Official Bible Interpretation Thread

and John the Baptist lived much of his life away from others. One wonders, at least I do, if he realized during his lifetime different things about himself. Jesus practically had to make him baptist Him, if I remember correctly. If John was Elijah, by being beheaded I'd say he was defintly dead in body that time.

 

I think I heard the argument that elijiah didn't die the first time, but that does not account for being once again, "born"

 

When we approach this concept from our earthly vantage point we tend to say we have souls.

But the truth could be that we are souls - we have bodies.

 

It doesn't actively say that they will be gone eternally. You're right. But that their destruction will be seen by those that see their destruction and afterwards realize that Gods plan is complete and that God's kingdom will finally reign forever.

Let me put it another way because I can not be very articulate at times. That verse at revelations where it says that hellfire is the second death cannot be rendered untrue, so therefore the everlasting shame and contempt must match with the situation of the 'second death'. In revelations, it goes on to explain what the 'everlasting contempt' refers to:

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

and

Revelation 19:3
And again they shouted: "Hallelujah! The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever."

Revelations is a symbolic book so therefore this smoke of their everlasting torment is a silent and unconscious one. It is just to show that their destruction and there shame will be in that moment forever because the word eternal is sometimes used to describe finalization; a moment when this final judgement is realized.

Also,

Malachi 4:3
Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things," says the LORD Almighty.

Me too.

I see, now. My mistake

I don't mean any disrespect when I say this, but I want to be honest with you. It seems a bit morbid to me for them to keep that. Well, at least Stephen was always willing to give a hand.

Interesting. Looks like we both agree on this

Looks like he's in great condition. Some say that these saints are preserved by wax. Is there any truth to that or are people just hatin'?

This reminds me of one X-Files episodes (fav show) where the staunch skeptic turned Catholic (Skully) receives a dead body to examine and she notes that it smells like roses and that it hasn't decayed despite its age.

What is the damnation in Catholic canon? It's hell? But what is hell, they live but in eternal shame like Judas?

God can destroys the non material soul and also the body? No disagreements for me there. How does he destroy it? Through a kind spiritual shame, by removing it from existence or?

I would interpret that to mean that if we love God with all of our heart, spirit, and body then we will end up continuing our existence once Jesus returns.

It isn't to become merely glorified bodies. It seems we are both establishing that we should perfect the soul (breath), body, and spirit. If I am following with you, the soul is the immaterial part of ourselves, but not ourselves, that returns to God. If that is true, then I would say that this soul that God holds is what decides if continue existing or not. We fear it because no one else can completely destroy us other than God, so fearing man to do this is pointless since they don't possess that power.

It's like at daniel

Daniel 3:6
Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace."

Man had created their own way of destruction. But we shouldn't fear that because only God can fully destroy. Perhaps its just a lesson that fearing man is pointless therefore we should do what is good because God keeps those that trust in Him.

What is the difference between all three? I always understood that at least one of the triad meant our lives, another meant our "Life-Force", and another is meant as our will aligning with that of God.

Ok, so we now both agree and established that something is a part of us possess an eternal quality and survives our death, but it is unconscious and is incomplete without the body.

Can God and will God destroy that eternal part of us? At some verses it says that he will. I see the soul as our memory within God (and as we established). If he destroys that, we are forgotten and therefore experience eternal non existence since an escape from God is nothingness.

 

I am not familiar with consciousness after death. I meant only the way in which they understood what sheol meant, not that they are giving a descriptions of things they saw -- I meant in understanding not in literal witnessing.

I don't see him denying the state of consciousness either. Lazarus found no joy in his physical life and that's why he was carried to Abraham's bosom? This is very interesting interpretation but does it fit with the canon? Does it fit in what Jesus came to describe? In other words, who's intended interpretation matters more? Jesus' or ours?

Interesting again, but is that what Jesus meant? That life is the opportunity to escape from the pull that death has on us? I can only think of one person who fits the description of resolving something through death and resurrection. Jesus

Same

It isn't meaningful for this life? Sure it is. Loving our neighbor as we should love ourselves, loving each other as Jesus loved, judging the fatherless child, making a case for the widow, seeking out the poor in spirit. I can't think of anything more important

The disciples often misunderstood, but whenever they did not understand, they were corrected and many of them ended up becoming apostles. One cannot be a teacher and not know the material.

Differing perspectives can be resolved by returning to the source material once our perspectives have strayed far from it

 

Really? What did you say?

That really wasn't the question, now, was it?

Obviously, you would like to think it is contradictory but it is not. You seem to ignore the reality around you. The Earth was created by God and changes daily and is not exactly the same as when God created it. Likewise, we are the same as we were created in the fact that we still have the ability to chose, we can chose to believe the lie or we can chose to believe the truth and that choice doesn't make us a different creation but it does change who we are. It's a little like we are chalk boards and can write on that chalk board what we will, it doesn't change the fact that we are chalk boards but what is written on that chalk board can be vastly different.

It does not stand the test of what you believe to be the truth but as I pointed out above, what you believe to be the truth doesn't even stand the test of reality.

 

Just starting with your first "error", the Bible does not agree with you. Adam was perfect and saw himself that way until the creation of Eve and even Eve saw herself as perfect until the eating of the fruit.

 

Yes, nonexistence means "not in existence" and entire universe was not in existence until God brought it into existence. So if God can bring things into existence he can remove things from existence and return them to non-existence.

 

My point is def, that this may be an idea about a subject but it cannot be an understanding of the subject unless it is simply to say we comprehend the idea.

I have a non-denominational practice therefore I don't know anything about canon. Canonization is an agreement among men to adhere to a specific interpretation and is a form of institutionalization. The institution becomes the arbiter of interpretation rather than the individuals relationship with the holy spirit. Bottom line, I simply don't know what "the canon" is so I can make no comparison. Further what canon, catholics and protestants have different ideas.

One thing Jesus' teaching is for those who have ears to hear. His teaching is for the weary and heavy laden. His teaching is for the sick not the well. His teaching is for sinners not for the righteous. There are those in the world who are satisfied enough with the sensational aspects of the world.
"He who gains his life shall loose it, and he who looses his life for my sake, will gain it."

I meant that teachings of where you go when you die have nothing to do with the practice of living life.

Seems the disciples were teaching as they were learning. They were sent out and told to report back. They asked Jesus why they could not cast out a demon in a particular person. A person need not know all things to be able to teach, only to be able to teach what you know. Further, do you think that teachers don't have room for learning? Even Jesus amended himself in regards to the wisdom of a certain woman.

Again source material at first requires translation and beyond that interpretation. Differing perspectives are resolved through discussion and cooperation, were ever two or more are gathered.

 

I said I only know god's love. Romantic love is the result of brain chemicals and is a mindless attraction.

No, it is my answer.

It is contradictory on the face of it.

Really, how does it differ?

No, a belief is not a reality. believing something does not change who you are, it simply defines how you are using your mind.

And this sentence is incomprehensible. "It does not stand the test of what you believe to be the truth", makes no sense.
You have not pointed out any "reality", just your opinions on the subject.

 

There is no "condition" of non existence, by definition.

 

Wow, so much to cover.

Yes, Revelation is a symbolic book but I think that there is non-symbolic evidence for a literal burning afterlife though. Some theologians have suggested thal all will return to od in soul (and then later in body as well) but that God burning will be glorious for those who accept God's love but will be painful for those that reject God.

Destruction though, I think, does not necessariliy mean annihilation. In Jeremiah, God says that his anger kindles a fire that lasts forever. Why would God need an annihilation fire to last forever?

That is fine that you are honest, and I agree it is a little morbid. Think about it from this perspective: God created our bodies (in fact he created them before giving us life) so I think it should logically follow then that our physical bodies should not be feared (as Gnostics did/do). We also should not fear death. If you believe as I do that the Soul of St Stephen is glorified in Heaven now, then we also hope to share in what he is partking in. We can use his body as an example of this. His death then is not sad, but something we hope for eventually (Catholics do not worship death though. Life is also given by God and taking a life is a grave sin).

BTW- I sent you this in a PM, but I figured I'd post it here as well. The Roman authorities thought Christians to be usurping the public decorum by making graves of martyrs and confessors (aka a white martyr) which were considered Private and Familial (by the Romans) into Public spaces of worship and reverence. This was etremely strange to Romans and I do beleive tombs were occasionally vandalized in order to try and stop the Christians. Veneration of Saints is not pagan.

It is people just hatin'.

The phenomenon you refer to from X-Files is a real phenom and is called Odour of Sanctity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odour_of_sanctity

It can mean 2 things, one is to die in a state of grace, and the other is a literal smell. It is often associated with incorruptibility. Another person it is associated with is St Padre Pio who had an Odour of Sanctity emminate from his Stigmata (which is another bag of worms).

I touched on this above.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
That is everything you want to know about Hell but was afriad to ask.

A few points:

1)We do not have a definitive statement where hell is:
"The Church has decided nothing on this subject; hence we may say hell is a definite place; but where it is, we do not know. St. Chrysostom reminds us: "We must not ask where hell is, but how we are to escape it" (In Rom., hom. xxxi, n. 5, in P.G., LX, 674)."

2)The Pain in Hell:
The poena damni, or pain of loss, consists in the loss of the beatific vision and in so complete a separation of all the powers of the soul from God that it cannot find in Him even the least peace and rest.
The pain of loss is the very core of eternal punishment. If the damned beheld God face to face, hell itself, notwithstanding its fire, would be a kind of heaven. Had they but some union with God even if not precisely the union of the beatific vision, hell would no longer be hell, but a kind of purgatory. And yet the pain of loss is but the natural consequence of that aversion from God which lies in the nature of every mortal sin.
Just as the blessed in heaven are free from all pain, so, on the other hand, the damned never experience even the least real pleasure. In hell separation from the blissful influence of Divine love has reached its consummation.
(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment — all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

(2) The pains of hell are essentially immutable; there are no temporary intermissions or passing alleviations. A few Fathers and theologians, in particular the poet Prudentius, expressed the opinion that on stated days God grants the damned a certain respite, and that besides this the prayers of the faithful obtain for them other occasional intervals of rest. The Church has never condemned this opinion in express terms. But now theologians are justly unanimous in rejecting it. St. Thomas condemns it severely (In IV Sent., dist. xlv, Q. xxix, cl. 1).
However, accidental changes in the pains of hell are not excluded. Thus it may be that the reprobate is sometimes more and sometimes less tormented by his surroundings. Especially after the last judgment there will be an accidental increase in punishment; for then the demons will never again be permitted to leave the confines of hell, but will be finally imprisoned for all eternity; and the reprobate souls of men will be tormented by union with their hideous bodies.

(3) Hell is a state of the greatest and most complete misfortune, as is evident from all that has been said. The damned have no joy whatever, and it were better for them if they had not been born (Matthew 26:24).

I'd argue that it is not God that destroys us, but that we, often with the assitence of the temptation of the Evil One, destroy ourselves by opening choosing hatred of God.

How does God destroy the Soul (and Ressurected Body)? I think it is by the self eternall festering in his/her contempt for God.

Can we really bring about our own perfection, or can we only acheive this through the grace of God?

This is why the Church affirms Purgatory. Just like our flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, neither can anything impure. If our sould still have some unrepentant sins on them, they must be removed. Christ uses the image of burning chaff as a test (also of metal being tempered in a fire). Some use these to argue the lie that Hell is only temporary.

I am curious what you mean by "fear it". What is "it"? I am just having an issue with pronouns.

This is where we finally have major disagreement. The soul is concious after death. This is why we can ask the saints for intercession. This is why I affirm the immediate Judgement of our Souls to either Heaven or Hell awaiting union with our spiritual bodies (whether glorified or ugly). Our ressurected bodies will reflect the state of our souls.

 

Hi, back again. I'll get a bible and give it a bit of a browse some time, I promise.

Eternal suffering, what a notion!

I guess 'God' really does punish those who perpetuate it.

lol

Is it funny though? When can I laugh here without my laughter falling away?

When did I become so odd that I imagined I could save christians?! There is only one thing I beg of you, that you give up hell! Do it for Heaven! You have my love regardless, but think of the pleasure you yourselves will be able to give if you do!

 

God does not punish. Those who choose to reject God and embrace evil choose their end.

The suffering comes, mainly, from the pain of loss where the damnned cannot find neither peace nor rest.

 

There is no suffering that cannot end. To maintain otherwise is no more than the will to punish.

What's the deal Ukr-Cdn?

(by the way, what does your pseudonym mean?)

 

There is.

God created cliffs and I personally find cliffs to be beautiful and I would be sad to see them go but people can die from falling off them. God did not make cliffs to cause our death but for our enjoyment, it is our misuse of cliffs that can cause our death not God's design.

It is your misunderstanding of what it means to be a creation of God that makes you think we can't be sinners unless God created us that way.

He is someone and he is the creator but that does not mean that he directly created all the things that resulted from his original creations. Satan for example.

Yes but then that is not what we were talking about, were we?

That just means that the fruit is not good for our eating, not that it can't be good for various other purposes.

 

OWB:

LOL

'Still Life'

 

I agree suffering can end, but those that hate God will be consumed by their hatred.

Ukr-Cdn = Ukrainian Canadian

 

Ukr-Cdn:

Their hatred is a match for Gods love?!

 

After all you just said to the contrary, you still end by saying that it is still dreaming during the day and don't even see that contradicts all you said before.

Perhaps you can but I pretty much know when I'm day dreaming.

Isn't that what I said; "there is no relationship between dreaming and hypnosis"

You might at least try to look like you are talking about the same thread of conversation.

Empty statement? Well, one of your statements in this very post is self contradictory, so it doesn't seem to be such a baseless claim after all.