Abode of the dead

[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.

So you do not believe the creation story? What about the story of Noah? The story of the first murder? The story of giants, which is later proven after the flood when David fought Goliath?

 

[Cecilianus]

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.

Have you ever read fiction? Dickens, Lord of the Rings, Robinson Crusoe, Sherlock Holmes, maybe? Do you REALLY think that telling stories is a sin? By God, I am glad the world is not so bleak and joyless as that! Anyone who is not severely autistic can tell the difference between a story and a lie!

 

[heiscominginthe]

Have you ever read fiction? Dickens, Lord of the Rings, Robinson Crusoe, Sherlock Holmes, maybe? Do you REALLY think that telling stories is a sin? By God, I am glad the world is not so bleak and joyless as that! Anyone who is not severely autistic can tell the difference between a story and a lie!

So you are saying the Jesus could tell stories, even though they are lies?

The problem here is your discernment between what is parable and what is truth. You do not believe in the story of Lazarus and the richman, saying that Jesus, the Son of God made up a story of a make believe place that showed a lower hell where the unrighteous are reserved and an upper part of hell were the righteous were being held?

Do you not realize that the bosom of Abraham is real and that all of mankind, both righteous and unrighteous were held there until Jesus went down to them and set them free?

As for your insult, I expect it, for I have had many of your sect do the same to me. Yet, to forgive is to be forgiven. So I forgive you.

As for the world being bleak, how do you suppose it was for the Son of God? Knowing that he was going to be tortured and put to death? Did he see the world as bleak, knowing it was lost unless he fulfilled the will of his Father?

Jesus did not live a glamorous life.

If you are truely walking the path of righteousness, the world will hate you. The world hated, hates the Lord and all who walk in his light.

 

[Cecilianus]

So you are saying the Jesus could tell stories, even though they are lies?

The problem here is your discernment between what is parable and what is truth. You do not believe in the story of Lazarus and the richman, saying that Jesus, the Son of God made up a story of a make believe place that showed a lower hell where the unrighteous are reserved and an upper part of hell were the righteous were being held?

Do you not realize that the bosom of Abraham is real and that all of mankind, both righteous and unrighteous were held there until Jesus went down to them and set them free?

As for your insult, I expect it, for I have had many of your sect do the same to me. Yet, to forgive is to be forgiven. So I forgive you.

As for the world being bleak, how do you suppose it was for the Son of God? Knowing that he was going to be tortured and put to death? Did he see the world as bleak, knowing it was lost unless he fulfilled the will of his Father?

Jesus did not live a glamorous life.

If you are truely walking the path of righteousness, the world will hate you. The world hated, hates the Lord and all who walk in his light.

I’m just saying that there can be such a thing as a fable or fictional story without it being a “lie”. The “bosom of Abraham” was what Catholics usually call the limbo of the Fathers. It was the abode of the righteous before Christ’s Redemption opened to them the gates of Heaven. It no longer exists. (The unrighteous went to Hell - what you would call the “lower Hell”. Same Hell that exists now.)

By the way, the Catholic Church is not a “sect” in the same way that, say, a Missionary Baptist Church would be. It is the original Christian Church with apostolic succession from the Apostles, headed by bishops of Rome ever since St. Peter went there, and still holding a billion members despite the divisions caused by people (Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) leaving Her.

Regarding the world being “bleak”, the prevalence of parables in the Gospels shows that Jesus was an excellent story-teller. They weren’t “lies” any more than Aesop’s Fables were “lies”. If you think that telling fables is lying, then answer me this: was Aesop a liar? There was plenty of joy in Christ’s life - so much that His enemies called him a glutton and a winebibber. His first miracle was at a wedding. And yet look at the suffering He endured for us. The reason why I called your vision of the world “bleak” is because it would deny any place for story-telling or fiction. My life would be very bleak without innocent, holy joys such as those. Christ did not disdain them, so neither will I.

 

[heiscominginthe]

I’m just saying that there can be such a thing as a fable or fictional story without it being a “lie”. The “bosom of Abraham” was what Catholics usually call the limbo of the Fathers. It was the abode of the righteous before Christ’s Redemption opened to them the gates of Heaven. It no longer exists. (The unrighteous went to Hell - what you would call the “lower Hell”. Same Hell that exists now.)

By the way, the Catholic Church is not a “sect” in the same way that, say, a Missionary Baptist Church would be. It is the original Christian Church with apostolic succession from the Apostles, headed by bishops of Rome ever since St. Peter went there, and still holding a billion members despite the divisions caused by people (Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) leaving Her.

Regarding the world being “bleak”, the prevalence of parables in the Gospels shows that Jesus was an excellent story-teller. They weren’t “lies” any more than Aesop’s Fables were “lies”. If you think that telling fables is lying, then answer me this: was Aesop a liar? There was plenty of joy in Christ’s life - so much that His enemies called him a glutton and a winebibber. His first miracle was at a wedding. And yet look at the suffering He endured for us. The reason why I called your vision of the world “bleak” is because it would deny any place for story-telling or fiction. My life would be very bleak without innocent, holy joys such as those. Christ did not disdain them, so neither will I.

Do me a favor. I sense that your heart is not far from God. Search for when a parable was first deemed made up, untrue story?

Now, as for your understanding of hell and the bosom of Abraham, you are right that only the lower part of hell exists and that the bosom of Abraham does not exist. For now, when a believer dies, he does not go to hell, he goes to heaven. That is what is meant by the words that Jesus tasted death for all of us. Jesus was the last to enter into the bosom of Abraham, and he preached to those captive spirits, setting them from, taking them into the kingdom of God.

You say the catholic church was the original church, but I disagree completely. There was the church period. There were churches set up in many cities, with each church being called by the city it was from or the household.

It was not till many years later that some of the churches grew rich with power, becoming dominant over the smaller churches. Then there was the church in Rome that ended up being the most dominant once it became under the control of the emperors of Rome.

Constantine himself named himself as bishop of Rome, without the okay of the church. There can be only one government that is established by the church that will be perfect. And this will occur when Jesus establishes his kingdom on earth.

What history calls the holy roman empire was not doing the will of God. God did not, does not want to force men to love and follow him. He wants men to come to him because they love him.

As for the church, God kept a remnant from generation to generation to this day.

As for Jesus living in a bleak world, imagine how great a love it took, to be the Son of God and to be hung on the cross and not with one word unravel all of creation. Could not the Son of God with one word brought about the destruction of all of creation? Certainly, so how bleak do you think it seemed when he was betrayed, his deciples fled, he was verbally abused by pharacees and the suducees, punched, spit on, had pieces of his beard pulled from off his face, was whipped so bad it almost killed him and probably would have killed any other man, had a crown of thorns put upon his head, mocked in front of a crowd until the chant, crucify him was so overwhelming that the roman procurator gave the order to do just that. He was beaten so bad that scripture says he was unrecognizable.

Then he was forced to carry a cross to Galgatha, but because of the loss of blood, was so weak, another was force to carry the cross the rest of the way. And while all this was going on, he was mocked and ridiculed all the way to where they crucified him. And even while he hung on the cross, he was belittled and ridiculed.

Yet, only love and compassion came from him. Though the world is lost and bleakness is all around, Jesus died so that man could escape this bleakness, this bondage of death. So that all who believe can escape death and hell. So that all could come to understand how great a love God had for us, that he sent his Son to die in our place.

 

[Cecilianus]

Do me a favor. I sense that your heart is not far from God. Search for when a parable was first deemed made up, untrue story?

Ummm… that was what I thought the word meant? Maybe I learned the English language wrong or something… but even as a creationist, literalistic Protestant I was never taught that the parables were true stories. Their purpose is to tell a point, not to give history.

Can you do me a favor? Tell me the following: Is it possible to tell a story - a fictional story - without thereby telling a lie?

Now, as for your understanding of hell and the bosom of Abraham, you are right that only the lower part of hell exists and that the bosom of Abraham does not exist. For now, when a believer dies, he does not go to hell, he goes to heaven. That is what is meant by the words that Jesus tasted death for all of us. Jesus was the last to enter into the bosom of Abraham, and he preached to those captive spirits, setting them from, taking them into the kingdom of God.

Okay. There’s no disagreement here. It was the literal existence of “Lazarus” and “Dives” and Dives looking “up” and seeing Lazarus that I said was just a fable.

You say the catholic church was the original church, but I disagree completely. There was the church period. There were churches set up in many cities, with each church being called by the city it was from or the household.

As they are still called today, by the name of the diocese - or, as Christianity spread, even by the country (e.g., the Greek Church, the Church of Rome, etc.) A loose way of using the term “church”, just like we also speak of buildings as “churches”, and then the whole (catholic), one, indivisible Christian Church.

It was not till many years later that some of the churches grew rich with power, becoming dominant over the smaller churches. Then there was the church in Rome that ended up being the most dominant once it became under the control of the emperors of Rome.

Not that late. St. Clement of Rome was exercising authority over the church of Corinth in 95 A.D., rebuking them for rebelling against their bishop. Secondly, it was the church of Byzantium, not that of Rome, that was favored by Constantine - you might also notice that not a single Ecumenical Council was held in the West until after the schism between East and West - and later emperors (such as Constantius) favored the Arian heresy. Rome survived as the principal see despite, not because of the emperors.

Constantine himself named himself as bishop of Rome, without the okay of the church. There can be only one government that is established by the church that will be perfect. And this will occur when Jesus establishes his kingdom on earth.

He actually named himself the “bishop of the bishops”, not the bishop of Rome, and yes, it was against the approval of the Church.

Jesus will establish his kingdom on earth? I’m afraid you are still stuck in the error of the Jews of Jesus’ day. He is not a military, earthly Messiah as the Jews were expecting. “My kingdom is not of this world.”

What history calls the holy roman empire was not doing the will of God. God did not, does not want to force men to love and follow him. He wants men to come to him because they love him.

The political merits of the Holy Roman Empire weren’t an issue. Nor did, as you seem to imply, the Holy Roman Empire ever practice forced conversion.

As for the church, God kept a remnant from generation to generation to this day.

If you mean a Protestant remnant, I’m afraid there is simply no historical record of it.

As for Jesus living in a bleak world, imagine how great a love it took, to be the Son of God and to be hung on the cross and not with one word unravel all of creation. Could not the Son of God with one word brought about the destruction of all of creation? Certainly, so how bleak do you think it seemed when he was betrayed, his deciples fled, he was verbally abused by pharacees and the suducees, punched, spit on, had pieces of his beard pulled from off his face, was whipped so bad it almost killed him and probably would have killed any other man, had a crown of thorns put upon his head, mocked in front of a crowd until the chant, crucify him was so overwhelming that the roman procurator gave the order to do just that. He was beaten so bad that scripture says he was unrecognizable.

Then he was forced to carry a cross to Galgatha, but because of the loss of blood, was so weak, another was force to carry the cross the rest of the way. And while all this was going on, he was mocked and ridiculed all the way to where they crucified him. And even while he hung on the cross, he was belittled and ridiculed.

Yet, only love and compassion came from him. Though the world is lost and bleakness is all around, Jesus died so that man could escape this bleakness, this bondage of death. So that all who believe can escape death and hell. So that all could come to understand how great a love God had for us, that he sent his Son to die in our place.

Hey, I’m the Catholic here - I’M supposed to be the one arguing gloom and darkness and monks with flagellants and all that good Roman stuff…

 

[heiscominginthe]

Ummm… that was what I thought the word meant? Maybe I learned the English language wrong or something… but even as a creationist, literalistic Protestant I was never taught that the parables were true stories. Their purpose is to tell a point, not to give history.

Can you do me a favor? Tell me the following: Is it possible to tell a story - a fictional story - without thereby telling a lie?

Okay. There’s no disagreement here. It was the literal existence of “Lazarus” and “Dives” and Dives looking “up” and seeing Lazarus that I said was just a fable.

As they are still called today, by the name of the diocese - or, as Christianity spread, even by the country (e.g., the Greek Church, the Church of Rome, etc.) A loose way of using the term “church”, just like we also speak of buildings as “churches”, and then the whole (catholic), one, indivisible Christian Church.

Not that late. St. Clement of Rome was exercising authority over the church of Corinth in 95 A.D., rebuking them for rebelling against their bishop. Secondly, it was the church of Byzantium, not that of Rome, that was favored by Constantine - you might also notice that not a single Ecumenical Council was held in the West until after the schism between East and West - and later emperors (such as Constantius) favored the Arian heresy. Rome survived as the principal see despite, not because of the emperors.

He actually named himself the “bishop of the bishops”, not the bishop of Rome, and yes, it was against the approval of the Church.

Jesus will establish his kingdom on earth? I’m afraid you are still stuck in the error of the Jews of Jesus’ day. He is not a military, earthly Messiah as the Jews were expecting. “My kingdom is not of this world.”

The political merits of the Holy Roman Empire weren’t an issue. Nor did, as you seem to imply, the Holy Roman Empire ever practice forced conversion.

If you mean a Protestant remnant, I’m afraid there is simply no historical record of it.

Hey, I’m the Catholic here - I’M supposed to be the one arguing gloom and darkness and monks with flagellants and all that good Roman stuff…

I have done it again and gone off topic. I have a bad habit of doing that. I have been warned before and it will probably cause me to be kicked out. Yet, when I talk about God, I can’t see it as bits and pieces seperate from each other. I see it as all tying together, with each piece being an essential part of the body of Christ.

I know it upsets folks here so once again I ask for forgiveness.

 

[Cecilianus]

I have done it again and gone off topic. I have a bad habit of doing that. I have been warned before and it will probably cause me to be kicked out. Yet, when I talk about God, I can’t see it as bits and pieces seperate from each other. I see it as all tying together, with each piece being an essential part of the body of Christ.

I know it upsets folks here so once again I ask for forgiveness.

Haha, who hasn’t? Mea culpa as well.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Haha, who hasn’t? Mea culpa as well.

Here is a list of scriptures that you can look up if you like on this subject. As for Lazarus and the rich man, I believe it actually occured.

Why I did this study, was because there are many who believe once a man dies, his soul ceases to exist. Some believe permanantly and some believe until the resurrection. Why they believe such nonsense can only be explained by being unsaved.

So here are scriptures I use to debunk the vanishing soul.

1 Pet. 4:6
John 5:25, 8:51, 8:56,
Matt. 22:32
Romans 8:11
Eph. 4:9
Luke 16:30
2 Cor. 4:16
Rev. 2:11
Phili. 2:10