K
KMG
Guest
You don’t decide how bible verses are interpreted. The Church does.
Does Hell Exist? Pope Francis Says No (Warning: This title is misleading)
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
Neither does destroy mean annihilate. Even in our language the two are not the same.
Why are we using non-catholic sources as an authority?
If we are discussing Catholic doctrine, Catholic authority should be the standard,
Didn’t God provide the church for that purpose?
This sounds like you are looking for some excuse to not follow God’s church.
A
Agathon
Guest
I don’t claim to have any superior knowledge; I simply rely on Mother Church. You, on the other hand rely on your interpretation.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Then we will have to look at the Greek to resolve this. I don’t have time at the moment, but I’ll get back to you.Luke6_37:
Neither does destroy mean annihilate. Even in our language the two are not the same.
Often, the English translation does not render the more graphic meaning of a verb. For example, in the Bread of Life discourse, the word rendered in English as “eats” should probably be translated as gnaw. See note below from the NABRE (A Catholic Bible as ALL my citations have been.
John 6:22-71 NABRE - - Bible Gateway
6:54–58 Eats: the verb used in these verses is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: “munch,” “gnaw.” This may be part of John’s emphasis on the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus (cf. Jn 6:55), but the same verb eventually became the ordinary verb in Greek meaning “eat.”
L
Luke6_37
Guest
I am citing the New American Bible Revised Edition which is the translation posted on the USCCB website.Luke6_37:
Why are we using non-catholic sources as an authority?
If we are discussing Catholic doctrine, Catholic authority should be the standard,
Egg on your face.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Given your lack of knowledge about what the notes are for in a Catholic Bible, I would say that maybe you are not well versed in your own faith. Who knows what heretical ideas you may inadvertently hold?Luke6_37:
Didn’t God provide the church for that purpose?
This sounds like you are looking for some excuse to not follow God’s church.
All the more reason to avoid throwing stones.
I
Imdaman
Guest
All your silliness aside. We know that Pope Francis believes in Hell because he talks about hell and Satan. It is best not to trust this 93 yr old atheist to write the truth about what Pope Francis said or didn’t say.vz71:
Given your lack of knowledge about what the notes are for in a Catholic Bible, I would say that maybe you are not well versed in your own faith. Who knows what heretical ideas you may inadvertently hold?Luke6_37:
Didn’t God provide the church for that purpose?
This sounds like you are looking for some excuse to not follow God’s church.
All the more reason to avoid throwing stones.
A
Agathon
Guest
Do you have Patristics on your side?
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Not sure why you’re quoting me. I don’t deny Hell exists. You are preaching to the choir.Luke6_37:
All your silliness aside. We know that Pope Francis believes in Hell because he talks about hell and Satan. It is best not to trust this 93 yr old atheist to write the truth about what Pope Francis said or didn’t say.vz71:
Given your lack of knowledge about what the notes are for in a Catholic Bible, I would say that maybe you are not well versed in your own faith. Who knows what heretical ideas you may inadvertently hold?Luke6_37:
Didn’t God provide the church for that purpose?
This sounds like you are looking for some excuse to not follow God’s church.
All the more reason to avoid throwing stones.
K
KMG
Guest
Hell exists, AND souls cannot be annihilated.
Basic Catholic dogma.
Basic Catholic dogma.
I
Imdaman
Guest
no he has the church of Luke on his side.
I will follow the Catholic church rather than Luke’s modern idea’s of what will happen with a soul. The catechism clearly lays out what will happen when we die and what will happen at the final judgement. Those of us who persevere will find eternal reward and those of us who don’t will find eternal punishment chief among them is the separation of a soul from God. NO where does it state annihilation and of course Luke can prove no such thing.
Last edited:
I
Imdaman
Guest
Never said you did deny hell. I’m just focusing on the the premise of the article while dismissing your relatively modern concept of annihilation.
The church does not teach annihilation but eternal punishment. It’s all there in black and white. If you want to force a new interpretation of scripture go ahead but know that very few will buy into your heterodox opinion of scripture.
The church does not teach annihilation but eternal punishment. It’s all there in black and white. If you want to force a new interpretation of scripture go ahead but know that very few will buy into your heterodox opinion of scripture.
P
pnewton
Guest
Even that may be iffy. We know of some euphemisms because of their commonality, but let’s be realistic. It has been a long time since that generation. That is why it is needed and logical that Jesus established a Church as a continual guide. It is also why no doctrine should be built on a word, though I know Catholics and Protestants both seem to do this. Again, that is why authority beyond just Scripture is necessary.
But it does demonstrate a problem with annihilation of the human soul. I mentioned earlier how we simply may not be able to understand all of God, and how mercy could allow for eternal damnation. However, this cannot be denied as happening, whether we see human people in Hell, or other people in Hell. The Church has always taught both the existence of angels, and that of demons and Satan. So if God created first, before Man, beings whose rebellion results in eternal punishment, it cannot be contrary to his mercy to do the same with Man.
P
pnewton
Guest
Here is a link to the exact same Bible on the USCCB website.
http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/6
I frequently use Bible Gateway myself, as it is an easy reference. The Bible with these notes has both a Nihil Obstate and an Imprimateur. I just double-checked my copy. If you tell me which comment in particular is of concern, I will check my hard copy.
Last edited:
B
billy15
Guest
A few things to consider after reading through this thread.
Obviously, the Church has spoken on this issue of annihilationism. We do not rely solely on Scripture (much less faulty readings of Scripture), but the three legged stool of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. The view presented by Luke of conditional immortality of the soul, or annihilation of the soul for those condemned to hell, is not in accordance with Tradition, based on how the Magisterium has interpreted Scripture. If the Catechism (both the recent Catechism and the Catechism of Trent) is not enough of a Magisterial authority, we can look to the declarations of the early ecumenical councils.
An excellent article, written by Sean M. Brooks of Evangelical Catholic Apologetics, touches on several points raised here. The entire article should be read, but I’ll post the most important snippets here for all to see. It’s important to note that the article deals not only with annihilationism, but also with its “cousins”, conditional immortality and soul sleep. The main points from this article I’d like to present are the clear anathemas from one of the first 8 Ecumenical Councils on the subject of annihilationism, as well as a look at the Greek to see what “annihilate” and “kill” actually means (particularly in Matt 10:28). I’ll also close my post with a good point from Catholic Answers apologist Trent Horn who follows up on a good point made by @pnewton at post 136.
So from the Brooks article:
Obviously, the Church has spoken on this issue of annihilationism. We do not rely solely on Scripture (much less faulty readings of Scripture), but the three legged stool of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. The view presented by Luke of conditional immortality of the soul, or annihilation of the soul for those condemned to hell, is not in accordance with Tradition, based on how the Magisterium has interpreted Scripture. If the Catechism (both the recent Catechism and the Catechism of Trent) is not enough of a Magisterial authority, we can look to the declarations of the early ecumenical councils.
An excellent article, written by Sean M. Brooks of Evangelical Catholic Apologetics, touches on several points raised here. The entire article should be read, but I’ll post the most important snippets here for all to see. It’s important to note that the article deals not only with annihilationism, but also with its “cousins”, conditional immortality and soul sleep. The main points from this article I’d like to present are the clear anathemas from one of the first 8 Ecumenical Councils on the subject of annihilationism, as well as a look at the Greek to see what “annihilate” and “kill” actually means (particularly in Matt 10:28). I’ll also close my post with a good point from Catholic Answers apologist Trent Horn who follows up on a good point made by @pnewton at post 136.
So from the Brooks article:
Let’s jump in right away with the strongest argument against the claims made by annihilationists: it’s condemned by Constantinople II. Yea, it’s a council from the 6th century, 1,000 years before that other Ecumenical Council, at Trent… but here’s the thing. The teachings of this council are just as true today as they were in 553, and will be just as true in the year 2553. Christ, as Head of the Church, is the same yesterday, today and forever. So here’s what Constantinople II said in it’s 9th anathema against Origen:
Back to the article:
B
billy15
Guest
He then quotes several of the Church Fathers, notably St. Irenaeus:
Back to the article:
In post 130, Luke mentioned that we’d have to look at the Greek to resolve what “destroy” means, specifically in Matt 10:28. Let’s do just that. The interlinear can be found here for reference. Brooks’ response continues:
Last edited:
- Status