# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[pneuma07]

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?

I must have written a couple of things on that somewhere in the thread, but am fine with trying to articulate a position on the profound central topic of the present thread itself.

My short answer to the first point is NO. If we consider intrinsic ambiguity, as presenting error and truth on equal footing. That does not appear compatible with inspiration. No more than real major contradictions.

That has nothing to do with Scriptures being a straight exposition of Christian Revelation, ready to be directly received from the paper, or the PC screen, by any modern reader.

Let me offer this newmannian quotation to your meditation.

if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words, is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself.
Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is idiomatic and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs obiter, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligation?
Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. (On the inspiration of Scripture, ch. 15 1884)

Reformation OTOH, was ignited by some guys who would implicitly propose something like : “The Catholic Church went astray. Scriptures are not perspicuous at all to the Catholic Church, which has been preaching grave errors for centuries and centuries. I know that, because Scriptures are perspicuous, to me personally.”.
As you put it, there was a competition. We can say it was among CONtexts to soundly receive the written word.
What was rejected as CONtext was the life and the teaching of the Catholic Church. What was proposed was IMHO the Reformer’s individual judgment.
Or better, soon there were Reformers’ individual judgments, in competition with each other as well as with the Catholic Church. And then, quite naturally so, the “You have the Spirit, I have the Spirit” approach we were dealing with.

 

[pneuma07]

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?

The next steps I propose is to consider that Timothy and Titus were not mere presbyters as any other.

Titus 1:5: “For this reason I left you (i.e., Titus) in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you”

Titus receives the authority to ordain presbyters throughout the entire large island of Crete. The authority to ordain is an Episcopal authority, in the terminology soon to be accepted by the Church, as we already see in Ignatius.
In this first generation the terms elder and overseer appears interchangeable, as we know, but that does not appear reflected in the absence of the function of the particular arch-presbyter soon to be exclusively called bishop/overseer.

IMHO it is reasonable inferring that Timothy and Titus were to succeed the Apostle as bishops.

And these are individual scriptural cases we can compare with Clement’s witness, which is as near to Scriptures as anything we have, on the general issue of the episcopate as succeeding the Apostles by apostolic decision.

Bless you
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

huf huf huf

Think I overdid it actually - put my twopenny’s worth on too many posts - I’ll probably be back again in a while… this is a loooong debate, looking at how long it’s been going…

:juggle:

LOL! It’s actually part two. Part one was Prodigal’s Isle.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=363493



You are welcome to join in. The more heads put together the better.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, we all agree that without the benefit of Catholic tradition, you can misread scripture, so to that extent, scripture can be ambiguous. And it is clear that parts of scripture are harder to understand than others. For instance, I am convinced that no one will understand Revelations completely until the events come to pass. That is the nature of prophesy. So, I’m on board with those that understand these facts to mean that Scripture is ambiguous. At the same time, I will tell you that if you understand Catholic Tradition, it is supported unambiguously by scripture.

Good to see we all agree about Sacred Scripture being ambiguous to those who don’t know how to correctly interpret it.



So i wonder–and i’m not sure if you have an opinion, but if you do i’d like to hear it–why Protestants believe Jesus’ words at the Last Supper are *not *ambiguous and are clearly figures of speech. Do you think they are blind to the ambiguity? I mean, they see Sacred Scripture as an authority. Yet they don’t see it as ambiguous. It means only what they believe it means, and cannot possibly mean what the Catholics think it means, they say. If they would see Christ’s words as ambiguous–as meaning either what they think His words mean, or what the Catholic Church teaches His words mean–perhaps they’d be more inclined to investigate the claims of Catholicism.

To me, it seems that such religious partisanship on the part of Protestants is a curse, rather than a blessing. For them, perhaps, Socrates’ words might be true:Now, the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this—that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

(Phaedo)
Were it not for my desire to become more like Socrates, i dare say i’d still be a partisan like them.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Hey Soc, If you are correct, perhaps you could give me the names of these people spanning 2000 years of Christianity, inside or outside the church built by Jesus, that 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. If you can then I will acquiesce; if you cannot, then yes, I’m afraid I’m gonna have to give you all of the credit for this theory my friend. I"m not gonna let you off the hook that easy. LOL…

Perhaps you are right, Joe. I mean, who do i think i am? Why would God choose to show me something no one else seems to get–at least no one who was important enough that people took note of, and recorded, what he said. What? Am i another Abraham? Or a Moses? Or a Peter? Or (God forbid!) a Joseph Smith? Yes, i see what you mean. Sounds crazy to me, too!

But what if–for some terrifying and unknown reason–God wants to show me something, well, original? I spend a lot of time praying for wisdom, and asking others to pray the same for me. What if God saw fit to answer that prayer? I think it would be a great sin to take such a valuable gift and throw in in the mud and walk all over it; don’t you think?

It’s true, i’m no one. But Paul writes:But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

(1 Corinthians 1:27-29)
And Socrates says:In any case, the question we’ve got to consider is not who said it, but whether or not the statement is true.

(Charmides, 161)So, if you are willing, Joe, let’s not consider how outrageous it is that God might show something new to somebody who is a nobody. Let’s instead consider what that nobody thinks he has been shown to see whether it is true.

 

[paul_c]

Good to see we all agree about Sacred Scripture being ambiguous to those who don’t know how to correctly interpret it.



So i wonder–and i’m not sure if you have an opinion, but if you do i’d like to hear it–why Protestants believe Jesus’ words at the Last Supper are *not *ambiguous and are clearly figures of speech. Do you think they are blind to the ambiguity? I mean, they see Sacred Scripture as an authority. Yet they don’t see it as ambiguous. It means only what they believe it means, and cannot possibly mean what the Catholics think it means, they say. If they would see Christ’s words as ambiguous–as meaning either what they think His words mean, or what the Catholic Church teaches His words mean–perhaps they’d be more inclined to investigate the claims of Catholicism.

To me, it seems that such religious partisanship on the part of Protestants is a curse, rather than a blessing. For them, perhaps, Socrates’ words might be true:Now, the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this—that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

(Phaedo)
Were it not for my desire to become more like Socrates, i dare say i’d still be a partisan like them.

Well, it is very curious why people who beleive in the literal interpretation of the bible on things like the creation of the world in 7 days, will not accept the literal interpretation of the words, " This is my Body". I suspect it comes in part from the acknowledgement that if you believe that the Bread and Wine can be consecrated by a priest to become the Body and blood of Christ, then you have no choice but to believe in the ordained priesthood and by extension, the Catholic Church.

 

[joe370]

“The Catholic Church went astray. Scriptures are not perspicuous at all to the Catholic Church, which has been preaching grave errors for centuries and centuries. I know that, because Scriptures are perspicuous, to me personally.

”.
As you put it, there was a competition. We can say it was among CONtexts to soundly receive the written word.
What was rejected as CONtext was the life and the teaching of the Catholic Church. What was proposed was IMHO the Reformer’s individual judgment.
Or better, soon there were Reformers’ individual judgments, in competition with each other as well as with the Catholic Church. And then, quite naturally so, the “You have the Spirit, I have the Spirit” approach we were dealing with.

Excellent point! If the C.C. has been teaching/preaching grave errors for centuries and centuries, then who is to say with certainty that the C.C. correctly codified the holy bible, if in fact what non-Catholics say, is true? Why don’t they ever question the veracity of the bible, again canonized by the C.C.? They can’t have it both ways! To embrace the bible as the “inerrant” and “infallible” word of Jesus is to embrace His church which is “forever” guided by the infallible holy spirit. Certainly the holy spirit didn’t abandon the “house of the living God” and the “pillar and foundation of truth,” once the bible was finally codified by the C.C. in the 4th century? What did all those reputed sola scriptura Christians do before this momentous occasion? They did exactly as the bible instructs:

*“Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrews 13:17
*

*“so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church *to the principalities and authorities in the heavens.” Ephesians 3:10

“Lay hands hastily on no man, and be not partaker of other men’s sins.” 1 Tim. 5:22

“Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbyter.” 1 Tim. 4:14

“And when they had ordained them elders [presbuteros] in every church… "Acts 14:23

“Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop therefore must be without reproach…”1 Timothy 3

“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.” Titus

"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia… Acts 20

“Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock in which the Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops to be shepherds for God’s church which he acquired with his own blood.” Acts 20:28

“Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as bishops… “2 Peter

“And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” 2 Corinthians

Why do we need bishops to be shepherds for God’s church if in fact sola scriptura via individual interpretation is correct course of action? Why aren’t all Christians called bishops (overseers) - of Jesus’ church? Why didn’t Paul simply hand out bibles (which didn’t exist) - as opposed to sending to Ephesus the elders of the church? Why did Paul instruct Timothy to ordain elders in every church, as opposed to handing out bibles? Why were men seeking the office of bishop if in fact there is no difference between the clergy and the rest of the Christians? Why was/is the laying on of the hands of the presbyter necessary if in fact there is no difference between the clergy and the rest of the body of Christians? Why are we to obey our leaders and defer to them if in fact the bible is the source and summit of all authority, via individual interpretation???

Most people couldn’t even read and certainly the bible, once codified, was not circulated like it is today, until Mr. Gutenberg came along 1500 years later. Simply stated, the man-made doctrine sola scriptura would not have worked for 1500 years! Furthermore, are Christians in the world today, to continue to do as the Christians did 2000 years ago:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

 

[joe370]

Well, it is very curious why people who beleive in the literal interpretation of the bible on things like the creation of the world in 7 days, will not accept the literal interpretation of the words, " This is my Body". I suspect it comes in part from the acknowledgement that if you believe that the Bread and Wine can be consecrated by a priest to become the Body and blood of Christ, then you have no choice but to believe in the ordained priesthood and by extension, the Catholic Church.

**Paul, you hit the nail right on the head… **

 

[joe370]

Perhaps you are right, Joe. I mean, who do i think i am? Why would God choose to show me something no one else seems to get–at least no one who was important enough that people took note of, and recorded, what he said. What? Am i another Abraham? Or a Moses? Or a Peter? Or (God forbid!) a Joseph Smith? Yes, i see what you mean. Sounds crazy to me, too!

But what if–for some terrifying and unknown reason–God wants to show me something, well, original? I spend a lot of time praying for wisdom, and asking others to pray the same for me. What if God saw fit to answer that prayer? I think it would be a great sin to take such a valuable gift and throw in in the mud and walk all over it; don’t you think?

It’s true, i’m no one. But Paul writes:But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

(1 Corinthians 1:27-29)
And Socrates says:In any case, the question we’ve got to consider is not who said it, but whether or not the statement is true.

(Charmides, 161)So, if you are willing, Joe, let’s not consider how outrageous it is that God might show something new to somebody who is a nobody. Let’s instead consider what that nobody thinks he has been shown to see whether it is true.

Soc I certainly WAS NOT implying that you are “no one” and yes,* “God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him,”* but surely God wouldn’t wait 2000 years to present the truth regarding John 6 to you me or anyone for that matter. Agreed???

Furthermore, if in fact Jesus did wait 2000 years to manifest the truth regarding the Eucharist to you, or anyone for that matter, then without doubt eastern orthodox and catholic Christians are guilty of Eucharistic idolatry. - And the holy spirit right from the word go, on Pentecost, failed in His mission, to boot.

However, I certainly respect your right to believe what ever you want to believe my friend, and if for some unknown reason–God wants to show you something, well, original, then surely anything is possible.

I know you spend a lot of time praying for wisdom, and asking others to pray the same for you, and that’s great, but certainly the early church (men who knew the Apostles) - would be in a better position to know with certainty what the holy spirit imparted to the Apostles on Pentecost?

If God saw fit to answer your prayer regarding John 6, then logically speaking and without impugning your judgement or belief, God failed to impart truth to the Apostles on Pentecost. And yes it would be a great sin to take such a valuable gift of yours and throw it in the mud and walk all over it, however, I am not doing that. I’m simply trying to be faithful to logic and reason. Again, if you want to believe that your interpretation is a gift of discernment from God then I am certainly cool with that!

I suppose we will just have to amiably agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…
However, I certainly respect your right to believe what ever you want to believe my friend, and if for some unknown reason–God wants to show you something, well, original, then surely anything is possible.

I know you spend a lot of time praying for wisdom, and asking others to pray the same for you, and that’s great, but certainly the early church (men who knew the Apostles) - would be in a better position to know with certainty what the holy spirit imparted to the Apostles on Pentecost?

If God saw fit to answer your prayer regarding John 6, then logically speaking and without impugning your judgement or belief, God failed to impart truth to the Apostles on Pentecost. And yes it would be a great sin to take such a valuable gift of yours and throw it in the mud and walk all over it, however, I am not doing that. I’m simply trying to be faithful to logic and reason. Again, if you want to believe that your interpretation is a gift of discernment from God then I am certainly cool with that!

I suppose we will just have to amiably agree to disagree on this one.

Don’t believe. Just wonder. I think John 6 is actually the strongest evidence for the Eucharist (however, P7 casts doubt on this, saying that the Apostle John did not even write the gospel that bears his name). The reason i found John 6 most compelling is this: When i discussed the meaning of Jesus’ words in the chapter with my Protestant friends, they all said Jesus was speaking figuratively of believing in Christ. But they could not find another example in Sacred Scripture of eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood as a symbol of trusting in who someone is and in what someone did.

The only example i could see–one that Pax brought to my attention–was that of devouring the flesh being a metaphor for vanquishing an enemy in the Old Testament. So i wonder if this idiom–commonly known in Jesus’ time where the rabbis were preaching from the Torah of God vanquishing the Roman occupiers–might have been what Jesus meant. I didn’t get far in the conversation you and i had previously, for the hot-button issue quickly became heated. It’s something i still wonder, but its more a remote possibility in my mind than a likely probability.

 

[paul_c]

Don’t believe. Just wonder. I think John 6 is actually the strongest evidence for the Eucharist (however, P7 casts doubt on this, saying that the Apostle John did not even write the gospel that bears his name). The reason i found John 6 most compelling is this: When i discussed the meaning of Jesus’ words in the chapter with my Protestant friends, they all said Jesus was speaking figuratively of believing in Christ. But they could not find another example in Sacred Scripture of eating one’s flesh and drinking one’s blood as a symbol of trusting in who someone is and in what someone did.

The only example i could see–one that Pax brought to my attention–was that of devouring the flesh being a metaphor for vanquishing an enemy in the Old Testament. So i wonder if this idiom–commonly known in Jesus’ time where the rabbis were preaching from the Torah of God vanquishing the Roman occupiers–might have been what Jesus meant. I didn’t get far in the conversation you and i had previously, for the hot-button issue quickly became heated. It’s something i still wonder, but its more a remote possibility in my mind than a likely probability.

I personally believe that John wrote the bible that bears his name (even if he dictated it to someone else, it is still his Gospel). And besides, either you believe scripture is inspired or you don’t. If it’s inspired, regardless of author, then the quotes from Jesus in John 6 are valid. And this has nothing to do with vanquishing an enemy, there is nothing even remotely discussing an enemy in John 6. it is all about salvation and the need to partake of the eucharist.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I would trust the expert! In the case of the Catholic church, these representatives are accredited representatives by virtue of their unique position in history, as opposed to their unique scholarly prowess.

My goal as a floundering Christian was to find the church in the world today, built on Pentecost, by Jesus Christ as opposed to mere men, regardless of their exceptional and unique scholarly prowess, knowing full well that Jesus built only one church and conferred upon His one church the holy spirit to guide His one church into the fullness of truth, until the end of time. The rest is faith in the notion that you can trust the one church built by Jesus, to which He is the head and savior, to which not even Satan can vanquish.

And are you an expert who i can trust to know me better than myself? Perhaps you are, but before i trust your analysis of my psyche, i should ask for your credentials. Are these the words of a psychoanalyst with a doctor’s degree in psychotherapy and years of counseling experience?

I have no doubt that this courtroom drama is in many ways a reflection of what you are feeling - significant pressure from your Protestant friends and family members to stay the course. But you also recognize that they are giving you no rational support for their positions, only anti-catholic biases. And in the end, they are condemning you to hell because of your beliefs, but they give you no answers as to why Catholic beliefs would be condeming. This was the subject of the other thread. If you beleive that Fatih in Jesus’s redemptive power is all that is needed for Salvation, how could becoming a Catholic condemn you. We believe in Jesus’ redemptive power.

I know this is scary for you and that you feel you need to be able to defend yourself to your Protestant friends and family members. We’ve already given you more than enough to persuade anyone that is willing to listen. In your heart, you know that. Some will simply never accept your decision and you will lose some friends, no doubt. But ask yourself this: wouldn’t a real friend support you. After all, a real friend loves…

In the end, this will be between you and God, not between you and your firends. You can make new friends, and you will. But there is only one God, he is leading you to the truth and it is now up to you to accept it.

I think a helpful thing for you at this point is to engage some of the Converts on these pages. Many, if not most of them have gone through the same anxiety as you are. Ask them about their experience and how they managed the relationships with their Protestant friends and families. I’m sure it wasn’t always easy for them, but I’ll bet you they all said in the end it was worth the plunge.

 

[paul_c]

And are you an expert who i can trust to know me better than myself? Perhaps you are, but before i trust your analysis of my psyche, i should ask for your credentials. Are these the words of a psychoanalyst with a doctor’s degree in psychotherapy and years of counseling experience?

To be fair, I wrote that psychoanalysis of you, not Joe. And no, I am not a registered psychologist so feel free to ignore it. However, I do recommend that you reflect on the courtroom drama thath you devised and think about how it reflects outwardly to us. You might find it very instructive. Sometimes, we don’t see ourselves very clearly at all…

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,
that’s so encouraging.

I did not have any specific prayer, or expectation, before that post . I must admit that you have been in my prayers these weeks, and I remember a couple of times when I also asked to be able to help you.
I also guess I am not the only one praying for you here.

I t could be helpful if you wanted to tell in your own words what breakthrough you consider we achieved in that post

Would that i would say encouraging words more often!But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.

(Hebrews 3:13)
It was these words you wrote that brought some affirming light on the subject: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.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I dare to suggest that enlightening that darkness could be very helpful for many Evangelicals. And…. not that helpful for Evangelicalism.

Beginning for example by producing a single credible narrative about the famous faithful remnants, which everybody could scrutinize.

Their teaching–from what i know of sitting at the feet of some of the best of their teachers for many years–is that the words of the Bible, and the example of the early Church in Acts, is all that is necessary to reveal all the truth they need to guide them. I’d still believe as they do, were it not for you, and other helpful Catholics before you, helping me realize that the Bible is not as clear as Evangelicals indicate.

Funny, isn’t it? So many Catholics at odds with Protestants for so many hundreds of years using the same failed strategy: They try to convince Protestants that the Bible says the opposite of what Protestants think it says. Protestants–thinking Catholics undoubtedly deceived–react with debate, denial, or derision! It’s like the Loony Tunes cartoons where Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck shout, “Duck season!” and “No, rabbit season!” over and over while Elmer Fudd the hunter stands by with his shot gun in hand, waiting to see who will lose the argument so he can pull the trigger! It would be laughable (and i suppose it is from a demonic point of view) were eternal consequences not at stake.

But, if Catholics were spiritually savvy enough to point out the ambiguities of Christ’s words and engage in a discussion about how the meaning might not be as clear as Protestants believe it is–well, it seems to me this strategy is more likely to succeed. At least, it’s working for me–not because anyone pointed out the lack of clarity in Jesus’ words, but because i stumbled upon the idea myself. Or possibly it’s because the Holy Spirit helped me see the ambiguity? Seems an odd way to go about things–the One who is in no way the author of confusion using confusion to bring clarity. But i suppose it was a necessary step for me to take. I had to become unsure of the truth of what i believed before i’d be willing to consider any alternative.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Reformation OTOH, was ignited by some guys who would implicitly propose something like : “The Catholic Church went astray. Scriptures are not perspicuous at all to the Catholic Church, which has been preaching grave errors for centuries and centuries. I know that, because Scriptures are perspicuous, to me personally.”.
As you put it, there was a competition. We can say it was among CONtexts to soundly receive the written word.
What was rejected as CONtext was the life and the teaching of the Catholic Church. What was proposed was IMHO the Reformer’s individual judgment.
Or better, soon there were Reformers’ individual judgments, in competition with each other as well as with the Catholic Church. And then, quite naturally so, the “You have the Spirit, I have the Spirit” approach we were dealing with.

Sounds like a reasonable assessment to me.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The next steps I propose is to consider that Timothy and Titus were not mere presbyters as any other.

Titus 1:5: “For this reason I left you (i.e., Titus) in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you”

Titus receives the authority to ordain presbyters throughout the entire large island of Crete. The authority to ordain is an Episcopal authority, in the terminology soon to be accepted by the Church, as we already see in Ignatius.
In this first generation the terms elder and overseer appears interchangeable, as we know, but that does not appear reflected in the absence of the function of the particular arch-presbyter soon to be exclusively called bishop/overseer.

IMHO it is reasonable inferring that Timothy and Titus were to succeed the Apostle as bishops.

And these are individual scriptural cases we can compare with Clement’s witness, which is as near to Scriptures as anything we have, on the general issue of the episcopate as succeeding the Apostles by apostolic decision.

Bless you
P7

Another reasonable sounding premise. What’s the next?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, it is very curious why people who beleive in the literal interpretation of the bible on things like the creation of the world in 7 days, will not accept the literal interpretation of the words, " This is my Body". I suspect it comes in part from the acknowledgement that if you believe that the Bread and Wine can be consecrated by a priest to become the Body and blood of Christ, then you have no choice but to believe in the ordained priesthood and by extension, the Catholic Church.

I think it has something to do with Jesus’ unique teaching style. He was, like Socrates, big on using symbolism (parables are just one example). I think that this extensive use of figures of speech kept the Apostles guessing–so much so that when Jesus told them He was going to be crucified and rise from the dead, they did not understand what He was saying. The only way i can see that they did not understand Him would be if they thought He was using crucifixion as some kind of metaphor. There is also this passage:
Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”

(John 16:29-30)

The fact that the Apostles said this at the end of His mission on earth apparently indicates that up until this moment they were continuously unsure when He was speaking literally and when He was not. I suppose that if even the Apostles were confused regarding the literal-or-figurative question, one should not blame Protestants for being confused, too.

 

[utunumsint]

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?

I’ve been reading a history of the church over the last couple of weeks, and I can tell you withouth a doubt that there have been controversies that have wracked the church throughout the centuries over doctrinal issues that seem clear to you.

The words actual does not indicate what that happens to the elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist. You would still have issues over that. Transubstantiation over consubstantiation would be open, even with the words actual inserted into the text. Symbolic interpretations would be far less likely, however. I’ll agree with that. But you see how the rabit hole continues even with this clarification.

God bless,
Ut

 

[PJM]

=paul c;5836015]Well, we all agree that without the benefit of Catholic tradition, you can misread scripture, so to that extent, scripture can be ambiguous. And it is clear that parts of scripture are harder to understand than others. For instance, I am convinced that no one will understand Revelations completely until the events come to pass. That is the nature of prophesy. So, I’m on board with those that understand these facts to mean that Scripture is ambiguous. At the same time, I will tell you that if you understand Catholic Tradition, it is supported unambiguously by scripture.
.

Paul, well said. THANKS:thumbsup: