Is catholicism biblical

[noobio]

I am now a former Cathloic. I had a lot of problems with the cathloic teachings such as purgatory, praying for the dead, infent babtism, extra books ( apocrypha) wrong titles given to Mary and other teachings. I just want to know where are some of these teachings are found in the Bible.

 

[MarcoPolo]

For starters praying for the dead is seen here:On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought*. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.** (2 Mac. 12:39-45)*

 

[noobio]

For starters praying for the dead is seen here:On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought**. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.** (2 Mac. 12:39-45)

You are quating from 2 Mac. I do not accept it as scripture or as the Word of God. So it means nothing to me. Use the 66 books ( Canon)

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am now a former Cathloic. I had a lot of problems with the cathloic teachings such as purgatory, praying for the dead, infent babtism, extra books ( apocrypha) wrong titles given to Mary and other teachings. I just want to know where are some of these teachings are found in the Bible.

And when you get this, will you return to the Church?

The Doctrine of Purgatory Found In Scripture

2 Maccabees 12:42-46
Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 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; or 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.

---

Even those Christians who deny that Maccabees 1 & 2 belong are inspired and belong in the canon of the Old Testament must admit that this passage reveals that the Jews believed that that the living may pray for the dead and make sacrifices for them in order that they might be freed from the sins they had committed. It was with this cultural understanding as a backdrop that the following New Testament verses come into focus.

---

Luke 12:42-48
The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. "That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

Notice that there are not two but three categories of servants in this parable: 1) the “wise and faithful manager” who is rewarded (heaven); 2) the unfaithful servant who knows his master’s will but does not do it and who is “cut to pieces and assigned a place with the unbelievers (hell)l; and 3) the one “who does not know and does things deserving punishment.” This final servant is beaten with “few blows” (purgatory).

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

1 Peter 1:7
These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Heaven, Purgatory, and Hell
davidmacd.com/catholic/purgatory.htm

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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. (Catechism 1030)

Here’s a simple illustration of what Catholics believe is Purgatory’s place in the scheme of things. (Due to the limitations of the forum software, I can’t re-produce the original graphic image seen at the website above. Please imagine an arrowhead at the end of the line pointing from Purgatory to Heaven, and ignore the dots I am forced to use as spacers.)

…Heaven (eternal)
…/
…/…
…/…
…Earth------>Purgatory (temporary)
…
…
…
…Hell (eternal)

Catholics believe that some people go straight to Heaven, which is also what Evangelicals believe. It would be very cool to go straight to Heaven. Let’s pray for each other for that. The Church believes that Purgatory is a place to clean up the effects of “Venial Sin” (not Mortal Sin which if un-repented, leads to eternal punishment - hell). If we were to put it in Evangelical terms, Purgatory would be where the backslider would get cleaned up before joining the wedding banquet of the Lord - so he wouldn’t be thrown out (Mat 22:12). For nothing unclean can enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27). Purgatory does not remove sin itself. Jesus did that on the Cross. Purgatory removes the effects of sin. An imperfect way to look at it is to think of a nail hammered into a piece of wood. My father would pull the nail out of the wood (sin) but there would still be a dent in the wood. Purgatory is the process of straightening out the wood (the effect of sin). Certainly Jesus can and does the clean up. He is a merciful God but he is also a ***just ***God.

People who rebelliously refuse to believe that Jesus is Lord and who do not yield to Him don’t go to Purgatory. They go to hell.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are quating from 2 Mac. I do not accept it as scripture or as the Word of God. So it means nothing to me. Use the 66 books ( Canon)

My post mentions Maccabees, and I’m sorry that your faith tradition does not have the complete word of God. Luther will have to answer for that.

However, even if you deny it to be canonical, you must admit that the passage clearly demonstrates that the Jews believed in praying for the dead.

This was the culture into which Jesus was born, and nothing in scripture suggests that he chastised the Jews for this belief. To the contrary, the additional passages I gave suggest that he built upon this idea in His own teachings.

 

[SPH1]

You are quating from 2 Mac. I do not accept it as scripture or as the Word of God. So it means nothing to me. Use the 66 books ( Canon)

What is your authority to accept or reject books? What is the authority of your Protestant group, or all of Protestantism?

Now, I have questions for you. God is not the author of confusion. 1 Cor 14:33. With all of the conflicting doctrines and teachings of Protestantism, isn’t it obvious that God is not the author or founder of it?

What Protestant group did you get taken out of Christ’s church for and how did you determine that it is more correct than other Protestant groups?

And if Christ is truly head of his church and good shepherd, how could he let if fall into gross heresy for some 1,000 plus years, as Protestantism implies? How can you believe that Christ is head of his church, other than perhaps in some symbolic, figurehead sense?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am now a former Cathloic. I had a lot of problems with the cathloic teachings such…praying for the dead…

When you see the evidence, will you return to the Catholic Church?

Consider Paul’s directive concerning Onesiphorus…I provide the passage along with commentaries on the passage by PROTESTANT scholars:

**Praying for the Dead Proved from Scripture **

2 Timothy 1:16-18 (RSV)
May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph’orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me – [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day – and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

2 Timothy 4:19
Greet Prisca and Aq’uila, and the household of Onesiph’orus.

Alfred Plummer (Anglican)
Certainly the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of the view that Onesiphorus was already dead when St. Paul wrote these words. . . . he here speaks of “the house of Onesiphorus” in connexion with the present, and of Onesiphorus himself only in connexion with the past. . . . it is not easy to explain this reference in two places to the household of Onesiphorus, if he himself was still alive. In all the other cases the individual and not the household is mentioned. . . . There is also the character of the Apostle’s prayer. Why does he confine his desires respecting the requital of Onesiphorus’ kindness to the day of judgment? . . . This again is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus is already dead.

. . . there seems to be equal absence of serious reason for doubting that the words in question constitute a prayer. . . .

Having thus concluded that, according to the more probable and reasonable view, the passage before us contains a prayer offered up by the Apostle on behalf of one who is dead, we seem to have obtained his sanction, and therefore the sanction of Scripture, for using similar prayers ourselves. . . .

This passage may be quoted as reasonable evidence that the death of a person does not extinguish our right or our duty to pray for him: but it ought not be quoted as authority for such prayers on behalf of the dead as are very different in kind from the one of which we have an example here. Many other kinds of intercession for the dead may be reasonable and allowable; but this passage proves no more than that some kinds of intercession for the dead are allowable; viz., those in which we pray that God will have mercy at the day of judgment on those who have done good to us and others, during their life upon earth (Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) (Anglican): The Expositor’s Bible (edited by W. Robertson Nicoll), The Pastoral Epistles, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1891, pp. 324-326).

James Maurice Wilson (1836-1931) (Anglican)
We have, therefore, the sanction of St. Paul for remembering inn our prayers, and interceding for, those who have now passed into the other world . . . (Truths New and Old, Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co., 1900, p. 141)

Sydney Charles Gayford (Anglican)
. . . the most satisfactory explanation is that Onesiphorus was dead. . . .

And so we may hold with some confidence that we have in this passage the authority of an Apostle in praying for the welfare of the departed. (The Future State, New York: Edwin S. Gorham, second edition, 1905, pp. 56-57)

John Henry Bernard (1860-1927) (Anglican)
On the whole then it seems probable that Onesiphorus was dead when St. Paul prayed on his behalf . . . (The Pastoral Epistles, Cambridge University Press, 1899, p. 114)

I have more quotes from Protestants if you want them…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am now a former Cathloic. I had a lot of problems with the cathloic teachings such as…infent babtism…

When you see the evidence, will you return to the Catholic Church?

This is a big one, so bear with me…

INFANT BAPTISM PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE

Old Covenant

Genesis 17:9-14
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

Leviticus 12:3
3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.

These texts show the circumcision of eight-day-old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant.

Connection to New Covenant

Col 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the new “circumcision of Christ” for all people of the New Covenant.

We are Born Again Through Baptism

John 3:3-5
In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” 4"How can a man be born when he is old?" 5Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Baptism Washes Away Actual Sins

Acts 22:16
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Do Infants Need Baptism?

Job 14:1-4
1 "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. 2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure. 3 Do you fix your eye on such a one? Will you bring him before you for judgment? 4 Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!

Psalm 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

We are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the need for baptism from the moment of conception.

Jesus Extols Child-like Faith

Matthew 18:2-5
2 He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Jesus Receives Little Children and Infants

Matt 19:13-15
13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Mark 10:13-16
13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Luke 18:15-17
15People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Church Begins to Preach Baptism

Acts 2:38-39
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Peter did not say, “Every one of you adults”; he said, “Every one of you” without qualification and added “the promise (of the Holy Spirit) is for you and your children”. Baptism and the Holy Spirit are frequently connected throughout the Bible (cf. Ez. 36:25-27, Mt. 3:16, Jn. 3:5).

Acts 10:47-48
Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius which probably included infants and young children. There is not one word in this passage (or any other in scripture) about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15
13On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. 14One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.

Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children. Further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.51

1251 Christian parents will recognize that this practice also accords with their role as nurturers of the life that God has entrusted to them.52

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole “households” received baptism, infants may also have been baptized.53

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am now a former Cathloic. I had a lot of problems with the cathloic teachings such as…extra books ( apocrypha)

When you see the evidence, will you return to the Catholic Church?

We don’t have extra books; Luther took some out of the canon that had been in use for more than 1,000 years.

Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth (cf. 2 Tim 3:14-17) was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.

This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.

There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.

This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.

This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?

Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I am now a former Cathloic. I had a lot of problems with the cathloic teachings such as purgatory, praying for the dead, infent babtism, extra books ( apocrypha) wrong titles given to Mary and other teachings. I just want to know where are some of these teachings are found in the Bible.

As Randy has clearly demonstrated from Scripture these teachings, I will make an attempt at reasonable answers from life.

1. Purgatory/Praying for the dead: We all make a prayer for the dead. “Rest in Peace.” “God, take my friend into Your Heavenly Kingdom.” Or anything similar. If you do this, then you do pray for the dead. If you do not do this, then your own beliefs come into question.
2. Infant Baptism: Why keep an infant from the forgiveness of sins? Are they not good enough to be forgiven of the stain of original sin? That is what Baptism is. It is not against their will as Scripture teaches that Baptism can be done on the authority of the head-of-the-household’s faith. Or are infants not good enough to be Christians?
3. How are you so sure that the “extra books” are what is missing from the Protestant Canon? Have you even read them? If so, tell me what is wrong with them. If not, then you are assuming somebody else’s authority over the Bible. By the way, they are called “Deutorocanonical”, not "apocryphal. Respect our beliefs. That is all I ask.
4. There are no wrong titles given to Mary, so this is Not Applicable.
5. What other teachings?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am now a former Cathloic. I had a lot of problems with the cathloic teachings … I just want to know where are some of these teachings are found in the Bible.

When you consider the following, will you return to the Catholic Church?

Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”

The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.

These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.

When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.

Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.

 

[SPH1]

Randy, my Catholic-View site has been down for some time; I hope to rebuild it by this summer.

However, I had a page called Common Ground, listing and linking to various Protestant denominations that agree with or corroborate Catholic teaching.

There are a slew of Protestant groups that baptise infants, so no need to rely on scripture alone. I used to like to use both Scripture AND corroborating Protestant groups.

Off top of my recollection: Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians (?) and others baptise infants.

Quick Protestant Infant Baptism Links:

orlutheran.com/trinfbap.html - Lutheran

umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=5070497&ct=3005157&notoc=1 - Methodist

So, back to the original poster: How did you determine that your current group is correct and the other Protestants are wrong, regarding infant baptism?

 

[noobio]

And when you get this, will you return to the Church?

The Doctrine of Purgatory Found In Scripture

2 Maccabees 12:42-46
Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 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; or 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.

---

Even those Christians who deny that Maccabees 1 & 2 belong are inspired and belong in the canon of the Old Testament must admit that this passage reveals that the Jews believed that that the living may pray for the dead and make sacrifices for them in order that they might be freed from the sins they had committed. It was with this cultural understanding as a backdrop that the following New Testament verses come into focus.

---

Luke 12:42-48
The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. "That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

Notice that there are not two but three categories of servants in this parable: 1) the “wise and faithful manager” who is rewarded (heaven); 2) the unfaithful servant who knows his master’s will but does not do it and who is “cut to pieces and assigned a place with the unbelievers (hell)l; and 3) the one “who does not know and does things deserving punishment.” This final servant is beaten with “few blows” (purgatory).

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

1 Peter 1:7
These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

(cont.)

I do not care about what Maccabees says because it is NOT inspired.

Purgatory refers to a person bieng perged of his sins right after he/she dies. So purgatory happens IMMEDIATLY a person dies. In Luke 12: 42-48 Jesus can not be talking about purgatory because Jesus is talking about Judgement day, not when you die. I know Jesus is talking about judgement day because the passage is talking about someone (the Master) returning, which is basicly the last day.

1 Corinthians 3: 11-15 does NOT talk about purgatory. I have noticed that almost all Cathloics wrongly interpret this. This passage is also reffering to Judgement day. The silver, gold, wood and stray represent the qaulity of good deeds. On the day of Christ they will be tested. If they pass the test, a reward shall be given ( read verse 14). But, if your works were not good then you will not recieve no reward. If the rewards were not good you will “escape fire” not be purified by “fire”. The works burn up, not the person. No purgatory in that passage.

In 1 Peter 1:7 it talks about enduring your faith and not losing it. It does not say anything about bieng purified. No purgatory in this passage.

Purgatory is not even neccesary because Jesus cleansed us 2000 years ago. The Bible says so.

Hebrew 9:14
“since this is true, how much more is accomplished by the blood of Christ! Through the eternal Spirit he offered himself as the perfect sacrifice to God. His blood will PURIFY our conscience from uselss rituals so that we may serve the living God”.

 

[Little_Mary]

Here is some info on Peter as the first Pope…these are protestant sources, btw…

1. Peter as the “Rock” (Matthew 16:18)

Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

A. New Bible Dictionary (Protestant) amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=new+bible+dictionary&tag=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=4341197099&ref=pd_sl_51pc7yjrmo_e
“. . . That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.” (4:972)

B. Word Studies in the New Testament (Vincent) (Protestant; Greek Scholar)
christianbook.com/vincents-new-testament-word-studies/marvin-vincent/9780917006302/pd/06305
"The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra' to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: On this rock will I build.’ Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone,' but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Pet 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones "Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra’ to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men . . .

“The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Gal 1:18.” (11;v.1:91-92)

C. Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985) (Protestant)

“Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter’s faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.”

D. Wycliffe Bible Commentary (P) christianbook.com/wycliffe-bible-commentary/9780802496959/pd/96954?kw=wycliffe%20bible%20commentary&event=PPCSRC&p=1018818&cm_mmc=Google--Academic--commentaries-_-wycliffe%20bible%20commentary&gclid=CNjOoJKwhqcCFUpj7Aodj2ZjYw#curr
“Another view common among some Protestants (Alford, Broadus, Vincent) is that Peter is the rock.”

E. New Bible Commentary (Protestant)

“Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.”

F. Anchor Bible (William F. Albright and C.S. Mann) (Protestant) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Albright
christianbook.com/matthew-w-f-albright/9780300139785/pd/139785?item_code=WW&netp_id=513113&event=ESRCN&view=details
“In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation * any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter . . . The general sense of the passage is indisputable . . . Peter is the rock on which the new community will be built, and in that community, Peter’s authority to bind' or release’ will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s will.”

G. Robert McAfee Brown (Protestant)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McAfee_Brown

church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith."

H. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (R.T. France) (Protestant
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._T._France
"Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . .It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for rock’, petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha' would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . .

“Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.”

I.*

 

[Little_Mary]

66 Books = Canon? Which Canon? CAn you answer that?

How much research in the history of the bible and christianity have you done to be certain that THE canon is 66 books long?

REad on…

“While we know that at the time of Jesus there were different canons of the Old Testament because the canonical process was not yet complete, the glorious truth is that God has invited humans to be partners in the putting together of Scripture. I think the implications are that you cannot have Scripture without the community of faith,[in other words, the Church]. It’s not just a private revelation. God gives us Scripture, but then the Church, by God’s guidance, had to choose what’s in and what’s out” ~ Dr. Peter Flint, Evangelical Protestant theologian, quoted in Christianity Today, October 6, 1997. deadseascrolls.org/Site/index.php

“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the Church? I was not relating my own personal views when I wrote the objections of the Jews to the longer form of Daniel in my introduction, but rather the remarks that the Jews are wont to make against us Christians who accept the longer form of Daniel” ~ St. Jerome in his letter Against Rufinius, 420 A.D.

The Catholic Old Testament follows the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, the old testament which was translated into Greek around 250 B.C., and this canon contained all 46 books and always has. Protestants follow the Palestinian canon, 39 books, which was not officially recognized by Jews until around 100 A.D.

The Jews did not have a formally defined universal canon of Scripture until around 100 A.D. Prior to that, some groups of Jews used only the Pentateuch; some used only the Palestinian canon 39 books ]; some used only the Alexandrian canon 46 books] and some used all these and more.

The Jews began to formalize a universal canon when the early christians began writings of their own. At the time, the Alexandrian OT canon was the one in use and was used by the christians as apologetic material to convert the Jews. Furthermore, it contained the Septuagint, which was translated into Greek. These two reasons caused the Jews to develop a preference for the Palestinian canon. Regardless, the Alexandrian canon was the one used by the Jesus and the original twelve Apostles and it was the one the Church was inspired to include in the bible.
A majority of the OT quotes in the Greek come from the Septuigant. When you compare specific translations between the Alexandrian and Palestinian canons you will find that the Alexandrian canon is the one used by the Apostles. When the dead sea scrolls were discovered, a comparison proved that the scrolls agreed with the Septuigant and not the other texts. I can provide examples if you are interested. The Didache also reflects the Alexandrian canon.

 

[noobio]

My post mentions Maccabees, and I’m sorry that your faith tradition does not have the complete word of God. Luther will have to answer for that.

However, even if you deny it to be canonical, you must admit that the passage clearly demonstrates that the Jews believed in praying for the dead.

This was the culture into which Jesus was born, and nothing in scripture suggests that he chastised the Jews for this belief. To the contrary, the additional passages I gave suggest that he built upon this idea in His own teachings.

Some Jews did not even accpet the Apocrypha. They were not called scripure by the jews after it had been written.

Jesus did not even mention purgatory.

 

[Little_Mary]

Apocrypha? Do you know the definition of apocrypha?

Did you know that Jesus referenced them several times, in additon to the apostles?

there are several OT books that He never quoted from: 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Amos, to name only a few. Why don’t you have a problem with those?

Below are a couple of examples where uninspired, non-canonical writings are referred to in the NT as well. Why don’t you have a problem with that?:

• Saint Paul (Titus 1:12) quotes 6th century BC Greek poet-philosopher Epimenides, from the poem “Cretica”, regarding the nature of the inhabitants of Crete.
  -The letter of Jude (Jude 14-16) quotes from the non-canonical, non-inspired book of Enoch regarding prophecy.

Below is a list of passages from the New Testament that reference the Deuterocanonicals:

Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament:

Mt 2:16 Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wisdom 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents

Mt 6:19-2 Jesus statement about laying up treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure

Mt 7:12 Jesus Golden Rule Do unto others; Tobit 4:15 – what you hate, do not do to others.

Mt 7:16,2 Jesus says You will know them by their fruit; Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation

Mt 9:36 The people were like sheep without a shepherd; Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd

Mt 11:25 – Jesus description Lord of heaven and earth; Tobit 7:18 – Lord of heaven and earth

Mt 12:42 – Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the Deuterocanonical books

Mt 16:18 Jesus reference to the power of death and gates of Hades references in Wisdom 16:13

Mt 22:25; Mark 12:2; Luke 2:29: reference to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers

Mt 24:15 the desolating sacrilege Jesus refers to; see 1 Maccabees 1:54 and 2 Maccabees 8:17

Mt 24:16 Lot those flee to the mountains; see 1 Maccabees 2:28

Mt 27:43 If He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries; Wisdom 2:18

Mk 4:5, 16-17; Jesus description of seeds falling on rocky ground having no root; see Sirach 40:15

Mk 9:48 Jesus description of hell where worm does not die and fire is not quenched; see Judith 16:17

Luke 1:42 Elizabeth declaration of Mary’s blessedness; see Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18

Luke 1:52 Mary’s Magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by the lowly; see Sirach 10:14

Luke 2:298 Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus; see Tobit 11:9

Luke 13:29 The Lord’s description of men coming from the east and west to rejoice in God; see Baruch 4:37

Luke 21:24 Jesus words fall by the edge of the sword; see Sirach 28:18

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel; reminded of 2 Maccabees 3:26

John 1:3 All things were made through Him the Word; see Wisdom 9:1

John 3:13 Jesus explanation that who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven; see Baruch 3:29

John 4:48 Acts 5:12, 15:12, 2 Corinthians 12:12 Jesus Luke and Paul refer to signs and wonders; see Wisdom 8:8

Jn 5:18 Jesus claiming that God is His Father; see Wisdom 2:16

John 6:35 – 59 Jesus Eucharistic discourse; see Sirach 24:21 a

John 1:22 The identification of the feast of the dedication; see 1 Maccabees 4:59

John 15:6 Jesus explanation of fruitless branches cut down; see Wisdom 4:5

Acts 1:15 Luke’s reference to the 120; compare to 1 Maccabees 3:55 – leaders of tens/restoration of the twelve

Acts 10:34 Romans 2:11. Galations 2:6, Peter and Paul statement that God shows no partiality ; see Sirach 35:12

Acts 17:29 Pauls description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men; see Wisdom 13:10

Romans 1:18-25 Pauls teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry ; see Wisdom 13:1-10

Rev 5:7 God is described as seated on His throne; See Sirach 1:8

Revelation 8:3-4 The prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel; see Tobit 12:12,15

Rev 8:7 The raining of hail and fire to the earth ; see Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29

Revelation 9:3 The raining of locusts on the earth; Wisdom 16:9

Rev 11:19 The vision of the Ark of the Covenant in a cloud of glory; see 2 Maccabees 2:7

Rev 17:14; 19:16 The description of God as King of kings; see 2 Maccabees 13:4

Rev 19:1 The cry Hallelujuah at the coming of the New Jerusalem; see Tobit 13:18

Rev 19:11 Description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens; see 2 Maccabees 3:25; 11:8

Rev 21:19 description of the New Jerusalem with precious stones; see Tobit 13:17

Also:

Exodus 23:7 Do not slay the innocent and righteous ; see Daniel 13:53 do not put to death an innocent

1 Samuel 28:7-20 The intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul; see Sirach 46:20

2 Kings 2:1-13 Elijah being taken up into heaven; see Sirach 48:9

 

[noobio]

What is your authority to accept or reject books? What is the authority of your Protestant group, or all of Protestantism?

Now, I have questions for you. God is not the author of confusion. 1 Cor 14:33. With all of the conflicting doctrines and teachings of Protestantism, isn’t it obvious that God is not the author or founder of it?

What Protestant group did you get taken out of Christ’s church for and how did you determine that it is more correct than other Protestant groups?

And if Christ is truly head of his church and good shepherd, how could he let if fall into gross heresy for some 1,000 plus years, as Protestantism implies? How can you believe that Christ is head of his church, other than perhaps in some symbolic, figurehead sense?

I am not part of any group. I follow biblical Christanity.

I will give you my reasons for denying the extra books.

-Contridicts scripture

• Not accepted as the word of God by the jews and it is not in the Tanahk ( Jewish bible)
• Historical inaccuracies