That's sophism. If something is perfect then it is unchanging, by definition. But if perfect can be imperfect then we cannot even talk about perfections or, for that matter, God himself.
We can only talk about God within the confines of our minds, and terms that define and limit our scope of understanding. Everything else is speculation, including your statement above.
So, either glorified bodies are restored or they are not; a body is either dead or alive, something either exists or doesn't exist, etc.
The passages boatbums cited tell us Jesus wore the marks when he appeared to the Apostles after He rose
First, they were not apostles yet, but only his disciples (students). There is a difference. Second, unless the marks were only illusionary his body was not restored, even though the Bible leads us to believe it was.
I would tell boatbums that he/she can’t hold that opinion that Christ will wear the marks forever because it isn’t explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Therefore, it can’t be true and it’s just the foolish tradition of men
If the Bible says or hints that his body was restored/glorified then she has all biblical evidence, for what it's worth, that he will wear his marks forever and that his body was not really restored. So, we have a contradiction. Nothing new there. The Bible is full of them.
Now you tell me that you think it’s plausible to surmise what boatbums surmises, though there is no scriptural proof spelled out as many Protestants insist it has to be. You can’t have it both ways
There is no scriptural proof that Mary either died or was assumed bodily into heaven yet the latter it is a Catholic dogma. Catholics should be the last people on earth arguing that something cannot be surmised because there is no scriptural proof for it. Besides, 'scriptural" is a matter of definition as well.
Either the Catholic Church and boatbums have the proof necessary for their beliefs (because they have passages that hint at or support them), or boatbums and the Catholic Church cannot hold those beliefs because they are not specifically and explicitly spelled out, word for word, in Scripture
Where is your scriptural proof of Mary's bodily assumption into heaven or of three co-equal hypostases of the Godhead? In fact, scriptures show evidence to the contrary. All early Christian apologists preached suboridnatrionalist Trinity.
I understand the desire to turn my argument into something easier to dispute.
The facts are that boatbums professed a belief that is not specifically spelled out in Scripture and I am reminding boatbums that Catholics are frequently ridiculed for doing that- with far more proof than boatbums has. You made my point for me when you said the Bible HINTS Christ’s body was glorified. I guess it’s suddenly okay for Protestants to decide to believe in things HINTED about in the Bible, but Catholics are silly for believing Jesus when he said, specifically, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life.” (John 6:54) No hinting there at all. He was direct, specific, and clear. He let many followers walk away over this statement. It was a bald-faced proclamation of God’s hard Truth. THAT’s perfect and unchanging.
Unless, of course, you’re reading the revised version of the Bible that men dared to cut passages out of— but that’s your choice.
Protestants make arbitrary choices about what to believe in the Bible and what not to believe. Catholics believe what Jesus said. Literally. I cannot understand the disconnect in Protestant thought. They claim to love the Word of God above all else— and then choose to ignore and ridicule Christ’s own words, faithfully recorded by the apostle Jesus loved most.
Inconsistent, at best. I am so happy to be Catholic.