Posted on 07/09/2015 9:33:36 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Ummm He was wearing that body... was it his arm or leg or liver ?
He said it. Ask Him.
Can God see all of Time like a panorama?
"Like a panorama"? If that means to see all, then yes. But all of Time is "now" to him.
Can God go to any moment of time using His body, The Christ?
He doesn't need to go. He is already there. All space is "here" to Him.
Would God need to be in several places with His Jesus body, if He can go to any moment in time?
All time is "now"; all places are "here." He only needs to be where and when He is to be in all times and places.
Where does the Bible say Jesus is, since His ascension?
With us always.
How did Jesus appear to Saul on the Road to Damascus?
How? Who knows how God does stuff like that?
When will Jesus being coming back to set foot on the earth, again, the second time?
I don't know. Not even the angels of heaven know.
Who will Jesus be bringing with Him in this Second Coming?
All the angels.
Yes.
What does “actual” mean?
That my friend is how we know that it was not the real actual physical body of Christ.. Because it was not possible for them to eat the flesh or drink the blood of the man that stood before Him..
Notice no one asked Him how this could be? No one told Him they would be breaking the law by drinking it... because MD... they understood that the passover prefigured the meal they were now celebrating .. as He held up that matzo He was telling them that it prefigured HIS BODY ..
There are bodies, living bodies, with neither arm, leg, nor liver. So it is not immediately obvious that any of these is of the "substance" of a body. Consequently the objection is not dispositive.
You confuse what a body is made of with what it is.
Well, your idea of what is possible, seems limited to a certain physical non-understanding of transmutable physics. Keep thinking...
The Spirit of Christ now lives in me.. I do not need a cracker
Same answer ..if it was not the REAL, ACTUAL body of the man standing before them ..IT WAS SPIRITUAL ...not physical..
That Spirit now lives in me.. and in all those that are saved..
So that question cannot be properly addressed to me, since I do not assert that they ate the "actual physical" flesh.
The rest of the post is not an argument, capital letters or not.
Further, as you well know. I am not inclined to defend the dogma. The article you posted is bush league. The guy is sloppy in a matter which requires almost mathematical precision.
Define, or at least expand upon, the terms “real” and “actual”.
I know of no teaching that denies the presence of the Spirit of Christ in baptized Christians, though we could dicker about very grave sins and apostasy. So that claim is irrelevant -- not false, just irrelevant.
Good deal.
There’s nothing in Catholic dogma to justify such doubt.
But I agree with you that doubt is about the individual, though what a particular congregation teaches can mess you up to one degree or another. For 25 years of my Christian walk I believed that non-believers went to a place of everlasting conscious torture. Then I actually studied it...
So. The Pythagorean theorem:
Real?
Actual?
Physical?
Spiritual?
This is not a disagreement about Scripture. I find no text in the Bible that says things are EITHER physical or Spiritual. This is a disagreement about metaphysics.
Your side has adopted most of the metaphysics of unbelievers -- who, incidentally, have trouble with the kind of being to attribute to Right Triangles or the Fibonacci Series. And that's why to you "real," "actual," and "physical" are all more or less the same.
Our side mostly works with the metaphysics of monotheists, adapting it to Scripture as needed.
Your side, with the crypto-gnosticism common to many, speaks of a man "wearing" his body, an unscriptural idea which owes more to the Greeks than to Genesis. Your article betrays that unscriptural manner of thinking when it speaks of the limitations of the Lord's body.
I know some Protestants, ripping a line of Paul's out of its context, speak disparagingly of philosophy. But people are doomed to be philosophers. The only choice is between being a good one and a bad one. But as I said to a friend on Facebook, for a Catholic, it's as if we were standing on a tennis court and some Protestants showed up with a chess board and pieces. One of us prepares to serve, and one of you says, "Where are your PAWNS? You can't play without PAWNS!"
so, to push the analogy, this article is like somebody grumbling that he went to one of our chess matches and the whole thing didn't look the least bit like chess to him.
And then, of course, there's the way he begins with a blatant falsehood and mistaken understanding of the anathemas of Trent. He has no clue what we teach.
There need to be sermons, which could be shared across most denominations, about — radical idea — how God LOVES us.
I grew up NOT a Catholic. I have seen not only in various Xtian subsets but even in Buddhism (!) parents and elders using “religion” to inculcate guilt.
It makes me thing about millstones, depths of the sea, and such. It's bad enough that people try to tame God. it's outrageous that they use the idea of Him to control children by making them feel more guilty than loved.
Do. Not. Get. Me. Started.
Most of them.
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.