# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

Take anyone of these ambiguous statements and show hermeneutics in other passages.
The problem is that the couple of passages used by the CC are also ambiguous.

"Here is your mother."
No evidence at all in scripture to support any of the Marion doctrine. hermeneutic evidence 0

**“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” **
No evidence indicating transfiguration of bread and wine in scripture. hermeneutic evidence 0.

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…"
No evidence supporting Peter as the foundation of the church. Jesus is the foundation the catholic interpretation indicates that Peter becomes the foundation.
Plenty of evidence supporting Jesus is the foundation of the church the entire NT and OT.
…

Michael:

You’re just determined to split this discussion thread several times over, aren’t you!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… So I ask you Socrates what is it that makes these verses ambiguous? Is it comparing scripture with scripture hermeneutic evidence, or is it the interpretation of the CC that makes them ambiguous.

It’s comparing Scripture with Scripture. Didn’t want to go there, but since you ask, i can’t resist! Please compare 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)
with this,Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(John 6:53)
And tell me that you don’t understand why Catholics are confused about the true meaning of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper (if indeed they are confused).

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Who is claiming that “passages used by the CC” are not ambiguous? You’re setting up a straw man.

But let’s work through the issue using just your first citation: “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.

But don’t you see, Voci? If there ARE alternative meanings to consider, then the words ARE ambiguous. That’s what ambiguity is, isn’t it?

ambiguity

am·bi·gu·i·ty àmbi gy ətee ] (plural am·bi·gu·i·ties)

noun
Definition:

1. doubt about meaning: a situation in which something can be understood in more than one way and it is not clear which meaning is intended
2. statement with more than one meaning: an expression or statement that has more than one meaning

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

Thank you for those words of encouragement, Peter!

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.

Yes, but isn’t ambiguity the fault of the speaker, NOT the listener?

For example, let’s say i said to you, “Peter, what you just said now is ambiguous. Please clarify your meaning! Are you saying it’s the one speaking the words who is ambiguous, or the one listening?”

Now, it would then NOT be MY FAULT for not knowing exactly what you meant. It would be your fault for not making yourself clear; would it?

 

[paul_c]

Thank you for those words of encouragement, Peter!

Yes, but isn’t ambiguity the fault of the speaker, NOT the listener?

For example, let’s say i said to you, “Peter, what you just said now is ambiguous. Please clarify your meaning! Are you saying it’s the one speaking the words who is ambiguous, or the one listening?”

Now, it would then NOT be MY FAULT for not knowing exactly what you meant. It would be your fault for not making yourself clear; would it?

Not necessarily. communication failures can happen on both ends. sometimes the listener is so pre-absorbed with other thougths or biases, that they don’t hear or comprehend correctly.

 

[VociMike]

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)?

I do agree. And, obviously, Jesus knew this before he spoke. And yet he said what he said. He could have clarified, but he did not, at least, not in what has been written in scripture. So that leads us to re-examine what we assume to be the purpose of scripture.

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.

Now that’s a different question than the one above. I am convinced that there are no words clear enough to convince people of ‘A’, who want or need to be convinced of ‘B’. And I seem to recall that Jesus said something to that effect.

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

I don’t know that it is anybody’s job. I don’t think the main reason for the bible’s existence is to be “interpreted”.

 

[michaelsmth626]

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?

The catholic church became a state sanctioned church enforced by law. That has little to do with Christians from Jesus to this time. Do you suppose that Christ and the HS were behind forcing the catholic church on the Roman empire by law?

Why is it do you think that the CC was the only church threw the centuries? Because it was sanctioned by the state or kingdom of the region. It was literally illegal to deny it the CC. The very things you teach today were law denial or opposition to it was punishable. You and paul c make it sound as though this was the hand of God, sustaining it. I disagree it was the enforcement of the kings and their army’s that sustained it, beginning with the Romans. I am hesitant of any religious origination that wants to legislate law to support its faith. I believe that if the CC had its way as it did with the kings of old Europe today that all other churches would be closed and we would all hail the pope or suffer the consequences of the law. At least the founding fathers of this country understood this and made a provision it would never acure here.

 

[VociMike]

But don’t you see, Voci? If there ARE alternative meanings to consider, then the words ARE ambiguous. That’s what ambiguity is, isn’t it?

Of course I recognize this. But if there are one or more correct meanings, and all other meanings are incorrect, then we must have a method of determining the correct meaning(s). And I’m asking the poster what that method is, from his perspective or faith tradition.

 

[VociMike]

It’s comparing Scripture with Scripture. Didn’t want to go there, but since you ask, i can’t resist! Please compare 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)
with this,Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(John 6:53)
And tell me that you don’t understand why Catholics are confused about the true meaning of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper (if indeed they are confused).

You have a good point. It’s one thing for Protestants to disagree with the Catholic understanding of those words, but its another to feign astonishment that Catholics could possibly understand those words the way they do.

And I’m sure the same could be said of certain passages with the Protestant and Catholic positions reversed.

So again we’re left to ask, how then can we know the correct meaning(s) and reject the incorrect meanings?

 

[VociMike]

S4J, perhaps this is a good time to reiterate the fact that the Catholic Church does not look to scripture to discover God’s teachings. Rather, she has received God’s teachings directly, and in scripture she finds many of those teachings reflected by the scripture writers.

 

[paul_c]

The catholic church became a state sanctioned church enforced by law. That has little to do with Christians from Jesus to this time. Do you suppose that Christ and the HS were behind forcing the catholic church on the Roman empire by law?

Why is it do you think that the CC was the only church threw the centuries? Because it was sanctioned by the state or kingdom of the region. It was literally illegal to deny it the CC. The very things you teach today were law denial or opposition to it was punishable. You and paul c make it sound as though this was the hand of God, sustaining it. I disagree it was the enforcement of the kings and their army’s that sustained it, beginning with the Romans. I am hesitant of any religious origination that wants to legislate law to support its faith. I believe that if the CC had its way as it did with the kings of old Europe today that all other churches would be closed and we would all hail the pope or suffer the consequences of the law. At least the founding fathers of this country understood this and made a provision it would never acure here.

The Catholic Church represented a full third of the people in the Roman empire, before it was even legal to be Christian (313AD) . Clearly the Catholic Church didn’t grow because it was sponsored by Rome. In fact, by the time the Church became the state religion, (383AD or thereabouts), the majority of Romans were already Catholic. and the Roman empire was in serious decline. The proliferation of the Catholic Church was do to the truth of the Christian message, not the power of the Roman empire. which was in opposition to its spread for most of its history.

 

[Pax]

The catholic church became a state sanctioned church enforced by law. That has little to do with Christians from Jesus to this time. Do you suppose that Christ and the HS were behind forcing the catholic church on the Roman empire by law?

Why is it do you think that the CC was the only church threw the centuries? Because it was sanctioned by the state or kingdom of the region. It was literally illegal to deny it the CC. The very things you teach today were law denial or opposition to it was punishable. You and paul c make it sound as though this was the hand of God, sustaining it. I disagree it was the enforcement of the kings and their army’s that sustained it, beginning with the Romans. I am hesitant of any religious origination that wants to legislate law to support its faith. I believe that if the CC had its way as it did with the kings of old Europe today that all other churches would be closed and we would all hail the pope or suffer the consequences of the law. At least the founding fathers of this country understood this and made a provision it would never acure here.

Yours is a highly exaggerated and over simplified view of history. By the end of the 5th century the Western Roman Empire was shattered and over run by the Visigoths and Vandals; Arianism was once again a huge spiritual infection. Likewise, this was the beginning of the Dark Ages. The Catholic Church survived all of this without the protection of emperor or king, and the fact that the Catholic Church has survived these and many subsequent ravages including the Reformation is miraculous indeed.

If you are upset or hesitant of any religious origination that wants to legislate law to support its faith, then you might as well toss out Protestantism as well. Post Reformation Europe had state sanctioned Protestant Churches and even in the American colonies there existed officially sanctioned Protestant Churches. The American colonial Protestant examples dwarf in number the Catholic colonial examples. You might also want to examine the American experience when it comes to the relationship of Protestantism and the Public Schools. Does any of this make you hesitant or distrustful of your Protestant heritage and beliefs?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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…

PC:

Are you fluent in ancient Aramaic?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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!

So, i take it you’re saying the Bible is ambiguous, at least in some instances. Do you think its ambiguous by design (God’s, that is)?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Not necessarily. communication failures can happen on both ends. sometimes the listener is so pre-absorbed with other thougths or biases, that they don’t hear or comprehend correctly.

PC:

But consider the definition of the word:ambiguity

am·bi·gu·i·ty àmbi gy ətee ] (plural am·bi·gu·i·ties)

noun
Definition:

1. doubt about meaning: a situation in which something can be understood in more than one way and it is not clear which meaning is intended
2. statement with more than one meaning: an expression or statement that has more than one meaning

From this definition i get the impression that the speaker, not the listener, is the ambiguous one. For example, let’s say someone on the street calls out to you, “PC, you’re a real asshat!” Now, you think he means you have your head up your butt, because you are clueless. But what he really means is that you are so obnoxious that he’d like to make you wear your butt as a hat!

In this case, it would be wrong for me to say you are being ambiguous; wouldn’t it? The one who is being unclear, here, would not be you. It would be the one insulting you. It’s the speaker, not the listener, who is guilty of being ambiguous. Although the listener might be guilty of not recognizing the ambiguity and making an incorrect assumption as to what asshat really means.

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asshat

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[caoindealbhan]

Jesus was not intentionally ambiguous. The writers captured the lack of clarity that the apostles had about the events until they received the Holy Spirit. The inspired Word of God’s message is one of love and mercy.

 

[michaelsmth626]

It’s comparing Scripture with Scripture. Didn’t want to go there, but since you ask, i can’t resist! Please compare 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)
with this,Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

(John 6:53)
And tell me that you don’t understand why Catholics are confused about the true meaning of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper (if indeed they are confused).

I’ll comment on this {“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”}
There is no evidence that the bread transfigured or took on the flesh of Jesus. In light of that fact, it is like us playing a game of monopoly. Now if you chose the dog to represent you and placed it on the board and said this is me. Would you presume that that [A]everyone present knew that this was a symbol representing you or ** would you expect them to believe that your very being, body and soul was present in the metal dog? Without testimony from the 12 that were present may depiction of the monopoly game and option ** is equally ridiculous.

I understand comparing Scripture with Scripture is not a place you or catholics want to go.
Just as I have pointed out that Jesus founding the church on Peter contradicts every new and old testament passage about the foundation of the church. If that is what Jesus meant, we might as well throw the whole of scripture out, because Jesus just contradicted it from Gen to Rev. Ambiguous is the life blood of catholic teaching. The more ambiguous the scripture becomes the more relevant the catholic message is, and the more irrelevant having a personal relationship threw the HS becomes. There is a reflection of this statement in your conversation with VociMike.

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

**

I don’t know that it is anybody’s job. I don’t think the main reason for the bible’s existence is to be “interpreted”.

Reminds me of that Pink Floyd song.
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream?
It’s alright we told you what to dream.
You dreamed of a big star,
He played a mean gituar,
He always ate in the Steak Bar.
He loved to drive in his Jaguar.
So welcome to the Machine.**

 

[paul_c]

I’ll comment on this {“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”}
There is no evidence that the bread transfigured or took on the flesh of Jesus. In light of that fact, it is like us playing a game of monopoly. Now if you chose the dog to represent you and placed it on the board and said this is me. Would you presume that that [A]everyone present knew that this was a symbol representing you or ** would you expect them to believe that your very being, body and soul was present in the metal dog? Without testimony from the 12 that were present may depiction of the monopoly game and option ** is equally ridiculous.

I understand comparing Scripture with Scripture is not a place you or catholics want to go.
Just as I have pointed out that Jesus founding the church on Peter contradicts every new and old testament passage about the foundation of the church. If that is what Jesus meant, we might as well throw the whole of scripture out, because Jesus just contradicted it from Gen to Rev. Ambiguous is the life blood of catholic teaching. The more ambiguous the scripture becomes the more relevant the catholic message is, and the more irrelevant having a personal relationship threw the HS becomes. There is a reflection of this statement in your conversation with VociMike.

Reminds me of that Pink Floyd song.
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.
What did you dream?
It’s alright we told you what to dream.****
You dreamed of a big star,
He played a mean gituar,
He always ate in the Steak Bar.
He loved to drive in his Jaguar.
So welcome to the Machine.

Catholics have no problem comparing scripture to scripture. All scripture is consistent with itself and with Catholic Theology. We’ve shown you a bunch of times how many scriptural verses show Peter’s leadership. Yet, you will not acknowledge this. I can only assume that you are not ready to hear it yet.

 

[BrianH]

So, i take it you’re saying the Bible is ambiguous, at least in some instances. Do you think its ambiguous by design (God’s, that is)?

I don’t know.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Jesus was not intentionally ambiguous. The writers captured the lack of clarity that the apostles had about the events until they received the Holy Spirit. The inspired Word of God’s message is one of love and mercy.

Welcome to the discussion, Caoin!

Do you mean that when Jesus spoke, Matthew, John and the others did not explain what He meant because they wanted you the reader to experience the same confusion they did?