Is there an "immortal soul" or a Purgatory? (David Palm, Jorge, Enrique, etc)greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
David Palm, Your statement about the ancient Jews believing in some sort of purgatory is based at least partially on books in your' Bible that many of the actual decedents of the ancients' still don't accept. Maccabees, Tobit, etc, while being somewhat historical they are also not in the Jewish Bible as inspired Scripture. They are only in Catholic Bibles. Therefore, it is only relevant if we accept the "churches" belief in these and everything else, which I consider to have been "readjusted" to fit into "praying for the dead" and the mixture of "St." Augustine philosophy. So far I have seen no Biblical reason to accept your' version and some of the reasons follow.
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 04, 1999
Jorge,I do not expect many (hardly any) to actually read or go through this. This is another thesis' and has gotten long. I considered breaking it up, but it all fits together too closely. Many similar points connect to each of the reverences you made and should be read as such.
All of what has been previously presented ties together. We can't take individual pieces and explain them then move onto the next without building a knowledge of how all ties together. While many of your' pieces now make sense too me as too why, many do not fit with the whole', imho.
You are the first I've ever gotten a real answer from - beside the "blue and lonely men" theories. Your putting this together shows quite a bit of logic and thought of being able to condense information and write in a flowing, somewhat connected thought. Your "essay" (as compared to my first' thesis :<)) now makes some sense too me as to why Catholics believe these notions of immortality of the soul and purgatory.
As I see it, in order to buy into it first I would have to believe the books added to the OT, which I can't. (The reason given before, plus examples as Raphael is said to have told Tobit he was a cousin which he was not, which for me is lying or misleading at best. Therefore I can't accept these books as inspired. Because, the father of the lie is not The God) It seems that this notion begins with them and "praying to the dead." And all the "traditions" now written seem to based in those and Plato's thoughts as synthesized by Augustine.
While you did not specifically quote any of these, the notion of "praying to the dead" permeates many of the extraneous thoughts listed and the understandings of the comparisons to the meanings of "soul" in these cases, imho.
If you haven't already, I would invite to ask a more conservative' Jewish person, who speaks Hebrew and knows first hand', what "sheol" and purgatory' really means to them. Of course they are like the rest of us and you probably won't get the same answers I did.
"I noticed that there is someone (JC) who denies that the "soul" survives the death of the body. Obviously, if the soul dies or doesn't exit, then there can be no Purgatory. "
Here you say "if the soul dies...there can be no Purgatory." Which I totally agree with. :>)
Now looking at one of your definitions: "Most people use the term "soul" to describe the immaterial (spiritual) part of man that survives the physical death of the material (physical) body. This immaterial part of man is conscious after death."
While this definition is very good in philosophical terminology, there is what I believe to be a flaw. It is a Graeco/Roman philosophy "combined" into Christianity by Augustine of Hippo. Therefore in actuality having no validity, for me at least.
"However, it is a great error to assume that every time the Scriptures speak of "soul" that it is referring to this spiritual nature."
Here you say that not "every time" soul means spiritual'. However, according to even the Catholic translations the ones you've listed agree with life/person' in most of the instances were you quote to prove' the soul theory. They agree that soul' is life' - body and all. I will try to address all in the following from that perspective and give the reasons why.
"More illuminating is that Jesus switches terminology in the next sentence saying that both body and soul can be destroyed verses killed. The word destroy means to render powerless or useless. "
While your definition of destroy' is "Greek" (Strong's 622) and valid, as far as it goes, there is another side. The wonders of language, hang around long enough it'll change. :>) "Body and soul" denotes a total destruction. Not just partially rendering useless.
Adam BECAME a soul. He was not given one. "Soul" is the whole of what BECAME the living combination. The body, mind, blood, emotions, etc that make up the totality of the soul.' However, without the breath' of The God, it can't survive. It dies. "Body and Soul'. The emphasis of "body and soul" denotes a totality of destruction of the human "form."
Looking at: Destroy = A) "to put out of existence", totally demolish; ruin; spoil; annihilate; slay (Webster's)
So, "destroy" can and does mean "annihilation." When we annihilate something it "ceases to exist." Demolished. Gone. Caput. No more. "Everlasting cutting off." Remembrance no more. "Thoughts do perish."
Hebrew's understanding of "destroy": Strong's: Hebrew 4229 machah {maw-khaw'}
1) to wipe, wipe out
1a1) to wipe
1a2) to blot out, obliterate
1a3) to blot out, exterminate
When we exterminate' a roach his thoughts do perish' unless you also believe he's in heaven :>).
"A Critical Lexicon" There are several words in Greek, so please look them up if you really curious. p220, Destroy:
1) To destroy utterly
2) To loose, loosen ie unbind; to loosen, ie dissolve;
3) To loosen down, to DISSOLVE
4) To render inactive, idle
5) to destroy, slay
6) to destroy UTTERLY, slay wholly
7) to spoil, corrupt
8) to corrupt through out or entirely, decay wholly, perish.
9) to lat waste, ravage, destroy
10) to take down.
Now when something is dissolved, utterly destroyed or decays, there is NOTHING left of the original form. Compare Acts 3:23 (please note the NAB replaces soul' from the original Greek with everyone.' This soul' is CUT-OFF, DESTROYED.
"[As when you destroy a plate, you break it into many pieces making it useless but it still exists.] It does not mean to annihilate. "
The plate analogy, while being very good, is misleading, imho. If you "break" a plate, yes it still "exist." However, if you throw a plate into fire (Gehenna) it ceases to exist. It IS destroyed/annihilated. It ceases to be a "plate" or pieces of a plate. It's physical, molecular makeup as before is gone. So, the "soul" in this last fire. It' dies. It is not tortured forever. IT IS ANNIHILATED.
Please note, "Gehenna" was a literal place near Jerusalem for getting rid of trash and unwanted (ie: criminal) dead bodies. It was for total destruction', as opposed to many today (especially USA) who bury and seal it up' in plastic lined containers. Even the dumps themselves are now lined in plastic - so nothing can seep through.
That type of fiery torture is not within the concept of a Loving Father, which I believe The God is. And please don't say, as others here have, "we do it to ourselves." That's plain silly. I, a loving father, am not going to throw my son into a fire "forever to be tortured" if he does wrong - no matter how bad. That is not mercy. That's "medieval." That's William Wallace being "gutted" on the block for his "sins." That's Joan of Ark being burned at the stake to "purge" her sins (only later to be a "saint"). That's sick! That's hatred!
And now, after almost 2000 years your own pope has "figured" it out. Whew, finally!
Another analogy, if you create a design of a clay pot then you make it and it does not perform it's task as desired, you do not throw it into a fire to "burn forever." You throw it into the fire, removed it's impurities that it may have and make it a new clay pot.' You can't make it "burn forever" anyway.
Such as a seed. The seed must "die" when planted (John 12:24). It then returns a new plant to produce. As I've said, I came from a farm. The seed is planted, it dies and grows new.
When we temper metal, we heat it with fire and make it stronger. The impurities are removed. That's what I believe the process we will go through if judge worthy. I believe fire is a symbolic term for our purification. Or in this cases of evil, for total destruction - everlasting cutting off/destruction. Not "forever tortured."
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 04, 1999.
Jorge,Now, versus you quoted: "When the Son returns to judge the world, everyone's souls and bodies will be re-united to either enter glory or punishment (2Cor 4:10). "
I'm still not sure what all you are combining into this to make the statement and the relationship to 2 Cor 4:10. I do not believe this is ever stated in the Bible, nor the associations, unless your trying to "fit-in" 1 Thessalonians 4:17.
2 Cor 4:10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.
You statement, for me, directly contradicts the idea of purgatory. If all are now to be judge for punishment "when the Son returns", what have they been doing in purgatory? Seems like a double standard too me. Compare to Roman 6:7 (NAB), the dead are FREE from sin. Death for man is the cost of sin. That's what God told Adam. Our only hope to be resurrected. That is the price that Christ paid for our life/soul. Our Faith is based on that Hope!
At John 5:28,29 we read those in the memorial tombs are to come out. Those who did good to a resurrection of life and those did bad... There is no immortal soul' or purgatory here. They will be judge ONLY after they are raised from the dead, not before. How do we know this? Compare to Revelation 20:12, 13. We read that the dead were GIVEN up and THEN judged.
If those who did good where resurrected to life, where were they before (according to Catholic doctrine there is some extraneous soul' somewhere alive, but this is not in the Bible - NOT even according to the verses quoted)?
And, if the ones that were not good are resurrected to BE judged, what were they doing in "purgatory" being punished before ACTUALLY BEING judged?
No "soul and bodies" are re-united for this. When are they judged?
John 12:48 - the LAST day Acts 17:31 - judge on an APPOINTED day 1 Peter 4:5 - Give account THEN
Now then, please integrate this, 2 Cor 4:14: knowing that He who *raised the Lord Jesus *will raise us also with Jesus and will *present us with you.
Here we read Jehovah "raised" Jesus. If Jesus' soul' was in heaven it couldn't have been "raised" it would have to be lowered' back to earth. Why? Looking at the reference to Jonah:
Also, we know that "flesh" (physical bodies we have now are not designed to breath space anyway) cannot inherit the Kingdom of the Heavens. There IS to be a new earth. So Paul is not speaking of mens physical bodies going to heaven. He, as the ones he is speaking directly to are "Holy Ones." Again, are YOU one of these?
Mat 12:39 But He answered and said to them, +*An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as *JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will *the Son of Man be *three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Further, if Jesus had to spend 3 days "in the heart of the earth", then 40 days as a resurrected man', before He went back to heaven, (remember He said He had not ascended yet) what makes your saints' so special that they' go directly to heaven, when Jesus, A PERFECT MAN, had to spend 3 days in the heart of the earth? (Smile) Is this the "paradise" he spoke to the dying criminal beside him?
When Jesus said this day you will be with me in...', did this mean THAT "DAY" the criminal would be in paradise'? Not according to Catholic thought. He'd first have to go through purgatory. Now ask, did Adam and Eve, die the exact DAY they sinned? No. So there is no real, expressed thought of immortal soul here unless we follow Plato.
"Heart" of the earth has no mention of "going to heaven." Heart of the earth is sheol, the grave. Our Greek hades."
Here we also read "present" Now, if we're all "up there" anyway, what is there to present? If we're to be presented with our now combined soul and body', what are we doing in heaven? Our bodies are not designed for that. We can't breath space. Adam was given "breath/spirit". If I follow this soul' premise, The God original creation - Adam - was a failure. And, that's not so. We're designed for living on earth. Angel bodies' are design for heaven. Those who are the "Holy Ones" (adopted sons) get those type of bodies so they can live in heaven. Again, I do not believe to be one of these. Do you?
"That the soul survives the death of the body can be seen in the Hebrew Scriptures. For example, Moses explains to us that while Rachel was having a hard labor "the result was that as her soul was going out (because she died) she called his name Benoni. . ." (Gen 35:18). "
This means simply she was dying. It doesn't say her soul was going to heaven. It only says this when we read other things into it (Platonic thinking).
Further, what do the Catholic translators think this "soul" is? Apparently not in agreement with the concept of the particular ones pulled out? The NAB doesn't even use the word soul.' Even these Catholic translators say this is talking of physical life.' The LIFE was going out. Not some extraneous soul.'
Now, 1Kings 17:17-22:
NASB17 Now it came about after these things that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, became sick; and his sickness was so severe that there was no breath left in him. 18 So she said to Elijah, +*What do I have to do with you, O *man of God? You have come to me to bring my iniquity to remembrance and to put my son to death!; 19 He said to her, +Give me your son.; Then he took him from her bosom and carried him up to the upper room where he was living, and laid him on his own bed. 20 He called to the LORD and said, +O LORD my God, have You also brought calamity to the widow with whom I am [14]staying, by causing her son to die?; 21 *Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and called to the LORD and said, +O LORD my God, I pray You, let this child's life return [15]to him.;
"Soul" here is translated "life." So the premise of this "soul" being some extraneous part, AGAIN, is not agreeable here or with many other translations or the understanding of them and soul going to some where else. This thought still has to be tied back into the "tradition" or those extra' books accepted by those whom buy into them.
So, this proof' doesn't even agree with the Catholic translators - again.
Further, according to my understanding of Catholic beliefs (and Br Rich's baptizing) those whom did not have a chance to be baptized - or maybe never even heard of Jesus - will never "see" God. If this is true, then where are these? They're not in heaven. I'm told there in some "limbo" state. Which I agree with Ellen, it's not on the Bible. Are they confined to some purgatory forever? Are they also hovering around us?
"This accords well with the view of Scripture that the Patriarchs and Prophets of the Old Covenant are now reigning with God in His Kingdom (Gen 5:24; 2Kings 2:1,11; Matthew 8:11; 13:28; Heb 11:5,13-16)"
According to the premise the Patriarchs whom you say are now reigning can't possibly be, because they never knew Christ, not with the information in the Bible. They were never baptized. They can't be in heaven, they must be in limbo' according to Br Rich? Please clarify???
Gen 5:24 is a very interesting case. I find it interesting that everybody always quotes Enoch yet no one accepts his' book as inspired. I wonder what the real reason is?
"He took him." Was Enoch taken' to heaven? Does the Bible say this? Does the Bible even mention heaven in connection with Enoch being taken? What does the Bible say about people going to heaven?
Looking at the Bible thoughts: Was Enoch a better man that Jesus? What did Jesus say of those going to heaven? In order for me to believe that Enoch to have been taken to heaven would be saying he was a better man that Jesus. And, this thought would also disagree with what has actually been written. What does the Bible actually say about going to heaven'? Compare:
Acts 2:34 David's not there Matt 11:11The least IN HEAVEN is greater than John. John's not in heaven either. Yet Jesus says JOHN is the greatest born of woman - that says to me even John was better than even the great Enoch. Yet John is not in heaven. And Enoch isn't either.
According to the Bible Enoch could not have "translated" to heaven. Why?
John 6:51 Enoch didn't "eat" this bread, How could he be in heaven?????? 2 Tim 1:10, only AFTER Jesus is immortality possible. 1 Peter 1:3,4, if all go to heaven anyway what's the point? Rev 1:5 Christ is the FIRST born of the dead
Now, look back at John 3:13. NO ONE! Not even Enoch.
Again, Enoch can't be in heaven, he never was baptized in Christ. He didn't live that long. If he did go to heaven, then Jesus would be misleading', to put it lightly. And that can't be true.
Hbr 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated[3346 Strong's] : for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Enoch was "translated" (took). This term does not say anything to "where" he was taken, just that he was "set in another place" ( A Critical Lexicon).
Clearly then Enoch was not taken to heaven.
Either the soul' understanding as presented, is correct and the Bible contradicts itself or this understanding is incorrect. I believe the latter.
This one does hold up to the "immortal soul" either.
2 Kings 2:1, 11 is also very interesting. First see above. Elijah taken up in a whirlwind to "heaven". If we follow the whole case we find that Elisha, Elijah's Jedi' in training if you will :>), was pestering Elijah so much that Elijah couldn't do anything he was supposed too (2 Kings 2:2-6).
God then "took him in a whirlwind." This is a tough one, in that it takes a lot of thought, preparation and time to follow the time line'.
However, At 2 Chron 21:12-15, we find Elijah still ALIVE at least five years later writing letters somewhere else later in the time frame. (Your popes theory on Heaven has a hole in it)
The "heaven" your reading into this is not the correct one. The "heaven" is where there birds fly - The sky (1 Kings 21:24).
Please remember to follow the dates of the Bible on this one. The dates in most encyclopedias are incorrect. Also, please remember what the Bible present in the "Enoch" references.
So this one doesn't hold up to immortal soul theory either.
Matthew 8:11 I say to you that many *will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven;
This says nothing of immortality. It is speaking of times to come. The Kingdom of Heaven has not been established, as such, on earth. "New Heaven and New earth." The connection to my other "thesis' :>). There are not any "tables" in heaven, it is a "spiritual" realm, not physical. The Kingdom of Heaven is the rule over both Heaven and earth. "You' church is not the head of the earthly kingdom. If it was then it has been very lacking in it's mission and had some very poor leaders. This is speaking of future events, again, no immortal soul.
Matthew 13:28 And he said to them, "An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, "Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?'
I not sure why you listed this? Again, this representing a future "gathering up". If they are there already what's the point? Again, our physical bodies can't live in heaven.' There would be no point in "resurrecting" them.
Going on: 29 +But he said, "No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 "Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, +First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but *gather the wheat into my barn.;';
Here we have an example of the "tares" being "burned up." This is a very practical parable. When we burn something, it's gone. It is not just "rendered useless." It is Destroyed. It does not live on. Where is "eternal torment" for the people? We also see the "wheat" is, again, GATHERED. Again, what the point if it's "in the barn" already?
Next: Hebrews 11:13-16.
I can't see this helping your case. In verse 16 we read that God has prepared a city, true. Yet is verse 13 we also have read "they have NOT receive the promise." Only that the "city" is PREPARED for after the resurrection.
The Greek Scriptures also attest to the soul surviving the death of the body while being conscious. "And when he opened the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness work that they used to have. And they CRIED with a loud voice, saying: 'Until when Sovereign Lord holy and true, are you refraining from judging and avenging our BLOOD upon those who dwell on the earth? And a white robe was given to each of them; and they were told to rest a little while longer, until the number was filled also of their fellow slaves and their brothers who were about to be killed AS THEY ALSO HAD BEEN"
Rev 6:9- 11:
If you want to keep going (I hope too in another "thesis") I'll address this more fully from my' perspective ">). In short, if you take a Book called Revelation and choose to say this is some literal thing from a VISION at this place only, then I must also believe that some fire breathing Dragon called Satan is coming to get me. Or the beast with all them heads is going to rise up out of the ocean. Further, Revelation is a book of FUTURE events that have not occurred in full yet (Rev 1:1). Again, these are the Holy Ones - the True "bride of Christ". Are you one?
Except when looking through the glasses of Plato, there is no proof to immortal soul here either. Not with the Biblical references thus far.
"Seated at the window, a certain man named Eutychus fell into a deep sleep while Paul kept talking on, and, collapsing in sleep, he fell down from the third story and was PICKED UP DEAD. But Paul went downstairs, threw himself upon him and embraced him and said: 'Stop raising a clamor, for his SOUL IS IN HIM" (Acts 20:9-10).
This is an act of Paul raising the dead. Even if your premise was correct, here we read the "soul is IN him" when Paul raises him back to life, his soul has not left and is not floating off some where. Much as how The God's "... breath and Adam became a living soul..." His body "became", not that a "soul" was added or is some other piece of the equation. Now answer this, if the mans soul' went to heaven of what good did it do him to be dragged back down to earth?
It is better to say "your are healed" or "take up your cot and walk?"
Now, Notice in the NASB (NAB similar) 10 But Paul went down and *fell upon him, and after embracing him, he *said, Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.;
NIV10 But Paul went down and bent over him, and embracing him said, "Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him."
YLT10 And Paul, having gone down, fell upon him, and having embraced [him], said, `Make no tumult, for his life is in him;'
And the infamous KJV10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Again, the Catholic NAB agree's with "life" actually being this "soul." As contrary to the version you have pulled from somewhere? So this too "soul" is life, not some extraneous part separate from body'.
You'd be better off uses the KJV or NWT translations. It has left the "soul" in. However, there with no seemingly problems as to interpretation by the Witnesses because of the understanding of what the soul really is.
So we can see that "life" itself , with the body, can be interchangeable with "soul." Even in this verse according to the Catholic rendition - AGAIN.
"Most important is Jesus' words to the Sadducees in Luke 20:27,38. "However, some of the Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came up and questioned him. . .[Jesus said] he is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him."
First, The Witnesses do not "deny the resurrection" as you seemed to have implied by association. They are one of the few who actually believe it. Most think all good people go straight to heaven.
You can't"rise up", if you have to come' down to do it, practically/literally speaking. :>)
Also, in "[Jesus said] he is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him," your inferring "Jesus said" is totally incorrect. Moses talking with the burning bush heard YHWH's words. "Jesus" is NOT speaking here. It was an angel directly' speaking. Or giving credit where the credit is ultimately due - The God.
This notion, again, also contradicts the one presented by Br Rich in that babies who are not baptized in the name of Jesus cannot see God. That they must rest in some other state. The Patriarchs NEVER knew Jesus. So....?
Now for your case as quoted. This is a very good case in how it is stated. However (always a however - smile), if we look at your point of view it makes some sense if we' discard the way it's written. Notice,
NASB27 *Now there came to Him some of the *Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection),
((They are talking of "resurrection" not whether the soul' is going to heaven or not. "Before hand."))
28 and they questioned Him, saying, +Teacher, Moses wrote for us that *IF A MAN'S BROTHER DIES, having a wife, AND HE IS CHILDLESS, HIS BROTHER SHOULD MARRY THE WIFE AND RAISE UP CHILDREN TO HIS BROTHER. 29 +Now there were seven brothers; and the first took a wife and died childless; 30 and the second 31 and the third married her; and in the same way all seven died, leaving no children. 32 +Finally the woman died also. 33 +In the resurrection therefore, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had married her.; 34 Jesus said to them, +The sons of *this age marry and are given in marriage,
((notice "this age". What is this implying? Who are these son's'? Again, Holy Ones.))
35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to *that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are *sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
((Shift gears if you will, Jesus is now talking about "time" after the resurrection. "Like angels." What are angels? Spirit creatures, not physical ones. And please read my other post on "sons of God" and those implications to understanding here. I am not one of the Holy Men. This is part of the quilt. That thread we just can't pull out without unraveling the whole theme. All this ties in together. Without the extra books' or "tradition." These are the "Holy Ones" (Heb 3:1). The thread you've presented doesn't seem to fit. There part of the Platonic quilt, not this one.)) 37 +But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in *the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord *THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB.
((they are NOW raised))
38 +*Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for *all live to Him.;
Now, since we know that Jesus has spoken about the resurrection and it's already occurred in the thought of this statement, of course Jehovah is God of the living. They are NOW alive. They have been "resurrected". They were not alive' in heaven before hand - only when "implied". They were not already in heaven with Him and he has given they're "body" back.
Again, thoughts such as "The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead (Brandi)" seem to conflict
Psalms 49:7 - man can't do anything to save another
So as for me I can't accept the extra' books and their notions of immortality.
We can't help dead people. We can only help those alive in acts such as; helping to correct bad' behaviors, telling them what Christ means to us and why, giving comfort in awkward or sad times (up- building), sharing in God given joys we all share, etc.
"The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus said "the doctrine of the Sadducess is this: that souls die with the bodies" (Josephus,Antiquities,XVIII,1,4). [Sound familiar? Know some modern day Saudducees?] "
You here agree with the premise that the "soul" refers to a body, yet throw in negative connotations to a "people" by comparing them to Sadducees of Jesus' day, when these "Jehovah's Witnesses" have a history of peace and brotherly affection when compared too many others whom do not.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong, by your inference and it's location of wordage I assume your Sadducees comment was directed at the "Jehovah's Witnesses"? If so then, I would have to say this, while you may not agree with them your negativity of associations and your comment is very misplaced. The Witnesses, as far as I've seen, have shown nothing but affection for those around them, and especially towards those whom they call "brothers" (baptized members). Can your "organization" say the same? I think not! Please remember references to war. Jehovah's Witness's do not kill one another in war. They don't fight in them.
Understand my view, Whom should I believe that are Holy Spirit inspired. All sides say they are, but who really is? The side with a questionable very long history in what I consider to be an important Christian value or the one does not? Your' history put's your point of view at a slight disadvantage as compared to the Witness's who have a relatively short history. They once said it was "a matter of conscience" but it became "not in any case" to fight in the nations' battles.
Whom should be believed? The ones with a train of thought that is supported by "mysteries" and "traditions" mentioned that are in conflict with the Bible? Or the ones with a concise pattern of thoughts that follow Biblical principles, not what I consider Platonist thoughts.
Put a another way, If we took everybody in the world and converted them to Catholics or took everybody and converted them to Witnesses, whom would have peace? Whom has actually shown true peace? Whom am I to believe, those who preach it or those whom also live it? The pope you have now is excluded from this (unless you want to add ALL his predecessors), I'm talking about all members not fallible/infallible ones. Ones so far removed from the "real world", if you will. I'm talking of the ones whom make up the nations.' Those whom have to live and work for a living' everyday.
As said before, this is a particularly major issue for me because of what I believe in a most important Biblical issue. Jesus said "love your brother" as the foremost commandment. Not go out and kill him. "Christians" don't kill Christians, imho.
Christ did and does not teach to fight those whom we disagree just because there in another nation'. He'll do that judging when He returns. There is no such thing as a "just" war. They are ALL fought for ONE reason - GREED!
It is not up to us to say those in Kosovo are wrong or right. Those guys have been fighting one another for thousands of years, we' are not going to stop it. There's always another Hitler, Especially if he has followers thinking "god" is on their side.
"Here we have Jesus counteracting a belief held by the Sadducees that the soul dies. He emphatically states that they are "all living to him." The tense that Jesus uses for the infinitive "to live" is in the present tense (not the future or the past). In other words, these patriarchs are living now! "
Do you now believe that there is a dog heaven? Serious question. Not meant to be slanderous. Are our pets now to be with us when Christ returns? They too have souls.' If not, why? If so, why? Because at this instance of reading we must accept that animal' souls means only their life'? But not our own?
Further (refer back to Enoch), according to Jesus' own words as recorded these Patriarchs can't be in heaven. Jesus was "counteracting" no such thing.
"This accords well with the view of Scripture that the Patriarchs and Prophets of the Old Covenant are now reigning with God in His Kingdom (Gen 5:24; 2Kings 2:1,11; Matthew 8:11; 13:28; Heb 11:5,13-16). Remember, as I have previously mentioned, not all instances of the word "soul" refer to the interior spiritual nature of man. At times it refers strictly to man's mortal body. "
While I agree with you that The Gods' Kingdom of His Christ is established in the Heaven however, it is not on earth. "...On earth as it is in heaven...." AGAIN, if these Patriarchs are supposed to be in Heaven WITH God that also contradict's Br Riches statement. Can we get to heaven with or without baptism??????
What is this soul?'
There are only four classes' of soul ("A Critical Lexicon"). 1) Creature 2) Person 3) Life and lives 4) Desire
I have not listed each verse that fits into each class, however, if there is any question to them I can.
There is no definition as to immortality when referring to soul,' except with Greek mythology applied.
Even plant life is referred to as having a soul' ( Is 10:18). Are plants now going to heaven?
The soul can die or be killed (Lev 24:17,18; Judges 16:30 Surely Samson would want to go to heaven if that was the case?; Numb 23:10, etc, etc, etc)
In no case is the soul' referred to as being an "immortal soul." Nowhere!
Clearly if this is the case then it - the soul - has no mortality (except of course when the "church" says so :>)). BUT, only with the support of Platonic thought.
"However, usually when the "soul" is being contrasted with the body, it refers to the spiritual nature. There is many other verses that speak of the immaterial nature of man or imply it throughout the Scriptures (see Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59; 1Thess 4:13-17; Philippines 1:21-23; 2Cor 5:6- 8; Luke 16:22-28; 23:43). "
Looking at the verses Jorge quoted is there any "contrast?" I don't believe there is.
Luke 16:22-28 As I seen so far this particular passage and it's connection to Revelation are the only proof' ever provided by those proponents of these concepts of immortal soul and hell-fire. And, they're somewhat lacking. This passage must be really stressed in Protestants and Catholic Churches now, because it's usually the first one offered as proof'. But, is it really proof? I don't believe it is because we have to ignore too many things to accept the literal fire' and immortal soul theories. The first, am I now to believe we are all to fit on "Abraham's bosom"? It's gonna get crowded :>).
This has several implications to it so bear with me. One thing is this fire' and eternal torment. As stated in another thread if fire' is to be literal torment, then we're not going to want to go to heaven either (2 Peter 3:12). Another, if this is literal fire it does fit with both "hell (hades) and death" being cast into a lake of itself (fire) - Rev 20:14. What's the point? Remembering from your own discussion of body' going to "sheol" which is the grave/ground (where Adam went) - the earth, not fire. Is now spirit matter' being burned? Does that really make sense? Not to me, please explain?
(Note: sheol is the grave - period. This is no more to it. Everybody goes there according to the OT and NT. Hades is a Greek term that has been used as an equal to sheol. If analyzed in that context it works. However, many overlay the Greek myth terminology of hades' - the "netherworld" - upon the Bible and try to make it fit. This is what "St. Augustine" did with Neo-Platoism and his interpellation of Greek philosophy. However, this is not the cartoon story of Hercules.)
Another thing, this is a parable, a story. Are all stories true in a literal sense? Where all the ones Jesus spoke? No. Many had deeper meanings. Unless of course you want me to believe money is so important that we have to find every little penny (Luke 15:8-10). Or Luke 15:11-32, we should all live it up, then return to the father. We will be better loved and get everything we want? Or maybe (Mark 4:26-29), we are all really some literal seeds of wheat or something God has planted. Etcetera, Etcetera, Etcetera (from the "King and I" :>)).
So I do not believe this "rich man" is not a literal person and neither is Lazarus. Why?
Now if this was a literal story we now have to believe that it is a very bad thing to be rich. EVERYBODY has to be a sick ridden, scrap feeding with the dogs, poor physically deprived people. And we know that is not true. David, Solomon and many others were very, very, very wealthy men. Are they now to be in hell?' Of course not.
And we' all also have to be "men", no mention of women here. Sorry ladies, you can't come :>).
And, If this was a "literal' story, what would be the point of a drop of water? Please follow me, Lazarus gets a drop' of water on his finger to touch the rich man in burning hell' to COOL him off. I don't want to disappoint you, but a drop of water is not going to last, even to GET to the rich man. Much less cool some of his torment or provide some kind of relief. Not literally anyway.
So this is not a literal story about hell-fire or eternal souls. What is it about? (See below for more in-depth definition of what soul' means and following your' thoughts - this all ties together with what I consider to be a Perfect train of thought without Plato or Augustine)
Who is Jesus speaking to? Who is rich' and who is poor?' What is the "fiery torture'? What is this great chasm?' What is the water? And why would the rich man ask that a dead man be sent to his "brothers?"
Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees, knew they wouldn't listen to the Truth anyway and He told a story to them, about their own methodology. The Pharisees are the rich'. They had been given the job of stewarding the flock under the "law". But, what did they do? They lawded' it over the common man' to his hurt. They made the Law so overbearing that it became impossible to keep up with. They added so many "traditions" that the common people were under stress as to keep up. Now, does this sound familiar? Notice also they are unnamed. Why? Because they, even being sons of Israel, have no longer a portion in the "new heaven and earth." They will be forgotten - destroyed/annihilated - if their present path is not corrected. According to Jesus' words anyway.
Who is the poor "Lazarus"? Is he a literal person? No. Why was the name "Lazarus" chosen? WHAT DOES LAZARUS MEAN? It means "Whom God helps." Sound familiar? The very NAME represents the people whom God helps! He is the representation of the common man' and what the Pharisee class has done to them. The common people get crumbs' from the table of the rich, when speaking of the Law. They are only given knowledge of what the rich feel the need for. Thereby keeping the poor' dependant. BUT, God SENT His only Begotten Son. Thereby helping this Lazarus.'
What is the fiery torment'? Some say that Jesus was using a Greek reference to "hades" in His story. Does it represent hell fire'? No. Near Jerusalem there was a place called the Valley of Hinnon (Gehenna). This was a trash dump. A place where trash was literally burned, destroyed. It was also where unwanted dead bodies (ie: criminals) where disposed of. It "burned forever" only in the sense that it was in constant use. However, when a specific item was thrown in the fire - IT WAS GONE. Things did NOT burn forever. IT was ANNIHILATED.
Note: For those (ie Paul) and the reference to Gehenna not being a "garbage dump." Just because you choose to ignore it existed doesn't mean Christ was teaching about some "netherworld" hell/hades, which was a Greek concept.
Easton's Bible Dictionary Gehenna: (originally Ge bene Hinnom; i.e., "the valley of the sons of Hinnom"), a deep, narrow glen to the south of Jerusalem, where the idolatrous Jews offered their children in sacrifice to Molech (2 Chr. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:2-6). This valley afterwards became the common receptacle for all the refuse of the city. Here the dead bodies of animals and of criminals, and all kinds of filth, were cast and consumed by fire kept always burning. It thus in process of time became the image of the place of everlasting destruction. In this sense it is used by our Lord in Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5. In these passages, and also in James 3:6, the word is uniformly rendered "hell," the Revised Version placing "Gehenna" in the margin.
Strongs:1067 geenna {gheh'-en-nah} of Hebrew origin 01516 and 02011;
1) Hell is the place of the future punishment call "Gehenna" or "Gehenna of fire". This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction.
A Critical Lexicon: Valley of hinnon. Prbably used by our Lord as a judgement fire.
Now, either Jesus was teaching/promoting a KNOWN pagan Greek philosophy ("hades" and the nether world) or He was teaching about something that was ACTUALLY in Israel , that the people of Israel and even the Pharisees knew about and could relate too. And this trash pit' WAS there.
The great chasm' is the TRUTH that Jesus has now brought. And, the new' Law replaces the Mosaic. Moses saw this and that is the reason he had to wear a "veil." This is between the rich' and the poor' in the sense that many rich' did not accept it, but many poor' did. This Truth was separating' those whom believed and those whom did not. This Truth was tearing away at everything the Pharisee's stood for - their own greed. This Truth was burning" them up from the inside, because everybody who accepted it knew what the Pharisee's really were - liars.
The water is this Truth that Jesus was bringing. It is the "living water," which when drank (as the Samaritan at the well) leaves no more thirst - it is not "literal" water.
The rich man ask Abraham to send Lazarus "back from the dead" to warn his "brothers." What does Jesus say of this? Jesus tells the Pharisee's and uses the implication that they are this "rich man" and they have killed all the prophets anyway and will not even believe someone who has been raised from the dead. This even leads us to believe Jesus is speaking of future events when He, Himself, will BE raised and the Pharisee's still will not believe Him.
Also, notice there is no mention of going to heaven'. The scene where we see Lazarus in "Abrahams bosom" is in the future. It HAS NOT OCCURRED YET. Not everyone is goin to heaven.' Some will be in the NEW earth as The God PURPOSED in the beginning. Again, God's original purpose was not a failure as I think the Catholic, many Protestants, etc portray it by saying "every good soul is going to heaven." There is still to be a new heaven and a new earth, just as original purposed in Genesis.
It was "postponed" in our favor, to allow as many as possible to accept the Truth's(The Good News - The coming of His Father's Kingdom) that Christ brought "from" His Father. That is the purposed of books like Revelation, to know what to expect and accept the Truth when we find it.
This is a brief' outline. There is no immortal soul here either, without the overlays. And they are Greek.
What about Luke 23:43,46? 43 And He said to him, +Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in *Paradise.;
46 And Jesus, *crying out with a loud voice, said, +Father, *INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT.; Having said this, He breathed His last.
((Here we read Jesus telling His Father, "into Your hands..." Just as Ecc says the everyone's spirit' goes. His soul' is dead. In the grave, sheol, dust to dust. The breath/spirit' goes back from whence it came.))
47 *Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he began *praising God, saying, +Certainly this man was innocent.;
This one I can't see helping your case. We read spirit' and in the next sentence we read "breathed." Spirit here has nothing to do with your definition of soul except this breath' IS actually what animates the body and soul' as Ecclesiastes/Genesis says, not what the Catholic Encyclopedia says. Remember the account of Jonah. Jesus was "in the heart of the earth." He had not ascended to heaven yet. Also, remeber Jesus' words "no man has accented into heaven...."
Acts 7: 59 They went on stoning Stephen as he *called on the Lord and said, +Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!;
Again, this is combing "spirit" and soul'. They are not one in the same. "Spirit" here is breath. You will not believe me, so I invite you to look up in a lexicon. Strong's (4151) has both, so we each can decide which to use here :>). I'll follow what Genesis says animates the body'. And, I don't believe it's the immortal soul.' Again, Adam's soul didn't exist before it receive the spirit/breath from The God.
"A Critical Lexicon and Concordance" p728-9 Spirit: 6) Spirit as imparted to man, making him a living soul (Gen 2:7; Ecc 12:7. When taken back to God, man becomes "a dead soul." ) The Hebrew Nephesh (soul) is correctly translated "body." Compare Eze 18:4.
1Thess 4:13-17 Again, this is speaking of the "Holy Ones" of which I do not claim to be a part. DO YOU? Verse 17 is one reason I believe there are some of these still alive.
Philippians 1:21-23 21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. 23 But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better;
Paul, a Holy One, is speaking whether to choose to live' is better in heaven as a co-ruler (with the other Holy Ones) or staying on earth when the Kingdom of God is set up - "heaven and earth." That has not occurred on earth yet. Certainly not in Paul's day. It, for me, brings into question the validity of CC beliefs that it is "the Church" of Christ. If it was, I would have to say it's been doing a poor job over the past 1600 years.
Even as good as Paul was He still had sin. If you really believe your going to heaven and be with Christ right off, where does the purgatory' fit in? Why wait, commit suicide and go. This one really bothers me with your interpretation because of a friend of my wife's. He, being only a teenager and having some troubles with life in general, goes to his pastor (not Catholic, but still being this interpretation) and ask "is there anything God won't forgive me for?" The pastor not being in touch with his flock as he should have been told him "of course not." The pastor didn't really bother to ask, in depth, as to why. The young man of 19 was later found dead. That death is not gain, it is loss. He lost everything to do possibly more good to please The God. He gave in to only what is a Devils explanation. Hopefully he had enough a reason to be forgiven.
Some people are given dire circumstances to start with. Environment and our own personal makeup allows us to handle situations as we understand. Some don't have understanding of Truth as others. However, I do not believe a Loving Father is going to torture our immortal soul' forever if we miss the boat.' I pray he only destroys those genes, those environmental' circumstances in us that allow these and thereby makes us pure.
2 Cor 5:6-8 The ones mentioned in these verses are the Holy Ones, the adopted sons. They get spiritual bodies.' Are you ones of these?
"Now we know that Scripture does not and cannot contradict itself. How then do we understand that the dead "are conscious of nothing at all" (Eccles 9:5)? This passage must be looked at very closely. This passage is primarily used by Jehovah's Witness to deny the existence of soul as defined above. However, this verse causes major problems for them since it explicitly denies one of their major teachings. Witness believe that the majority of people will not be admitted into Heaven, only 144,000. Everyone else that is deemed worthy for life will live on a reconstituted earth. This passage denies this in that it says "and they have no portion anymore to time INDEFINITE in anything that has to be done under the sun" (Eccles 9:6). Once your gone, you're not comin' back to earth. "
Your statement is what I've found to be a common misunderstanding. While your explanation of this seems to be very logical, I believe it's somewhat deficient. The Witness' have no problem with this nor it's explanation. For I do not think they take parts out and explain them away without considering the whole.
If this was just to mean literally our "physical" body "under the sun", then what of "all?" Is not then now "all" vanity? Is ALL our searching to be close to God vanity? It's done "under the sun", so, according to this understanding "once your gone..." everything is. According to this logic, everything your own pope does is vanity. Everything you do is vanity. Nothing you or any body could ever do would be nothing but vanity. Everything Mother Theresa did was for nothing. Reading the Bible is vanity. It would all be a chasing after the wind according to this logic. Do you believe this? I would think not. But it's ALL done under the sun. Unless your in another galaxy :>).
I do not believe this is a correct understanding of the totality of the Book though. The key to this verse is not "INDEFINITE". The key is ANYTHING' and what those "things" are "under the sun." These "things" are what is fully defined in the Book of Ecclesiastes. These "things" are things that without GOD are useless and a "chasing after the wind." They are fully outlined in the study NAB (1985).
If all of Ecclesiastes is read, the understanding of what "anything" and "under the sun" means can be understood, imho. It has to do with things that many strive for today. Acquiring wealth, vast amounts of wisdom, etc, etc, etc. While none of these things are wrong, they are a "a chasing after the wind" if not done to the ultimate glory of The God. The writer is telling us' anything we do in this life is useless, because we still are going to die from/with these "earthly" desires anyway. And with this "death" there is nothing more - till the resurrection. Remember, these people never knew Christ, they can't possibly be in heaven.
The theory of life after death' without Greek influence cannot stand with Christian Scripture. If with use Maccabees to support it we still have a Greek/Platonic influence that does not belong, imho. When reading about soul' this idea permeates the whole of this immortal soul' thought, even in the Catholic Encyclopedia, just before it was "Christianized."
****** Now, where I believe this notion of soul' came from looking at the Catholics own CE's definition (I know the CC does not publish this, BUT, it has the "Catholic" name and many accept as such. If it is not then the CC should get rid of it or at least disown it totally or the portions the CC doesn't condone.
"The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. "(CE)
If we accept this definition that it is the soul' which animates the body, then we also have to deny when Genesis says it is the spirit' or God's breath' into his... and BECAME a living SOUL". This Breath must be and is a separate thing" from the soul. This breath' is not interchangeable with the soul - except in Greek mythology. And, the soul does not animate the body. The breath' of The God does. At least that what the Bible says. This "breath" is the "spirit" of God, Ecc 12:7 and "it RETURNS to The God who gave it." It is not the "soul" that returns. The soul return to the dust, from whence it came.
In the Catholic Encyclopedia at the beginning of trying to define what the "soul" is we find several pages of thoughts and comparison's to other beliefs (non-Christian). This gives some sense as to what will follow is or can be "legitimized" by or now validates in some way these overlain thoughts - "thoroughly "Christianized."
Then when the CE gets around to defining "Christian thought" we find a mixture of Augustinian thoughts with his own mix of Plato and Aristotle. The CE admits this. Whether the "catechisms" do or not I don't know, but somebody in your church' believes it and even says the thought of today's definition of what the soul actually is attributed to some long dead bishop. And, further according to my understanding of what I've read, Augustine of Hippo was not even a Christian when he formalized his thoughts. (Much the same as Emperor Constantine when he went "conquering under the cross"). Augustine was in the process of trying to combine his previous early Christian education with that of Neo-Platonist and his own combining philosophy. Then he was baptized.'
I notice that there is now a Greek influence into the thought of what the "Hebrews actually meant." This is someone, after there fact, trying to justify their own labyrinthine thinking in interpreting Scripture and "converting" people whom they wish to control with a now fear of hell fire'. To make "everybody feel good about it" and there own paganism's they bring to the table. As heaven/death has now been defined, if you will.
This is further adding to these books of the Catholic Bible that Protestants don't accept, with good cause because of Greek influence of pagan thoughts of the People who wrote them, imho. These books are not in the original Hebrew text (Jorge, I also have a Hebrew Bible, so I'm still not limited to the NWT :>)). This, at least for me, calls into serious questions of their "inspiration" and the validity of accepting them or any of these thoughts based in them.
I would also ask if we' must accept the 1st and 2nd Maccabees, why not the 3rd and 4th? Because the "church" says so? On what basis? Did the writer just loose inspiration? Do we really need to know about the elephant under which - what's his name ?? - was crushed under? Is that important to our salvation? Remember I follow what the disciple said "compare with Scripture" (paraphrased). And, for me yours' don't fit.
"THE SOUL IN CHRISTIAN THOUGHT Graeco-Roman philosophy made no further progress in the doctrine of the soul in the age immediately preceding the Christian era. "(CE)
Now with this statement I must ask why does progress' matter? Was is really that the Hebrews did not know what the soul' was? Or is that they actually believe that the soul really was "life" and went back to the ground anyway, as OT says, before the addition of "Graeco- Roman" philosophy?
Note: Please read all the CE for yourself because I've only pulled references for comparisons, not to prove' a point.
If this assumption is true, then I'm to understand that it took the "Catholic" Christians only a few 100 years to figure out' what the Moses, his predecessors and his followers, and all the Israelites before didn't over 1000's of years? The God just happened to fail in telling Moses this? Elijah was unaware? After 1000's of years of talking directly' with these Israelites, The God just failed to mention what the soul' really was? And, what about Job? He wanted God to "remember" him (Job 14:13). If his soul' is already in Heaven, what's the point? He'd already be there. Or is that Ecclesiastes, Psalms, etc means just what it says "the dead know nothing". Soul and all - till the resurrection? I now respectfully ask, who is actually denying the resurrection as Paul describes it?
At what of Jesus' statement "no man has entered heaven except He that came from.."? Was Jesus misleading? Was He lying? Or did He actually mean what He said and ONLY He and the adopted sons, the Holy ones, are actually going to rule with Him in heaven as He said? AGAIN, do any of you believe to be these HOLY ONES?
Jesus also said He gave His soul/life (John 10:17,18). He gave it and it and His soul/life was RETURNED to HIM. He was not some where else. He was in the "heart of the earth." He was not in heaven or hell'. He was DEAD. Ya'll Catholics are still trying to figure out what hell' is, because you can't except the simple explanation of it's nothing but the ground. :>) (until the past few weeks). The TOTAL separation from God. After your dead you don't know it, but while we're alive that separation should scare the living !!@# out of us. Not some fear of everlasting fire.' Leave off the Greek/Herculean hades' and the river Styx.
Again, why should I believe you'? The Bible says " a good tree can only bear good fruit." Sad to say there has been some bad apples leading your "church" that have fallen (dead) from your tree, whom are still said to have been it's leaders - till they died. That says to me they were from your' tree, "Fallible" or not. Serious question, again I am not trying to throw stones at anyone. But, this is a SERIOUS question as to the validity of many of your points of view. And none of your members are able to stand against death or hell, as Christ told His disciples His Church would. So, is His Church, His Bride, really established on earth as you' claim to be?
Again, if the souls actually dies then there can be no purgatory. And, there is not, except with Greek overlays.
If anybody is still with me now and really wants to know about "purgatory", read Egyptian and Persian religious history. Then see how many similarities there are to Catholicism theology. Coincidence or not? Then take a look at your' architecture as it still stands and then tell me - who converted who? Doric, Ionic, Corinthian columns (and the Roman extrapolations of) . Egg and dart motifs (sex). Gorgyles to scare away demns (vodoo/mystics??). It's quite interesting. Much as the similarities to the "cross" with other "pagan" beliefs.
The Search, Jamey
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 04, 1999.
Jemey, All I can say is wow! Do you have energy. I think all of this can be summed up in a few sentences. Dogs, plants Souls???? Man and Woman are the only creatures created in the image of God. Being created in His image we have certain things in common with God. One of those things is eternal life. We are all sons of God (in the hierarchy of the heavenly realm) when we are saved through faith. This saving faith looks forward to the cross and also back to the cross and follows the commands of God in each age (circumcision, baptism etc...) Even if they did not know the name of Jesus. Afterall, they did know Jesus through the substance of the Father and through the eternal Logos (word) with the promise of redemption given to Adam and Eve. Our bodies will be like angels because they will be eternal, not because we will be angels However, our bodies will be like Jesus body after His ressurection, before that the spiritual part of us that is made in the image of a God will be living in heaven with God awaiting the last day when our spiritual nature will be reunited with our new glorious physical, immortal body. The body we can have only because of Jesus victory over death and His ressurection. Jesus freed our physical bodies from eternal death and decay to rise again glorious. Creation will be free from the bondage of the curse when the Sons of God appear. Obviously, our physical/spiritual bodies will enjoy the fullness of heaven in spirit and restored creation---the new heaven and the new earth. Curious, what did you mean by the pope getting this purgatory stuff after 2000 years??? Pamela
-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), August 04, 1999.
Pamela,I take it that you believe that you are one of the "Holy Ones" then?
About "purgatory", read you own pope speeches. If you want the site I'll have to dig back through it to find.
The only one I can't seem to find the "Vaticans" rendition is the one on hell,purgatory. I can only find newspaper (Orlando Sentinal) clips of it.
This "thesis" was based on some versus's quoted by Jorge to "prove" the "immortal soul" theory, and I don't not beleive any of them hold up to study. "Proof" was given, search it yourself - if your curious.
Again, I am not one of te Holy Ones, I do not have that desire. I was not designed (read your popes speech to the artist for the difference between "created" and "craftsmen", or as I term it "create and made") for that. There will be a "New Heaven AND a New Earth." Somebody has got to be ON earth to be RULED over. I desire to be one of those. Again, unlesss you believe God was just playing in Genisis and that actually was a failed project. "Those" are not angelic creatures (adopted sons/Holy ones).
The search,
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 05, 1999.
Ancient Jewish belief was in The GOLUM being a man made creature formed from mud and human saliva and water. The golum was obediant to it's maker for the purpose of rectifying wrongs to that person.The Golum lacked one thing of true ma which was a soul. The invocation for life to the Golum by the man creator was " In The Beginning -" to vice the rest - was God - was verbotent.
The Divine Spark spoken of is the soul for we are the only creatures on earth given one. Made in the image of God.+Peace+
-- jean bouchardRC (jenab@cwk.imag.net), August 05, 1999.
The "Divine spark" is the "breath" of God in which MAKES us a soul. We are not given a soul.
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 06, 1999.
Jamey - You are quite a talker and I want to say to you in humilityGET WITH THE PROGRAMME!! You were made by God in His image you were given a soul and a free will to either go to heaven or to hell. It is you choice.
Reading your thesis did not impress this man for it is only words words words. This is the shine on the hard wooden floor I spoke of of. Looks nice clean and well kept but has no flexabilty or spring to it for there underlay foundation is non existant.
For the Catholics on the site I say caution for the seduction of doubt is insidious. Your wasting precious life time with this and other arguments.
Have you not noticed for months the lack of peace and kindness on this site. So many pathetically learned people flapping their gums and I have never seen or heard the words Father In Heaven Jesus In Heaven Our Most Holy Mary in Heaven I LOVE YOU AND THANK YOU.
+Peace+
-- jean bouchardRC, (jenab@cwk.imag.net), August 07, 1999.
Jean,"GET WITH THE PROGRAMME!! You were made by God in His image you were given a soul and a free will to either go to heaven or to hell. It is you choice. "
I believe the Bible, We were "MADE" a soul. We were NOT given one.
"Your" words are live a Morning Glory Vine. It grows as far as it can, latches onto any and every thing. Suck the water from the ground and chokes every thing it grows on. It make gorgeuos "purple" flowers. And, is poisnous to children.
Take your 'shine" and polish the confers of the 'church.'
MGP
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 08, 1999.
Reading your thesis did not impress this man for it is only words words words. This is the shine on the hard wooden floor I spoke of of. Looks nice clean and well kept but has no flexabilty or spring to it for there underlay foundation is non existant. For the Catholics on the site I say caution for the seduction of doubt is insidious. Your wasting precious life time with this and other arguments.You got that right, Jean. By forsaking the Word of God, proclaimed, preserved and guaranteed only in and by the Catholic Church, all he has left are human speculations -- traditions of men. Just because he can pick and choose what he wants out of the Bible to justify his false gospel, he thinks he is grounded in the divine revelation.
-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 08, 1999.
Then you as pamela can deny what Jesus came a taught (to save mankind and the Kingdom is coming, it's not here now and the Jewish forefathers did beleive they would have a "earth" forever) and believe in Platonian/Augustine philosophy.
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 08, 1999.
Lane & Jamey - Your conveluted thoughts and rationale are what I referred to earlier as the being ingnorance - lack of knowledge - in your religious formation is presented as truth.For some reason te paravle of the wineskin old and knew come to mind. I feel you are still stuck on the wrathful Judiac God format whereas that changed with the death of Christ being the New testament.
Often people and that surely includes Catholics have a very hard time allowing the meeage of fargiveness to settle into their hearts. It took me a half century to get a glimpse of it and shall struggle with it for another fifty God Willing.
The message is so simple - " You are forgiven - come follow Me " and still we hesitate and question. We are a sad lot indeed.+Peace+
-- jean bouchardRC (jenab@cwk.imag.net), August 08, 1999.
It is not I whom preaches of the god of eternal torture (ie: OT god of wrath). It is not my "church" whom preaches thoughts of men and has them painted on it's walls (ie: Plato and Aristotle).As stated your 'immortal soul' theory doesn't seem to hold up with the Bible you claim to be spouting from and claim to have 'canonized.'
Again, quit throwing rocks at me and tell me why I should belive it. That is what I had assumed this forum to be. Discussion. If you can't take something that I have said and defend 'your' side of that ideal, then leave off them personal name calling.
I expected more from you Jean.
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 09, 1999.
Jamey, No one here can give you faith to believe. We can give you answers to questions but that is not going to change your mind. Reason does not save , only faith. We don't have to understand everything. Sometimes zeal for all the answers to fit together leads us to false religions and completely misses the point of faith. Another thing you must remember is that God's ways are not our ways. To explain Gods ways in human terminology and thinking takes away from the mystery of God and His desire for us to allow His Spirit to work faith in us. We will all pray that your heart is comforted and filled with peace that passes all understanding through Jesus Christ
-- pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), August 09, 1999.
Yet, David say's I can't use "faith" as a bases to believe. I must believe 'his' church.But's its theory of immortality of the soul, doesn't stand with the CC's own Bible translators.
What kind of "faith" is that?
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 09, 1999.
See the following Web page for some Biblical evidence of the immortality of the soul as well as evidence of eternal torment for those who reject God:http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Annihilationism.html
(This reference is not meant as an endorsement of all the contents of this site.)
Orthodox Jews still pray for their dead, indicating belief in a place of purification for their souls (i.e. purgatory). This is part of Jewish tradition, not just a part of the books that Jamey rejects. It was passed from the Jews to the Christian Church. Christians have always believed in some form of purgatory, as have the Jews.
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), August 09, 1999.
It does not surprise me that the Jews believe in a place of purification apart from the Messiah. They were of a religion of Laws. Laws that caused them to reject Jesus as the Savior. Law does not save, only the sacrifice of Jesus fulfillment of the law saves. The Jews were not Christian and they rejected the cornerstone of the Way to heaven. Just because the Jews did or did not do something that does not affect the fufillment of Law and the Way of Truth.
-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), August 09, 1999.
Franklin,Your site is very interesting. I'll post later when I have more time. As to the Jews and dead. In your statement, you correctly point out that the Jews pray FOR the dead, not TO them. The ones I've talked with still don't believe in 'purgatory' as defined by the Catholics. They believe purgatory is a place of nothingness. Sheol. The grave as described in Ecc.
Jamey
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 10, 1999.
Jamey and Pamela,Sorry to just intrude into this conversation.
The Jewish practice of praying for the dead obviously means that they believe that the souls of the departed are still in existence and also that prayers may benefit those souls in some way. So I can't go along with jamey in his interpretation of their belief nor in his own belief. Pamela is right that Jewish practice and belief is only a shadow of the glory of the Christian faith. That does not mean that their belief in the afterlife or purgatory was completely set aside; rather it was made more glorious. I'll try to explain that below.
Catholics pray "to" the faithful departed only in the sense that they ask those who have gone to be with Christ to pray for us. This is not really any different than asking any Christian to pray for us, except that Catholics believe that those who are with Christ in heaven are perfectly righteous and that "the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective" (James 5:16).
Purification before entering into God's presence is necessary for sinful man. Heaven is that place into which "no unclean thing can enter." (Revelation 21:27). Just because "Jesus paid it all" (which Catholics firmly believe, by the way) does not mean that God will not purify and discipline those He loves in order to make them holy: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." (Hebrews 12:6).
So I think that shows pretty clearly that even though Jesus died for all of our sins God will still discipline and even punish us (at least I hope He will because I want to be a son and He says that I must have this discipline if I am to be a son!)., That's really all purgatory is, in Catholic thinking, a time for a Loving Father to discipline His children so that they can stand completely pure and holy in His presence. Catholics don't follow Martin Luther's view that we are really just "dung hills covered with snow", that is, sinners merely covered over with Christ's righteousness. That sounds a little too much like what Jesus condemned in the Pharisees: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean." (Matthew 23:27-28).
That this discipline and purification takes place after death as well as during this life seems pretty clear to me from 1 Cor 3:10-15: "But each one should be careful how he builds. . . because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through flames."
Now is that "fire" literal or figurative? Well, I think it's figurative (perhaps alluding to God's burning love for us) but obviously it is not wrong to speak of a firey purification after death because that's what the Bible says!
I guess I do not understand why folks have such a hard time with the idea of purgatory in light of these verses of Scripture. Certainly I have not said anything about Augustine or any other sources besides the Bible, although it is notable and significant that Christians have always believed in purgatory from the very beginning.
It has been said that God loves us just as we are, but He loves us too much to let us stay that way. The idea of purgatory has been cast in a negative light sometimes but it is a glorious truth. I remember reading about C.S. Lewis's (not a Catholic) belief in purgatory. To paraphrase his thought, imagine that you are filthy with mud, in tattered rags, and your breath stinks besides. You are going to be admitted into the presence of a great King and somebody says to you, "Just go right on in." "Please sir," you say, "but if you don't mind I'd like to be scrubbed up first." "It'll hurt a bit you know," is the reply. "Even so, sir, I'd like to be clean for the King."
Well, the King, our Loving Father, cleans us up before we come fully into His presence for eternity. So it is, so it should be.
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), August 10, 1999.
Franklin,While your thoughts on purgatory 'sound' good, they seem to hang on the theory of the immortality of the soul. While saying that the "Jews" of today believe in some after life, does not mean that men such as described in th OT did. And if "Christians" always believed in a "purgatory", why was it that only after Augustine "defined" did the CC know what the soul was? How can you believe in a "purgatory" if your not even sure that "soul" has immortality? And, why did it take nearly 400 years to actually figure this out if it was already so "plain in view"?
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 10, 1999.
Oh boy, I can see I'm getting dragged into a big discussion here. I will try to keep up with you Jamey but I cant promise that I can spend the same amount of time on this as you have. Anyway, here goesYou asked "How can you believe in a "purgatory" if your not even sure that "soul" has immortality?"
I'm sure enough. I'll try to comment later on what I thought were some problems and contradictions in your essay above. But what would be really helpful is if you could distill your thoughts down and then we can compare them to the Bible. Maybe you could start this as a separate question in the forum.
As I understand you there are two classes of people, ordinary humans and Holy Ones (the 144,000 of Revelation). Neither class has a distinct soul/spirit and body. When the ordinary humans die, if they believe in Christ (anything else necessary for them to do?), they are resurrected on the Last Day to live on the New Earth (eternally?). What I don't understand is where they are prior to the resurrection. Obviously their body goes into the ground and decays. According to your belief what is left of them and where does it go prior to the resurrection?
When the Holy Ones die their body goes into the grave and decays. Some part of them (what part?) goes somewhere (where?) but they are resurrected at the Last Day to live in the New Heaven, ruling over the New Earth (eternally?). Another question, are the patriarchs of the Old Testament (Moses, David, Solomon, etc.) numbered among the Holy Ones?
Those ordinary humans who do not believe in Christ are resurrected (?) but then simply destroyed.
Is that an accurate summary?
You asked "And, why did it take nearly 400 years to actually figure this out if it was already so "plain in view"? "
Well Jamey, you have had several folks here asking you about the books of the Bible so I'm tempted to ask you why it took nearly 400 years to figure out which books belong in the New Testament if it is so plain. But that would be off this topic so I'll skip that question.
But I'll see your 400 years and raise you 1400+ by asking another question that is on topic. It seems that a lot of your comments from the Bible can only be sustained if you make this distinction between ordinary humans and these "Holy Ones." I would like for you to elaborate a bit on just what you mean by this distinction. But my question is, if this distinction between a class of ordinary humans (which apparently includes all of us on this forum, according to you) and these "Holy Ones" is so "plain in view" then can you name anybody prior to the establishment of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the late 1800s that saw this same distinction in the Bible? Can you find one person who taught that only the 144,000 of Revelation are synonymous with the "saints" of the rest of the New Testament? I am not aware of anybody, but surely if it is as plain as you say then somebody should have seen it prior to, say, 1880.
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), August 10, 1999.
Franklin,For a short note to your question of the understanding of the 144,000, first please tell me a few things.
First, why after thousands of years of prophecy being made and fulfilled, did the majority of the Jews in Jesus' day and even now deny what he said, and who he said He was - the Son of God?
Second, after stating that they - the Catholic Church - is the one True church, BUT, just in the past couple of weeks - after nearly 2000 years - the "pope" has now figured out that "heaven" is not a "place in the clouds", but a metephor of something of/with God. And, that "hell" does not contain a literal fire? But, is just a place (metaphorically speaking) away from God - which ironically is what sheol is?
Curious,
-- Jamey (jcreel@hcsmail.com), August 10, 1999.
For your first question, I'll let the Apostle Paul answer:"What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day.' And David says, 'Let their table become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs for ever.' So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous." Romans 11:7-11
So I answer that God chose to have only a few Jews understand because in this way He could justly extend the offer of salvation to the Gentiles. Then, in reverse, this offer of salvation to the Gentiles will make Israel jealous and so "all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:236).
But the Bible says that many more than just 144,000 will stand before the very throne of God (i.e. be in heaven): "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb!'" (Revelation 7:9-10).
For your second question, I hate to disappoint you but the Pope was not "just discovering" something but clarifying something which many modern people still misunderstand. Even if Catholic theologians down through the centuries have spoken of the "fires" of Hell they have always realized that it was not a physical fire, since physical fire by definition could not affect spirits. But it's perfectly legitimate to speak of this "whatever it is" as "fire" since that's how the Bible speaks of it. It seems strange that you would balk when Catholics use the language of the Bible to describe something.
Now, to my questions:
If only the 144,000 = the "saints" of the New Testament and that is the "plain" teaching of the Bible then can you find somebody prior to 1880 who said that? If nobody prior to 1880 taught it, then how could it be "plain"?
When human beings die and their bodies decay in the ground, what part of them lives on, where is it, and what is it doing?
And let's toss in one last one. In Matthew 25:46 says "And [the unrighteous] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Eternal punishment cannot entail annihilation and extinction of consciousness, otherwise it would no longer be punishment. Notice too the contrast between eternal life (equals eternal existence and consciousness) and eternal punishment (equals eternal existence and consciousness). See again the very fine arguments on the Web site I cited above. So, how do you reconcile this verse (and the other verses cited on the Web page) with your contention that the souls barred from God's presence are annihilated?
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), August 10, 1999.
Franklin, It is a plearsure to have your input in this forum. I just had a few points. I agree that saints in heaven praying for us is no different then saints on earth praying for us. It is the ministry of the Baptized to pray for one anotherOn the purgatory, discipline point. I do not necessarily believe in a purification after death. I do think God disciplines his children on earth in order to cause them to trust Him fully and to conform us into the likeness of Him. Many Catholic priests have expressed this idea of purgatory to me. At the point of death our purification is complete. We will all have varying degrees of glory in heaven. Not that this will be an issue with the Holy Ones.
About Martin Luther and the Pharisees comparison. I do not think Luther thought that an unrepentant Pharisee or catholic would enter heaven. The Pharisees thought that if they followed the law they were holy, even withou possessing a changed heart. Luther said a repentant sinner would possess a clean heart and in response to forgiveness would do works that demonstrated the conforming to the Holiness of Jesus. The flesh was the coruptable part of man that would pay the debt of sin (physical death). The spiritual part of man was a new creation despite the flesh and by baptism this spirit was already in communion with God. The bible speaks of three parts of a man made in the image of God. These are Body, soul and spirit. The soul is actually the functional part of the spirit that gives life to the body. The spirit can live without the body, but the body cannot live without the spirit andone of its functions, the soul. Breath of Life.
-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), August 10, 1999.
Hi Pamela,Thanks for the welcome. I found this place from the Y2K forum hosted by the same server (Greenspun).
About Martin Luther, there is a very real difference between his position and the Catholic one. Catholics believe that a person has to actually be objectively holy and righteous in order to stand in God's presence (I could show a lot of verses from the Bible to show this). Luther believed that this was impossible and so he came up with this idea of the "covering" of Christ's righteousness. A lot of it had to do with his own feelings of sinfulness and inadequacy. So he invented a doctrine that had never been heard of in the history of the Church before him (sound familiar?) so that he could "sin boldly" (his words). I used to respect Martin Luther, but I've learned too many facts about him to respect him anymore. But this discussion is not about Luther.
On purgatory, I'm a bit unsure how to answer you. I gather from your comments that you are a Catholic. I don't understand where the priests you spoke to got the notion that Catholics do not have to believe in purgatory anymore. This doctrine has been believed by Christians from the earliest years of the Church and has been solemnly taught by four (four!) ecumenical councils of the Church, most recently by Vatican II itself:
"This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven ****or who are yet being purified after their death****--and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence, and of the Council of Trent" (Lumen Gentium, 51).
It makes me sad when priests give lay people such bad information. Hopefully it was totally unintentional. I would say that we Catholics need to beware of a very confused idea that came into the Church right after the Second Vatican Council. Many people in the Church somehow got the idea that "everything has changed" because of the Council. It's like that 1960's spirit of rebellion got into the Church itself. They teach all sorts of false doctrines and claim that Catholics "no longer believe" many things or that certain new ideas are in the "spirit of Vatican 2". But then when you read the actual Council documents you find that their ideas are contradicted by what the Council actually said. This issue of purgatory is a good [bad :-( ] example. I hope that these people who teach these things that are against the Catholic Church are ignorant themselves, because if they know what they are doing there is terrible judgment waiting for them, leading little ones astray. A very good summary of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council is the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" Or you can just read the council documents themselves too; they are great!
Thanks for listening. I would be interested in your feedback on this.
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), August 11, 1999.
Hi Franklin,I must agree with you that Martin Luther is a very confusing person. Start a new thread and tell me more of him111 PLEEEEAAASSSEEE
The priest did not say he didn't believe in purgatory, but that because of time being eternal and not finite it is possible to say the purgatory does not follow a finite time. It's hard to understand. We have put time on purgatory in a human finite way. Just like the notion that a prayer can be affective for all time not just when it was said. Does this make any sense. I am getting confused myself!!!! Gotta go.
-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), August 11, 1999.
Pamela,I understand you now. Great, we agree :-). Speaking of things in eternity is tricky since we are so bound up in time.
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), August 11, 1999.
To Whomever, Why all the big fuss over purgatory? If it's not there, good,who really wants to suffer. If it is there, at least you've got the consolation of knowing that you've got your "butt over the line" so to speak and someday you'll be in heaven. I can't remember ever bieng told that we had to believe in purgatory, but just to be sure I'll e-mail my brother, who is a priest in Kenya, and ask him. As I remember it, purgatory was a rather vague issue in Religion class and since it isn't a matter of faith, I never paid it much attention. Ellen
-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), August 27, 1999.
Ellen, I' with you1 I never was told much about it either. It was very vague, almost as if the teachers didn't believe it. Anyway, I missed something Jamey said earlier about Jesus HAD to go to the heart of the earth for three days. Jesus, didn't have to do anything. He chose to do the will of his Father for our sake not His. This descending into hell does not suggest that Jesus was punished for three days in hell. As a matter of fact, before Christ died He said 'IT IS FINISHED". The trip to hell was to pronounce victory over the devil and to preach to the captive. Christ's entire earthly life was a sacrifice because He did not have to be here, He was fulfilling the will of His Father.
-- pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), August 27, 1999.
The issue being spoken of Purgatory was taught to this Catholic during the '50s not as a threat rather as a final cleansing. In the developing years there has been watered down presentation(s) by priests due to changes in the seminaries.The feel good approach to the Father is well and good. Unfortunately He does not change as a God of justice and right. We have changed through rationalization and fear to think there is an open door to Heaven.
Not so for this man's thinking says I will if allowed and should I have returned the love offered to the best of my ability in honesty be with the Father.
+Peaace+
-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), August 28, 1999.
It is a matter of faith. It has been taught by four Ecumenical Councils, countless popes, and is a constant belief of Christians from the very beginning. It ain't optional for Catholics.I agree with you completely, Jean. It's not a negative teaching at all; it's a very positive one. We NEED to suffer in order to be God's children; that's what Hebrews 12:5-7 says. So we had better hope that we suffer, else God is not treating us as His children.
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), August 30, 1999.
In a recent thread the concept of the necessity to endure temporal punishment for sins forgiven, whether in this world or the next (Purgatory) were mentioned. A comment was made to the effect that nowhere in the “revised” Bible, non-Catholic Christians use, could any references to the above be found. As 2 Mac. 12:43-46 does not hold any water with some of our distinguished visitors, as they have deprived themselves of the full knowledge of wisdom and truth; the following scriptural references from the King James Version of the Bible might be helpful in shedding some light: 2 Sam. 12:13-14; Matt. 3:11-12; Matt. 5:25-26; Matt. 12:32; Matt. 18:23-25; Luke 12:47-48; Luke 12:58-59; John 20:21-23 together with Matt. 18:18; 1 Cor. 3:15; 2 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 2:10; Col. 1:24; Heb. 12:5; Heb. 12:14; Heb 12:23; 1 Pet. 3:19; Rev.5:2-3; Rev. 21:27.Due to the risk of losing some readers to boredom, I chose not to paste the actual scriptural passages here. I also did not want to use up an inordinate amount of space on those who would not read them under any circumstances. Each reference listed relates in one way or another, to the concept of purifying one’s self in this world, and/or the next, in order to satisfy Our Saviour’s need for sanctification.
I would ask all of you to indulge me one small privilege! For the record, I am placing this post in all threads with the word “Purgartory” in their title. I hope this does not confuse anyone when reading recent responses to the forum.
St. James and Mary, Our Blessed Mother, help us to accept whatever our Maker will appoint at the supreme moment of our final breath, and as always, pray for us!
Ed
-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), February 25, 2001.
Links for the above verses:
2 Sam. 12:13-14; ... Matt. 3:11-12; ... Matt. 5:25-26; ... Matt. 12:32; ... Matt. 18:23-25; ... Luke 12:47-48; ... Luke 12:58-59; ... John 20:21-23 together with Matt. 18:18; ... 1 Cor. 3:15; ... 2 Cor. 5:10; ... P hil. 2:10; ... C ol. 1:24; ... H eb. 12:5; ... Heb. 12:14; ... Heb 12:23; ... 1 Pet. 3:19; ... Rev.5:2-3; ... Rev. 21:27.St. James, pray for us. St. Judas Maccabeus, pray for us.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 25, 2001.
To those curious non-Catholics here, I find that previous post from 1plus years ago keep popping up. And, finding nobody has read the original "purgatory" post, yet, keep adding supposable "proofs" for it. One studied below as, again, not true proof. The others that were listed by Ed fall into the same basic categories, no in-depth study, out of context, misunderstanding, etc. Evil "spirits" in prison, are they dead PEOPLE referenced in 1 Peter 3:19, 20? For those interested look them up in a couple of Bible versions to get whatever meaning you feel comfortable with, keeping in mind what God’s True Love is. Genesis 6:1-7, 17; **2 Peter 2:4-5; **Jude 6 (There are others) These “in prison” are not people. They are not part of a mythological pattern as my NAB footnotes state. The are those “sons of God” which He locked up till the time of the end. The Bible has explanations for this. However, It takes time to study. And sometimes a good lexicon is needed. For example, in 2 Peter 2:9 the NAB says “punishment” one way, yet the NJB says it another. Both are Catholic versions, yet can have different meanings. So, we must understand what the phrases really mean. We may also need to analyze the Greek terms used. We can just “trust” what a “man” teaches us or we can pray for The Spirit to guide us. Again, with study, prayer and meditation the purgatory premise does not hold up. The love of Jehovah would not allow it. We don’t punish people before we judge them, unless we make a mistake. But, God doesn’t make mistakes as we do.
-- * (the _counsel@yahoo.com), March 01, 2001.
"as we do"you mean like just now? Purgatory is not punishment, it is cleansing.
When are we judged? We go somewhere before Judgement Day...and the damned don't wait it out in Heaven. Those in Purgatory are SOME OF those judged upon death as worthy of eternal reward in Heaven. That's where they're going...ALL of them.
Those judged as damned go straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. No Purgatory for them, for they are not just in need of cleansing.
..........................................
-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), March 01, 2001.
Please study before you answer.Webster's
"purgatory" = a place or state of PUNISHMENT wherein according to Roman Catholic doctrine the souls of those who die in God's grace may make satisfaction for past sins.
-- (the_counsel@yahoo.com), March 01, 2001.
I would say the same to you. When questioning Church doctrine, go to the source, not Webster's:CCC
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are in deed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo PURIFICATION, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of Heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final PURIFICATION OF THE ELECT, WHICH IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE PUNISHMENT OF THE DAMNED...
nowhere does the Church say "punishment" is what goes on in Purgatory.
....................................
-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), March 01, 2001.
However, your argument/doctrine is not in the Bible itself as study reveals. I research/study the bible first not the CCC.
-- - (the _counsel@yahoo.com), March 01, 2001.
your question was on the definition of Purgatory, and for that, the CCC is the best dictionary.we've shown you where it is in Scripture. It requires interpretation, as does all Scripture. The Church has put forth its interpretation, and you've put forth yours. As per Jesus promise, the Church is protected from all error in matters such as these (which is in Scripture too, but you no doubt have your own interpretation of that as well) and you are not. Guess who's interpretation "wins"...
................................................
-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), March 01, 2001.
Here are your words: --However, your argument/doctrine is not in the Bible itself as study reveals. I research/study the bible first not the CCC. - (the _counsel@yahoo.com), March 01, 2001.+
And tell us, please: Does that make you the final authority? You may study all you wish. You are just a man, and not backed by the Holy Spirit. Particularly since you've been separated from Jesus Christ's living Church. That is where the Holy Spirit is active in the world.
The Holy Bible is given to the world by the Holy Spirit, and it comes to us by the working of the Apostles, the evangelists, and the Church which has pronounced it inspired. You wouldn't have the Bible, if the Catholic Church had not preserved it intact. If you disqualify the Catholic Church, you can't be in favor of the Bible first produced by the labor of the early Catholic Church.
Also, the Books of Machabees are held by the Church to be inspired. That is the exact same authority *by which the four gospels are known to be inspired.* When protestants discarded the Books of the Machabees, they did it on their own authority, which is NO AUTHORITY at all! Therefore, these two books most certainly are the Word of God. Purgatory is definitely supported in there; and even if the books were only ''apocryphal'', they clearly tell us that the Israelites believed in Purgatory. That means Our Lord did, and all Jews in Our Lord's day. No matter what the Jews subsequently did or did not canonize. The Church knew this from the beginning, as Christ's own Church had to know it.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 01, 2001.