# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[pneuma07]

Agreed!



Thank you, P7 for trying to reason from the Sacred Scriptures, although i’m not opposed to looking to the early Church Fathers, as well, for guidance. Let’s consider the passages you mention:
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

(Hebrews 13:7-8)
That for which i’m looking is evidence that the leaders of the Catholic Church today are as trustworthy as the Peter of yesterday. Does God communicate as clearly and cogently to them as He did to him? Remembering a leader is not the same as trusting a leader in the same way i trust Christ, i think. Imitating their faith in Christ is not the same as putting the same faith in them that Christ put in Peter. The words of verse 8 appear to indicate that i should trust Jesus Christ, who does not change. Apostolic successors, however sincere, might have changed the beliefs Christ intended, and so be sincerely wrong. At least, that’s how Protestants, who think i’m a fool to dialog with people like you, warn me.

Regarding 1 Peter 3, i see no reference to trusting the authority of the Apostolic successors–only reference to husbands and wives submitting to one another in love. Perhaps you have the wrong chapter?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter+1&version=NIV

See post 450

 

[pneuma07]

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”
The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

(Acts 8:30-35)

Fascinating! Evangelicals are fond of using this passage to teach how every member sitting in the pews can use this as a model for sharing their faith with family, co-workers, or next-door neighbors. However i think you see it as applying not to every parishioner, but to only to Apostolic successors. But how can this be? Are you not, by talking to me, using Philip’s conversation with the Ethiopian as your own model of evangelism–that is, using Sacred Scripture to reason with me? Maybe you are an an Apostolic successor in the Catholic Church. (No need for you to answer, i think, for Philip, whom this chapter quotes, was not an Apostolic successor.)

Don’t you think that the passage is not about trusting the authority of an Apostolic successor (of which Philip was not one) but instead about trusting the authority of Sacred Scripture? For Isaiah 53, which Philip quotes, is unmistakably a prediction of Christ’s suffering on the cross.

)
[/INDENT]

Dear Soc,

         1)  why do those evangelical brothers have to "teach" this truth, if this is self-evident from the passage ?
         2)  you're clearly right that Philip was not an apostolic successor.  Yet  he had received an apostolic appointment. Not exactly an unqualified self-appointed teacher. 
        3) I don't think  "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” is about trusting the authority of Scripture and not trusting/not needing the Apostolic Church.
4) the “unminstakable” jesuanic charachter of the this and the other Servant Songs in the second Isahia is not accepted to this day by our elder brothers jews. For some of them they are not even messiahnic. The Servant is seen by these as you know as the people of Israel.
5) since I am no teacher, it goes without saying you should check my personal considerations, which are in itself nothing more than personal, hopefully orthodox, opinions.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&version=NIV

It seems to me that any person in a pew can, after Mass, open the Bible and explain how it is a prediction of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Peter’s words, i believe, apply to not only to Apostolic successors:

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect …
​

(1 Peter 3:15

This is a fundamental reference for every catholic Soc.
I have had this verse from Peter in my mind and heart several times on this forum.

It is not that we cannot or don’t want to share our faith, as you see on CAF. It is that the catholic as such ( in principle) is inclined to see her/himself first as a pupil, a child of the Church, ready to receive correction or enlightenment.​

 

[pneuma07]

Protestants, who think i’m a fool to dialog with people like you, warn me.

]

The curious thing is that most of my dialogs here have been with protestant brothers.
You are telling me there are other kinds who tell you that.
How can they save people like me ( I guess you mean by this expression anybody who defends the catholic faith ) if any dialog is fool ?

I’d dialog with any of them Soc.

Are there these views within your own family ?
Did you ever share these views , and if so, what made you leave them ?

Bless you.
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You are missing my point entirely, which is just proof of the inefficiency of the written word. I wasn’t condemning you of twisting scripture. I was pointing out that it can be twisted and that’s the reason it can not be trusted on its own. …

And you are missing my point!



I was not accusing you of accusing me, i was comparing myself (someone seeking the truth) to someone else (someone who thinks she knows the truth, whether she does or not).



But, yes, the written word, if not considered carefully, can be misunderstood. I like how Socrates puts it:
I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting. For the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence. And the same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again. And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. They do not know to whom they should or should not speak; and if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them. For the book cannot protect or defend itself.

(Phaedrus 275)
The point i was making is that if someone considers the words of Sacred Scripture objectively, it is much less likely to be twisted, but it is more likely to be mysterious.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…
If you decide that the Catholic Church is not that authority, then who is your authority and why? That becomes the most relevant question. Some will say that the Bible is their authority. To which I will say, that the Bible is not an authority, it is a book. An authority needs to be able to answer questions and set you on the right path if you get confused. A book, even a divinely inspired one, can not do that. The story of Phillip and the Eunach in Acts demonstrates this.

If you understand that, and the Church is still not your authority, then you must have another authority in mind. Inevitably, the question becomes " where did this person get his authority". Some, like Joseph Smith of the Mormons will claim they got this authority in a vision directly from God. Others, like Martin Luther, will make no claim other than that they trust their own intelligence. It then lies within each man’s province to decide whether any of these alternative authorities is more credible than that Catholic Church.

PC:

In response i’d say that there is much in Sacred Scripture that, if considered objectively and logically and in the immediate and broad context, clearly has only one meaning. I find no ambiguity or vagueness regarding the Trinity, for example. Yes, i have heard teachers explain why God is one what in three whos, but i do not believe this because these Protestant and Catholic teachers say it is so. I believe it because reason and comparing Sacred Scripture with Sacred Scripture leaves only that possibility. In respect to this teaching, the only authority to which i submit is reason and God to help me understand the meaning of Holy Writ.

In contrast, insofar as discovering the truth about passages of the Bible that ARE ambiguous, i completely concur that an authority is needed to explain which of the alternative meanings of these unclear passages is actual and which of them are imagined, or which of them is true and which are false.

So i know where i stand–and you are quite correct–i must determine which authority i should trust. Please tell me why the Catholic Church is that authority.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t’ think either.

I don’t believe Christ was “intentionally ambiguous.”

He left us a Church to clear up any ambiguity in the minds of those that hear (or read) the Gospel message.

I believe that was His Divine Design (Isn’t that a TV show?).

Excluding His Church and its teaching authority from the Scripture it produced was not part of the Divine Design.

I have no idea if achieving this separation was a “satanic strategy” but I’ve no doubt it is a current reality in which the evil rejoices.

Chuck

But don’t you admit that Jesus COULD have been more clear than He was? And if He could have been more clear, i’m wondering why He chose not to be. You see?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t think there are any words (spoken or written) that necessarily impart unmistakably clear meaning to all recipients.

Even the simplest thoughts can be and frequently are misunderstood.

For example, how many different interpretations can we get from: “Love one another as I have loved you.”

How many books would you have to write to clear up all of the possible misconception that could come from this one sentence?

By engaging in a dialogue, written or oral, parties can come closer and closer to understanding each other.

One cannot, however, engage in a dialogue with a book.

While various readers can discuss and come to a consensus on what they “think” the author intended, they will never know the truth unless the author reveals it to them in some other way.

In fact, I would submit to you as the dialogue continues groups of readers can lead themselves further and further from the truth of the author’s intent (think back to some of your English Lit classes.)

If you would like to better understand the intended meaning of a book, I would think engaging in a dialogue with its Author or one of His delegates would be the best way to clear up the Author’s intent.

Chuck

What you appear to be proposing is that nothing written in the Bible is clear. Every sentence is either ambiguous–having more than one possible meaning–or vague–having a meaning that is uncertain or unknown. That is a surprising idea to me, if indeed you hold it. Let’s consider, for example, the shortest passage in the English translations of the Bible:Jesus wept.

(John 11:35)

I cannot think how anyone who is literate could think this passage is vague. The meaning of these words are not a mystery. Tears appeared in Jesus’ eyes. Neither are the words ambiguous, for i cannot imagine an alternate interpretation of this sentence. It means what it plainly says and cannot possibly mean anything else. So can we at least agree that at least some written words of the Bible are neither ambiguous nor vague?

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

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It is of course :

Hebrews 13:**17 **
17Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.

And 1 Peter **5 **
shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

Sorry, missed this one! Yes, P7, there is submission to authorities. But what does submission mean? What are the qualities or attributes of a genuine submission?

For example, my sons sometimes disagree with my reasons for disciplining him. And i respect that disagreement–even encourage it–and have sometimes changed my mind after hearing them out. However, i still require that they submit to my authority, even if they disagree with me. Doing what i say is not always believing everything i tell them.

This appears to be the kind of submission Peter and the author of Hebrews are suggesting (after all, not every leader in the Church–even in it’s infancy–had the same infallibility as Peter). Not every authority has the authority to speak for God. That’s what i’m thinking. What are you thinking?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…
This is a fundamental reference for every catholic Soc.
I have had this verse from Peter in my mind and heart several times on this forum.

It is not that we cannot or don’t want to share our faith, as you see on CAF. It is that the catholic as such ( in principle) is inclined to see her/himself first as a pupil, a child of the Church, ready to receive correction or enlightenment.

Sounds reasonable to me.



I’m still trying to determine if the Catholic Church is the teacher from whom i should receive correction.

Regarding receiving enlightenment, i’m not opposed to being enlightened by anyone–authority or not–as long as reason tells me that person speaks the truth. Even Hitler spoke truthfully when he said something like, “If you speak a lie often enough and loud enough the masses will believe it.”

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The curious thing is that most of my dialogs here have been with protestant brothers.
You are telling me there are other kinds who tell you that.
How can they save people like me ( I guess you mean by this expression anybody who defends the catholic faith ) if any dialog is fool ?

I’d dialog with any of them Soc.

Are there these views within your own family ?
Did you ever share these views , and if so, what made you leave them ?

Bless you.
P7

Sure, i have two aunts who are Catholic. One was a nun for a time and is an intelligent woman, however she seems defensive and put off when i ask her innocent questions–even though i’m not trying to start some kind of debate. So i don’t ask.

Regarding dialog with Protestants, the folks the the following link are pretty open to that, if you feel like having a dialog with them. They will likely explain why they believe the Catholic Church to be deceived.

freedomandgrace.com/

 

[clmowry]

But don’t you admit that Jesus COULD have been more clear than He was? And if He could have been more clear, i’m wondering why He chose not to be. You see?

Perhaps you need to change the question to:

“Did Jesus intentionally allow for Sacred Scripture to be left Ambiguous?”

I don’t think He was deliberately ambiguous or that He left us an ambiguous Gospel message.

Of course He “could” have ensured more clarity in Sacred Scripture (Though I’m thinking you would need to carry around a set of rather than a single book.)

So why didn’t He?

I don’t believe He was concerned with the perspicuity of Scripture, because clarity of message was to come from the Apostles and the Church He founded through them.

So perhaps, the ambiguity of scripture is intentional. The intention being to lead those truly interested in finding the truth to seek out His Church.

Quite frankly, I don’t think it is possible to determine what the Christian faith IS from “Scripture Alone”.

Admit it or not 90+% of what folks come to believe “from scripture alone” really came to them from what someone else was taught, who learned it from some church, which ultimately has its roots in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Individuals may come to accept or reject doctrines based on their personal interpretation of scripture, but I would submit to you that the vast majority of the human race is simply not capable of deducing theological constructs from “scripture alone.”

We are simply not educated well enough nor do we have the time it would take to continuously recreate “Christianity” from scripture alone.

But that doesn’t stop many from trying, or perhaps more accurately, pretending that they have.

Pick any basic “Christian” concept and look at the plethora of interpretations that Christ loving good intentioned people believe to be the Gospel “truth” based on their “inspired” reading or scripture (usually with a little help from their friends.)

Was Christ God?
Is there such a thing as the Trinity?
Do we need to be baptized?
When should we be baptized?
What does baptism do?
Does what I do actually matter at all?

Etc. etc. etc.

So yes, you’ve talked me into it (at least I’m going to blame you) I believe, Scripture was intentionally left ambiguous.

God knew that one day the “Sola Scriptura” crew would come into existence, so He insured that the heresy it led to would be obviously self refuting.

He didn’t leave scripture so unclear as to allow the deduction of evil intent, or drive one away from God or Christ, but at the same time it is not clear enough to ever allow for unity without the leadership of His Church.

Makes sense to me any way.

Chuck

 

[paul_c]

PC:

In response i’d say that there is much in Sacred Scripture that, if considered objectively and logically and in the immediate and broad context, clearly has only one meaning. I find no ambiguity or vagueness regarding the Trinity, for example. Yes, i have heard teachers explain why God is one what in three whos, but i do not believe this because these Protestant and Catholic teachers say it is so. I believe it because reason and comparing Sacred Scripture with Sacred Scripture leaves only that possibility. In respect to this teaching, the only authority to which i submit is reason and God to help me understand the meaning of Holy Writ.

In contrast, insofar as discovering the truth about passages of the Bible that ARE ambiguous, i completely concur that an authority is needed to explain which of the alternative meanings of these unclear passages is actual and which of them are imagined, or which of them is true and which are false.

So i know where i stand–and you are quite correct–i must determine which authority i should trust. Please tell me why the Catholic Church is that authority.

So why go down all these tangential paths. Focus your attention on establishing which is the appropriate authority to listen to.

I submit to you in all earnestness that there is only one real choice. The Catholic Church can easily demonstrate its doctrinal and organizational continuity back to its Apostolic founders and to St. Peter in particular. And we’ve already demonstrated to your satisfaction that St. Peter was given the keys, I believe.

Consider the Christian alternatives. None of them can even think to claim organizational continuity to the Apostles because every one of them can be traced back to their founders, whether it be John Calvin, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, or the inspirational, non-denominational pastor down the block from you. And every one of those founders started his own church based solely on his own authority. Inevitably, these non Catholic Christian Chruch founders claimed that the Catholic Church lost its way but that they, the individual founders would lead their followers back. But what are there actual credentials for making these claims? How could Martin Luther, John Calvin, or that pastor down the block be a more astute, inspired theologian than the combined resources , inspiration, and the tradition of the entire Catholic Church? And what would be their proof?

 

[utunumsint]

So i know where i stand–and you are quite correct–i must determine which authority i should trust. Please tell me why the Catholic Church is that authority.

I think that first we should establish whether the regular joe blow church goer from scripture (like you and me), had anyone in authority over them whom they were told to obey and listen.

Its seems as though Paul and Barnabas ordained presbyters in acts.

14:23: And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

And it seems as though they were given the charge of being overseers (bishops) over the flock of God.

20:28: Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

From 1 Timothy 5, we have

17: Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

it would seem that they had some kind of authority. However, it does seem as though they could be questioned, or even accused of crimes.

5:19: Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

Which seems to fit well in the authority structure described by Matthew 18:

Level 1

18:15: Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Level 2 as also described in 1 Timothy 5:19

18:16: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Level 3 not described in 1 Timothy would seem to indicate a larger orverarching body, that would seem to be able to overrule even a local elder (presbyter).

18:17: And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18:18: Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Titus, who had the job to appoint presbyters all over crete

1:5: For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Is told this by Paul.

2:15: These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

And the author of Hebrews has this to say as well

13:17: Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

So it seems clear that the apostles appointed shephers to pastor our souls after they departed, and they themselves urged the people to obey them. To bring accusation against them, only after following correct protocols (rebuke alone first, then with two or three, then to the church). In a word, they were to work within the church system to correct issues that occured within this system.

So this seems to establish what the average lay person would see from the ground up on the concept of church leadership.

I’m thinking a further post of how that leadership was excercised would be appropriate, perhaps focusing on the question of doctrinal and disciplinary functions?

God bless,
Ut

 

[clmowry]

What you appear to be proposing is that nothing written in the Bible is clear. Every sentence is either ambiguous–having more than one possible meaning–or vague–having a meaning that is uncertain or unknown. That is a surprising idea to me, if indeed you hold it. Let’s consider, for example, the shortest passage in the English translations of the Bible:
Jesus wept.

(John 11:35)

I cannot think how anyone who is literate could think this passage is vague. The meaning of these words are not a mystery. Tears appeared in Jesus’ eyes. Neither are the words ambiguous, for i cannot imagine an alternate interpretation of this sentence. It means what it plainly says and cannot possibly mean anything else. So can we at least agree that at least some written words of the Bible are neither ambiguous nor vague?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...ordpress.com/2008/11/charliebrownandlinus.jpg

No.

I can agree that some are less vague and more difficult for a reader to mangle than others.

You picked, purposefully, I presume the simplest clearest bible verse you could find, right?

But playing the devils advocate for a second:

(Not that it matters) but did He “cry out” or was he “silent”. (I won’t event get into an argument about “why” did He cry and what does His crying mean for us, where I could get really silly.)

Here’s a snippet of an actual exchange I found online:

“Generally this is rendered with the rather dull “Jesus wept”…….There is, then, more than meets the English eye here (as is true everywhere). It is not so that the gospel portrays Jesus as sniveling a bit and having some tear or two drip down his beard- rather we have here a word that denotes real gut wrenching- making the eye red- end of life cuz some loved one is dead crying.”

“I think it is noteworthy that there are two words for crying in Koine. The hapax employed here implies shedding silent tears, as in deep sadness, as opposed to the more common word used in the NT “KLAIO” which is not silent.”

“I am not going to go any farther with this point than simply to underscore what my original point really was: I honestly don’t believe that anything subtle or of fundamental importance is gained by the reader who reads John 11:35 in Greek rather than in an English version. The nouns and verbs can be parsed; one can say something about the aorist tense being used in EDAKRUSEN rather than an imperfect, or one can say something about the difference between KLAIW (which really means “cry out” rather than “shed tears”) and DAKRUW–but ultimately it is a simple narrative statement of an event. ”

Etc. Etc. Etc.

I could generate some more silliness about “edakrusen kai enustase” simply meaning to hang your head, so maybe he didn’t cry at all, but I think you get the point.

All of which I think lends credence to the truism “Anybody can make a mistake but it takes a smart person to really mess things up.”

Chuck

 

[utunumsint]

I think we can all agree with Paul’s idealized conception of the church in 1 Corinthians.

14:33: For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Interestingly enough, in none of Paul’s early epistles does he mention presbyters or bishops. But he does have this interesting description of the structure of the church in 1 Cor

12:27: Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
12:28: And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Perhaps this was a more charismatic time, or he was still under the impression that the second comming was imminent. But be that as it may, he does speak about bishops and presbyters a great deal in his later works. Maybe those letters are an early attempt to regularize church structure.

That being said, Paul clearly says in the quote above, that those God had set in the church first were the Apostles. I don’t think anyone would argue with this. I think its fairly clear that the Apostles held the church together in a unified way, taking the time to come together in council, if need be, to decide unclear doctrinal developments. They were a unifying force in the church.

Just to illustrate my point, we have Paul returning triumphantly from his first missionary journey with Barnabas to Antioch.

14:27: And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.

Then the dispute breaks out from the Judaisers:

15:1: And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
15:2: When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

This is a doctrinal issue, and they know exactly who to go to. The Apostles.

15:4: And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
15:5: But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
15:6: And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

Again conflict. But note who is resolving this conflict with the apostles? The elders. Together with the apostles, they resolved the issue, and promulgated a doctrinal decision on the matter, and they send out Barny and Paul, along with two “leaders” from the Jerusalem church, Judas and Silas.

15:22: Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
15:23: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

In Antioch, the issue was resolved.

15:30: So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
15:31: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.

Paul and Silas this time continue to preach this ruling to the rest of the churches they evangelized together.

16:4: And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
16:5: And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.

What I find interesting in all of this is that Paul’s revelation had to be confirmed by the church first before it could be accepted by all. And note also that the Holy Spirit seems particulary active during the council.

15:28: For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

But my point is that this doctrinal proclamation was not sent out until is was approved by church leadership as a whole.

Now it seems reasonable to me that when the leadership of the church passed on to the bishops, they also would have this protection from the Holy Spirit, especially when they meet together as a group in council.

What do you think? If you like this, maybe we can move onto the role of Peter with regards to these events.

God bless,
Ut

 

[pneuma07]

Sorry, missed this one! Yes, P7, there is submission to authorities. But what does submission mean? What are the qualities or attributes of a genuine submission?

For example, my sons sometimes disagree with my reasons for disciplining him. And i respect that disagreement–even encourage it–and have sometimes changed my mind after hearing them out. However, i still require that they submit to my authority, even if they disagree with me. Doing what i say is not always believing everything i tell them.

This appears to be the kind of submission Peter and the author of Hebrews are suggesting (after all, not every leader in the Church–even in it’s infancy–had the same infallibility as Peter). Not every authority has the authority to speak for God. That’s what i’m thinking. What are you thinking?

I am with you Soc. We cannot even contemplate the idea that every single doctrinal or moral statement by every single legitimate member of a “leading body” ( supposing now its existence) is to be believed as such at face value.

I suppose we’re also together in accepting 1) there is a legitimate authority in the primitive Church outside the Apostles. My point was that authority is transmitted, or more precisely that the process of its transmission did not stop at the Apostles. And, possibly, we are also together is believeing the process had to pass thRough the Apostles.

So: Authority had to come from Christ, through the apostles.

Therefore if we’re looking for christian legitimate authority, we can agree it has to be looked for among those receiving this particular status by the apostles.

If the dispensation had to go on, authority would be passed from those receiving this task from the Apostles, and so on.

We also likely agree, that if a guide we have fo look for, that cannot be outside this legitimate christian authority of apostolic origin.

The next decisive step would be, IMHO, keeping in mind the newmannian statement
A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.,
about which I look forward to your specific insights, coming to identify it with a body of guys which, by virtue of legitimate succession, represent today for us the apostolic authority.
I proposed authority is handed on within in the Church, in 444, trying to show that with scriptural witness.

OK. I suppose i’ve written even too much in the present post.

Ut and the others are making the same points for you in other words. The thread is seemingly entering a particularly interesting moment.

 

[pneuma07]

Sure, i have two aunts who are Catholic. One was a nun for a time and is an intelligent woman, however she seems defensive and put off when i ask her innocent questions–even though i’m not trying to start some kind of debate. So i don’t ask.

Regarding dialog with Protestants, the folks the the following link are pretty open to that, if you feel like having a dialog with them. They will likely explain why they believe the Catholic Church to be deceived.

freedomandgrace.com/

My written words came out ambiguous.

I was asking about the view that considers you fool because you dialog with people like me. Whether it is present in your family, and whether it was once yours own.

I see there are nice guys there, but on CAF I have several thoughtful protestants I like to dialog with, and I feel at present no need to get overstretched.

thanks for the invitation.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No.

I can agree that some are less vague and more difficult for a reader to mangle than others.

You picked, purposefully, I presume the simplest clearest bible verse you could find, right?

But playing the devils advocate for a second:

(Not that it matters) but did He “cry out” or was he “silent”. (I won’t event get into an argument about “why” did He cry and what does His crying mean for us, where I could get really silly.)

Here’s a snippet of an actual exchange I found online:

“Generally this is rendered with the rather dull “Jesus wept”…….There is, then, more than meets the English eye here (as is true everywhere). It is not so that the gospel portrays Jesus as sniveling a bit and having some tear or two drip down his beard- rather we have here a word that denotes real gut wrenching- making the eye red- end of life cuz some loved one is dead crying.”

“I think it is noteworthy that there are two words for crying in Koine. The hapax employed here implies shedding silent tears, as in deep sadness, as opposed to the more common word used in the NT “KLAIO” which is not silent.”

“I am not going to go any farther with this point than simply to underscore what my original point really was: I honestly don’t believe that anything subtle or of fundamental importance is gained by the reader who reads John 11:35 in Greek rather than in an English version. The nouns and verbs can be parsed; one can say something about the aorist tense being used in EDAKRUSEN rather than an imperfect, or one can say something about the difference between KLAIW (which really means “cry out” rather than “shed tears”) and DAKRUW–but ultimately it is a simple narrative statement of an event. ”

Etc. Etc. Etc.

I could generate some more silliness about “edakrusen kai enustase” simply meaning to hang your head, so maybe he didn’t cry at all, but I think you get the point.

All of which I think lends credence to the truism “Anybody can make a mistake but it takes a smart person to really mess things up.”

Chuck

Good grief, Charlie Brown! Maybe you are correct and even the shortest sentence in the Bible is not immune to misinterpretation! To whom, then, should i look to interpret the Bible for me? Should seek the counsel of the early Church Fathers?

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

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think we can all agree with Paul’s idealized conception of the church in 1 Corinthians.

Interestingly enough, in none of Paul’s early epistles does he mention presbyters or bishops. But he does have this interesting description of the structure of the church in 1 Cor

Perhaps this was a more charismatic time, or he was still under the impression that the second comming was imminent. But be that as it may, he does speak about bishops and presbyters a great deal in his later works. Maybe those letters are an early attempt to regularize church structure.

That being said, Paul clearly says in the quote above, that those God had set in the church first were the Apostles. I don’t think anyone would argue with this. I think its fairly clear that the Apostles held the church together in a unified way, taking the time to come together in council, if need be, to decide unclear doctrinal developments. They were a unifying force in the church.

Just to illustrate my point, we have Paul returning triumphantly from his first missionary journey with Barnabas to Antioch.

Then the dispute breaks out from the Judaisers:

This is a doctrinal issue, and they know exactly who to go to. The Apostles.

Again conflict. But note who is resolving this conflict with the apostles? The elders. Together with the apostles, they resolved the issue, and promulgated a doctrinal decision on the matter, and they send out Barny and Paul, along with two “leaders” from the Jerusalem church, Judas and Silas.

In Antioch, the issue was resolved.

Paul and Silas this time continue to preach this ruling to the rest of the churches they evangelized together.

What I find interesting in all of this is that Paul’s revelation had to be confirmed by the church first before it could be accepted by all. And note also that the Holy Spirit seems particulary active during the council.

But my point is that this doctrinal proclamation was not sent out until is was approved by church leadership as a whole.

Much of what you said makes sense to me, Ut.

Now it seems reasonable to me that when the leadership of the church passed on to the bishops, they also would have this protection from the Holy Spirit, especially when they meet together as a group in council.

What do you think? If you like this, maybe we can move onto the role of Peter with regards to these events.

God bless,
Ut

Well, that’s just it, Ut. I’m unsure whether what is reasonable to you should be so to me. I think there are greater degrees of trust given to some than to others. Let me ask you this: How would rate your trust of each of these–with 10 being 100% certainty that everything the person wrote or was quoted as saying as true and 1 being 100% certainty that everything the person wrote or was quoted as saying was false.

1. 
   *]Jesus Christ
   *]The Apostle Peter
   *]The other Apostles
   *]The Biblical authors of the New Testament who were not Apostles
   *]The bishops and elders who were alive at the same time as the Apostles
   *]The bishops or elders who immediately succeeded the Apostles
   *]The bishops who were appointed hundreds of years after the Apostles
   *]The bishops today
   *]The priests today
   *]The average parishioner
   
   My thought is that Christ would deserve a 10, the Apostles would get perhaps a 9 (for they wrote Sacred Scripture), the other Biblical authors might get an 8, and the degree of certainty would decrease with each group lower on the list. But how would you rate the degree of trust each deserves?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I am with you Soc. We cannot even contemplate the idea that every single doctrinal or moral statement by every single legitimate member of a “leading body” ( supposing now its existence) is to be believed as such at face value.

I suppose we’re also together in accepting 1) there is a legitimate authority in the primitive Church outside the Apostles. My point was that authority is transmitted, or more precisely that the process of its transmission did not stop at the Apostles. And, possibly, we are also together is believeing the process had to pass thRough the Apostles.

So: Authority had to come from Christ, through the apostles.

Therefore if we’re looking for christian legitimate authority, we can agree it has to be looked for among those receiving this particular status by the apostles.

If the dispensation had to go on, authority would be passed from those receiving this task from the Apostles, and so on.

We also likely agree, that if a guide we have fo look for, that cannot be outside this legitimate christian authority of apostolic origin.

The next decisive step would be, IMHO, keeping in mind the newmannian statement
A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.,
about which I look forward to your specific insights, coming to identify it with a body of guys which, by virtue of legitimate succession, represent today for us the apostolic authority.
I proposed authority is handed on within in the Church, in 444, trying to show that with scriptural witness.

OK. I suppose i’ve written even too much in the present post.

Ut and the others are making the same points for you in other words. The thread is seemingly entering a particularly interesting moment.

When you say you are with me, do you mean that the authority of the Apostolic successors have over the Catholics is akin to my authority over my sons? Do you mean that Catholics can, and even should, be encouraged to question and challenge their authority, for they (like me) are prone to sometimes make errors in judgment? That is, do you agree that–unlike the Apostles–their successors are not infallible?