Beware of false Christian theologies

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

'Gentle Jesus, meek and mild'

Is a misrepresentation.

believe in me or..

..you'll face the consequences of your sin and your choice not to avail of a route to avoidance of same*

It is of course pretty hard to establish as, if I don't believe then I can not be subjected to these sadistic punishments

Ignorance isn't a defence before the law. The reason it's not a defence is that the law presumes that you are adequately equipped by conscience/knowledge to know that there is something not quite kosher about what you're engaging in.

*IF it is the case that you don't need to believe in Jesus to be saved (e.g. Abraham) AND the means whereby you can be saved are nevertheless presented to you and rejected by you THEN your end will be rendered a fitting one. Determined by you and the choice you made.

The presumption is that you have a choice as to whether you want to partake or not in the project of God. It appears that God doesn't give anyone this choice - we all will give our answer to the question he asks. And he can present that question to everyone irrespective of their belief system. It doesn't matter whether these belief systems are theistic or atheistic.

kieranwaldron

Skommando wrote: »

If scripture used the idiom raining cats and dogs, and you didn't understand the meaning, would you really jump to the illogical conclusion that because you don't understand the meaning, rain is therefore impossible, there can be no rain ?

Equally if you didn't understand the meaning of the phrase, "he was over the moon", would you jump to the conclusion, that because you don't understand the meaning of that phrase, therefore the moon cannot exist ?

If you read the new testament, Jesus (more than anyone else in scripture in fact) warned his followers over and over about hell.
You might not want to believe it exists, but Christ was in no doubt about it's existence, whatever form it happens to take.

Also there can be no mercy, without there also being justice.

God in Genesis 2:17 did not warn Adam of punishment for his disobedience of an eternal hellfire, instead he said: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

Paul in Romans 6:23 confirmed that death is the penalty for sin when he said:
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. "

Similarly, John preached the destruction of the wicked when in John 3:16 he said the following : "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "

Peter was also an annihilationist when in 2 Peter 2:6 he said: " He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; "

Jesus Christ in the New Testament did not advance the notion of eternal torment in a hellfire for sinners. What he said in the NT has been misrepresented due to translation errors. His reference to Gehenna was to it as a place of destruction. The Greek word Gehenna was translated in English as hell. Gehenna, in fact, was a rubbish dump, where a fire constantly burned, on the south side of Jerusalem in the first century AD, and the Jews he was speaking to understood the symbolism used.

looksee

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is a misrepresentation.



..you'll face the consequences of your sin and your choice not to avail of a route to avoidance of same*




Ignorance isn't a defence before the law. The reason it's not a defence is that the law presumes that you are adequately equipped by conscience/knowledge to know that there is something not quite kosher about what you're engaging in.

*IF it is the case that you don't need to believe in Jesus to be saved (e.g. Abraham) AND the means whereby you can be saved are nevertheless presented to you and rejected by you THEN your end will be rendered a fitting one. Determined by you and the choice you made.

The presumption is that you have a choice as to whether you want to partake or not in the project of God. It appears that God doesn't give anyone this choice - we all will give our answer to the question he asks. And he can present that question to everyone irrespective of their belief system. It doesn't matter whether these belief systems are theistic or atheistic.

And here you are wholly missing the point. You believe the bit I have bolded. If I do not then it is not true. It is only true for you because you believe it.

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

And here you are wholly missing the point. You believe the bit I have bolded. If I do not then it is not true. It is only true for you because you believe it.

I think you would accept that what is true is true, irrespective of what we believe about it.

And if what I believe to be the case is true in fact, then you won't avoid punishment simply by not believing. In other words, this statement is nonsense.

if I don't believe then I can not be subjected to these sadistic punishments

looksee

And at this point I have to opt out of this discussion as I will go against the Christianity charter if I follow the argument through.

You may argue about truth and belief and what is nonsense, I may not.

solodeogloria

looksee wrote: »

And here you are wholly missing the point. You believe the bit I have bolded. If I do not then it is not true. It is only true for you because you believe it.

Good evening!

No. This is post modernism.

The reality is there is truth and there is falsehood. Either Jesus Christ is who He says He is or He is not. Jesus is either the rescuing Saviour who came into this world to rescue and to save on the cross or He's nothing of the sort.

The confirmation of the gospel being true won't be my belief in it, but whether or not the specific history of the Bible happened and whether Jesus will return to judge.

Jesus offers mercy and grace to those who believe and trust in Him but of course He's going to judge the world for how they have rebelled against God the loving and just ruler of this world.

That's the gospel. It doesn't change.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

kieranwaldron

On reading again my points 1-6 in my original piece to open this thread, I have found better evidence from the Bible to substantiate my points 3 and 4. Both of these quotations are from Psalm in the Old Testament.

My point 3 was concerning what happens to people who die in a state of sin, and Psalm 145:20 says the following: "The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy ". Note there is no mention in the quotation of eternal punishment in a hellfire as wrongly taught by many Christian churches; and it clearly indicates that all the wicked will be annihilated.

My point 4 was about the destiny of the saved, and Psalm 37:9 says the following: "For those who are evil will be destroyed, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land." Note there is no mention of heaven in the quotation instead it says the saved will inherit the land (or the earth) which backs-up my point adequately.

Peregrinus

Well, remember that the psalms were produced by a culture that had no clear notion of an afterlife, and no expectation of eternal life for either the wicked or the virtuous. When the psalms talk about death they mean death as we know it. When they say that "the Lord preserves those who love him" they don't mean he preserves them for ever in the afterlife; just that he preserves them from untimely death in this life. And people "inherit the land" simply by surviving those who die; there is no suggestion that, having inherited the land, they will live on it for ever.

Remember, the scriptural texts were produced over a very long period of time, and they document a growing relationship between God and his people and, with that, a growing understanding (on the part of the people).

Basically, I think you're correct to say that the psalms don't indicate any eternal punishment for the wicked, but equally they don't indicate any eternal reward for the just. These are both ideas that only developed over time.

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

And at this point I have to opt out of this discussion as I will go against the Christianity charter if I follow the argument through

I was merely raising what I thought was an illogical statement. Your supposing that not believing in something absolved you from the impact of it in the case it was true.

Like not believing in cancer protecting you from getting cancer.

I don't think that contravenes the forum charter and I don't seek to hide behind it

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Psalm 145:20 says the following: "The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy ". Note there is no mention in the quotation of eternal punishment in a hellfire as wrongly taught by many Christian churches; and it clearly indicates that all the wicked will be annihilated.

There is a difference between destroy and annihilation (in the sense of that latter meaning ending of existence altogether)

dictionary: ruin (someone) emotionally or spiritually.

The destroyed person still exists after the destruction.

My point 4 was about the destiny of the saved, and Psalm 37:9 says the following: "For those who are evil will be destroyed, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land." Note there is no mention of heaven in the quotation instead it says the saved will inherit the land (or the earth) which backs-up my point adequately.

I'd have no issue with the idea of our destiny being a recreated earth. It's a biblically sound one in my view. Not to speak of making a lot of sense.

looksee

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was merely raising what I thought was an illogical statement. Your supposing that not believing in something absolved you from the impact of it in the case it was true.

Like not believing in cancer protecting you from getting cancer.

I don't think that contravenes the forum charter and I don't seek to hide behind it

I am not suggesting that you are hiding behind the charter. The point about cancer is irrelevant as I have no doubt about the existence of cancer, I don't have to 'believe' in it, and am fully aware that it is a possibility.

You have changed the thrust of the first statement by adding 'in the case it was true'. The truth in this case depends totally on belief; the truth of the existence of cancer is clear and undeniable, it is in our physical, practical world.

If I don't believe in an alternative, supernatural or metaphysical existence then it would be foolish of me to believe someone else's belief in that state. We have had this discussion before and there is really no point having it again, but just because something (that I consider) metaphysical is 'true' to you, does not mean it has to be 'true' to me and your truth or belief can have no physical effect on me.

antiskeptic

looksee wrote: »

I am not suggesting that you are hiding behind the charter. The point about cancer is irrelevant as I have no doubt about the existence of cancer, I don't have to 'believe' in it, and am fully aware that it is a possibility.

My point was that all truth's will have whatever effect they will have on you, irrespective of your belief about it being true or not. It doesn't matter whether you do or do not doubt cancer. You are as subject to it's effects as the next person.

If I don't believe in an alternative, supernatural or metaphysical existence then it would be foolish of me to believe someone else's belief in that state.

I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm querying your claim that you won't be subject to a truth, merely by your not believing it.

We have had this discussion before and there is really no point having it again, but just because something (that I consider) metaphysical is 'true' to you, does not mean it has to be 'true' to me and your truth or belief can have no physical effect on me.

Agreed. The only truth that can have an effect on you is a 'truth' which is actually true.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Edit: This post is very very long, sorry, but it's worth addressing the points.

OP, I thought I'd have a look at your post. I'm not a Roman Catholic but an evangelical Protestant but your post seems to undermine Christian orthodoxy as a whole so I think it's worth responding to. Please consider my response as my musings on the Scriptures in order to help a brother.

I'm going to try keep my comments on the passages to a minimum but I will offer selections and emphasis in bold.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

1. Man has an immortal soul. Nowhere in the Bible are the words " immortal soul " found. If God had given man such an attribute, He would have pointed it out in the Bible as it is impossible to work it out independently of man's manufacturer. Genesis 2:7 says of the creation of Adam : "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul". Therefore a soul is something you are, not something you have. The Bible also uses the Hebrew word translated as " soul " in relation to the creation of animals. A definition of "soul" as it is used in the Bible is : " a living creature ". The belief that man had an immortal soul was first asserted by the ancient Egyptians who were pagans. The ancient Greeks also believed it, and the Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato publicized the belief widely. The people who framed Christianity in the centuries after the Apostles died did so incorrectly, by taking heed of what Plato said about the soul rather than the Bible.

I disagree here. The Bible as a whole teaches about eternal life. The Old Testament in terms of Sheol and the New Testament in respect to the New Creation.

Although the term "eternal soul" may not be used the term "eternal life" is used by Jesus Himself several times. Let's have a look at some examples in John. Chapter 3 is the more famous place to go.

John 3:16-18 ESV wrote:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because He has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 3:36 ESV wrote:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on Him

If Christians don't live eternally what does eternal life mean?

I've quoted John 5 below which offers some more flesh.

I've also quoted John 14 below which refers to the 'many rooms' in our Father's house that He is preparing for us.

antiskeptic also quoted Luke 11 with the rich man and Lazarus.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

2. The Doctrine of the trinity. The word " trinity" is found nowhere in the Bible. Mainstream Christianity teaches that there is an equal trio of God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. First of all, there aren't three separate entities involved; the Holy Spirit as taught in the Bible is an integral part of God; the part of God that He uses to enforce His will. The following passage demonstrates this: " Now that we have received not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God "(1.Cor.2.12). The Bible makes it plain in several Bible verses that Jesus Christ is inferior to God, thereby further undermining the doctrine of an equal trinity. Jesus Christ went out of his way to point out in several Bible verses that he was subordinate to God. The following quotation from Paul also separates God from Jesus Christ in one verse : " For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Jesus Christ " (1. Tim.2.5).

Again, if you're looking for a direct word 'Trinity' it won't be found but the concept is fleshed out in many places. Let's stick with John.

In the prologue:

John 1:1-18 ESV wrote:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.
The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him. But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about Him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from His fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, He has made Him known.

In chapter 5:

John 5:18-24 ESV wrote:

 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because not only was He breaking the Sabbath, but He was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what He sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all that He himself is doing. And greater works than these will He show Him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.  Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Jesus says that He should be honoured in the same way as the Father. If Jesus is not God, and not equal with God, the Jews would have rightfully stoned Him for blasphemy.

He says that He and the Father are one in John 10:30.

What about the Holy Spirit? John chapter 16 refers to the Spirit as the one whom the Father will send (like Jesus) to be with His people, but let's have a look at Acts 5 to work out if the Holy Spirit is God:

Acts 5:1-4 ESV wrote:

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Peter the chief apostle seems to think that lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God. When He rebukes Ananias and Sapphira for withdrawing their contribution to the church, they are one and the same.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

3. The wicked are punished in hell. As I demonstrated in point 1 above man does not have an immortal soul, therefore there is no chance that the wicked commence their punishment immediately after death. The Bible teaches that the dead have no recollection of anything whilst they are in the grave. The Bible sometimes likens death at the end of this life to " sleeping ". This is a good comparison because those who are now " sleeping " will be resurrected at a future date to judgement by Christ; and if they don't measure up they are destroyed - they die a second time in the "lake of fire ". ( Rev. 20 :14 ). The most appropriate quotation to demonstrate this point is John 3.16 : " For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life ".

Let's stick with John.

Why do you mention John 3:16? It undermines your point about eternal life that you made earlier?

John 5:25-29 ESV wrote:

 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Jesus says that the dead will be raised to eternal life or judgement.

In Luke 11 as antiskeptic quoted it also points to the fact that there is life after judgement.

Jesus frequently calls judgement where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 8:12)

kieranwaldron wrote: »

4. The saved go to heaven. The points made by me in 3 about the soul and the state of the dead are also applicable here. The Bible teaches that heaven is simply the abode of God. It further teaches that the only person ever to go to heaven was Jesus Christ, who went there at the invitation of God. A judgement immediately after death is not mentioned in the Bible; instead it says the dead are resurrected and then judged by Christ when he returns to the earth. The reward for measuring up in the judgement is eternal life on a reconstituted earth. The following Bible verse is the most appropriate here: " Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth " ( Mat. 5:5).

Yes and no.

I agree that the Bible doesn't call the place that Christians go to "heaven" but it does teach about a new heaven and a new earth. This is what Christians refer to as the new creation.

Jesus is clear that we will be with Him there. From the upper room discourse in John:

John 13:33-14:7 ESV wrote:

Little children, yet a little while I am with you. You will seek me, and just as I said to the Jews, so now I also say to you, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’ A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus answered him, “Where I am going you cannot follow me now, but you will follow afterward.” Peter said to Him, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.” Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow till you have denied me three times.
“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to Him , “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”

From John's Revelation:

Revelation 21:1-4 ESV wrote:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

kieranwaldron wrote: »

5. Mary and the saints should be worshipped. The Bible gives Mary due credit for what she did in bringing about Jesus Christ, but it doesn't say anywhere that she should be worshipped or glorified; it states worship should be confined to God alone. Paul says in the Bible in 1. Corinthians 10.31 : " So whatever you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God ". The Mary worship that has built up over the years in the Roman Church is therefore false and unbiblical. Similarly, people who have done good things in life should not be cannonised and placed in heaven inspiring prayer and worship to them. Instead, the Holy date.

I agree that the Bible doesn't give room for the adoration of saints and Mary. Mary played a special role in the redemption of mankind but no more than this. It also isn't true Biblically speaking to say that she was born sinless as per the Immaculate Conception.

As for doing good and evil - the Bible goes further - it tells us that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. This points to the necessity of Jesus' death and resurrection for us. It's covered well in Romans 3 and Romans 5. We are not righteous in our own sight. This is why I love the Prayer Of Humble Access for communion in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

We do not presume
to come to this your table, merciful Lord,
trusting in our own righteousness,
but in your manifold and great mercies.
We are not worthy
so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table.
But you are the same Lord
whose nature is always to have mercy.
Grant us, therefore, gracious Lord,
so to eat the flesh of your dear Son Jesus Christ
and to drink his blood,
that our sinful bodies may be made clean by His body
and our souls washed through His most precious blood,
and that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us. 
Amen.

I don't deserve God's grace. Yet He lovingly gives it to us in His Son.

If you cut off eternal life and eternal judgement you neuter the power of God's grace in His Son though.

kieranwaldron wrote: »

6. God has no plan for the earth. Mainstream Christianity by falsely putting people after death in heaven or hell never get to God's plan for the planet, as outlined in the wrap-up book of the Bible, Revelation. In The Kingdom of God to come on earth saved human beings will be given a new body and will help Jesus Christ reign for a thousand years in a kingdom consisting of an earthly paradise brought about by a reformed earth. At the Book states that anyone who has done good deeds in this life and has died will be rewarded in the judgement after the resurrection of the dead at a future end of Christ's preparatory work, God will vacate His current abode in heaven and come to live upon the earth in complete harmony with His people.

Yes and no.

God has a plan both for this earth and for the new earth. (Ephesians 1:10)

God has one plan for the fullness of time in the Lord Jesus both to judge those who refuse to repent and to save those who eagerly await Him.

This earth that we stand on will be destroyed completely. (2 Peter 3:4-10)

We will be in a new creation ushered in by the coming of Jesus. (Revelation 21-22)

God will be present with us there in the New Jerusalem described in Revelation. Nothing is mentioned about God vacating heaven.

I've mentioned a LOT here. I'd love to share more with you. The problem with your interpretation is that you're not considering the Bible as a whole but pinning one passage against the other. Rather a holistic interpretation considers everything that the Bible says together and considers it as a whole.

I'd love to chat more. Please reply to what I've said here.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

kieranwaldron

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, remember that the psalms were produced by a culture that had no clear notion of an afterlife, and no expectation of eternal life for either the wicked or the virtuous. When the psalms talk about death they mean death as we know it. When they say that "the Lord preserves those who love him" they don't mean he preserves them for ever in the afterlife; just that he preserves them from untimely death in this life. And people "inherit the land" simply by surviving those who die; there is no suggestion that, having inherited the land, they will live on it for ever.

Remember, the scriptural texts were produced over a very long period of time, and they document a growing relationship between God and his people and, with that, a growing understanding (on the part of the people).

Basically, I think you're correct to say that the psalms don't indicate any eternal punishment for the wicked, but equally they don't indicate any eternal reward for the just. These are both ideas that only developed over time.

Thanks for your comment. What you said in it however has surprised me. I was quoting Psalms as backing up the quotations that I had already supplied from the New Testament on the two issues under discussion. I would argue that as far back as Abraham God knew the destiny of the saved was the earth due to the promises He made to him in Genesis 13:14 & 15 about inheriting the land of Canaan.

looksee

antiskeptic wrote: »

My point was that all truth's will have whatever effect they will have on you, irrespective of your belief about it being true or not. It doesn't matter whether you do or do not doubt cancer. You are as subject to it's effects as the next person.



I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm querying your claim that you won't be subject to a truth, merely by your not believing it.



Agreed. The only truth that can have an effect on you is a 'truth' which is actually true.

Ok, you win.

Peregrinus

kieranwaldron wrote: »

Thanks for your comment. What you said in it however has surprised me. I was quoting Psalms as backing up the quotations that I had already supplied from the New Testament on the two issues under discussion. I would argue that as far back as Abraham God knew the destiny of the saved was the earth due to the promises He made to him in Genesis 13:14 & 15 about inheriting the land of Canaan.

Well, what God knows God has always known; all Christians will agree on that. But God didn't write either the OT or the NT texts; believers did, and they therefore reflect the growing understanding of God's people, which has changed over time.

Belief in an afterlife arrived fairly late in the piece, and when it did arrive it was at first pretty vague, and also seen as not especially important - God's covenant with his people wasn't mainly about rewards and punishments in the afterlife, as far as the Jews were concerned.

I think you're perfectly right to say that the Psalms (and the OT texts in general) don't point to an eternity of suffering for the wicked, but equally they don't point to an eternity in the presence of God for the just. They don't address the question of an afterlife at all (or, if they do, they implicitly deny it) so I don't think they are much use in confirming, refuting or clarifying what later generations of believers thought about the afterlife and, in particular, what the generation that produced the NT texts thought.

In other words, they're not a lot of help when it comes to clarifying the meaning of the NT texts on this particular topic.

kieranwaldron

solodeogloria wrote: »

solodeogloria

Thanks for your comments on my thread. I reply to the points in your post in the order you made them as follows.

You are correct in your assumption that I am attacking mainstream Christianity
generally, and not just the Catholic Church.

On immortal soul, what mainstream Christianity has taught is that every person has inside them an immortal soul, which following the judgement that takes place immediately after death, goes to either heaven or hell based on whether the person has lived a good or bad life spiritually.
What the Bible teaches is when a person dies the mortal body goes wholly to the grave without any judgement, and remains there until Jesus Christ returns to the earth when the person is resurrected and then judged. Any person passing the judgement will then be given immortality; and anyone failing it will be destroyed. (see 1 Corinthians 15:54).

In the main, the passages from the Bible you quote in support of the doctrine of the trinity do not do this. John 5: 19, in fact, confirms that Jesus Christ is inferior to God where it says: The Son can do nothing by himself ". I was taught at school there was an equal trinity. Peter is right to think that lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as lying to God because the former is part of God.

In relation to hell, John 3:16 uses the word " perish " which is just a substitute word for destroy or annihilate. Your replies on this subject do not substantiate your contention that there is eternal punishment in a hellfire awaiting the wicked.

With regard to heaven, it is vacated and destroyed by God at the end of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth; and He then descends to live on the earth with his people-those who have been saved in the judgement and given immortality.

With regard to Mary and the saints, you are largely in agreement with me which proves that two people from different backgrounds can agree on something !

With regard to God's plan for the earth, 2 Peter 3:10 says: " But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare ". The quote doesn't say the earth will be destroyed but " laid bare ", implying this is in preparation for a reconstituted earth. Revelation 21:3 confirms that God comes to live with his people on the earth thereby implying that he vacates heaven.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

On immortal soul, what mainstream Christianity has taught is that every person has inside them an immortal soul, which following the judgement that takes place immediately after death, goes to either heaven or hell based on whether the person has lived a good or bad life spiritually.

Have you not heard of salvation by grace, without works, such that no one can boast? That is to say, your eternal destination isn't dependent on whether you have lived a good/bad spiritual life

That is what mainstream Christianity (outside the Catholic church) teaches.

How can you conclude the exact opposite of what is the case? Have you not heard of the Reformation?

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have you not heard of salvation by grace, without works, such that no one can boast? That is to say, your eternal destination isn't dependent on whether you have lived a good/bad spiritual life

That is what mainstream Christianity (outside the Catholic church) teaches.

Well, no, antiskeptic. You're assuming that the question of whether somebody has lived "a good/bad spiritual life" is a matter of works, not faith.

But there is nothing in the words themselves to suggest that. You can certainly take the view that the question of whether someone has lives "a good/bad spiritual life" revolves largely or entirely around the question of whether they have faith in Jesus Christ.

I thought kieranwaldron's language was a rather neat way of avoiding getting embroiled in the understanding of salvation expressed by different Christian traditions. The point of this thread is not how we are saved or lost; it is what becomes of the saved and the lost.

antiskeptic

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, no, antiskeptic. You're assuming that the question of whether somebody has lived "a good/bad spiritual life" is a matter of works, not faith.

Harmonize:

"goes to either heaven or hell based on whether the person has lived a good or bad life spiritually."

"death bed conversion"

I thought kieranwaldron's language was a rather neat way of avoiding getting embroiled in the understanding of salvation expressed by different Christian traditions.

Could I suggest "having/having not fulfilled God's criteria/on for salvation a person ends up in heaven or hell" as a better catchall to encompass what mainstream Christianity teaches?

The point of this thread is not how we are saved or lost; it is what becomes of the saved and the lost.

Point taken

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

What the Bible teaches is when a person dies the mortal body goes wholly to the grave without any judgement, and remains there until Jesus Christ returns to the earth when the person is resurrected and then judged. Any person passing the judgement will then be given immortality; and anyone failing it will be destroyed. (see 1 Corinthians 15:54).

To a man whose mortal body was that day going to the grave Jesus said:

“Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.

What was the "you" he was referring to (bearing in mind that a 'you' can't be some dissipated spirit energy since a 'you' necessitates a distinct personhood/individual)

In relation to hell, John 3:16 uses the word " perish " which is just a substitute word for destroy or annihilate.

I made a point on this very issue in my last post to you. How destroy doesn't equal annhilation

I'm also thinking of cities during world war 2 that were destroyed but still functioned as habitable places: much impoverished, stripped of riches, devoid of vibrancy. Not annihilated in the sense of ceasing to exist altogether.

The person in Hell can be such: impoverished, stripped of beauty, stripped of the image of God (from whence love, relationship, joy). But as the destroyed city, existing and still functioning.

Could you address?

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

To a man whose mortal body was that day going to the grave Jesus said:

“Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.

What was the "you" he was referring to (bearing in mind that a 'you' can't be some dissipated spirit energy since a 'you' necessitates a distinct personhood/individual)

I made a point on this very issue in my last post to you. How destroy doesn't equal annhilation

I'm also thinking of cities during world war 2 that were destroyed but still functioned as habitable places: much impoverished, stripped of riches, devoid of vibrancy. Not annihilated in the sense of ceasing to exist altogether.

The person in Hell can be such: impoverished, stripped of beauty, stripped of the image of God (from whence love, relationship, joy). But as the destroyed city, existing and still functioning.

Could you address?

I think what Jesus Christ said to the thief from the cross, as recorded in Luke 23:43, has been miss-punctuated by the translators and should read as follows:
"Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." meaning he was taking about a future time rather than " today.". A better translation could be as follows: " Truly I say to you now, you will be with me in paradise. ". Jesus in what he said to the thief could not have meant seeing him "today" in paradise because if he said that then he reneged on it as on the Sunday after he had been resurrected by God he said the following to Mary Magdalene: "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father." ( John 20:17 ).

Paul in Romans 6:23 contrasts death with eternal life. Similarly, John in 3:16 contrasts the word "perish" with eternal life. Therefore the word "perish " in the context used means death, destruction or annihilation.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I think what Jesus Christ said to the thief from the cross, as recorded in Luke 23:43, has been miss-punctuated by the translators

All the translators?

"Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." meaning he was taking about a future time rather than " today.".

Surely the word used has a clear translation. Now and today are two different words. Paraphrasing (such as The Message) isn't the same as translating.

Jesus in what he said to the thief could not have meant seeing him "today" in paradise because if he said that then he reneged on it as on the Sunday after he had been resurrected by God he said the following to Mary Magdalene: "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father." ( John 20:17 ).

Is paradise with the Father? I'd generally be shy of taking a bodily-Jesus-confined-to-being-in-one-place-at-one-time view of Jesus.

Paul in Romans 6:23 contrasts death with eternal life. Similarly, John in 3:16 contrasts the word "perish" with eternal life. Therefore the word "perish " in the context used means death, destruction or annihilation.

We know that the word death doesn't mean the end of existence. We know the word destruction doesn't mean end of existence. The word annihilation doesn't appear in the text so can be excluded. That's a notion to be worked towards by yourself.

We know eternal life means existence without the negative aspects we experience now: sin, pain, suffering, a degree of separateness from God. The saved will experience a fulfilling of the partial positive aspects of life as they now experience it: pure joy, full connection with God, no suffering at all.

A contrast with that would be existence without the positive aspects we now experience. Rather a fulfillment of the partially negative aspects of life now experienced.

You don't contrast something by eradicating the basis on which contrasting aspects are dependent. That is: existence.

Look at the word perish: lose its normal qualities; rot or decay. This fits quite easily with the notion of the image of God being removed from the hell-bound. It fits quite easily with the notion of ever increasing degradation.

Humankind is capable of descending further and further into the pit in this life - it is prevented from ever-descent by mortal death. Eternal death permits ever-descending into the pit of despair and agony - but without end.




You have shown no positive evidence of annihilation other than to persist in presuming of words that don't, in themselves point to annihilation.

mdebets

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I think what Jesus Christ said to the thief from the cross, as recorded in Luke 23:43, has been miss-punctuated by the translators and should read as follows:
"Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." meaning he was taking about a future time rather than " today.". A better translation could be as follows: " Truly I say to you now, you will be with me in paradise. "

Could you please provide us with an explanation, showing on the original text, why your translation is correct and all others are not.

kieranwaldron

antiskeptic wrote: »

All the translators?

Surely the word used has a clear translation. Now and today are two different words. Paraphrasing (such as The Message) isn't the same as translating.


is paradise with the Father? I'd generally be shy of taking a bodily-Jesus-confined-to-being-in-one-place-at-one-time view of Jesus.

We know that the word death doesn't mean the end of existence. We know the word destruction doesn't mean end of existence. The word annihilation doesn't appear in the text so can be excluded. That's a notion to be worked towards by yourself.

We know eternal life means existence without the negative aspects we experience now: sin, pain, suffering, a degree of separateness from God. The saved will experience a fulfilling of the partial positive aspects of life as they now experience it: pure joy, full connection with God, no suffering at all.

A contrast with that would be existence without the positive aspects we now experience. Rather a fulfillment of the partially negative aspects of life now experienced.

You don't contrast something by eradicating the basis on which contrasting aspects are dependent. That is: existence.

Look at the word perish: lose its normal qualities; rot or decay. This fits quite easily with the notion of the image of God being removed from the hell-bound. It fits quite easily with the notion of ever increasing degradation.

Humankind is capable of descending further and further into the pit in this life - it is prevented from ever-descent by mortal death. Eternal death permits ever-descending into the pit of despair and agony - but without end.

You have shown no positive evidence of annihilation other than to persist in presuming of words that don't, in themselves point to annihilation.

When you examine the request made to Jesus by the thief, as recorded in Luke 23:43, which was " ... , remember me when you come into your kingdom " it is obvious that he is taking about a future time when Jesus sets up the Kingdom of God on earth at the start of his 1,000 rule, and not something that is going to happen today - the day of his death. It is also significant that Jesus in his reply used the word " paradise " because in the kingdom to come the earth is first turned into an earthly paradise. Therefore the thief and Jesus were on the same wavelength and the translators did not interpret what Jesus said in reply correctly. Therefore the " today " in Jesus reply relates to the time the promise was made, and not the time of the delivery of the promise.

I quoted what Jesus said, after his resurrection by God as a spirit being, to Mary Magdalene on the Sunday as it counters the widely held belief by some Christians that he went straight to heaven after his death. The Bible significantly only refers to Jesus Christ as being in the tomb in the days after his death.

Each human being faces two possible deaths: the death at the end of this life (the first death); and death in the lake of fire (the second death). The first death is only temporary because you are awakened from it when Christ returns to the earth and carries out the judgement on you . The Bible likens the first death to sleep because you awaken from it in a similar manner to sleep. There is no recovery, however, from the second death, and the Bible in some places refers to it as eternal death. So when you get quotations in the Bible such as Paul's " the wages of sin is death ... " he is obviously taking about the second death.

kieranwaldron

mdebets wrote: »

Could you please provide us with an explanation, showing on the original text, why your translation is correct and all others are not.

My reply to antiskeptic above adequately explains my reasoning.

antiskeptic

kieranwaldron wrote: »

When you examine the request made to Jesus by the thief, as recorded in Luke 23:43, which was " ... , remember me when you come into your kingdom " it is obvious that he is taking about a future time when Jesus sets up the Kingdom of God on earth at the start of his 1,000 rule, and not something that is going to happen today - the day of his death.

We cannot presume what the level of the thief's understanding was. He recognized Jesus as God-king is all we can say of him. It's not reasonable to heap your wider theological position onto his shoulders, when that understanding simply isn't in the text.

You haven't really dealt with this translation issue. You appear to have simply ignored the translators (who are in slightly better position to comment) and paraphrased in changing now for today because it suits your book. This isn't really on.

It is also significant that Jesus in his reply used the word " paradise " because in the kingdom to come the earth is first turned into an earthly paradise.

Where is that stated (using the word paradise)? Remember we cannot simply presume what or where paradise is (such as was done in supposing destroy = annihilation).

Therefore...

There hasn't been a case made such as to arrive at a 'therefore'. Big theological statements are being put in place to string your position together. Each of these would need to be unpacked in themselves. Rendering the task an even bigger one

I quoted what Jesus said, after his resurrection by God as a spirit being, to Mary Magdalene on the Sunday as it counters the widely held belief by some Christians that he went straight to heaven after his death. The Bible significantly only refers to Jesus Christ as being in the tomb in the days after his death.

The issue of where and what paradise is hasn't been dealt with (such as to deny the thief being there 'today'). Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father is relevant only if the Father resides in Paradise.

Each human being faces two possible deaths: the death at the end of this life (the first death); and death in the lake of fire (the second death). The first death is only temporary because you are awakened from it when Christ returns to the earth and carries out the judgement on you . The Bible likens the first death to sleep because you awaken from it in a similar manner to sleep. There is no recovery, however, from the second death, and the Bible in some places refers to it as eternal death.

I agree there is no recovery. The question we are involved with centers on the nature of existence from which there is no recovery. I have made points on your presumption of annihilation which ought to be addressed.

-the word death used elsewhere doesn't mean non-existance (spiritual death to which all are born / 1st death)

-the word destroy doesn't necessarily mean non-existence

-the word perish doesn't necessarily mean non-existence.

So when you get quotations in the Bible such as Paul's " the wages of sin is death ... " he is obviously taking about the second death.

I don't agree.

The first half of Romans is a treatise on the spiritual condition of people and how salvation is wrought. It is addressed to people (then living believers) as having previously being dead in their ... transgressions and sin ... whilst being otherwise alive. It's a death from which, he himself argues, people have been made alive. Hence wages of sin death / gift from God eternal life.

The contextual reference has to do with a spiritual death into which we were born. Unless born again that spiritual death will continue on it's path and terminate in condemnation and 2nd death. The wages of sin is something we are born into and suffer from day one (spiritual death), whatever about their future culmination and finality (potential 2nd death).

A person born again (prior to mortal death) receives eternal life. Note the tense below:

1 John 5 wrote:

11 And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.


13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.

And so, the death/life covered by Paul is not 2nd death.

mdebets

kieranwaldron wrote: »

My reply to antiskeptic above adequately explains my reasoning.

No, it doesn't.
What you are doing is taking your interpretation and apply it to the translation of a text. As they don't fit, you conclude that your reasoning is right and therefore the translation is wrong, relying thereby on English grammar. You can't do this. You have to read the original text and explain why your translation of the text (without applying any interpretation to it).
You are playing tricks with a translated text, which could have (if you assume the translation is incorrect) changed its meaning by changing the comma. While this trick works in English, it doesn't work in other languages and most likely not in the original text. So get back, read the original text nd then try to come up with an explanation why your translation is correct and all others (by people with different theological believes and in different languages) are incorrect. Good luck with that.

Thinkingaboutit

mdebets wrote: »

No, it doesn't.
What you are doing is taking your interpretation and apply it to the translation of a text. As they don't fit, you conclude that your reasoning is right and therefore the translation is wrong, relying thereby on English grammar. You can't do this. You have to read the original text and explain why your translation of the text (without applying any interpretation to it).
You are playing tricks with a translated text, which could have (if you assume the translation is incorrect) changed its meaning by changing the comma. While this trick works in English, it doesn't work in other languages and most likely not in the original text. So get back, read the original text nd then try to come up with an explanation why your translation is correct and all others (by people with different theological believes and in different languages) are incorrect. Good luck with that.

Yes. Right and wrong on this matter can only be argued with a solid grasp of Greek and Hebrew. Both have nuances which are hard to render in English. This has meant so many translations and debates.

kieranwaldron

mdebets wrote: »

No, it doesn't.
What you are doing is taking your interpretation and apply it to the translation of a text. As they don't fit, you conclude that your reasoning is right and therefore the translation is wrong, relying thereby on English grammar. You can't do this. You have to read the original text and explain why your translation of the text (without applying any interpretation to it).
You are playing tricks with a translated text, which could have (if you assume the translation is incorrect) changed its meaning by changing the comma. While this trick works in English, it doesn't work in other languages and most likely not in the original text. So get back, read the original text nd then try to come up with an explanation why your translation is correct and all others (by people with different theological believes and in different languages) are incorrect. Good luck with that.

The New Testament was written In Greek without punctuations and then converted to English. The translators inserted the punctuations in the English version of the Bible. The comma in the verse under discussion should come after the word today, and not before it, making it read: " I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." I am not therefore playing tricks with translated text but making it fit the context in which it was used.

Thinkingaboutit

Seeing 'worship of Mary' tells me in OP tells me all I need to know. It is a wilful and much used distortion of the latria Catholics and Orthodox believe is due to the Virgin Mary. Finding distortions due to modern uses of punctuation, something used so the reader can take a breath, is weak. Everyone from St Jerome to William Tyndale would have used either a dash or some random mark, for the sake of the lungs of the reader. No conspiracy.

Does OP know Koine Greek or Hebrew? He needs to make his argument with that knowledge, the sort every credible biblical scholar needs.

mdebets

kieranwaldron wrote: »

The New Testament was written In Greek without punctuations and then converted to English. The translators inserted the punctuations in the English version of the Bible. The comma in the verse under discussion should come after the word today, and not before it, making it read: " I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise." I am not therefore playing tricks with translated text but making it fit the context in which it was used.

That's one of the most ridiculous statements I have read about translations. For this to work, Koine Greek and English would need to have the same grammer, as well as words could be translated one to one. You need to read the original text, to be able to make your argument, not play tricks with languages, which works in only one translation, but not in another.
If your assumption would be correct, can you tell me, why for example the German translation is the same as the English one, which you rejects, even so the trick you play can not be done in German.

kieranwaldron

Originally Posted by antiskeptic

It is a valid approach to the problem to investigate what the thief requested and the phrasing of the request, - " when you come into your kingdom",- strongly suggests he is taking about a future time. Jesus reply, especially his reference to paradise suggests a future date as opposed something that is going to happen today.

Where is that stated (using the word paradise)? Remember we cannot simply presume what or where paradise is (such as was done in supposing destroy = annihilation).

The word paradise comes from Luke 23 43, and you first quoted it at me two posts ago.

The issue of where and what paradise is hasn't been dealt with (such as to deny the thief being there 'today'). Jesus had not yet ascended to the Father is relevant only if the Father resides in Paradise.

I have dealt with both of these issues in the first paragraph of my reply. Read it again.

I agree there is no recovery. The question we are involved with centers on the nature of existence from which there is no recovery. I have made points on your presumption of annihilation which ought to be addressed.

The Bible tells you in many places that a person in the grave after the first death is aware of nothing; it is therefore reasonable to assume that a person after the second death is in the same state but on an eternal basis.

Regarding your last points, Paul is taking about the final solution for the wicked when he said: " the wages of sin is death ", and he contrasts this with the gift from God of eternal life for the saved.

kieranwaldron

If you have read this thread to here, you will be aware that I am not a practicing catholic. However, some of my family, friends and acquaintances are--they go to mass once a week, and use the church for births, marriages and deaths. I asked seven of them the following question: " do you believe that God has you burned in hell for eternity if you die in a state of sin ? ".

In reply to the question, not a single one of the seven came out in support of the Catholic Church's teaching that God has the wicked punished in hell for eternity. One of the women that I asked the question to immediately blurted out: " oh, I don't believe that ".

I think the Catholic Church is in trouble if their own laity do not support their doctrines. At least on the subject of hell, that appears to be the case.

Skommando

I could also interview individual Protestants and their beliefs will vary from God not existing, to the Westboro Baptist Church variety, and then post a thread about them.

I could quote lots of verses from Christ himself where he describes hell and gave warning after warning after warning about it.

You keep thinking hell is a physical place, when clearly it's spiritual.

Plenty Of Protestants have also come on here to explain to you your views don't align with Christianity.

. . . but, for heavens sake, can you not give the sectarianism and misrepresentation a break for one day of the year ?

Skommando

Merry Christmas day

Nick Park

Skommando wrote: »

. . . but, for heavens sake, can you not give the sectarianism and misrepresentation a break for one day of the year ?

I don't think the Jehovah's Witnesses observe Christmas.

kieranwaldron

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think the Jehovah's Witnesses observe Christmas.

I am not a JW.

kieranwaldron

Skommando wrote: »

I could also interview individual Protestants and their beliefs will vary from God not existing, to the Westboro Baptist Church variety, and then post a thread about them.

I could quote lots of verses from Christ himself where he describes hell and gave warning after warning after warning about it.

You keep thinking hell is a physical place, when clearly it's spiritual.

Plenty Of Protestants have also come on here to explain to you your views don't align with Christianity.

. . . but, for heavens sake, can you not give the sectarianism and misrepresentation a break for one day of the year ?

I think my highlighting of the divergence within the Catholic Church on the issue of hell was worth bringing to the public's attention. I would reasonably have expected some , if not all, of the people questioned to support the church's teaching on this subject.

Christ, as I stated previously, spoke of Gehenna in the NT which was mistranslated from the Greek as hell. It was in fact a rubbish dump on the outside of Jerusalem in the first century AD, which Christ used to symbolise eternal destruction. If hell exists, then Paul told us lies in Romans 6.23 when he said " the wages of sin is death ".

I was taught that hell was a physical place, so if you claim it isn't please provide me with a definition of it.

I therefore intend to carry on bringing to the people's attention examples of where certain church teachings contradict Scripture.

solodeogloria

Skommando wrote: »

I could also interview individual Protestants and their beliefs will vary from God not existing, to the Westboro Baptist Church variety, and then post a thread about them.

I could quote lots of verses from Christ himself where he describes hell and gave warning after warning after warning about it.

You keep thinking hell is a physical place, when clearly it's spiritual.

Plenty Of Protestants have also come on here to explain to you your views don't align with Christianity.

. . . but, for heavens sake, can you not give the sectarianism and misrepresentation a break for one day of the year ?

Good evening,

It's worth pointing out that Protestantism isn't a free for all.

The suggestion that the Reformers would consider Protestantism as being compatible with not believing in God is absurd. That's not even Christianity but atheism.

As for hell being a real place again. The Reformers in every part of the Reformation in Europe from Scotland to Switzerland believed that hell was a real place.

The idea that Protestantism doesn't align with Christianity simply isn't true. I suspect that many people in Ireland have heard myth about what Protestantism actually is. The OP's views aren't Protestant.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Skommando

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening,

It's worth pointing out that Protestantism isn't a free for all.

The suggestion that the Reformers would consider Protestantism as being compatible with not believing in God is absurd. That's not even Christianity but atheism.

The idea that Protestantism doesn't align with Christianity simply isn't true. I suspect that many people in Ireland have heard myth about what Protestantism actually is. The OP's views aren't Protestant.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I didn't say any of that, so please don't attempt again to misrepresent my posts, or pretend what I said.
I was pointing out, in response to accusations about Catholics and Catholicism, that just because someone calls themselves Catholic or Protestant, or Christian, or anything else for that matter, does not mean their beliefs align with the commonly held beliefs of that denomination or religion.

kieranwaldron

kieranwaldron wrote: »

]I think my highlighting of the divergence within the Catholic Church on the issue of hell was worth bringing to the public's attention. I would reasonably have expected some , if not all, of the people questioned to support the church's teaching on this subject.

Christ, as I stated previously, spoke of Gehenna in the NT which was mistranslated from the Greek as hell. It was in fact a rubbish dump on the outside of Jerusalem in the first century AD, which Christ used to symbolise eternal destruction. If hell exists, then Paul told us lies in Romans 6.23 when he said " the wages of sin is death ".

I was taught that hell was a physical place, so if you claim it isn't please provide me with a definition of it.

I therefore intend to carry on bringing to the people's attention examples of where certain church teachings contradict Scripture.

I am still awaiting your reply on the above especially your definition of hell.

Peregrinus

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I am still awaiting your reply on the above especially your definition of hell.

Contrary to what you remember having been taught Hell is not, in Catholic teaching, a physical place. It's a condition or state of being eternally separated from God. It's a condition of suffering, the suffering principally arising from awareness of eternal separation from God.

Language and imagery depicting hell as a physical place is frequently employed - e.g. people "descend" into hell, implying that it has a location (and that location is beneath us); it contains "eternal fire"; etc. But that doesn't have to be understood literally; the tradition is to take it as a metaphorical statement of the nature of hell.

Advbrd

kieranwaldron wrote: »

I think my highlighting of the divergence within the Catholic Church on the issue of hell was worth bringing to the public's attention. I would reasonably have expected some , if not all, of the people questioned to support the church's teaching on this subject.

Christ, as I stated previously, spoke of Gehenna in the NT which was mistranslated from the Greek as hell. It was in fact a rubbish dump on the outside of Jerusalem in the first century AD, which Christ used to symbolise eternal destruction. If hell exists, then Paul told us lies in Romans 6.23 when he said " the wages of sin is death ".

I was taught that hell was a physical place, so if you claim it isn't please provide me with a definition of it.

I therefore intend to carry on bringing to the people's attention examples of where certain church teachings contradict Scripture.

Best of luck with that. You will be here quite some time.

Advbrd

Peregrinus wrote: »

Contrary to what you remember having been taught Hell is not, in Catholic teaching, a physical place. It's a condition or state of being eternally separated from God. It's a condition of suffering, the suffering principally arising from awareness of eternal separation from God.

Language and imagery depicting hell as a physical place is frequently employed - e.g. people "descend" into hell, implying that it has a location (and that location is beneath us); it contains "eternal fire"; etc. But that doesn't have to be understood literally; the tradition is to take it as a metaphorical statement of the nature of hell.

50 year old ex catholic (that is, if I am allowed leave). In my personal experience we were taught that hell is very much a physical location and that it indeed does involve burning for all eternity. One nutty old priest, on a school visit, pulled out a lighter and offered us one pound if we could hold our hands over it for..i forget how long. He told us that this was nothing compared to what we were facing in hell.

Peregrinus

Advbrd wrote: »

50 year old ex catholic (that is, if I am allowed leave). In my personal experience we were taught that hell is very much a physical location and that it indeed does involve burning for all eternity. One nutty old priest, on a school visit, pulled out a lighter and offered us one pound if we could hold our hands over it for..i forget how long. He told us that this was nothing compared to what we were facing in hell.

Catholics can believe that Hell is a physical place if they want to - there's no official teaching that it isn't, but equally there's no official teaching that it is. The imagery of a physical place is often used and, especially where children are involved, they'll either take it literally or will have it presented to them as literally true. But, when you get down to brass tacks, belief in hell as a physical location is optional (though belief in hell as a reality is not).

Advbrd

Peregrinus wrote: »

Catholics can believe that Hell is a physical place if they want to - there's no official teaching that it isn't, but equally there's no official teaching that it is. The imagery of a physical place is often used and, especially where children are involved, they'll either take it literally or will have it presented to them as literally true. But, when you get down to brass tacks, belief in hell as a physical location is optional (though belief in hell as a reality is not).

So what do you believe hell to be? To still exist in the absense of God? Obliteration? Something else? Don't know?

Peregrinus

Advbrd wrote: »

So what do you believe hell to be?

Well, let's say I hope never to find out!

But, for what it's worth, my understanding of hell is that it's the condition of being eternally separated from God, a condition you can achieve only by choosing it.

Advbrd

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, let's say I hope never to find out!

But, for what it's worth, my understanding of hell is that it's the condition of being eternally separated from God, a condition you can achieve only by choosing it.

Yeah, I hear that a lot. Hope you never find out also. I have given up believing in most of what I was taught. It just makes no logical sense to me. The jury is still out on God as depending on my frame of mind, both the existence and absence of God make no sense.

kieranwaldron

The Catholic Church still teaches there is a literal place called hell, which goes against claims made by some people on this thread. I have today copied from the Vatican's own website (www.vatican.va) their current position on this topic as follows :
" The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire". The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

The words that I have put in bold confirms that the Catholic Church still believes that it is a physical place of eternal torment.