Hell Is God's Mercy

[Duckybill]

What sort of frightens me is when Christians appear militant about the idea that Hell is righteous judgment for the blatantly smug and arrogant enemies of God because it looks like they cannot wait for that day! Burn up those sinners - especially the ones that spurred their witness with their arrogance! I fail to see the Christian charity in wanting people to be tortured forever - it also seems a punishment 70 x 7 greater than the crime.

What a fairy tale. How long did it take you to make this up?

 

[Templar81]

i think Aspen makes a good point.

 

[aspen]

And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.
He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Mat 10:38-39

Somewhere along the way in the modern era it became fashionable to say that right is wrong and that evil is good. Such is the case with the mistaken statement that hell is a mercy.

The spiritual reality is that hell is a place or a state wherein everything the person once had is lost. Damnation as it was originally defined means to suffer loss, in this case severe, complete and total loss.
The loss in hell is so great that not only is the presence of God lost, but the self as well. Defined as one's identity, the self is that basic essence or core of what we are.
Jesus, our ultimate authority on the matter, said that one could lose his life. Other translations use the word 'self' instead of life.

Many today justly consider Alzheimer's disease to be one of the most horriffic ways to end one's earthly existance. One's memory and mental processes are gradually eroded to the point where the sufferer loses his notion of self as well as the ability to operate his own body. This is perhaps the closest earthly parallel to the hellish loss of self in eternity. Neither the disease nor the eternal prospect can in any way be interpreted as a mercy. If there is an eternal hope for a Christian who suffers from the earthly disease it is that his 'self' will be completely restored when he meets his maker.

Those who reject God in life do so because they wish to pursue their sinful ways. They live in the false darkness and delusion that God does not see what they do and that God will not act to punish them or to put an end to their rebellion. The Bible says that all men desire to act according to their own desire. This applies to American women as well despite the tendency in recent years to place themselves on a higher moral level than men.

The great mercy of salvation is the human awareness of God's righteousness, God's will in their life, God's forgiveness, and God's working desire to help the human escape the ravages of sin and to eliminate the nature of rebellion against Him. If a man gives his life to Jesus, the Lord gives it right back to him again with the added bonus of Jesus who lives it with him.



Nothing could be further from the truth, especially for those who fear hell fire themselves. We do not want it for ourselves and fear it for others.

THE REAL issue here ISN'T Christians wishing punishment upon sinners, it is that sinners want to justify BY ANY MEANS their continued participation in sin and rebellion against God.

Where sin flourishes injustice and lies will multiply against the gospel and those who preach it.

Do you think my understanding of Hell as a mercy is an endorsement or recommendation for people? Hardly! In fact, Hell is a creation of God - it is a necessary place for unredeemed people and angels. Volcanoes and earthquakes are a necessary part of plate tectonics on Earth; it doesn't mean I want to be anywhere near them.

By His own definition, God cannot sin so how can calling Hell necessary and therefore the least good place be the same as mixing up evil and good and right and wrong?

God has given people the capacity to misuse His creation (sin) and the freewill to actually commit sin - who are you to decide that they are not allowed to choose sin? People are allowed to choose to remain unredeemed, which will result in their damnation.

Leper colonies in the United States were miserable places to live, but they were a mercy because they protected people with Leprosy from poverty and persecution. Hell will serve a similar purpose, but instead of protecting the unredeemed from persecution, it will protect them from being in the presence of a Holy God.

What a fairy tale. How long did it take you to make this up?

Not long at all - when you understand God's good and merciful nature, it is a natural conclusion. Do you have anything to offer besides criticism?

 

[Duckybill]

Do you think my understanding of Hell as a mercy is an endorsement or recommendation for people? Hardly!

Glad to see you say that.

By His own definition, God cannot sin so how can calling Hell necessary and therefore the least good place be the same as mixing up evil and good and right and wrong?

Hell is a good place???

God has given people the capacity to misuse His creation (sin) and the freewill to actually commit sin - who are you to decide that they are not allowed to choose sin?

I have no idea what are you talking about.

Leper colonies in the United States were miserable places to live, but they were a mercy because they protected people with Leprosy from poverty and persecution. Hell will serve a similar purpose, but instead of protecting the unredeemed from persecution, it will protect them from being in the presence of a Holy God.

My oh my. Do you think they will be thankful?

Not long at all - when you understand God's good and merciful nature, it is a natural conclusion. Do you have anything to offer besides criticism?

Your post wasn't "criticism"? You might want to read it again.

Aspen wrote:
What sort of frightens me is when Christians appear militant about the idea that Hell is righteous judgment for the blatantly smug and arrogant enemies of God because it looks like they cannot wait for that day! Burn up those sinners - especially the ones that spurred their witness with their arrogance! I fail to see the Christian charity in wanting people to be tortured forever - it also seems a punishment 70 x 7 greater than the crime.

 

[aspen]

Ducky

I am getting the idea that you read posts with your gut - "does this feel right?" - Hell......good?!?!? No! You actually have to read my posts with the intent of understanding (not necessarily agreeing, but understanding) If you read them with your gut, I promise you will be shocked at the language I use and will get stuck. Based on past interactions, misunderstandings between us have consistently occurred because of our use of language. In the future, I will try to look past your constant use of absolute language and I hope you will look closer at the meaning of my posts when you feel shocked, before you decide if I am wrong or not.

Hell is a good place???

I believe that God can only create good things, based on His nature. Hell is good, only in the fact that it is a place set aside for the unredeemed person. I am not sure if you are old enough to remember a kid in the news who had no immune system - he was called the Bubble Boy because he had to live inside a bubble or he would die. He hated living in it, but it was better than the alternative. Hell is similar. The unredeemed will have a place to go to be out of the awful presence of a Holy God. Same thing happened with Cain - he received a mark - although it was called a curse, he asked for it - it was actually a mercy. I am sure Cain missed the mercy part completely, but it was still merciful.


I have no idea what are you talking about.

You need to read my statement again - it makes sense. Simply, God gave people freedom to sin - we need to be very careful not to restrict adults from making choices, even bad ones. Obviously, crimes against others has to be punished with fines and prison, but we cannot get in the way of an adult person's right to sin - all we can do is pray for God to change their hearts.

My oh my. Do you think they will be thankful?

Actually, no. I think they will feel cheated. The unredeemed will never know that God is treating them fairly. They will be filled with Pride and Envy and resentment. The two mottos of Hell may be "I was put here unfairly!" and "I am in charge", both will be complete distortions of the truth, but it is the way they lived their life and the way they will spent eternity.

Your post wasn't "criticism"? You might want to read it again.


Sure it was criticism - fair criticism, based on my experience with a minority of Christians, but it was not an attack. Not sure why you decided to respond to my criticism by calling my idea a fairytale? Did you feel justified in striking back because you felt attacked?

 

[TexUs]

What sort of frightens me is when Christians appear militant about the idea that Hell is righteous judgment for the blatantly smug and arrogant enemies of God because it looks like they cannot wait for that day! Burn up those sinners - especially the ones that spurred their witness with their arrogance! I fail to see the Christian charity in wanting people to be tortured forever - it also seems a punishment 70 x 7 greater than the crime.

That's exactly the attitude and understanding a non believer has toward it, aspen.

 

[Selene]

Hey Selene! I'm enjoying our conversation! Hope you are too. I find that a good debate can help you really consolidate what you think! Anyway, I hope I'm not offending you by my disagreeing with you!



Oh! I would never tell someone straight out that they're going to hell...how rude! But if the opportunity was there, I feel strongly that I must tell them that I believe that Jesus is the ONLY way. Of course then the loving thing would be to show them why I think this, so they feel I have a reason beyond 'religious superiority'.
And of course we aren't the Judge...only God is that, but He also tells us that any who don't believe in Christ will not get into heaven. So the logical conclusion is there, isn't it?

Hello Rach,

Sorry, it took me a while to get back on the forum board. I am on a 3 day retreat, and it's morning here. In a few hours, I will be praying the Liturgy of the Hours, so I have some time to write. In the course of my conversation, with other non-Christians, I would, of course, tell them about Jesus because as Christians, we do evangelize by spreading the Gospel so that those who turn to Him and follow His Will will be saved.

Um, yeah, I don't really believe that as people, we have the ability or authority to forgive sins....that's kind of the same as claiming we have the authority to judge. The commentary in my bible explains this passage really well, I think, so i'll post it as my reply to this.

"The expressions 'they are forgiven' and 'it is withheld' both represent perfect-tense verbs in Greek and could also be translated, “they have been forgiven” and “it has been withheld,” since the perfect gives the sense of completed past action with continuing results in the present. The idea is not that individual Christians or churches have authority on their own to forgive or not forgive people, but rather that as the church proclaims the gospel message of forgiveness of sins in the power of the Holy Spirit (see v. 22), it proclaims that those who believe in Jesus have their sins forgiven, and that those who do not believe in him do not have their sins forgiven—which simply reflects what God in heaven has already done."

It was Christ who gave the Apostles (who were mere men) the authority to forgive sins and even to retain sins when He sent them out to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles.

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

This is why we can confess our sins to a priest or bishop.

It's true that Jesus probably did and said more that what is actually within scripture. Can you picture our Savior traveling with 12 other men, full time! The joking and friendship that must have been between them?! And yet while it would be so warming to know about all of that, it wasn't necessary for us to hear, the Bible tells us all we need to know for living Christian lives. And truly, I believe if something so wondrous as Mary being taken up to heaven had happened, it would have been mentioned. Perhaps it did happen, but again, if not mentioned in scripture, it's not necessary for us to incorporate into our doctrines.
Please understand that I'm not disrespecting Mary. She must have truly been an inspiring woman, a Godly woman. But still, she was just a woman, and I must confess to being a little uneasy at how the Catholic Church seems to revere her so much...almost too much I hesitate to say. I sometimes worry that the Catholic Church has so many saints and such, people they raise above mere human sinfulness, that it just might (in some cases) interfere with God telling us to have no other gods. Again, not an attack, just an opinion coupled with a lack of understanding of your beliefs.

My sister, we follow what Christ did. The fourth commandment of God is to honor thy mother and father. Jesus was the perfect son in doing this. Jesus honored His Father, who is God and He also honored His mother, who is Mary. He followed the 4th commandment better than any son or daughter did. He was subject not only to God, but also to His mother Mary (See Luke 2:51). Because Christ is the Way, we do the things that He does. Since He honored His mother Mary, we also honor her. However, God is the only one we worship. Also, having the doctrine of the Ascension of Mary does not go against Sacred Scripture because it is not even mention in Scripture. The Ascension of Mary has always been a part of the Apostolic Tradition, which is what we have always recognized. Our Church never said that it was in Scripture.

Jesus said that the greatest commanndment is to love God, and the second commandment is similar to it - love thy neighbor as thyself. To love God is to worship Him and only Him. The second commandment is similar because we are also to love our neighbor as thyself, but not in the same exact way that we are to love God. God always comes first, even before thy neighbor and even before thyself. No one should love their neigbhor or even themselves more than God. In fact, no one should love their parents or children first before than God. So, even though Christ honored and glorified His mother Mary, He always put God, first (Luke 2:48-50).

As for the saints, they are honored because we see God's grace in them. Americans remember and honor such men as Martin Luther King Jr. because of their contribution. They even have a holiday for him, which is actually coming up this Monday. :) YAYY!!! No work! In the Catholic Church, we do the same thing. We honor the saints and even have a feast day for them. We honor these saints because we see God's grace in them.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[aspen]

That's exactly the attitude and understanding a non believer has toward it, aspen.

All truth is God's truth - regardless if it is in the Church or not.

And actually, in my experience nonbelievers either:

1. Do not believe in Hell
2. Think Hell is going to be the greatest party ever - only for the cool people, or
3. Believe Hell is only for really bad people - most people will be in Heaven

I reject all three ideas.

 

[Rach1370]

It was Christ who gave the Apostles (who were mere men) the authority to forgive sins and even to retain sins when He sent them out to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles.

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

This is why we can confess our sins to a priest or bishop.

See, my problem with this is that the disciples were unique. Eye witnesses, friends of Jesus, writers of the the New Testament, the new Church fathers, among the first martyrs of the faith. Jesus asked amazing things of them, and gave them amazing abilities to achieve them. Apart from perhaps these men, I just cannot see where God is giving mankind a carte blanche to forgive sins themselves. Now, I can understand how confessing to a Priest can be beneficial to get it out in the open...I can also understand said Priest then saying, 'if you confess and repent, Jesus will forgive you'. But I just don't see that biblically, even a Priest has the authority to forgive sins. To me, that authority remains God's alone.

My sister, we follow what Christ did. The fourth commandment of God is to honor thy mother and father. Jesus was the perfect son in doing this. Jesus honored His Father, who is God and He also honored His mother, who is Mary. He followed the 4th commandment better than any son or daughter did. He was subject not only to God, but also to His mother Mary (See Luke 2:51). Because Christ is the Way, we do the things that He does. Since He honored His mother Mary, we also honor her. However, God is the only one we worship. Also, having the doctrine of the Ascension of Mary does not go against Sacred Scripture because it is not even mention in Scripture. The Ascension of Mary has always been a part of the Apostolic Tradition, which is what we have always recognized. Our Church never said that it was in Scripture.

Jesus said that the greatest commanndment is to love God, and the second commandment is similar to it - love thy neighbor as thyself. To love God is to worship Him and only Him. The second commandment is similar because we are also to love our neighbor as thyself, but not in the same exact way that we are to love God. God always comes first, even before thy neighbor and even before thyself. No one should love their neigbhor or even themselves more than God. In fact, no one should love their parents or children first before than God. So, even though Christ honored and glorified His mother Mary, He always put God, first (Luke 2:48-50).

You say the Christ 'glorified' his mother...and I just don't see that Biblically. Sure, he honored her as His mother, but she was still human!

[Jesus' Mother and Brothers]
[19] Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. [20] And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.” [21] But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”
(Luke 8:19-21 ESV)

Here Jesus' messianic mission takes priority even over familial loyalties. He's not negating the importance of one's biological family;but still, Jesus is demonstrating the preeminence of a person's commitment to him and the kingdom of heaven.
And remember in Mark, we see that Mary and Jesus' brothers, don't even believe in what He's claiming or doing!

[21] And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
(Mark 3:21 ESV)

Again, I'm not dissing Mary, she must have been a wonderful Godly woman to be favored so, but she was still just human. Truly, I can't say if she really was taken to heaven bodily...as you say, the Bible doesn't mention it at all. I think my point is, that even though you say you don't take Apostolic tradition as scripture, I just think that the Catholic Church seems to place a lot on something that is only 'passed down tradition'. I'm just saying, from outside the Catholic Church, we see that your Chuches, schools and such, have maybe even more statues of Mary, more titles of Mary, than you do of Jesus. You claim you just honor her as Jesus did, but she seems a dominant part of your faith. I worry that it's just too much, for something based on 'tradition', rather than solid scripture.

As for the saints, they are honored because we see God's grace in them. Americans remember and honor such men as Martin Luther King Jr. because of their contribution. They even have a holiday for him, which is actually coming up this Monday. :) YAYY!!! No work! In the Catholic Church, we do the same thing. We honor the saints and even have a feast day for them. We honor these saints because we see God's grace in them.

I have nothing against this...it makes sense I suppose!! I think the difference seems to be that Protestants respect people like Luther, regarding him as our 'founding father' as a sort, where as Catholics tend to revere their Saints...which seems to be a little stronger. Which is not bad, I suppose!! :)

 

[TexUs]

The special authorities of the Apostles ended when the foundation of the church was built.
Ephesians 2:20. You'll notice it's past tense (even in their day), plus common logic tells you a foundation is only built once.


This is why you find later the church being described as pillars, columns, etc (Rev 3:12)... It's built ON the foundation the Apostles helped build. The foundation is done, over... We are building on top of it now. This is supported by the context of Ephesians 2:20, here's some more of it: "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."


The Apostles were chosen to build this foundation and were given special authorities to do so (IE, heal people at will by laying their hands on them, forgive sins, etc). All things only Christ can do- but he gave them special authority to do so to build that foundation. And again, that's DONE, FINISHED.


(I do not speak against "spiritual gifts" here, we are talking of the special authorities mentioned earlier).


Being this was promoted by a Catholic I have high doubts anything the Bible says will override erroneous Catholic tradition but to the rest of you hopefully this sets it straight and gives an answer as to why this is no longer the case for Christians today.

 

[aspen]

"The special authorities of the Apostles ended when the foundation of the church was built."

Polycarp, Justin, and Augustine would disagree with you - along with 2100 years of Christian tradition. But I realize that you have to deny history to prop up sola scriptura....

 

[Rach1370]

The special authorities of the Apostles ended when the foundation of the church was built.
Ephesians 2:20. You'll notice it's past tense (even in their day), plus common logic tells you a foundation is only built once.

This is why you find later the church being described as pillars, columns, etc (Rev 3:12)... It's built ON the foundation the Apostles helped build. The foundation is done, over... We are building on top of it now. This is supported by the context of Ephesians 2:20, here's some more of it: "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."

The Apostles were chosen to build this foundation and were given special authorities to do so (IE, heal people at will by laying their hands on them, forgive sins, etc). All things only Christ can do- but he gave them special authority to do so to build that foundation. And again, that's DONE, FINISHED.

(I do not speak against "spiritual gifts" here, we are talking of the special authorities mentioned earlier).

Being this was promoted by a Catholic I have high doubts anything the Bible says will override erroneous Catholic tradition but to the rest of you hopefully this sets it straight and gives an answer as to why this is no longer the case for Christians today.

Hi TexUs. I just read that passage, and some commentary on it, and I'd have to say you're bang on!

While I have no problems saying that certain things still happen today, in terms of spiritual gifts, miracles and such, I really believe that the Bible teaches that those Disciples, the Apostles,- their authority and actions were something that was not to be repeated. To say differently, to say that we all have the power and authority those eye witnesses did, is to say, in effect, that contemporary revelations and actions are equal to Scripture.

Here is some commentary from Mark Driscoll, on the subject. He's talking about spiritual gifts, but it touches really well on the fact that in a really big way, what when on then was unique to the time, circumstance and people.

The Spiritual Gift of Apostles Defined

There is much confusion regarding the spiritual gift of apostleship because there is sometimes a failure to distinguish between the office of apostle and the gift of apostle. The office of apostle refers to the twelve chosen by Jesus (e.g., Matthew 10:1; 19:28; 20:17; Mark 3:13-19; 6:7; 9:35; 10:32; Luke 6:12-16; 8:1; 9:1; 22:19-30; John 6:70-71; Revelation 21:14). The requirements for the office of apostle include being an eyewitness to the life and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1:21-26). Another requirement is miraculous power (Acts 2:43; 5:12; 8:18; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:4). Therefore, apostles do not exist today (e.g., writing books of the Bible), although the function of their office does continue in a limited sense.

Apostleship in a Secondary Sense

For example, apostleship in a secondary sense applies to such people as Barnabas (Acts 14:3-4, 14), Apollos and Sosthenes (1 Corinthians 4:6-9), Andronicus and Junias (Romans 16:7), James (Galatians 1:19), and Silas and Timothy (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6). They, like apostles today, were gifted individuals sent out to move from place to place in order to begin and establish local churches (Acts 13:3-4). This gift also includes the capacity to minister cross-culturally (Acts 10:34-35; Ephesians 3:7-8). Today, church planters and missionaries are operating out of their gift of apostleship as well as those Christian leaders God raises up to lead and influence multiple churches and pastors.

 

[Selene]

See, my problem with this is that the disciples were unique. Eye witnesses, friends of Jesus, writers of the the New Testament, the new Church fathers, among the first martyrs of the faith. Jesus asked amazing things of them, and gave them amazing abilities to achieve them. Apart from perhaps these men, I just cannot see where God is giving mankind a carte blanche to forgive sins themselves. Now, I can understand how confessing to a Priest can be beneficial to get it out in the open...I can also understand said Priest then saying, 'if you confess and repent, Jesus will forgive you'. But I just don't see that biblically, even a Priest has the authority to forgive sins. To me, that authority remains God's alone.

Hello Rach,

The calling of God does not end with the Apostles. God continues to call others even after the Apostles had passed away. Whoever He calls and dedicate his life to following His will is given the same authority as the Apostles by Christ.

The Bishop and priests are called by God to serve Him, and they dedicate their lives in doing just that. When we confess to a bishop or priest, it is not the bishop or priest who forgives us. It is Christ through the bishops and priests. God always works with people and through people. He accomplishes His will through humans and He still continues to do so today. The Bible tells us that Christ sent out the Apostles (His chosen ones whom He called) to the Gentile nations and He gave them the authority to forgive sins or to retain sins. The Bible shows that He uses people as an instrument to forgive sins, and He continues to do the same today with our priests and bishops.

You say the Christ 'glorified' his mother...and I just don't see that Biblically. Sure, he honored her as His mother, but she was still human!

In Hebrew, the word "honor" means glorify.

[Jesus' Mother and Brothers]
[19] Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. [20] And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.” [21] But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”
(Luke 8:19-21 ESV)

Here Jesus' messianic mission takes priority even over familial loyalties. He's not negating the importance of one's biological family;but still, Jesus is demonstrating the preeminence of a person's commitment to him and the kingdom of heaven.
And remember in Mark, we see that Mary and Jesus' brothers, don't even believe in what He's claiming or doing!

[21] And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”
(Mark 3:21 ESV)

I agree that Jesus always put God first before His mother. Commitment to God is more important than any familie ties.

Regarding Mark 3:21, one needs to look at WHO was saying "He is out of his mind." The Bible did not say that it was Mary.

King James
Mark 3:21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
-- New King James
Mark 3:21 But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, "He is out of His mind.''
-- American Standard
Mark 3:21 And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
-- Living Bible
Mark 3:21 When his friends heard what was happening they came to try to take him home with them.``He's out of his mind,'' they said.
-- Revised Standard
Mark 3:21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, "He is beside himself."
-- Simple English
Mark 3:21 When Jesus' family heard this, they went out to get Jesus. They were saying, ``He's crazy!''
-- Transliterated, Pronounceable
Mark 3:21 Kai' akou'santes hoi par autou' exee'lthon kratee'saiauto'n, e'legon ga'r ho'ti "Exe'stee!"
-- Transliterated, Unaccented
Mark 3:21 Kai akousantes hoi par autou exelthon kratesaiauton, elegon gar hoti "Exeste!"
-- New American Standard
Mark 3:21 And when His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses."
-- New Jerusalem with Apocrypha
Mark 3:21 When his relations heard of this, they set out to take charge of him; they said, "He is out of his mind."
-- New American with Apocrypha
Mark 3:21 When his relatives heard of this they set out to seize him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
-- New Revised Standard with Apocrypha
Mark 3:21 When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, "He has gone out of his mind."

There is nothing in Mark 3:21 that says it was Mary who doubted her son or even said "He has gone out of His mind." Mary never doubted her son. She knew that her son was God. It broke her heart to see her son die. What mother would want to see her child dying? However, she knew that He was God and that He would rise from the dead. This is one of the reasons why in Sacred Scripture, you do not see Mary going to the tomb to annoint her son's body. Mary Magdalen, Mary of James, and Joanna went to the tomb to annoint Jesus' body and then found the tomb empty. One would think that Jesus' mother would be among the women. After all, that was her son. Apostolic Tradition says that Mary knew that her son was God and that He would rise from the dead, which explains her absence among the women who went to the tomb. She understood the Angel Gabriel when he first told her that she would give birth to the Son of the Most High (Luke 1:32).

Again, I'm not dissing Mary, she must have been a wonderful Godly woman to be favored so, but she was still just human. Truly, I can't say if she really was taken to heaven bodily...as you say, the Bible doesn't mention it at all. I think my point is, that even though you say you don't take Apostolic tradition as scripture, I just think that the Catholic Church seems to place a lot on something that is only 'passed down tradition'. I'm just saying, from outside the Catholic Church, we see that your Chuches, schools and such, have maybe even more statues of Mary, more titles of Mary, than you do of Jesus. You claim you just honor her as Jesus did, but she seems a dominant part of your faith. I worry that it's just too much, for something based on 'tradition', rather than solid scripture.

Actually, in our Churches, we have more statues and images of Jesus rather than Mary. In my Church alone, we only have one statue of Mary and four images of her, and we have 2 statues of Jesus and 24 images of him. If you ever go to a Catholic Mass, you will hear God, Lord Jesus, and Holy Spirit more. Mary and the Saints are only mentioned at the penitential rite.

In Christ,
Selene

 

[TexUs]

"The special authorities of the Apostles ended when the foundation of the church was built."

Polycarp, Justin, and Augustine would disagree with you - along with 2100 years of Christian tradition. But I realize that you have to deny history to prop up sola scriptura....

These early fathers also came up with crackpot theories regarding Jesus being the natural son of Joseph and Mary and Christ descended upon him at baptism.

So to be frank, I can give a flying flip what the hell they said. As I said at the end of my post, for those that hold Bible over the teachings of men might my explanation be beneficial. For everyone else, it won't matter.

Hi TexUs. I just read that passage, and some commentary on it, and I'd have to say you're bang on!

Good post as well.
I often just say, little "a" big "A".
"apostles" exist. "Apostles" were past.

 

[Foreigner]

[/size]
My brother, the Catechisms are the "apostolic traditions that St. Paul spoke about.

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

-- Yet the biggest "traditions" the church stands on today came long AFTER the scripture you site was written.
Let me repeat that: The scripture you site is spreaking of the "traditions" in place BEFORE the scripture was written.

These are all Catholic beliefs that are not supported by scripture or the "traditions" you claim Paul is talking about:


---- Mary never dying but rather ascending into heaven while still alive. (Selen's 'explanation' that this is true because the Bible doesn't say anywhere that this ISN'T true opens the door for all sorts of incorrect and dangerous possibilities...doesn't it?)


---- Mary never having any other children after Jesus.


---- The bread and wine PHYSICALLY changing into Jesus' body and blood at every single mass, every single day, everywhere around the world.
(Geez, how many times does Jesus' body have to be sacrificed for us?)


---- The infallibility of the Pope.
(The book, "The Bad Popes" by E.R. Chamberlin details the specific Popes and their actions that show just how WRONG this claim really is.)


---- The use of the Scapular and the claim that those who die wearing it will never go to hell.
(The belief came into being in 1200s....over a thousand years after the scripture you quote about "traditions." The scapular I wore when I was a Catholic said right on the front: "Whoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.")


---- A physical place called Purgatory.


---- Indulgences.
(Tell me again about the infallibility of the Pope...)


---- Praying to Mary and the dead Christians who have died before us.




None - repeat: NONE - of these things are supported scripturally and in many cases fly in the face of what the Bible says.

 

[Selene]

-- Yet the biggest "traditions" the church stands on today came long AFTER the scripture you site was written.
Let me repeat that: The scripture you site is spreaking of the "traditions" in place BEFORE the scripture was written.

What you repeated is NOT even the same as your first statement.

The traditions that St. Paul spoke about was passed on from generation to generation until someone finally wrote it down. In the same way, the oral teachings came first until someone wrote it down and it became Scripture.

None - repeat: NONE - of these things are supported scripturally and in many cases fly in the face of what the Bible says.

St. John DID say that not everything that Jesus did was written down in Scripture (See John 21:25). So, why did you expect to find it in Scripture when St. John already said that not everything is written down in Scripture.

 

[[email protected]]

God has given people the capacity to misuse His creation (sin) and the freewill to actually commit sin - who are you to decide that they are not allowed to choose sin? People are allowed to choose to remain unredeemed, which will result in their damnation.

Leper colonies in the United States were miserable places to live, but they were a mercy because they protected people with Leprosy from poverty and persecution. Hell will serve a similar purpose, but instead of protecting the unredeemed from persecution, it will protect them from being in the presence of a Holy God.

I never implied that people "are not allowed to choose sin". You have misquoted my post to advance a lie.
Hell is the destiny of those who reject God. It is not a good thing.
It is the LACK OF MERCY for those who REJECTED IT in life.

No mercy means no mercy. It cannot be construed in any manner to be otherwise, except by those who follow the father of lies - to their own detriment.

US leper colonies are not a miserable place to live. There are, in fact, two in existance. One is on the banks of the Panama Canal and one is in Louisiana. They are clean, attractive and well groomed. I've personally seen the one in Panama, twice. They can by no stretch of the imagination be compared to hell, nor can those that live there be compared to unpenitant and condemned sinners. You go too far in your baseless accusations to justify a bigoted attitude that hell is mercy and to accuse those who suffer from a terrible disease of some sort of divine judgment. Who are you to judge them?

Indeed, hell is that state in which the unpenitant soul is stripped of everything God ever gave it - reducing it to total destruction. The soul itself is rejected of God as the soul itself has rejected God.

Hell is not a hospital or a retirement home for disagreeable persons. It is the lack of everything, including self.

Do you have anything to offer besides criticism?

Whoa.... and you are entirely free of it yourself? I think I detect a huge self-righteous attitude here.
Perhaps you fancy your arguments akin to those of the Vatican, infallable in every way.

 

[Foreigner]

The traditions that St. Paul spoke about was passed on from generation to generation until someone finally wrote it down. In the same way, the oral teachings came first until someone wrote it down and it became Scripture.

Wrote it down?
Awesome!
Where exactly is it written down?
This will make it very easy then to confirm that the following are indeed approved by God as per those traditions:

---- Mary never dying but rather ascending into heaven while still alive.
---- Mary never having any other children after Jesus.
---- The bread and wine PHYSICALLY changing into Jesus' body and blood at every single mass, every single day, worldwide.
---- The infallibility of the Pope.
---- The use of the Scapular and the claim that those who die wearing it will never go to hell.
---- A physical place called Purgatory.
---- Indulgences.
---- Praying to Mary and the dead Christians who have died before us.

Your answer is important because:
-- Pope Clement VI introduced Indulgences in 1343, did NOT site "traditional teaching" as a basis, and the Church later discontinued the idea. (Kinda shoots down that whole "Infallibility of the Pope" at the same time, huh?)

-- It wasn't until 1950 that Pope Pius XII, exercising Papal Infallibility - something I have already show doesn't exist - declared that Mary ascended bodily into heaven. And no, he did not site "traditional teachings" in making this claim.

-- The idea that the wine and bread become the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ did not come into existance until 1323 and "traditional teachings" were not sited in making this claim.

-- The concept that Purgatory is an actual physical place did not come into being until the 12th century and did not site any "traditional teachings" as a basis for being a specific location.

-- The Firt Vatican Council of 1870 first presented as actual Church policy that the Pope is Infallible, but they did not site "traditional teachings" as a basis for this.

Hmmm...If a person is infallible, does that not translate into calling them "perfect." I thought the only person who was perfect who walked the earth was Jesus. Are you saying that is not true?

But tell me, if it has been shown that Popes in the past have committed multiple sins and are NOT infallible - isn't that PROOF that specific Catholic teaching is wrong? Please answer this question.

St. John DID say that not everything that Jesus did was written down in Scripture (See John 21:25). So, why did you expect to find it in Scripture when St. John already said that not everything is written down in Scripture.

-- So........

You are saying that since we cannot confirm via scripture -.and we cannot confirm via any documentation detailing traditions from before Paul's time - that we should JUST ASSUME that the current practices of the Catholic church - some of which run in contradiction to the scriptures - we should just assume these practices as correct and supported by God.

Unbelievable....and very dangerous.

But it is a belief one would need to hold if they cannot support a specific practice.......isn't it?

 

[aspen]

I never implied that people "are not allowed to choose sin". You have misquoted my post to advance a lie.
Hell is the destiny of those who reject God. It is not a good thing.
It is the LACK OF MERCY for those who REJECTED IT in life.

Of course Hell is an awful place, but it is a mercy compared to spending eternity with God in an unredeemed state. God would not teach us to forgive our enemies and destroy His own. If I misquoted you, I apologize.

No mercy means no mercy. It cannot be construed in any manner to be otherwise, except by those who follow the father of lies - to their own detriment.

So I must be a follower of Satan if I believe Hell is a mercy?

US leper colonies are not a miserable place to live. There are, in fact, two in existance. One is on the banks of the Panama Canal and one is in Louisiana. They are clean, attractive and well groomed. I've personally seen the one in Panama, twice. They can by no stretch of the imagination be compared to hell, nor can those that live there be compared to unpenitant and condemned sinners. You go too far in your baseless accusations to justify a bigoted attitude that hell is mercy and to accuse those who suffer from a terrible disease of some sort of divine judgment. Who are you to judge them?

I am not judging lepers. And of course leper colonies are nice places to live now - we have antibiotics! They were awful places to live before antibiotics - people were removed from society to live there in misery. Now that they are cured and some have decided to remain living there because they consider it home.

Indeed, hell is that state in which the unpenitant soul is stripped of everything God ever gave it - reducing it to total destruction. The soul itself is rejected of God as the soul itself has rejected God.

Souls that go to Hell are incapable of being punished - they lived their wholes lives as victims - they have always felt like everyone else is better off then they are - they are jealous, angry, bitter, regretful, unkind, murderous, and isolated. They are like serial killers in prison.

Hell is not a hospital or a retirement home for disagreeable persons. It is the lack of everything, including self.

It is more like a prison. I never said it was going to be a fun place to be. I am not sure how you can call Hell a place where souls have no self, yet it is also a place of punishment - how can you punish someone if they have no self?


Whoa.... and you are entirely free of it yourself? I think I detect a huge self-righteous attitude here.
Perhaps you fancy your arguments akin to those of the Vatican, infallable in every way.

This post was not directed towards you. I certainly can be critical at times. I can also admit it and continue to work on it. The post was direct towards Duckybill and I am not going to discuss it with you. If you are interested in going back and reading his posts to me and then put yourself in my shoes you might end up asking him the same question I did.

 

[Selene]

Wrote it down?
Awesome!
Where exactly is it written down?
This will make it very easy then to confirm that the following are indeed approved by God as per those traditions:

---- Mary never dying but rather ascending into heaven while still alive.
---- Mary never having any other children after Jesus.
---- The bread and wine PHYSICALLY changing into Jesus' body and blood at every single mass, every single day, worldwide.
---- The infallibility of the Pope.
---- The use of the Scapular and the claim that those who die wearing it will never go to hell.
---- A physical place called Purgatory.
---- Indulgences.
---- Praying to Mary and the dead Christians who have died before us.

It is written in documents found from the first to sixth centuries. For example, the ascension of Mary was written in a document called De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John. in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.

Your answer is important because:
-- Pope Clement VI introduced Indulgences in 1343, did NOT site "traditional teaching" as a basis, and the Church later discontinued the idea. (Kinda shoots down that whole "Infallibility of the Pope" at the same time, huh?)

Actually, indulgences started in Judaism. Christianity came from Judaism; therefore, it is not surprising that one should find some of the Jewish legacy in us. Below is a weblink showing that indulgences was a traditional teaching that was carried on by the Apostles. After all, the Apostles were Jewish. Even Jesus Christ was Jewish.

http://www.evangeliz...indulgences.pdf

-- It wasn't until 1950 that Pope Pius XII, exercising Papal Infallibility - something I have already show doesn't exist - declared that Mary ascended bodily into heaven. And no, he did not site "traditional teachings" in making this claim.

When Pope Pius XII exercised Papal infallibility, no one in the Catholic community protested because that was something they already recognized. All the Catholic faithful knows that the infallible Holy Spirit can use fallible men to teach infallible doctrines on faith and morals. In other words, if the Apostles can transmit all the teachings of faith and morals infallibly through the power of the Holy Spirit, then so can the Pope and the Bishops who were their successors. After all, you do believe that the Apostles transmitted all the teachings correctly and infalibly, do you not?

-- The idea that the wine and bread become the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ did not come into existance until 1323 and "traditional teachings" were not sited in making this claim.

And again, there was no protest coming from the Catholic faithful when this was declared in 1323. Why? Because all the Pope was declaring was already something that Catholics everywhere have always practiced for thousands of years. In the Bible, as Jesus was in the Last Supper, Jesus took bread and said, "This IS my body." He did not say, "This represents my body." The Greek word used in that passage was "IS", not "represents."

Luke 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

The concept that Purgatory is an actual physical place did not come into being until the 12th century and did not site any "traditional teachings" as a basis for being a specific location.

My brother, in the Bible, the parable of Lazarus and the rich man shows that there is something other than Heaven and Hell. Jesus said that Lazarus went to Abraham's bosom. Heaven is never called Abraham's bosom and neither is Hell. When Christ died, he went to the spirits in prison and preached the Gospel to them (See 1 Peter 3:19). Whereever these spirits in prisons are, it is clear that it is not in Heaven nor in Hell.

-- The Firt Vatican Council of 1870 first presented as actual Church policy that the Pope is Infallible, but they did not site "traditional teachings" as a basis for this.

Hmmm...If a person is infallible, does that not translate into calling them "perfect." I thought the only person who was perfect who walked the earth was Jesus. Are you saying that is not true?But tell me, if it has been shown that Popes in the past have committed multiple sins and are NOT infallible - isn't that PROOF that specific Catholic teaching is wrong? Please answer this question.

My brother, this is where you are in error. The word "infallible" does not mean "impeccible." The Pope is infallible just as the Apostles were infallible. Infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals, and nothing else. The Pope is NOT impeccible just as the Apostles were not impeccible. The Pope is a sinner just as the Apostles were sinners.

According to Dictionary. com infallibility is defined as: . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.

http://dictionary.re...owse/infallible

I included the weblink to show the definition of infallibility. Read it carefully. The word "infallibility" does not mean "impeccible" and the word infallibility only applies to matters of faith or morals. It does not apply to politics. Thus, the Pope is not infallible when it comes to matters of politics, but he is infallible in matters of faith and morals. The same thing is true with the Apostles. The Apostles were infallible in matters of faith and morals, which makes their teaching also infallible. If you believe that the Apostles were fallible and prone to error, then what does that say about their teachings of the Christian morals and faith? Do you believe that the morals and faith of Christianity is in error?