Abode of the dead

[Cecilianus]

Yet, the soul is renewed, but what about the body? If a man does not become reborn in his spirit, when he dies, his soul is cast into hell and his body, that returns to dust will never be resurrected.

This is incorrect; ALL the dead will undergo the resurrection of the flesh. The damned will have to undergo bodily torment for their sins just as the glorified will experience their glory in the flesh.

 

[heiscominginthe]

You are confusing purgatory with the Limbo of the Fathers, which was done away with on the first Holy Saturday.

First holy saturday? Can you explain?

 

[heiscominginthe]

This is incorrect; ALL the dead will undergo the resurrection of the flesh. The damned will have to undergo bodily torment for their sins just as the glorified will experience their glory in the flesh.

I think we need to distiquish between the first resurrection which is for the born again saints as opposed to the second resurrection which is for the unrighteous.

To say those who are in the second resurrection are bodily as those who are in the first is unclear in scripture.

For Jesus is our promise by faith and we the believers will receive a body that is incorruptible, that is eternal. To say that non-believer will receive a body as that of an unbeliever is not supported by scripture.

 

[Cecilianus]

First holy saturday? Can you explain?

When Christ “descended into hell”, in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, and brought up the souls of the righteous dead, starting with Adam and Eve, and brought them into Heaven, now opened up for the first time through the merits of His death on the cross. (“Holy Saturday” is the saturday between Good Friday and Easter; I forgot that as a non-Catholic you might not have known that.)

 

[Cecilianus]

I think we need to distiquish between the first resurrection which is for the born again saints as opposed to the second resurrection which is for the unrighteous.

To say those who are in the second resurrection are bodily as those who are in the first is unclear in scripture.

For Jesus is our promise by faith and we the believers will receive a body that is incorruptible, that is eternal. To say that non-believer will receive a body as that of an unbeliever is not supported by scripture.

Whether it’s “supported by scripture” or not - to which I must confess my ignorance on that particular matter - it’s part of the Faith handed down from the Apostles. You can’t introduce a novelty into the Faith just because you can’t find “evidence” for it, as if the Gospel of Jesus Christ were some reconstructed religion found by textual analysis and not by the preaching of the Good News! (“Faith comes by hearing”, as scripture says.) The Gospel was preached decades before the manuscriptorial Gospels were written, and it was four centuries before the canon was even settled. Denying the resurrection in the flesh was the most common sign of heresy in the early Church - whether by the docetists, gnostics, or the Areopagites who could not accept St. Paul - and no one squabbled over whether it was only the elect or the damned as well who underwent the resurrection.

 

[Fuerza]

To be in purgatory is to be in hell and man is no longer held under the yoke of death and hell.

Jesus went and set all those being held captive in death, the righteous dead, free from the hold it had on them.

So I don’t believe the place once known as the bosom of Abraham is used any longer. For now when a believer dies, his soul is not taken to the place known as death and hell, but goes to be with the living. For when a man is born again, his spirit that was once dead in him is reborn, born anew, born again, made alive again through faith in Christ.

Since the spirit of the man is alive again through Christ, it does not go to where the unrighteous dead are being held, it goes to be with the living.

Your premise is flawed, since purgatory and hell are not the same, at least not in the way that you’re thinking.

 

[Cecilianus]

I think we need to distiquish between the first resurrection which is for the born again saints as opposed to the second resurrection which is for the unrighteous.

To say those who are in the second resurrection are bodily as those who are in the first is unclear in scripture.

For Jesus is our promise by faith and we the believers will receive a body that is incorruptible, that is eternal. To say that non-believer will receive a body as that of an unbeliever is not supported by scripture.

Some Scriptural passages pertaining to the bodily resurrection of the damned:

Matthew 5:30: "And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body go to Hell. A similar passage is found in Matthew 18:8: "And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matthew 10:28: "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hell.

John 5:29 speaks of both the “resurrection of life” and the “resurrection of judgment”. If this latter resurrection is not a bodily resurrection, then what is it? If nothing changes for the souls of the damned, how is it a resurrection? They don’t get to forfeit Hell for the duration of their general judgment.

 

[heiscominginthe]

When Christ “descended into hell”, in the words of the Apostles’ Creed, and brought up the souls of the righteous dead, starting with Adam and Eve, and brought them into Heaven, now opened up for the first time through the merits of His death on the cross. (“Holy Saturday” is the saturday between Good Friday and Easter; I forgot that as a non-Catholic you might not have known that.)

We agree on the above and I thought the Saturday between the death of our Lord and the day of his resurrection was what you were referring to. I have just never heard it as Holy Saturday and I have many in my family that are catholic.

As for the Word Easter, I feel that it is not a good representative to describe the most wonderful day for all of mankind. I choose to call it Resurrection Day.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Some Scriptural passages pertaining to the bodily resurrection of the damned:

Matthew 5:30: "And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body go to Hell. A similar passage is found in Matthew 18:8: "And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matthew 10:28: "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hell.

John 5:29 speaks of both the “resurrection of life” and the “resurrection of judgment”. If this latter resurrection is not a bodily resurrection, then what is it? If nothing changes for the souls of the damned, how is it a resurrection? They don’t get to forfeit Hell for the duration of their general judgment.

The word ressurrection means to bring up. I believe the saints who suffer and suffered physical death go to heaven, while their fleshly corruptible body sleeps in the grave. And on the day of resurrection, our soul/spirit is put into our resurrected body that was raised from the grave, being changed from corruptible to incorruptible.

As for those in hell, their souls that are dead, apart from God are raised up out of hell and they will have be judged before the Great White Throne of God. They will then be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where they will be forever. So just as they suffered in hell, in soul only, they will suffer the more in the lake of fire and brimstone.

I can find on scripture that speaks of their mortal bodies being changed from corruptible to incorruptible.

 

[Cecilianus]

We agree on the above and I thought the Saturday between the death of our Lord and the day of his resurrection was what you were referring to. I have just never heard it as Holy Saturday and I have many in my family that are catholic.

As for the Word Easter, I feel that it is not a good representative to describe the most wonderful day for all of mankind. I choose to call it Resurrection Day.

I agree on the word Easter. Most continental European languages call it by some variant of the word Pascha, which I wish we had kept in English. Resurrection Day is good too, although I like the word “Pascha” because of the grandeur of that word - but that is a hair-splitting triviality compared to the glory of what we commemorate on that day.

 

[Cecilianus]

The word ressurrection means to bring up. I believe the saints who suffer and suffered physical death go to heaven, while their fleshly corruptible body sleeps in the grave. And on the day of resurrection, our soul/spirit is put into our resurrected body that was raised from the grave, being changed from corruptible to incorruptible.

Absolutely agreed. (What you are saying is de fide for Catholics, by the way.)

As for those in hell, their souls that are dead, apart from God are raised up out of hell and they will have be judged before the Great White Throne of God. They will then be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where they will be forever. So just as they suffered in hell, in soul only, they will suffer the more in the lake of fire and brimstone.

I can find on scripture that speaks of their mortal bodies being changed from corruptible to incorruptible.

Where are you getting this distinction between “hell” and “the lake of fire and brimstone” from? What is the difference?

If by “the lake of fire and brimstone” you just mean that the damned will suffer physical fire and suffer in the flesh as well as in the soul, then we are in agreement.

 

[Cecilianus]

@heiscominginthe: It is also important to remember that the damned will not forfeit their suffering during the judgment. As Milton’s Satan said (or said something to the effect of), “Wherever I am, is Hell.”

 

[heiscominginthe]

Absolutely agreed. (What you are saying is de fide for Catholics, by the way.)

Where are you getting this distinction between “hell” and “the lake of fire and brimstone” from? What is the difference?

If by “the lake of fire and brimstone” you just mean that the damned will suffer physical fire and suffer in the flesh as well as in the soul, then we are in agreement.

If you remember the story Jesus told about the Lazarus and the rich man, you will not the rich man was in fire both outside and inside of his soul. Yet, he was still a soul.

In the final punishment, the heat or fire will be much the same as in hell. but in this place is nothing but complete darkness and if I am not mistaken, each will be alone, without contact of even any other suffering soul.

In hell, they were able to see, not being in complete darkness. For the richman saw Lazarus and Abraham and they were able to see the richman.

 

[heiscominginthe]

@heiscominginthe: It is also important to remember that the damned will not forfeit their suffering during the judgment. As Milton’s Satan said (or said something to the effect of), “Wherever I am, is Hell.”

Scripture tells us all will knell before the judgement seat of God, both righteous and unrighteous alike.

So the unrighteous will be removed from hell to be judged, for it is written that even death and hell be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone.

Once judged, the unrigheous are cast in to this eternal torment that is even greater toment than that of hell.

 

[Cecilianus]

If you remember the story Jesus told about the Lazarus and the rich man, you will not the rich man was in fire both outside and inside of his soul. Yet, he was still a soul.

In the final punishment, the heat or fire will be much the same as in hell. but in this place is nothing but complete darkness and if I am not mistaken, each will be alone, without contact of even any other suffering soul.

In hell, they were able to see, not being in complete darkness. For the richman saw Lazarus and Abraham and they were able to see the richman.

1. The story of Lazarus and Dives is a parable, not a true history or a geography of Hell. Lazarus and Dives were probably made up. In Heaven we will not see the sufferings of the sufferings of the damned
2. Can you give any Scriptural evidence for what you said in the second paragraph?

 

[heiscominginthe]

1. The story of Lazarus and Dives is a parable, not a true history or a geography of Hell. Lazarus and Dives were probably made up. In Heaven we will not see the sufferings of the sufferings of the damned
2. Can you give any Scriptural evidence for what you said in the second paragraph?

So you are saying this did not occur, that Jesus made up a story to illustrate a message? That surprises me, for I thought catholics knew this story to be literal as well as a parable. I don’t believe Jesus would make up a story.

As for the second paragraph, I don’t have the time to look it up at this moment, but I can give more support to the first paragraph from memory. We will start with 1 Samuel 15:35 and then go to 28:16.

If you read chapter 15, you will see where God tells Samuel, who was lamenting over God’s disapproval of Saul, that Samuel would not see Saul again until the day that Saul dies. Yet, over time, Samuel himself died.

When you read chapter 28, Saul has a witch conger up Samuel, but instead of a familar spirit which the witch was expecting, God permitted Samuel to come from the bosom of Abraham/upper hell.

Samuel told Saul that he and his sons were going to be with him the next day. The next day Saul and his sons were killed in battle.

 

[Cecilianus]

So you are saying this did not occur, that Jesus made up a story to illustrate a message? That surprises me, for I thought catholics knew this story to be literal as well as a parable. I don’t believe Jesus would make up a story.

As for the second paragraph, I don’t have the time to look it up at this moment, but I can give more support to the first paragraph from memory. We will start with 1 Samuel 15:35 and then go to 28:16.

If you read chapter 15, you will see where God tells Samuel, who was lamenting over God’s disapproval of Saul, that Samuel would not see Saul again until the day that Saul dies. Yet, over time, Samuel himself died.

When you read chapter 28, Saul has a witch conger up Samuel, but instead of a familar spirit which the witch was expecting, God permitted Samuel to come from the bosom of Abraham/upper hell.

Samuel told Saul that he and his sons were going to be with him the next day. The next day Saul and his sons were killed in battle.

I’m not sure I’m following where you’re going with this, or what it has to do with the first paragraph in your post:

If you remember the story Jesus told about the Lazarus and the rich man, you will not the rich man was in fire both outside and inside of his soul. Yet, he was still a soul.

which, by the way, I’m not disagreeing with.

 

[heiscominginthe]

I’m not sure I’m following where you’re going with this, or what it has to do with the first paragraph in your post:

which, by the way, I’m not disagreeing with.

You said that Jesus probably made up the story of Lazarus and the richman.

I say that Jesus cannot lie, thus would not make up a story just to prove a point, even if it was a parable. I BELIEVE the story of Lazarus and the richman. I believe they existed and both were in hell at one time. And today, the richman remains in hell while Lazarus is with Jesus.

 

[Cecilianus]

You said that Jesus probably made up the story of Lazarus and the richman.

I say that Jesus cannot lie, thus would not make up a story just to prove a point, even if it was a parable. I BELIEVE the story of Lazarus and the richman. I believe they existed and both were in hell at one time. And today, the richman remains in hell while Lazarus is with Jesus.

That’s what a “parable” is - an allegorical story or a fable. If it weren’t, the Evangelist wouldn’t have said that “He spoke in parables”. Nobody else who ever told parables, allegories, or fables ever claimed they were true. Telling parables isn’t lying; was Aesop lying when he wrote his fables? Are you reading lies every time you open a novel? Really, you are taking the idea of interpreting the Bible “literally” to quite a silly extreme. To interpret Scripture “literally” really means to interpret according to the intention that the Sacred Authors had in mind, according to the genre that the books were written in. So books such as Exodus, Judges, and Kings should be taken as history - since what they are are historical accounts. The Gospels are apologias for the Christian faith against either the Jews (synoptic Gospels) or Gnostics (Gospel of St. John). The Apocalypse of St. John is apocalyptic literature, and is symbolic; only a nut would interpret it to literally claim that we will see horses with lions’ heads running through the sky (Apoc. 9:19). Job is a poem where the author uses a popular, familiar legend (the beginning and ending chapters, including chapter two) to explore (guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) the meaning of human suffering and the apparent absence of God. Genesis is a creation poem, and is intended to show - in a mythological fashion - how God planned and arranged the universe, not the particular scientific details as to how it came about. (Historically it was never intrepreted in a “creationist” sense until Luther.) The parables are fables, and likewise when “Wisdom builds herself a house” (Proverbs 9:1) there is no physical construction going on, and with all due respect to Soloviev and some Protestant theosophists, Wisdom isn’t even a physical person.

 

[heiscominginthe]

That’s what a “parable” is - an allegorical story or a fable. If it weren’t, the Evangelist wouldn’t have said that “He spoke in parables”. Nobody else who ever told parables, allegories, or fables ever claimed they were true. Telling parables isn’t lying; was Aesop lying when he wrote his fables? Are you reading lies every time you open a novel? Really, you are taking the idea of interpreting the Bible “literally” to quite a silly extreme. To interpret Scripture “literally” really means to interpret according to the intention that the Sacred Authors had in mind, according to the genre that the books were written in. So books such as Exodus, Judges, and Kings should be taken as history - since what they are are historical accounts. The Gospels are apologias for the Christian faith against either the Jews (synoptic Gospels) or Gnostics (Gospel of St. John). The Apocalypse of St. John is apocalyptic literature, and is symbolic; only a nut would interpret it to literally claim that we will see horses with lions’ heads running through the sky (Apoc. 9:19). Job is a poem where the author uses a popular, familiar legend (the beginning and ending chapters, including chapter two) to explore (guided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) the meaning of human suffering and the apparent absence of God. Genesis is a creation poem, and is intended to show - in a mythological fashion - how God planned and arranged the universe, not the particular scientific details as to how it came about. (Historically it was never intrepreted in a “creationist” sense until Luther.) The parables are fables, and likewise when “Wisdom builds herself a house” (Proverbs 9:1) there is no physical construction going on, and with all due respect to Soloviev and some Protestant theosophists, Wisdom isn’t even a physical person.

A parable is a story told that is similar or symbolic of an actual event which could be both literal and symbolic.

I do not believe the Jesus could make up a fictional story. To do so, would be a lie and Jesus did not lie. I believe that it is men’s idea of a parable that has fault.