# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

I agree wholeheartedly that God, through the scriptures, could have been completely and utterly clear and unambiguous. But I think we can all agree that this is not the case. We can all agree that the scriptures are not the most clear and unambiguous words ever written in the history of mankind. That leads us to think that perhaps being completely clear and unambiguous in scripture was not one of God’s primary goals. Scripture was never intended primarily as a catechism, as a handbook of faith.

Voci:

I hear what you are saying, and i shudder! For doesn’tt the Catechism of the Catholic Church rely on the Sacred Scriptures you wholeheartedly agree are so unreliable?

Myself, I think it is deliberate on God’s part. I think it is a replaying of the Tower of Babel. God is condemning to confusion those who in their pride think that they can understand his revelations without the aid of, and submission to, his Church. I am convinced that the enormous array of different beliefs arrived at by “bible-believing” Christians throughout the centuries is a result of the prideful error of seeking to know God while rejecting his visible, authoritative Church.

I’m no expert in this question, but it seems to me that non-Catholic Christianity is vastly more fragmented than any other large religion. Is this just coincidence, or is it the result of divine action?

I’m no scholar when it comes to the Sacred Scriptures, either. But i’m no dummy, either. It’s clear to me, at the moment, that if the Bible is a Tower of Babble, than it’s a source of confusion for anyone who relies on it to get himself closer to heaven. That is, it is a source of confusion not just for Protestants, but for the Church Fathers, and the Catholic Church, as well! Perhaps the Muslims were correct in saying that the Apostles have mislead the Christian world? Perhaps the Nazis of the 20th century were correct to call it the Book of Lies?

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

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Deliberately ambiguous…hmm possibly. But maybe God knew what He was doing. He knew He would be able to bring more people to Him by forgiving the sin because they simply didn’t know over people knowing with little doubt what was Truth and choosing their own truth anyway. Not saying everyone who doesn’t believe the things they are supposed to believe will get to Heaven but perhaps a higher percentage of people then if the words were not ambiguous. More of a struggle in this life for us but ultimately a bigger party in Heaven. Just a thought.

Excellent insight, Skinny! And something more hopeful to consider. Thanks for giving me the skinny on that.



What you say is something that i’ve considered myself (though i’m sure i heard it from someone else and forgot who my benefactor was). And your words remind me of Jesus words (though if i adopt the aforementioned skepticism, perhaps i should not trust them as His words at all):
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”

(John 9:41)
Do you think that Protestants, who are ignorant of the misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture, will be judged less harshly than those who know they are misunderstanding Sacred Scripture and yet refuse to believe?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I disagree that the scripture is unknowable.
The enemies of Jesus were always waiting for him to say something on account of which they might accuse and persecute him (Lke 11:53-54). By speaking in parables, Jesus was making it very hard for them to use his words against him. He could hardly be arrested for telling homely stories! …

Perhaps you are correct about the parables Jesus spoke, Michael. For Jesus did explain His reason for using parables by saying this:This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

(Matthew 13:13-15)
But i’m not asking about the ambiguity of the parables He spoke in public. I’m asking about the ambiguity the teaching He gave to the disciples in private, for example, His words at the Last Supper:a. 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,a1. “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,
a2. “This is [like] my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)

Do you think that someone who never heard anyone teach the Bible might understand Jesus words (a) to mean (a1) rather than (a2)?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

The Catholic Church teaches that both senses are true. And why not? Why reject one to the detriment of the other?

The Catholic Church also teaches that both senses are true. Again, why reject one to the detriment of the other? bringyou.to/apologetics/a64.htm

Yes, but Jesus only meant one of the two senses, for the grammar allows only one.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It’s not all that ambiguous. If you read further in John 6, you will notice (please bear with me - it’s a little long) …

Becca:

Good to hear from you again! How are you doing?



By saying, “not all that ambiguous” do you mean that it is ambiguous, or it’s not? It seems to me that ambiguity is not a matter of degrees. Either something is ambiguous (and one cannot which of the alternative meanings is the true meaning) or it is not ambiguous (for one knows exactly what the speaker or author meant).

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Jesus was not being ambiguous in any sense of the word. He only seems to be ambiguous because his words are pulled out of their proper context and are not viewed in light of the rest of the Scriptures or even in the proper cultural context. …

CW:

So do you disagree with the others and believe it is not a real, but only an apparent ambiguity?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

One thing it sure serves to demonstrate is that you can’t rely on scripture by itself-or uh, without anything else- or, maybe better put, alone, to know what Jesus meant.

FH:

Are you saying Christ intended His words to be ambiguous so that we’d learn to not rely on His words alone?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

But the what is your basis for saying that the Holy Scriptures are untrustworthy? This statement gets repeated without sufficient evidence to support the claim. Because because certain events in the Gospels only appear in a single Gospel does not make the event dubious.I would say that the depth of the typology in the Old Testament reinforces the validity of the Scriptures.

It’s not me saying this, it’s the other posters. Please give credit where credit is due! I’m only considering whether what they say is true.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...com/binary/48ec/your_vote_counts_button_3.jpg

Are Christ’s words ambiguous?

• Number who voted yes - 5
• Number who voted no - 2
• Number who voted maybe - 2
• Number who have not voted - 1

---

As the vote stands now, popular consensus is that Jesus words in Sacred Scripture are indeed ambiguous, for the vote is 5 for ambiguity and 2 against. Anyone care to change or clarify his or her vote?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ambrose:

A lack of clarity does not an inconsistency make, though it might make something appear to be contradictory. Is there even one contradiction you can give as evidence that what you say is true? Perhaps it is only an apparent contradiction rather than a real one.

But if the truth of the Bible cannot be seen, then how can the tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church convey the truth it cannot see in the Scriptures? It seems to me that it is all or nothing, here. If the Scriptures are unreliable, than neither is the tradition nor teaching of the Catholic Church.

You have misunderstood my post. I said:

AmbroseSJ:

When the Bible is objectively considered as a whole, it is inconsistent, contradictory, ambiguous, and even unintelligible in many places.

and in the same post I also said:

AmbroseSJ:

one has to take the Bible in light of the Faith Tradition of the Catholic Truth, otherwise it is sealed in an impenetrable fog, like that which descended on the tabernacle of the Israelites in the desert.

So in other words the Catholic Church is hardly looking at the Scriptures in the same way someone does, that reads it objectively, apart from the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why? Because the Catholic Church is responsible for both writing and preserving the Sacred Scriptures. The Catholic Church has a Tradition that extends from BEFORE the Scriptures were written, and that Tradition is spoken of in the Scriptures, as well as continued after the Scriptures were written. Therefore, the Catholic Church has the most valid claim, just humanly speaking, of authoritatively interpreting the Scriptures correctly. But the Catholic Church also has the spiritual claim to authority based on those same Scriptures. (I am speaking of the NT now.) Protestants will object that that is a self-serving interpretation, however that does not invalidate the truth of the thing.

I won’t enumerate the contradictions, inconsistencies and other difficult areas of Scripture right now, as it will serve no purpose. You have already admitted that the Scriptures are at least ambiguous. That is enough of a reason for there to be some sort of authoritative interpreter. So the real question is, who is that authoritative interpreter? One merely needs to look around and see the HUGE differences misinterpretation causes. (You must admit to misinterpretations by some, as these differences can’t possibly all represent the correct interpretation.)

You have Christians that deny the need for a unifying head (the Pope.)
You have Christians that deny the need for Baptism
You have Christians that deny the divinity of Jesus (are they even Christians)
You have Christians that deny the Trinity.
You have Christians that deny the need for good works.
etc. etc. etc.

These differences are so great that many Christian churches look upon one another as not even being Christian! Yet they all base their claims on their own interpretation of the Scriptures. This confusion has led many to reject ALL churches and rely on their own interpretation. So now we are back to the reader who looks upon the Scriptures (which we already know are ambiguous) as his own special province. He may have no training, no understanding of biblical times etc. but that is ultimately where he finds himself. This represents the final and ultimate fragmentation of the church community. How completely unscriptural!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You have misunderstood my post. I said:

and in the same post I also said:

So in other words the Catholic Church is hardly looking at the Scriptures in the same way someone does, that reads it objectively, apart from the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why? Because the Catholic Church is responsible for both writing and preserving the Sacred Scriptures. The Catholic Church has a Tradition that extends from BEFORE the Scriptures were written, and that Tradition is spoken of in the Scriptures, as well as continued after the Scriptures were written. Therefore, the Catholic Church has the most valid claim, just humanly speaking, of authoritatively interpreting the Scriptures correctly. But the Catholic Church also has the spiritual claim to authority based on those same Scriptures. (I am speaking of the NT now.) Protestants will object that that is a self-serving interpretation, however that does not invalidate the truth of the thing.

I won’t enumerate the contradictions, inconsistencies and other difficult areas of Scripture right now, as it will serve no purpose. You have already admitted that the Scriptures are at least ambiguous. That is enough of a reason for there to be some sort of authoritative interpreter. So the real question is, who is that authoritative interpreter? One merely needs to look around and see the HUGE differences misinterpretation causes. (You must admit to misinterpretations by some, as these differences can’t possibly all represent the correct interpretation.)

You have Christians that deny the need for a unifying head (the Pope.)
You have Christians that deny the need for Baptism
You have Christians that deny the divinity of Jesus (are they even Christians)
You have Christians that deny the Trinity.
You have Christians that deny the need for good works.
etc. etc. etc.

These differences are so great that many Christian churches look upon one another as not even being Christian! Yet they all base their claims on their own interpretation of the Scriptures. This confusion has led many to reject ALL churches and rely on their own interpretation. So now we are back to the reader who looks upon the Scriptures (which we already know are ambiguous) as his own special province. He may have no training, no understanding of biblical times etc. but that is ultimately where he finds himself. This represents the final and ultimate fragmentation of the church community. How completely unscriptural!

Please clarify, ASL. To whom were Christ’s words written in the biblical text ambiguous?

1. 
   *]The Apostles who wrote down His words?
   *]The other New Testament authors who interviewed the Apostles?
   *]Those who read (or heard read) the original autographs of these authors?
   *]Those who copied or translated the biblical authors?
   *]The Apostolic Successors and early Church Fathers?
   *]Those who compiled the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
   *]Those Christians inside the Catholic Church?
   *]Those Christians outside the Catholic Church?
   *]Those non-Christians outside the Catholic Church?
   
   
   
   Also, should i change your vote from Yes to No or Maybe? Or would you prefer to abstain from voting?

 

[BrianH]

Brian:

The what is something that is frightening. What is the consequence of Sacred Scriptures that are untrustworthy? Answer: A tradition and teaching that is just as untrustworthy, for it relies on the Scripture.

Different denominations.
Different views in the denomination.
People who reject Christianity because scripture is (or perceived to be by them) untrustworthy.

Those are three to just start with.

There are many progressive call them what you will Christians who are not at all bothered by this. They obviously spend their lives immersed in contextual criticism that would make most on here uncomfortable…but not them.
For those who need absolute answers; the issue is fundamental.
For those who do not; the issue is not disturbing to them.

 

[fhansen]

FH:

Are you saying Christ intended His words to be ambiguous so that we’d learn to not rely on His words alone?

Soc, you must know the answer-He intended us to rely on the church for that purpose-the church preaches His word. Have you ever said or written something and been misunderstood, then had to go back and clarify? The Church wrote the bible-even* it* is part of her tradition.

 

[Pons]

Yes, but Jesus only meant one of the two senses, for the grammar allows only one.

I’m not seeing the problems you’re seeing. Are you asking if: re: John - Jesus knew the Church would apply his words to the relationship of Mary to the Church, not just to John, and re: Matthew - Jesus knew the Church would interpret “rock” not only to mean the man Peter?

Don’t forget Matthew 18, where Jesus gives to the authority to bind an loose to all of the Apostles, and not just Peter.

Well, the third-century bishop St. Optatus explained it this way: “For the sake of unity, blessed Peter … alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest.” Peter is the keeper or holder of the keys of authority as bestowed by Christ but the Apostles all share in that authority. The authority of the Apostles does not originate with Peter himself but with Christ, but Peter is the “chosen channel” through which their Christ-given authority flows. He is the “visible source of unity” for the college of the Apostles.

 

[BrianH]

But the what is your basis for saying that the Holy Scriptures are untrustworthy? This statement gets repeated without sufficient evidence to support the claim. Because because certain events in the Gospels only appear in a single Gospel does not make the event dubious.I would say that the depth of the typology in the Old Testament reinforces the validity of the Scriptures.

Volumes have been written about this CW. Whether one agrees with this or not, there is sufficient work done on the topic. The conclusions that one reaches have ample support either way.

 

[juliamajor]

I think that these may be cases of Eastern thinking(nonlinear) and Western thought(linear).
It was and is a common practice in the East to pose questions that are ambigious, and to issue puzzling statements.Rabbis did it back then and they do it now.
Why?To show that some questions have no answers,that the puzzle is the answer-that these statements are to be discussed, cogitated and considered over and over again."What does this all truly mean "?is what teachers are trying to get students to think about.The cultural aspects are not something that is commonly taken into account when it comes to scripture- but I think it is hugely important and may help clarify much in the Gospels.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Also, should i change your vote from Yes to No or Maybe? Or would you prefer to abstain from voting?

As far as a vote, usually there is a poll, but for your own tally, I will say change my vote to a NO. This is why:

I don’t believe Jesus was deliberately ambiguous. By that I mean, that although sometimes the answers or teachings of Jesus might have sounded ambiguous, it was not the fault of Jesus, but of them that heard. To the Apostles was given the clear and unambiguous doctrine of Jesus, many times apart from his public teaching. The Apostles themselves would have no more reason to be ambiguous than Jesus. That is why the Faith tradition is so critical. The ambiguity was due to the lack of knowledge in the hearer. Properly instructed Christians understood correctly the teachings of the Apostles, the original interpreters and writers of what Jesus said. Therefore, ambiguity has occurred over time due to language differences, subtle understandings of meaning for certain words, and other reasons which to people far removed from the original oral tradition as delivered by the Apostles, or from the mouth of our Blessed Savior, seem ambiguous.

Even when Jesus used parables to teach in public, it was not for the sake of ambiguity, but for the sake of causing the crowds to reflect and discover the meaning (if possible) or to nudge them to follow him further in hopes of learning the ultimate meaning of these parables. The Apostles themselves were unsure of the meaning of some of the parables. But when Jesus delivered doctrine, he was not deliberately trying to be ambiguous. Think about it, what would the purpose be for being ambiguous. It is really just an evasion, and a way of not saying something. (remember Clinton.) There would never be such a purpose. He would only speak when he had something important to say, which was meant to be understood properly, at least on some literal level, if not entirely at first. Even the parables were never meant to be ambiguous, although their deeper meaning might have been hidden, or on multiple levels. That is not the same as ambiguous however.

 

[utunumsint]

Good to hear from you again, Ut! Hope things are going well at your end.

Very well. Thank you.

I hear what you are saying but want to make sure i understand. It sounds as though you are offering three premises regarding the unreliability of the New Testament Scriptures. They are ambiguous because:

1. 
   *]the authors made errors in translating what Jesus said from Aramaic to Greek and

1. 
   I don’t think that the Gospels are transcripts of what Jesus said. They are documents written by men who knew Jesus, or knew those who knew Jesus. They are written for a specific purpose, for a specific audience, in a specific cultural context. It just so happens that all of the Gospels are written in Greek, except for a possible proto-Matthew, which no longer exists, which makes it once removed from the cultural and linguistic context that Jesus actually preached in. However, I trust that the Gospel writers got their essential points right even if what they report are not transcripts of what Jesus said. Matthew 16 may be a composite of different recollected events to illustrate Christ’s attitude towards and understanding of Peter. Basically, I trust that Matthew is representing Christ accuratly in a way that would be meaningful for his Jewish audience. But Luke draws on different impressions of the event and creates a composite, perhaps with the purpose of illustrating Christ’s attitude towards authority in general, or towards the nature of self sacrifice. Both are offering a real glimpse into the mind of Christ, but from very different perspectives even though they are describing the same events.
   

   • *]the authors who were Apostles–such as Matthew and John–wrote so many years after the events that they did not remember correctly what Jesus actually said and

   • 
     No. I am not saying this, but I am saying that they were not writing transcripts, but trying to convey what Jesus would have thought about a particulare issue based on what they knew of him over the three years that they walked, talked, ate, etc… with him. And sometimes two gospel writers would use the same event as vehicles to expand on different aspects of his teaching. Ambiguous? Only if you are trying to rationalize Matthew with Luke, or Marc. Is there room for ambiguous meanings within a Gosple account? I believe so. They tried to paint the essentials of Christ’s teachings, but they entrusted the interpretation of their writings to a living church. A church which Christ promised to protect.
     

     • *]the authors who were not Apostles–such as Luke-- misunderstood what the Apostles told them Jesus said

     • 
       No. Those who were not apostles drew on multiple eye witnesses, and they used this information for their own specific purposes, guided by the Holy Spirit, and approved by the church.
       

       But you think Jesus’ words were ambiguous to those whom the Apostles taught, such as Mark and Luke? Are you saying that, since they were not Apostles, they misunderstood the true meaning of Jesus’ words?

       I am not saying this. But there are many things that Jesus said and did over the three years that he preached.
       

       I think you are saying that His words were ambiguous to anyone who would read them, but not ambiguous to the disciples who heard Him speak. That is, one had to be there to really understand. Am i understanding you?

       I believe that the true meaning of the gospels would have been impressed upon the successors of the apostles through an a line of oral tradition originating with the apostles. The right understanding of these texts would have been preserved over the generations through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
       

       Your frankness is both refreshing and astonishing, Ut! Here i am trying to decide if the three-legged stool of the Catholic Church is trustworthy enough to support my weight, and you are telling me i cannot trust one of the three legs! I had better think carefully before i sit, i think. For even if the other two legs appear strong, will they be able to keep from collapsing, too?

       I am not telling you not to trust scripture.
       

       But are you certain it does not invalidate Jesus’ words? Consider this: The traditions of the church and the teaching of the Magisterium relies on Sacred Scripture. When i read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, biblical passage after biblical passage is cited by its authors to prove that what they write agrees with the Bible. But if the Bible itself is untrustworthy, then their writing, which agrees with it, cannot be trusted either. What you are proposing is that i put the full weight of my faith on a chair that has not just one unsturdy leg, but three! Why should i trust in such a poorly crafted piece of furniture?

       I don’t believe that the writings of scripture are untrustworthy. I believe that the magisterium of the Catholic church accuratly interpretes scripture. Scripture ilumines tradition, and tradition helps to guide our understanding of scripture.
       
       God bless,
       Ut

 

[VociMike]

Voci:

I hear what you are saying, and i shudder! For doesn’tt the Catechism of the Catholic Church rely on the Sacred Scriptures you wholeheartedly agree are so unreliable?

Where did I say scripture was unreliable? I simply agreed that it is ambiguous, and that God, being God, must have allowed that ambiguity for a reason.

As for the Catechism relying on scripture, I would prefer to say that the Catechism relies on the fullness of God’s revelation, which includes both scripture and the proper understanding of that scripture. No problem there. But for those who have rejected (deliberately or through ignorance) God’s full revelation, as found only in his visible Church, accessing the full and inerrant truths located in scripture is impossible.

I’m no scholar when it comes to the Sacred Scriptures, either. But i’m no dummy, either. It’s clear to me, at the moment, that if the Bible is a Tower of Babble, than it’s a source of confusion for anyone who relies on it to get himself closer to heaven. That is, it is a source of confusion not just for Protestants, but for the Church Fathers, and the Catholic Church, as well! Perhaps the Muslims were correct in saying that the Apostles have mislead the Christian world? Perhaps the Nazis of the 20th century were correct to call it the Book of Lies?

You are not differentiating between those who have received the fullness of God’s revelation, as given to the Apostles and handed down to those Church Fathers, and those who have not received that fullness. The former can navigate and understand scripture in the light of that full revelation, while the latter are left to their own human (of the flesh) devices, and are thus doomed to failure.

You agree, I hope, that “bible-believing” Christians can and do disagree on almost every “truth” found in the bible? Including such fundamentals as the nature and existence of the Trinity, and the nature of Christ?

Indeed, what do all “bible-believing” believers actually agree on? I think you will find the list to be extraordinarily short, and not including most “core” Christian beliefs. And perhaps even more interesting is the apparent acceleration of error and heresy that has overtaken “bible-believing” Christianity since its beginnings. Many believers today believe things that would never have been accepted in the 16th century. Surely that situation will only be getting worse in the future.

 

[fhansen]

But are you certain it does not invalidate Jesus’ words? Consider this: The traditions of the church and the teaching of the Magisterium relies on Sacred Scripture. When i read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, biblical passage after biblical passage is cited by its authors to prove that what they write agrees with the Bible. But if the Bible itself is untrustworthy, then their writing, which agrees with it, cannot be trusted either. What you are proposing is that i put the full weight of my faith on a chair that has not just one unsturdy leg, but three! Why should i trust in such a poorly crafted piece of furniture?

The CC received the “deposit of faith” at the beginning, before scripture was even written. She teaches from that revelation- from her store of knowledge- offering supporting documentation from scripture, Augustine, Aquinas, councilor decrees, encyclicals, etc, for those who’re interested in researching it.