The Eucharist (as practiced by the Roman Church)

[Zenas]

Where does it say that Moses got to Mt. Transfiguration in a glorified body?

Luke 9:29-31.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Where does it say that Moses got to Mt. Transfiguration in a glorified body?

It says posted by Jedi Knight? Was not my words. I agree strongly Moses was not in a glorifyed body....that's made up by one's who wants Mary to be glorifyed so bad that's pushed into it to support that nonsense.

 

[Zenas]

Not too insightful was it? You turn around and defend a false concept anyways? Don't flatter like Scribes and Pharisees did trying to trick Jesus with their questions.

No I meant that as a compliment because I had not connected this concept with 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 and neither had anyone else, at least not that they had posted. Then I raised what is in my mind a hard question and you more or less dismissed it.

 

[Jedi Knight]

No I meant that as a compliment because I had not connected this concept with 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 and neither had anyone else, at least not that they had posted. Then I raised what is in my mind a hard question and you more or less dismissed it.

Then why did you immediately say "I believe they had glorified bodies"? 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 is the correct way of knowing Gods mind on the matter.

 

[Zenas]

It says posted by Jedi Knight? Was not my words. I agree strongly Moses was not in a glorifyed body....that's made up by one's who wants Mary to be glorifyed so bad that's pushed into it to support that nonsense.

All right, what do you think Luke meant when he referred to Moses and Elijah as "appearing in glory"?

 

[Zenas]

Then why did you immediately say "I believe they had glorified bodies"? 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 is the correct way of knowing Gods mind on the matter.

I said nothing about glorified bodies until after you had raised the matter. In Post 192 you said, "They were not in their glorified bodys yet." Then in Post 193 I replied, "I think they were in their glorified bodies."

 

[Jedi Knight]

All right, what do you think Luke meant when he referred to Moses and Elijah as "appearing in glory"?

Ok lets look, And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming. 30 And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. In other words appearing in glory does not mean their new resurrected "glorified" bodies . Steven when being killed said" "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Not my body! Steven knew that "as Paul" that absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. To be present with the Lord is to be "in Glory" with Him. Only later at Christ apperaing will the great resurrection happen and the saints of God will get their new resurrected "glorified" bodies. Being "in glory" is where the souls of all born again believers go untill the Lord returns and the dead in Christ will rise "new resurected bodies". But for now Jesus has first place in all things. Now in Colossians this pasage reiterates what is taught in 1Corinthians 15:20-23 ... Colossians 1:18 "He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the FIRSTborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have FIRST PLACE in everything."

 

[DHK]

All right, what do you think Luke meant when he referred to Moses and Elijah as "appearing in glory"?

"Appearing in glory" does not mean they had their resurrected bodies.
First remember that Moses did die. He went up to a mount and God buried him. His body, no doubt went through the natural process of decay like all others. He was buried by God himself.

At that time Jesus had not died, been buried, risen from the dead, or re-appeared in a resurrected body to his disciples. They did not know what a resurrected body looked like. Jesus appearance shone very brightly. Moses and Elijah appeared but it was not in total bodily form. Perhaps it was in the same way that Samuel appeared to Saul. Remember they didn't touch them; they only saw them. "And when they looked up again, they were gone."

The "body" as it were was temporary. We don't know much about it. And we won't until we get to heaven. This we do know; it wasn't their resurrection bodies. The resurrection has not happened yet. Only Christ has risen from the dead.

 

[1Tim115]

I am not "reasoning" at all, or trying to play word games. Anyone who doesn't believe Jesus can reproduce Himself millions of times into any form He wishes is denying the power of God. It is you, not I, who is dealing in absurdities by playing word games.

It may have been mentioned already but, when God changes His creation from one thing to another everyone can see, taste, smell, or observe the change through at least one of the senses. That is a physical change fact of God. Could you provide some example of physical change from God that is not detectable? Please refrain from fables from men, and use scripture.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are arguing from silence to defend it!!! Thus you are departing from Scripture as your source of final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17) in order to establish it as a doctrine. Silence cannot be used to establish any doctrine - only the Scriptures.

Second, the assumption of Mary is opposed to what the Scriptures do teach. The assumption doctrine is inseparably linked in the Catholic's mind to a SINLESS Mary who is taken to heaven to act as a co-redemptrix both of which are refuted by the Scriptures.

Ask a Catholic, what if Mary was not sinless, not a perptual virgin and not a co-redemptrix what reason would there be for the assumption of her to heaven????? Ask them if she was a saved sinner like every other child of God, with no special input to Christ or God, what would be the reason for believing such a tradition???

No, I'm saying you can't attack the belief from silence either. Scriptures are silent on this issue period.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I believe the truth. The RCC justifies infant baptism solely from arguments from silence..

Not entirely. They base it on statements from the books of Acts. Those ones that mention entire households which include both slave and children.

Many of their doctrines come from silence. That is where heresy comes from

No argument here. Save that they have also another Authority which we don't that they use. Which isn't entirely silent but with regard to Scripture they are.

Consider:
There is more evidence to believe that dinosaurs (modern day word for dragons) exist on this earth, than in the Assumption of Mary.

Yes. I believe in dinosaurs but its silliness to compare with the assumption of Mary which is based on speculation. Dinosaurs aren't dragons. Dragons are mythological creatures. Dinosaurs are real creatures that existed during the Cretacious and Jurasic periods. I believe Dinosaurs actually existed.

There is more evidence to believe that when dinosaurs die that they are assumed into heaven than there is of Mary being in heaven.

No there isn't. We have dinosaur bones. I don't believe there are Marian bones or they would be the object of worship by both Catholic and Orthodox. In fact for this very reason I think God may have taken her up to heaven. to prevent further worship of her.

There is more evidence of dinosaurs being in heaven right now than there is of Mary being in heaven right now, for the resurrection has not yet taken place. Mary is dead.

No there is not. Dinosaurs are animals not theological consepts.

What proof?
Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Apocalyptic literature isn't prove. I mean based on appocalyptic literature we have people creating whole world end senario that is insanes. And again Dragons are dinosaurs. They are mythological creatures. The Bible is using a myth to annunciate a point of the character of the devil.

At least I can support my contention, however weak it may be, with Scripture.

No not really.

The RCC and cults do the same thing. My argument is not from total silence

Your argument is made from flawed logic.

Yours is

How many times must I say that I'm not supporting the Assumption of Mary but equally if they can't argue from silence, neither can we argue from silence.

The Assumption of Mary is from total silence. I have made a ridiculous story that has more credibility from the Bible than the Assumption of Mary. That is how pitiful the RCC doctrine is

Not necissarily after all Enoch was assumed into heaven and so was Elijah and I just gave a good reason for Mary to not be here either.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Boloney, Scripture is NOT SILENT about this. 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits;after that those who are Christ's at His coming. Only Jesus has risen in His glorified body "the FIRSTfruits" then later AT His coming those who belong to him.....this includes Mary. Saying Mary rose from the dead "even hypothetically" is totally unscriptural AND perpetuates a false doctrine as Her being an intercessor.

Dude, I just explained that if you take this verse as you have you invalidate all of scripture because neither Enoch, nor Elijah have died. And you can argue that they will but in reality you can't find a verse that specifically says their names and that they will die. You have to infer it and its a limited thing since its in apocalyptic literature which is symbolic anyway. So in the end you don't know if Elijah or Enoch with ever die. We only know at this point they haven't.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dude, I just explained that if you take this verse as you have you invalidate all of scripture because neither Enoch, nor Elijah have died. And you can argue that they will but in reality you can't find a verse that specifically says their names and that they will die. You have to infer it and its a limited thing since its in apocalyptic literature which is symbolic anyway. So in the end you don't know if Elijah or Enoch with ever die. We only know at this point they haven't.

I Corinthians provides the Biblcial PRINCIPLE and therefore the inference is a valid inference because it is based upon a clear and explicit Biblcial PRINCIPLE. However, the Roman Catholic argument is based solely upon HOT AIR!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I Corinthians provides the Biblcial PRINCIPLE and therefore the inference is a valid inference because it is based upon a clear and explicit Biblcial PRINCIPLE. However, the Roman Catholic argument is based solely upon HOT AIR!

How does I Corinthians deal with Elijah and Enoch? You'll find it doesn't. At this point is there any evidence that either Elijah or Enoch have died?

 

[Dr. Walter]

How does I Corinthians deal with Elijah and Enoch? You'll find it doesn't. At this point is there any evidence that either Elijah or Enoch have died?

If this Biblical principle does not apply to Elijah and Enoch it is because the Scriptures make it clear that it does not. Therefore, either way you go, you have clear and explicit scripture as your basis not merely HOT AIR.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If this Biblical principle does not apply to Elijah and Enoch it is because the Scriptures make it clear that it does not. Therefore, either way you go, you have clear and explicit scripture as your basis not merely HOT AIR.

First of all Dr. Walters you haven't explained my position nor do I believe you know what my position is.

 

[Dr. Walter]

First of all Dr. Walters you haven't explained my position nor do I believe you know what my position is.

You rarely share your position as you spend more time defending the RCC position. I was not responding to your position. I was responding to the RCC position on infant baptism, assumption of Mary and a host of other nonsense that is based upon HOT AIR instead of Biblical precept or principle.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You rarely share your position as you spend more time defending the RCC position. I was not responding to your position. I was responding to the RCC position on infant baptism, assumption of Mary and a host of other nonsense that is based upon HOT AIR instead of Biblical precept or principle.

Its hard to tell with statements like

your basis not merely HOT AIR.

So I will explain My basis. You can neither argue a case for or against the Assumption of Mary from scriptures since scipture is silent. I Cor. Doesn't provide an explination for Enoch or Elijah thus its assertion of its appointed once for man to die and then the judgement seems in contradiction to Enoch and Elijah so you either believe Enoch and Elijah will die at some point. Which many rapturist believe or you believe that its a generalization excluding specific circumstances such as Enoch and Elijah and if so then others may apply. Or believe the entire bible is rot.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

DHK, remember that Humans were in Britan long before writing. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/07/first-humans-britain-stone-tools

 

[Dr. Walter]

Its hard to tell with statements like

So I will explain My basis. You can neither argue a case for or against the Assumption of Mary from scriptures since scipture is silent. I Cor. Doesn't provide an explination for Enoch or Elijah thus its assertion of its appointed once for man to die and then the judgement seems in contradiction to Enoch and Elijah so you either believe Enoch and Elijah will die at some point. Which many rapturist believe or you believe that its a generalization excluding specific circumstances such as Enoch and Elijah and if so then others may apply. Or believe the entire bible is rot.

"your basis" was generic in design if you will look at the whole sentence - Meaning anyone who uses the Scripture as their basis for doctrine has that "basis."

Paul made the claim in I Cor. 15 knowing full well about Enoch and Elijah. There is no explicit statement from scripture that either Enoch or Elijah received glorified human bodies - that is assumption. The only case you can argue for Enoch and Elijah is they are an exception to the rule being stated and if that is the case then it must be argued because of Biblical evidence that would demand it rather than mere presumptive declaration of such. Hence, either way you go it is the Bible that is final authority for either case.


However, with Mary you can argue a scriptural case against the assumption of Mary because the Scripture is not silent concerning the state of the dead saints until the resurrection. Even if you establish an exception to the general rule in I Cor. 15 for Elijah and Enoch it is because there is BIBLICAL EVIDENCE to make that exception case, however, with Mary there is not only no Biblical evidence to make such an exception case but the reasons provided by RCC to sustain it are UNBIBLICAL:

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, perserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians." - Catechism of the Catholic Church

Ask the RCC for what purpose would she be resurrected and glorified and taken up to heaven and what you get are Anti-Biblical reasons. She claimed a "redeemer" and so she was not "immaculate" or "preserved free from all stain of original sin." She was not "exalted as Queen OVER ALL THINGS so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son..."

The presumption of the assumption of Mary has no scriptural basis whatsoever and is contrary to the Scriptures. (1) It is contrary to the general rule of scripture and (2) the RCC reasons for justifying it are contrary to specific teachings of Scriptures.