Patron Saint Joseph of Home Sales

[Michelle]

I imagine them as not alive. Plainly, my imagination is the most superior.

Hee!

[darinhouston]

So you do think of them as dead? Keating once more:

"One thing that certainly can be said is that those in heaven are alive to G-d. 'Have you never read in the book of Moses how G-d spoke to him at the burning bush, and said, 'I am the G-d of Abraham, and the G-d of Isaac, and the G-d of Jacob?' Yet it is of living men, not dead men, that he is the G-d [ref. Mark 12:26f.].' The saints in heaven are more alive now than we are. In the arms of G-d, they are more solicitous of us than when they were on earth."

Keating is just plainly wrong! No amount of theologizing escapes the fact that the saints are "dead in Christ," and then Rev 20 also refers to the "rest of the dead," clearly implying that even the saints are dead. "God is the God of living men" can't refer to those that have been buried.

[RND]

That scripture was written before the work of Jesus.

So? It doesn't make it irrelevant does it? "All scripture...."

Jesus is quoted as describing lots of thinking after physical death, q.v., Luke 16:19-31.

It's an obvious parable.

Then we may return to Psalm 146: "Do not trust in princes; in a son of man, in whom there is not salvation."

Context is everything. "A" son of man. Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.

[darinhouston]

From this perspective, the unity of the Body of Christ perseveres despite physical expiration.

The fact that they may continue to be "related" to us doesn't say anything about them being alive or conscious or able to hear our prayers. That's just fabricated out of whole cloth. If they could exegete SOMETHING -- ANYTHING other than conjecture I could respect their view -- I respect a lot of views I differ on -- this is one that just can't be taught from Scripture.

So what we're talking about here is difference of supernatural imagination. You imagine them alive in a place inaccessible to the present; the Roman Catholic Church imagines them alive in a place accessible to the present; I imagine them as not alive. Plainly, my imagination is the most superior .

I recognize you're being the "devil's" advocate here, but it's not just an issue of "accessibility." Even if they were in the next room from me, they couldn't hear my prayers unless I shouted. Even if my prayer could cross the "great divide" and they could hear it, that doesn't explain how they hear everyone's at the same time. It's just a flawed doctrine that can't be resurrected even by resort to tradition.

[kaufmannphillips]

So you do think of them as dead? Keating once more:

"One thing that certainly can be said is that those in heaven are alive to G-d. 'Have you never read in the book of Moses how G-d spoke to him at the burning bush, and said, 'I am the G-d of Abraham, and the G-d of Isaac, and the G-d of Jacob?' Yet it is of living men, not dead men, that he is the G-d [ref. Mark 12:26f.].' The saints in heaven are more alive now than we are. In the arms of G-d, they are more solicitous of us than when they were on earth."

Keating is just plainly wrong! No amount of theologizing escapes the fact that the saints are "dead in Christ," and then Rev 20 also refers to the "rest of the dead," clearly implying that even the saints are dead. "God is the God of living men" can't refer to those that have been buried.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob weren't buried?

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
That scripture was written before the work of Jesus.

RND wrote:
So? It doesn't make it irrelevant does it? "All scripture...."

Not necessarily irrelevant. But one could postulate a change in circumstances since the time of the psalm.

kaufmannphillips wrote:Jesus is quoted as describing lots of thinking after physical death, q.v., Luke 16:19-31.

RND wrote:
It's an obvious parable.

In which of Jesus' other parables does he make use of falsehoods about the universe?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Then we may return to Psalm 146: "Do not trust in princes; in a son of man, in whom there is not salvation."

RND wrote:
Context is everything. "A" son of man. Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.

Context is why I retained the "a" instead of supplying a "the," as the consonantal text would allow grammatically.

[kaufmannphillips]

darinhouston wrote:
The fact that they may continue to be "related" to us doesn't say anything about them being alive or conscious or able to hear our prayers. That's just fabricated out of whole cloth. If they could exegete SOMETHING -- ANYTHING other than conjecture I could respect their view -- I respect a lot of views I differ on -- this is one that just can't be taught from Scripture.

The Roman Catholic Church, of course, does not feel constrained to prove all of its dogmas from scripture.

darinhouston wrote:
I recognize you're being the "devil's" advocate here, but it's not just an issue of "accessibility." Even if they were in the next room from me, they couldn't hear my prayers unless I shouted. Even if my prayer could cross the "great divide" and they could hear it, that doesn't explain how they hear everyone's at the same time. It's just a flawed doctrine that can't be resurrected even by resort to tradition.

This line of argumentation is hardly sustainable. Christians believe plenty of things that seem nonsensical to other persons, believing that with G-d such things are possible. Just because it stretches your credulity to imagine these fantastic things taking place does not mean that they cannot transpire. Sheer reasonability does not enter in here as a decisive factor.

[RND]

Not necessarily irrelevant. But one could postulate a change in circumstances since the time of the psalm.

Sure, I suppose anything's possible.

In which of Jesus' other parables does he make use of falsehoods about the universe?

Who's falsehoods, the Pharisees perhaps, that had adopted the Hellenistic duality of man?

Context is why I retained the "a" instead of supplying a "the," as the consonantal text would allow grammatically.

Either would be proper and neither takes away from the fact that "son of man" refers to "mortal man."

[RND]

This line of argumentation is hardly sustainable. Christians believe plenty of things that seem nonsensical to other persons, believing that with G-d such things are possible. Just because it stretches your credulity to imagine these fantastic things taking place does not mean that they cannot transpire. Sheer reasonability does not enter in here as a decisive factor.

Say what? Don't the scriptures count for anything? Where do we see anyone, anywhere, in any book praying to dead people?

[darinhouston]

Keating is just plainly wrong! No amount of theologizing escapes the fact that the saints are "dead in Christ," and then Rev 20 also refers to the "rest of the dead," clearly implying that even the saints are dead. "God is the God of living men" can't refer to those that have been buried.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob weren't buried?

I suspect you know what I meant -- it refers to the fact that they were alive at one time and not that they were alive after their burial.