
Originally Posted by
Rhyfelwyr
Indeed, but it's arguably more dangerous for Joe Blogg to consider himself a theologian just because he has a rudimentary understanding of Christianity.
Last Sunday, one guy at my church delivered the evening teaching on the issue of where we go after we die. He said that we go to either Abraham's Bosom or Hades, temporary heaven and hell respectively. This would be the traditional mainstream Protestant understanding of things.
But I heard after the service one girl advocating another position to him - the idea of 'soul sleep', or that we die in the atheist sense until the Resurrection. She based this on a few quotes here and there, and seems to have fallen victim to the ambiguity regarding the meaning of words that studying verses in isolation can create.
The debate reminded me of Calvin's 'Psychopannychia', which was a small work dedicated to denouncing the idea of soul sleep that the Anabaptists of his time believed in. He did a thorough job, showing the scriptural evidence in support of Abraham's Bosom/Hades or the whole Sheol idea, as well as highlighting the fact that the Resurrection speaks specifically about our bodies, and that the soul, or life of a person is, through the scripture, seen as distinct from the body.
I got talking to somebody else before I could butt in - the speaker appeared to say to the girl that she might be right. I don't condemn them for it - I've been exposed to the same ideas over time and once gave them some credence. The scripture is so large that its very easy for people to be mislead by nit-picked verses.
I think your view is more in line with what the canon and extra-canonical material says on the matter. A temporary place for the righteous and another for the unrighteous awaiting judgement.
There are too many instances of where it indicates a continuation of "life" even without the body. You have Jesus on the cross stating that "today you will join me in paradise". You have Elijah and Moses appearing to Peter, James and John on the mountain. And the verse in Matthew (since we are currently there in this discussion anyway)
But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
(Matt 22:31-32)
He declares Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as among the living.
I've always had some dialogue about doctrine at these places, because in all but the Church of Scotland ones, they certainly don't waste time in asking you where you stand, lol. Walking into a Gospel Hall and being asked "are you saved" was a bit of a culture shock for me.
What would be your answer? Yes, No or awaiting a declaration from the Saviour upon Judgement day.
Sigurd, while you are right to note the differences within different strands of Protestantism, it is also worth noting that I felt welcome, and as part of a Christian community, in all those environments, bar the first two. They are, on the whole, on the same page. I suspect that the Catholic Church would in reality have just as broad a spectrum of beliefs within its followers.
Still, personally I do not believe in being lax when it comes to what you believe. Christians today are conditioned by atheists to think that they have to be a certain way - that they have to allow any errors within their brethren out of some sort of sense of Christian charity. Or indeed, as you put it:
[Sigurd stating that Christians need to get off their high horses]
This idea is wrong, and unscriptural. Dissention because of
ego or a false sense of righteousness is condemned by Paul in the scripture - but a thirst for truth is not -
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled (Matthew 5:6)". Thirsting after righteousness was not in and of itself the bad trait of the Pharisees - their desire to be seen and respected for it was.
Righteousness and truth.. I don't think you can equate those as you did there. I think two persons can be equally righteous even though their beliefs might differ severely on important principles.
But that was a side step.. what I wanted to frown upon was the idea that you can tell someone they are non-christian. Someone with faith in Christ, following the two great commandments - shouldn't been told they go to hell, because they don't agree with your particular 1/35000th dogma on a particular principle. That is simply Pharisaic.
Christians ... take a step back and look across the expanse of ten thousands of churches and denominations, you can't all have THE truth, it's simply impossibly illogical. But they all still profess to have THE truth in their little trenches, taking pot shots at each other.
Of course it is fair enough to ask questions about what should qualify as canonical. Some of the great Reformers even changed their opinions regarding the issue.
But some people use the question marks over certain texts to rubbish the whole concept of a divine scripture - this is wrong, and shown to be contrary to the beliefs of the earliest Christians by the sheer volume of textual evidence that indicates that they did believe in the concept of scriptural texts. This would most obviously apply to the Old Testament, which Jesus references as scripture on a number of occasions. Of course it has changed very slightly in its composition - but like I said we can see that Jesus believed in the idea of scripture. So modern Christians should as well.
What makes scripture divine? Is the criterion being referenced? If so.. I'll add those to the missing scripture in the bible. Within the Bible there are references to texts not found in the Bible itself... why are these not compiled with the others? you will find thousands of references to existing bible scripture in non-canonical writings of the early fathers.. true (as rehashed by bible thumpers to the point of ad nauseam), but they discard the fact that these same fathers are pulling quotes from other scriptural texts not found in the bible. Why not just add them to the Bible? They were surly considered to be authorative enough to be used in theology writings of the early church.
Now you might say that the idea of a New Testament should be a lot more contentious. But consider 2 Peter 3:16 -
"As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
So we have a letter where it shows that the Pauline Epistles (or at least some of them) were consider scripture. Now, while it would be circular logic to claim that as a scriptural source, it validates its claim as to what is scripture; it at least is a valuable source in indicating that the concept of New Testament scripture existed amongst the early believers. The quite casual and passing way in which their scriptural authority is mentioned indicates that this was a fairly accepted and non-contentious issue - long before Athanasius was around.
Naturally this still leaves room for contention over what precise texts are canonical. But we have to realise that the concept of a New Testament canon permeated the early church - surely a point of huge significance.
Looking in the NEB translation, it states:
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience with us is our salvation, as Paul, our friend and brother, said when he wrote to you with his inspired wisdom. And so he does in all his other letters, wherever he speaks of this subject, though they contain some obscure passages, which the ignorant and unstable misinterpret to their own ruin, as they do the other scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:15-16)
To me it looks like Paul was quoting scripture in his letters and that Peter think them obscure - though canonical. But Peter do think Paul has inspired wisdom or prophetic gifts. I also think that the NT does not contain all of Paul's letters.
Using this in debate on particularly questioned principles, does nothing more than affirm that individuals oups.. sorry, the ignorant and unstable are not qualified to interpret scripture.

Originally Posted by
Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya
wow what a long Discussion !!
if you would speak about Islam it would Take more than some years !!!!

Jesus its not only what is in the Bible !! you think Jesus as a Relegion !! your wrong !! jesus was a great person like Zoroastra (Zarathushtra) or gandhi or buddha!!
but the matter is in medieval times some catholic popes took power and told many shits about Jesus !! and Completely Wrong !!
and the other matter is for those that dont believe in GOD (not relegion!) is the Mind Control of the Zionists & The FreeMasons (if you know who are they!!) that control the world and have USA-Europe-Israel and Jews and much of economies of the world and Specially the Culture Changer and mind controller THE HOLLYWOOD !!!
I'll let you deal with this one TR...
Bookmarks