# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

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?

Pons:

Sorry for being vague, or do you think i’m being ambiguous? There is a subtle but significant distinction between the two. Maybe my not pointing this out is why you aren’t sure what i’m seeing?

A statement is vague if the one who reads or hears it has no idea what the author or speaker is saying. One can only guess what the meaning is. For example, if i were to say, “My dog is the moon!” You would not get the meaning. I’m not suggesting Jesus is being vague when He teaches His disciples, though He might be when He tells parables.

Now a statement is ambiguous if the one who reads or hears it understands that it might have more than one possible meaning. One knows one of the meanings must be the correct one, but he is unsure which one is correct. For example, if i were to say, “It’s raining cats and dogs!” You might respond that you believed it would when you heard the weather forecast earlier. But i might reply, “No; i saw on the news that a tornado hit an animal shelter. Cats and dogs are literally falling from the sky!” Here, you got the wrong possible meaning, because you assumed i was speaking figuratively, rather than literally. I’m suggesting that Jesus is being ambiguous.

So when He says this,a. “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)

a Catholic might correctly understand Him to mean this,a2. “This is [actually] my [actual] body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)
but she should also acknowledge that another possible and reasonable–although incorrect–interpretation of Christ’s words might be this,
a3. “This is [like] my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
(Luke 22:19)

The difficulty i’m having is in wondering why Jesus said (a) instead of (a2). If He said (a2) would we even have a need for this discussion? More importantly, would Protestants have a rational reason to not return to the Catholic Church?

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.

If you want to go down this road, let me know. I believe it will make a excellent topic and discussion thread of it’s own, but am not sure i have the time at the moment to devote to it. I’m not opposed to explaining the difficulties i have with your statement if you want to hear, however.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

JM:

Welcome to the dialog! Are you saying there is no answer to the questions, “Is Jesus the Eucharist?” or “Is Peter the rock on which His Church is built?”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

Ut:

Thanks for the reply. You’ve given me a lot to which to respond. Many questions, have i! Let’s consider one point at a time, for we have all the time in the world with a discussion thread like this.



When you say that the gospels are not transcripts, do you mean that (1) Matthew, John and others are not quoting Jesus word-for-word? If so, do you think (2) they are quoting Him thought-for-thought, or do you think (3) they’ve even failed to convey the exact meaning Christ intended in their paraphrases of his words?

I think what you are suggesting is (3), that is, you believe that when Matthew quotes Jesus as saying this,c. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”
he might have gotten it wrong, and Jesus might have actually said this, c2. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on **[you] **I will build my church…”

therefore, Matthew (not God) is to blame for Protestants being deceived into thinking He meant this,c3. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this [truth that I am the Son of God] I will build my church…”
The upshot is that if Matthew had listened to Jesus more carefully, or if he had not been so careless when he wrote his gospel, or if his memory of what Jesus said had not failed him, Protestants would not have believed Christ said (c3) for Matthew would have written (c2) instead of (c). Is this your meaning?

 

[BrianH]

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?

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.

 

[paul_c]

Ut:

Thanks for the reply. You’ve given me a lot to which to respond. Many questions, have i! Let’s consider one point at a time, for we have all the time in the world with a discussion thread like this.



When you say that the gospels are not transcripts, do you mean that (1) Matthew, John and others are not quoting Jesus word-for-word? If so, do you think (2) they are quoting Him thought-for-thought, or do you think (3) they’ve even failed to convey the exact meaning Christ intended in their paraphrases of his words?

I think what you are suggesting is (3), that is, you believe that when Matthew quotes Jesus as saying this,c. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”
he might have gotten it wrong, and Jesus might have actually said this, c2. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on **[you] **I will build my church…”

therefore, Matthew (not God) is to blame for Protestants being deceived into thinking He meant this,c3. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this [truth that I am the Son of God] I will build my church…”
The upshot is that if Matthew had listened to Jesus more carefully, or if he had not been so careless when he wrote his gospel, or if his memory of what Jesus said had not failed him, Protestants would not have believed Christ said (c3) for Matthew would have written (c2) instead of (c). Is this your meaning?

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

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.

 

[utunumsint]

Ut:

Thanks for the reply. You’ve given me a lot to which to respond. Many questions, have i! Let’s consider one point at a time, for we have all the time in the world with a discussion thread like this.

No problem.

When you say that the gospels are not transcripts, do you mean that (1) Matthew, John and others are not quoting Jesus word-for-word?

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.

If so, do you think (2) they are quoting Him thought-for-thought,
or do you think (3) they’ve even failed to convey the exact meaning Christ intended in their paraphrases of his words?

If you think of thought-for-though as a kind of internal transcript of what Jesus was thinking at the time of a particular narative, then no. Only God could know that. But I certainly don’t think that they failed to convery his meaning.

I think this section of the Catechism can help illustrate what I mean.

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.”

1. The oral tradition. “For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed.”

1. The written Gospels. “The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.”

Part 2 and Part 3 of this process explains how Matthew, Luke, and John might differ on a particular scene or scenario.

I think what you are suggesting is (3), that is, you believe that when Matthew quotes Jesus as saying this,c. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”
he might have gotten it wrong, and Jesus might have actually said this, c2. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on **[you] **I will build my church…”

therefore, Matthew (not God) is to blame for Protestants being deceived into thinking He meant this,c3. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this [truth that I am the Son of God] I will build my church…”
The upshot is that if Matthew had listened to Jesus more carefully, or if he had not been so careless when he wrote his gospel, or if his memory of what Jesus said had not failed him, Protestants would not have believed Christ said (c3) for Matthew would have written (c2) instead of (c). Is this your meaning?

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.

Just as a quick aside, the Alexandrian school of Biblical interpretation made extensive us of spiritual (alegorical) exegesis, often going far beyond the literal meaning of a scriptural text. This method is often rooted in neo-platonic thought. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ambrose of Milan are three figures who dominated this kind of scriptural interpretation. On the other hand, you had the Antiochan school, who arose in a kind of reaction to the overuse of such speculation.

If you want to learn more about these methods, read page 43 to 47 of this link.

Anyway, just to bring this back to the issues we are discussing, I believe that each Gosepl was written for one particular church, then were appropriated by the church as a whole after each had circulated locally for a time. This process was not spontaneous, but required magisterial intervention to enforce their cannonicity. In the early church, some sections of the church rejected Revelations. Some only used Matthew. Others rejected all of Paul’s writings. Some included non cannonical documents. Some used composite Gospels like Tatian’s Diatesseron. It took the church of Rome, and a concerted effort on the part of the hierarchy of the church as a whole to promulgate the cannon we know today. It is this same church that provides us with correct doctrinal interpretations of these texts.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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. …

Thanks for the clarification, Voci. So would you say that Sacred Scripture alone is unreliable? I mean, one might say that without a trustworthy authority to provide the correct interpretation of ambiguous text of the Bible, one might come to the wrong conclusion about what the meaning of the text actually is.

For example, when Jesus says this from the cross,“Here is your mother.”

(John 19:27)

the Protestant might get the wrong idea that Jesus was asking John to take care of His mother after He died. The Catholic, on the other hand, would get the right interpretation. For he would rely on the tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church, which tells him that Jesus was saying Mary was the spiritual mother of all Catholics.

So you are not saying that Jesus’ words are unreliable; you are saying that even though His words are ambiguous, you can rely on the Catholic Church to give you the correct interpretation of His words. Am i understanding you correctly?

 

[AskSeekKnock]

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.

 

[VociMike]

Thanks for the clarification, Voci. So would you say that Sacred Scripture alone is unreliable? I mean, one might say that without a trustworthy authority to provide the correct interpretation of ambiguous text of the Bible, one might come to the wrong conclusion about what the meaning of the text actually is.

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.

For example, when Jesus says this from the cross,“Here is your mother.”

(John 19:27)

the Protestant might get the wrong idea that Jesus was asking John to take care of His mother after He died. The Catholic, on the other hand, would get the right interpretation. For he would rely on the tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church, which tells him that Jesus was saying Mary was the spiritual mother of all Catholics.

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.

So you are not saying that Jesus’ words are unreliable; you are saying that even though His words are ambiguous, you can rely on the Catholic Church to give you the correct interpretation of His words. Am i understanding you correctly?

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.

 

[michaelsmth626]

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.
All other references to rock in OT and NT indicate Jesus. hermeneutic evidence plenty.
The entire statement could be completely accurate word for word, a simple hand jester, ether way could completely change its meaning. All Jesus had to do was to raise His hand to His chest as He spoke “and on this rock I will build my church” indicating Himself. Which is exactly what the enter NT and OT supports.
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.

30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.” Jeremiah 9:24

Not to glory in the Apostles or point to one of them as your rightness or authority is greater. This is exactly was happens today. The CC would like to control all Christians based on Peters authority.

1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal? 5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase.

It is no wonder that catholics make statement like “Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false”.
It because there is no hermeneutic evidence written in scripture to support these 3 major pillars of the CC. 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.

The only evidence that supports such teaching comes from CC founders. Rome gave the CC its authority in 370 something to enforce its teaching. A universal church that supplies all mens needs supported with the power of Rome by law. This was enforced threw the ages buy kings and queens and princes until 1798 when Napoleon ended the bed fellows and not a king or prince “the decedents” threw the ages raised there voice. Buy the end of WWI “100 years” all of the line of kings and princes that supported the CC were gone. The only Monarch that I know of that still exist today is the English family Queen Mary, but they officially broke away long before, in the 16th century.

Why do you think that the first amendment U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 says.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Simply because for centuries lines of kings and princes were bed fellows with the CC just as it was first establish under the authority of the Roman empire. We will make no law respecting the CC. Our Gov will not enforce your doctrine upon the people. The Exodus to the US from Europe.

An interesting prophesy in Danial 2 is the image and interpretation of Nebuchadnezzars dream. The legs of Iron represent the Roman empire 2 legs the east and west. Now read what it says comes after the legs from the fall of Rome to today. The feet and toes mixed with iron and clay, It says that the seed of the men “the line of kings” but they will not adhere to one another, I like the word cleave together they will not be united as it was under Rome. The mixing of Rome with the seed of men or lines of kings. The survivor of the Roman empire was the CC that continued to mingle with the seed of men. Napoleon was one battle away from bringing the old Roman empire under his rule but it did not fit Gods prophesy and he was defeated by the British. And the seeds of men have all disappeared, the last were killed and over thrown in WWI. You all know the the Vatican is the smallest city-state in the world, 14.4 acres less than a 1000 residents but it has a seat at the united nations. Iron mixed with clay.

Daniel 2:41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. 43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay. 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.”

 

[VociMike]

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.

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.

 

[michaelsmth626]

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.

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.

** It took the church of Rome**, and a concerted effort on the part of the hierarchy of the church as a whole to promulgate the cannon we know today. It is this same church that provides us with correct doctrinal interpretations of these texts.

God bless,
Ut

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?

 

[michaelsmth626]

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.

Well because its not clear lets just apply the doctrine of Marys Immaculate Conception, being ever virgin, sinless, and without the stain of original sin. You are the one takes liberty no me. Its not my citation its your to defend. I simply say it is not supported by hermeneutic evidence in other words what becomes the pillars of catholic faith are not supported by the letters of the NT. Which naturally leads to the churches discrediting them. But not the part that says they are in charge of all Christians.

 

[Irish_Becca]

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?

Huh? Are you accusing me of blasphemy?

God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants. I’m not denying that.

Jesus built His Church on Peter (rock). He gave Peter the Keys. From there, we believe in Apostolic Succession. Here is some other Scriptural support for Apostolic Succession:

“Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” – Ephesians 2:19-20

Plus, this is what was accepted as true all the way until 1517.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Huh? Are you accusing me of blasphemy?

God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants. I’m not denying that.

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.

 

[paul_c]

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

Michael, First of all, just because its not in Scripture, doesn’t mean its not true. Scripture is only a subset of the Tradition of the Catholic Church. But even so, What about the Archangel Gabriel’s greeting at the announciation, " Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with you?" Full of grace means to us that she was born without sin.

**“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.

have youn ever read 1Corinthians 10:
16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

"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.
All other references to rock in OT and NT indicate Jesus. hermeneutic evidence plenty.
The entire statement could be completely accurate word for word, a simple hand jester, ether way could completely change its meaning. All Jesus had to do was to raise His hand to His chest as He spoke “and on this rock I will build my church” indicating Himself. Which is exactly what the enter NT and OT supports.
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.

Paul even referenced Peter here.

Not to glory in the Apostles or point to one of them as your rightness or authority is greater. This is exactly was happens today. The CC would like to control all Christians based on Peters authority.

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.

It is no wonder that catholics make statement like “Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false”.
It because there is no hermeneutic evidence written in scripture to support these 3 major pillars of the CC. 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.

Michael, I’ve answered all your concerns above. The ambiguity you see results from your preconceived biases against the Catholic Church. St. Paul also could not see the truth, until Jesus opened his eyes. Hopefully, he will open your eyes as well.

 

[paul_c]

The only evidence that supports such teaching comes from CC founders. Rome gave the CC its authority in 370 something to enforce its teaching. A universal church that supplies all mens needs supported with the power of Rome by law. This was enforced threw the ages buy kings and queens and princes until 1798 when Napoleon ended the bed fellows and not a king or prince “the decedents” threw the ages raised there voice. Buy the end of WWI “100 years” all of the line of kings and princes that supported the CC were gone. The only Monarch that I know of that still exist today is the English family Queen Mary, but they officially broke away long before, in the 16th century.

Why do you think that the first amendment U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 says.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Simply because for centuries lines of kings and princes were bed fellows with the CC just as it was first establish under the authority of the Roman empire. We will make no law respecting the CC. Our Gov will not enforce your doctrine upon the people. The Exodus to the US from Europe.

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

An interesting prophesy in Danial 2 is the image and interpretation of Nebuchadnezzars dream. The legs of Iron represent the Roman empire 2 legs the east and west. Now read what it says comes after the legs from the fall of Rome to today. The feet and toes mixed with iron and clay, It says that the seed of the men “the line of kings” but they will not adhere to one another, I like the word cleave together they will not be united as it was under Rome. The mixing of Rome with the seed of men or lines of kings. The survivor of the Roman empire was the CC that continued to mingle with the seed of men. Napoleon was one battle away from bringing the old Roman empire under his rule but it did not fit Gods prophesy and he was defeated by the British. And the seeds of men have all disappeared, the last were killed and over thrown in WWI. You all know the the Vatican is the smallest city-state in the world, 14.4 acres less than a 1000 residents but it has a seat at the united nations. Iron mixed with clay.

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.

 

[paul_c]

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?

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.

 

[steve_b]

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

Jn 19:
25* So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26* When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

John’s mother was Salome. She was off in the distance not by the cross. So who (which woman) at the cross was Jesus refering John to as his mother?
m:

**"**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.

Spoken like the ones who left Jesus Jn 6:66. And Jesus didn’t stop them. He let them go
m:

“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.
All other references to rock in OT and NT indicate Jesus. hermeneutic evidence plenty.
The entire statement could be completely accurate word for word, a simple hand jester, ether way could completely change its meaning. All Jesus had to do was to raise His hand to His chest as He spoke “and on this rock I will build my church” indicating Himself. Which is exactly what the enter NT and OT supports.
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.

Paul even referenced Peter here.

Not to glory in the Apostles or point to one of them as your rightness or authority is greater. This is exactly was happens today. The CC would like to control all Christians based on Peters authority.

Re: Rock, if one wants to be literal about “Petra”, at ceserea Philippi, there was a huge Rock (petra) behind Jesus and Peter. It’s at least 200 feet high, ~ 100 yds wide. It was a shrine dedicated to the god Pan who was 1/2 goat and 1/2 man. Pan was god of the shepherds, and he lived on the side of mountains and cliffs.

Great place for Jesus, fully God and fully man, the good shepherd, to ask His disciples, who do people say I am? Simon got the question right, but God the Father already selected Simon to be Rock when Jesus 1st met him. Remember? Jesus met Simon and He said you will be called Rock.

for space I’ll just add what I said elsewhere where Jesus confirms who the leader of the apostles is.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5336751&postcount=102
m:

It is no wonder that catholics make statement like “Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false”.
It because there is no hermeneutic evidence written in scripture to support these 3 major pillars of the CC. 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.

Luther added “sola” . He admitted it. And you’re right. There is no proof even in scripture for it.
m:

The only evidence that supports such teaching comes from CC founders. Rome gave the CC its authority in 370 something to enforce its teaching.

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
m:

A universal church that supplies all mens needs supported with the power of Rome by law. This was enforced threw the ages buy kings and queens and princes until 1798 when Napoleon ended the bed fellows and not a king or prince “the decedents” threw the ages raised there voice. Buy the end of WWI “100 years” all of the line of kings and princes that supported the CC were gone. The only Monarch that I know of that still exist today is the English family Queen Mary, but they officially broke away long before, in the 16th century.

Why do you think that the first amendment U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 says.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion**,** or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Simply because for centuries lines of kings and princes were bed fellows with the CC just as it was first establish under the authority of the Roman empire. We will make no law respecting the CC. Our Gov will not enforce your doctrine upon the people. The Exodus to the US from Europe.

An interesting prophesy in Danial 2 is the image and interpretation of Nebuchadnezzars dream. The legs of Iron represent the Roman empire 2 legs the east and west. Now read what it says comes after the legs from the fall of Rome to today. The feet and toes mixed with iron and clay, It says that the seed of the men “the line of kings” but they will not adhere to one another, I like the word cleave together they will not be united as it was under Rome. The mixing of Rome with the seed of men or lines of kings. The survivor of the Roman empire was the CC that continued to mingle with the seed of men. Napoleon was one battle away from bringing the old Roman empire under his rule but it did not fit Gods prophesy and he was defeated by the British. And the seeds of men have all disappeared, the last were killed and over thrown in WWI. You all know the the Vatican is the smallest city-state in the world, 14.4 acres less than a 1000 residents but it has a seat at the united nations. Iron mixed with clay.

sheesh!!! opcorn:what people will believe.

 

[VociMike]

Well because its not clear lets just apply the doctrine of Marys Immaculate Conception, being ever virgin, sinless, and without the stain of original sin. You are the one takes liberty no me. Its not my citation its your to defend. I simply say it is not supported by hermeneutic evidence in other words what becomes the pillars of catholic faith are not supported by the letters of the NT. Which naturally leads to the churches discrediting them. But not the part that says they are in charge of all Christians.

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.