RCC and the Nature of the Afterlife

[Byblos]

This is a personal thought I just wanted to share with you: If I am to doubt that Mary, Peter and Paul (and the rest of the old gang) are in heaven with Jesus, what hope do I have left for myself?

Do you have any problem with the hope of the resurrection?

It was a mere observation. You are taking it too literally.

Well you did ask 'If I am to doubt that Mary, Peter and Paul (and the rest of the old gang) are in heaven with Jesus, what hope do I have left for myself?', and I pointed out that the Bible offers the hope of resurrection (not heaven going).

I did ask and the implication was that I do not doubt it for a nano-second. As for resurrection and heaven they are synonymous.

Every quote you provided bolsters my case, not yours as they are evidence of resurrection after death, a case I made for Mary and the saints (or are they not entitled because they are deemed catholic?).

I'm sorry, but I have been arguing for the resurrection from the dead. You have been arguing that Mary and the saints aren't dead but alive. You haven't been arguing that they will be bodily raised from the dead at the judgment, but that they were 'resurrected in the spirit' (a phrase I have yet to see in Scripture), and are in fact alive.

None of the passages I quote support your understanding. They all support the physical resurrection of the dead, at a time in the future (the judgment), at the return of Christ.

But that is exactly the difference in our respective understanding of the bible I am referring to. You believe these passages are suggesting a physical resurrection of the body. I (and about 2 billion others) think that is simply absurd. It is the spirit that is resurrected, not the physical body.

I made no claim that the bible states that Mary and the saints are alive in Christ.

I know you didn't. I was pointing out that you made the claim that they were. I am simply demonstrating that the Bible doesn't say this.

I made the claim that that is the central teaching of christianity and as such Mary and the saints benefited from that.

How can it be 'the central teaching of Christianity', if it isn't in the Bible?

All of your quotes (and mine) prove that.

How? None of them refer to Mary and the saints being 'resurrected in the spirit', and currently alive (not dead), in heaven.

Do you not consider the new testament as biblical evidence? I provided quotes from Paul and Peter (both saints) that clearly prove they are going to be with Christ when they relinquish their physical body. Do you think they were lying? And if not, why can the same not be said of Mary

Well, let me ask you this, where does it specifically say they are not?

That is an argument from silence, and is therefore invalid. Having said which, the Bible teaches that when people die they go into the grave and are unconscious.

Your opinion, I disagree with it (or am I not entitled to because I'm Catholic?)[/quote]

You're certainly entitled to disagree with it. What would be good though would be if you could actually provide some Biblical evidence for your claim. I've attached a .ppt file with the Biblical evidence of mine.[/quote]

This is pointless. I did provide but you continue to ignore them.

And your contention is what? That the RCC does not believe in the bible? That is an old and tiring catholic-basing argument.

I didn't say any such thing. I am simply pointing out that we have a conflict here between Catholic tradition and the Bible.

Just because you disagree with it does not make you right.

I agree.

I am not contending you are wrong, I am contending you have a different opinion and you are entitled to it.

I wish you would actually contend that I am wrong. It would demonstrate conviction in your own beliefs.

Do not mistake my politeness for lack of conviction. You can open a new thread and we'll continue debating on a totally different level but I am adhering to my reply to the original poster that any branch of christianity is the correct one, but you seem to disagree as you seem to think your beliefs are the correct ones and everyone else's are simply wrong. That is not conviction my friend, that is arrogance but I doubt you will have a problem with that either.

It would be nice if you can afford me the same curtesy.

I can't, because I don't believe these issues are merely matters of opinion.

This argument boils down to one thing and that is you believe if it is not explicitly stated in the Bible then it it must not be so.

No that is not what I am arguing.

That is how I see it.

I am arguing that if it is not explicitly stated in the Bible, then you cannot assert strongly that it is so. If it isn't even implicitly stated in the Bible, then you cannot assert that it is so at all.

Exactly what I stated but you disagreed with it and now you're stating it again. Pointless.

My side is that unless it is explicitly stated then it can be so.

That's an argument from silence.

Again, a matter of opinion.

That is not a matter of opinion. I suggest you look up the definition of 'argument from silence'. It is an argument resting on the absence of evidence.

Evidence was provided you chose to ignore it.

I can provide an additional 50 verses to counter yours...

No you can't. You couldn't even provide me with a single verse saying that Mary and the saints are 'alive' in heaven, let alone a verse saying that they were 'resurrected in the spirit'.

[/quite]

I did but you chose to ignore them all, I have no reason to believe you will not ignore the rest.[/quote][/quote]

But your quotes didn't refer to anyone being in heaven, and never even used the word 'resurrection'. How can you possibly claim that these verses prove that 'Mary and the saints are alive in heaven', having been 'resurrected in the spirit'?[/quote][/quote]

You do not see it because you're looking for the physical body to be resurrected. Go back and re-read Paul and Peter's statements. They clearly say they will be with Christ after their death.

[Fortigurn]

As for resurrection and heaven they are synonymous.

Scripture please.

But that is exactly the difference in our respective understanding of the bible I am referring to. You believe these passages are suggesting a physical resurrection of the body. I (and about 2 billion others) think that is simply absurd. It is the spirit that is resurrected, not the physical body.

Firstly, I don't think you actually have 2 billion others who think that these passages speak of a 'resurrection of the spirit'. Secondly, it wouldn't matter if you did.

Thirdly, I find it difficult to understand why you interpret these as a resurrection of the spirit, rather than the physical body. When Christ was raised, what came out of the tomb? His spirit (while his body remained in the tomb), or his body, made alive again?

If your understanding is correct, then the empty tomb is a complete mystery.

Do you not consider the new testament as biblical evidence? I provided quotes from Paul and Peter (both saints) that clearly prove they are going to be with Christ when they relinquish their physical body. Do you think they were lying? And if not, why can the same not be said of Mary

No I do not think they were lying. What I didn't see there was any evidence that they thought this mean that some immortal part of them would go to heaven.

Just because you disagree with it does not make you right.

I agree.

You can open a new thread and we'll continue debating on a totally different level but I am adhering to my reply to the original poster that any branch of christianity is the correct one, but you seem to disagree as you seem to think your beliefs are the correct ones and everyone else's are simply wrong. That is not conviction my friend, that is arrogance but I doubt you will have a problem with that either.

Firstly, they are not 'my beliefs', because they don't belong to me - that is, I didn't make them up. Secondly, I cannot agree that 'any branch of Christianity is the correct one', and I find it incredible that you - as a Catholic - can say this.

It would be nice if you can afford me the same curtesy.

I can't, because I don't believe these issues are merely matters of opinion.

This argument boils down to one thing and that is you believe if it is not explicitly stated in the Bible then it it must not be so.

No that is not what I am arguing.

That is how I see it.

I am arguing that if it is not explicitly stated in the Bible, then you cannot assert strongly that it is so. If it isn't even implicitly stated in the Bible, then you cannot assert that it is so at all.

Exactly what I stated but you disagreed with it and now you're stating it again. Pointless.

No that is not what you stated. You stated this:

This argument boils down to one thing and that is you believe if it is not explicitly stated in the Bible then it it must not be so.

You claim I am saying that it must not be so. I am not saying it must not be so. I am saying only that we cannot assert that it is so.

Can you see the difference?

You do not see it because you're looking for the physical body to be resurrected. Go back and re-read Paul and Peter's statements. They clearly say they will be with Christ after their death.

What I didn't see there was any evidence that they thought this mean that some immortal part of them would go to heaven.

[Felgar]

Anecdotal evidence does not constitute Biblical evidence.

Of course it doesn't constitute Biblical evidence, but if the shoe fits... It's like the Bible doesn't say anything about how our insulin system works, but yet we still know it. Though the Bible only contains truth, it does not contain ALL truth.

Firstly, the rich man was not in 'hell', he was in 'hades', which is a very different matter.

Well the NIV states "Hell" with a footnote saying Greek Hades... If you want to split hairs... Nevertheless I think it supports the notion that something more happens after we die but before resurrection.

Revelations 6:9-11 would indicate that former humans are present and aware in heaven.

How?

Read it. Who are those present who have "been slain because of the Word of God" who then call out to God? Clearly they are present and conscious.

Christ taught that no one has gone to heaven:

John 3
13 No one has ascended into heaven (except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man).

K this is a good point and maybe I just haven't made myself clear. Basically I'm arguing against 'soul sleep' - I'm saying that our soul or consciousness persists beyond death. We go somewhere that God is present, though where exactly is up for debate. Maybe you need to explain your position because unless it's soul sleep then I can probably agree with it. So maybe it's not 'heaven' per se, which we'd first have to define.

I cannot see any evidence that 'Satan and his followers are to suffer for eternity'.

What? How about all the passages of Satan being cast into the lake of fire for all eternity, etc. Are you being difficult here or what is your point? What is your belief about Satan's fate? Frankly if you're being intentionally difficult then I just don't have time to debate with you.

[Byblos]

I will limit my answers to certain points as this is getting nowhere.

Thirdly, I find it difficult to understand why you interpret these as a resurrection of the spirit, rather than the physical body. When Christ was raised, what came out of the tomb? His spirit (while his body remained in the tomb), or his body, made alive again?

If your understanding is correct, then the empty tomb is a complete mystery.

If he was raised in spirit and the body was still there do you think there would be any christianity in any form today? That was necessary to prove that resurrection in any form is possible. The physical resurrection of Jesus is the our symbolic resurrection, i.e. our eternal salvation.

Do you not consider the new testament as biblical evidence? I provided quotes from Paul and Peter (both saints) that clearly prove they are going to be with Christ when they relinquish their physical body. Do you think they were lying? And if not, why can the same not be said of Mary

No I do not think they were lying. What I didn't see there was any evidence that they thought this mean that some immortal part of them would go to heaven.

Here's the quote again:

"I am torn two ways: what I should like is to depart and be with Christ... but for your sake there is greater need for me to stay on in the body." -Philippians 1:23 (NEB)"

Paul wants to depart and be with Christ, Christ is in heaven (or do you disagree with that?), i.e. Paul is going to heaven. But he feels his work is not done yet and must stay on in the body, i.e. his body is not going to heaven, hmm, what else do you think he is sending to heaven? There is no 2 ways this can be interpreted. No other proof is necessary as it is really pointless.

You can open a new thread and we'll continue debating on a totally different level but I am adhering to my reply to the original poster that any branch of christianity is the correct one, but you seem to disagree as you seem to think your beliefs are the correct ones and everyone else's are simply wrong. That is not conviction my friend, that is arrogance but I doubt you will have a problem with that either.

Firstly, they are not 'my beliefs', because they don't belong to me - that is, I didn't make them up. Secondly, I cannot agree that 'any branch of Christianity is the correct one', and I find it incredible that you - as a Catholic - can say this.

If you had read the post from the beginning you would have learned that the original poster had issues with Catholicism in particular. I tried to defend whatever points of contention they had but clearly this forum is not adequate enough to resolve someone's religious doubts. My concern was that the poster would reject christianity altogether. I don't know about you but I would a million times over rather have a non-catholic christian than a non-christian. Do you think that is a sign of lack of conviction? (please do not answer, it is rhetorical).

You do not see it because you're looking for the physical body to be resurrected. Go back and re-read Paul and Peter's statements. They clearly say they will be with Christ after their death.

What I didn't see there was any evidence that they thought this mean that some immortal part of them would go to heaven.

Already answered above.


Please respond as you see fit as this is my last post to this thread.

God bless,

Byblos.

[Fortigurn]

Anecdotal evidence does not constitute Biblical evidence.

Of course it doesn't constitute Biblical evidence, but if the shoe fits... It's like the Bible doesn't say anything about how our insulin system works, but yet we still know it. Though the Bible only contains truth, it does not contain ALL truth.

First you have to prove that this 'anecdotal evidence' is actually relevant.

Firstly, the rich man was not in 'hell', he was in 'hades', which is a very different matter.

Well the NIV states "Hell" with a footnote saying Greek Hades... If you want to split hairs...

I am not splititng hairs. The Greek word here is HADOS ('hades'), not the Englishn word 'hell' (which has a completely different meaning).

Nevertheless I think it supports the notion that something more happens after we die but before resurrection.

So we go to 'Abraham's Bosom', not heaven?

Revelations 6:9-11 would indicate that former humans are present and aware in heaven.

How?

Read it. Who are those present who have "been slain because of the Word of God" who then call out to God? Clearly they are present and conscious.

In the same way that Abel's blood cried out to God from the ground. You're reading Revelation, one of the most heavily symbolic books in the entire Bible.

Christ taught that no one has gone to heaven:

John 3
13 No one has ascended into heaven (except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man).

K this is a good point and maybe I just haven't made myself clear. Basically I'm arguing against 'soul sleep' - I'm saying that our soul or consciousness persists beyond death.

I disagree with 'soul sleep' also. I don't believe we have a 'soul' which can either sleep or go anywhere. The Bible says that we are a 'living soul', not that we have an 'immortal soul'.

We go somewhere that God is present, though where exactly is up for debate. Maybe you need to explain your position because unless it's soul sleep then I can probably agree with it. So maybe it's not 'heaven' per se, which we'd first have to define.

My position is explained in great detail in the .ppt file which is in that .rar package.

Key points:

* Judgment takes place at the return of Christ — not before

* There is only one hope for life after death — resurrection

* There is only one reward for the faithful — the Kingdom of God

* Death is the punishment for sin — not eternal torment in 'hell'

* Animals and men both go to the same place at death

* Animals and men all have the same breath/spirit

*No one ever went to heaven at their death

I cannot see any evidence that 'Satan and his followers are to suffer for eternity'.

What? How about all the passages of Satan being cast into the lake of fire for all eternity, etc. Are you being difficult here or what is your point?

First of all, we know that the lake of fire is not hell. We know this, because 'hell' is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14).

Secondly, we know that the lake of fire cannot be a literal pool of burning liquid, since death is also cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14).

Thirdly, we know that whoever goes into the lake of fire dies, since the lake of fire is called the second death (Revelation 20:15).

Fourthly, the very fact that the lake of fire is described in this way demonstrates that the lake of fire is symbolic of complete destruction, not endless torment (have you ever tried throwing 'death' into a bucket of brimstone, or tormenting 'death' for eternity?).

What is your belief about Satan's fate?

Now is the time to tell you that I don't believe in 'Satan' as an evil supernatural being (such as a 'fallen' angel). I believe it is symbolic of the principle of opposition to God in all its fleshly forms.

Frankly if you're being intentionally difficult then I just don't have time to debate with you.

I am not being intentionally difficult. You just haven't experienced this way of thinking before.

[Fortigurn]

If he was raised in spirit and the body was still there do you think there would be any christianity in any form today? That was necessary to prove that resurrection in any form is possible.

So the resurrection of the body was to prove that Christ was now alive again, but the resurrection of the body was not the 'real' resurrection? Where is any of this stated in Scripture?

The physical resurrection of Jesus is the our symbolic resurrection, i.e. our eternal salvation.

Scripture please.

The Bible is very clear on what constitutes resurrection. It is the raising of the body:

Job 19:
26 And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God,
27 whom I will see for myself, and whom my own eyes will behold, and not another.

Matthew 27:
52 And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised.

John 5:
28 “Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice
29 and will come out—the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation.

John 12:
17 So the crowd who had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead were continuing to testify about it.

Hebrews 11:
35 and women received back their dead raised to life. But others were tortured, not accepting release, to obtain resurrection to a better life.

I could keep going, but I've already given you a host of passages in that .ppt file I attached. It needs to be pointed out that the Bible says the resurrection is an event which occurs at the return of Christ, not at the moment of death. It is still future.

But Scripture aside, I should also provide a source which you may find more appealing - the teaching of the Early Church Fathers, and the Catholic Church itself.

The following Early Church Fathers taught that resurrection constitutes the physical raising of the body at the last day, when Christ returns:

* Clement of Rome ('Letter to the Corinthians', section 24, c. 80 AD)

* Justin Martyr ('First Apology', section 52, and 'The Resurrection', section 8, c. 150 AD)

* Tatian the Syrian ('Address to the Greeks', section 155, 170 AD)

* Theophilus of Antioch ('To Autolycus', chapter 1, sections 7—8, c. 181 AD)

* Irenaeus ('Against Heresies', book 1, chapter 10, sections 1—4, c. 180 AD)

* Tertullian ('Apology', chapter 18, section 3, 'The Resurrection of the Dead', chapter 63, section 1, and 'Against Marcion', book 5, chapter 9, sections 3—4, c. 185 AD)

* Minucius Felix ('Octavius', chapter 34, sections 11—12, c. 226 AD)

* Cyril of Jerusalem ('Catechetical Lectures', chapter 18, section 18, c. 350 AD)

* Epiphanius of Salamis ('The Man Well-Anchored', section 87, c. 374 AD)

* Augustine ('The City of God', book 22, chapter 20, section 1, and 'Handbook of Faith, Hope, and Charity', chapter 23, section 89, c. 420 AD)

The following early Christian creeds also teach that resurrection constitutes the physical raising of the body at the last day, when Christ returns:

* The Didache (1st century)

* The 'Apostles Creed' (1st-2nd century)

* The creedal confession recorded by Irenaeus (180 AD)

* The creedal confession recorded by the 'Elders of Smyrna' (180 AD)

* The creedal confession recorded by Tertullian (190 AD)

* The creedal confession recorded by Hippolytus (215 AD)

* The creedal confession recorded by Marcellus (341 AD)

* The creedal confession recorded by Rufinus (390 AD)

* The Nicene Creed (381 AD)

* The Athanasisan Creed (400 AD)

This doctrine was allegedly declared infallibly by the Fourth Lateran Council:

'He [Jesus] will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect.

All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.

Fourth Lateran Council, Constitutions 1, 'Confession of Faith', 1215

It's also in the Catechism:

ARTICLE 11

"I BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY"

988 The Christian Creed - the profession of our faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in God's creative, saving, and sanctifying action - culminates in the proclamation of the resurrection of the dead on the last day and in life everlasting.

989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day.534 Our resurrection, like his own, will be the work of the Most Holy Trinity:

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.535

990 The term "flesh" refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality.536 The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again.537

[...]

1017 "We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess" (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a "spiritual body" (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

Catechism Of The Catholic Church, part 1, section 2, chapter 3, article 11

I find it very strange that you would express an idea which is contrary to this clear witness of historic and current Catholic dogma.

Paul wants to depart and be with Christ, Christ is in heaven (or do you disagree with that?), i.e. Paul is going to heaven. But he feels his work is not done yet and must stay on in the body, i.e. his body is not going to heaven, hmm, what else do you think he is sending to heaven? There is no 2 ways this can be interpreted. No other proof is necessary as it is really pointless.

Yes Christ is in heaven. No, Paul dying and being with Christ does not necessitate that some immortal part of him go to heaven. It simply means that the next waking moment Paul has, he will be with Christ (at the resurrection, at the judgment of the last day).

[Byblos]

If he was raised in spirit and the body was still there do you think there would be any christianity in any form today? That was necessary to prove that resurrection in any form is possible.

So the resurrection of the body was to prove that Christ was now alive again, but the resurrection of the body was not the 'real' resurrection? Where is any of this stated in Scripture?

The physical resurrection of Jesus is the our symbolic resurrection, i.e. our eternal salvation.

Scripture please.

The Bible is very clear on what constitutes resurrection. It is the raising of the body:

Job 19:
26 And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God,
27 whom I will see for myself, and whom my own eyes will behold, and not another.

Matthew 27:
52 And tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised.

John 5:
28 “Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice
29 and will come out—the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation.

John 12:
17 So the crowd who had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead were continuing to testify about it.

Hebrews 11:
35 and women received back their dead raised to life. But others were tortured, not accepting release, to obtain resurrection to a better life.

I could keep going, but I've already given you a host of passages in that .ppt file I attached. It needs to be pointed out that the Bible says the resurrection is an event which occurs at the return of Christ, not at the moment of death. It is still future.

But Scripture aside, I should also provide a source which you may find more appealing - the teaching of the Early Church Fathers, and the Catholic Church itself.

The following Early Church Fathers taught that resurrection constitutes the physical raising of the body at the last day, when Christ returns:

* Clement of Rome ('Letter to the Corinthians', section 24, c. 80 AD)

* Justin Martyr ('First Apology', section 52, and 'The Resurrection', section 8, c. 150 AD)

* Tatian the Syrian ('Address to the Greeks', section 155, 170 AD)

* Theophilus of Antioch ('To Autolycus', chapter 1, sections 7—8, c. 181 AD)

* Irenaeus ('Against Heresies', book 1, chapter 10, sections 1—4, c. 180 AD)

* Tertullian ('Apology', chapter 18, section 3, 'The Resurrection of the Dead', chapter 63, section 1, and 'Against Marcion', book 5, chapter 9, sections 3—4, c. 185 AD)

* Minucius Felix ('Octavius', chapter 34, sections 11—12, c. 226 AD)

* Cyril of Jerusalem ('Catechetical Lectures', chapter 18, section 18, c. 350 AD)

* Epiphanius of Salamis ('The Man Well-Anchored', section 87, c. 374 AD)

* Augustine ('The City of God', book 22, chapter 20, section 1, and 'Handbook of Faith, Hope, and Charity', chapter 23, section 89, c. 420 AD)

The following early Christian creeds also teach that resurrection constitutes the physical raising of the body at the last day, when Christ returns:

* The Didache (1st century)

* The 'Apostles Creed' (1st-2nd century)

* The creedal confession recorded by Irenaeus (180 AD)

* The creedal confession recorded by the 'Elders of Smyrna' (180 AD)

* The creedal confession recorded by Tertullian (190 AD)

* The creedal confession recorded by Hippolytus (215 AD)

* The creedal confession recorded by Marcellus (341 AD)

* The creedal confession recorded by Rufinus (390 AD)

* The Nicene Creed (381 AD)

* The Athanasisan Creed (400 AD)

This doctrine was allegedly declared infallibly by the Fourth Lateran Council:

'He [Jesus] will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect.

All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.

Fourth Lateran Council, Constitutions 1, 'Confession of Faith', 1215

It's also in the Catechism:

ARTICLE 11

"I BELIEVE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY"

988 The Christian Creed - the profession of our faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in God's creative, saving, and sanctifying action - culminates in the proclamation of the resurrection of the dead on the last day and in life everlasting.

989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day.534 Our resurrection, like his own, will be the work of the Most Holy Trinity:

If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.535

990 The term "flesh" refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality.536 The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again.537

[...]

1017 "We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess" (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a "spiritual body" (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

Catechism Of The Catholic Church, part 1, section 2, chapter 3, article 11

I find it very strange that you would express an idea which is contrary to this clear witness of historic and current Catholic dogma.

Paul wants to depart and be with Christ, Christ is in heaven (or do you disagree with that?), i.e. Paul is going to heaven. But he feels his work is not done yet and must stay on in the body, i.e. his body is not going to heaven, hmm, what else do you think he is sending to heaven? There is no 2 ways this can be interpreted. No other proof is necessary as it is really pointless.

Yes Christ is in heaven. No, Paul dying and being with Christ does not necessitate that some immortal part of him go to heaven. It simply means that the next waking moment Paul has, he will be with Christ (at the resurrection, at the judgment of the last day).

I know I said I wasn't going to post again but there's a GRAVE misunderstanding that needs to be corrected. Everything I have posted in this thread as a response to you was for one reason and one reason only and that is the ability to communicate with Mary and the saints. I made no contention whatsoever on what happens when judgement day is here and Christ returns and whether or not the physical bodies are resurrected THEN. My posts had to do with what happens to the soul at the time of death, not what happens to the body hundreds or thousands of years later. I believe you are confusing the two, hence why you think I am contradicting Catholic doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I will state my contention again, and that is when Mary and the saints died, their SOULS, went to heaven and are with Christ. That is pure Catholic doctrine. Whether or not their bodies will be resurrected on judgement day is irrelevant to the discussion.

So to state the point of contention more clearly, it is that we believe Mary and the saints are alive in SPIRIT and you do not. This has nothing to do with the resurrection of their bodies .

Now if you re-read my replies in that context you will see them in a totally different light. Paul and Peter's quotes clearly state that their souls will be with Christ upon their death. They say nothing of the outcome of their bodies on judgment day, although I know you tend to disagree with that (then we go back to the matter of interpretation I referred to in the beginning).

This point is also bolstered by Jesus himself when he turned to the thief on the cross and told him 'today you will be with me in paradise'. Clearly he did not mean his body as that will await reunification with the soul on judgement day. It is equally clear that he meant his soul will be in paradise TODAY.


I hope this clears up the argument (at least to me, it is narrowed down to whether or not the saints can hear our prayers, and not about he final resurrection).

Once more, God bless.

Byblos

[Fortigurn]

I know I said I wasn't going to post again but there's a GRAVE misunderstanding that needs to be corrected. Everything I have posted in this thread as a response to you was for one reason and one reason only and that is the ability to communicate with Mary and the saints.

Yes, I understand that. To date, you have provided no evidence to support your case.

I made no contention whatsoever on what happens when judgement day is here and Christ returns and whether or not the physical bodies are resurrected THEN.

I know you didn't.

My posts had to do with what happens to the soul at the time of death, not what happens to the body hundreds or thousands of years later.

Yes, I realised that.

I believe you are confusing the two, hence why you think I am contradicting Catholic doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am not confusing anything. I provided you with a list of passages which declare clearly the future resurrection of the physical body.

Your response was to deny flatly that these passages refer to the future resurrection of the physical body:

You believe these passages are suggesting a physical resurrection of the body. I (and about 2 billion others) think that is simply absurd. It is the spirit that is resurrected, not the physical body.

Emphasis mine. These are your words:

• You denied that these passages are talking about a physical resurrection of the body
• You claimed that yourself (and about 2 billion others), think that it is 'absurd'
• You state clearly that 'it is the spirit that is resurrected, not the physical body'

Emphasis mine. What am I supposed to make of that?

I will state my contention again, and that is when Mary and the saints died, their SOULS, went to heaven and are with Christ. That is pure Catholic doctrine.

I realise this is Catholic doctrine. What I want to see is evidence for this from Scripture. To date, you have given me no such thing.

Whether or not their bodies will be resurrected on judgement day is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is totally relevant to the discussion, since Scripture states clearly that judgment occurs at Christ's return, not prior to Christ's return. You believe it occurs at death, and that it occurs a second time at Christ's return.

So to state the point of contention more clearly, it is that we believe Mary and the saints are alive in SPIRIT and you do not. This has nothing to do with the resurrection of their bodies.

It has a lot to do with the resurrection of their bodies, because I gave you a list of Scriptural passages speaking clearly of the resurrection of their bodies being their hope for life after death, and you denied flatly that these passages were speaking of the resurrection of their bodies.

Now if you re-read my replies in that context you will see them in a totally different light. Paul and Peter's quotes clearly state that their souls will be with Christ upon their death. They say nothing of the outcome of their bodies on judgment day, although I know you tend to disagree with that (then we go back to the matter of interpretation I referred to in the beginning).

You have given me no passages from either Paul or Peter which even used the English word 'soul', let alone which said that their souls will be with Christ upon their death.

This point is also bolstered by Jesus himself when he turned to the thief on the cross and told him 'today you will be with me in paradise'. Clearly he did not mean his body as that will await reunification with the soul on judgement day. It is equally clear that he meant his soul will be in paradise TODAY.

I suggest you note the following:

• The thief asked to be remembered by Christ 'when you come in your kingdom - clearly he was not expecting to be with Christ until the return of Christ. Nor does Christ attempt to change this belief.
• The word Christ uses which is translated 'paradise' is a very ordinary Greek word meaning garden. It is not the word heaven. It is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament of the garden of Eden (which was on earth), and it is used in Revelation of the restored earth at the return of Christ. It is not used to describe heaven.

[Byblos]

I believe you are confusing the two, hence why you think I am contradicting Catholic doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am not confusing anything. I provided you with a list of passages which declare clearly the future resurrection of the physical body.

Your response was to deny flatly that these passages refer to the future resurrection of the physical body:

You believe these passages are suggesting a physical resurrection of the body. I (and about 2 billion others) think that is simply absurd. It is the spirit that is resurrected, not the physical body.

Emphasis mine. These are your words:

• You denied that these passages are talking about a physical resurrection of the body
• You claimed that yourself (and about 2 billion others), think that it is 'absurd'
• You state clearly that 'it is the spirit that is resurrected, not the physical body'

Emphasis mine. What am I supposed to make of that?

Again to clarify, everything I stated was related to what happens to the soul immediately after death. I have no contention with the physical resurrection at judgement day. You misunderstood where I'm coming from and if the misunderstanding is due to my choice of words (resurrection for example) then please accept my apology.

I will state my contention again, and that is when Mary and the saints died, their SOULS, went to heaven and are with Christ. That is pure Catholic doctrine.

I realise this is Catholic doctrine. What I want to see is evidence for this from Scripture. To date, you have given me no such thing.

That is your claim because your interpretation is different than mine. Tell me, what authority should we go back to to resolve the differences in our respective interpretations? As we both think we are right in our interpretations.

Whether or not their bodies will be resurrected on judgement day is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is totally relevant to the discussion, since Scripture states clearly that judgment occurs at Christ's return, not prior to Christ's return. You believe it occurs at death, and that it occurs a second time at Christ's return.

So to state the point of contention more clearly, it is that we believe Mary and the saints are alive in SPIRIT and you do not. This has nothing to do with the resurrection of their bodies.

It has a lot to do with the resurrection of their bodies, because I gave you a list of Scriptural passages speaking clearly of the resurrection of their bodies being their hope for life after death, and you denied flatly that these passages were speaking of the resurrection of their bodies.

Again and again, I was not referring to the resurrection of the body at judgement. We're back in circles.

Now if you re-read my replies in that context you will see them in a totally different light. Paul and Peter's quotes clearly state that their souls will be with Christ upon their death. They say nothing of the outcome of their bodies on judgment day, although I know you tend to disagree with that (then we go back to the matter of interpretation I referred to in the beginning).

You have given me no passages from either Paul or Peter which even used the English word 'soul', let alone which said that their souls will be with Christ upon their death.

That is what I interpret when I read those quotes. What makes your interpretation correct and mine incorrect? I have 2,000 years of church history established by Jesus himself that tells me I'm right. What do you have? And please don't tell me the Bible as that is the source of our argument.

This point is also bolstered by Jesus himself when he turned to the thief on the cross and told him 'today you will be with me in paradise'. Clearly he did not mean his body as that will await reunification with the soul on judgement day. It is equally clear that he meant his soul will be in paradise TODAY.

I suggest you note the following:

• The thief asked to be remembered by Christ 'when you come in your kingdom - clearly he was not expecting to be with Christ until the return of Christ. Nor does Christ attempt to change this belief.
• The word Christ uses which is translated 'paradise' is a very ordinary Greek word meaning garden. It is not the word heaven. It is used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament of the garden of Eden (which was on earth), and it is used in Revelation of the restored earth at the return of Christ. It is not used to describe heaven.

Yet again, that is your interpretation. How do you explain the use of the word TODAY then? or did you conveniently leave that out because it contradicts your position?. I am sure though that somehow you will find a spin for that as well then you will contend I provided no evidence. It is the other way around the way I see it.

[Fortigurn]

Again to clarify, everything I stated was related to what happens to the soul immediately after death. I have no contention with the physical resurrection at judgement day. You misunderstood where I'm coming from and if the misunderstanding is due to my choice of words (resurrection for example) then please accept my apology.

I realise all that. What I am pointing out - yet again - is that you denied that those passages I quoted refer to the physical resurrection. Why do you do that?

That is your claim because your interpretation is different than mine. Tell me, what authority should we go back to to resolve the differences in our respective interpretations? As we both think we are right in our interpretations.

If you're going to be convincing about the idea that 'immortal souls' go to 'heaven' when people die, the least you could do would be to actually provide quotes which actually contain the words 'heaven', and 'immortal souls', or even just 'souls'.

Thus far, the handful of quotes you've supplied don't even contain any of these words. Not only that, but you've ignored those passages I've quoted which say that judgment takes place at Christ's return (not before), and that men are unconsicous at death.

You have given me no passages from either Paul or Peter which even used the English word 'soul', let alone which said that their souls will be with Christ upon their death.

That is what I interpret when I read those quotes.[/quote]

Why do you do that, when the words simply aren't there?

What makes your interpretation correct and mine incorrect?

It's not simply a matter of the interpretation of one or two passages. It's a matter of the fact that I've examined (and quoted), about two dozen passages (including yours), whereas you advance about four (none of which mention the key words under discussion), and ignore the passages which contradict your belief.

I have 2,000 years of church history established by Jesus himself that tells me I'm right.

No you don't, unless you believe that Christ established the church when he was about 5 years old. Not only that, but the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and of people going to heaven and hell when they died, wasn't introduced into mainstream Christian belief until the 2nd century.

[What do you have? And please don't tell me the Bible as that is the source of our argument.

I request again that you download and read the Powerpoint presentation which I wrote.

Yet again, that is your interpretation.

It is not my interpretation. All of what I have said there is verifiable. Get a concordance, get a copy of the LXX (Greek translation of the Old Testament), and see for yourself.

Surely you cannot deny that the thief asked Christ to remember him at his return? Obviously the thief had no idea of going to heaven, and Christ never said he would.

How do you explain the use of the word TODAY then? or did you conveniently leave that out because it contradicts your position?

I don't 'conveniently leave it out'. For the thief, Christ would indeed return that day. He would die, lie unconscious, and the next thing he knew he would be raised. There would be no discernable intervening interval for the thief.

I am sure though that somehow you will find a spin for that as well then you will contend I provided no evidence. It is the other way around the way I see it.[/quote]

[Byblos]

Again to clarify, everything I stated was related to what happens to the soul immediately after death. I have no contention with the physical resurrection at judgement day. You misunderstood where I'm coming from and if the misunderstanding is due to my choice of words (resurrection for example) then please accept my apology.

I realise all that. What I am pointing out - yet again - is that you denied that those passages I quoted refer to the physical resurrection. Why do you do that?

Ok, for the last time, because those passages pertain the the resurrection of the body at judgement day, which had nothing with what I was contending because it pertains to the spirit immediately after death. This is tiring.

That is your claim because your interpretation is different than mine. Tell me, what authority should we go back to to resolve the differences in our respective interpretations? As we both think we are right in our interpretations.

If you're going to be convincing about the idea that 'immortal souls' go to 'heaven' when people die, the least you could do would be to actually provide quotes which actually contain the words 'heaven', and 'immortal souls', or even just 'souls'.

Thus far, the handful of quotes you've supplied don't even contain any of these words. Not only that, but you've ignored those passages I've quoted which say that judgment takes place at Christ's return (not before), and that men are unconsicous at death.

You have given me no passages from either Paul or Peter which even used the English word 'soul', let alone which said that their souls will be with Christ upon their death.

That is what I interpret when I read those quotes.

Why do you do that, when the words simply aren't there?[/quote]

The words don't have to be there. The meaning is very clear. The same way Jesus speaks in parables to explain a hidden meaning instead of explaining the meaning directly, the message is all too clear. When Paul says he wants to be with Christ he doesn't mean he will wait until judgement day to to be with him. He means he will be with him, period. There's no hidden meaning there, it is rather simple and you are complicating it to suit your purpose.

What makes your interpretation correct and mine incorrect?

It's not simply a matter of the interpretation of one or two passages. It's a matter of the fact that I've examined (and quoted), about two dozen passages (including yours), whereas you advance about four (none of which mention the key words under discussion), and ignore the passages which contradict your belief.

Obviously it is, if not we would not be disagreeing. I am not convinced in any way by what you posted, even the ones you think I ignored.

I have 2,000 years of church history established by Jesus himself that tells me I'm right.

No you don't, unless you believe that Christ established the church when he was about 5 years old. Not only that, but the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and of people going to heaven and hell when they died, wasn't introduced into mainstream Christian belief until the 2nd century.

Ok, 1,865 years, feel better now?

[What do you have? And please don't tell me the Bible as that is the source of our argument.

I request again that you download and read the Powerpoint presentation which I wrote.

Did, read it, not convinced, totally disagree. But of course, since I'm not convinced I must be wrong, right? Wrong.

Yet again, that is your interpretation.

It is not my interpretation. All of what I have said there is verifiable. Get a concordance, get a copy of the LXX (Greek translation of the Old Testament), and see for yourself.

Surely you cannot deny that the thief asked Christ to remember him at his return? Obviously the thief had no idea of going to heaven, and Christ never said he would.

How do you explain the use of the word TODAY then? or did you conveniently leave that out because it contradicts your position?

I don't 'conveniently leave it out'. For the thief, Christ would indeed return that day. He would die, lie unconscious, and the next thing he knew he would be raised. There would be no discernable intervening interval for the thief.

Right, so 'today' to the thief is actually a few thousand years (without him realising it, of course) but the word 'day' in genesis 1 actually means a 24-hour day. Oh, yeah that's because we're aware of that. You conveniently pick and choose where it suits you.

This is going nowhere. I only feel sorry for the original poster. I think the only thing we've managed to do is to confuse him/her even more.

[Felgar]

* Animals and men both go to the same place at death

* Animals and men all have the same breath/spirit

*No one ever went to heaven at their death

Oh dear... We have a lot to talk about. I definately have to read through your ppt very carefully first.

Now is the time to tell you that I don't believe in 'Satan' as an evil supernatural being (such as a 'fallen' angel). I believe it is symbolic of the principle of opposition to God in all its fleshly forms.

Hmmm... Ok, it's clear that we need new threads and have a lot to discuss. I'll have to leave it for now; I'll try to come back to some of this stuff in the weeks to come. Thanks for sharing your views.

[Felgar]

This is going nowhere. I only feel sorry for the original poster. I think the only thing we've managed to do is to confuse him/her even more.

Agreed this got off-topic. I split the discussion. I hope Vic sees the good in these types of discussions. I think it's very important that we recognize how despite such deeply ingrained differences we all believe in Christ and His gift of salvation.

[Byblos]

This is going nowhere. I only feel sorry for the original poster. I think the only thing we've managed to do is to confuse him/her even more.

Agreed this got off-topic. I split the discussion. I hope Vic sees the good in these types of discussions. I think it's very important that we recognize how despite such deeply ingrained differences we all believe in Christ and His gift of salvation.

THANK YOU!

[Fortigurn]

I realise all that. What I am pointing out - yet again - is that you denied that those passages I quoted refer to the physical resurrection. Why do you do that?

Ok, for the last time, because those passages pertain the the resurrection of the body at judgement day, which had nothing with what I was contending because it pertains to the spirit immediately after death.

Now I have no idea what you believe. When I first quoted those passages, you said they did not speak of the physical resurrection:

You believe these passages are suggesting a physical resurrection of the body. I (and about 2 billion others) think that is simply absurd. It is the spirit that is resurrected, not the physical body.

You also told me this:

As for resurrection and heaven they are synonymous.

It was clear to me that you believed in heaven going, and the 'resurrection of the spirit'. It was not at all clear to me that you believed in the resurrection of the body. You had just told me that 'resurrection' and 'heaven' are synonymous, and that none of the resurrection passages I quoted speak of the physical resurrection.

But now you tell me that these passages do refer to the resurrection of the body at the last day:

Ok, for the last time, because those passages pertain the the resurrection of the body at judgement day...

I keep hearing different things from you. What am I to believe?

The words don't have to be there. The meaning is very clear. The same way Jesus speaks in parables to explain a hidden meaning instead of explaining the meaning directly, the message is all too clear

How is it 'very clear', unless you already know the 'hidden meaning'? How do you determine the 'hidden meaning'?

When Paul says he wants to be with Christ he doesn't mean he will wait until judgement day to to be with him. He means he will be with him, period. There's no hidden meaning there, it is rather simple and you are complicating it to suit your purpose.

Wait a minute, you just told me that there is a hidden meaning there, and now you're telling me there isn't? How do you prove that Paul means he's going to heaven? I don't think there's any 'hidden meaning' there either, I think he's saying exactly what Job did - 'When I awake, I will take delight in your likeness'. He's saying that the next waking moment he has, he will be with God.

I am not convinced in any way by what you posted, even the ones you think I ignored.

Why not? Some reasons would be good.

Ok, 1,865 years, feel better now?

No, not really, because the Roman Catholic Church didn't exist before the 4th century.

Did, read it, not convinced, totally disagree. But of course, since I'm not convinced I must be wrong, right? Wrong.

I am not saying that 'since you're not convinced, you must be wrong'. What I am asking you to do is to explain to me why you don't find it convincing.

I am especially interested in your interpretation of those passages of the Bible which say the dead are not conscious, and that animals have the same 'spirit' as humans.

Yet again, that is your interpretation.

It is not my interpretation. All of what I have said there is verifiable. Get a concordance, get a copy of the LXX (Greek translation of the Old Testament), and see for yourself.

Surely you cannot deny that the thief asked Christ to remember him at his return? Obviously the thief had no idea of going to heaven, and Christ never said he would.

How do you explain the use of the word TODAY then? or did you conveniently leave that out because it contradicts your position?

I don't 'conveniently leave it out'. For the thief, Christ would indeed return that day. He would die, lie unconscious, and the next thing he knew he would be raised. There would be no discernable intervening interval for the thief.

Right, so 'today' to the thief is actually a few thousand years (without him realising it, of course)...

The thief wouldn't have any idea how long it would take for Christ to return, no. But it is very clear from his question that he knew he would have to wait until Christ's return for him to see Christ. That is what he said.

...but the word 'day' in genesis 1 actually means a 24-hour day. Oh, yeah that's because we're aware of that. You conveniently pick and choose where it suits you.

I am not 'picking and choosing where it suits me'. I am explicating the passage in context, and in a manner which harmonises the thief's request with Christ's respose. You are failing to do that. Please explain to me how I am being inconsistent (the Genesis 1 example doesn't work, because those days are explicitly stated to be 'evening and morning' days).

This is going nowhere. I only feel sorry for the original poster. I think the only thing we've managed to do is to confuse him/her even more.

I hope they downloaded that Powerpoint presentation of mine.