Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:What is the point of praying unless eventually they will rise again?

If you're a Catholic, the point of praying is to get them out of purgatory, which is exactly what Catholics always say this verse is saying. Whether or not they rise again is irrelevant to the issue of them benefitting

Makes sense to me, but nowhere does it say his prayers will benefit them ONLY then.

Ah, the old argument from silence again.

He's praying now and he's expecting his prayers will do some good now.

No, it says he's praying on account of the resurrection, which happens in the future.

The only reason you can't see that is because your belief system does not allow for the existence of a soul outside the body. I can understand your position from that viewpoint but I do not agree with it.

No, the reason why I can't see it is because it says he is praying on account of the resurrection, which happens in the future. There isn't even a hint of an idea that Judas believed in 'immortal souls'.

Once again, your conclusion is predicated on your belief system that after death nothing can possibly happen until the resurrection. I do not fault you for reading it the way you do, you have no other choice.

It's predicatd on what the text says. It says 'on account of the resurrection', so I understand it to mean 'on account of the resurrection', not 'on account of purgatory'.

But let me ask you this question: If he thought his prayers would not benefit them at the time he said them, if for one second he thought his prayers would not benefit them until he also dies and is resurrected with them, then what is the point of praying for them now? There would be none. Then the question becomes, could he pray for them once everyone is resurrected? The answer is no because it would be too late by then.

Why would it 'be too late by then'? He is praying to God now, for God to do something in the future. That's what prayer is all about. Where's the complication?

Ergo, you cannot read the text but in the mindset that his prayers would benefit them now, not at the resurrection when it's too late. To read it otherwise would mean that God is accumulating all these prayers in some sort of gigantic warehouse only to whip them out and use them at the final resurrection. Is that what you're suggesting?

I am not reading anything into the text. It says 'on account of the resurrection', so I understand it to mean 'on account of the resurrection', not 'on account of purgatory'.

I don't see God having to 'accumulate' prayers, I simply see Him acknowledging them and acting on them at the approrpriate time in the future. Which is what He always does with prayers.

Fortigurn wrote:

And yes, I agree if there was no resurrection the prayers are useless.

Well now you agree with me - if there was no resurrection, the prayers are useless. The Catholic teaching on this passage is that the prayers were for the benefit of souls in purgatory, nothing to do with the resurrection.

I don't know what you're talking about. I never disagreed with this. Like I said, it makes perfect sense that he would pray for them knowing they will be resurrected one day. What would be the point otherwise?

So let me get this straight:

* Do you believe that he was praying for them on account of the resurrection, so that they would be rewarded at that time?

* Do you believe that he was praying for them on account of purgatory, so that they would be released from purgatory earlier?

Which is it? Or do you believe something else?

Fortigurn wrote:From the Catholic point of view, even if there was no resurrection, the prayers were far from pointless, they were getting these people's souls out of purgatory before their resurrection.

Wha? Total nonsense. You're confusing the physical resurrection with the treatment of the soul. But then again, given your belief system, it is quite understandable.

I'm not confusing anything. I am pointing out that whether or not there is a resurrection actually makes no difference to the concept of souls getting out of purgatory because of prayers.

Do you believe that people's prayers can help get people out of purgatory or not?

Fortigurn wrote:These two sentences contradict each other. Now the question is, do you believe he was praying for them so that they would be released from purgatory? That is the Catholic teaching on this passage.

No contradiction. His prayers are for the benefit of their souls (something you cannot discern outside the body). Their souls will benefit now, their body and soul will benefit at the resurrection.

Where does the text say that?

Fortigurn wrote:

Byblos wrote:What is the point of praying unless eventually they will rise again?

If you're a Catholic, the point of praying is to get them out of purgatory, which is exactly what Catholics always say this verse is saying. Whether or not they rise again is irrelevant to the issue of them benefitting

Makes sense to me, but nowhere does it say his prayers will benefit them ONLY then.

Ah, the old argument from silence again.

He's praying now and he's expecting his prayers will do some good now.

No, it says he's praying on account of the resurrection, which happens in the future.

The only reason you can't see that is because your belief system does not allow for the existence of a soul outside the body. I can understand your position from that viewpoint but I do not agree with it.

No, the reason why I can't see it is because it says he is praying on account of the resurrection, which happens in the future. There isn't even a hint of an idea that Judas believed in 'immortal souls'.

Once again, your conclusion is predicated on your belief system that after death nothing can possibly happen until the resurrection. I do not fault you for reading it the way you do, you have no other choice.

It's predicatd on what the text says. It says 'on account of the resurrection', so I understand it to mean 'on account of the resurrection', not 'on account of purgatory'.

But let me ask you this question: If he thought his prayers would not benefit them at the time he said them, if for one second he thought his prayers would not benefit them until he also dies and is resurrected with them, then what is the point of praying for them now? There would be none. Then the question becomes, could he pray for them once everyone is resurrected? The answer is no because it would be too late by then.

Why would it 'be too late by then'? He is praying to God now, for God to do something in the future. That's what prayer is all about. Where's the complication?

Ergo, you cannot read the text but in the mindset that his prayers would benefit them now, not at the resurrection when it's too late. To read it otherwise would mean that God is accumulating all these prayers in some sort of gigantic warehouse only to whip them out and use them at the final resurrection. Is that what you're suggesting?

I am not reading anything into the text. It says 'on account of the resurrection', so I understand it to mean 'on account of the resurrection', not 'on account of purgatory'.

I don't see God having to 'accumulate' prayers, I simply see Him acknowledging them and acting on them at the approrpriate time in the future. Which is what He always does with prayers.

Fortigurn wrote:

And yes, I agree if there was no resurrection the prayers are useless.

Well now you agree with me - if there was no resurrection, the prayers are useless. The Catholic teaching on this passage is that the prayers were for the benefit of souls in purgatory, nothing to do with the resurrection.

I don't know what you're talking about. I never disagreed with this. Like I said, it makes perfect sense that he would pray for them knowing they will be resurrected one day. What would be the point otherwise?

So let me get this straight:

* Do you believe that he was praying for them on account of the resurrection, so that they would be rewarded at that time?

* Do you believe that he was praying for them on account of purgatory, so that they would be released from purgatory earlier?

Which is it? Or do you believe something else?

Fortigurn wrote:From the Catholic point of view, even if there was no resurrection, the prayers were far from pointless, they were getting these people's souls out of purgatory before their resurrection.

Wha? Total nonsense. You're confusing the physical resurrection with the treatment of the soul. But then again, given your belief system, it is quite understandable.

I'm not confusing anything. I am pointing out that whether or not there is a resurrection actually makes no difference to the concept of souls getting out of purgatory because of prayers.

Do you believe that people's prayers can help get people out of purgatory or not?

Fortigurn wrote:These two sentences contradict each other. Now the question is, do you believe he was praying for them so that they would be released from purgatory? That is the Catholic teaching on this passage.

No contradiction. His prayers are for the benefit of their souls (something you cannot discern outside the body). Their souls will benefit now, their body and soul will benefit at the resurrection.

Where does the text say that?

Another dead horse. We can move on.

Jac3510 wrote:Byblos,

Let me just preface this by saying that I want to be really careful about avoiding pushing a particular belief in this thread. I have other threads for that . Seriously, there are some discussions in which I advocate and others in which I question. This is one of the latter, so please don't take any of the below as an argument. I'll simply explain my position as related to the questions you asked.
.
.
.
Sorry for the length of this.

God bless

Length is unimportant, your answer was very comprehensive and for that I thank you.

I will prepare a reponse some time this week (more like additional questions and clarifications than a response, if you don't mind) as right now I'm extremely busy with a new project that just got dumped in my Lap. Thanks again.

God bless,

Byblos.

Sorry I have not gotten back to this thread-I am overwhelmed at work and at home (we have new twins to go along with the other 3 kids).

Also, You will be judged on your works and you will receive your rewards in heaven for your works. You must have faith to get into heaven though. Faith without works is dead because many people that proclaim to have faith prove that they do not have true faith because they live their lives in violation of the scriptures. Look at the Episcopalian preists or the liberal protestant churches that claim that they are people of God, but directly violate the Word's commands. The Bible is clear that those people will be spit out.

Dan

Hey, wait, we all do that! We all violate God's commandments! I've only read that last post, so have nothing more to say than that I'm astonished at it. You speak as if you do not, and haven't for all the years you've called yourself a Christian. ("Years?" I don't know you in the least, so that was an assumption; sorry if I'm wrong. )

Did you know that disbelief is a sin? If you lack faith in the least it is a sin. We all, therefore, constantly sin, and only based on this one sin; none of us has perfect faith.

I do not understand the point of your post. Obviously, we all live in a constant state of sin for even if we think about violating a commandment, then we are in a state of sin. That is exactly why we cannot save ourselves and our work cannot save our souls.

My examples are spot on as these folks claim to have faith, but their proclaimed positions show they do not have faith. When we sin due to weakness and our fallen nature and we truly repent (pistus or faith is a VERB), then we are forgiven by the Blood of Christ. If you openly try to distort the Bible for your own ends and you are un repentant of your sins, then you will be in for an eternity of teeth gnashing...

Dan

Just a thought here Dan, The thief that hung on the cross with Jesus told Him that he believed Him. And what did Jesus say to the thief?

Luk 23:40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
Luk 23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
Luk 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

What "works" do we see in the theif? I'm not familiar with the works or doctrine of those two denominations, what is it you say they lack?

aa118816 wrote:I do not understand the point of your post. Obviously, we all live in a constant state of sin for even if we think about violating a commandment, then we are in a state of sin. That is exactly why we cannot save ourselves and our work cannot save our souls.

My examples are spot on as these folks claim to have faith, but their proclaimed positions show they do not have faith. When we sin due to weakness and our fallen nature and we truly repent (pistus or faith is a VERB), then we are forgiven by the Blood of Christ. If you openly try to distort the Bible for your own ends and you are un repentant of your sins, then you will be in for an eternity of teeth gnashing...

Dan

I'm going to disagree with a lot of what you said here, Dan. If you would, show me where you find the fault in my teaching:

1. I don't think we "all" live in a "constant state of sin." This would necessarily include Christians, and the Bible clearly teaches that we are to (and thus, can) walk in the Light. There is no darkness in light. If we abide in the Light, then the Light abides in us. In fact, this is so true that the Christian cannot sin (1 Jo. 3:6, 9). When he does sin, it is not he who sins, but sin within him that does (Rom 7).

2. We can't save ourselves by works, not because we are in a constant state of sin, but because we are dead in our sins. To be dead (spiritually) means to be separate from God. To be saved means, quite literally, to be made alive to God. That's exactly what happens at regeneration, which comes about by being born again through faith in Jesus Christ.

3. How do false works, or absense of works, prove a person does not belief in Jesus Christ?

4. Pistus is NOT a verb. Pisteuo is, and it means "to believe" or "to trust." But, the word pistis is a noun, meaning "belief" or "faith" or "faithfulness"or "trust", etc.

5. Rather than flat disagree with you on your idea that the lack of forgiveness for sins results in damnation, let me just ask you one or two questions:

Based on Rev. 20, what are people condemned for?
Based on 1 John 2:2, who is Christ the propitation for, and what exactly does that mean?

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:1. I don't think we "all" live in a "constant state of sin." This would necessarily include Christians, and the Bible clearly teaches that we are to (and thus, can) walk in the Light. There is no darkness in light. If we abide in the Light, then the Light abides in us. In fact, this is so true that the Christian cannot sin (1 Jo. 3:6, 9). When he does sin, it is not he who sins, but sin within him that does (Rom 7).

This sounds very gnostic in that it dichotomises us as the spirit (good) and flesh (bad) when we are infact both. Paul talks of our being in the flesh sometimes being at odds with what we truly desire in the spirit—we want to do what is good and right, but we fail because our bodies are weak. Paul never divides himself as to say everything that is good is himself, while all the bad (i.e., sin) is not himself. Rather Paul embraces and takes responsibility for both parts, not just the spirit and mind, but also his weakness in flesh as is evident when he exclaims, "What a wretched man I am!" (Romans 7:24) Paul does not exclaim, "What wretchedness this sin is within me!", which is what we might expect if he believed it was only sin personified(?) within him. Yet, this is the beauty of God, because despite our inadequacies God still accepts us as we are in flesh and spirit, whether good or bad exists in either through Jesus Christ (Romans 7:25). Yes, Christians sin because the body is often weak and it impacts greatly upon our spiritual wills and desires. Thus, we struggle with our weaknesses until we die placing our hope in Christ.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:1. I don't think we "all" live in a "constant state of sin." This would necessarily include Christians, and the Bible clearly teaches that we are to (and thus, can) walk in the Light. There is no darkness in light. If we abide in the Light, then the Light abides in us. In fact, this is so true that the Christian cannot sin (1 Jo. 3:6, 9). When he does sin, it is not he who sins, but sin within him that does (Rom 7).

This sounds very gnostic in that it dichotomises us as the spirit (good) and flesh (bad) when we are infact both. Paul talks of our being in the flesh sometimes being at odds with what we truly desire in the spirit—we want to do what is good and right, but we fail because our bodies are weak. Paul never divides himself as to say everything that is good is himself, while all the bad (i.e., sin) is not himself. Rather Paul embraces and takes responsibility for both parts, not just the spirit and mind, but also his weakness in flesh as is evident when he exclaims, "What a wretched man I am!" (Romans 7:24) Paul does not exclaim, "What wretchedness this sin is within me!", which is what we might expect if he believed it was only sin personified(?) within him. Yet, this is the beauty of God, because despite our inadequacies God still accepts us as we are in flesh and spirit, whether good or bad exists in either through Jesus Christ (Romans 7:25). Yes, Christians sin because the body is often weak and it impacts greatly upon our spiritual wills and desires. Thus, we struggle with our weaknesses until we die placing our hope in Christ.

Kurieuo

Well put Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:1. I don't think we "all" live in a "constant state of sin." This would necessarily include Christians, and the Bible clearly teaches that we are to (and thus, can) walk in the Light. There is no darkness in light. If we abide in the Light, then the Light abides in us. In fact, this is so true that the Christian cannot sin (1 Jo. 3:6, 9). When he does sin, it is not he who sins, but sin within him that does (Rom 7).

This sounds very gnostic in that it dichotomises us as the spirit (good) and flesh (bad) when we are infact both. Paul talks of our being in the flesh sometimes being at odds with what we truly desire in the spirit—we want to do what is good and right, but we fail because our bodies are weak. Paul never divides himself as to say everything that is good is himself, while all the bad (i.e., sin) is not himself. Rather Paul embraces and takes responsibility for both parts, not just the spirit and mind, but also his weakness in flesh as is evident when he exclaims, "What a wretched man I am!" (Romans 7:24) Paul does not exclaim, "What wretchedness this sin is within me!", which is what we might expect if he believed it was only sin personified(?) within him. Yet, this is the beauty of God, because despite our inadequacies God still accepts us as we are in flesh and spirit, whether good or bad exists in either through Jesus Christ (Romans 7:25). Yes, Christians sin because the body is often weak and it impacts greatly upon our spiritual wills and desires. Thus, we struggle with our weaknesses until we die placing our hope in Christ.

Kurieuo

Am I saying that the flesh is bad? I suppose if we are talking about the sarx, then yes, it is bad. But, the spirit is not good, either. Jeremiah makes it clear that the heart is evil above all. Now, whether you are a trichotomist or dichotomist (or poly), you have to agree that man is roughly divided between the material and immaterial, united into one being. The heart is part of the immaterial, and thus, in its unregenerate state, it is evil. Thus, I reject the notion that what I am saying is at all gnostic. It is not that matter is evil, which is what gnostics actually believed. It is that our flesh is evil, because we are physical descendants of Adam. Also, be sure you understand that by "flesh" I am not refering to the body (gk., soma), but the old man, which includes both body and soul (sarx).

Secondly, Paul DOES divide himself. He flat says, "I know that nothing good lives in me." (Rom. 7:18). Concerning the sin he hates to commit, he says, "Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." (Rom. 7:20, NIV, italics added).

Thus, we come again to 1 John 3:6, 9. There, John says that the man born of God CANNOT sin. Notice the two verses:

• No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him

The NIV here follows the NASB and uses the continuous aspect in translating "sins." But, the Greek simply reads, "No one who sins" . . . as per the KJV.

• No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

The argument is applied here, unfortunately. Again, we see that the man "born of God" CANNOT sin (or, continue in sin). The latter interpretation does not fit the context of the book, and it yields some terrible theology. It destroys the doctrine of assurance, which is in direct conflict with 1 John 5:13. After all, if a person cannot KEEP ON sinning if they are a Christian, then you don't know you are a Christian until you die. Why? Because you could, for all you know, fall into habitual sin. It may happen tomorrow or next year, but you certainly can't claim to be above the possibility!

Considering all this, I hold to my original statement. When Christians sin, it is the expression of the old man who still resides in him. At the resurrection, we will be redeemed and given glorified bodies, thus, no longer having a sinful bent. We will be free to do exactly what we truly desire, as Paul so plainly says in Romans 7:24b-25, "Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! "

God bless

About the inability for Christians to sin. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Rev 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.
Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

I'm not sure if I know what exactly you are getting at, IRQ. But to be clear, I am not saying that you and I, as born again believers, are incapable of sin. Again, to quote myself: "When Christians sin, it is the expression of the old man who still resides in him."

In fact, this is so true that the Christian cannot sin (1 Jo. 3:6, 9). When he does sin, it is not he who sins, but sin within him that does

Sorry, I din't know how else to take this.

hmmm, I totally disagree with your first question. Ofcourse we are in a state of constant sin as we are all stained with sin. I cannot understand how you can say that Christians do not sin. This not only sounds gnostic, but anti-realist.

I will get back to you on pistus as I learned from a teacher from Gordon College (PhD in hermeunetics) that this is in fact a verb and implies action. I am having lunch with him tomorrow-so if I am wrong, the so be it.

On point 2, I do not understand what you are saying. I understand that we are separated from God, therefore we need to be saved. I do not see any distinction between being dead in our sins and in a constant state of sin. To me, this is 6 of one and a half dozen of another. If I am missing something, please let me know-but your point is completely unclear.

Point 3 is pretty clear to me, you either follow Christ and attempt to live through the model he made for us, or you openly walk down your own road. If you openly advocate that Christ did not rise from the dead, you are not a follower of Christ (Spong and many liberal "Christians"). If you advocate homosexual marriage, then you are not a follower of Christ since he created the two flesh of man and woman becoming one. If you deny Christ's miracles, you are not a follower of Christ. I actually do not really understand your point here either. Read John 1 2:4 and we see that "One who says, "I know him," and doesn't keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth isn't in him" WEB.

Point 5, ofcourse you have to be completely forgiven of sins. What is it that you believe. You must repent and then proclaim your faith in Christ. WE see this throughout the Bible. Perhaps the thief on the cross did repent and believed then was promised paradise. This is not recorded in the Bible, but you have to look other applicable passages. For instance, John the Baptiste would only baptise after people repented and he demanded that Jews needed to repent as well as Gentiles. Just because they were sons of Abraham did not exclude them from the necessity of repentence.

Rev 20, Clearly everyone is judged and all face judgement. If you have faith, you will still be judged and you will receive your punishments and your rewards. If you have no faith, you will be thrown into the lake of fire. This is pretty straight forward stuff??? What am I missing???

John 1 2:2 is pretty straight forward too. Christ died for the whole world and we are to fulfill the great commision. He did not just die for the Jews, but the Gentiles too. That is why you have to read the next few verses and you see under 2:4, my point is validated about james. We can see those who are liars by the works that we do. God gave us the ability to deductively reason-so we are to use our skills to discern between true and false teachers.

I need to get back to work, but I think I directly answered your questions.

Blessings,
Dan