Petronius,
Forgive me for saying this but since you decided to misrepresent my beliefs and call it rubbish, I don't feel so bad.
What you describe as "rubbish" is simply your opinion.
You simply do not have the authority to place your opinion over the interpretation from the DRV that I posted. The emphasis in the DRV was on a word that you ignored in the context. (Due to your fallen nature, it is your fault, not the Scriptures) "How can I know unless someone teach me?" :)
Considering you remove verses from context and have to paraphrase to make them fit. I would say that your exegesis is about as objective as a Rorschach test.
While I realize Paul did the same thing, you are not Paul and are not under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
I have not stated that Aquinas is necessary. Please don't misrepresent my position. I'm stating that Aquinas is helpful towards understanding mysteries more deeply. You cannot know everything about Gods mysteries, but that doesn't mean you cannot know something about them.
Finally, Aquinas already did reason God's existence in his Five ways. Disprove them and get back to me.
***Forgive me for saying this but since you decided to misrepresent my beliefs and call it rubbish, I don't feel so bad***
I'm sorry if you feel I've misrepresented your beliefs. I hope you are reading inay personal animosity in my posts because there isn none. - and as to the rubbish statement, it's no reflection on you, just a statement of fact (no, just kidding!).
***You simply do not have the authority to place your opinion over the interpretation from the DRV that I posted.***
So the DR with all it's attendant notes is the end-all, be-all translations and should never be disagreed with??? Is that what your saying??? (And folks think the KJV people are bad!). Seriously, I've found rubbish in Protestant Biblical notes also.
***Considering you remove verses from context and have to paraphrase to make them fit. I would say that your exegesis is about as objective as a Rorschach test. ***
You may not have appreciated my feeble attempt at humor, but you also failed to address my interpretaion of the text or provide a credible alternative.
***I have not stated that Aquinas is necessary. Please don't misrepresent my position. ***
You said...
"Actually, those sayings are not the ones that require unwrapping. Eating his flesh and drinking his blood. His flesh being real meat and blood real drink and being wine and bread. That does require an Aquinas to explain."
If something is required then it is necessary. Or as I said,
"C is required to fully understand A".
****I'll post some more later but I think this should be done in fairly small bites. ****
Hey, what happen to this plan of action??? You're fingers must be aching after those posts. :)