Intermediate State/Purgatory

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Dmarie

Blessings.

In the words of the Apostle Paul: "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Philip.1:21)

Paul speaks of "being hard-pressed" between choosing to be with Christ, or to remain. (Philip.1:23) He spoke condfidently in that he knew that to depart meant that he would immediately be with the Lord...no "lay-overs"...anywhere!

Blessings...Dmarie

I understand that Dmarie, but to die is gain, does that mean Paul goes immediately to bodily resurrection? Or does his soul return to God and is awaiting the bodily resurrection? If the bodily resurrection happens when Christ returns, then obviously his soul after death is somewhere while we, in the corrupted flesh, remain in the present moving toward Christ's second advent. No matter how you slice it, you believe in some sort of intermediate state or you don't believe in the resurrection. It may not be same as the Catholic Church nor be the same as the Seventh Day Adventist... but either you believe in some sort of intermediate state or you don't. Again, if you don't, there is no resurrection in your opinion. What happens when we die and await the resurrection?

[Dmarie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I understand that Dmarie, but to die is gain, does that mean Paul goes immediately to bodily resurrection? Or does his soul return to God and is awaiting the bodily resurrection? If the bodily resurrection happens when Christ returns, then obviously his soul after death is somewhere while we, in the corrupted flesh, remain in the present moving toward Christ's second advent. No matter how you slice it, you believe in some sort of intermediate state or you don't believe in the resurrection. It may not be same as the Catholic Church nor be the same as the Seventh Day Adventist... but either you believe in some sort of intermediate state or you don't. Again, if you don't, there is no resurrection in your opinion. What happens when we die and await the resurrection?

Greetings, C.

I understand what you are asking, and I thought I had made it clear that...I do not believe in this Intermediate State. In my posts I have repeatedly stated that-- it is not Scriptural, there are no "lay-overs," Jesus never taught about it, the Apostles never taught about it...where have I not made this clear? I have asked you several times to please cite for me in Scripture where this teaching is, and you in turn have cited Scriptures pertaining to the nature and attributes of God. Yes, He is holy, and He is light.

I do believe in the bodily resurrection. After death,[/I] "...to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." Our soul and our spirit are with the Lord, and we await, in His presence, with Him, until that day of our bodily resurrection...when our bodies are "...raised in incorruption." (ICor.15:42).

***On the Mount of Transfiguration in Mathew 17, the Bible speaks of Jesus appearing in His glorified state..."...and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him." This p***age speaks of Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus in a "form" that was recognizable to Peter, James and John. Moses and Elijah also spoke with Jesus. This p***age clearly tells us, and shows us that we will be with the Lord, also awaiting, the day that the Bible tells us that we will put on our "spiritual bodies" that is , our resurrected bodies.***

"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming." (ICor.15:20-23)

"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incoruuption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

When we are born, we are born spiritually dead.

When we come to Christ, through faith in Jesus, were are made spiritually alive. This is what Jesus referred to as being "born-again." When we die in Christ, "...to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord." "And the spirit will return to God who gave it." (Eccl.12:7) We are "with the Lord"... our soul and spirit, awaiting to "put on" our resurrected (spiritual) bodies..."...corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

If one refuses to come to Christ, they will die in their sins, and will suffer eternal seperation and ****ation from Christ. Awaiting in Hell, for judgement and their resurrected (spiritual) bodies, which will be "put on" and made to suffer eternal punishment..."...corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

-So, if we die in Christ...we wait in Heaven with Christ for our resurrected bodies, and our judgement of our works/ rewards.
-If one dies apart from Christ...they wait in Hell for judgement and their resurrected bodies.

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Dmarie

Greetings, C.

I understand what you are asking, and I thought I had made it clear that...I do not believe in this Intermediate State. In my posts I have repeatedly stated that-- it is not Scriptural, there are no "lay-overs," Jesus never taught about it, the Apostles never taught about it...where have I not made this clear? I have asked you several times to please cite for me in Scripture where this teaching is, and you in turn have cited Scriptures pertaining to the nature and attributes of God. Yes, He is holy, and He is light.

I do believe in the bodily resurrection. After death,[/I] "...to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." Our soul and our spirit are with the Lord, and we await, in His presence, with Him, until that day of our bodily resurrection...when our bodies are "...raised in incorruption." (ICor.15:42).

Dmarie, You just admitted to there being an "Intermediate State." I have been telling you all along what the "Intermediate State" is. I made italics the word "this" in your bold and underline statement because you are still implying the Intermediate State is Purgatory, which is only one of several perceptions underneath this umbrella. In a way, "Intermediate State" is very much like a grouping of cl***ifications. Think of it like the Animalia Kingdom where underneath it there are several animals that are both reptile or mammal. They don't look alike, but they are still animals. Intermediate State is a cl***ification of several perceptions which among them are Soul Sleep, Heaven and Hell, Heaven/Purgatory and Hell, Sheol, etc.. Admiting to one of these perceptions automatically means you believe in some sort of intermediate state of the soul between existing bodies. I did not ask if you believe in purgatory nor soul sleep, excepting as those are examples of those perceptions of what the Catholic and Seven Day Adventist view as what is happening during this time of transition "BETWEEN--a.k.a. Intermediate" state when the soul leaves the body. You just provided the very scriptural proofs I use to support the "Intermediate-BETWEEN" the time of death and resurrection. By your admitting the soul is awaiting their bodily resurrection, the soul's time in existence is BETWEEN their bodily death until they will be resurrected. How many times do I have to spell this out to you? Intermediate is not endorsing any particular view regarding a place.

Once you see you are talking past me on this subject, I suggest you look at my points in the Original Post. There hasn't been anything of really substantial difference at this point. The fact you divert away from my points, which are only 4 with some subtopics within each, means you are approaching the subject without having to address these very points.

[Dmarie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Dmarie, You just admitted to there being an "Intermediate State." I have been telling you all along what the "Intermediate State" is. I made italics the word "this" in your bold and underline statement because you are still implying the Intermediate State is Purgatory, which is only one of several perceptions underneath this umbrella. In a way, "Intermediate State" is very much like a grouping of cl***ifications. Think of it like the Animalia Kingdom where underneath it there are several animals that are both reptile or mammal. They don't look alike, but they are still animals. Intermediate State is a cl***ification of several perceptions which among them are Soul Sleep, Heaven and Hell, Heaven/Purgatory and Hell, Sheol, etc.. Admiting to one of these perceptions automatically means you believe in some sort of intermediate state of the soul between existing bodies. I did not ask if you believe in purgatory nor soul sleep, excepting as those are examples of those perceptions of what the Catholic and Seven Day Adventist view as what is happening during this time of transition "BETWEEN--a.k.a. Intermediate" state when the soul leaves the body. You just provided the very scriptural proofs I use to support the "Intermediate-BETWEEN" the time of death and resurrection. By your admitting the soul is awaiting their bodily resurrection, the soul's time in existence is BETWEEN their bodily death until they will be resurrected. How many times do I have to spell this out to you? Intermediate is not endorsing any particular view regarding a place.

Once you see you are talking past me on this subject, I suggest you look at my points in the Original Post. There hasn't been anything of really substantial difference at this point. The fact you divert away from my points, which are only 4 with some subtopics within each, means you are approaching the subject without having to address these very points.

Hello & Blessings.

I did?
No, No, No.
I have never admitted to any "BETWEEN" states as you obviously think I have.
Remember, you are promoting and defending a "concept," a "perception."

What I have said is that the Scriptures speak of a soul either being "with" Christ, or being "seperated" from Christ. This is what happens when a concept like this is built upon, and it always begins with a deviation from Scripture. Something is read in between something, and then something else is read in between that, and eventually... it is turned into a teaching, a dogma. You know, when Scripture chooses to be silent on something, we should take the more earnest heed to listen.

"Do not interpretations belong to God? (Gen.40:18)
"Do not add to His words." (Prov.30:6)

It is very clear Columcille that you refrain and even refuse to equate, and define, the other part of this "State". You've even asked me not to equate this state as a place. Is it because it sounds very simular to the teaching of Purgatory- even though the Orthodox claim to refuse this term and its Catholic definition?
You hammer and explain away about the state of the soul prior to its resurrection, (even using the Animal Kingdom as an example), but then you refrain from adequately explaining- as you put it-"...the souls time in existence." A soul has to spend its time in existence some where, and what happens while this soul is in its existence there? Your Confession of Diostheus speaks of a soul when it is seperated from it body as departing "...immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation...." It speaks of a soul paying "satisfaction" in "Hades" and eventually being released once this "satisfacation" has been paid through "torments," "Indulgences" and "Prayers." Do you agree with this "Confession"?

You may be bumping your head against a wall right now, but again, you can't explain away on on part of this State without explaining it- fully.

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Dmarie

It is very clear Columcille that you refrain and even refuse to equate, and define, the other part of this "State". You've even asked me not to equate this state as a place.

1 Is it because it sounds very simular to the teaching of Purgatory- even though the Orthodox claim to refuse this term and its Catholic definition?

You hammer and explain away about the state of the soul prior to its resurrection, (even using the Animal Kingdom as an example), but then you refrain from adequately explaining- as you put it-"...the souls time in existence." A soul has to spend its time in existence some where, and

2what happens while this soul is in its existence there?

Your Confession of Diostheus speaks of a soul when it is seperated from it body as departing "...immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation...." It speaks of a soul paying "satisfaction" in "Hades" and eventually being released once this "satisfacation" has been paid through "torments," "Indulgences" and "Prayers."

3Do you agree with this "Confession"?

1 I don't have to explain away the "intermediate state," I only say that there is one. I cannot really answer your question because it is a different cultural mindset. Since I have already presented my positions in the four points in the Original Post, I refer you back to it.

2 As I pointed out the Scripture for point #2, the light of God is perceived differently to both those justified by Christ and those who remain unjustified. God's presence to the unjust reveals their darkness of their hearts and due to their pride remain condemned eternally. To the Just of Christ, God's presence surrounds and permeates the very essense of the soul.

3 I not sure what to think about the "Confession of Diostheus." Upon research, it seems the confession is a refutation against some sort of Calvinist false confession of Cyril. Diostheus is, from what I gather, a patriarch of Jerusalem. Since the translation is in English and does not show the original language, and the confession is not a lengthy discourse, I simply feel this is not the best source. It does not come from an Ecumenical Council, it does not exegete the comments made. Wether or not "I agree" with it or not is a matter of speaking on my own ignorance regarding it. I tend to think you probably found this in an obscure place simply because it is easy to twist without relevant commentary by the Patriarches or other prominent Eastern Orthodox theologians. What I have read suggests that the light of God is like a fire. Eastern Orthodox do not see two types of fire, like a hell fire and a purgatory fire, but both are one fire because it is God's presence. Hence, I would disagree with your understanding of the "Confession of Diostheus" than I would directly against the confession itself. Again, you find me commentary by an Eastern Orthodox on the Confession, I can guarantee your "interpretation" of it is faulty. In fact, I give you Bishop Ware on the subject below. As you can see, there is room for various opinions in the Eastern Orthodox. I agree with the last statement regarding what is said to St. Antony.


http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/6.aspx
Orthodox are convinced that Christians here on earth have a duty to pray for the departed, and they are confident that the dead are helped by such prayers. But precisely in what way do our prayers help the dead? What exactly is the condition of souls in the period between death and the Resurrection of the Body at the Last Day? Here Orthodox teaching is not entirely clear, and has varied somewhat at different times. In the seventeenth century a number of Orthodox writers — most notably Peter of Moghila and Dositheus in his Confession — upheld the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, or something very close to it (According to the normal Roman teaching, souls in Purgatory undergo expiatory suffering, and so render ‘satisfaction’ or ‘atonement’ for their sins. It should be remarked, however, that even in the seventeenth century there were many Orthodox who rejected the Roman teaching on Purgatory. The statements on the departed in Moghila’s Orthodox Confession were carefully changed by Meletius Syrigos, while in later life Dositheus specifically retracted what he had written on the subject in his Confession). Today most if not all Orthodox theologians reject the idea of Purgatory, at any rate in this form. The majority would be inclined to say that the faithful departed do not suffer at all. Another school holds that perhaps they suffer, but, if so, their suffering is of a purificatory but not an expiatory character; for when a man dies in the grace of God, then God freely forgives him all his sins and demands no expiatory penalties: Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, is our only atonement and satisfaction. Yet a third group would prefer to leave the whole question entirely open: let us avoid detailed formulation about the life after death, they say, and preserve instead a reverent and agnostic reticence. When Saint Antony of Egypt was once worrying about divine providence, a voice came to him, saying: ‘Antony, attend to yourself; for these are the judgments of God, and it is not for you to know them’ (Apophthegmata (P.G. 65), Antony, 2).

Now if we can go back to the points in question of the OP...

[Dmarie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

1 I don't have to explain away the "intermediate state," I only say that there is one. I cannot really answer your question because it is a different cultural mindset. Since I have already presented my positions in the four points in the Original Post, I refer you back to it.

2 As I pointed out the Scripture for point #2, the light of God is perceived differently to both those justified by Christ and those who remain unjustified. God's presence to the unjust reveals their darkness of their hearts and due to their pride remain condemned eternally. To the Just of Christ, God's presence surrounds and permeates the very essense of the soul.

3 I not sure what to think about the "Confession of Diostheus." Upon research, it seems the confession is a refutation against some sort of Calvinist false confession of Cyril. Diostheus is, from what I gather, a patriarch of Jerusalem. Since the translation is in English and does not show the original language, and the confession is not a lengthy discourse, I simply feel this is not the best source. It does not come from an Ecumenical Council, it does not exegete the comments made. Wether or not "I agree" with it or not is a matter of speaking on my own ignorance regarding it. I tend to think you probably found this in an obscure place simply because it is easy to twist without relevant commentary by the Patriarches or other prominent Eastern Orthodox theologians. What I have read suggests that the light of God is like a fire. Eastern Orthodox do not see two types of fire, like a hell fire and a purgatory fire, but both are one fire because it is God's presence. Hence, I would disagree with your understanding of the "Confession of Diostheus" than I would directly against the confession itself. Again, you find me commentary by an Eastern Orthodox on the Confession, I can guarantee your "interpretation" of it is faulty. In fact, I give you Bishop Ware on the subject below. As you can see, there is room for various opinions in the Eastern Orthodox. I agree with the last statement regarding what is said to St. Antony.


http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/6.aspx
Orthodox are convinced that Christians here on earth have a duty to pray for the departed, and they are confident that the dead are helped by such prayers. But precisely in what way do our prayers help the dead? What exactly is the condition of souls in the period between death and the Resurrection of the Body at the Last Day? Here Orthodox teaching is not entirely clear, and has varied somewhat at different times. In the seventeenth century a number of Orthodox writers — most notably Peter of Moghila and Dositheus in his Confession — upheld the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, or something very close to it (According to the normal Roman teaching, souls in Purgatory undergo expiatory suffering, and so render ‘satisfaction’ or ‘atonement’ for their sins. It should be remarked, however, that even in the seventeenth century there were many Orthodox who rejected the Roman teaching on Purgatory. The statements on the departed in Moghila’s Orthodox Confession were carefully changed by Meletius Syrigos, while in later life Dositheus specifically retracted what he had written on the subject in his Confession). Today most if not all Orthodox theologians reject the idea of Purgatory, at any rate in this form. The majority would be inclined to say that the faithful departed do not suffer at all. Another school holds that perhaps they suffer, but, if so, their suffering is of a purificatory but not an expiatory character; for when a man dies in the grace of God, then God freely forgives him all his sins and demands no expiatory penalties: Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, is our only atonement and satisfaction. Yet a third group would prefer to leave the whole question entirely open: let us avoid detailed formulation about the life after death, they say, and preserve instead a reverent and agnostic reticence. When Saint Antony of Egypt was once worrying about divine providence, a voice came to him, saying: ‘Antony, attend to yourself; for these are the judgments of God, and it is not for you to know them’ (Apophthegmata (P.G. 65), Antony, 2).

Now if we can go back to the points in question of the OP...

Greetings & Blessings.

Please forgive my delay C.
I do value our discussions. However, I have taken note that you are finding it a little difficult in refraining from your condecending remarks.
My integrity is who I am. The shadey and "obscure websites" you refer to as getting my information from, well, they happen to be-
the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America website, the Orthodox Christian Information Center website, and the Creeds of Christendom website- just for your information, as well as for anyone else who may be following our discussions. Again, my responses are not based on "two-bit terminologies" nor are they taken from shadey "obscure websites" but they are given through serious study, prayer, gleaning, and of course on ultimately what the Scriptures have to say; and they are not given in a careless, quick-fire way so as to win a discussion. So please, let us respect one another even in our disagreements, or should I say- especially in our disagreements.

Also, a friendly reminder- you started this thread.
It is labeled Intermediate State/Purgatory, so if I tend to use these two words in an interchangeable way, it is because I see them as both being more commonly entwined in their discriptions, than not. Just as I view the Orthodox and Catholicism- there is more that commonly binds them to one another, than distinquishes them. I know this is obviously frustrating for you, but it is my view.

As for the Confession of Dositheus and he later "recanting" as you state, well, this "Confession Dosithei" is still still cited by your Orthodox as being a "major pronouncement" and "an important source of church teaching. It is also listed (still), among the "Chief list of Orthodox Statements (since 787)". "The Synod was made up of 68 Eastern Bishops, and ecclesiastics, including some from Russia".

"The Confession Dosithei presents, in 18 decrees or Aritcles, a positive statement of the Orthodox faith. It follows the order Cyrill's confession, which it is intended to refute. It is the most authoratative, complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted articles. It was formallyy transmitted by the Eastern Partriarchs to the Russian Church in 1721, and through it to certain Bishops of the Church of England, as an ultimatum to be received without further question or conference by all who would be in Communion with the Orthodox Church."

This is very much in contrast to your casual, and glossed over response to it.

Article XVIII: The souls of the departed are either in torment, according to their conduct in life....

If the Church is citing this as among its most important and defining dogma, again, my question to you is...why didn't Jesus specifically teach about this? Why didn't any of the Apostles teach about this? Why doesn't Scripture-specifically anywhere- clearly teach about this?

Why does the Church dogmatically and firmly, dutifully require Indulgences and Prayers for the Dead if this is, as you say only an "agnostic reticence"?

Blessings...Dmarie

[Dmarie]

Blessings.

I've restated my position, (and yes, then some), but if you wish to "move on" to your original OP as you've stated your desire is, and since you did start this ...lead on Columcille!

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

It is my experience Dmarie, speaking on my own experience, that I have not read the complete Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, D & C from page to page. Mormonism, of course, is not the topic of discussion. However, the fact you just happened to "pull up" the "Confession of Dositheus" with it being an outside reference not in my points, suggests you first got it from a third party source prior to directly getting it through the primary websites you mention. Now, perhaps you grew up Eastern Orthodox and just so happen to have read many Early Church Fathers, Councils, and such Confessions and other books of antiquity. However, if that was the case, you'd already have known that Dositheus changed his position later on and the correct Eastern Orthodox perspective. However, even as a Catholic I have not read the full amount of books out there.


As far as interchanging the terms based on my OP ***le, I should have marked "Intermediate State--Purgatory" rather than a slash mark to mean it as an "or" comment. As you see in Point 4 of my OP, I don't like to use the term because it has particular mental ideas that do not really convey the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox understanding. It is like getting a mental picture that Angels have wings, saints have halos, the devil has a pointed tail and pitchfork with horns, and the saints are sitting on a cloud playing harps 24/7. These images clearly have symbolic representation, but Heaven and Hell are nothing to really grasp completely by our mortal senses, since even the worst a person suffers here on earth cannot be expressed to the eternity of suffering awaiting those who are following after the Devil's schemes.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Dmarie

Blessings.

I've restated my position, (and yes, then some), but if you wish to "move on" to your original OP as you've stated your desire is, and since you did start this ...lead on Columcille!

Blessings...Dmarie

I haven't really seen any point of contention from you regarding any of my points listed in the OP. Point one was answered, point two was answered. From what I gather, I am not sure what points in #3 you have issue with. If you have no contention, then point four is a conclusion and your disagreement with me is really a matter of semantics rather than a real point of contention.

[Columcille]

Dmarie, I might be taking a sabbatical of sort for awhile. I have to register for the GMAT and for cl***es at the university for this summer. May be awhile before I answer if you reply.

[Dmarie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

It is my experience Dmarie, speaking on my own experience, that I have not read the complete Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, D & C from page to page. Mormonism, of course, is not the topic of discussion. However, the fact you just happened to "pull up" the "Confession of Dositheus" with it being an outside reference not in my points, suggests you first got it from a third party source prior to directly getting it through the primary websites you mention. Now, perhaps you grew up Eastern Orthodox and just so happen to have read many Early Church Fathers, Councils, and such Confessions and other books of antiquity. However, if that was the case, you'd already have known that Dositheus changed his position later on and the correct Eastern Orthodox perspective. However, even as a Catholic I have not read the full amount of books out there.


As far as interchanging the terms based on my OP ***le, I should have marked "Intermediate State--Purgatory" rather than a slash mark to mean it as an "or" comment. As you see in Point 4 of my OP, I don't like to use the term because it has particular mental ideas that do not really convey the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox understanding. It is like getting a mental picture that Angels have wings, saints have halos, the devil has a pointed tail and pitchfork with horns, and the saints are sitting on a cloud playing harps 24/7. These images clearly have symbolic representation, but Heaven and Hell are nothing to really grasp completely by our mortal senses, since even the worst a person suffers here on earth cannot be expressed to the eternity of suffering awaiting those who are following after the Devil's schemes.

Greetings & Blessings.

Columcille, you are not being very nice, nor respectful....and a whole paragraph at that. I will refer you to read Jill's latest post.

In regards to the Intermediate State, so far you have not presented any specific Scriptural support or basis for this teaching. You have listed and provided "points" in an effort to try and prove a "concept", an "agnostic reticence." I have addressed and answered all of your points in my posts, and by your own words...
"I don't have to explain away the Intermediate State, I only state that there is one."

Your above statement is clear, and I think that you've explained this as fully as is possible...which is not.

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Dmarie

Greetings & Blessings.

Columcille, you are not being very nice, nor respectful....and a whole paragraph at that. I will refer you to read Jill's latest post.

In regards to the Intermediate State, so far you have not presented any specific Scriptural support or basis for this teaching. You have listed and provided "points" in an effort to try and prove a "concept", an "agnostic reticence." I have addressed and answered all of your points in my posts, and by your own words...
"I don't have to explain away the Intermediate State, I only state that there is one."

Your above statement is clear, and I think that you've explained this as fully as is possible...which is not.

Blessings...Dmarie

It is not meant to be clear. Paradoxes never have such clarity. How, in worldly wisdom is the "meek to inherit the earth" when all worldly wisdom see the actions of agressors dominate and "own" the earth? The paradox is simply not making the same references which are misunderstood by outsiders. This is a very Eastern mindset, to embrace paradoxes and not having to feel the need to break them down into specific catagories. You have in your statement stated that my above comment is clear, but what you seek is a very Westernized expression.

As far as my rudeness is concerned, I feel that my point is relevant. There are literally thousands of writings by patriarches (John Chrysostom, Bartholomew I), popes (PJPII...), saints (Francis of ***isi), doctors of the Church (Bonaventura, Aquinas), Early Church Fathers (like Tertullian, Origen) and Councils (both regional and ecumenical... Florence, Lyons, Nicea, Constantinople). I rarely expect that people have read the documents in its historical perspective... like when some say the term "Theotokos" applying to Mary means to them that she is "The fourth person of the Trinity" rather than seeing how the terms was used against the Arian heresy. It is easy to "misrepresent" singular quotes when there is no relevant context. I used my example of Mormonism's literature as a means of an example that I have not read all their material and I don't expect every Mormon to have encountered all their materials. I generally in discussion try to make my comments relevant to the points being brought up. I don't usually introduce a quote unless the person has already introduced it or is within the Original Post either by being referenced as a bibliographical source or there are clear allusions within the structure of what is said. Typically, if the OP is talking about a specific quote, I pick my "fights" based on my own knowledge of the quote being referenced; if I am fairly ign.orant and I am already engaged in dialogue, I tend to glance a quick overview like I did with your introduction of the Confession which led to a very quick commentary by Bishop Ware regarding it; if I am fairly ig.norant and not in dialogue yet, I tend to choose not to participate and thereby aggravate my ignorance. As Dr. Martin has stated the proverb often, "better a fool remain silent than to speak and remove all doubt."

[Columcille]

I wanted to say one more thing, but on a good note. Now that you read Bishop Ware's comment on the Confession, did you learn something from it regarding that specific p***age you quoted?

It is important in that perhaps you will now not use the Confession in a very similiar argument knowing that in this one p***age is not as reliable as a source. If you got it from a third source, perhaps they did not examine Diotheus' change of comments laster on. This mistake might be a common thread between those against Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, picking a quote that sounds "different" or "awkward" to Protestant sentimentalities and quoting it out of context or without regard to its historical significance. I just don't want you to fall into the same trap again. Perhaps the next time you introduce a quote, you can tie it into one of my points more succinctly (meaning for example that it is actually supporting my paraphrase accurately rather than ... "what if" or "what about" questions. This would mean that you actually understood my point by a relevant p***age. Perhaps what I will do is give you some quotes from some cl***ic texts to support my points, texts that are easily accessible online, so that you can better see the commentary or sermon or "encyclical" letter or council note with its appropriate canon law. However, due to my prepatory study for the GMAT, it may take some time before I give you something. July 9th is my start date for two summer cl***es. If I can schedule a GMAT test prior to that date, then I will certainly have more time inbetween the completion of the test and the beginning cl*** date to devote giving you some resources from the Eastern Catholic/Orthodox perspective.


From a distant source to its primary source

Ok. So this is just quick reference materials. Now granted, there are some Catholic references in the bibliographies between 14-40. So it is important to distinguish the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic perception, as it seems most Catholics will consider Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory seperate "places" rather than "states of perception of the very same divine light of God." You will notice that there are several embedded quotes within the bibliographical information, some will be quotes that are commentary on some p***ages of scripture that provide biblical precedence. However, it may be difficult to get to these works to see the Scripture texts referenced, so it takes patience and a need for a certain amount of refraint from making ***umptions about the text until you are able to read it as it is embedded in the work. For instance, footnote 20 gives a homily 27 of St. Isaac. I haven't found an online text of St. Isaac's works, so I would have do one of two things in regards to the quote provided. First, I would take that the source is being used to support the thesis and since "wikipedia" is not interested at debunking Eastern Orthodoxy but to provide information about them, I would take the statement at face value. Secondly, in regards to is scriptural references used by St. Isaac, since "wikipedia" does not always consistently provide a scriptural text, don't automatically ***ume there is no scripture until you read St. Isaac's homily. Since it is a "homily," which is in essense a written sermon, it is the custom in the practice of the Divine Liturgy and M***, to have a "homily" follow the Scripture texts used in the lectionary. So for certain, St. Isaac is quoting from scripture to base his homily. To ***ume there is no scripture used, is to not be knowable about what a homily is. Since I referenced a footnote of St. Isaac, it is due to using this website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern...oncept_of_Hell



Got to "Concept of Hell" sub***le:

Some Orthodox theologians see another example of distinction between East and West in the teaching of Hell as a created place.[14][15][16][17] For the Orthodox, Heaven is not a place in the sky, it is being with God.[18] Salvation in the East, is not salvation from the wrath of God,[19] as St Isaac teaches that the Love of God is the Tree of Life.[20] According to Eastern Christianity people are not sent down to Hell by an angry God.[21] Hell as professed in the East is neither the absence of God nor the separation of the soul from the presence of God, but rather the opposite--Heaven and Hell are the divine presence experienced either pleasantly or unpleasantly, depending upon one's spiritual condition.[22][23][24] Finally the theological concept of hell or eternal ****ation also via theoria is expressed different in the West,[citation needed] than in the East.[25]





"A Monster from Hell". A 19th-century Russian hand-drawn lubok.
The Orthodox Church holds that both Heaven and Hell are a condition of relationship with God that is either theosis or perdition, both of which are often spoken of as the effect of being in the presence of God. The Orthodox Church teaches that eternal ****ation in the lake of fire and heaven occur within the same realm, which is being with God; God is Heaven, God is the Kingdom of God and Heaven.[26] For one who hates God (as existence, as Life for example called Misotheism) such a place as in the presence of God, will be eternal suffering.[27][28]

The Orthodox Church teaches that Heaven and Hell are in the same realm, and that Hell is not separation from God symbolically or physically,[29][30]

Hell as taught in Orthodoxy is a place chosen.[31] The Western understanding of Hell (called inferno or infernus) can be understood from the works of Augustine as being a place possibly located under the earth.[32] Saint Gregory of Nyssa, himself a believer in apocatastasis and universal reconciliation, argued that Hades (the place "which serves as a receptacle for souls after death" not the place of Hell per se) is a subterranean locale.[33]

The West too teaches that God does not cut off anyone off from himself, and that the non-physical separation from God of those in Hell is only a self-exclusion on their own part.[34][35]

As the Church both Eastern and Western teaches, there is no place where God is not, and God's love is for all human beings, including sinners. Hell is described as self-exclusion from communion with that universal love,[36] as cutting oneself off from love,[37] or but as an enemy of God.[38] Only of a human heart that excludes God can it be said that, in a sense, God is not there, and so Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware wrote that Hell is "the place where God is not" (emphasis in the original).[39] In his review of the Bishop's book Hieromonk Patapios criticized this expression as unorthodox.[40]

[tealblue]

Originally Posted by Dmarie

Greetings & Blessings.

Columcille, you are not being very nice, nor respectful....and a whole paragraph at that. I will refer you to read Jill's latest post.

In regards to the Intermediate State, so far you have not presented any specific Scriptural support or basis for this teaching. You have listed and provided "points" in an effort to try and prove a "concept", an "agnostic reticence." I have addressed and answered all of your points in my posts, and by your own words...
"I don't have to explain away the Intermediate State, I only state that there is one."

Your above statement is clear, and I think that you've explained this as fully as is possible...which is not.

Blessings...Dmarie

I first apologize for highjacking this thread. I have been in the process for the past few months relocating overseas and have not had the time.

I realize there are a few referances that seem to point to the idea of absence from the body and present with the lord. Well who says that purgatory wouldn't still be in the presence of jesus. As far as I know any non presence of god in general would be hell. Becasue thats what hell is.

Here are two facts I would like to share with you.
1. There will be no suffering in Heaven.
2. Nothing inpure will enter into heaven.

1Cor 3

14If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. 15But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved,* but only as through fire.

Here are a couple of facts about this p***age.

1. The person descibed here is not on earth because its talking about judgement.

2. The person is not in heaven because its describing suffering loss and still being saved. And we know there will be no suffering in heaven.

So if this verse is desribing some sort of state thats not on earth or in heaven where(what state) are they?

[Dmarie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

It is not meant to be clear. Paradoxes never have such clarity. How, in worldly wisdom is the "meek to inherit the earth" when all worldly wisdom see the actions of agressors dominate and "own" the earth? The paradox is simply not making the same references which are misunderstood by outsiders. This is a very Eastern mindset, to embrace paradoxes and not having to feel the need to break them down into specific catagories. You have in your statement stated that my above comment is clear, but what you seek is a very Westernized expression.

As far as my rudeness is concerned, I feel that my point is relevant. There are literally thousands of writings by patriarches (John Chrysostom, Bartholomew I), popes (PJPII...), saints (Francis of ***isi), doctors of the Church (Bonaventura, Aquinas), Early Church Fathers (like Tertullian, Origen) and Councils (both regional and ecumenical... Florence, Lyons, Nicea, Constantinople). I rarely expect that people have read the documents in its historical perspective... like when some say the term "Theotokos" applying to Mary means to them that she is "The fourth person of the Trinity" rather than seeing how the terms was used against the Arian heresy. It is easy to "misrepresent" singular quotes when there is no relevant context. I used my example of Mormonism's literature as a means of an example that I have not read all their material and I don't expect every Mormon to have encountered all their materials. I generally in discussion try to make my comments relevant to the points being brought up. I don't usually introduce a quote unless the person has already introduced it or is within the Original Post either by being referenced as a bibliographical source or there are clear allusions within the structure of what is said. Typically, if the OP is talking about a specific quote, I pick my "fights" based on my own knowledge of the quote being referenced; if I am fairly ign.orant and I am already engaged in dialogue, I tend to glance a quick overview like I did with your introduction of the Confession which led to a very quick commentary by Bishop Ware regarding it; if I am fairly ig.norant and not in dialogue yet, I tend to choose not to participate and thereby aggravate my ignorance. As Dr. Martin has stated the proverb often, "better a fool remain silent than to speak and remove all doubt."

Greetings & Blessings.

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:8)

The Intermediate State you speak so eloquently of C. is simply as you say it is--a "paradox," a "concept," an "agnostic reticence," a "mind-set," and whatever else you have referred to it as. It is a doctrine of men and not of God.

Again, and again you provide no Scriptural support for this teaching, but you continually appeal to the writings and teachings of men. One of your primary references, Bishop K. Ware, makes this statement in his Prayers for the departed..."Here orthodox teaching is not entirely clear, and has varied somewhat at different times." So, what may have been accepted at one time may be dejected or re-interpreted at another time.

God has revealed and given to us all things pertaining to our salvation and godly living---with no pit-stops; and He "...has in these last days spoken to us through His Son." (Heb. 1,2)

We would be wise to listen to Scripture when it speaks loudly and clearly to us-warning us- "...not to be carried about with various and strange doctrines." We would also be wise to listen when Scripture chooses to be silent.


"...but those things which are revealed belong to us." (Deut.29:29)

The Intermediate State/Purgatory are works and doctrines of men and not of God.
Again, Jesus never taught about these 2 states/places. Please, can you site anywhere in Scripture where Jesus teaches specifically on any of these two? Is it not Jesus to Whom we look to and to Whom we draw from? Is it not Jesus to Whom the Scriptures point to and specifically say that it is He, who "...has in these last days spoken to us...."?

***"Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?"*** (Gal.3:3)

*Romans 8:38,39

Blessings...Dmarie

[Dmarie]

Greetings.

Columcille, as for your steadfastness in your condecending remarks towards me, (which you say you base on your "experiences"), well...God knows, and you don't.
You don't know anymore about me-- what I've studied, how I study, where I study, anymore than you know what I had for breakfast this morning.

Of course you may think what you want, but please consider my friend, or should I say reconsider, what you say and accuse another of...

God knows.

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

Dmarie, you just condemned every theologian, even the most historically conservative because of their conceptualization. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and any theologian you even have heard as having impact with intelligent discourse. Even Paul on Areopagus used pagan quotes and led some to Christ. You don't condemn Paul for quoting Pagan materials do you?

The problem seems to me that this is not your vocation, although I hope you practice more and more.

[Dmarie]

Originally Posted by tealblue

I first apologize for highjacking this thread. I have been in the process for the past few months relocating overseas and have not had the time.

I realize there are a few referances that seem to point to the idea of absence from the body and present with the lord. Well who says that purgatory wouldn't still be in the presence of jesus. As far as I know any non presence of god in general would be hell. Becasue thats what hell is.

Here are two facts I would like to share with you.
1. There will be no suffering in Heaven.
2. Nothing inpure will enter into heaven.

1Cor 3

14If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. 15But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved,* but only as through fire.

Here are a couple of facts about this p***age.

1. The person descibed here is not on earth because its talking about judgement.

2. The person is not in heaven because its describing suffering loss and still being saved. And we know there will be no suffering in heaven.

So if this verse is desribing some sort of state thats not on earth or in heaven where(what state) are they?

Hi tb, and welcome back.

I will refer you to reading my previous posts, (if you have not done so already). The p***age you are referring to is specifically speaking of our "works" being burned up, or not. It is not speaking of our bodies.

Blessings...Dmarie

[Dmarie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Dmarie, you just condemned every theologian, even the most historically conservative because of their conceptualization. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and any theologian you even have heard as having impact with intelligent discourse. Even Paul on Areopagus used pagan quotes and led some to Christ. You don't condemn Paul for quoting Pagan materials do you?

The problem seems to me that this is not your vocation, although I hope you practice more and more.

Blessings.

There you go again. Now you're jumping around and adding words.
No,..I was specifically addressing YOU Columcille.
Is being respectful this difficult? Again, please let us be respectful of one another. If you do not wish to do so, and you continue to address me in this fashion, well maybe, this is your way out, and I truly wish you well.

I will continue to pray for you.

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

I can always use prayers, I never turn them down, no matter the intention.

But really though, scripture nowhere states certain conceptualizations of many Protestants theologians. TULIP (Reformed council following Calvin), OSAS (Baptists), Consubstantiation (Luther), via media (Anglicans-Thomas Cranmer), Pascal's Wager (Blaise Pascal-pensees), Immanuel Kant (Lutheran philosopher), ... It is pretty striking, to say the least, to condemn what you really have not understood. There has been no relevant objections to my OP points, your constantly shifting away from it because you come already with preconceived notions that each time do not reflect my points. You talk more about my bad tone than you address directly my points, except in generalities or in "what about (certain texts)" that diverts me to do the research you should have done on your own. If it is only my tone that you take issue with, then forgive me; if it is something within my points, please show me specifically which point you disagree with in the order as it is presented in my Original Post.

[tealblue]

Originally Posted by Dmarie

Hi tb, and welcome back.

I will refer you to reading my previous posts, (if you have not done so already). The p***age you are referring to is specifically speaking of our "works" being burned up, or not. It is not speaking of our bodies.

Blessings...Dmarie

Yes I do agree that its talking about our works being burned up. The verse though is specifically talking about "that day" which is judgement day. If its talking about our works being burned up and will be suffer loss says that says to me during this suffering must be in some state that is not on earth living and not in heaven. Where or when do you say this suffering for our works happen?

[Dmarie]

Originally Posted by tealblue

Yes I do agree that its talking about our works being burned up. The verse though is specifically talking about "that day" which is judgement day. If its talking about our works being burned up and will be suffer loss says that says to me during this suffering must be in some state that is not on earth living and not in heaven. Where or when do you say this suffering for our works happen?

Greetings & Blessings.

"For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (2Cor.5:10)

When this Scripture speaks of "suffering loss" it is speaking specifically of those things (rewards) that we will not "receive." Again, it is not speaking of a physical suffering pertaining to our bodies to be suffered somewhere in some chamber apart from Christ. If we are Christ's, we are Christ's, and we are with Him where He is. I point again to the Scripture "We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." (2Cor.5:8)
What did Christ say as He was dying to the thief on the cross? "***uredly, I say to you,today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)
If we are Christ's, our spirits/souls will be with Christ awaiting the time when our physical bodies will put on "incorruption" to be reunited with our spiritual bodies. (*2Cor. 15:51-55, 2Cor.15:42,44, Rom.8:11)

"Where" we appear when this judgement happens, the Scriptures speak of "...the judgement seat of Christ...." that is, where Christ is.
"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us."

So whether we "receive" those things (rewards), or we do not receive ("suffer loss"), we are with Christ. who will "...appear in the presence of God for us." where we will either gain or "suffer loss" of our "rewards". This is not speaking of the loss of our salvation, nor again, is it speaking of our having to suffer loss and having to be further purified somewhere in some chamber apart from Christ to be later reunited with Him.

Also tb, thank you for appealing to Scripture.

Blessings...Dmarie

[Dmarie]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I can always use prayers, I never turn them down, no matter the intention.

But really though, scripture nowhere states certain conceptualizations of many Protestants theologians. TULIP (Reformed council following Calvin), OSAS (Baptists), Consubstantiation (Luther), via media (Anglicans-Thomas Cranmer), Pascal's Wager (Blaise Pascal-pensees), Immanuel Kant (Lutheran philosopher), ... It is pretty striking, to say the least, to condemn what you really have not understood. There has been no relevant objections to my OP points, your constantly shifting away from it because you come already with preconceived notions that each time do not reflect my points. You talk more about my bad tone than you address directly my points, except in generalities or in "what about (certain texts)" that diverts me to do the research you should have done on your own. If it is only my tone that you take issue with, then forgive me; if it is something within my points, please show me specifically which point you disagree with in the order as it is presented in my Original Post.

Greetings.

Please, please , please...
Appeal to, and show me the Scriptures.

Blessings...Dmarie

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Dmarie

Greetings.

Please, please , please...
Appeal to, and show me the Scriptures.

Blessings...Dmarie

See points 1 and 2 as far as Scripture used in my post #21.

3) A) Sin has two consequences and B) good works only have one consequence.

Romans 6.23, for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

This verse applies to the spiritual state as it is contrasted to the gift of God.



I'll edit later as I list other scriptures as they apply to my points. I have GMAT study and wife is calling me now.

3Ai--Sin seperates us spiritually from God by virtue of God's holiness.
3Aii--Sin's temporal consequences are felt by others and builds bad character traits.
3Bi--The temporal (positive) consequences of good works is that it builds character and connects us one to another.
3Bii--Good works is not salvaic. Only Christ's sacrifice at Calvary repairs the spiritual relationship to unify us back to God.

[Dmarie]

Originally Posted by tealblue

I first apologize for highjacking this thread. I have been in the process for the past few months relocating overseas and have not had the time.

I realize there are a few referances that seem to point to the idea of absence from the body and present with the lord. Well who says that purgatory wouldn't still be in the presence of jesus. As far as I know any non presence of god in general would be hell. Becasue thats what hell is.

Here are two facts I would like to share with you.
1. There will be no suffering in Heaven.
2. Nothing inpure will enter into heaven.

1Cor 3

14If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. 15But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved,* but only as through fire.

Here are a couple of facts about this p***age.

1. The person descibed here is not on earth because its talking about judgement.

2. The person is not in heaven because its describing suffering loss and still being saved. And we know there will be no suffering in heaven.

So if this verse is desribing some sort of state thats not on earth or in heaven where(what state) are they?

Greetings tb.

When we are "saved" we are immediately "sealed" with God's Holy Spirit:

"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritence...." (Ephesians 1:13,14)

God imputes the righteousness of Christ on us because "having believed" in the perfect and sufficient sacrifice of His Son, God now, when He looks upon us, sees us through the pure and perfect sacrifice of His Son, who is now our righteousness--"sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise who is the guarantee of our inheritence...."
We are now saved unto good works to do for His glory and kingdom, and these works will be judged by their motives either to be "burned up" or not. These works will either produce good fruit yielding for us "treasure" in heaven which we are told to "build up" or we will loose these treasures (rewards) only to be "saved as through fire." Or, another way of saying this is that our possible rewards will be burnt up, but we will be "saved by the skin of our teeth", but we will "suffer loss" of our rewards.

Blessings...Dmarie