Who, or what, is the dreaded bogey man of prophecy?

[Spiritual Israelite]

A Biblical parable can contain things that cannot and do not happen in real experience, as in Jotham's parable of the trees or Abel's blood crying out from the ground.

Luke 16:19-31 KJV is most definitely a parable depicting things that do not happen in real experience.

It's not a parable no matter how much you want it to be. Parables do not mention the names of real people. Do you deny the existence of separate places called heaven/paradise and hell/hades where the spirits of physically/bodily dead people go? They are referred to as literal places repeatedly in scripture. Surely, Jesus did not come from a fictional place and did not ascend back to a fictional place! Heaven and hell are very clearly presented as real places in scripture.

The only thing not real in the parable is that it's not talking about a physically dead rich man literally being in physical fire and literally having a tongue that needed to be cooled down. But, that doesn't change the fact that he was presented as being in conscious torment and there is no reason to think that the rich man didn't literally indicate that he wanted Lazarus to warn his 5 brothers about hell. The fact that it mentions him having 5 brothers is another thing which indicates that it's not a parable. If it was a parable there would be no reason to mention how many brothers he has as that would not add any meaning to the parable.

Demanding that the use of real names/places proves a story is literal is purely subjective hermeneutics.

LOL. Wow. Your standards for determining what's real or not are very loose. Seems that your hermeneutics equate to making things say what you need them to say to fit your doctrine. If you need it to be a parable to support your parable, then you make it a parable. If you need it to be literal to support your doctrine than you make it literal. Your intellectual dishonesty is very obvious here. You need to examine yourself.

Jotham's parable of the trees uses proper names of trees: Olive, Fig, and Cedar - is that story literal?
Jesus used the proper name "Lazarus" so that when Lazarus was resurrected and the Jews plotted to kill both him and Jesus, the people would know He spoke truth.

Now you're just making things up. There is no reason to think that the beggar's name was anything but Lazarus. It's not the Lazarus who was Mary and Martha's brother. He was not a beggar. There's no reason to think that it's not talking about a real beggar named Lazarus any more than there's a reason to think that it's not referring to the real Moses and Abraham of the Old Testament. And there's no reason to think the rich man was not an actual person. Jesus referred to the rich man's five brothers. That's a very specific detail for a parable. Why specify how many brothers the rich man had if he was a fictional person in a parable? That doesn't make any sense.

Portions are. For instance, when Jesus said "on the right hand/on the left hand" He was illustrating a judgment proceeding to show the fates of the saved and sinners - He didn't mean for us to understand that He is judgement scene illustrates a court proceeding which Jesus uses to show the fate of those who are righteous and wicked. But, the division will not be "right/left" but "inside the city/outside the city" when Jesus is scene high above during the "white throne judgment".

Portions are? No, that is not an acceptable answer. If you can say that, then you could say the same thing about Luke 16:19-31. But, you don't. Where is the consistency here? It's either a parable or it isn't. Please make up your mind. I'll give you a hint. It's not.

A parable is a made up story with made up people which reflect things about real people (or spiritual beings like God and angels) and about real things that happen to real people. Matthew 25:31-46 specifically mentions the Son of man coming with all of His angels to judge all people. That will really happen. That's different than a passage like Matthew 25:1-13 that talks about a bridegroom (representing Jesus) coming while talking about the readiness or lack thereof of 10 virgins. That is a parable because it's not talking about a literal bridegroom, a literal wedding or literal virgins. That's not like Matthew 25:31-46 which specifically mentions the Son of man coming with His angels to judge all people. Matthew 25:31-46 also specifically references what will happen to people on judgment day. All people will either literally inherit "life eternal" in the kingdom God prepared from the foundation of the world or they will be cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:31-46 is not a parable at all and neither is Luke 16:19-31.

Genesis 2:7 KJV is crystal clear that a "Soul" comes into existence only as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life - which means at death when the Body returns dust and the Breath returns to God, the Soul cannot but cease to exist.

You are somehow not aware that a person with a body, soul and spirit can also be called a soul. So, the word "soul" can refer to a whole person or to one of the parts of a person. In the following verses the soul is referred to as a separate part of a person.

1 Thess 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Job 7:11 Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.

Isaiah 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

So, scripture say we are made up of body, soul and spirit. According to Hebrews 4:12 our soul and spirit are apparently so attached to each other that only the word of God can divide them.

How can "disembodied souls under the altar" cry out without vocal cords? Blood is what's under the altar. Can Abel's red and white corpuscles cry out, too? It's referring to injustice crying out to God for divine retribution against the enemies of His people.

I am not saying that souls have literal vocal cords. Our souls and spirits are not physical. But, scripture indicates that we can have consciousness apart from our bodies. And, why not? Angels are not physical beings, and yet, they are still able to communicate. We should not pretend to know what it's like in the spiritual realm, but we also should not act as if the spiritual realm does not exist.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The dead don't praise God in death, nor do they go to heaven or hell - they go "down into silence" and await the one or the other of the two resurrections.

Where do you get this from? When someone dies, certainly they are silent on earth until the resurrection because they are no longer living on the earth, but that doesn't mean they are silent where their souls and spirits go. Whichever verse you are getting that from, are you sure you're interpreting it in the correct context? Your bias of not allowing for real spiritual places to exist might be influencing how you interpret the verse.

Plenty of people want to be "absent from the church pew and to present at the Cracker Barrel" but does that preclude the drive from the one place to the other?

Paul was not talking about wanting something that couldn't actually happen. He very specifically indicated that he would be present with the Lord immediately upon being absent from the body. He spoke about the same thing here:

Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: 24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

Paul was torn between wanting to continue to live in the flesh for the sake of the people he served who needed him, or to depart from them (via physical, bodily death) "and to be with Christ". He strongly implied that he would immediately be with Christ upon his physical, bodily death.

He was taken up in vision - not bodily. Jesus was referring to a bodily ascension.

If that was the case, then what happened to Elijah after that? Before His own bodily ascension to heaven, Jesus said no one had bodily ascended to heaven. So, where was Elijah at that time and where is he now if he never died, as you claim?

Plenty of OT people resurrected before Jesus was "the first that should rise".

It's referring to Jesus as the "firstfruits of the resurrection" meaning that prior resurrections were predicated on Jesus rising from the dead, which resurrections were made possible by God's divine foreknowledge that He would be raised.

Are you not aware that people were resurrected in the OT before Jesus in the NT?

Of course, but not unto bodily immortality. Jesus was the first to be resurrected from the dead unto bodily immortality. Next in order to resurrect unto bodily immortality are those who belong to Him at His second coming (1 Cor 15:22-23).

I assure you that your limited knowledge prevents you from seeing the big picture.

No, I assure you of that.

The Bible is clear that the dead know nothing, feel nothing, say nothing, see nothing, hear nothing, devise nothing, praise nothing, are without wisdom, and have absolutely nothing to do with anything that is done under the sun.

Verses which say that are only talking about the fact that dead people are no longer are physically alive doing the physical things that they did on earth. Since they are physically dead, they no longer do those things on earth like they did before. Those verses say nothing about what it's like for the souls of the dead in heaven or hell. Scripture indicates that people have consciousness in heaven and hell after physical death. Just because it doesn't specify what that's like doesn't make it true. We are probably not capable of comprehending what it's like in the spiritual realm, so that's why the Bible does not even attempt to explain that to us in a literal way. While people are in torment in hell, they are not literally burning there. The torment is due to their sorrow and regret over being separated from the Lord and not repenting when they had the chance.

Your interpretations are based in inconsistent interpretation and assignment of literalism to symbolism.

Do you think it's consistent for you to consider Matthew 25:31-46 a partial parable, but not Luke 16:19-31? And which of us sees places that scripture speaks of repeatedly in a literal sense (heaven and hell) as fictional, symbolic places instead? That would be you. And which of us ignores the scripture which speaks about the soul as being one of the 3 parts (body, soul, spirit) that make up a person/soul? Again, that would be you.

 

[Guestman]

So many religious leaders of Christendom speak of the "antichrists" as perhaps being something or someone that only exists in our day, or will exist at "the great tribulation". But, how many have carefully read what the apostle John wrote in about 98 C.E.:

"Young children, it is the last hour (before the death of the apostles that will cause the "weeds" ["tares", KJV] or counterfeit Christians to begin flourishing, see Matt 13:24-26), and just as you have heard that the antichrist (meaning "of or instead of Christ", acting as a counterfeit Christ or Christians) is coming,"

"even NOW many antichrists have appeared (twisting scripture, such as Ignatius in 110 C.E. who made a distinction between the "episkopos" [that means "overseer"] or "bishops" and the "presbytery" or "elders", though they are one and the same, see 1 Pet 5:1, 2), from which fact we know that it is the last hour."

"They went OUT FROM US (or from within the Christian congregation), but they were not of our sort (pushing their own "brand" of Christianity); for if they had been of our sort (and loved "the truth", that comes from Jehovah God, see Ps 31:5, whereby Jesus said: "Into your hand I entrust my spirit. You have redeemed me, O Jehovah, the God of truth.", see Luke 23:46), they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort" ?(1 John 2:18, 19; see also 1 John 4:1-3)

John established that the antichrist was already existing in the 1st century, and that they were derived from within the original Christian congregation of "holy ones", having "went out from us, but they were not of our sort". So, what did the antichrists that left the Christian congregation develop into ?

Christendom that supplanted the Christian congregation, for it has taught falsehoods since its inception in the 4th century C.E., and some of the falsehoods (or lies) are the Holy Trinity, hellfire, immortality of the soul, a clergy-laity class, the cross, purgatory, Christmas, Easter, birthdays, misuse of blood, meddling in politics, to name a few.

As a major player in the false religions of the world called Babylon the Great, the "great prostitute" (Rev 17:1, 2, 5), it has misled its members, and will suffer what Jesus said at Matthew 13:30 and what Revelation 17:16, 17 says.

 

[Timtofly]

No, it is YOU who continues to gaslight. No matter how many times I tell you I'm a Protestant Historicist, you keep saying I'm a Preterist or preach Jesuit Preterism.

Protestant Historicism existed decades BEFORE Jesuit Preterism came on the scene, which anyone who climbs on here and presumes to talk eschatology should already know.

And the NT, was written before Historicist and Jesuit Futurist started to write down their own opinions about the NT.

I never posted you are a Preterist nor preach Jesuit Preterism. You think the same way about certain passages of Scripture, though.

Why do you label people, even yourself as if people cannot overlap certain ideology? All labels have overlap, and I am going to point out that overlap, when it makes a point.

 

[Timtofly]

It is only preterist thought of theentire vision was assumed to be fulfilled in thefirst century. At no time did phoneman suggest such an idea. Please read carefully.
Historicism clings to the belief that prophecy began to be fulfilled from the time the prophecy was given, except in cases where particular time periods are specified.
For example. The 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 began at a specific time, the going forth of the commandment from Artexerxes for the rebuilding of the city and temple. This commandment is given in Ezra and is dated at 457BC.
On the other hand, the visions of Daniel 2,7,8, and 11 begin from the time the first vision was given. That is, from the time and reign of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, the time of his dream of the statue. Daniel's prophecies and/visions are based on that sure foundation. As history unfolded, so also did the prophecy. That's historicism. Apocalyptic prophecies particularly as in Daniel and revelation, end at the second coming.
Your particular interpretation that Daniel 2 finished at the reformation makes no sense when taking into account the complete destruction of the 5 powers in the statue by the yet to come second coming of Christ.

The point was the interpretation of Revelation 17.

And you are a failed student of history if you cannot see we have been in the 6th kingdom since the Reformation.

The Second Coming is not when this kingdom of heaven, in Daniel 2, is set up. The Second Coming is not when the statue is destroyed. The 7 heads of Revelation only contain Daniel's image and what happened after the Reformation. Revelation 17 and 18 was not written from the perspective of the first century. These chapters are written from the perspective of the Second Coming, and what takes place after the Second Coming.

Daniel 2 was not written from the perspective of the first coming, nor second coming. It was written from the perspective of God showing us the kingdoms from Babylon until the image was destroyed at the Reformation.

The stone was cut out by the physical act of the Cross, which led to the growth of the NT Covenant with humans to the Reformation and beyond. God established the kingdom of heaven in heaven during all these kingdoms even Babylon.

We have several parables about the kingdom of heaven is, as God taking a long trip and sending representatives to earth including the OT prophets along with His son, in one version.

 

[Phoneman777]

It's not a parable no matter how much you want it to be. Parables do not mention the names of real people.

Where does it say a parable can't mention names of real people?

Do you deny the existence of separate places called heaven/paradise and hell/hades where the spirits of physically/bodily dead people go?

Yes.

They are referred to as literal places repeatedly in scripture.

Some, yes.

The only thing not real in the parable is that it's not talking about a physically dead rich man literally being in physical fire and literally having a tongue that needed to be cooled down. But, that doesn't change the fact that he was presented as being in conscious torment and there is no reason to think that the rich man didn't literally indicate that he wanted Lazarus to warn his 5 brothers about hell. The fact that it mentions him having 5 brothers is another thing which indicates that it's not a parable. If it was a parable there would be no reason to mention how many brothers he has as that would not add any meaning to the parable.

Scripture says the dead know nothing, remember nothing, feel nothing, impact nothing, accomplish nothing, devise nothing, hear nothing, see nothing, praise nothing - the complete opposite of what you say.

LOL. Wow. Your standards for determining what's real or not are very loose. Seems that your hermeneutics equate to making things say what you need them to say to fit your doctrine. If you need it to be a parable to support your parable, then you make it a parable. If you need it to be literal to support your doctrine than you make it literal. Your intellectual dishonesty is very obvious here. You need to examine yourself.

Parables like the Rich Man/Lazarus and The Trees contain things which can't and don't happen in real life.

Now you're just making things up. There is no reason to think that the beggar's name was anything but Lazarus. It's not the Lazarus who was Mary and Martha's brother. He was not a beggar. There's no reason to think that it's not talking about a real beggar named Lazarus any more than there's a reason to think that it's not referring to the real Moses and Abraham of the Old Testament. And there's no reason to think the rich man was not an actual person. Jesus referred to the rich man's five brothers. That's a very specific detail for a parable. Why specify how many brothers the rich man had if he was a fictional person in a parable? That doesn't make any sense.

Jesus chose "Lazarus" because He knew once the real Lazarus was raised, the Jews would harden their hearts and the people would be convinced of their hypocrisy.

Portions are? No, that is not an acceptable answer. If you can say that, then you could say the same thing about Luke 16:19-31. But, you don't. Where is the consistency here? It's either a parable or it isn't. Please make up your mind. I'll give you a hint. It's not.

You're running over too much ground at once, which is why you fall victim to Satan's lies. Slow down and really look deeper into these issues and you'll see the truth emerge.

A parable is a made up story with made up people which reflect things about real people (or spiritual beings like God and angels) and about real things that happen to real people. Matthew 25:31-46 specifically mentions the Son of man coming with all of His angels to judge all people. That will really happen. That's different than a passage like Matthew 25:1-13 that talks about a bridegroom (representing Jesus) coming while talking about the readiness or lack thereof of 10 virgins. That is a parable because it's not talking about a literal bridegroom, a literal wedding or literal virgins. That's not like Matthew 25:31-46 which specifically mentions the Son of man coming with His angels to judge all people. Matthew 25:31-46 also specifically references what will happen to people on judgment day. All people will either literally inherit "life eternal" in the kingdom God prepared from the foundation of the world or they will be cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Matthew 25:31-46 is not a parable at all and neither is Luke 16:19-31.

When you answer the 14 Irresolvable Contradictions, then get back to me.

So, the word "soul" can refer to a whole person or to one of the parts of a person.

The "soul" is not a "part" - it's the "whole" which is the sum of the two "parts" - the Body and Breath of Life. At death, the Soul ceases to exist just as light (soul) ceases to exist when current (spirit) is removed from the bulb (body).

In the following verses the soul is referred to as a separate part of a person.

1 Thess 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"When I get home, you all better have cleaned the living room, the bedrooms, the entire house".

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Just as electric current can be removed from light which causes it to go out of existence.

Job 7:11 Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul.

Isaiah 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

The Soul is the whole that is comprised of its two parts.

So, scripture say we are made up of body, soul and spirit. According to Hebrews 4:12 our soul and spirit are apparently so attached to each other that only the word of God can divide them.

No, Genesis 2:7 says the Soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and Breath.

I am not saying that souls have literal vocal cords. Our souls and spirits are not physical. But, scripture indicates that we can have consciousness apart from our bodies. And, why not? Angels are not physical beings, and yet, they are still able to communicate. We should not pretend to know what it's like in the spiritual realm, but we also should not act as if the spiritual realm does not exist.

Scripture says the dead know nothing, remember nothing, feel nothing, impact nothing, accomplish nothing, devise nothing, hear nothing, see nothing, praise nothing - does that sound like consciousness?

 

[Phoneman777]

Where do you get this from? When someone dies, certainly they are silent on earth until the resurrection because they are no longer living on the earth, but that doesn't mean they are silent where their souls and spirits go.

There is no text that says the Soul goes to heaven at death - yes, the Spirit indeed does but exactly as it was when it came from heaven and entered the nostrils of the inanimate creature being animated.

 

[Phoneman777]

And the NT, was written before Historicist and Jesuit Futurist started to write down their own opinions about the NT.

I never posted you are a Preterist nor preach Jesuit Preterism. You think the same way about certain passages of Scripture, though.

Why do you label people, even yourself as if people cannot overlap certain ideology? All labels have overlap, and I am going to point out that overlap, when it makes a point.

Historicism is the only interpretation that doesn't contain holes in the plot, while you guys need gaps, rubber bands, and selective Scriptural reference.

Babylon, MP, Greece, Rome, 10 horns and the papal Little Horn rising among them.

 

[Timtofly]

"When I get home, you all better have cleaned the living room, the bedrooms, the entire house".

Wow.

Here I thought we were in the image of God.

Now we are in the image of a house?

The post resurrection body or pre-cross physical body of Jesus was the prototype of the image of those created on the 6th day, sons of God.

With a spirit, we are in the image of God.

As a soul, we are in the image of the Holy Spirit.

The soul puts on a body, which puts on a spirit. The body does not put on a soul, nor a body, as it is already a body, and the soul is inside, not on the outside.

The spirit does not put on a soul, nor a body. You are not spirit. You put on the spirit, per Revelation 6 when John says the robe of white is put on. You don't become a robe of white. You put on a robe of white. You don't become a spiritual body. The soul is the only part of you that never changes. You get a different body, not the old body, changed. Jesus says the old body returns to dust. Paul says the new body comes from God, not your earthly mom and dad. You don't become a body. You put on that new body.

Your spirit is not inside of you. That would be another person's spirit, turned into a demon if you have a spirit inside of you.

Jesus was a soul born into a permanent incorruptible physical body. That does not mean that body could not physically die. It means Jesus was not born into Adam's dead corruptible flesh. His body saw death and corruption for 3 days and then the soul re-entered, and the same body was made alive. His old body did not return to dust, and the scares transferred to a new body. The scares were the actual wounds healed and left as a physical reminder of the Cross. We know Jesus as a soul left that body, and went and set free those souls in sheol. And all those souls were given brand new permanent incorruptible physical bodies, because they were the firstfruits made alive at the Cross, under the NT Covenant, and no longer bound by the OT Covenant.

The OT Covenant you say keeps people bound in death:

Scripture says the dead know nothing, remember nothing, feel nothing, impact nothing, accomplish nothing, devise nothing, hear nothing, see nothing, praise nothing - the complete opposite of what you say.

That nothingness you preach stopped at the Cross for those redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb which was already established prior to creation. You are literally quoting Solomon under the OT as your basis of reality, denying the power of the Cross, and the fact that those who heard Jesus would never taste death again, period. Only those who reject the NT Covenant are stuck in death in that state Solomon was probably guessing about any way. Or if you interpret that from Job, are you quoting human reasoning or God?

Scripture also states that the Second Birth removes us from death into eternal life, but you can look that up. Jesus said: "Ye must be born again".

 

[Timtofly]

Historicism is the only interpretation that doesn't contain holes in the plot, while you guys need gaps, rubber bands, and selective Scriptural reference.

Babylon, MP, Greece, Rome, 10 horns and the papal Little Horn rising among them.

That got you to the founders of Historicism, then you all jumped off a cliff, and are dead.

You have no Scripture whatsoever to get you past the ten toes, not ten horns.

You cannot even say a little toe grew up among the ten toes, now can you?

I am not going to argue who the other beast are in other chapters. I don't have to. The image is self explanatory, and quite frankly has been dead and fallen since the Reformation. That is what Revelation 17 declares. I don't need gaps, and rubber bands. You have selective Scriptures not me. I have the final say:

"And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful."

These ten horns are not your ten horns from history. These have no kingdom as yet, so not historical. They fight the Lamb and are defeated in the future, not an historical battle of the past. You say they are kingdoms and can even name them in direct contradiction to John.

You need hundreds of humans over the last 600 years to back up your eschatology.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Where does it say a parable can't mention names of real people?

It doesn't have to say it. That should be obvious. A parable consists of made up people who represent real people and made up scenarios that represent real life scenarios. Luke 16:19-31 doesn't fit that description.

Yes.

Some, yes.

Those answers contradict each other. You said "Yes" to the question "Do you deny the existence of separate places called heaven/paradise and hell/hades where the spirits of physically/bodily dead people go?" and then "Some, yes" to my comment in relation to heaven and hell that "they are referred to as literal places repeatedly in scripture". So, which is it? Do you believe heaven/paradise and hell/Hades are real places or not? Did Jesus ascend to a real place called heaven (paradise) or not?

Scripture says the dead know nothing, remember nothing, feel nothing, impact nothing, accomplish nothing, devise nothing, hear nothing, see nothing, praise nothing - the complete opposite of what you say.

Context! You often miss it. That only talks about them in the sense that they are no longer living on earth. They no longer know anything on earth because they are not living on earth anymore. They no longer feel anything because their physical bodies are dead. And so on. None of that means they can't have any consciousness in heaven or hell.

Edit: I go into this in more detail in my next post, so don't feel obligated to respond to this here.

Parables like the Rich Man/Lazarus and The Trees contain things which can't and don't happen in real life.

Jesus describing real things figuratively does not make something He said a parable. If that was the only criteria for something being a parable then that would mean He told a lot more parables than we even realize.

Only real people and places are described in Luke 16:19-31 and that is why it's not a parable. These real people and places are not always described in a literal way, but real places like hell being specifically mentioned but described figuratively does not make it a parable. It would be a parable if the rich man was described as being in some other place besides the real place called hell.

We need to discern which real things are literally described and which are figuratively described within Luke 16:19-31. But, you think we need to determine which parts are real and which are fictional, but that isn't the right way to look at Luke 16:19-31 because it isn't a parable.

There's no reason to think that hell isn't a real place when Jesus often spoke of it as a real place of punishment and torment. Just because the torment is not physical (it's not a place where people with bodies go) and is described figuratively doesn't mean they don't really experience torment of some kind. Since it's the spiritual realm that we can't see and comprehend right now, there was no way for Jesus to describe it literally. But, there's no reason to think that Jesus would give the impression that people experience torment in hell if that wasn't actually the case. Why would He do that?

There's no reason to think that Jesus made up a name for a person (Lazarus) in a parable (why would He do that?).

There's no reason for Jesus to mention how many brothers the rich man had if it was a parable and the rich man wasn't an actual person.

Everything points to it not being a parable. Just like Matthew 25:31-46. That is not a parable. Jesus really will come with His angels, all people really will be judged at that time with the saved inheriting "life eternal" in the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world and the lost being sentenced to "everlasting punishment" while being cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". Just because Jesus uses some figurative terms there like sheep and goats doesn't make it a parable. Likewise, Jesus describing the rich man's torment using terms normally affiliated with the physical body doesn't make Luke 16:19-31 a parable.

Jesus chose "Lazarus" because He knew once the real Lazarus was raised, the Jews would harden their hearts and the people would be convinced of their hypocrisy.

What are you talking about? There is no relation between the Lazarus of Luke 16:19-31 and the brother of Mary and Martha. That Lazarus was not a beggar.

You're running over too much ground at once, which is why you fall victim to Satan's lies. Slow down and really look deeper into these issues and you'll see the truth emerge.

That is what I'm doing. You are the one ignoring the truth I'm presenting to you because you are the one who has decided to align yourself with a religious organization called the Seventh Day Adventist church while I have no such affiliation with any such fallible religious organization or denomination. Come out from among SDA false doctrine, Phoneman777.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

When you answer the 14 Irresolvable Contradictions, then get back to me.

The "soul" is not a "part" - it's the "whole" which is the sum of the two "parts" - the Body and Breath of Life. At death, the Soul ceases to exist just as light (soul) ceases to exist when current (spirit) is removed from the bulb (body).

So, you're saying Paul was confused then? He did not teach what you're saying here.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Only doctrinal bias can lead someone to think that Paul was not speaking of 3 separate parts of a whole human being here. Spirit, soul and body.

"When I get home, you all better have cleaned the living room, the bedrooms, the entire house".

This is not a valid analogy to make to 1 Thess 5:23. Look at the verse (I quoted it above). It does not read the way your analogy reads here. In that verse his mention of "you wholly" would be the reference to "the entire house". So, he mentions that first, not last like in your analogy. So, you are clearly trying to twist the verse to fit your doctrine.

After referring to "you wholly", he proceeds to describe "you wholly" as "your whole spirit and soul and body". So, your analogy only represents 2 of the 3 things Paul said make up "you wholly". You mention the living room and the bedrooms, but act like the kitchen doesn't exist.

No, Genesis 2:7 says the Soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and Breath.

Do you understand that the term "soul" has more than one definition? Yes, it can be used to refer to a person. But, the term can also be used as the part of the person called the soul. Just like Paul did in 1 Thess 5:23. You're not understanding that the "breath" consists of soul and spirit. There is a very tight bond between the soul and spirit, as the following verse indicates:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

But, that the soul and spirit have a tight bond together doesn't mean they are not separate parts of a person.

Scripture says the dead know nothing, remember nothing, feel nothing, impact nothing, accomplish nothing, devise nothing, hear nothing, see nothing, praise nothing - does that sound like consciousness?

Let's examine one of the passages in context that leads you to believe that the dead literally know nothing, etc.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. 6 Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.

The first thing to notice here is that Solomon is contrasting the living with the dead. And he says the living know that they will die and they dead know nothing. So, the dead knowing nothing is in comparison to the living knowing they will die. All this means is that the dead are no longer in a state of knowing they will some day die because they're now dead. That's all it means. So, they go from knowing they will die to actually dying. Does that mean they don't know they are dead and no longer have any consciousness? No. That's not what it says. That isn't the context of what Solomon was saying there.

To take it to mean that they literally know nothing at all and literally have no consciousness is to take this passage completely out of context. All it means is that they are no longer living on the earth, so, as Solomon said, "never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun". That's the context. It just means they won't ever live on earth again. They will never know anything while living on earth again because they're dead. This does not mean that their souls and/or spirits have no consciousness. Their bodies are dead, not their whole being.

Luke 20:37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

This says that God is the God of the living, not the dead. And it says He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So, are you going to try to tell me that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not alive in any sense which would mean that God is not their God? Jesus said they are alive despite being physically dead. Believe Him.

 

[Phoneman777]

Wow.

Here I thought we were in the image of God.

Now we are in the image of a house?

Firstly, I've shown you Genesis 2:7 KJV is clear that the Soul comes into existence only as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life. You choose to ignore that while loosely interpreting "soul" to mean "disembodied translucent ghost that looks like my, sounds like me, remembers like me" when it actually simply means "whole person" or "life" and nothing more.

Paul is saying, "...the body, the spirit - the entire soul". Using emphatic language, he's expressing his desire that all the parts and the whole itself be preserved blameless.

You guys always appeal to "body and soul and spirit" and when I demonstrate that the verse can easily mean "two parts and the whole" - instead of admitting, "Yes, I can see if the verse is taken by itself, it can mean that" --- but what do you guys always do? You say, "Oh no, Phoneman you fool, my otherrrrrrrrrrr texts disprove that."

Well, by all means, let's see what other texts you've got, one at at time, so the posts can remain bite size for easier consumption by others who may be following, OK? :)

 

[Phoneman777]

That got you to the founders of Historicism, then you all jumped off a cliff, and are dead.

You have no Scripture whatsoever to get you past the ten toes, not ten horns.

Because God didn't reveal the entire thing in Daniel 2, the Reformers are wrong? Ask yourself, why does any good math class start with (+) then (-) then (x) then (/) first - then later on, calculus?

Likewise, God - as with any good teacher - uses the principle of "Repetition and Enlargement" where a general overview is first presented, followed by incremental review/increased detail until the entire picture emerges.

 

[Phoneman777]

It doesn't have to say it. That should be obvious. A parable consists of made up people who represent real people and made up scenarios that represent real life scenarios. Luke 16:19-31 doesn't fit that description.

Good, you admit the "name" requirement is your word, not God's word.

Those answers contradict each other. You said "Yes" to the question "Do you deny the existence of separate places called heaven/paradise and hell/hades where the spirits of physically/bodily dead people go?" and then "Some, yes" to my comment in relation to heaven and hell that "they are referred to as literal places repeatedly in scripture". So, which is it? Do you believe heaven/paradise and hell/Hades are real places or not? Did Jesus ascend to a real place called heaven (paradise) or not?

No contradiction, I'm trying to avoid long responses to your giganitc posts. I pity your keyboard.

How about we take one topic at a time?

Context! You often miss it. That only talks about them in the sense that they are no longer living on earth. They no longer know anything on earth because they are not living on earth anymore. They no longer feel anything because their physical bodies are dead. And so on. None of that means they can't have any consciousness in heaven or hell.

Let's be clear right now: the Scripture doesn't say "dead body" - it says "the dead" - understand? That refers to the entire being - every aspect of him as a creature - that has been deprived of life.

At death, the Body begins returning to Earth, the Spirit returns to God just as He was when He went forth, and the Soul which exists only as a consequence of the union of the Body and Breath ceases to be.

To those with which He asks to reason, He knows even a fool knows nothing goes on in the skull of a corpse.

Only real people and places are described in Luke 16:19-31 and that is why it's not a parable.

So what? It also describes things that cannot and do not happen in real experience, like the dead talking, thinking, remembering, planning, praising, etc.

The safest place on planet Earth is a graveyard at midnight - even a crook won't bother you then - so, why are you all so scared to go there at midnight?

"YOU KNOW THEM FOLK ARE DEAD!!! (but not surely, right?)" - Pastor C. D. Brooks

I refuse to believe God was the liar and the Serpent told the truth, saying "thou shalt not surely die".

These real people and places are not always described in a literal way, but real places like hell being specifically mentioned but described figuratively does not make it a parable. It would be a parable if the rich man was described as being in some other place besides the real place called hell.

Look, unless you can point to a text which says "Parables are figurative if they contain real names/places" please dispense with your opinions and stick to Scripture - as I do.

There's no reason to think that hell isn't a real place when Jesus often spoke of it as a real place of punishment and torment.

Of course, it's a real place - but isn't burning now. Peter plainly tells you "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the Godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment, to be punished."

No less than three times does Peter speak of the punishment of the wicked in terms of a future reality, not a current reality.

That's the purpose of the resurrection: to unite Bodies prepared by God with His Spirit so these Souls can come back to life and recieve their reward: either life eternal or the second death, which is a permanent death, everlasting death - a death from which there will be no resurrection.

Just because the torment is not physical (it's not a place where people with bodies go) and is described figuratively doesn't mean they don't really experience torment of some kind. Since it's the spiritual realm that we can't see and comprehend right now, there was no way for Jesus to describe it literally. But, there's no reason to think that Jesus would give the impression that people experience torment in hell if that wasn't actually the case. Why would He do that?

Jesus interpreted the parable of the Rich Man/Lazarus. Would you like to hear it?

There's no reason to think that Jesus made up a name for a person (Lazarus) in a parable (why would He do that?.
There's no reason for Jesus to mention how many brothers the rich man had if it was a parable and the rich man wasn't an actual person.

The reason Jesus chose "Lazarus" and had Abraham tell the Rich Man if people won't hear the Word, they won't believe even if one "rose from the dead" is because when the real Lazarus "rose from the dead" and the Jews accepted Christ....oh, wait...sorry, it says they "went away to take counsel how they might destroy both Lazarus and Jesus" - the people would know the religous leaders were frauds.

Good gravy, man, please stop saying there's "no reason" - I've shown you a perfectly good reason.

Everything points to it not being a parable.

Nothing points to this being a real account of dead people. "The dead (not just the "dead body") - know not anything". Even an ignorant fool knows a corpse is completely dead neck up and neck down.

What are you talking about? There is no relation between the Lazarus of Luke 16:19-31 and the brother of Mary and Martha. That Lazarus was not a beggar.

I'll give you a bazillion dollars if you can point to where I said there were. See, this isn't the first time you've accused me of saying something I didn't and what you're doing is demonstrating classic signs of effeminate emotionalism which clouds your thinking, probably due to all the Cognitive Dissonance you're expriencing, which is why you offer all these absolutes based on your subjective opinions instead of Scripture, as I do.

Please stop...take a breath...and read more slowly...or not at all, choice is yours. It's my job to warn you that what you believe about death is the means by which Satan is going to deceive people in the last days: spiritualism whereby the dead aren't actually dead, but floating around, coming back to Earth, speaking with people, etc. - whether you heed the warning is up to you, but your blood won't be on my hands.

That is what I'm doing. You are the one ignoring the truth I'm presenting to you because you are the one who has decided to align yourself with a religious organization called the Seventh Day Adventist church while I have no such affiliation with any such fallible religious organization or denomination. Come out from among SDA false doctrine, Phoneman777.

What "truth"? Subjective nonsense about "dead bodies" being there when only "the dead" is written? Refusal to admit Genesis 2:7 KJV cannot support the Soul continuing to exist after Body and Soul return thither? Hermeneutical "rules" which say names/places used in parables proves a parable must be taken literally, but without a text establishing such a rule?

 

[Phoneman777]

So, you're saying Paul was confused then? He did not teach what you're saying here.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ

Yes, Paul desires both parts and the whole thing be preserved blameless.

Only doctrinal bias can lead someone to think that Paul was not speaking of 3 separate parts of a whole human being here. Spirit, soul and body.

Genesis 2:7 KJV would like a word with you.

This is not a valid analogy to make to 1 Thess 5:23. Look at the verse (I quoted it above). It does not read the way your analogy reads here. In that verse his mention of "you wholly" would be the reference to "the entire house". So, he mentions that first, not last like in your analogy. So, you are clearly trying to twist the verse to fit your doctrine.

"I pray that your whole Spirit (one part), and Soul (the whole) and Body (other part) be perserved blameless."

Happy now?

Do you understand that the term "soul" has more than one definition?

Do you understand that it never means "disembodied translucent ghost" but that is a PAGAN doctrine born from the mind of the devil (who said "thou shalt not surely die) that was dragged into Christianity by the papacy? Do you not understand that you make God the liar when He said "Thou shalt surely die" and the Serpent the truth teller, who said "Thou shalt not surely die"?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

But, that the soul and spirit have a tight bond together doesn't mean they are not separate parts of a person.

You keep referring to the soul as a "part" - Genesis 2:7 KJV would like a word with you.

Does that mean they don't know they are dead and no longer have any consciousness? No. That's not what it says. That isn't the context of what Solomon was saying there.

So, to "know not anything" means to "know something" - got it.

He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

Listen to what the great Tyndale wrote in his response to the papist Sir Thomas Moore when papist Moore used this very Scripture that you're using to prove "consciousness after death":


Tyndale: An Answer to Sir Thomas Moore Dialogue, pp. 181-182

“The true faith putteth forth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put forth that the souls did ever live. And the Pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together, things so contrary that they cannot agree, no more than the spirit and the flesh do (agree) in a Christian man. And because the fleshly-minded Pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the scripture to establish it (heathen doctrine).”

“And when he (Sir Thomas Moore) proveth that the saints be in heaven in glory with Christ already, saying, “If God be there God, they be in heaven, for he is not the God of the dead”, there he stealeth Christ's argument wherewith He proveth the resurrection: that Abraham and all the saints should rise again, and not that their souls were in heaven; which doctrine was not yet in the world. And with that doctrine, he (Moore) taketh away the resurrection quite, and maketh Christ's argument of none effect.

Nay, Paul, thou art unlearned. Go to master Moore and learn a new way. We be not most miserable, though we rise not again; for our souls go to heaven as soon as we be dead, and are there in as great joy as Christ that is risen again. I marvel that Paul had not comforted the Thessalonians with that doctrine if he had wist (known) it – that the souls of there dead had been in joy – as he (comforted them) with the (words of) the resurrection, that their dead should rise again. If the souls be in heaven, in as great glory as the angels, after your doctrine, master Moore, show me what cause there should be of the resurrection?”

This is why I keep asking over and over, why don't you guys just go ahead and join the catholic church, seeing that you're ideas align with her so nicely?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"I pray that your whole Spirit (one part), and Soul (the whole) and Body (other part) be perserved blameless."

Happy now?

Not at all. That is a ridiculous, nonsensical and biased paraphrase of 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

Do you understand that it never means "disembodied translucent ghost" but that is a PAGAN doctrine born from the mind of the devil (who said "thou shalt not surely die) that was dragged into Christianity by the papacy? Do you not understand that you make God the liar when He said "Thou shalt surely die" and the Serpent the truth teller, who said "Thou shalt not surely die"?

You keep referring to the soul as a "part" - Genesis 2:7 KJV would like a word with you.

Genesis 2:7 doesn't say otherwise. Tell me why John would say this if the soul was not a part of a person:

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

He did not say "I saw souls...". He said "I saw...the souls OF them that were slain". How do you explain that he didn't just say "I saw souls" if the word "soul" always refers to the whole person? Instead he said, "I saw...THE souls OF them that were slain...". I suppose you try to butcher that verse to make it align with your doctrine similar to what you do with 1 Thess 5:23.

So, to "know not anything" means to "know something" - got it.

It means to no longer be physically alive, as I explained. You obviously have a closed mind and are unteachable. So be it.

Listen to what the great Tyndale wrote in his response to the papist Sir Thomas Moore when papist Moore used this very Scripture that you're using to prove "consciousness after death":


Tyndale: An Answer to Sir Thomas Moore Dialogue, pp. 181-182

“The true faith putteth forth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put forth that the souls did ever live. And the Pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together, things so contrary that they cannot agree, no more than the spirit and the flesh do (agree) in a Christian man. And because the fleshly-minded Pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the scripture to establish it (heathen doctrine).”

“And when he (Sir Thomas Moore) proveth that the saints be in heaven in glory with Christ already, saying, “If God be there God, they be in heaven, for he is not the God of the dead”, there he stealeth Christ's argument wherewith He proveth the resurrection: that Abraham and all the saints should rise again, and not that their souls were in heaven; which doctrine was not yet in the world. And with that doctrine, he (Moore) taketh away the resurrection quite, and maketh Christ's argument of none effect.

Nay, Paul, thou art unlearned. Go to master Moore and learn a new way. We be not most miserable, though we rise not again; for our souls go to heaven as soon as we be dead, and are there in as great joy as Christ that is risen again. I marvel that Paul had not comforted the Thessalonians with that doctrine if he had wist (known) it – that the souls of there dead had been in joy – as he (comforted them) with the (words of) the resurrection, that their dead should rise again. If the souls be in heaven, in as great glory as the angels, after your doctrine, master Moore, show me what cause there should be of the resurrection?”

This is why I keep asking over and over, why don't you guys just go ahead and join the catholic church, seeing that you're ideas align with her so nicely?

LOL! Your trust is clearly in man over the word of God. Do you have a statue of Tyndale in your home? While the souls of the dead in Christ are in heaven now, they are still waiting for the redemption of their bodies when they will be made whole and have immortal bodies for eternity. Why is this hard to understand? How does that mean that they can't have any consciousness in heaven while they wait for the redemption of their bodies? Nothing your hero Tyndale said here refutes my belief. Nice try.

As for your ridiculous suggestion to join the Catholic Church, that says it all about you. I disagree with them on MANY things, but if I agree with them on this one thing then I should join them? LOL! They also believe that Jesus died and rose again from the dead. Should I tell you to join them since you agree with them about that ? LOL. I guess you don't want to be taken seriously.

 

[Timtofly]

Firstly, I've shown you Genesis 2:7 KJV is clear that the Soul comes into existence only as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life. You choose to ignore that while loosely interpreting "soul" to mean "disembodied translucent ghost that looks like my, sounds like me, remembers like me" when it actually simply means "whole person" or "life" and nothing more.

Paul is saying, "...the body, the spirit - the entire soul". Using emphatic language, he's expressing his desire that all the parts and the whole itself be preserved blameless.

You guys always appeal to "body and soul and spirit" and when I demonstrate that the verse can easily mean "two parts and the whole" - instead of admitting, "Yes, I can see if the verse is taken by itself, it can mean that" --- but what do you guys always do? You say, "Oh no, Phoneman you fool, my otherrrrrrrrrrr texts disprove that."

Well, by all means, let's see what other texts you've got, one at at time, so the posts can remain bite size for easier consumption by others who may be following, OK? :)

Nope.

You become a soul at conception, with a body forming around you.


Is the breath of life, air or do you see God breathing the Holy Spirit into every one at conception? Neither air, nor the Holy Spirit is your spirit. Moses never describes the spirit that you will put on. Not suck in as you define air.

Once conception happens the soul never dies. It may change bodies, but never dies. I can show you in the same verse in Genesis 2 that the Holy Spirit is at work in every human soul from conception.

The word for the Holy Spirit is still the same word for air, and stars for that matter. Stars are air and fire, as the simplest description to produce light.

 

[Timtofly]

Because God didn't reveal the entire thing in Daniel 2, the Reformers are wrong? Ask yourself, why does any good math class start with (+) then (-) then (x) then (/) first - then later on, calculus?

Likewise, God - as with any good teacher - uses the principle of "Repetition and Enlargement" where a general overview is first presented, followed by incremental review/increased detail until the entire picture emerges.

You will figure it out at the Second Coming, if not before. Daniel was for those living between Daniel and the Reformation.

Revelation got us to the Second Coming, and beyond.

You cannot use Daniel to interpret Revelation. You can use the fact that at the Second Coming all of the statute found in Daniel 2 will have been in the distant past. No Scripture defines the 6th kingdom between the 5th and 7th. Except for the fact it has a mortal wound, and will need revived after the Second Coming.

The Reformers saw the fall of the 5th Kingdom. Should they have expected the 5th Kingdom to last much longer? Did they date set the end of the 5th Kingdom? Were they as wrong as all other date setters?

 

[Phoneman777]

Not at all. That is a ridiculous, nonsensical and biased paraphrase of 1 Thessalonians 5:23.

Not when you consider that Genesis 2:7 KJV says the Soul is the whole comprised of the two parts: the Body and Breath. Read Isaiah 28:9-13 KJV

Genesis 2:7 doesn't say otherwise.

I can't let you get away with this outright falsehood. Genesis 2:7 KJV absolutely says that the Soul comes into existence as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath.

Tell me why John would say this if the soul was not a part of a person:

The "Soul" is the "whole" the "I" the "ego" the "self" the "individual". It's not a poltergeist that flies off at death.

Revelation 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

He did not say "I saw souls...". He said "I saw...the souls OF them that were slain". How do you explain that he didn't just say "I saw souls" if the word "soul" always refers to the whole person? Instead he said, "I saw...THE souls OF them that were slain...". I suppose you try to butcher that verse to make it align with your doctrine similar to what you do with 1 Thess 5:23.

Do you always establish doctrine by taking as literal passages from the most symbolic books of Scripture?

Blood is what ran down under the altar and "the life (Hebrew: "Nephesh" aka "Soul") is in the blood" ... so "souls under the altar crying out" is symbolic for "the injustice of martyrs sacrificed for the truth's sake crying out to God for retribution".

It means to no longer be physically alive, as I explained. You obviously have a closed mind and are unteachable. So be it.

"Souls" are not immortal!
James says conversion saves a soul from "death".
Ezekiel says the soul that sinneth "shall die".
Paul says we "seek for immortality" - which means we ain't got it!
Paul also says God "only hath immortality" - which means neither you nor I nor Hitler have it.

LOL! Your trust is clearly in man over the word of God. Do you have a statue of Tyndale in your home? While the souls of the dead in Christ are in heaven now, they are still waiting for the redemption of their bodies when they will be made whole and have immortal bodies for eternity. Why is this hard to understand? How does that mean that they can't have any consciousness in heaven while they wait for the redemption of their bodies? Nothing your hero Tyndale said here refutes my belief. Nice try.

The point is that not everyone is as duped as you are. Luther said the ideas of the Immortal Soul crowd are scooped straight off the top of "the (papal) Roman dunghill of decretals".

As for your ridiculous suggestion to join the Catholic Church, that says it all about you. I disagree with them on MANY things, but if I agree with them on this one thing then I should join them? LOL! They also believe that Jesus died and rose again from the dead. Should I tell you to join them since you agree with them about that ? LOL. I guess you don't want to be taken seriously.

You absolutely agree with catholicism on core issues, like immortality of the soul, eternal torment, salvation apart from repentance, innocent of the charge it is the papal Antichrist, Jesuit eschatology, Sunday significance, ecumenicalism - right?