Protestant interpretations...

[plain_me]

Firstly, purgatory comes from the root word PURGE…(sins were purged.)

Also, Macabees, yeah, they were praying to make atonement for the dead. Very good!

And for the last bit, suppose you dont die in a state of grace? Suppose you die in a state of sin? are you just going to waltz into heaven w. sin staining your soul? how would you suppose that gets taken care of? You’re not catholic, so I wouldn’t expect you to believe or understand it, but that’s what the church believes & I feel it makes sense. You can talk it up or down & it wont shake my beliefs either way. I can only explain it as best I can.

pur⋅ga⋅to⋅ry  /ˈpɜrgəˌtɔri, -ˌtoʊri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pur-guh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA noun, plural -ries, adjective
Use purgatory in a Sentence
See web results for purgatory
See images of purgatory
–noun 1. (in the belief of Roman Catholics and others) a condition or place in which the souls of those dying penitent are purified from venial sins, or undergo the temporal punishment that, after the guilt of mortal sin has been remitted, still remains to be endured by the sinner.
2. (initial capital letter, italics) Italian, Pur⋅ga⋅to⋅rio  /ˌpurgɑˈtɔryɔ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [poor-gah-taw-ryaw] Show IPA . the second part of Dante’s Divine Comedy, in which the repentant sinners are depicted. Compare inferno (def. 3), paradise (def. 7).
3. any condition or place of temporary punishment, suffering, expiation, or the like.

–adjective 4. serving to cleanse, purify, or expiate.

I understand the RCC doctrine of purgatory, Jason. I know about praying for those in purgatory and how supposedly the faithful can merit the graces needed for the attainment of eternal life (though I can’t find my catechism to give the correct reference for that…).

The problem I raised, Jason, was that those in purgatory are those who are on their way to heaven and are in need of “taking their shoes off” before stepping into God’s presence. This is a problem because someone who dies in mortal sin (which idolatry is considered to be, if I’m not mistaken–granted, it depends on who you talk to) is in hell–not purgatory. Therefore, the prayers these people were offering up to God in behalf of their departed friends would not fall into the category of a prayer for a person on their way to heaven. It would’ve been a misplaced prayer, and I agree with that.

And the point I was making about the offensiveness of purgatory was pertaining to the flawed view of atonement that RCs have. Jesus paid the debt I owe. He became sin for me. He became MY sin, and Gos punished MY sin on the cross. My record of debt to God has been taken away. Now instead of pasting a reference after those quotations, I’m going to paste the whole verses:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
(2Co 5:21 ESV)

Notice the trade? My sin for His righteousness. No, not fair. Grace. And it’s not something I have to work to maintain, as Paul points out in the flaw of the Jews:

For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
(Rom 10:3-4 ESV)

And just to make this abundantly clear:

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness…“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
(Rom 4:4-5, 8 ESV)

This means that there is nothing that I can pay or merit because Jesus’ work has merited the full pardon. And this is what God did with my sins:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
(Col 2:13-14 ESV)

And when this offering was made, there was no need to have another one. There was no need to be reminded of that guilt anymore, for that matter, because it has been separated from me as far as the east is from the west (ever wonder how far east you have to go until you run into west?). Scripture says it best in Hebrews:

“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
(Heb 10:16-18 ESV)

I know what you’re thinking: “That was previous sins.” But you fail to realize that ALL of my sins AND your sins were future sins when Jesus offered His sacrifice on the cross. Paul says that he was actually crucified WITH CHRIST. These are things I hope you’ll contemplate…

 

[Ginger2]

are you asking this question seriously or is this like a funny way of being…funny?

I am absolutely serious. Does rinnie’s explanation prove Jesus native tongue was Aramaic in the mind of Catholics?

Ginger

 

[rinnie]

I knew it, I just couldn’t explain why, thanks my friend!!!

No Problem Jason. And this is a very very important point. Here is why. Many Muslims use the traditional evangelical teaching of abandonment as proof that Jesus reallly was separated fro God and therefore cannot be considered to be one with God. In another way they say If God really did abandon his son then the Eternal Trinity wouldn’t be eternal would it. It would have been broken for a few hours/days during passion week.

That is why we are lucky Jason to have the CC to teach us scripture, which came right from the Apostles, or we also may not have seen this.

We have not only scripture (thank God) but the fullness of the CC to explain scripture clearly. Or we too would not understand this passage.

But like I said could you imagine how many of the Jews felt when Jesus said those words. My point on them being afraid was not only the darkness earth shake, etc. the Jew would not have needed that to be afraid, The psalm would have been enough for them. Many of them finally got their eyes opened. right then and there. But again it was too late, they already did what they did to our poor Jesus, spit on him, beat him. humiliated him. Of course they were not the only ones who did this, and got their eyes opened. But the others did not understand the scripture the way the Jews did. That was my point.

It would be very hard for you or I to agree that Jesus made a mistake speaking on the cross saying Elijah instead of eloi. We know Jesus was perfect in everyway. So it had to be not ALL of the people understand him. But the Jews did, they could not miss it. And we know Jesus spoke to the Jews in Aramaic. They was his first language you could say. It is supposed to be very close to Hebrew as a matter of fact. That I do not know:shrug:

Another interesting point that is not quoted in the bible. They put the sign above Jesus saying king of the Jews. Now we know the Jews didn’t want this. But here is the point that also was not written in the bible. Ironic Jesus was indeed the king of the Jews as it was written.

Again just an example if God working in mysterious ways.

If you get a chance Jason look up the word remez, Then you will understand more that this is a semitic word meaning hint or a hardening back to something that needs no further elaboration, This also is a good reason why Jesus indeed was speaking in Aramaic because it was a language the Jews indeed understood. And this verse was for them. Again only they would understand what Jesus was saying anyway because they knew the scriptures.

 

[rinnie]

I understand the RCC doctrine of purgatory, Jason. I know about praying for those in purgatory and how supposedly the faithful can merit the graces needed for the attainment of eternal life (though I can’t find my catechism to give the correct reference for that…).

The problem I raised, Jason, was that those in purgatory are those who are on their way to heaven and are in need of “taking their shoes off” before stepping into God’s presence. This is a problem because someone who dies in mortal sin (which idolatry is considered to be, if I’m not mistaken–granted, it depends on who you talk to) is in hell–not purgatory. Therefore, the prayers these people were offering up to God in behalf of their departed friends would not fall into the category of a prayer for a person on their way to heaven. It would’ve been a misplaced prayer, and I agree with that.

And the point I was making about the offensiveness of purgatory was pertaining to the flawed view of atonement that RCs have. Jesus paid the debt I owe. He became sin for me. He became MY sin, and Gos punished MY sin on the cross. My record of debt to God has been taken away. Now instead of pasting a reference after those quotations, I’m going to paste the whole verses:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
(2Co 5:21 ESV)

Notice the trade? My sin for His righteousness. No, not fair. Grace. And it’s not something I have to work to maintain, as Paul points out in the flaw of the Jews:

For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
(Rom 10:3-4 ESV)

And just to make this abundantly clear:

Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness…“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
(Rom 4:4-5, 8 ESV)

This means that there is nothing that I can pay or merit because Jesus’ work has merited the full pardon. And this is what God did with my sins:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
(Col 2:13-14 ESV)

And when this offering was made, there was no need to have another one. There was no need to be reminded of that guilt anymore, for that matter, because it has been separated from me as far as the east is from the west (ever wonder how far east you have to go until you run into west?). Scripture says it best in Hebrews:

“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.” Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
(Heb 10:16-18 ESV)

I know what you’re thinking: “That was previous sins.” But you fail to realize that ALL of my sins AND your sins were future sins when Jesus offered His sacrifice on the cross. Paul says that he was actually crucified WITH CHRIST. These are things I hope you’ll contemplate…

It would not be a problem if you understood the Catholic faith the way you claim you do. The Catholic faith teaches NO ONE who dies in MORTAL SIN will ever see Purgatory or Heaven. You can only die with venial sin! So how could you possibly understand the RCC teaching of purgatory and say that someone who dies in mortal sin would go to purgatory when that has never been nor ever will be the teaching of the RCC?

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger, your explanation was a good one, except that you’re missing some key points. …Matthew could have had “Eli” in Hebrew because he was directly quoting the Psalm and because his primary audience was the Jews. But Mark’s primary audience were Greek speakers, so if Jesus said it in Hebrew then why would Mark record it in Aramaic? …

And so we’re right back to the original point:…!

I actually considered these points myself.

We have two different renditions:
Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, … (Hebrew))

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, … (Aramaic)

Those who heard Jesus speak responded, Mark 15:35 , “Look, He is calling for Elijah!’”
In Hebrew Eli can be either “My God” or an abbreviation for “Elijah”.

In Aramaic Eloi distinctly means “My God.” Since the listeners thought Jesus was calling for Elijah, it can only mean Jesus spoke in Hebrew.

So, your theory that Matthew changed the Aramaic word to a similar Hebrew word doesn’t hold up, because those present who responded to his words, heard Jesus’ words, not Matthew’s translation.

Also, if Matthew change the word “Eloi” to “Eli” to convince the reader Jesus was quoting the Psalm, why not change “sabachthani” to match, too?

Concerning why both translations have the rest of the quote identical does seem puzzling - at first. But you seem to forget how similar Hebrew and Aramaic are.

These words, “lama sabachthani” may not be exclusive to Aramaic as you suggest. These words are used in Hebrew, as well. It is my understanding these words are used in the Hebrew Midrash. I have not verified this with my own eyes, but if these words are indeed Hebraic, your theory falls apart again on this point.

Either way, it does not explain why Matthew would intentionally mistranslate the Lord’s words in a way that could cause confusion.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

you got it kiddo. Purgatory is purging. It’s a final purification or sanctification. …

Agreed:

1 Cor 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed,
52 in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility, and that which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality.

Let me ask you this, if the saved must be punished for their sins in purgatory - despite being forgiven - what happens to those who were destined to spend fifty years in purgatory, but die only one second before Christ takes his bride to heaven???

Do they escape this **required **time of suffering toward restitution?

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Luke65,

I have been studying up on these two version from Matthew and Mark. I have discovered the words we have been assuming identical are not identical at all.

First, Hebrew and Aramaic are quite similar. So, some words or even phrases in Hebrew could be easily mistaken for Aramaic, and vice versa.

I have two translations from each of the verses in question:

YLT (Young’s Literal Translation)
Mat:
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani
Mark:
`Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabachthani?’

and
**
TR (Textus Receptus)**
Mat:
Ηλι ηλι λαμὰ σαβαχθανι
Mark:
Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι

That’s as far as I have gone, but you can see the original texts are not identical afterall.

Ginger

 

[rinnie]

Hey Jason check this out now. Go to the New American Bible. IT explains thing better for us.

It says Jesus cries out in the words of ps 22 a psalm of laments that is the old test. passage most frequently drawn upon in this narrative. In Mark the verse is cited ENTIRELY in Aramaic which Matthew partially retains by CHANGES the invocation of God to the Hebrew ELI.

Then go to the side note in Mark and its says an Aramaic rendering of the ps. 22:2 Its says nothing of Mark changing it.

 

[rinnie]

Luke65,

I have been studying up on these two version from Matthew and Mark. I have discovered the words we have been assuming identical are not identical at all.

First, Hebrew and Aramaic are quite similar. So, some words or even phrases in Hebrew could be easily mistaken for Aramaic, and vice versa.

I have two translations from each of the verses in question:

YLT (Young’s Literal Translation)
Mat:
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani
Mark:
`Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabachthani?’

and
**
TR (Textus Receptus)**
Mat:
Ηλι ηλι λαμὰ σαβαχθανι
Mark:
Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι

That’s as far as I have gone, but you can see the original texts are not identical afterall.

Ginger

I never said they were in the first place. Because they never were. I just said they do sound alike.

Quote some did not Clearly hear what Jesus said and mistook eloi as Elijah both phonetically very similar in Semitic Pronounciation. unquote.

Also if you go back to scripture it say’s Quote SOME of the bystanders who heard it said Look he is calling Elijah. unquote.

Where does it say ALL of the bystanders said Look he is calling Elijah.

Mark and Matt never said Jesus was calling Eliah they both said the same thing some bystanders said Jesus said that.

But Mark knew what Jesus said and quoted it quite clear. So did Matt but he changed it as I showed you why.

 

[Ginger2]

I never said …

I am discussing this with Luke65. No offence, but I would rather talk with someone who bases his assertions on factual evidence from Scriptures and history rather than baseless opinions formed to support one’s beliefs.

Luke65 brought up a good point and I would like to follow it thru with him to discover, if possible, what each author actually said in quoting Jesus.

I do appreciate your very interesting theories, but see no benefit in continuing in that direction as I am more interested in factual evidence as opposed to speculation.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut on this topic.

Ginger

 

[rinnie]

Sorry I thought this was for everyone. BUt thats fine you can just ignore what I quote from the bible.

For those who would also like to see what I have learned, The New Jerusalem bible also agree’s with me on the Point of the Jews fully understanding this verse and not the Romans.

Quote: For the Roman Officer this admission would not have its full Christian content, but Mk clearly sees in it an acknowledgement that Jesus was more than a man. Unquote.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Agreed:

1 Cor 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed,
52 in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility, and that which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality.

Let me ask you this, if the saved must be punished for their sins in purgatory - despite being forgiven - what happens to those who were destined to spend fifty years in purgatory, but die only one second before Christ takes his bride to heaven???

Do they escape this **required **time of suffering toward restitution?

Ginger

Ginger-

First, why do you believe that the saved “must be punished” in purgatory? Does the Catholic Church teach that EVERY SINGLE PERSON who enters heaven will have passed through purgatory first? No.

Second, if a thousand years is but a day to the Lord, how long will those 50 years take? A flash? A twinkling of the eye? A little less than an hour?

Finally, if God is outside of time, then speaking of something happening “one second before Christ takes His bride to heaven” makes no sense. All is eternally “present” to God.

 

[Jason_1977]

Agreed:

1 Cor 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed,
52 in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility, and that which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality.

Let me ask you this, if the saved must be punished for their sins in purgatory - despite being forgiven - what happens to those who were destined to spend fifty years in purgatory, but die only one second before Christ takes his bride to heaven???

Do they escape this **required **time of suffering toward restitution?

Ginger

see, that’s a HUGE misconception…it’s not punishment (though some see it that way because it delays entering heaven & what not) It’s purification before entering heaven, thats all. a cleansing. Theres no retribution, torment or torture. It’s a cleansing. There is surely no time limit or prison-like sentence. I think personally it’s an instant cleansing. If sins can be forgiven & original sin washed away in an instant, then a few minor sins should be a snap in the spirit world, that’s my guess. they’d be better at it & more qualified I should think, that’s my guess, lol

 

[Jason_1977]

Hey Jason check this out now. Go to the New American Bible. IT explains thing better for us.

It says Jesus cries out in the words of ps 22 a psalm of laments that is the old test. passage most frequently drawn upon in this narrative. In Mark the verse is cited ENTIRELY in Aramaic which Matthew partially retains by CHANGES the invocation of God to the Hebrew ELI.

Then go to the side note in Mark and its says an Aramaic rendering of the ps. 22:2 Its says nothing of Mark changing it.

kewl

 

[Ginger2]

Sorry I thought this was for everyone.

rinnie,

You are free to post anything you like on this topic, but I was commenting on the information Luke posted to me about the last part of Jesus quote being in Aramaic in both Mat and Mark.

Your response was to say you had not made those claims (Luke65) made. I was trying to clarify that fact as well as let you know I am not going to waste my time discussing theories that have no basis in fact.

I DID NOT say you couldn’t post your opinions.

I hope this clears things up for you. Have a nice day.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

see, that’s a HUGE misconception…it’s not punishment (though some see it that way because it delays entering heaven & what not) It’s purification before entering heaven, thats all. a cleansing. Theres no retribution, torment or torture. …

I know that the Catholic Catechism says that, now. But it used to plainly state people had to be punished for their sins despite Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.

I have a copy of the RC catechism copyright 1924

Here are some highlights:

Penance is “the punishment by which he (a man) atones for the sins committed” p. 279

#54 p. 289
“We are not, indeed, required to confess venial sins; yet it is good and wholesome to do so.”

"70 When God remits the sin, does He also remit all the punishment due on account of it?" p. 292​

“…always the eternal punishment…He does not always remit the temporal punishment…”

"71 What is the temporal …?" p. 292​

“It is that **punishment we have to suffer **either here on Earth or in Purgatory”

"72 Why …?" p. 292​

“…His justice demands that, by the enduring of the punishment we should make some reparation for the injury done to Him; and …by the fear of such punishment…”

Ginger

 

[rinnie]

see, that’s a HUGE misconception…it’s not punishment (though some see it that way because it delays entering heaven & what not) It’s purification before entering heaven, thats all. a cleansing. Theres no retribution, torment or torture. It’s a cleansing. There is surely no time limit or prison-like sentence. I think personally it’s an instant cleansing. If sins can be forgiven & original sin washed away in an instant, then a few minor sins should be a snap in the spirit world, that’s my guess. they’d be better at it & more qualified I should think, that’s my guess, lol

I agree with you Jason we do not see it as punishment. We see it as a santifying grace. We learn in Revelation 21:27 that nothing defiled can enter heaven.

We may have loved God and tried hard to serve him but we are also conscious of venial sins. Those are sins that commited in the past and not repented the weakness which causes us to yield to them still present in us. We may leave this world loving God yet not perfect or undefiled. Only God can answer that question for us.

As Randy also commented many people are ready and do leave this world completely free from venial sin. But sad to say many leave with the weakness of sin. That is what Purgatory is for. We gain no grace there. It only cleanses our nature.

We do not see suffering as punishment any longer we accept it gladly as it is a reversal of the process of sin. For sin is ones own will against Gods. The total acceptance of Gods willl at whatever cost brings healing of sin in its root.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I know that the Catholic Catechism says that, now. [SIGN]But it used to plainly state people had to be punished for their sins despite Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.[/SIGN]
I have a copy of the RC catechism copyright 1924

Here are some highlights:

Penance is “the punishment by which he (a man) atones for the sins committed” p. 279

#54 p. 289
“We are not, indeed, required to confess venial sins; yet it is good and wholesome to do so.”

"70 When God remits the sin, does He also remit all the punishment due on account of it?" p. 292​

“…always the eternal punishment…He does not always remit the temporal punishment…”

"71 What is the temporal …?" p. 292​

“It is that punishment we have to suffer either here on Earth or in Purgatory”

"72 Why …?" p. 292​

“…His justice demands that, by the enduring of the punishment we should make some reparation for the injury done to Him; and …by the fear of such punishment…”

Ginger

I know you aren’t speaking to me directly and I know we seem to butt heads constantly. But this is not the teaching of the RCC. I am sorry.

The blood of Christ cleanses us from all iniquity 1 Jn 1:7

It is true nothing can be cleansed apart from Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. Yet man may fail totally or partially to be cleansed by it.

There is a part we ourself must play if Christs blood is to do that cleansing that only it alone can do.

Purgatory does not lessen the Power of Calvary it just proves that Gods Power can reach beyond the grave. His blood can still remove the natural grossness and the supernatural life can at last reach its own truth.

So could you please show me where the Church teaches that the blood of Christ was not enough to pay for our sin. And could show me where Jesus said we did not have to Repent if we do sin. I am sorry, off the subject But am I wrong? Please forgive me if I am, but did you not say you were Catholic?

 

[Ginger2]

More on Purgatory from the 1924 catechism:

“Let us consider how terrible are the pains of hell or of purgatory…” p. 286

#"79 What shall we have to expect, if we neglect to make due satisfaction to the the divine justice?"
“We shall have so much the more to suffer in Purgatory, and that without any merit from heaven.”

 

[rinnie]

More on Purgatory from the 1924 catechism:

“Let us consider how terrible are the pains of hell or of purgatory…” p. 286

#"79 What shall we have to expect, if we neglect to make due satisfaction to the the divine justice?"
“We shall have so much the more to suffer in Purgatory, and that without any merit from heaven.”

It don’t get any easier to understand then this, maybe this can help you to understand

CCC The final Purification or Purgatory

All who die in GODS GRACE and friendship but still (name removed by moderator)ERFECTLY purified are indeed ASSURED of their eternal salvation. But AFTER DEATH THEY UNDERGO PURIFICATION as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy or heaven.

The Church gives this name purgatory to this final purification of the elect which is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the PUNISHMENT of the DAMNED.

Now Ginger does that make sense to you. Why as Catholics we do not see purgatory as the same punishment as hell. Because the Church teaches us that.

Does that help you at all, to see there is indeed a difference between the suffering of Purgatory and the suffering of eternal Hell?