I'm not too keen on original sin

[Jason]

As the title says, I'm not too keen on the doctrine of "Original Sin", by
which I mean that we all inherit sin "genetically" in some way from Adam
and Eve, perhaps in the same way that we inherit having one head, two
ears and so on.

It seems to give rise to more problems than it solves, e.g. infant
baptisms or what is the state before God of people who haven't heard the
Gospel for other reasons.

The only bit in the Bible that springs to mind is Romans 1 about sin
entering through one man. But in the days of Adam and Eve, it was Eve
who led Adam astray (not that he needed much persuasion), and Eve was led
astray by the Serpent (again, without much resistance). So the only
cases of "transmission of sin" we actually know of from the earliest
times were in both cases *not* inherited, but rather by (easy) persuasion.

I prefer to think of the idea that we are all prone to sin in the same
way Adam was, and easily led astray as we learn from an early age
starting with the odd little white lie here and there and it gradually
goes down hill from there. Could this not be the mechanism that sin
"entered the world" rather than by "genetics"? This would enable infants
to be free from sin until such time as they can knowingly sin themselves
and you then (presumably) don't need things like infant baptism.

Do folks think that Christian belief actually *needs* to include original
sin? Has it always been a belief since the earliest days (it doesn't
warrant a mention in the Creeds I don't think).

[Timreason]

AIUI the notion is that once sin was committed, not just mankind, but
the whole creation was no longer perfect. From then on, it was 'Fallen'.

However, this has lead to some rather odd notions. One is the Roman
Catholic doctrine of "The Immaculate Conception". Not to be confused
with the virgin birth, (which is accepted by Anglicans), the idea is
that Jesus could not be born of a sinful woman, so for Jesus to be
without sin, Mary also had to be without sin.

Anglicans reject the 'Immaculate Conception' doctrine (but as said, do
accept the virgin birth). The obvious problem with it, I would have
thought, would be that (by the same logic) for Mary to be without sin,
both her mother and father would have to also be without sin, and so it
goes on!

Although I'm Anglican now (was baptist for a while), I believe adult
believer's baptism by immersion is the best model.

However, I do not believe our loving God will look for technicalities to
exclude people! Therefore personally I don't believe that people who
weren't baptised 'The Right Way', or who die before they get baptised,
will be condemned for it.

Tim.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/08/2021 12:06, Jason wrote:

> Do folks think that Christian belief actually *needs* to include original
> sin? Has it always been a belief since the earliest days (it doesn't
> warrant a mention in the Creeds I don't think).

The way I understand it is this: I am an Australian citizen, but I chose
to come and live in Britain. My son could be registered as Australian
(and was) but his sons, because he has never lived in Australia, could
not. So through no fault of their own, they have lost the right which I
have of going over to Australia and settling down there. That disability
(if you want to call it that) will be passed on to their children and
children's children.

Adam and Eve were "citizens of heaven" but they chose to give up that
citizenship - and that choice has affected all their descendants.
Instead of being born subjects of God, we are born subjects of the
prince of this world, who is in rebellion against God.

My grandsons could, if they wished, go out to Australia, apply for
citizenship, go through a naturalisation ceremony and then be just as
much Australian citizens as I am.

We can, if we wish, renounce our worldly citizenship and apply for
citizenship in heaven. We go through a naturalisation ceremony (baptism)
and then rejoice in our new "nationality".

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Kendall K. Down]

On 04/08/2021 21:48, Timreason wrote:

> AIUI the notion is that once sin was committed, not just mankind, but
> the whole creation was no longer perfect. From then on, it was 'Fallen'.

That is a somewhat mystical notion and it is hard to understand how one
single purloined apple could have such wide-ranging effects on the whole
of Creation.

The idea I outlined - of citizenship - is, I think, more understandable.
The devil claimed a kingdom and when Adam and Eve obeyed him and
disobeyed God, he could plausibly claim them as his citizens and so the
whole world became his territory. (Adam was ruler over this world, so
when he subjected himself to satan, and more especially when he died,
satan inherited the role.) This in turn meant that he had unprecedented
access to both man and animals, to tempt and corrupt them.

> Anglicans reject the 'Immaculate Conception' doctrine (but as said, do
> accept the virgin birth). The obvious problem with it, I would have
> thought, would be that (by the same logic) for Mary to be without sin,
> both her mother and father would have to also be without sin, and so it
> goes on!

Quite so. I have never seen an adequate explanation for why Mary could
be born immaculate from sinful parents, but Jesus could not (the more so
as He had only one human parent!)

> However, I do not believe our loving God will look for technicalities to
> exclude people! Therefore personally I don't believe that people who
> weren't baptised 'The Right Way', or who die before they get baptised,
> will be condemned for it.

Agreed.

[Adam Funk]

That's what I've always thought too.

> Although I'm Anglican now (was baptist for a while), I believe adult
> believer's baptism by immersion is the best model.
>
> However, I do not believe our loving God will look for technicalities to
> exclude people! Therefore personally I don't believe that people who
> weren't baptised 'The Right Way', or who die before they get baptised,
> will be condemned for it.

I agree.


--
Satan offers us everything we want, God is offering us
everything we need. --- Alice Cooper

[Mike Davis]

On 04/08/2021 12:06, Jason wrote:

> As the title says, I'm not too keen on the doctrine of "Original Sin", by
> which I mean that we all inherit sin "genetically" in some way from Adam
> and Eve, perhaps in the same way that we inherit having one head, two
> ears and so on.

I entirely understand the problem. Whether one believes the literal or
metaphorical sense of the Garden of Eden story, it is difficult.
(I haven't read the other responses so I expect a lot of duplication.)

As I see it, mankind as a whole has been given the ability to choose
'relationship with God' and has lost it. Obviously, It's God's fault by
giving us freewill:- but that is because the gift of love is based
entirely on free-will. And that is what OS is based on.

>
> It seems to give rise to more problems than it solves, e.g. infant
> baptisms or what is the state before God of people who haven't heard the
> Gospel for other reasons.

Understood.

> The only bit in the Bible that springs to mind is Romans 1 about sin
> entering through one man. But in the days of Adam and Eve, it was Eve
> who led Adam astray (not that he needed much persuasion), and Eve was led
> astray by the Serpent (again, without much resistance). So the only
> cases of "transmission of sin" we actually know of from the earliest
> times were in both cases *not* inherited, but rather by (easy) persuasion.

Eve was 'subservient' to Adam - and Adam's duty was to lead Eve into
doing right when SHE was tempted. He failed! Therefore with 2 failed
parents, mankind is subject to wrong choices and faulty decision making.
And fails to love unconditionally.

> I prefer to think of the idea that we are all prone to sin in the same
> way Adam was, and easily led astray as we learn from an early age
> starting with the odd little white lie here and there and it gradually
> goes down hill from there. Could this not be the mechanism that sin
> "entered the world" rather than by "genetics"? This would enable infants
> to be free from sin until such time as they can knowingly sin themselves
> and you then (presumably) don't need things like infant baptism.

Agreed - I look at it this way - no matter how much selfless love
infants are given, eventually they make a 'selfish' decision, and show
their OS. Putting oneself before the 'Other' (person or God) becomes a
habit.

> Do folks think that Christian belief actually *needs* to include original
> sin? Has it always been a belief since the earliest days (it doesn't
> warrant a mention in the Creeds I don't think).

That's an interesting observation - but Original Sin (or the corruption
of the Human race) is pretty obvious when I look around and then at
myself and my own temptations, enslaved to selfishness and sin!

No doubt some will mention the 'problem' of the Immaculate Conception -
and I would agree it IS a problem - BUT the idea behind it is that Mary
had to be totally FREE to accept the decision to bring God into the
world. RC Doctrine is clear - IIRC - that it wasn't Mary's "merits",
but Jesus' action on the cross that made it possible, just as Jesus'
death & resurrection freed those who had gone before - including Adam &
Eve!

Mike
--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Davis]

On 05/08/2021 07:06, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 04/08/2021 21:48, Timreason wrote:
>
>> AIUI the notion is that once sin was committed, not just mankind, but
>> the whole creation was no longer perfect. From then on, it was 'Fallen'.
>
> That is a somewhat mystical notion and it is hard to understand how one
> single purloined apple could have such wide-ranging effects on the whole
> of Creation.
>
> The idea I outlined - of citizenship - is, I think, more understandable.
> The devil claimed a kingdom and when Adam and Eve obeyed him and
> disobeyed God, he could plausibly claim them as his citizens and so the
> whole world became his territory. (Adam was ruler over this world, so
> when he subjected himself to satan, and more especially when he died,
> satan inherited the role.) This in turn meant that he had unprecedented
> access to both man and animals, to tempt and corrupt them.
>
>> Anglicans reject the 'Immaculate Conception' doctrine (but as said, do
>> accept the virgin birth). The obvious problem with it, I would have
>> thought, would be that (by the same logic) for Mary to be without sin,
>> both her mother and father would have to also be without sin, and so
>> it goes on!
>
> Quite so. I have never seen an adequate explanation for why Mary could
> be born immaculate from sinful parents, but Jesus could not (the more so
> as He had only one human parent!)

I've made a comment on this in my original XXXsinXXX reply to the OP.

>
>> However, I do not believe our loving God will look for technicalities
>> to exclude people! Therefore personally I don't believe that people
>> who weren't baptised 'The Right Way', or who die before they get
>> baptised, will be condemned for it.
>
> Agreed.

Agreed.

[Mike Davis]

Nicely put! The only comment I'd make is that Adam & Eve didn't choose
to give it up, they chose to ignore the operating instructions and broke
the system for all of us!

[Jason]

I guess this ties in with recent discussions about reading Genesis
literally or not. It isn't easy to see how the mechanism for this works,
other than to accept it on faith I suppose. I guess something is needed
to account for the difference between the perfect world that God created
and the mess we have now, and so having the whole of creation "fall" at
this point provides some sort of 'explanation'.

> However, this has lead to some rather odd notions. One is the Roman
> Catholic doctrine of "The Immaculate Conception". Not to be confused
> with the virgin birth, (which is accepted by Anglicans), the idea is
> that Jesus could not be born of a sinful woman, so for Jesus to be
> without sin, Mary also had to be without sin.

[Yes, for many years I did think that "Immaculate Conception" was the
Roman Catholic term for the Virgin Birth]

> Anglicans reject the 'Immaculate Conception' doctrine (but as said, do
> accept the virgin birth). The obvious problem with it, I would have
> thought, would be that (by the same logic) for Mary to be without sin,
> both her mother and father would have to also be without sin, and so it
> goes on!

Agreed, it would seem to simply push the problem back a generation (I
guess the Roman Catholics don't push it all the way back do they??) I
was just reading a "school RE lesson"-level outline of the topic here
(clicked on at random):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/
immaculateconception.shtml

which says that "Mary received God's grace from the first moment of her
existence, and was totally and completely redeemed by this grace.", so I
guess that addresses with the back-through-the-generations problem. Of
course we'd need more detailed information to get a proper grasp of it,
but I suggest there will be endless volumes available on this topic.
[Isn't it one of only two topics where the Popes have ever invoked their
infallibility clause?? If so, they must think it very important!]

> Although I'm Anglican now (was baptist for a while), I believe adult
> believer's baptism by immersion is the best model.

I'm inclined to agree, though not dogmatically so. I was baptised as an
adult, though re-baptised is probably a better term, as I think I was
baptised as an infant, largely I suspect because that was the tradition
of the (non-denominational) church I first attended as a new Christian (I
attend an Anglican Church now, and have done in various places where I
have lived over the years).

> However, I do not believe our loving God will look for technicalities to
> exclude people! Therefore personally I don't believe that people who
> weren't baptised 'The Right Way', or who die before they get baptised,
> will be condemned for it.

Absolutely, 100% agree! It would make no sense to me whatsoever that God
Himself would send His own Son to die and redeem us (a concept so hard to
comprehend that even many Christians struggle with it) and then scrabble
around for get-out clauses why people should be excluded from His Kingdom.

[Jason]

I like this "citizenship" idea and how your example works, it's a vivid
idea. However, it doesn't address the part that Tim mentioned, about
"sin and death" entering all creation. Do you think that the moment of
apple-eating (OK, "fruit-eating") led to the whole of creation's
collapse, or do you have another explanation of how it was that the
hitherto grass-nibbling and treading-on-ant-avoiding lions suddenly
developed a taste for the lambs?

In your example, the grandsons were born outside of Australia and so not
Australian from birth. Now would you suppose that should they have died
while they were too young to comprehend the forms and fill in the
paperwork that the Australian government would say, "well, we know you
were interested in becoming Australian, we'll grant your status
posthumously"?

Or, if the grandsons were too young to understand the paperwork, would
they still become good Aussies if their parents filled in the forms on
their behalf while they were still too young to understand the process?

As an aside, to push your example a bit further, once you go through that
naturalisation ceremony, you would then as you say be able to rejoice in
your new Australian nationality. It was a one-off event that conferred
Australian-ness to the grandsons. They are now Australian. It's
official. They will be Australian from that day forth, through good
times and bad. Do you believe that this is a "one off" event with the
paperwork signed, sealed, and filed away ("once Australian always
Australian"), or do you think that one wrong move and they can be
stripped of their nationality and deported?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/08/2021 11:49, Jason wrote:

> [Isn't it one of only two topics where the Popes have ever invoked their
> infallibility clause?? If so, they must think it very important!]

Yes, it's part of mariolatry. And, of course, yet another reason to
think that the popes are definitely not infallible, not even under the
restricted circumstances required by the doctrine.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/08/2021 12:06, Jason wrote:

> I like this "citizenship" idea and how your example works, it's a vivid
> idea. However, it doesn't address the part that Tim mentioned, about
> "sin and death" entering all creation. Do you think that the moment of
> apple-eating (OK, "fruit-eating") led to the whole of creation's
> collapse, or do you have another explanation of how it was that the
> hitherto grass-nibbling and treading-on-ant-avoiding lions suddenly
> developed a taste for the lambs?

No, I think it was a gradual thing, but possibly speeded up by the Flood
and the changed climate that followed that event.

> In your example, the grandsons were born outside of Australia and so not
> Australian from birth. Now would you suppose that should they have died
> while they were too young to comprehend the forms and fill in the
> paperwork that the Australian government would say, "well, we know you
> were interested in becoming Australian, we'll grant your status
> posthumously"?

I wouldn't try to take the illustration to extremes!

> As an aside, to push your example a bit further, once you go through that
> naturalisation ceremony, you would then as you say be able to rejoice in
> your new Australian nationality. It was a one-off event that conferred
> Australian-ness to the grandsons. They are now Australian. It's
> official. They will be Australian from that day forth, through good
> times and bad. Do you believe that this is a "one off" event with the
> paperwork signed, sealed, and filed away ("once Australian always
> Australian"), or do you think that one wrong move and they can be
> stripped of their nationality and deported?

In actual fact, in Australia you can be stripped of your new nationality
and deported. It doesn't happen very often, but it does happen. Recently
a British paedophile was expelled back to Britain, more common is New
Zealanders being sent back for criminality. Some footballer's father
suffered that fate recently for being a motorcycle gang member.

I do not believe in "once saved always saved", but I do believe that
once you have committed your life to Christ, you have to be pretty
determined to successfully reverse that decision.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/08/2021 12:49, Mike Davis wrote:

> Nicely put!  The only comment I'd make is that Adam & Eve didn't choose
> to give it up, they chose to ignore the operating instructions and broke
> the system for all of us!

Yes, they didn't deliberately set out to give up their citizenship of
heaven, but there were forces at play beyond this planet which ensured
that their mistake became set in stone, as it were. Loosing their
citizenship was the effect of what they did.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 05/08/2021 12:44, Mike Davis wrote:

> Eve was 'subservient' to Adam - and Adam's duty was to lead Eve into
> doing right when SHE was tempted. He failed! Therefore with 2 failed
> parents, mankind is subject to wrong choices and faulty decision making.
> And fails to love unconditionally.

I'm not sure about the subservient bit, but I do agree that they should
have stuck close together.

Actually, St Paul quotes "the woman was deceived but not the man" as
somehow proving man's superiority. To my mind it does the exact
opposite; it means that Adam, understanding the seriousness of the
action, deliberately and with his eyes open when ahead and ate the apple.

Some had suggested that Adam realised Eve would be punished and could
not bear to be separated from him. If so, he was so stupid as to deserve
kicking by the whole of creation! If that really was the case, let him
keep the apple until after the interview with God, when he could beg for
forgiveness for her. If that was refused, *then* he could eat the apple!

> That's an interesting observation - but Original Sin (or the corruption
> of the Human race) is pretty obvious when I look around and then at
> myself and my own temptations, enslaved to selfishness and sin!

Quite.

> No doubt some will mention the 'problem' of the Immaculate Conception -
> and I would agree it IS a problem - BUT the idea behind it is that Mary
> had to be totally FREE to accept the decision to bring God into the
> world.

I don't see that having a sinful nature would detract from her freedom
to accept the task of giving birth to the Messiah.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sehhul$njs$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Thu, 5 Aug 2021 21:33:25 +0100:

> On 05/08/2021 12:44, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Eve was 'subservient' to Adam - and Adam's duty was to lead Eve into
>> doing right when SHE was tempted. He failed! Therefore with 2 failed
>> parents, mankind is subject to wrong choices and faulty decision
>> making.
>> And fails to love unconditionally.
>
> I'm not sure about the subservient bit, but I do agree that they
> should have stuck close together.
>
> Actually, St Paul quotes "the woman was deceived but not the man" as
> somehow proving man's superiority. To my mind it does the exact
> opposite; it means that Adam, understanding the seriousness of the
> action, deliberately and with his eyes open when ahead and ate the
> apple.
>
> Some had suggested that Adam realised Eve would be punished and could
> not bear to be separated from him. If so, he was so stupid as to
> deserve kicking by the whole of creation! If that really was the case,
> let him keep the apple until after the interview with God, when he
> could beg for forgiveness for her. If that was refused, *then* he
> could eat the apple!

The Rabbis make out that Adam "sinned" only because of his unconditional
love to Eve. Adam wasn't around when Eve was tempted (so yes he failed
there) but when he saw Eve had transgressed, and understood that Eve was
going to be punished by expulsion, he decided to share the punishment
with Eve i.e. rather than condemning and excluding her, he decided to be
judged together with her. It is made out that this is like the love
that the messiah has for Israel.

The sticking point of course is that when God confronted him, he blamed
Eve.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/08/2021 03:06, Madhu wrote:

> The Rabbis make out that Adam "sinned" only because of his unconditional
> love to Eve. Adam wasn't around when Eve was tempted (so yes he failed
> there) but when he saw Eve had transgressed, and understood that Eve was
> going to be punished by expulsion, he decided to share the punishment
> with Eve i.e. rather than condemning and excluding her, he decided to be
> judged together with her. It is made out that this is like the love
> that the messiah has for Israel.

Yes, the "love for Eve" idea is common to many traditions - and may even
be right, but as I say, he wasn't thinking straight. He should have
begged God for mercy and then, if that was denied, he could make his
grand gesture of love if necessary.

> The sticking point of course is that when God confronted him, he blamed
> Eve.

Yes, when confronted with God in person, his courage failed. Probably a
lesson to all those who talk grandly of defending themselves on the Day
of Judgement. When in the presence of a holy God, all pretence is
stripped away.

Amusingly, the impulse to blame others is still strong. When I
challenged someone recently over what excuse he would offer to God on
the Day of Judgement for not keeping the day God commanded, he replied
that he would say, "But nobody else does" - in other words, it's all
their fault!

It didn't work for Adam and I doubt it will work on Judgement Day.

[steve hague]

What if Adam, confronted by God, had said "I'm sorry Lord. I should have
been more obedient to you and taken more responsibility for Eve. Please
forgive me.", instead of "I 'aven't done nuffin, me. It were that woman
you gave me." Repentance instead of denial may well have resulted in a
very different world.
Steve Hague

[Timreason]

On 05/08/2021 11:49, Jason wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Aug 2021 21:48:39 +0100, Timreason wrote:
>>>
>> AIUI the notion is that once sin was committed, not just mankind, but
>> the whole creation was no longer perfect. From then on, it was 'Fallen'.
>
> I guess this ties in with recent discussions about reading Genesis
> literally or not. It isn't easy to see how the mechanism for this works,
> other than to accept it on faith I suppose. I guess something is needed
> to account for the difference between the perfect world that God created
> and the mess we have now, and so having the whole of creation "fall" at
> this point provides some sort of 'explanation'.

Yes, personally I believe it is only humanity, that 'Fell' at that
point, although for satan to be there to tempt Eve, satan had to have
already fallen prior to that. I've tried to get my head around this in
various ways, but there are problems whichever way. In reality of
course, it's just another "We Don't Know".

Among my previous speculations (for that's all they are) were the idea
that maybe the Earth had already 'Fallen', perhaps many millennia before
Adam and Eve, and Eden was, in effect, a 'Reservation' established
within that world, from which, with God's help (had mankind been
obedient) the Earth would have been reclaimed. I thought that might go
some way to explaining the fossil records of millions of years of
'Nature Red in Tooth and Claw'. Satan's fall may have predated humanity
by millions of years.

Out of it, though, I pull these ideas: Eden represents the perfection
God intended. Mankind lost that perfection and relationship with God by
disobedience to God. God provided the Redemption Plan through Christ.

Yes, there are levels of 'Mariology', and sometimes even the 'High
Anglican' stance goes just a bit beyond what I'm comfortable with.

However, the first part of the 'Hail Mary' prayer is pulled straight out
of scripture, and there is no doubt that 'Generations (should) call her
blessed'. Her calling and her obedience to that calling was totally
unique in all humanity, and she is the means by which God entered our
world as a human being as the Son.

So she deserves respect, and scripture shows that.

Tim.

[Jason]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2021 09:32:54 +0100, Timreason wrote:

> On 05/08/2021 11:49, Jason wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2021 21:48:39 +0100, Timreason wrote:
>>>>
>>> AIUI the notion is that once sin was committed, not just mankind, but
>>> the whole creation was no longer perfect. From then on, it was
>>> 'Fallen'.
>>
>> I guess this ties in with recent discussions about reading Genesis
>> literally or not. It isn't easy to see how the mechanism for this
>> works,
>> other than to accept it on faith I suppose. I guess something is
>> needed to account for the difference between the perfect world that God
>> created and the mess we have now, and so having the whole of creation
>> "fall" at this point provides some sort of 'explanation'.
>
> Yes, personally I believe it is only humanity, that 'Fell' at that
> point, although for satan to be there to tempt Eve, satan had to have
> already fallen prior to that. I've tried to get my head around this in
> various ways, but there are problems whichever way. In reality of
> course, it's just another "We Don't Know".

Fair enough, I don't really understand it either. As I've mentioned
elsewhere, I think if God had really wanted us to understand something,
he would have made it clearer.

As time has passed and I've got older, I'm increasingly comfortable with
things being in the "We don't know" category. Just as well really, as
more and more things seem to fit there.

> Among my previous speculations (for that's all they are) were the idea
> that maybe the Earth had already 'Fallen', perhaps many millennia before
> Adam and Eve, and Eden was, in effect, a 'Reservation' established
> within that world, from which, with God's help (had mankind been
> obedient) the Earth would have been reclaimed. I thought that might go
> some way to explaining the fossil records of millions of years of
> 'Nature Red in Tooth and Claw'. Satan's fall may have predated humanity
> by millions of years.
>
> Out of it, though, I pull these ideas: Eden represents the perfection
> God intended. Mankind lost that perfection and relationship with God by
> disobedience to God. God provided the Redemption Plan through Christ.

Some interesting thoughts. I don't think anyone, Genesis-literalist or
otherwise will be able to find anything to object to in your last
paragraph.

[snipped some things about the Immaculate Conception]

> Yes, there are levels of 'Mariology', and sometimes even the 'High
> Anglican' stance goes just a bit beyond what I'm comfortable with.

Me too, though I keep intending to find out more about it. Most of what
I know regarding Mary comes through a protestant lens, and I would like
to see it from another angle. Given that theologians have wrestled with
all this for many many years, it must be far more complex and nuanced
than a protestant "It says nothing about that in the Bible" statement
would have us believe.

> However, the first part of the 'Hail Mary' prayer is pulled straight out
> of scripture, and there is no doubt that 'Generations (should) call her
> blessed'. Her calling and her obedience to that calling was totally
> unique in all humanity, and she is the means by which God entered our
> world as a human being as the Son.
>
> So she deserves respect, and scripture shows that.

Yes, I think you'd have to be a particular type of hard-core-no-
compromise-thin-end-of-the-wedge-fundamentalist-protestant type to
disagree with that.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/08/2021 09:32, Timreason wrote:

> Among my previous speculations (for that's all they are) were the idea
> that maybe the Earth had already 'Fallen', perhaps many millennia before
> Adam and Eve, and Eden was, in effect, a 'Reservation' established
> within that world, from which, with God's help (had mankind been
> obedient) the Earth would have been reclaimed. I thought that might go
> some way to explaining the fossil records of millions of years of
> 'Nature Red in Tooth and Claw'. Satan's fall may have predated humanity
> by millions of years.

It's an interesting idea and not impossible.

> So she deserves respect, and scripture shows that.

Respect, yes. Prayers or worship, no.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 06/08/2021 08:08, steve hague wrote:

> What if Adam, confronted by God, had said "I'm sorry Lord. I should have
> been more obedient to you and taken more responsibility for Eve. Please
> forgive me.", instead of "I 'aven't done nuffin, me. It were that woman
> you gave me." Repentance instead of denial may well have resulted in a
> very different world.

Yes, sometimes I think of all the things I'm going to say to Adam to
tick him off - then I think I might bite my tongue. It would be too much
like kicking a man when he's down - I'm sure he must have regretted what
he did every day of his life, especially after the death of Abel.

[Jason]

I think you would be better to bite your tongue. Unless you yourself are
perfect and did better than him. I'd like to think that if we are called
not to judge now, how much more will it be wise for us to abstain in
heaven, if indeed such thoughts and language will even exist there....

[Jason]

As I (very crudely I know) understand it, the Roman Catholic situation
with Mary is similar to how the Orthodox view Icons. You don't pray *to*
the icon as such, but you ask the saint in question to intercede for
you. I'm imagining that you don't pray *to* Mary (i.e. asking Mary
herself to save you from your sins or whatnot), but that you ask her for
help, in the same way as you might ask in Church or a friend (or here for
that matter) to pray for you.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/08/2021 13:02, Jason wrote:

> As I (very crudely I know) understand it, the Roman Catholic situation
> with Mary is similar to how the Orthodox view Icons. You don't pray *to*
> the icon as such, but you ask the saint in question to intercede for
> you. I'm imagining that you don't pray *to* Mary (i.e. asking Mary
> herself to save you from your sins or whatnot), but that you ask her for
> help, in the same way as you might ask in Church or a friend (or here for
> that matter) to pray for you.

That is the theory - but when you go into the church of St Peter
Gallicantu and see it set in stone on the wall that Mary is our
"mediatrix", you do feel that the line has been blurred more than somewhat!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 07/08/2021 12:58, Jason wrote:

> I think you would be better to bite your tongue. Unless you yourself are
> perfect and did better than him. I'd like to think that if we are called
> not to judge now, how much more will it be wise for us to abstain in
> heaven, if indeed such thoughts and language will even exist there....

Indeed.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sejupk$faq$9...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Fri, 6 Aug 2021 19:24:52 +0100:

> Yes, sometimes I think of all the things I'm going to say to Adam to
> tick him off - then I think I might bite my tongue.

That scenario has occured to others before you. Encounter Between Adam
and Moses -

"Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam: 'Your sin
expelled you from Paradise.' Adam said: 'You are Moses whom Allah
selected as His messenger and as the one to whom He spoke
directly. Yet you blame me for a thing which had already been written
in my fate before my Creation?" [ Abu Hurairah. ]

"Moses said: 'My Lord! May I see Adam who removed us and himself from
the Paradise?" So Allah made him see Adam and he said to him: "Are you
Adam?" Adam said: "Yes." And he said "Were you the one in Whom Allah
breathed His spirit and before whom He bowed His angels and to whom He
taught the names of all things?" Adam answered: "Yes." So Moses said:
"What made you remove us and yourself from Paradise.?" Adam said: "Who
are you?" Moses said: "I am Moses." Adam said: "So you are Moses the
prophet of the Children of Israel. Were you the one Allah spoke to
directly?" Moses answered "Yes." Adam said: "Why do you blame me for a
matter which Allah had predestined?" So Allah’s Prophet Muhammad said
twice. "Adam outclassed Moses." [Sahih al Bukhari]

> It would be too much like kicking a man when he's down - I'm sure he
> must have regretted what he did every day of his life, especially
> after the death of Abel.

A similar thing is narrated in the life of Judah - and shown to be the
reason why his tribe was chosen as the first tribe of Israel. Judah's
bad decisions, behaviour and bad luck had brought much pain to his
father and he was looked down on by his brothers. (He was first to sell
off Joseph to the slavers, had a Canaanite wife, two dead kids, one who
won't marry, sex with daughter-in-law, etc.) but apparently the loss of
children and suffering brought him to repentance and changed his heart.
(So Jacob was able to trust Judah with Benjamin when they made the trip
to meet Joseph in Egypt)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/08/2021 06:24, Madhu wrote:

> That scenario has occured to others before you. Encounter Between Adam
> and Moses -

He he!

> "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam: 'Your sin
> expelled you from Paradise.' Adam said: 'You are Moses whom Allah
> selected as His messenger and as the one to whom He spoke
> directly. Yet you blame me for a thing which had already been written
> in my fate before my Creation?" [ Abu Hurairah. ]

Talk about fatalism or predestination! So sin is all God's fault.

> A similar thing is narrated in the life of Judah - and shown to be the
> reason why his tribe was chosen as the first tribe of Israel. Judah's
> bad decisions, behaviour and bad luck had brought much pain to his
> father and he was looked down on by his brothers. (He was first to sell
> off Joseph to the slavers, had a Canaanite wife, two dead kids, one who
> won't marry, sex with daughter-in-law, etc.) but apparently the loss of
> children and suffering brought him to repentance and changed his heart.
> (So Jacob was able to trust Judah with Benjamin when they made the trip
> to meet Joseph in Egypt)

An interesting take on things. I just assumed that Judah's proposal to
sell Joseph was made to pre-empt something worse that the other brothers
were plotting.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

P.S. How's the Covid situation in India now? It has rather dropped out
of the news over here.

[Mike Davis]

On 06/08/2021 09:32, Timreason wrote:

[snip lots]

>
> Yes, there are levels of 'Mariology', and sometimes even the 'High
> Anglican' stance goes just a bit beyond what I'm comfortable with.
>
> However, the first part of the 'Hail Mary' prayer is pulled straight out
> of scripture, and there is no doubt that 'Generations (should) call her
> blessed'. Her calling and her obedience to that calling was totally
> unique in all humanity, and she is the means by which God entered our
> world as a human being as the Son.

I have to say that is the most sensible response to this thread.

>
> So she deserves respect, and scripture shows that.

Indeed. The fact that her choice by God and her unqualified response are
unique makes this a subject on which we are unlikely to reach agreement.

Blessings

[Mike Davis]

As I've said before, I'm happy to ask you to pray for me, I'm happy to
ask Mary to pray for me. I may venerate her holiness, worship, no!

[Mike Davis]

On 07/08/2021 13:02, Jason wrote:

Exactly!

[Mike Davis]

The term is primarily that without her becoming involved through her
'Fiat' we would not have Jesus. In that sense she's "given" Jesus to us.
Hence 'Mediatrix' (though I don't like the term myself)!

M

[Mike Davis]

OS deprives us of true 'freewill' by making us slaves to sin. Therefore
our decisions are clouded - our wills are corrupt. (Sorry it's a bit
late now to find Paul on the subject - Romans, I think!) So Mary needed
to be clear to make such a momentous decision on behalf of all mankind.

Mike

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/08/2021 21:31, Mike Davis wrote:

> The term is primarily that without her becoming involved through her
> 'Fiat' we would not have Jesus. In that sense she's "given" Jesus to us.
> Hence 'Mediatrix' (though I don't like the term myself)!

No, your rationalisation doesn't work. Mary gave birth to Jesus; that
does not make her in any sense a mediator between God and man
("mediatrix", I'm guessing, is the Latin feminine?)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/08/2021 21:28, Mike Davis wrote:

> As I've said before, I'm happy to ask you to pray for me, I'm happy to
> ask Mary to pray for me.  I may venerate her holiness, worship, no!

The difference - slight but, I think, significant - is that I am alive
and able to pray for you. Mary is dead and, as Scripture says, "The
living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything", "The
dead praise not the Lord", or even "Those that sleep in Jesus". I can
assure you that my intercessory activities are strictly limited to my
waking hours.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 08/08/2021 21:39, Mike Davis wrote:

> OS deprives us of true 'freewill' by making us slaves to sin. Therefore
> our decisions are clouded - our wills are corrupt.

That is true - but when we turn to God He restores our free will, a
salvific fact that is not limited to modern humans.

> So Mary needed
> to be clear to make such a momentous decision on behalf of all mankind.

She was "clear" from the moment she gave her life to God; the same
"clearness" is available to anyone who turns to God.

[Jason]

But if Jesus [just for clarity in the terms: I'm talking about the
"being" born in Bethlehem rather an anyone co-eternal or whatnot] is (and
needs to be) both fully man and fully God, then presumably the "fully
man" part comes directly from Mary. I can completely understand
therefore holding her in a special position of reverence, she is half of
the "construction" of Jesus Himself! [Though precisely which half is no
doubt the subject of many a heresy.....]

[Jason]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2021 21:28:10 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 06/08/2021 19:22, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> On 06/08/2021 09:32, Timreason wrote:
>>
>>> Among my previous speculations (for that's all they are) were the idea
>>> that maybe the Earth had already 'Fallen', perhaps many millennia
>>> before Adam and Eve, and Eden was, in effect, a 'Reservation'
>>> established within that world, from which, with God's help (had
>>> mankind been obedient) the Earth would have been reclaimed. I thought
>>> that might go some way to explaining the fossil records of millions of
>>> years of 'Nature Red in Tooth and Claw'. Satan's fall may have
>>> predated humanity by millions of years.
>>
>> It's an interesting idea and not impossible.
>>
>>> So she deserves respect, and scripture shows that.
>>
>> Respect, yes. Prayers or worship, no.
>
> As I've said before, I'm happy to ask you to pray for me, I'm happy to
> ask Mary to pray for me. I may venerate her holiness, worship, no!

Yes, thanks for the clarity, that's how I understood it to be.

[Jason]

I guess it's only Protestants who hold this view? Isn't praying (let's
say 'with' rather than 'to' to avoid arguments) held across the Orthodox
and Catholic traditions? I imagine therefore that since the earliest
times people have asked "saints who have gone before" to intercede for
us, and to reject this idea is a "modern" phenomena (or have I got this
wrong??).

I can't off-hand think of much Biblical back-up for the idea, apart from
Dives and Lazarus, and I'd be dubious about pinning too much doctrine on
that. I guess it's all tied in with what happens in time immediately
following our death.

Could any of the folk here with a more Catholic inclination indicate
where the idea stems from??

[Jason]

But isn't the argument that we can't even turn to God without God's
help?? Is this not related to the (Protestant??) concept of 'prevenient
grace'?

[Jason]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2021 20:49:23 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 08/08/2021 06:24, Madhu wrote:

>> "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam: 'Your sin
>> expelled you from Paradise.' Adam said: 'You are Moses whom Allah
>> selected as His messenger and as the one to whom He spoke directly.
>> Yet you blame me for a thing which had already been written in my
>> fate before my Creation?" [ Abu Hurairah. ]
>
> Talk about fatalism or predestination! So sin is all God's fault.

What events/situations that happen on the Earth to do you envision as
being outside of God's purview?

[Jason]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2021 10:54:12 +0530, Madhu wrote:

> * "Kendall K. Down" <sejupk$faq$9...@dont-email.me> :
> Wrote on Fri, 6 Aug 2021 19:24:52 +0100:
>
>> Yes, sometimes I think of all the things I'm going to say to Adam to
>> tick him off - then I think I might bite my tongue.
>
> That scenario has occured to others before you. Encounter Between Adam
> and Moses -
>
> "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam: 'Your sin
> expelled you from Paradise.' Adam said: 'You are Moses whom Allah
> selected as His messenger and as the one to whom He spoke directly.
> Yet you blame me for a thing which had already been written in my fate
> before my Creation?" [ Abu Hurairah. ]
>
> "Moses said: 'My Lord! May I see Adam who removed us and himself from
> the Paradise?" So Allah made him see Adam and he said to him: "Are you
> Adam?" Adam said: "Yes." And he said "Were you the one in Whom Allah
> breathed His spirit and before whom He bowed His angels and to whom He
> taught the names of all things?" Adam answered: "Yes." So Moses said:
> "What made you remove us and yourself from Paradise.?" Adam said: "Who
> are you?" Moses said: "I am Moses." Adam said: "So you are Moses the
> prophet of the Children of Israel. Were you the one Allah spoke to
> directly?" Moses answered "Yes." Adam said: "Why do you blame me for a
> matter which Allah had predestined?" So Allah’s Prophet Muhammad said
> twice. "Adam outclassed Moses." [Sahih al Bukhari]

Thanks Madhu, that's very useful! :-)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/08/2021 10:27, Jason wrote:

> But isn't the argument that we can't even turn to God without God's
> help?? Is this not related to the (Protestant??) concept of 'prevenient
> grace'?

Certainly, but a) that help is offered to everyone, and b) Mary was
offered that help just as much as anyone else. Like all the saved, she
chose to accept the help.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/08/2021 09:54, Jason wrote:

> But if Jesus [just for clarity in the terms: I'm talking about the
> "being" born in Bethlehem rather an anyone co-eternal or whatnot] is (and
> needs to be) both fully man and fully God, then presumably the "fully
> man" part comes directly from Mary.

Hmmmm. If Jesus entire manhood came from Mary, then He would have been a
woman! Ordinary humans are a mix of father's and mother's genome; I
presume - obviously we do not know - that Mary contributed her part of
Jesus' genes but God provided the male part. That does not in any way
detract from the "fully human", which refers to his entire genome but
not to its source.

> I can completely understand
> therefore holding her in a special position of reverence, she is half of
> the "construction" of Jesus Himself! [Though precisely which half is no
> doubt the subject of many a heresy.....]

So far as I know, no church has ruled on whether any part of modern
genetics leads to heresy! For example, was Mary merely a surrogate
mother for an entire conceptus implanted in her by God? Was Jesus a
clone of Mary but with part of the genes tweaked to make them male? Or
did God provide no more than the sperm so that it was more like
Artificial Insemination?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/08/2021 10:24, Jason wrote:

> What events/situations that happen on the Earth to do you envision as
> being outside of God's purview?

It depends on what you mean by "purview". If you mean "foreknowledge",
the answer is "nothing". If you mean "control", then man's will is
outside God's control[1].

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: For the avoidance of doubt, man's will is not necessarily
outside God's control, but He has chosen to give us freewill and
although I don't doubt that He knows which way our choice is going to
go, He refrains from controlling it.

Which, of course, calls for another footnote. It is only with regard to
salvation that God refrains from controlling our wills. In other
respects He frequently controls even evil-doers to force them to carry
out His will, though I think that more often He allows them to do evil,
otherwise it would be in effect denying them freewill.

If every time you set out for the pub you actually ended up in church,
you might well become discouraged and grudgingly serve God because it is
not possible for you to do otherwise.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 09/08/2021 10:08, Jason wrote:

> I guess it's only Protestants who hold this view? Isn't praying (let's
> say 'with' rather than 'to' to avoid arguments) held across the Orthodox
> and Catholic traditions? I imagine therefore that since the earliest
> times people have asked "saints who have gone before" to intercede for
> us, and to reject this idea is a "modern" phenomena (or have I got this
> wrong??).

If you believe that the dead lead a conscious existence in heaven and
are fully aware of what happens on earth, then it is reasonable to
request your mother to speak to God on your behalf. This idea seems to
have been of fairly early origin - third century AD is when we find
references to the intercession of saints in inscriptions and documents.

Unfortunately, as I indicated, the idea is directly contrary to what
Scripture says - and indeed, the Creed - for the Christian hope is for a
resurrection of the dead and of the body. The uniform testimony of the
New Testament is that the dead are "asleep". (The sole contrary instance
is where the souls of martyrs cry out from under the altar of incense,
which was 18"x18"x36" and is rather more cramped than most people's
conception of heaven would expect. However Revelation is full of symbols
and we need not take the souls under the altar as literally true, any
more than the beast with seven heads and ten horns.)

Protestants reject the idea of asking the dead to pray for us but then
many, if not most, think that you lead a conscious existence in heaven.
They are obliged to posit a sort of block preventing the dead from
becoming aware of events on earth, otherwise see my first paragraph.

> I can't off-hand think of much Biblical back-up for the idea, apart from
> Dives and Lazarus, and I'd be dubious about pinning too much doctrine on
> that. I guess it's all tied in with what happens in time immediately
> following our death.

Exactly - and the reason for the lack of Biblical backup is precisely
because the notion is false.

God bless,
Kendall K. Dowm

[Timreason]

On 09/08/2021 10:08, Jason wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 08:36:04 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>
>> On 08/08/2021 21:28, Mike Davis wrote:
>>
>>> As I've said before, I'm happy to ask you to pray for me, I'm happy to
>>> ask Mary to pray for me.  I may venerate her holiness, worship, no!
>>
>> The difference - slight but, I think, significant - is that I am alive
>> and able to pray for you. Mary is dead and, as Scripture says, "The
>> living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything", "The
>> dead praise not the Lord", or even "Those that sleep in Jesus". I can
>> assure you that my intercessory activities are strictly limited to my
>> waking hours.
>
> I guess it's only Protestants who hold this view?

And, of course, not ALL Protestants. Anglo-Catholics, like our Roman
Catholic brethren, believe we can ask the departed 'Saints' (Christians
that have gone before) to pray with, and for us. Hence we do not believe
in 'Soul Sleep' in the way that perhaps most Protestants do.

At the Transfiguration, Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah, and God is
the God of the living, not the dead. The Creed talks of 'The Communion
of the Saints', and I suppose this is traditionally taken to include not
just the living brothers and sisters in Christ, but also those who have
completed their journey and now reside with Him.

Not long ago on this newsgroup, I explained that I did not accept 'Soul
Sleep', because I believe that those departed are in a realm "Outside"
of Time. Time being a created thing for this existence, and God, who
created Time, of necessity must 'transcend' Time in a way beyond our
comprehension.

So to me this means that we can ask those who are in God's realm to pray
with/for us wherever, and WHENever we happen to be. I don't visualise
the departed as snoozing away in their coffins until the Last Day.

Tim.

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-08-10, Timreason wrote:

> On 09/08/2021 10:08, Jason wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 08:36:04 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/08/2021 21:28, Mike Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I've said before, I'm happy to ask you to pray for me, I'm happy to
>>>> ask Mary to pray for me.  I may venerate her holiness, worship, no!
>>>
>>> The difference - slight but, I think, significant - is that I am alive
>>> and able to pray for you. Mary is dead and, as Scripture says, "The
>>> living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything", "The
>>> dead praise not the Lord", or even "Those that sleep in Jesus". I can
>>> assure you that my intercessory activities are strictly limited to my
>>> waking hours.
>>
>> I guess it's only Protestants who hold this view?
>
> And, of course, not ALL Protestants. Anglo-Catholics, like our Roman
> Catholic brethren, believe we can ask the departed 'Saints' (Christians
> that have gone before) to pray with, and for us. Hence we do not believe
> in 'Soul Sleep' in the way that perhaps most Protestants do.

Luther strongly believed in it; Calvin disagreed and I think he used
the term "soul sleep" pejoratively.

> At the Transfiguration, Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah, and God is
> the God of the living, not the dead. The Creed talks of 'The Communion
> of the Saints', and I suppose this is traditionally taken to include not
> just the living brothers and sisters in Christ, but also those who have
> completed their journey and now reside with Him.

Good points.

> Not long ago on this newsgroup, I explained that I did not accept 'Soul
> Sleep', because I believe that those departed are in a realm "Outside"
> of Time. Time being a created thing for this existence, and God, who
> created Time, of necessity must 'transcend' Time in a way beyond our
> comprehension.
>
> So to me this means that we can ask those who are in God's realm to pray
> with/for us wherever, and WHENever we happen to be. I don't visualise
> the departed as snoozing away in their coffins until the Last Day.
>
> Tim.
>
>

--
Well, I just said that Jesus and I were both Jewish and that neither
of us ever had a job, we never had a home, we never married and we
traveled around the countryside irritating people.
--- Kinky Friedman

[Mike Davis]

'course it does!

God (Holy Spirit) -> Mary('s acceptance) -> Jesus!

[Mike Davis]

OK - but I assume(!) you are ignorant of the "Assumption" - a doctrine
held by Catholic & Orthodox Churches - that after her death she was
'assumed' directly into life with Jesus.

(Again reminding us of the 'common flesh' shared between Mary and her Son.)

[Mike Davis]

On 09/08/2021 21:07, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 09/08/2021 10:08, Jason wrote:
>
>> I guess it's only Protestants who hold this view?  Isn't praying (let's
>> say 'with' rather than 'to' to avoid arguments) held across the Orthodox
>> and Catholic traditions?  I imagine therefore that since the earliest
>> times people have asked "saints who have gone before" to intercede for
>> us, and to reject this idea is a "modern" phenomena (or have I got this
>> wrong??).
>
> If you believe that the dead lead a conscious existence in heaven and
> are fully aware of what happens on earth, then it is reasonable to
> request your mother to speak to God on your behalf. This idea seems to
> have been of fairly early origin - third century AD is when we find
> references to the intercession of saints in inscriptions and documents.

You could, of course, read Hebrews:
11:39-40
These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what
had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that
only together with us would they be made perfect.

12:1-3
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses,
let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily
entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us,
fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the
joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat
down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured
such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose
heart.

> Unfortunately, as I indicated, the idea is directly contrary to what
> Scripture says - and indeed, the Creed - for the Christian hope is for a
> resurrection of the dead and of the body. The uniform testimony of the
> New Testament is that the dead are "asleep".

It doesn't say 'asleep' but that those who have gone before 'surround'
us. They may not (yet) have their bodies, but are spiritually 'alive in
Christ'

> Protestants reject the idea of asking the dead to pray for us but then
> many, if not most, think that you lead a conscious existence in heaven.
> They are obliged to posit a sort of block preventing the dead from
> becoming aware of events on earth, otherwise see my first paragraph.

We need more than that.

>> I can't off-hand think of much Biblical back-up for the idea, apart from
>> Dives and Lazarus, and I'd be dubious about pinning too much doctrine on
>> that. I guess it's all tied in with what happens in time immediately
>> following our death.
>
> Exactly - and the reason for the lack of Biblical backup is precisely
> because the notion is false.

You are failing to distinguish between the 'resurrection of the dead'
(i.e. when our bodies are united with our spirit/soul) and our
'immortality in Christ'.

Christ came, died & rose again so that we might be united with Him,
firstly spiritually through death and then with our bodies at the day of
resurrection. Where do you get this "sleeping" from?

[Jason]

On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 21:07:16 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 09/08/2021 10:08, Jason wrote:
>
>> I guess it's only Protestants who hold this view? Isn't praying (let's
>> say 'with' rather than 'to' to avoid arguments) held across the
>> Orthodox and Catholic traditions? I imagine therefore that since the
>> earliest times people have asked "saints who have gone before" to
>> intercede for us, and to reject this idea is a "modern" phenomena (or
>> have I got this wrong??).
>
> If you believe that the dead lead a conscious existence in heaven and
> are fully aware of what happens on earth, then it is reasonable to
> request your mother to speak to God on your behalf. This idea seems to
> have been of fairly early origin - third century AD is when we find
> references to the intercession of saints in inscriptions and documents.

If it does date back to the 3rd century, that surely is very early on in
the records of such things, which for many Christians (the bulk of the
non-Protestant ones for example??) have stood the test of time surely
indicates that at least it should be given careful thought.

> Unfortunately, as I indicated, the idea is directly contrary to what
> Scripture says - and indeed, the Creed - for the Christian hope is for a
> resurrection of the dead and of the body. The uniform testimony of the
> New Testament is that the dead are "asleep". (The sole contrary instance
> is where the souls of martyrs cry out from under the altar of incense,
> which was 18"x18"x36" and is rather more cramped than most people's
> conception of heaven would expect. However Revelation is full of symbols
> and we need not take the souls under the altar as literally true, any
> more than the beast with seven heads and ten horns.)

I don't think the "Christian hope is in the resurrection of the body" has
much bearing on the veracity or otherwise of 'soul sleep'. You might
have hope and be looking forward to a holiday abroad but that's not
incompatible to spending time in the departure lounge...

> Protestants reject the idea of asking the dead to pray for us but then
> many, if not most, think that you lead a conscious existence in heaven.
> They are obliged to posit a sort of block preventing the dead from
> becoming aware of events on earth, otherwise see my first paragraph.

Again, as with discussions regarding various of the 'modern innovations'
in the Church, one should throw away the historic, established tradition
of the Church with caution, even if you are Luther or Calvin or whoever.

>> I can't off-hand think of much Biblical back-up for the idea, apart
>> from Dives and Lazarus, and I'd be dubious about pinning too much
>> doctrine on that. I guess it's all tied in with what happens in time
>> immediately following our death.
>
> Exactly - and the reason for the lack of Biblical backup is precisely
> because the notion is false.

I appreciate that there is a lack of direct Biblical commentary on this,
but people likewise have argued over the centuries that there is no
direct statement of the Trinity (I don't want to open that can of worms
here, I just mention it as an example). The question then becomes
whether there is sufficient other material, which when taken in the round
fits well within the rest of the Biblical narrative.

[Jason]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 08:51:31 +0100, Timreason wrote:

> On 09/08/2021 10:08, Jason wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 08:36:04 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/08/2021 21:28, Mike Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I've said before, I'm happy to ask you to pray for me, I'm happy
>>>> to ask Mary to pray for me.  I may venerate her holiness, worship,
>>>> no!
>>>
>>> The difference - slight but, I think, significant - is that I am alive
>>> and able to pray for you. Mary is dead and, as Scripture says, "The
>>> living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything", "The
>>> dead praise not the Lord", or even "Those that sleep in Jesus". I can
>>> assure you that my intercessory activities are strictly limited to my
>>> waking hours.
>>
>> I guess it's only Protestants who hold this view?
>
> And, of course, not ALL Protestants. Anglo-Catholics, like our Roman
> Catholic brethren, believe we can ask the departed 'Saints' (Christians
> that have gone before) to pray with, and for us. Hence we do not believe
> in 'Soul Sleep' in the way that perhaps most Protestants do.

Yes, I thought it must be closely tied to how you view life immediately
after death.

> At the Transfiguration, Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah, and God is
> the God of the living, not the dead. The Creed talks of 'The Communion
> of the Saints', and I suppose this is traditionally taken to include not
> just the living brothers and sisters in Christ, but also those who have
> completed their journey and now reside with Him.

That's a good point I think. I'd not really given as much thought to the
"Communion of Saints" as perhaps I should have done. It's interesting,
that even in the short Creeds, there is a great depth to be plumbed.

> Not long ago on this newsgroup, I explained that I did not accept 'Soul
> Sleep', because I believe that those departed are in a realm "Outside"
> of Time. Time being a created thing for this existence, and God, who
> created Time, of necessity must 'transcend' Time in a way beyond our
> comprehension.

I like the notion of bringing "outside of time" into this discussion. I
guess another relevant passage is during the crucifixion when Jesus says
"Today you will be with me in paradise". If the concept of time is fluid
from the moment of our death then this requires no further explanation.

> So to me this means that we can ask those who are in God's realm to pray
> with/for us wherever, and WHENever we happen to be. I don't visualise
> the departed as snoozing away in their coffins until the Last Day.

That's true. I was looking at the 39 Articles on this topic as I vaguely
remembered that there as a relevant one, and there is the one about "a
fond thing vainly invented", although this covers a whole range of
subjects. I don't know much about the "10 Articles" from 30 years
earlier until I read it on the Wikipedia page. That version states
explicitly that "praying to saints" is permitted, so something must have
happened in between to change the text...

[Jason]

Ah, OK, I see what you're saying!

[Jason]

On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 20:51:37 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 09/08/2021 10:24, Jason wrote:
>
>> What events/situations that happen on the Earth to do you envision as
>> being outside of God's purview?
>
> It depends on what you mean by "purview".

It serves me right, I deliberately chose this more ambiguous word
precisely so I didn't have to explain exactly what I meant!! :-)

> If you mean "foreknowledge",
> the answer is "nothing". If you mean "control", then man's will is
> outside God's control[1].

Yes, where God is concerned the whole business of foreknowledge,
predestination, outside-of-time and what not all becomes a bit gnarly....

> Note 1: For the avoidance of doubt, man's will is not necessarily
> outside God's control, but He has chosen to give us freewill and
> although I don't doubt that He knows which way our choice is going to
> go, He refrains from controlling it.

That's how I understand it.

> Which, of course, calls for another footnote. It is only with regard to
> salvation that God refrains from controlling our wills. In other
> respects He frequently controls even evil-doers to force them to carry
> out His will, though I think that more often He allows them to do evil,
> otherwise it would be in effect denying them freewill.

I'm not really sure what you are referring to here by "he frequently
controls even evil-doers to force them to carry out his will". I don't
think I've ever heard anyone state this before, and it's not something
I've ever thought so I'd have to think about it. Is it a common thought
among Christians that God is "frequently controlling" us??

> If every time you set out for the pub you actually ended up in church,
> you might well become discouraged and grudgingly serve God because it is
> not possible for you to do otherwise.

That would be true, but I've never heard of this happening.....

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/08/2021 13:36, Mike Davis wrote:

> God (Holy Spirit) -> Mary('s acceptance) -> Jesus!

Yes, but that doesn't make her a mediator. Medium (not the spiritualist
variety) perhaps, but not mediator.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/08/2021 12:08, Jason wrote:

> If it does date back to the 3rd century, that surely is very early on in
> the records of such things, which for many Christians (the bulk of the
> non-Protestant ones for example??) have stood the test of time surely
> indicates that at least it should be given careful thought.

Not if it is contradicted by the 1st century Scriptures.

> I don't think the "Christian hope is in the resurrection of the body" has
> much bearing on the veracity or otherwise of 'soul sleep'. You might
> have hope and be looking forward to a holiday abroad but that's not
> incompatible to spending time in the departure lounge...

It goes deeper than that. Man is a combination of body, soul and spirit
(aka body, breath of life, personality). Take away one of the three and
you do not have a living, functioning human being.

It is through the body that our minds receive information from the
outside world; it is through the body that our minds transmit
information to the outside world. No body, no interaction.

> Again, as with discussions regarding various of the 'modern innovations'
> in the Church, one should throw away the historic, established tradition
> of the Church with caution, even if you are Luther or Calvin or whoever.

Luther, Calvin, et al, had no hesitation in chucking out prayers to and
for the dead, purgatory, penances, relics, and so on, despite them being
the "historic established tradition of the church". Sola Scriptura was
the cry - and it's not a bad motto for today either.

> I appreciate that there is a lack of direct Biblical commentary on this,

No, that is not true. There is plenty of Biblical commentary on death -
look in Job, Psalms, Hezekiah when facing death, Jesus when resurrecting
Lazarus, St Paul when contemplating the Resurrection.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/08/2021 13:58, Mike Davis wrote:

> You could, of course, read Hebrews:
> 11:39-40
> These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what
> had been promised, since God had planned something better for us so that
> only together with us would they be made perfect.

And how exactly does that teach a conscious existence after death?

> 12:1-3
> Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses,

It is not clear who these "witnesses" are. One interpretation is that
they are the angels, watching what we do. Another - and perhaps more
likely - is that it is these great men of faith just described. However
there is an ambiguity in the word "witness"; it could be someone who
observes and bears testimony to what he has seen, but the word is
actually "martyr", someone who has born witness in the past. If that is
the sense in which Paul is using the word, we could translate the verse
"Since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of examples".

The point is that if humans are referred to in the verse, it is not
necessary that they be alive or conscious for them to fulfil the role of
"witnesses".

> You are failing to distinguish between the 'resurrection of the dead'
> (i.e. when our bodies are united with our spirit/soul) and our
> 'immortality in Christ'.

I am not sure why you put those words in quotes; they do not appear
anywhere in the Bible.

We are "immortal" because we do not cease to exist when we die; our
souls - minds or personalities - are safe with God until, as you say,
they are put into new bodies at the Resurrection.

> Christ came, died & rose again so that we might be united with Him,
> firstly spiritually through death and then with our bodies at the day of
> resurrection. Where do you get this "sleeping" from?

Oh tut, Mike. I thought you did read your Bible - at least occasionally!
Try John 11:11; 1 Cor 15:51; 1 Thess 4:14.

It is the common New Testament euphemism for death!

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/08/2021 08:51, Timreason wrote:

> Not long ago on this newsgroup, I explained that I did not accept 'Soul
> Sleep', because I believe that those departed are in a realm "Outside"
> of Time.

You may believe it, but you will struggle to find support for the idea
in Scripture.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/08/2021 13:40, Mike Davis wrote:

> OK - but I assume(!) you are ignorant of the "Assumption" - a doctrine
> held by Catholic & Orthodox Churches - that after her death she was
> 'assumed' directly into life with Jesus.

I am well aware of the doctrine. Would you like to remind us of when it
was first taught?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/08/2021 08:51, Timreason wrote:

> At the Transfiguration, Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah

It may have escaped your notice, but Elijah was taken up bodily into
heaven (2 Kings 2:11), and Moses was resurrected bodily (Jude 9)[1].
They are hardly typical of the vast majority of the "dead in Christ".

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: I believe that they were chosen to appear to Christ on the Mount
as they were representative of all the saved - one translated living,
the other resurrected, both bodily present in heaven.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/08/2021 12:00, Jason wrote:

> That's a good point I think. I'd not really given as much thought to the
> "Communion of Saints" as perhaps I should have done. It's interesting,
> that even in the short Creeds, there is a great depth to be plumbed.

It's a catchy phrase - and of course, nothing in the Creeds is to be
despised - but it is not a Biblical phrase. Protestants commonly
"interpret" the "holy catholic church", so there would be nothing
strange in "interpreting" the communion of the saints to mean a mystical
communion with all those who have gone before, even though they are now
unconscious.

Incidentally, it might be difficult to speak about the "communion of the
saints" when a good percentage of them are suffering the fiery pangs of
purgatory!

> I like the notion of bringing "outside of time" into this discussion. I
> guess another relevant passage is during the crucifixion when Jesus says
> "Today you will be with me in paradise". If the concept of time is fluid
> from the moment of our death then this requires no further explanation.

Certianly what Jesus said was not literal, because Jesus Himself did not
enter into Paradise on Good Friday. On Easter Sunday He told the women,
"Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Father". There is a
tradition that from the time of His death until His resurrection, He was
engaged in the Harrowing of Hell.

It could be that Jesus was speaking of "today" in some non-temporal
sense, as you suggest. It is also possible that what Jesus actually said
was, "Truly I say to you today, you will be with Me in paradise." In
other words, "today" is linked with what Jesus was saying, not with them
being both in paradise.

> That's true. I was looking at the 39 Articles on this topic as I vaguely
> remembered that there as a relevant one, and there is the one about "a
> fond thing vainly invented"

Yes, the Reformers had no truck with prayers to saints.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/08/2021 12:14, Jason wrote:

> Yes, where God is concerned the whole business of foreknowledge,
> predestination, outside-of-time and what not all becomes a bit gnarly....

Indeed. In my "Capelburgh" books, which involve a certain amount of time
travel, I have the hero receiving a reply from the 22nd century to a
letter he has not yet sent from the 14th.

> I'm not really sure what you are referring to here by "he frequently
> controls even evil-doers to force them to carry out his will". I don't
> think I've ever heard anyone state this before, and it's not something
> I've ever thought so I'd have to think about it. Is it a common thought
> among Christians that God is "frequently controlling" us??

I don't know about your tradition, but we daily pray for God to
"control" us - we surrender ourselves to Him, to do His will. So we
assume that God controls us to work out His purposes in and through us,
except when our surrender is not as complete as it should be.

The only difference is that whereas we welcome and seek for divine
control, the wicked reject it - but where it is to His glory, God is
quite capable of controlling them despite their wills. Daniel chapter 4
is perhaps the clearest example in Scripture; in modern life we might
think of Hitler attacking Russia and thereby ensuring his own downfall.

[Mike Davis]

On 10/08/2021 21:07, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 10/08/2021 08:51, Timreason wrote:
>
>> At the Transfiguration, Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah
>
> It may have escaped your notice, but Elijah was taken up bodily into
> heaven (2 Kings 2:11), and Moses was resurrected bodily (Jude 9)[1].
> They are hardly typical of the vast majority of the "dead in Christ".
>

> Note 1: I believe that they were chosen to appear to Christ on the Mount
> as they were representative of all the saved - one translated living,
> the other resurrected, both bodily present in heaven.

But they were representatives of the 'Law' & the 'Prophets'... otherwise
you are telling us that they are still bodily alive...

[Mike Davis]

C2nd! The Wikipedia article is quite good, I think, insofar as to go
through the various views over the centuries:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary#Theological_issues

[Timreason]

Not scripture, but the Creeds, which say God created "All things seen
and unseen".

Time is a thing 'Unseen'. Logically, it follows then that Time (or, as
scientists seem to put it, "Time-Space") was created by God. For God to
have created Time, it follows that God must exist "Apart from" or
"Outside" Time. Those who go to be with God might be thought of as being
'In the same place as' God.

That's why I believe what I do. OK, it's based on 'Tradition' (the
Creeds) rather than scripture, but 'Tradition' is one of the three
pillars of authority, and 'Reason' seems to support it, and scripture
(AFAIK) does not seem to contradict the notion that 'God transcends
(exists apart from, or 'outside') Time.

Tim.

[steve hague]

On 10/08/2021 21:07, Kendall K. Down wrote:

I can't see that in Jude 9. It speaks of the body of Moses, but there's
nothing about his resurrection. An interesting piece of speculation I
read a few years ago is that God moved Moses forward in time to be there
at the transfiguration, then took him back to his own time with his face
shining.
Steve Hague

[Mike Davis]

On 10/08/2021 21:14, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 10/08/2021 12:00, Jason wrote:
>
>> That's a good point I think.  I'd not really given as much thought to the
>> "Communion of Saints" as perhaps I should have done.  It's interesting,
>> that even in the short Creeds, there is a great depth to be plumbed.
>
> It's a catchy phrase - and of course, nothing in the Creeds is to be
> despised - but it is not a Biblical phrase. Protestants commonly
> "interpret" the "holy catholic church", so there would be nothing
> strange in "interpreting" the communion of the saints to mean a mystical
> communion with all those who have gone before, even though they are now
> unconscious.
>
> Incidentally, it might be difficult to speak about the "communion of the
> saints" when a good percentage of them are suffering the fiery pangs of
> purgatory!

Just a note - the essence of purgatory is that it's a washing station
for the saved.

>
>> I like the notion of bringing "outside of time" into this discussion.  I
>> guess another relevant passage is during the crucifixion when Jesus says
>> "Today you will be with me in paradise".  If the concept of time is fluid
>> from the moment of our death then this requires no further explanation.
>
> Certianly what Jesus said was not literal, because Jesus Himself did not
> enter into Paradise on Good Friday. On Easter Sunday He told the women,
> "Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Father".

Good point!

> There is a
> tradition that from the time of His death until His resurrection, He was
> engaged in the Harrowing of Hell.

Apostles' creed:- "He descended into hell"; but we're not told why. :-)

> It could be that Jesus was speaking of "today" in some non-temporal
> sense, as you suggest. It is also possible that what Jesus actually said
> was, "Truly I say to you today, you will be with Me in paradise." In
> other words, "today" is linked with what Jesus was saying, not with them
> being both in paradise.

I think that's being too literal. I think the 'today' means that the act
of faith by the 'good thief' was sufficient for his salvation, so will
go directly to paradise/heaven.

>
>> That's true.  I was looking at the 39 Articles on this topic as I vaguely
>> remembered that there as a relevant one, and there is the one about "a
>> fond thing vainly invented"
>
> Yes, the Reformers had no truck with prayers to saints.

;-)

[Jason]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 20:49:26 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 10/08/2021 12:08, Jason wrote:
>
>> If it does date back to the 3rd century, that surely is very early on
>> in the records of such things, which for many Christians (the bulk of
>> the non-Protestant ones for example??) have stood the test of time
>> surely indicates that at least it should be given careful thought.
>
> Not if it is contradicted by the 1st century Scriptures.

Well, that's before all the Church councils ruled on what was canonical
and what was heretical, so I guess anything which was "common practice"
pre-church-councils but which didn't survive the church council era needs
to be judged with that in mind.....

>> I don't think the "Christian hope is in the resurrection of the body"
>> has much bearing on the veracity or otherwise of 'soul sleep'. You
>> might have hope and be looking forward to a holiday abroad but that's
>> not incompatible to spending time in the departure lounge...
>
> It goes deeper than that. Man is a combination of body, soul and spirit
> (aka body, breath of life, personality). Take away one of the three and
> you do not have a living, functioning human being.

Maybe not, for a human being on the Earth. Whether the dead need the kind
of body that processes oxygen etc is a completely different matter. And
whether we need such a body any time which may pass between the moment
death and being given a glorious new body seems to me to be particularly
uncertain...

> It is through the body that our minds receive information from the
> outside world; it is through the body that our minds transmit
> information to the outside world. No body, no interaction.

That is true on the Earth, but again, once we are dead, all bets are
off. God for example (not that I'm equating us to him, whether alive or
dead!) is all-seeing and all knowing, yet I doubt he has literal eyes
everywhere looking every which way. The fact is, we have no idea what
our "bodies" will or will not require in the world to come.

>
>> Again, as with discussions regarding various of the 'modern
>> innovations' in the Church, one should throw away the historic,
>> established tradition of the Church with caution, even if you are
>> Luther or Calvin or whoever.
>
> Luther, Calvin, et al, had no hesitation in chucking out prayers to and
> for the dead, purgatory, penances, relics, and so on, despite them being
> the "historic established tradition of the church". Sola Scriptura was
> the cry - and it's not a bad motto for today either.

It isn't a bad motto in some circles, certainly. If you mean by it that
it contains everything we need for salvation, I would agree. If you mean
it to be the be-all-and-end-all of spiritual life, I don't. Some people
seem to think the Holy Trinity is more of a Holy Quadrangle, with the
Father, Jesus, The Holy Spirit and the Bible all at the same level....

>> I appreciate that there is a lack of direct Biblical commentary on
>> this,
>
> No, that is not true. There is plenty of Biblical commentary on death -
> look in Job, Psalms, Hezekiah when facing death, Jesus when resurrecting
> Lazarus, St Paul when contemplating the Resurrection.

There is a much on death, and much on the Great Hereafter, but I don't
think the actual mechanism/timescale/process as to what happens between
these is given much mileage.

[Jason]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 21:21:53 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 10/08/2021 12:14, Jason wrote:
>
>> Yes, where God is concerned the whole business of foreknowledge,
>> predestination, outside-of-time and what not all becomes a bit
>> gnarly....
>
> Indeed. In my "Capelburgh" books, which involve a certain amount of time
> travel, I have the hero receiving a reply from the 22nd century to a
> letter he has not yet sent from the 14th.

:-)

>> I'm not really sure what you are referring to here by "he frequently
>> controls even evil-doers to force them to carry out his will". I don't
>> think I've ever heard anyone state this before, and it's not something
>> I've ever thought so I'd have to think about it. Is it a common
>> thought among Christians that God is "frequently controlling" us??
>
> I don't know about your tradition, but we daily pray for God to
> "control" us - we surrender ourselves to Him, to do His will. So we
> assume that God controls us to work out His purposes in and through us,
> except when our surrender is not as complete as it should be.

I can't speak of the whole CofE of course, it is famously a broad church,
but I have over the years attended ones from very low evangelical
churches to more Anglo-Catholic ones. I don't think I've ever heard a
prayer for God to "control" ourselves or anyone else. Surrender to him:
Yes; Control us: No. And certainly no concept of God controlling evil-
doers..... It's a completely foreign concept to me.

[Jason]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 12:26:44 +0100, Mike Davis wrote:

> On 10/08/2021 21:14, Kendall K. Down wrote:
>> On 10/08/2021 12:00, Jason wrote:
>>
>>> That's a good point I think.  I'd not really given as much thought to
>>> the "Communion of Saints" as perhaps I should have done.  It's
>>> interesting, that even in the short Creeds, there is a great depth to
>>> be plumbed.
>>
>> It's a catchy phrase - and of course, nothing in the Creeds is to be
>> despised - but it is not a Biblical phrase.

I'm sure it wasn't included just because it's a catchy phrase. The
Creeds are short and cover a lot of ground, so I would be surprised if
anything got in there unless it was seen as absolutely key in some way.
And as I mentioned the other day, "The Trinity" is not a Biblical phrase
either.

>> Protestants commonly
>> "interpret" the "holy catholic church", so there would be nothing
>> strange in "interpreting" the communion of the saints to mean a
>> mystical communion with all those who have gone before, even though
>> they are now unconscious.

You, of course, have added "are now unconscious". This is the very thing
we are discussing, so you can't pre-suppose it here and take it as a
given.

>> Incidentally, it might be difficult to speak about the "communion of
>> the saints" when a good percentage of them are suffering the fiery
>> pangs of purgatory!
>
> Just a note - the essence of purgatory is that it's a washing station
> for the saved.

[Side note: I don't know much about purgatory, would be good to know
more, maybe I'll try and think of a question...]

>>> I like the notion of bringing "outside of time" into this discussion. 
>>> I guess another relevant passage is during the crucifixion when Jesus
>>> says "Today you will be with me in paradise".  If the concept of time
>>> is fluid from the moment of our death then this requires no further
>>> explanation.
>>
>> Certianly what Jesus said was not literal, because Jesus Himself did
>> not enter into Paradise on Good Friday. On Easter Sunday He told the
>> women, "Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Father".
>
> Good point!

I guess the detail is in what is precisely meant by that. For example, I
might say, "Don't send me anything through the post to my new address as
I haven't moved in yet", even if I have been round to measure up for some
curtains.

>> There is a tradition that from the time of His death until His
>> resurrection, He was engaged in the Harrowing of Hell.
>
> Apostles' creed:- "He descended into hell"; but we're not told why. :-)

Again, an intriguing snippet, but he most have gone there for some
purpose or other! I don't imagine he just filled in some time while dead
to do a spot of sight-seeing.

>> It could be that Jesus was speaking of "today" in some non-temporal
>> sense, as you suggest. It is also possible that what Jesus actually
>> said was, "Truly I say to you today, you will be with Me in paradise."
>> In other words, "today" is linked with what Jesus was saying, not with
>> them being both in paradise.

That seems a bit far fetched to me, and I can't find any Bible
translation that has interpreted it the way you suggest. Is it any
clearer in the Greek??

> I think that's being too literal. I think the 'today' means that the act
> of faith by the 'good thief' was sufficient for his salvation, so will
> go directly to paradise/heaven.

I would agree.

>>> That's true.  I was looking at the 39 Articles on this topic as I
>>> vaguely remembered that there as a relevant one, and there is the one
>>> about "a fond thing vainly invented"
>>
>> Yes, the Reformers had no truck with prayers to saints.
>
> ;-)

And yet as I say, the earlier 10 articles specifically endorses praying
to the saints, but I haven't read around it to find out what happened or
why it was dropped.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/08/2021 13:26, Jason wrote:

> Well, that's before all the Church councils ruled on what was canonical
> and what was heretical, so I guess anything which was "common practice"
> pre-church-councils but which didn't survive the church council era needs
> to be judged with that in mind.....

Hmmmm. I am re-reading a very interesting old book I picked up
second-hand many years ago. It is a translation of the "Caroline Books"
and a handwritten note in the front states that it was given to XXX by
YYY who just happens to be the translator!

Apparently when the Empress Irene convened a council at Nicea (7th
General Council - the second 7th, but let that ride) she invited envoys
from all over and Charlemagne sent a team which included short-hand
experts. They took down the proceedings of the council more or less
verbatim.

When the document went back to France/Germany, it aroused great
indignation in Charlemagne and his churchmen. He arranged for it to be
"published", together with a detailed refutation of the council's
claims, and this is the "Caroline Books" (Carol = Charles).

The reason for the indignation is that this second 7th council undid the
good work done by the iconoclasts in ridding Byzantium of images. It is
possible that they went a bit too far, but God seemed to bless them
because the three iconoclast emperors had almost unbroken success
against the Muslims, whereas after Nicea there was almost unbroken
defeat by the Muslims, culminating in the capture of Byzanium 1453.

I shall share with the group a few of the proceedings of the council, as
the level of superstition and idolatry is incredible - but it just shows
that while we should respect councils, we test them by the Scriptures,
for as Luther pointed out, even councils have erred!

> Maybe not, for a human being on the Earth. Whether the dead need the kind
> of body that processes oxygen etc is a completely different matter. And
> whether we need such a body any time which may pass between the moment
> death and being given a glorious new body seems to me to be particularly
> uncertain...

The dead need a body, otherwise they are - er - dead! Unless you are
positing some sort of non-human existence, Scripture is clear that human
beings are made up of body+breath+mind. Genesis describes man's creation
in those terms, Psalms describes death as the undoing of the three
(146:3, 4) and because the dead are unconscious (not having a brain with
which to think) they cannot praise God - one of the essentials of being
conscious in heaven, I would have thought.

> That is true on the Earth, but again, once we are dead, all bets are
> off. God for example (not that I'm equating us to him, whether alive or
> dead!) is all-seeing and all knowing, yet I doubt he has literal eyes
> everywhere looking every which way. The fact is, we have no idea what
> our "bodies" will or will not require in the world to come.

The difference is that "God is spirit" (whatever that means); we are
not. We are firmly physical beings. All bets would be off, were it not
that Scripture is so clear on the subject.

> It isn't a bad motto in some circles, certainly. If you mean by it that
> it contains everything we need for salvation, I would agree. If you mean
> it to be the be-all-and-end-all of spiritual life, I don't. Some people
> seem to think the Holy Trinity is more of a Holy Quadrangle, with the
> Father, Jesus, The Holy Spirit and the Bible all at the same level....

I have not encountered anyone who puts the Bible on a par with God
Himself. It is God's message to us.

> There is a much on death, and much on the Great Hereafter, but I don't
> think the actual mechanism/timescale/process as to what happens between
> these is given much mileage.

The dead do not know what is happening on earth: Job 14:21
The dead do not return: Job 7:10
Dead do not praise God: Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18
Dead know nothing: Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 146,3, 4
Death is a sleep: John 11:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:13

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/08/2021 12:26, Mike Davis wrote:

> Just a note - the essence of purgatory is that it's a washing station
> for the saved.

In the little church at Hallein (of Silent Night fame) there was a box
attached to one of the pews for collecting offerings to pay for prayers
for those in Purgatory. The picture on the box was quite explicit - fire
and flame, not soap and water.

> Apostles' creed:- "He descended into hell"; but we're not told why. :-)

I understand it to mean a) He descended into sheol/hades, the realm of
the dead; b) which means that He really died, in exactly the same way
and to the same extent that any human dies.

However a whole mythology rose claiming that Jesus set free all the
righteous dead and carried them back to heaven with Him - the Harrowing
of Hell. I believe that the earliest source for the teaching is the
apocryphal "Acts of Pilate"; I would regard dear old Pontius as of
questionable authority in matters spiritual.

> I think that's being too literal. I think the 'today' means that the act
> of faith by the 'good thief' was sufficient for his salvation, so will
> go directly to paradise/heaven.

I wouldn't disagree. It's just a pity that the old uncials had no
punctuation.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/08/2021 14:08, Jason wrote:

> You, of course, have added "are now unconscious". This is the very thing
> we are discussing, so you can't pre-suppose it here and take it as a
> given.

I didn't do that; I said that it was one way of interpreting the expression.

> I guess the detail is in what is precisely meant by that. For example, I
> might say, "Don't send me anything through the post to my new address as
> I haven't moved in yet", even if I have been round to measure up for some
> curtains.

Some short time after rejecting the worship of the women "because I am
not yet ascended to my Father", Jesus met another group and accepted
their worship. Unless He was playing silly b****rs, I presume that in
the interval He had indeed returned to heaven, presumably to receive
affirmation that His sacrifice was accomplished. After that He could
rightly be worshipped.

> Again, an intriguing snippet, but he most have gone there for some
> purpose or other! I don't imagine he just filled in some time while dead
> to do a spot of sight-seeing.

The word "hell" is actually "hades", the underworld (as in Orpheus in
the Underworld). It is nothing more than the place of the dead. In my
understanding, the statement that Jesus descended into Hades is merely
saying that Jesus really truly died, just like any other man.

> That seems a bit far fetched to me, and I can't find any Bible
> translation that has interpreted it the way you suggest. Is it any
> clearer in the Greek??

No, I am not aware of any translation that puts the comma as I suggest.
The Greek has no commas (in the original) and I do not know Greek
sufficiently to be able to say whether one interpretation is implied by
the grammatical form rather than another.

Nevertheless, as I pointed out, Jesus Himself did not ascend to heaven
on Good Friday, nor on Easter Saturday, so the usual punctuation and
interpretation simply cannot be true! Even if the thief was in paradise
on Good Friday, Jesus was not, so the promise was not fulfilled. That is
the chief reason why I support a different placing of the comma and a
different interpretation of what Jesus was saying.

>>> Yes, the Reformers had no truck with prayers to saints.

> And yet as I say, the earlier 10 articles specifically endorses praying
> to the saints, but I haven't read around it to find out what happened or
> why it was dropped.

I suspect because praying to anyone other than Christ is to detract from
His role as the unique Mediator between God and man.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/08/2021 08:31, Timreason wrote:

> That's why I believe what I do. OK, it's based on 'Tradition' (the
> Creeds) rather than scripture, but 'Tradition' is one of the three
> pillars of authority, and 'Reason' seems to support it, and scripture
> (AFAIK) does not seem to contradict the notion that 'God transcends
> (exists apart from, or 'outside') Time.

As it happens, I agree with the notion that God is outside time or, at
least, is independent of it. ("One day is with the Lord as a thousand
and a thousand days as one day.")

However exactly what that means - and even more, what it means in
relation to us being in heaven - is pure speculation. No harm in that,
of course, but we should be wary of basing too much on it.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/08/2021 21:32, Mike Davis wrote:

> But they were representatives of the 'Law' & the 'Prophets'... otherwise
> you are telling us that they are still bodily alive...

I think it unlikely that, after going to all the trouble to send a fiery
chariot to carry Elijah up to heaven, God would then decide to kill him
once he had popped down to visit Jesus on the Mount.

So yes, they are still bodily alive in heaven - as we will be following
the Resurrection.

Just a thought: do you believe that Jesus still has His human body?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/08/2021 11:28, steve hague wrote:

> I can't see that in Jude 9. It speaks of the body of Moses, but there's
> nothing about his resurrection. An interesting piece of speculation I
> read a few years ago is that God moved Moses forward in time to be there
> at the transfiguration, then took him back to his own time with his face
> shining.

https://www.compellingtruth.org/Michael-Satan-Moses.html
"Another theory is that Satan, the accuser (Revelation 12:10), was
resisting Moses being raised to eternal life because of his prior sins."

I agree that we are not told specifically that Moses was raised to life,
but the reference appears to be to a book called "The Assumption of
Moses" (which is now lost). Assuming that the "assumption" of Moses is
the same as the alleged "assumption" of Mary, it is Moses being taken
bodily up into heaven.

Certainly Moses was alive on the Mount of Transfiguration, and visible
to the disciples, but as he is specifically stated to have died and been
buried, there must have been a resurrection somewhere along the line and
Jude - in my opinion - preserves a hint of that event.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 11/08/2021 13:40, Jason wrote:

> I can't speak of the whole CofE of course, it is famously a broad church,
> but I have over the years attended ones from very low evangelical
> churches to more Anglo-Catholic ones. I don't think I've ever heard a
> prayer for God to "control" ourselves or anyone else. Surrender to him:
> Yes; Control us: No.

But if surrendering to God's Will does not involve Him in controlling
us, what exactly does the phrase mean?

> And certainly no concept of God controlling evil-
> doers..... It's a completely foreign concept to me.

Try reading the story of the plagues of Egypt and how God hardened
pharaoh's heart.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 10/08/2021 21:40, Mike Davis wrote:

> C2nd! The Wikipedia article is quite good, I think, insofar as to go
> through the various views over the centuries:-
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary#Theological_issues

Er - this is what the page actually says: "In the late 4th century,
Epiphanius of Salamis wrote of his search for reliable traditions
concerning the fate of Mary and his inability to discover any."

Then, in the next paragraph: "The Dormition/Assumption of Mary makes its
first appearance in two apocryphal texts from the third and fourth
centuries, the Liber Requiei Mariae ("Book of Mary's Repose"), and the
"Six Books Dormition Apocryphon". Both come from heterodox (i.e.,
proto-heretical) circles, the first having strong Gnostic overtones and
the second associated with a sect called the Kollyridians, whom
Epiphanius condemned for their excessive devotion to Mary."

"proto-heretical" does not sound to me like a solid basis for doctrine.

I haven't read every word in the article, but a quick scan through fails
to disclose a reference to the second century. Can you be more specific?

[Timreason]

Agreed. It's all speculation, and as long as we remember that, it's
something we can enjoy doing. It's a "We don't know" again.

Tim.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sf1c74$3jf$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 11 Aug 2021 21:33:40 +0100:

I have not been able to satisfactorily explain the beliefs of the
apocalyptists which we have in Jude and 2peter with views on death and
resurrection that result from the NT - this is opposed to some catholic
doctrines but is consistent with what is related in the OT. individual
beliefs may been at variance (and incorrect)

I think The Harrowing of Hell stories have a Buddhist precedent with
Avalokiteshwara playing the part of the Saviour.

I don't find the comma today-comma argument appealing.

1. God told Adam he would die "today"
2. The passion stories "indicate" that Jesus called out to Elijah for
help.

Of course Adam did not die on that day, and Jesus did not call out to
Elijah - but the people said he was calling out to Elijah. They were
probably "mistaken" but that is what they heard. Likewise we may be
able to understand that the audience (typical of those that gather to
see the public executions) is likely to have heard the sentence.

Now surely Jesus would have known about the doctrine of soul-sleep, he
would have known of the non-existence of "paradise", and about the
correct theories of the general resurrection and judgment that he would
not have made such a silly mistake.... :)

if you will pardon the facestiousism..

[Madhu]

* Jason <ruadnQmQntesWI78...@brightview.co.uk> :
Wrote on Wed, 11 Aug 2021 07:40:17 -0500:

> I can't speak of the whole CofE of course, it is famously a broad church,
> but I have over the years attended ones from very low evangelical
> churches to more Anglo-Catholic ones. I don't think I've ever heard a
> prayer for God to "control" ourselves or anyone else. Surrender to him:
> Yes; Control us: No. And certainly no concept of God controlling evil-
> doers..... It's a completely foreign concept to me.

It's there in Psalm 119:35,133 (but that's the long one so)

My early school here in India was owned by a Christian and had some
Christian staff, (there no Christian instruction though). We did have
daily assembly and prayer lead by some rotating staff member - the
students would repeat the prayer line by line. Our favourite staff
member was obviously the one who delivered the shortest prayer - and it
was the same one delivered he each and every time (in a strong local
accent, which was amusing to some). I'm sure it turned out that it was,
because of the style of delivery, the only prayer many of us ended up
remembering by heart many years after school.

Into thy hands o god we commend ourselves this day, let thy presence be
with us enable us to feel that in doing our work we are doing thy will
and in helping others we are serving thee.

Not quite "complete control" but i thought it was in line with the
sentiments in the psalms

[Jason]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 21:28:05 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 11/08/2021 13:26, Jason wrote:
>
>> Well, that's before all the Church councils ruled on what was canonical
>> and what was heretical, so I guess anything which was "common practice"
>> pre-church-councils but which didn't survive the church council era
>> needs to be judged with that in mind.....
>
> Hmmmm. I am re-reading a very interesting old book I picked up
> second-hand many years ago. It is a translation of the "Caroline Books"
> and a handwritten note in the front states that it was given to XXX by
> YYY who just happens to be the translator!

> [snipped some interesting stuff]

> I shall share with the group a few of the proceedings of the council, as
> the level of superstition and idolatry is incredible - but it just shows
> that while we should respect councils, we test them by the Scriptures,
> for as Luther pointed out, even councils have erred!

Well, people seem to like "slippery slope" arguments (I personally
don't). While the councils are clearly not inerrant, I would say the
weight of argument is on you to prove that they have erred rather than
claiming they have some heresies as OK, while some orthodox beliefs turn
out to be heretical.

>> Maybe not, for a human being on the Earth. Whether the dead need the
>> kind of body that processes oxygen etc is a completely different
>> matter. And whether we need such a body any time which may pass
>> between the moment death and being given a glorious new body seems to
>> me to be particularly uncertain...
>
> The dead need a body, otherwise they are - er - dead! Unless you are
> positing some sort of non-human existence, Scripture is clear that human
> beings are made up of body+breath+mind. Genesis describes man's creation
> in those terms, Psalms describes death as the undoing of the three
> (146:3, 4) and because the dead are unconscious (not having a brain with
> which to think) they cannot praise God - one of the essentials of being
> conscious in heaven, I would have thought.

I don't think it follows at all that the dead need a body, or that any
future body will require body, breath, mind. Certainly our current
'being' has these elements. We will have a future body, I've no idea if
it will need oxygen or not. To follow your argument, even the 'dead'
must have some sort of state to maintain our being, whereas by your
argument a body is required to keep the other things going, why (in your
argument) would we be able to even 'sleep' without a body? For me this
is all angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff anyway....

>
>> That is true on the Earth, but again, once we are dead, all bets are
>> off. God for example (not that I'm equating us to him, whether alive
>> or dead!) is all-seeing and all knowing, yet I doubt he has literal
>> eyes everywhere looking every which way. The fact is, we have no idea
>> what our "bodies" will or will not require in the world to come.
>
> The difference is that "God is spirit" (whatever that means); we are
> not. We are firmly physical beings. All bets would be off, were it not
> that Scripture is so clear on the subject.

Maybe the scriptures are so clear to you; I can't say they are clear to
me. We are firmly physical beings now, but then again so was Jesus.
Whether he now needs oxygen or not to survive I have no idea.

>> It isn't a bad motto in some circles, certainly. If you mean by it
>> that it contains everything we need for salvation, I would agree. If
>> you mean it to be the be-all-and-end-all of spiritual life, I don't.
>> Some people seem to think the Holy Trinity is more of a Holy
>> Quadrangle, with the Father, Jesus, The Holy Spirit and the Bible all
>> at the same level....
>
> I have not encountered anyone who puts the Bible on a par with God
> Himself. It is God's message to us.

It's not that people would *claim* to put the Bible on a par with God,
but their actions and statements could easily lead a bystander to think
that they did. At a more basic level, many Christians would insist that
anything the Holy Spirit (or indeed God) might do or not do is subject to
what it says in the Bible. In other words, in the case of any
contradiction, it is the Bible which is authoritative, and you must be
mistaken regarding the Holy Spirit.

>> There is a much on death, and much on the Great Hereafter, but I don't
>> think the actual mechanism/timescale/process as to what happens between
>> these is given much mileage.
>
> The dead do not know what is happening on earth: Job 14:21 The dead do
> not return: Job 7:10 Dead do not praise God: Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18
> Dead know nothing: Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 146,3, 4 Death is a sleep:
> John 11:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:13

Many people now refer to death euphemistically as 'sleep' (i.e. having a
pet 'put to sleep'). No-one is expected to take this literally that they
*are* asleep. Likewise taking our state post-death from poetical/
literary sources needs to be treated carefully.

[Jason]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 22:03:21 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 11/08/2021 13:40, Jason wrote:
>
>> I can't speak of the whole CofE of course, it is famously a broad
>> church,
>> but I have over the years attended ones from very low evangelical
>> churches to more Anglo-Catholic ones. I don't think I've ever heard a
>> prayer for God to "control" ourselves or anyone else. Surrender to him:
>> Yes; Control us: No.
>
> But if surrendering to God's Will does not involve Him in controlling
> us, what exactly does the phrase mean?

I've only once been horse riding and it was clear to both myself and the
horse after going a few hundred yards I had no clue what I was doing and
in the end I had to surrender to it's will and go wherever it wanted.
That is a far cry from asking the horse to control me.

>> And certainly no concept of God controlling evil-
>> doers..... It's a completely foreign concept to me.
>
> Try reading the story of the plagues of Egypt and how God hardened
> pharaoh's heart.

But this incident is so rare as to be newsworthy and gets a special
mention.

[Jason]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 21:43:52 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 11/08/2021 14:08, Jason wrote:

>> I guess the detail is in what is precisely meant by that. For example,
>> I might say, "Don't send me anything through the post to my new address
>> as I haven't moved in yet", even if I have been round to measure up for
>> some curtains.
>
> Some short time after rejecting the worship of the women "because I am
> not yet ascended to my Father", Jesus met another group and accepted
> their worship. Unless He was playing silly b****rs, I presume that in
> the interval He had indeed returned to heaven, presumably to receive
> affirmation that His sacrifice was accomplished. After that He could
> rightly be worshipped.

That sounds reasonable, though we don't know any details. He may have
had other reasons to phrase things as he did (e.g. he might have known
what was in the minds of the women or the others and did not want to lead
them into false thinking). I guess I had it in mind that when he
"ascended to the Father" it was at the point his ministry on Earth was
finished and he would send the Holy Spirit, so his days of popping up-and-
down would be at an end (until the Second Coming).

>> Again, an intriguing snippet, but he most have gone there for some
>> purpose or other! I don't imagine he just filled in some time while
>> dead to do a spot of sight-seeing.
>
> The word "hell" is actually "hades", the underworld (as in Orpheus in
> the Underworld). It is nothing more than the place of the dead. In my
> understanding, the statement that Jesus descended into Hades is merely
> saying that Jesus really truly died, just like any other man.

OK, I can go along with that, but the situation depends on what happens
to the rest of us at the moment of death: presumably if he truly died as
a human, then his state immediately after death is much the same as
ours. Unless of course, he is a completely different kettle of fish in
this regard....

>
>> That seems a bit far fetched to me, and I can't find any Bible
>> translation that has interpreted it the way you suggest. Is it any
>> clearer in the Greek??
>
> No, I am not aware of any translation that puts the comma as I suggest.
> The Greek has no commas (in the original) and I do not know Greek
> sufficiently to be able to say whether one interpretation is implied by
> the grammatical form rather than another.

Fair enough.

> Nevertheless, as I pointed out, Jesus Himself did not ascend to heaven
> on Good Friday, nor on Easter Saturday, so the usual punctuation and
> interpretation simply cannot be true! Even if the thief was in paradise
> on Good Friday, Jesus was not, so the promise was not fulfilled. That is
> the chief reason why I support a different placing of the comma and a
> different interpretation of what Jesus was saying.

It depends on what is meant by "Today". If people are stuck thinking
this refers to 24 hour periods (as per Genesis 1) then you might be
right. If on the other hand it is more in the sense of "In Roman times,
people used to cook using clay pots, whereas today people tend to use
stainless steel pans" there is no problem.

>>>> Yes, the Reformers had no truck with prayers to saints.
>
>> And yet as I say, the earlier 10 articles specifically endorses praying
>> to the saints, but I haven't read around it to find out what happened
>> or why it was dropped.
>
> I suspect because praying to anyone other than Christ is to detract from
> His role as the unique Mediator between God and man.

Well, perhaps they realised the "error of their ways" and struck it out
as you say.....

[Jason]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:45:28 +0530, Madhu wrote:

> * Jason <ruadnQmQntesWI78...@brightview.co.uk> :
> Wrote on Wed, 11 Aug 2021 07:40:17 -0500:
>> I can't speak of the whole CofE of course, it is famously a broad
>> church,
>> but I have over the years attended ones from very low evangelical
>> churches to more Anglo-Catholic ones. I don't think I've ever heard a
>> prayer for God to "control" ourselves or anyone else. Surrender to him:
>> Yes; Control us: No. And certainly no concept of God controlling evil-
>> doers..... It's a completely foreign concept to me.
>
> It's there in Psalm 119:35,133 (but that's the long one so)

I take your point, but I would again be careful about drawing too much
detail from a poem: you can get away with a lot more in poetical language
than may be a strict 'scientific'-style statement. I see that more as
seeking God's guidance to help us to follow his commands. That is a far
cry from simply handing over the steering wheel of our lives for God to
control us (how could we then sin at all if that were so?).

>
> My early school here in India was owned by a Christian and had some
> Christian staff, (there no Christian instruction though). We did have
> daily assembly and prayer lead by some rotating staff member - the
> students would repeat the prayer line by line. Our favourite staff
> member was obviously the one who delivered the shortest prayer - and it
> was the same one delivered he each and every time (in a strong local
> accent, which was amusing to some). I'm sure it turned out that it was,
> because of the style of delivery, the only prayer many of us ended up
> remembering by heart many years after school.
>
> Into thy hands o god we commend ourselves this day, let thy presence be
> with us enable us to feel that in doing our work we are doing thy will
> and in helping others we are serving thee.
>
> Not quite "complete control" but i thought it was in line with the
> sentiments in the psalms

Nice story! :-) Yes, I agree in line with the psalms, though not setting
God (rather than ourselves) in the driving seat.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/08/2021 13:51, Jason wrote:

> Well, people seem to like "slippery slope" arguments (I personally
> don't). While the councils are clearly not inerrant, I would say the
> weight of argument is on you to prove that they have erred rather than
> claiming they have some heresies as OK, while some orthodox beliefs turn
> out to be heretical.

Fair enough.

> I don't think it follows at all that the dead need a body, or that any
> future body will require body, breath, mind. Certainly our current
> 'being' has these elements. We will have a future body, I've no idea if
> it will need oxygen or not.

Unless the "new heavens and new earth" are completely different to God's
original creation, we will need oxygen and all the rest of it to take
our rightful place in that new earth.

> To follow your argument, even the 'dead'
> must have some sort of state to maintain our being, whereas by your
> argument a body is required to keep the other things going, why (in your
> argument) would we be able to even 'sleep' without a body? For me this
> is all angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff anyway....

The analogy I use is a computer: hardware = body; electricity supply =
spirit; programs = soul.

You are, I presume, familiar with the concept of taking a "snapshot" of
memory before putting your computer to sleep. That snapshot is usually
stored on the hard drive but there is no reason why it could not be put
on a USB stick, to be reloaded either into the old computer or into a
newer and better computer. While on the memory stick, neither body nor
spirit are required!

Now let us imagine that you want to transfer that snapshot to Earth's
latest colony on Alpha Centuri. You don't want to load yourself down
with either a computer or even a memory stick, so instead you transmit
the snapshot by radio. Alpha Centuri being so distant, it will take some
time for the message to reach there - but note that during that time the
snapshot does not have a physical existence that you can touch.

So when we die, a "snapshot" of our characters or personality is taken
up to heaven for storage until the Resurrection, when each person's
personality is reloaded into a new and improved body. How this is done I
have no idea, other than a certainty that it is wire-less.

> Maybe the scriptures are so clear to you; I can't say they are clear to
> me. We are firmly physical beings now, but then again so was Jesus.
> Whether he now needs oxygen or not to survive I have no idea.

I believe that it is standard Christian doctrine that Jesus remains
God-man even after His ascension. If He is still truly human, He needs
oxygen!

> It's not that people would *claim* to put the Bible on a par with God,
> but their actions and statements could easily lead a bystander to think
> that they did. At a more basic level, many Christians would insist that
> anything the Holy Spirit (or indeed God) might do or not do is subject to
> what it says in the Bible. In other words, in the case of any
> contradiction, it is the Bible which is authoritative, and you must be
> mistaken regarding the Holy Spirit.

That seems like a safe position to take. We know that the Bible is
"God-breathed"; I have no such certainty that Joe Bloggs is so authorised.

> Many people now refer to death euphemistically as 'sleep' (i.e. having a
> pet 'put to sleep'). No-one is expected to take this literally that they
> *are* asleep. Likewise taking our state post-death from poetical/
> literary sources needs to be treated carefully.

Actually, I used to wonder at that as well, but then I realised that it
is the poets who deal with the great issues of life, death and
suffering. The prophets were too busy rebuking the sins of the people,
the historians with getting the right dates, so it is the poets who
treat of death.

Fortunately Hebrew poetry is not as airy-fairy as English poetry and one
can express very literal truths and still maintain the poetic structure.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/08/2021 11:43, Madhu wrote:

> I have not been able to satisfactorily explain the beliefs of the
> apocalyptists which we have in Jude and 2peter with views on death and
> resurrection that result from the NT - this is opposed to some catholic
> doctrines but is consistent with what is related in the OT. individual
> beliefs may been at variance (and incorrect)

Certainly the common view - that we go consciously into God's presence
immediately on death - is not compatible with the Biblical teaching of a
resurrection.

> I think The Harrowing of Hell stories have a Buddhist precedent with
> Avalokiteshwara playing the part of the Saviour.

I couldn't comment, except to point out that the Harrowing of Hell is
not a Biblical doctrine.

> I don't find the comma today-comma argument appealing.
> 1. God told Adam he would die "today"

Well, what God told Adam doesn't include the word "today" and in any
case is Hebrew rather than Greek, but apart from that you are correct.

> 2. The passion stories "indicate" that Jesus called out to Elijah for
> help.

Interestingly, there are a few MSS which have the bystanders exlaim, "He
calls on Helios!"

> Now surely Jesus would have known about the doctrine of soul-sleep, he
> would have known of the non-existence of "paradise", and about the
> correct theories of the general resurrection and judgment that he would
> not have made such a silly mistake.... :)

The doctrine of soul-sleep does not posit the non-existence of paradise.

I'm not sure what "silly mistake" you refer to; if you mean that those
who heard Jesus' words to the thief mistook their meaning, I disagree.
I am sure that what Jesus said was perfectly clear to both the thief and
anyone else listening in. The trouble comes when it is written down - as
we all know from writing here, because we cannot hear the chuckled in
someone's voice, we are liable to be offended by what was intended as a
joke - and so on.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/08/2021 14:03, Jason wrote:

> That sounds reasonable, though we don't know any details. He may have
> had other reasons to phrase things as he did (e.g. he might have known
> what was in the minds of the women or the others and did not want to lead
> them into false thinking). I guess I had it in mind that when he
> "ascended to the Father" it was at the point his ministry on Earth was
> finished and he would send the Holy Spirit, so his days of popping up-and-
> down would be at an end (until the Second Coming).

Certainly they came to an end at His ascension. I see no reason to think
that Jesus might not have gone into God's presence (whether all the way
to heaven or to some experience such as the Mount of Transfiguration) on
other occasions.

> OK, I can go along with that, but the situation depends on what happens
> to the rest of us at the moment of death: presumably if he truly died as
> a human, then his state immediately after death is much the same as
> ours. Unless of course, he is a completely different kettle of fish in
> this regard....

No, the "descended into hades" to me implies that Jesus' experience in
death was identical to ours.

> It depends on what is meant by "Today". If people are stuck thinking
> this refers to 24 hour periods (as per Genesis 1) then you might be
> right. If on the other hand it is more in the sense of "In Roman times,
> people used to cook using clay pots, whereas today people tend to use
> stainless steel pans" there is no problem.

Yes, one would need to have the expertise with Greek to know whether
that usage is present in the Greek "today". Just because something can
be said in English does not mean that other languages have the same
construction.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/08/2021 12:15, Madhu wrote:

> Into thy hands o god we commend ourselves this day, let thy presence be
> with us enable us to feel that in doing our work we are doing thy will
> and in helping others we are serving thee.

Yes, I must admit that Jason's response to the idea of being controlled
by God surprises me.

Unless, of course, he is thinking that the control over-rides our will.
That I don't believe; rather we pray that our wills may be so aligned
with God's will that we want what He wants, so whatever God wants us to
do is what we also want to do.

The old Greek philosophers taught that everyone would choose the Good if
only they had perfect knowledge, including knowledge of the future.
People choose evil because they do not realise that it is, in fact, evil.

I'm not sure that is correct; I believe there are some people who
delight in evil and would choose it, even if they had perfect knowledge.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 12/08/2021 14:09, Jason wrote:

> I've only once been horse riding and it was clear to both myself and the
> horse after going a few hundred yards I had no clue what I was doing and
> in the end I had to surrender to it's will and go wherever it wanted.
> That is a far cry from asking the horse to control me.

You could have dismounted.

> But this incident is so rare as to be newsworthy and gets a special
> mention.

Nevertheless, it shows that God *does* on occasion compel the wicked to
do what He wants them to do.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <sf1die$t25$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 11 Aug 2021 21:56:45 +0100:

> On 11/08/2021 11:28, steve hague wrote:
>> I can't see that in Jude 9. It speaks of the body of Moses, but
>> there's nothing about his resurrection. An interesting piece of
>> speculation I read a few years ago is that God moved Moses forward in
>> time to be there at the transfiguration, then took him back to his
>> own time with his face shining.

[watch out for the timelords]

> https://www.compellingtruth.org/Michael-Satan-Moses.html
> "Another theory is that Satan, the accuser (Revelation 12:10), was
> resisting Moses being raised to eternal life because of his prior
> sins."
>
> I agree that we are not told specifically that Moses was raised to
> life, but the reference appears to be to a book called "The Assumption
> of Moses" (which is now lost). Assuming that the "assumption" of Moses
> is the same as the alleged "assumption" of Mary, it is Moses being
> taken bodily up into heaven.

Quting from the article at the above URL:

"This does not necessarily mean this lost Assumption of Moses is
an inspired book, but rather that it was a story known to Jude's
readers. It appears Jude, writing with the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20–21), confirmed this particular account
was true."

Does that follow? Does the jewish-apocalyptic account of the event
necessarily have to be true through the rules of inspiration?

An alternative view may possible: the traditons are in the form of moral
patterns, and the inspiration only testifies to the truth of those moral
patterns. You can find the argument at

https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2005_15a_02_Charles_Angels2Pet_Jude.pdf

J. Daryl Charles, "The Angels under Reserve in 2 Peter and Jude,"
Bulletin for Biblical Research 15.1 (Spring 2005)

> Certainly Moses was alive on the Mount of Transfiguration, and visible
> to the disciples, but as he is specifically stated to have died and
> been buried, there must have been a resurrection somewhere along the
> line and Jude - in my opinion - preserves a hint of that event.

This is very problematic for the general theory of resurrection:
1. others may have already been resurrected and glorified before Jesus.
but the expectation of humankind is of resurrection just prior to
judgment and not at earlier arbitrary points of time. The problem
remains.

[Adam Funk]

You missed an "upload it to the cloud" opportunity!

--
In Fortran, GOD is REAL (unless declared INTEGER).

[Mike Davis]

On 11/08/2021 21:33, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 11/08/2021 12:26, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Just a note - the essence of purgatory is that it's a washing station
>> for the saved.
>
> In the little church at Hallein (of Silent Night fame) there was a box
> attached to one of the pews for collecting offerings to pay for prayers
> for those in Purgatory. The picture on the box was quite explicit - fire
> and flame, not soap and water.

Look - whatever we discuss of these things has to be in metaphors:
a) because we have no real revelation on the matter, and
b) we cannot imagine what is beyond our experience.

So my 'washing station' was a reference to 'purgation' - cleansing, so
of which may be especially painful if we are deeply attached to
sins/habits that hold us back from God's glory. I have referred to "The
Dream of Gerontius" many times in this context, and I put it forward
again. The soul's response to the searing Glory of God is "Take me
away!" - it's too painful. It's not the fire of hell - it's the fire of
God's glory that we need to be prepared for. That's the principle behind
the concept of purgatory. Cleansing - with whatever it takes. How
readily do our earthbound spirits hang on to their favourite things that
separate us from God?

>> Apostles' creed:- "He descended into hell"; but we're not told why. :-)
>
> I understand it to mean a) He descended into sheol/hades, the realm of
> the dead; b) which means that He really died, in exactly the same way
> and to the same extent that any human dies.

I understand something similar, but heaven was closed to all who had
gone before - Jesus broke open the gates ("Harrowing of hell" - as you
say below - the 'gates of hell shall not prevail') so that those who
could (eventually) enter heaven were now free to do so in due time.

>
> However a whole mythology rose claiming that Jesus set free all the
> righteous dead and carried them back to heaven with Him - the Harrowing
> of Hell. I believe that the earliest source for the teaching is the
> apocryphal "Acts of Pilate"; I would regard dear old Pontius as of
> questionable authority in matters spiritual.

I would agree - but the text sure ain't PP's.

>> I think that's being too literal. I think the 'today' means that the
>> act of faith by the 'good thief' was sufficient for his salvation, so
>> will go directly to paradise/heaven.
>
> I wouldn't disagree. It's just a pity that the old uncials had no
> punctuation.

What would a heavenly text look like? ;-)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Davis]

On 12/08/2021 20:49, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 12/08/2021 11:43, Madhu wrote:
>
>> I have not been able to satisfactorily explain the beliefs of the
>> apocalyptists which we have in Jude and 2peter with views on death and
>> resurrection that result from the NT - this is opposed to some catholic
>> doctrines but is consistent with what is related in the OT. individual
>> beliefs may been at variance (and incorrect)
>
> Certainly the common view - that we go consciously into God's presence
> immediately on death - is not compatible with the Biblical teaching of a
> resurrection.

Hold on there! Our soul/spirit *can* be in God's presence (after
Purgatory), but we are not complete until the Last Judgement when our
bodies & souls are reunited to live with God in the New Earth and New
Heaven.

>
>> I think The Harrowing of Hell stories have a Buddhist precedent with
>> Avalokiteshwara playing the part of the Saviour.
>
> I couldn't comment, except to point out that the Harrowing of Hell is
> not a Biblical doctrine.
>
>> I don't find the comma today-comma argument appealing.
>> 1. God told Adam he would die "today"
>
> Well, what God told Adam doesn't include the word "today" and in any
> case is Hebrew rather than Greek, but apart from that you are correct.
>
>> 2. The passion stories "indicate" that Jesus called out to Elijah for
>> help.

But the passion stories also give the Aramaic translation of what He
actually said.
eg Mark 15:33-34
At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon.
And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi,
Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you
forsaken me?”).

>
> Interestingly, there are a few MSS which have the bystanders exlaim, "He
> calls on Helios!"
>
>> Now surely Jesus would have known about the doctrine of soul-sleep, he
>> would have known of the non-existence of "paradise", and about the
>> correct theories of the general resurrection and judgment that he would
>> not have made such a silly mistake.... :)
>
> The doctrine of soul-sleep does not posit the non-existence of paradise.
>
> I'm not sure what "silly mistake" you refer to; if you mean that those
> who heard Jesus' words to the thief mistook their meaning, I  disagree.
> I am sure that what Jesus said was perfectly clear to both the thief and
> anyone else listening in. The trouble comes when it is written down - as
> we all know from writing here, because we cannot hear the chuckled in
> someone's voice, we are liable to be offended by what was intended as a
> joke - and so on.

[Mike Davis]

On 11/08/2021 21:49, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 10/08/2021 21:32, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> But they were representatives of the 'Law' & the 'Prophets'...
>> otherwise you are telling us that they are still bodily alive...
>
> I think it unlikely that, after going to all the trouble to send a fiery
> chariot to carry Elijah up to heaven, God would then decide to kill him
> once he had popped down to visit Jesus on the Mount.
>
> So yes, they are still bodily alive in heaven - as we will be following
> the Resurrection.

But you dispute that when we refer to Mary?

>
> Just a thought: do you believe that Jesus still has His human body?

Of course. What's your answer to the obvious next question?

[Mike Davis]

On 11/08/2021 22:01, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 10/08/2021 21:40, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> C2nd! The Wikipedia article is quite good, I think, insofar as to go
>> through the various views over the centuries:-
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary#Theological_issues
>
> Er - this is what the page actually says: "In the late 4th century,
> Epiphanius of Salamis wrote of his search for reliable traditions
> concerning the fate of Mary and his inability to discover any."
>
> Then, in the next paragraph: "The Dormition/Assumption of Mary makes its
> first appearance in two apocryphal texts from the third and fourth
> centuries, the Liber Requiei Mariae ("Book of Mary's Repose"), and the
> "Six Books Dormition Apocryphon". Both come from heterodox (i.e.,
> proto-heretical) circles, the first having strong Gnostic overtones and
> the second associated with a sect called the Kollyridians, whom
> Epiphanius condemned for their excessive devotion to Mary."
>
> "proto-heretical" does not sound to me like a solid basis for doctrine.

:-) True - but one never knows what bias has crept into various Wiki
articles.

> I haven't read every word in the article, but a quick scan through fails
> to disclose a reference to the second century. Can you be more specific?

No, it may be my mistake - I'd read something in the recent past, and
thought that it was discussed between Irenaeus & Polycarp, but, like you
I cannot track it down. The prevalence of the belief in both Eastern &
Western churches led me to assume a common source prior to c400AD.

[Mike Davis]

'Allows them to do', surely? Otherwise we are all puppets!

[Mike Davis]

I pray each day, "Protect Your perfect plan for me this day!"...

.. On the grounds that God created me for a specific purpose, and my
own desires and inclinations can only bugger it up!

That's quite different from being 'controlled' by God. He gave me
'free-will' so I could 'freely' choose my way - and take personal
responsibility.

[Jason]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:36:38 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 12/08/2021 13:51, Jason wrote:

>> I don't think it follows at all that the dead need a body, or that any
>> future body will require body, breath, mind. Certainly our current
>> 'being' has these elements. We will have a future body, I've no idea
>> if it will need oxygen or not.
>
> Unless the "new heavens and new earth" are completely different to God's
> original creation, we will need oxygen and all the rest of it to take
> our rightful place in that new earth.

I have no reason to suppose they would be the same, with all the same
requirements. We have many facets that are an essential part of human
life just now that I'm not certain have a place in the new heaven and
earth. For instance, will we have a reason to reproduce?? I've never
read anything to suggest we will, and if so the entire reproductive
system will not have a function. Or do you envisage we will be called to
"go forth and multiply" as we were on the current earth?

>> To follow your argument, even the 'dead'
>> must have some sort of state to maintain our being, whereas by your
>> argument a body is required to keep the other things going, why (in
>> your argument) would we be able to even 'sleep' without a body? For me
>> this is all angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff anyway....
>
> The analogy I use is a computer: hardware = body; electricity supply =
> spirit; programs = soul.

[snipped the detail of the analogy]

It's a reasonable analogy to reflect your views, and I am clear what you
mean by it. However, since I'm not convinced that the "new body fit for
the new heaven and earth" is just a perfect but otherwise identical body
to the current one. Your idea of snapshots and so on does I agree match
well your picture of life immediately following death, I'm just not
convinced by the truth of it. I wouldn't bet (speculate) my life on it
though....

>> Maybe the scriptures are so clear to you; I can't say they are clear to
>> me. We are firmly physical beings now, but then again so was Jesus.
>> Whether he now needs oxygen or not to survive I have no idea.
>
> I believe that it is standard Christian doctrine that Jesus remains
> God-man even after His ascension. If He is still truly human, He needs
> oxygen!

Is it??? If so, is it Biblical?? I have to admit, I've never heard it
talked about one way or the other. At the time following his
resurrection he seemed to have a similar body ("thought it was the
gardener"), but nevertheless it can materialise in the middle of a locked
room. And obviously it was sufficiently different to his human body that
his friends could walk with him for hours without recognising him.

>> It's not that people would *claim* to put the Bible on a par with God,
>> but their actions and statements could easily lead a bystander to think
>> that they did. At a more basic level, many Christians would insist
>> that anything the Holy Spirit (or indeed God) might do or not do is
>> subject to what it says in the Bible. In other words, in the case of
>> any contradiction, it is the Bible which is authoritative, and you must
>> be mistaken regarding the Holy Spirit.
>
> That seems like a safe position to take. We know that the Bible is
> "God-breathed"; I have no such certainty that Joe Bloggs is so
> authorised.

It may be a "safe" position to take, but I personally don't think it's
the correct one and it limits the power of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is
an account God's interaction with us, but it isn't supposed to be a be-
all-and-end-all about God. Even limiting our understanding to topics
we've recently discussed here (divorce/remarriage etc) have hinged on
relatively few verses of text in the Bible. What if these hadn't been
there? We would have a completely different picture of God. The NT
itself says that if everything Jesus did were written down even the whole
world wouldn't have room for all the books. Just think what different
discussions we would be having if beliefs hinged on just one or two
verses from this vast vast library....

>> Many people now refer to death euphemistically as 'sleep' (i.e. having
>> a pet 'put to sleep'). No-one is expected to take this literally that
>> they *are* asleep. Likewise taking our state post-death from poetical/
>> literary sources needs to be treated carefully.
>
> Actually, I used to wonder at that as well, but then I realised that it
> is the poets who deal with the great issues of life, death and
> suffering. The prophets were too busy rebuking the sins of the people,
> the historians with getting the right dates, so it is the poets who
> treat of death.

I agree, there are many poets that do write eloquently on life, love,
death and everything else. And I also agree, that fiction can be truer
than fact in the way we've discussed elsewhere. However, if you were
tasked with conducting a post-mortem you wouldn't start by reading
Coleridge. The poets may have some truths to impart concerning death,
but I don't think they can be counted on to supply a literal description
of the afterlife.

> Fortunately Hebrew poetry is not as airy-fairy as English poetry and one
> can express very literal truths and still maintain the poetic structure.

That generalisation is so clearly untrue it doesn't need stating. No
language has a monopoly or otherwise on the literal-ness of its poetry.

[Jason]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 20:40:53 +0100, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 12/08/2021 14:03, Jason wrote:
>
>> That sounds reasonable, though we don't know any details. He may have
>> had other reasons to phrase things as he did (e.g. he might have known
>> what was in the minds of the women or the others and did not want to
>> lead them into false thinking). I guess I had it in mind that when he
>> "ascended to the Father" it was at the point his ministry on Earth was
>> finished and he would send the Holy Spirit, so his days of popping
>> up-and-
>> down would be at an end (until the Second Coming).
>
> Certainly they came to an end at His ascension. I see no reason to think
> that Jesus might not have gone into God's presence (whether all the way
> to heaven or to some experience such as the Mount of Transfiguration) on
> other occasions.

He may have done, but it that is surely at best in the "read between the
lines" category, if not outright speculation.

>> OK, I can go along with that, but the situation depends on what happens
>> to the rest of us at the moment of death: presumably if he truly died
>> as a human, then his state immediately after death is much the same as
>> ours. Unless of course, he is a completely different kettle of fish in
>> this regard....
>
> No, the "descended into hades" to me implies that Jesus' experience in
> death was identical to ours.

I think I'd agree with this. It makes sense to me that Jesus as fully
human would suffer death in a fully human way, but was the first to be
resurrected.

>> It depends on what is meant by "Today". If people are stuck thinking
>> this refers to 24 hour periods (as per Genesis 1) then you might be
>> right. If on the other hand it is more in the sense of "In Roman
>> times, people used to cook using clay pots, whereas today people tend
>> to use stainless steel pans" there is no problem.
>
> Yes, one would need to have the expertise with Greek to know whether
> that usage is present in the Greek "today". Just because something can
> be said in English does not mean that other languages have the same
> construction.

That's true, it may have the same construction as English, or purely mean
"this day" or may have some completely different nuance to it.