How do Catholics explain 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrews 7:26?

[Our_Refuge]

=Arglaze;4151138]I dont think Martin Luther said there were only 66.

Yes he did. He removed seven books from the Old Testament that were declared to be inspired by the Church fathers .

Yes there were more inspired writings and others not inspired. I’m not qualified, nor an expert verifying their authenticity, but I believe the 66 by faith.

No. There were no more inspired books Only 73 .Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake? Did Luther receive inspiration from the Holy Spirit to remove those 7 books?. This is important. How could the men that decided which books were inspired make such a mistake?
None of the Gospels are signed by the author. No one really knows if they were written by the apostles. The Church fathers said that they were and all christians accept their decision as guided by the Holy Spirit. They also said that the 7 books remvoed by Luther were inspired. So why do you not accept that.?
The Catholic belief in purgatory comes from one of those books that Luther removed without any authority to do so.
Are you aware that Luther also removed the book of James because it contradicted his teaching of faith alone? He was pressured to put the book back in. However in his German bible he added the word faith alone.
Why follow the bible approved by Luther?

 

[Arglaze]

if we want to go by age of church say that “it” cannot err in its doctrine. Then we should all convert to Judaism since they are way older than the Catholic church.

But we know that churches can turn their backs on God by loosing sight of His Word, just like most Jews and jewish leaders did by crucifying Christ, though God’s word gave testimony of Him.

Therefore the church can err and grieve the Holy Spirit.

 

[Arglaze]

Yes he did. He removed seven books from the Old Testament that were declared to be inspired by the Church fathers .

No. There were no more inspired books Only 73 .Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake? Did Luther receive inspiration from the Holy Spirit to remove those 7 books?. This is important. How could the men that decided which books were inspired make such a mistake?
None of the Gospels are signed by the author. No one really knows if they were written by the apostles. The Church fathers said that they were and all christians accept their decision as guided by the Holy Spirit. They also said that the 7 books remvoed by Luther were inspired. So why do you not accept that.?
The Catholic belief in purgatory comes from one of those books that Luther removed without any authority to do so.
Are you aware that Luther also removed the book of James because it contradicted his teaching of faith alone? He was pressured to put the book back in. However in his German bible he added the word faith alone.
Why follow the bible approved by Luther?

That’s an example of reader bias. I thought I made myself clear, but I’m going to repeat myself.

I agree with you. There are more inspired writings than the 66 book compilation. I cannot disagree with you in that.
Did you see that? I do not disagree.

1. Case in point. I believe the 66 book compilation that I study.
2. Any writings that speak contrary to the Law and to the Testimony, I reject. I’m not saying that the other 7 which, according to your investigations, Luther ommitted are false, unless the contradict the word of God. Because God cannot contradict himself.
3. With that in mind. I do not reject the fact that more inspired writings exist or existed. Perhaps, more than just 73.

Did that make it clear? I do not dissagree with you in that.
as far as their autenticity as the “Word of God”. That is a different story, and that’s why for the sake of the discussion I’m limiting to the 66 books we have in common.

If you want to teach me about God, it shouldn’t be difficult to use those 66.

 

[Our_Refuge]

if we want to go by age of church say that “it” cannot err in its doctrine. Then we should all convert to Judaism since they are way older than the Catholic church.

But we know that churches can turn their backs on God by loosing sight of His Word, just like most Jews and jewish leaders did by crucifying Christ, though God’s word gave testimony of Him.

Therefore the church can err and grieve the Holy Spirit.

The True Church cannot err.The True Church cannot turn her back on God. The Catholic Church has never erred in her teachings. Judaism is not the true faith. It denies Christ.

 

[Our_Refuge]

That’s an example of reader bias. I thought I made myself clear, but I’m going to repeat myself.

I agree with you. There are more inspired writings than the 66 book compilation. I cannot disagree with you in that.
Did you see that? I do not disagree.

1. Case in point. I believe the 66 book compilation that I study.
2. Any writings that speak contrary to the Law and to the Testimony, I reject. I’m not saying that the other 7 which, according to your investigations, Luther ommitted are false, unless the contradict the word of God. Because God cannot contradict himself.
3. With that in mind. I do not reject the fact that more inspired writings exist or existed. Perhaps, more than just 73.

Did that make it clear? I do not dissagree with you in that.
as far as their autenticity as the “Word of God”. That is a different story, and that’s why for the sake of the discussion I’m limiting to the 66 books we have in common.

If you want to teach me about God, it shouldn’t be difficult to use those 66.

The Book of Maccabees does not contradict the word of God. It IS the word of God. All christians accepted the book of macabees until Luther. he removed it because he did not accept the teaching on purgatory that is found in Maccabees.
If you limit yourself to 66 books then you do not have the fullness of truth.
The Jews believed in purgatory, Jesus gave parables on purgatory, the apostles and the early chruch father believed in purgatory.

 

[adrift]

and I’m still waiting for the Word of God regarding the purgatory. Unless you consider the pope as God.

This question is off topic and if you do a search you will fine many threads dealing with the topic.
Try this link

Just read up on the commissioner for indulgences, appointed by Pope Leo X – Johann Tetzle! When a coin in the coffer rings a soul from purgatory springs. What could be a more blatant exploitation of people than that?

I will not deny that the appearance of selling indulgences occurred however the above quote was supposedly from a German speaking to a German audience do you really think he said it in English? It is an obvious untruth spread about by an English speaking group to degrade the Church of Jesus.

 

[Arglaze]

You can’t fabricate false dichotomies between the pope and the apostolic teaching. The Catholic Church has been teaching the same message that was handed down to us from the apostles for the past 2000 years. What you are preaching is just another teaching of modern man that came into existence in the last 400 or so years. And you are also exceedingly ignorance of history if you think the Catholic Church ever took away the bible from anyone - it was the one that assembled it and spoke it every Sunday and holy day to people who could not read or write and also made it available in the limited quantities that were available.

Scripture originally had no verse and chapter numbers in them. Again, this was a latter innovation done by Catholic academics so they could study scripture - it as never intended to be publicly used in this manner though. Scripture, especially the OT was originally all one long “word” without even punctuation. It would have been considered heresy in the early church for you to sling scripture in bite size non-contextual sound bites as is your protestant tradtion here.

The Word of God perverted through “ears that do not hear” and in those who lack understanding, as you lack, is a 2 edged sword that is not intended to be wielded by babes and those who are not authorized to teach it. You can read it all you want - but come to The Church to learn what it is you read since scripture tells us:

Galatians 1:8
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

Note the word “preached” - not “read”. The Catholic Church personally knew each and every apostle through the apostolic succession. St. Peter was a friend of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church knew St. Peter. You were not a friend of St. Peter. In fact no Apostolic successor ever knew you. You are no St. Peter. You are preaching a gospel different than what the apostles taught. You are under an apostolic curse for so doing that. And so are the 32,000 other protestant denominations who do the same thing and this curse is precisely why these will keep fragmenting into oblivion and all die off.

Stop preaching lies and start listening to true teaching.

The Word of God is Transferred Orally
Mark 13:31, Mark 16:15, Mark 3:14; 16:15, Luke 10:16, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:3-4, Acts 15:27, Rom. 10:8, Rom. 10:17, 1 Cor. 15:1,11, Gal. 1:11-12, Eph. 1:13, Col. 1:5, 1 Thess. 2:13. 2 Tim. 4:2,6-7, Titus 1:3. 1 Peter 1:25, 2 Peter 1:12, 15, 2 John 1:12; 3 John 13. Deut. 31:9-12, Isa. 40:8, Isa. 59:21, Joel 1:3, Mal. 2:7

Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition
Matt. 15:3, Mark 7:9, Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22, Acts 2:42, Acts 20:7, John 17:20, 1 Cor. 11:2, Eph. 4:20, Phil. 4:9, Col. 1:5-6, 1 Thess.1:5, 1 Thess. 4:2 , 2 Thess. 2:5. 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Thess. 3:7, 1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Tim. 3:14, 1 John 2:7

Examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition
Matt. 2:23, Matt 23:2, John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24, Acts 20:35, 1 Cor. 7:10, 1 Cor. 10:4 (See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13), Eph 5:14, Heb. 11:37, Jude 9, Jude 14-15

More here: Oral Tradition

My advise - read more talk less, get smart, become Catholic and be saved while you still have time.

James

Is this an example of how you want to draw me to Jesus in loving kindness?
Its ok, I will not take the demeaning personal, but if that’s how you preach the Word to others, I’d suggest to pick your words a bit more carefuly before you hurt a child of God.

With that in mind I’ll go back to the matter at hand. Peter died well before the “Catholic church” existed. The term was just, the church of God. Later the name Catholic which means “universal” church came about. I dont deny however, that the Catholic church is the succesion of the “Apostolic Church” to name it something, because neither term is in the Bible. Or heard from their mouth.

 

[Our_Refuge]

Is this an example of how you want to draw me to Jesus in loving kindness?
Its ok, I will not take the demeaning personal, but if that’s how you preach the Word to others, I’d suggest to pick your words a bit more carefuly before you hurt a child of God.

With that in mind I’ll go back to the matter at hand. Peter died well before the “Catholic church” existed. The term was just, the church of God. Later the name Catholic which means “universal” church came about. I dont deny however, that the Catholic church is the succesion of the “Apostolic Church” to name it something, because neither term is in the Bible. Or heard from their mouth.

You make an interesting observation.Peter was crucified by the Romans. His death was predicted by Jesus in the Gospel of John
However we know from the writings of the early Chrurch fathers that Linus replaced Peter. he thus became the second Pope.Why was only Peter replaced? Why not james, Matthew, John?
We also know from the writings of the early church that Clement was Pope while the Apostle John. was still alive
The Church began at penetost with Peter as the head of the Church
The term “Catholic” was first said by Ignatius Bishop of Antioch in AD 107. he used it to distinguish the True Church from the heretical churches started by the gnostics.

 

[Arglaze]

You make an interesting observation.Peter was crucified by the Romans. His death was predicted by Jesus in the Gospel of John
However we know from the writings of the early Chrurch fathers that Linus replaced Peter. he thus became the second Pope.Why was only Peter replaced? Why not james, Matthew, John?
We also know from the writings of the early church that Clement was Pope while the Apostle John. was still alive
The Church began at penetost with Peter as the head of the Church
The term “Catholic” was first said by Ignatius Bishop of Antioch in AD 107. he used it to distinguish the True Church from the heretical churches started by the gnostics.

Why are you assuming Peter was a pope? He never refered to himself as that, nor was He the “infallible” leader of the church, or Vicar of Christ. Even Paul, which wasn’t one of the original 12 rebuked him at one point. Here’s an example of why we need to go according to the Word of God.

Also, I understand he was the main church builder along with James who died first, and John. Peter was the one who laid the foundation of the Church. But He was not the pope, nor was he the Vicar of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the only Vicar of Christ that was, is, and will be till Jesus returns.
No need to replace the others because they hadn’t died yet. Peter stayed mostly in one church which is why he was leading mostly from there, the others traveled more often.

Please let’s not assign men titles which God or the person himself have not said they are.

 

[mark_a]

Every believer should proudly speak the truth and refute falsity aggressively.

Sounds like triumphalism to me.

 

[Believe_85]

Why are you assuming Peter was a pope? He never refered to himself as that, nor was He the “infallible” leader of the church, or Vicar of Christ. Even Paul, which wasn’t one of the original 12 rebuked him at one point. Here’s an example of why we need to go according to the Word of God.

Also, I understand he was the main church builder along with James who died first, and John. Peter was the one who laid the foundation of the Church. But He was not the pope, nor was he the Vicar of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the only Vicar of Christ that was, is, and will be till Jesus returns.
No need to replace the others because they hadn’t died yet. Peter stayed mostly in one church which is why he was leading mostly from there, the others traveled more often.

Please let’s not assign men titles which God or the person himself have not said they are.

The pope is the leader of the visible Church that Jesus started, infallible when he speaks on faith and morals in directing the members of the Church (not infallible as a person or even as a leader). The Church Jesus gave him was not a series of buildings, it was the community of all of the faithful followers, so your statement that Peter was “mostly in one church” is not correct. He was in only one, led only one, and the other bishops worked to ensure that the Church Jesus started remained true to Apostolic teachings. With the vow from Jesus to protect the Church he hands to Peter with the Holy Spirit as the guardian against Hell, it would mean that Jesus lied about the Holy Spirit guarding the Church.

From Catholic.com:
"It is true that Peter could not have used the term “pope” to describe himself, since the title was not conferred on the bishops of Rome during the earliest years of the Church. (Neither does the Bible claim to be “the Bible,” for that term had not been invented yet; it simply claimed to be God’s inspired word.) But that is hardly the point, since the question is not the title used, but the existence of the office of pope, which has been united to the office of the bishop of Rome on the basis that Peter went to Rome and died there. It follows that if Peter never went to Rome (this is the real question), then he could hardly have been its bishop, and the present bishop of Rome could hardly be his successor.

Although the Bible has no unmistakable evidence that he was there (though 1 Peter 5:13 does imply it), early Christian writers such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Lactantius are unanimous in saying that he went to Rome, presided over the Church there, and was martyred during the Emperor Nero’s persecution."

 

[Arglaze]

The pope is the leader of the visible Church that Jesus started, infallible when he speaks on faith and morals in directing the members of the Church (not infallible as a person or even as a leader). The Church Jesus gave him was not a series of buildings, it was the community of all of the faithful followers, so your statement that Peter was “mostly in one church” is not correct. He was in only one, led only one, and the other bishops worked to ensure that the Church Jesus started remained true to Apostolic teachings. With the vow from Jesus to protect the Church he hands to Peter with the Holy Spirit as the guardian against Hell, it would mean that Jesus lied about the Holy Spirit guarding the Church.

Yeah, I don’t think anyone said the church were buildings. But there are references to the locations where the churches were located. But Peter did commute from one part of the church to another part of the church, if that’s how you want me to say it then.

That I know of, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, His only Vicar, to lead the church into all truth, not Peter or anyone in particular, Paul did not receive his knowledge of Peter or anyone, he obtained it directly from the Holy Spirit and through the Scriptures.

John 16:13 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he” (not Peter or the pope “will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.”

John 14:17 “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (not Peter)

John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (not Peter)

Just like the Israelites wanted a visible King, I at least give them credit, because they asked God to give them a King or leader. Roman Catholics however tell God who they want their leader to be, not the Holy Spirit, but the Pope as Christ’s Vicar, and the Holy Spirit can just cooperate with what the Pope wants.(this is not what Jesus said).

The Holy Spirits’ office as Vicar cannot be placed in human hands, we are His instruments, not the other way around.
So the statement “Church he hands to Peter with the Holy Spirit as the guardian against Hell” is not Biblical, the church was placed in hands of the Holy Spirit, not man.

Although the Bible has no unmistakable evidence that he was there (though 1 Peter 5:13 does imply it), early Christian writers such as Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Lactantius are unanimous in saying that he went to Rome, presided over the Church there, and was martyred during the Emperor Nero’s persecution."

So I don’t question Peter’s role in the Church, and leadership in teaching, but to say that he took the position (Vicar) of Christ is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, since the Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit according to Jesus’ own words. So the Pope office is either misunderstood or misplaced on a person.

The Pope office is nothing but trying to hug a power and position that belongs to The Holy Spirit. (not Peter). The problem arises in that no one can see the Holy Spirit, that’s why Jesus said the world cannot receive him. Popes just want to hug power and authority, and that’s a fact of history. So in modern times, not only in the Catholic church but in other churches, sometimes leaders just want to hug power. And they all forget who the Vicar is, The Holy Spirit.

 

[Believe_85]

Yeah, I don’t think anyone said the church were buildings. But there are references to the locations where the churches were located. But Peter did commute from one part of the church to another part of the church, if that’s how you want me to say it then.

That I know of, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, His only Vicar, to lead the church into all truth, not Peter or anyone in particular, Paul did not receive his knowledge of Peter or anyone, he obtained it directly from the Holy Spirit and through the Scriptures.

John 16:13 “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he” (not Peter or the pope “will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.”

John 14:17 “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (not Peter)

John 14:26 “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” (not Peter)

Just like the Israelites wanted a visible King, I at least give them credit, because they asked God to give them a King or leader. Roman Catholics however tell God who they want their leader to be, not the Holy Spirit, but the Pope as Christ’s Vicar, and the Holy Spirit can just cooperate with what the Pope wants.(this is not what Jesus said).

The Holy Spirits’ office as Vicar cannot be placed in human hands, we are His instruments, not the other way around.
So the statement “Church he hands to Peter with the Holy Spirit as the guardian against Hell” is not Biblical, the church was placed in hands of the Holy Spirit, not man.

So I don’t question Peter’s role in the Church, and leadership in teaching, but to say that he took the position (Vicar) of Christ is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, since the Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit according to Jesus’ own words. So the Pope office is either misunderstood or misplaced on a person.

The Pope office is nothing but trying to hug a power and position that belongs to The Holy Spirit. (not Peter). The problem arises in that no one can see the Holy Spirit, that’s why Jesus said the world cannot receive him. Popes just want to hug power and authority, and that’s a fact of history. So in modern times, not only in the Catholic church but in other churches, sometimes leaders just want to hug power. And they all forget who the Vicar is, The Holy Spirit.

So the holy spirit cannot work through us? How does the Holy Spirit guide the Church? Are we not to have leaders? Are we not to have priests or pastors or anyone standing at the front of the church, ensuring that we are of a uniform, united, educated faith? If the Holy spirit is the vicar of the church, who and how does he work to ensure Jesus’ teachings continue without Jesus living eternally on Earth? Is it not by guiding the church and it’s leaders toward truth?

In saying that the Pope is our leader and Vicar of Christ we mean he leads our church in the way Christ did. He is not God, he is not the Holy Spirit, he is not perfect, he is not without sin, he is not Holy by de facto. He is at the head of the Church and we believe that the Holy Spirit guides and guards the Church as Jesus promised, guiding and guarding the Pope on matters of Faith and Morals.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The Pope office is nothing but trying to hug a power and position that belongs to The Holy Spirit. (not Peter). The problem arises in that no one can see the Holy Spirit, that’s why Jesus said the world cannot receive him. Popes just want to hug power and authority, and that’s a fact of history. So in modern times, not only in the Catholic church but in other churches, sometimes leaders just want to hug power. And they all forget who the Vicar is, The Holy Spirit.

The Pope office is nothing but trying to hug a power and position that belongs to The Holy Spirit. (not Peter)?

I suppose you are ignorant to the history again since it was usually a death sentence to be ordained bishop of Rome or a bishop in the early Church. 13 of the first popes were martyred for their faith. If that sounds like men lusting for power and prestige then I suppose that heresy becomes a virtue by your reckoning?

James

 

[adrift]

Even after the Apostles passed the Apostolic fathers (like Polycarp, Clement, and Ignatius) never served under a Pope. The church was run be local bishops and there were smaller churches during that period that were not under a bishop. None of the Apostolic Fathers said those churches were any less a part of the church?

Once Rome became involved in the mix everything changed – go figure? Well – protestants know better.

There was only one Church. It didn’t splinter until the know better protestants. Those local bishops all acknowledged the Pope.

Polycarp of Smyrna (c 69- ca. 155)
During the life time of Polycarp these were the Popes
Pope Linus (67-76)
Pope Clement (88-97)
Pope Alexander I (105-115)
Pope Sixtus I
PopeTelesphorus (125-136)
Pope Hyginus (136-140)
Pope Pius I (140-155)

Pope Clement I your comment is weird since he was a pope who was ordained by Peter.

Ignatius of Antioch born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.
Pope Peter (32-67)
Pope Linus (67-76)
Pope Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
Pope Clement I (88-97)
Pope Evaristus (97-105)
Pope Alexander I (105-115)
Pope Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I

 

[Arglaze]

So the holy spirit cannot work through us? How does the Holy Spirit guide the Church? Are we not to have leaders? Are we not to have priests or pastors or anyone standing at the front of the church, ensuring that we are of a uniform, united, educated faith? If the Holy spirit is the vicar of the church, who and how does he work to ensure Jesus’ teachings continue without Jesus living eternally on Earth? Is it not by guiding the church and it’s leaders toward truth?

In saying that the Pope is our leader and Vicar of Christ we mean he leads our church in the way Christ did. He is not God, he is not the Holy Spirit, he is not perfect, he is not without sin, he is not Holy by de facto. He is at the head of the Church and we believe that the Holy Spirit guides and guards the Church as Jesus promised, guiding and guarding the Pope on matters of Faith and Morals.

Anyone that Holy Spirit wants to use can lead in house, in the church, or any place like Christ did, in fact we are all (not the Pope only) told to be like Christ, which makes us his representatives by being used by the Holy Spirit.

However the office “Vicar of Christ” is the office of the Holy Spirit according to Jesus’ own words, Catholics used to believe this, until a pope declared it different. (and I could be wrong, but I think it was pope sometime before pope Innocent 3rd. I don’t have proof for that however) And He, the Holy Spirit, guides us all (not through one man only) into all truth.
That means that anyone in the church, even a child can question the authority of a leader or his words at any moment, through the Word of God, and through the direction of the Spirit. Like Paul confronted Peter.

Yes, we do need leaders and overseers (bishops). This is Biblical Truth. Even from the times of ancient Israel, so its not against the Law and the Testimony. Ideally, instead of just one leader, it should be a council with one moderator, like the Catholic church used to do.

But there is danger in looking at the leader as someone who holds a position comparable to God. Why do we have to bow down to the Pope, or kiss his feet, or his hands, or anything like that? We shouldn’t, he is just like any other man, no more holier than you or me by God’s standards. We bow down to God and God alone.

The Pope does not have the last say so, the Holy Spirit does, and He speaks through the Word of God, the Law and the Testimony.

P.S. you may not look at the pope as someone comparable to God, but he does look at himself like that. That’s what the pope office is all about, the Vicar of Christ (The Holy Spirit).

 

[Chancellor]

As you can see clearly, the Mary of the Catholic church is a far different Mary than the Mary in Scripture.

It is correct to say that everything that Catholics believe about Mary is not included in the scripture, but I have not found that anything about the Catholic belief is contrary to scripture.

If I could hear how someone comes to the conclusion that the bible makes Catholic belief unchristian or impossible then I think we would have the basis for a good debate. God said many things that are not written in the bible, and the bible DOES say that.

The Chancellor

 

[CentralFLJames]

Yeah, I noticed that signature. I would like some Scripture proof that the purgatory exists also, or just send me a private message with Bible texts so that I can study it.

I will save you some time though by saying, “Purgatory” is a man made doctrine as well, not the Word of God.

And please correct me if I’m wrong, but it was used to say that after death, you can buy your way to heaven with money (one of the reasons why the mafia paid the Catholic church for their sins, but thats another can of worms no one needs to reply to), even though it wasn’t invented originally for that. It was used like that in times past.

Hmmm, I have some research to do.

I don’t want to derail the OP but if you are sincerely interested we have talked this one to death here on this forum so scan the archives. Also I can give you a lot of scripture to back it up but of course if you use the bible-lite of the Protestant variety you are a tithe light (missing 7 books) so not all of the references are present.

A State After Death of Suffering and Forgiveness
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59, Matt. 5:48, Matt. 12:32 , Luke 12:47-48, Luke 16:19-31, 1 Cor. 15:29-3 (directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45), Phil. 2:10. 2 Tim. 1:16-18, Heb. 12:14, Heb. 12:23, 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6, Rev. 21:4, Rev. 21:27, Luke 23:43, Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 , Baruch 3:4, Zech. 9:11, 2 Macc. 12:43-45

Purification After Death By Fire
Heb. 12:29, 1 Cor. 3:10-15, 1 Cor. 3:15, 1 Cor. 3:15, 1 Cor. 3:13, 1 Cor. 3:17, 1 Peter 1:6-7, Jude 1:23, Rev. 3:18-19, Dan 12:10, Sirach 2:5, Zech. 13:8-9, Mal. 3:2-3

More here (also see Early Church Father’s):
Purgatory - Scripture References

James

 

[Believe_85]

Anyone that Holy Spirit wants to use can lead in house, in the church, or any place like Christ did, in fact we are all (not the Pope only) told to be like Christ, which makes us his representatives by being used by the Holy Spirit.
No argument there.
However the office “Vicar of Christ” is the office of the Holy Spirit according to Jesus’ own words, Catholics used to believe this, until a pope declared it different. (and I could be wrong, but I think it was pope sometime before pope Innocent 3rd. I don’t have proof for that however) And He, the Holy Spirit, guides us all (not through one man only) into all truth.
I suggest you provide proof because we do still consider the Vicar of Christ to be the office of the Holy Spirit. As the leader of the Church Jesus started, the leader of the Church promised to be guided by the Holy Spirit, that office is filled by the Pope. Does that mean the Pope is holy? No. Does that mean the Pope is better than us? No. He is a leader. When questions come up about issues of Catholic faith and Catholic Morals, the pope meets with all of the bishops, they discuss these issues, pray about it, and the Pope with the bishops decide what is truth using Scriptures, Apostolic Traditions, and guidance from the Holy Spirit.
That means that anyone in the church, even a child can question the authority of a leader or his words at any moment, through the Word of God, and through the direction of the Spirit. Like Paul confronted Peter.
No argument there. We are told to question. That’s what these forums are for, afterall.
Yes, we do need leaders and overseers (bishops). This is Biblical Truth. Even from the times of ancient Israel, so its not against the Law and the Testimony. Ideally, instead of just one leader, it should be a council with one moderator, like the Catholic church used to do.
It is how it still works. There is a council with one moderator. The College of Bishops. Whenever the Pope speaks infallibly, it is after meeting with the College of bishops on issues of Faith and Morals only. This does not mean anything the Pope says or does is infallible, only when he makes a special declaration regarding faith or morals. What is it that you believe the Church used to do that it now does not?

But there is danger in looking at the leader as someone who holds a position comparable to God. Why do we have to bow down to the Pope, or kiss his feet, or his hands, or anything like that? We shouldn’t, he is just like any other man, no more holier than you or me by God’s standards. We bow down to God and God alone.
We do not consider the Pope comparable to God. I’m not sure where you are getting your information about Catholic beliefs and practices. We bow out of respect, like Asian people bow to each other, like the English curtsey to the Queen. Are they worshipping eachother? No. Context matters. I’m sure you will respond with when Peter told followers not to bow to him. They bowed to him out of more than reverence or respect, obvious from his response to them. This we also believe is wrong. Anyone who bows to the Pope out of worship rather than respect is wrong. It is not what we teach. Read about it. Catholic.com is a good place to start. Or newadvent.org

The Pope does not have the last say so, the Holy Spirit does, and He speaks through the Word of God, the Law and the Testimony.
Agreed. Again, I think you misunderstand the Catholic teachings and beliefs regarding the Pope and his role in the Church.
P.S. you may not look at the pope as someone comparable to God, but he does look at himself like that. That’s what the pope office is all about, the Vicar of Christ (The Holy Spirit).

Really? Offer a quote from a Pope who declared himself equal to God. You already agreed that God’s people need a leader guided by the Holy Spirit. We believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church through our Apostolic successive leader, the Pope on issues of Catholic Faith and Morals as promised by Jesus.

 

[adrift]

The statement in the Bible that Jesus said to the thief was:
“And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise”
It is a typo of translation. Many scholars agree. The statement was Verily I say unto thee Today (meaning he’s saying what he’s saying in that day), thou shall be in paradise.

This is easily seen in fact, because the thief did not die that day, because they broke his legs so he couldn’t escape, as was the custom and then they hung them again on following days till he died. Jesus on the other hand died in those 3 hours he hung on the cross, and that’s why they didn’t break his legs, because He was already dead, so no need to break them.
Since the thief didn’t die nor go to paradise that day, that would make Jesus a liar, unless the statement is a typo.

Again the statement in its correct Aramaic or Greek translation is:

“Verily I say unto thee Today, shalt thou be with me in paradise” Luke 23:43 and its meaning is future, not for that day.

The “soul sleeper” explanation according to the texts above has Biblical foundation, while the “going to heaven at death” explanation doesn’t.

Ariel >>

I have never heard a claim that the legs were broken so they couldn’t run away.
Crucifixion was not only an execution but it was meant to torture as well. The only reason that the legs were broken was to hasten death. The victim could no longer lift himself to get air. Normally the Romans didn’t even remove the body they let the birds take care of the corpse. With the legs broken the thieves crucified with Jesus would have died that day. The interpretation you try to apply really makes no sense. What scholars have this as a translation?