# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[michaelsmth626]

Michael, your view of history is so distorted by your hatred of the Catholic Church - why is that?

Your interpretation of Daniel is in error. Try this one:
The four successive kingdoms in this apocalyptic perspective are the Babylonian (gold), the Median (silver), the Persian (bronze), and the Hellenistic (iron). The last, after Alexander’s death, was divided among his generals (Daniel 2:41-42). The two resulting kingdoms, which most affected the Jews, were the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt and that of the Seleucids in Syria, who tried in vain, by war and through intermarriage, to restore the unity of Alexander’s empire (Daniel 2:43). The stone hewn from the mountain is the messianic kingdom awaited by the Jews (Daniel 2:44-45). Our Lord made this image personal to himself; cf Luke 20:17-18.

Please, take a deep breath on all this. You need to let the hatred go and start seriously searching for the truth.

The problem is it completely leaves out Rome and as I said the other day to you, is this your kingdom? Your words have trapped you again. Now you are making a case for a kingdom that comes after the Hellenistic age at the time of Christ, and His words testify you are living in the wrong kingdom. Jesus clearly said; “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”

And Daniel 2:44 says 44 And in the days of these kings **the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed;
**
News flash this is not the church its Christ Kingdom on earth.

Now if you would read the last part of Daniel you would see that, the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and guess what, its not speaking of Peter. Struck the image, where? at its feet the feet of iron and clay. This is Jesus return in Glory. Now you take a deep breath and tell me how this can be the Hellenistic period that ended in 30 BC? This last kingdom “of Iron and clay” is where we are now, waiting for Christ return. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

You don’t suppose this will be Christ Glorious return?
1 cor 15:24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
Rev 20: 1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, **so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. **But after these things he must be released for a little while.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them.

Look around Christ the STONE that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. The whole earth is not filled with the living Stone. But it will be.

44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold—the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure.”

Do you really think God would not include the kingdom that destroyed the temple and scattered the Jews?

Who were the people that destroyed the temple? I believe it was the Romans.
The people of the prince to come
Further more what do you think the LORD thinks of swimming the Tiber? Crossing over into Rome. I do believe I will cross the Jordan instead.

Crossed the Jordan 1979 “Jesus parted the waters”

 

[michaelsmth626]

Michael, let the hatred go. Did you know that the Roman emperors in the 380s supported Arianism, not Catholicism. The Catholic church actually overwhelmed the emperor’s view.

I dont have hatred toward you or your church I have a love for the truth.

In 383, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire by the decree of the Emperor, which would persist until the fall of the Western Empire, and later, with the Eastern Roman Empire, until the capture of Constantinople. At this time there were considered five primary sees according to Eusebius: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

 

[michaelsmth626]

See, I chose a simple passage, one that you cited, and I asked you some simple questions, and instead you changed the subject. So I’ll try again:

“Here is your mother.”

So, what does it mean? How do we arrive at the correct meaning? Who do we trust to arrive at that meaning? And how do we know that the meaning arrived at is in fact the correct meaning?

Please just answer these questions from your perspective.

From the little that is in Acts it would appear that Mary was taken care of by the Apostles.
If you believe it means that Mary is the new Eve and we are all her children you would do better selling that to some pagan believer. Some one that believes any number of ancient faiths that worshiped the mother that gave birth to the God man.

It would seem that someone tried to venerate Mary before Jesus and His reply was.

27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Why didn’t Jesus just teach that Mary was the new Eve or the Apostles for that matter?
Truth be known they taught nothing about Marys goddess like qualities.

So John took care of Mary which was the custom to take care of your elders back then rather than placing them in an retirement home. The custom was for a brother to take care of his brothers wife and family if he was to die or be killed. Jesus was about to be killed and He left his mother in the care John. This passage adds little to the over all message of the NT, the only reason it is of importance is because the CC has made Mary into a goddess. Something I cant find in scripture and the CC freely admits is absent in scripture.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Paul wrote to the Church of Rome. That was ~56 a.d. 300 years prior to your date. And the Church was already there because Paul says their faith has already been heard all over the world. [Rm 1:8]

This Church that holds the presidency (Ignatius bishop of Antioch, disciple of St John the apostle, letter to the Romans, (~ 80 - 107 a.d.)

The Church that every Church must agree with (Irenaeus, "against heresies ~180 disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St John the apostle)

Etc Etc Etc

sheesh!!! opcorn:what people will believe.

Yes they were in Rome and they were a big problem for the Romans. They tried everything to contain the spread of Christianity. The solution was to establish the CC under Roman authority. Establish a church that could control all Christians and enforce it with law. Contain it by changing a single verse. The same way a small rudder can turn the whole ship.

“Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
“Has God indeed said, ‘And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church’,

Show me a passage that says the church is built on Peter other than Mat.
You can’t because it does not exist. So how it is that Jesus contradicts all other passages in the bible in mat 16? And the Apostles contradict Jesus statement here in mat 16 by teaching the church is built on Jesus. You teach that the church is built on Peter just as it says. The only logical answer is your interpretation is wrong.

Yes some people will believe anything

 

[SCALCO]

Paul puts talk about Apostles being greater or lesser than another in 1 Cor to bed like a baby. He refers to such talk as immaturity infants in Christ. If it was that Peter was the chief Apostle Paul never mentioned it in his correction to the Corinthians.

11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul even referenced Peter here.

It is very notable that Cephas is referenced here along with Paul, Apollos, and Christ. As to your question that Paul never mentions Peter as “chief Apostle”, this is precisely what he is doing here IMHO. Notice how Cephas is the only human character mentioned besides Paul and Apollos, who were actually dealing with the Corinthian community themselves. Why mention Cephas at all?

Don’t you find it even more notable that “I am of Christ” is referenced as a contentious and divisive statement? In the context of the divisions in Corinth, “I am of Christ” could be I trust no human authority and “I am of Cephas” could mean I only trust the highest human authority. I had not really noticed this before someone from another thread pointed it out. It sounds a little like some of the divisions we have today.

Peace of Christ be with you.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Introduction:

It’s a question that has haunted me, and something i’ve just got to know: Was Jesus intentionally ambiguous? I mean, when i read this,And [Jesus] took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)

Catholics tell me He meant this,“This is [actually] my [actual] body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)
but Protestants tell me He meant this,“This is [like] my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)

And when i ask the meaning of this,Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

(John 19:25-27)

Catholics tell me He meant this,“Here is your mother [and the mother of all Catholics].”
but Protestants tell me He meant this,“Here is your [adopted] mother [who I want you to treat as though she is your own, even though she is not].”

And when i ask the meaning of this, When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 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. 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 16:13-19)

Catholics say He meant this,“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [you] I will build my church…”
but Protestants tell me He meant this,“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this [truth that I am the Son of God] I will build my church…”

---

Some Observations:

I find three things extremely curious about this:1. The passages that appear ambiguous are those about which Protestants and Catholic disagree. One might say they together are a cause of the Protestant Reformation!

1. The devil and demons (if they exists) are using such passages to continue the division between Catholics and Protestants.
2. Jesus (who is omniscient, and knew the future) could have chose His words more carefully and put a stop to all of the confusion and lack of unity before it began, but He did not.

---

The goal of this dialog:

You might find this odd, but my purpose is NOT to determine what Christ actually meant. (I suppose that would take many hundreds of posts and split this topic many times over, causing the Forum Moderator to pull out his hair!) I’m not opposed to discussing what Christ meant, as it relates to the reason for the apparent ambiguity of His words, but what He meant is not the truth i’m seeking at the moment. I’ve discussed what He meant in other discussion threads at length, only to come to the conclusion that Protestants and Catholics really have good reason to disagree, due to Christ’s ambiguity, which has deceived one group or the other.

My actual purpose is to find out whether Christ was ***deliberately ***ambiguous, and if He was, then what purpose would be served by making the New Testament ambiguous by design. Such ambiguity seems counter productive to His purpose, for He prayed:“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.”

(John 17:11)

I didn’t want to get involved in this thread, at first, but having read the opening post carefully I now realize how interesting the question is. Good job.

The short answer, which I will elaborate upon later, is that Jesus was not ambiguous on the Protestant/Catholic issues raised by you, and there is a way to verify this.

He – and the Holy Spirit! – appear to have been intentionally ambiguous on other issues.

To an extent, the problem being discussed here is innate to words and to the human mind which uses them.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Introduction:

when i read this,And [Jesus] took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)

Catholics tell me He meant this,“This is [actually] my [actual] body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)
but Protestants tell me He meant this,

“This is [like] my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)
​

Few are aware that the Holy Spirit constructed structures called “typological word pictures” into inspired Scripture.

In Luke’s gospel, when Christ is wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in the manger, the reason why this was a “sign” to the shepherds is that swaddling clothes were frequently used as shrouds to bury travellers killed by roadside brigands. Also, the manger was a feeding trough for yoked animals. In effect, the shepherds were being told, “You will see a baby wrapped-up like a cadaver and laying on a dinner plate”!!!

Now, think about that picture: Jesus’ Own Body, wrapped-up to look like it is dead, being served on a kind of “dinner plate” as though for food…it is a picture of the Doctrine of the Real Presence!

I can do this with several other word pictures.

Our Protestant brethren are wrong.​

 

[Peter_Dawson]

[/INDENT]And when i ask the meaning of this,Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

(John 19:25-27)

Catholics tell me He meant this,“Here is your mother [and the mother of all Catholics].”
but Protestants tell me He meant this,

“Here is your [adopted] mother [who I want you to treat as though she is your own, even though she is not].”
​

Why would one of the gospels interrupt the cosmic event of the ages – the sacrificial act saving 100,000,000,000 souls – with a housekeeping chore?: “Now, John, I have to make sure that mom has someone to care for her. I’m making that YOUR job, okay?”

The answer is that it WASN’T just housekeeping. It is a part of the cosmic event of the ages.

We can see this proven when we realize that Christ says something which connects the incident to a prior account in John’s gospel – Jesus addresses Mary with her “Woman” title, “Goo-nay,” in NT Greek.

In John 2, Jesus strangely addresses Mary with the “Woman” title, in a strange incident…

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.
2 Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.
3 When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
4 (And) Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”
5 His mother said to the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.”
6 Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons.
7 Jesus told them, “Fill the jars with water.” So they filled them to the brim.
8 Then he told them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it.
9 And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom
10 and said to him, “Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now.” John 2:1-10.

In the story, Jesus changes water in six jars to wine. The jars are us. There are six of them because six is the symbol for evil, and mankind is, indeed, evil. When Jesus has them filled with water, that is a picture of Christ filling us with saving grace. When Jesus changes it to wine, that part of the picture tells us that the wine from Christ – His Eucharistic blood – will be the source of the saving grace.

Now, note well: Before Christ does this, (1) Mary intercedes for the humans with their need; (2) Christ tells her, “NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, AND IT’S NOT TIME!!”; (3) Mary is confident that He will agree to her request, despite divine prerogatives; (4) Christ VIOLATES divine prerogatives, by acceding to Mary’s request though it is none of her business and against God’s timing.

You are looking at a picture of Mary as “mediatrix” or “interceder” or whatever you want to call her. The gospel bows to the notion that Mary can’t add to God’s efforts, as our Protestant brethren object, BUT CHRIST/GOD LETS HER INTERFERE WITH HER INTERCEDING ANYWAY.

When Christ does this, He calls her “Woman.”

When Christ tells the “Woman” from the cross that John is her son, that is the moment of her coronation as the interceding Queen of Heaven and Earth, the Fifth Glorious Mystery.

The Catholics are right on this one, too.​

 

[paul_c]

Yes they were in Rome and they were a big problem for the Romans. They tried everything to contain the spread of Christianity. The solution was to establish the CC under Roman authority. Establish a church that could control all Christians and enforce it with law. Contain it by changing a single verse. The same way a small rudder can turn the whole ship.

“Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
“Has God indeed said, ‘And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church’,

Show me a passage that says the church is built on Peter other than Mat.
You can’t because it does not exist. So how it is that Jesus contradicts all other passages in the bible in mat 16? And the Apostles contradict Jesus statement here in mat 16 by teaching the church is built on Jesus. You teach that the church is built on Peter just as it says. The only logical answer is your interpretation is wrong.

Yes some people will believe anything

To imply that the Catholic Church was founded as a political device of the Romans just shows you rignorance of the history of the Roman empire and of the church. The Roman empire fought for 300 years to contain the Catholic Church trhough a series of wroldwide and regional persecutions. By 313 AD, despite the laws against its existance, the Catholic Church had between 15-20 Million followers in the Roman empire, out of a total population of 60 million, including the mother of the emperor. By that point, it became obvious to Constantine that it was counterproductive to wage war on 1/3 of his citizens so he issued the Edict of Milan, which ended the persecutions. At this time, he also moved the seat of the empire from Rome to Constantinople. 70 years later, another emporer made Christianity the state religion, but he favored Arianism over the Catholicism and even imprisoned the Pope, when he would not cooperate. Nevertheless, under the guidance of the Holy spirit, the Catholic church successfully fought off this heresy and remained true to the Faith for 2000 years…

I gave you a whole set of passages above that show Peter’s leadership beyond Matthew 16. You just refuse to acknowledge them. Here’s what I said to you 10 poss back:

Michael, I’ve shown you several times how scripture points to the leadership of Peter. in Matthew 16, he gets the keys to the kingdom. In Luke 22, he is told to help the apostles after the crucifixion In John 21, he is told to tend Jesus’ flock. In the first half of Acts, he carries out the office of leadership of the church. Setting doctrine (Acts 15), replacing apostles (Acts 1), healing (acts 3), defining the method for bringing in converts (acts 2), speaking for all the apostles to the people and to the government (acts 2-4), Interpreting scripture (acts 1,2), excommunicating people. I don’t see how you can possibly ignore all this.

And by the way, isn’t all scripture true and self harmonizing. How can you beleive that, and then try to ignore Matthew 16 because it doesn’t fit your own personal theology?

 

[utunumsint]

I agree entirely why interpret the whole bible all that is really needed is the part that gives the cc the right to define doctrine as it sees fit.

I agree again it took the power of Rome to enforce the churches doctrine. In a play to control the Christians and unite the many faiths. The CC moved right into the pagan temples in Rome, outlawing them and anyone that disagreed with the CC. To this very day the CC seeks to control all Christians. It would have been to obvious to change the NT letters, just to many in circulation. But If we can use the NT letters to establish authority then you have something, control supported by law. " It is this same church that provides us with correct doctrinal interpretations of these texts".
For years that piece of underlined info was enforced by Caesars and kings alike. First the British broke away and soon after during the French revolution the wheels fell of the union between the CC and the kings of Europe. Breaking centuries of oppression by the blood line of kings enforcing the line of Peter. Just compare the kingdoms of Greece the Meads and Persians the four kingdoms described in Danial with the kingdom that came after Romes fall. The European world was a trash pit compared to them. Easily the darkest times on earth. Just what was established from the fall of Rome to say the French revolution or the founding of the US?

Wow! Where did that come from?

Soc, can you bring us back on track here?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Irish_Becca]

Now thats not what the pope says. He says that only threw the CC can one obtain salvation unless hes an “idiot” is ignorant of the CC. Also that no one else can read and understand scripture except those that receive the laying of hands from Peter to the priest today. In other words no one can understand except the body of catholic priest. That is hardly stating that God can do as He pleases with His gifts including the HS.

Wait a minute - please do not misunderstand me. I agree wholeheartedly with the Pope. Salvation IS obtained through the one true Church started by Jesus Himself. Why would it be any other way?

God IS free to do what He wishes - He is God. Our belief is that God’s intention is for one true united Church through which salvation is obtained.

Also, I am not saying that all non-Catholics go to hell. God is infinitely wise and infinitely merciful. He makes that choice, of course. The belief is that if people continue to be deliberately ignorant to the truth of the Church due most likely to reasons of pride, then those people may have problems. But again, only God, and to a lesser extent, that person, know for sure - not me, or anyone else.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No. I do not think their meaning is clear to those in the know. I do think that people who carefully study them and I mean carefully have more insight than those who do not. I certainly am more prone to listen to a Raymond Brown or even a Craig Blomberg than someone who has not devoted their life to research and study. On the other hand, Barrie Wilson, Burton Mack, JD Crossan and others have researched it as well and have different conclusions.

I do think it is ambiguous in a lot of areas. On the other hand, there are certainly portions of the Bible that probably the majority of people agree on. Not many though.

Brian:

Thanks for clarifying your opinion. I’m wondering whether it is a true opinion. Not that i have any reason to doubt you; it’s just that i have no way, based on what you say, to know whether or not i should trust your list of trustworthy teachers. Could you specifically explain why you chose some and not others? What is it, in your opinion, that makes the opinion of one teacher trustworthy and another teacher untrustworthy?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I believe that the Apostles quoted what they remembered and that the Holy spirit guided those memories so that they are correct.

Paul:

Good to hear from you again! By saying their memories were correct, are you saying that they did quote Jesus word-for-word (though not necessarily every word)? That is, do you think Jesus really said,c. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”
rather than this?c4. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [you] this rock I will build my church…”
And do you agree that a Protestant would be less likely to misunderstand Jesus if He had said (c4) rather than (c)?

As for C3, why would Jesus have called Simon " rock" in this quote and then bring up another “rock” in the second half of the sentence in such a disjointed way? Surely, you as an independently thinking person can see that this interpretation doesn’t make a lot of sense compared to the other two options you listed there.

Well, perhaps an example might help. Years ago congressman Jessie Jackson defended then President Clinton by saying he did not lie, but instead the President had spoken a terminological inexactitude. My wife found the statement so humorous that, from that day forward, she called the congressman Mr. Terminological Inexactitude. So, by naming Simon Peter, i think it possible that he was giving him the credit for being the first to realized the truth upon which Jesus would build His Church.

But, once again, i’m not trying to figure out the true meaning of Jesus’ words at the moment. I’m trying to figure out the reason for His use of ambiguity. So far, i find Skinny’s theory the most intriguing. However, do you have your own theory?

 

[paul_c]

Paul:

Good to hear from you again! By saying their memories were correct, are you saying that they did quote Jesus word-for-word (though not necessarily every word)? That is, do you think Jesus really said,c. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”
rather than this?c4. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [you] this rock I will build my church…”
And do you agree that a Protestant would be less likely to misunderstand Jesus if He had said (c4) rather than (c)?

Well, perhaps an example might help. Years ago congressman Jessie Jackson defended then President Clinton by saying he did not lie, but instead the President had spoken a terminological inexactitude. My wife found the statement so humorous that, from that day forward, she called the congressman Mr. Terminological Inexactitude. So, by naming Simon Peter, i think it possible that he was giving him the credit for being the first to realized the truth upon which Jesus would build His Church.

But, once again, i’m not trying to figure out the true meaning of Jesus’ words at the moment. I’m trying to figure out the reason for His use of ambiguity. So far, i find Skinny’s theory the most intriguing. However, do you have your own theory?

There is nothing ambiguous in the Statement as stated in aramaic to those that follow Catholic tradition: .
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Rock (Peter), and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
Jesus is clearly talking to Peter and about Peter. It is only ambiguous to those who seek to make it ambiguous because Peter’s clear commission invalidates their denial that the Catholic Church was given authority by Jesus. When you understand the Bible fully in the right context, consistent with Catholic Church tradition, there is no ambiguity and everything fits together…

 

[BrianH]

Brian:

Thanks for clarifying your opinion. I’m wondering whether it is a true opinion. Not that i have any reason to doubt you; it’s just that i have no way, based on what you say, to know whether or not i should trust your list of trustworthy teachers. Could you specifically explain why you chose some and not others? What is it, in your opinion, that makes the opinion of one teacher trustworthy and another teacher untrustworthy?

It is a true opinion. I think you mean to ask whether it is a intellectually defensible position or even as some would say; a valid opinion.
I could name several others as could most people on here. I choose the two I did to be ecumenical. I did not want to give the impression that an evangelical or Protestant scholar would be the only one whose opinion I valued.
Why do we value some scholars more than others? Certainly that is the case. You can open any textbook on systematic theology and find out that certain people get more coverage than others. I simply named those two because of my personal impressions that they cover why others believe differently than they do in the process of supporting their own views.
I named the well-known critics, some Chritian and some not, because I do think they do that as well.
I do not think this a Protestant issue as well. I know that Catholic seminaries use books like this as well that contain the gamut of Catholic thought on major doctrinal issues. I own a couple!

 

[steve_b]

Yes they were in Rome and they were a big problem for the Romans.

Okay, you agree then, that your previous point about the CC being invented in 371 was completely wrong. And that Paul not only wrote to the Church of Rome, he went there, labored there, and had a hand in building it. IOW the Catholic Church was built by apostles. And we know God completes what He starts. It’s good when we get agreement, don’t you think?
m:

Establish a church that could control all Christians and enforce it with law. Contain it by changing a single verse. The same way a small rudder can turn the whole ship.

There was no other Church and no other Christians than Catholic. And THAT became part of the creed.

as I’m sure you know, Protestantism which traces it’s beginning to YOUR fathers, Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII etc etc etc in the 16th century, they broke from the Church of Rome.

So here’s YOUR question. How do you get around the following warning by Paul?

(emphasis mine)

Rm 16:

17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. 20The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Okay, division from the Church of Rome is evil. But what is the consequence of division for the individual?

Gal 5:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Now THAT’s Serious!!!
m:

“Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

yes, and your point?
m:

“Has God indeed said, ‘And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church’,

Yep, God said that.
m:

Show me a passage that says the church is built on Peter other than Mat.

I already did in the last post to you. I’ll post it again for you. I’m doing this for space.
It’s what I said to another poster on this subject awhile back on another thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336751&postcount=102
m:

You can’t because it does not exist. So how it is that Jesus contradicts all other passages in the bible in mat 16? And the Apostles contradict Jesus statement here in mat 16 by teaching the church is built on Jesus. You teach that the church is built on Peter just as it says. The only logical answer is your interpretation is wrong.

Yes some people will believe anything

sheesh

Jesus builds His Church. He put Peter as the head apostle, in charge to feed, rule, confirm his bretheran, be the chief spokesman, etc etc etc, as you can read the points I brought out in the link above. So yes there is much more to this than the passage from Matthew. As you can see, Jesus said much more to solidify what His intentions are. ALL done by God.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Yes. I don’t think the apostles were always quoting Jesus word for word. Sometimes they are, but sometimes, through their intimate knowledge of his ministry and his teachings and his conversations, that they would have known what Jesus would have said given a certain senario or context.

Ut:

By saying, “they would have known what Jesus *would have *said” the grammar you use indicates that Jesus had not said what they quote Him as saying.

For example, if someone asked me, “Does Ut like working in the area of Information Technology?”

I might reply, yes, Ut told me, “I love working in Information Technology!”

Now, you might call me out on this and say, “Soc, I never said any such thing to you! Why did you say I did?”

“Well, if i had asked you if you like working in Information Technology, that’s what you’d say, woundn’t you?” i’d reply.

“Yes, but that’s not the point!” you might respond. “You’re not being honest, even if you are right that I agree with you! Rather than say, ‘Ut told me such and so,’ you ought to say, ‘I believe Ut would say such and so.’ It’s dishonest to put words in my mouth that i’ve never said!”

Do you agree, Ut that it would be dishonest for me to quote you as saying something you never said?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...6A58AF5B96465D2CBCB7830BF974061FDCA1722397E8B

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… No. This is not what I think. In a previous post, I illustrated the four possible ways of interpreting scripture. I firmly believe that Jesus made Peter the rock and that this was the literal meaning of the text. But from a spiritual perspective, founded on the literal, but not replacing it as the primary meaning of the text, that the second rock can be seen as Peter’s faith in the truth that Christ is the son of God.

I sincerily believe that the only reason that Protestants want to make the spiritual meaning the primary meaning is because of their rejection of the Papacy. I believe that the motivation for this was moral corruption in the hierarchical structure of the church encountered by people like Luther. But this corruption was not a doctrinal corruption.

The Fathers illustrated both meanings, but never to the exclusion of the primary meaning of this text. …

Yes, in fact, from what little i’ve read of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the early Church Fathers were in disagreement as to what Jesus meant. The Catechism appears to take you view, but admits that there are alternate interpretations, each which have some truth.

But speaking of the possibility of there being alternate interpretations of what Jesus said. What if Matthew had not quoted Jesus as saying this,
c. "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…"but had instead quoted Him thus?
c4. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [you] this rock I will build my church…”
Do you think you and i would be discussing alternate meanings of His words, still? Or do you think, as i do, that one little you would have eliminated the confusion in which Protestants find themselves?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Forgive me for butting in, but what I’m absorbing from what he’s saying is that the words are not ambiguous if you hear them with the correct ears, and the correct ears belong to the Apostles, who were sent out as teachers by Christ Himself, and to the Catholic church, which claims succession from the Apostles.

Ask:

So you think ambiguity, like beauty, is in the ear of the beholder?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I can’t use the word “unreliable” because I don’t think that applies to text. Text doesn’t work one time and fail the next.

Yes, and just as it takes two to listen (one to speak clearly and one to listen carefully) so too does it take two to read (one to write clearly and one to read carefully). But what i’m wondering about is whether Jesus spoke, or Matthew wrote, as clearly as possible. Please let me ask you this, Voci: If Jesus, had not said this,

c. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”
but had instead said this,c4. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [you] this rock I will build my church…”
there would be no question in my mind that you are correct. Don’t you agree that (c4) is less ambiguous than (c)?

Right. The Protestant view of that passage disregarding any other source of information about its meaning would certainly be as defensible as the Catholic view - in fact, I would say it would be even more defensible. But it’s wrong nonetheless, because Jesus went on (after the resurrection, obviously) to make his meaning clear, and the Church knows that meaning.

Sounds reasonable to me. And do you think that if Christ has said this,

“Here is your mother [and the mother of all Catholics].”
rather than this,
“Here is your mother.”
that i would be wondering what the true meaning of Jesus words actually are? I tell you that i would not, but i’m wondering if you can appreciate why i’m wondering.

Pretty close. I can and do rely on the Catholic Church, divinely guided and protected from error, to teach the faith that was given to the Apostles. That doesn’t mean that the Church has clearly and doctrinally interpreted every passage in the bible, because that is not her job.

If it’s not the Catholic Church’s job to interpret as much of the Bible as it can, than whose job is it?