Does Heresy Exist? [Archive] - Christian Forums

AngelusSax

20th May 2005, 12:12 PM

Does heresy exist? Sure. Heresy is any belief which falls outside the belief doctrine in a particular church. For most Baptist (if not all), baptizing an infant is a heresy... for us Lutherans, forbidding it is heresy.

Now, if we want to delve into things which fall away from faith in Christ altogether, and as such endangers our immortal souls, then perhaps the better question is "Does apostasy exist?"

Unrepentant sin, in any form, is eternally damning.

Then we are all eternally damned despite the Cross. Let's face it, we all do something that we don't view as sin. The most common one is wearing two fibers woven into one cloth, yet we today hold that "Oh that doesn't apply anymore."

On the flip side, though... I don't recall what we wear being in that list of 4 things that we absolutely must adhere to and be Christians, according to the Book of Acts.

This isn't a "don't repent" post. I'm not saying we shouldn't. But we should be honest enough to realize that we mess up a lot more than we realize... sometimes we might see it in retrospect, but sometimes we might not. If we commit a sin, and we don't realize that it was a sin, and therefore we don't repent for it, then is the Cross still sufficient, or is our salvation partly dependent upon our work of repentance (let's be honest, repenting is something we do. Yes, we repent because we have Grace... but that Grace has ALREADY saved us, and isn't waiting for us to do our own works to fill in the blanks... if it is, then it's not real Grace after all, and we've been believing a heresy or even an apostasy for many many years about "saved by grace and NOT of works").

revjpw

20th May 2005, 04:59 PM

The most common one is wearing two fibers woven into one cloth, yet we today hold that "Oh that doesn't apply anymore."

The old Ceremonial Laws don't apply anymore.

revjpw

20th May 2005, 05:03 PM

(let's be honest, repenting is something we do. Yes, we repent because we have Grace... but that Grace has ALREADY saved us, and isn't waiting for us to do our own works to fill in the blanks... if it is, then it's not real Grace after all, and we've been believing a heresy or even an apostasy for many many years about "saved by grace and NOT of works").

Repentence is a fruit of faith. Certainly, without God's Grace we would not have faith to produce any fruit. But you seem to hold to the Reformed idea that Grace is irresistible. It is not our repentance that grants us forgiveness, it is our not repenting that prevents forgiveness.
Ergo, repentance and forgiveness go hand-in-hand. Without repentance, there is no forgiveness.

filosofer

20th May 2005, 08:28 PM

Does heresy exist? Sure. Heresy is any belief which falls outside the belief doctrine in a particular church. For most Baptist (if not all), baptizing an infant is a heresy... for us Lutherans, forbidding it is heresy.

Actually those are not examples of heresy. Heresy is not to be thrown around lightly/ Someone can teach falsely regarding the Lord's Supper or Baptism and not be a heretic. Historically, the heretic is guilty of teaching false doctrine regarding the foundational doctrines (knowledge of sin and consequence of sin, knowledge of the Person of Christ, knowledge of the work of Christ, faith in the Word of Christ, resurrection of the dead and eternal life for Christians) and persistently doing it. These are essential to faith, whereas Baptism and the Lord's Supper support that faith.

AngelusSax

20th May 2005, 08:34 PM

Repentence is a fruit of faith. Certainly, without God's Grace we would not have faith to produce any fruit. But you seem to hold to the Reformed idea that Grace is irresistible. It is not our repentance that grants us forgiveness, it is our not repenting that prevents forgiveness.
Ergo, repentance and forgiveness go hand-in-hand. Without repentance, there is no forgiveness.

That certainly makes much more sense than the language of "repentance brings us salvation".

I still hold, however, that if we must absolutely repent of every sin we do, whether we know of the sin or not, Heaven will be empty except for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all eternity.

Papist

20th May 2005, 09:42 PM

Purgatory? (Do Lutherans believe in Purgatory?)

Jim47

20th May 2005, 09:45 PM

That certainly makes much more sense than the language of "repentance brings us salvation".

I still hold, however, that if we must absolutely repent of every sin we do, whether we know of the sin or not, Heaven will be empty except for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for all eternity.

I would like to suggest that you read "This we believe" off the WELS web site, I can't paste it in here becasue it is a very long document and its in PDF format. I saved a copy of this to my hard drive and it answers a lot of questions that come in one's mind.

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2601&collectionID=783 :thumbsup:

SPALATIN

21st May 2005, 08:26 AM

Purgatory? (Do Lutherans believe in Purgatory?)

Tell you what, Give me the scripture verses (not Tradition) that support Purgatory and I may be able to change my mind. Since I know of none that support Purgatory I will cling to my belief that it is just a man made notion.

KagomeShuko

21st May 2005, 03:47 PM

Tell you what, Give me the scripture verses (not Tradition) that support Purgatory and I may be able to change my mind. Since I know of none that support Purgatory I will cling to my belief that it is just a man made notion.
It was just a question if we believe in it Scott, don't get so presumptuous that we're being told that we should believe in it.

SPALATIN

21st May 2005, 04:11 PM

It was just a question if we believe in it Scott, don't get so presumptuous that we're being told that we should believe in it.

So in order not to be presumptuous as Bridget thinks I am being I will say succinctly No we do not believe in purgatory and I believe the answers below say why.

AngelusSax

21st May 2005, 10:16 PM

Purgatory? (Do Lutherans believe in Purgatory?)

Nope. At least, this one doesn't. Kinda fun to see in movies or TV shows sometimes, but not an actual belief.

KagomeShuko

21st May 2005, 10:21 PM

he wants to know if we believe the same as he does.

And such questions can be answered in a much nicer fashion instead of immediately jumping on somebody as they are insulting Lutheran beliefs. It was JUST A QUESTION.

night2day

21st May 2005, 11:07 PM

Purgatory? (Do Lutherans believe in Purgatory?)

No. When a believer in Christ dies, Lutherans believe they enter Heaven immediately afterwards. The reason? Jeasus' sacrifice on the cross was all that was needed to pay the entire debt of sin. As for believers being made holy, in the Lutheran Confessions it's taught this doesn't occur until death after we reach our Heavenly home. :)

The Confessions rely only on the scriptures, and won't accept anything else. Thus, this combined with the above cause Purgatory to be a non-issue for Lutherans.

BigNorsk

21st May 2005, 11:16 PM

Hi,

Purgatory is contrary to the Gospel in that the concept teaches that sinners can in some way "pay" for their sins. Since only Christ's substitution for the sinner can pay for the sins we commit and his payment is payment in full. Purgatory is both an impossibility and disrespectful to the sacrifice Jesus made for the very idea teaches that his sacrifice is insufficient, that we must add to it in order to get to heaven. Scripture tells us the sacrifice is made, it is complete.
Hebrews 10:10-12
(10) By his will we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
(11) And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again — sacrifices that can never take away sins.
(12) But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of God,

Even the "grace bank" the Roman Catholic Church teaches can be tapped to get people out of purgatory is contrary since the saints have no grace of their own to give anyone else. All grace is God's grace. There was not one single thing the saints did in their life on Earth that deserved anything but everlasting damnation. But the grace of God is given to those who believe.
Romans 3:22-25
(22) namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction,
(23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
(24) But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
(25) God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

Marv

ctobola

22nd May 2005, 06:27 PM

N2D,

What you present here is a common belief; but it's not actually what the Lutheran denomination teaches.

As Lutherans, we don't believe that a person HAS a body, we believe that a person IS a body. When a person dies, he or she is truly dead. What does into the box in the ground (or the cremation furnace) is the sum total of that person. There is no spirit of that person floating around, in heaven or anywhere else.

As we say in the Creeds, "we believe in the resurrection of the body." The word used for body is soma -- meaning the sum total of the person (flesh and spirit). This is difference from sarx -- the flesh.

Christ promises us that although we will die, he will raise the whole person -- all that we are, to a new life without sin. If we were not truly dead, but were just some ghost floating around, we would not need resurrection.

The idea that we somehow get rid of our physical bodies (which are evil) and turn into spirits (which are somehow superior and good) is not a Biblical idea -- it's essentially gnostic. It's based on the idea that the physical realm is evil and the spiritual realm is good.

Lutherans are more holistic. We believe that all of God's creation is good; but that it has been contaminated by sin.

I hope that's helpful.

Excelsior! -Cloy

No. When a believer in Christ dies, Lutherans believe they enter Heaven immediately afterwards. The reason? Jeasus' sacrifice on the cross was all that was needed to pay the entire debt of sin. As for believers being made holy, in the Lutheran Confessions it's taught this doesn't occur until death after we reach our Heavenly home. :)

The Confessions rely only on the scriptures, and won't accept anything else. Thus, this combined with the above cause Purgatory to be a non-issue for Lutherans.

ctobola

22nd May 2005, 06:32 PM

You bet, heresy exists.

Thankfully, nobody is saved by their theology. Only by the grace of the Creator who was made manifest in the person of Jesus Christ.

Is it a sin to tolerate heresy?

Probably. And it's also a sin not to give all you have to the poor; it's a sin to allow starving children to live in poverty in India; it's a sin to vote for Tom Delay and his incredible, unethical abuses of power; etc.; etc.

When you get done purging your life of all those sins, let me know... we can start working on the heresy issue.

Excelsior! -Cloy

Does heresy still exist?

If so, is it a sin to tolerate heresy?

If so, those who do tolerate heresy, in the name of an "inclusive business model" should heed our Lord's call to repentance. Unrepentant sin, in any form, is eternally damning. This is God's law, and the demand of God's justice. No amount of outward righteousness (including, for example, providing an online gathering place for thousands of people) can overcome the smallest unrepentant sin on judgment day. We should pray that those who run ChristianForums.com repent of their sin, rather than becoming hardened in it, because of their unfortunate belief that their "good intentions" are good enough for God.

ctobola

22nd May 2005, 06:38 PM

Norsk,

I certainly do not buy into the Roman Catholic view (which got into trouble when they started letting medieval "scholars" explain religion in ways that make no sense) of purgatory; however, Scripture and the Creeds to make reference Sheol and the place of the dead. Whether this is a literal or figurative concept of what happens after death... I don't know.

I do know that Paul makes reference to "those who have fallen asleep," which sounds like a more viable metaphor for those who have died.

Excelsior! -Cloy

Hi,

Purgatory is contrary to the Gospel in that the concept teaches that sinners can in some way "pay" for their sins. Since only Christ's substitution for the sinner can pay for the sins we commit and his payment is payment in full. Purgatory is both an impossibility and disrespectful to the sacrifice Jesus made for the very idea teaches that his sacrifice is insufficient, that we must add to it in order to get to heaven. Scripture tells us the sacrifice is made, it is complete.
Hebrews 10:10-12
(10) By his will we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
(11) And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again — sacrifices that can never take away sins.
(12) But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of God,

Even the "grace bank" the Roman Catholic Church teaches can be tapped to get people out of purgatory is contrary since the saints have no grace of their own to give anyone else. All grace is God's grace. There was not one single thing the saints did in their life on Earth that deserved anything but everlasting damnation. But the grace of God is given to those who believe.
Romans 3:22-25
(22) namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction,
(23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
(24) But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
(25) God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

Marv

CrossWiseMag

22nd May 2005, 10:47 PM

Thankfully, nobody is saved by their theology

So this is the state of the modern church. What we believe about God does not have a bearing on our salvation. Interesting.

Protoevangel

23rd May 2005, 12:28 AM

Thankfully, nobody is saved by their theology. Only by the grace of the Creator who was made manifest in the person of Jesus Christ.
True that nobody is saved because of their Theology.

The question remains if one who is saved will confess a false Theology and continually reject correction?

And it's also a sin not to give all you have to the poor;
Untrue. How we are to deal with the fact that the poor will always be with us is outlined throughout the Bible. If you are caling on that lone verse where Jesus is talking to the young ruler, then you are dangerously out of context.

it's a sin to allow starving children to live in poverty in India;
Did no one in the entire world go hungry when our Lord Jesus Christ walked the Earth? Was this a sin of Christ? No more can you declare this as a sin upon anyone else.

it's a sin to vote for Tom Delay and his incredible, unethical abuses of power; etc.; etc.
You expose your true colors here. Sad, really. Your liberal self-righteousness will not save you, no more than the conservative self-righteousness of others will save them. Come back and rely on Christ alone.

revjpw

23rd May 2005, 01:43 AM

KagomeShuko

23rd May 2005, 01:49 AM

Oh really? I don't know what "Lutheran denomination" you belong to, but all the ones I know teach Man as being "body and soul". This is from the CTCR Document, "A Statement on Death, Resurrection and Immortality"

Thank you so much for posting this! I always get so uncomfortable when ctobola posts stuff like that.

However, aparently, when my grandmother died, the pastor who did her funeral believe that she was ONLY in the ground and nothing more. . .and told my uncle that and upset him.

However, I always wonder about when people say this with some of the beliefs we confess. . .how can that be true at all?

I'd never heard of that as a Lutheran belief . . .now. . .it IS what the Seventh-Day Adventists believe.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

night2day

23rd May 2005, 10:00 AM

As Lutherans, we don't believe that a person HAS a body, we believe that a person IS a body. When a person dies, he or she is truly dead. What does into the box in the ground (or the cremation furnace) is the sum total of that person. There is no spirit of that person floating around, in heaven or anywhere else.

The Bible teaches we have a soul and a body. At death, the soul is seperate from the body and is immeately sent to Heaven or Hell, depening on whether or not the person was was saved by by grace, through faith, in Jesus Christ.

Recall the thief on the cross who was dying alongside Jesus? The Lord promised Him: "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." While there are others, it's one of the clearest examples in the scriptures our bodies and souls do not fall into some states of "sleep" when we die.

As we say in the Creeds, "we believe in the resurrection of the body." The word used for body is soma -- meaning the sum total of the person (flesh and spirit). This is difference from sarx -- the flesh.

Christ promises us that although we will die, he will raise the whole person -- all that we are, to a new life without sin. If we were not truly dead, but were just some ghost floating around, we would not need resurrection.

And the resurrection, this will occur -- on Judgemnt day. For Believers in Christ as well as the non-Christians, only the two will have seperate destinations and non-Christians will not have the holiness giventhem by the Holy Spirit. Those who have already died will simply have their bodies and souls reunited and the judgement simply confirmed.

This is all listed. within the Luther's Small Catachism, btw. Under the Third Article of the Apostsle's Creed. A downloadable version in acrobat adobe .pdf presented in 6 seperate parts can found here (http://www.stpaulskingsville.org/catechism.htm), or just the Apostle's Creed can be found here (http://www.stpaulskingsville.org/pdf/catechism/creed.pdf).

The idea that we somehow get rid of our physical bodies (which are evil) and turn into spirits (which are somehow superior and good) is not a Biblical idea -- it's essentially gnostic. It's based on the idea that the physical realm is evil and the spiritual realm is good.

I'm not sure were I gave the impression where I stated our bodies (evil) turned into spirits (good). I have heard of the concept before, but I certainly agree with it. Nor do I believe what some have proposed along with this teaching that I've heard elsewhere regarding hidden messages and teachings that are meant but for a select few. If that were true Jesus wouldn't have given the Great Commision.

Lutherans are more holistic. We believe that all of God's creation is good; but that it has been contaminated by sin.

More than contaminated. Sometimes I wonder if we ask ourselves enough just how corrupted sin has really caused this world to be. Especially when society would rather have everyone see the good on one another' belief's and actions and accept all manner of diversity, based on on those belief's behaviors and actions. Not despite them.

Oftentimes Christians are unfairly charged with being unloving simply because believers don't fully support, encourage, and endorse, all society does. Hopefully what believers will do is remember Jesus died for their sins as well as ours.

night2day

23rd May 2005, 10:07 AM

Oh really? I don't know what "Lutheran denomination" you belong to, but all the ones I know teach Man as being "body and soul". This is from the CTCR Document, "A Statement on Death, Resurrection and Immortality"

It's also within the Lutheran confessions such as Luther's Small Catachism...which, as stated above, can be found here (http://www.stpaulskingsville.org/catechism.htm). Much more likely found within various other locations of the Confessions as well. After all, there's only one place the Confessions claim to stand and that's on the scriptures.

night2day

23rd May 2005, 10:59 AM

...However, I always wonder about when people say this with some of the beliefs we confess. . .how can that be true at all?

I'd never heard of that as a Lutheran belief . . .now. . .it IS what the Seventh-Day Adventists believe.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

I'm not sure but I think some non-Trinitarian religions believe that this is what happens whan a loved one dies as well.

As for how it can be said among Lutherans, it shouldn't be taken for granted just because a person wears a certain label they actually know what the Lutheran faith teaches. It been proven out in various congergations one never knows what members are actually coming away with when they listen to God's word spoken from the pulpit. And, while some churches who are good at letting their members know what they believe and teach there are others who don't.

And then there are some Lutheran churches are good at letting members know at what they believe and teach...and some who are long-standing members who still don't know what to believe. But one doesn't know unless one asks the members.

I know the person who encountered this personally: There was an individual who thought this young woman would be just fantastic to help out in a new witnessing program the church was having. After all, she was was articulate and seemed to know what to say. And she loved participating in the church. However, when she sat down with her to start she found the young woman needed to be witnessed to herself. She couldn't even get past "If you were to die tonight where would you go?" Her response was neither Heaven or Hell but "she would be joining with the god of the cosmos". Basically, "New Age" beliefs. :doh:

Within the 1980s, the percentages within the churches showed only 35/40% at best knew the answer to the question. (Forgot what it is now.) "If you were to die tonight and you stood before God's throne and He asked why He should let you in?" Which leaves 65/70% of the congergations had gotten the answer wrong. Our congergation, which was very confessional, was one which participated. And we fell right there within the projected lines of the survey. In other words, the basic, most important question for any Christian was gotten wrong by over half of the people.

They were hearing both Law and Gospel every Sunday. And most attended bible class. Many had Conformation when they were yonger. The ones who joined when they were older had Adult Instruction Classes to learn the basics of Christian beliefs. Still, they chose to believe what they wanted to believe.

KagomeShuko

23rd May 2005, 01:38 PM

One of the big problems I find with ctobola's description of death is, "What happens to people who die in explosions and fires and no longer have a body at all?"

We've got a problem on our hands, then. It also brings up the problems of organ donation. . .obviously if we have a body and soul (spirit for those of us who are picky and say body+spirit=soul), there's no problem. But there is for those who say we are only a body.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

ctobola

23rd May 2005, 11:09 PM

N2D,

I hope I can help you with this, as you are incorporating a Greek/gnostic concept known as the "immortality of the soul" into the Lutheran faith that certainly does not belong there.

This idea holds that our flesh is evil and our "spirit" is good and therefore lives on beyond death.

You quote Jesus words on the cross to the repentant thief. "I tell you today that you will be with me in paradise."

There are a couple problems where. The Creeds say that Jesus did not go to heaven after his death on the cross, he went to sheol -- to the place of the dead. Second, the word paradise is not the same as the the word heaven. These are two different concepts. In general, analysis of this text does not lead us to the idea that the thief went right to heaven, but that he "slept" with the hope of the resurrection.

And what about Paul's words about the dead when he says, "I would not have you uninformed about those who have fallen asleep."

Frederick Buechner does a wonderful job explaining this issue in his book "Wishful Thinking" (Harper & Row, 1973). Below is an edited version...

“Immortality means death-proof. To believe in the immortality of the soul is to believe that though John Brown’s body lies a-mouldering in the grave, his soul goes marching on simply because marching on is the nature of souls just the way producing apples is the nature of apple trees. Bodies die, but souls don’t.

“True or false, this is not the biblical view, although many who ought to know better assume it is. The biblical view differs in several significant ways… The biblical understanding of man is not that he HAS a body but that he IS a body.

"The Greeks spoke of it as the prison house of the soul. The suggestion was that to escape it altogether was something less than a disaster. The Bible, on the other hand, sees the body in particular and the material world in general as a good and glorious invention. How could it be otherwise when it was invented by a good and glorious God? The whole idea of incarnation, of the word becoming flesh, affirms the physical and fleshly by declaring that it was a uniform God himself wasn’t ashamed to wear.

“Those who believe in the immortality of the soul believe that life after death is as natural a function of man as digestion after a meal. The Bible speaks instead of resurrection. It is entirely unnatural. Man does not go on living beyond the grave because that’s how he is made. Rather, he goes to his grave as dead as a doornail and is given his life back again my God (i.e., resurrected) just as he was given it by God in the first place, because that is the way God is made.

“The idea of the immortality of the soul is based on the experience of man’s indomitable spirit. The idea of the resurrection of the body is based on the experience of God’s unspeakable love.”

Another helpful document -- which is long and may raise more questions than it answers, is available on the LC-MS site at http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/resurrection.txt.

That document, in particular, makes reference to "the pagan doctrine of the immortality of the soul."

On a couple of points, the LC-MS document beats a little harder than it needs to. For example, the following point is a bit unnecessary:

"b. To reject the teaching that at death man is annihilated in such a
way as to preclude even for the grace and power of God the
possibility of his physical resurrection, or of his final and eternal
judgment.

(If indeed we have already stated our belief in the resurrection, and our belief in an all-powerful Creator, then how could God NOT recreate a person if He chose to?)

In short, the idea that our soul wanders around after death is in opposition to the concept of the resurrection of the "soma" -- the whole person, which is so clearly presented in the Creeds (and yes, the Scriptures.)

I hope that helps clarify the issue.

Excelsior! -Cloy

ctobola

23rd May 2005, 11:15 PM

Bridget,

This doesn't really present a problem. Many faithful people have returned to the dust... "ashes to ashes, dust to dust." The Biblical idea holds that death destroys us, but that God loves us so much as individuals that he resurrects us to a new life. The Creeds say this quite clearly -- We believe in the resurrection of the "soma" -- the person.

To say that we our souls go marching on and then later we'll get some new skin really misses the whole point of resurrection.

-Cloy

P.S. See my long response to N2D

One of the big problems I find with ctobola's description of death is, "What happens to people who die in explosions and fires and no longer have a body at all?"

We've got a problem on our hands, then. It also brings up the problems of organ donation. . .obviously if we have a body and soul (spirit for those of us who are picky and say body+spirit=soul), there's no problem. But there is for those who say we are only a body.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

MORTANIUS

23rd May 2005, 11:25 PM

For some people, a Heresy can be something as simple as a denominational label or even praying on your feet instead of on your knees.

Really, a Heresy is something that goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Also, a heresy is something that goes against the scriptures that are divinely inspired.

A Heresy is not a question of someones faith, but a matter of doctrine.

ctobola

23rd May 2005, 11:29 PM

I think you're on the right track. The early Church was faced with exactly these issues... and it laid down the essentials of the Christian faith in the Creeds. They should be the metric used to evaluate our beliefs.

Excelsior! -cloy

For some people, a Heresy can be something as simple as a denominational label or even praying on your feet instead of on your knees.

Really, a Heresy is something that goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Also, a heresy is something that goes against the scriptures that are divinely inspired.

A Heresy is not a question of someones faith, but a matter of doctrine.

MORTANIUS

23rd May 2005, 11:32 PM

ctobola, thats a cool avatar! I just wanted to mention that.

KagomeShuko

24th May 2005, 02:26 AM

*sorry, wrontg publishign company* I'm too tired.

As for what happens at death, I know my faith and I know what I believe. And this is not what I believe. I know why I believe that I believe, and that is what matters.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

ctobola

24th May 2005, 02:29 AM

Wow, looks like I touched a nerve.

Frederick Buechner happens to be a Presbyterian, and he's written some wonderful theological stuff... I'd suggest checking him out.

-Cloy

Anything and I do mean ANYTHING published by Harper & Row is Seventh-Day Adventist. Harper & Row is the publishing company of the Seventh-Day Adventist church. It's just like looking at things and knowing they are lutheran when you see Augsburg Fortress or Concordia on them.

Even those little blue Bible books are SDA publications. You'll find that if you ever see a full set, a few things seem to be missing. That's because the SDAs don't like to teach those things.

As for what happens at death, I know my faith and I know what I believe. And this is not what I believe. I know why I believe that I believe, and that is what matters.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

KagomeShuko

24th May 2005, 02:44 AM

ELCA Lutherans confess the New Testament proclamation of "the resurrection of the dead (The Nicene Creed), or "the resurrection of the body (The Apostles Creed). To understand this proclamation, we turn not only to Jesus’ promise of new life after death, but also to St. Paul who speaks of the resurrection as our being given a spiritual body, not after the image of the first man (Adam) but after the image of the man from heaven - Jesus, the Christ (John 11:25, 14:19). Paul tells the congregation at Corinth that "Resurrection will involve a transformed body, as different as the grown plant is from the seed - a body imperishable, not perishable; powerful, not weak, spiritual (pneumatkios), not physical (psychikos), in the image of heavenly origin, not from the dust of the earth" (1 Corinthians 15:35-44). For St. Paul, and for ELCA Lutherans, death in this body is real, but so is resurrection. It is a transformation to new life, (e.g., "...we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. ... For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed" (I Corinthians 1:51b-52).
Most certainly, in common parlance and in our knowledge that a corpse decays, soul has come to be identified as that which lives on after death, even as in the child’s prayer "... I pray the Lord my soul to take." Yet, in faith we know that this resurrected self is the totality of the person. The whole person is given a new form or manifestation by God, who again breathes into us the breath of life - this time of a life which will never end. When that happens we will be enjoying the life lived now by the risen Jesus and by all the departed whom God has also raised.

*In a trichotomy, human beings consist of three parts: body (soma), soul (psyche) and spirit (pneuma).

**Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J. 1965. pg. 839

Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J. 1965.
Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible

We do not teach soul sleep. We are resurrected with a NEW body. Our earthly bodies perish.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

night2day

24th May 2005, 07:15 AM

N2D,

I hope I can help you with this, as you are incorporating a Greek/gnostic concept known as the "immortality of the soul" into the Lutheran faith that certainly does not belong there.

No, I am not.

And I still wonder where you're getting the idea where I am. Even the title you inserted with your post containes nothing I stated. The only One eternal is God--The Triune God. He's the only One who never had a beginning. We did.

Have you checked back into the Small Catachism under the Third Article of the Apostle's Creed which address this very issues within the Luthern confessions. The links can be found back on the previous page.

This idea holds that our flesh is evil and our "spirit" is good and therefore lives on beyond death.

Sounds as if you made your mind up about me already for some reason.

If you read what Scriptures Luther on which the Third Article is based, I'm not sure how you could have some to that conclusion. After all you're forgetting we were born completely sinful (orginal sin) already due to the Fall both in body and soul.

You quote Jesus words on the cross to the repentant thief. "I tell you today that you will be with me in paradise."

There are a couple problems where. The Creeds say that Jesus did not go to heaven after his death on the cross, he went to sheol -- to the place of the dead. Second, the word paradise is not the same as the the word heaven. These are two different concepts. In general, analysis of this text does not lead us to the idea that the thief went right to heaven, but that he "slept" with the hope of the resurrection....

You forget, Jesus' exact words to the man was: "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Today as in Today. Not as in months or years or centuries from now. And there were other places where the term "Paridise" was used in place of the term Heaven. One passage comes to mind is when Jesus told the parable of the Rich Man and Lazeraus. And in that parable as well when both men died they were immediately said to enter Heaven or Hell.

The other problem with your assertion is found with the Epistles: 1 Peter 3: 18-19 in which it was stated after Jesus died on the cross He entered Hell, not as a captive or a prisoner.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison..."

The context itself further shows, just by to who he's preaching to...He is declaring His victory over Hell. Peter 3 spills over to the 4th chapter where it continues to list parties who fell and were condemned within the Old Testament by their own choice.

And what about Paul's words about the dead when he says, "I would not have you uninformed about those who have fallen asleep."

What about it? That same passage already indicates the b0dy is the only thing sleeping, not the soul: Or what of 1 Corinthians 15:1-6 which explains it's use of "sleep":

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep."

1 Thessilonians 4:13-18:

"But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

Note how the above verses are phrased. As well as how the body is raised up while the sould is brought down to meet with the body before those who are living

Frederick Buechner does a wonderful job explaining this issue in his book "Wishful Thinking"...

Perhaps to you. From what I read...didn't seem quite all too Biblical. Anything from Christian Dogmatics or Tappert?

Another helpful document -- which is long and may raise more questions than it answers, is available on the LC-MS site at http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/resurrection.txt....That document, in particular, makes reference to "the pagan doctrine of the immortality of the soul."...On a couple of points, the LC-MS document beats a little harder than it needs to. For example, the following point is a bit unnecessary:

"b. To reject the teaching that at death man is annihilated in such a
way as to preclude even for the grace and power of God the
possibility of his physical resurrection, or of his final and eternal
judgment.

Actually, to relay the section and not just one portion...to name a few:

. The Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions compel us:

a. To reject the teaching that death terminates the existence of man
so as to preclude the possibility of the persistence beyond death of
his personal identity before God.

b. To reject the teaching that at death man is annihilated in such a
way as to preclude even for the grace and power of God the
possibility of his physical resurrection, or of his final and eternal
judgment.

c. To reject the teaching that the "last things, "namely, the
eschatological acts of divine judgment and salvation, are fully
realized and consummated only within the realm of earthly history, so
as to preclude a life or death to come.

d. To reject the teaching that the resurrection should be conceived
in such a way as to exclude the body (in effect the Gnostic heresy
that matter is essentially evil and that only the "spirit" is capable
of being saved).

f. To reject the teaching that the soul "sleeps" between death and
the resurrection in such a way that it is not conscious of bliss.

7. When Scripture talks about death, the condition of the believer
between death and the resurrection, and the resurrection itself, its
primary purpose is to proclaim to the Christian what great things
God has done for him through Jesus Christ. Through this witness,
God offers to believers the sure hope of everlasting life with Jesus
Christ. Thus the Holy Spirit creates in the believer joy and hope in
the face of the last enemy, death. This is our Gospel hope.

(If indeed we have already stated our belief in the resurrection, and our belief in an all-powerful Creator, then how could God NOT recreate a person if He chose to?)

Because this is the way He choose to reveal to us within His word. He doesn't ask us to second guess....only to trust Him. Second guessing or trying to find out what God has not spoken of only can bring about a new set of problems.

Remember the Lord's prayer when we prayere "Thy will be done as it is on Earth as it is in Heaven?" Why then tell God I don't believe it that it's the way you authored in your book. Whay if I wanna believe something else instead?

In short, the idea that our soul wanders around after death is in opposition to the concept of the resurrection of the "soma" -- the whole person, which is so clearly presented in the Creeds (and yes, the Scriptures.)

And "Soul Sleep" is in direct defiance of both what Jesus taught as well as what is written within the Epistles, not to mention all three creeds accepted by the Lutheran church. Especially the Athenasian creed...

CrossWiseMag

24th May 2005, 08:55 AM

ctobola, you are defiantly unLutheran. That you continue to cling to and besmirch the name by picking and choosing what you will believe from the Lutheran Confessions is out of our control. The moderators of this board have made it against the rules to tell you you're wrong -- but you're wrong.

If you had any integrity, you would stop calling yourself Lutheran. It just confuses people who come in here, wondering whether Lutherans believe the crazy stuff they've heard from "Lutheran evangelists" who are out there doing missions without doctrine.

SPALATIN

24th May 2005, 09:05 AM

I must confess that I agree with Night here. I have never seen anything in the Bible or in church that indicates what Ctbola is saying is true.

revjpw

24th May 2005, 09:16 AM

I must confess that I agree with Night here. I have never seen anything in the Bible or in church that indicates what Ctbola is saying is true.

Be careful, Scott! You almost called someone "wrong"! Tsk Tsk

Bottom line is that this is a perfect example of what happens when the sinful human reason is allowed to interfere with the true interpretation of Scripture.

(Sure makes a difference when we have a common 'enemy', eh?)
;)

SPALATIN

24th May 2005, 09:43 AM

Be careful, Scott! You almost called someone "wrong"! Tsk Tsk

Bottom line is that this is a perfect example of what happens when the sinful human reason is allowed to interfere with the true interpretation of Scripture.

(Sure makes a difference when we have a common 'enemy', eh?)
;)

Especially when I read this verse from Psalm 23:

5You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows

Dominus Fidelis

24th May 2005, 10:09 AM

BigNorsk

24th May 2005, 10:49 AM

The question of whether someone is a heretic is rooted in the concept of sola Scriptura. The standard or rule is the Bible. That gives an unchanging standard.

Marv

SPALATIN

24th May 2005, 11:08 AM

Just curious...on what basis of authority do you determine when someone is a heretic?

(And to answer the original question...yes, heresy still exists and it abounds on this website. I try to overlook it as much as possible so I won't get banned, but I'm sure I will eventually anyway.)

When what they write is antithetical to scripture. A heretic teaches things that are unorthodox or heterodoxical.

Ortho=Correct
Doxy=Teaching

Hetero=other
Doxy=Teaching

So either the teaching is correct or incorrect. Now we may ask by standard is Orthodoxy?

We consider the church Orthodox, however, has the church always been orthodoxical? I think the foundation is based on Orthodoxy, however, there have been times when because of sin, man has taught heterodoxy and used the church as his justification. (i.e. Popes and Councils) to teach contrary to what the church has always confessed. This was the basis for Luther's 95 theses and his eventual excommunication from the Roman Catholic church.

Luther stated in the Diet of Worms when asked to publicly recant his works

John Eck said:Your plea to be heard from Scripture is the one always made by heretics. You do nothing but renew the errors of Wyclif and Hus. [10] (http://www.mluther.org/references/index.html#10s)

Luther answered:

"Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me, Amen!"

Luther considered popes and councils to be mere human representatives in the church and not to be venerated as saints as it appears the Roman Catholic Church does today.

On the other side we have a fragmented church that has so drifted from orthodoxical teaching that they throw out the Baby with the Bathwater and insist that there's is more correct and yet what they teach is new and is not consistent with what the Church taught since Christ.

Is heresy abundant on CF? Yes, but due to the protocols of the rules we are forbidden to point fingers so we can only define true teaching and anyone who strays from it shows a tendency to be heretical.

Most here have to agree to the Nicene Creed, however, there are differences of opinion on whether the filioque is to be included. The EOC says no, but some Roman Catholics and most Lutherans says yes. Most of the other denominations are clueless.

Protoevangel

24th May 2005, 02:08 PM

Hi ctobola,

I understand where you are comming from, there is a lot of verses talking about the dead being asleep. Considering though, the entire testimony of Scripture, it would appear that this sleep is for the body only, because Scripture has overwhelming evidence suggesting that the Soul departs the body at death, and is "conscious".

1 Kings 17:21-22: Elijah raising the widow’s son from the dead. “And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived”

Matthew 10:28: "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". It is possible to kill the body but not the soul.

Matthew 17:3: "And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him". Although Elijah was transported directly to heaven (2 Kings 2:11), Moses died (Deut. 34:5). Because the resurrection had not yet come it had to be their spirits.

Matthew 27:50, Luke 23:46, Acts 7:59: Meaningless if we believe in Soul Sleep.

Luke 8:53-55: “And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. But taking her by the hand he called, saying, "Child, arise." And her spirit returned, and she got up at once."

2 Corinthians 5:6-8: "So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." What can being “away from the body and at home with the Lord” mean but that when a Christian dies their soul leaves their body and goes to a new home with the Lord himself?

Philippians 1:21-24: "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you". Upon death believers are already said to have gained. We gain nothing by unconsciousness.

Luke 16:22-23, 1 Peter 3:19-20, Luke 23:43, Revelation 6:9-11: The Bible speaks of conscious reactions of souls in heaven or hell before the Resurrection.

ctobola

24th May 2005, 02:22 PM

N2D,

You bring up a lot of good points. I'm kind of rushed for time right now, so I'll try to response to them a bit at a time. Here's the first one...

[QUOTE=night2day]
You forget, Jesus' exact words to the man was: "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." Today as in Today. Not as in months or years or centuries from now.
[/QOUTE]

This verse (Lk 23:43) is problematic for translators because the koine Greek version we have uses uncials -- the words are all in capital letters and no punctuation.... so any punction we add is a matter if interpretation. The verse could read either of two ways,

1. I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.
2. I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

The verse would have been more clear if Jesus had used the word "hoti" ("that"); but even in English we frequently omit the word "that." Therefore, we do not know for sure whether "semeron" ("today"), applies to the first or second phrase of the sentence.

However, some scholars think that #1 is more correct because in the Hebrew the phrase "I say to you this day" was commonly used to provide solemn emphasis... sort of the way we'd say, "I swear to you I will do this."

Sociology and linguistically (that's my area of expertise) we know that in oral cultures, the concept of spoken truth or promises was frequently time-bound. (These cultures used time/tradition as a reference point, whereas print cultures could use documents as a reference point.) Phrases like "As XYZ promised when..." appear throughout Scripture, so the use of the phrase "I say to you this day," would likely have been common when making promises such as the one Jesus made to the thief.

I hope that's helpful. More later. Excelsior! -Cloy

ctobola

24th May 2005, 02:37 PM

Chill out just a bit there, CrossWise... No need to call out the Spanish Inquisition.

The problem with this area is that there are indeed two answers -- the "pastoral" answer and the theological answer.

It's not very comforting to the widow to tell her that we're putting Henry in a box in the ground... so we're come up with some lovely euphemisms, which have unfortunately skewed our understanding in this area.

When we say that, "Henry is resting with Jesus," we are telling the truth -- our Lord and Creator indeed holds all that we are (and all that we have ever been) in His hands. [Indeed, he holds all of creation at all times.] It means that we are as dear to him after our hearts have stopped beating as we were before.

What it doesn't address is what happens before the resurrection. If we take the Scriptural images of the dead rising and meeting Christ in the resurrection, then the idea that we're wandering around somewhere in the meantime doesn't work.

If we indeed haven't really died -- we just "shed the mortal coil" -- then why is resurrection so ding-dang important? If we simply "pass away" and then immediately go to Heaven, why should we worry about being raised?

Without a death that ends who we are (in earthly terms), the idea of being reborn into a new creation becomes a minor issue.

Excelsior! -Cloy

P.S. I'm frankly a bit astonished to hear you LC-MS and WELS guys taking the Roman Catholic position (and the immortality of the soul is central to things like praying to saints, purgatory, etc.) while I'm taking the more Hebrew position. Who'd have thought? ;)

ctobola, you are defiantly unLutheran. That you continue to cling to and besmirch the name by picking and choosing what you will believe from the Lutheran Confessions is out of our control. The moderators of this board have made it against the rules to tell you you're wrong -- but you're wrong.

If you had any integrity, you would stop calling yourself Lutheran. It just confuses people who come in here, wondering whether Lutherans believe the crazy stuff they've heard from "Lutheran evangelists" who are out there doing missions without doctrine.

SPALATIN

24th May 2005, 03:41 PM

Chill out just a bit there, CrossWise... No need to call out the Spanish Inquisition.

The problem with this area is that there are indeed two answers -- the "pastoral" answer and the theological answer.

It's not very comforting to the widow to tell her that we're putting Henry in a box in the ground... so we're come up with some lovely euphemisms, which have unfortunately skewed our understanding in this area.

When we say that, "Henry is resting with Jesus," we are telling the truth -- our Lord and Creator indeed holds all that we are (and all that we have ever been) in His hands. [Indeed, he holds all of creation at all times.] It means that we are as dear to him after our hearts have stopped beating as we were before.

What it doesn't address is what happens before the resurrection. If we take the Scriptural images of the dead rising and meeting Christ in the resurrection, then the idea that we're wandering around somewhere in the meantime doesn't work.

If we indeed haven't really died -- we just "shed the mortal coil" -- then why is resurrection so ding-dang important? If we simply "pass away" and then immediately go to Heaven, why should we worry about being raised?

Without a death that ends who we are (in earthly terms), the idea of being reborn into a new creation becomes a minor issue.

Excelsior! -Cloy

P.S. I'm frankly a bit astonished to hear you LC-MS and WELS guys taking the Roman Catholic position (and the immortality of the soul is central to things like praying to saints, purgatory, etc.) while I'm taking the more Hebrew position. Who'd have thought? ;)

And where do you get the idea that the Hebrew position is correct? They rejected Christ from the beginning. Only a small handful of believers followed Christ. Besides Lutheran's don't reject everything Catholic.

revjpw

24th May 2005, 04:05 PM

P.S. I'm frankly a bit astonished to hear you LC-MS and WELS guys taking the Roman Catholic position (and the immortality of the soul is central to things like praying to saints, purgatory, etc.) while I'm taking the more Hebrew position. Who'd have thought? ;)

In all truthfulness, we take the Biblical position. I don't know where yours comes from. Probably Ellen White!

When you die, you don't cease to exist.

The bottom line is that "death" means separated. When the body dies, we are separated from it. That is Temporal death. We are separated from the world. The dead are indeed conscious at rest with Christ, as Scripture attests, but is separated from the world, and most likely has no consciousness of the world. Thus, we reject the notion of praying to the saints because they have no consciousness of us. We also reject the notion of hauntings or ghosts or other contact with dead people. (No "wandering around somewhere" before the resurrection.) These things are purely demonic and satanic.

The ressurection of the dead brings the soul of the person back to the "new earth" in a new gloirified immortal body.

Protoevangel

24th May 2005, 04:19 PM

To be fair to ctobola, Luther made several statements that sounded as if he were promoting the idea of a 'soul sleep", but taken in context with the whole of his writings, and the teaching of the historic Lutheran church, these teachings were opposed to the idea of purgatory, and not that the soul of the departed is unconcious of bliss. "In the interim [between death and resurrection], the soul does not sleep but is awake and enjoys the vision of angels and of God, and has converse with them." Luther's Works, Vol XXV, page 321

night2day

25th May 2005, 12:55 AM

...Really, a Heresy is something that goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Also, a heresy is something that goes against the scriptures that are divinely inspired.

A Heresy is not a question of someones faith, but a matter of doctrine.

When one thinks about it, there are many in Christiandom today who constantly ask "Which interpretation of the Bible is the correct one?" without even considering the sole Author is the only one who dictates what theological doctrines He has established within the Scriptures. We don't.

MORTANIUS

25th May 2005, 02:48 AM

When one thinks about it, there are many in Christiandom today who constantly ask "Which interpretation of the Bible is the correct one?" without even considering the sole Author is the only one who dictates what theological doctrines He has established within the Scriptures. We don't.

That is a very excellent point for consideration. I suppose for those of us who do not have access or knowledge of the languages of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, we must through faith rely on those who translate the Scriptures into English and other languages as honestly and sincerity to the words written within the Holy Bible.

There will always be some problems in this area, but if its not intentional, I don't see it as a heresy. Should we? As long as it is corrected for the purpose of our understanding.

night2day

25th May 2005, 03:40 AM

N2D,

You bring up a lot of good points. I'm kind of rushed for time right now, so I'll try to response to them a bit at a time. Here's the first one...

...This verse (Lk 23:43) is problematic for translators because the koine Greek version we have uses uncials -- the words are all in capital letters and no punctuation.... so any punction we add is a matter if interpretation.

Interpretation or merely translating? True, only the orginals can be said to be dively inspired, inerrant, and infallible, not the translations into other languages. However, that doesn't mean God can't protect and preserve His word from those who would want to see it destroyed regardless.

Sociology and linguistically (that's my area of expertise) we know that in oral cultures, the concept of spoken truth or promises was frequently time-bound...

Ironic you used the term "time-bound" when we're discussing eternity as well as what happens after we leave the bounds of time.

Be that as it may, too many people go on reading and dissecting past Scriptures without actualy reading them for what they are simply merely saying. Let the literary context of the passage stand on its own along with the rest of the scriptures.

night2day

25th May 2005, 06:30 AM

It's not very comforting to the widow to tell her that we're putting Henry in a box in the ground... so we're come up with some lovely euphemisms, which have unfortunately skewed our understanding in this area...

On the basis of your own posts you've removed certain passages from their context and haven't quoted anything of the basic Lutheran Confessions when asked. While I pointed to the entire section of the Third Article of the Apostle's Creed from the Explanation of the Luther's Small Catachism (http://www.stpaulskingsville.org/catechism.htm) . All that was brought up in turn was a document from CTCR ...even though all it did was restate the basics of what you would already find within the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.

Another helpful document -- which is long and may raise more questions than it answers, is available on the LC-MS site at http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources...esurrection.txt (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/resurrection.txt).

That document, in particular, makes reference to "the pagan doctrine of the immortality of the soul."

On a couple of points, the LC-MS document beats a little harder than it needs to. For example, the following point is a bit unnecessary:

"b. To reject the teaching that at death man is annihilated in such a
way as to preclude even for the grace and power of God the
possibility of his physical resurrection, or of his final and eternal
judgment.

Why reject that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave so thay by grace, through faith in Him we would have complete forgiveness of sins and eternal life...only then to say He was a complete liar?

If the fact the Bible clearly teaches death is the end result of sin, that upon death a person's soul will be immediately seperated from the body and enter Heaven or Hell, and on Jesus' Return the soul and body will rejoined...only the judgment the won't change. It will only be confirmed. This is no mere "comfort" or "lovely euphemisms" for the weak hearted or the grieving. This is what the Bible says to be true.

Jesus rose from the dead, giving us a foretaste of what's in store for every believer when He returns. That we too will have incorruptable and sinless bodies. He also spoke alot regarding Heaven and Hell during His earthly ministry within the Gospels. Heck, remember Moses and Elijah? He even spoke to them at one point while Peter, James, and John watched, and knew who they were. The Sunday is noted as "Transfiguration Sunday" on the church calander year. Recall the prophet Elijah within the Old Testament? He never died. He was taken to Heven within a fiery chariet.

When we say that, "Henry is resting with Jesus," we are telling the truth -- our Lord and Creator indeed holds all that we are (and all that we have ever been) in His hands. [Indeed, he holds all of creation at all times.] It means that we are as dear to him after our hearts have stopped beating as we were before.

It's only a half-truth...which can be worse than an outright lie. All those who were true believers in Jesus Christ aren't just resting in Christ, their souls are with Him right now. It doesn't matter that their bodies are decaying within the ground. They will be resurrected when Christ returns.

What it doesn't address is what happens before the resurrection. If we take the Scriptural images of the dead rising and meeting Christ in the resurrection, then the idea that we're wandering around somewhere in the meantime doesn't work.

I guess the souls of the saints (Christians) being in Heaven and not "wandering around somewhere" must have bypassed you in an earlier post or two. Although there was only one very special occasion when a few ressurections took place and the people rose and wittnessed -- it was right at the point when Christ died on the Cross.

This isn't a ghost story or a psychic's network. The humans condemned in Hell cannot return to Earth either.

If we indeed haven't really died -- we just "shed the mortal coil" -- then why is resurrection so ding-dang important? If we simply "pass away" and then immediately go to Heaven, why should we worry about being raised?

Why worry whether or not on what the Scriptures say at all?

Mark 12:26-27

"...have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, 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 the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err."

For that matter, why worry over whether Jesus returns or not as He promised He would? This world isn't going to last forever. It's Fallen and Corrupt. It's under the curse of Sin that first took place in Eden

Are you proposing God keep everyone in the mess we're in?

P.S. I'm frankly a bit astonished to hear you LC-MS and WELS guys taking the Roman Catholic position (and the immortality of the soul is central to things like praying to saints, purgatory, etc.)

What's with the "Immortality of the Soul"? You're the only party who thinks there's a persistant need of bringing up an unclaimed belief into discussion. :confused:

...while I'm taking the more Hebrew position. Who'd have thought?

I was thinking it was more Nihilistic.

night2day

25th May 2005, 07:01 AM

That is a very excellent point for consideration. I suppose for those of us who do not have access or knowledge of the languages of Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, we must through faith rely on those who translate the Scriptures into English and other languages as honestly and sincerity to the words written within the Holy Bible.

There will always be some problems in this area, but if its not intentional, I don't see it as a heresy. Should we? As long as it is corrected for the purpose of our understanding.

There are some Bible translataions better some others when speaking in thay vein. Although I would advise to stay away from the newer ones which attempt to "modernize" or what I call "give the Reader's Digest Version" of a verse or passage. A rather trimmed down form. One translaton coming to mind as an example would be The Message. (Too dumbed down.) My personal favorite is the The New King James. I've heard An American Translation all translated last century from the orginal languages is a good one as well. (recently added: AAT is also known as the "Beck Bible" and...it was also translated by a Lutheran.)

As for interpretation, I suppose some could also use thr word opinion. Since that's how they mean to also ask the question. "Who's opinion on the Bible's of right?" And, that's why I mentioned it would be the sole Author Himself -- God.

SPALATIN

25th May 2005, 08:46 AM

There are some Bible translataions better some others when speaking in thay vein. Although I would advise to stay away from the newer ones which attempt to "modernize" or what I call "give the Reader's Digest Version" of a verse or passage. A rather trimmed down form. One translaton coming to mind as an example would be The Message. (Too dumbed down.) My personal favorite is the The New King James. I've heard An American Translation all translated last century from the orginal languages is a good one as well.

As for interpretation, I suppose some could also use thr word opinion. Since that's how they mean to also ask the question. "Who's opinion on the Bible's of right?" And, that's why I mentioned it would be the sole Author Himself -- God.

My favorite of late has been the ESV, though there are some problems between some verses there and in the NIV that I wonder who did the interpreting for the ESV. The NIV still is about as good as it gets though I wish I had a Concordia Study Bible because I would rather have the Lutheran notes than the Zondervan notes.

CrossWiseMag

25th May 2005, 11:38 AM

Most of the Concordia Study Bible's notes are actually Zondervan's. There are just a few Lutheran "additions," and I'm actually not that impressed with some of what they left intact. Not that I know Greek or Hebrew, but from what I've read and been told, there are places where the "corrections" don't go far enough.

MORTANIUS

25th May 2005, 11:42 AM

revjpw

25th May 2005, 01:04 PM

There are some Bible translataions better some others when speaking in thay vein. Although I would advise to stay away from the newer ones which attempt to "modernize" or what I call "give the Reader's Digest Version" of a verse or passage. A rather trimmed down form. One translaton coming to mind as an example would be The Message. (Too dumbed down.) My personal favorite is the The New King James. I've heard An American Translation all translated last century from the orginal languages is a good one as well.

As for interpretation, I suppose some could also use thr word opinion. Since that's how they mean to also ask the question. "Who's opinion on the Bible's of right?" And, that's why I mentioned it would be the sole Author Himself -- God.

The NKJV is a good translation. I know that the LCMS Commission on Worship considered it for the new hymnal translation, but the overwhelming choice was the ESV, which IMO is better.

NASB is probably the most "word for word" accurate English version, but can be difficult to follow in parts because it retains much of the Greek sentence structure.

The AAT (An American Translation), although done by a Lutheran (aka Beck's Bible) is too paraphrased and awkward for me. Besides, I'm not too keen on putting money in Herman Otten's pockets since he is the one who now holds the copyright for it.

My personal choice for Scripture version is Nestle-Aland "Novum Testamentum Graece" Greek 27th edition and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Hebrew Tanak) 5th edition.

SPALATIN

25th May 2005, 02:35 PM

I'm not too keen on putting money in Herman Otten's pockets since he is the one who now holds the copyright for it.

Herman's not your kind of guy eh JPW? ;)

revjpw

25th May 2005, 04:00 PM

Herman's not your kind of guy eh JPW? ;)

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm as Confessional/Conservative as they come.
But I have a problem with reactionary types. And some of those guys are a little too right-of-the-fence for me.

ByzantineDixie

25th May 2005, 10:31 PM

Qoheleth

25th May 2005, 11:34 PM

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm as Confessional/Conservative as they come.

What does this mean, specifically?

Q

revjpw

26th May 2005, 12:02 AM

Hey Rev and Scott...have you heard what Theodore Letis (Lutheran Bible Scholar) says about the ESV? He holds it is nothing but an updated RSV which he says the conservative confessionals never accepted.

Listen to this (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=41504103537) when you have some free time...quite interesting.

First off, Letis is reformed, not Lutheran.

Second, his assertion that the ESV is owned, copyrighted, or in some other way associated with the NCC is absolutely false.

Third, four of the scholars involved with the ESV are LCMS seminary professors.

Fourth, the only so-called "conservative confessionals" that reject are the Herman Otten folk. Herman wanted the LCMS to use the AAT for the new hymnal instead of the ESV. Why? Because he holds the copyright to the AAT and wanted to make some money.

The reason for using the RSV as the basis is because many churches are familiar with that version. It is called "a conservative revision of the RSV" but is not at all associated with the original RSV copyright holders.

revjpw

26th May 2005, 12:04 AM

What doies this mean, specifically?

Q

It means I'm not a liberal that tears out the pages of the Bible that I don't personally agree with, and I hold a quia subscription to the BoC instead of viewing it as merely a historic collection of outdated documents.

MORTANIUS

26th May 2005, 12:10 AM

Qoheleth

26th May 2005, 12:26 AM

It means I'm not a liberal that tears out the pages of the Bible that I don't personally agree with, and I hold a quia subscription to the BoC instead of viewing it as merely a historic collection of outdated documents.

So, this would mean that you agree with Semper Virgo, Private Confession as a Sacrament, Prayers for the Dead, The Mass (liturgy) and so on...

Q

MORTANIUS

26th May 2005, 12:28 AM

So, this would mean that you agree with Semper Virgo, Private Confession as a Sacrament, Prayers for the Dead, The Mass (liturgy) and so on...

Q

Let me ask something of you because you are one of the more knowledgable people on here.

In regards to prayers for the dead, have you noticed that some people in your congregation relaxing the views against it?

I have and I'm not sure if its just that some people do it as a comfort when someone in their family dies. Its more an unofficial act, but I don't know if its a relaxing of the issue.

What are your experiences?

night2day

26th May 2005, 06:16 AM

The AAT (An American Translation), although done by a Lutheran (aka Beck's Bible) is too paraphrased and awkward for me.

Strange, I remember us kids using the Beck Bible for the confirmation classes. :)

Anyway, what I found too paraphrased was the NIV which is what I needed to use atone of the LCMS synodical colleges btw. Go figure.

Besides, I'm not too keen on putting money in Herman Otten's pockets since he is the one who now holds the copyright for itsince he is the one who now holds the copyright for it.

If I recall right, he helped promote the project as well. And after Mr Beck died, others were found to finish the project for him. I'm unsure if Pastor Otten or anyone related helped fund the endevor, but I certainly see nothing wrong with it if they had.

Especially since it's the LCMS hierarachy who have refused to ordain the man rather unfairly even though He did the right thing and blew the whistle in the 1970's. However, after Seminex, those who took part and choose to remain in the LCMS went underground while the whistleblower is the one who is punished by being unallowed to be fully ordained for abiding by the scriptures and his conscious. And this has benn continuing with both Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative sydnodical presidents. Rather than any finding fault theologically, seems to be all a political matter at this point.

I don't agree with everything Pastor Herman Otten says or how he says it, but he has many good points in the weekly paper that's printed....and which can also be found online: Christian News (http://www.lutherannews.info/).

Jim47

26th May 2005, 06:56 AM

My favorite of late has been the ESV, though there are some problems between some verses there and in the NIV that I wonder who did the interpreting for the ESV. The NIV still is about as good as it gets though I wish I had a Concordia Study Bible because I would rather have the Lutheran notes than the Zondervan notes.

I have started reading God's Word version and I highly recommend reading first Corinthians from that version, in fact it is revelant to this discussion in many ways.

If you don't have GW version you get it from e-Sword. Filo and my Pastor highly recommend GW version.

ByzantineDixie

26th May 2005, 07:37 AM

First off, Letis is reformed, not Lutheran.

Oh? When did he leave the Lutheran Church? And is it typical for the "reformed" to argue for an ecclesiastical text?

Second, his assertion that the ESV is owned, copyrighted, or in some other way associated with the NCC is absolutely false.

Well, I don't know that it is or isn't but now I have to do a little more digging.

Third, four of the scholars involved with the ESV are LCMS seminary professors.

Sorry, Rev. This and $3.50 gets one a Hazelnut Skim Latte at Starbucks.

Fourth, the only so-called "conservative confessionals" that reject are the Herman Otten folk. Herman wanted the LCMS to use the AAT for the new hymnal instead of the ESV. Why? Because he holds the copyright to the AAT and wanted to make some money.

Reject is a strong word. Even most of the pastors I have heard who express strong preferences in other versions are not apt to "reject" the ESV so much as they are to steer their faithful to a different version.

Actually my interest in what Letis has to say has nothing to do with the WCC or even the ESV as a new version of the RSV so much as it does with his views regarding the ecclesiastical text. Interesting concept and one that actually makes sense to me.

revjpw

26th May 2005, 09:28 AM

Third, four of the scholars involved with the ESV are LCMS seminary professors.

Sorry, Rev. This and $3.50 gets one a Hazelnut Skim Latte at Starbucks.

Even sorrier, Rose. Two of them are from St. Louis, and two from Fort Wayne, including the seminary president.

AngelusSax

26th May 2005, 05:17 PM

It means I'm not a liberal that tears out the pages of the Bible that I don't personally agree with, and I hold a quia subscription to the BoC instead of viewing it as merely a historic collection of outdated documents.

You might not be a liberal who, to put it more tactfully, doesn't hold to certain parts of the Bible, but if you're human (and I suspect you are), then most likely you just ignore other parts of the Bible than what liberals do. Actually... I know you do. No one takes the entire Bible 100% literally. No one.

No one gives up absolutely everything to follow Jesus. No one refuses to greet others as they meet them in passing when spreading the Gospel to other towns. No one with a disposable income decides to not save any in the bank, which is storing up treasures for ourselves here on earth. And most of us are quick to remove our brothers' speck from his eye before we even come close to trying to take the log out of our own.

Just because some of us have decided that an always-reforming church (and reform doesn't mean "go back to the way of the middle ages" as some might claim) should not cease reforming and therefore stay at the 500-years-ago level, doesn't mean we don't hold to the BOC... in fact, I think those who are looking at church practice and seeking reform are holding to it better than those who hold 500-year-old tradition above anything else... which may not be the intent but it is the reality.

Qoheleth

26th May 2005, 06:09 PM

Let me ask something of you because you are one of the more knowledgable people on here.

In regards to prayers for the dead, have you noticed that some people in your congregation relaxing the views against it?

I have and I'm not sure if its just that some people do it as a comfort when someone in their family dies. Its more an unofficial act, but I don't know if its a relaxing of the issue.

What are your experiences?

My Parish has always accepted the practice of this prayer.

My experience is, that when an individual is properly catechized and the scriptural message of true communion is understood or a "Eucharistic Life" is maintained, prayers for the dead and the Invocation of Saints is accepted quite easily.

Q

revjpw

26th May 2005, 07:40 PM

You might not be a liberal who, to put it more tactfully, doesn't hold to certain parts of the Bible, but if you're human (and I suspect you are), then most likely you just ignore other parts of the Bible than what liberals do. Actually... I know you do. No one takes the entire Bible 100% literally. No one.

What parts do I ignore, you know so much?
Besides, who said anything about "literal"? There are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken 100% literal. Context dictates these things.

Just because some of us have decided that an always-reforming church (and reform doesn't mean "go back to the way of the middle ages" as some might claim) should not cease reforming and therefore stay at the 500-years-ago level, doesn't mean we don't hold to the BOC... in fact, I think those who are looking at church practice and seeking reform are holding to it better than those who hold 500-year-old tradition above anything else... which may not be the intent but it is the reality.

Your definition of "reform" does not match that of the Reformers of the Church, except maybe Calvin.
True reform of the Church means to hold to the Scriptural truths, which are a little older than 500 years and do not change or need to be "reformed" according to your personal definition. But you by your own admission don't hold to them either.

Protoevangel

27th May 2005, 01:31 AM

Just because some of us have decided that an always-reforming church (and reform doesn't mean "go back to the way of the middle ages" as some might claim) should not cease reforming and therefore stay at the 500-years-ago level, doesn't mean we don't hold to the BOC...

Angelus,

I know you have got to be smarter than to actually think I was saying that we should "go back to the way of the middle ages". Lets see, what exactly did I say back there:

What exactly do you think REformed means?

RE-formed (Back to the originalform)
RE-turned (Go back to the original location)
RE-build (Build in the original location again)
RE-fined (Back to a purestate)
RE-union (Back together)

Did you really think REformed means creating something new? Far from it! REformed means we REturned to the true faith. The Lutheran REformers did nothing to make something new, they REturned to the faith catholic and eliminated the newish abuses of the Papacy.

It is true that we are always REforming, REbuilding and REfining, by REjecting and REfusing the new abuses and heresies that people are trying to REinsert into the true faith, to make it less than it is.

The ones who have stopped REforming are those who are adapting to the world's ways. Those who accept new teachings because they "feel good", those who are wiling to REject the truth in favor of a false "unity".

So, it's pretty obvious I wasn't talking about the "middle ages", but it is equally as obvious that this is exactly what you were referring to, so therefore, it most likely wasn't an honest mistake on your part... then the only other possibility I can see is that you are intentionally bearing false witness. I don't want to think that about you either, Angelus. Is there a third possibility here? I certianly hope so.

AngelusSax

27th May 2005, 12:21 PM

Is there a third possibility here? I certianly hope so.

I don't think the intent of you, personally, is for a middle-ages church, but it's what many would like to see happen, judging from comments in general. Not bearing false witness, just an honest opinion I've formulated and no doubt earned another "hertic" gold star from some...

See, it is my belief that the true faith allows for women to be a pastor, provided they've had the same education any man has to have in order to be a pastor. I believe the true faith shows that Paul, when writing against women having authority, is one of two things:
A reference to the marriage roles only, or B) a specific letter to a sepcific church which was later canonized by the Church Fathers at large. Interestingly, even when Jesus, in the Gospels, is proclaiming what is to take place in a Church, it deals with how to be reconciled with your brother (before we take communion, for example), and the attitude of the Christian heart. Never once does Jesus say "a woman can't be a minister (pastor, preacher, rabbi, etc.). Women having subjugated (sp?) roles is, at the slight risk (which I'll take) or being offensive, Jewish. At least, back in the days of the Earthly Jesus, it sure was. It's why his disciples kept trying to reprimand women for being around Jesus as he preached, but Jesus always wound up reprimanding them instead. See, women weren't even allowed, by Jewish law, to learn the Scriptures... only what their husbands felt they deserved to know did they know. Now, considering Paul's letters were written even before the first Gospel (of Mark, interestingly, and not Matthew which appears first in our ordering), you'd think if things like a woman being a pastor was such a big issue, the writers of the Gospels would have made sure to include some teaching against it coming from the lips of Jesus himself. So either the writers just decided to leave out some stuff Jesus said, or He never said it.

I think the subjection of women was a way of the world once. I believe Jesus "shalom" peace, which He wished and still wises to all His disciples, means to go back to the way things were meant to be before the Fall of Man.

Some might say the woman was made only to help the man. OK, fine. But help the man to do what? To meet man's wishes, or the moeet God's wishes? If it is to meet man's wishes, then the woman is little more than a slave... if any more at all. If it is to meet God's wishes, then how is a woman being a pastor not helping man to reach God's wish of having a shepherd to point to The Shepherd?

My definition of reformed comes from the dictionary. I see nothing about "returning to the original", but I do see "changing for the better."

As a verb, reform is "To improve by alteration, correction of error, or removal of defects; put into a better form or condition."

If we are to reform, I think we must remove (as the ELCA has rightly done, and LCMS seems to be on the glacier-speed-path to doing) the defect of the subjection of women to men. I don't carry this all the way to abortion on demand or anything, but I do think that, if God can speak to us through a woman, then there's no reason we should try to shut Him up.

The same Paul who tells us that women can't teach, also tells us that women can't speak. Yet very few of us, if any of us, disallows a woman to testify in church, or to help report the community news (like "there will be a bake sale this Saturday", etc.)

I know people will say that context lets us know that Paul didn't mean that. Well, I submit that historical context, as well as the context of the Gospels (which apparently, to some, come secondary to the letters of Paul), shows us that Paul wasn't telling all women of all time they can't preach. In Christ, the earthly assignment of roles is done away with. Without this, there can be no freedom in Christ, as without this, we hold onto the bondage of slavery to human nature.

Perhaps the reasoning is something else. Perhaps Paul thought a woman would get PMS and not be able to pastor because of her anger that comes with Permissible Man Slaughter... I doubt it, but hey, I thought it was kinda funny.

Protoevangel

27th May 2005, 03:32 PM

I don't think the intent of you, personally, is for a middle-ages church, but it's what many would like to see happen, judging from comments in general. Not bearing false witness, just an honest opinion I've formulated and no doubt earned another "hertic" gold star from some...

<snip> (to shorten)

Perhaps the reasoning is something else. Perhaps Paul thought a woman would get PMS and not be able to pastor because of her anger that comes with Permissible Man Slaughter... I doubt it, but hey, I thought it was kinda funny.
Hey Angelus,

Is that one subject, women pastors, all that matters to you? You seem to bring it up in almost every thread I see you post in.

No problem, I am more than willing to listen to what you have to say about it, and I am still awaiting the study you said you were going to post. Unless what you just posted was it… I’m not trying to push you or anything... Take the time you need, but it is only strong and positive Scripture, in context, not contradicting the rest of Scripture, and plain reason based on the same that will convince me that the 2000-year understanding of roles in the church has been wrong. No small task, sure, but if you really have truth on your side, it should not be that daunting.

I would be interested to understand why you said the following: “See, it is my belief that the true faith allows for women to be a pastor, provided they've had the same education any man has to have in order to be a pastor.” Especially when you also said: “Never once does Jesus say "a woman can't be a minister (pastor, preacher, rabbi, etc.).” Jesus also never said that a person should have any specific level of education for the roles you mentioned. He never said we couldn’t marry our dog, He never said a lot of things, Angelus. Is everything Jesus was not recorded as saying the basis for changing our Doctrine now?

Another thought. You and I are in a synod that already allows women pastors. Why do you feel the need to trounce on the consciences of others who believe that it is not appropriate? You are doing here what so many have been complaining that the conservatives were doing; you are saying everyone who disagrees with your personal standard is wrong.

Are you claiming that Paul’s writings are not inspired? Not Authoritative? If that is your claim, fine, we can discuss that on it’s own merits. But you really need to be clearer about what you see as authoritative and what you do not if you want this conversation to go anywhere. I mean you keep bringing up the same fallacies that you have been corrected on multiple times without objection. It’s almost like you don’t want to discuss, instead just smart off and despise those who really believe the Bible is sufficiently the only source and norm for our faith and church.

Sure some here may attack you over your beliefs, calling you unchristian and unlutheran. If what you believe is the truth though, why do you so complain that you don’t have the approval of these mere men? Is it them or God whose opinion matters in you life? If what you have is the truth, declare it with confidence and all let your light shine before all men. Otherwise, if all you have is doubt and uncertainty, and are unwilling to be corrected, then I guess the tactics you are currently using are as good as any.

Let’s talk, but we need to back up a little first. So, to summarize what I see as the most important questions I have for you: Do you see Paul’s writings in the Holy Bible as Inspired and Authoritative; as Scripture? If you do not, on what authority do you base your denial of Paul’s writings? How do you discount the fact that Paul himself claims his teachings come from God and not from man? How do you discount the fact that the Apostle Peter calls Paul’s writings Scripture in his second Epistle?

ctobola

27th May 2005, 10:23 PM

And where do you get the idea that the Hebrew position is correct? They rejected Christ from the beginning. Only a small handful of believers followed Christ. Besides Lutheran's don't reject everything Catholic.

The fact that some Hebrews rejected Christ is irrelevant; nor did I imply that we should reject everything that is Roman Catholic.

My point is that the Old Covenant is a Hebrew concept, which is recorded by the People of God (who happened to be Hebrew) and by the Prophets (who happened to be Hebrew). Whether you believe that covenant influcenced the culture or vice-versa, presumably Hebrew language and culture is strongly influenced by their interaction with Jehovah.

Additionally, Jesus and all of the Apostles were Hebrew, they all probably spoke Hebrew and they were steeped in that culture -- so the language they use will reflect that social metaphor.

As Christianity moved west, the introduction of Hellenistic ideas -- including body/soul dualism -- were adopted into the faith.

I've always thought that the introduction of those "foreign" ideas by popes/leaders/scholars (particularly those during the darkest, most political, most corrupt times in the Roman Catholic tradition) may have been done without regard for the underlying Hebrew concepts, thereby created much of the mischief that was done to Christianity. Concepts like celebacy for priests, purgatory, the immaculate conception, and other ideas are clear signs of that.

In chapter 12 of Resurrection: A Symbol of Hope (Hodder and Stoughton: London, Auckland, Sydney, Toronto, 1971.), Lloyd Geering presents a similar sentiment:

But Judaism, as we have seen, had already begun to be influenced by the Greek doctrine of an immortal soul even though this was foreign to the heritage of ancient Israel found in the Hebrew Bible. Some Jewish thinkers became so Hellenised that they came to regard the heavenly bliss of a spiritual soul as a much more worthy expression of human destiny than the thought of an endless life in a material body. This led to tension with those who regarded with alarm any departure from what had by then become fairly standard belief. (He cites The Encyclopedia of Jewish Religion as a source for this.)

Hope that helps. -Cloy

night2day

30th May 2005, 06:20 PM

...the Old Covenant is a Hebrew concept, which is recorded by the People of God (who happened to be Hebrew) and by the Prophets (who happened to be Hebrew). Whether you believe that covenant influcenced the culture or vice-versa, presumably Hebrew language and culture is strongly influenced by their interaction with Jehovah.

Additionally, Jesus and all of the Apostles were Hebrew, they all probably spoke Hebrew and they were steeped in that culture -- so the language they use will reflect that social metaphor....

The Old Testament proclaims God gave the Old Covenant to the Hebrews and made them a special nation apart from all others. This was never meant as an end to itself. But a way in which the world would be aided in being pointed to the coming Messiah. Being sinful human beings many of the convenat laws were taken by the religious leaders long before Jesus day and made into a works-rightousness religion, or one based on idiolotry such as on rasicm.

Nonetheless, while people may do what the will with God's word, His word still stands regardless. The Savior was still (edited to read: concieved by the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin), and raised, entered into His earthly ministry, arrested and betrayed by one of His own disciples, condemned to death in numerous illegal trials by the religious order of his day, taken before Pilate, then Herod, then Pilate again, then crucified, then rose from the the dead. And the Old Covenant gave way to the New because the Old had fulfilled it's purpose.

As Christianity moved west, the introduction of Hellenistic ideas -- including body/soul dualism -- were adopted into the faith.

As stated before you have to discount the various Biblical referances which have been already stated and shared in which the body and soul are indeed seperated at death are reunited at the last day. This is not speaking of Greecian-Roman ideas, merely Christian donctrine. If you believe the Bible states otherwise, please provide Biblical referance and consider the literary context as well.

ctobola

30th May 2005, 08:20 PM

N2D,

I have no problem with anything you wrote in the first two paragraphs; nor do I dismiss the verses regarding flesh, spirit and body that have been listed. I simply believe that they lead me to a different conclusion than the one you may have reached.

(And incidentally, I didn't pull this out of thin air. My views on body/spirit/flesh were taught to me by an excellent Greek scholar/instructor and Lutheran pastor.)

There are three primary Greek terms used to describe these issues:
(Apologies if I decline these nouns wrong -- I'm moving my office so I don't have my reference books handy to verify.)

pneuma - means breath/breath of life, wind, air, ghost or spirit.
sarx - flesh, but other nuances according to context. For example, Paul uses the word to describe sinful nature.
soma - often translated as body, but there is disagreement here whether it means the "whole person," or simply flesh (similar to the common use of the term as sarx).

We know that soma was the word that Jesus used in the last supper, and it's also the word used when the Creeds refer to the "resurrection of the body."

The issue is whether soma means "whole person" or "flesh." Traditionally, Hebrews used this word to refer to the "whole person," while Greeks tended to use the idea of flesh.

Additionally, does the word pneuma mean "spirit" in terms of my "ghost," which can function outside of my sarx, or does it imply that a particular creature has the "breath of life" in them. (There's a Septuagint reference to animals as "living spirits," which would seem to imply the latter. But that's only one use of the term.)

As you can see, how the terms are defined will determine what answer a person gets. Personally, I tend to think that the Hebrew concept is more correct.

Some scholars (including a number of Hebrew scholars) will argue that the idea of a separate body and spirit was not originally a part of the Hebrew culture, and it only appears after the Greeks (who already had the idea) were brought together.

One example these scholars provide to support their argument is the fact that throughout the book of Job, the idea of heaven or an afterlife is never mentioned. Presumably, somewhere in that story someone would have said, "Job, you in a terrible situation... but God will reward your faithfulness in heaven"; but that never happens. This, and other historical research, leads them to believe that the Hebrew culture adopted the idea of an "immortal spirit" (i.e., a spirit that continues to live independently after the flesh dies) and an afterlife from the Greeks.

I hope that helps you understand my position. If you have questions, or would like to discuss this further I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts. (Although maybe we want to start a new thread? This one is getting kind of long.)

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I look forward to hearing from you. I'll also try to find that version that refers to animals as "living spirits."

In Christ, -Cloy

The Old Testament proclaims God gave the Old Covenant to the Hebrews and made them a special nation apart from all others. This was never meant as an end to itself. But a way in which the world would be aided in being pointed to the coming Messiah. Being sinful human beings many of the convenat laws were taken by the religious leaders long before Jesus day and made into a works-rightousness religion, or one based on idiolotry such as on rasicm.

Nonetheless, while people may do what the will with God's word, His word still stands regardless. The Savior was still concieved by a virgin, born and raised, entered into His earthly ministry, arrested and betrayed by one of His own disciples, condemned to death in numerous illegal trials by the religious order of his day, taken before Pilate, then Herod, then Pilate again, then crucified, then rose from the the dead. And the Old Covenant gave way to the New because the Old had fulfilled it's purpose.

As stated before you have to discount the various Biblical referances which have been already stated and shared in which the body and soul are indeed seperated at death are reunited at the last day. This is not speaking of Greecian-Roman ideas, merely Christian donctrine. If you believe the Bible states otherwise, please provide Biblical referance and consider the literary context as well.

night2day

31st May 2005, 03:15 AM

...I have no problem with anything you wrote in the first two paragraphs; nor do I dismiss the verses regarding flesh, spirit and body that have been listed. I simply believe that they lead me to a different conclusion than the one you may have reached.

(And incidentally, I didn't pull this out of thin air. My views on body/spirit/flesh were taught to me by an excellent Greek scholar/instructor and Lutheran pastor.)

However, the Bible was not only written within Greek. But, also Hebrew and Aramaic. The Scriptures should be looked on as a whole, not in part. With Jesus as the center of the Scriptures.

There are three primary Greek terms used to describe these issues:
(Apologies if I decline these nouns wrong -- I'm moving my office so I don't have my reference books handy to verify.)

pneuma - means breath/breath of life, wind, air, ghost or spirit.
sarx - flesh, but other nuances according to context. For example, Paul uses the word to describe sinful nature.
soma - often translated as body, but there is disagreement here whether it means the "whole person," or simply flesh (similar to the common use of the term as sarx).

Breath of life is also what God breathed into Man at the very beginning at Creation, when Adam was became a "living soul" according to Genesis 2. After God formed took the time to form Him from the ground and breathed into his nostrils.

As for sarx my own Greek dictionary gave this definiton:

from the base of; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit), or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred), or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specially), a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).

From what I saw soma simply meant "whole body".

We know that soma was the word that Jesus used in the last supper, and it's also the word used when the Creeds refer to the "resurrection of the body."

We do? I'm no Greek scholer and never claimed to be. In one Gospel account the words were this: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

It should be remembered Jesus' was sinless. Therefore, sarx wouldn't have fit into the context from what I'm reading. And since Jesus was speaking of the body and the blood both, soma wouldn't have been the correct the referance either. Catholcisim teaches the real body and blood are present within the Sacrament as a living sacrifice. The Lutheran Confessions teach of the real presence of the Lord's body and blood. That's the mystery of the Lord's Supper.

I would go as far as to agree with the whole body (body and soul being reunited on judgement day, as that has already been established methinks. I suppose I should clarrify the seperation of body and soul is not a natural state, temperal death, wasn't supposed to happen. It did because of the fall into sin. They'll be reunited on judgment day as one whole.)

The issue is whether soma means "whole person" or "flesh." Traditionally, Hebrews used this word to refer to the "whole person," while Greeks tended to use the idea of flesh.

Additionally, does the word pneuma mean "spirit" in terms of my "ghost," which can function outside of my sarx, or does it imply that a particular creature has the "breath of life" in them. (There's a Septuagint reference to animals as "living spirits," which would seem to imply the latter. But that's only one use of the term.)

As you can see, how the terms are defined will determine what answer a person gets. Personally, I tend to think that the Hebrew concept is more correct.

Or more likely what surrounding context is given of any reading article. As with the example of "ghost" you gave, Do you mean a haunting? Or lingering memories? Or maybe internal fears? It all depends in the context that is given.

Within the Bible, the term "ghost" is mentioned only 11 times within the Old Testament. For the majority it is when the patriarchs are in death are their souls are returning to Heaven.

Within the New Testament there are considerably more since, of course, while the Holy Ghost is within both Testaments, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity's becomes more known.

Some scholars (including a number of Hebrew scholars) will argue that the idea of a separate body and spirit was not originally a part of the Hebrew culture, and it only appears after the Greeks (who already had the idea) were brought together.

People will argue what they will. The same Jewish religion, which is not the same as the ancient Hebrews faith in the Old Testament, rejected Christ as the promised Savior and will find and excuse for doing so.

It comes down to who does one believe; human scholars who work with peices of historical fragments....or the very One who was there when history was taking place all along?

One example these scholars provide to support their argument is the fact that throughout the book of Job, the idea of heaven or an afterlife is never mentioned. Presumably, somewhere in that story someone would have said, "Job, you in a terrible situation... but God will reward your faithfulness in heaven"; but that never happens...

No...because Job's friends were too busy trying to find out what he did wrong to cause all this. (God had a good talking to them too by the last few chapters, btw.)

Incidently, where was there no indication there wasn't any thought for Heaven or afterlife in Job? Job even confessed it.

Job 19:25-27
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body , yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."

The Lutheran Hymnal even has one of the hymns for the Festival of the Reserection based on the verse:

"I Know that My Redeemer Lives"
by Samuel Medley, 1738-1799

1.
I know that my Redeemer lives;
What comfort this sweet sentence gives!
He lives, He lives, who once was dead;
He lives, my ever-living Head.

2.
He lives triumphant from the grave,
He lives eternally to save,
He lives all-glorious in the sky,
He lives exalted there on high.

3.
He lives to bless me with His love,
He lives to plead for me above.
He lives my hungry soul to feed,
He lives to help in time of need.