Asinner said:
Those who wrote the writings in the NT understood the interpretation. Did they keep this a secret? Or did they also teach orally?
No. If they were going to keep it secret, I'm sure they would not have written it down and distributed it among the masses. They taught orally and in writing.
Asinner said:
The interpretation of scripture has been known always by the Church, i.e., Peter, Paul, Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, Timothy, the Apostles, disciples, and thusly, were taught to their disciples, so on and so forth. Why would knowledge of what the interpretation of scripture meant stop at the death of those who wrote it?
It didn't stop,
because they preserved it
by writing it down. Yes, it probably would have continued on in some fashion if it had never been written down, but the imaginable distortions that would have arisen are too scary to think about.
Asinner said:
What about Ignatius and Polycarp, who were disciples of John? Did they not receive the teachings of Christ?
Yes, as well as all of Christianity does to this day.
Asinner said:
It is these "teachings" that God has preserved. Is it so ludicrus to conceive that we still have these same teachings today?
Um . . . no, and we know this because we have the Bible. This is the manner in which God decided to preserve the teachings to ensure there passage along to us.
Asinner said:
Must one comprehend it intellectually for it to be true (the Eucharist for example).
Uh . . no. Must we hear it from the lips of a minister or priest for it to be true?
The only requirement to be true, is that it is Biblical, Gospel from the lips of Christ down through the ages.
Asinner said:
Most of the teachings left by Christ, IMO, are CRAZY teachings (the resurrection). Who can fathom these things (the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Church)?
If we can, as intellectual, thinking, rationalizing, questioning, curious human beings, accept God on the basis of faith alone, with no concrete, physical evidence, then what is taught in Scripture is fathomable to us. It is only those who can not accept the existance of God by faith or do not see that the reasoning of "intelligent design creation" is far more logical than believing that we evolved from some explosion which occurred millions or billions of years ago, who find what Scripture teaches as unfathomable.
Asinner said:
Private interpretation today is based on REASON.
I disagree. Christians are
spiritual people. Those who deny Christ are the ones who make decisions based upon "reason" alone.
To insist that we can only trust what an institution teaches us about God and salvation, that we can not trust personal discernment or interpretation is what it means to base ones belief on REASON.
To trust that I can be touched and guided by the Holy Spirit directly, while still understanding that instruction and correction are necessary
because I am a fallible person, is employing REASON and FAITH when acknowledging my beliefs.
Asinner said:
Most cannot reason it within themselves that the Eucharist is Christ's Flesh and Blood.
It is not simply that they can not "reason" that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Christ. Because, believing in Christ, God and the Trinity, we believe in the power of God to make anything happen. If Scripture revealed that Christ taught the Real Presence, we would certainly accept it. Scripture does not reveal this.
Asinner said:
Christianity is not about what we can believe but about what is impossible to believe - FAITH.
Christianity is about what's
impossible to believe? I don't think so. Our mere existance makes anything possible to believe.
There is no logical reasoning for our existence. All that science can do with its big bang theory is give possible explanation as to what may have happened--in a big black void something (which was nothing) blew up, and the result of the ever expanding debri is the Universe and all its glory.
To me God and creation makes much more sense.
Asinner said:
Faith in the teachings of Christ, but more importantly, faith in the Church that It is the very manifestation of these teachings.
You consider "faith in the Church" more important than the faith in the teachings of Christ? You don't see a problem with that?
Asinner said:
Our reason limits what the Church really is - the Kingdom of God which encompasses the fullness of truth.
You can not speak as to what "our" reason limits us to, only your own. Those in opposition to your beliefs can accept that it is possible that the Church encompasses the fullness of truth. We just don't accept your defintion of what that Church is.
Asinner said:
Is the fullness of truth in me alone?
Probably not. But, it is possible that you could. With God all things are possible. He would not have repeated that statement without qualification if He did not mean it.
Asinner said:
NO! Is it in you or any individual? NO!
You can not state this as a fact. You can only assert this as your belief or opinion.
Asinner said:
It is in the Church as a WHOLE.
You can not state this as fact either. You can only state it as your belief and as the belief of your church.
Asinner said:
This is why private interpretation is not possible.
That is why you believe private interpretation is not possible.
Asinner said:
*Asinner awaits the ambush*
Wasn't that bad was it?
Asinner said:
Is this found within your intellect, Racer? You can only trust yourself?
That's not what I said.
Asinner said:
Yes. The Kingdom of God is within. Our hearts must by purified before our intellect can begin to comprehend.
I disagree again. Our hearts must be
touched to begin to comprehend. How could our hearts be purified without comprehension?
Asinner said:
When we begin with intellect, we begin backwards, and we interpret God's Word with our passions.
Maybe, when we depend upon intellect alone, we are placing stumbling blocks, or blockades all together, in our own paths.
God bless!