Protestant interpretations...

[Des]

The “Church” tells me they once thought purgatory was a place of torment and punishment for sins - even after those sins had been forgiven, but in modern times has changed their teaching to state purgatory is simply a place of final purification.

Final “purification” is also something Protestants believe in. We will be made perfect.

Show me where in that verse, the Church says Purgatory no longer has pain attached to it. You’re seeing things that aren’t there Ginger. It just doesn’t go into detail about the exact type of purging each individual will be going through. The verse is short and sweet in my opinion.

 

[rinnie]

Right, that was what I felt was your best point…

But this is an unwarranted leap. Look, Jesus was dying on the Cross. Is it possible they didn’t understand what He said? We’re talking about one syllable here (twice). But the sacred authors infallibly tell us Jesus was quoting the Psalm and said, “My God, My God…” - not Elijah. So the people clearly misunderstood the whole quote! Never mind one word. Or maybe there’s a different reason, which we’ll see momentarily. But if they didn’t even realize that Jesus was quoting the Psalm, why would you assume that they understood “Eloi” correctly? That doesn’t make sense. But here are a couple more possible solutions from the Fathers, from Fr. Haydock’s commentary:

Ver. 47. This man calleth for Elias. St. Jerome thinks these might be some of the Roman soldiers, who understood not Syriac, but who had heard of the prophet Elias. (Witham) — But if we understand it of the Jews, who could not possibly be ignorant of this word, we must suppose it was merely a stratagem of theirs, who wishing still to shew the weakness of our Redeemer, said that he called Elias to his aid. (St. Jerome) — The soldiers thinking that he called for Elias, wished to hinder any one from offering vinegar, lest it should hasten his death, and prevent Elias from coming to assist him; which, from the darkness and other signs, they might think probable. (St. Augustine)

The second suggestion, that the Jews were essentially mocking Christ, is consistent with the visions of Blessed Sr. Emmerich, who said that it was a Pharisee who said, “Behold, he calleth Elias”. (And she said that Jesus said, “Eloi, Eloi”, btw.) This seems to make the most sense, given that:

"In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” (Matthew 27:41-43)

Look! He’s calling for Elijah’s help! You get the point. And remember, they added, “Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” So if they didn’t really misunderstand our Lord but were just mocking Him, then once again it makes sense that a scribe didn’t get it, and thought that it should read, “Eli, Eli”, but he was in error.

That’s the same argument I made to you, except in reverse. And they’re both good arguments. Why go from Greek to Hebrew to Aramaic and back to Greek? Isn’t the obvious solution that Matthew did not write “Eli”, and that it was a scribal error? Could that be the reason the NIV translators went with the mss that have “Eloi”?

No, I know they’re “sister” languages…

But it’s not my suggestion, everything I’ve seen says that it is Aramaic, with no mention of any disagreement on that point.

I think that’s just a difference in Aramaic dialects - not Hebrew. Look, I know we agree that whatever possible solution we go with, it must uphold the truthfulness of Scripture. And so to go back to your original point, when the NT says that something is in “Hebrew”, it could be that it’s because it is for a Gentile audience, telling them not that it’s the Hebrew language, but that it’s the language that the Hebrews speak, Aramaic. If you do a search of the Bible, you’ll see that Jews were speaking Aramaic long before the time of Christ - by the time of Isaiah (c.700BC). But you’ll notice that they distinguish between Aramaic and Hebrew, but this is for a Hebrew audience.

Anyhow, this really is not an important issue, but if you can find any scholars who say that the Jews spoke Hebrew at the time of Christ, other than when reading Scripture and priestly rituals, etc., I would be very interested because I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before. Until then, I’ll go with these simple and truthful solutions. God bless.

 

[Jason_1977]

We agree Jason.

It’s nice for a change

Wow…I’m gonna frame this, LOL

I have nothing to push forward in then til the topic changes. Sweet…agreeing just opens up the schedule, lol…now what…hahahahahahaah

 

[Ginger2]

Jesus was dying on the Cross. Is it possible …

St. Jerome thinks…

when the NT says that something is in “Hebrew”,** it could be**…

Speculation is OK, but it needs to be weighed against the evidence.

To suggest that Matthew misquoted Jesus is to discredit the reliability of the Scriptures and the integrity of its authors.

Scribal errors occur, but that is why we compare all the copies to ensure accuracy.

How many copies of Matthew say Eli and how many say Eloi?

…if you can find any scholars who say that the Jews spoke Hebrew at the time of Christ, other than when reading Scripture and priestly rituals, etc., I would be very interested because I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before. Until then, I’ll go with these simple and truthful solutions. God bless.

Most scholars mistakenly believe Jesus spoke Aramaic despite the evidence against this belief. I’ve heard some Bibles have even begun translating the word “Hebrew” into “Aramaic”

Apparently they feel their belief is justification for changing the wording in the Bible. :tsktsk:

3rd century Rabbi Yohanan said Jews should speak Hebrew - only, because “the angels do not know Aramaic.”
Papias A.D. 167: “Matthew compiled the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue, and everyone translated them as well as he could”
Hegesippus: “…draw occasionally on the Gospel of the Hebrews … and particularly on works in Hebrew”
Jerome:"…we have translated recently from Hebrew into Greek, and which is called the authentic text of Matthew by a good many …"

Ginger

 

[JohnnyBeth]

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…

:clapping: :yup:

 

[ronin67]

That is totally contrary to the Word of God. The Bible teaches the only way to understand Scripture is to have that Truth Teacher inside of you, whcih leads and directs each individual to the truth of Gods Word. He never gave or instituted the receiving of the HS to a physically located ruling Body, which you call the Magesterium. I would challenge you to prsent clear evidence fro the Bible.

They can’t provide something that isn’t there. They are in denial. You have to love it. Man made runs of doctrine or the devine inspired word of God. Let me think??? I take the devine inspired word of God.

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

 

[Luke65]

They can’t provide something that isn’t there. They are in denial. You have to love it. Man made runs of doctrine or the devine inspired word of God. Let me think??? I take the devine inspired word of God.

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

You love evil?

 

[ronin67]

You love evil?

Do you? No, who does that claims to follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. However, that being said, evil and sin exists for a purpose. If it didn’t, God would have eliminated long ago. In light of this, resist evil and concentrate on the prize of serving Jesus Christ and bringing his message of salvation to as many as possible. You can’t make someone accept Christ (God has to open their heart to accept Christ), but you can present the message. After that, it is on them to do the right thing (free will). Oh, and by the way sir, the bottom line for a majority of Protestant interpretations of the bible is scripture as authoritative, not human doctrine made to conduct the business of the church. What the devine inspired word of God says, is what it says. Again, much thanks for the Catholic Church for spreading the message of our Lord Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth, but thank you Martin Luther for stressing the need for “Scritpure Alone” as the only authority needed. Take Care Luke65 and may Christ be with you always.

Ed

 

[Luke65]

What the devine inspired word of God says, is what it says.

Thanks for explaining that to me.

And may Christ lead you home to His Church, safely aboard the Ark of Salvation.

 

[Jason_1977]

Ginger I just gave you the quote from the CCC. Where did it state that Purgatory was not a place for the punishment for our sins. Could you please show me that?

ALL I ever said is that as Roman Catholics we do not look at it as a bad thing because we accept this suffering with great joy because the reward is ahead of us. We do not look at it as a punishment as much as we do a Grace from God. We know its suffering but we also know that after that cleansing comes Heaven.

Now can you show me where the Church ever changed its teaching. Again I gave you the CCC. Would love to see how, and when they changed it.

Not to sound disagreeable, I’m a catholic myself, I just wondered, I always thought of purgatory as an act and not so much a place. I’ve been wrong before, I was actually looking for some clarity on that. THANX!

 

[rinnie]

Not to sound disagreeable, I’m a catholic myself, I just wondered, I always thought of purgatory as an act and not so much a place. I’ve been wrong before, I was actually looking for some clarity on that. THANX!

Actually Jason it’really a state. But its like when you are dreaming your body is sleeping but at the time you don’t know it. Do you understand what I mean? Its a state of mind at the time.

But you know how when we die our soul leaves the body. Well as Catholic’s we know the soul makes the body the body does not make the soul. Like when we die the body is dead only because the soul leaves it.

 

[rinnie]

They can’t provide something that isn’t there. They are in denial. You have to love it. Man made runs of doctrine or the devine inspired word of God. Let me think??? I take the devine inspired word of God.

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

Tell me something Ronin what scripture exactly do you need provided to you that the Church has not taught. And could you show us what we are in denial of. And how about the Man made doctrine. Like Ginger you accuse the Church, but never show us.

So now you back up your words also. Show me just ONE. One Man made doctrine.

 

[rinnie]

The “Church” tells me they once thought purgatory was a place of torment and punishment for sins - even after those sins had been forgiven, but in modern times has changed their teaching to state purgatory is simply a place of final purification.

Final “purification” is also something Protestants believe in. We will be made perfect.

You kmow Ginger you still have not addressed this question. I am still waiting for your proof. You should not accuse Church of something and then not provide proof. And it is only fair for you to back up what you said against my Church so it can defend itself.

 

[Ginger2]

Tell me something Ronin what scripture exactly do you need provided to you that the Church has not taught. And could you show us what we are in denial of. And how about the Man made doctrine. Like Ginger you accuse the Church, but never show us.

So now you back up your words also. Show me just ONE. One Man made doctrine.

How about the assumption of Mary???

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the **apocryphal **treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

Notice this document "bearing the name of St. John, was written in the forth or fifth centuries - hundreds of years after John was dead. Yet the Catholic belief is “founded” in this document???

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.

“spurious” & “falsely ascribed” mean these documents are fake.

The assumption is not found in Scriptures and the RC admits it was founded on false and spurious documents!!!

Ginger

 

[Scoobyshme]

First century Christians knew who the Apostles were and that they were indeed spokesmen for God and what they wrote was indeed inspired of God…

Hey, Ginger!

I think the vast majority of Christians could neither read nor write in the First 18 centuries or so of Christianity. Also, the majority of the Apostles wrote no books of the Bible. More often than not, when the New Testament refers to the “Scriptures” it’s referring to the Old Testament, since the New Testament wasn’t decided upon till the fourth century. And, Jesus didn’t create a Bible-reading, self-interpreting Church. He created a teaching, preaching Church. That’s what He commanded the Apostles (and their successors) to do (teach and preach). He never commanded anyone to write anything, as far as I know.

You might find the three part video series “Origins of the Bible” quite interesting. You can view it at the following website:

alabamacatholicresources.com/bible.html

God bless!

 

[Ginger2]

You kmow Ginger you still have not addressed this question. I am still waiting for your proof. You should not accuse Church of something and then not provide proof. And it is only fair for you to back up what you said against my Church so it can defend itself.

Did you not see the quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia???

From the 1924 catechism:

“Let us consider how terrible are the pains of hell or of purgatory which we have deserved;”

Ginger

 

[rinnie]

How about the assumption of Mary???

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the **apocryphal **treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

Notice this document "bearing the name of St. John, was written in the forth or fifth centuries - hundreds of years after John was dead. Yet the Catholic belief is “founded” in this document???

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.

“spurious” & “falsely ascribed” mean these documents are fake.

The assumption is not found in Scriptures and the RC admits it was founded on false and spurious documents!!!

Ginger

First of all you were talking about purgatory, Why not answer that first.

But fine Marian Doctrines developed after the N.T. in response to Heresy. It was believed by the Apostles.

The never had to further define Marian doctrine until it was challenged.

How about this one Ginger explain this to me. Cannon is accepted. If came God Inspired group even later than Marian Doctrines

Now after you answer that we can get back to your proof of the Church changing teachings of purgatory.

 

[ronin67]

Tell me something Ronin what scripture exactly do you need provided to you that the Church has not taught. And could you show us what we are in denial of. And how about the Man made doctrine. Like Ginger you accuse the Church, but never show us.

So now you back up your words also. Show me just ONE. One Man made doctrine.

Well, first peace be with you. Lets get started my friend in Christ:

1. The need to confess to a priest for forgiveness of sins and calling him father in the process of it all. Yes, I know most Catholics will say you can confess straight to the Heavenly “FATHER”, so why have something you don’t need and say it is required per the scriptures?
2. Assuming purgatory is a real place because of a vague statement in Maccabees (Apocrypha not considered or accepted as Canonical texts by Protestants). Still an interesting read non the less.
3. Forcing priests and nuns to stay unmarried. I understand what Saint Paul said that he wished everyone could be like him, but marriage was acceptable if one would fall into sin (living example of how some priests were tried and convicted for sexual misconduct). Maybe if they were allowed to have a partner this could have been avoided.
4. “Do this in remembrance of Me”. Not eat this bread and drink this wine that will literally turn into my flesh and body every time you partake of it.
5. The stressing of penance (continued human punishment for a sin/here we are purging again) as compared to forgiveness given to the one who repents to God directly through the acceptance of Christ as their savior (Grace has saved the believer who repents truthfully of his sins/why the need for added human punishment?).

Yes, all of these points have been beaten to death by Protestants and they will continue to be stressed until the scriptures are taught by Catholics the way they read as inspired by our Father.

However, once again I will say that we as Protestants should be eternally grateful to the Catholic Church for spreading the message of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. However, Catholics should be internally grateful to Martin Luther for standing up to the corrupt practices of the Catholic church back then and pointing out how Catholic Doctrine does not out weigh the truth of Scripture alone. Even Pope John Paul II stressed the importance of Martin Luther’s contribution to the truth through scripture.

Take Care fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Ed

 

[Ginger2]

Purgatory as a place between heaven and hell is a myth.

There is no in-between. We have two choices believe in the Son and live or deny the Son and die.

Macc 2 which you use to support this false doctrine contradicts, not only God’s Holy Word, but it even contradicts Catholic doctrine!

1. The soldiers who died were wearing idols. That is a mortal sin. Dying in mortal: Go straight to hell.
2. These were Jews. They met they criteria for a sin to be mortal according Catholics.
   Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
   Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
   Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

It was believed by the Apostles.

To use your own words, “You should not accuse [others] of something and then not provide proof.”

Where’s your proof the Apostles believed this. Show me where one commented on it.

How about this one Ginger explain this to me. Cannon is accepted. If came God Inspired group even later than Marian Doctrines

Your statement is false. The canons of both Old and New Testaments were settled before the end of the 1st century.

Now after you answer that we can get back to your proof of the Church changing teachings of purgatory.

Don’t need to get back to it. It’s already been proven thru the words of the ever-changing Catechism and statements from Catholics.

Ginger