Well, see, that's the problem. ALL people make the same claim for their own theologies. Mormons. JV's. Baptists. Calvinists. Catholics. Who do you know that is Christian that make the claim that their theology is NOT from the Christian bible or based upon it? We discount some of the above statements based upon our own opinions on what the Bible says, but clearly, THEY think it does by their own reading of it. That is the reason why SS MUST fail in the end. There is no authoritative interpretation of it. Quite frankly, people can make the Bible to say practically anything they want.
Not a bad point. They also could have been simply repeating Jesus' actual words, which DO sound like cannibalism to the unbeliever.
How would the Romans know what Jesus said unless they heard it from other Christians? Quite obviously, the Romans learned that the Christians took the eating of flesh quite literally. There are a number of other religions that have symbolic meanings for doing particular rites that the Romans were aware of and KNEW they were symbolic. Not the Christians. They knew that they seriously believed what they practiced. This is seen not only in the writings of the Fathers, but also, in the replies made by hostile witnesses, such as Celsus to Origen.
I don't know for sure one way or the other what they said on this. I would assume they would want to deny it, but I don't know how they would have gone about explaining the Eucharist to non-believers, especially when it is so difficult to do so today to OTHER believers. :)
I think the early Christians would have as much of a difficult time convincing others what they meant by "communion" and "eucharist" as Christians do today who are trying to point the meaning out to other CHRISTIANS who NOW no longer believe it... The question to ask is "why do I not believe it anymore, when my ancestors in the faith did"?
I have never thought of myself as infallible in my reading of the scriptures. You saw proof of that yourself on the other thread when I was happy to switch a position upon being showed a superior scriptural argument. I mean, I'm good, but not that good. :) It will not shock me at all if it happens again. That's sanctification.
That's a problem I have already pointed out before. Sanctification is not based on Bible knowledge and knowing how your theology fits together. I know LOTS about the Catholic faith, but that doesn't mean I put into practice as much as I am called to do. Sanctification is about becoming HOLY, like Christ, NOT to become smarter about the Bible!
I know that I know what the Spirit wants me to know, when He wants me to know it. That's all I need to know. :)
Ah, you just said that you have been wrong before. And then, you said the same thing!!! "I am led by the Spirit, I am right... Oh, well, I will recant and now the Spirit is leading me in the oppositie direction?"
That's special pleading. I can say the exact same thing and really believe it. However, as I have asked you before 3 times now and have yet to receive a reply, "where does the Bible talk about the Spirit leading the individual to interpret successfully the Bible"? I do not see it, and as a matter of fact, I can tell you that there are verses that tell us that He does NOT do this, but leads either the authoritative body or the Church as an entire body. This is what the Church teaches. You teach that you can come to what the Bible means by yourself - but the Bible doesn't teach that, nor does our common experience.
It is futile to resist!
Regards
I agree with you that anyone can say that the Bible means anything. However, what has this to do with Sola Scriptura? To discredit it, one must say that God's word is insufficient until it is filtered through the opinions of fallible men. Or, one must say that the Holy Spirit will lead one certain group of fallible men, based on votes, and that God refuses to lead His children as individuals. I think any of our views have meritorious arguments, but I don't see the view that we MUST trust in men, as opposed to God. If you are right that God shuns His children as individuals, then it would make sense to blindly follow many of the early leaders. However, if I'm right that God does lead His children, then it makes no sense to follow other men instead, as against how the Spirit leads the believer. The Spirit will lead the believer to what he can handle at the time. It is irrelevant that false believers make false claims. There are fringe groups claiming to be Roman Catholic that also make false claims. I don't fault you for them.
The question to ask is "why do I not believe [in the meaning of the Eucharist] anymore, when my ancestors in the faith did"?
Some of my ancestors in faith did believe in the Eucharist and some did not. On one level it can be difficult for me to know whom to follow since I do not believe that non-Biblical "recorded old" necessarily equals true. Many religions are older than Christianity, yet we both dismiss them out of hand. I also do not necessarily put strength in numbers, or else I would claim to be closer to the truth than the Orthodox ONLY because there are more of us than them. I make no such claim.
Sanctification is not based on Bible knowledge and knowing how your theology fits together. ...... Sanctification is about becoming HOLY, like Christ, NOT to become smarter about the Bible! (emphasis added)
Your description of sanctification is exactly correct. I do not believe I have said otherwise. However, I absolutely believe that becoming more intimate and knowledgeable with God's word leads to holiness. Do you believe otherwise? Bible knowledge is only a part of sanctification, not its base. The base of sanctification, in my view, is the personal relationship we have with God and His promises to His children. He leads us in many ways, one of which is Bible knowledge.
FK: "I know that I know what the Spirit wants me to know, when He wants me to know it. That's all I need to know. :)"
Ah, you just said that you have been wrong before. And then, you said the same thing!!! "I am led by the Spirit, I am right... Oh, well, I will recant and now the Spirit is leading me in the opposite direction?"
Very clever, but no sale. :) I have never said anything like "... all of you are wrong and I am right because I am led by the Holy Spirit and you are not". Now, I "believe" I am right, but I do not DECLARE it as a universal fact as against other Christian faiths because I am so special. No, no, no. Right now, at this minute, I like to think of myself as a growing Christian, becoming more sanctified and HOLY, day by day, (as you said). That means for sure that I do not have all the answers as of today.
As I have said on numerous occasions, it is obviously not the case that the Spirit infuses all knowledge and truth to all believers on an instant basis. It is a growth process that lasts a lifetime. IF your intent is to say that for our theology to be correct it MUST mean that we are not allowed to grow, then I don't think you understand where we are coming from at all.
However, as I have asked you before 3 times now and have yet to receive a reply, "where does the Bible talk about the Spirit leading the individual to interpret successfully the Bible"?
IF we are not in a cross-post, your statement is false. I have quoted verses to you on this thread. ...... If I misunderstand a request I may not answer accordingly. However, on this question I HAVE answered you. If your response has been simply that you reject the scripture that I have showed you, then that is your prerogative. But you CANNOT say that I have not replied to your question. You may not LIKE my previous answer but you cannot say that I did not answer.
You teach that you can come to what the Bible means by yourself ...
No, of course I have never taught that. You have interpreted my teachings through your Church's prism to arrive at that conclusion. I believe that prism distorts many teachings, including those of the Apostles.
It is futile to resist!
Commander Riker, separate the saucer section! :)