The Gory Details of 'Miracles'

Well, I don't know about the earliest, but at the very least, Martin Luther.

Not exactly, or not in the way you might think.
Luther denied transubstantiation as a part of anything revealed by God or Biblical. But there are many technicalities you can discover if you look it up.Transubstantiation is the actual change of one thing to another. While Luther felt that there was no reason to think that the bread and wine had literally changed, he did believe in consubstantiation or the hypostatic union. This doctrine says that Jesus is truly present in the eucharist WITH the bread and wine. The idea that the entire thing is pure symbolism is a much later one.

Ok fine.... that's enough for me... More than I want to know in terms of relevency. If you think it's the real flesh and blood, it's ok. I don't think it's going to affect the justification by faith. I'm sorry I brought it up and I knew I would be.I know the significance of His sacrifice and understand the spiritual reality. The spiritual parallel to light, is truth. Both are defined by choice of the observer (don't ask). I personally think that is more important.I accept and consume Him just as you.Boy... I'm glad that's over! I'll just go back to playing on your team where our differing league rules are the same ok?The score:Anastasia 1
Scottness 0

Agreed, scottness. We all know the significance of the sacrifice and, whether or not anything actually changes, is maybe not as important as the spiritual benefit of remembering the sacrifice. It is just a matter that because of some external influence different churches have had to define what they believe. Some people take it more literally, some take it more symbolically. There are maybe benefits to taking it literally, to constantly renewing the Sacrifice on earth, but we're all working with the same scriptures in the end.And none of this keeping score stuff, k?

So jesus sacrifice was not enough? That is very unbiblical. If that's true, then some men are more equal than others. We are to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, but that will never earn our redemption. If it could, then Jesus didn't need to die. Anastasia 1
Scottness 1Just kidding!

So you are NOT done, are you? Of course Jesus sacrifice is enough. We are not re-saving mankind, just renewing the covenant in our lives, so to speak.

Jesus was born. Therefore He would die.That was never in doubt.Any man born will die.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, not any man. Only a sinner.Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."Not just any man is virgin born and raised from the dead jar. He was the one man who didn't have to die.The wages of sin is death.No sin=no death necessary.Unless of course the Spotless Lamb decides to offer Himself as a sacrifice for your sin.Talk about miracles!

But you said: Jesus died. Jesus was a sinner.Getting way too far off topic but start a thread on it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar writes:What charges do you bring against Him?Better yet:I have a three year old son. If he runs out in front of a car in his ignorance, and I push him out of the way and give my own life, does that mean I will be accused of ignorance?And better still:Will my son grow up and call me a fool, since he decides to live his life for his own indulgence?And yet once more:Will he call himself one who honors his father?Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

More pointless irrelevant nonsense rob. Also misrepresenting what I said.Start a thread on it if you wish, but so far you are simply misrepresenting what I posted, as usual.jar said any man born will die.scottness said "No, not any man. Only a sinner."jar replied "Jesus died. Jesus was a sinner."Then scottness, showing his inability to read and follow a conversation posted... It was not me who indicted Jesus scottness but you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar wirtes:Sorry jar, but you forgot the qualifier I put behind my comment. I said the following in message 68, (I have highlighted the part you left out): So I made it clear that a man who need not die for any reason but love, can choose to. It is you jar who have misrepresented your opponent.I forgive you...Edited by scottness, : 68 not 86Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

I don't think the mask is applied directly to the skin. I think it's a fully shaped sculpture that just sits over it like the egyptians used to use. Underneath she will likely have a face not unlike that of other mummified bodies - blackened skin, shrunken eye sockets and nose.If cosmetic was applied directly to the skin only she would look like a mummy with blusher on!

I understand your meaning Rob, but it is a little more complicated. You sort of have to prove that Jesus would have lived forever if no one came to crucify Him...well, let me put it this way if that sounds wierd.God does not have to die = God does not have to become man. Since he did become man, He chose to die. But also since He became man it is not quite proper to say He was part God and part man, as in an immortal man. But I am not quite buying even my own argument when I think about the dogma of the Assumption, which says that if Mary was born without original sin, then the same 1=1 is applied to her, she did not die. But here the answer goes back to a literal reading compared to a symbolic reading, of scripture. The 'death' which came upon man after the partaking of the tree of good and evil, was spiritual death, not physical. It is possible for Jesus and Mary to have been free from the spiritual death which causes us to desire sin, but not free of the corporeal death which all men will face.

I thought they were scribal errors? :-p