Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Alex: This is getting to be comical
My sentiment exactly, Alex!
"appear in two places" is a bit of a stretch; the Gospel does not exactly say that. It says that they did not recognize Jesus till the bread was broken. One can read verse 31 in the sense that they saw Jesus in person but only after the bread was broken, or that they only saw him in some miraculous sense in the bread. Either way, the incident describes a miracle and links Jesus's presence with the bread. The pedestrian reading that Blue Duncan prefers, -- that there was no miracle at all, but rather a recognition of a personally heretofore unfamiliar "brother" is, however, going way outside of what is in the scripture, and is contradicted by v 16, which indicates the supernatural origin of the unrecognition.
Incidentally, the Eucharistic presence of Christ is indeed not bound by time and space to one mass at a time.
their eyes were held, that they should not know him (Luke 24:16)he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight (vv 30-31)
they knew him in the breaking of the bread. (v 35)
Facts are a little different: biblical archeology is just about defunct.
Tel dan at best confirms that there was a Davidian line, but it does nothing to show the size of David’s kingdom. The less gullable will tlel you that the two pieces of the document are not a perfect match and could very well be not one and the same document.
You just like to argue for the sake of argument? Of course H2O always forms water. The formula for H2O, the atoms are part of that working model.
But atoms and electrons are not little 'balls' as they are depicted. They can be represented as such for various reasons, and they behave as if they were bouncy little balls for us to be able to visualize them.
Christ ascended into the heavens, which means He went up and when He returns, He will descend
You are amazing! What's up in Israel is down in Australia. just where "up" is the heaven? And how is Christ sitting to the "right" of the Father when the Father is a Spirit. These are allegorical, not literal descriptions.
So? That does not contradict the Genesis account at all.
Yes, they are older then the earth.
It would seem that your Church has a better understanding on this than you do
I am willing to believe that too, but their teaching is not as convincing as it should be.
No, it's regarded by some, die-hard (ever-shrinking number of) historians despite an embarrassing lack of any evidence. Out of 43 kings they managed to find some proof of nine of them. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever in Egypt, that Jerusalem was anything but a ranch city, that the walls of Jericho did not come tumbling down, and that the Israelites did not take the land of Canaan by force.
Too bad, so sad. Got to keep up!
You need to get out of the 19th century
LOL!
Oooooo....touché
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5)
So if you think that water Baptism saved you, you are greatly deceived and are still lost in your sins
Thanks for your analysis, but I am Orthodox, and we don't believe salvation is a 'moment.'
Well then, I’m sure you read Matt. 14:19, “And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled:” and Matt. 15:36, “And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled” where Jesus took bread, blessed it and broke it and gave it to the multitudes and He ate some since it says they all ate and were filled.
Then of course you read Luke 24:37-43, “But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.” and John 20:27, “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing”; the point being Jesus was flesh and bone, not a spirit. He was localized in His body, just as He is now, sitting at the right hand of the Father. It is the Holy Spirit who is here, not Jesus.
Back to the point that the “breaking of bread” was part of the “brotherhood rite”, the symbolic rite of unity and promise. Look at the discussion that took place at the last supper after the “breaking of bread”. It was an argument over who was going to be sitting next to Jesus in the seats of power in the kingdom that was to come; rank ambition. Jesus does not criticize them but points out they will eat and drink with Him in the Kingdom and be rulers over kingdoms appointed to them. He exposed a traitor who had participated in the brotherhood meal, and He deflated the braggadocio of Peter; all of these things after the “breaking of bread”. That sounds more like a frat party than a solemn eating of the actual body of someone who had not died as yet.
Good point.
Why, all the things you mention cover with precision and completeness the lessons the nascent Church was to learn:
Really? And just where is He "localized," sitting to the right of the Father (as far as I know the Father was never incarnate or "localized" in a body that He would have a "place" or "side")?
There is something known as the Doppler shift. We experience it on earth with sound. We can tell if a train is approaching us or getting farther from us, because the sound waves "stack up" when it's approaching, and "stretch out" when it's leaving.
The same principle applies to light. The object that approach us rapidly will have a spectrum shifted towards the blue end (shorter or "stacked" wavelengths), while those receding from us will have their light spectrum shifted towards the red (longer, "stretched" out wavelengths).
When astronomers look at the Doppler shift, it is apparent that, overall, everything is flying away from each other, that is expanding.
The Big Bang theory speaks of an initial explosion that resulted in the formation of the universe as we know it. Thus, all of the universe looks like an explosion "cloud" -- hot and expanding.
In the mid 1960's researchers were able to measure the "background' temperature of the space. Instead of it being absolute zero (as one would expect in perfect vacuum) they discovered that it was about 2.75 degrees above absolute zero (the unit of measure is absolute temperature or Kelvin, not Fahrenheit, or Celsius). In other words, the space is still "warm."
As long as it is "warm," it will expand like a balloon. When it hits absolute zero, it should stop. But, the scientists are telling us that the universe is not only expanding but accelerating!
The problem is it has been expanding at a high rate of speed for some 30 billion years it is estimated and is, as our dear sister in Christ tells us, 156 billion light years wide (light travels one second from the earth to the moon, or about 160,000 miles/second). So this 'void' into which we are all hurtling is rather large. :)
I am more at ease with not knowing what atoms are than in knowing what I thought they were.. I have my own opinion on what matter/energy is.. But what is space?.. and whats on the other side of space?.. at the end.. the limit.. the edge.. the boundary.. the hemline of infinity?..
I certainly agree that scientific theories are not set in stone. They are not "Truth." Indeed, only God can speak objective Truth.
The Hebrew phrase which describes the void is Ayn Sof, another Name for God, which literally means "no-thing."
In other words, the void of cosmology is God!
Ayn Sof is "One without end from which all being emerges and into which all being dissolves."
If the void could be filled it would be a vacuum, it would have geometry, i.e. space/time.
This is all about timelessness and spacelessness --- a very, very difficult concept for denizens of space/time.
Timelessness is not eternity or "time without end" or "infinite past/infinite future." It is not even zero time. It is no time.
Likewise, spacelessness is not infinity or even zero dimensions - it is no dimensions.
God has no boundaries.
He doesn't exist "in" space or "in" time. That is why the Jewish Mystics use the term Ayn Sof to describe Him at the moment they say (and I agree) the desire arose in Him to reveal Himself, and thus there was a beginning.
If so, then Animism is vindicated.. My brother the buffalo, sister the grass, and cousin the solar system and even friend the Black Hole is more than metaphorical.. God then is the substance of all thingly things..
I like to think in the following cosmological perspective: All dimensions (space, time, etc) are the aspects of Ayn Sof and YHWH allows dimensions to be separated from the whole of His essence, in such a way as to bring the universe into existence, to create that which is from He who is that He is; the name Elohiym contains a dual nature and it is this dual nature who brings forth a third, as linear and planar bring forth volume, past and present bring forth future, etc. It isn’t scientific, but it allows me to contemplate the cosmos in a chosen perspective for my own edification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.