Posted on 08/05/2013 10:31:02 AM PDT by Gamecock
I think you got the wrong word there, teach...
pre·co·cious
[pri-koh-shuhs] Show IPA
adjective
1.
unusually advanced or mature in development, especially
mental development: a precocious child.
2.
prematurely developed, as the mind, faculties, etc.
3.
of or pertaining to premature development.
4.
Botany .
a.
flowering, fruiting, or ripening early, as plants or fruit.
b.
bearing blossoms before leaves, as plants.
c.
appearing before leaves, as flowers.
Just a thought on this...our "glorified", immortal, incorruptible, resurrected body will be ours in the sense that it will be the body we each will inhabit for eternity, but it cannot be our actual "physical body" merely because our mortal, human flesh bodies will return to dust. Not to mention, those whose bodies were incinerated by fires, cremation, bombs, etc. Therefore, we don't yet know what we shall be like only that our bodies will be like Jesus' glorified body and we shall see him as he is. We can eat, I hope, but it won't be to nourish our bodies in order to stay alive.
I am all in favor of honest discourse, but frankly there is darn little of it coming from the non-Cat5holics on these threads.
I have asked iscool for documentation approximately a dozen times and I don't him EVER recall supplying ANY.
Further comments like "Now you are just making stuff up" are not appreciated either especially when support/ documentation was supplied in the original post.
As far as I am concerned that is the exact same thing as calling someone a liar and is designed to halt "honest discourse" right in its tracks.
Or...
We could have WAFER thin bodies with blood of WINE.
I’ll go even farther in the description of what MY body will be like:
I don’t know!
Please speak to a butcher, especially a kosher one, ask them how long it takes to drain all the blood from an animal.
Second we all agree that Jesus was in the upright position during the Crucifixion (At least I hope we are all smart enough to.) The blood would have begun to pool in his legs and lower extremities. There is a Doctor that wrote a book called "A Doctor looks at Calvary." There is a brief mention of it in there if I recall (I don't have my copy at hand so I can't give a page number.)
Makin' stuff up seems to be a BIG part of Catholicism!
...since there is nothing in the bible saying it CAN'T be this way...
Uh...
It could drain out thru the holes in His feet.
It was supposed to say precious. Still waiting on the documentation. And waiting and waiting......
I really hope that some day you will come to appreciate the restraint that I am other Catholics on this list are showing when we read comments like this.
Uh... It could drain out thru the holes in His feet.
Your shipment of fail has just arrived.
I know that our bodies turn to dust, get eaten by sharks, or worms, or just composted into a nice organic mix that later nourishes plant roots & fruits, turns into breakfast for some other people who eat those fruits over generations of time.
However, it's still the very same body that falls in death that will rise to be glorified. It's not a different body, but rather, our current body will rise and be glorified. We can't call it "resurrection" unless the soul returns to the same body, since resurrection is a second rising. The same that was buried, arises again, just as Our Lord's.
Jesus did not get a replica. He got his own body back, with even the wounds glorified.
If it were not the same body which the soul reclaims, it would not be a resurrection, but rather a reincarnation.
And the Bible does not teach reincarnation. It teaches the resurrection of the body.
St. Paul says our current bodies are like the seed. And just as a seed does not have all the qualities of the plant in mature form, but does have all these qualities in seed form, so too our body is linked to our resurrected body as its cause (a seed is the "cause" of a plant) and as its "selfness" (the seed grows into a plant which is its real self: it IS the plant, at a primitive level of development.)
Scripture says that the same body that dies will also rise. Job said, "And after my flesh has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes -—- I, and not another!"(Job 19:26-27).
And to the Apostles, shocked at his resurrection Jesus said, "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have "(Luke 24:39).
So there is continuity. But there is also development and a shining forth of a new glory.
How God is going to collects all those boatbums molecules, I do not know! It's --- whew --- just so mind-boggling, isn't it? We'll see, won't we?!!
Ha! A good, honest answer. I’ve got to say the same thing -— it’s a mind-boggling mystery.
It seems you are misreading me. Again, I have no desire to irritate you, at all. But I know NT Greek well enough to be a bit irritated myself when patently false statements are made in support of a view. Please read me carefully here. I believe you are wrong about estin. That does not mean I think you are lying. In fact, I intentionally tried to avoid you thinking that by stating I thought your motives were pure. Please go back and reread the original post. But obviously I failed in that objective.
As for “making things up,” if you felt it was too strong, I am sorry. I am accustomed to some very rough and tumble debate and I have used like expressions and even stronger with people I care for and respect, all as a matter of getting the point across. The point here was, and remains, that the distinction you were trying for in the two different forms of the verb simply can’t be supported by standard Greek translation. I stand by that. But if my way of expressing that caused you discomfort, I am sorry for that. It was not intended to do that.
As for honest discourse, I do all that I can, and I try to make it a point to ignore ad hominems when they do occur (as they always do when the other side has run out of live rounds). I do this because it is in keeping with Christ’s command to love. Paul in 1Cor13 says love “Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil,” so I try not to get distracted by personal attacks, because a) sometimes it really isn’t an attack at all, b) it takes me out of Paul’s scope of love, and c) it puts me too much in the center, when Christ is the one who belongs in the center.
As for who is being more honest or dishonest, I think almost everybody here is someone I would trust in the trenches of a real war. I think you’re trying to be honest, as I think we protestants are also trying to be honest. I was young and now I am old, and I have seen way too much heartache over people who were absolutely sure the other person really knew they were wrong and just wouldn’t admit it. Hence the perception of dishonesty. I’ve made an ass of myself more than once with such an errant presumption.
What really happens is people have an experience or an upbringing that makes certain assumptions nearly impossible for them to question. They project this certainty onto others, and cannot believe that the other person could possibly hold their position honestly. And the tragedy is they are not getting that the other person really is being as honest as they know how to be.
This is why I think all communication between those of us who name Christ as Savior should be seasoned with grace, forgiveness, less concern for our own things, and more concern for the welfare of those others whom God has seen fit to put in our lives. That is the sweet savor of the love of Christ that draws lost souls to Him, and in the end that is all that really matters.
So, to the extent I failed in that, please accept my apology.
Peace,
SR
Evidence inside or outside the scriptures means nothing to most of these people...
Killen’s thesis for the supposed forgeries can be summed up with “they can’t be truly written by Ignatius because the contents prove the Catholic Faith and we know that Faith is false”.
Unfortunately for Killen, whtever “controversy” that existed in the 19th century has long since been settled as all honest scholars admit the seven epistles were indeed written by Ignatius. James White, a rabid Anti-Catholic, equal to Killen in his opposition to the Catholic Faith, even admits the epistles were written by Ignatius.
but why do some still cling to the long disproved forgery allegation?
the reason is obvious. everyone i hope will agree St John understood the Eucharist. now i think everyone will agree that if SR, verga, iscool and i spent just a few weeks listening to St John preach on the Euchrist, all four of us would be able to faithfully to write a letter explaining the doctrine of the Eucharist, just as we learned it from St John. sooooo, if St Ignatius indeed wrote that the gnostics abstained from the Eucharist because they did not believe it was the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, you can see the problem those that oppose the Catholic Faith have. They would have to believe St Ignatius misunderstood St John, even though St Ignatius was so well thought of in his faithfullness to Christ and His Church that he was made bishop of Antioch and later proved his love for the Lord by dying a martyr’s death. add in the fact that what Ignatius wrote garnered no opposition from anyone concerning his doctrine and the cry of “forgery” is all the opponents have.
Doesn't matter what a kosher butcher does with a pig...Unless you know of a pig that was transformed into an incorruptable body and was raised to heaven...
...since there is nothing in the bible saying it CAN'T be this way...
;)
Apology accepted
That being said CYC and I had a discussion about a week ago and agreed to be agreeable with each other even when we are diametrically opposed (My words not his), to further that I decided and told him that I will remove myself from any discussion that may bring me to the near occasion of sin. In my 53 years on this earth I have irritated/P!$$ED off more than enough people and gotten in fights over things that later seemed trivial. To that end I will state something to the best of my ability once and only once. If they accept it great if not, not so great, it is simply not worth me getting angry over. It is up to the Holy Spirit at that point.
additionally if anything I said angered you I apologize, it was not intentional.
“When Jesus announced that the bread and wine represented HIM - then no WONDER that folks, at that time, said it was a ‘hard teaching’.”
hmmm, Jesus announced that the bread and wine REPRESENTED him????
i take back my earlier comment, there must be something new under the sun. chapter and verse PLEASE!!!
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.