boxcar said:
Quote:
Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, Yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda,
|
Also, constructed a straw-man by arguing against a point, not made:
Quote:
And one more thing: If Jesus' sacrifice took place at the Last Supper, why did he need to go to the Cross? Wouldn't his "sacrifice" at the meal have made his trip to the Cross redundant and superfluous -- pointless?
|
The only pointless thing is your logic. Follow along. You say it is symbolic, ignoring the declaration of fact by Jesus. Even if I agree with your logic Jesus caused the apostles to sin. Well if it is symbolic per your interpretation, then Jesus made the apostles sin symbolically. We know real sin can be symbolic in our hearts we can murder, without actually taking someone's life, and commit adultery though thought. So any way you examine the issue Jesus commanded the apostles to sin, even if we follow your logic trail.
Also, what you prove through your logic is that Thask, hcap, and all your critics are correct and you are wrong. The Bible verses can be interpreted in many ways and your doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is based in nominalism, is not true as we can't obtain absolute correct universal interpretations, since we can by faith have differing interpretations. Therefore, we need outside sources, such as Sacred or Holy tradition.
Another problem with your logic is arguing against your own theology. Jesus taught that he did not say his own words, but only the words he hears from the Father. Thus, it is actually the Eternal Father telling Jesus that the Eternal Father
wants the apostles to sin.
However, according to your theology the greatest attribute of God is His sovereignty. According to the theology of the cross, God's will controls. God can will any act to be good for man, even committing adultery. For this reason Luther said if God told me to eat mud, he would eat mud because it is good for me. Thus, if God told man (apostles) to drink blood, then it is good for them and not a sin. However yours and Oakley's argument vitiate your theology about God's sovereignty and God's will.
I congratulate you on such a good effort in proving Sola Scriptura is not sufficient to understand our faith, that we need Sacred or Holy tradition too, and showing your disdain for your alleged theology.
I know you won't comprehend what I typed, but I am confident everyone else will.