Christianity Corner - Resurrection

[Ben Kenobi]

Giant_Squid.

"Everything supporting my position should be taken literally, everything supporting your position is a parable or metaphor."

You assume, that to be symbolic is somehow less correct than to be literal. The problem is not that one is more or less correct, but to look at each passage and see which is the better explanation.

You still have your bodies in Heaven and Hell? Do you have to eat and stuff? What happens in Hell after they burn your body up and such? I'm not really familiar with this doctrine, so enlighen me.

Yes! That's the whole point of the thread. You get to keep your body, a body that does not decay.

Look at the passage in John, John 21:25-26

"But he said to them, Unleess I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came in and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas , "Put your finger here; see my hand. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Again, in Luke 24:40-43

"When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat? They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence."

Since your bodies don't decay, I don't think you need to eat, but you can if you want to.

Wouldn't that be a pleasure, to always have something to eat if you want?

Rogan:

Your post has numerous far-reaching implications.
Christians believe in the resurrection of the body, as I have posted above. Amazing as it may seem, God likes the body, the body is a gift from God even when tainted by sin.

What God does is to melt away the desires of the flesh and replace it with a body that does not decay.

[cinch]

to Giant Squid for his posts in this thread. They've been a pleasure to read and ponder.

Also, a question for Obiwan:

How old is the body we get when we're resurrected? Is it just some arbitrary age? Or does God just deem at what age we looked 'best' and then make us that? Why is he so vain?

[Shi Huangdi]

obiwan

Do you really want a debate on purgatory? You may think it is clearly unbiblical BS or whatever, but it is a debat that has been going for a very long time, a time as long as the Protestant reformation. Catholic and Protestant apologists have been debating this issue ad nauseam for a very long time, and if we get started up on this I guarantee you we will take alot of time but accomplish nothing. Not only that, but such debates inevitably expand into other issues such as the worthiness of Tradition, et al, which will probably get just as far. If you really want this debate, by all means continue, but I would think there are better uses for both of our time.

A better answer is that God wrote scripture through people and that God's words are transcribed in Scripture in the style of the different authors.

Except God doesn't contradict himself and then there are contradictions as to facts in the Bible. We went over this in the last thread started by Monkspider, Firelad demonstrated this very well WRT differing passages in Genesis.

They will be judged against their peers who do live according to their conscience, available to all men.

Of course they can be judged. That doesn't mean God's sentence will always nessecarily be damnation though.

John 3:16. Of course, the person should also be able to look the passage up in the bible and to understand the passage as God has written.

So if some guy on the street corner shouts out that passage to a man, and while thinking whether or not to accept it but before he makes a decision, he gets hit by a bus, that man goes to hell?

People who are not receptive to the Gospels will not be saved regardless of the 'extenuating' circumstances.

I thought you said people who never heard the Gospels could be saved?

Again, if you look at the parable of the last Judgement, you will see that the saved and the damned are seperated out according to works that they did. Faith is not even mentioned there.

If you accept that our God is one who genuinely loves us one would not expect him to damn somebody whose failure was one of intellect and not of love. As Jesus said through God all things are possible, and so through so infinite power and love even those who failed to be faithful can be saved.

Giant Squid

Tell me then, what do you believe about the Bible?

That's a tough question, and one I am not sure I have answered for myself yet. Traditionally I have had strong doubt on it as a source of revelation of God's word, though recently I have become a little more accepting of it. I think if we see a strong theme presented throughout the bible(such as the role of Satan as discussed in the last thread, or the existence of heaven/hell as in this one ) then there is good reason there to accept it.

But you being Apolyton's former greatest athiest debator and one who has led many a person on this forum away from God in the past I shouldn't even need to point out to you problems with the Bible.

I am not saying God is not involved here. I suppose my analogy would be the doctrine of salvation by works rather than salvation by grace. In SBW, you have to do certain stuff before God saves you.

Well I am glad you have chosen the doctrine closer to the Catholic version then the Protestant one, but Salvation by Works is a misstatement of the Catholic position actually, and pure Salvation by Works(or Salvation by Merit) is bad theology. The correct way to think of it is Salvation by Faith and Works. Yes, works are very important, but on your own you will still fail to reach heaven, you cannot possibly merit on your own behalf. You need God's divine forgiveness and help. As Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the father except for me."

Now, where the works come in here is that although your works can't get you to heaven by their own merit, you are still required to perform those Good Works. An acceptance of Jesus means following his teaching. The bible does say that faith without works is dead. Thus, more then just intellectual assent to the idea of Jesus being your saviour is needed, to truly have a faith you must practice the teachings of it. If you go too far from this, by doing something such as a mortal sin, something so radically removed from the teachings of Jesus(such as murder, or a refusal to care for the weakest among us), you risk the loss of your salvation.

If Satan is temptation and lust and evil and sin,

But Satan is not an abstract concept, he is a fallen angel....

"People who have attained this Kingdom are quite literally out of his control. "

Even the most pious among us have to deal with his influence here. Jesus himself was tempted by Satan in the desert.

If you've heard of the Cathars, a heretical Christian sect brutally stamped out in the...I'm going to say 13th century, but I might be off - the name Cathar comes from the Cathari, which means "perfected ones" - they taught that the highest goal for their priests was to completely perfect one's self and achieve this highest union, and they did a darned good job - if you want to read about how calmly and politely they suffered being tortured, killed, and having their entire religion snuffed out, it's pretty impressive.

The heretics there may have taught that as a goal, but that did they ever actualy accomplish that? They may have a reached some level of courage, but they couldn't have reached perfection. At the very least they had to be guilt of a pretty high degree of heresy, if I am not mistaken this group claimed the Bible was written by the devil.

Let me ask you a question also - if you are right about Heaven, why is Jesus so extremely concerned with riches, and why would he be so adamant about keeping rich people out of Heaven?

He isn't. After saying it is harder then a rich man to enter heaven then a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, he says through God all things are possible. I look at Jesus's teaching as a high ideal, a very high ideal; one that we are inevitably going to fall far short of. But through his omnipotent power and divine mercy, we can be saved nonetheless so long as our actions to go far enough away so as to constitute a real rejection of God.

I thought I admitted in the last post that the Bible uses Heaven to mean "sky", but I still think that the "Kingdom of God" in the sense of the afterlife is separate from Heaven in the sense of sky.

People of an earlier era may have though heaven to mean the sky, we now have a better understand that is not correct. It is a key doctrine of Heaven that it is a place that we are with God. And as I have shown you, it is seen as a place distinct from Earth.

he ascended to it."

And still when we describe Heaven we say that a soul ascended to heaven or alternatively with hell that they descended to Hell. This comes from older thinking that heaven is a place up in the sky and Hell in the center of the Earth, though we don't consider that to be the case any longer. That is where the term ascends probably comes from there in the bible.

You still have your bodies in Heaven and Hell?

After the general judgement they are ressurected.

Do you have to eat and stuff?

We don't know. We don't have too many specifics on either on heaven and hell, seeing as how none of us have ever been there.

As for why we shouldn't fear those who can destroy the body, my answer is a Zen parable, which is kind of cheating but realize that the point I'm trying to make is that "the Kingdom of Heaven" in Christianity is equivalent to enlightenment in Buddhism. The parable is: "A general once decided to raze a certain monastery. All the monks fled except one old master, who continued meditating. The general entered the monastery and was enraged. He came up to the master, brandished his sword, and said "Do you understand that you are looking at a person who does not have the least bit of hesitation at the thought of killing?" The master responded "Do you realize that you are looking at a person who does not have the least bit of hesitation at the thought of dying?" At this point the general realized he was enlightened and left the old man alone."

Don't most of the eastern traditions believe in reincarnation? In that case they have a good reason not fear those who can kill the body. But if this life is all there is then we certainly do have a good reason to fear those.

Could you refresh me on your beliefs on original sin then? I'm afraid if I try to discuss this now I'm going to go Jeszenka on you.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#VII

VII. HOW VOLUNTARY

"There can be no sin that is not voluntary, the learned and the ignorant admit this evident truth", writes St. Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27). The Church has condemned the opposite solution given by Baius [prop. xlvi, xlvii, in Denz., n. 1046 (926)]. Original sin is not an act but, as already explained, a state, a permanent privation, and this can be voluntary indirectly- just as a drunken man is deprived of his reason and incapable of using his liberty, yet it is by his free fault that he is in this state and hence his drunkenness, his privation of reason is voluntary and can be imputed to him. But how can original sin be even indirectly voluntary for a child that has never used its personal free will? Certain Protestants hold that a child on coming to the use of reason will consent to its original sin; but in reality no one ever thought of giving this consent. Besides, even before the use of reason, sin is already in the soul, according to the data of Tradition regarding the baptism of children and the sin contracted by generation. Some theosophists and spiritists admit the pre-existence of souls that have sinned in a former life which they now forget; but apart from the absurdity of this metempsychosis, it contradicts the doctrine of original sin, it substitutes a number of particular sins for the one sin of a common father transmitting sin and death to all (cf. Rom., v, 12 sqq.). The whole Christian religion, says St. Augustine, may be summed up in the intervention of two men, the one to ruin us, the other to save us (De pecc. orig., xxiv). The right solution is to be sought in the free will of Adam in his sin, and this free will was ours: "we were all in Adam", says St. Ambrose, cited by St. Augustine (Opus imperf., IV, civ). St. Basil attributes to us the act of the first man: "Because we did not fast (when Adam ate the forbidden fruit) we have been turned out of the garden of Paradise" (Hom. i de jejun., iv). Earlier still is the testimony of St. Irenaeus; "In the person of the first Adam we offend God, disobeying His precept" (Haeres., V, xvi, 3). [/quote]


Moving on..

The early Church selecting the four Gospels they did doesn't impress me precisely because the early CATHOLIC Church is the Church that believed those four Gospels. The early GNOSTICs included the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gnostics were around as early as the Catholics were. The fact that the Catholics survived to become a massive world-bestriding colossus and the Gnostics are mainly snuffed out except for a few crazy people with badly made websites seems to me more an accident of history than a tribute to their having picked more accurate gospels. The Catholics decided what Gospels to include based on whether they agreed with theirt teachings.

The thing here is though God is living being who continues to function in this world through the Holy Spirit. God would not send his son down to Earth and then allow humanity to fall so badly into error.

Matthew 16:15-19

[quote]He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."[/qupte]

Whether you will believe that Church to be the RCC(Catholics) or the general community of all believers(Protestants), God is still protecting us and would not let us fally so horribly into error, which we would have if you are correct. The teaching of there being an afterlife has remained a fundamental doctine through all of Catholic history, through all of the Protestan reformations..... While it quite obvious God's will is not always clear, in many cases, I believe he would not allow a situation where 99.99999999999999999999999999% of his faithful were decieved so horribly and wrongly.

It's past 4 AM here, I'll have to get to your quotes later.

[Ben Kenobi]

Or does God just deem at what age we looked 'best' and then make us that?

cinch:

When did Jesus get the nail marks on his palm? I think that we get the body we have when we die, though without our imperfections from sin.

Why is he so vain?

Is it vain to restore other people's bodies?

Shi:

If you really want this debate, by all means continue, but I would think there are better uses for both of our time.

I do, see my PM.

Except God doesn't contradict himself and then there are contradictions as to facts in the Bible.

Transcription errors? There are a few, but again, I have not seen Firelad's post. Why do you trust scripture at all if it is not God's word?

that man goes to hell?

Has he had a chance to consider the message? No, so I would think that could not be held against him. I don't think you have given a reasonable example.

I thought you said people who never heard the Gospels could be saved?

Not receptive assumes that they have heard the word, and chosen to reject Christ.

Again, if you look at the parable of the last Judgement, you will see that the saved and the damned are seperated out according to works that they did. Faith is not even mentioned there.

I think I know your reference, but I want you to cite line and verse from your bible, so that I can be sure.

This is a very important point, much more pertinent that prayers for the dead.

[Shi Huangdi]

I do, see my PM.

K, I will check it after I reply to your post.

Why do you trust scripture at all if it is not God's word?

I take it for what it is- a written record made by people describing events in the life our religion. But just because I don't believe it is perfectly inerrant doesn't mean I put no credibility in it. I also tend to have more faith in the 4 main Gospels then the writings of the Apostles as far as the NT is concerned.

There are a few, but again, I have not seen Firelad's post.

Are you sure? I could have sworn you had posted in the thread where Firelad made that post.

Has he had a chance to consider the message? No, so I would think that could not be held against him. I don't think you have given a reasonable example.

Ah, so now they also need to have the chance to consider the message?

So how do you long do you get to consider whether the Gospels are true? If when you were in the process of studying Christianity but before you had accepted it, and you were shot, would you have gone to Hell? What if someone were to need 10 years to consider the message, if he is killed before the end of the 10 years is he damned?

I think I know your reference, but I want you to cite line and verse from your bible, so that I can be sure.

Matthew 25:31-46

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Checking your PM now.

[Ben Kenobi]

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world."

Now if works count, how can the the inheritance of the blessed, be prepared for them since the beginning of the world? This seems to imply that God knows everyone who will be saved, before he created the world.

Secondly, 'you who are blessed by my father' also implies that it is God's grace provided to the believers that allows them to be saved, not their own works.

Yes, works are important, but those who do the works of God, must first love God, so that they know what works to do.

I could have sworn you had posted in the thread where Firelad made that post.

Aaah. Now I know what thread you refer to. Yes, but he later admits the changes are minor, when I asked for further details as to the differences.

So how do you long do you get to consider whether the Gospels are true?

Where do we get to decide who will not be saved? God decides. All we can know is whether someone chooses to commit his life to Christ, and only when someone does so by repenting in the church.

The important thing to remember is that you do not know how long your life will be. You may die tomorrow, and if you have not committed your life to Christ, you will not be saved. The longer you deliberate, the more risk that you will not get the chance.

Even if you wait until your deathbed, it is just the same as someone who repents the first time they hear the word of God.

A good example of this is the parable of the workers in the vineyard.

Matthew 20:1-16

"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?'
"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

Now, don't you understand how God's grace works, that he gives to all who believe, not just to those who work the longest and the hardest for Christ!

If it were works that saved, we could never reach God, because the standard would be equivalent to Christ. God in his mercy has allowed us instead to be saved through Christ's sacrifice.

[Shi Huangdi]

Now if works count, how can the the inheritance of the blessed, be prepared for them since the beginning of the world? This seems to imply that God knows everyone who will be saved, before he created the world.

That one is simple enough. God created us with the intention that we ALL be saved. We were all prepared an meant for paradise. It is only through free will that some deny God's plan for them and take actions leading to damnaiton.

Secondly, 'you who are blessed by my father' also implies that it is God's grace provided to the believers that allows them to be saved, not their own works.

Of course, nobody merits Heaven on their own accord. But God does not provide Grace to everyone, and in this passage Jesus gives grace to those who did those works.

Yes, works are important, but those who do the works of God, must first love God, so that they know what works to do.

Right, and not having the direction of Christianity would make it harder for one to be saved. But not impossible.


Something you said in the last thread........

Not receptive assumes that they have heard the word, and chosen to reject Christ.

Now, see here is the problem. Your standard atheist who hears at the gospel and doesn't believe it is not rejecting God. He is rejecting the idea of God. Now, we discussed in the last thread we had on this that one way someone could choose to reject would be to live directly opposed to his teachings. Now we are discussing here a formal rejection of God. I would say to truly make that decision you would need to first know there is a God. An athiest couldn't possibly be in the position to make an informed decision on whether to accept God or not if they don't believe he is real to begin with.

Remember, Jesus said of those crucifying him "Forgive them, they know not what they do". The people crucifying Jesus could be pardoned because they had no idea of the grave act that they were doing, killing the Son of God. In the same away the athiest can be pardoned as he does not fully realize what he is doing in rejecting the Gospels.

Now, if you did know that God existed, but chose to leave the Christian faith anyway, then you would be guilty of the sin of apostsy, which is considered to be a mortal sin.

[Ben Kenobi]

An athiest couldn't possibly be in the position to make an informed decision on whether to accept God or not if they don't believe he is real to begin with.

That's why we come back to Romans again, in that all men have a conscience from which to judge right and wrong. It is enough to deny that God exists to reject God. There is no difference between the two positions.

Now if someone were agnostic, unsure of the nature of God, that's a different position entirely.

In fact, I would argue, that a better term for those who have not heard the word would be agnostic, while those who have heard, and chosen to reject Christ, would be athiests.

Jesus said of those crucifying him "Forgive them, they know not what they do". The people crucifying Jesus could be pardoned because they had no idea of the grave act that they were doing, killing the Son of God. In the same away the athiest can be pardoned as he does not fully realize what he is doing in rejecting the Gospels.

Forgiveness requires repentence. Everyone must repent of their sins in order to be forgiven for them. If one were to sin without knowing so, one would still require repentence for forgiveness, for how can we as sinners know the depths of our sins?

Now, if you did know that God existed, but chose to leave the Christian faith anyway, then you would be guilty of the sin of apostsy, which is considered to be a mortal sin.

True, but that only applies to those who have been a part of the Christian faith at some point, and not applicable to those who have not. Again, if I'm not mistaken, apostasy can only be unforgiven if maintained until death, in that one can repent of apostasy and rejoin the congregation.