Maine Legislature.

Provides links and information to the House of Representatives, the Senate, council offices, executive, and judicial branches.

Information regarding Maine House District 23 in Gorham. Provides links to municipal, county, and state resources.

In article <165.10.16.05.696106000@srcbs.org>, Eric Bohn says...
>
>
>
>Actually, I believe the correct translation for this verse is more
>like:
>
>'Amen, I say to you, before the day is through, you will be with me in
>the kingdom of my father.'

The translation is not literal enough, and is far too bold in replacing
'paradise' with "kingdom of my father", but there is one thing I really like
about it: simply moving a comma does not change the meaning so radically.

>Having a right understanding of this encounter is important for
>understanding Catholic doctrine regarding Pergatory.

Getting the doctrine right is a lot easier if you get the spelling right. It is
'Purgatory', not 'Pergatory'! And getting the doctrine right is impossible with
such a sloppy translation! Far better to use the classic Catholic translation:

et dixit illi Iesus amen dico tibi
hodie mecum eris in paradiso (Luk 23:43 Vulgate)

It still has the troublesome ambiguity of punctuation, but as I have said so
often now, it really makes no sense to put the comma after 'hodie'. And it
_clearly_ says 'paradiso', NOT "kingdom of my father".

>Why? We see it
>through revelation. We don't say that Jesus went to hell, not limbo,
>or vice-versa, or that he did not go to Heaven.

Ever hear of "the harrowing of hell"? Ever look at the Apostle's creed?

> We recognize that
>after his death, he went everywhere.

And since when is that Catholic doctrine? Not only does this not even sound like
Catholic doctrine, it sounds like it _confuses_ two _different Catholic
doctrines: that as God, He was always omnipresent, and that as both man and God,
he descended into hell to redeem the captives, and ascended into heaven bodily.

>Consider the testimony of Peter in 1 Peter 3:19. When Peter talks to
>spirits in prison, he does so in recognition of the exchange between
>Jesus and the repentant thief. But to fully understand the
>significance of what is going on here, you have to recognize, as did
>Peter and Jesus, that something very special had taken place in the
>thief on the cross, something that had its source external to the thief
>himself. Note elsewhere we see the stage of the crucifixion being one
>where everyone who had voice was condemning Christ -- even the thief in
>question. What do you suppose was the cause of the sudden change of
>heart we see now? By what reason did the thief come to say what he
>did? Jesus's reply to the thief was not merely to the thief himself,
>but rather to those spirits who were making themselves manifest to
>Christ through the thief.
>
>Note that we see Jesus in his resurrection ministry, in his mystical
>body, d