# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[michaelsmth626]

**fhansen
**
Where did you go fhansen you were quick a few minuets ago for me to reply to your question?
I did and now your gone.

 

[VociMike]

Socrates, I told you that ambiguous is the nectar that is presented to support catholic doctrine.

I note that you never have answered my repeated questions as to how you can determine the meaning of any passage of scripture, and how you know you are correct in your understanding, and how you can know that others who come to different understandings are not correct. This is such a fundamental question that every Christian should have an immediate answer for it, but you have not given yours.

 

[fhansen]

**fhansen
**
Where did you go fhansen you were quick a few minuets ago for me to reply to your question?
I did and now your gone.

Sorry, man doesn’t live by forums alone-although my wife might disagree with that.

So what’s your point there, Michael? If the Church is the authority, rather than Scripture, which everyone argues endlessly about, then the quote from your post #137 makes perfect sense. Rejecting the CCs authority is a lot like rejecting Gods-which is mans favorite pastime. And accepting Scripture alone as ones authority can still be rejecting Gods authority because you have no one to answer to-one can decide Scripture means whatever they want it to,.

 

[pneuma07]

Introduction:…

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

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

(John 17:11)

HI Soc !

  First of all thanks for putting such good and profound  and difficult questions.

And igniting this new beautiful thread.

If it’s not too late, I’d offer my first :twocents:

I’d begin with comparing the present question on the supposed ambiguity with the parallel one about the supposed contradictoriness.
Such matters have been under examination for at least16 centuries, if we remember that S. Augustine left us the great work “The harmony of the Gospels”.Since that great mind spent so many pages to show the point of the title, we can get it is not immediately evident.

Many of the seeming contradictions can confidently be harmonized.
In some cases, we just have two or three tales adding something to each other, like:
I went to the cinema.
I went to the cinema with my wife.
I went to the cinema with my wife and some friends of ours.

In some cases minor contradictions appear to resist examination. Did the people
around Saul hear the voice calling him on the road to Damascus ? See Acts 9:7, versus
22:9 . Maybe we shouldn’t bother.

I guess most of us here would settle saying that Scripture is seemingly contradictory, stressing both is and seemingly. This contributes to make Scripture a seriously difficult reading. Which Scripture itself states in 2 Peter 3:16 .
And if anybody is ready to show that the mentioned verse does not tell us that Scripture is difficult, he just would show that this is ……a difficult verse.
I do wonder sometimes about how difficult and seemingly contradictory does appear soteriology, as it is so unsystematically explained in Scripture. . But then it can be very subjective.

---

Now being difficult, even obscure somewhere, does not negate the inspired nature of Scripture, does it Soc ?

What about the proposed case of ambiguity ? Can that in your opinion be compatible with inspiration ?
I guess it isn’t.

If truth and error are communicated together, and mixed with each other, and undiscernibly so, we simply are not told the truth. Revelation cannot propose truth and error on equal terms, and without giving tools to discern. Jesus, aka the Truth, cannot IMHO speak truth and error on equal terms.

Therefore, when a pericope offers two or three interpretations, and we appear just unable to exclude one or the other, isn’t it wise just …. not excluding them ourselves ?

In other words the truth, or the best approach to it, can be conveyed by taking the two possibilities together.

There is no contradiction, for example in considering the petra in Matthew 16 as Simon and as his confession, and naturally Christ Himself is the ultimate petra.
Why have to exclude any of these possibilities, if they do not exclude each other ?

Jesus can tell us that He is the Rock and that Simon is the rocky one, being thus in a unique relationship with the Master, and therefore the prince of the apostles.

What I mean is that

• excluding one or two of the possibilities looks arbitrary.
• Whatever option, be it c5, c6 or so, is inserted into the pericope 16:17-19, it gives you anyway the strong message of a special role for Simon.
  Excluding petra=Petros is not only very arbitrary, it cannot even fulfill the original task of this arbitrariness, ie rejecting Peter’s primacy.

If we pass from a strictly “aut …aut” mindset, to a “Both…and”, or “et…et” mindset, we have in general, IMHO, a substantial hint to the solution of the great question you put.

So, in the words of the Institution the Church does not exclude the foundation for symbolic dimensions of the Holy Eucharist. On the contrary, this Sacrament is very rich in symbolism.

But how can many protestant brothers exclude from the truth conveyed at the Institution the Real Presence of our Lord ?
You put it so well Soc: it’s not one of us speaking, it’s Jesus who says “This is my body”. How then can we consider that it is obvious, or that it was obvious for the Apostles, that He was speaking about a mere symbolism ? They definitely could understand the realist way. Then , if they did not ask for explanations, I’d bet they did get somehow that He was teaching what the following centuries would come to call Real Presence.
In any case, consider BTW that even writing “This actually is my actual body”, as in your proposal, would not be enough to prevent the IS from being interpreted as “represents”, if i do want it.

There are other pericopes, less “hot” than these ones, which could show the case for keeping it “et …et”.

At this point, Soc, you could observe that Jesus did foresee the explosion in the XVI century of an “aut…aut” mindset. He certainly did permit it.

Ambiguity is relative to the mindset. We should carefully examine a mindset which seems to make Jesus speaking ambiguity, rather than Truth.
They can tell you that their individual interpretations
are, each of them, the obvious one, and that settles the whole problem. But I guess you do not accept such a quick fix.

Scripture has been in any case object of disputations in the first centuries too. Jesus did permit that too. Is that surprising ?
A written witness is per se less clear than oral teaching. What was the voice stressing, where is to be put punctuation ? So many aspects get lost. Moreover, many expressions were meaningful and perspicuous for jewish-background believers, and not so for Gentiles, even in the first century.

Maybe we need a common living visible guide, to get reliable sound meanings from Scriptures, rather than claiming to be so specially Spirit-filled as to be able to see as obvious what for another brother, not seldom claiming to be Spirit-filled as well in his turn, is not obvious at all, or is even obviously wrong.

…

My conclusion (or beginning ) is that:

Scripture, and a fortiori Jesus, cannot speak ambiguity, ie present error and truth on equal terms.
We have to be very doubtful about the “aut …aut” mindset.

I hope this can help.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Yes, i hear what you are saying, Michael. And i’m glad to have you here so i can hear it!


Which statement do you find more clear? This one?**c. **“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…”
Or this one?c5. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock [which is me] I will build my church…”
Or this one?c6. "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock [which is the truth you spoke] I will build my church…"It seems to me that even Protestants, who are certain Christ did not mean Peter is the rock, are divided on whether He meant (c5) or (c6). Why the division? Could it be because His words *are indeed *ambiguous? But if Christ had said (c5) or (c6) there would be no need for division, for His meaning would not longer be unclear. Don’t you think?

C5 fits the body of scripture.
C6 is to narrow. We see the rock indicating much more than just the truth. Salvation, water for Israel in the desert “living water” to the woman at the well. To destroying the kingdoms of the world in Nebakanezer’s Dream. From salvation to Justice

But was the big star a heavenly body, or a man? Hmmmm.

Good question and example.
My notion or leading this evening has been indicating that answers to such questions can only be answered by the individual. To me it all depends on who is “we”. Are battle is not against flesh and blood but against spirits and principalities.

 

[michaelsmth626]

I note that you never have answered my repeated questions as to how you can determine the meaning of any passage of scripture, and how you know you are correct in your understanding, and how you can know that others who come to different understandings are not correct. This is such a fundamental question that every Christian should have an immediate answer for it, but you have not given yours.

I was not aware you even requested it. I’ll make it short and sweet.

These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. 27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Sorry, man doesn’t live by forums alone-although my wife might disagree with that.

So what’s your point there, Michael? If the Church is the authority, rather than Scripture, which everyone argues endlessly about, then the quote from your post #137 makes perfect sense. Rejecting the CCs authority is a lot like rejecting Gods-which is mans favorite pastime. And accepting Scripture alone as ones authority can still be rejecting Gods authority because you have no one to answer to-one can decide Scripture means whatever they want it to,.

What a beautiful play on words bravo> I knew I could expect this from someone that tried to insert “precepts of Gods’ word” into God is unchanging and Jesus saying, that not one dot of the law shall be left unfulfilled. So tell me what is the difference between your own interpretation and the CC interpretation? You dont understand it and the CC openly denies its value, then all I can say you both agree one will lead the other. The blind will lead the blind. Just read the opening comments on this thread, all the catholics agreed that scripture was unknowable. Thats the popes bread and butter.

If I knew nothing about catholics or protestants and I seen one man hold a bible up and saying I believe every word in this book and do my God willing best to understand it without adding to or taking away from its original meanig. And another man that held it up and said, Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. Lets even say both are completely wrong. Who has a true heart? A heart after God. Who do you suppose God would work towards bringing a greater understanding of Himself threw? The man that clings to the word, or the man that calls others to make a choice between the bible or him.

 

[fhansen]

What a beautiful play on words bravo> I knew I could expect this from someone that tried to insert “precepts of Gods’ word” into God is unchanging and Jesus saying, that not one dot of the law shall be left unfulfilled. So tell me what is the difference between your own interpretation and the CC interpretation? You dont understand it and the CC openly denies its value, then all I can say you both agree one will lead the other. The blind will lead the blind. Just read the opening comments on this thread, all the catholics agreed that scripture was unknowable. Thats the popes bread and butter.

First of all the term “precepts of Gods word” was not mine-it was from your post #120 and I don’t know where that came from. My point was obviously that one cannot know Gods will with certainty by reading scripture alone.

If I knew nothing about catholics or protestants and I seen one man hold a bible up and saying I believe every word in this book and do my God willing best to understand it without adding to or taking away from its original meanig.

Which Protestant are you going to agree with as to the bible’s meaning-one that reads it and believes that water Baptism is necessary for salvation, for example-or one that reads it and decides that a believer need only have “Jesus in their heart”?

Who has a true heart? A heart after God. Who do you suppose God would work towards bringing a greater understanding of Himself threw? The man that clings to the word, or the man that calls others to make a choice between the bible or him.

The man who has a true heart is the one who seeks to love God with his whole heart soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself. This is perfection, to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” Matt 5:48 and to **“Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:15-16) **And this is the fulfillment of the law, from which not one jot or tittle shall pass. Catholics take Jesus’ words literally here while many Protestants don’t-believing that genuine perfection is unattainable by man, thus nullifying Gods word. This is a choice between God and the devil, good and evil, life and death. No one’s asking anyone to “make a choice between the bible or him”- I love the bible and have read the OT three times, the NT eight or more, plus bible studies and tons of random reading.

You still haven’t answered my question. Who will decide the meaning of Gods word when discrepancies exist? What insurance has God provided so that we can know His will without error?

 

[paul_c]

To understand Jesus’ teachings, you must understand His humor. Jesus is man, and man has a sense of humor. Jesus is God, and God is joy itself. So as man, He experieced the Beatific Vision - seeing God face-to-face - and this would cause His Humanity great joy. So you can see where His humor would come from. Unfortunately, most of Jesus’ humor is lost on the modern readers, and, it must be noted that while He was a very witty man, He did not crack jokes all of the time - just most of the time.

Some examples of His humor:
The Beatitudes: He wasn’t just saying God rewards the humble and punishes the proud, He was giving people a summary of who He was.
The parable of the vineyard: This harkens back to the joyous vineyard song Isaiah sang during the same feast many years ago, but this time there is a twist: the tenants (Jewish leaders) are punished for rejecting God and God is going to grow a new vineyard (new Israel).
The raising of the daughter: When Jesus says “She is sleeping,” it’s not just meant to teach people about God’s power; it’s also meant to teach people to not worry and lighten up.
“My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?” A Jew would pray during death, and the Psalms were the most famous prayers for Jews - but more than that, Jesus was telling His enemies (when you read the full psalm of which His quote is the first line) that while they thought they had triumphed, their killing of Him was actually His triumph over them.

In this passage, Jesus is again using humor to teach His Apostles. He is basically telling the Apostles, “I have made this bread into Myself and now I give Myself to you, so you can eat Me in remembrance of Me.” Saint Augustine came the closest to understanding Jesus’ humor when he wrote, “He held Himself in His own hands.”

Another funny passage! In Jewish culture, if a son died and the mother had no husband to support her, she would be supported by one of her relatives (Jews had large families, given their extreme pro-family stance). Mary was by now a widow, and she had no relatives to take care of her. So who dose Jesus give her to? Why the Apostle who knew her the least: John!

Again, we see that Jesus makes use of the least likey of souls to accomplish His work. He loves paradoxes! This is one of my favorite funny verses, too. The joke this time is actually at Peter’s lack of faith; he is the one who has the least faith among the Apostles, although he has the most love of God among them. When the Apostles each told Jesus who they thought He was, they were all very smug about it, thinking “I am so clever!” Than Peter’s turn rolled around and everyone was thinking “Oh boy, this is going to be painful.” But than he gave the confession, which would have shocked the other Apostles - not only because He was calling Jesus God and Messiah but also because it was unlike him to talk that way - and Jesus only shocked the Apostles even more when He told Peter that, yes, he was correct. And than He gave Peter the keys to the doors of the Kingdom of God, i.e., He appointed him as leader of His Church, which was to be founded on Peter’s faith. This is very funny because, of all the Apostles, as I said, Peter had the least amount of faith. This passage actually ties in with the parable of the mustard seed: the least faith will grow into the greatest faith and the smallest kingdom will grow into the most greatest Kingdom and the Church that is plagued the most with heresy, schism, and persecution will grow into the holiest Church.

Eucharisted, I appreciate your point that Jesus had a sense of humor, but you are stretching into personal speculation in some of your examples. If Peter had the least faith among the apostles, why was he the one who was willing to walk on the water? And how do you know that John knew Mary the least? John was certainly in the inner circle of Apostles, being privy to the Transfiguration with James and Peter. I would think that he knew Mary well. In fact, St. Catherine Ann Emmerich says they are second or third cousins ( I can’t remember which)

 

[paul_c]

What a beautiful play on words bravo> I knew I could expect this from someone that tried to insert “precepts of Gods’ word” into God is unchanging and Jesus saying, that not one dot of the law shall be left unfulfilled. So tell me what is the difference between your own interpretation and the CC interpretation? You dont understand it and the CC openly denies its value, then all I can say you both agree one will lead the other. The blind will lead the blind. Just read the opening comments on this thread, all the catholics agreed that scripture was unknowable. Thats the popes bread and butter.

If I knew nothing about catholics or protestants and I seen one man hold a bible up and saying I believe every word in this book and do my God willing best to understand it without adding to or taking away from its original meanig. And another man that held it up and said, Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. Lets even say both are completely wrong. Who has a true heart? A heart after God. Who do you suppose God would work towards bringing a greater understanding of Himself threw? The man that clings to the word, or the man that calls others to make a choice between the bible or him.

Michael, you set up a false Straw man here. You try to say that the Protestant holds up the Bible and says he believes everything that is in it, while implying that the Catholic holds up the bible and says he does not. That is not the case at all. Here is a more accurate rendering of the situation. Both the Protestant and the Catholic hold up the bible and say they beleive everything in it. The Catholic further says that he understands what he reads in the context of what he has been Taught by the Catholic Church, which passes down that understanding from the Apostles, who lived and walked with Christ himself. The Protestant says that he doesn’t believe the Catholic teaching and that he is better able to judge the content of the Bible on his own.

P.S. I have initiated a thread to discuss this very point forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=378526

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I thought you were not interested in comparing scripture with scripture
Without comparing scripture with scripture you can make the bible say most anything you wish, protestant ministers are as guilty of that as any snake oil sales man.

Im sure you dont want to open a conversation about whether we sleep or are we immediately taken to heaven, Or is hell torment forever or just until those held there are destroyed. Which many christian critics refer to as God being a nasty hateful God, tormenting forever that is. As others have noted and perhaps questioned your sincerity in the line of questions and statements that are now approaching 5000, you replied as if you had an definite opinion. Endless deliberation on the elephants tail, ears, feet, trunk ect and refusing to combine the information or make a determined observation is nothing more than what Socrates and Plato did with there whole life’s. Entertained in the wonderment of the chase but never desiring to reach the conclusion. To reach a conclusion would cease to be one pondering the truth and its the pondering that you truly love. What Socrates and Plato believed is as much a mystery today as what you believe. So lets be truthful and call a spade a spade ok. Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Socrates is just as the name implies ever wondering and questioning but never having a clear opinion.

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere, my good fellow. Unless, of course, you’re goal is to avoid finding, or helping me find, the truth!

ad ho⋅mi⋅nem [ad hom-uh-nuhm ‑nem, ahd-]
Use ad hominem in a Sentence
–adjective

1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

All kidding aside, i gather from your replies that you might be either a Seventh Day Adventist or a Jehovah’s Witness. I’ve had long conversations with members of both groups in person. If it’s not too personal a question, please tell me if you belong to either group.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

But surely every Christian must have an answer to this question, or else of what value is scripture?

Well, i used to think i knew. Then i met you–you Catholics, that is! Now i know i don’t know what i thought i knew i knew. My many dialogs with you has shown me that the Evangelical or Fundamentalist Protestant position is not the only possible interpretation of some Sacred Scriptures. So i started investigating what the key differences in beliefs between Catholics and Protestants were, and what Sacred Scriptures were used to support these. Some of these are mentioned in the first post of this discussion.

One might say that you Catholics have shipwrecked my faith–not my faith in Christ, for i trust He will show me which truth is truly true, but my faith in certain Sacred Scriptures, which i now find ambiguous. And being a philosopher, i wondered why God would be so ambiguous regarding biblical passages used to support doctrines of such importance and divisiveness. That’s why i’m asking all of you.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Ahh, but you are not the Church. You did not sit at the very feet of Christ. You were not present in the upper room at Pentecost. You did not receive the faith complete and without error before a word of the NT was written. So you must not compare your situation with that of the Church. There is no question that scripture can lead you to some truth (as can a great many things in this world), but can it lead you to all truth? If so, what is the sum total of all truth, and why hasn’t every person who reads the bible outside the light of the Church been led to all truth?

That’s true. Who am i? Nobody. But i don’t claim to be somebody. I’m not one who knows what Jesus meat every time He spoke. All i know is what anyone who objectively considers some of His words would know–that the meaning, in some instances, is unclear.

And it makes sense that i don’t know. For i find truth in this:
Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel.

(Isaiah 45:15)

How could i know anything about God unless He revealed it to me? Think about it. Who would know God well enough to reveal Him to me? It seems Jesus fits the bill. In fact, He says as much:
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

(John 14:6)

And He said many such things as this. So i look to His words for such revelation. But i find that when He is ambiguous, rather than reveal Himself, He hides Himself. Thus, i wonder why.

.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

To understand Jesus’ teachings, you must understand His humor. Jesus is man, and man has a sense of humor. Jesus is God, and God is joy itself. So as man, He experieced the Beatific Vision - seeing God face-to-face - and this would cause His Humanity great joy. So you can see where His humor would come from. Unfortunately, most of Jesus’ humor is lost on the modern readers, and, it must be noted that while He was a very witty man, He did not crack jokes all of the time - just most of the time.

Some examples of His humor:
The Beatitudes: He wasn’t just saying God rewards the humble and punishes the proud, He was giving people a summary of who He was.
The parable of the vineyard: This harkens back to the joyous vineyard song Isaiah sang during the same feast many years ago, but this time there is a twist: the tenants (Jewish leaders) are punished for rejecting God and God is going to grow a new vineyard (new Israel).
The raising of the daughter: When Jesus says “She is sleeping,” it’s not just meant to teach people about God’s power; it’s also meant to teach people to not worry and lighten up.
“My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?” A Jew would pray during death, and the Psalms were the most famous prayers for Jews - but more than that, Jesus was telling His enemies (when you read the full psalm of which His quote is the first line) that while they thought they had triumphed, their killing of Him was actually His triumph over them.

In this passage, Jesus is again using humor to teach His Apostles. He is basically telling the Apostles, “I have made this bread into Myself and now I give Myself to you, so you can eat Me in remembrance of Me.” Saint Augustine came the closest to understanding Jesus’ humor when he wrote, “He held Himself in His own hands.”

Another funny passage! In Jewish culture, if a son died and the mother had no husband to support her, she would be supported by one of her relatives (Jews had large families, given their extreme pro-family stance). Mary was by now a widow, and she had no relatives to take care of her. So who dose Jesus give her to? Why the Apostle who knew her the least: John!

Again, we see that Jesus makes use of the least likey of souls to accomplish His work. He loves paradoxes! This is one of my favorite funny verses, too. The joke this time is actually at Peter’s lack of faith; he is the one who has the least faith among the Apostles, although he has the most love of God among them. When the Apostles each told Jesus who they thought He was, they were all very smug about it, thinking “I am so clever!” Than Peter’s turn rolled around and everyone was thinking “Oh boy, this is going to be painful.” But than he gave the confession, which would have shocked the other Apostles - not only because He was calling Jesus God and Messiah but also because it was unlike him to talk that way - and Jesus only shocked the Apostles even more when He told Peter that, yes, he was correct. And than He gave Peter the keys to the doors of the Kingdom of God, i.e., He appointed him as leader of His Church, which was to be founded on Peter’s faith. This is very funny because, of all the Apostles, as I said, Peter had the least amount of faith. This passage actually ties in with the parable of the mustard seed: the least faith will grow into the greatest faith and the smallest kingdom will grow into the most greatest Kingdom and the Church that is plagued the most with heresy, schism, and persecution will grow into the holiest Church.

It seems the jokes went over my head, but despite my lack of a common sense of humor, i do agree that much of what Jesus said must have been said with a wink and a smile and a tongue in His cheek!

 

[Eucharisted]

It seems the jokes went over my head, but despite my lack of a common sense of humor, i do agree that much of what Jesus said must have been said with a wink and a smile and a tongue in His cheek!

That’s the great thing about Jesus’ humor: It is as a deep well, and you must use the bucket of reflection to draw forth from it the water of humor and truth.

 

[michaelsmth626]

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere, my good fellow. Unless, of course, you’re goal is to avoid finding, or helping me find, the truth!

ad ho⋅mi⋅nem [ad hom-uh-nuhm ‑nem, ahd-]
Use ad hominem in a Sentence
–adjective

1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

All kidding aside, i gather from your replies that you might be either a Seventh Day Adventist or a Jehovah’s Witness. I’ve had long conversations with members of both groups in person. If it’s not too personal a question, please tell me if you belong to either group.

I don’t belong to ether. I do believe that out of these Preterism, Futurism, and Historicism I am in the historicism group, I’m curtain that is where your presumption about sda comes from. To condense my testimony, threw circumstances not under my control, I found self knowing Jesus was true but not having a strong biblical knowledge of Him. That Spirit at work in me as a young man placed me in Calvary chapel riverside cal. So after hearing Baptist and Methodist, as a child I hungered for more having no parents from age 11and being a ward of the state life was pretty rough both during and after the state dumps you on the street at 18. I clung to Him in the understanding I had of Him in those years and He comforted me. I pleaded for a greater relationship at 21 simply because I was growing tired, my bible education started in 79 at harvest christian ministries, many miles from the bible belt state I grew up in. Long before you could tune a radio a from any where in the US and listen to this body of believers csnradio.com/listen.htm.
So as you see my life in Christ began very differently from receiving the HS in a baptismal and preforming sacraments, before I even understood or heard such things the Spirit was at work in me, I knew the voice within me, and to many teachers nether did this Spirit testify to. But to the word and those that spoke of it in the same Spirit, this has always caused my head to turn. Psalm 68: 5 A father of the fatherless, a defender of widows,
Is God in His holy habitation.
Chicago >>>>> I do believe I’m feeling stronger everyday.
God it looks like Daniel, must be the clouds in my eyes

If you will, I understand entirely being drawn by the Father to Jesus, I walked this road.

 

[VociMike]

Well, i used to think i knew. Then i met you–you Catholics, that is! Now i know i don’t know what i thought i knew i knew. My many dialogs with you has shown me that the Evangelical or Fundamentalist Protestant position is not the only possible interpretation of some Sacred Scriptures. So i started investigating what the key differences in beliefs between Catholics and Protestants were, and what Sacred Scriptures were used to support these. Some of these are mentioned in the first post of this discussion.

One might say that you Catholics have shipwrecked my faith–not my faith in Christ, for i trust He will show me which truth is truly true, but my faith in certain Sacred Scriptures, which i now find ambiguous. And being a philosopher, i wondered why God would be so ambiguous regarding biblical passages used to support doctrines of such importance and divisiveness. That’s why i’m asking all of you.

Yes, pesky Catholics and their troublesome theology.

I like your shipwrecked analogy, and I’m going to use a similar one. Many times in pirate stories the treasure map is torn in two, and both halves must be possessed to find the treasure. With scripture alone you only had one half of the map, so of course it is not surprising that you found your one half “ambiguous”. But the Catholic Church, by the grace and design of God, has both halves of the map, and furthermore has a lifetime how-to-read-the-map-correctly guarantee. It just doesn’t get any better than that, and it is a reflection of God’s love for us that he has given us everything we need.

God cares too much about our salvation to mess with us by being ambiguous. He is God, the author of truth and clarity, not ambiguity and confusion. So if we encounter ambiguity and confusion, we cannot conclude that God just wasn’t up to the task of being clear and concise. We must rather conclude that we don’t have the entire map, and we must seek the remainder of the map. And God has not hidden the map, unless you think a Church with over a billion members, spread across the globe, with a 2000 year history, is hidden.

The complete map is waiting for you. All you need to do is reach out for it.

 

[michaelsmth626]

First of all the term “precepts of Gods word” was not mine-it was from your post #120 and I don’t know where that came from. My point was obviously that one cannot know Gods will with certainty by reading scripture alone.

I get in trouble every time I C/P something. And I did indicate that. Hmm I wonder. I did like the story, and its indication that God is unchanging, had I realized the direction the Spirit was to follow I certainly would have paraphrased the C/P I would not have used the word precepts. Precepts is not a term I apply to the word. Its very shaky ground. Precepts is a close cousin to ambiguous when used in scripture as I have pointed out.

Which Protestant are you going to agree with as to the bible’s meaning-one that reads it and believes that water Baptism is necessary for salvation, for example-or one that reads it and decides that a believer need only have “Jesus in their heart”?
The man who has a true heart is the one who seeks to love God with his whole heart soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself. This is perfection, to “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” Matt 5:48 and to **“Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:15-16) **And this is the fulfillment of the law, from which not one jot or tittle shall pass. Catholics take Jesus’ words literally here while many Protestants don’t-believing that genuine perfection is unattainable by man, thus nullifying Gods word. This is a choice between God and the devil, good and evil, life and death. No one’s asking anyone to “make a choice between the bible or him”- I love the bible and have read the OT three times, the NT eight or more, plus bible studies and tons of random reading.

You still haven’t answered my question. Who will decide the meaning of Gods word when discrepancies exist? What insurance has God provided so that we can know His will without error?

I have answered your question, it simply not the answer you want. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. The problem is not that people dont agree the problem is that you dont know what you believe. You will decide the meaning of Gods word, just as everyone else will give an account for that which he has done. It really doesn’t matter what others think when you stand alone with God, He’s only concerned with what you think.

 

[paul_c]

I don’t belong to ether. I do believe that out of these Preterism, Futurism, and Historicism I am in the historicism group, I’m curtain that is where your presumption about sda comes from. To condense my testimony, threw circumstances not under my control, I found self knowing Jesus was true but not having a strong biblical knowledge of Him. That Spirit at work in me as a young man placed me in Calvary chapel riverside cal. So after hearing Baptist and Methodist, as a child I hungered for more having no parents from age 11and being a ward of the state life was pretty rough both during and after the state dumps you on the street at 18. I clung to Him in the understanding I had of Him in those years and He comforted me. I pleaded for a greater relationship at 21 simply because I was growing tired, my bible education started in 79 at harvest christian ministries, many miles from the bible belt state I grew up in. Long before you could tune a radio a from any where in the US and listen to this body of believers csnradio.com/listen.htm.
So as you see my life in Christ began very differently from receiving the HS in a baptismal and preforming sacraments, before I even understood or heard such things the Spirit was at work in me, I knew the voice within me, and to many teachers nether did this Spirit testify to. But to the word and those that spoke of it in the same Spirit, this has always caused my head to turn. Psalm 68: 5 A father of the fatherless, a defender of widows,
Is God in His holy habitation.
Chicago >>>>> I do believe I’m feeling stronger everyday.
God it looks like Daniel, must be the clouds in my eyes

If you will, I understand entirely being drawn by the Father to Jesus, I walked this road.

I appreciate your testimony. You have indeed been through a lot and I can completely understand and appreciate how God has worked in your life. Consider the possibility that he has brought you here for a reason and that it might not be the reason you think. There have been many, many, many non Catholic Christians who have come to these pages thinking that they were going to impart the truth, only to find that they were actually sent here to find the fullness of truth. All those people who say they Swam the Tiber on these pages are signalling that they are converts. Be open to that possibility.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

So how will you know if you have received that wisdom? And does receiving that wisdom mean you have received the full revelation contained in scripture? At what point will you know that you possess the full revelation contained in scripture? Unless you can answer those questions, where are you? You cannot now know if you are near the beginning of your journey or near the end, and what’s more you can never know.

And BTW, is the full revelation contained in scripture even the full revelation given to us by God? Hmm…

Well, i’d have to agree with both Paul and Socrates, for Paul wrote,

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

(1 Corinthians 13:12)
and Socrates said,
Whereas, the truth is that God is never in any way unrighteous—he is perfect in righteousness. He of us who is the most righteous is of all things most like him. Herein is seen the cleverness of man, and also his nothingness and want of manhood. For, to know this is true wisdom, and virtue, and ignorance of this is manifest folly and vice.

(Theaetetus, 176)
Socrates also said, the eve of his execution, that the goal of every philosopher (which means lover of wisdom) was to be united with, and forever in the presence of, the only God who is the source of all wisdom.

I suppose, then, that these wise men are correct, and i should finally have the full wisdom i see when i see Wisdom face to face.