Divinely Inspired Ambiguity?

[spockrates]

It's both.
Jesus commanded the literal eating of the bread, and drinking the "fruit of the vine", as an act of obedience, in "remembrance". (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:25)
Jesus ALSO commanded obedience of ALL of the commandments his God had given him, which requires finding those words, comprehending those words, and obeying those words. (John 12:49,50.. John 14:24)

Dartman:

Thanks. So do you also think this is what Jesus' audience obviously understood the words, "eat my flesh" to mean?

"Whoever eats my flesh...has eternal life."
(John 6:54)​

 

[Dartman]

Yes, I see, now. So the phrase, "eats my flesh," was a common odium Jesus' audience would recognize! Right?

Based on their response?
NO!!

 

[Dartman]

Dartman:

Thanks. So do you also think this is what Jesus' audience obviously understood the words, "eat my flesh" to mean?

"Whoever eats my flesh...has eternal life."
(John 6:54)​

LOL .. our posts were like "ships, that pass in the night".
I think the response of the audience proves the majority most certainly did NOT understand what he said!
And, I also think a "few" took the time, and made the effort to understand.
This is consistent with Christ's God's plan.
God fully intends to save the "few" .... not the many.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Did God intend the Bible to be unclear?

So it seems to me the New Testament is somewhat a product of scriptural ambiguity. That is, certain significant passages of scripture use imprecise language, which lends itself to differing and even contradictory interpretations. If we accept the premise that the Bible is the word of God and divinely inspired, then does this mean such lack of preciaion and the resulting disagreements about the meaning of key passages is divinely intentional?

One example:

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”​

The four words, "this is my body," are cause for a great divide amoung Christians. For instance, Catholics believe Christ to be saying:

"this is my [actual] body"
​

Thus they believe the Eucharist they eat at mass is actually the body of Christ, and a sacrament that contributes to their salvation. On the other hand, some other Christians believe Christ to be saying:

"this is [like] my body"​

Hence they see the bread as merely a symbol and deny the Catholic belief in the sacrament and divide over it.

The thing is, if anything is divinely inspired, these four words are, for they were spoken by God himself! So why not say five words instead of four and stop the future divide before it begins?

Oh how I would have preferred clearer words in some passages, but I am not God. Mt 26:26 gives me no trouble at all after reading John 6:63. That may be one reason it is written the way it is, that we search the rest of scripture for clarification. Isaiah 28:10; 2 Peter 1:20. A harder passage to defend than Mt 26:26 is 1 Corinthians 13:10, that which is "perfect". I believe it should have been rendered "complete" in reference to the Bible, not Jesus.

 

[Shempster]

This was one of my biggest questions I have had my whole life.

I'll just say that at this point it appears that it contains a secret key to understanding what salvation actually is and how to be an overcomer. What's really neat is how that message is also plainly written in red ink. But that key is like understanding words of a different language. What I mean is that the main reason it is so vague and unclear on many topics is that it is designed to hide that truth from some people while showing it plainly to others!
The reason some see the true message is that they understand the "language". They can look at a passage of words and it all makes sense because they hold the key.
But those who do not hold the key cannot see it. And the kicker is that within the entire body of the church, both camps exist. Though a person may seem religious and maybe serve as a pastor he may not actually understand the gospel, but clings only to the things he was taught in seminary.

Those who do not have the key are the 5 foolish virgins. They wasted life indulging in sports, social media and chasing wealth. They spent little time searching God's riches. They were selfish and lacked love.
This is the reason they don't have the key....they hardly bothered to search for it. They bring it upon themselves. So the word makes sense to them lined up to denominational teachings while opposing passages are ignored or explained away.
In a way He is intentionally hiding the truth from many, but it is because of their own lack of love for Him that they cannot really understand it.

So...in all this I'm not saying that you don't have the key because you see it as confusing. But remember there are thousands of differing interpretations out there all wanting to sell it to you. If it were me, I would just spend time on your own. A decent amount of time. It is a life long process but just like looking for buried coins, if you keep on looking, you'll find something real.

BlessUp

 

[Dartman]

This was one of my biggest questions I have had my whole life.

I'll just say that at this point it appears that it contains a secret key to understanding what salvation actually is and how to be an overcomer. What's really neat is how that message is also plainly written in red ink. But that key is like understanding words of a different language. What I mean is that the main reason it is so vague and unclear on many topics is that it is designed to hide that truth from some people while showing it plainly to others!
The reason some see the true message is that they understand the "language". They can look at a passage of words and it all makes sense because they hold the key.
But those who do not hold the key cannot see it. And the kicker is that within the entire body of the church, both camps exist. Though a person may seem religious and maybe serve as a pastor he may not actually understand the gospel, but clings only to the things he was taught in seminary.

Those who do not have the key are the 5 foolish virgins. They wasted life indulging in sports, social media and chasing wealth. They spent little time searching God's riches. They were selfish and lacked love.
This is the reason they don't have the key....they hardly bothered to search for it. They bring it upon themselves. So the word makes sense to them lined up to denominational teachings while opposing passages are ignored or explained away.
In a way He is intentionally hiding the truth from many, but it is because of their own lack of love for Him that they cannot really understand it.

So...in all this I'm not saying that you don't have the key because you see it as confusing. But remember there are thousands of differing interpretations out there all wanting to sell it to you. If it were me, I would just spend time on your own. A decent amount of time. It is a life long process but just like looking for buried coins, if you keep on looking, you'll find something real.

BlessUp

I am convinced THIS is the key;
2 Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

 

[Light of the East]

Jesus deliberatly taught using stories which the meanings were not always clear to the discipes, let alone the ordinary man in the dusty street.

What did Jesus hand to the disciples?
Lumps of bread or lumps of still bleeding flesh?
It is clear he was speaking symboicly.

Horsefeathers!

If Jesus was speaking symbolically, then tell me why his Apostles didn't say the same thing. It is massively clear to anyone who reads the Early Fathers of the Church or looks at the first 15 centuries of doctrine that the teaching of the Eucharist as the Very Body and Blood of Christ was what Jesus said and meant.

The reason that it is not believed is that men who were bereft of the Holy Spirit and relied upon intellect couldn't wrap their human minds around it becoming the very Flesh and Blood of the Lord, so they misused their intellect to come up with something else to explain it away.

 

[Dartman]

Horsefeathers!

If Jesus was speaking symbolically, then tell me why his Apostles didn't say the same thing.

What do you mean?
The Apostles DIDN'T say the bread and grape juice turn to meat and blood, Paul stated that Jesus revealed to him;
1 Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

It is massively clear to anyone who reads the Early Fathers of the Church or looks at the first 15 centuries of doctrine that the teaching of the Eucharist as the Very Body and Blood of Christ was what Jesus said and meant.

No, it's very clear the apostate church utterly butchered Christ's teachings, and the teachings of the Apostles.

The reason that it is not believed is that men who were bereft of the Holy Spirit and relied upon intellect couldn't wrap their human minds around it becoming the very Flesh and Blood of the Lord, so they misused their intellect to come up with something else to explain it away.

Hogwash. The OBVIOUS symbolism is proof enough. As a secondary, and yet still reliable proof, the transubstantiation myth fails the "reality test";
Deut 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

 

[Light of the East]

Second, Jesus also said that the Last Supper Meal was to be done in REMEMBRANCE of Him. Jesus was physically with them in the Last Supper Meal and He was not interacting with them in some kind of deep spiritual way of mediation with His disciples. Jesus was saying that bread and wine were symbols of his body and blood being broken the next day for them.

Really? If Jesus was speaking symbolically, then tell me why his Apostles didn't say the same thing. It is massively clear to anyone who reads the Early Fathers of the Church or looks at the first 15 centuries of doctrine that the teaching of the Eucharist as the Very Body and Blood of Christ was what Jesus said and meant.

The reason that it is not believed is that men who were bereft of the Holy Spirit and relied upon intellect couldn't wrap their human minds around it becoming the very Flesh and Blood of the Lord, so they misused their intellect to come up with something else to explain it away.

Do you realize that if you were to time travel back to the sixth century and speak with any Christian anywhere in the world, even most heretics, and tell them that the Lord's Supper is just a spiritual remembrance, they would laugh you to scorn and out of their room.

For the RCC believes it is essential for salvation. However, why would Paul and the other followers of Christ fail to mention this important act as being necessary for salvation?

They didn't. You need to get out of your "Bible-only" ghetto and read some of the writings of the first Christians who learned from Paul and the Apostles. They distinctly teach that the Eucharist is central to salvation.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 140 - 202 A.D.)
…He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, "THIS IS MY BODY." The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, HE CONFESSED TO BE HIS BLOOD.

He taught THE NEW SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT, of which Malachi, one of the twelve prophets, had signified beforehand: [quotes Mal 1:10-11]. By these words He makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; BUT THAT IN EVERY PLACE SACRIFICE WILL BE OFFERED TO HIM, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against Heresies 4:17:5)

But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given IS THE BODY OF THEIR LORD, and the cup HIS BLOOD, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator… How can they say that the flesh which has been nourished BY THE BODY OF THE LORD AND BY HIS BLOOD gives way to corruption and does not partake of life? …For as the bread from the earth, receiving the invocation of God, IS NO LONGER COMMON BREAD BUT THE EUCHARIST, consisting of two elements, earthly and heavenly… (Against Heresies 4:18:4-5)

If the BODY be not saved, then, in fact, neither did the Lord redeem us with His BLOOD; and neither is the cup of the EUCHARIST THE PARTAKING OF HIS BLOOD nor is the bread which we break THE PARTAKING OF HIS BODY…He has declared the cup, a part of creation, TO BE HIS OWN BLOOD, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, HE HAS ESTABLISHED AS HIS OWN BODY, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE -- flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST… (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3)

Why would Jesus for that matter? In other words, the RCC belief of the Eucharist does not hold any weight or water if the Scriptures is your one and only spiritual authority.

Where in the Bible does the Bible teach "sola scriptura" (HINT: IT AIN'T IN THERE-ANYWHERE!)

Three, on top of that, you would also have to believe in talking to the dead as being okay (of which the Bible condemns).

Then Jesus did what the Bible condemns when He spoke with Moses and Elijah. You should really stop and think about things before you parrot anti-catholic bilgewater.

You also would have to think it is okay to have an appearance of bowing down to idols. Paul says do not even have an appearance of evil. So if somebody thinks I am bowing down an idol (when that is not really what I am doing supposedly), I am contradicting what Paul says.

Learn what an idol is. An idol is a representation of God Himself. It is a created thing which is address and treated as if it is the True and Living God. No one in any Catholic or Orthodox Church does such a thing.

Four, Jesus said, "I am the door." That does not mean He is literally a door.
Jesus said, "I am the true vine." That does not mean He is literally a vine.
Most of the time, people misunderstood Jesus because He was talking in spiritual terms and not physical terms.

He used "metaphors" from time to time. His Apostles knew (or at least He sat down and taught them) when He was speaking literally and when He was not. Again, you have to answer why the Apostles taught that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ to the next generation of converts.

I could keep going on, but that should suffice it to say that the division is not based on just one word such as "like" within the Holy Scriptures. There are many verses that refute the idea of the RCC Eucharist and there are other verses that do not agree with their other practices, as well.

There is no contradiction between the universal faith of the Apostles and the Bible.

Please take note that I have nothing against the RCC as a people; I am commanded by God to love everyone. I am simply sharing what I believe the Scriptures say.

And you are dead wrong. I say this as a man who for 25 years believed all the untruths, half-truths, and outright vicious lies said against the Catholic faith. You are listening to the wrong people, just as I did. When we listen to the first preachers of the Christian faith, we find out what the Christian faith was from the beginning. When we listen to men who are 2,000 years from the faith, who are mistrained, misled, and misanthropes, we get a crooked view of what Christianity is.

In any event, may God bless you.

Side Note:

Oh, and one more thing; My encouragement to you is to read about 50 articles or so on why the RCC is not in line with Scripture. Examine every point in Scripture for each practice they partake in and see if it lines up with God's Word or not.

I did that, and I found out that Protestantism, Evangelicalism, and Fundamentalism all violate the Scriptures in some place. The ancient faith of the Church, which is found in it's purest form in the Orthodox Church, does not. Catholicism is very close to pure, having a few heterodox statements in it, such as the Filioque clause in the Creed.

You want answers, I will give them to you if you wish to start a PM conversation.

 

[Hillsage]

Then let's agree to disagree, my friend.

Can we both act that Christian?

If you don't see it from the verses I shown you, then that is something God will have to reveal to you, if you are open to hearing about it in this life.


...

Well it lasted for 'one line' anyway. We'll both know 'for sure' on the day of judgment. And at least I'm believing in the more merciful God in the areas so grey they've been fought over for centuries by guys 'smarter' than either of us.

 

[Light of the East]

The Apostles DIDN'T say the bread and grape juice turn to meat and blood, Paul stated that Jesus revealed to him;

1 Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

No, it's very clear the apostate church utterly butchered Christ's teachings, and the teachings of the Apostles.

So you are claiming that before the contrails of Jesus' ascension into heaven even dried, the Apostles started teaching different things.

Prove it! There are NO - as in none, zero, zip, nada, zilch - writings which dogmatize whatever Protestant heresy you believe in. If you have them, bring them out and let's see them. Show us the "true church" that existed in the first century. Who are its leaders? Show us their teachings. Show us that what you believe existed in the first century. And good luck with that.

Hogwash. The OBVIOUS symbolism is proof enough. As a secondary, and yet still reliable proof, the transubstantiation myth fails the "reality test";

Deut 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Well, we in the East don't speak of "transubstantiation," which was a definition made up to satisfy the heretics in the West who were denying the real presence of Christ. It is the "Holy Mysteries" in which Christ is truly present. And that is the teaching from the beginning. You can carry on all you wish about how the church apostatized from the start, but you have no proof of this.

 

[Light of the East]

Did God intend the Bible to be unclear?

So it seems to me the New Testament is somewhat a product of scriptural ambiguity. That is, certain significant passages of scripture use imprecise language, which lends itself to differing and even contradictory interpretations. If we accept the premise that the Bible is the word of God and divinely inspired, then does this mean such lack of preciaion and the resulting disagreements about the meaning of key passages is divinely intentional?

One example:

Matthew 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”​

The four words, "this is my body," are cause for a great divide amoung Christians. For instance, Catholics believe Christ to be saying:

"this is my [actual] body"
​

Thus they believe the Eucharist they eat at mass is actually the body of Christ, and a sacrament that contributes to their salvation. On the other hand, some other Christians believe Christ to be saying:

"this is [like] my body"​

Hence they see the bread as merely a symbol and deny the Catholic belief in the sacrament and divide over it.

The thing is, if anything is divinely inspired, these four words are, for they were spoken by God himself! So why not say five words instead of four and stop the future divide before it begins?

Do you understand that for fifteen centuries, the Church had no confusion of which you speak? The biggest issues were things about which the Scriptures are silent - the two natures of Christ and His ontological issues.

The confusion didn't come until Protestant heretics began teaching that which was never known before the 16th century.

 

[Light of the East]

I am convinced THIS is the key;
2 Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Perfect description of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Light of the East]

I'm not questioning the Holy Spirit's ability to convey they truth about something as vital as how to escape hell. I'm questioning people's ability (especially my own) to know when the Holy Spirit is spoken. Also, I wonder about the way such truth is conveyed--whether it's a personal thing, where the Holy Spirit shows the truth to each individual individually, or whether it's a corporate thing where the Holy Spirit shows the truth to each individual through specific spokespersons in the Church.

Where does the Bible say is found the "pillar and ground of truth?" Individuals or the Church? Where was the very first confusion settled in Acts 15, by the musings of an individual or in the Church?

The Church has always been the place where the Holy Spirit has spoken, and if you look at history, whenever you find an individual speaking, you are likely to find heresy, such as the teaching of Arias against the Trinity.

Even in the Old Covenant, the salvific work of God was given not to individuals, but to the congregation of God's people (aka, the "edah" or Church). There is no such thing as one person speaking for God (other than our Lord). Salvation comes in community and so does truth.

Find the Church which follows the earliest of Christian teachings (HINT: Holy Orthodoxy) and you will find the Church.

 

[Light of the East]

Eating of the bread is akin to eating his flesh. In John chapter 4, we learn that Christ's meat that He ate was to do the will of the Father. Drinking his blood would be "believing" Romans 3:25 says,

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"

So eating flesh = Doing God's will.
Drinking his blood = Believing in Christ as one's savior.


...

Not at all what the first Christians believed. Why do you think that you are correct and they are wrong?

 

[Light of the East]

Fascinating! OK. Trying to wrap my head around this. There's only one way to actually (not figuratively) eat, which is by chewing with one's mouth and swallowing. So are you saying Jesus means that to receive eternal life I must chew and swallow his spiritual flesh?

That's Luther and Calvin's heresy. Jesus made no such distinctions when He said at the Last Supper "This IS my Body. This IS my Blood. Is means......is.

 

[Dartman]

I am convinced THIS is the key;
2 Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Perfect description of the Protestant Reformation.

The Protestant Reformation is actually the daughters of the "Mother of harlots". 2 Thess 2:1-12 is describing the apostate church, which the Protestants rightly protested. The problem with the Protestant Reformation is, they didn't go far enough back, and return to the Jesus actually PREACHED, and the Gospel actually TAUGHT by the apostles.

 

[Dartman]

Not at all what the first Christians believed. Why do you think that you are correct and they are wrong?

You are wrong about what they believed.

 

[Dartman]

Where does the Bible say is found the "pillar and ground of truth?" Individuals or the Church? Where was the very first confusion settled in Acts 15, by the musings of an individual or in the Church?

The Church has always been the place where the Holy Spirit has spoken, and if you look at history, whenever you find an individual speaking, you are likely to find heresy, such as the teaching of Arias against the Trinity.

Even in the Old Covenant, the salvific work of God was given not to individuals, but to the congregation of God's people (aka, the "edah" or Church). There is no such thing as one person speaking for God (other than our Lord). Salvation comes in community and so does truth.

Paul explained that the apostate church had it's beginnings in the Eldership (Acts 20), and was currently working, contemporary with Paul's writings, and would NOT be destroyed until Jesus returns (2 Thess 2:1-12), Jesus revealed to John that this "mother of harlots" would be notorious for "fornicating with the kings of the earth" Rev 17:2. There is only one organization on the planet that fits this description.

Find the Church which follows the earliest of Christian teachings (HINT: Holy Orthodoxy) and you will find the Church.

Hint: Not even close. Those doctrines the apostate church has labeled "holy orthodoxy" are diametrically opposed to the teachings, preaching and explanations actually recorded in Scripture.
Before the apostasy actually dominated the Church, the earliest creed recorded a MUCH more accurate set of teachings;

I believe in God, the Father almighty,

Creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, His only son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the holy spirit,

born of the virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died, and was buried;

he descended to the dead.

On the third day he rose again;

he ascended into heaven,

he is seated at the right hand of the Father,

and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy spirit,

the holy catholic Church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting.

Amen.

(Notice the small "c" catholic/general Church)

 

[Light of the East]

The Protestant Reformation is actually the daughters of the "Mother of harlots". 2 Thess 2:1-12 is describing the apostate church, which the Protestants rightly protested. The problem with the Protestant Reformation is, they didn't go far enough back, and return to the Jesus actually PREACHED, and the Gospel actually TAUGHT by the apostles.

Ah Ha! SDA. Should have known it.