Protestant interpretations...

[plain_me]

JohnnyBeth;5733399:

If you are limited by “the Church”; it is no different that saying the “Church” has the only authority to interpret Scripture. The “Church” you would refer to in this regard would be the Magesterium aspect…correct me if I am wrong.

So you do not belong to a formal church?

Yes, you are wrong because you extended a boundary into an absolute. If I interpret 2+2 to equal 5 and the Church says no it has to be 4, then therefore to Church controls every thought I have about what I read in the Bible?

Rather, if the church says that 2+2=5 is the proper example:

Thirteenth Rule. To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it, believing that between Christ our Lord, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride, there is the same Spirit which governs and directs us for the salvation of our souls. Because by the same Spirit and our Lord Who gave the ten Commandments, our holy Mother the Church is directed and governed.

That is a quotation from The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola which can be found HERE
This also covers a quotation that I cited without having a reference previously. Those to whom it pertains will recognize it, I hope.

 

[rinnie]

whm;5733631:

Rather, if the church says that 2+2=5 is the proper example:

That is a quotation from The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola which can be found HERE

This also covers a quotation that I cited without having a reference previously. Those to whom it pertains will recognize it, I hope.

We are promised by Jesus Christ that he will send us the Advocate the Holy Spirit to the Church to lead us to the fullness of the truth. Jesus promised us that. What are you saying that the Holy Spirt does not guide the CC into the fullness of the Church as Jesus promised?

 

[rinnie]

It is true that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. The lies about Luther have been frequently repeated for nearly five hundred years. Many, many people believe them.

But believing a lie does not make it true.

But the truth does make it true. And the point is the CC was here long before Luther. Jesus left us the CC not Luther. Jesus promised the church to be lead by the Holy Spirit until he comes again in glory. The CC is still here and still teaching the same way as it did over 2000 years ago.

Luther left the Church the church did not leave luther. Just like the HS never left the CC. Because once again Jesus promised us that. And he kept that promise Hades have never prevailed the Church is still here.

BUt Luther is LONG GONE

 

[Ginger2]

Hi Jason,…
… either Jesus knew just what he was saying and took his last shot to show the Jews who he was. Or Jesus messed up in Psalms and said it wrong. We both know the answer to that. Jesus knew just exactly what he was saying and some heard him wrong. But the Jews heard him right, and knew exactly what he meant. BUt then it was too late he took his last breath. That is why they all got scared and said we just killed an inocent Man. This man was indeed the Son of God.

Thats our Proof that Jesus last words were indeed in Aramaic.

You should really read the passages before you try to expound on them.

They weren’t afraid because Jesus cried out to God, they were afraid because of what happened at the moment of his death:

50 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.
51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,
52 tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
54 **The centurion and the men with him who were keeping watch over Jesus feared greatly **when they saw the earthquake and all that was happening, and they said, “Truly, this was the Son of God!”

CENTURIAN: 1) an officer in the Roman army

Not a Jew, but a Roman officer and the men under his command feared.

It’s all about context, rin! Keep the text in context.

Ginger

 

[rinnie]

You should really read the passages before you try to expound on them.

They weren’t afraid because Jesus cried out to God, they were afraid because of what happened at the moment of his death:

50 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.
51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,
52 tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
54 The centurion and the men with him who were keeping watch over Jesus feared greatly when they saw the earthquake and all that was happening, and they said, “Truly, this was the Son of God!”

Ginger

You know gingER its a shame when you continue to assume for People what they mean and are talking about instead of asking them.

They were afraid because they knew that when all of that happened it happend for a reason. Not because Jesus died. Because Jesus was indeed the Son of God. As I said they knew at that moment that Jesus was indeed the son of God. They knew they crucified a inocent man. I really did not think I had to finish the scripture how darkness fell, the earth shook etc to get my point across. I am sure everyone know’s this happened right after.

 

[Ginger2]

rinnie,

you said, “the Jews heard him right, and knew exactly what he meant. But then it was too late he took his last breath. That is why they all got scared and said we just killed an innocent Man. This man was indeed the Son of God.”

But the Bible says:
50 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.
51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,
52 tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
54 The centurion and the men with him who were keeping watch over Jesus feared greatly when they saw the earthquake and all that was happening, and they said, “Truly, this was the Son of God!”

CENTURIAN: 1) an officer in the Roman army

It does not say the Jews were afraid. It says the Roman officer and men under his command feared, and not for what he said, but for what they witnessed at the moment of his death.

Ginger

 

[rinnie]

rinnie,

you said, “the Jews heard him right, and knew exactly what he meant. But then it was too late he took his last breath. That is why they all got scared and said we just killed an innocent Man. This man was indeed the Son of God.”

But the Bible says:
50 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.
51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,
52 tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
54 The centurion and the men with him who were keeping watch over Jesus feared greatly when they saw the earthquake and all that was happening, and they said, “Truly, this was the Son of God!”

CENTURIAN: 1) an officer in the Roman army

It does not say the Jews were afraid. It says the Roman officer and men under his command feared, and not for what he said, but for what they witnessed at the moment of his death.

Ginger

You know what ginger as usual you missed my whole point. The point is the Jews saw with that sentence that Jesus was indeed the son of God. That was his last chance to show them who he was. That was my proof that he was talking in Aramaic, But you have to try to argue about each and every little thing. I do not undestand what your problem is and why you are so miserable all the time.

 

[whm]

]

Rather, if the church says that 2+2=5 is the proper example:

Very funny, why not answer the question? I made the example to be clear not be mocking. What happens in your church if somebody has a fundamental disagreement on something considered essential? What if it is a Sunday school teacher?

 

[Ginger2]

You know what ginger as usual you missed my whole point. The point is the Jews saw with that sentence that Jesus was indeed the son of God. That was his last chance to show them who he was. That was my proof that he was talking in Aramaic, But you have to try to argue about each and every little thing. I do not undestand what your problem is and why you are so miserable all the time.

I realize you were trying to prove Jesus spoke Aramaic by saying the Jews understood what he said. But you failed, not only on proving anything, but also on interpreting the Scriptures correctly.

The verse does NOT say the Jew feared, it says the Roman Centurion and his soldiers feared.

You are desperate to see something that doesn’t exist. Even if the verse said right out “the Jews present understood Jesus was quoting Psalms” that doesn’t indicate what language Jesus was speaking.

In contrast my explanation provided strong evidence Jesus spoke Hebrew, not Aramaic.

 

[Jason_1977]

Um… I would definitely call Mary blessed. EXTREMELY blessed. Blessed like no other person in history to be so closely associated with the Lord. So blessed to have the intimate experiences and conversations with Jesus that people to this very day would desire to have. Blessed by God not only to have been chosen to accomplish His purposes in this world (everyone is being used in that way in one way or another), but to have such an amazing and incredible calling and purpose. Make no mistake, Mary is an outstandingly important person in history because God used her for such a high purpose–to bring the redeemer Godman into the world to die on the cross and take the punishment for my sins and the sins of every last person who calls on His name in his/her desperation as a hopeless sinner in need of a perfect Savior (2 Cor. 5:31) who will advocate for him/her throughout all of the rest of his/her life (Heb. 4:14; 8:6; 9:25-28; 10:14; I Jn. 2:1) and who trusts that He is the perfect Savior (Rom. 10:11) who can accomplish all that He has promised to do (Rom. 8:29-39).

Although, Mary is not the focus in any way shape or manner. I’m sure that she would be appalled for all the attention that she gets by so many devotees.

I digress… This is off topic, so I won’t pursue this any further. You can inform me of another thread if you’d like to continue the discussion.

I’m interested in what YOU think it means, and why God’s word can easily go dismissed as “just another verse”? It doesnt strike a chord with you, that’s ok, I have heard of people that read the book of numbers when they have a hard time falling asleep. She is the most important woman in the new testament. She bore the messiah. She’s pretty senior in the ranks of women in the bible. She IS blessed. Why is that disputable?

 

[Jason_1977]

Hi Jason, I wrote this earlier today but don’t think it went thru so I will write it again.

You actually almost had the answer. Almost

But there is how it happened we know Jesus was a rabbi and his teaching and speaking in a semitic dealect as a rabbi until his last breath.

Here is how we know. Jesus loved the Jews and they were of course the chosen people. Now as we see standing at the foot of the cross would indeed be observing Jews. THey understand Jesus last words. My God My God why have you forsaken me. a a remez back to psalm 22:1 and since 22 23 abd 24 always follow the are united as a whole in first-century jewish mind.

Now note some did not CLEARLY hear those last words and mistook eloi as Elijah (both phonetically very similar in semitic pronouncation) knew Jesus was invoking the 3 psalms into his final prayer.

By doing this it was his last chance to indentify hinself as the Messiah and how he would die.

We have 3 final things here

22 showed he was the Messiah
23 his trust in God
24 envisioned his triumpt return to heaven.

Now either Jesus knew just what he was saying and took his last shot to show the Jews who he was. Or Jesus messed up in Psalms and said it wrong. We both know the answer to that. Jesus knew just exactly what he was saying and some heard him wrong. But the Jews heard him right, and knew exactly what he meant. BUt then it was too late he took his last breath. That is why they all got scared and said we just killed an inocent Man. This man was indeed the Son of God.

Thats our Proof that Jesus last words were indeed in Aramaic.

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

 

[Ginger2]

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

That makes sense to you? Even tho it doesn’t even correspond to what is written in the Scripture?

OK, do all Catholics here think rinnie has proven beyond a doubt Jesus spoke Aramaic?

Not asking if you believe Jesus spoke Aramaic, as you all do.
**
I am asking if rinnie’s explanation absolutely proves this belief in your minds.**

No need to explain your answers. …I’m just curious.

Ginger

 

[plain_me]

Okay here is the first thing that I found about Augustine. I suggest you read “Confessions”, I read it in college classic lit before becoming Catholic. Great stuff.

Augustine Sermons, [227]

" … I promised you, who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of sins. If you receive worthily, you are what you have received."

I actually have Confessions on audiobook, and it’s one of the best books in my collection. This quotation is not from Confessions, though, is it?

Here’s another quotation from Augustine:

1. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:”(Augustine John: Tractate 25:12)

I emphasize because not many in here seem to see the points I’m trying to make…

What I can say to you is that throughout the history of the church (including to this present day in Presbyterian churches, for example) people have spoken very highly of the elements used during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This is how RCs have such confusion after being taught what they are about the eucharist when looking at these quotations. It causes an anachronistic view of history, and it can be demonstrated from the same documents that are quoted by RCs if they are read in their context–just like the Bible.

I know of no better quotation from Augustine than the one in On Christian Doctrine when he quotes Jesus’ words in John 6 and says that it is meant to be taken figuartively, but he says even earlier in the same work (Chapter 9 Book 2) that the person who mistakes the signs (or symbols) used during the “celebration of the body and blood of the Lord” is in bondage to those things and that “to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”

Yes, Augustine thought very highly of the magnificent privilege of partaking in the body and blood of the Lord, and he spoke very highly of the aspects of the celebration as would anyone who has this high calling and privilege to take part in it. He did not, however, mistake the signs for the real things.

Here’s another quotation you might like by someone you would consider to have been a pope:

“The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”

Gelasius, bishop of Rome, in Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, Tractatus de duabis naturis Adversus Eutychen et Nestorium 14.

I like that one because it’s so cut and dry…

By the way, I went looking for that quotation that you left from Augustine, but I couldn’t find the original–just quotations from others from that sermon. Can you tell me where I might find it and read it in its context?

 

[plain_me]

I would take a look at LW 35. Luther gives his reasons for rejecting the book, and he doesn’t mention Purgatory. Interestingly, during the Leipzig debate, Luther still believed in purgatory, yet doubted the validity of 2 Maccabees, so this would imply that his reasoning for rejecting the book was primarily based on other historical factors. For more information:

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#1)

Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2)

Regards,
James Swan

Well that’s pretty ironic! I actually laughed out loud when I read this post!

Hey, Jason, that’s the guy who has the blog about Luther I gave you a link to. Like I said, you should check his links out and discuss this with him. I told you he’d be willing to interact with you on this topic.

Thanks for dropping by James!

 

[plain_me]

Selection on salvation topic:

Must Speak in Tongues to be saved
Can lose your salvation (after salvation experience)
Must be baptized in Jesus name only
Must be baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Is pre-destined (Calvin)
Eternal Security (once saved, always saved)

Which one of the above is right?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here, but I can answer your questions.

1. False.

This is imposed upon many people in the Pentecostal churches to the point of coaching people into speaking in tongues after the counselor. This is a shameful practice which is totally erroneous. These people, I would say, fit into the category of the “evil and adulterous generation” (Matt. 12:39) seeking a sign because the power of the Gospel to save sinners “to the uttermost” (Heb. 7:25) is not elaborate enough for them.

2. False.

Some have a distorted view of the warning passages such as Hebrews 6:4-6, but they are neglecting the entire thought that the writer is expressing in the passage. In the next few verses, though, he explains that this sort of thing doesn’t apply to those who have truly received the perfect salvation of the Lord. Check out verse 9–

“Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things–things that belong to salvation.”

So, the warnings he has given are things that can happen to someone who isn’t truly saved because he expects the things that flow out of a true saving faith from those to whom he is speaking. There are other passages, but too many to address here.

3. & 4. These, I don’t believe, are dividing lines necessarily.

The apostles Peter and John went and laid hands on some who had not received the Spirit after being baptized in Jesus’ name (Acts 8:16), but Peter said for the people to be baptized in the name of Jesus in Acts 2:38. Jesus Himself said that the disciples were to go into the world and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, AND Spirit (Matt. 28:19), so I would say that the proper method is to be baptized in the name of the Trinity. I haven’t studied that particular issue enough to say that it is serious enough to separate over, but I think it would become evident whether this particular variation effects things in other areas in time.

Oh, and I’m willing to be corrected on this by anyone who can show me a more specific reason to take it more clearly from the Scriptures.

5. Huh?

Is predestined in order to be saved? Or do you mean that they need to agree with my understanding of predestination in order to be saved? Yes and no. I believe that it can be clearly demonstrated that all those who were predestined to eternal life will believe (Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:4-5; I Thess. 5:9) which means that those not predestined for life will not be saved. I wouldn’t necessarily exclude someone who disagrees with me on this point, though some people do get pretty irate and disrespectful towards a God who would conduct His business in this way (so to speak). Those people I pray for and try to be really patient with, but I try not to be too hard on them.

6. Hmmm…

Of course, I do affirm the fact that God’s elect will certainly persevere in the faith and be saved (Rom. 8:29-39), but some falsely teach that everyone who says some magical prayer will be assured of heaven. That’s probably the most dangerous false teaching facing the American church today. I think that this is a true teaching that has been abused by people who apparently haven’t read Romans 6 and I John 2:19 (This one shows that those who apostacize were never really “of the faith”–truly saved–to begin with).

 

[Jason_1977]

That makes sense to you? Even tho it doesn’t even correspond to what is written in the Scripture?

OK, do all Catholics here think rinnie has proven beyond a doubt Jesus spoke Aramaic?

Not asking if you believe Jesus spoke Aramaic, as you all do.
**
I am asking if rinnie’s explanation absolutely proves this belief in your minds.**

No need to explain your answers. …I’m just curious.

Ginger

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

 

[Luke65]

In contrast my explanation provided strong evidence Jesus spoke Hebrew, not Aramaic.

Ginger, your explanation was a good one, except that you’re missing some key points. First of all, there is a variation in mss, so we don’t even know for sure if Matthew has “Eli” or “Eloi”. Secondly, you seem to have completely missed the fact that the rest of this saying is in Aramaic, not Hebrew, in both Matthew and Mark. So the question is: why would they have recorded it in Aramaic unless that is what Jesus said? 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? If he was going to translate it, then why translate it into Aramaic instead of Greek? That makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is that Jesus said it in Aramaic, and Matthew and Mark left it untranslated, although Matthew may have written “Eli, Eli” for the reasons I gave.

And so we’re right back to the original point: the overwhelming opinion of scholars, both believing and unbelieving, both Protestant and Catholic, is that the plain and obvious meaning is that Jesus founded His Church on Peter the Rock; and that our Lord spoke Aramaic, and called Peter, “Kepha”. And that He didn’t decide to all of a sudden speak Greek in the middle of that passage! It’s really very simple. There’s no need to jump through hoops in order to deny what God has done, especially since it’s confirmed in Eph. 2:20 and Rev. 21:14. Not to mention, that it doesn’t even matter if you call Peter a “pebble” - that “pebble” holds the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and has the power to bind and loose all of us on Earth, and it’s enforced by God! Some pebble!

And if your next attempted escape is to say that that power and authority was not passed on to Peter’s successors, then you’re in luck - somebody just started a new thread on that very topic. See you there!

 

[plain_me]

Check out Isaiah Ch 6 Verse 7, you’ll see an act of purgatory “HE TOUCHED MY MOUTH WITH IT, “SEE”, HE SAID, “NOW THAT THIS HAS TOUCHED YOUR LIPS, YOUR WICKEDNESS IS REMOVED, YOUR SIN PURGED”” another from a deuterocanon reading would be 2Maccabees 12:45-46. “IT WAS A HOLY AND PIOUS THOUGHT. THUS HE MADE ATONEMENT FOR THE DEAD, THAT THEY MAY BE FREED FROM THIS SIN.” Here’s the kicker. The rapture is defined but the word isnt used in Luke. Purgatory is defined but the word not used. RCC doesnt teach the rapture but it is in protestant sects. Purgatory is taught in RCC and considered ridiculous to protestants. Purgatory is the final sanctification for those souls on their way to heaven that were not in a state of grace when they died. That’s it. It’s like taking your shoes off or wiping your feet before entering God’s turf.

That’s an example of eisegesis. Isaiah 6 is not describing Isaiah’s stint in purgatory before entering into the joys of heaven after death. He was already IN the presence of God at the time, second of all.

2 Maccabees is an example of someone praying someone out of purgatory after they died for having committed idolatry (v. 40)? Is someone eligible to enter heaven (or purgatory) after dying in mortal sin?

The word rapture comes from the Latin word rapturo out of the Vulgate. It came out of I Thess. 4. So, I guess this means that the RCs were the first ones to teach the rapture? Just kidding. You won’t catch me arguing for the modern, Dispensational understanding of the rapture, but the word is not foreign to the Bible. Maybe you should’ve used Trinity as an example.

The reason why purgatory is ridiculous to protestants is not because the word isn’t found in the Bible. It’s because the teaching contradicts the Gospel of Jesus Christ’s perfect, finished, sufficient, and efficient sacrifice in behalf of all who believe. There is no further cleansing to be had! Christ has accomplished everything for our salvation!

For by a single offering he has perfected …pause…for all time those who are being sanctified.
(Heb 10:14 ESV)

pause mine

 

[panevino]

Check out Isaiah Ch 6 Verse 7, you’ll see an act of purgatory “HE TOUCHED MY MOUTH WITH IT, “SEE”, HE SAID, “NOW THAT THIS HAS TOUCHED YOUR LIPS, YOUR WICKEDNESS IS REMOVED, YOUR SIN PURGED”” another from a deuterocanon reading would be 2Maccabees 12:45-46. “IT WAS A HOLY AND PIOUS THOUGHT. THUS HE MADE ATONEMENT FOR THE DEAD, THAT THEY MAY BE FREED FROM THIS SIN.” Here’s the kicker. The rapture is defined but the word isnt used in Luke. Purgatory is defined but the word not used. RCC doesnt teach the rapture but it is in protestant sects. Purgatory is taught in RCC and considered ridiculous to protestants. Purgatory is the final sanctification for those souls on their way to heaven that were not in a state of grace when they died. That’s it. It’s like taking your shoes off or wiping your feet before entering God’s turf.

I like the isaiah6 reference regarding purgatory, the picture painted is very much like that in revelation, and appears to illustrate cleansing before God.

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 4 And the posts of the door F37 moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; F38 because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. 6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. 8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send F39 me.

im a novice here so Im sure this can be refuted by protestants… It does not appear as though he has died and is going to heaven, but he is clearly in close vicinity of God “Posts of the door” and his sin is “purged”.

 

[Jason_1977]

That’s an example of eisegesis. Isaiah 6 is not describing Isaiah’s stint in purgatory before entering into the joys of heaven after death. He was already IN the presence of God at the time, second of all.

2 Maccabees is an example of someone praying someone out of purgatory after they died for having committed idolatry (v. 40)? Is someone eligible to enter heaven (or purgatory) after dying in mortal sin?

The word rapture comes from the Latin word rapturo out of the Vulgate. It came out of I Thess. 4. So, I guess this means that the RCs were the first ones to teach the rapture? Just kidding. You won’t catch me arguing for the modern, Dispensational understanding of the rapture, but the word is not foreign to the Bible. Maybe you should’ve used Trinity as an example.

The reason why purgatory is ridiculous to protestants is not because the word isn’t found in the Bible. It’s because the teaching contradicts the Gospel of Jesus Christ’s perfect, finished, sufficient, and efficient sacrifice in behalf of all who believe. There is no further cleansing to be had! Christ has accomplished everything for our salvation!

pause mine

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.