Quote:
You and I have vastly different interpretations of scripture, authority, and sacraments.
We do, at least with regard to scripture and authority, and possibly the sacraments.
Quote:
How can the holy spirit contradict itself by endorsing all interpretations of scripture?
The HS never contradicts itself and does not endorse all interpretations of scripture, nor have I ever made that argument. You are creating a straw man.
Quote:
Clearly there has to be a right and wrong interpretation.
Of course there does. A man-made church, however, is no more capable of deciding what is right and wrong than I can. If there is anything that the history of any church teaches us, it's that churches are frequently in error.
Quote:
You make claims about Christ, Christianity, and how to interpret scripture. You either A) believe you have the authority yourself to deduce your own conclusions (this is the me + holy spirit) about christ or B) believe it belongs to a group of individuals who do have the authority. And when you disagree with them you withdraw your consent to accepting their authority. I.E - you get your turn with the pope hat.
A little that's true in that and a lot that's wrong. I follow the teachings of the Bible in looking at it to decide what's right and wrong. Unlike the Pope, however, I don't attempt to wield authority over others. And I never "withdraw" my consent from a group of individuals since I never gave them my consent.
Quote:
Claiming no authority to interpret means its uninterpretable
That's just silly.
Quote:
Scriptures are not self interpreting. They have never been.
You are badly wrong.
Quote:
Christ established a church,
You're right - the church is the body of all believers, not some man-made organization whose leaders wear funny hats, live in mansions, and impregnate their own daughters.
Quote:
So again, some group preserved these texts. They then preserved the teachings and understanding of these texts. You have received your teaching from someone else. Who was it, why did they believe it, and why is it different than what the early church fathers teach and did liturgically?
No, a bunch of different groups preserved texts. A near-unanimity emerged over the meaning of those texts not because of some paternalistic man-made church, but because of the plain, clear, and generally obvious meaning of those texts. Many people have come to follow the Lord Jesus Christ after simply being given and read a copy of the book of John. It does not take a bunch of funny men in strange robes and weird hats to explain the gospels.
Sure, there are differences on some of the fringes of the NT, but the core teachings of Christianity are perfectly obvious to anyone that reads the scriptures.
I don't know of any differences between my beliefs and that of the consensus of early church writers. The liturgy is another issue that I'm not knowledgeable enough about to discuss. However, it's my understanding that the first Christians met in each other's homes and synagogues (since they considered themselves to be Jews), and I strongly suspect that their liturgy was radically different than that of today's RCC and/or EO.
Quote:
If you don't claim to receive any teachings about Christ from someone else and that its just you and the bible that is in error and not the teaching of the church, nor the scriptures.
I'm frequently in error. So I pray that God will use his Spirit to remove the blinders from my eyes, and I read lots and lots of stuff written by other Christians to see what I may be missing.
Let me turn your question around. Howe do you know that the teaching of your church is not in error? You guys keep asserting that it is infallible; what is your evidence or proof of that?