Re: eucharist, etc

George,

Of course, this same reasoning could be turned around on you (and me): There
is some inconsistency in you insisting that the Gospel accounts of Jesus'
words at the Last Supper must be taken literally but jumping to figurative
interpretations as soon as "God said 'Let there be light'" and "took a rib
from Adam" come up.

As for Paul's words about "is it not communion with Christ's blood" etc.,
which is used to support the idea of consubstantiation, can those not be
dismissed in the same way that you and I also dismiss the requirement that
Paul's words about "as in Adam all sinned" etc. as he merely speaking in his
current understanding?

I just wonder how you would respond.

Also, I'm glad that Terry hasn't cut short this thread yet. So far, people
are contributing useful comments that do get at issues of interpretation and
epistemology, all without trying to "convert" each other. Very insightful
for me, so far!

Doug

> I'll note again though, as I have in the
> past, that there is some inconsistency in many Christians (I don't mean
> Craig) who insist that texts like Genesis 1 must be taken literally but
jump
> to figurative interpretations as soon as "by water and the Spirit" or
"this
> is my body" come up. At the very least they ought to take a look at their
> interpretive principles.
>
> Shalom
> George

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.2/274 - Release Date: 3/3/2006