# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[paul_c]

I’d like to jump with both feet into this discussion.

1. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Bible is inspired and that it is trustworthy.
2. Everything in the Bible is correct and self consistent when understood in the correct way.
3. Human language is limited by definition. The reason Jesus taught with stories is that the stories can transcend the limitation of language and translations.
4. Jesus taught verbally, not by leaving a book because written language is more limited than the spoken language, You can ask clarifying questions to a teacher. And both Student and teacher have the potential to identify when understanding is not passing between them efficiently. You can’t ask a question of a book and the book certainly can’t guage when you are missing the point and making a correction.
5. The bible is ambiguous if you don’t have the "keys’ to understand it. By “keys” I mean the theological context that allows you to understand it: Catholic Tradition. I personally don’t find it in the least bit ambiguous. There are things I don’t understand fully, like the prophesies of Revelation, but I don’t think this is due to ambiguity. I think like the old testament prophesies, they won’t be perfectly understood until they are realized because we have our own preconceived notions that keep us from understanding the truth.

Ironically, of course, Michael Smith brought up this scriptural passage:

The Purpose of Parables

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should[a]heal them.’**

16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. **

Can’t you see, he is telling the Apostles, to whom Sacred Tradition was entrusted, that they would be able to understand because they were privy to the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven that provide the context but that those who didn’t have access to Tradition, would be lost in the seeming ambiguity of scripture, seeing but not understanding and becoming increasingly hardened at heart.

 

[Irish_Becca]

I recently read a post by a catholic member that used Eze. 44 as evidence that Mary is ever virgin. The passage indicates that when Christ entered in threw the East gate it was closed, and no man shall enter by it. That would include Peter entering and amusing the title of Rock as depicted below.

These words remind us that no one else can enter as Jesus did. That way is shut and no man can enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD.
vestibule ( ) n. A small entrance hall or passage between the outer door and the interior of a house or building.
Notice the prince goes in and out. No one else brings bread to eat before the LORD. There is no other door keeper. No one has a special key. Those that have entered in and gone out carry the message of the door and its location and speak threw the HS the message that opens the door.

Are these passages speaking of Peter?
The Rock Mat 16:18
My Strong Rock Psa 31:2
The Rock of Ages Isa 26:4
The Rock that is higher than I Psa 61:2
My Rock and my Fortress Psa 31:3
The Rock of my Strength Psa 62:7
The Rock of my Refuge Psa 94:22
A Rock of Habitation Psa 71:3
The Rock of my Heart Psa 73:26
The Rock of my Salvation 2Sa 22:47
My Rock and my Redeemer Psa 19:14
That Spiritual Rock 1Cr 10:4
The Rock that followed them 1Cr 10:4
A Shadow from the Heat Isa 25:4

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

9 I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

Jesus takes us in threw the vestibule door, as bread before the LORD.
http://www.goodbook.us/images/behold.jpg
Behold, I stand at the door and knock.
If any man hear My voice and open the door, I will come in
to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.

Truly Jesus came to earth in person and knocked. Today this image might be better interpreted as Jesus in Heaven standing inside the East gate, at the vestibule door. He left a message with 12 of His choice, those that hear them hear Jesus, still knocking waiting for those that hear His voice that He might let them in. On the other side of the door is the noise and confusion of the world. Can you discern the knock? some hear from miles away, come searching and find it, others stand right next to it but can’t hear a thing. It gets even deeper when you add that Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;” Now notice what He says “If any man hear My voice and open the door, I will come in
to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me.” Do you see it? Who opens the door? And what is necessary to open it?

Why would you open the door to Christ, then refuse His true Body and Blood?

I agree there are many places in the Bible that mention “rock,” and I would be interested to see the original translation of those - are they also Petra? In any case, Jesus says, "You are [petra] and upon [petra] I build my Church. It seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Irish_Becca]

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).

Hi, Soc. I’m doing well.

I’m sorry, you’re right. I mean, it’s not ambiguous.

 

[utunumsint]

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

Agreed. This would be the primary meaning of the text. What is called the literal meaning.

Sections 116 and 117 of the Catechism has this to say about the interpretation of scripture.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

God bless,
Ut

 

[steve_b]

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)

Protestants can’t support their position from scripture OR tradition
Soc:

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].”

Catholics see Mary in the following even though she had but one child Jesus, she is our mother too

Rev 12:
17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.
Soc:

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, "

[snip]

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

Jesus replied,

[snip]

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…”

Did Jesus give the keys to Peter’s statement? Nope! It was to Peter
Did Jesus give the power to bind and loose to Peter’s statement? Nope! It was to Peter
Did Simon’s statement get a name change? Nope! Simon got a name change to Rock

At Ceserea Philippi, behind Jesus and Peter is a huge rock (petra). This rock in particular is a shrine to the god Pan, who is 1/2 goat and 1/2 man and god of shepherds.

Is THIS the rock Jesus will build His Church on? Of course not but that’s the only literal Petra that is there.

Protestants have lost this argument.
Soc:

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!

Actually the revolt primarily was about taking authority from the Catholic Church.
Soc:

1. The devil and demons (if they exists) are using such passages to continue the division between Catholics and Protestants.

As Jesus said in the upper room the night before He died,

“Satan has asked to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed especially for you (singular) Simon that after you have turned back, strengthen you brothers” after they have been sifted as well.

And Satan sifted big time during the Protestant revolt.
Soc:

1. 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.

Jesus said exactly what He was supposed to say.

Jn 5:19
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever theFather does the Son also does.

Jn 12:49
For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it.

Jn 12:50
whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Jn 14:10
The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

Jn 14:31
I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.

Jesus didn’t start Protestantism. He started the Catholic Church on Peter. Ultimately, Jesus words makes people culpable if they don’t follow what He says.
Soc:

My actual purpose is to find out whether Christ was deliberatelyambiguous, 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)

Jesus put in place ONE authoritative Church. The test is always going to be
can people be obedient to the authority God puts in place. As Jesus said, (paraphrased) if people won’t be obedient to the Church He establishes, they won’t be obedient to Him or the one who sent Him.

 

[SkinnyJay]

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?

It is a fine line. One I am woefully unqualified to define. It is one of my values that people should not be judged to the full extent when consequences were not fully realized by the individual. Something may need to be done but the consequences enacted should be different when comparing people who simply didn’t know better to people who knew but did it anyway. Is this a value that is shared, in the perfect sense, with God? I sure hope so. There is much I simply don’t know and being held accountable for actions or lack thereof that I didn’t know was an offense is quite honestly, completely right and just. But being held accountable to the same degree as others who knew better but did it anyway seems to me to be another story.

The line gets shady when one thinks about opportunities. Should I have went to that Bible study? should I have talked about religion with that guy in the airport? should I have helped the lady with a flat tire on the side of the road? what would I have learned from those experiences that would of put me “in the know” of what offends God or what Gods plan for me is. How many chances does one get? will coming to “in the know” be obvious or not so obvious? Is it completely ones fault for not doing something that would of made them more knowledgeable? And so on and so on…

When I think about this I am thankful it isn’t my job to judge people justly because there are so many gray areas that it seems impossible to judge intent of actions but also consequence of action. The balance between the two is just one aspect.

One can go on and on in this respect but back to your question, I would have to say Yes.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Perhaps this could be just the reason that Christ established a Church that could speak in his name, with his authority, so that we may come to the truth.

 

[michaelsmth626]

I’d like to jump with both feet into this discussion.

1. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Bible is inspired and that it is trustworthy.
2. Everything in the Bible is correct and self consistent when understood in the correct way.
3. Human language is limited by definition. The reason Jesus taught with stories is that the stories can transcend the limitation of language and translations.
4. Jesus taught verbally, not by leaving a book because written language is more limited than the spoken language, You can ask clarifying questions to a teacher. And both Student and teacher have the potential to identify when understanding is not passing between them efficiently. You can’t ask a question of a book and the book certainly can’t guage when you are missing the point and making a correction.
5. The bible is ambiguous if you don’t have the "keys’ to understand it. By “keys” I mean the theological context that allows you to understand it: Catholic Tradition. I personally don’t find it in the least bit ambiguous. There are things I don’t understand fully, like the prophesies of Revelation, but I don’t think this is due to ambiguity. I think like the old testament prophesies, they won’t be perfectly understood until they are realized because we have our own preconceived notions that keep us from understanding the truth.

Ironically, of course, Michael Smith brought up this scriptural passage:

The Purpose of Parables

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should[a]heal them.’**

16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. **

Can’t you see, he is telling the Apostles, to whom Sacred Tradition was entrusted, that they would be able to understand because they were privy to the mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven that provide the context but that those who didn’t have access to Tradition, would be lost in the seeming ambiguity of scripture, seeing but not understanding and becoming increasingly hardened at heart.

So then why was it that Jesus spoke to multitudes of people and some understood and others did not. Why waste His breath speaking in code to everyone but the Apostles?

While were at it why not explain to Socrates4Jesus just what part of the church it is that contains the truth. Those in the world lets say, that have the ability to know.

The following quote is from Paragraph 100 in the Catholic Catechism:

 

[michaelsmth626]

Why would you open the door to Christ, then refuse His true Body and Blood?

I agree there are many places in the Bible that mention “rock,” and I would be interested to see the original translation of those - are they also Petra? In any case, Jesus says, "You are [petra] and upon [petra] I build my Church. It seems pretty clear to me.

Why do you place first Peter and then the popes in place of Jesus and the HS?

That is not all the references to the Rock or Stone. and I can not find not one that prophesy’s or speaks of another other than Jesus. So If the LORD intended for His Son to over come the world and it be made a foot stool for Him “Jesus” Just why would the Father places other men in this chair that only Christ earned with His Blood and sinless life for us? It defeats the whole purpose of Jesus restoring the relationship between God and men. The HS was a result of this victory. It could now dwell again within men because of Jesus, placing our sins on Him made it possible for this to take place. Jesus did not appoint a man that this Spirit would flow threw first on earth and then to others but the Spirit is at liberty to go when, where and how the Father sees fit.
Don’t you know that the only unforgivable sin is the blasphemy of the HS. Mark 3:22 Mat 12:22
Do you think that denying the HS work outside side the CC is a type of blasphemy against its work?

 

[paul_c]

Why do you place first Peter and then the popes in place of Jesus and the HS?

That is not all the references to the Rock or Stone. and I can not find not one that prophesy’s or speaks of another other than Jesus. So If the LORD intended for His Son to over come the world and it be made a foot stool for Him “Jesus” Just why would the Father places other men in this chair that only Christ earned with His Blood and sinless life for us? It defeats the whole purpose of Jesus restoring the relationship between God and men. The HS was a result of this victory. It could now dwell again within men because of Jesus, placing our sins on Him made it possible for this to take place. Jesus did not appoint a man that this Spirit would flow threw first on earth and then to others but the Spirit is at liberty to go when, where and how the Father sees fit.
Don’t you know that the only unforgivable sin is the blasphemy of the HS. Mark 3:22 Mat 12:22
Do you think that denying the HS work outside side the CC is a type of blasphemy against its work?

Whether you like it or not, the truth of the matter is that Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16), told him to strengthen his brothers (luke 22) and told him to tend his flock (John 21), all signs that he would lead his church. It can also not be denied that Peter played the leadership role after the Ascension as shown in Acts. He takes the lead in Replacing Judas (Acts 1). He speaks for the apostles and instructs the first converts at Pentacost (acts 2). He does the first healing, He speaks for the Apostles again to the authorities. He sets doctrine at the council of Jerusalem , allowing the Gentiles into the church (Acts 15). he is the Apostle that St. Paul visits for validation of his teaching as described in Galations 1-2.

And you should recognize that we do not worship Peter, nor do we put him in place of Jesus. Peter and the church were put in place to teach the truth and administer the sacraments. They are not replacements for Jesus, they are servants of Jesus, carrying out the tasks he gave them.

And yes, it is a fact that all those that are saved are saved through the Catholic Church. When you read the Bible, that is through the Catholic church, which put it together. Every truth you have learned is from the Catholic Church. all the misconceptions you have, are from others. That is not blasphemy, it is the truth and it an act of mercy to share the truth

 

[Nita]

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)

What do you find ambiguous about the words “This is my body…”?
How should Jesus have said it to make it unambiguous – if He truly had changed the substance of the bread into the substance of His body?

 

[michaelsmth626]

Whether you like it or not, the truth of the matter is that Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16), told him to strengthen his brothers (luke 22) and told him to tend his flock (John 21), all signs that he would lead his church. It can also not be denied that Peter played the leadership role after the Ascension as shown in Acts. He takes the lead in Replacing Judas (Acts 1). He speaks for the apostles and instructs the first converts at Pentacost (acts 2). He does the first healing, He speaks for the Apostles again to the authorities. He sets doctrine at the council of Jerusalem , allowing the Gentiles into the church (Acts 15). he is the Apostle that St. Paul visits for validation of his teaching as described in Galations 1-2.

And you should recognize that we do not worship Peter, nor do we put him in place of Jesus. Peter and the church were put in place to teach the truth and administer the sacraments. They are not replacements for Jesus, they are servants of Jesus, carrying out the tasks he gave them.

And yes, it is a fact that all those that are saved are saved through the Catholic Church. When you read the Bible, that is through the Catholic church, which put it together. Every truth you have learned is from the Catholic Church. all the misconceptions you have, are from others. That is not blasphemy, it is the truth and it an act of mercy to share the truth

I aways thought salvation was threw Jesus not a church. I don’t believe I understand who or what this church is. BTW my point about the Rock only indicates hermeneutics has no place in catholic interpretation but in fact all interpretation must support the church. Strange how one verse can changes someones complete understanding of the bible. Mat 16 is the most important verse in all the bible for you, no wonder all scripture is viewed in relationship to it. It places the pope and the church what ever that is right between God and men, a brand new new testament door, with Peters name on it. The only way of salvation is threw the Roman pontiff, now if thats not a single door I dont know what is.

 

[paul_c]

So then why was it that Jesus spoke to multitudes of people and some understood and others did not. Why waste His breath speaking in code to everyone but the Apostles?

While were at it why not explain to Socrates4Jesus just what part of the church it is that contains the truth. Those in the world lets say, that have the ability to know.

Because he wanted the people to come to him thorugh the Church he established to teach the truth and administer the Sacraments. If you are not willing to listen to the Church, you are not willing to listen to Christ because the Church is the body of Christ on earth.

Why not just forgo all the carefully worded statements and let Socrates4Jesus know that his quest is in vain according the Catholics, not even the members of the CC walk in a true relation ship with Christ, why do I say that because the laity depends on the pope 100% not Jesus.

You keep saying this but you are decieved. We depend on Jesus for salvation, but we are dependent on the Church to teach us what Jesus said and did and to administer the sacraments. You are also dependent on the chruch. Without the church, you would have no concept of Jesus. You wouldn’t even have a bible.

And that the current pope clearly professes that salvation is only threw the CC.
July 11, 2007

Associated Press signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070711/news_1n11church.html
Pope Benedict XVI left a helicopter after landing Monday in Lorenzago di Cadore, Italy.
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy – Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released yesterday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.

This is absolutely the truth. Jesus set it up that way . Why won’t you beleive it?

So Socrates4 you search for the wisdom of God is not yours to hold or know.
You should start right now your commitment to be the pope, then you will find what it is you seek, according to the CC. Remember the hour glass Socrates? These to concepts place the pope at the apex and threw him all things come down from heaven to men threw the pope. When Peter became the rock according to catholic tradition he became the sole conduit that bridges heaven and earth. This is the true dividing difference between catholic and protestants. For Catholics to say or allude to anything else is to deny the very foundation and teaching of there church. So if you think that Jesus came and did what He did to over come the grip of sin and provide a way, open a door between God and men only to hand it all over to a man then you are catholic. God is longing to unite Himself with men not appoint anyone else but His Son as the door keeper.

Lets just ask Catholics WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH. Your statements and creeds lead me to believe that the only Christians in the world are the pope and his cabinet. Now can Christians still be walking in blindness and ignorance after Jesus pulled the veil from the Holy of Hollies. Only to replace it with the CC magisterium veil.

You have a distorted view of the church. You need to let go of that and allow yourself to really learn the truth. The Church is in the service of all, teaching the truths about salvation and administering the life giving sacraments. And you are right, the Church is a conduit to Christ. Why do you insist on trying to find your way by yourself, when you could benefit from the support of the Church.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s a question that has haunted me, and something i’ve just got to know: Was Jesus intentionally ambiguous?

This is a fascinating question quite apart from the tired old arguments between Catholics and Protestants.

Consider: What is the Kingdom of God? At various points it seems either to be unworldly (“my kingdom is not of this world”), approaching soon or already here (“the kingdom of heaven is at hand”) .

Various theories are offered to explain this seeming ambiguity but it almost seems designed to confound.

newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_God

bible.org/article/kingdom-god-new-testament-theology-battle-christ-spirit-bearer-and-returning-son-man

Then there is the fact that Jesus, while predicting his passion, death, and resurection, he never explained the meaning and purpose of it. That was left to Paul to speculate upon. So we are left with cryptic theories of his dieing for our sins or to seal the new covenant.

Catholics and Protestants may argue over the meaning of “this is my body” but why do we eat his body, anyway, either symbolicaly or actually? Again, that is left to Paul to explain as best he can.

And let’s not forget the various mysteries such as the Trinity.

And, of course, we see all of this ambiguity through the Bible and Church which clearly struggle in this respect.

 

[michaelsmth626]

You have a distorted view of the church. You need to let go of that and allow yourself to really learn the truth. The Church is in the service of all, teaching the truths about salvation and administering the life giving sacraments. And you are right, the Church is a conduit to Christ. Why do you insist on trying to find your way by yourself, when you could benefit from the support of the Church.

Still no definition of your church that provides salvation?
I suspect it is a play on words and meanings which implies the HS it can be nothing else.
A man can not serve 2 masters I know my Lord and He knows me so what could be gained from following a church as you call it, that you have not even defined after 2 request.

Your church makes its self very clear
“Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false.”

Jesus answered, “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.”

This church you speak of it is not your kingdom on earth? “A kingdom not of this world”, then why is it that the Vatican has a seat in the united nations? When given a coin Jesus said whos likeness is this? and He was told it is Cesar, to which He replied then render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s. You claim ownership and rule of a worldly kingdom that has not been established.

 

[fhansen]

Lets just ask Catholics WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH. Your statements and creeds lead me to believe that the only Christians in the world are the pope and his cabinet. Now can Christians still be walking in blindness and ignorance after Jesus pulled the veil from the Holy of Hollies. Only to replace it with the CC magisterium veil.

Do you really think God intended to allow His people to fall into the disunity of belief current in Protestantism as a direct result of each church/person having as their authority scripture alone? The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is that in Catholicism the church is the authority whereas in Protestantism the bible is the authority. Either way, we each believe the authority is directing us to God. The CC is a vehicle whose divinely led purpose is to get people back to the direct relationship with God that man lost in the garden at the fall.

 

[paul_c]

Still no definition of your church that provides salvation?
I suspect it is a play on words and meanings which implies the HS it can be nothing else.
A man can not serve 2 masters I know my Lord and He knows me so what could be gained from following a church as you call it, that you have not even defined after 2 request.

Your church makes its self very clear
“Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false.”

Jesus answered, “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.”

This church you speak of it is not your kingdom on earth? “A kingdom not of this world”, then why is it that the Vatican has a seat in the united nations? When given a coin Jesus said whos likeness is this? and He was told it is Cesar, to which He replied then render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s. You claim ownership and rule of a worldly kingdom that has not been established.

Michael, the Church is not a kingdom. It has no armies, raises no taxes, has no temporal power. The Church is the Body of Christ. St. Paul makes that clear in his epistles. When Saul was persecuting the Church, Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and said to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?” Not because St. Paul was persecuting him directly, because after all, Jesus was already in Heaven, but because by persecuting the Church, he was persecuting Jesus’s body on Earth.

The Church is simply the community of believers charged with maintaining and sharing the truths about salvation under the jurisdiction of the Pope and his fellow bishops, and the annointed priesthood is charged with administering the life giving sacraments to the faithful. You continually sugggest that the Church some how blocks our access to and understanding of Jesus. This could not be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is true. The Church is the means by which Jesus presents himself to the world. Remember, Jesus did appear to the world resurrected, did he? He presented himself to the Church that he founded and commissioned them to spread the Gospel. Afterall, as God, he clearly could have spoken personally to every man that ever lived, but he chose to work through men, didn’t he. And not just any men, but the men he appeared to and commissioned in Matthew 28:
18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, unti l the end of the age
And remember, before he died, he commissioned Peter to lead this group (Matthew 16)
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
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 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.”

The Church has been fulfilling this commission, under the leadership of Peter and his successors for 2000 years.

You yourself, can not be saved without the work of the church. Without it you would not know the truths about salvation and you wouldn’t have the sacraments that are required to be put into the state of grace. You fight against this concept, but the fact is, what truth you do have comes from the Church, albiet indirectly in your case. Remember, without the church, no one would have been taught the truths that were passed on to you, even if they are a bit distorted now because you separate yourself from it, and the Bible would never have been written.

And yes, Sola Scriptura is false. The bible did not appear out of thin air. It is the churches compilation of books and letters that it felt were Apostolic and conveyed the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church not only compiled the Bible, but teaches its followers how it was meant to be understood. This is Church Tradition. You can not understand the Bible without understanding the theological context behind it, no matter how many times you read it. And it cerrtainly was not meant to be digested as a series of disconnected verses. Afterall, by taking phrases and verses out of context, you can make the Bible say anything. Remember, Satan used Bible verses to tempt Jesus in the desert prior to the start of Jesus’ mission.(Matthew chapter 4)

You have many, many misconceptions of what the Catholic Church is, what it does, and how it does it. I urge you to shake off your pre-conceived notions and learn the truth. It will set you free. This website is an excellent forum for doing so. but you could also try watching EWTN.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

Brian:

I appreciate the reply. Are you saying that even though the Sacred Scriptures are ambiguous their meaning is still clear to those in the know? If so, how do they know?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

FL:

Thank you for replying. Are you saying the purpose for Christ’s ambiguity is to make us see that we cannot figure out the truth ourselves? If so, is this purpose for only you and i, or for everyone who seeks to understand the true meaning of His words?

 

[fhansen]

FL:

Thank you for replying. Are you saying the purpose for Christ’s ambiguity is to make us see that we cannot figure out the truth ourselves? If so, is this purpose for only you and i, or for everyone who seeks to understand the true meaning of His words?

I’m simply saying that God would never have left us with nothing more than the written word as our authority because it’s impossible for people to not disagree on its meaning-especially a body of work the size of the bible with important spiritual truths expressed throughout. But if the Church, herself, is the authority, presumably her gospel message would be the same, with/without the written word.