RE: Protestant vs. Catholic

[KephaMeansRock]

This is aphisherofmen,

What happened to the protestant v. Catholic debate forum that was going on here?

I just worked last night for over an hour on a post, and now it's gone, and my account is deleted!!!

Did we break a rule'? We were on topic and being respectful....

Anybody? HELP?!

[samuelbb7]

Howdy Justin

No, because a Catholic would say that, and that was how I was judging your phrase.

Okay.

No, because Prima Scriptura admits that there is other sources of tradition which bear serious weight on interpreting scripture, whereas Sola Scriptura is technically a blank check (and is very often treated exactly as such).

I see. So if a traditions offers a interpretation that the actual words do not sustain or agree with which would be considered correct?

Let me pick what you call a discipline. In the Scriptures elders are to be husbands of one wife. This does not require them to be married. But if they are married they cannot have more then one wife. It also allows them to marry. The Discipline of the RCC is that they cannot be married. I am not referring to the exceptions allowed. But the generally discipline. This tradition was not found in the early church. Paul allowed for it only. To me this discipline is against scripture. Yet it is allowed to stand. Why. Also if it stands as a discipline on what basis would it not stand and be wrong? I have been told that the pope could change it. Is that correct?

Tradition cannot CHANGE what was given infallibly by God through the Spirit - but Tradition is also safeguarded by that self-same spirit who ensures the church "remembers all things" (John 14:26)

This is where we disagree. For to me traditions of the RCC has replaced scripture as the basis of truth in the RCC. Just as it did for the Jewish nation.

No, because many traditions PREDATE scripture, including the very existence of the Church, by whom, to whom and for whom the NT scriptures were written. Jesus didn't just hand off a book, he gave us a Church, and it is that Church which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth", and which has existed in every century, whose leaders exist in a direct line leading back from bishop to bishop until you arrive at the very apostles themselves.

I will agree the Church predates the New Testament Scripture. But the Tanak was already in existence and used by the apostles as the basis of their teachings. Secondly I still refuse to accept that wicked lovers of mammon can be a bishop so that argument does not hold water to me.

How does the primacy of one steward over the others (given that only one recieved the keys to the kingdom, and all that that entails) overthrow scripture? Why is Peter ALWAYS listed first, always called first, often (and only) listed as distinct? Why did the entire early church (even the orthodox) see something uniquely special about Peter's office?

I do not think you can just dismiss this point the way you seem to be doing.

Catharsis and mangus are addressing this issue. I will leave that one to them.

Ever read the Council of Trent?

"If any one saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema."

THAT is the teaching of the Catholic Church; that's as official as it gets. That's the first canon on Justification for the whole council.

There is a slight difference in the two statements. I am justified by Grace through faith. At first glance they seem to agree on this. But the difference is this. In the history of the RCC it was grace that saved with the works being meritorious for they were with grace. In my understanding Grace alone saves. Works are not meritorious. They add nothing to salvation. Works are the result of being Born Again. Even the doctrine of being Born again is taught in early RCC history. But it is not taught in churches today. In fact the term Born again has been derided in some church writings.

How?

By looking to Peter as the basis of the bishops instead of JESUS.

That wasn't my question. My question is: WHY DO YOU ACCEPT THE NEW TESTAMENT AT ALL, AND WHY THOSE 27 BOOKS?

The irony, from a Catholic perspective, is that a Protestant's entire faith is based upon a book for which he has no certitude what its contents should be...I'm still open to learning otherwise, but I do not see how it is logically possible...

I have certitude on the contents. The problem is that you connect the early church as the Latin Rite church. We do not. Since they are not the same to us. We have no problem looking at the early church and seeing the 27 books of the New Testament as being foundational. We do this without accepting the claim of the RCC. Let me give a personal example. My Father founded a company Magnetic Industries. I worked with him to run it for awhile. This other company took it over and runs it now. They say they are magnetic Industries. Which is partially true. But the true founder is my Father and they are the ones who took it over and drove him out.


I would like to bring up and keep the doctrine of Conditionilism. When a person dies they are asleep.

Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
King James Version 1611, 1769

NASB
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Point one we are a soul a living being. We do not have a soul we are one. Do you agree with this point or disagree?

However, Isaiah 14:9-10 tells us that the dead are agitated and are speaking.

NASB Isa 14:9 "Sheol from beneath is excited over you to meet you when you come; It arouses for you the spirits of the dead, all the leaders of the earth; It raises all the kings of the nations from their thrones. Isa 14:10 "They will all respond and say to you, 'Even you have been made weak as we, You have become like us. Isa 14:11 'Your pomp {and} the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out {as your bed} beneath you And worms are your covering.'

Sheol a place is roused up. Since this is referring to a place it is speaking poetically. If the dead were really awake why whould the grave or sheol have to wake them up?

1 Samuel 28 tells of Samuel conversing with Saul after his death. In 1 Peter 3:19, Jesus preaches to souls in prison. Why preach to sleeping spirits? Talk about a bored audience!
Try telling the rich man in the story of Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) not to worry, since he is just sleeping.

After you answer my point I will answer. Are we a soul or do we have a soul?

If the dead are asleep, one must ask how Jesus communicated with them during his transfiguration (Matt. 17:3),

Mat 17:3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. Mat 17:4 Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."


Elijah was translated. Moses I believe was resurrected

So question 2 are the dead ghosts or do they have bodies?

how they offer our prayers to God (Rev. 5:8), how they cry out in a loud voice in praise of God (Rev. 7:10), and how these sleeping, unconscious souls cry out, "How long will it be, holy and true master, before you sit in judgment and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?" (Rev. 6:10). Those who have died are more alive than we are, and they surround us like a great cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12:1).

Keep these questions in mind. Now I have asked you two questions. First are we a soul or do we have a soul and with Biblical proof. Second do the dead have bodies or are they ghosts with no body?

[KephaMeansRock]

I see. So if a traditions offers a interpretation that the actual words do not sustain or agree with which would be considered correct?

If there were no alternative, the scripture would of course hold the primacy - however I think you'll find that no tradition conflicts with scripture properly understood.

Let me pick what you call a discipline.

First, I think we need to clarify: The doctrines of the Church are teachings that can never be reversed; the nature of God and the Trinity, of the sin of adultery or homosexuality, i.e. the teachings on faith and morals.

On the other hand, disciplines refer to those practices (such as eating meat on Fridays, or who is selected as a priest) that may change over time as the Church sees fit.

In the Scriptures elders are to be husbands of one wife. This does not require them to be married. But if they are married they cannot have more then one wife. It also allows them to marry.

So far, so good. It does allow them to marry.

In fact, the Catholic Church forbids no one to marry. No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They "renounce marriage" (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids it to them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage.

The Discipline of the RCC is that they cannot be married.

Close. The discipline is that, for the time being, in the Latin rite, is that priest are taken from those who have made a vow of celibacy. The real question is: (A)are such vows biblical? (B)Are they binding? (C)And Can the Church choose whom she ordains or is ordination a right?

I'll warn you now, if you read this with an open mind, you may wind up Catholic down the line - I've seen issues like this convert people who see that what they thought was utterly mistaken...I'll do my best to represent the Catholic side as eloquently as possible...

To answer (A) and (B), are vows of celibacy biblical and binding?...well, certainly we see them in the OT...what about the NT? You bet...

Sure, we can find celibacy in the NT...

Of course, Jesus was called the bridegroom, but his bride is the Church and his heavenly banquet is, as the name suggests, in heaven. He lived a celibate life. Moreover, he spoke of those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom - meaning those who have taken voluntarily a vow of celibacy like him - and says "whoever can accept this ought to" (Matt. 19:11–12)

And Paul, a staunchly orthodox Jew before he conversion lived a celibate life, so we know that it was not an unheard of thing. Moreover he greatly lauds the celibate life over the married life, saying:

"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband... "He who marries does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Cor 7:27-34, 38).

But did you know that there are essentially new testament nuns, and that they lived celibate lives having made a pledge, a vow, of celibacy?

Paul, writing once again to Timothy, mentions an order of widows pledged not to remarry (1 Tim 5:9-16); in particular advising: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (5:11–12).

This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.

Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against "forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists

So, that leaves (C) Does the Church have the right to select who is ordained? The answer should be a no-brainer...

St. Paul warns Timothy (1 tim 5:22) not to lay hands too hastily on candidates for ordination (because they might be like wheat on rocky, shallow soil, not fertile soil). That means that the church is to USE HER DISCRETION in selecting candidates for ordination. This means that the church is FREE to say 'for now, we'll only accept candidates who are meeting St. Paul's Higher standard'.

I am not referring to the exceptions allowed. But the generally discipline. This tradition was not found in the early church. Paul allowed for it only. To me this discipline is against scripture. Yet it is allowed to stand. Why. Also if it stands as a discipline on what basis would it not stand and be wrong? I have been told that the pope could change it. Is that correct?

What is "allowed to stand" is that the church permits vows of celibacy (as she has since before the NT was written), and that she choses who is to be a worthy candidate for ordination based upon her criteria. OFTEN but not ALWAYS.

What is "allowed to stand" is that the church takes St. Paul's advice very seriously. He didnt' "allow" for celibacy, he exhorted us to practice if if we were able (as did Christ) and called it the higher calling because it leaves one free to totally follow Christ. Marriage was the "concession" (though marriage too is a sacrament, and I - especially as a married man with two kids - do not want to at all speak disparaging of marriage!)

Now, all that said - this practice IS A DISCIPLINE, so it COULD CHANGE AGAIN. I don't see that happening any time soon...

Does that help?

So this is not in any way in conflict with scripture, but it is rather the utter fulfillment of the framework set up in scripture, a living, breathing, growing thriving church.

This is where we disagree. For to me traditions of the RCC has replaced scripture as the basis of truth in the RCC. Just as it did for the Jewish nation.

I am open to discussion - ONE AT A TIME (no shotgun apologetics, please) - which traditions you think are doing this. I think you'll find yourself mistaken more often than not...

Also http://www.catholic.com is a great resource if you're really wanting to hear the Church defend herself (which even if you never would become Catholic, is always a better way to learn what the heathens think than listening to what others tell you!)...

I will agree the Church predates the New Testament Scripture. But the Tanak was already in existence and used by the apostles as the basis of their teachings. Secondly I still refuse to accept that wicked lovers of mammon can be a bishop so that argument does not hold water to me.

What you're essentially espousing is a heresy the early Church rejected: Donatism. Why did St. Paul warn Timothy above about laying hands too quickly?

In the history of the RCC it was grace that saved with the works being meritorious for they were with grace. In my understanding Grace alone saves. Works are not meritorious.

It seems that YOUR opinion is the one that contradicts the scriptures...

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. (Rom 2:6-11)

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load.

Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor. Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[a]will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.(Gal 6:1-9)

And what did Christ say to some of those who approached him saying "lord lord!". "Depart from me for I never knew you...if you knew me you would have done my fathers work" and to others he says "come, enter the kingdom for I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me drink..."

Works are both necessary, and part of the meritorious process of sanctification and entering heaven. And it's been taught since the beginning...

Does that help?

Works are the result of being Born Again. Even the doctrine of being Born again is taught in early RCC history. But it is not taught in churches today. In fact the term Born again has been derided in some church writings.

"Born again" refers to being baptized (John 3). It isn't 'preached' because most if not all who attend Mass on a give Sunday are already baptized. BUT a call to continuing conversion is standard practice within the church...we are to ALWAYS be re-converting our lives to Christ.

Never claimed that Peter was the cornerstone. Christ is. Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built. That's why he's called Peter/Cephas/Kepha/Rock.

This statement removes JESUS from being the cornerstone and puts Peter in his place. The foundation of the Church is all the Apostles, prophets and JESUS being the cornerstone.

How?

By looking to Peter as the basis of the bishops instead of JESUS.

It's not looking to Peter, but to those Christ appointed and gave his spirit, Peter included.

I have certitude on the contents [of scripture].

Based upon what?

The problem is that you connect the early church as the Latin Rite church. We do not.

No, I don't. I connect the early church with the CATHOLIC CHURCH - which it called itself; and with valid succession of bishops - which it practiced.

We have no problem looking at the early church and seeing the 27 books of the New Testament as being foundational.

Good for you. How do you KNOW that they belong if fallible men put them there?

My Father founded a company Magnetic Industries. I worked with him to run it for awhile. This other company took it over and runs it now. They say they are magnetic Industries. Which is partially true. But the true founder is my Father and they are the ones who took it over and drove him out.

Except in the case of the Church, each successor was chosen for the position and never "ran out" anyone or "changed" any teachings. Again, if you can find me one teaching that has legitimately changed, I'll consider leaving the church seriously...

After you answer my point I will answer. Are we a soul or do we have a soul?

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "are we a soul"...

We, as beings, are body and spirit (the soul, technically, is the form of the being). When we die, we are not fully human. Body and Soul are not seperateable without substantially changing what we are...but this happens for a time for the sake of the resurrection. At that point we are re-united withour bodies.

Give what you quoted before (which I kind of see where you're going with this)

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:7.

It would seem to be the case that at the moment of creation (when spirit and body are united), man became a living soul. My bible translates that "soul" however as 'being". Which is a more accurate translation of nepheshis up for grabs.

So question 2 are the dead ghosts or do they have bodies?

Neither, I believe... They are disembodied humans, and their very spirit is maintained by the sovereign will of God.

[samuelbb7]

Howdy Justin

If there were no alternative, the scripture would of course hold the primacy - however I think you'll find that no tradition conflicts with scripture properly understood.

This is where we disagree. I will not use a shotgun approach.

First, I think we need to clarify: The doctrines of the Church are teachings that can never be reversed; the nature of God and the Trinity, of the sin of adultery or homosexuality, i.e. the teachings on faith and morals.

We have some basic agreements on these matters. The trinity is true. So are the sins you mention. In fact any action that is against the Ten Commandments is a sin.

Close. The discipline is that, for the time being, in the Latin rite, is that priest are taken from those who have made a vow of celibacy. The real question is: (A)are such vows biblical? (B)Are they binding? (C)And Can the Church choose whom she ordains or is ordination a right?

I agree such vows are biblical. To the person who makes those vows they are binding. Yes the church can choose who it wishes to ordain. It is not a right. Yet to choose to deny ordination on the requirement of celibacy alone is unbiblical. It is forbidding that which is allowed.

This "first pledge" broken by remarriage cannot refer to previous wedding vows, for Paul does not condemn widows for remarrying (cf. Rom. 7:2-3). It can only refer to a vow not to remarry taken by widows enrolled in this group. In effect, they were an early form of women religious—New Testament nuns. The New Testament Church did contain orders with mandatory celibacy, just as the Catholic Church does today.

Orders would be a wrong term. This was an individual thing. The trappings of orders were much latter.

Such orders are not, then, what Paul meant when he warned against "forbidding to marry." The real culprits here are the many Gnostic sects through the ages which denounced marriage, sex, and the body as intrinsically evil. Some early heretics fit this description, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists

Basic agreement.

St. Paul warns Timothy (1 Tim 5:22) not to lay hands too hastily on candidates for ordination (because they might be like wheat on rocky, shallow soil, not fertile soil). That means that the church is to USE HER DISCRETION in selecting candidates for ordination. This means that the church is FREE to say 'for now, we'll only accept candidates who are meeting St. Paul's Higher standard'.

So a church that allows married ministers is still within the New Testament teaching.

What is "allowed to stand" is that the church takes St. Paul's advice very seriously. He didn’t' "allow" for celibacy, he exhorted us to practice if we were able (as did Christ) and called it the higher calling because it leaves one free to totally follow Christ. Marriage was the "concession" (though marriage too is a sacrament, and I - especially as a married man with two kids - do not want to at all speak disparaging of marriage!)

Good. Some Catholic in the past have spoken disparaging of marriage. I have Twin boy and girl and an older boy. Two are in College. One is taking a year off. Hopefully.

Does that help?

Yes.

So this is not in any way in conflict with scripture, but it is rather the utter fulfillment of the framework set up in scripture, a living, breathing, growing thriving church.

Also http://www.catholic.com is a great resource if you're really wanting to hear the Church defend herself (which even if you never would become Catholic, is always a better way to learn what the heathens think than listening to what others tell you!)...

Thank you.

What you're essentially espousing is a heresy the early Church rejected: Donatism. Why did St. Paul warn Timothy above about laying hands too quickly?

The site on donatism was very interesting. I would agree it seems with them on only this one point. It is for the reason that Paul warns of and the lack to do it that is part of my reason for rejecting the Bishops. Many were appointed not for their character but for their pocket book or that of their Father. So many Bishops were appointed who had failed to live up to the standard of Celibacy before being made priests and did not change afterward. When wicked men are appointed by wicked men all for the love of money. That says the office was for sale not for those who followed GOD.

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. (Rom 2:6-11)

I totally agree with this passage. A person who has been Born Again by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT will do works. But works are not meritorious. I agree with all the Bible passages you quoted. Which is why we do not teach once saved always saved. My Church is often accused of works sightedness since we stress works and obedience to GOD.

Works are both necessary, and part of the meritorious process of sanctification and entering heaven. And it's been taught since the beginning...

I will agree works are necessary for those who are still alive. But they are not meritorious. First a person can accept JESUS then die or be murdered and still be allowed into heaven. Works do not have to be added for them to be justified. Second JESUS makes it clear works are what we are supposed to be doing. We do not get rewarded for doing what we are supposed to do.

NASB Luk 17:7 "Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'?
Luk 17:8 "But will he not say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and {properly} clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink'?
Luk 17:9 "He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he?
Luk 17:10 "So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done {only} that which we ought to have done.' "

I hope you do not mind the NASB. If you have a translation you prefer I will see if I can use it.

"Born again" refers to being baptized (John 3). It isn't 'preached' because most if not all who attend Mass on a give Sunday are already baptized. BUT a call to continuing conversion is standard practice within the church...we are to ALWAYS be re-converting our lives to Christ.

Many Catholics do not seem to know that they are born again. We are to die to self daily and live to JESUS.

It's not looking to Peter, but to those Christ appointed and gave his spirit, Peter included.

I agree. They were all equal.

No, I don't. I connect the early church with the CATHOLIC CHURCH - which it called itself; and with valid succession of bishops - which it practiced.

Except in the case of the Church, each successor was chosen for the position and never "ran out" anyone or "changed" any teachings. Again, if you can find me one teaching that has legitimately changed, I'll consider leaving the church seriously.

Let the LORD be the judge of that.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "are we a soul"...

We, as beings, are body and spirit (the soul, technically, is the form of the being). When we die, we are not fully human. Body and Soul are not separately without substantially changing what we are...but this happens for a time for the sake of the resurrection. At that point we are re-united without bodies.

Correct we are beings or creatures as some call it. For the Soul is also used of animals. So we are a soul. Also I think you meant to say united with our bodies. But if we are not human without our bodies what are we?

It would seem to be the case that at the moment of creation (when spirit and body are united), man became a living soul. My bible translates that "soul" however as 'being". Which is a more accurate translation of nephesh is up for grabs.

I have no problem with being. So as you seem to agree we do not have a soul but are a soul So without the body we are not human. In fact we are dead.

KJV - Eze 18:4 - Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

NASB - Eze 18:4 - "Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die.

KJV - Rev 16:3 - And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead [man]: and every living soul died in the sea.

NASB - Rev 16:3 - The second {angel} poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became blood like {that} of a dead man; and every living thing in the sea died.


Note the word for Breath and the word for Spirit are the same word. Is that not correct? So my next point is when we die the body goes in the grave and the Bible says the Spirit goes to GOD. Is this not correct? Ecc 12:7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it. NASB

Neither, I believe... They are disembodied humans, and their very spirit is maintained by the sovereign will of God.

I would agree their Spirit is maintained by GOD. But if they are disembodied then they have no body so they are formless and as such can feel nothing. They can also do nothing. The Bible refers to this state as sleeping. If it is not sleeping then why does the Bible call it sleeping. 1Cr 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
1Cr 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
1Ki 2:10 Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David.

[KephaMeansRock]

I agree such vows are biblical. To the person who makes those vows they are binding. Yes the church can choose who it wishes to ordain. It is not a right. Yet to choose to deny ordination on the requirement of celibacy alone is biblically. It is forbidding that which is allowed.

I'm glad we have a fair amount of agreement thus-far.

However, the church isn't DENYING ordination to those who are not celibate, but is only exercising the right you agreed that she has - to ordain whom she chooses; and she chooses NORMALLY those who have followed Jesus and Paul in the higher calling of celibacy.

However, again, while normally choosing - in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church - from those who have freely taken such a vow, there ARE MARRIED PRIESTS both within the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church (Eastern Rite =/= Eastern Orthodox, all Eastern Rites are Branches of the Orthodox still in communion with Rome; though for the practice is similar or the same to most Eastern Rites).

Nothing is being forbidden. You're saying "the church can ordain whom she chooses, but she cannot choose only celibate people" which is false both because there are married priests, and precisely because she CAN chose celibates.

Moreover, most priests I know WANT the celibacy rule to remain, because the aspect of sacrificing something inherently GOOD for the sake of God is a powerful thing.

It is not un-biblical (and again, the scriptural guidelines were to help govern a practice which is not itself based solely upon scripture because it so clearly pre-dates it.)

Orders would be a wrong term. This was an individual thing. The trappings of orders were much latter.

The first real rule for communal living came from St. Benedict and his Holy Rule; I know because I'm a Benedictine Oblate. It's a 6th century text viewed as the beginning of western monasticism at large. There were a few orders prior to it, but none that flourished or thrived the way the Rule provided for.

Nevertheless, these were groups of widows ENROLLED into a communal life from which they weren't to leave or marry if enrolled.

So a church that allows married ministers is still within the New Testament teaching.

I'd need this to be clarified. The Catholic church DOES have married presbuteroi; just in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church it's not the normative group from which priests are currently selected...operative word: Currently.

But "a church" is the part I have a qualm with. Many 'churches' have married clergy who are not within - if in fact the Catholic Church is who She claims - the New Testament teachings...or at any rate are not 'priests' in the ordained sense...

Good. Some Catholic in the past have spoken disparaging of marriage. I have Twin boy and girl and an older boy. Two are in College. One is taking a year off. Hopefully.

Oh no...we're all about marriage...but we recognize the truth in what Christ and St. Paul both professed...celibacy IS a higher calling, but marriage is not thereby sinful.

The site on donatism was very interesting. I would agree it seems with them on only this one point. It is for the reason that Paul warns of and the lack to do it that is part of my reason for rejecting the Bishops. Many were appointed not for their character but for their pocket book or that of their Father. So many Bishops were appointed who had failed to live up to the standard of Celibacy before being made priests and did not change afterward. When wicked men are appointed by wicked men all for the love of money. That says the office was for sale not for those who followed GOD.

I'm sorry I didn't quite follow what you said there...you agree with the Donatists?

The office was abused when wicked men used it for power - we agree there. But that it was abused does not itself end the office.

I totally agree with this passage. A person who has been Born Again by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT will do works. But works are not meritorious. I agree with all the Bible passages you quoted. Which is why we do not teach once saved always saved. My Church is often accused of works sightedness since we stress works and obedience to GOD.

But my point was that it says "he will render to each according to his works...eternal life...or damnation". Works = damnation or salvation according to those passages...they merit it (though they are - ultimately - us passively allowing the active grace of God to bear fruit, not true works of ours; hence the distinction between actual and sanctifying grace...)

I will agree works are necessary for those who are still alive. But they are not meritorious. First a person can accept JESUS then die or be murdered and still be allowed into heaven. Works do not have to be added for them to be justified.

And this is where we get into the realm of normativeness. The works are us being willing to submit to the grace of God in us; The thief on the right was promised to see paradise that day (though this does seem to be Sheol, not heaven per se), Abraham's bosom where Lazarus went, not hades where the rich man was. He was (presumably) neither baptized, nor able to do any good work, yet he was promised heaven.

I think a better passage to demonstrate this is the parable about the laborers and their wages of Matthew 20:1-15

"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

'Because no one has hired us,' they answered. "He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'

That said the very notion of different crowns/measures of glory in heaven is quite biblical...some are given 2, some 5, some 10, but to those whom more is given, more is expected, yet they may reap a real benefit. And in part good works are the fruit of sanctification occurring in this life...

...incidentally, there we see that the good thief was told he'd "see" something after being deceased...showing again that we are conscious in some form after death...

But if good works play no part, why should sin play any part? And if sin plays no part, why care about sinful bishops to begin with?

Many Catholics do not seem to know that they are born again. We are to die to self daily and live to JESUS.

The phraes 'born again', though it does in fact come from the scriptures, is not one often preached in the Catholic Church because it is an assumption usually quite founded. It refers to baptism.

However you WILL hear preached often the need to "carry our cross" and "die to self" daily because that is what all believers are called to.

I, however, do teach RCIA (classes for converts to the faith, many of whom were never baptized) and as such, I DO teach the need to be born again! Just FYI!

Correct we are beings or creatures as some call it. For the Soul is also used of animals. So we are a soul. Also I think you meant to say united with our bodies. But if we are not human without our bodies what are we?

In deed it was a typo.

We are not FULLY human, but we are something...disembodied spirit...I don't know for certain. But then, even now we are not FULLY human, for we are broken due to sin. Human nature was shattered at our first parents disobedience, but it is in the process of restoration in Christ, the Perfect Man.

I have no problem with being. So as you seem to agree we do not have a soul but are a soul So without the body we are not human. In fact we are dead.

No. We are spirit separated from body. I still dont see that translating as "dead"

In fact, given that "God is not a God of contradiction", we have the following in scripture:

I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I am the God of the Living and not of the dead (Matt 22:32)

So, what does this tell us about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and all who follow God), even if they've passed from this life?

Are they "dead" or are they "living"?

Note the word for Breath and the word for Spirit are the same word. Is that not correct?

Sounds right...Ruha or Rhua, however you write it...

So my next point is when we die the body goes in the grave and the Bible says the Spirit goes to GOD. Is this not correct? Ecc 12:7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it. NASB

But the spirit is part of US, and that part of us - supernatural spirit given by God - persists in God. It "returns to him", but that doesn't mean it ceases...

I would agree their Spirit is maintained by GOD. But if they are disembodied then they have no body so they are formless and as such can feel nothing. They can also do nothing. The Bible refers to this state as sleeping. If it is not sleeping then why does the Bible call it sleeping.

I can think of a few reasons. "Sleep" may be simply euphemistic or idiomatic...the Hebrew people were/are very fond of idiom... The OT bits that you cite may very well simply betray the lack of knowledge that those before Christ had of the revealed Truth...heck hat's what makes Ecclesiastes such an interesting read!

When you see a few OT passages speak of soul going down and asking semi-rhetorically "can the shades praise you", the answer would seem to be to some degree YES, contrary to what the psalmist asked assuming a different answer (much like Caiaphas asking a question about the death of one man expecting a different rhetorical answer).

The saints are not aware by the virtue of just hanging around, but because they are "absent from the body and present with Christ" as part of the captial B Body, Christ's body. They are aware of our prayers by the very grace and providence of God who keeps the body of Christ One, be it's members on earth or in heaven.

Great questions! You're really making me think...Hope I'm returning the favor...my only question I don't feel I've got a very satisfactory answer on is still how you know which books comprise the New Testament. I'd ask that you address that one later...

Pax Christi,

-Justin

[samuelbb7]

To Justin

I'm glad we have a fair amount of agreement thus-far.

So am I.

Nothing is being forbidden. You're saying "the church can ordain whom she chooses, but she cannot choose only celibate people" which is false both because there are married priests, and precisely because she CAN chose celibates.

I am not saying she cannot. I am saying she should not. In this I agree with many Catholics.

The first real rule for communal living came from St. Benedict and his Holy Rule; I know because I'm a Benedictine Oblate. It's a 6th century text viewed as the beginning of western monasticism at large. There were a few orders prior to it, but none that flourished or thrived the way the Rule provided for.

Nevertheless, these were groups of widows ENROLLED into a communal life from which they weren't to leave or marry if enrolled.

This agrees with my point. They were less well defined before the 6th century. But the existence and the wish are not contrary to scripture.

I'd need this to be clarified. The Catholic church DOES have married presbuteroi; just in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church it's not the normative group from which priests are currently selected...operative word: Currently.

I understand.

But "a church" is the part I have a qualm with. Many 'churches' have married clergy who are not within - if in fact the Catholic Church is who She claims - the New Testament teachings...or at any rate are not 'priests' in the ordained sense...

I of course recognize that you do not accept Protestant churches as legitimate. But the reason has nothing to do with us having married Elders. By the way here is a web site of the Small Catechism that Martin Luther wrote for all children to study. Please read it and tell me what you think. http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/martin-luthers-small.html

Oh no...we're all about marriage...but we recognize the truth in what Christ and St. Paul both professed...celibacy IS a higher calling, but marriage is not thereby sinful.

True.

I'm sorry I didn't quite follow what you said there...you agree with the Donatists?

The office was abused when wicked men used it for power - we agree there. But that it was abused does not itself end the office.

I agree with them on the one point. The office of those men is not legitimate when occupied by wicked men. The office must pass to others who will fulfill the will of GOD correctly.

But my point was that it says "he will render to each according to his works...eternal life...or damnation". Works = damnation or salvation according to those passages...they merit it (though they are - ultimately - us passively allowing the active grace of God to bear fruit, not true works of ours; hence the distinction between actual and sanctifying grace...)

Works show the heart. A person who does not work is not saved. Let me give you an example. A man is about to be executed for a crime. He can do no works at all. He remembers his mother who prayed for him. He prays to GOD and truly repents in his heart. He calls upon GOD for salvation as he is taken out and then shot. Is this person saved? Will he be granted eternal life?

And this is where we get into the realm of normativeness. The works are us being willing to submit to the grace of God in us; The thief on the right was promised to see paradise that day (though this does seem to be Sheol, not heaven per se), Abraham's bosom where Lazarus went, not Hades where the rich man was. He was (presumably) neither baptized, nor able to do any good work, yet he was promised heaven.

I agree the works are us willing to submit to the grace of GOD in us. If we do not submit then there is no grace. Interesting comments on the thief and Lazarus.

I think a better passage to demonstrate this is the parable about the laborers and their wages of Matthew 20:1-15

This parable said they all received the same pay. No matter how much they worked. But the two parables are compatible in that the different works did not earn extra pay.

That said the very notion of different crowns/measures of glory in heaven is quite biblical...some are given 2, some 5, some 10, but to those whom more is given, more is expected, yet they may reap a real benefit. And in part good works are the fruit of sanctification occurring in this life...

Now we have actually switched points. Rewards in heaven of levels are biblical. For instance the high level of the 144,000. But the getting to heaven is all equal pay. I hope I am making this clear. All who follow GOD get to heaven on an equal basis of getting there. Shall we say all those born in the United States are U.S. Citizens. No works required. But those who had it easy and those who were martyred for their faiths are not given the same crowns etc. Does that make sense?

...incidentally, there we see that the good thief was told he'd "see" something after being deceased...showing again that we are conscious in some form after death...

You pointed out above that where the thief went seemed to be unclear. Think about that for awhile and I will get back on it.

But if good works play no part, why should sin play any part? And if sin plays no part, why care about sinful bishops to begin with?

Sin and lack of works show the heart. Thieves and Liars will not be allowed in to heaven.

The phrases 'born again', though it does in fact come from the scriptures, is not one often preached in the Catholic Church because it is an assumption usually quite founded. It refers to baptism.

However you WILL hear preached often the need to "carry our cross" and "die to self" daily because that is what all believers are called to.

I, however, do teach RCIA (classes for converts to the faith, many of whom were never baptized) and as such, I DO teach the need to be born again! Just FYI!

Good.

Correct we are beings or creatures as some call it. For the Soul is also used of animals. So we are a soul. Also I think you meant to say united with our bodies. But if we are not human without our bodies what are we?

We are not FULLY human, but we are something...disembodied spirit...I don't know for certain. But then, even now we are not FULLY human, for we are broken due to sin. Human nature was shattered at our first parents disobedience, but it is in the process of restoration in Christ, the Perfect Man.

Are we something. The Bible no where says we are something. We are Mortal people. People who are mortal can die. The Spirit is joined with our body to make us human to make us a soul.

NASB Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
1Cr 15:53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Please read these two passages carefully and tell me exactly what they mean.

No. We are spirit separated from body. I still don’t see that translating as "dead"
In fact, given that "God is not a God of contradiction", we have the following in scripture:

I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I am the God of the Living and not of the dead (Matt 22:32)

I love this scripture. But let us be sure to look at the context of the scripture.

Mat 22:23 On that day {some} Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,
Mat 22:24 asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
Mat 22:25 "Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;
Mat 22:26 so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
Mat 22:27 "Last of all, the woman died.
Mat 22:28 "In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had {married} her."
Mat 22:29 But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Mat 22:31 "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God:
Mat 22:32 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

What was the topic? Were they discussing the dead being alive now? What was JESUS advocating.

So, what does this tell us about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (and all who follow God), even if they've passed from this life?

Are they "dead" or are they "living"?

They are dead awaiting the resurrection as the context tells us that the discussion was not about being alive then but about the resurrection.

Sounds right...Ruha or Rhua, however you write it..
But the spirit is part of US, and that part of us - supernatural spirit given by God - persists in God. It "returns to him", but that doesn't mean it ceases...

Exactly it goes to GOD. Not to Sheol not to paradise it goes to GOD. Does that mean it is awake and cognizant of its surroundings since all both wicked and righteous all go to the same place?

I can think of a few reasons. "Sleep" may be simply euphemistic or idiomatic...the Hebrew people were/are very fond of idiom... The OT bits that you cite may very well simply betray the lack of knowledge that those before Christ had of the revealed Truth...heck hat's what makes Ecclesiastes such an interesting read!

But as I pointed out sleep is used in the New Testament in I Corinthians 15 and by JESUS of Lazarus.

When you see a few OT passages speak of soul going down and asking semi-rhetorically "can the shades praise you", the answer would seem to be to some degree YES, contrary to what the psalmist asked assuming a different answer (much like Caiaphas asking a question about the death of one man expecting a different rhetorical answer).

Does it not say that Sheol a place must wake the shades? So what is going on here is personification.

The saints are not aware by the virtue of just hanging around, but because they are "absent from the body and present with Christ" as part of the capital B Body, Christ's body. They are aware of our prayers by the very grace and providence of God who keeps the body of Christ One, be its members on earth or in heaven.

But all Spirits go to GOD. If they did not how could they be resurrected since it is GOD who does the resurrection. Also why is a resurrection necessary? So are the saints a sinners sitting around in the presence of GOD having a discussion?

Great questions! You're really making me think...Hope I'm returning the favor...my only question I don't feel I've got a very satisfactory answer on is still how you know which books comprise the New Testament. I'd ask that you address that one later...

Yes you cause me to think. Yes I will answer that question more latter.

[KephaMeansRock]

I am not saying she cannot. I am saying she should not. In this I agree with many Catholics.

Ah, well...cannot and should not are two entirely different things...

And, because this is a discipline, not a doctrine, you are FREE to say "I don't like how it's done and I hope they change it" because it COULD change...

Though I disagree, and to be honest, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to making it less infrequent that married men may be priests (because I myself have always felt called to that)...but I trust the church's wisdom, and do in fact see much merit in the current practice...

Married men have families to raise, and that takes them away from their service to God and their flock...and while I'd love to believe that such men would be much less inclined to divorce, it's just opening up a whole can of worms - especially for priests in the western world - for scandal potential. Then there is the fact that people would probably begin to look on those who had taken a vow of celibacy as though they were even more crazy - and I truly believe one of the GREATEST gifts the Church can give to this sex-crazed world is honest examples of loving chastity and lived celibacy!

But...you are free to differer on whether or not this is the best policy...it is, however, not an biblically policy, which was my original point to which I believe we've found sufficient common ground...

This agrees with my point. They were less well defined before the 6th century. But the existence and the wish are not contrary to scripture.

I wasn't denying your point..."religious orders" per se didn't really exist in any frequency...BUT as per Paul's injunction, we know that they DID exist in some form...

I of course recognize that you do not accept Protestant churches as legitimate. But the reason has nothing to do with us having married Elders.

For the record, while not "legitimate" churches per se, we do recognize most all protestant groups as Christian which retain valid baptism, and recognize that salvation is possible for members of such denominations.

By the way here is a web site of the Small Catechism that Martin Luther wrote for all children to study. Please read it and tell me what you think. http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/martin-luthers-small.html

I agree with much of it...like the bits about baptism and confession...it's not all heresy Luther had just stepped off the Catholic Bandwagon then I believe, and so many of his beliefs were still quite Catholic in scope.

I'm probably not going to do a point by point analysis right now, unless you really want that...

I agree with them on the one point. The office of those men is not legitimate when occupied by wicked men. The office must pass to others who will fulfill the will of GOD correctly.

The wicked men ought to be replaced - yes. But the point is that there is no statute of limitations on how long it must take to remove them, and no matter how long they hold the office the office outlasts them. Most bad popes lived relatively short lives, and then were replaced - often by more orthodox popes.

Out of 265 popes, you can count on two hands the bad ones (and probably really on one). That's not great, but also not bad. That's like 2% (by number, and far less than that by years served).

Works show the heart. A person who does not work is not saved. Let me give you an example. A man is about to be executed for a crime. He can do no works at all. He remembers his mother who prayed for him. He prays to GOD and truly repents in his heart. He calls upon GOD for salvation as he is taken out and then shot. Is this person saved? Will he be granted eternal life?

Yes, he'll be saved, which I've been saying all along. Works are NORMATIVELY necessary (but again, look at the thief to Christ's right).

Again, what works are are us being passively open to the grace of God. This person, upon repenting, is open to the grace of God. He would perform good works were he given the Chance.

God is not a god of technicalities.

This parable said they all received the same pay. No matter how much they worked. But the two parables are compatible in that the different works did not earn extra pay.

In deed...but the Paul throws us a curveball saying: "Now this I say, he who sows sparingly, shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully" (2 Corinthians 9:6)

The ultimate point, I believe, is that we will all be filled to the brim, and that none will actually disparage what another has, but will glory in the grace of all...

"If one member is honored, all members rejoice with it" (I Corinthians 12:26)

However works do play a part in our reward, and a lack of them can condemn us... They are the normatively necessary signs of our cooperation with God and his Grace; and this cooperation sanctifies us and increases our capacity for God both now and in the life to come.

Does that makes sense...

Now we have actually switched points. Rewards in heaven of levels are biblical. For instance the high level of the 144,000. But the getting to heaven is all equal pay. I hope I am making this clear. All who follow GOD get to heaven on an equal basis of getting there. Shall we say all those born in the United States are U.S. Citizens. No works required. But those who had it easy and those who were martyred for their faiths are not given the same crowns etc. Does that make sense?

"To those whom more has been given, more is to be expected"

and "there is more rejoicing in heaven over a lost sheep being found...

Seem to summarize that pretty well. I think we're getting close to an agreement here...

You pointed out above that where the thief went seemed to be unclear. Think about that for awhile and I will get back on it.

Assuming Sheol, are we to think that those in Sheol were conscious but those in heaven are not?

NASB Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
1Cr 15:53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Please read these two passages carefully and tell me exactly what they mean.

Romans 8:11 speaks of the resurrection of the body. Resurrection of the body does not inherently deny the persistence of the spirit separate from the body.

1 Cor 15 speaks also of being given a new body, much like Christ's glorified body after his resurrection...also not denying per se the persistence of the spirit separate from the body.

Moreover, Paul speaks of longing to be "absent from the body and present with Christ" (2 Cor. 5:8). Is he longing to be unconscious?

I love this scripture. But let us be sure to look at the context of the scripture.

I love it too, because the Sadducees are explicitly quoting the Book of Tobit to Christ - a book the rejected (they accepted only the Torah) - because it is a book he used as scripture, and using it they thought they could deny the resurrection.

Mat 22:31 "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God:
Mat 22:32 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

What was the topic? Were they discussing the dead being alive now? What was JESUS advocating.

So...you're saying...that he is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...because they're dead? :p

...They are speaking of people absent from the body. Jewish cosmology didn't definitively know what happened after death. Dead simply means "not walking around on the earth".

They are dead awaiting the resurrection as the context tells us that the discussion was not about being alive then but about the resurrection.

According to that two-step premise, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are counted amongst the living even now...so too Moses and Elijah, so too the multitude who were resurrected in anticipation of Christ's resurrection at his Death.

Exactly it goes to GOD. Not to Sheol not to paradise it goes to GOD. Does that mean it is awake and cognizant of its surroundings since all both wicked and righteous all go to the same place?

Careful. Jesus opened the gates of heaven through his death and resurrection. BEFORE THAT, the soul did NOT go to God from all we can tell through scripture. Jesus himself speaks of the Jewish Cosmological outlook when he talks of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Sheol, having it's two parts (Abraham's bosom and hades) which were either wonderful or ... less than wonderful...respectively.

It is to these same spirits (the one's in Hades, the one's "in prison" (including the ones disobedient in the days of Noah)) that he went to to preach after his death. Did he preach to unconscious people? If they were conscious, and they accepted his message, did they then cease to be conscious?

I just don't think "soul sleep" flies...

But as I pointed out sleep is used in the New Testament in I Corinthians 15 and by JESUS of Lazarus.

The "sleep" of Lazarus was regarding his BODY which he was about to raise. Sleep is an euphemism for the dead body. For he presents Lazarus's SPIRIT as being conscious.

Does it not say that Sheol a place must wake the shades? So what is going on here is personification.

Again, in early Hebrew understanding of this point, it's cloudy. Such phrases are of phrased as questions... "Can the shades praise you?"

Every time they scriptures speak of "falling asleep", it makes perfect sense to read this as "their body ceased to function". When they body ceases, you can still see it, but it responds not...It is as though the body were in a deep sleep unable to be roused. Jesus tells Lazarus to wake up because the body is being re-animated.

So for instance when Peter says "For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation;" he is not making any declaration of their spirit, but of their body.

Again, scripture is not in a vacuum, and there are many verses which describe those "asleep" as rather wakeful and sentient.

But all Spirits go to GOD. If they did not how could they be resurrected since it is GOD who does the resurrection. Also why is a resurrection necessary? So are the saints a sinners sitting around in the presence of GOD having a discussion?

Resurrection is necessary because we are bodily creatures; that is how we were created to exist - but we are MORE than just body (as I think we agree).

...

Sorry, I had to answer this in like 4 different segments, so hopefully it's not too disjointed!

Pax Christi,

-Justin

[samuelbb7]

Howdy Justin.

Well on the first two points we have achieved some agreement.

For the record, while not "legitimate" churches per se, we do recognize most all protestant groups as Christian which retain valid baptism, and recognize that salvation is possible for members of such denominations.

Since John Paul 2 that is true. I am not so sure about the current pope.

I agree with much of it...like the bits about baptism and confession...it's not all heresy Luther had just stepped off the Catholic Bandwagon then I believe, and so many of his beliefs were still quite Catholic in scope.

This is good enough.

The wicked men ought to be replaced - yes. But the point is that there is no statute of limitations on how long it must take to remove them, and no matter how long they hold the office the office outlasts them. Most bad popes lived relatively short lives, and then were replaced - often by more orthodox popes.

They were not replaced. They died and others took over. So you had bad men electing bad men.

Out of 265 popes, you can count on two hands the bad ones (and probably really on one). That's not great, but also not bad. That's like 2% (by number, and far less than that by years served).

I would disagree with your number. In a dummy guides to the Roman Catholic Church there is a list of the worst ten. I need to look it up. But one pope actually had himself declared to be Caesar. That is still bad.

Yes, he'll be saved, which I've been saying all along. Works are NORMATIVELY necessary (but again, look at the thief to Christ's right).

Again, what works are us being passively open to the grace of God. This person, upon repenting, is open to the grace of God. He would perform good works were he given the Chance.

God is not a god of technicalities.
Well we have agreement here. Now are the works of Saints and others meritorious to save others then themselves?

In deed...but the Paul throws us a curveball saying: "Now this I say, he who sows sparingly, shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully" (2 Corinthians 9:6)

The ultimate point, I believe, is that we will all be filled to the brim, and that none will actually disparage what another has, but will glory in the grace of all...

Agreed.

"If one member is honored, all members rejoice with it" (I Corinthians 12:26)

However works do play a part in our reward, and a lack of them can condemn us... They are the normatively necessary signs of our cooperation with God and his Grace; and this cooperation sanctifies us and increases our capacity for God both now and in the life to come.

Does that make sense...?

Yes. This is what is meant by the Position Righteousness by Faith or Sola Grace. We are saved by Grace through Faith. Yet in the 1600 those who held this position were anthamazed and hunted down and killed.

Seem to summarize that pretty well. I think we're getting close to an agreement here...

Yes.

Assuming Sheol, are we to think that those in Sheol were conscious but those in heaven are not?

The Greeks taught that those in Sheol were conscious. I do not see this in the bible. So both are not conscious.

Romans 8:11 speaks of the resurrection of the body. Resurrection of the body does not inherently deny the persistence of the spirit separate from the body.

I have already agreed to that the Spirit is separate from the body. I just do not see where the spirits go anywhere but to heaven alone. Also I do not read where they are conscious.

1 Cor 15 speaks also of being given a new body, much like Christ's glorified body after his resurrection...also not denying per se the persistence of the spirit separate from the body.

Why if we are all already in heaven and exist there do we need a body?

Moreover, Paul speaks of longing to be "absent from the body and present with Christ" (2 Cor. 5:8). Is he longing to be unconscious?

How do you know you are unconscious? As far as an unconscious person is concerned no time passes. They close their eyes and then open them. There would be no time passage to deal with as far as the person is concerned.

I love it too, because the Sadducees are explicitly quoting the Book of Tobit to Christ - a book the rejected (they accepted only the Torah) - because it is a book he used as scripture, and using it they thought they could deny the resurrection.
True. They were using it against JESUS. They were also using it against the teaching of the resurrection which is the topic of the conversation.

Mat 22:31 "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God:
Mat 22:32 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

What was the topic? Were they discussing the dead being alive now? What was JESUS advocating?

So...you're saying...that he is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...because they're dead?

You did not answer the question. What was the topic?

...They are speaking of people absent from the body. Jewish cosmology didn't definitively know what happened after death. Dead simply means "not walking around on the earth".

True the cosmology of the Jews was not like that of modern Christianity.

According to that two-step premise, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are counted amongst the living even now...so too Moses and Elijah, so too the multitude who were resurrected in anticipation of Christ's resurrection at his Death.

Agreed.

Careful. Jesus opened the gates of heaven through his death and resurrection. BEFORE THAT, the soul did NOT go to God from all we can tell through scripture. Jesus himself speaks of the Jewish Cosmological outlook when he talks of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Sheol, having it's two parts (Abraham's bosom and Hades) which were either wonderful or ... less than wonderful...respectively.

But the scriptures say that all the Spirits return to GOD are from the Old Testament. I wish to hold off on this parable one more post and will address it next time.

It is to these same spirits (the one's in Hades, the one's "in prison" (including the ones disobedient in the days of Noah)) that he went to preach after his death. Did he preach to unconscious people? If they were conscious, and they accepted his message, did they then cease to be conscious?

Please look carefully at the passage in Peter. When was this done and who preached?

Again, in early Hebrew understanding of this point, it's cloudy. Such phrases are of phrased as questions... "Can the shades praise you?"

Every time they scriptures speak of "falling asleep", it makes perfect sense to read this as "their body ceased to function". When they body ceases, you can still see it, but it responds not...It is as though the body were in a deep sleep unable to be roused. Jesus tells Lazarus to wake up because the body is being re-animated.

Yes the Body needs to be reawakened. But if the dead is really someplace else, Does it not require more then just waking up the body does it not require that the consciousness be called back from where it went and put back in the body. But wait the Bible says we are a soul and so the Spirit or breath of life must reenter but if it is not awake then it does not need to be called it is present with GOD and GOD just puts in back in.

So for instance when Peter says "For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation;" he is not making any declaration of their spirit, but of their body.

Why?

Again, scripture is not in a vacuum, and there are many verses which describe those "asleep" as rather wakeful and sentient

.
Where?

Resurrection is necessary because we are bodily creatures; that is how we were created to exist - but we are MORE than just body (as I think we agree).

Yes we are two parts. Spirit and body.

Sorry, I had to answer this in like 4 different segments, so hopefully it's not too disjointed!

No problem.

[KephaMeansRock]

For the record, while not "legitimate" churches per se, we do recognize most all protestant groups as Christian which retain valid baptism, and recognize that salvation is possible for members of such denominations.

Since John Paul 2 that is true. I am not so sure about the current pope.

Actually, I had BXVI in mind when I said that...he caught flack for recent statements which the press took way out of context (as they tend to do).

The Church, though emphasizing it more or less at different times and places, has always recognized that God is not limited to the sacraments, that he judges the heart, that people can be legitimately ignorant of the truth and thereby less culpable.

The wicked men ought to be replaced - yes. But the point is that there is no statute of limitations on how long it must take to remove them, and no matter how long they hold the office the office outlasts them. Most bad popes lived relatively short lives, and then were replaced - often by more orthodox popes.

They were not replaced. They died and others took over. So you had bad men electing bad men.

Even if that was the case (and it wasn't always), the offices were never taken away by God. The kingship was removed by God through force and captivity. The papacy and ALL BISHOPRICS (because we're not arguing only about the Bishop of Rome) persist even in spite of the sinner - for Judas' very office did!

Yes. This is what is meant by the Position Righteousness by Faith or Sola Grace. We are saved by Grace through Faith. Yet in the 1600 those who held this position were anthamazed and hunted down and killed.

I think you're mistaken, for those are the very words of Trent that I copied (and Trent was well before the 17th century...)

Assuming Sheol, are we to think that those in Sheol were conscious but those in heaven are not?

The Greeks taught that those in Sheol were conscious. I do not see this in the bible. So both are not conscious.

No. Sheol is a Hebrew word, and Jesus clearly presents it as divided into two places: Abraham's Bosom, where the righteous awaited the opening of heaven/resurrection; and "Hades" (for lack of a better word) which was a prison of some form of punishment.

Some imagery and terminology may have been borrowed from their Hellenic neighbors, but the concept is utterly biblical. The dead are in some way conscious...

Romans 8:11 speaks of the resurrection of the body. Resurrection of the body does not inherently deny the persistence of the spirit separate from the body.

I have already agreed to that the Spirit is separate from the body. I just do not see where the spirits go anywhere but to heaven alone. Also I do not read where they are conscious.

Well, how did Jesus, in the grave "preach to spirits in prison"? How did the rich man lament his position? Who, in Revelation 6:9 is crying "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" but "the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held."

How are the elders in heaven presenting our prayers to God if they are unconscious (Rev 5:8)?/

1 Cor 15 speaks also of being given a new body, much like Christ's glorified body after his resurrection...also not denying per se the persistence of the spirit separate from the body.

Why if we are all already in heaven and exist there do we need a body?

Because we are bodily creatures - that is how we were made and intended to be. Careful or this ends in absurdity... Why did Jesus need to be resurrected? What was the point? Why even preach of the resurrection at all? The simple answer is that we are bodily creatures, and upon death, our spirit is separated from the body - a result of our fallen nature due to our first parents disobedience in the garden.

We will be given new, glorified bodies.

Moreover, Paul speaks of longing to be "absent from the body and present with Christ" (2 Cor. 5:8). Is he longing to be unconscious?

How do you know you are unconscious? As far as an unconscious person is concerned no time passes. They close their eyes and then open them. There would be no time passage to deal with as far as the person is concerned.

Well, considering that they'd have stepped into eternity and be separate from time itself, it my very well still be a blink of the eye, so to speak...

Mat 22:31 "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God:
Mat 22:32 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

What was the topic? Were they discussing the dead being alive now? What was JESUS advocating?

The point is not the context per se. The point is that

"I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" and
"He is the God of the living, not the dead" cannot contradict

...has he ceased to be their God?

The context is that of the Sadducees (who denied the resurrection) trying to trap Christ through a citation of the OT they rejected into an absurd conclusion (polyandry) based upon the Levitical position. Marriage ends at natural death, so each marriage was dissolved before the new on took place, so the woman was never polyandrous. And in the life to come, marriage will not be.

Jesus is answering them that - rather than ceasing to be at death, as they believed - even Abraham and his descendants were to be accounted as amongst the living.

Careful. Jesus opened the gates of heaven through his death and resurrection. BEFORE THAT, the soul did NOT go to God from all we can tell through scripture. Jesus himself speaks of the Jewish Cosmological outlook when he talks of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Sheol, having it's two parts (Abraham's bosom and Hades) which were either wonderful or ... less than wonderful...respectively.

But the scriptures say that all the Spirits return to GOD are from the Old Testament. I wish to hold off on this parable one more post and will address it next time.

I do not see how you can deny the consciousness of the spirit based upon that, even if it holds, which I don't think it does.

It is to these same spirits (the one's in Hades, the one's "in prison" (including the ones disobedient in the days of Noah)) that he went to preach after his death. Did he preach to unconscious people? If they were conscious, and they accepted his message, did they then cease to be conscious?

Please look carefully at the passage in Peter. When was this done and who preached?

For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.

In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. (1 Peter 3)

Yes the Body needs to be reawakened. But if the dead is really someplace else, Does it not require more then just waking up the body does it not require that the consciousness be called back from where it went and put back in the body. But wait the Bible says we are a soul and so the Spirit or breath of life must reenter but if it is not awake then it does not need to be called it is present with GOD and GOD just puts in back in.

Yes, it would require re-uniting the body and the spirit.

The scriptures say that "For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God." (1 Peter 4:6)

How do you preach to the dead if they cannot respond to the message? They have not a body, but they have the ability to know the truth. Period.

So for instance when Peter says "For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation;" he is not making any declaration of their spirit, but of their body.

Why?

Because only this makes sense in light of the revelatory fact that the dead are in some manner conscious.

Again, scripture is not in a vacuum, and there are many verses which describe those "asleep" as rather wakeful and sentient.

Where?

I've cited many already. I linked to more...

Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and "under the earth" which is the realm of the righteous dead, (or purgatory).

Again 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison."

Rev. 5 presents the elders in heaven (currently, not at the end of all things) presenting the prayers of the saints on earth to God. Later, as cited above, the martyrs cry out to God asking when justice will be served.

Jesus' parable of Lazarus (the only time he names a person in his parables, and we know that Lazarus did in fact die for a time) shows Lazarus and the Rich man to both have been conscious. In fact, when resurrecting Lazarus, it is to his body which Christ says "wake up". He says that about the little child who had died too. He "wakes up" the body by re-infusing the soul. This in no way means that the spirit itself is asleep.

...

Hope that helps...

Pax Christi,

-Justin

[samuelbb7]

Howdy Justin

Actually, I had BXVI in mind when I said that...he caught flack for recent statements which the press took way out of context (as they tend to do).

The Church, though emphasizing it more or less at different times and places, has always recognized that God is not limited to the sacraments, that he judges the heart, that people can be legitimately ignorant of the truth and thereby less culpable.

I am glad to hear that for now. But in the past it was okay to kill Protestant since they were false Christians.

Even if that was the case (and it wasn't always), the offices were never taken away by God. The kingship was removed by God through force and captivity. The papacy and ALL BISHOPRICS (because we're not arguing only about the Bishop of Rome) persist even in spite of the sinner - for Judas' very office did!

So the Apostles would have to find to find another thief to fill that office? No the office was to be offered to a good person. Second while Bishops or their equivalent would still be in existence I agree to that. Those who are wicked would lose the inheritance. It would be taken from the wicked and given to others who are worthy. Which is what I beleive happened.

I think you're mistaken, for those are the very words of Trent that I copied (and Trent was well before the 17th century...)

Which is not my point. Yes there were others who believed just as the protestants did in church history. But the doctrine was condemned as heresy and the RCC persecuted those who taught it. In fact one Historian commented that the RCC fought against that which it had helped found. Even today the Rcc teaches that the meritorious works of some are in the control of the church which it may dispense to others as they see fit to get them out of purgatory or leave them in. That is a false doctrine.

No. Sheol is a Hebrew word, and Jesus clearly presents it as divided into two places: Abraham's Bosom, where the righteous awaited the opening of heaven/resurrection; and "Hades" (for lack of a better word) which was a prison of some form of punishment.

Oops, you are correct my mistake. I was thinking Hades. So now is the time to speak of the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. First in the parable both the rich man and Lazarus have bodies. Since you admitted earlier that the dead are bodiless that does not track with this being a real event. The Rich man asks for a drop of water from the finger of Lazarus to cool his tounge. That cannot happen. Secondly this imagery is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Thirdly the request and the fact JESUS stated if Lazarus would come back they still would not believe is prophetic. For Lazarus did come back from the dead. The real Lazarus was not a beggar that is true. But this is exactly what happened Lazarus came back from the dead and still the leaders refused to believe. Based on these points this is a story told to prove a point. It is not meant to be taken literally.

Some imagery and terminology may have been borrowed from their Hellenic neighbors, but the concept is utterly biblical. The dead are in some way conscious...

Like the reference it agree with what I teach.

Well, how did Jesus, in the grave "preach to spirits in prison"? How did the rich man lament his position? Who, in Revelation 6:9 is crying "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" but "the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held."

Did JESUS preach to the Spirits in prison or did the HOLY SPIRIT preach to the people in the days of Noah and only 8 were saved. Read the passage carefully.

How are the elders in heaven presenting our prayers to God if they are unconscious (Rev 5:8)?/

Because as you and I agree many were resurrected with JESUS and taken to heaven. They are some of the resurrected ones.

Because we are bodily creatures - that is how we were made and intended to be. Careful or this ends in absurdity... Why did Jesus need to be resurrected? What was the point? Why even preach of the resurrection at all? The simple answer is that we are bodily creatures, and upon death, our spirit is separated from the body - a result of our fallen nature due to our first parents disobedience in the garden.

Exactly. Some go to this point in churches. They deny the resurrection because of the doctrine of the immortal soul. Now where in the Bible does it say we have an immortal soul?

We will be given new, glorified bodies

.

Agreed. Because we need them to be conscious.

Well, considering that they'd have stepped into eternity and be separate from time itself, it my very well still be a blink of the eye, so to speak...

You cannot step if you do not have a body.
Second JESUS said he had to come back for us. Why would he have to come back for us it we are already there. John 14:3

The point is not the context per se. The point is that

"I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" and
"He is the God of the living, not the dead" cannot contradict

...has he ceased to be their God?

The context is always important. He was in the context stating they were considered alive because GOD would resurrect them.

The context is that of the Sadducees (who denied the resurrection) trying to trap Christ through a citation of the OT they rejected into an absurd conclusion (polyandry) based upon the Levitical position. Marriage ends at natural death, so each marriage was dissolved before the new on took place, so the woman was never polyandrous. And in the life to come, marriage will not be.

Jesus is answering them that - rather than ceasing to be at death, as they believed - even Abraham and his descendants were to be accounted as amongst the living.

Because there would be a resurrection from the dead as prophesied. A verse taken out of context is a pretext of tying to make it say something it does not say.

I do not see how you can deny the consciousness of the spirit based upon that, even if it holds, which I don't think it does.

Because no where does the bible say that the Spirits have a consciousness. So I will not propound a doctrine that Scripture opposes.

For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.

Yes JESUS died. He did not live in another form. The Spirit brought Him back with a new resurrected body. He stated on his resurrection he had not been to the father.

In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. (1 Peter 3)

Yes, it would require re-uniting the body and the spirit.

Then the Spirit would have to come back down from heaven. Correct? Now if the spirit was conscious in heaven would not JESUS have said Lazarus come back from your place in paradise to this earth. Also they would already have eternal life. Since death is not death. So how can the gift of GOD be eternal life if we already have it?

The scriptures say that "For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God." (1 Peter 4:6)

How do you preach to the dead if they cannot respond to the message? They have not a body, but they have the ability to know the truth. Period.

Dead in trespasses and sin. Read the context he is talking about people walking in sin .

Because only this makes sense in light of the revelatory fact that the dead are in some manner conscious.

Where does it say that? You have not shown me the dead are conscious. You keep saying the Bible says it. But none of the verses you have shown say that. You keep saying that they show it is possible. But they do not say it is so.

Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and "under the earth" which is the realm of the righteous dead, (or purgatory).

As the Bible points out in numerous places and we can see it not happening now. This happen after the Resurrection of the wicked at the end of ages.

Again 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison."

The Holy Spirit preached to the wicked in the days of Noah. Read the context. As I already pointed out above. You seem to have very few verses that might show what you believe. But you have none that say it. You have not explained many of the verse I have shown. How about this verse. Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

Rev. 5 presents the elders in heaven (currently, not at the end of all things) presenting the prayers of the saints on earth to God. Later, as cited above, the martyrs cry out to God asking when justice will be served.

The elders are some of those resurrected at the resurrection of JESUS. The Martyrs are told to go back to sleep. This is personification. I also pointed this out before and you seem to forget it. Where are the verses that state the soul is immortal? For is that not what the Catchism teaches?

Jesus' parable of Lazarus (the only time he names a person in his parables, and we know that Lazarus did in fact die for a time) shows Lazarus and the Rich man to both have been conscious. In fact, when resurrecting Lazarus, it is to his body which Christ says "wake up". He says that about the little child who had died too. He "wakes up" the body by re-infusing the soul. This in no way means that the spirit itself is asleep.

You agreed earlier that the soul is split between body and Spirit. It would be re-infusing the Spirit that brings life. So which is it? What you agreed was correct before or this new interpretation. Also it does not mean the spirit is awake. If it was why would the bible say it was asleep and not praising GOD. Second make a parable say more then it does is not a good way to make doctrine.
I am still waiting for a verse that says the Dead are not dead but really awake and all praising GOD. In fact you have not answered how the wicked are separated from the righteous if all Spirits go back to GOD?

[KephaMeansRock]

I am glad to hear that for now. But in the past it was okay to kill Protestant since they were false Christians.

In the past, people were killed for what was viewed as a treasonous and dangerous act. Be careful, because you're stepping out on the ice of ad hominim...

The church anathematized such people for blatantly embracing heresy; such heresy DID threaten to undermine society at large (and given our history these last 500 years, I for one think that that is precisely what DID happen), and as such - at a time when church and state were not as separated as they are to day, and where the King's Religion was often the law of the land - many people did die.

But seldom if ever was it the direct act of the church per se, and never was it taught as doctrine or dogma (which is, I suspect, what this is about anyway).

So the Apostles would have to find to find another thief to fill that office? No the office was to be offered to a good person. Second while Bishops or their equivalent would still be in existence I agree to that.

Nobody is perfect. Of course one ought to always seek the best candidates for such positions. But the position itself does not hinge upon the worth of the individual in office - no matter WHO filled the office, there would ALWAYS be the possibility that they would sin grievously or personally embrace heresy. However, this looming threat does not negate the office. You keep confusing the office with the office holder...

Those who are wicked would lose the inheritance. It would be taken from the wicked and given to others who are worthy. Which is what I beleive happened.

If you're trying to answer whether or not such people are in heaven, then I think you have a good case for answering negatively to this (but not with 100% certainty). However, such a line of argument only works against the office holder, not the office.

Saul lost the office, but the Kingship wasn't thereby taken away. The wickedness of neither Jeroboam nor Rehoboam could themselves break the king-ship for their successors.

Only when God physically ended the Kingdom could you say the king-ship had ceased.

I think you're mistaken, for those are the very words of Trent that I copied (and Trent was well before the 17th century...)

Which is not my point. Yes there were others who believed just as the protestants did in church history. But the doctrine was condemned as heresy and the RCC persecuted those who taught it. In fact one Historian commented that the RCC fought against that which it had helped found. *Even today the Rcc teaches that the meritorious works of some are in the control of the church which it may dispense to others as they see fit to get them out of purgatory or leave them in.* That is a false doctrine.

Huh? Can you show me these teachings you're questioning? Cite them in council or the Catechism or ex-cathedra statement?

I'm not going to debate until I have a clear idea of what it is you're debating - I hope you can respect that.

As for the *asterisked* bit, I assume you're referring to indulgences...yes?

There is no "leaving in" in purgatory; all who enter will leave - for it is that final washing in the blood of Christ which makes us clean and perfect, fit for heaven and communion with God. We have good reason to believe - given bits in scripture like St. Paul praying for Onesiphorous and the practice of Judas Maccabeus's offering for the sake of his dead men found with idolatrous medals on their persons (which Luther threw out of the bible because it contradicted what he wished to teach); or the practice of the 1st century Christians as made evident in their writings asking for prayers for those who died on tomb inscriptions (and, conversely, for some of them to pray for us still here living).

Oops, you are correct my mistake. I was thinking Hades. So now is the time to speak of the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. First in the parable both the rich man and Lazarus have bodies. Since you admitted earlier that the dead are bodiless that does not track with this being a real event.

Maybe, maybe not. This doesn't follow necessarily in any way.

The Rich man asks for a drop of water from the finger of Lazarus to cool his tounge. That cannot happen. Secondly this imagery is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Thirdly the request and the fact JESUS stated if Lazarus would come back they still would not believe is prophetic. For Lazarus did come back from the dead. The real Lazarus was not a beggar that is true. But this is exactly what happened Lazarus came back from the dead and still the leaders refused to believe. Based on these points this is a story told to prove a point. It is not meant to be taken literally.

Careful. Let's assume you're right, and that this is a parable to prove a point.

All of Jesus' parables are based on real life events, even if they are not speaking of an actual historical event in particular. There are people who sow seeds, draw nets, etc. None of Jesus' parables were fictitious, so neither should this parable be taken as such. It is portraying a reality, even if the characters are made up for the purpose of making a point. According to Jesus, Lazarus was carried away to Abraham's bosom, a place which was nowhere near people who were still alive in their bodies on earth. In this state Lazarus and the Rich Man are portrayed as being conscious. Period. Whether he anthropomorphised them a bit for the sake of his bodily audience is up for debate...

But again, this is the ONLY parable in which Jesus names one of the persons, and it IS one who died and came back - so it seems to me he may very well have been relating actual fact. Those in Sheol may have a body-like form, which is not in any way explicitly ruled out by the given parable, or any thing else cited thus far.

Well, how did Jesus, in the grave "preach to spirits in prison"? How did the rich man lament his position? Who, in Revelation 6:9 is crying "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" but "the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held."

Did JESUS preach to the Spirits in prison or did the HOLY SPIRIT preach to the people in the days of Noah and only 8 were saved. Read the passage carefully.

It says 'Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison...who had once been disobedient in the days of Noah...when only eight were saved."

That means that IN THE SPIRIT (i.e. separate from the body) Christ was able to preach. "in the spirit" does not mean "as the Holy Spirit". They are separate persons of the trinity.

St. Peter even clarifies in the next chapter "For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God."

Or are you suggesting that they are the holy spirit too?

I cannot see how you're getting anything else out of the text...

How are the elders in heaven presenting our prayers to God if they are unconscious (Rev 5:8)?/

Because as you and I agree many were resurrected with JESUS and taken to heaven. They are some of the resurrected ones.

Well, first off, how do you know that the 24 elders were resurrected?

Secondly, even if they are, how do they present our prayers to God?

We will be given new, glorified bodies

Agreed. Because we need them to be conscious.

I don't think you have shown that in the text.

Well, considering that they'd have stepped into eternity and be separate from time itself, it my very well still be a blink of the eye, so to speak...

You cannot step if you do not have a body.
Second JESUS said he had to come back for us. Why would he have to come back for us it we are already there. John 14:3

To the first part, the "step" would be an analogous use of language referring to what happens after death in the body; it doesn't require a body because it's not a literal step per se.

As for the second part, "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am." (John 14:3)

Jesus was speaking of returning to earth, where the living people he was talking to resided. He was (and St. John was recording) a reference to the paraousia, the second comming (cf. 1 John 2:28)

Because no where does the bible say that the Spirits have a consciousness. So I will not propound a doctrine that Scripture opposes.

"What the bible does not say" and "what the bible says is not" are two entirely separate things.

However, again, I think the scripture references (esp. 1 peter 3) are pretty darn conclusive that there is some form of consciousness for such spirits.

Yes JESUS died. He did not live in another form. The Spirit brought Him back with a new resurrected body. He stated on his resurrection he had not been to the father.

This would seem damning to your claim then that spirits at death return to the father, and would rather substantiate my claim that Sheol was in fact a real destination/holding place for souls. And given that we know that Christ descended into that prison at his death per 1 peter 3, this would account for where he was...

In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. (1 Peter 3)

Yes, it would require re-uniting the body and the spirit.

Huh?

Then the Spirit would have to come back down from heaven. Correct?

Given what you just admitted, no.

It would have come from Sheol (at least BEFORE Christ ascended to the father, for things very well might have (and did) change after this happened. Sheol is no more insofar as we know. Don't confuse Sheol and Heaven.

Now if the spirit was conscious in heaven would not JESUS have said Lazarus come back from your place in paradise to this earth.

Not necessarily. He was waking the body. Sleep is a Hebrew euphemism for death based upon the external appearances of the body.

Also they would already have eternal life. Since death is not death. So how can the gift of GOD be eternal life if we already have it?

Um...no...the were awaiting the resurrection - either of the rightous or the damned...(Acts 24:15)

The scriptures say that "For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, they might live in the spirit in the estimation of God." (1 Peter 4:6)

How do you preach to the dead if they cannot respond to the message? They have not a body, but they have the ability to know the truth. Period.

Dead in trespasses and sin. Read the context he is talking about people walking in sin .

No! He is clarifying the "dead" he mentioned less than 10 verses ago, those who were disobedient in the days of Noah.

Because only this makes sense in light of the revelatory fact that the dead are in some manner conscious.

Where does it say that? You have not shown me the dead are conscious. You keep saying the Bible says it. But none of the verses you have shown say that. You keep saying that they show it is possible. But they do not say it is so. Because only this makes sense in light of the revelatory fact that the dead are in some manner conscious.

The "deceased from this life" are preached to (1 peter 3), offer prayers (Rev 5:8), are witnesses (Heb 12:1), and are able to carry on dialogue (cf. Lazarus again). those are all actions which describe CONSCIOUS entities.

The Holy Spirit preached to the wicked in the days of Noah. Read the context. As I already pointed out above.

I am not seeing this in the least. I think 99/100 people would have a real issue with your interpretation here...

You seem to have very few verses that might show what you believe. But you have none that say it. You have not explained many of the verse I have shown. How about this verse. Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

Again, notice that what is being spoke about is the BODY in the earth, not the spirit. The spirit does not "sleep in the dust". "Sleep" is idiomatic parlance for "body, not moving, eyes closed, in the ground". Everytime such "sleep" is referenced, it references a body in the ground, not a spirit.

Rev. 5 presents the elders in heaven (currently, not at the end of all things) presenting the prayers of the saints on earth to God. Later, as cited above, the martyrs cry out to God asking when justice will be served.

The elders are some of those resurrected at the resurrection of JESUS.

Um, the text certainly doesn't say that.

The Martyrs are told to go back to sleep. This is personification. I also pointed this out before and you seem to forget it. Where are the verses that state the soul is immortal? For is that not what the Catchism teaches?

Where are the verses that say that God exists "in a trinity" or that "there are to be 27 books in the NT" (a point you've yet to return to)

Personification? How so?

There are verses, as stated above, whcih certainly imply the spirit persists, and that it is conscious.

Jesus' parable of Lazarus (the only time he names a person in his parables, and we know that Lazarus did in fact die for a time) shows Lazarus and the Rich man to both have been conscious. In fact, when resurrecting Lazarus, it is to his body which Christ says "wake up". He says that about the little child who had died too. He "wakes up" the body by re-infusing the soul. This in no way means that the spirit itself is asleep.

You agreed earlier that the soul is split between body and Spirit. It would be re-infusing the Spirit that brings life.

That would bring RESURRECTION, bodily life. Not spiritual life per se.

So which is it? What you agreed was correct before or this new interpretation.

There is no contradition.

Also it does not mean the spirit is awake. If it was why would the bible say it was asleep and not praising GOD.

Is this said, or asked semi-rhetorically by the psalmist ("can the shades praise you?", which woudl not be biblical expounding upon this matter.)

Second make a parable say more then it does is not a good way to make doctrine. I am still waiting for a verse that says the Dead are not dead but really awake and all praising GOD. In fact you have not answered how the wicked are separated from the righteous if all Spirits go back to GOD?

I never said they all go back to God, but merely conceded what you were saying for the sake of argument.

Pax Christi,

-Justin