The Gory Details of 'Miracles'

No, it may be decorative and have nothing to do with the relative decomposition of the body.Wax is common in cosmetics in general, but more so for the lips since it will clog pores. A dead person whether decomposed or not is still dead and will not have the same glow as a living person. In the funeral business cosmetics and lighting are used to make the person 'prettied up' for viewing. There are other traits of a corpse such as relaxing of muscles of the mouth and sunken features that might be hidden with a wax mask, but certainly do not stop the body from decomposing.Formaldahyde is only a deterrant to decay, but not permanant.A low ambient temperature and low moisture are other factors which slow decay.It is possible that some saints are refridgerated? But some of the older ones may have been around before temperature was even considered in preservation, and exposed to high temps at some point before they were exhumed or while on display.

Well, yes, that may make it more difficult to analyze the bodies, but then again the wax is only on the hands and face.

He also said 'this is My Blood, of the New and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many, fot he remission of sins'.So I must wonder if we should take those words literally, and then with;'Do this in remembrance of Me'...it seems pretty obvious that Jesus wanted us to DO this (a law) so this; Is turned into 'perpetually and for many'. I don't remember anything in the Bible about how disgusted the Apostles were at tasting flesh and blood either.Sybolism is fine fine fine. But symbolism is not worth having a new covenant over and does not give life.

Yeah, it is kind of a dead end, nemesis.Wax is used all the time in preparing bodies in funeral homes, but I don't think it does much in the way of preservation.I can't say I believe or dont't either. If there are such thing as miracles they will never be proven; that is the same as proving God exists.I haven't found any conclusive scientific reports, the closest I have come is that there is low or non-existant levels of the bacteria that causes decomposition in these bodies. That in itself is not unheard of, but the causes are still unknown in these cases.Since it was once a sign of sainthood to be found fresh in the grave, there are probably many frauds that have been perpetrated through the years, and seperating the fake from the real, if it does exist, would be pretty hard.

Well all I can say is better men? than I have had an equally difficult time Personally I have a hard time believing that God would allow this doctrine to exist for at least 1500 years before someone discovered the 'truth'. Maybe you can look in some history books and find out which man you can ascribe this new revelation to. Whether ancient or modern, you must eventually find someone who can be named as the first opposer to the doctrine. I will look for you if you like. yes yes But they can take the creation story and the Tower of Babel as literal? To be frank, there are still so many who can not accept it.Anyway, this is not a conversion thread.

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.

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 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.

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.

Not entirely true Rob. The Creed, like the Bible, has been subjected to various interpretations. Unlike the Bible, the intentions of the authors of the Creed when writing it are historically known.The Nicene Creed was an attempt to refute specified doctrines of heterodox churches, and to distinguish heretical and schismatic churches from the One True Faith.At this time various denominations which are plainly heretical and/or schismatic profess the Creed using only a loose interpretation of the words. To be more specific, the phrase 'I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church', is not used with the same intent (in some sects) of describing the marks of the church on earth, that it be universal and apostolic, that the Catholic church had. There is no one unity in doctrine, but rather a symbolic union of the faithful who may possess opposing doctrines. There is no apostolic succession of bishops, but a symbolic union in that all the churches whether schismatic or not, were founded on the teachings of the Apostles. Several sects aside from the RCC, such as Eastern Orthodox and some Anglicans, profess the same catholicity of doctrine and belief in apostolic succession, but the majority are heretical in doctrine and seperated from the heirarchy.Thus the use of the creed by all of christianity is an attempt to unite under a false premise and misrepresentation or denial of its intentions.

Rob, I will respond in detail later. Much of what you have written, though heart felt and appreciated, is more appropriate for a private communication.It is not my intent to undermine the good that you wish to accomplish. I only attempt to present facts in a spririt of debate, as my opinion alone, and not to arrive at a 'solution' for the benefit of others.My point is simply that the profession of the Creed by all of christianity is a proclamation of a Unity that none will practice. If a nation would say 'I value the proclamation of freedom of the US', and profess this same freedom in their speech, yet not allow for the physical fruition of it, it is a dead ideal.

Can you tell me precisely what it is that I misinterpret? Or more importantly, how you are so convinced of my misinterpretations? I assure you that I, probably as well as most folk here, are aware of the 'correct' interpretation, and that I am still open to learning more about the language, the history, and the other interpretations of the Bible. Again, what makes you so sure I don't read the Bible? Is it the old myth that Catholics don't read the Bible? I assure you again, there are very few passages which you quote which I am unfamiliar with, and when in doubt I always refer back to it. Please tell me how I can find a 'real' pastor, and why this is necessary if the Bible interprets itself? If you don't consider Thomas aKempis, Aquinas, Augustine, and the lives of the saints, as well as many devotional readings 'good spiritual nourishment' than pray tell me what is? One more question; How am I, stepping on the gospel by speaking the truth as it is shown to me, any different from you? And what is the gospel you refer to?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I am forced to admit that a miracle is no more than an ordinary event occuring at an extraordinary time, a natural effect of an unknown cause/Cause which is left to be determined.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well, I for one am glad that is so and funny you should mention the Red Sea. We were just dicussing that tonight over here, and precisely what you said; that it was a natural event with just the right timing to be worthy of memory.