# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[joe370]

**Soc, will you give me the name of the protestant church, in the world today, that was built by Jesus Christ on Pentecost, circa 33 A.D., in Jerusalem?

If not then perhaps we can narrow the list down a bit! We know, she as the bride of Christ,is out there somewhere because Jesus said: I will build my church and I will be with my church forever…**

 

[joe370]

From where does the CC authority derive? and, more importantly, how do you know?

That’s easy…From Jesus Christ of course. He built (still building) - the church and said to his chosen church leaders to make disciples of all nations, teaching the world to observe all that I have commanded you:

*“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
*

The bible reminds us that we are to obey these church leaders and submit to their authority:

“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

How do I know that the C.C. derives all her authority from Jesus? Well, she is the only church to span the first 4 centuries. There were no other churches in the world during this critical time period when it was illegal to be a Christian, just heretical movements, quashed by Jesus’ church. The rest is faith. Soc, you have faith that Jesus is real, and is your Savior; have faith in the church He built; He built it for a reason. If I am wrong please help me out by identifying the church built by Christ, that spanned the centuries hundreds of years before the protestant reformation?

The more important question is: where do all the 16th century man-made churches derive their authority? I can give you the name of the man who built each of these churches.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

LOL! Not all. But close!



This actually might turn out to be the longest, considering that it really started with the discussion thread “Prodigal’s Isle”. However, one might say that the discussion thread “Seeking Direction on Discernment and Deception” is the mother of both. For the idea that relying on a trustworthy authority to keep oneself from being deceived was conceived by her. Then again, even she was not an orphan, for her mother is well know to me, and was another discussion thread called “A Tale of Two Eucharists” (a discussion thread who had a twin sister). It was they who conceived and suckled the idea that Jesus’ words at the Last Supper and elsewhere are unclear, for His words allow for one to interpret them either literally or figuratively. I suppose, in a way, they are all my kids and i am the father of them all. I’ve grown quite fond of them, and whether they bring me to the Catholic Church or to some other religion, they will always have a place close to my heart, as will all of the thoughtful–and some thoughtless–Catholics and non-Catholics who made them all possible.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

We’ve been over this ground before, but:

1.) Can you demonstrate that this popular Jewish idiom was a popular Jewish idiom?

Well, an idiom by definition is a figure of speech that has become so familiar that it needs no explanation to most people in the culture or community that uses it. One example i’ve already mentioned is the phrase:He kicked the bucket.
When i say this, most American–and perhaps most Europeans–know the meaning of the figure of speech: The person died. Idioms are found in perhaps every culture–ancient and modern–but can differ from culture to culture. The ancient Greek culture, for example, used this idiom, which i mentioned before, frequently:
He passed through the gates of Hades.
It has the same meaning: The person died. Ancient Jewish culture, on the other hand, had another idiom:
He went to Abraham’s bosom.
Again, it carries the same meaning as the other two: He died.

Now, the question you asked is whether “Eat my flesh” or “Devour his body” or something similar is an idiom in ancient Judea, too. One reason i know it was is because Catholics whom i trust, such as Pax, were the first to tell me it was. Another reason i know it was is because i did the research and found out that what these Catholics said was indeed true. The evidence i found were many passages in the Old Testament that use the words “Devour their flesh” as a figure of speech depicting killing someone. Just a few examples:I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword **devours **flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders."

(Deuteronomy 32:42)

When evil men advance against me to **devour my **flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall.

(Psalm 27:2)

By the wrath of the LORD Almighty
the land will be scorched
and the people will be fuel for the fire;
no one will spare his brother.
On the right they will devour,
but still be hungry;
on the left they will eat,
but not be satisfied.
Each will feed on the flesh of his own offspring:
Manasseh will feed on Ephraim, and Ephraim on Manasseh;
together they will turn against Judah.
Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away,
his hand is still upraised.

(Isaiah 9:19-21)

In these and other similar passages of the Old Testament, devouring flesh should not be taken literally. For example, David, when he wrote the cited Psalm, did not really believe King Saul was a cannibal hunting him down to have him for supper! He was using the words “devour my flesh” as a figure of speech describing the king’s insatiable appetite to drive his spear through David’s heart and pin him to a wall.

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

Sure, i’d love to enjoy the entire feast with you! But i don’t want to appear impolite. Let’s take this meal one course at a time. Please pass the pepper and tell me what you think of the first dish (1) before we move on to the next (2).

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Misery loves company, Fence!

Are you going to join us for brunch, or were you just passing by the drive-through window?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Apparently one of the early Church Fathers believed there to be a significant difference between essential and nonessential doctrine:
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

(Saint Augustine)

In fact, this quote was on the seal of an Evangelical Presbyterian Church to which i once belonged. I suppose the answer to the question, “What is essential Christian doctrine?” might be this: “Whatever a Christian *must *believe in order to be considered a Christian.” Some of these required essential beliefs are:

1. 
   *]God is one God in three persons
   *]The Father is 100% God
   *]The Holy Spirit is 100% God
   *]Jesus is 100% God
   *]Jesus is 100% man
   *]Jesus was crucified to pay the price for the sins of Christians
   *]Jesus died and was buried
   *]On the third day after His death, He got up and walked
   
   So then, Catholics and Evangelicals might say that Mormonism is not a Christian religion because Mormons don’t believe (1). Evangelicals–and perhaps Catholics, too–believe that Protestants who don’t believe (8) are not really Christians, either.
   
   But yes, i understand that even though Catholics and Evangelicals have these beliefs in common, they do disagree on the efficacy of the Sacraments. Evangelicals say the Sacraments are not a cause of one getting to heaven, and Catholics disagree. That’s one reason i’m here; you see?

 

[paul_c]

I would maintain that the minimum requirements are captured in the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This creed was agree to at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD for the expressed purpose of defining exactly what a Christian believed.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

1. You have rejected Leonidas ‘ proposal about possible derailments of the Church, guided by the episcopal leadership selected by the apostles, around 100AD.
   Then this poses serious problems for a Leonidas of later times too, should he reject what was taught by that leadership.
   If you consider the Church structure, reading Ignatius you see the ministerial priesthood, and the clear three-tiered hierarchy in it, with bishop, presbytery and deacons in every major local Church.
   Read Ignatius’ letters, and consider whether the Church he prescribes, and the Church he describes, is even in approximation what is prescribed and described in 21st century Evangelicalism.

What about these points, eg.

which I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, who is our eternal and enduring joy, especially if [men] are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, whom He has established in security, after His own will, and by His Holy Spirit. Philadelphians , introduction

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. (Smyrneans, ch.8)

This can be IMHO seen as of paramount importance for Apostolic Succession as well as for the Eucharistic Doctrine. Bishops are the strict heirs and perpetuators of the task *Do this in memory of me. *

For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]. (Philadelphians ch. 3

Sorry for taking so long to reply–so many posts, so little time!



I do appreciate your finding an applicable quote from an extremely early Church Father. And i don’t think you would disagree that Ignatius would agree with Paul’s counsel:Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

(1 Corinthians 11:1)

So you are coming close to addressing the objection made by many a Protestant, but you are not quite there. “Yes,” Evangelical Ed would agree, “we should obey a Bishop (even a Catholic one!) if what he commands agrees with what Christ taught.” Their argument is that somewhere along the line the Catholics began commanding something contrary to what Christ and the Apostles taught.

“When that happened, the right thing to do was to not obey the bishops,” Evangelical Ed tells me. "For even Peter said: But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.”

(Acts 4:19)"

**So i fear we’ve gone full circle and find ourselves in a catch 22, P7! To understand the true meaning of Christ’s words, i need to know what authority to trust. But to know if the Catholic Church is the authority i should trust, i need to know the true meaning of Christ’s words! **



How very like Socrates it is to find myself in such a predicament. I hope God will show you a way out of the fix i’m in.

 

[clmowry]

Apparently one of the early Church Fathers believed there to be a significant difference between essential and nonessential doctrine:
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

(Saint Augustine)

In fact, this quote was on the seal of an Evangelical Presbyterian Church to which i once belonged. I suppose the answer to the question, “What is essential Christian doctrine?” might be this: “Whatever a Christian *must *believe in order to be considered a Christian.” Some of these required essential beliefs are:

1. 
   *]God is one God in three persons
   *]The Father is 100% God
   *]The Holy Spirit is 100% God
   *]Jesus is 100% God
   *]Jesus is 100% man
   *]Jesus was crucified to pay the price for the sins of Christians
   *]Jesus died and was buried
   *]On the third day after His death, He got up and walked
   
   So then, Catholics and Evangelicals might say that Mormonism is not a Christian religion because Mormons don’t believe (1). Evangelicals–and perhaps Catholics, too–believe that Protestants who don’t believe (8) are not really Christians, either.
   
   But yes, i understand that even though Catholics and Evangelicals have these beliefs in common, they do disagree on the efficacy of the Sacraments. Evangelicals say the Sacraments are not a cause of one getting to heaven, and Catholics disagree. That’s one reason i’m here; you see?

1. 
   I think you would find St. Augustine’s list of “essentials” to be much longer and include some really silly things like baptism, repentance and heaven forbid, obedience to the Catholic Church.
   
   Chuck

 

[joe370]

Socrates4Jesus;5854823]LOL! Not all. But close!



This actually might turn out to be the longest, considering that it really started with the discussion thread “Prodigal’s Isle”. However, one might say that the discussion thread “Seeking Direction on Discernment and Deception” is the mother of both. For the idea that relying on a trustworthy authority to keep oneself from being deceived was conceived by her. Then again, even she was not an orphan, for her mother is well know to me, and was another discussion thread called “A Tale of Two Eucharists” (a discussion thread who had a twin sister). It was they who conceived and suckled the idea that Jesus’ words at the Last Supper and elsewhere are unclear, for His words allow for one to interpret them either literally or figuratively.

***“And he took the cup, *and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” **

**Soc, what is in the cup???
**

I suppose, in a way, they are all my kids and i am the father of them all. I’ve grown quite fond of them, and whether they bring me to the Catholic Church or to some other religion…

**So, another religion other than Christianity, is a possibily? I thought you said without a doubt that Jesus is your savior???
**

…they will always have a place close to my heart, as will all of the thoughtful–and some thoughtless–Catholics and non-Catholics who made them all possible.

 

[joe370]

Socrates4Jesus, you said…

Well, an idiom by definition is a figure of speech that has become so familiar that it needs no explanation to most people in the culture or community that uses it…Now, the question you asked is whether “Eat my flesh” or “Devour his body”

**No, Jesus only said: eat my flesh. Why put devour his body in quotes?
**

[/INDENT]In these and other similar passages of the Old Testament, devouring flesh should not be taken literally. For example, David, when he wrote the cited Psalm, did not really believe King Saul was a cannibal hunting him down to have him for supper! He was using the words “devour my flesh” as a figure of speech describing the king’s insatiable appetite to drive his spear through David’s heart and pin him to a wall.

Absolutely…

Sure, i’d love to enjoy the entire feast with you! But i don’t want to appear impolite. Let’s take this meal one course at a time. Please pass the pepper and tell me what you think of the first dish (1) before we move on to the next (2).

**
Kind of reminds me of what Paul said:

“I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.”

Only you will know when you are ready. Just don’t head down that rabbit hole like I almost did. LOL…He also said:

"All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas…"

This should end the protestant claim that Peter means small pebble as opposed to Cephas which means immovable rock, which I believe was one of your reputed reasons for saying that Jesus was being deliberately ambiguous. Several time Peter is called by his new name - Cephas in the N.T. **

Help me out here Soc; if idioms which are figures of speech that have become so familiar that it needs no explanation to most people in the culture or community that use it, then why didn’t the early church recognize that “eat my flesh” actually meant: hate, revile and kill? Surely it would have been “so familiar that it needs no explanation?” You seem to be the only person to embrace this new fangled idiom.

 

[joe370]

Paul C mentioned the Nicene Creed which is believed by all Christians:

“…We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church…”

It doesn’t say: we believe in hundreds…and yes Jesus is the foundation and cornerstone of His established church but He built His church on the Apostles and prophets:

“…built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.”

Denying that Jesus’ one church is built on the foundation of the Apostles is just another newfangled non-Catholic idea…

Truth regarding any one doctrine is right in front of you, if you view it from a catholic perspective! To view truth from a protestant perspective is to view it through the lens of sola scriptura as your sole authority, in lieu of Jesus’ church:

*“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
*

 

[joe370]

Socrates4Jesus;5855006]Sorry for taking so long to reply–so many posts, so little time!



[/INDENT]So you are coming close to addressing the objection made by many a Protestant, but you are not quite there. “Yes,” Evangelical Ed would agree, “we should obey a Bishop (even a Catholic one!) if what he commands agrees with what Christ taught.” Their argument is that somewhere along the line the Catholics began commanding something contrary to what Christ and the Apostles taught.

**If “Ed” is right I would not be a Christian today. If “Ed” is right then the holy spirit failed to guide Jesus’ one church into all truth. Soc, is “Ed” right in your opinion?
**

“When that happened, the right thing to do was to not obey the bishops,”

**Soc, how are we to know if what Ed commands, agrees with what Christ taught.
**

**Paul said:

“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority…”

Do these words apply to Eds church built by a man in lieu of the church built by God? **

**Their is a problem with eds argument. For 500 years men have been claiming that the church that preceded their established church fell into error, hence the need for their church which of course commands what Jesus really taught. No end in sight! Notice the domino effect? Sola scriptura as our sole authority fails miserably. Have you ever wonder why Jesus’ established church remains one for almost a whopping 2000 years? **

So i fear we’ve gone full circle and find ourselves in a catch 22, P7! To understand the true meaning of Christ’s words, i need to know what authority to trust. But to know if the Catholic Church is the authority i should trust, i need to know the true meaning of Christ’s words!



**Back to the old non sequitur, which protestants are guilty of. To understand the true meaning of Christ’s words, protestants insist, that the bible is our sole authority, where the meaning of Christ’s words, via individual interpretation, can be found. This idea has led to the fracture in the protestant world.
**

**I am afraid you will never know the true meaning of Christ’s words until you find the church built by Christ. That is the church Jesus entrusted with the task of making disciples of all nations and teaching them to obey everything that He commanded, and He promised that He would be with His one church until the end of time.
**

**Soc, find the church in the world today that is the historical church built circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, and you will find the house of the living God and the pillar and foundation of truth!

**

How very like Socrates it is to find myself in such a predicament. I hope God will show you a way out of the fix i’m in.

**Soc, I too hope and pray that God shows you a way out of the proverbial rabbit hole to which you seem firmly ensconced. **

 

[pneuma07]

Sorry for taking so long to reply–so many posts, so little time!



I do appreciate your finding an applicable quote from an extremely early Church Father. And i don’t think you would disagree that Ignatius would agree with Paul’s counsel:Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

(1 Corinthians 11:1)

So you are coming close to addressing the objection made by many a Protestant, but you are not quite there. “Yes,” Evangelical Ed would agree, “we should obey a Bishop (even a Catholic one!) if what he commands agrees with what Christ taught.” Their argument is that somewhere along the line the Catholics began commanding something contrary to what Christ and the Apostles taught.

“When that happened, the right thing to do was to not obey the bishops,” Evangelical Ed tells me. "For even Peter said:

But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God.”

(Acts 4:19)"


​

Dear Soc,

 We seem to agree that in order to obey God, we  must obey our legitimate Christian leaders, as per God’s written word  (   e g        Heb. 13).

We also seem to agree at this point, on the model, defining the legitimate authority, ie people sent by others who were sent, ultimately sent by Our Lord through the Apostles.

But Ed is telling us that…this was a failure.
Not that some bishops sometimes would preach errors, mind you. He’s telling us that there took place a bankruptcy of the whole system as such. Am I correct ?

I’d say

" *Dear Ed,

yours is really a momentous statement you know. For Soc and I see an original model of preserving and delivering Jesus’ message. And you tell us it came out this was a failure. Nothing less.
I’d ask you two points, then, Ed

1. Could you be a little   precise about when and on what issues this  derailment of the original model  took place  ?

2. Could you explain what the source of this knowledge of yours is ? That is the essential point to me, Ed.
   Since, to follow Ed against the legitimate leadership of the ancient Church, I have to reach the persuasion that Ed is definitely in better position than them, to teach me Jesus’ message. *"

 

[pneuma07]

[/INDENT]**So i fear we’ve gone full circle and find ourselves in a catch 22, P7! To understand the true meaning of Christ’s words, i need to know what authority to trust. But to know if the Catholic Church is the authority i should trust, i need to know the true meaning of Christ’s words! **



How very like Socrates it is to find myself in such a predicament. I hope God will show you a way out of the fix i’m in.

You are not alone Soc. You have two millennia of Christianity with you.

Who soon developed awareness of this chicken and egg dilemma you so clearly explain and live at present, about trusting an authority to reach the truth versus reaching the truth to trust an authority.

Hence what are called marks or notes of the Church.

Among these, apostolicity was early developed and explained.

Let’s read this one.

*1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. …

.2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. * Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Book III, ch. 3. About 180 AD

I think this passage deserves your meditation at this point.

Christianity went on reflecting on the notes of the Church. This was necessary, because in early times there appear to have been … many Eds, proposing diverging doctrines against the apostolic Church as well as against each other.

I do not know whether in your former branch of Evangelicalism the Creed of Nicea had been preserved or at least partially rejected.

What is stated there about the Church built by Jesus are four marks

• One
• Holy
• Catholic
• Apostolic

In order to avoid obvious issues on oneness and catholicity about their newly settled religious bodies, most of which would accept the Creed, from the beginning protestant teachers had to develop the theory of a merely invisible catholic Church, as we already saw in your previous thread.
Then, about apostolicity, the traditional objective dimension of legitimate succession was, once again out of necessity, fully rejected.

And protestantisms dismantled this way these ancient tools permitting to avoid our present chicken and egg dilemma.

We all ask what is Jesus’ Church, in order to know where the orthodox message can be learnt by us.
Protestant brothers often simply tell me that …… Jesus’ Church, is where the purest orthodox message can be learnt by us, ie ……that particular expression of the invisible catholic Church which is represented by their own faith community.

I hope something in these two posts can help, Soc.

In Christ
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

SOC,
These aren’t the same as saying that we must eat his flesh and drink his cup. … Snake: This refers to the Exodus story where the Israelites were being bitten by serpents in the desert. God had Moses make a bronze snake .that would heal those bit by the snakes if they only looked at it. …

PC:

Would you say that the snake raised up on the pole was symbolic of Christ lifted up on the cross?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

This was very obvious from how you constructed your courtroom drama, so why did you give me a hard time about making the point?

In any case, I recognize that this is a hard bridge for you to cross. I was just trying to point out to you that many others on these pages are themselves converts and can give you advice on how to overcome the pressure you are feeling. Take the plunge and start RCIA classes. They will give you a chance to personally ask questions and witness Catholicism on a more first hand basis and you can always back out…

When i was a teen, there were swimming holes in upstate New York created by streams that were dammed. One such fun spot had a 30 foot drop from the rock stream bead above to the swimming hole below. Now the first time i went there with my friends, i did not jump off the ledge into the dark water below, for i did not know what i was jumping into. Was the water shallow, or deep? Were their jagged rocks just under the water’s surface that would cut me or break my bones? Was there a strong current that would suck me under so that i would not be able to surface for air? Before my friends and i would risk the jump, we climbed down to the water hole, slipped in, and swam around, looking for any hazards. Only after we found the pool safe did we jump in. But the first one of us who did nearly hit the rocky wall before he hit the water. He ran and jumped, and could have killed himself. From that day on, we never ran and jumped, we just walked off the ledge to the pool below. A few years later, someone died at the site. He ran and jumped and hit the wall and drowned before his friends could rescue him. So the local government used heavy equipment to tear down or favorite swimming spot.

Now you are telling me to not investigate the pool, PC: “Don’t look before you leap, Soc.” you tell me, “Just jump in and enjoy the swim!” But if it would be foolish for me to not confirm that the water is safe when i was a teen, then why would i be foolish now by jumping into a religion that Protestants tell me will be the eternal death of me? Isn’t the wise thing to do to make sure it’s safe, first?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

That’s a good question. And one not so easy to answer- or explain. I listened and studied and prayed intently. I listened to non-Christian religions and found truth but also ambiguity and shallowness or incompleteness. I listened to Protestantism and found ambiguity and disagreement there and also, later, incompleteness as well. I listened to JWs and found sincerity but false beliefs based mainly on a desire to be “set apart”.

I began listening to Catholicism and began, to my surprise, to see that something was still lacking in me-having to do with things she taught or proclaimed. The doctrine on justification, for one thing, is so central. In Catholicism one is justified by becoming-by being wrought into- the being God always wanted him to be- not merely by a capricious swipe of a magical “salvation wand”, “OK, today I choose to save you-but not you over there”. We have a role to play in our salvation. Even though we have nothing to do with our very existence, He nonetheless wants us to participate in our molding –in our obtaining integrity, or wholeness/holiness. He seeks to draw us- writing His laws on our hearts and in our minds but not without our consent and cooperation-not without our wills being involved-because there can be no real change, no integrity, without us-doing our part. And in Catholicism as in nowhere else is conveyed the true nature of that change, which is simply to become a being perfected-over time- in love.

Have Catholics-including leaders- not always practiced this virtue, and ignored this Catholic message? Yes, they have done so. But, OTOH, have other Catholics practiced it* in spades* over the centuries, building hospitals and orphanages and schools and universities, promoting the pursuit of excellence in all things for the good of man and performing works of charity and relief work and feeding the poor and giving, giving, giving, making altruism an authentic human value in a world where power and greed and the glorification of self reigned over any such nonsense as loving God or ones fellow man? Yes, they have.

Most of the errors people fall into have been fought over long ago, correct doctrine hammered out by faithful people led by the HS and decided on at councils. Most errors or heresy are nothing new. In any case, if one continues to listen intently, I believe they’ll end up hearing the same voice in the CC that they find in the bible, speaking the same message.

The authority of the CC derives from the same place the authority of Gods written word derives from-Him.

Thanks for telling me from who the Catholic Church get’s it’s authority. Still wondering how you know. I mean, i understand that Calvinists believe that freewill is an illusion, and i agree with you that they are in error, as much of Sacred Scripture does not support their views. But other Protestants–such as Evangelicals and Fundamentalist Baptists–do not agree with Calvinists, either. One can believe that one is free to accept or reject Christ and still not be a Catholic. How do you know that the authority of God belongs to Catholics and not to them?

 

[paul_c]

When i was a teen, there were swimming holes in upstate New York created by streams that were dammed. One such fun spot had a 30 foot drop from the rock stream bead above to the swimming hole below. Now the first time i went there with my friends, i did not jump off the ledge into the dark water below, for i did not know what i was jumping into. Was the water shallow, or deep? Were their jagged rocks just under the water’s surface that would cut me or break my bones? Was there a strong current that would suck me under so that i would not be able to surface for air? Before my friends and i would risk the jump, we climbed down to the water hole, slipped in, and swam around, looking for any hazards. Only after we found the pool safe did we jump in. But the first one of us who did nearly hit the rocky wall before he hit the water. He ran and jumped, and could have killed himself. From that day on, we never ran and jumped, we just walked off the ledge to the pool below. A few years later, someone died at the site. He ran and jumped and hit the wall and drowned before his friends could rescue him. So the local government used heavy equipment to tear down or favorite swimming spot.

Now you are telling me to not investigate the pool, PC: “Don’t look before you leap, Soc.” you tell me, “Just jump in and enjoy the swim!” But if it would be foolish for me to not confirm that the water is safe when i was a teen, then why would i be foolish now by jumping into a religion that Protestants tell me will be the eternal death of me? Isn’t the wise thing to do to make sure it’s safe, first?

Sure its the wise thing to do to check out the pool before you jump in. However, you have a join date of 2004 on this website and almost 5000 posts so you’ve been swimming around the pool for awhile. Granted, you need to do this on you own time and in your own way as the spirit calls on you. I’m merely offering you encouragement to counter the discouragement you are getting from your Protestant friends.

 

[paul_c]

Thanks for telling me from who the Catholic Church get’s it’s authority. Still wondering how you know. I mean, i understand that Calvinists believe that freewill is an illusion, and i agree with you that they are in error, as much of Sacred Scripture does not support their views. But other Protestants–such as Evangelicals and Fundamentalist Baptists–do not agree with Calvinists, either. One can believe that one is free to accept or reject Christ and still not be a Catholic. How do you know that the authority of God belongs to Catholics and not to them?

SOC:
The only way you can demonstrate the authority of the Church (or any church) is

1. demonstrate the continuity of doctrine back to the apostles
2. Show supernatural evidence of the linkage to God, ((i.e., miracles like at Lourdes and Fatima)

The Catholic Church has both of those as have been described on this website.
The Faith group you currently adhere to has neither.
What are you waiting for?