The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

[bbbbbbb]

So first off, that doesn't say they declared anyone non-existent (let alone "officially"), contrary to your claim. Indeed, the article notes:

But they weren’t actually de-sainted, just downgraded, said Christopher Bellito, a history professor at Kean University.

"The purpose was to clean up a crowded liturgical calendar,” he said. "They decided to remove particular feast days of those saints whose origins were shrouded in more mystery than manuscripts."

So all that was done was his feast day was removed from the calendar. That's it. That's not an "official" declaration he didn't exist. Plenty of people declared saints aren't on the calendar.

Now, the article does go on to talk specifically about Christopher. Let's see what it says:

Among Catholicism’s most popular saints, Christopher was listed as a martyr.

Legend had it he carried a child who grew increasingly heavy across a river -- the child was supposed to be carrying the weight of God.

But there wasn’t enough historical evidence the man ever existed, so Pope Paul VI dropped him.

Note, yet again, there is no mention of any "official" declaration he did not exist, which is what you claimed. All it says is that he was removed because there wasn't enough historical evidence he existed, which is a very different claim.

However, even that more moderate claim seems to be inaccurate. Looking into it, this seems to be the "official" announcement regarding the changes in the calendar that happened:

Calendarium Romanum (1969) : Catholic Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church as reformed after the Second Vatican Council.The first part of the book is a description of the calendar; the...

archive.org

Memoria S. Christophori, anno circiter 1550 in Calendario romano ascripta, Calendariis particularibus relinquitur: quamvis Acta S. Christophori fabulosa sint, antiqua inveniuntur monumenta eius venerationis; attamen cultus huius Sancti non pertinet ad traditionem romanam

Which means, at least according to an automated translation (they've gotten a lot better with Latin to English computer translations):

"The memory of St. Christopher, recorded in the Roman calendar about 1550, is left to particular calendars: although the Acts of St. Christopher are legendary, ancient monuments of his veneration are found; however, the cult of this Saint does not belong to the Roman tradition"

So what does it say? Well, it was taken from the Roman Calendar (that is, the calendar of the church as a whole) but is left to local ones. It notes the Acts of St. Christopher (a later document) is legendary, but that there are ancient monuments of his veneration. Its concluding statement, which appears to be the reason he was removed, is that he does not belong to the Roman tradition (he was, after all, only added to the calendar in 1550).

So not only does it not make any official proclamation he didn't exist, it does not state his existence is doubtful, just a particular later document about him was legendary. Maybe one could read that as saying we don't really know anything about his life, but that's a far cry from expressing doubts on his existence, let alone making any official declaration he didn't exist. And finally, the apparent reason for him being dropped isn't due to doubt of his existence, but his late inclusion.

Indeed, he still seems to be listed in the Roman Martyrology (a list of saints, martyrs, and those declared blessed) at least as of 2004 (I'm not sure if there are any newer editions):

Martyrologium Romanum (2004) : Catholic Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The updated Latin edition (2004) of the Martyrologium Romanum as reformed after the Second Vatican Council.Contains over 7,000 saints and blesseds currently...

archive.org

I believe he is the "Christophorus, m. Lycia, 25 iul. 2 (s. inc.)"

So he does not seem to have ever been declared (officially or otherwise) to be nonexistent by the Catholic Church, and is still regarded as a saint. All they did was drop him from the Roman liturgical calendar to try to lower the number of people on it (local areas can still include him), and the "official" reason given seems to--contrary to what the article claimed--more be that he just wasn't part of the Roman tradition.

Well, that leaves the other 92 "saints" in the same Limbo.

However, we diverge from the topic of discussion. Would you kindly address the questions the Bob Ryan has raised in his posts?

 

[tall73]

Metropolitan Kallistos is extremely accessible in that his two works The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way are intended for use both by Orthodox and by other people with no prior knowledge of Orthodox Christianity - he wrote them largely to address a lack of public knowledge anout Eastern Christianity. They are both freely available on scribd, by the way. Note that what I said is also true of older editions of The Orthodox Church, which some people prefer. His other work is less accessible, for example, his translations of the Philokalia and the Triodion and Festal Menaion with Mother Mary, a Greek nun, who has kept a low profile (I have no idea which monastery she is even a member of) are of interest to those with some knowledge of Patristics and mystical theology in the case of the Philokalia and the other two, the Triodion and Festal Menaion, are liturgical books, largely hymnals, in that they contain the hymns and certain rubrics, that is to say, instructions on how to perform the services, which in antiquity were written with red ink before someone had the idea of using rubrication to highlight the words spoken by Christ in the Bible. In many modern service books, rubrics are written in italics to save money on printing since buying only black ink is cheaper, and also for legibility, and this is the case in the Triodion and Festal Menaion as translated by His Eminence. I really like these works, but obviously they are less accessible than The Orthodox Church, which is his most accessible work, and The Orthodox Way, which is also extremely accessible, being a meditation on Orthodox theology.

Also accessible and more doctrinaire, no pun intended, is Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, which is slighly more accessible than St. John of Damascus, because Patristic writers can be challenging for some to read owing to their different approach to organizing and presenting information. However Fr. Michael assumes the reader is Orthodox and does not go out of his way to engage in lengthy apologetics; it is a work of dogmatic theology intended to clearly define the Orthodox doctrine as a reference for clergy and the faithful and anyone else who cares, but not as much an attempt to promote the Orthodox Church, which the writings of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Way, to some extent are (more to publicize the church and inform Western Christians about a largely unknown and at times seemingly alien or inscrutable form of Christianity, which can seem bizarre to some Protestants who are not acquainted with its history). However Metropolitan Kallistos is much less interested in proselytizing with the work or engaging in active apologetics than, for example, Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick in Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy.

Thank you for the good summary. So it might be best to re-read the Orthodox Church and Orthodox Way (as it has been a while), and then perhaps Michael Pomazansky's work, followed by that of John Damascus?

 

[The Liturgist]

Thank you for the good summary. So it might be best to re-read the Orthodox Church and Orthodox Way (as it has been a while), and then perhaps Michael Pomazansky's work, followed by that of John Damascus?

Yes, I would suggest such a course, if one merely wants to reacquaint oneself with Orthodox dogmatics. I myself feel like it would be better to use the Orthodox Way as a stepping off place to the Orthodox works it cites (it also cites non-Orthodox works, such as the Danish theologian and philosopher Soren Kierkegaard), that are of a liturgical or mystical nature, because one cannot fully appreciate Orthodox Christianity without some knowledge of its approach to worship and its mystical theology and its theology of prayer and of the sacraments, which are essential. The utility of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology is that from an Eastern Orthodox perspective it is extremely reliable, and unlike a similiar work by Fr. Michael Azkoul, not extremely polemical, although it does frequently contrast Orthodox doctrine with Roman Catholic doctrine, but the main advantage of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology is that on the whole, its statements about Orthodox doctrine are less controversial than some views expressed by, for instance, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. Less controversial still is St. John of Damascus, and even less controversial is St. Athanasius; his two works, On The Incarnation and the Life of Anthony, being accepted by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and even Roman Catholics and many Protestants, since after all St. Athanasius did write the actual New Testament canon in his 67th Paschal Encyclical, but his mode of thought is very much in line with that of the Eastern Theologians, and St. Anthony is the first among the Desert Fathers, and the Desert Fathers are the prototypical Orthodox monastics and mystical theologians.

I don’t want to sound too confusing in this; all I am trying to do is to give you a sense of the landscape of some of the texts concerning Orthodoxy, because once you get beyond the introductory works of Metropolitan Kallistos, where you go should be determined by your objectives, and it should ideally be a journey to be enjoyed and savored that should at a minimum be edifying for your own practice of Christianity just as I still find some Western Christian authors particularly edifying despite having joined the Orthodox Church from a mainline denomination approximately a decade ago.

 

[The Liturgist]

So first off, that doesn't say they declared anyone non-existent (let alone "officially"), contrary to your claim. Indeed, the article notes:

But they weren’t actually de-sainted, just downgraded, said Christopher Bellito, a history professor at Kean University.

"The purpose was to clean up a crowded liturgical calendar,” he said. "They decided to remove particular feast days of those saints whose origins were shrouded in more mystery than manuscripts."

So all that was done was his feast day was removed from the calendar. That's it. That's not an "official" declaration he didn't exist. Plenty of people declared saints aren't on the calendar.

Now, the article does go on to talk specifically about Christopher. Let's see what it says:

Among Catholicism’s most popular saints, Christopher was listed as a martyr.

Legend had it he carried a child who grew increasingly heavy across a river -- the child was supposed to be carrying the weight of God.

But there wasn’t enough historical evidence the man ever existed, so Pope Paul VI dropped him.

Note, yet again, there is no mention of any "official" declaration he did not exist, which is what you claimed. All it says is that he was removed because there wasn't enough historical evidence he existed, which is a very different claim.

However, even that more moderate claim seems to be inaccurate. Looking into it, this seems to be the "official" announcement regarding the changes in the calendar that happened:

Calendarium Romanum (1969) : Catholic Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The liturgical calendar of the Catholic Church as reformed after the Second Vatican Council.The first part of the book is a description of the calendar; the...

archive.org

Memoria S. Christophori, anno circiter 1550 in Calendario romano ascripta, Calendariis particularibus relinquitur: quamvis Acta S. Christophori fabulosa sint, antiqua inveniuntur monumenta eius venerationis; attamen cultus huius Sancti non pertinet ad traditionem romanam

Which means, at least according to an automated translation (they've gotten a lot better with Latin to English computer translations):

"The memory of St. Christopher, recorded in the Roman calendar about 1550, is left to particular calendars: although the Acts of St. Christopher are legendary, ancient monuments of his veneration are found; however, the cult of this Saint does not belong to the Roman tradition"

So what does it say? Well, it was taken from the Roman Calendar (that is, the calendar of the church as a whole) but is left to local ones. It notes the Acts of St. Christopher (a later document) is legendary, but that there are ancient monuments of his veneration. Its concluding statement, which appears to be the reason he was removed, is that he does not belong to the Roman tradition (he was, after all, only added to the calendar in 1550).

So not only does it not make any official proclamation he didn't exist, it does not state his existence is doubtful, just a particular later document about him was legendary. Maybe one could read that as saying we don't really know anything about his life, but that's a far cry from expressing doubts on his existence, let alone making any official declaration he didn't exist. And finally, the apparent reason for him being dropped isn't due to doubt of his existence, but his late inclusion.

Indeed, he still seems to be listed in the Roman Martyrology (a list of saints, martyrs, and those declared blessed) at least as of 2004 (I'm not sure if there are any newer editions):

Martyrologium Romanum (2004) : Catholic Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The updated Latin edition (2004) of the Martyrologium Romanum as reformed after the Second Vatican Council.Contains over 7,000 saints and blesseds currently...

archive.org

I believe he is the "Christophorus, m. Lycia, 25 iul. 2 (s. inc.)"

So he does not seem to have ever been declared (officially or otherwise) to be nonexistent by the Catholic Church, and is still regarded as a saint. All they did was drop him from the Roman liturgical calendar to try to lower the number of people on it (local areas can still include him), and the "official" reason given seems to--contrary to what the article claimed--more be that he just wasn't part of the Roman tradition.

Also, this was part of the disastrous reform of some of the Catholic liturgical rites (the Maronite and Ambrosian rites were also badly damaged) by the Concilium, and does not affect the Usus Antiquor or the other Eastern Catholic liturgies, some of which, like the Ruthenian and Ukrainian Greek Catholic liturgies, actually benefitted from the removal of artificial Latinizations and were restored closer to their Orthodox prototypical form, since the Eastern Catholic Churches are basically Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Christians in communion with Rome, in the interests of Christian unity. Indeed for a while they were called “Uniates” but this term is now regarded as a pejorative (I don’t understand why, but since Eastern Catholics find it offensive, I am inclined to honor their wishes and assume there must be a compelling historical reason whIch I am unaware of, and unfortunately I don’t know enough Eastern Catholics to know the whole story, although there are a few on ChistianForums).

 

[Berserk]

Possibly these are the wrong questions. Try this

1. Does the Bible say that a dead person is omni-present or omniscient at the point of death --- at least to the point that they can hear all individual prayers made to them from all over the world at the same time - and can respond to each request either directly to the individual praying or in their supplication to God on behalf of each individual case. Does the Bible teach that about the dead?

Your question ignores the non-physical nature of heavenly realms. Near-Death Experiences

2. Are there any examples of some saint in the Bible praying to a dead person and making a request of them (that is not in the form of a demon lead spiritist seance that most Christians would reject since the Bible condemns it.)

No, but, Catholics argue, that if dead saints pray for us and monitor our progress, this logically implies the legitimacy of requesting their prayer support. Such prayer often works miracles, witness my Catholic acquaintnance who prayed to a saint to intercede for his wife's need to be healed from congestive heart failure--and the miracle occurred!

3. If it is to be argued that the dead person merely has the same ability and desire to pray for others as when they were alive

As already noted, John the Seer implies that this is precisely the case in Revelation 6:9-10.

- then was it ever the case that when alive they were able to hear all requests all around the world made to them at the same moment in time and respond to those requests -- or did they need to hear each one separately and be in real contact with each individual that made requests of them in their life time?

Your question wrongly assumes that souls in the afterlife still exist in a physical space-time continuum with all its limitations.
"And time shall be no more (Revelation 10:6)." Modern NDEs support the view that the afterlife is a realm without time and space as we know it. In general, deceased saints monitor our earthly journeys, cheering us on and even sending us aid (Hebrews 12:1-2). But they also have their own continuing journeys; so this does not necessarily imply postmortem human omniscience that is aware of all earthly prayer requests.

"4. In what sense are Bible texts true -- that say "the dead know not anything" and "god is not the God of the dead" Matt 22 -- ?"

The point of Matthew 22:31-32 is that God IS (not "WAS") currently "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." From this Jesus infers, "He is God, not of the dead, but of the living"--i. e. He is God of those postmortem souls who are still alive.

 

[BobRyan]

Your question ignores the non-physical nature of heavenly realms. Near-Death Experiences

Near-death experiences are not Bible texts. They are reports that come back from a person whose brain-cpu-computer was oxygen starved and shutting down just before reviving.

if your accountant said that just as he/she was finishing your taxes - his computer crashed. Would you respond with "well let's go with whatever it has and not check anything"?? Is your soul of less value than a tax return???

What matters is what the Bible says -- it says "the dead know not anything" and "god is not the God of the dead" in Matt 22.

No, but, Catholics argue, that if dead saints pray for us and monitor our progress, this logically implies the legitimacy of requesting their prayer support.

If the dead are god-like beings that can monitor each human on Earth at all times then of course they could hear and answer each request all over the Earth all at the same time - they would indeed "be like gods". No Bible text claims such a thing for the dead.

Certainly no living human on Earth has such powers.

Such prayer often works miracles, witness my Catholic acquaintnance who prayed to a saint to intercede for his wife's need to be healed from congestive heart failure--and the miracle occurred!

Pharaoh's magicians cast down their rods and they became serpents just as did Moses's rod. That alone does not prove it was "truth".

Matt 24 and 2 Thess 2 predicts "all power, signs and wonders" would be presented to the saints to get them to believe what is not true.

There is no good "substitute" for a doctrine tested and supported by the Word of God.

As already noted, John the Seer implies that this is precisely the case in Revelation 6:9-10.

in Rev 6 the dead are said to be asleep. They are told "to go back to sleep - to continue resting".
9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

In that symbolic vision all the dead saints - confined UNDER the Altar. And they are not hearing anyone on Earth or answering any specific request - rather they are calling down judgment on wicked humanity and asking why God has not destroyed sinful humans - avenging their own blood.

In Gen 4 God says that the blood of Abel cries out from the grave/ground - calling for vengence. Not because blood literally has its own mouth, or mind or ability to judge the living.

Your question wrongly assumes that souls in the afterlife still exist in a physical space-time continuum with all its limitations.
"And time shall be no more (Revelation 10:6)."

Time shall be no more in Rev 10 does not say anything like "when you die time shall be no more" .

When time and space cease - there is "no location" nor is there "some event" -- all events need time to happen and a place to happen.

In Rev 6 both time and place are referenced (Earth as a place/location and time as in "how long" asking how much longer it will be) even in the symbolism of souls located under the altar referring to humans alive and located on Earth and referring to the fact that the living humans have not yet been judged. Your own text refutes your claims.

Modern NDEs support the view that the afterlife is a realm

That they do - but do you trust that computer-crash scenario has being highly accurate. Better to trust the Bible, the Word of God.

Interesting that there is not one Bible statement affirming or claiming such a NDE for anyone.

In general, deceased saints monitor our earthly journeys, cheering us on and even sending us aid (Hebrews 12:1-2).

No text says that - not even Heb 12 references a single "deceased saint" doing anything at all.
Rather it says that those in Heb 11 - those who lived in the past are witnesses to the Gospel, witnesses for Christ in their life time

The point of Matthew 22:31-32 is that God IS (not "WAS") currently "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

True. The point made in Matt 22 is that when God was speaking to Moses saying "I AM the God of Abraham" it was long after Abraham died and of course "god is NOT the god of the dead" so His statement required that their be a future resurrection for Abraham. IN Matt 22 the Sadducees argued that there could BE NO future resurrection.

From this Jesus infers, "He is God, not of the dead, but of the living"--i. e. He is God of those postmortem souls who are still alive.

Ok you need to stop and think about what you just said.

IN Matt 22 Jesus said "but regarding the RESURRECTION have you not read that..." --

Jesus said that this puzzle, this argument was irrefutable proof of the future resurrection.

You just deleted the entire future resurrection for Christ's argument - and reworked it into a proof that "the dead are in a postmoterm ALIVE state and God IS THE GOD OF THE DEAD".

you can't bend that argument back on itself to say it is proof that god is the God of the dead -- without any need for a future resurrection to make the statement in Exodus true -- and then claim that this proves to Sadducees that there needs to be a future resurrection as the only solution to the problem. You have come up with a way to refute Christ's own proof of the future resurrection by ignoring his "not the god of the dead" statement and reworking it to "most certainly IS the god of the dead no resurrection needed"

 

[Berserk]

Near-death experiences are not Bible texts. They are reports that come back from a person whose brain-cpu-computer was oxygen starved and shutting down just before reviving.

So you actually believe that Heaven and Hell are out there in physical space-time?
The paranormal evidence for the authenticity of NDEs is far superior to that for Jesus' resurrection and thus makes it easier to believe the resurrection narratives, despite their apparent inconsistencies.

Bob Ryan: "What matters is what the Bible says -- it says "the dead know not anything" and "god is not the God of the dead" in Matt 22."

You didn't read my refutation of your claim carefully. So I repeat: Jesus teaches here that God IS (as opposed to WAS) "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Thus, Jesus adds, "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living," He means that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive right now! Jesus comforts the dying thief with the words, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43)." Of course, Jesus means, "Today you will be with me in Paradise enjoying its beauty and delights." Paul teaches. "To depart and be with Christ is far better (Phil. 1:23)." It is far better precisely because the righteous dead will be alive and fully aware that they are with Christ.

If the dead are god-like beings that can monitor each human on Earth at all times then of course they could hear and answer each request all over the Earth all at the same time - they would indeed "be like gods". No Bible text claims such a thing for the dead.

First, you keep ignoring the fact that the righteous dead need not "monitor each human on Earth at all times" to pray for specific needs that they occasionally hear about. You are creating a crude caricature to deflect attention away from being refuted.
Second, "Is it not written in your Law, "I said you are gods." If those to whom the Word of God came were callked "gods"...(Kohn 10:34-35)

Pharaoh's magicians cast down their rods and they became serpents just as did Moses's rod. That alone does not prove it was "truth".

But our God was not glorified by these stunts. When praying to a saint cured this Catholic's wife of congestive heart failure, God was glorified and Christ was praised. Your comment just attests how impoverished your own prayer life is by comparison. I'm confident that neither you nor any fundamentalist you know has cured someone of congestive heart failure through prayer.

In that symbolic vision all the dead saints - confined UNDER the Altar. And they are not hearing anyone on Earth or answering any specific request - rather they are calling down judgment on wicked humanity and asking why God has not destroyed sinful humans - avenging their own blood.

You duck 4 facts: (1) They are conscious and aware of the continuing persecution of Christians back on earth.
(2) They are engaged in intercessory prayer for the righteous on earth, like the deceased saints of Catholic tradition.
(3) You fail to recognize that "rest" does not mean "sleep;" it is encouragement to calm down. If they were asleep, they would not be capable of intercessory prayer!

Time shall be no more in Rev 10 does not say anything like "when you die time shall be no more" .

You don't know Greek. 10:6 says, "Time shall be no more," not "There shall be no more delays." As the old hymn "When the Role Is Called up Yoinder" rightly interprets, "When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound and time shall be no more."Interesting that there is not one Bible statement affirming or claiming such a NDE for anyone.
Interesting that the Bible never explicitly condemns abortion and, in fact, is cited by progressives in favor of the claim that a fetus is not a person. We must cite a noncanonical first-century Christian document for an explicit condemnation of aborion (Didache 4:2). The point you don't get is that biblical revelation may be inspired, but it is incomplete. Some questions must be answered by citing tradition and the evidence of reason and experience.

No text says that - not even Heb 12 references a single "deceased saint" doing anything at all.
Rather it says that those in Heb 11 - those who lived in the past are witnesses to the Gospel, witnesses for Christ in their life time

Nope. There are 2 key points you don't get: (1) 12:1 does not say, "Since were are PRECEDED by so great a cloud of witnesses;" it says, "Since we are SURROUNDED by so great a cloud of witnesses." The poetics here envisage a great crowd of deceased saints watching Christian athletes compete in their races in life's arena, cheering them on and sending them aid. (2) I

 

[Clare73]

Interesting that the Bible never explicitly condemns abortion

"Thou shalt not murder."

and, in fact, is cited by progressives in favor of the claim that a fetus is not a person.

The science of biology proves otherwise.
Beginning with the one-cell zygote of conception, the life is human life, a human being, not a rabbit being.
Human life consists of body, soul and spirit.
There is no human being without a human soul as its animating principle, and no human soul without a human spirit.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Interesting that the Bible never explicitly condemns abortion and, in fact, is cited by progressives in favor of the claim that a fetus is not a person.

Essentialism vs. Functionalism

Functionalism is at root in the modern abortion debate. The question “When does a fetus become a person? is representative. More extreme pro choice functionalists will state personhood is when a individual is rational, self-conscious, self-directed, volitional, and relational. There are many problems with functionalism.

“Essentialism” argues that the unborn is a person from conception, whatever its health or limitations are. The Christian view of personhood is: being made in the image of God with a created soul and spirit is sufficient for being a person and has the need and ability to be regenerated.

The zygote has no brain, true, but it does have what will grow into a brain, just as an infant does not have speech but he has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color and aversion to spinach. The personhood of the person is already there, One must actually be a human being, after all, to grow a human brain. Gradualism is God’s mandate for all created life in the Genesis accounts.

Combined with essentialism is our human anthropology. We are all descendants of Adam and horribly infected with the deadly disease of Original sin. Imputed guilt affects through all the stages gradual growth of a person.

Could it be that philosophic functionalism has infiltrated the ranks of the Credobaptists?
Theological functionalism states a person can only have faith defined by a set of functions or abilities. Such abilities must be present in actual not potential form. Any belief about capacities of faith must entail empirical verification. Theological functionalists deny baptism to infants and small children due to limited cognitive abilities. These abilities or capabilities must be present in order to have faith and be baptism.

Paedobaptists take seriously this horrid curse of the Fall for imputed guilt must be destroyed. Paedobaptists see the promises of baptism as a remedy for the curse of Adam.

 

[BobRyan]

So you actually believe that Heaven and Hell are out there in physical space-time?

Heaven is a real location - in Dan 7 the throne of God is there and myriads and myriads are attending in a court room where "the court sat and the books are opened". A throne is a physical object -- it has location.

Angels have location and are physically described in the Old Testament. An angel can be in one location and not in another one according to Daniel 9 and 10.

Heaven is a real "place" and the dimensions of the New Jerusalem coming down out heaven - to Earth - in the future is described in Rev 21.

Gates, walls, streets, the throne of God, the tree of life, the river of life, the fruit of the tree of life. All of that in Rev 21.

The paranormal evidence for the authenticity of NDEs is far superior to that for Jesus' resurrection

paranormal evidence as in " brains shutting down then claiming to have accuracy during shutdown" is a highly questionable "source" for accuracy.

Scripture has a lot to say about Christ and nothing at all to say about NDE. Scripture is far superior.

There is no denomination-of-near-death that I know. By contrast a LOT of Christian denominations claim their doctrine is based on scripture rather than claiming their doctrine is simply backed by NDE reports.

Bob Ryan: "What matters is what the Bible says -- it says "the dead know not anything" and "god is not the God of the dead" in Matt 22."

You didn't read my refutation of your claim carefully. So I repeat: Jesus teaches here that God IS (as opposed to WAS) "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

AND He says it is PROOF of the future resurrection NOT proof of "no NEED for future resurrection".

If you skip over that key detail we will keep going back to it until it is addressed.

Thus, Jesus adds, "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living," He means that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive right now!

FAlse - since that option would destroy what He claims is irrefutable PROOF of a future resurrection.

And of course any "proof" of the future resurrection doctrine rejected by the Sadducees could not be at all compelling if it was based on YET ANOTHER teaching that they reject. You could not say "I came from Mars and the proof for it is that the Easter Bunny also affirms this point". That kind of argument is not compelling at all. Yet Matt 22 is clear that the irrefutable proof of Christ silenced even the Sadducees. They could find no way out.

Jesus comforts the dying thief with the words, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43)."

Jesus is asked "REMEMBER Me WHEN you come into your kingdom".
Jesus responds "Surely I tell you today - you SHALL be with Me in paradise".

Jesus Himself did not go to Paradise that very day - as we all know.

 

[Berserk]

Heaven is a real location - in Dan 7 the throne of God is there and myriads and myriads are attending in a court room where "the court sat and the books are opened". A throne is a physical object -- it has location.z/

My God is omniscient, but in your shocking anthropomorphisms, God is a apparently a bearded guy literally sitting on a physical throne. Daniel's vision is purely poetically symbolic with a lion, bear, and leopard representing various nations. I'd be shocked if any poster here agrees with your crude anthroporphism. Jesus refutes such literalism this way: "The (future) kindom of God does not come with signs to be observed; nor will they say, "Look, here it is or there!" For the kingdom of God is [already] in yyour midst (Luke 17:21)." In other words the future kingdom of God won't be visible in our space-time continuum; rather, it is already present as an invisible spiritual dimension

paranormal evidence as in " brains shutting down then claiming to have accuracy during shutdown" is a highly questionable "source" for accuracy.

LOL, you pontificate without the integrity to actually investigate the evidence:'
NDERs, while unscious have acurrately described physical events and conversations outside their hospital room, well behind the range of their hearing. They have encountered the souls of people in the tunnel that have just died without their knowledge.
Their NDEs have often been shared by loved ones in the room as later interviews confirm. This common phenomenon is studied as Shared Deat5h Experiences.

Scripture has a lot to say about Christ and nothing at all to say about NDE.

NDEs are OBEs. In a textbook OBE Paul does more than experience an ordinary vision; indeed he is "caught up to the 3rd heaven" 9paradise), though he is uncertain whether he did so "in the body or outside the body (12:2).
To describe his OBEs Ezekiel does not just have visions; he actually leaves his body, describing this in phrases like "the Spirit lifted me up and took me away (3:14)" and "the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven (8:3)."

Scripture is far superior.

As revelation, but not as evidence. As evidence NDEs are far superior. The Gospel resurrection narratives are riddled with apoparent inconsistencies that have prompted many scholars to reject their historicity. You have no hope of reconciling these apparent inconsistences. Call my bluff and I'll expose your inability to resolve them! In any case, I accept the gist of these accounts by faith, despite their evidential problems.Jesus is asked "REMEMBER Me WHEN you come into your kingdom".

Jesus responds "Surely I tell you today - you SHALL be with Me in paradise".

Jesus uses the phrase "Truly I tell you" 40 times in your Gospels and never once is a modifier like "today" appended to its use. That means He is telling the thief when He will join him in Paradise. Indeed, it is silly to think Jesus needs to tell the thief He is telling him this \"today," as that would be superfluous. That's why no NT scholar takes the text your way. There is no contradiction between Jesus' descent to Hades and His ascent to Paradise on the same day. We aren't told the details of His itinerary.

 

[concretecamper]

My God is omniscient, but in your shocking anthropomorphisms, God is a apparently a bearded guy literally sitting on a physical throne. Daniel's vision is purely poetically symbolic with a lion, bear, and leopard representing various nations. I'd be shocked if any poster here agrees with your crude anthroporphism. Jesus refutes such literalism this way: "The (future) kindom of God does not come with signs to be observed; nor will they say, "Look, here it is or there!" For the kingdom of God is [already] in yyour midst (Luke 17:21)." In other words the future kingdom of God won't be visible in our space-time continuum; rather, it is already present as an invisible spiritual dimension

LOL, you pontificate without the integrity to actually investigate the evidence:'
NDERs, while unscious have acurrately described physical events and conversations outside their hospital room, well behind the range of their hearing. They have encountered the souls of people in the tunnel that have just died without their knowledge.
Their NDEs have often been shared by loved ones in the room as later interviews confirm. This common phenomenon is studied as Shared Deat5h Experiences.

NDEs are OBEs. In a textbook OBE Paul does more than experience an ordinary vision; indeed he is "caught up to the 3rd heaven" 9paradise), though he is uncertain whether he did so "in the body or outside the body (12:2).
To describe his OBEs Ezekiel does not just have visions; he actually leaves his body, describing this in phrases like "the Spirit lifted me up and took me away (3:14)" and "the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven (8:3)."

As revelation, but not as evidence. As evidence NDEs are far superior. The Gospel resurrection narratives are riddled with apoparent inconsistencies that have prompted many scholars to reject their historicity. You have no hope of reconciling these apparent inconsistences. Call my bluff and I'll expose your inability to resolve them! In any case, I accept the gist of these accounts by faith, despite their evidential problems.Jesus is asked "REMEMBER Me WHEN you come into your kingdom".

Jesus uses the phrase "Truly I tell you" 40 times in your Gospels and never once is a modifier like "today" appended to its use. That means He is telling the thief when He will join him in Paradise. Indeed, it is silly to think Jesus needs to tell the thief He is telling him this \"today," as that would be superfluous. That's why no NT scholar takes the text your way. There is no contradiction between Jesus' descent to Hades and His ascent to Paradise on the same day. We aren't told the details of His itinerary.

You are not helping His Church. Please just stop. Talk about the Methodist denomination.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You are not helping His Church. Please just stop. Talk about the Methodist denomination.

For once I agree with you.

 

[The Liturgist]

Heaven is a real location - in Dan 7 the throne of God is there and myriads and myriads are attending in a court room where "the court sat and the books are opened". A throne is a physical object -- it has location.

Well I think it would be more accurate to describe Heaven as another reality. We do know it has some kind of physicality, or rather, I should say the ability to accommodate the physical, although not for the reasons you suggest, since the Angels and God the Father and God the Holy Ghost are not corporeal beings, but there are some corporeal beings in Heaven: the risen Son of God, who possesses our full humanity including the resurrected Body, and also the persons of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Prophet Elijah, and almost certainly the Holy Prophets Moses and Enoch. It accommodates these persons who have physical bodies while also accommodating the conscious spirits of the faithful, the Church Triumphant, pending their resurrection, while the spirits of those outside the church suffer outside of Heaven, but we are called to pray for them that their suffering might be alleviated, according to the Orthodox faith and indeed to the Bible, as we find in, for example, 2 Maccabees, which is canonical despite what some such as Josephus argue (since as I have repeatedly told you, Josephus, being a Pharisee who rejected Christ, has no authority to dictate which scriptures the Church receives as canon, and furthermore we know his views were inaccurate even within Judaism, for there is evidence that many Jews did accept 2 Maccabees as canonical, and the Beta Israel of Ethiopia, who are the last Jews who observe many of the ordinances prescribed in the Pentateuch, for example, those pertaining to animal sacrifice, are among them.

And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is among the most pious of churches given the willingness of its members to endure upwards of 24 hours of standing in prayer at vigils and to do so joyfully, which is a feat beyond the limitations of most of us, indeed, even in the diaspora, Ethiopian liturgies typically begin at 4 AM and continue until noon, every Sunday, and there are also services on Saturday, basically worships in the same way as the Ethiopian Jews, except that instead of animal sacrifices, which have been abolished, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians celebrate the Eucharist in their place, which is extremely appropriate. Up until that point in the worship however their services are extremely similar. Indeed the vestments worn by the Beta Israel are almost identical to those worn by the Ethiopian Orthodox, but feature the Star of David rather than the Holy and Life Giving Cross as insignia, which is unfortunate, because while the Star of David is a holy symbol, it is not the exalted, life-giving sign of victory that is the precious Cross, and no Star of David has ever been put on a dead person restoring them to life, which is the case with the True Cross.

This is why it is fortunate that Adventists are making increased use of the Holy Cross in their branding and other materials. I recall being depressed when visiting an Adventist church in the early 90s by the fact that its worship spaces lacked crosses.

 

[Clare73]

Well I think it would be more accurate to describe Heaven as another reality. We do know it has some kind of physicality, or rather, I should say the ability to accommodate the physical, although not for the reasons you suggest, since the Angels and God the Father and God the Holy Ghost are not corporeal beings, but there are some corporeal beings in Heaven: the risen Son of God, who possesses our full humanity including the resurrected Body, and also the persons of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Prophet Elijah, and almost certainly the Holy Prophets Moses and Enoch. It accommodates these persons who have physical bodies while also accommodating the conscious spirits of the faithful, the Church Triumphant, pending their resurrection,

According to the apostle Paul, the born again who are absent from the body are present with the Lord (Php 1:20-24).

while the spirits of those outside the church suffer outside of Heaven, but we are called to pray for them that their suffering might be alleviated, according to the Orthodox faith and indeed to the Bible, as we find in, for example, 2 Maccabees, which is canonical despite what some such as Josephus argue (since as I have repeatedly told you, Josephus, being a Pharisee who rejected Christ, has no authority to dictate which scriptures the Church receives as canon, and furthermore we know his views were inaccurate even within Judaism, for there is evidence that many Jews did accept 2 Maccabees as canonical, and the Beta Israel of Ethiopia, who are the last Jews who observe many of the ordinances prescribed in the Pentateuch, for example, those pertaining to animal sacrifice, are among them.

And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is among the most pious of churches given the willingness of its members to endure upwards of 24 hours of standing in prayer at vigils and to do so joyfully, which is a feat beyond the limitations of most of us, indeed, even in the diaspora, Ethiopian liturgies typically begin at 4 AM and continue until noon, every Sunday, and there are also services on Saturday, basically worships in the same way as the Ethiopian Jews, except that instead of animal sacrifices, which have been abolished, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians celebrate the Eucharist in their place, which is extremely appropriate. Up until that point in the worship however their services are extremely similar. Indeed the vestments worn by the Beta Israel are almost identical to those worn by the Ethiopian Orthodox, but feature the Star of David rather than the Holy and Life Giving Cross as insignia, which is unfortunate, because while the Star of David is a holy symbol, it is not the exalted, life-giving sign of victory that is the precious Cross, and no Star of David has ever been put on a dead person restoring them to life, which is the case with the True Cross.

This is why it is fortunate that Adventists are making increased use of the Holy Cross in their branding and other materials. I recall being depressed when visiting an Adventist church in the early 90s by the fact that its worship spaces lacked crosses.

 

[Berserk]

You are not helping His Church. Please just stop. Talk about the Methodist denomination.

Educated young people are jumping out of the windows to escape fundamentalist churches that teach imagery of God akin to a bad cartoon.
I am actually helping His church by restoring the needed mystery and dignity to spiritual dimensions and truths. As for Methodism, my church just left the UMC at a high cost due to their low view of the authority of Scripture and not just their stance on gay marriage and ordination.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Gospel resurrection narratives are riddled with apoparent inconsistencies that have prompted many scholars to reject their historicity. You have no hope of reconciling these apparent inconsistences. Call my bluff and I'll expose your inability to resolve them!

I'll call your bluff. Inconsistencies....like one or two angels at the tomb? Well, if you have two angels present, you are certainly going have at least one present. Duh!

Maybe you could come up with a list of 15-20 rock solid inconsistencies of the Resurrection narratives which we here at CF have "no hope of resolving" and at the same time "exposing our inability to resolve them."

I can't wait for your listing.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I am actually helping His church by restoring the needed mystery and dignity to spiritual dimensions and truths.

Like some kind of modern day Martin Luther?

As for Methodism, my church just left the UMC at a high cost due to their low view of the authority of Scripture

Who has the lower view of the authority of Scripture? The UMC or you for believing the inconsistencies of the resurrection accounts?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Berserk has gone berserk. See his new thread trying to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts: "no hope of resolving" and at the same time "exposing our inability to resolve them.

Apparent Inconsistencies in the Gospel Resurrection Narratives

Ain't Zwinglian: "I'll call your bluff. Inconsistencies....Maybe you could come up with a list of 15-20 rock solid inconsistencies of the Resurrection narratives which we here at CF have "no hope of resolving" and at the same time "exposing our inability to resolve them. I can't wait for your...

www.christianforums.com

See my brief reply without spending much time on him is at his new thread. Do you agree with Berserk?

 

[OldAbramBrown]

As revelation, but not as evidence. As evidence NDEs are far superior. The Gospel resurrection narratives are riddled with apoparent inconsistencies that have prompted many scholars to reject their historicity. You have no hope of reconciling these apparent inconsistences. Call my bluff and I'll expose your inability to resolve them! In any case, I accept the gist of these accounts by faith, despite their evidential problems ...

I was about to comment that spirituality is a very different thing from church organisation. Jesus doesn't want denomination bosses to come between us and our style of communing with Him.

Then I read this agenda. You are playing the fundamentalist agenda merely in reverse.

Faith based on belief adds Scripture meanings. Paul's OBE is actually in Scripture.