# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

To see our issue a little in perspective, you are deeply investigating whether Jesus’ words in Matthew 18 about binding and loosing imply giving ( or promising) all the apostles the same gold star ( role ) as with Petie in Matthew 16.
My point (1) was that Petie gold star came after an exceptional essay/answer by this pupil in the classroom.
That is:
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Then the gold star is given or promised. In John 21 we ( maybe I should say I ) see this confirmed, of fulfilled.

As for acts 10 and 11, I mentioned that as further evidence. Not only showing him receiving again a momentous revelation. But showing us vividly his role within the primitive Church. The first part of acts 11
Is really striking under this point of view. My reflection is that the Council in Acts 15 had been called on how to implement the decisive step that the community had accepted on Peter’s word.
Not only you can see Petie
Deserving a unique role. You see him exercising it. In other words acts 11 can IMHO help us to understand that Petie had received the gold star, meaning a special unique position of responsibility.

This is a decisive part of the picture.

Moreover, and as an independent observation, what happened after Caesarea and before Matthew 18 to make all the apostles “Peters”. ? Whence must we infer that they all received after a while what Peter alone had received in such a solemn moment. And Is that in your opinion fully consistent with the very solemnity of Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16 ?

Bless you.
P7

PS the graphic presentation looks better IMHO.

I must admit, P7, that your new idea prompted me to take a closer look at Peter. I mean, i wondered whether what you are saying is true–namely, that Peter’s revelations were unique. So i read both of his epistles, taking note of key doctrines of the Catholic Faith, to see if he left anything out. To my surprise, i found that much of what Peter wrote in brief, Paul, John and the others covered in depth.

Yet there is one key doctrine of the Faith that is present in the writings of Paul, James and John, but which is surprisingly absent from Peter’s epistles. Do you know what significant and unique doctrine the other Apostles revealed in their writings and Peter did not reveal in his, or shall i tell you?

 

[utunumsint]

You will have to be more specific, Ut. About what issues are you speaking? Also, if you have a chapter or chapter and verse, it will help me know how to answer.

OK. So my question was this “are the issues dealt with in Hebrews new doctrines, or a development in the understanding of the early church on the nature of Christ and the nature of his sacrifice, and the nature of the Trinity?”

Im talking about development of doctrine Soc. Some doctrines come as direct revelations from God, but even those revelations need to be interpreted. For example, we rely on Peters interpretation of his dream in Acts. Ever act of interpretation can lead to new doctrines. At least for the apostles.

For example, in Peter`s dream, was there any specific phrase from the Angel that told Peter that he should baptize Cornelius and his family? I don’t think so. And yet this is how Peter interpreted his dream / vision. In a sense, you would say that Peter’s new doctrine is a result of his interpretation. Therefore he is the one who developed the new doctrine based on the inspiration from his dream.

To go back to my original example (and to provide an explicit quotation), we have the following words from the author of Hebrews on the nature of God in the first chapter.

2 in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,3 who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.

Now this chapter was most likely written before the time of John’s Gospel, in which we find this in the first chapter.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Now neither the author of Hebrews nor John claim to be relaying the words of Christ. However the subject matter of both quotations are comparable. Both are discussing the son, both are discussing how the father created and sustains the world through the son. John calls him light, and the author of Hebrews calls him the refulgence of his glory, and the very imprint of his being. John chooses to express this last idea of the imprint of God’s being with these words. " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." One could say that John’s understanding, or method of conveying what was said in Hebrews, was a development in the understanding of the nature of the Trinity. It was certainly an elaboration.

Can one say that John explicitly changed anything that was said in the introduction to Hebrews? I don’t think so, but John and Hebrews certainly add clarity to one another on this important issue. And I think this is what Catholics mean by development. By development we mean clarification.

But I will add this second point to the fray. Do you see that if you take both John’s description and the description in Hebrews together, you come to a fuller understanding of what both meant? And this fuller understanding is a third thing? It is a synthesis of both, creating an understanding not fully contained together in one place in scripture? And I am sure you could come up with many more passages that would add to our third entity, which in the end creates a dogma, or a doctrine. Essentially a doctrine is the distillation of many scriptural passages into one coherent truth that takes into account all relevant passages of scripture that pertain to it.

When you have several such truths defined, you can start reasoning from them to come to other truths, that are even more removed from explicit mention in scripture. Does this makes sense?

Thank you, Ut. Two questions:

1. 
   *]Are you saying you agree with me that some things that Jesus said were ambiguous, and so require interpretation?
   *]Did only Peter interpret the meaning of Jesus’ words, or were all of the Apostles alive at the time involved in this interpretation?

1. 
   Absolutely for point 1. And for point two, I’ve already stated that I think both Peter and the Apostles were involved in interpretation. Peter, however, seems to me to be one who has a particular role to approve interpretations in dispute.
   
   God bless,
   Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

OK. So my question was this “are the issues dealt with in Hebrews new doctrines, or a development in the understanding of the early church on the nature of Christ and the nature of his sacrifice, and the nature of the Trinity?”

Im talking about development of doctrine Soc. Some doctrines come as direct revelations from God, but even those revelations need to be interpreted. For example, we rely on Peters interpretation of his dream in Acts. Ever act of interpretation can lead to new doctrines. At least for the apostles.

For example, in Peter`s dream, was there any specific phrase from the Angel that told Peter that he should baptize Cornelius and his family? I don’t think so. And yet this is how Peter interpreted his dream / vision. In a sense, you would say that Peter’s new doctrine is a result of his interpretation. Therefore he is the one who developed the new doctrine based on the inspiration from his dream.

Yes, that sounds reasonable to me.

To go back to my original example (and to provide an explicit quotation), we have the following words from the author of Hebrews on the nature of God in the first chapter.

Quote:
2 in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,3 who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word.
Now this chapter was most likely written before the time of John’s Gospel, in which we find this in the first chapter.
Quote:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Now neither the author of Hebrews nor John claim to be relaying the words of Christ. However the subject matter of both quotations are comparable. Both are discussing the son, both are discussing how the father created and sustains the world through the son. John calls him light, and the author of Hebrews calls him the refulgence of his glory, and the very imprint of his being. John chooses to express this last idea of the imprint of God’s being with these words. " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." One could say that John’s understanding, or method of conveying what was said in Hebrews, was a development in the understanding of the nature of the Trinity. It was certainly an elaboration.

Can one say that John explicitly changed anything that was said in the introduction to Hebrews? I don’t think so, but John and Hebrews certainly add clarity to one another on this important issue. And I think this is what Catholics mean by development. By development we mean clarification.

Agreed. And don’t forget these words of Paul, which most scholars agree was penned before Hebrews and before John’s gospel:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

(Colossians 1:15-20)

But I will add this second point to the fray. Do you see that if you take both John’s description and the description in Hebrews together, you come to a fuller understanding of what both meant? And this fuller understanding is a third thing? It is a synthesis of both, creating an understanding not fully contained together in one place in scripture? And I am sure you could come up with many more passages that would add to our third entity, which in the end creates a dogma, or a doctrine. Essentially a doctrine is the distillation of many scriptural passages into one coherent truth that takes into account all relevant passages of scripture that pertain to it.

When you have several such truths defined, you can start reasoning from them to come to other truths, that are even more removed from explicit mention in scripture. Does this makes sense?

Yes it does. Let’s say i were to take this passage from Peter’s epistles (as far as i know, the only reference he makes to the Divinity of Christ):

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.

(2 Peter 1:1)

I imagine it would be a stretch to use this passage of Sacred Scripture alone to come up with the idea that there is one God in three persons. One might argue that the word God should not even be capitalized, and that Jesus is really a god, but not the God, and so He is a lesser god than the Father God. But add the words of the author of Hebrews, and the words of the Apostle John, and the words of the Apostle Paul, and the truth takes shape–God is one what in three whos, and Jesus was one of the whos.

Absolutely for point 1. And for point two, I’ve already stated that I think both Peter and the Apostles were involved in interpretation. Peter, however, seems to me to be one who has a particular role to approve interpretations in dispute.

God bless,
Ut

Agreed!



It appears, then, that your understanding of how God conveys new doctrine (e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity) is to not rely on one person, such as Peter, but to rely on several persons, such as Paul, John and the author of Hebrews. When it comes to the idea of the Trinity, Paul and John would win the Nobel Prize, rather than Peter. Rather than a one-man show, it’s a group think; don’t you think?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

P7:

I think Ut has made quite a convincing argument against your idea that Peter alone should get the Nobel Prize for conveying the most important new doctrines of Christianity (see post #422). For Peter certainly deserves credit for communicating God’s idea that His Church should include Gentiles as well as Jewish people. However, Paul and John–rather than Peter–should get the prize for bring the arguably more important doctrine of the Trinity to light. I have to say that i find Ut’s reasoning quite compelling. Don’t you?

Or do you think Ut is wrong, and Peter alone deserves the Nobel Prize for the Trinitarian doctrine, too? If this is what you think, then please provide the chapter and verse as evidence that Peter alone deserves the gold star for the Trinity.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

P7:

Extremely good points! I’d say that, given the classroom scenario of little Petie and his classmates, what we do NOT know is:

1. 
   *]whether Petie’s **essay **was better than the others, or
   *]whether the **gold star **is given to everyone who gets an A+, or only to one who is the teacher’s pet, or
   *]whether receiving such a nick name has anything to do with Petie being the teacher’s pet, or
   *]whether Petie was the **only student **given the task of tutoring the other students.
   
   By way of analogy i’d say the same of Peter. I do NOT know:
   
   1. 
      *]whether Peter’s **conduct **was any better than the others and more deserving of such a reward (for one might say that John, who was brave enough to risk arrest by standing at Jesus’ cross, was a better man than Peter, who coward behind closed doors and wept like a child when Christ needed him most), or
      *]whether the Keys to the Kingdom are given only to Peter (for Christ was speaking only to him when He also bestowed the authority to bind and loose, but this authority belongs to all of the Apostles and not only Peter), or
      *]whether receiving such an **alias **has anything to do with Peter being Jesus’ favored Apostle (for Jesus called James and his brother John the Sons of Thunder as a testimony of their zeal and bravery), or
      *]whether Peter was the only Apostle given the task of caring for other Christians (for, it seems to me, caring for Jesus’ sheep is not only the job of Peter, but also the job of EVERY Apostle, AND every Christian, to boot)!
      
      So perhaps you can appreciate why i find Christ’s words inconclusive? He might possibly be giving Peter authority that the other 10 (i.e., the 11 minus Judas) did not have. Then again, He might not. Please explain–if you know–how you know the truth about (1), (2), (3) and (4).

1. 1. 
      P7:
      
      To summarize, since around post #340 we’ve been discussing (1). Your point was that Peter received important revelations that the other Apostles did not: (a) that Jesus was the Son of God and (b) that Gentiles may become Christians without obeying many of the Jewish Old Testament Laws. However, Ut’s observations make a strong case that John and Paul received an important revelation that Peter did not–that is (c) that God is one God in three persons. There is at least one other revelation of which i can think that Paul and John gave us and to which Peter was not privy. However, if you are willing to concede that Ut is correct, there is no need to go further with (1). We can agree that John and Paul received revelations of equal importance to those that Peter received.
      
      Having reached this agreement, we can move on to your premise (2), or perhaps to your premise (3) or (4). Please let us know if you want to continue to discuss (1) or if you want to move on. And if you want to leave Petie’s gold star behind, let us know whether you’d like our dialog to focus next on the Keys (2), or the Rock (3), or the Shepherd (4).
      
      

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

To summarize, since around post #340 we’ve been discussing (1). Your point was that Peter received important revelations that the other Apostles did not: (a) that Jesus was the Son of God and (b) that Gentiles may become Christians without obeying many of the Jewish Old Testament Laws. However, Ut’s observations make a strong case that John and Paul received an important revelation that Peter did not–that is (c) that God is one God in three persons. There is at least one other revelation of which i can think that Paul and John gave us and to which Peter was not privy. However, if you are willing to concede that Ut is correct, there is no need to go further with (1). We can agree that John and Paul received revelations of equal importance to those that Peter received.

Having reached this agreement, we can move on to your premise (2), or perhaps to your premise (3) or (4). Please let us know if you want to continue to discuss (1) or if you want to move on. And if you want to leave Petie’s gold star behind, let us know whether you’d like our dialog to focus next on the Keys (2), or the Rock (3), or the Shepherd (4).

dear soc,

i’m trying to respond together to several of your posts dealing with the same issue.

I have never suggested that the Apostles have to be somehow weighed by what they left written.

If this criterion were proposed , I would not share it because, among other things:

• most of the apostles should be weighted as 0. Which imho is absurd.
• I do not boast any certainty about who wrote what.

But , if you do follow and propose this particular criterion, then Peter is not number 1. And likely not 2.
Moreover, I could not bet that 2 Peter is by Peter. So, if I accepted the criterion I would not believe in petribe primacy. As simple as that.
Naturally I will listen anyway with attention to the output of your research on the new revelation common to several authors othe then Peter.

Soc, we are probably speaking about different things.
You appear to equate automatically something which is written with a new revelation.
Can’t we suppose that what those sacred authors quoted in the previous posts were writing about, ie what would be defined by the Church as the doctrine or mystery of the Trinity, was an inspired reflection, and elaboration about what had been received during the life of the Incarnated Logos ?
Whence do we know that every line was a new revelation ?

I do naturally and absolutely concur that the essential task of the first developments of the truths of the christian message was a collective one.

I again repeat the gist of my proposal:
*16:15 He said unto them, “But who say ye that I am?”

16And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”*

This is the essay, the performance if you prefer.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father who is in Heaven.

This is Jesus’ declaration on the nature of the performance. A revelation by the Father.
We agree this is foundational. We agree nobody preceded Peter in declaring this and being therefore blessed by the Lord .

Then, in the following verses we have IMHO the gold star.

Let me check the nature of your objections, Soc.

Is it your opinion that all the Apostles received the very same gold star in Matthew 18 ?
Are the words written by some Apostles in the following decades the evidence for that ?

A difficulty I have is that IF the evidence against the uniqueness of Petie’ gold star is in matthew 18, then ALL the apostles have the gold star.
IF it is to be found in the contribution to the composition of the NT, then most do not have it.

Let’s look, BTW, at the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. IMHO it is accepting the astonishing truth that Jesus of Nazareth is God in the flesh. Am I wrong ?
About which, you state

it is settled that Peter was the first to receive revelation from the Holy Spirit about the most important doctrine of the Catholic Church–namely, that Jesus was God in the flesh.

i hope you are with me this is at the core of our exploration. Your (c) above is about how the Church , starting from the apostles, cleared, explained the relation between Incarnation and monotheism, IMHO.

you added

What is not settled is whether Peter has a direct line of communication with God that the other Apostles do not have.

Since we also agree that Peter was not the only direct line of communication, it would seem we concur on a lot of things here Soc.

Neverthelss, it seems we do not find an agreement, yet at present, on whom received the gold star: whether Peter, some apostles or all of them.

bless you.
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

dear soc,

i’m trying to respond together to several of your posts dealing with the same issue.

I have never suggested that the Apostles have to be somehow weighed by what they left written.

If this criterion were proposed , I would not share it because, among other things:

• most of the apostles should be weighted as 0. Which imho is absurd.
• I do not boast any certainty about who wrote what.

But , if you do follow and propose this particular criterion, then Peter is not number 1. And likely not 2.
Moreover, I could not bet that 2 Peter is by Peter. So, if I accepted the criterion I would not believe in petribe primacy. As simple as that.

Naturally I will listen anyway with attention to the output of your research on the new revelation common to several authors other then Peter.

http://busthrow.com/phillyphitness/images/olympic_medals.jpg

Now it appears i’m imitating Christ by being ambiguous! I apologize for giving a false impression about your intentions.



Yes, it’s my opinion-- not yours–that we should judge the Apostles based not only on the events of their lives but also on what they wrote. I think it’s a good opinion. Please allow me to explain why.

We are trying to determine whether Peter is the principal Apostle, or whether he shared equal authority with John and Paul and the others. One way to determine this, you suggested, was to show that Peter contributed more–in the way of communicating revelation from God–than the others. So i wonder how we might prove this in an impartial way, as though we were Olympic judges and Peter, Paul and John were athletes competing in the Apostolic events. You or i don’t want to be partial to Peter, or one of the others, for that won’t look good. We want to be equitable to ensure that every Apostolic athlete is on equal footing. And to determine who is the best, we don’t want to consider only one Olympic event, but all of the events in which they compete. The one with the most gold medals should be considered the superior athlete overall, i think. So let’s be impartial judges, and see whether Peter brings home more gold medals for the Catholic team than the others:

• **Holy Spirit sprint. **I have to vote with you on this one. Peter was certainly the first competitor to cross the finish line in proving the Holy Spirit revealed wisdom to him, and he deserves the gold medal for this one. I’d give John the silver medal, simply because he received the Holy Spirit while Paul was still an enemy of Christ.
• Prophet vision high jump. I’m not so sure i’d vote with you on this one. Yes, Peter’s vision of the meat-filled sheet was helpful in getting Gentiles to join the Catholic team. However, John’s vision was more impressive both in quality and content. In John’s Revelation we learn much of what goes on in heaven and what we will experience in eternity. Paul’s vision of Jesus is nothing to scoff at, either. I’d give John the gold, Peter the silver and Paul the bronze medal in this event.
• Long distance scriptural run. As you mentioned, Peter would not get the gold medal, here. This was not his strongest event–perhaps because he was a fisherman, rather than a writer, by trade? John certainly contributed more by way of Sacred Scripture–although, as you mentioned, you believe he should be disqualified for having an impostor compete in his place. I disagree, but even if he were disqualified, Paul would certainly get the gold, and Peter the silver, or (if John were not disqualified) the bronze.
• Starting churches javelin throw. I’d have to say that Paul obviously gets the gold, although Peter comes in second for his preaching at Pentecost. John probably deserves the bronze.
• **Suffering for Christ triathlon. ** One’s actions give authenticity to one’s words. And if we had to choose who suffered most for Jesus, Paul would certainly get the gold. Peter might come in a close second and receive the silver, with John not far behind with the bronze medal.

So the medal count thus far is:

• **John: **1 gold, 1 silver, 2 bronze, 1 disqualification
• Paul: 3 gold, 1 silver, 1 bronze
• Peter: 1 gold, 3 silver, 1 bronze

However, even if Paul were to only get the silver for the prophetic vision high jump, he would still tie Peter for the overall medal count.

Soc, we are probably speaking about different things.
You appear to equate automatically something which is written with a new revelation.
Can’t we suppose that what those sacred authors quoted in the previous posts were writing about, ie what would be defined by the Church as the doctrine or mystery of the Trinity, was an inspired reflection, and elaboration about what had been received during the life of the Incarnated Logos ?
Whence do we know that every line was a new revelation ?

Well, one of my first employers once gave me sound advice: “Don’t assume anything. If you do, you make an *** out of U and ME!” So yes, i don’t think we should assume that any line of Sacred Scripture is new revelation. And no, i don’t think we should assume that any line of Sacred Scripture is not new revelation. We should stick to what we know, and not assume anything. Otherwise, we will make an asses out of ourselves!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I do naturally and absolutely concur that the essential task of the first developments of the truths of the christian message was a collective one.

I again repeat the gist of my proposal:
*16:15 He said unto them, “But who say ye that I am?”

16And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”*

This is the essay, the performance if you prefer.

Or one Apostolic Olympic event.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father who is in Heaven.

This is Jesus’ declaration on the nature of the performance. A revelation by the Father.
We agree this is foundational. We agree nobody preceded Peter in declaring this and being therefore blessed by the Lord .

Then, in the following verses we have IMHO the gold star.

Or the gold medal, yes. But just as the best student is the one to get the most gold stars, so too is the best Apostolic Athlete the one to get the most gold medals. I think it’s a pretty even match between Paul and Peter and John. But do you disagree?

Let me check the nature of your objections, Soc.

Is it your opinion that all the Apostles received the very same gold star in Matthew 18 ?
Are the words written by some Apostles in the following decades the evidence for that ?

Yes, i agree Peter got the gold in that event, but not in EVERY event.

A difficulty I have is that IF the evidence against the uniqueness of Petie’ gold star is in matthew 18, then ALL the apostles have the gold star.
IF it is to be found in the contribution to the composition of the NT, then most do not have it.

Let’s look, BTW, at the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. IMHO it is accepting the astonishing truth that Jesus of Nazareth is God in the flesh. Am I wrong ?
About which, you state

i hope you are with me this is at the core of our exploration. Your (c) above is about how the Church , starting from the apostles, cleared, explained the relation between Incarnation and monotheism, IMHO.

you added

Since we also agree that Peter was not the only direct line of communication, it would seem we concur on a lot of things here Soc.

Neverthelss, it seems we do not find an agreement, yet at present, on whom received the gold star: whether Peter, some apostles or all of them.

bless you.
P7

Again, i apologize for being unclear. I do in fact agree with you that Petie got the gold star. I just think Paul, and perhaps John, got as many gold stars for other assignments. However, even if Paul and John were more deserving of the position of leadership than Peter, i imagine it would be just like Jesus to choose someone less deserving to be leader of the team. He strikes me as that kind of gracious Olympic coach. If you care to agree to disagree about your premise (1), you might still convince me with your premises (2), (3) or (4). Would you like to continue the Apostolic Olympic contest, or move on to the Keys, the Rock and the Shepherd?

 

[paul_c]

Socrates,
I think ou are going down the wrong path by attempting to compare the merits of individual Apostles. God gave each one the necessary Graces to do the job that he set forth for them, as he does for each man. Peter was chosen as the leader. This is very clear from scripture. He was put in the position of deciding what was doctrine and what was not. Notice in 2Peter 3, he accepted Paul’s work as scripture. He didn’t have to have every revelation himself, but he had to judge what was valid teaching. Both Paul and John may have been deeper thinkers than Peter based on their existent writings, but they were also under the leadership of Peter, which is also clear. Remember, Paul talks in Galations of having seen Peter twice for this reason and John’s Gospel (chapter 21)demonstrates Peter’s call to tend the flock.

A leader doesn’t have to be the smartest member of the team or to have every insight. Do you think the Obama Barack comes up with every idea that he uses to run the government? Do you not realize the the CEOs of most major companies rely on the ideas of their teams (engineers, businessment, marketing folks, etc) to drive their businesses? True leaders help people work together and resolve internal conflicts. That was Peter’s strength.

 

[fhansen]

This discussion about Peter and the papacy should bring into sharper focus the insight that neither God nor the NT authors had in mind to compile a theological treatise, “Fundamentals of Early Church Dogma”, for the purpose of conclusively defining and preserving the faith, but were simply writing accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection for the purpose of relating this amazing story, and letters for clarifying certain matters or resolving potentially divisive issues later as they came up-an undertaking the Church continues to do to this day. The writings are inspirational and helpful in understanding the faith but way too ambiguous standing on their own to serve as an authoritative guide for knowing Gods’ nature and His will for man.

 

[pneuma07]

Or one Apostolic Olympic event.



Or the gold medal, yes. But just as the best student is the one to get the most gold stars, so too is the best Apostolic Athlete the one to get the most gold medals. I think it’s a pretty even match between Paul and Peter and John. But do you disagree?

Yes, i agree Peter got the gold in that event, but not in EVERY event.

Again, i apologize for being unclear. I do in fact agree with you that Petie got the gold star. I just think Paul, and perhaps John, got as many gold stars for other assignments. However, even if Paul and John were more deserving of the position of leadership than Peter, i imagine it would be just like Jesus to choose someone less deserving to be leader of the team. He strikes me as that kind of gracious Olympic coach. If you care to agree to disagree about your premise (1), you might still convince me with your premises (2), (3) or (4). Would you like to continue the Apostolic Olympic contest, or move on to the Keys, the Rock and the Shepherd?

Dear Soc,

   just a last unpersuasive post on this, then I will follow your lead in agreeing on disagreement.

We left from Matthew 18, and this precise consideration of yours .

Now, i did not hear the teacher say that the other 10 students also got gold stars, but i think it would be reasonable for me to make that inference just the same.

Your position IMHO seems to have shifted from this inference of an equal position conferred to the 11 because of Matthew 18, to proposing that, from the most general view, we can get that two of the 11, namely Peter and John, plus Paul, deserve most.

Yet we do not see Jesus conferring peculiar authority to John or Paul, whatever their relative merits.

We see the 11 together receiving authority. But, conversely, no criterion to derive it is the very same for all of them as for Petie.

Not the ones that were presented here. Not what happened between Mat 16 and Mat 18. Which, if anything, can only corroborate Peter’s uniqueness.

In matthew 17 the Transfiguration confirms the Revelation Simon had received and expressed. Then the lord associates, again, Peter to Himself, specifically, by paying the tax to the temple for Himself and him, and him only. i cannot see harmony between this and believing Matthew 18 means: you all get precisely what Peter has jus gotten.

The highest authority/gold star is conferred after, and precisely immediately after, the foundational truth of Christianity entered the world thorugh Simon’s mouth.

How do I know it is foundational ? Your pastors would teach that, not I
Teaching that Jesus would build His Church on this truth delivered through Peter. In other words this is the truth which is foundation of His Church.
Which is Jesus’ divinity. Incarnation. The specific Christian truth.

And it is my hope Soc, that getting nearer home, you’re going to perceive how Incarnation-centred, and therefore Jesus-centred is Catholicism.
That His Church is the prolongation of Incarnation. ( and that mariology is but an expression of Incarnation-centrism ).

In Christ
P7

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

I’m unsure whether our disagreement over the Immaculate Conception being a conception of a new doctrine is due to different understandings of the word doctrine, or different understandings of the word new, or different understandings of the historical facts. Let me ask you about all three:

1. 
   *]***Doctrine defined. *** Would you agree that *doctrine *is that which is proclaimed by the consensus of proper authorities to be an established fact and teaching, rather than a debated theory of what ought to be taught?
   *]***New defined. *** Would you agree that a *new *thing might be (a) something old that existed for a long time before it was possessed, and so it is an old thing (as far as its existence is concerned), but it is new (as far as it is a new possession)? or (b) something old that was once possessed, but then lost, only to be found again, and so it is an old thing (as far as its existence is concerned), but it is new (as far as it is a lost possession that is now found and newly possessed)?
   
   Regarding (1), an example might be String theory, which is a developing branch of theoretical physics that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity into a quantum theory of gravity. String theory cannot be said to be a doctrine of the science of physics, for it is not considered an established fact. Regarding (2), an example might be a fossil of a dinosaur that is thousands of years old. One might argue that the fossil is not old, but a new discovery, especially if it is one of a species of dinosaur never before known to science. In relation to its existence, it is old. In relation to our awareness and understanding of it, it is quite new.
   
   If you agree with these two premises, then the conclusion necessarily follows:N***ew Doctrine defined. ***A new doctrine might be an established fact and teaching–the truth of which has long been in existence, but which has only relatively recently been possessed (or understood to be true) by the consensus of proper authorities.
   Are you with me so far, now that i’ve defined what i comes to my mind when i use the words *new *and doctrine? If so, we can examine the historical facts to see if the Immaculate Conception fits the definition.

1. 
   If you mean, as I get, by “new doctrine” a dogmitization of a theological opinion/position,
   then any dogmatic proclamation, or by extension, any magisterial declaration is new doctrine.
   
   i do not believe that any dogmatization needs a new revelation. Do you ?
   
   Please, are you going to start a new Immaculated Conception thread within the thread ?
   Is that strictly necessary ?
   
   Meanwhile , I am looking forward to your insights about the second part of the quotation from Newman:
   
   *1. Let the state of the case be carefully considered. If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and important developments, as was argued in the foregoing Section, this is a strong antecedent argument in favour of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon those developments. …
   Christianity …comes to us as a revelation, as a whole, objectively, and with a profession of infallibility; and the only question to be determined relates to the matter of the revelation. If then there are certain great truths, or duties, or observances, naturally and legitimately resulting from the doctrines originally professed, it is but reasonable to include {80} these true results in the idea of the revelation itself, to consider them parts of it, and if the revelation be not only true, but guaranteed as true, to anticipate that they too will come under the privilege of that guarantee.
   
   The most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the authority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is, that some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and {89} other authority there is none but she. A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.*
   
   Bless you

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Your position IMHO seems to have shifted from this inference of an equal position conferred to the 11 because of Matthew 18, to proposing that, from the most general view, we can get that two of the 11, namely Peter and John, plus Paul, deserve most.

I’m John and Paul as comparisons to Peter for two reasons: (1) I’m not convinced that Peter’s revelation is more foundational to Christianity than their revelations. It seems to me they each have something vital to contribute in the development of Church doctrine. (2) i don’t have anything recorded in the historical record of Acts and the gospels about the other Apostles, nor do i have any extant MSS written by the other Apostles. So rather than make an inference from ignorance, i’ve left them out of consideration. Andrew, for example, was likely an important leader in the early Catholic Church, for he, along with Peter, James and John were members of Jesus’ inner circle. However, there is not much biblical evidence to make the case for the significance of his contribution.

Yet we do not see Jesus conferring peculiar authority to John or Paul, whatever their relative merits.

You don’t believe Jesus’ words to Ananias appear to confer such authority to Paul?

11The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

13"Lord," Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

(Acts 9)

It is Paul–rather than Peter–whom Jesus says is, “my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.”

We see the 11 together receiving authority. But, conversely, no criterion to derive it is the very same for all of them as for Petie.

And don’t forget Paul, Jesus’ chosen one.

Not the ones that were presented here. Not what happened between Mat 16 and Mat 18. Which, if anything, can only corroborate Peter’s uniqueness.

Rather than say Peter alone is unique, Jesus’ words seem to indicate that Peter AND Paul are unique; don’t you think?

In matthew 17 the Transfiguration confirms the Revelation Simon had received and expressed. Then the lord associates, again, Peter to Himself, specifically, by paying the tax to the temple for Himself and him, and him only. i cannot see harmony between this and believing Matthew 18 means: you all get precisely what Peter has jus gotten.

The highest authority/gold star is conferred after, and precisely immediately after, the foundational truth of Christianity entered the world thorugh Simon’s mouth.

How do I know it is foundational ? Your pastors would teach that, not I
Teaching that Jesus would build His Church on this truth delivered through Peter. In other words this is the truth which is foundation of His Church.
Which is Jesus’ divinity. Incarnation. The specific Christian truth.

Wow! Extremely insightful. I have to agree, the foundational truth of the Christian faith came right from the mouth of Peter. Agreed.

And it is my hope Soc, that getting nearer home, you’re going to perceive how Incarnation-centred, and therefore Jesus-centred is Catholicism.
That His Church is the prolongation of Incarnation. ( and that mariology is but an expression of Incarnation-centrism ).

In Christ
P7

Yes, i think that even if one believes Paul is a better candidate for President of the Church, the choice is up to Christ. He has the right to choose Peter as President and Paul as Vice President, if He so chooses. I’m not ruling out that possibility. I’m simply saying Peter does not appear to be the only one through whom God spoke. Peter and Paul both deserve the gold, i believe.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Socrates,
I think ou are going down the wrong path by attempting to compare the merits of individual Apostles.

Please, call me Soc. Unless i make you peeved, then you may call me smelly sock!



Please understand that P7 was making the argument that Peter was superior to the other Apostles. If i am to figure out whether what he says is true, then how can i avoid comparing the other Apostles to Peter?

God gave each one the necessary Graces to do the job that he set forth for them, as he does for each man. Peter was chosen as the leader. This is very clear from scripture.

If you don’t mind my asking, please tell me what Sacred Scripture makes Peter’s rule over the other Apostles so clear.

He was put in the position of deciding what was doctrine and what was not. Notice in 2Peter 3, he accepted Paul’s work as scripture.

Recognizing a truth is not the same as determining a truth, is it? If you or i said that Benedict was the legitimate head of the the Catholic Church, our recognizing this truth would not make it true. It might be true whether we said it was or not. How do we know whether Peter is determining that Paul’s words are Sacred Scripture or merely recognizing that his words are Sacred Scripture?

He didn’t have to have every revelation himself, but he had to judge what was valid teaching. Both Paul and John may have been deeper thinkers than Peter based on their existent writings, but they were also under the leadership of Peter, which is also clear. Remember, Paul talks in Galations of having seen Peter twice for this reason and John’s Gospel (chapter 21)demonstrates Peter’s call to tend the flock.

Yes, i understand that Paul began in a subordinate position to Peter, James, and the other Apostles. But David, who was God’s chosen King of Israel, began in a subordinate position to King Saul. Even though David was God’s chosen King, he submitted to King Saul. So too, even though Paul was Jesus’ chosen one, he submitted to Peter and the other Apostles.

15But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

(Acts 9)

A leader doesn’t have to be the smartest member of the team or to have every insight. Do you think the Obama Barack comes up with every idea that he uses to run the government? Do you not realize the the CEOs of most major companies rely on the ideas of their teams (engineers, businessment, marketing folks, etc) to drive their businesses? True leaders help people work together and resolve internal conflicts. That was Peter’s strength.

Agreed! Many Democrats believe Joe Biden is a more capable and experienced leader than Barack Obama. Though Paul might be a better leader than Peter, Jesus might have chosen Peter over him. But what i’m wondering is whether Peter chose a monarchy or a democracy. Did he choose one knighted King, or a round table of 12?

http://www.thekeeneredge.com/sitebuilder/images/knights_of_the_round_table_YT7164-345x348.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

This discussion about Peter and the papacy should bring into sharper focus the insight that neither God nor the NT authors had in mind to compile a theological treatise, “Fundamentals of Early Church Dogma”, for the purpose of conclusively defining and preserving the faith, but were simply writing accounts of Jesus life, death and resurrection for the purpose of relating this amazing story, and letters for clarifying certain matters or resolving potentially divisive issues later as they came up-an undertaking the Church continues to do to this day. The writings are inspirational and helpful in understanding the faith but way too ambiguous standing on their own to serve as an authoritative guide for knowing Gods’ nature and His will for man.

Agreed, FH! Thus, the purpose for this discussion thread. Are you agreeing that Christ’s words recorded by the gospel writers are ambiguous for a purpose? That’s my thought, for i cannot conceive of the Son of God doing or saying anything without intentional purpose. I’m wondering if one purpose for His lack of clarity was to force the inquisitive like me–rare as we are–to seek an authority to resolve the ambiguities. I have to admit, having thoughtfully considered both the Catholic and Evangelical interpretations of Christ’s words, that i simply don’t know who is telling the truth. If only God would say from heaven in which authority i should trust!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If you mean, as I get, by “new doctrine” a dogmitization of a theological opinion/position,
then any dogmatic proclamation, or by extension, any magisterial declaration is new doctrine.

i do not believe that any dogmatization needs a new revelation. Do you ?

Please, are you going to start a new Immaculated Conception thread within the thread ?
Is that strictly necessary ?

LOL!

If that’s what it takes to uncover the truth, then don’t put it past me! This is really a side issue, i think. Out of curiosity, i was wondering why you would believe that God does not speak to the Early Church Fathers, and even to the modern popes, the way He spoke to Peter. I thought, perhaps, the Immaculate Conception was an example of such remarkable and intimate connection with God. But if such is no longer possible–as Protestants claim it is not–then i wonder if this is cause to give me pause. I mean, if God does not speak to the Apostolic successors as clearly as He spoke to Peter, then why should i trust them any more than i trust Luther, Wesley, Calving, or Moody? The Apostolic successors would be no less likely to be deceived as these Protestants, for their ears would be as hard of hearing the word of God as theirs.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Meanwhile , I am looking forward to your insights about the second part of the quotation from Newman:

*1. Let the state of the case be carefully considered. If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and important developments, as was argued in the foregoing Section, this is a strong antecedent argument in favour of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon those developments. …
Christianity …comes to us as a revelation, as a whole, objectively, and with a profession of infallibility; and the only question to be determined relates to the matter of the revelation. If then there are certain great truths, or duties, or observances, naturally and legitimately resulting from the doctrines originally professed, it is but reasonable to include {80} these true results in the idea of the revelation itself, to consider them parts of it, and if the revelation be not only true, but guaranteed as true, to anticipate that they too will come under the privilege of that guarantee.

The most obvious answer, then, to the question, why we yield to the authority of the Church in the questions and developments of faith, is, that some authority there must be if there is a revelation given, and {89} other authority there is none but she. A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.*

Bless you

Well, there is the idea that both you and i have as our own–(a) that Jesus is the authority i should trust. Then there is an idea you have that i do not yet know is my own–(b) that the Catholic Church is the authority i should trust. How do you propose i should get from point (a) to point (b)?

Perhaps it might be helpful to suspend making a final determination about Peter’s primacy and consider the second half of the equation–whether Jesus intended there to be successors to Peter. Let’s say, for the sake of dialog, that Peter was the sole leader of the Catholic Church. How can i know that God intended there to be others to sit in his chair and continue his monarchy? I mean, Moses had no Mosaic successors, yet the Jewish religion continued just the same. Why would the Christian religion not follow the same Divine plan?



But if you have a more promising way to get me from point (a) to point (b), then lead the way! I will follow.

 

[fhansen]

Agreed, FH! Thus, the purpose for this discussion thread. Are you agreeing that Christ’s words recorded by the gospel writers are ambiguous for a purpose? That’s my thought, for i cannot conceive of the Son of God doing or saying anything without intentional purpose. I’m wondering if one purpose for His lack of clarity was to force the inquisitive like me–rare as we are–to seek an authority to resolve the ambiguities. I have to admit, having thoughtfully considered both the Catholic and Evangelical interpretations of Christ’s words, that i simply don’t know who is telling the truth. If only God would say from heaven in which authority i should trust!

I don’t think the ambiguity was necessarily for a purpose-I just think it was a natural outcome of the fact that God never intended Scripture to be authoritative in and of itself-as if it were the teacher -while He did intend the Church-a living entity-for that purpose. I think ambiguity is almost inherent in a work the size of the bible-and especially as it’s a work dealing with spiritual matters. Consider how the Reformed churches began splintering right from the get-go. Or look up “Millerism” in Wikipedia and follow where that whole movement led to-some of the silly ideas people came up with during the so-called “Great Awakening”-or some of the various holiness movements in both earlier and later times in Europe and America to see where scripture alone can bring people.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t think the ambiguity was necessarily for a purpose-I just think it was a natural outcome of the fact that God never intended Scripture to be authoritative in and of itself-as if it were the teacher -while He did intend the Church-a living entity-for that purpose. I think ambiguity is almost inherent in a work the size of the bible-and especially as it’s a work dealing with spiritual matters. Consider how the Reformed churches began splintering right from the get-go. Or look up “Millerism” in Wikipedia and follow where that whole movement led to-some of the silly ideas people came up with during the so-called “Great Awakening”-or some of the various holiness movements in both earlier and later times in Europe and America to see where scripture alone can bring people.

Or you and i can see modern examples by turning on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and watching the spinners of a modern heresy–the Word of Faith movement. It’s a movement to which–to my great embarrassment–i once belonged. For them, faith is not trust in Christ and what He taught, it’s a force, and their words are the containers of the force. Whatever one asks for in prayer is his, if he continues to believe and not doubt. If one is poor, he needs not get a job, just pray. If one is sick, he should pray that he is not sick, and not show any doubt by seeking medical attention. It’s extremely destructive. However, having been caught up in such deception, i found that the Word of God (the Bible) was powerful and effective enough to show me the truth and set me free from heresy. So i was quite surprised to find God’s Word–even the words of the Word–quite impotent when it comes to deciding whether the Catholic Church is the Church.

That’s the BIG picture, and i wonder if the Devil is in the details. I mean, was Christ crystal clear, but some demonic powers saw to it that ambiguity crept in either to the original autographs or by way of mistranslation? Or was Christ intentionally unclear for a reason. “All Scripture is God breathed,” Paul–whom Peter said wrote Sacred Scripture–tells me. But was it breathed out of the mouth of God perfect and breathed in to the mind of the Apostles, or their successors, imperfect?

My goal is not necessarily to answer the question of the authority of the Catholic Church. My goal is to find the answer to why. Why the lack of clarity in Jesus’ words? He was and is and will be forever God. He was and is and will be forever omniscient, knowing all, and completely aware of the full and future powerful effect of every word that He breaths out. He knew that when He said this,

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)

He was not being as clear as if He had said this,

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on you this rock, and on your successors, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. And all who trust in you should also trust in them.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or an enlightened saint to see that. It takes dim-witted, sinful, little ol’ me! So yes, i understand the authors of the Bible are going to be unclear at times. After all, Jesus is God and they are not. But that’s it, don’t you see? Jesus IS God. He knew what His words would do to people like me who are searching for truth, rather than thinking they already have it. That’s why i ask why. And if you don’t know, i won’t cry. But i cannot help but wonder.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Socrates4Jesus:

But that’s it, don’t you see? Jesus IS God. He knew what His words would do to people like me who are searching for truth, rather than thinking they already have it.

Very perceptive! Jesus was not like any old teacher, trying to get you through state proficiency exams. No. Jesus is reaching out with his love using parables and teaching actual doctrine. Jesus wants YOU, not that you just understand His words. That is what the parable of the treasure in the field is about. Will you search? Will you come to Him? Like you said, Jesus being God, understands how words affect people. He has thrown down a challenge. Just as he did to the Jews of His own time. Remember his saying not to cast pearls before the swine? Sometimes it is necessary to use words, that reach people, no matter how they are able to interpret them.

But Jesus was never purposely ambiguous to make it more difficult to find Him. If His words are sometimes obscure, it is to help push us towards Him. Remember the saying about being like little children? We have to trust him, and His Church like a child trusts his parents.