver’s of truth.

1.) There is a moral monotheistic God.
2.) Human beings exist and have an eternal soul.
3.) God wants each human being to be with Him forever in Heaven.
4.) God has given human beings free will.
5.) God cares what human beings believe (and/or do) and will not accept those who reject Him into Heaven.
6.) There cannot be multiple conflicting ways to align our will with Gods will (i.e. Not reject God.)
7.) Given 1-6, God “must” provide humans with a sure way to know what He wants them to believe (and/or do.)
8.) He cared so much about 3 and therefore 7 that He sent His only begotten Son, Jesus the Christ, to Earth to show us once and for all the Way to obtain eternal Life with Him in Heaven.
9.) Jesus taught His disciples, the Apostles, this Way.
10.) Jesus sent His Apostles to teach this Way to the “ends of the Earth.”

Let me know if any of these sink when you grab hold of them. i.e. Your Faith and Reason tell you that they are false.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

huf huf huf

Think I overdid it actually - put my twopenny’s worth on too many posts - I’ll probably be back again in a while… this is a loooong debate, looking at how long it’s been going…

:juggle:

Long…nah, just getting started, I think allof Soc’s treads get closed by the 1,000 thread limit rather than the end of the conversation.

 

[clmowry]

Let’s instead consider what that nobody thinks he has been shown to see whether it is true.

We’ve been over this ground before, but:

1.) Can you demonstrate that this popular Jewish idiom was a popular Jewish idiom?
2.) And then, even if you can, how can you maintain that Christ was sinless and yet drove the confused crowd away from Him (and therefore the Truth) with a deliberate insult. He certainly seemed to be capable of getting away from a crowd without using your proposed tactic.

Chuck

 

[Miserys_Fence]

This is 2nd-hand info, and I’m certainly no expert–but I have 2 very dear friends (American born) who lived for years in the Middle East (one of whom was actually raised there). They both told me that it is social custom in that area to speak in parables rather than ‘coming right out and saying it.’

I would suppose that Christ was merely speaking in a manner in which He would be understood–the way everyone of that region spoke. It only seems odd to us.

And he still does the same thing today–speaks to each of us in a manner that we can understand. We just need to learn to be still and listen.

Miz

 

[clmowry]

True, there is disagreement among Protestants. Evangelicals, Fundamentalist Baptists, Calvary Chapel members, and others would say that these Protestants are in error, too. They, like Catholics, believe a different Gospel–one that cannot save them from hell. These different denominations all have a common believe in one and the same Gospel. Some of their most well known current teachers are listed here:

oneplace.com/

They are one, they say, in the essentials of the historic Christian faith.

The problem of course, is determining what the “essentials of the historic Christian faith” might be.

Is it a list of things that no Christian’s ever argued about? If so, then nothing is essential.

Is it what was believed from the earliest time or for the longest time? If so then Catholicism is essential.

If it was what was believed before Catholicism, then who could know?

Is believing that Christ was God essential?
Is believing that Christ was a man essential?
Is believing in the Trinity essential?
Is Baptism essential?
Is Repentance for Sin Essential?

Is anything Essential?

Chuck