Catholicism and Hell... I'm so confused

[claypot]

One  must admit..Ive not known Tent be LESS confrontational than its been these last few months...Very little moderating is needed Bro.....

Hmmm, I guess I'm gonna have to try to change that Taffy. You've been getting a little lazy at that Ban button so I'll try to get you a little more exercise. Or is that exorcise?

Really, though, everyone needs to kick back and take a deep breath. We are all family.

I come from a family of three sets of twins (I'm one of them and we were born on my sister's birthday) and with mom and dad included a total of 15. We fought allot but every day we would all eat at the same table in peace.

Just because I disagree with some beliefs here does not mean I think those who hold those beliefs are better than me. 

Anyway, all will be made known when we finally meet our Lord face to face. Until then, we just muddle through it.

I hear ya Tony and am humbled.

cp

[peacemaker]

Some people muddle through waiting for understanding, try not to confuse yourself with syncretism: the merging of two or more originally different inflectional forms, or points; "Heaven and Hell."

One is death, and the other is the power of life, or a turning point! 

"Life is not measured in the breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."

peacemaker

[Taffy]

One  must admit..Ive not known Tent be LESS confrontational than its been these last few months...Very little moderating is needed Bro.....

Hmmm, I guess I'm gonna have to try to change that Taffy. You've been getting a little lazy at that Ban button so I'll try to get you a little more exercise. Or is that exorcise?

Really, though, everyone needs to kick back and take a deep breath. We are all family.

I come from a family of three sets of twins (I'm one of them and we were born on my sister's birthday) and with mom and dad included a total of 15. We fought allot but every day we would all eat at the same table in peace.

Just because I disagree with some beliefs here does not mean I think those who hold those beliefs are better than me. 

Anyway, all will be made known when we finally meet our Lord face to face. Until then, we just muddle through it.

That BAN button is a sticky key..kinda difficult to push

Gee Shucks, brother of MANY, LIKEWISE ,why on EARTH would OTHERS even consider others beliefs better than yours mucker...( Tis a Welsh Term , for fellow man)...

Youve added much to the Forum Bro...

 

[reFORMer]

Philippians 3:10-16, 20-21 (CLV) . . .

". . .to know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, conforming to His death, if somehow I should be attaining to the resurrection that is out from among the dead.  Not that I already obtained, or am already perfected.  Yet I am pursuing, if I may be grasping also that for which I was grasped also by Christ Jesus.  Brethren, not as yet am I reckoning myself to have grasped, yet one thing -- forgetting, indeed, those things which are behind, yet stretching out to those in front -- toward the goal am I pursuing for the prize of God's calling above in Christ Jesus.  Whoever, then, are mature, may be disposed to this, and if in anything you are differently disposed, this also shall God reveal to you.  Moreover, in what we outstrip others, there is to be a mutual disposition to be observing the elements by the same rule.

Become imitators together of me, brethren, and be noting those who are walking thus, according as you have us for a model . . . our realm is inherent in the heavens, out of which we are awaiting a Saviour also, the Lord, Jesus Christ, Who will transfigure the body of our humiliation, to conform it to the body of His glory, in accord with the operation which enables Him even to subject all to Himself."

Certain things in God are so near to those who draw near to Him.  Not that I've "grasped" freely expressing myself in the Divine nature; but, there are moments, like riding the merry-go-round and feeling the ring with a brief glancing touch, yet not actually "grasping" the ring.  "Pursuing for the prize" is not bare grace without works.  A prize is not a gift.  To qualify for the prize you must meet the specified conditions.  To respond to this by sinking under legalism is a trap for the immature, not understanding the ways of the Lord.  "So foolish are you? Undertaking (beginning) in spirit, are you now being completed in flesh?" (Galatians 3:3)

In Him we're already there.  That's how it seems when He "takes" me and I find I'm in a revelation of Himself.  I'm there and He indwells; or, is it the other way around?  I know those times experiencing no longer being bound in Adam's identity, but released into other realms through the operation of the Spirit of God.  The means into that is not something easily described, the "how to" of God.  Yet, for faith to rise the word must be sown in the hearing ear. You are, ". . . the mortal [that must] put on the immortal." (1 Corinthians 15:53)

Before that portion of the passage quoted at the first, Paul speaks of, ". . . the knowledge of Christ Jesus . . . of, "gaining Christ," and being, ". . . found in Him," ". . . to know Him."

Philippians 3:8-11 (CLV) . . .
"But, to be sure, I am also deeming all to be a forfeit because of the superiority of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, because of Whom I forfeited all, and am deeming it to be refuse, that I should be gaining Christ, and may be found in Him, not having my righteousness, which is of law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is from God for faith:  to know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, conforming to His death, if somehow I should be attaining to the resurrection that is out from among the dead."


your brother, James Rohde

[Cardinal]

  A prize is not a gift.  To qualify for the prize you must meet the specified conditions. 

  Wow. That just took my breath away, I never saw that before, but there it is, plain as day. Thanks! 

[pneuma]

There is nothing you have said here that I disagree with . . .perhaps my wording could have been clearer.  But my original intent was to try to clarify that the ripped up body they took down from the cross, was not the same resurrected body Jesus later manifested in . . . it was the same Jesus, it was his body . .and it was flesh . .but it was a resurrected state of the flesh.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if some saw nail prints (scars) and others saw perfectly healed skin.  I believe he reveals himself in different ways to different people . . . I'm not going to make a doctrine of that . . .it's just a thought.

For me, it's not what condition his body was in as much as it was the spiritual revelation he brought to those having trouble recognizing him.

Hi Nathan, I did wonder if it might just be the way we each express ourselves, tis good to know that we are in agreement.

[pneuma]

You are exactly right bro . . .sorry, I didn't mean to make that sound like you were saying things you didn't say.  What actually happened with that was you posted while I was writing and I read your post . .tacked that piece on the very beginning in responding to yours, and left the rest as it was.  Sorry about the confusion.

no problem bro

Now Scott....MOD HAT ON!!!!

Great to see ya back a bit matey, thanks for ya email..BUT..thems flowers be MINE....I just read ya post and thought it was ME     rolf!   

 

a  child you are 

[pneuma]

Nathan, and pneuma, you sure go to great lengths to make the word of God of none effect.

Tony that only go's to show that you did NOT understand my post for if you did then you would have understood that I beleive Jesus does have flesh and blood/bone. So tell me how this make the word of God of none effect?

On this point I was actually agreeing with you brother; although I still don't think you understand why as you are just way to literal

read my last reply to Nathan, maybe it will help, maybe not, tis in Gods hands.

Hi pneuma, I think this is what I was replying about which you wrote earlier:

And if you say of the SPIRIT which I believe you must then you can understand that His FLESH was/is NOT the same as ours is right now.

How is His flesh different than ours?

Of course I don't believe He had death operating in His flesh like we do. If His flesh is different are His bones different too?

Hi Tony your problem bro is that you don't realsie His flesh and blood is NOT talking about literal flesh and blood, its talking about His LIFE, until you can descern this you will alway be in disagreement with those who can.

its not worth making an arguement over though bro, go with God as He will reveal things to whom He will in His time.

[Tony N]

Nathan, and pneuma, you sure go to great lengths to make the word of God of none effect.

Tony that only go's to show that you did NOT understand my post for if you did then you would have understood that I beleive Jesus does have flesh and blood/bone. So tell me how this make the word of God of none effect?

On this point I was actually agreeing with you brother; although I still don't think you understand why as you are just way to literal

read my last reply to Nathan, maybe it will help, maybe not, tis in Gods hands.

Hi pneuma, I think this is what I was replying about which you wrote earlier:

And if you say of the SPIRIT which I believe you must then you can understand that His FLESH was/is NOT the same as ours is right now.

How is His flesh different than ours?

Of course I don't believe He had death operating in His flesh like we do. If His flesh is different are His bones different too?

Hi Tony your problem bro is that you don't realsie His flesh and blood is NOT talking about literal flesh and blood, its talking about His LIFE, until you can descern this you will alway be in disagreement with those who can.

its not worth making an arguement over though bro, go with God as He will reveal things to whom He will in His time.

Hi pneuma you problem bro is that you don't realise His flesh and bones is talking about literal flesh and bones. Until you can discern this you will always be in disagreement with those who can.

It is worth making an argument over so go with God and He will reveal things to whom He will in His time as it accords with the Scriptures.

[Tony N]

I think it might have been Nathan who said:

There is nothing you have said here that I disagree with . . .perhaps my wording could have been clearer.  But my original intent was to try to clarify that the ripped up body they took down from the cross, was not the same resurrected body Jesus later manifested in . . . it was the same Jesus, it was his body . .and it was flesh . .but it was a resurrected state of the flesh.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if some saw nail prints (scars) and others saw perfectly healed skin.  I believe he reveals himself in different ways to different people . . . I'm not going to make a doctrine of that . . .it's just a thought.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

[reFORMer]

There's absolute nothingness (whether real or an abstraction.)

There's nothing as a result of something removed, as weeds judged unfit to remain.

There's nothing as a precorsor of something, as removal of weeds that the intended plant may come forth.

Then there's the road to Emmaus, translated that means the road to (the longer form of) "I, me, my (-self)."  How do we get to who we ultimately must be if we don't know where we are going?  When Jesus was present with them they knew Him not; but, when He disappeared out of their sight, absenting Himself, then they knew Him in the breaking of the bread, which was creating a nothingness in something we are.  "...we, who are many, are one bread, one body, for we all are partaking of the one bread." (1 Co 10:17, CLV)  This is like His mother observed, "The hungry He fills with good things, And the rich He sends away empty." (Lk 1:53)  The empty is filled, the full empty.  He was absent when present and present in absence.  This is nothing when something that is something when nothing.

This is Divine nature, physically true of those that happen upon the resurrection from the dead.  This is introduced into us by the vivification of our fallen into mortality spirit.  Angels can close our eye of understanding when present with us that we cannot recognize them until they have gone.

That Jesus showed the disciples evidence of the wounds He suffered is because they belonged to Him.  In those days He appeared not to the world or Israel, but to those He chooses.  In ascension He appears in whatever form He chooses.  To whom He will, how He will:  This He still does.  He has come to us a Spirit to cohabit our body with us.  His victory means the permanentizing of the physical realm.  Yet, in that realm, the cosmos is said to eventually be folded up like a worn out garment for a keepsake.  Having a immortal body means it can descend into expression in the physical realm.  Ascension means He can appear (or not) in whatever form He will.


your brother, James Rohde

[claypot]

I think it might have been Nathan who said:

There is nothing you have said here that I disagree with . . .perhaps my wording could have been clearer.  But my original intent was to try to clarify that the ripped up body they took down from the cross, was not the same resurrected body Jesus later manifested in . . . it was the same Jesus, it was his body . .and it was flesh . .but it was a resurrected state of the flesh.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if some saw nail prints (scars) and others saw perfectly healed skin.  I believe he reveals himself in different ways to different people . . . I'm not going to make a doctrine of that . . .it's just a thought.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

Tony, I actually laughed out loud at this reply of yours. I gots to give you credit Bro, you stick to your guns!

Maybe Jesus was wearing a Halloween mask?

I did really like what you said when you wrote....It is worth making an argument over so go with God and He will reveal things to whom He will in His time as it accords with the Scriptures.

That's a gem I will try to hang on to. Thanks and I mean it Brother.

cp

[Nathan]

I think it might have been Nathan who said:

There is nothing you have said here that I disagree with . . .perhaps my wording could have been clearer.  But my original intent was to try to clarify that the ripped up body they took down from the cross, was not the same resurrected body Jesus later manifested in . . . it was the same Jesus, it was his body . .and it was flesh . .but it was a resurrected state of the flesh.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if some saw nail prints (scars) and others saw perfectly healed skin.  I believe he reveals himself in different ways to different people . . . I'm not going to make a doctrine of that . . .it's just a thought.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Well of course . . .Jesus was wearing a hood . .cuz you have always been one that would never include anything that Scripture hasn't already stated . . . and the fact that you've just changed from Jesus still being so beat up he couldn't be recognized . .that now he's wearing a hood . . .yup . . .that's truth in it's best form . .. sure am glad we have you here so that God can reveal his literal word to us.

I never saw it there before . . .all I saw was where the Bible said it was at the breaking of bread that their eyes were opened . . . all this time . .he was wearing a HOOD!!!  Wow . . .that's so deep!  I've always thought that it was about communion that brings about revelation . . .and here . . . it's about his hood . . .

Luke 24
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.  31Then their (AA)eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.

 35They began to relate their experiences on the road and how (AG)He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Yup . . . you were right all along bro . . . right there it is . . .Jesus was wearing a hood.  I guess maybe I should go back to being a literalist myself . . . I can't believe I didn't see that before.

Oh . .. so on this passage . . .a little later in the same chapter . . .
42They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;  43and He took it and (AN)ate it before them.  44Now He said to them, "(AO)These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the (AP)Law of Moses and the Prophets and (AQ)the Psalms must be fulfilled."  45Then He (AR)opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

So . . .while they ate with Jesus . . .he took their hoods off . . . everybody's wearing hoods . . .maybe that's how people knew they were Jesus disciples . . .they were all wearing hoods.

Thanks for bringing such clarity to the facts of Scripture.

[Brian]

Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

The orthodox answer, as I understand it, is that Moses and Elijah would have come up from the depths of the earth i.e. Sheol/Hades/Abraham's bosom, rather than having decended from Heaven. I base this on 1 Samuel 28:11-15
 11Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" And he said, "Bring up Samuel for me."
 12When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, "Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul."
 13The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth."
 14He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe " And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.
 15Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"

Also,

Matthew 22:32
32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

[Cardinal]

  Jews brought up out of a type of "purgatory", eh? 

[Tony N]

Joh 3:13 And no one has ascended into heaven except He Who descends out of heaven, the Son of Mankind Who is in heaven."

Either you believe the above or you don't. I believe it. If you believe Moses and Elijah were literally alive on the mount with Jesus and the three then you don't believe John 3:13.

The verse below is about the first to be made alive or vivified:
1Co 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;"

If you believe Moses was literally alive with Elijah on that mount then you cannot believe Jesus was the firstfruit of that. Moses beat him to the punch. It should be written "Moses is the firstfruit of vivification."

The orthodox answer, as I understand it, is that Moses and Elijah would have come up from the depths of the earth i.e. Sheol/Hades/Abraham's bosom, rather than having decended from Heaven. I base this on 1 Samuel 28:11-15
 11Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" And he said, "Bring up Samuel for me."
 12When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, "Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul."
 13The king said to her, "Do not be afraid; but what do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a divine being coming up out of the earth."
 14He said to her, "What is his form?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe " And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.
 15Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?"

Also,

Matthew 22:32
32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

It wasn't really Samuel she brought up but a familiar spirit.

Also, Matthew 22:32 is concerning the resurrection of the dead and how that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob must be resurrected (flesh, bones and blood).
Jesus said so Himself:

Mat 22:31 Now concerning the resurrection of the dead, did you not read that which is declared to you by God, saying,

[Tony N]

I think it might have been Nathan who said:

There is nothing you have said here that I disagree with . . .perhaps my wording could have been clearer.  But my original intent was to try to clarify that the ripped up body they took down from the cross, was not the same resurrected body Jesus later manifested in . . . it was the same Jesus, it was his body . .and it was flesh . .but it was a resurrected state of the flesh.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if some saw nail prints (scars) and others saw perfectly healed skin.  I believe he reveals himself in different ways to different people . . . I'm not going to make a doctrine of that . . .it's just a thought.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Well of course . . .Jesus was wearing a hood . .cuz you have always been one that would never include anything that Scripture hasn't already stated . . . and the fact that you've just changed from Jesus still being so beat up he couldn't be recognized . .that now he's wearing a hood . . .yup . . .that's truth in it's best form . .. sure am glad we have you here so that God can reveal his literal word to us.

I never saw it there before . . .all I saw was where the Bible said it was at the breaking of bread that their eyes were opened . . . all this time . .he was wearing a HOOD!!!  Wow . . .that's so deep!  I've always thought that it was about communion that brings about revelation . . .and here . . . it's about his hood . . .

Luke 24
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.  31Then their (AA)eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.

 35They began to relate their experiences on the road and how (AG)He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Yup . . . you were right all along bro . . . right there it is . . .Jesus was wearing a hood.  I guess maybe I should go back to being a literalist myself . . . I can't believe I didn't see that before.

Oh . .. so on this passage . . .a little later in the same chapter . . .
42They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;  43and He took it and (AN)ate it before them.  44Now He said to them, "(AO)These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the (AP)Law of Moses and the Prophets and (AQ)the Psalms must be fulfilled."  45Then He (AR)opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

So . . .while they ate with Jesus . . .he took their hoods off . . . everybody's wearing hoods . . .maybe that's how people knew they were Jesus disciples . . .they were all wearing hoods.

Thanks for bringing such clarity to the facts of Scripture.

Nathan, I got to hand it to you, you win the rude award. Your attitude sure shows the spirit of Christ. 

But let's get back to the good stuff. As I said it was getting dark on the road to Emmaus and most likely was not that well lit in the house where he went into. Why? You ever see those tiny oil lamps the Jews used to use? Very tiny. And so it was not till He broke the bread that they recognized Him.

Mary too was literally in the dark when she first met Jesus in the garden and had her back to Him. It was when He said "Miriam!" that she turned around and recognized Him.

Not only that but back then they used to wear hoods all the time.

Jesus had a gaping hole in His side for which Thomas could have put his hand into. Let's believe the Scriptures.

Nathan, please, for a witness to those who come here, lay off the rudeness a little, O.K.?

[Tony N]

I think it might have been Nathan who said:

There is nothing you have said here that I disagree with . . .perhaps my wording could have been clearer.  But my original intent was to try to clarify that the ripped up body they took down from the cross, was not the same resurrected body Jesus later manifested in . . . it was the same Jesus, it was his body . .and it was flesh . .but it was a resurrected state of the flesh.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if some saw nail prints (scars) and others saw perfectly healed skin.  I believe he reveals himself in different ways to different people . . . I'm not going to make a doctrine of that . . .it's just a thought.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

Tony, I actually laughed out loud at this reply of yours. I gots to give you credit Bro, you stick to your guns!

Maybe Jesus was wearing a Halloween mask?

I did really like what you said when you wrote....It is worth making an argument over so go with God and He will reveal things to whom He will in His time as it accords with the Scriptures.

That's a gem I will try to hang on to. Thanks and I mean it Brother.

cp

It must be the demon spirit of mockery coming out of you and Nathan attacking me today.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."
Joh 20:15 Jesus is saying to her, "Woman, why are you lamenting? Whom are you seeking?She, supposing that He is the gardener, is saying to Him, "Lord, if you bear Him off, tell me where you place Him, and I will take Him away."
Joh 20:16 Jesus is saying to her, "Miriam! Now, being turned, she is saying to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!"

Get thee behind me mocking spirit.

[Nathan]

I think it might have been Nathan who said:

There is nothing you have said here that I disagree with . . .perhaps my wording could have been clearer.  But my original intent was to try to clarify that the ripped up body they took down from the cross, was not the same resurrected body Jesus later manifested in . . . it was the same Jesus, it was his body . .and it was flesh . .but it was a resurrected state of the flesh.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if some saw nail prints (scars) and others saw perfectly healed skin.  I believe he reveals himself in different ways to different people . . . I'm not going to make a doctrine of that . . .it's just a thought.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Well of course . . .Jesus was wearing a hood . .cuz you have always been one that would never include anything that Scripture hasn't already stated . . . and the fact that you've just changed from Jesus still being so beat up he couldn't be recognized . .that now he's wearing a hood . . .yup . . .that's truth in it's best form . .. sure am glad we have you here so that God can reveal his literal word to us.

I never saw it there before . . .all I saw was where the Bible said it was at the breaking of bread that their eyes were opened . . . all this time . .he was wearing a HOOD!!!  Wow . . .that's so deep!  I've always thought that it was about communion that brings about revelation . . .and here . . . it's about his hood . . .

Luke 24
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.  31Then their (AA)eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.

 35They began to relate their experiences on the road and how (AG)He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Yup . . . you were right all along bro . . . right there it is . . .Jesus was wearing a hood.  I guess maybe I should go back to being a literalist myself . . . I can't believe I didn't see that before.

Oh . .. so on this passage . . .a little later in the same chapter . . .
42They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;  43and He took it and (AN)ate it before them.  44Now He said to them, "(AO)These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the (AP)Law of Moses and the Prophets and (AQ)the Psalms must be fulfilled."  45Then He (AR)opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

So . . .while they ate with Jesus . . .he took their hoods off . . . everybody's wearing hoods . . .maybe that's how people knew they were Jesus disciples . . .they were all wearing hoods.

Thanks for bringing such clarity to the facts of Scripture.

Nathan, I got to hand it to you, you win the rude award. Your attitude sure shows the spirit of Christ. 

But let's get back to the good stuff. As I said it was getting dark on the road to Emmaus and most likely was not that well lit in the house where he went into. Why? You ever see those tiny oil lamps the Jews used to use? Very tiny. And so it was not till He broke the bread that they recognized Him.

Mary too was literally in the dark when she first met Jesus in the garden and had her back to Him. It was when He said "Miriam!" that she turned around and recognized Him.

Not only that but back then they used to wear hoods all the time.

Jesus had a gaping hole in His side for which Thomas could have put his hand into. Let's believe the Scriptures.

Nathan, please, for a witness to those who come here, lay off the rudeness a little, O.K.?

Seriously Tony . . . There is absolutely no indication in Scripture AT ALL that they could not recognize Jesus because he was wearing  a hood . .because the light was low . .or any other reason your mind chooses to conjure up.  The reason they didn't recognize him had nothing to do with his physical state.  I'm irritated with your stubbornness to even consider that it's a spiritual recognition more than anything.  You're so tied to embracing a literal point . . .I don't apologize for the attitude . . .you want to present yourself as more knowledgable, yet your "sound" doctrine never holds water.  You skirt questions poised to prove your thinking to be slighted one way or another and yet you turn the tables to present me as the bad guy.

I'll accept it . . I've done nothing to mask my frustrations . . . I don't see you as less than I, but I do have a shorter leash with your arguments than I have with others.  If people read my previous posts . .they see that I am not a rude person, as you suggest.  But in every way, I attempt to keep Christ in the forefront . . .which your enforcement of physical over spiritual keeps trying to tear that part down.  You don't even agree that Christ is a spirit . . .he's everywhere all the time . .. but he's not a spirit.  . . you find the simplest comments and dissect the meaning of the words used, according to 'your' vocabulary, which derails the original intent of the message given . . .and now, because I've been a little sarcastic, you're inflating that into more than it is as well.

Even in this discussion, you are unwilling to see that Christ revealed himself to those OF HIS CHOOSING.  The idea that he is still in his mutilated state after the resurrection, a carcass with no blood, just mutilated flesh . . .still unrecognizable, but yet spent another 40 days on this earth in that so called mutilated state . . . and you then are bewildered that someone would be critical of that?

The entire purpose of Christ, was not to bring emphasis to the physical, but to enable us to enter into the spiritual.  It was not to come and enable us to just get by . . .but he came and anhilated . . .he made a show of . . . he conquerred the enemy . .the carnality, the flesh . . .that which he conquerred, you seem to keep trying to resurrect.  So no, I'm not going to roll over and leave that kind of thinking up to you.  I "am" going to push back a little.

As I've mentioned before . . .the UR perspective is not the totality of who Christ is.  It's just a thread of the whole truth of who he is.  Oddly enough, the UR piece seems to be the "only" aspect of Christ that you and I agree with.  The other thing seems to also be that even though I may not come across to you as perfect . . . there is a great Grace that sees me as perfected.  This is not to say I do whatever nasty thing I want to do and still claim purity within.  But it does allow me to keep my personality as I go through the process of maturity in Christ on this journey of life in the natural.

So that enables me to become passionate in areas where I have experienced revelational things in God that you attempt to denounce.  This argument about the hoods could go on and on . . .you make it look like Jesus was trying to hide himself . . .like he didn't want people to know he'd resurrected . . .that whole line of thought is against the very purpose of his Coming.  "That" was the very reason why he came . . .why on earth would he then throw a cloak over his body . . .to hide it?

You never answered questions like if he could literally replace the ear of a guy . . .if he could heal a withered hand . .if he could heal leporsy . . .but he couldn't heal his own flesh???  These questions would only prolong this argument and it's just not worth fighting over.  I believe whole heartedly, not because I've read the words and have come to a logical conclusion . .but because I can see in my spirit  . . . he revealed/reveals himself to those with whom he communes with . . .with those who he has a relationship with. 

It's as the word says .  . . it's a spirit-to-spirit communication of the resurrected life in a river of death that he manifests in.  Don't diminish that by telling me that he wore a hood over his face to hide the hideousness of his flesh.  He was a resurrected Christ in a glorified body.

Can I be any clearer with that?  Again, I'm not mad, I'm not looking for vengence and I see no need for any defence as to what I see . . nor am I interested in trying to win you over.  You will see what you will see, when it is "revealed" to you just like it is with anyone else.  And that's no my job.  You trust the spirit as you say, then I'll trust the spirit will reveal to you his light in time.

[Zeek]

I think it might have been Nathan who said:

There is nothing you have said here that I disagree with . . .perhaps my wording could have been clearer.  But my original intent was to try to clarify that the ripped up body they took down from the cross, was not the same resurrected body Jesus later manifested in . . . it was the same Jesus, it was his body . .and it was flesh . .but it was a resurrected state of the flesh.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if some saw nail prints (scars) and others saw perfectly healed skin.  I believe he reveals himself in different ways to different people . . . I'm not going to make a doctrine of that . . .it's just a thought.

It never says He didn't have nail prints etc. after His resurrection. Jesus Himself said to Thomas to put his hand into His side and fingers into His nail prints.

That is all we can go by.

The reason Mary did not recognize Him at first in the garden in the early morn of His resurrection is she had her back to him.

Joh 20:14 Saying these things, she turned behind, and is beholding Jesus standing, and she was not aware that it is Jesus."

It is possible the two on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him due to him having his face hooded and it could have been getting dark for they begged him to turn in with them.

Luk 24:29  But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.

Well of course . . .Jesus was wearing a hood . .cuz you have always been one that would never include anything that Scripture hasn't already stated . . . and the fact that you've just changed from Jesus still being so beat up he couldn't be recognized . .that now he's wearing a hood . . .yup . . .that's truth in it's best form . .. sure am glad we have you here so that God can reveal his literal word to us.

I never saw it there before . . .all I saw was where the Bible said it was at the breaking of bread that their eyes were opened . . . all this time . .he was wearing a HOOD!!!  Wow . . .that's so deep!  I've always thought that it was about communion that brings about revelation . . .and here . . . it's about his hood . . .

Luke 24
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.  31Then their (AA)eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight
30When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and (Z)blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.

 35They began to relate their experiences on the road and how (AG)He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.

Yup . . . you were right all along bro . . . right there it is . . .Jesus was wearing a hood.  I guess maybe I should go back to being a literalist myself . . . I can't believe I didn't see that before.

Oh . .. so on this passage . . .a little later in the same chapter . . .
42They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish;  43and He took it and (AN)ate it before them.  44Now He said to them, "(AO)These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the (AP)Law of Moses and the Prophets and (AQ)the Psalms must be fulfilled."  45Then He (AR)opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

So . . .while they ate with Jesus . . .he took their hoods off . . . everybody's wearing hoods . . .maybe that's how people knew they were Jesus disciples . . .they were all wearing hoods.

Thanks for bringing such clarity to the facts of Scripture.

Nathan, I got to hand it to you, you win the rude award. Your attitude sure shows the spirit of Christ. 

But let's get back to the good stuff. As I said it was getting dark on the road to Emmaus and most likely was not that well lit in the house where he went into. Why? You ever see those tiny oil lamps the Jews used to use? Very tiny. And so it was not till He broke the bread that they recognized Him.

Mary too was literally in the dark when she first met Jesus in the garden and had her back to Him. It was when He said "Miriam!" that she turned around and recognized Him.

Not only that but back then they used to wear hoods all the time.

Jesus had a gaping hole in His side for which Thomas could have put his hand into. Let's believe the Scriptures.

Nathan, please, for a witness to those who come here, lay off the rudeness a little, O.K.?

Seriously Tony . . . There is absolutely no indication in Scripture AT ALL that they could not recognize Jesus because he was wearing  a hood . .because the light was low . .or any other reason your mind chooses to conjure up.  The reason they didn't recognize him had nothing to do with his physical state.  I'm irritated with your stubbornness to even consider that it's a spiritual recognition more than anything.  You're so tied to embracing a literal point . . .I don't apologize for the attitude . . .you want to present yourself as more knowledgable, yet your "sound" doctrine never holds water.  You skirt questions poised to prove your thinking to be slighted one way or another and yet you turn the tables to present me as the bad guy.

I'll accept it . . I've done nothing to mask my frustrations . . . I don't see you as less than I, but I do have a shorter leash with your arguments than I have with others.  If people read my previous posts . .they see that I am not a rude person, as you suggest.  But in every way, I attempt to keep Christ in the forefront . . .which your enforcement of physical over spiritual keeps trying to tear that part down.  You don't even agree that Christ is a spirit . . .he's everywhere all the time . .. but he's not a spirit.  . . you find the simplest comments and dissect the meaning of the words used, according to 'your' vocabulary, which derails the original intent of the message given . . .and now, because I've been a little sarcastic, you're inflating that into more than it is as well.

Even in this discussion, you are unwilling to see that Christ revealed himself to those OF HIS CHOOSING.  The idea that he is still in his mutilated state after the resurrection, a carcass with no blood, just mutilated flesh . . .still unrecognizable, but yet spent another 40 days on this earth in that so called mutilated state . . . and you then are bewildered that someone would be critical of that?

The entire purpose of Christ, was not to bring emphasis to the physical, but to enable us to enter into the spiritual.  It was not to come and enable us to just get by . . .but he came and anhilated . . .he made a show of . . . he conquerred the enemy . .the carnality, the flesh . . .that which he conquerred, you seem to keep trying to resurrect.  So no, I'm not going to roll over and leave that kind of thinking up to you.  I "am" going to push back a little.

As I've mentioned before . . .the UR perspective is not the totality of who Christ is.  It's just a thread of the whole truth of who he is.  Oddly enough, the UR piece seems to be the "only" aspect of Christ that you and I agree with.  The other thing seems to also be that even though I may not come across to you as perfect . . . there is a great Grace that sees me as perfected.  This is not to say I do whatever nasty thing I want to do and still claim purity within.  But it does allow me to keep my personality as I go through the process of maturity in Christ on this journey of life in the natural.

So that enables me to become passionate in areas where I have experienced revelational things in God that you attempt to denounce.  This argument about the hoods could go on and on . . .you make it look like Jesus was trying to hide himself . . .like he didn't want people to know he'd resurrected . . .that whole line of thought is against the very purpose of his Coming.  "That" was the very reason why he came . . .why on earth would he then throw a cloak over his body . . .to hide it?

You never answered questions like if he could literally replace the ear of a guy . . .if he could heal a withered hand . .if he could heal leporsy . . .but he couldn't heal his own flesh???  These questions would only prolong this argument and it's just not worth fighting over.  I believe whole heartedly, not because I've read the words and have come to a logical conclusion . .but because I can see in my spirit  . . . he revealed/reveals himself to those with whom he communes with . . .with those who he has a relationship with. 

It's as the word says .  . . it's a spirit-to-spirit communication of the resurrected life in a river of death that he manifests in.  Don't diminish that by telling me that he wore a hood over his face to hide the hideousness of his flesh.  He was a resurrected Christ in a glorified body.

Can I be any clearer with that?  Again, I'm not mad, I'm not looking for vengence and I see no need for any defence as to what I see . . nor am I interested in trying to win you over.  You will see what you will see, when it is "revealed" to you just like it is with anyone else.  And that's no my job.  You trust the spirit as you say, then I'll trust the spirit will reveal to you his light in time.

ever read a book, and it spoke to you in ways that words can't describe, an inner awakening.  And you were so excited you recommended it to a friend.  And after your friend read it, he/she got nothing from it?  And yet they might have watched a show, that God spoke to them through, and you watched it to, and felt nothing.   

maybe, just maybe; each of u (Nathan, etc and Tony) are trying to convince the other of a "spiritual" truth that they have been revealed.  In other words, what one may see as "literal" in another might be a spiriutal revelation for that person; and likewise, and vice versa. 

God speaks to each of us inwardly does he not? 


if one's belief creates inner peace and joy, is that not of the Spirit? 

just some thoughts. 


 

[Tony N]

Nathan falsely accused me:

. . .you want to present yourself as more knowledgable, yet your "sound" doctrine never holds water.

Nathan, not only are you rude but you are a false accuser of the brethren. Just because I share my thoughts with people on these boards does not in any way mean I am trying to present myself as more knowledgeable than anyone else. Just because the Scriptural truths totally slam your ideas does not mean you have to character assassinate the messenger.

You never answered questions like if he could literally replace the ear of a guy . . .if he could heal a withered hand . .if he could heal leporsy . . .but he couldn't heal his own flesh???  These questions would only prolong this argument and it's just not worth fighting over.  I believe whole heartedly, not because I've read the words and have come to a logical conclusion . .but because I can see in my spirit  . . . he revealed/reveals himself to those with whom he communes with . . .with those who he has a relationship with. 

I did answer you, maybe not to your liking but I did. I said all we know is that He had gaping holes in his hands one could put their finger in and a gaping hole in His side one could put their hand in. (end of original answer).

 We are not told why He never healed up His wounds. Why should He heal them? They are a witness to mankind, to angels, to His Father and to the denizens among the celestials of what He went through in obedience to God and His love for all.

[jabcat]

Are we close to everybody having said what is beneficial in this thread?  Maybe someone could get us back to the original OP with an interesting thought or question.

Anything need to go to PM at this point?

I see something here that I think is a shame.  The two main principals in these tug 'o wars, IMO, have a lot to add to the body and ministry here.  But I think the arguing gets tedious, and the possible benefits are hindered.  I like this line from Zeek;  "maybe, just maybe; each of u (Nathan, etc and Tony) are trying to convince the other of a "spiritual" truth that they have been revealed.  In other words, what one may see as "literal" in another might be a spiriutal revelation for that person; and likewise, and vice versa."

If we could just share more (instead of argue, and at least appear that the other needs to be convinced by our arguments) we'd probably all benefit more.  Getting back to the "in my opinion/as I see it/as I understand", etc., and then let God move us all where we need to go...

My thoughts and suggestions.  You both have shared really great things, but too often the trees get lost in the forest.  My  .

James. 

[claypot]

Due to piecemeal research, I've come across the following:

In the first six schools of Christian theology, ET was only taught in the one in Rome.
So, ET is basically an RC invention.

However, then I heard that John Paul II said you don't have to believe in the RC church or even Jesus Christ to be saved. You're saved by adhering to the Beatitudes.

Then recently my pastor who was raised a Catholic, reminisced about how priests would tell him everyone will eventually get to heaven (quoted in a sarcastic tone).
Before that I heard him saying in the same tone how he'd hear, you better keep up with your confessions or you might die with an un-confessed mortal sin (which I took as meaning having to maintain salvation)

So, I'm wondering off hand, what's the deal?

Also, when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

But, wasn't Purgatory actually originally taught in BC Judaism?

Looks like we strayed just a tad from Brians original questions which I have not a clue on. The above is the first post in this thread.

cp

[peacemaker]

... when I hear the subject of Purgatory being brought up by fundamental apologists,
they say this is a purely Catholic invention based on a single verse in the apocraful  book of Maccabees

But, wasn't Purgatory actually originally taught in BC Judaism?

The Hebrew texts were in reference to "Sheol" and the purgatorial interpretation is not found, unless you include the book(s) of Maccabees. However, combine this with the Pagan underworld, and you have PURGATORY – an idea that was adopted by the Jews from the Egyptians, etc.

Although, there are those who see this, as the mercy of God?

peacemaker

[Cardinal]

  Since all doctrinal errors are mimicry of something that God has established, which is why there is nothing new under the sun, what then would the pagan underworld being trying to mimic? Sometimes looking at things in reverse can reveal a truth, or at least the existence of it, even if that truth is not generally known. Blessings....