# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

Do you mean his body is actually bread and his blood is actually wine? I can see heresy number 3670 coming on. LOL

God bless,
Ut

LOL! No, i’m not trying to put words in your mouth, Ut! Just wondering if you think the word *actual *is warranted. It certainly makes the meaning of the passage less likely to be misinterpreted as Jesus speaking figuratively; don’t you think?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Mathew was a tax collector. It was his job to know how to read and write and count. As for John, from all accounts, he would have been one of the youngest apostles. It could very well be that he learned how to read and write at some other point in his carreer among the Greeks in Ephesus.

Perhaps you are correct.

He makes some pretty big statments based on a few quotes from the Mishnas. I’m not denying that there was education. Mostlly this education would have been of the oral sort learned during festivals, and in Synagogues. It was the primary responsibility of the Father of each household to provide for this kind of education to their children. But is says nothing about the formal learning of reading and writing. If anything Hebrew was almost strictly relegated to the priestly class.

I believe that this concept of universal education is a big stretch, and assumes very much on the type and quality of the education received. It also hugely underestimates the issues of poverty and social stratification.

If you’d like, I can recommend some reading for you on these issues, as well as some contrary scholarly opinions on this so called universal education as beind derived mostly from sectarian bias. But I’m not sure you would find them wise enough.

God bless,
Ut

Read? Who has the time! My work, family and this forum keep me from educating myself adequately!



If you have time to briefly state why the *Mishna *is an unreliable historical document–insofar as it’s explanation of the education of the Jewish young people–i’m willing to learn. Otherwise, i suppose we can return to the topic of whether Jesus’ words are ambiguous and what the reason for the lack of clarity might be.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yeah I “knew” that, in fact, what I “thought I knew” was that you were swimming your way across that old river.

For some reason you kept coming up in my thoughts so I came back after my long absence from the forums to see how you were progressing.

But instead of watching you enjoy your swim, I see you’re stuck in the current treading water, and seem to be afraid you might drown!

In any case, I did not mean to imply you were “pretending” about your beliefs, if that’s what you picked up, then my apologies, I was referring to was the “court room” role play.

What I was trying to suggest is that you pursue your investigation taking on the role of “a faithful Catholic” trying to disprove Catholicism. If you can really “get into character”, it might provide a different perspective in you search for the truth.

Some times looking at a statue from a different angle can give you a whole different opinion of its beauty.

Chuck

I’m glad you returned, Chuck. I quite agree with the analogy of treading water, for i’d say i’ve shipwrecked my old Evangelical faith. Right now, all i have to keep me afloat is this buoyant couch cushion from the dining hall of the ship that went down. Ironically, it has the words embroidered on it, “Never will i leave you nor forsake you.”

I’d gladly come aboard the lifeboat from the CCS Catholic Faith if you might through me a lifesaver of truth that i might grab onto. If you are able to rescue me, i’ll be eternally grateful, for i’m not sure how long i can hold out against the dangers that lurk just beneath the ominous waves.

http://img2.allposters.com/images/MEPOD/10005546.jpg

 

[paul_c]

I see. Please let me ask you this: Do you think it’s damaging to believe that Christ’s words are NOT ambiguous?

No, I believe that Jesus said what he wanted to say and those that understand them in the correct context will not find them ambiguous. For instance. I don’t think " This is my body’" is ambiguous because I am willing to accept what he says. Those that are not, will describe this as ambiguous and seek out alternative understandings. For instance, some will say it really means. " This is a symbol of my body" but they are adding words which fundamentally change the meaning from what the Lord really said and in doing so, mislead their listeners into forsaking the graces associated with the Real Presence.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Soc, first, let me ask you one very important question: do you believe that Jesus Christ is your Savior; if so —**why? ** Or is your answer: I don’t know??? Perhaps if you tell me why you believe, then I can convince my brother, who needs proof, as opposed to faith! His anwer to this question is: I don’t know!

I suppose i’m quite a sorry sight by saying i don’t know. I know without a doubt that Jesus is the Savior. I hope with all my heart that He will save me. I’m unsure how that will take place, for i’m unsure which religion has the correct way to be saved from God’s judgment for my sins. Does that sound reasonable?

I believe what I believe because it takes infinitely more faith to be an atheist/agonostic, and after my exhaustive study of all the different world religions, Christianity is the only religion that makes any sense to me, and the message of the Gospel just seems to ring true, e.g.:

James 1:27 This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

What really sealed the deal for me were the apparitions of Garabandal, to 4 ignorant *(and when I say ignorant I mean: lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned; lacking worldly information and lacking information as to a particular subject or fact) *- eleven year old girls, from 1961-1965; they seem to be bringing my brother around as well. It has definitely rekindled his faith.

Thank you for responding to parts of my posts; still looking forward to your response to the other questions that I have asked.

You asked lots of questions, Joe–more than i have time to answer! Try being patient and ask one question at a time. I’ll try to be patient and answer them all, but only one at a time. Which ONE (and only one) would you like to ask me first?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Friend, your position is typical of a faith lacking and highly humanistic culture, which like very large waves control to roll over us. To the point of nearly drowning us.

One or two pages back I wrote an extensive two part post to “Soc” explaining:

1. No true Christian can reasonably say they believe in a Triune God, believe that Jesus too is God and not agree that “IF GOD WANTED TO DO THIS” God certainly has the unlimited power to in fact accomplish it.
2. So the issue seems to be can one establish such a reason. I believe that I in fact did just that in these two post. So if you are really seeking truth and understanding, go back and read them.
3. The Catholic Mass was already formatted much as it still is today by the year 150. Centered around the Eucharistic Miracle. [Which by the way is accomplished by God Himself] through the hands of His priest.
4. Volumes of historical data from Early Church Father beginning with the Apostles and the bible itself attest to the full AND very active [to the point of offering there very life’s] in support of the Doctronial belief.
5. Google “Eucharistic Miracles” for further evidence

I think that it’s all to easy to say too much, PJs. What do you think?

While God does remain the shepherd of all of His flocks, it is not the identical same relationship Christ Has with His catholic Church, especially and specifically as it relates to the Seven sacraments and the single truth on all matters of Faith and Morals, which like (all Seven) Sacraments reside on in the Catholic Church.

Also as point of clarification it was NOT “The Jews” (ALONE) who crucified Christ. Because He died for each and all of us, ALL OF US had an active role in our Lord’s Death. The “Jew’s” were only the fulfillers of the prophesies. The ones who carried it out.

Love and prayers,

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear “Soc”

I suspect that there is more that you’re not sharing? With nearly 5000 post for which we are most grateful, you have been exposes to a great deal of truth.

If in truth you have failed to recogonize this fact, the base issue is an signifiant lack of Faith. Therefore praying for Wisdom. Understanding and Faith ought prudently be at the top of your prayer request.

You “can’t find” if your not seeking correctly:thumbsup:

Love and prayers friend.

Pat

Perhaps you are correct, PJs. Perhaps i’m looking for faith in all the wrong places; looking for faith in to many faces. How or where do you propose i look?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

from what we see about the different views in the modern, as well as in ancient time, what clearly appears is that God did not choose to preserve individual believers from speaking errors. There is no general infusion of the same degree of knowledge of truth, or any infallibility of the individual believer.

It appears God did not choose such a direct continuous intervention. Rather He decided to fish, and then shepherd, human beings through human beings. He selected and sent, the Apostles. No evangelization would be needed if the Spirit routinely directly called people. No teaching, if the Spirit instructed all those who just adhered to a first message by the sent ones.

Spreading and guarding the Gospel was entrusted to a group of men, a structured group. And this group was one, not many. Isn’t this the essential original model ?
And the Spirit can be expected to assist this process.

BTW the ECFs appear in overall harmony with each other within the Church, and in strong contrast with all the forms of heresies of their times.

I do believe that is the most helpful thing you have said thus far! Please tell me, did you pray before your post, or is someone now praying for you? (Or perhaps someone is praying for me?) Seems a bit of Divine Intervention going on here!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I Cannot see protestantisms as able to offer a single vision on Church History. …

Yes, thanks for reminding me. I have to say that for Evangelicals, the Dark Ages begin at the end of Acts. They do not even go so far as to confirm the Acts of the Apostles beyond the end of the Book of Acts. All that is know is what the Bible records, and what happened in modern times. For them, everything else of ancient history is clouded in darkness and mystery.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I guess no evangelical would object to the existence the deposit of the faith, and to it having being delivered by the Apostles.
They quite obviously teach they know this was mishandled.

How they know about this mishandling and its natue, is because of their ability to correctly and unambiguously read Scripture, we can suppose.

The tenet according to which I can build Christianity and the deposit of the faith by just reading Scriptures, outside the CONtext of the Apostolic Church, and even against her, correcting her, teaching her, is IMHO a tradition of men.

Were i to discuss this with one of my virtual Protestant friend’s, i’d instead say “outside the context of ancient history” to avoid any rejection on their part from hearing the Catholic term, “Apostolic Church.” But, yes, having learned what i’ve learned–that the words of Christ and the Apostles are not as clearly Evangelical as i once supposed–i now suppose that i need help outside the pages of Sacred Scripture to show me which religion has the full truth. I don’t get much help from Evangelicals, here. They are much like Paul C, you see. They don’t see any ambiguity. Where PC might be better off for being so dogmatically partisan, Evangelicals might be worse off, perhaps. That is they are, if what they believe is false.

So i’d like to know where you stand, P7. (If you have already told me, forgive me for forgetting.) Do you think Christ’s words are ambiguous? If so, do you think this is an indication that one needs the authorities of the Apostolic Church to give the correct interpretation of His words?

---

As for Matthew, this is maybe cause you’re dealing about the Church and her authority mainly in this period. And MATTHEW, some scholars tell us, is The Gospel of the Church.
And for sure the only one where Jesus mentions His Church.

Fascinating!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

For what I have been saying in the present set of posts, I was rather thinking of focusing on Apostolic Succession now.

We can go back, if you agree, to :
*
2 tim 13-1413What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.

“The things which you have heard from me through many witnesses you must hand on to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others” (2 Tim. 2:2).

The apostolic church is the guardian of the deposit of the faith, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

How is legitimate authority transmitted ? in 1 Timothy we read

4 14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.
5 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

The general picture is described by Clement:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry… Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44

Apostolic succession is …an apostolic decision. *

Bless you
P7

True. Timothy, Titus and others were chosen by Apostles as pastors (or perhaps priests). I’ll accept that premise, too.



What’s the next premise?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No, I believe that Jesus said what he wanted to say and those that understand them in the correct context will not find them ambiguous. For instance. I don’t think " This is my body’" is ambiguous because I am willing to accept what he says. Those that are not, will describe this as ambiguous and seek out alternative understandings. For instance, some will say it really means. " This is a symbol of my body" but they are adding words which fundamentally change the meaning from what the Lord really said and in doing so, mislead their listeners into forsaking the graces associated with the Real Presence.

Then you don’t think it is damaging when Protestants tell me that they don’t think Jesus’ words at the Last Supper are ambiguous? You don’t think it’s harmful when they say it is crystal clear to them that He was speaking figuratively? You don’t think it’s detrimental for them to say that you are denying the true meaning of Jesus’ words and that the word *like *is not necessary because it is understood as the plain meaning of His words?

Isn’t it true that you, PC, are playing partisan religion as much as they are?

 

[joe370]

I suppose i’m quite a sorry sight by saying i don’t know. I know without a doubt that Jesus is the Savior. I hope with all my heart that He will save me. I’m unsure how that will take place, for i’m unsure which religion has the correct way to be saved from God’s judgment for my sins. Does that sound reasonable?

You asked lots of questions, Joe–more than i have time to answer! Try being patient and ask one question at a time. I’ll try to be patient and answer them all, but only one at a time. Which ONE (and only one) would you like to ask me first?

I apologize; I have been trying to keep my queries simple and short, but I understand how time consuming it must be for you to respond to everyone. Perhaps, if given the time, you could address the following.

You said:

“Well, i’m not so sure Jesus was speaking literally. It seems to me that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of someone is a metaphor that was used extensively in the Old Testament–a metaphor that would have been readily recognized by Jesus’ Jewish audience. To threaten to drink someone’s blood or devour his flesh was symbolic of threatening to kill him. In John, chapter 6, Jesus might have been saying this: Unless the Jewish people put him to death, they would have no chance of receiving eternal life.”

I said:

For the first 300 years of Christianity, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist… For 1500 years of Christianity, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist… For the next 500 plus years of Christianity, to the present, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist, including all of the reformers that spearheaded the protestant reformation and the myriad churches that were spawned from said reformation, which should have, ideally, simply supplanted the catholic church with just one reformed church, built by man as opposed to God, instead of giving way to the sad and hopeless fracture we see in the protestant churches today, which by the way I still consider, as does the C.C., a part of Jesus’ mystical Body to which He is the head and savior, just not in the fullness of faith. Now, if -*** “Jesus might have been saying: Unless the Jewish people put him to death, they would have no chance of receiving eternal life,” *then Jesus Christ, Who is guiding His established church via the Holy Spirit “until the end of time," not only failed miserably to guide Jesus’ established church into all truth, but is actually guilty/responsible for steering Jesus’ established church into Eucharistic idolatry for the past 2000 years, if in fact the bread and wine are no more than mere bead and wine, once blessed. Based on your theoretical interpretation: over the span of 2000 years, not one Christian grasped the meaning of:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”?

Soc, how do you reconcile this with your stance on the Eucharist, the Greek word for thanksgiving?

I promise just one question at a time. If you want to ask me anything, I’d be happy to answer…

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I said:

For the first 300 years of Christianity, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist… For 1500 years of Christianity, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist… For the next 500 plus years of Christianity, to the present, know one ever subscribed to your interpretation of the Eucharist, including all of the reformers that spearheaded the protestant reformation and the myriad churches that were spawned from said reformation, which should have, ideally, simply supplanted the catholic church with just one reformed church, built by man as opposed to God, instead of giving way to the sad and hopeless fracture we see in the protestant churches today, which by the way I still consider, as does the C.C., a part of Jesus’ mystical Body to which He is the head and savior, just not in the fullness of faith. Now, if -*** “Jesus might have been saying: Unless the Jewish people put him to death, they would have no chance of receiving eternal life,” *then Jesus Christ, Who is guiding His established church via the Holy Spirit “until the end of time," not only failed miserably to guide Jesus’ established church into all truth, but is actually guilty/responsible for steering Jesus’ established church into Eucharistic idolatry for the past 2000 years, if in fact the bread and wine are no more than mere bead and wine, once blessed. Based on your theoretical interpretation: over the span of 2000 years, not one Christian grasped the meaning of:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”?

Soc, how do you reconcile this with your stance on the Eucharist, the Greek word for thanksgiving?

I promise just one question at a time. If you want to ask me anything, I’d be happy to answer…

You really give me too much credit, Joe! Do you think that in the last two millennium little ol’ me is the only one who put two and two together and came up with the idea that Jesus might have been using a common Jewish idiom in John, chapter 6?

 

[Pax]

Still following along. Many prayers and best wishes.

Pax

 

[paul_c]

Then you don’t think it is damaging when Protestants tell me that they don’t think Jesus’ words at the Last Supper are ambiguous? You don’t think it’s harmful when they say it is crystal clear to them that He was speaking figuratively? You don’t think it’s detrimental for them to say that you are denying the true meaning of Jesus’ words and that the word *like *is not necessary because it is understood as the plain meaning of His words?

Isn’t it true that you, PC, are playing partisan religion as much as they are?

I never claimed to be non-partisan. I believe deeply in the Truths taught by the Catholic Church. You are here for Catholic answers, and that is what I try to provide.

As for the question about whether it is damaging for Protestants to be sure of their interpretation, of course it is damaging - not because they are sure of themselves but because they are wrong. Do you see being perpetually unsure of your position as being a strength?.

 

[PJM]

Look here "Soc"

Why does the Pope have the right, indeed the mandate to speak to Gods children, on behalf of God Himself?

Matt. 16:13-19

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I (singular) tell you, (singular) you are Peter, and on this (singular) rock I (singular) will build my (singular) church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (singular) 19 I (singular) will give you (singular) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

First: we accept the fact that word’s have specific, “common” meeting to those giving utterance and to those being spoken to.

Second: We acknowledge that both those giving utterance, and those who have done the transcribing, are inspired by The Holy Spirit, (Jesus exempted because He too is God), to use specific words, phrases and locations. In other words, mere coincidence has no place in our discussion. We accept the facts that Jesus knew what He was doing, and that as God, He was incapable of lying.

Point One: Why did Jesus select the area of Caesarea Philippi, to make this enormously important appointment?

Reply: Caesarea Philippi is located in the northern part of Judea. The above quoted passage took place on a large hill, and was the location of a very large, and locally famous, Pagan Temple. As a “safeguard” the temple was build behind a huge protective ROCK.

Point Two: In O.T. biblical days it was common for cities to be walled and fortified. Further, they really did have a main gate, and there was a Key to the City, that really locked and unlocked the main gate.

Point Three: In the quoted bible passage: “I,” “you,” “my,” and “church” are all singular for very specific reasons. “Church” for example clearly, indisputably, shows God’s intent to start and Shepherd only “one church.”

Point Four: In every walled city there was a “King” which is the role Jesus assumes in this story. “Hail King of the Jews!” Mark 15:18

Point Five: As one might expect, actually running the city was a whole lot like real work, so it was delegated to another, usually called the “Prime Minister.” So we will use that term for the one who actually ran the city, day in, and day out. The P.M. answered ONLY to “the King.” What the PM ordered done, was done, and what the PM forbid, was legally forbidden, and violators were punished by the PM.

Point Six: The terms, “To Bind and or To Loose” were legal and binding at law, Rabbinical Terms, known and accepted by all those Jesus was speaking too as authority to Govern.

Point Seven: Just as Jesus is the King in this story, Simon, Now “Peter” (Greek for “rock,”) is the new Prime Minister! As such he in given total and complete autonomous rule and daily governance of the New Church that Jesus has just created. “On this “rock” meaning the very person of Peter himself, “I” will build “my” church. Again Words Mean Something!

Point Eight: “I will give you” Peter the Key’s to the Kingdom of Heaven. PERIOD! This is God telling us this fact.

Point Nine: The power to govern is immediate, total, complete, unlimited and binding on all. Amen!

First we note in verse 14, that Jesus asked the question: ”who do people say that I am?” In verse 15 He asked His twelve deciples, “but who do YOU say that I am?” And we find that they are speechless. Then Simon Peter replies: “You are the Christ.” Jesus replies in verse 17: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

In verse 18, Jesus specifies that I (singular) Jesus will build My (singular) Church (singular) upon this rock (singular). And warrants with His own merits (too soon come in His Crucifixion) that it is and will be THE TRUTH, and that Satan shall never prevail against Her.

Next in verse 19 Jesus says: I (singular) will give to you Simon Bar-Jona (also singular), the key’s to the gate of Heaven (singular).

In the Old Testament times it was common practice for the major cities to be “walled in.” They actually were surrounded by wall that had GATES, and the gates, especially the “Main gate” actually had a KEY.

Also it was common to have a KING of the City (Jesus is in this role.) And a Prime Minister who actually had COMPLETE Power and Authority to rule and administer the city. The key carrier, actually had sole possession of the “key to the city (the city is a symbol of the Kingdom of God) and ran independently the city, day-in and day-out. The carrier of “the Key,” answered to NOONE except the KING. Simon Peter was given the “Key to the KINGDOM of Heaven,” With complete and total authority to Rule and Administer “the Kingdom.”

To be sure that everyone CLEARLY understood His message, Jesus in verse 19 goes on to say as further proof of His Singular intent: “, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Why did Jesus, who is God use these very words? Because the words “to bind,” and “to Loose,” were Rabbinical Terms, Binding in Jewish Law. At the time of their pronouncement they were spoken by a Jew, to Jews who would clearly have understood the significance of the words, and their Binding authority. That is why we never read about any attempts to usurp the Power of Simon Peter by any other Apostle! They understood exactly what Jesus said, what Jesus had done, and what Jesus meant.

 

[PJM]

Soc, here is another LOOK,

Additional biblical support for “One Church” and Primacy of Peter

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .”
The “power of the keys” has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is “over a house” (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

1. Mt: 16:19 " whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

“Binding” and “loosing” were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to “forbid” and “permit” with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to “condemn” or “place under the ban” or “acquit.” Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit’s leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the Church. “Binding and loosing” represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

1. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.
2. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42: Mt 16:18).
3. Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).
4. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).
5. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32)
   .
6. Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
7. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
8. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
9. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
10. Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
11. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
12. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
13. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
14. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!
15. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
16. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
17. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
18. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
19. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
20. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
21. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
22. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!
23. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) - an example of “binding and loosing.”
24. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
25. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

29: 1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Mt. Chapter 23)

Note: While the bible does not speak specifically of the “ Chair of Peter,” this term gets it’s origin from “the Chair of Moses,” which EVERYONE KNEW WAS THE “SEAT OF RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY.”

1. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16). ‘In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government.

The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this directive to ‘Feed my sheep.‘ ”

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Hmmmmm - however, we should remember that papal authority doesn’t necessarily imply constant infallibility - I think there was a ruling about it.

St. Peter was given the keys to heaven for his essential clear sightedness - but he was far from perfect, and didn’t appear to act infallibly all the time. Didn’t he reject Jesus 3 times, and chop off someones ear against Jesus’s wishes?

It’s his essential clarity of vision, beyond that of the norm, which grants his primacy. But that doesn’t stop St. Paul arguing with him over details, does it?

As to the original statement, Jesus * refers to himself* as being deliberately obscure with regard to the parables, and as to the degree of his (and in general, Gods) obscurity most clearly in John’s Gospel. If he were absolutely deliberately and clearly obvious, we would all follow him out of self interest, whether saint or sinner, to the detriment of creation as a whole.

It’s one of the purposes of justification by faith, as I understand it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Still following along. Many prayers and best wishes.

Pax

Glad to hear that Pax. Thanks for your prayers! (They are always needed and welcomed.)