N
NotWorthy
Guest
Well, that depends. Do you or Rufus own a cat?
Maybe the cat would represent the purging effect, I mean, have you ever felt some cats’ tongues?
- Status
Maybe the cat would represent the purging effect, I mean, have you ever felt some cats’ tongues?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I think teentruthseeker simply meant that some Protestant bibles have added it to their bible as “good reading”, not as part of “Inspired Texts”. Some bibles indeed have added the books back into their bibles, but not as a part of the Scriptures.
po18guy
Well-known member
And, teentruthseeker, please remember that the same exact church authority that was responsible for compiling the bible in the first place, was also responsible for debating and adding books and letters as their canonicity was shown by the Holy Spirit. The “bible” did not fall from Heaven as is, it was argued over and discussed for centuries.
Man, in the name of Martin Luther, by his own authority, determined to add one word to scripture, and to take seven books out of your bible. This was to please his personal tastes. That should greatly concern you, as it forever altered what the Holy Spirit had directed the early church to accomplish. A Catholic bible has the content that the Lord desires. I strongly advise you to obtain one and see that Catholic teaching is, indeed, scriptural.
Christ’s peace.
F
Frinjaaa
Guest
Can you please tell me who decided to take Maccabees’s out of the Bible and why?
I would like to know the historical proof so that I can be sure the Maccabees’s were not, in fact, added to the Bible.
G
GJx86
Guest
Luther relegated the deuterocanon to the appendix of his translation of the Bible. In the cases of 2 Maccabees and Esther, he evidently did so because he considered the texts to contain too many “heathen unnaturalities” – see Luther’s table talks, particularly the one entitled Of God’s Word at paragraph 24, in which he also calls Tobit a “comedy concerning women.”
At least some early Christians accepted a 73-book canon, as you can see in the writings of the councils at Hippo, Carthage, and Rome in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. While these councils were not ecumenical (and therefore not protected from teaching error), they serve to show that the earliest Christians used this canon, suggesting that the difference between the 66- and 73-book canons was caused by subtraction, not by addition. St. Jerome’s writings are also useful in this regard, because while he personally disagreed with the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals, he was willing to defer to the Church’s judgment in translating the Vulgate.
And, to bring this full circle, one can find evidence for the canonicity of 2 Maccabees in Scripture itself. Look at the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. As you can see, it’s a litany of famous Old Testament figures whose faith won them divine approval. In verse 35, however, the author of Hebrews mentions people who underwent torture in order to achieve a better resurrection. This isn’t in the Protestant Old Testament – it’s a reference to the events of 2 Maccabees 7. If the author of Hebrews didn’t consider 2 Maccabees to be Scripture, then he is implicitly equating the authority of Scriptural accounts of these figures with an account from oral tradition, which damages sola scriptura; more likely, however, is that he did, as evidenced by the fact that the prior 34 verses were all solidly rooted in Old Testament writings.
Further discussion of this should be broken off into a separate thread. But it’s a happy coincidence that the book of the deuterocanon with evidence for a final sanctification is the same one that receives a direct reference in the letter to the Hebrews.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
If you look at the decision by the councils of Hippo and Carthage, you will find that Maccabees was in the Bible Canon. These are the first two approved Canons. Although they were only local synods (meaning local to Hippo and Carthage, respectively), they were identical and approved by the Pope. This was in the late 4th century. There were minor disputes that sprang up over the next 1100 years, but nothing of note. Oh, except for St. Jerome, the man who translated the Bible into Latin - he didn’t feel that seven books should have been included in the bible canon, because they were never written in Hebrew, only Greek. This was because they were written so late, that Greek was the majority language of the time, especially with so many Jews dispersed throughout the world.
As a result of the Protestant Reformation, Luther and other Reformers defined a Canon of their own. This canon did not include the 7 Deuterocanonicals (Protestants often call them “Apochyrpha”). Luther used Jerome’s logic as a reason for not including them in the first Protestant Bibles.
Two things of note:
- The Council of Trent in the 15th century (or was it 16th?), as a result of Luther’s actions, formally defined the Catholic Canon, in other words “etching it in stone”. While the decisions of Hippo and Carthage were not officially made dogma, they were accepted by the entire Church since the 4th century. The Council of Trent then declared the canon Dogma.
- St. Jerome’s argument was proven false since most of the Deuterocanonicals, within the last 100 years, have been discovered by archaeologists in Hebrew, at least pieces of the books. The Dead Sea Scrolls revealed numerous pieces of the texts with these books in Hebrew.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
For Historical Proof, simply look at any Bible that was written prior to the 15th century. According to those who claim that Catholics added the 7 books to the Bible, those books should not be in those Bible texts.
This is simply false.
Every Bible written since the 4th century included all 73 books of the Catholic Canon.
T
teentruthseeker
Guest
i do own one… my moms catholic and my dads protestant… i was raised protestant and im trying to find truth… could purgatory be like almost an interpretation…
it could be like for example… picture this
you go “up” to Heaven and you see the pearly white gates… you get welcomed and Jesus takes your sins from you…
could they both be true??? maybe purgatory is the moment that Jesus takes your sins from you
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Catholics have no clue how long the purging takes place. I don’t see anything wrong with your interpretation, although I have a feeling I’ll be blasted by some of my brothers!
po18guy
Well-known member
I have a view that purgatory is pain spent, rather than time spent. Since you are outside of time when you pass into the spirit realm, there must be another way of purification. I see pain, similar to the pain of strenuous exercise to correct for an injury. Think spiritual therapy instead of physical therapy.
But, how truly painful can it be? Those in purgatory are en route to heaven. I imagine being purified just outside the gates, knowing that I must pay the price for any remaining sin, but yet I am able to look through the gates into paradise! How bad can that be?
Christ’s peace be with you.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
And know that it’s your own darned fault!
M
mijac
Guest
What is the “It” mean in “it is finished” certainly not all that was necessary for salvation, since Paul points out that the resurrection was equally necessary for our salvation…
rom 4: 25 St. Paul says, 'He was raised for our justification.
See the lamb’s supper for the meaing of the “it”
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/lmbsp.html
T
teentruthseeker
Guest
I think I’m understanding now… Purgatory is not so much a separate place but like a state-of-mind
F
Feedmysheep
Guest
Our holy father has referred to Purgatory as a STATE, and not a PLACE. We undergo our purgation- it’s not so much a physical location (since how matter can exist outside of time and space is something I’ve yet to be convinced of
).So yes, it would be correct to think of Purgatory as a state of mind or state of being.
G
graceandglory
Guest
Our holy father has referred to Purgatory as a STATE, and not a PLACE. We undergo our purgation- it’s not so much a physical location (since how matter can exist outside of time and space is something I’ve yet to be convinced of
So yes, it would be correct to think of Purgatory as a state of mind or state of being.
G
graceandglory
Guest
It would also be wise to mention that not everyone has a need for a final purification. Some people die in such perfect grace that they do go straight to heaven at the time of death. These people we call Saints.
Here is Catechism on Purgatory which includes Scripture references:
Purgatory.
There are two judgements:
The particular judgement: Heaven or Hell. Saved or Damned.
Eternal life or eternal punishment.
And the Last Judgement (Judgement Day) (When Christ returns)
Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Our cleansing can begin today right now while we are alive on Earth, or if we put holiness off, but get saved (Fire insurance) we will need a cleansing before entering heaven.
Perhaps it is just on this side of the Pearly Gates.
We know from Revelation that:
"Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lambs book of life."
Assuming that we can get away with things between getting saved and eternal life, because Christ’s death paid it all, is the sin of presumption, a form of pride.
(Yes it did, but we love him for it, not presume His forgiveness)
The Church gave us the word Purgatory, just like it gave us the word Trinity. Neither words are found in Scriptures, but they are in Tradition.
***So then, brethren, **stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us/***B] 2 Thess. 2:15
Here is Catechism on Purgatory which includes Scripture references:
As Catholics we believe that on the last day, the dead shall be raised. Hmmm. Where are they raised from?
Purgatory.
There are two judgements:
The particular judgement: Heaven or Hell. Saved or Damned.
Eternal life or eternal punishment.
And the Last Judgement (Judgement Day) (When Christ returns)
Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Our cleansing can begin today right now while we are alive on Earth, or if we put holiness off, but get saved (Fire insurance) we will need a cleansing before entering heaven.
Perhaps it is just on this side of the Pearly Gates.
We know from Revelation that:
"Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lambs book of life."
Assuming that we can get away with things between getting saved and eternal life, because Christ’s death paid it all, is the sin of presumption, a form of pride.
(Yes it did, but we love him for it, not presume His forgiveness)
The Church gave us the word Purgatory, just like it gave us the word Trinity.
Neither words are found in Scriptures, but they are in Tradition.***So then, brethren, **stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us/***B] 2 Thess. 2:15
T
teentruthseeker
Guest
thanks that helped a lot… i didnt think of it that way, would it be possible for more then just church proclaimed saints to go straight to heaven if they lived a holy life?
T
teentruthseeker
Guest
really! thanks for helping me understandOur holy father has referred to Purgatory as a STATE, and not a PLACE. We undergo our purgation- it’s not so much a physical location (since how matter can exist outside of time and space is something I’ve yet to be convinced of
So yes, it would be correct to think of Purgatory as a state of mind or state of being.
F
Feedmysheep
Guest
The Church acknowledges that there are more saints in heaven (after all, everyone in heaven is a saint) than those officially cannonized. That’s why we have “All Saints’ Day”- to recognize the saints, known AND unknown, in heaven.
Actually, back to the purgatory question- many Protestants also intuitively understand some concept of Purgatory as well- only they may call it “final sanctification”.
To help them understand, it goes like this:
- I have a habitual sin, say gossip. I know it’s wrong. I try to stop, I go to Confession (if Catholic)/ ask God’s forgiveness (if non-Catholic), I hate that I do it. However, I still do it.
- Nothing imperfect is in Heaven. It is the place of ultimate perfection, therefore, should I get to Heaven, I will no longer have the inclination to gossip.
- What happened to me between life on Earth and eternal life in Heaven to remove my gossip habit?
M
mijac
Guest
Note: There are only three churches which teach the concept of Purgatory, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Jewish Faith though they use a different name for this concept. All other Christian churches have rejected Purgatory, not understanding the basic teaching or understanding of purgatory. They miss three important things: 1. Scripture teaches purgatory, though just as the words incarnation, trinity, and purgatory are not found in Scripture, their concepts are clearly taught in Scripture. 2. The Catholic Church which includes the Western Rite, and some Eastern Rite Churches, and the Separated Eastern Rite Churches all inherited the teaching of Purgatory from the Jewish religious teachings, hence the concept of Purgatory is in the Old Testament Cannon from the Greek Septuagint, and in the New Testament. 3. Most All the Christians who reject the teachings on Purgatory do so out of a misunderstanding of the blood Atonement for sin by Christ on the Cross.
In arriving at any great truth or doctrine as given in Scripture it is absolutely necessary to take all Scripture pertaining to a given truth or doctrine into account.
Scripture clearly teaches that death and suffering entered into the world as a result of sin. Scripture clearly teaches that sin has resulted in two different types of death: corporal or physical death of the body, and spiritual death. Scripture teaches us that Christ’s passion and death is for the forgiveness of sins and our redemption: Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; /Rom 5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. But does this remove all responsibility on our part to make amends/restitution, does this remove God’s justice towards us? Does this preclude any personal expiation for our sins. If that were true than suffering which is due to sin would no longer occur in the world in which we live. No, it does not. One must understand that Scripture teaches that there are two major consequences of sin. One is the Spiritual/Eternal Consequences of Sin. This is the death of the Soul Eternal damnation. The Blood Atonement on the Cross is complete and has removed this consequence as an absolutely necessary consequence of sin. The second consequence of sin is the Temporal/material consequence of Sin. Both God’s justice and mercy requires satisfaction for sin. The forgiveness of sins the atonement for sins does not cover all temporal consequences of sin which must include cleansing of the soul of all attachment and defilement’s due to sin and restitution and amends. Hence as most all Christians will acknowledge after a person is forgiven-- there still remains the necessity of restitution, such as when someone steals that which was stolen must be returned or made up for .
Example of the nature of Temporal and Eternal consequences to sin in the world in which we live:
If I were to take an innocent life, an objectively gravely sinful matter (one of the three conditions for mortal sin), under the subjective conditions of mortal sin (full knowledge, full consent of the will), and died unrepentant, I would go to Hell. My going to Hell would be the eternal consequence of my sin.
The temporal consequences of that sin range from the death of the innocent person; the suffering
of my family who endured the shame and ramifications of my arrest and incarceration or enduring capital punishment; the effects of the loss of the innocent person on the family of the innocent person; the costs to the community of the loss of the innocent person; the costs to the community of litigation; the spiritual effects on the weaker members of the community whose view of the world and God’s Justice and Mercy could be affected knowing that innocent life can be taken so easily; the tarnishing of the image of the Body of Christ and the bringing of scandal upon the Church; the loss of grace in my soul and the predisposition to sin again as sin can become habitual.
The temporal effects of sin affect others not only in natural, but in mystical ways
As far back as the Old Testament, it is made clear that the temporal effects of sin affect others who may not have committed personal sin. The greatest and first example is that of the sin of Adam and Eve which resulted in the fall of man from grace and in his propensity for corruption and personal sin which we call “original sin.”
All of these temporal punishments, though painful, are merciful. Without discipline and punishment from God, we would continue in our ways, remain unrepentant, and then suffer the eternal consequences of doing so. A father who does not discipline his children is a bad father who is setting up his child for greater troubles down the road. God, though, is a good Father:
All of the above fully explains why the atonement of sins from cross has not yet removed the temporal consequence of sins and we still have physical death and suffering in the world in which we live. This part will be done when Christ returns and all is restored as it was in the beginning. It is as St. Augustine states: " The temporal effects of repented sins that are not paid for in life through the effects of natural law, personal penance, penance given by the priest at Confession, or mystical penances given to me by God, are paid for in Purgatory." St. Augustine, in City of God (A.D. 419),
There is no question that Christ passion and Death is for our redemption,-- Christ’s work of our redemption is accomplished. It is finished. But the application of that redemptive work of Christ by the Holy Spirit is another matter.
- Status