/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Christ's body was transformed into a glorified body, one of spirit and no longer of the flesh, as will our bodies in the resurrection. Some of the wounds Christ sustained remained like his crucifixion marks as well as where he was stabbed in the side by the spear but to what extent other wounds remained is unknown. His body has been perfected though, it was no longer earthly but heavenly, and thus he becomes full immortal and exalted.

Also Christ wasn't assumed to heaven since he is God, he ascended into heaven by himself. Mary, who is not God, was assumed.

>>844511

>Christ's body was transformed into a glorified body, one of spirit and no longer of the flesh, as will our bodies in the resurrection.

It was flesh. But glorified, as you say. It would not be the Resurrection if he had a spirit body. Saying it was the only spirit is the realm of Gnostics or even Jehovah's Witnesses. They brazenly do not care about the plain words of scripture, but I'm assuming that you just forgot this:

"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.'” [Luke 24:38–39]

>>844512

Came to post this.

>>844512

Mary was not assumed.

>>844514

1 Corinthians 15:50. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom.

You misunderstand what I am saying. Christ's resurrected body is the same body that he was born with, that he lived with, that he died with. However, as St. Paul says, our resurrected bodies will be transformed bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50, Philippians 3:21).

So Jesus has a glorified body, not one ruled by the flesh but by the spirit, not one of nature but of heaven (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). This is the historic Christian understanding of the resurrection, it is not Gnostic nor is it remotely close to what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.

>>844551

Yes she was. You're a Protestant heretic.

>>844557

We protestant "heretics" subscribe to the radical notion that declaring something about the New Testament era in 1950 doesn't make it true, even if someone really important writes a really strong paper about it

>>844560

We Catholics subscribe to the radical notion that Christ didn't lie when he said the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against the Church. We Catholics subscribe to the radical notion of the teachings of the Church Fathers whose authority is derived from the twelve men Jesus appointed to build his Church. We Catholics subscribe to the radical notion of traditional Christian theology against heretical Protestant blasphemies against God and his Church.

>>844564

>implying

>implying

>implying

All false assumptions. The "gates of hell" remark does not refer to your institution which did not exist at the time of record, it refers to the universal (the true catholic) church. The church fathers are in explicit contradiction with your doctrine in several crucial areas, but they did not get authority from the apostles. They derived their authority from the Bible and the Spirit. The authority of the Bible comes from the apostles. The fathers should only be followed whenever they are aligned with the Bible.

Roman catholic theology is not traditional christian theology, it is medieval. Protestant theology is new testament.

Sometimes it's even 20th century like the case we're talking about but you're selectively ignoring. Why was Mary's assumption declared just two generations ago, and where is it in the fathers?

>>844557

>1 Corinthians 15:50. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom.

>You misunderstand what I am saying. Christ's resurrected body is the same body that he was born with, that he lived with, that he died with. However, as St. Paul says, our resurrected bodies will be transformed bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50, Philippians 3:21).

>So Jesus has a glorified body, not one ruled by the flesh but by the spirit, not one of nature but of heaven (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). This is the historic Christian understanding of the resurrection, it is not Gnostic nor is it remotely close to what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.

Oh, we're in full agreement then. Your words were confusing at first. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

>>844512

Sorry, I don't know the English terminology

Obviously, his wounds were still there for Doubting Saint Thomas to observe.

>>844566

>>844566

>it refers to the universal (the true catholic) church

You define the "Church" as some undefined spiritual entity that is unrecognizable except in concept, when in fact the Bible teaches otherwise:

14You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a basket. Instead, they set it on a stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.…

>The "gates of hell" remark does not refer to your institution

Yes it does, otherwise your concept of the Church is unreconizable and we could easily argue that it has been defeated already, as evidenced by the thousands of heretical sects in existence.

>The church fathers are in explicit contradiction with your doctrine in several crucial areas, but they did not get authority from the apostles. They derived their authority from the Bible and the Spirit

The Church fathers got their authority by direct lineage to the apostles that gave the the oral and wirtten tradition that predates the cannonical Bible. THEY with the help of the Holy Spirit chose what would go into the final version, to better reflect and protect what they believed, as was passed down to them by the apostles. The tradition predates the book and any other belief betrays a severe lack of understanding in regards to the providence of you own idol.

>Roman catholic theology is not traditional christian theology

Then provide early support for your theory. reading the early writings such as the didache and apocrypha and yes, the Church fathers will show you that they were very much Catholic. You simply know your way around them without coming to this conclusion. THey believed in penance, His presence in that Eucharist, the sacrament of confession, Holy Orders and so on and son ad infinitum. Christianity is Catholicism.

>Why was Mary's assumption declared just two generations ago, and where is it in the fathers?

Because this belief was so widely held that it only needed to be defended once the heresy of protestantism gained a foothold. All doctrine is defined when attacked by a certain heresy, that's hwo it works. All councils were convened to defend against certain heresies.

Take the words of St Epiphanius, if you have any honesty at all;

Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death (Panarion 79).

>>845031

>You simply know

*cannot

>>845031

The Romans pre and post-Constantine tried but failed to wipe out the holy church.

>>845169

>The Romans pre and post-Constantine tried but failed to wipe out the holy church.

No they didn’t. The Holy Church was and is the Roman Church. Baptists are Protestants that didn’t exist until almost a century after the reformation.

>>845172

The holy church was and is the elect. Baptists are Protestants who organized during the reformation era by reasserting the Biblical doctrine of believer's baptism.

>>845031

>>Why was Mary's assumption declared just two generations ago, and where is it in the fathers?

>Because this belief was so widely held that it only needed to be defended once the heresy of protestantism…

Citation?

Any fathers?

>>845182

The elect are in the Roman Church

> Baptists are Protestants who organized during the reformation era

They came after the reformation era

>by reasserting the Biblical doctrine of believer's baptism.

They schismed from the Calvanists

>>845188

Where do mark as the end of the reformation era and does your definition include anabaptists? Helwys and smyth were turn of the 17th century

They didn't schism from the calvinists in any sense. If there were any schism it would be from Canterbury