MC Just Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Purgatory According to Jewish sages, this is a period of spiritual punishment and/or purification for a period of up to 12 months after death called Gehinnom (in Yiddish it's Gehenna). However, Jesus clearly states there is not a "set" limit for all, but we set our own limits. Yet, if Calvary cleansed us of our sins, what is there left to pay (Protestant argument)? We believe the full text of Matthew helps clarify this as we read when Jesus is condemning when we judge our brother: "You have heard that it was said to men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'you fool!' shall be liable to Gehenna. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put into prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny." Matt.5.21-26 First, please note that once we are under His grace and mercy, we will not go unto Hell (Eternal damnation), but rather Gehenna/purgatory. Thus, we do not see this as a parable at all, but a stiff warning to any with ears to hear. Furthermore, this is about judging your brother or neighbor for in same teaching we are warned: "Judge not, that we be judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." Matt.7.1-2 And at the beginning of Jesus' comments, He equates calling someone "you fool" to killing them. We believe this confirms an article a friend name Suzanne gave us on venial sins that leave pain and suffering behind us even after we have forgotten them ourselves because when we judge wrongly a person, we potentially kill their soul. To read this article that combines scripture with the word of our Church fathers you can find this at: Purgatory, by Fr. Bertrand L. Conway Yet we believe there's another argument we have used in the past that also shows Purgatory is a true doctrine of the Church. Many Christians we have spoken to believe that they cannot go unto the wrath if they remain true to HaShem, and yet we are also told that some do go unto this wrath and are made clean during this wrath (they call them "saints of the wrath"). So the question we ask them is why would G-d only save wishy-washy Christians (neither hot nor cold) who happen to be lucky enough (if going through the wrath could be construed as "luck") to be born in time of His return while all those "saps" who fall short of His glory before those days are out of luck? This is from "Yeshua's Light" http://www.angelfire.com/ny/Yeshuaslight/index.htm The Hebrew Catholic's know alot about these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 mc just: i think you forgot to provide the link for "Purgatory, by Fr. Bertrand L. Conway." can u post that for us? bugmotel: i would also suggest the following articles.... --Purgatory --The Roots of Purgatory --Purgatory (a wealth of scriptural justification) --Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead (go here for 16 different articles explaining Purgatory) --Purgatory --Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory (go here for a library of church documents, multimedia, and articles on life after death, including around 20 articles on Purgatory) --How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants --Devotion to the Poor and Rich Souls in Purgatory --Praying for the Dead and Gaining Indulgences During November --The Doctrine of Purgatory --Purification of the Soul Here or Thereafter --Purgatory: Service Shop for Heaven --Purgatory and Catechesis --How to Argue the Existence of Purgatory --Purgatory? Where is That in the Bible? that should get you started good luck in ur search for truth and God Bless, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freaky Chik Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 okay, i just wanna make a few comments... in an open and loving way though ... I've read alot now about purgatory (from you guys and some web sources you've provided me) over the past few months... and you always say it branches out of jewish heritage and how we should look to what jews believed etc cos christianity initially came outta jews (if that makes sense, i'm sure u know what i mean when i said they hey? bad with wording things lol sorry).... anyways... if it's jewish tradition/belief or whatever... does it necessarily make it right? i never heard God speak about purgatory... could it have been jews forming it themselves? I read this verse recently... I'd love to hear yer comments on it Titus 1:13-14 This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Hey-o Freaky, Note that it says 'Jewish Myths'. One can't say that Purgatory is a Jewish Myth. It's a consistent Jewish teaching. In the context of your verse, it is talking about falsehoods about Jesus. Go to the last link on phatCath's post. "Purgatory, Where is that in the Bible?". The teaching is very biblical, but I'm sure you would want to discuss specific verses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Purgatory..in the context of being Jewish, is NOT a settled issue. In fact, HEAVEN isn't a settled issue with them, remember, at the time of Jesus, there was one faction that believed in heaven, Pharisees, and another, Sadducces that didn't. That was what made the question posed to Jesus about the woman who died and went to heaven with .. I believe ... seven dead husbands, so tricky. To answer that there was no heaven, would alienate the one faction, to actually answer the question that there WAS a heaven and give an answer to that question about which husband was to be reunited with the woman, would alienate the other faction. Jesus finessed this one nicely. To this very day, Rabbi's debate if there is a heaven or not, and it is NOT settled as far as they are concerned. Goes the same for hell too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Purgatory..in the context of being Jewish, is NOT a settled issue. In fact, HEAVEN isn't a settled issue with them, remember, at the time of Jesus, there was one faction that believed in heaven, Pharisees, and another, Sadducces that didn't. That was what made the question posed to Jesus about the woman who died and went to heaven with .. I believe ... seven dead husbands, so tricky. To answer that there was no heaven, would alienate the one faction, to actually answer the question that there WAS a heaven and give an answer to that question about which husband was to be reunited with the woman, would alienate the other faction. Jesus finessed this one nicely. To this very day, Rabbi's debate if there is a heaven or not, and it is NOT settled as far as they are concerned. Goes the same for hell too. bruce, all we are claiming is that a belief in Purgatory existed in Judaism. i may be missing something blatantly obvious here, but right now i'm not seeing why it matters wether its a settled issue or not. btw, in regards to hell, that's not "settled" even in christianity. some christians say hell actually has pits of fire, others say hell is eternal separation from God, w/o all the fire and brimstone. of course, w/ differing views on salvation come the consequent differing views about hell. some say, make one profession of faith and you have no hell to fear. other say persevere to the end. some say death in mortal sin means eternity in hell. others do not even believe in "mortal" sin. so, is a non-christian to dismiss hell b/c it is not "settled" in christianity? (granted, this may not be an entirely effective analogy, but it was the first one that came to mind.) ur thoughts? pax christi, phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theologian in Training Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Purgatory According to Jewish sages, this is a period of spiritual punishment and/or purification for a period of up to 12 months after death called Gehinnom (in Yiddish it's Gehenna). However, Jesus clearly states there is not a "set" limit for all, but we set our own limits. Yet, if Calvary cleansed us of our sins, what is there left to pay (Protestant argument)? We believe the full text of Matthew helps clarify this as we read when Jesus is condemning when we judge our brother: "You have heard that it was said to men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'you fool!' shall be liable to Gehenna. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put into prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny." Matt.5.21-26 First, please note that once we are under His grace and mercy, we will not go unto Hell (Eternal damnation), but rather Gehenna/purgatory. Thus, we do not see this as a parable at all, but a stiff warning to any with ears to hear. Furthermore, this is about judging your brother or neighbor for in same teaching we are warned: "Judge not, that we be judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." Matt.7.1-2 And at the beginning of Jesus' comments, He equates calling someone "you fool" to killing them. We believe this confirms an article a friend name Suzanne gave us on venial sins that leave pain and suffering behind us even after we have forgotten them ourselves because when we judge wrongly a person, we potentially kill their soul. To read this article that combines scripture with the word of our Church fathers you can find this at: Purgatory, by Fr. Bertrand L. Conway Yet we believe there's another argument we have used in the past that also shows Purgatory is a true doctrine of the Church. Many Christians we have spoken to believe that they cannot go unto the wrath if they remain true to HaShem, and yet we are also told that some do go unto this wrath and are made clean during this wrath (they call them "saints of the wrath"). So the question we ask them is why would G-d only save wishy-washy Christians (neither hot nor cold) who happen to be lucky enough (if going through the wrath could be construed as "luck") to be born in time of His return while all those "saps" who fall short of His glory before those days are out of luck? This is from "Yeshua's Light" http://www.angelfire.com/ny/Yeshuaslight/index.htm The Hebrew Catholic's know alot about these things. What, you didn't like the answers that were provided? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 26, 2003 Share Posted December 26, 2003 (edited) Many people think that Purgatory started with the Catholic Church.... but they're wrong. The Catholic Church only gave 'it' a name.... 'Purgatory'... a purging of any minor sins before we enter Heaven, for we know, all sin is not deadly, and no sin may enter Heaven. Isaiah 6:5-7 Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged." 2 Macc 12:43-46 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Septuagint was the bible that Jesus used and quoted from. (we also know this because it was the only bible in use at that time in that area) I think if the book was considered inspired by Jesus and the Apostles, I'll stick with what they taught. Read below and learn (from Jewish site: http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm#kaddish) make sure you note the bold. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kaddish Kaddish is commonly known as a mourner's prayer, but in fact, variations on the Kaddish prayer are routinely recited at many other times, and the prayer itself has nothing to do with death or mourning. The prayer begins "May His great Name grow exalted and sanctified in the world that He created as He willed. May He give reign to His kingship in your lifetimes and in your days ..." and continues in much that vein. The real mourner's prayer is El Molai Rachamim, which is recited at grave sites and during funerals. Why, then, is Kaddish recited by mourners? After a great loss like the death of a parent, you might expect a person to lose faith in G-d, or to cry out against G-d's injustice. Instead, Judaism requires a mourner to stand up every day, publicly (i.e., in front of a minyan, a quorum of 10 adult men), and reaffirm faith in G-d despite this loss. To do so inures to the merit of the deceased in the eyes of G-d, because the deceased must have been a very good parent to raise a child who could express such faith in the face of personal loss. Then why is Kaddish recited for only 11 months, when the mourning period is 12 months? According to Jewish tradition, the soul must spend some time purifying itself before it can enter the World to Come. The maximum time required for purification is 12 months, for the most evil person. To recite Kaddish for 12 months would imply that the parent was the type who needed 12 months of purification! To avoid this implication, the Sages decreed that a son should recite Kaddish for only eleven months. A person is permitted to recite Kaddish for other close relatives as well as parents, but only if his parents are dead. See Mourners' Kaddish for the full text of the Mourners' Kaddish. Also be sure to look up what Rosh Hashannah is about. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It just goes back to what Newman said.... "To be rich in history, is to cease to be protestant." To deny Purgatory is to deny the truth of the Bible.... 1 Peter 3:19 Matt. 12:32 Luke 12:59 2 Macc. 12:43-46 Rev 20:13-15 Rev. 21:27 1 Cor 3:15 Isaiah 6:6-7 The following verses describe what the Catholic Church calls "Purgatory" - I know a couple of them are posted above, but here they are again for giggles. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Isaiah 6:5 Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" 6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged." Sins are purged so he may enter Heaven. If sins are purged, then he will be saved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. How can someone be in Hell, and then be forgiven??? The age to come people can be forgiven, it can't be Heaven because there is no need for forgiveness because in Heaven there will not be sin... it can't be Hell because once your in Hell, it's for eternity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rev 20:13 The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. (This pool of fire is the second death.) 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire. Death and Hades (not the pool of fire) gave up their dead and they were judged according to their deeds.... THEN Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire (HELL as we know it) Death and Hades is not Hell, and is not Heaven... then what could it be??? The Catholic Church calls it Purgatory. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. Rev 21:27 but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. Nothing Unclean can enter Heaven, but not all sin is deadly (1 John 5:16) therefore we must have our sin purged (Isaiah 6:6-7) before we enter Heaven if we are guilty of lesser sins. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Cor 3:15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. How can we be saved from Hell, because Hell is eternal? This being saved as through fire can only be Purgatory, where our lesser sins will be purged from us. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke 12:59 I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny." We will pay for all our sins in one way or another (Purgatory). All our sins must be paid for. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Macc 12:43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. If we make it to Heaven, we don't need atonement. If we go to Hell, there is no atonement.... There must be Purgatory -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Peter 1:6 In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, 7 so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Job 1:5 And when each feast had run its course, Job would send for them and sanctify them, rising early and offering holocausts for every one of them. For Job said, "It may be that my sons have sinned and blasphemed God in their hearts." This Job did habitually. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Purgatory from the Catechism, The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church: III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory 1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. 1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607 As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608 1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611 607: Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7. 608: St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31. 609: 2 Macc 12:46. 611: St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41, 5: PG 61, 361; cf. Job 1:5. ----------------------------------- Your Servant in Christ, ironmonk Edited December 26, 2003 by ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 26, 2003 Share Posted December 26, 2003 Isaiah 6:5 Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!" 6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged." Sins are purged so he may enter Heaven. If sins are purged, then he will be saved. He is purged because he recognizes he is sinful, yet he is in God's presence. There is nothing about 'heaven' here. The context deals with a message to the Israelites, not heaven. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. How can someone be in Hell, and then be forgiven??? The age to come people can be forgiven, it can't be Heaven because there is no need for forgiveness because in Heaven there will not be sin... it can't be Hell because once your in Hell, it's for eternity. Don't know about you, but I typically only see living people speak. If someone speaks against the Son of Man he may be forgiven, but I would think a prerequisite for that is being able to speak. The context is of living people as well.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rev 20:13 The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. (This pool of fire is the second death.) 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire. Death and Hades (not the pool of fire) gave up their dead and they were judged according to their deeds.... THEN Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire (HELL as we know it) Death and Hades is not Hell, and is not Heaven... then what could it be??? The Catholic Church calls it Purgatory. Revelation 6:8 has Hades as well, and in the OT we see Sheol as a place ALL dead people go. It is the grave, a general term. I.E. the dead will come alive, the grave will no longer hold them. If you believe Death and Hades to be purgatory, then you also have the unsaved going there as well. Now THAT, might be a problem . (See Matthew 11:23's use of Hades, Matthew 16:18 (wouldn't that be ironic if the Gates of PURGATORY couldn't prevail against the church) and many more). You didn't do much research on the verses you plucked up to use did you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 John 5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. Rev 21:27 but nothing unclean will enter it, nor any (one) who does abominable things or tells lies. Only those will enter whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. Nothing Unclean can enter Heaven, but not all sin is deadly (1 John 5:16) therefore we must have our sin purged (Isaiah 6:6-7) before we enter Heaven if we are guilty of lesser sins. Yeah, not all sin brings physical death (as 1 Cor 5 complements 1 John 5:16, see also Ananias), and thanks for putting down Rev 21:27. If you notice, nothing unclean will enter it, only those written in the Lamb's book of life. That is, Christians (Philippians 4:3). We are already made clean according to that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Cor 3:15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. How can we be saved from Hell, because Hell is eternal? This being saved as through fire can only be Purgatory, where our lesser sins will be purged from us. How about we stop pulling verses from out of context. 1 Cor 3:12-13 "Whether a person builds on this foundation with gold, silver, expensive stones, wood, hay, or straw, the workmanship of each person will become evident..." The fire is an illustration of what happens if our works are like wood/haw/straw. You Catholics seem to have a hard time understanding figures of speech. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke 12:59 I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny." We will pay for all our sins in one way or another (Purgatory). All our sins must be paid for. This is from another illustration about a man going to court in front of the judge. The point is that it is better to call of the LORD in life, than to wait for judgment, because at judgment you will pay in full. I.E. eternal death. If this was purgatory then there is no one going to Hell, and the wages of sin is not complete death, only temporary death. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Macc 12:43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. If we make it to Heaven, we don't need atonement. If we go to Hell, there is no atonement.... There must be Purgatory I don't consider this inspired. It is interesting that he sought to make a sacrifice of atonement when only the High Priest had such rights. It is also interesting the author commended him on his faith in live after death with his action. I remember a time when a man tried to make a sacrifice on his own and lost the anointing by God. Oh yeah, Saul. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Peter 1:6 In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, 7 so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. this is talking about in life, and the fire is in reference to the gold as unperishable. Figure of speech for the fire part again.. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Job 1:5 And when each feast had run its course, Job would send for them and sanctify them, rising early and offering holocausts for every one of them. For Job said, "It may be that my sons have sinned and blasphemed God in their hearts." This Job did habitually. He is the head of his family, he is responsible for them. His sons are also alive, not dead. To deny Purgatory is to deny the truth of the Bible.... 1 Peter 3:19 Matt. 12:32 Luke 12:59 2 Macc. 12:43-46 Rev 20:13-15 Rev. 21:27 1 Cor 3:15 Isaiah 6:6-7 None of your passages taught purgatory. Some were even contradictory for your arguments. I have a feeling you just grabbed a list from some source without checking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 27, 2003 Share Posted December 27, 2003 Dear circle, Are you infallible when it comes to your personal interpretation of Scripture? Could you be wrong? See, all you can truthfully say is that the Catholic Church has a different interpretation of Scripture, unless you think you are infallible. You fail to address what was taught by the Jews hundreds of years before Christ came. He is purged because he recognizes he is sinful, yet he is in God's presence. There is nothing about 'heaven' here. The context deals with a message to the Israelites, not heaven. His sins were purged so that he could be in the Presence of the Lord. Doomed: it was popularly believed that to see God would lead to one's death; cf Genesis 32:31; Exodus 33:20; Judges 13:22 - to be in the Presence of the Lord is Heaven. Don't know about you, but I typically only see living people speak. If someone speaks against the Son of Man he may be forgiven, but I would think a prerequisite for that is being able to speak. The context is of living people as well.. "age to come" - How can this mean living people who are of the present age, when it specifically says "age to come"? Revelation 6:8 has Hades as well, and in the OT we see Sheol as a place ALL dead people go. It is the grave, a general term. I.E. the dead will come alive, the grave will no longer hold them. If you believe Death and Hades to be purgatory, then you also have the unsaved going there as well. Now THAT, might be a problem . (See Matthew 11:23's use of Hades, Matthew 16:18 (wouldn't that be ironic if the Gates of PURGATORY couldn't prevail against the church) and many more). You didn't do much research on the verses you plucked up to use did you. That's a good point because those in Purgatory will go to Heaven. Those verses are not a good choice for purgatory, but are a good choice to show that there is a weigh station sort of say. Yeah, not all sin brings physical death (as 1 Cor 5 complements 1 John 5:16, see also Ananias), and thanks for putting down Rev 21:27. If you notice, nothing unclean will enter it, only those written in the Lamb's book of life. That is, Christians (Philippians 4:3). We are already made clean according to that. We are not saved until the end, and we must persevere until the end - as Jesus said. We can fall away. There are minor sins that will not send us to Hell, but the stain left by them will need to be cleaned before we enter Heaven, this cleaning is purgatory. How about we stop pulling verses from out of context. 1 Cor 3:12-13 "Whether a person builds on this foundation with gold, silver, expensive stones, wood, hay, or straw, the workmanship of each person will become evident..." The fire is an illustration of what happens if our works are like wood/haw/straw. You Catholics seem to have a hard time understanding figures of speech. How do you know the proper context? Are you infallible? The Day: the great day of Yahweh, the day of judgment, which can be a time of either gloom or joy. Fire both destroys and purifies. This is from another illustration about a man going to court in front of the judge. The point is that it is better to call of the LORD in life, than to wait for judgment, because at judgment you will pay in full. I.E. eternal death. If this was purgatory then there is no one going to Hell, and the wages of sin is not complete death, only temporary death. Wrong. Purgatory does not keep people from going to Hell. To say it does, shows that you do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches about Purgatory. Please re-read the section on the Catechism that I posted. I don't consider this inspired. It is interesting that he sought to make a sacrifice of atonement when only the High Priest had such rights. It is also interesting the author commended him on his faith in live after death with his action. I remember a time when a man tried to make a sacrifice on his own and lost the anointing by God. Oh yeah, Saul. Why don't you accept Macc.? Jesus and the Apostles did, along with every other Christian until 1611 AD. See, the protestants used the Messorah from 90 AD for their OT (Old Testament) and they used the Vulgate for their NT (New Testament). The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint, which was put together about 292 BC, which was the only thing universally considered as Scripture until the New Testament Canon around 400 AD. Now, we know Jesus took the Authority to teach away from the Jews, and gave it to the Apostles, so why would we want to use something that the Jews created 57 years after Christ went to Heaven? Not to mention, every Christian considered it inspired until the kjv was written. It just doesn't make sense to use the Massorah. Also, speaking of inspiration... Why do you even think the books of the New Testament are inspired, because it was the Catholic Church Councils that put together the Canon of the New Testament. In a way, the only reason why you accept them is because the Catholic Church said to believe them... because someone showed the NT to you, and someone showed it to that person, and so on, all the way back to before 400 AD when the Council of Carthage (397) and Hippo (393), said which 27 books were inspired out of the over 200 at the time floating around. this is talking about in life, and the fire is in reference to the gold as unperishable. Figure of speech for the fire part again.. A major flaw in many protestant's theology is that they think that something must mean one thing or another, whereas in all reality, verses can have multiple meanings. You are partially right, yet you are partially wrong. He is the head of his family, he is responsible for them. His sons are also alive, not dead. John Chrysostom "Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]). None of your passages taught purgatory. Some were even contradictory for your arguments. I have a feeling you just grabbed a list from some source without checking. Thank you and may God Bless you. Again... Are you infallible? How do you know if you don't read what has been taught since 33 AD? How do you know when you don't read any source before 1517 AD.... To be rich in history is to cease to be protestant. Now, let's look at what the first Christians had to say about Purgatory... The Acts of Paul and Thecla "And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]). Abercius "The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius" (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190]). The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity "[T]hat very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease. . . . For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other . . . and knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then . . . I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. . . . [And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment" (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4 [A.D. 202]). Tertullian "[T]hat allegory of the Lord [Matt. 5:25–26] . . . is extremely clear and simple in its meaning . . . [beware lest as] a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge . . . and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?" (The Soul 35 [A.D. 210]). "We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]" (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]). "A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice" (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]). Cyprian of Carthage "The strength of the truly believing remains unshaken; and with those who fear and love God with their whole heart, their integrity continues steady and strong. For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace [i.e., reconciliation] is given. Yet virginity is not therefore deficient in the Church, nor does the glorious design of continence languish through the sins of others. The Church, crowned with so many virgins, flourishes; and chastity and modesty preserve the tenor of their glory. Nor is the vigor of continence broken down because repentance and pardon are facilitated to the adulterer. It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord" (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]). Lactantius "But also, when God will judge the just, it is likewise in fire that he will try them. At that time, they whose sins are uppermost, either because of their gravity or their number, will be drawn together by the fire and will be burned. Those, however, who have been imbued with full justice and maturity of virtue, will not feel that fire; for they have something of God in them which will repel and turn back the strength of the flame" (Divine Institutes 7:21:6 [A.D. 307]). Cyril of Jerusalem "Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out" (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]). Gregory of Nyssa "If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire" (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]). John Chrysostom "Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]). "Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the amesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that amesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf" (Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10 [A.D. 402]). Augustine "There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]). "But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death" (ibid., 172:2). "Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment" (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]). "That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]). "The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death" (ibid., 29:109). God Bless, Your Servant in Christ, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 27, 2003 Share Posted December 27, 2003 First off, I apologize for being a little.. cocky in my previous post. I started it wondering if I would have answers for your verses, or wondering if your interpretation seems the best. But as I went along I found some very large flaws in some of them and got a little carried away. Here is a little response. (by the way, no I don't think I am infallible, however, I don't believe you are either. I don't you can find a 'Catholic Commentary' which infallible interpretation as well) That is an interesting response to say Scripture can mean many things for each verse. I don't know any other language that was written that way. You make it sound more like art where whatever feels right to you is right to you. His sins were purged so that he could be in the Presence of the Lord. Doomed: it was popularly believed that to see God would lead to one's death; cf Genesis 32:31; Exodus 33:20; Judges 13:22 - to be in the Presence of the Lord is Heaven. It was also instantaneous if you notice. Yet it was said that even a Pope would spend thousands of years in purgatory. You also notice it was never said that Isaiah was perfect. I'm not sure if this 'purging' has any link to what you said. Matt 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. "age to come" - How can this mean living people who are of the present age, when it specifically says "age to come"? Unless there is a special Greek thing going on here, it seems that the 'either in this age or in the age to come' only influences those that will not be forgiven. That is the natural reading. For Revelation 20 passage, the verse I agree are not good for purgatory. For the idea of a weigh station, perhaps. But those in the book of life still are said to pass without question. The judgment of bad stuff seems reserved for the unsaved, and good things seem reserved for the saved. We are not saved until the end, and we must persevere until the end - as Jesus said. We can fall away. There are minor sins that will not send us to Hell, but the stain left by them will need to be cleaned before we enter Heaven, this cleaning is purgatory. Well, I don't agree with your idea of falling away. I could bring a lot of Scripture into that one, but it is a side argument, so lets skip that. Yes that is your view of purgatory, a place to complete sanctification. Might I suggest however that if we receive our new bodies, there will be nothing left to purify. All that is sinful within us now is our old self as Paul says. And at that point, what will be left will be all reborn, and all Godly. 1 Cor 3:15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. How can we be saved from Hell, because Hell is eternal? This being saved as through fire can only be Purgatory, where our lesser sins will be purged from us. --- How do you know the proper context? Are you infallible? The Day: the great day of Yahweh, the day of judgment, which can be a time of either gloom or joy. Fire both destroys and purifies. I would just say this is part of the judgment. To lose 'works' we did would be the same as receiving only the good things we actually did for Christ, from a good motive. I'm not sure the idea of 'burning them away' really should be taken literally, this is an illustration after all, AND, the judgment seat would do this. Circle Master - This is from another illustration about a man going to court in front of the judge. The point is that it is better to call of the LORD in life, than to wait for judgment, because at judgment you will pay in full. I.E. eternal death. If this was purgatory then there is no one going to Hell, and the wages of sin is not complete death, only temporary death. Iron Monk - Wrong. Purgatory does not keep people from going to Hell. To say it does, shows that you do not understand what the Catholic Church teaches about Purgatory. Please re-read the section on the Catechism that I posted. I said if it was. This is why I don't believe this verse can refer to it. I think you agree. This takes another off your list. Why don't you accept Macc.? Jesus and the Apostles did, along with every other Christian until 1611 AD. See, the protestants used the Messorah from 90 AD for their OT (Old Testament) and they used the Vulgate for their NT (New Testament). The Catholic Church uses the Septuagint, which was put together about 292 BC, which was the only thing universally considered as Scripture until the New Testament Canon around 400 AD. Now, we know Jesus took the Authority to teach away from the Jews, and gave it to the Apostles, so why would we want to use something that the Jews created 57 years after Christ went to Heaven? Not to mention, every Christian considered it inspired until the kjv was written. It just doesn't make sense to use the Massorah. Also, speaking of inspiration... Why do you even think the books of the New Testament are inspired, because it was the Catholic Church Councils that put together the Canon of the New Testament. In a way, the only reason why you accept them is because the Catholic Church said to believe them... because someone showed the NT to you, and someone showed it to that person, and so on, all the way back to before 400 AD when the Council of Carthage (397) and Hippo (393), said which 27 books were inspired out of the over 200 at the time floating around. I disagree. Can I suggest F.F. Bruce's book on this? Maybe dUSk can lend it to you after he is finished. I think a bit of your view on how we received our Scripture has been warped by your Catholic beliefs. I'm sorry I don't have all the proof here, but I have discussed parts of this with some of my teachers with Doctorates in Church History, and they give different stories. Much different ones sometimes. So to say it is this way infallibly, would just be an extension of your faith in the Catholic Church, and not historic dogma. A major flaw in many protestant's theology is that they think that something must mean one thing or another, whereas in all reality, verses can have multiple meanings. You are partially right, yet you are partially wrong. This is like arguing against someone that beliefs the truth can be different for each person. Dumb postmodernism. I can't argue against that, I can disagree however because I know when I write, I mean one thing with each sentence, not 4 different ways to read my words. The most I've heard that way is supposedly the Oracle of Delphi wrote so that statements could be read two ways, which is why the oracle was always true. I highly doubt our biblical author's had the same intention of trying to confuse us. John Chrysostom "Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]). In Job 1:5, Job's sons are still alive. The burnt offering was used to show devotion to God. I.E. similar to giving back to God showing that you trust Him to care for you. If you notice, at the end, when God doubly blesses Him, it does not mention if he began to offer burnt offerings for his sons that were already dead. I believe that is what you would need to make a case for anything here. Again... Are you infallible? How do you know if you don't read what has been taught since 33 AD? How do you know when you don't read any source before 1517 AD.... To be rich in history is to cease to be protestant. I have read some, and I plan to keep on reading. I would challenge you to step outside your box as well however and concede that you may be wrong as well. I read your verses from the Church fathers and their writings. Some seemed to imply it, some spoke of a place. Tertullian said that one passage allegorically meant everyone goes to hell, and some just get out later. That skips purgatory completely. Cryprian acknowledged it, Lactantius as well, as does those afterwards that you quote. Does that seem odd to you that your earliest authors 'might' imply it and also have it 'wrong' as Tertullian wrote, and then it became clearer as time went on? I would think that would indicate a meshing of tradition, and not a result from a direct Apostolic teaching. Ah well, there's a few more things to think about. I'm glad someone can admit when they are wrong like you did about the passage in Revelation's 20. Perhaps this discussion will be worthwhile unlike other ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted December 27, 2003 Share Posted December 27, 2003 It is not me that is right... It's is the Catholic Church, which is guided in the Spirit of Truth, as promised by Christ, which the Church built on Peter will never be overcome. And that very Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). I believe Christ. I follow Him. St. Matt 16:18 "And so I say to you, you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Jesus is speaking directly to Peter here, this English version has been translated 3 times... Originally in Aramaic (Kephas = rock)... Then the Greek were we get the different endings of 'Petros', one is masculine and one is feminine... following proper grammar they could not give Peter the feminine and that is why there is a difference in the Greek to English... An Aramaic to English would read "...you are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church..." Peter's name in Aramaic was Kephas/Cephas as shown in John's Gospel and in Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Aramaic is what was spoken and it means Rock. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John 1:42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; 30 you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter). The argument that Jesus was not calling Peter the Rock is wrong. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John 21:15 8 9 10 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep." This also shows the same as with St. Matt 16:18 that Peter was the leader of the Apostles after Jesus went to Heaven. Peter was the first Pope. St. Matt 28:18 11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." We believe that when Jesus said this to the Apostles, that the Church will always be around and in every Nation from the first Christians on... and that Jesus will always guide the Church... If Jesus is guiding the Church, then the official teaching of the Church cannot be wrong. Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" We believe that if someone rejects the Church after seeing the Truth, through their own fault, that they are denying Jesus. Now, say for example someone is baptist and honestly believes (through no fault of their own) that the baptist church is the Church that Jesus started, then they are Catholic by desire... They have the desire to know the truth and if they are taught that the lie is the truth, then it's not their fault. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt 5:13 11 12 "You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. 14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. We believe that the True Church that Jesus built will be visible for all to see, that it has been visible since the time of the Apostles... The Catholic Church is the only Church that is 2000 years old... The Catholic Church is the "City set on a Mountain that cannot be hidden." All through history, the Catholic Church has been there, all other Christian churches are less than 400 years old and they do not have a unity of faith. Ephesians 4:1 1 I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, 3 striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: 4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Acts 20:30 And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them. 2 Peter 3:15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, 16 speaking of these things 12 as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. 17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability. All offshots of the Catholic Church are seen in Acts 20:30 and 2 Peter 3:15-17 The Catholic Church is infallible. How else could it have given us the Canon of the NT unless it was the Church established by Christ. A doctrate in Church history doesn't mean much anymore... schools such as bobby jones uni - all a joke. Encyclopædia Britannica Article New Testament canon, texts, and versions The New Testament canon Conditions aiding the formation of the canon The New Testament consists of 27 books, which are the residue, or precipitate, out of many 1st–2nd-century-AD writings that Christian groups considered sacred. In these various writings the early church transmitted its traditions: its experience, understanding, and interpretation of Jesus as the Christ and the self-understanding of the church. In a seemingly circuitous interplay between the historical and theological processes, the church selected these 27 writings as normative for its life and teachings—i.e., as its canon (from the Greek kanon, literally, a reed or cane used as a measuring rod and, figuratively, a rule or standard). Other accounts, letters, and revelations—e.g., the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), Gospel of Peter, First Letter of Clement, Letter of Barnabas, Apocalypse (Revelation) of Peter, Shepherd of Hermas—exist, but through a complex process the canon was fixed for both the Eastern and Western churches in the 4th century. The canon contained four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), Acts, 21 letters, and one book of a strictly revelatory character, Revelation. These were not necessarily the oldest writings, not all equally revelatory, and not all directed to the church at large. The Old Testament in its Greek translation, the Septuagint (LXX), was the Bible of the earliest Christians. The New Covenant, or Testament, was viewed as the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises of salvation that were continued for the new Israel, the church, through the Holy Spirit, which had come through Christ, upon the whole people of God. Thus, the Spirit, which in the Old Testament had been viewed as resting only on special charismatic figures, in the New Testament became “democratized”—i.e., was given to the whole people of the New Covenant. In postbiblical Judaism of the first Christian centuries, it was believed that the Spirit had ceased after the writing of the Book of Malachi (the last book of the Old Testament canon) and that no longer could anyone say “Thus saith the Lord,” as had the prophets, nor could any further holy writ be produced. The descent of the Spirit on the community of the Messiah (i.e., the Christ) was thus perceived by Christians as a sign of the beginning of the age to come, and the church understood itself as having access to that inspiration through the Spirit. Having this understanding of itself, the church created the New Testament canon not only as a continuation and fulfillment of the Old Testament but also as qualitatively different, because a new age had been ushered in. These 27 books, therefore, were not merely appended to the traditional Jewish threefold division of the Old Testament—the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im), and the Writings (Ketuvim)—but rather became the New Testament, the second part of the Christian Bible, of which the Old Testament is the first. Because of a belief that something almost magical occurs—with an element of secrecy—when a transmitted oral tradition is put into writing, there was, in both the Old and New Testaments, an expression of reluctance about committing sacred material to writing. When such sacred writings are studied to find the revealed word of God, a settled delimiting of the writings—i.e., a canon—must be selected. In the last decade of the 1st century, the Synod of Jamnia (Jabneh), in Palestine, fixed the canon of the Bible for Judaism, which, following a long period of flux and fluidity and controversy about certain of its books, Christians came to call the Old Testament. A possible factor in the timing of this Jewish canon was a situation of crisis: the fall of Jerusalem and reaction to the fact that the Septuagint was used by Christians and to their advantage, as in the translation of the Hebrew word ‘alma (“young woman”) in chapter 7, verse 14, of Isaiah—“Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”—into the Greek term parthenos (“virgin”). As far as the New Testament is concerned, there could be no Bible without a church that created it; yet conversely, having been nurtured by the content of the writings themselves, the church selected the canon. The concept of inspiration was not decisive in the matter of demarcation because the church understood itself as having access to inspiration through the guidance of the Spirit. Indeed, until c. AD 150, Christians could produce writings either anonymously or pseudonymously—i.e., using the name of some acknowledged important biblical or apostolic figure. The practice was not believed to be either a trick or fraud. Apart from letters in which the person of the writer was clearly attested—as in those of Paul, which have distinctive historical, theological, and stylistic traits peculiar to Paul—the other writings placed their emphases on the message or revelation conveyed, and the author was considered to be only an instrument or witness to the Holy Spirit or the Lord. When the message was committed to writing, the instrument was considered irrelevant, because the true author was believed to be the Spirit. By the mid-2nd century, however, with the delay of the final coming (the Parousia) of the Messiah as the victorious eschatological (end-time) judge and with a resulting increased awareness of history, increasingly a distinction was made between the apostolic time and the present. There also was a gradual cessation of “authentically pseudonymous” writings in which the author could identify with Christ and the Apostles and thereby gain ecclesiastical recognition. The process of canonization The process of canonization was relatively long and remarkably flexible and detached; various books in use were recognized as inspired, but the Church Fathers noted, without embarrassment or criticism, how some held certain books to be canonical and others did not. Emerging Christianity assumed that through the Spirit the selection of canonical books was “certain” enough for the needs of the church. Inspiration, it is to be stressed, was neither a divisive nor a decisive criterion. Only when the canon had become self-evident was it argued that inspiration and canonicity coincided, and this coincidence became the presupposition of Protestant orthodoxy (e.g., the authority of the Bible through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). The process of canonization The need for consolidation and delimitation Viewed both phenomenologically and practically, the canon had to be consolidated and delimited. Seen historically, however, there were a number of reasons that forced the issue of limiting the canon. Oral tradition had begun to deteriorate in post-apostolic times, partly because many or most of the eyewitnesses to the earliest events of Jesus' life and death and the beginning of the church had died. Also, the oral tradition may simply have suffered in transmission. Papias (died c. 130), a bishop of Hieropolis, in Asia Minor, was said by Irenaeus (died c. 200), a bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon, France) to have been an eyewitness of the Apostle John. Papias had said, “For I did not suppose that the things from the books would aid me so much as the things from the living and continuing voice.” Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340), a church historian, reported these comments in his Ecclesiastical History and pointed out inconsistencies in Papias' recollections, doubted his understanding, and called him “a man of exceedingly small intelligence.” Large sections of oral tradition, however, which were probably translated in part from Aramaic before being written down in Greek—such as the Passion (suffering of Christ) narrative, many sayings of Jesus, and early liturgical material—benefitted by the very conservativism implicit in such traditions. But because the church perceived its risen Lord as a living Lord, even his words could be adjusted or adapted to fit specific church needs. Toward the end of the 1st century, there was also a conscious production of gospels. Some gospels purported to be words of the risen Lord that did not reflect apostolic traditions and even claimed superiority over them. Such claims were deemed heretical and helped to push the early church toward canonization. Faced with heresy and claims to late revelations, the early church was constrained to retain the historical dimension of its faith, the ephapax, or the “once for all,” revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The New Testament canon The process of canonization Late-2nd-century canons By the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus used the four canonical Gospels, 13 letters of Paul, I Peter, I and II John, Revelation, Shepherd of Hermas (a work later excluded from the canon), and Acts. Justin Martyr (died c. 165), a Christian apologist, wrote of the reading of the Gospels, “the memoirs of the Apostles,” in the services, in which they were the basis for sermons. In his writings he quoted freely from the Gospels, Hebrews, the Pauline Letters, I Peter, and Acts. Justin's Syrian pupil, Tatian (c. 160), although he quotes from John separately, is best known for his Diatessaron (literally, “through four” [gospels], but also a musicological term meaning “choral” “harmony”), which was a life of Christ compiled from all four Gospels but based on the outline and structure of John. This indicates both that Tatian was aware of four gospel traditions and that their canonicity was not fixed in final form at his time in Syria. Although Tatian was later declared a heretic, the Diatessaron was used until the 5th century and influenced the Western Church even after four separated gospels were established. The first clear witness to a catalog of authoritative New Testament writings is found in the so-called Muratorian Canon, a crude and uncultured Latin 8th-century manuscript translated from a Greek list written in Rome c. 170–180, named for its modern discoverer and publisher Lodovica Antonio Muratori (1672–1750). Though the first lines are lost, Luke is referred to as “the third book of the Gospel,” and the canon thus contains [Matthew, Mark] Luke, John, Acts, 13 Pauline letters, Jude, two letters of John, and Revelation. Concerning the Apocalypse of Peter, it notes that it may be read, although some persons object; it rejects the Shepherd of Hermas as having been written only recently in Rome and lacking connection with the apostolic age. The Wisdom of Solomon (a Jewish intertestamental writing), is included in the accepted works as written in Solomon's honour. Some principles for determining the criteria of canonicity begin to be apparent: apostolicity, true doctrine (regula fidei), and widespread geographical usage. Such principles are indicated by Muratori's argument that the Pauline Letters are canonical and universal—the Word of God for the whole church—although they are addressed to specific churches, on the analogy of the letters to the seven churches in Revelation; in a prophetic statement to the whole church, seven specific churches are addressed, then the specific letters of Paul can be read for all. Thus, the catholic status of the Pauline letters to seven churches is vindicated on the basis of the revelation of Jesus Christ to John, the seer and writer of Revelation. Wide usage in the church is indicated in calling Acts the Acts of all the Apostles and in the intention of the “general address”—e.g., “To those who are called,” in Jude—of the Catholic (or general) Letters—i.e., I and II Peter, I, II, and III John, James, and Jude. The criterion of accordance with received teaching is plain in the rejection of heretical writings. The Muratorian Canon itself may have been, in part, a response to Marcion's heretical and reductive canon. The criteria of true doctrine, usage, and apostolicity all taken together must be satisfied, then, in order that a book be judged canonical. Thus, even though the Shepherd of Hermas, the First Letter of Clement, and the Didache may have been widely used and contain true doctrines, they were not canonical because they were not apostolic nor connected to the apostolic age, or they were local writings without support in many areas. During the time of the definitive formation of the canon in the 2nd century, apparent differences existed in the Western churches (centred in or in close contact with Rome) and those of the East (as in Alexandria and Asia Minor). It is not surprising that the Roman Muratorian Canon omitted Hebrews and accepted and held Revelation in high esteem, for Hebrews allows for no repentance for the baptized Christian who commits apostasy (rejection of faith), a problem in the Western Church when it was subjected to persecution. In the East, on the other hand, there was a dogmatic resistance to the teaching of a 1,000-year reign of the Messiah before the end time—i.e., chiliasm, or millenarianism—in Revelation. There was also a difference in the acceptance of Acts and the Catholic Letters. With the continued expansion of the church, particularly in the 2nd century, consolidation was necessary. Canonical standards of the 3rd and 4th centuries Clement of Alexandria, a theologian who flourished in the late 2nd century, seemed to be practically unconcerned about canonicity. To him, inspiration is what mattered, and he made use of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Letter of Barnabas, the Didache, and other extracanonical works. Origen (died c. 254), Clement's pupil and one of the greatest thinkers of the early church, distinguished at least three classes of writings, basing his judgment on majority usage in places that he had visited: (1) homologoumena or anantirrheta, “undisputed in the churches of God throughout the whole world” (the four Gospels, 13 Pauline Letters, I Peter, I John, Acts, and Revelation); (2) amphiballomena, “disputed” (II Peter, II and III John, Hebrews, James, and Jude); and (3) notha, “spurious” (Gospel of the Egyptians, Thomas, and others). He used the term “scripture” (graphe) for the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas, but did not consider them canonical. Eusebius shows the situation in the early 4th century. Universally accepted are: the four Gospels, Acts, 14 Pauline Letters (including Hebrews), I John, and I Peter. The disputed writings are of two kinds: (1) those known and accepted by many (James, Jude, II Peter, II and III John, and (2) those called “spurious” but not “foul and impious” (Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Letter of Barnabas, Didache and possibly the Gospel of the Hebrews); finally there are the heretically spurious (e.g., Gospel of Peter, Acts of John). Revelation is listed both as fully accepted (“if permissible”) and as spurious but not impious. It is important that Eusebius feels free to make authoritative use of the disputed writings. Thus canon and authoritative revelation are not yet the same thing. The process of canonization Determination of the canon in the 4th century Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria and a significant theologian, delimited the canon and settled the strife between East and West. On a principle of inclusiveness, both Revelation and Hebrews (as part of the Pauline corpus) were accepted. The 27 books of the New Testament—and they only—were declared canonical. In the Greek churches there was still controversy about Revelation, but in the Latin Church, under the influence of Jerome, Athanasius' decision was accepted. It is notable, however, that, in a mid-4th-century manuscript called Codex Sinaiticus, the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are included at the end but with no indication of secondary status, and that, in the 5th-century Codex Alexandrinus, there is no demarcation between Revelation and I and II Clement. In the Syriac Church, Tatian's Diatessaron was used until the 5th century, and in the 3rd century the 14 Pauline Letters were added. Because Tatian had been declared a heretic, there was a clear episcopal order to have the four separated Gospels when, according to tradition, Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, introduced the Syriac version known as the Peshitta—also adding Acts, James, I Peter, and I John—making a 22-book canon. Only much later, perhaps in the 7th century, did the Syriac canon come into agreement with the Greek 27 books. Developments in the 16th century With the advent of printing and differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants, the canon and its relationship to tradition finally became fixed. During the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent (1545–63), the canon of the entire Bible was set in 1546 as the Vulgate, based on Jerome's Latin version. For Luther, the criterion of what was canonical was both apostolicity, or what is of an apostolic nature, and “was Christum treibet”—what drives toward, or leads to, Christ. This latter criterion he did not find in, for example, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation; even so, he bowed to tradition, and placed these books last in the New Testament. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roman Catholicism Encyclopædia Britannica Article Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctrinal and organizational structure that traces its history to the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD. Along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it is one of the three major branches of Christianity. About AD 95 Clement, bishop of Rome, in his letter to the church in Corinth ( First Letter of Clement ), expressed the view that bishops succeeded the Apostles. originally titled Letter To The Church Of Corinth; also called I Clement, a letter to the Christian Church in Corinth from the church of Rome, traditionally ascribed to and almost certainly written by St. Clement I of Rome, c. AD 96. It is extant in a 2nd-century Latin translation, which is possibly the oldest surviving Latin Christian work. Regarded as scripture by many 3rd- and 4th-century Christians, it was transmitted in manuscripts with a sermon known as the Second Letter of Clement, written c. 125-140 by an unknown author. Concerned about a dispute in the Corinthian Church in which younger members had deposed older men from the ministry, the letter opposed the deposition and discussed the orders of the ministry, which it asserted were established by the Apostles and were the will of God. The First Letter of Clement was an important influence on the development in the church of the episcopal orders of the ministry (bishops, priests, deacons), and it has been used to support the doctrine of the apostolic succession, according to which bishops represent a direct, unbroken line of succession from the Apostles. The idea of apostolic succession appears in the writings of Irenaeus, a Church Father who died about 202. Against the Gnostics (dualistic sects that maintained that salvation is not from faith but from some esoteric knowledge) Irenaeus urged that the Catholic teaching was verified because a continuous succession of teachers, beginning with the Apostles, could be demonstrated. In the 3rd and 4th centuries problems of schism within churches were resolved by appealing to the power of orders (i.e., the powers a person has by reason of his ordination either as deacon, priest, or bishop) transmitted by the imposition of hands through a chain from the Apostles. Orders in turn empowered the subject to receive the power of jurisdiction (i.e., the powers an ordained person has by reason of his office). In disputes between Rome and the Eastern churches the idea of apostolic succession was centred in the Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter; it will be observed that this goes beyond the idea of collegial succession. Apostolic authority is defined as the power to teach, to administer the sacraments, and to rule the church. Apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic understanding is validated only by the recognition of the Roman pontiff; and the Roman Catholic Church understands the designation "apostolic" in the creed as referring to this threefold power under the primacy of the Roman pontiff. The idea of apostolic succession appears in the writings of Irenaeus, a Church Father who died about 202. Against the Gnostics (dualistic sects that maintained that salvation is not from faith but from some esoteric knowledge) Irenaeus urged that the Catholic teaching was verified because a continuous succession of teachers, beginning with the Apostles, could be demonstrated. In the 3rd and 4th centuries problems of schism within churches were resolved by appealing to the power of orders (i.e., the powers a person has by reason of his ordination either as deacon, priest, or bishop) transmitted by the imposition of hands through a chain from the Apostles. Orders in turn empowered the subject to receive the power of jurisdiction (i.e., the powers an ordained person has by reason of his office). In disputes between Rome and the Eastern churches the idea of apostolic succession was centred in the Roman pontiff, the successor of Peter; it will be observed that this goes beyond the idea of collegial succession. Apostolic authority is defined as the power to teach, to administer the sacraments, and to rule the church. Apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic understanding is validated only by the recognition of the Roman pontiff; and the Roman Catholic Church understands the designation "apostolic" in the creed as referring to this threefold power under the primacy of the Roman pontiff. Your Servant in Christ, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 27, 2003 Share Posted December 27, 2003 well, you posted a lot again. But I will post a little to save everyone from wearing glasses later on. (you're welcome, no gifts necessary in thanks) I still don't agree that the rock is referring to Peter and not his proclamation of faith, but I don't believe that will be settled here. While you were writing this post, I scanned a few Catholic articles on the interpretation and they all agreed that it is assumed the first Gospel of Matthew was in Aramaic and not Greek, but can not be proven. I prefer to stick with what we do have, and we can trust. If however, I am wrong on this stance, what would the repercussions be. I don't think there would be any. As Peter has the keys to Heaven, you can see Him use them in the inauguration of the Church at pentecost, also to Cornelius, and also to the Samarians. He also played the leading role in the first 12 chapters of Acts with his organization of the Church in Jerusalem. That, however, is as far as I see it going, and to go beyond that you really start reaching once again. The encyclopedia articles you posted agreed that the canon was 27 books for the NT. I am curious why you posted one that showed many Catholics stance to be bias. The history was written well enough, I couldn't see anything I disagreed with. The Roman Catholic entry was interesting as well, it seemed to push an idea that most of the teachings grew out of the second century. I'm not sure if I completely agree, I see some of them having roots older than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 bump for the_rev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathgirl Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 First of all, I didn't read through all of the post b/c I don't need stuff "proved", I grew up believing in it and it makes perfect sense to me. Do you not realize that you have to be PURE to enter the kingdom of heaven? Don't you want to be as PURE as possible when you are finally with GOD? I'm sorry, but I think we should rejoice in the thought of Purgatory! GOD is so amesome to have a place for us to become purificated instead of going straight to Hell. As you can tell, I think that our actions do have something to do with what happens to us after death. It's not that we are "working" our way to Heaven, it's that we have to imitate Christ. I don't understand the whole "being saved in moment" thing, and I don't want to start anything on this post, but how can you say a few words thinking that you are saved for sure. You can sin your whole life and go to Heaven? (I know Jesus died for us, but that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't sin, or be pure when you enter Heaven) As I said before I don't understand the "saved" thing so don't critisize me on that paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now