RCC and the Nature of the Afterlife

[Byblos]

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.

It is Obvious you are not stopping to think about what I'm saying as you keep quoting me out of context. Everything I said is true 'IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEATH, NOT THE FINAL RESURRECTION'. I already stated that many times.

You also told me this:

As for resurrection and heaven they are synonymous.

Yes, PERTAINING TO THE SPIRIT, NOT THE BODY.

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.

I really hope it is clearer now.

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?

Believe this, I am unequivocally stating I believe 'in the resurrection of the body' (a direct quote from the apostles' creed by the way) and as such, everything you have quoted is true pertaining to the resurrection of the body at judgement day. But that is outside the scope of my argument which is confined to the spirit immediately after death (in other words, many of the quotes you provided are pretty much out of context as they do not pertain to the subject).

I really do hope this clears it up for you so we can move on.

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'?

But that's just it. In that quote there's no hidden meaning. It very clearly states Paul is going to be with Christ. In fact he specifically stated he sees a need to stay in the body for the people's sake. What that says to me is that he was actually looking forward to leaving the body so he can be with Christ. How exactly do you leap to the conclusion that he will lay dormant for thousands of years. It does not say that anywhere (I am using your own argument against you, show me where it specifically says that in Paul's quote? It simply does not).

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.

Again, you are quoting out of context. What I meant by parables and hidden meanings is that your contention has always been 'where in the scripture does it say that?'. I was showing you that scripture doesn't always directly address a particular subject; sometimes parables are used to convey a message. In other words, the specific words 'soul' and 'heaven' do not HAVE to exist in a sentence for me to interpret it as such (yet again, back to the subjective interpretation).

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.

I am not convinced because I simply do not read them the way you do. It is pointless to argue specifics because when I give you my interpretation (and I have numerous times) you tell me no, it doesn't say that, it says this.

As for the Catholic church, I would provide the chronology linking it all the way back to Peter and to Jesus himself but I'm afraid you will ask me what month, day, and morning or afternoon it occured. In that case I would have to acquiesce as I do not have that information.

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.

let me ask you this question from another perspective. What about the people who witnessed this event and heard the exchange?. What are they to believe? Are they left with the impression that the thief will be with Jesus 'today' or a few thousand years from then? I would argue that their perception would have to be that it was happening that day. And if that is their perception (because Jesus said it) and it did not happen, would that not make Jesus a liar? Do you see my point here? It is how you look at it.

...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).

According to your argument, if the people (who heard the exchange between Jesus and the thief , for example) were privy to the 'today' not literally meaning today, they (or their descendents, or us) would also have no reason to believe a genesis day is 1 literal day. Your argument is contradictory when you factor in the perceptions of the living.

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.

I sincerely hope they get something out of it. I also hope they keep an open mind as to other explanations.

[Fortigurn]

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.

It is Obvious you are not stopping to think about what I'm saying as you keep quoting me out of context.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

Everything I said is true 'IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEATH, NOT THE FINAL RESURRECTION'. I already stated that many times.

I am sorry, but I have almost no idea what you mean. I provided verses. You said that these verses do not describe the physical resurrection. Later you said that these verses do describe the physical resurrection, at the last day.

I have zero idea about what you believe now, other than that you believe people go to heaven when they die.

You also told me this:

As for resurrection and heaven they are synonymous.

Yes, PERTAINING TO THE SPIRIT, NOT THE BODY.

As far as I understand you, the claim is that 'resurrection' means 'soul goes to heaven'. You call this 'resurrection of the spirit'. You claim that at the point of death the 'spirit' is 'resurrected' and goes to heaven while the body remains in the grave.

I have pointed out that this is an unsupportable definition of the word 'resurrection', and have provided Scriptural passages to prove this. To date you have provided no textual or lexical evidence to support your definition of the word 'resurrection'.

Believe this, I am unequivocally stating I believe 'in the resurrection of the body' (a direct quote from the apostles' creed by the way) and as such, everything you have quoted is true pertaining to the resurrection of the body at judgement day.

Great, this I understand - almost. You now appear to be saying that the passages I have quoted do speak of the resurrection of the body at the judgment. True or false?

But that is outside the scope of my argument which is confined to the spirit immediately after death (in other words, many of the quotes you provided are pretty much out of context as they do not pertain to the subject).

That's just it you see? I quoted them specifically because they don't refer to the 'soul' going to heaven when they die. If I had been quoting them in order to support such an idea, I would have been quoting them out of context.

But I was quoting them to prove that judgment does not occur until the last day, and that this judgment takes place after a physical ressurrection of the body.

But that's just it. In that quote there's no hidden meaning. It very clearly states Paul is going to be with Christ. In fact he specifically stated he sees a need to stay in the body for the people's sake. What that says to me is that he was actually looking forward to leaving the body so he can be with Christ. How exactly do you leap to the conclusion that he will lay dormant for thousands of years. It does not say that anywhere (I am using your own argument against you, show me where it specifically says that in Paul's quote? It simply does not).

I know it does not. Nor does it say that he means that he isn't really mortal, he's immortal, and that he's just going to jump out of the spacesuit and waft up to heaven.

The precise meaning of what he is saying must be derived from other passages. I have provided other passages.

Again, you are quoting out of context. What I meant by parables and hidden meanings is that your contention has always been 'where in the scripture does it say that?'. I was showing you that scripture doesn't always directly address a particular subject; sometimes parables are used to convey a message. In other words, the specific words 'soul' and 'heaven' do not HAVE to exist in a sentence for me to interpret it as such (yet again, back to the subjective interpretation).

I have agreed with this. But the fact is that we do have plenty of passages which speak of the soul, and they don't identify it as an immortal part of man which goes to heaven or hell at the judgment.

The problem is that you're using a definition of 'soul' which simply isn't in the Bible. You're also using a defintion of 'hell' which isn't in the Bible.

I am not convinced because I simply do not read them the way you do. It is pointless to argue specifics because when I give you my interpretation (and I have numerous times) you tell me no, it doesn't say that, it says this.

I'm interested in specifics, precisely because I'm interested in where your definitions are coming from. How can you ignore the Biblical definitions?

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.

As for the Catholic church, I would provide the chronology linking it all the way back to Peter and to Jesus himself but I'm afraid you will ask me what month, day, and morning or afternoon it occured. In that case I would have to acquiesce as I do not have that information.

I wouldn't ask you any such thing. I know my ecclesiastical history, and I know there is no unbroken papal succession, and I also know that the Roman Catholic Church didn't come into existence until the 4th century (at least).

let me ask you this question from another perspective. What about the people who witnessed this event and heard the exchange?. What are they to believe? Are they left with the impression that the thief will be with Jesus 'today' or a few thousand years from then? I would argue that their perception would have to be that it was happening that day.

I really don't care what they thought. It's clear what the thief thought, and he's the one who counts here.

And if that is their perception (because Jesus said it) and it did not happen, would that not make Jesus a liar? Do you see my point here? It is how you look at it.

No it would not make Jesus a liar. It would simply make them mistaken.

According to your argument, if the people (who heard the exchange between Jesus and the thief , for example) were privy to the 'today' not literally meaning today, they (or their descendents, or us) would also have no reason to believe a genesis day is 1 literal day. Your argument is contradictory when you factor in the perceptions of the living.

How? Can you walk me through this please? By the way, was Christ in heaven or hell on that day?

[Byblos]

Believe this, I am unequivocally stating I believe 'in the resurrection of the body' (a direct quote from the apostles' creed by the way) and as such, everything you have quoted is true pertaining to the resurrection of the body at judgement day.

Great, this I understand - almost. You now appear to be saying that the passages I have quoted do speak of the resurrection of the body at the judgment. True or false?

I do not appear to be saying it, I unequivocally said. Let's get beyond this, Please!

But that is outside the scope of my argument which is confined to the spirit immediately after death (in other words, many of the quotes you provided are pretty much out of context as they do not pertain to the subject).

That's just it you see? I quoted them specifically because they don't refer to the 'soul' going to heaven when they die. If I had been quoting them in order to support such an idea, I would have been quoting them out of context.

But I was quoting them to prove that judgment does not occur until the last day, and that this judgment takes place after a physical ressurrection of the body.

I said most, not all. By most, I was referring to the quotes pertaining to the physical resurrection, as we agree there is no contention as far as that is concerned.

But that's just it. In that quote there's no hidden meaning. It very clearly states Paul is going to be with Christ. In fact he specifically stated he sees a need to stay in the body for the people's sake. What that says to me is that he was actually looking forward to leaving the body so he can be with Christ. How exactly do you leap to the conclusion that he will lay dormant for thousands of years. It does not say that anywhere (I am using your own argument against you, show me where it specifically says that in Paul's quote? It simply does not).

I know it does not. Nor does it say that he means that he isn't really mortal, he's immortal, and that he's just going to jump out of the spacesuit and waft up to heaven.

So in other words, if it doesn't specifically say his soul is going to heaven (even though he says he is going to be with Christ) then it must not mean that. But if it doesn't say he will lay dormant for thousands of years then it can be derived that it does? In other words, if it doesn't specifically corroborate my interpretation it is false but that does not apply to your interpretation? That is circular logic I do not accept.

The precise meaning of what he is saying must be derived from other passages. I have provided other passages.

And so did I (Peter's, Jesus') but you still contend they don't mean what I think they mean.

Again, you are quoting out of context. What I meant by parables and hidden meanings is that your contention has always been 'where in the scripture does it say that?'. I was showing you that scripture doesn't always directly address a particular subject; sometimes parables are used to convey a message. In other words, the specific words 'soul' and 'heaven' do not HAVE to exist in a sentence for me to interpret it as such (yet again, back to the subjective interpretation).

I have agreed with this. But the fact is that we do have plenty of passages which speak of the soul, and they don't identify it as an immortal part of man which goes to heaven or hell at the judgment.

The problem is that you're using a definition of 'soul' which simply isn't in the Bible. You're also using a defintion of 'hell' which isn't in the Bible.

I never mentioned the word 'hell' in any of my posts. As for my definition of 'soul' not being in the bible, that again, is your interpretation. I respectfully disagree.

I am not convinced because I simply do not read them the way you do. It is pointless to argue specifics because when I give you my interpretation (and I have numerous times) you tell me no, it doesn't say that, it says this.

I'm interested in specifics, precisely because I'm interested in where your definitions are coming from. How can you ignore the Biblical definitions?

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.

Tell me, who came up with these 'biblical definitions'?. We are reading the same bible and we are coming to different conclusions. Why are your defininitions correct and not mine?

As for the Catholic church, I would provide the chronology linking it all the way back to Peter and to Jesus himself but I'm afraid you will ask me what month, day, and morning or afternoon it occured. In that case I would have to acquiesce as I do not have that information.

I wouldn't ask you any such thing. I know my ecclesiastical history, and I know there is no unbroken papal succession, and I also know that the Roman Catholic Church didn't come into existence until the 4th century (at least).

The RCC is a direct descendent of the church established by Jesus when he said of Peter to be the rock and that rock he will build his church.

let me ask you this question from another perspective. What about the people who witnessed this event and heard the exchange?. What are they to believe? Are they left with the impression that the thief will be with Jesus 'today' or a few thousand years from then? I would argue that their perception would have to be that it was happening that day.

I really don't care what they thought. It's clear what the thief thought, and he's the one who counts here.

Wait a minute! Are you really saying that? Are you saying it is irrelevant what the living thought when Jesus spoke? I thought this was the whole point of God sending him. So we can experience for ourselves, so we can see and hear God and believe and be forgiven our sins. That is quite a statement you're making my friend because if that is true, how can we believe anything written by the living (including the bible and the new testament? Yes, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they were also based on their personal observations. This is yet another example where I show you a flaw in your interpretation and you dismiss it outright as irrelevant. No, the thief is most certainly not the one who counts, it is the lesson derived from that, as seen by the people, because after all, the people who observed it were directly responsible for us 'seeing it'.

And if that is their perception (because Jesus said it) and it did not happen, would that not make Jesus a liar? Do you see my point here? It is how you look at it.

No it would not make Jesus a liar. It would simply make them mistaken.

Yes, of course, because it fits your interpretation. Jesus said it, they heard it, but they don't know what they heard, they are mistaken. You should have been there to explain to them what they heard. Come on, you really want to go down this road?

According to your argument, if the people (who heard the exchange between Jesus and the thief , for example) were privy to the 'today' not literally meaning today, they (or their descendents, or us) would also have no reason to believe a genesis day is 1 literal day. Your argument is contradictory when you factor in the perceptions of the living.

How? Can you walk me through this please? By the way, was Christ in heaven or hell on that day?

Let's assume what you said was correct in that they were mistaken in believing 'today' was actually today and you were there to correct the error of their ways and they believed you. In other words, now they see that 'today' is not really Friday but a few thousand years down the line. Then open up the Bible (remember you are there so you do have the latest copy of it) and read Genesis 1. Do you think they would tend to believe a day is 1 earth day, considering 'today' did not mean today?

My friend, I have a lot of respect for you, I really do. But I think we need to wind this discussion down and simply agree to disagree. So I will extend you once more the benefit of a response and say see you around the board.

God bless,

Byblos.

[Felgar]

K, I believe it's clear from Jesus' own words that no one was in heaven before He died. So we can argue where exactly people go when they die. But I believe the Bible is clear that our spirit remains alive when we physically die. Case in point:

Matthew 17:1-3
After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

This is perfectly clear; Moses was talking with Jesus. He need not wait for the resurrection of the body.

So although I know not where exactly our spirit goes when we die, it goes to wherever Moses and Elijah are. I've typically called this 'heaven' though if you have another name I might be open to it.

[Byblos]

K, I believe it's clear from Jesus' own words that no one was in heaven before He died. So we can argue where exactly people go when they die. But I believe the Bible is clear that our spirit remains alive when we physically die. Case in point:

Matthew 17:1-3
After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

This is perfectly clear; Moses was talking with Jesus. He need not wait for the resurrection of the body.

So although I know not where exactly our spirit goes when we die, it goes to wherever Moses and Elijah are. I've typically called this 'heaven' though if you have another name I might be open to it.

I agree. I'm also open to different titles: Heaven, purgatory, or maybe both, which reconciles with Catholic doctrine as that is exactly what we believe. Some of us are very close to Jesus and God and go to heaven directly (like Mary and the saints). The rest of us are awaiting the resurrection. And of course it follows that if Peter and James saw Jesus talking to Moses, it can be inferred that we can communicate with Mary and the saints. This was the exact point of this thread.

[B. W.]

I agree. I'm also open to different titles: Heaven, purgatory, or maybe both, which reconciles with Catholic doctrine as that is exactly what we believe. Some of us are very close to Jesus and God and go to heaven directly (like Mary and the saints). The rest of us are awaiting the resurrection. And of course it follows that if Peter and James saw Jesus talking to Moses, it can be inferred that we can communicate with Mary and the saints. This was the exact point of this thread.

IMHO - Mr F.'s thrust to counter the other thread - Hell - is it Relevant Today?

No- seriously - I do not know understand why Mr. F is using this thread as he is doing...

Just adding a little humor here!! Great Thread anyway!!!!

[j316]

In regard to Mr Fortigurn, are we arguing with antichrist? I think it is a legitimate point as all he does is oppose everything that is said to him, trying to twist it in a direction that only he seems to control. Antichrist is not an individual, remember, but a spirit.