# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[joe370]

But Joe, how do you know? How do you know the Catholic Church, which had once been God-made, is not now man-made? That’s what Protestants tell me–the Catholic Church dropped the ball, the Protestant Church picked up the ball and continued to run down field. And God put the Catholic Church on the bench until they were ready to play the game by his rules. The Protestant team is the one He now has on the world’s field.

Of course they do Soc; I used to say the same thing, until I realized that believing this was/is tantamount to saying: the Holy Spirit failed!!! If the C.C. (or should I say: the holy spirit) - didn’t drop the ball, then there would be no need for a man-made church to pick up the ball (dropped by the Holy Spirit) - and continue to run down field.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume they are right. If the Catholic Church is on the bench until they are ready to play the game by Jesus’ rules, then which church stemming from the protestant reformation did what the holy spirit failed to do? Perhaps it’s one of the Lutheran churches stemming from the 16th century Martin Luther movement. Perhaps it’s one of the churches stemming from the 16th century Calvin movement, or the Knox movement, or the Zwingli movement? Or, perhaps it’s one of the many Evangelical churches? I could do this all day! Is the holy spirit guiding all of these 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st century churches into all truth? If so, then which one? If so why then do they not believe the same things, e.g. the Eucharist? Do you think it is a mere coincidence that the only 2 churches that can trace their lineage all the way back to the Apostles, share the same truths, and embrace both sacred tradition and scared scripture?

Jesus said to just one church on Pentecost:

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

*But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
*

*But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. *

*And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.
*

Did Jesus lie to His established church when He said that He would be with His church forever? I mean, if the C.C. is the church built by Jesus, and she, as the bride of Christ is sitting the bench until she is ready to play the game by Jesus’ rules, then why did He say that He would be with His church forever…guide His church into all truth?

According to protestant argument, Jesus left the C.C. in the 16th century, or was it the 17th century when when one of these 17th century churches picked up the ball after one of these 16th century churches dropped the ball? Or was it the 18th or the 19th or the 20th or the 21st century? Or perhaps it will be some church in the future that will finally pick up the ball and run it into the end zone.

I don’t believe for one second that an all knowing/loving and powerfully omnipotent, omniscient God, Who created all things and knows all things would drop the ball, even though He has to deal with stubborn and intractable, sinful human beings, (endowed with free will) - that comprise His established church.

Do you? The fact that Jesus’ established church has remained one and united, in light of the fact that the gates of hell encroach unceasingly, with all its might, from within and without, for the better part of 2000 years, is a miracle in and of itself. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[pneuma07]

Sorry for being unclear. Ed’s reply is that the Catholic Church is deceived. My response to Ed is that he is correct. That is, he is *only *if he himself is NOT deceived. …

Let’s stick with responding to Ed, for the moment. Do you think i should respond this way?
SOC: But Ed, what you are suggesting is the Christian Church, as a unified religion, all but disappeared.

ED: Yes, that’s exactly what i’m suggesting. Satan could not destroy the Church from without, so he destroyed Her from within. His lies spread like cancer, and the Catholic Church became apostate–the Whore of Babylon prophesied by John.

SOC: But the true believers remained faithful until the Protestant Reformation, but stayed undercover?

ED: What else could they do? It was a crime to have a different religion. But God worked all things for the good of those who loved Him. Just as He ended the persecutions and worked the miracle of making Christianity the one religion of the Roman Empire, so too He worked the miracle of bringing about the Reformation. It’s spiritual warfare, you see. Satan moves, God counter moves.

SOC: And what if Satan were to deceive those who succeeded the ones who started the Reformation?

ED: Then God would counter that move with a revival, perhaps, or even a second Reformation. The Gates of Hell will not prevail against His one true Church, which has many denominations.

SOC: But Ed, what you suggest is that the Gates of Hades did prevail. For from around 325 to after 1500 AD Satan–not God–prevailed! If what you suggest is true, then he had won the war for more than a thousand years. Is this what Christ meant when He said the Gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church?

What do you think, P7? Is this the logical argument i should use to counter Ed’s claims?

Dear Soc, if Ed answers us that he is more trustworthy than the Catholic Apostolic Church
because the latter is deceived, he has simply not shown why, since the quoted prophecy from 1 Tim is referred to some, and therefore NOT to the entire Church, or almost, which is what he asks us to accept about the ancient alleged derailment.

About your argument with Ed i’d say .

You could also add, that even now, Ed’s position is a minority one. From his own point of view, Satan is even now prevailing within Christianity, and probably even within protestantisms.
Is this the fulfillment of I will be with you always ?

Ask Ed to show you please who used to believe as he does during the long Dark Ages.

 

[pneuma07]

I think what might convince me–if not Ed–is a statement from a respected early Church Father saying something to this effect:
The water of baptism, and not just the Holy Spirit, is the means by which we are forgiven.

Is there any early Church Father who spoke as clearly as that on the matter of water baptism?

There is “water baptism”, an obedience and an outward expression, and distinct from that, a “spiritual baptism”, the one which is regenerative.

This is in your words a correct description of Ed’s position.

Justin shows us that, on the contrary, what was practiced and believed was precisely a regenerative water baptism. Precisely the catholic practice and belief. And the Church would confess one baptism. That is one baptism for every new Church member, not two, one regenerative, and one with water. There was one baptism Soc, a water baptism which was considered regenerative.

About your new request, consider that we can ask the ECFs to tell us the practices and beliefs of the ancient Church, non to care to precisely counter positions that would be formulated much later than them.

I can offer you a quotation which is even earlier than Justin about the connection between water and regeneration of the believers.

Let us further inquire whether the Lord took any care to foreshadow the water and the cross. Concerning the water, indeed, it is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they should not receive that baptism which leads to the remission of sins ( Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 11) .

I’d also like to present this one

*19Afterward, when they have come up out of the water, they shall be anointed by the elder with the Oil of Thanksgiving, saying, “I anoint you with holy oil in the name of Jesus
Christ.” 20Then, drying themselves, they shall dress and afterwards gather in the church.

21The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, saying,
"Lord God, you who have made these worthy
of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration,
make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, *

8 the Apostolic Tradtion, Hegesippus, ca 215

IMHO we can see that the physical bath from which the new baptized are just coming out, is referred to as bath of regeneration - the opposite soulution would really be very strange, considering that the people addressed have just dryed themselves from baptismal water - through which sins are removed, and also that the Holy Spirit had not filled the candidates before water baptism, but is filling them during this celebration.

If these quotations aren’t helpful at all, and in case you consider it more plausible a reading of the two passages * a la Ed*, since the issue is at present tangential to the thread, I will agree to disagree on this at present.

BTW Since you were also asking about the Lutheran position, here’s their small catechism

*Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.

Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Thirdly.

How can water do such great things?–Answer.

It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.*

Not exactly what Ed teaches us. He probably will tell you that he is more trustworthy than Lutherans, because they are deceived.

 

[joe370]

P7, you said:

**Because I am wholeheartedly with our protestant brothers when they tell me we must not acknowledge any religious authority but God, and I know no other than the Apostles and their Chief, and their successors and co-workers, who received legitimate delegation of authority by the Incarnated Logos.
**

It was this line of reason that guided me back to the church built by God as opposed to the Lutheran church, built by man. Jesus entrusted specific people with the commission to carry on His ministry, and knowing that they would not live forever, this commission was passed on to their successors, as per the bible, and it was always done through the imposition of hands. I can’t think of one reason why apostolic succession is a bad thing. However I can think of many reasons why it is a must for truth to be guarded/protected.

The holy spirit was sent to just one fledgling church on Pentecost to teach and guide His church until the end of time. The holy spirit is the divine rudder steering Jesus’ established church through the tumultuous onslaught of the evil one. It is the holy spirit that keeps Jesus’ church from teaching something that would otherwise be antithetical to what Christ passed on to His Apostles, and His teachings were brought to fruition on Pentecost. To move outside of the sphere of Jesus’ establish church, which is being guided by God, and start a new church, based on the teachings of a man-made church is not only counter-productive, but a huge disservice to the new members of that man-made church, never to impugn the work of these men; just trying to be faithful to logic and reason.

However, I whole-heartedly believe, as you and all Catholics do, that all these Christians belonging to the myriad non-Catholic churches are truly our brothers and sisters in Christ, and they shouldn’t be charged with the sin of the separation to which men of both sides were to blame in the 16th century as per the CCC. Those people belonging to these man-made churches at present (as well as the past) - are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church embraces them with respect and affection as brothers …As a former Lutheran, sadly this sentiment was not reciprocated. If I had a nickel for every time a non-Catholic labeled the C.C. as something derogatory, I’d be a millionaire; not all of them of course; just look at how polite Soc is. This judgement of the C.C. can be readily witnessed by a simple google search. I have yet to witness the C.C. doing the same. Heck, I see in it my own family.

Jesus’ church is suppose to be one big family with Jesus as our brother, His Father as our Father and the blessed Mary as our Mother. I can only find this family united as one Body to which Jesus is the head, as per Jesus’ prayerful desire, in the C.C., while all the other families stemming from the 16th century, are sadly estranged from one another as well as Jesus’ established church. I often wonder if there is a chance that all of these non-Catholic families and the one Catholic family, will ever reconcile?

CCC…

17 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”[272]

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, those are possibilities. It’s possible that it’s

• Christ Himself
• the Holy Spirit
• the Bible
• supernatural revelation
• sound reason

In short, it’s possible i’ve missed something that the words of Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible might reveal to me through you, someone else, or my own reason. I can only hope there is a way out of this maze of dismay.

http://glasscityjungle.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/2007maze.jpg

• God is the source of legitimate authority, as well as of the Bible, of our reasons. The question is whether He delegated authority to a living source guarding and interpreting His Revelation.
• We had already settled that the Bible cannot be that authority. It is Revelation, not its guardian and interpreter.
• supernatural revelation. It is a part of Sacred Tradition, accepted by protestantisms, that public Revelation ceased after the First century.
• all of us have reason. What individual reason should I consider the best interpreter of Revelation ?

We have to look for something else Soc.

By now we agree there is an original model, Christ sending Apostles, who send …

Isn’t the legitimate authority you’re looking for there ?
You could just assume for a moment it is, and then we can consider all the possible objections.

In Christ
P7

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The water of baptism and the Holy spirit are not acting independently here. The Holy spirit is acting because the candidate is being baptized by water. It is not the water alone that is the cause of our forgiveness, it is the fact that we are partaking of the sacrament. It is the water, withing the sacrament that cleanses the soul… Water, outside of the sacrament has no such cleansing power.

Yes, PC, i understand what you believe, just don’t know if it’s true. The reason why i don’t: Sacred Scripture appears to be unclear as to whether water is required to be baptized (or receive) the Holy Spirit.

You see, whether it’s the real presence in the Eucharist, or the necessity of water baptism, or the authority of the Catholic Church–whatever the doctrine that separates Evangelicals from Catholics–the Bible is clear as mud. But where Evangelicals and Catholics agree–such as with Christ’s divinity–the Bible is clear as crystal.

So who or what is going to reveal the real truth about the real presence, the real baptism, and the real authority to me?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Of course they do Soc; I used to say the same thing, until I realized that believing this was/is tantamount to saying: the Holy Spirit failed!!! If the C.C. (or should I say: the holy spirit) - didn’t drop the ball, then there would be no need for a man-made church to pick up the ball (dropped by the Holy Spirit) - and continue to run down field.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume they are right. If the Catholic Church is on the bench until they are ready to play the game by Jesus’ rules, then which church stemming from the protestant reformation did what the holy spirit failed to do? Perhaps it’s one of the Lutheran churches stemming from the 16th century Martin Luther movement. Perhaps it’s one of the churches stemming from the 16th century Calvin movement, or the Knox movement, or the Zwingli movement? Or, perhaps it’s one of the many Evangelical churches? I could do this all day! Is the holy spirit guiding all of these 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st century churches into all truth? If so, then which one? If so why then do they not believe the same things, e.g. the Eucharist? Do you think it is a mere coincidence that the only 2 churches that can trace their lineage all the way back to the Apostles, share the same truths, and embrace both sacred tradition and scared scripture?

Jesus said to just one church on Pentecost:

*But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. *He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.

Did Jesus lie to His established church when He said that He would be with His church forever? I mean, if the C.C. is the church built by Jesus, and she, as the bride of Christ is sitting the bench until she is ready to play the game by Jesus’ rules, then why did He say that He would be with His church forever…guide His church into all truth?

According to protestant argument, Jesus left the C.C. in the 16th century, or was it the 17th century when when one of these 17th century churches picked up the ball after one of these 16th century churches dropped the ball? Or was it the 18th or the 19th or the 20th or the 21st century? Or perhaps it will be some church in the future that will finally pick up the ball and run it into the end zone.

I don’t believe for one second that an all knowing/loving and powerfully omnipotent, omniscient God, Who created all things and knows all things would drop the ball, even though He has to deal with stubborn and intractable, sinful human beings, (endowed with free will) - that comprise His established church.

Do you? The fact that Jesus’ established church has remained one and united, in light of the fact that the gates of hell encroach unceasingly, with all its might, from within and without, for the better part of 2000 years, is a miracle in and of itself. Wouldn’t you agree?

What’s easier, Joe–to knock out a prize fighter, or to knock down a scarecrow made to look like him?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc, if Ed answers us that he is more trustworthy than the Catholic Apostolic Church
because the latter is deceived, he has simply not shown why, since the quoted prophecy from 1 Tim is referred to some, and therefore NOT to the entire Church, or almost, which is what he asks us to accept about the ancient alleged derailment.

About your argument with Ed i’d say .

You could also add, that even now, Ed’s position is a minority one. From his own point of view, Satan is even now prevailing within Christianity, and probably even within protestantisms.
Is this the fulfillment of I will be with you always ?

Ask Ed to show you please who used to believe as he does during the long Dark Ages.

OK, let’s see how Evangelical Ed responds:

SOC: But Ed, what you suggest is that the Gates of Hades did prevail. For from around 325 to after 1500 AD Satan–not God–prevailed! If what you suggest is true, then he had won the war for more than a thousand years. Is this what Christ meant when He said the Gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church?

ED: I suppose you are speaking of Jesus’ words in Matthew, chapter 16: “And the gates of Hades will not prevail against my Church.”

SOC: Yes, i speak of none other, and just how you can reconcile your premise with Christ’s promise i wonder!

ED: Socrates, you are so like the one you follow. For the Father of Philosophy, as his Stoic critic pointed out, spoke “unreasonably and unobservantly and uncomprehensively.” And i’d say the same criticism applies to you.

SOC: How so?

ED: This so: Did Jesus say the gates of Hades would not prevail against His church, or the Devil would not prevail against His church? (Answer carefully and truthfully, now.)

SOC: Well, they are the same, are they not?

ED: You don’t sound sure, Soc.

SOC: Well, no, now that you ask, i’m not sure. Are you?

ED: Completely!

SOC: How so?

ED: This so: If you had read Plato more carefully, my friend, you’d see that the phrase, “the gate of Hades” was a common one.

SOC: Yes, if i recall, Hades was both the name of the underworld (the place of disembodied souls) and the name of the god who ruled it. But could this not be Satan by another name, and could Hades not be another name for Hell?

ED: Could it? Is Satan depicted in Scripture as ruling Hell, or as imprisoned in Hell. (Think carefully before you answer.)

SOC: Imprisoned.

ED: And does not a prisoner have no freedom?

SOC: Yes.

ED: Then how could a prisoner lead an army while imprisoned?

SOC: But He is not a prisoner now! He’s free to wage war!

ED: Yes, which is precisely why Jesus words, “And the gates of Hades will not prevail,” cannot possibly be speaking of Satan, who is not a prisoner behind bars in Hades (nor Hell) but still free.

SOC: Then what could Jesus’ words possibly mean?

ED: That would depend on what the words, “the gates of Hades” mean, would it not?

SOC: It would. But what do they mean?

ED: Think, Socrates, think! What is Hades?

SOC: A mythical place where the dead preside.

ED: And what is a myth?

SOC: It’s unreal?

ED: You’re getting warm. What besides unreal?

SOC: It represents something?

ED: You’re getting warmer. What does it represent?

SOC: Hell?

ED: No, the Greeks had no concept of Hell, so Hades would not be a symbol for it. But what do Hell and Hades have in common?

SOC: Death?

ED: You’re red hot! Yes, Hades *is *death! And that’s why entering the gates of Hades was the greatest challenge Hercules faced–for by doing so he was facing the possibility of his own mortality. As a reward, Zeus gave him immortality.

SOC: Yes, makes sense to me. But what does this have to do with the Catholic Church?

ED: That depends on your answers to the next question. (How do you like getting a dose of your own medicine?)

SOC: I think i enjoy answering questions almost as much as asking them. It’s certainly more of a challenge, but i think i learn quicker from the workout!

ED: Then answer and learn, my student! Since Hades = death, Jesus do you think Jesus must have meant this? “And death will not prevail against My Church.”

SOC: He did, if what i’ve learned from you is true.

ED: Oh it is. Let me then ask you this: How does death not prevail against the Church?

SOC: It never dies.

ED: And what is the Church of which Jesus spoke? A building?

SOC: No.

ED: A group of people?

SOC: Yes, i suppose.

ED: And does death ever prevail against these people?

SOC: Not if they retain eternal life.

ED: Well, there you have it!

 

[paul_c]

OK, let’s see how Evangelical Ed responds:

SOC: But Ed, what you suggest is that the Gates of Hades did prevail. For from around 325 to after 1500 AD Satan–not God–prevailed! If what you suggest is true, then he had won the war for more than a thousand years. Is this what Christ meant when He said the Gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church?

ED: I suppose you are speaking of Jesus’ words in Matthew, chapter 16: “And the gates of Hades will not prevail against my Church.”

SOC: Yes, i speak of none other, and just how you can reconcile your premise with Christ’s promise i wonder!

ED: Socrates, you are so like the one you follow. For the Father of Philosophy, as his Stoic critic pointed out, spoke “unreasonably and unobservantly and uncomprehensively.” And i’d say the same criticism applies to you.

SOC: How so?

ED: This so: Did Jesus say the gates of Hades would not prevail against His church, or the Devil would not prevail against His church? (Answer carefully and truthfully, now.)

SOC: Well, they are the same, are they not?

ED: You don’t sound sure, Soc.

SOC: Well, no, now that you ask, i’m not sure. Are you?

ED: Completely!

SOC: How so?

ED: This so: If you had read Plato more carefully, my friend, you’d see that the phrase, “the gate of Hades” was a common one.

SOC: Yes, if i recall, Hades was both the name of the underworld (the place of disembodied souls) and the name of the god who ruled it. But could this not be Satan by another name, and could Hades not be another name for Hell?

ED: Could it? Is Satan depicted in Scripture as ruling Hell, or as imprisoned in Hell. (Think carefully before you answer.)

SOC: Imprisoned.

ED: And does not a prisoner have no freedom?

SOC: Yes.

ED: Then how could a prisoner lead an army while imprisoned?

SOC: But He is not a prisoner now! He’s free to wage war!

ED: Yes, which is precisely why Jesus words, “And the gates of Hades will not prevail,” cannot possibly be speaking of Satan, who is not a prisoner behind bars in Hades (nor Hell) but still free.

SOC: Then what could Jesus’ words possibly mean?

ED: That would depend on what the words, “the gates of Hades” mean, would it not?

SOC: It would. But what do they mean?

ED: Think, Socrates, think! What is Hades?

SOC: A mythical place where the dead preside.

ED: And what is a myth?

SOC: It’s unreal?

ED: You’re getting warm. What besides unreal?

SOC: It represents something?

ED: You’re getting warmer. What does it represent?

SOC: Hell?

ED: No, the Greeks had no concept of Hell, so Hades would not be a symbol for it. But what do Hell and Hades have in common?

SOC: Death?

ED: You’re red hot! Yes, Hades *is *death! And that’s why entering the gates of Hades was the greatest challenge Hercules faced–for by doing so he was facing the possibility of his own mortality. As a reward, Zeus gave him immortality.

SOC: Yes, makes sense to me. But what does this have to do with the Catholic Church?

ED: That depends on your answers to the next question. (How do you like getting a dose of your own medicine?)

SOC: I think i enjoy answering questions almost as much as asking them. It’s certainly more of a challenge, but i think i learn quicker from the workout!

ED: Then answer and learn, my student! Since Hades = death, Jesus do you think Jesus must have meant this? “And death will not prevail against My Church.”

SOC: He did, if what i’ve learned from you is true.

ED: Oh it is. Let me then ask you this: How does death not prevail against the Church?

SOC: It never dies.

ED: And what is the Church of which Jesus spoke? A building?

SOC: No.

ED: A group of people?

SOC: Yes, i suppose.

ED: And does death ever prevail against these people?

SOC: Not if they retain eternal life.

ED: Well, there you have it!

okay, let’s accept Ed’s interpretation . So by his reasoning, the statement in Matthew 16 would be read as:

You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my church and death shall not prevail over it.

I’m okay with this. So those that follow the church founded on St. Peter will have eternal life. Okay. this is in relation to the Church not individuals. If Death will not prevail over it, then it must continue after the Apostles have died, thus suggesting that they will have successors, right?

Now how does Ed answer Matthew 28

18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Remember, he is talking to the Apostles and says he will be with them to the end of the Age. Does this suggest he would abandon them or the church he founded?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

CATHOLIC CARL: Soc, are you going to let this protester walk all over you?

SOC: What he says sounds true, Carl. Do you disagree?

CARL: Most definitively!

SOC: Well then, please discuss the matter with our protesting pal and perhaps we will both learn from you!

ED: Yes, do teach me something new. But don’t expect me to believe it’s true!

CARL: I can’t promise to open your eyes if you refuse to become wise, but i might save my friend from your lies.

ED: Talk is cheep, creep. Bring it on!

CARL: I believe you deceive for you fail to receive the obvious, which is this: The Church is not merely the people, it’s also an institution that Christ instituted to preserve and guard and pass on the truth. It’s not a band of refuges wandering aimlessly in the desert without a Shepherd. It’s an institution with authorities to give it’s people purpose and protect them from deception so that they do not fall prey to predators dressed in wool. Our Blessed Redeemer said the gates of Hell would not prevail against this institution, which is none other than the Apostolic and Catholic Church.

ED: (Clapping disingenuously with a sarcastic expression on his face.) Bravo stupido!

CARL: Mock if you must, but Soc knows it’s true.

SOC: Makes sense to me, Carl, but how about you?

ED: I’m OK with living for giving the Devil his due. Let’s say–just for the sake of argument–Carl is correct. Jesus was speaking of the Catholic Church. Doesn’t change a thing.

CARL: Nonsense!

ED: No, perfect sense!

SOC: This i’ve got to see!

ED: Listen and learn from me. Carl, do you agree that Hades is a symbol of death?

CARL: Let’s say for the sake of argument i do. What of it?

ED: Then Jesus was saying death will not prevail against His Church?

CARL: Yes, that’s precisely my point! You Protestants think the Church died in 325 AD when it proclaimed the Nicene Creed. Yet Jesus said His Church would never die!

ED: Never say never, Carl.

CARL: Jesus said never, Ed.

ED: Did He?

CARL: What twisted trick do you have up your tangled web of lies now?

ED: No trick, just a real treat for you–the Truth!

CARL: Now this I’D like to see.

ED: You would have me and Soc believe that Christ said, “And My Church will never die” but what He actually said was, “And the gates of Hades (or death) will not prevail against” His Church.

CARL: What else could He have meant but that the Church would continue to exist forever, as it does to this very day?

ED: Tell me, Carl, did death prevail against Jesus?

CARL: No, of course not, but i don’t see what that–

ED: Just hear me out, my Catholic critic. Are you saying Jesus never died?

CARL: Of course He died, but on the third day He rose.

ED: So He WAS dead, yet death did not prevail against Him?

CARL: True.

ED: Then if His Church were to die, would that mean death had prevailed against it? It would not, you see, if it were resurrected just as Christ was. That’s exactly what God did during the Reformation–He resurrected a dead Church.

CARL: You’re out of your mind!

ED: Just like Paul–out of my mind for Christ! Socrates knows i speak the truth.

CARL: Soc, you aren’t going to let this wolf in sheep’s clothing pull the wool over your eyes too, are you?

SOC: I–i am at a loss to say who speaks the truth! Continuous life since birth, or death and resurrection–either way the gates of Hades do not prevail. But who speaks the truth and who tells a lie i cannot tell. All i want is to know the truth! Won’t someone save me from this Socratic hell?

ED: (In disbelief shaking his head.) Poor kid wouldn’t know the truth if it punched him in the snout!

CARL: (Nodding in agreement with Ed.) No doubt!

 

[joe370]

What’s easier, Joe–to knock out a prize fighter, or to knock down a scarecrow made to look like him?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...d/landscaping/1/0/q/D/halloween_scarecrow.jpg

IRRELEVANT…

 

[joe370]

it does not appear that you are trying to be honest and straightforward with your rebuttals… Your evasive action is an apparent ploy which seems a bit too familiar…It seems we take one step forward and 3 steps backwards; perhaps this is a dance we are destined to do forever…

You are quite clever at accomplishing nothing, while seeming to accomplish something…LOL…Of course, this leads to nothing…

kudos…and no sarcasm intended:thumbsup:…I am genuinely impressed…Still looking forward to your answers to my recent posts…

 

[fhansen]

n other words, the early Church Father was speaking of *becoming *perfect, NOT being in a current state of sinless perfection.
If this is the case, then Augustine is not offering an explanation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:48. For such an explanation, i must either believe the Protestant view of *imputed *perfect righteousness (where one is positionally sinless, but in actually still sinful), or the Thomism view of achieving perfect righteousness (where one is actually sinless and no longer sins). These are the only possible ways i see of correctly interpreting Jesus’ words,Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:48)

So if i am to become a Catholic, i should either doubt that Matthew quoted Christ correctly, or i should become a Thomist and say that it is possible to become sinless this side of eternity.

Well, in any case I’d think Augustine meant that one should become perfect in order to achieve perfection.

But listen to the Thomists. Imputed righteousness, as it’s employed in the Protestant doctrine on justification, is wrong-it’s an “escape clause” which can, for all practical purposes, result in man remaining where he often prefers to be-in his own imperfections. So now we have people preaching in the name of Christ that man cannot, of necessity, do the will of God. It’s like saying that God created laws for man, knew man couldn’t obey them, held him responsible for disobedience anyway, and then at some point in time said, Oh well, I think I’ll forgive and save some of them, my Sons righteousness will be forever theirs now. This would be capriciousness on the highest level.

Catholic theology says that God created laws for man, man could obey them, God justly held man responsible for disobedience, and then He enacted a new covenant when the time was ripe, apparently after His chosen people had struggled long enough at trying to put on an outward show of holiness or obedience-trying to obey the law on their own- and then offered His plan of reconciliation and salvation to all, where He would help them obey. In this case there’s reason behind the struggle between good and evil that we face personally, reason for the experiences of pain, suffering, and death that this world inevitably delivers. Man can learn, experientially, viscerally, the reality of good and evil and the necessity of running towards the good when he sees it, he can be confronted, through the finality of death, with the absurdity in thinking he has any real control or power-and come to understand ultimately, simply, that he needs God –but not only to believe in Him but to know and love Him-in order to have life and have it abundantly, in order to have a life worth living eternally. In this new covenant, God promises to write His laws on our hearts and in our minds. He doesn’t merely overlook our sins-He molds us into beings who no longer will to sin. But this cannot be done without our cooperation because without it our wills would otherwise not be involved. This is how we become “worthy”-He’s always wanted us authentically, willfully, perfect, not “pretend” perfect-and He’ll settle for nothing less. Adam & Eve chose wrongly-and acted accordingly. He wants us to choose rightly now, and act accordingly. But, again, He doesn’t want people who merely act holy. And He doesn’t want people whose holiness is only imputed either-who’ve given* up* on the necessity for holiness for all practical purposes. He wants people who’re changed-who’ve come to love Him with their whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and their neighbor as themselves. This is-and always* was*-perfect justice, and perfect fulfillment of the Law.

**“It is love alone that gives worth to all things.” - St. Theresa of Avila

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matt 22:36-40

If you love Me, keep My commandments.” John 14:6-15

Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Rom 13:10

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
We’re told in 1Cor 6:9 and Rev 21:27 that nothing wicked, impure, or unjust will enter heaven.

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matt 5:48

…for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.” 1Pet 1:16**

The difference between the old and new covenant is not the difference between having to literally fulfill the Law vs.not having to literally fulfill it. It’s a matter of *how *the Law is to be fulfilled-what motivates its’ fulfillment. One can only satisfy the Law when its’ fulfilled by love. And this is the difference between abiding by the Spirit and abiding by the flesh.

 

[paul_c]

CATHOLIC CARL: Soc, are you going to let this protester walk all over you?

SOC: What he says sounds true, Carl. Do you disagree?

CARL: Most definitively!

SOC: Well then, please discuss the matter with our protesting pal and perhaps we will both learn from you!

ED: Yes, do teach me something new. But don’t expect me to believe it’s true!

CARL: I can’t promise to open your eyes if you refuse to become wise, but i might save my friend from your lies.

ED: Talk is cheep, creep. Bring it on!

CARL: I believe you deceive for you fail to receive the obvious, which is this: The Church is not merely the people, it’s also an institution that Christ instituted to preserve and guard and pass on the truth. It’s not a band of refuges wandering aimlessly in the desert without a Shepherd. It’s an institution with authorities to give it’s people purpose and protect them from deception so that they do not fall prey to predators dressed in wool. Our Blessed Redeemer said the gates of Hell would not prevail against this institution, which is none other than the Apostolic and Catholic Church.

ED: (Clapping disingenuously with a sarcastic expression on his face.) Bravo stupido!

CARL: Mock if you must, but Soc knows it’s true.

SOC: Makes sense to me, Carl, but how about you?

ED: I’m OK with living for giving the Devil his due. Let’s say–just for the sake of argument–Carl is correct. Jesus was speaking of the Catholic Church. Doesn’t change a thing.

CARL: Nonsense!

ED: No, perfect sense!

SOC: This i’ve got to see!

ED: Listen and learn from me. Carl, do you agree that Hades is a symbol of death?

CARL: Let’s say for the sake of argument i do. What of it?

ED: Then Jesus was saying death will not prevail against His Church?

CARL: Yes, that’s precisely my point! You Protestants think the Church died in 325 AD when it proclaimed the Nicene Creed. Yet Jesus said His Church would never die!

ED: Never say never, Carl.

CARL: Jesus said never, Ed.

ED: Did He?

CARL: What twisted trick do you have up your tangled web of lies now?

ED: No trick, just a real treat for you–the Truth!

CARL: Now this I’D like to see.

ED: You would have me and Soc believe that Christ said, “And My Church will never die” but what He actually said was, “And the gates of Hades (or death) will not prevail against” His Church.

CARL: What else could He have meant but that the Church would continue to exist forever, as it does to this very day?

ED: Tell me, Carl, did death prevail against Jesus?

CARL: No, of course not, but i don’t see what that–

ED: Just hear me out, my Catholic critic. Are you saying Jesus never died?

CARL: Of course He died, but on the third day He rose.

ED: So He WAS dead, yet death did not prevail against Him?

CARL: True.

ED: Then if His Church were to die, would that mean death had prevailed against it? It would not, you see, if it were resurrected just as Christ was. That’s exactly what God did during the Reformation–He resurrected a dead Church.

Carl: When Christ was resurrected, did he come back as someone different, with different beliefs?

Ed: No, he even bore teh marks of the Crucifixion, which he showed to the doubting apostle, Thomas.

Carl: Then how do you make the extension that the Catholic church died and came back as something different?

Ed: It came back as something better, more aligned to Christ

Carl: How do you substantiate that statement?

Ed: From the Bible.

Carl: Which Protestant denomination is the one that is supported by the Bible?

Ed: Mine, of course. There are others, but they got it wrong just as the Catholic Church did.

Carl: So what in the Bible suggests that The Catholic Church has got it wrong. After all, the Bible was put together by Catholics after the Nicene Creed, which you deny.

Ed: The Bible was put together by Christ

Carl: Through the Catholic church, which was the only Christian Church that existed in 382AD

Ed: There was always a remnant that understood the True faith, even though they were suppressed by the Catholic Church. By God’s will, they survived until the reformation

Carl: Where are the writings of this remnant?. Where is the evidence that any of the Protestant reformers drew from this remnant?

Ed: Well, I don’t personally have the evidence, but if God didn’t want the Protestants to succeed, they wouldn’t have been successful in the reformation

Carl: What do you consider success? The Protestants, even after 500 years, are a distinct minority in Christianity, numbering less than half of the Catholics. Furthermore, the biggest single denomination group, the Anglicans, are less than 7% of the size of the Catholics and they are splintering rapidly and many are likely to re-enter the Catholic Church.

Ed: Well, evangelicalism is growing

Carl: and splintering…

Ed: They are all united in Christ, who teaches us through the Holy Spirit

Carl: Then wouldn’t they all beleive the same thing.?

Ed. They believe mostly the same things, and everything that is important.

Carl: Really? Some beleive Baptism is required for salvation, others don’t. Some believe that you can sin indescriminately because Jesus saves all that believe, while others beleive that those that sin were never really saved. What is important to an Evangelical?

Ed: Faith in Jesus.

Carl: Doesn’t Faith in Jesus mean having to follow in his footsteps, doing the Father’s will?

Ed: Well, yes…

Carl: So why doesn’t every Evangelical get the same message from the Holy Spirit?

Ed: Some aren’t really getting the message from the Spirit?

Carl: How would you know who is getting the true Christian message?

 

[paul_c]

Ed: Well, it would have to align with the Bible.

Carl: all Evangelicals think their views align with the Bible. The problem is they have no authority to discern what is really true. That is why Jesus set up the Church, with a Pope as the chief authority - to help men understand what he really taught. Have you never seen the great commission in Matthew 28:
18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
The Catholic church has been fulfilling that role for the last 2000 years. In fact, if it wasn’t for the Catholic Chruch, you would know nothing of Christ, since it created the Bible as a teaching tool and you use that as your authority. Unfortunately, interpreting it without the church’s tradition as a basis can lead you to error.

Ed: I can read it better than the Pope, who is under the jurisdiction of Satan. Have you never read Revelations about the Whore of Babylon?

Carl: This is an example of not understanding scripture. John was talking about the Emperors of Rome who were persecuting the church.

 

[joe370]

Interesting perspective Ed…

ED: Tell me, Carl, did death prevail against Jesus?

Joe: I’ll speak for Carl; he’s on vacation. LOL… No!

ED: Just hear me out, my Catholic critic. Are you saying Jesus never died?

Joe: I am no critic; just a faithful follower of the church built by Jesus Christ. Jesus defeated death for all, by dying on the cross!

ED: So He WAS dead, yet death did not prevail against Him?

Joe: Death did not prevail against Jesus 2000 years ago, and death did not and does not prevail against His established church today.

ED: Then if His Church were to die, would that mean death had prevailed against it? It would not, you see, if it were resurrected just as Christ was. That’s exactly what God did during the Reformation–He resurrected a dead Church.

Joe:Yup! If His Church was to die, that would mean that death had prevailed against His ministry of teachers. If the holy spirit was/is guiding Jesus’ established church until the end of time, then it would be silly to suggest that she, as the bride of Christ, would die, necessitating the need for a resurrection. Jesus was resurrected once; the protestant reformation has been reputedly resurrection Jesus’ church repeatedly for 500 years, giving way to nothing more than a multifarious fracture of Jesus’ one Body. If as you say Ed, the holy spirit failed to guide Jesus’ church into all truth, then perhaps you will be so kind as to identify Jesus’ resurrected church, stemming from the reformation? Furthermore, what happened to the reputed true church (remnant) - that spanned the centuries side by side with the reputed apostate C.C.? Is that remnant still with us today, spanning the centuries side by side with both the C.C. and the myriad P.C.'s? Surely that is the “true church,” as opposed to any church stemming from the protestant reformation. Right Ed???

ED: Just like Paul–out of my mind for Christ! Socrates knows i speak the truth.

Joe: Hard to really tell what Soc believes? He is quite deft at rigmaroling.

SOC: I–i am at a loss to say who speaks the truth! Continuous life since birth, or death and resurrection–either way the gates of Hades do not prevail. But who speaks the truth and who tells a lie i cannot tell. All i want is to know the truth! Won’t someone save me from this Socratic hell?

Joe: Continues life until the great harvest, otherwise the devil wins. Right Ed??? Perhaps the church built by God is where truth can be found, as per the bible, codified by Jesus’ established church, which was guided by the holy spirit to achieve that task. Clearly the gates of Hades could NEVER prevail against Jesus’ body, the church, to which Jesus is the head and savior. Right Ed??? If hell can prevail against Jesus’ body, then Jesus failed to be the savior of His body, the church.

Ed, did Jesus fail to be the Savior of His body, the church, which, according to your bible, is forever guided by the holy spirit???

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

IRRELEVANT…

IRRELEVANT! IRRELEVANT! DANGER! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!

http://www.tamie.org/lisrobot.gif

 

[pneuma07]

OK, let’s see how Evangelical Ed responds:

SOC: But Ed, what you suggest is that the Gates of Hades did prevail. For from around 325 to after 1500 AD Satan–not God–prevailed! If what you suggest is true, then he had won the war for more than a thousand years. Is this what Christ meant when He said the Gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church?

ED: I suppose you are speaking of Jesus’ words in Matthew, chapter 16: “And the gates of Hades will not prevail against my Church.”

SOC: Yes, i speak of none other, and just how you can reconcile your premise with Christ’s promise i wonder!

ED: Socrates, you are so like the one you follow. For the Father of Philosophy, as his Stoic critic pointed out, spoke “unreasonably and unobservantly and uncomprehensively.” And i’d say the same criticism applies to you.

SOC: How so?

ED: This so: Did Jesus say the gates of Hades would not prevail against His church, or the Devil would not prevail against His church? (Answer carefully and truthfully, now.)

SOC: Well, they are the same, are they not?

ED: You don’t sound sure, Soc.

SOC: Well, no, now that you ask, i’m not sure. Are you?

ED: Completely!

SOC: How so?

ED: This so: If you had read Plato more carefully, my friend, you’d see that the phrase, “the gate of Hades” was a common one.

SOC: Yes, if i recall, Hades was both the name of the underworld (the place of disembodied souls) and the name of the god who ruled it. But could this not be Satan by another name, and could Hades not be another name for Hell?

ED: Could it? Is Satan depicted in Scripture as ruling Hell, or as imprisoned in Hell. (Think carefully before you answer.)

SOC: Imprisoned.

ED: And does not a prisoner have no freedom?

SOC: Yes.

ED: Then how could a prisoner lead an army while imprisoned?

SOC: But He is not a prisoner now! He’s free to wage war!

ED: Yes, which is precisely why Jesus words, “And the gates of Hades will not prevail,” cannot possibly be speaking of Satan, who is not a prisoner behind bars in Hades (nor Hell) but still free.

SOC: Then what could Jesus’ words possibly mean?

ED: That would depend on what the words, “the gates of Hades” mean, would it not?

SOC: It would. But what do they mean?

ED: Think, Socrates, think! What is Hades?

SOC: A mythical place where the dead preside.

ED: And what is a myth?

SOC: It’s unreal?

ED: You’re getting warm. What besides unreal?

SOC: It represents something?

ED: You’re getting warmer. What does it represent?

SOC: Hell?

ED: No, the Greeks had no concept of Hell, so Hades would not be a symbol for it. But what do Hell and Hades have in common?

SOC: Death?

ED: You’re red hot! Yes, Hades *is *death! And that’s why entering the gates of Hades was the greatest challenge Hercules faced–for by doing so he was facing the possibility of his own mortality. As a reward, Zeus gave him immortality.

SOC: Yes, makes sense to me. But what does this have to do with the Catholic Church?

ED: That depends on your answers to the next question. (How do you like getting a dose of your own medicine?)

SOC: I think i enjoy answering questions almost as much as asking them. It’s certainly more of a challenge, but i think i learn quicker from the workout!

ED: Then answer and learn, my student! Since Hades = death, Jesus do you think Jesus must have meant this? “And death will not prevail against My Church.”

SOC: He did, if what i’ve learned from you is true.

ED: Oh it is. Let me then ask you this: How does death not prevail against the Church?

SOC: It never dies.

ED: And what is the Church of which Jesus spoke? A building?

SOC: No.

ED: A group of people?

SOC: Yes, i suppose.

ED: And does death ever prevail against these people?

SOC: Not if they retain eternal life.

ED: Well, there you have it!

Dear Ed,

            your interpretation is perfectly acceptable.

His Church is Sacramentum Salutis, sacrament of salvation, and the believer who keeps obeing her and receiving the sanctification power which Our Lord entrusted to her, is not to die.

 

[joe370]

IRRELEVANT! IRRELEVANT! DANGER! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!

http://www.tamie.org/lisrobot.gif

LOL…

 

[pneuma07]

CATHOLIC CARL: Soc, are you going to let this protester walk all over you?

SOC: What he says sounds true, Carl. Do you disagree?

CARL: Most definitively!

SOC: Well then, please discuss the matter with our protesting pal and perhaps we will both learn from you!

ED: Yes, do teach me something new. But don’t expect me to believe it’s true!

CARL: I can’t promise to open your eyes if you refuse to become wise, but i might save my friend from your lies.

ED: Talk is cheep, creep. Bring it on!

CARL: I believe you deceive for you fail to receive the obvious, which is this: The Church is not merely the people, it’s also an institution that Christ instituted to preserve and guard and pass on the truth. It’s not a band of refuges wandering aimlessly in the desert without a Shepherd. It’s an institution with authorities to give it’s people purpose and protect them from deception so that they do not fall prey to predators dressed in wool. Our Blessed Redeemer said the gates of Hell would not prevail against this institution, which is none other than the Apostolic and Catholic Church.

ED: (Clapping disingenuously with a sarcastic expression on his face.) Bravo stupido!

CARL: Mock if you must, but Soc knows it’s true.

SOC: Makes sense to me, Carl, but how about you?

ED: I’m OK with living for giving the Devil his due. Let’s say–just for the sake of argument–Carl is correct. Jesus was speaking of the Catholic Church. Doesn’t change a thing.

CARL: Nonsense!

ED: No, perfect sense!

SOC: This i’ve got to see!

ED: Listen and learn from me. Carl, do you agree that Hades is a symbol of death?

CARL: Let’s say for the sake of argument i do. What of it?

ED: Then Jesus was saying death will not prevail against His Church?

CARL: Yes, that’s precisely my point! You Protestants think the Church died in 325 AD when it proclaimed the Nicene Creed. Yet Jesus said His Church would never die!

ED: Never say never, Carl.

CARL: Jesus said never, Ed.

ED: Did He?

CARL: What twisted trick do you have up your tangled web of lies now?

ED: No trick, just a real treat for you–the Truth!

CARL: Now this I’D like to see.

ED: You would have me and Soc believe that Christ said, “And My Church will never die” but what He actually said was, “And the gates of Hades (or death) will not prevail against” His Church.

CARL: What else could He have meant but that the Church would continue to exist forever, as it does to this very day?

ED: Tell me, Carl, did death prevail against Jesus?

CARL: No, of course not, but i don’t see what that–

ED: Just hear me out, my Catholic critic. Are you saying Jesus never died?

CARL: Of course He died, but on the third day He rose.

ED: So He WAS dead, yet death did not prevail against Him?

CARL: True.

ED: Then if His Church were to die, would that mean death had prevailed against it? It would not, you see, if it were resurrected just as Christ was. That’s exactly what God did during the Reformation–He resurrected a dead Church.

CARL: You’re out of your mind!

ED: Just like Paul–out of my mind for Christ! Socrates knows i speak the truth.

CARL: Soc, you aren’t going to let this wolf in sheep’s clothing pull the wool over your eyes too, are you?

SOC: I–i am at a loss to say who speaks the truth! Continuous life since birth, or death and resurrection–either way the gates of Hades do not prevail. But who speaks the truth and who tells a lie i cannot tell. All i want is to know the truth! Won’t someone save me from this Socratic hell?

ED: (In disbelief shaking his head.) Poor kid wouldn’t know the truth if it punched him in the snout!

CARL: (Nodding in agreement with Ed.) No doubt!

Comparing the Resurrected One and protestantisms, proposing that Reformation was the resurrection of His Body which is His Church, is profoundly unplausible.

What resurrected the third day, Ed, His whole Body, or a fragment of it ?
And in the second case, was at least this fragment united within itself, or splitted and ever splitting into sub-fragments ?

Have I to understand Ed, that your comparison is with protestantisms as a whole, or just with your peculiar branch of them , however you define it ?

BTW what is your branch exactly ? Did you jettison the faithful remants model, which tells us the true Church was always alive ?

See you Ed.