Purgatory

[Jim]

Quote:Frankly Jim that is a silly point.

There has been a consistant teaching on purgatory in the Catholic Church for 2000 thousand years. It is not an instant creation of somebodys mind. You dealing with a reality. You may not agree but it is a real teaching.

I absolutely agree that it is a silly point, that, in fact, was the point I have been trying to make to you since your argument of longevity. Paganism has been around for thousands of years, yet it does not make it right, does it?

I am trying to get you to understand that an argument over truth, based on longevity, holds absolutely no weight. If you want somone to believe in purgatory you cannot make someone believe something is correct simply based on the fact that it has been around for a long time.

[Jim]

Quote:With respect to Constantinople, I adhere to its declarations. Origen was anathematized and so were his IMPIOUS writings, not ALL his writings. In fact, many are cornerstones of Christian doctrine

I agree, however, that again, is another point I have been trying to make. The BIBLE is solely alone the authority of what is right and what is wrong, all else is subject to human error. If Eusebius' writings support scripture exclusively, I am ready to accept it. If it does not, then I am not. I however, will avoid using any of his writings seeing his confused past.

Quote:And for the record, Origen did not criticize Paul's writings but rather questioned their authenticity. This was not unique to Origen but many ECF's had their own beliefs about the authenticity of certain writings.

Why would he question it's authenticity? Are you saying that he thought it may NOT have been written by Paul?

Quote:With respect to Constantinople, I adhere to its declarations. Origen was anathematized and so were his IMPIOUS writings, not ALL his writings. In fact, many are cornerstones of Christian doctrine

Yes, but guess what? They were not his writings that were the cornerstone. They were the apostles, hence the Holy Spirits. He was no different than anyone else who supported or did not support, the bible. He just happened to write some support on it that happened to agree with those epistles.

The bible is the final authority. It was that way then, it is that way now. The apostles and what they wrote was inspired, nothing else was. That was what was determined to be truth. It has to be accepted that what they wrote was inspired, or even the scriptures themselves are full of error. Now we are getting into the faith issue.

Quote:Jim, that's not logical. The Church, given proper authority to determine heresy, condemned a group of Origen's writings and those writings do not make up a single jot or tittle of Catholic doctrine. However, much of what he wrote is valid and declared so by the Church. For example, Jim, would you declare this to be anathema?

How can you condemn a man as anathema and still support some of his writings? If you condemn the man, you condemn his beliefs, period.

Quote:This is false. The most important issue was the Arian heresy. The reason the Church chose Easter for this specific date was in order to supplant this Herodian feast day with one that glorified Christ. Do you know of anyone who still celebrates the Herodian feast today? How about the pagan feast around the time of Christmas? It's gone too! The Church made those pagan feasts obsolete precisely because they celebrated their feasts on the same day. If you're gonna link this decision to paganism in the Church, it is up to you to provide a quote from Eusebius or anyone else which admits this. I've heard lots about the pagan link but yet not a single Council or Papal Bull mentions this--why not?

Again, use common sense! How many times is the word passover, using the greek base of "pascha", used in the NT? 29 TIMES

How many times is the word Easter used with the base word "Pascha"? only ONCE.

This will explain the reason:

Quote:The English versions after Tyndale followed his example in the Old Testament and increasingly replaced "Easter" with "Passover" in the New Testament. When we come to the Authorized Version there remained but one instance of the word "Easter"--Acts 12:4.

It is precisely in this one passage that "Easter" must be used, and the translation "Passover" would have conflicted with the immediate context. In their rush to accuse the Authorized Version of error many have not taken the time to consider what the passage actually says: "... (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

To begin with, the Passover occurred before the feast of unleavened bread, not after!

"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast of unleavened bread--seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten" (Num. 28:16,17; see also Mark 14:12; 1 Cor. 5:7,8, etc.).

Herod put Peter in prison during the days of unleavened bread, and therefore after the Passover. The argument that the translation "Passover" should have been used as it is intended to refer to the entire period, is ruled out by the inclusion of "these were the days of unleavened bread." Scripture does not use the word "Passover" to refer to the entire period.

Peloubet's Bible Dictionary says: "Strictly speaking the Passover only applied to the Paschal supper, and the feast of unleavened bread followed" (p. 486).

Therefore, as the passover had already been observed, and the days of unleavened bread were in progress, and yet Herod was still waiting for "after pascha"; we can only conclude that the word must be taken in a broader sense. History in fact does indicate a pagan and Christian interchange with the word through the translation "Easter."

A.W. Watts writes: "The Latin and Greek word for Easter is pascha, which is simply a form of Hebrew word for passover--pesach" (Easter--Its Story and Meaning, p. 36).

Thus, the word came to be associated with both Christian and pagan observance. And it was to this later that Herod was referring.

The "Easter" Herod celebrated is none other than what I told you earlier.

Quote:I've heard lots about the pagan link but yet not a single Council or Papal Bull mentions this--why not?

You know what, I bet if there was a "papal bull" saying that "cattle-twerps" exist you would believe them wouldn't you?


You are really showing that the catholic church means more than the bible does to catholics.

Quote:Deal with the paltry 3 verses i've provided and tell me what they really mean.

If my full commentary on the entire 3rd chapter of 1 Corinthians is not enough for that first one, then my next ones will not be of use to you either. If you would stop changing the subject, I will post on the next two also.

The reference to 1 Cor. 3:11-15 above, is more than ample to refute any claims that purgatory can be supported by them. I will address the other two soon, if you can be patient enough to receive them.

[Jim]

Getting back on track now:

1 Corinthians 15:29-30

Quote:15:29
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

15:30
And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

OK, first of all, did you read the previous verses? I asked this about the others you provided also. It sets the tone of understanding that Paul was speaking of the subject of resurrection, and it's application to all when Christ ultimately reigns and all the enemies are defeated(15:25,26)

What happens from verse 28 to 29? A major subject change. In this epistle, Paul is trying to convince the people at the Church at Corinth in the resurrection in the last days. At this subject change, you see a subtle difference from his address to a new type of people. What kind of people? A people who "baptize for the dead". These people have been understood either to be the Serinthians or the Marcionites. Paul was showing that even these pagan people believed in resurrection. It was likely to be the Serinthians, because it has been recorded that they resided in Corinth at that time and the people at the church at corinth were probably well-acquainted with them.

Can you please show me anywhere in the bible where we are commanded to baptize the dead? No you can't. You cannot even show me where Paul, who has just written this, commands it either.

[DefensorFidei]

Quote:Why do we need to burn in purgatory if Christ is recorded as saying, just before dying, "It is finished"? What did Christ finish if not salvation?

What did He "finish" on the Cross? The plan of salvation?

Hardly. He had not yet gone down into Paradise as recorded in scripture and He had not gone up to the "temple made without hands in the heavenlies" to offer His Blood upon that altar, as recorded in Hebrews 9 and 10. If you knew anything at all about the work of a high priest and the YOM KIPPUR rite of Judaism, you would know that the offering of YOM KIPPUR, which is what Christ Jesus was offering on the Cross and which had to be presented in the "heavenlies", was not finished until the high priest returned out of the 'holiest of all'".

Therefore, your supposition, based on the fact that Jesus is our Great High Priest and the fact that He took the sacrifice of His own Blood into the heavenlies to offer YOM KIPPUR, is completely off base!!

What He finished must be then something else? What else could that be, hmmmmmmmm....!!

Well, we do have a clue in the Holy Scriptures.

Remember what happened at the moment He cried out "It is finished!" ??

The veil of the Temple, where the Jewish high priest went in once a year to renew the Old Covenant between the Jewish nation and God -- was torn asunder, exposing the "holiest of all!!!"

That can only mean then one thing -- IT WAS THE OLD COVENANT THAT WAS FINISHED!!

You need to do a better study of your Jewish rites and typology!!

Why did He not say, "It is begun"? How in Hebrews 12:2 could it be said that Christ is the Author AND Finisher if He merely began the process?

Regarding I Corinthians 3:10-15. That passage speaks of our works being burned up, not us.

We are not "burned up" anymore than gold which is being purified by fire is burned up. Where do you get this idea?

Let me ask you this? If you die with sins on you -- still unconfessed -- HOW do you expect to get into Heaven? Nothing impure is allowed into God's Heaven, so how do you expect to be cleansed except that God purge you from those remaining sins.

Oh, I know....you are going to say that Jesus did "once and for all for all my sins, past, present, and future..."

There's only one problem with that teaching....it is a house of cards built up Luther's ridiculous exegesis of Romans 3 and 4. In the Greek, it doesn't have a leg to stand upon. It is a violation of the principles of how a covenantal relationship work, and it also violates the idea that we may indeed "fall away" and forfeit eternal life, as St. Paul taught to his spiritual children in all but one of his epistles.

In short, you have been taught a fabrication made up by men who came along 1500 years after Christ walked the earth. The Bible doesn't teach it, the first Christians didn't believe it, and the Church doesn't believe it.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Go to purgatory if you like, but by the finished work of Christ on the cross, I am going straight to glory!

Sorry. No you are not! Not if you have any unconfessed sins left on you to deal with. The only way you can take the "express lane" is if you die 2 seconds after you finish confessing to a priest and with the Eucharist still in between your teeth. Other than that, you are dirty and you are going to need a little bath before God opens the door and lets you in. Purgation is simply that bath of love from a Father Who wants you clean before you sit at the banquet table.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

[GoodSamaritan]

Quote:I agree, however, that again, is another point I have been trying to make. The BIBLE is solely alone the authority of what is right and what is wrong, all else is subject to human error.

Read 1 Timothy 3:15 and tell me what is the pillar and foundation of the truth. If it says 'the Bible', i'll renounce all ties to Catholicism. You need to adhere to the Bible, not just say it's your authority.

Quote:Why would he question it's authenticity? Are you saying that he thought it may NOT have been written by Paul?

Ever heard of the Gospel of Thomas? How about the Protevangelium of James? Were these written by Thomas and James? Some said yes and others said no. Origen questioned the authenticity of Paul's letters just as the Muratorian fragments show that their church questioned the authenticity of the Apocalypse of Peter. There was not universal agreement about what was inspired at the time of Origen. Some were reading the Shepherd of Hermas and The Epistle of Clement in their Masses. In 397, the Catholic Church finally convened a Council to give you the Bible you have today (well, at least the one Catholics have today) by determining if Paul's letters were really from Paul or not.

Quote:Yes, but guess what? They were not his writings that were the cornerstone. They were the apostles, hence the Holy Spirits. He was no different than anyone else who supported or did not support, the bible. He just happened to write some support on it that happened to agree with those epistles.

To show you my point, please show me where the Bible says Christ was fully man and fully God and that those two natures are hypostatically joined. It's not in there. But men like Origen answered these questions, facilitating the development of doctrines like this for the Church. They took the Apostolic doctrines and clarified them. Some were right and true and others were not. The Church, given authority to bind and loose as well as the holy spirit to guide it into all truth, did what it did in fixing the canon--they pronounced judgment on Origen's works. Still, this gets away from the topic. Eusebius, as a historian, is impeccable. So I ask you again to address the historicity of the Doctrine of Purgatory.

Quote:How can you condemn a man as anathema and still support some of his writings? If you condemn the man, you condemn his beliefs, period.

Very simply. If a person writes something that is right and true, this work is right and true regardless of what he writes later. If I say Christ is God, this is right and true. If I say that the Holy Spirit is NOT, this is wrong but it does not change the correctness of my first statement, Jim.

Quote:Again, use common sense! How many times is the word passover, using the greek base of "pascha", used in the NT? 29 TIMES

This is a silly standard. Applying it to the Bible, 3 John mentions Christ exactly ZERO times. Does this mean that it's not a Christian book? The Arian heresy was what Nicea was principally about, Jim. It threatened to tear the Church in pieces, not whether or not Easter should be on a certain date (though that was important too).

We can discuss Easter on another thread. Stick to the topic--Eusebius and Purgatory, please.

Quote:You know what, I bet if there was a "papal bull" saying that "cattle-twerps" exist you would believe them wouldn't you?

Well, Jim, Christ gave his authority to his church. If it was part of Divine Revelation we're both required to believe in cattle twerps. You ignore what was in the document and choose to divert attention from it.

Quote:You are really showing that the catholic church means more than the bible does to catholics.

Interesting observation considering I was the one who produced 3 verses of Scripture you chose to ignore. You are quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia, I'm quoting Scripture, Jim.

PM your commentaries so i make sure i see them. Then we can post the dialogue on the board if you choose. God Bless.

Ron

[Guest]

What did Christ finish on the cross? The suffering for sin, payment was made.

Quote:Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Quote:Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Christ's suffering and death paid the "wages of sin" but His resurrection had to do with justification, a separate element of salvation.

You are completely right about one thing, there is more to salvation than Christ dying on the cross, He also rose again. But to say that the sufferings of Christ were not sufficient is not biblical.

Quote:Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Quote:You need to do a better study of your Jewish rites and typology!!

Thank you for you input.

Quote:bath of love

Wow, they say love hurts but really!

How do I expect to get into Heaven? Under the blood of Christ and not by anything I have done. If I did anything, even suffer, in order to deserve to get into heaven I could not believe "Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. "

If somebody said to me here, here is a gift, but first you need to suffer I would think that more of a trade than anything else.

THis is my position. You seem to know most of the reasons we give and I guess experiance will be the only thing that shows one of us to have the right understanding of Scripture. I trust no one here will, by that time, still be without Christ.

MNW

[Jim]

It is quite funny how the dissenters who came here to defend their faith are the ones asking all of the questions, yet not answering the ones given to them, and then having the audacity to say that theirs were not answered.

It is quite clear to me that their own indoctrination into catholic beliefs have completely blinded them to scripture and are ignoring it's spiritual effectiveness and revelation. It kind of reminds me of how a Jehovah's Witness acts when trying to show them scripture, but that is another topic altogether.

This topic will be locked as it is an impass, and we have completely different views. SO on this subject, I have nothing more to add.

If you are reading this and have not made a decision on what is right and what is wrong, I must direct you to scripture, and not what any local church has the "authority" to say on it, unless it is sound and biblical.

Love in Christ to all,

Jim