The Rich Man and Lazarus...Hell or Purgatory?

[Hope3]

I have commented on the first one *, so here’s for the second passage.
*

“Destroyed” means “eternal condemnation.” It does not mean that their bodies and their souls/spirits will no longer exist. Immortal bodies and immortal souls/spirits cannot ever cease to exist and this is shown by the story about the rich man in hell. He is continually tormented by fire and this fire would consume him under normal circumstances, yet he still continues to exist in this hell despite the flames of the fire surrounding him.

An example of this type of non-consuming fire is the burning bush incident. Exodus 3:2

 

[Hope3]

**How wrong you are! And do you know why?

It is because you do not know the Scriptures!**

That’s from Mark 12:24. And that’s exactly what Jesus would tell you if He were to appear to us today. If you haven’t already noticed, Jesus quotes Scripture [OT] all the time as if it were the very Word of God.

Even the Catholic Church admits that Jesus Christ and the Apostles confirmed the “Divine authority of every one of these books [the OT] and of every part of each book… for they supposed its TRUTH in their teaching, used it as a FOUNDATION of their doctrine, and intimately connected it with the religious system of which they were the founders.” That’s from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Inspired Scriptures which make up the Catholic Bible Canons were decided by divine authority and this was accomplished through the leaders of the Catholic Church at early Catholic Church Councils. These early church leaders “cast lots” under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in order to determine which of the proposed writings were truly inspired and which ones were not.

The same source further states that, “Christ made use of the Bible” – remember they only had the OT then – “He appealed to it as an IRREFRAGABLE AUTHORITY… The Apostles did in like manner… Both sides had access to the Scriptures in a text admitted by all, both recognized in them a Divine authority, as in the very word of God.”

If someone had asked Jesus then what it was like to be in sheol, He would surely have responded with something like this: “Have you not read…” (Mat. 12:50), or “It is written in the Scriptures….,” and then quote that Ecclesiastes passage. And if someone had questioned the truthfulness of that Scripture, Jesus would surely have this to say:

“What the Scripture says is TRUE FOREVER” (John 10:35, GNB).

Some of New Testament Scripture is prefigured in Old Testament Scripture. However, NT Scripture came about as supplements to the apostles’ and disciples’ oral teaching. NT Scripture was never meant to replace the oral teaching of the Church. Jesus corrects some of their misconceptions which derived from either their misinterpretation of the OT Scriptures or their lack of knowledge/understanding about them. Mark 12:22-27, Matthew 16:21-23 , John 12:15-16 Jesus is Lord, even of the Sabbath, and He can make any changes that He desires in His New Covenant. Luke 6:1-5

The way I see it, the problem with your theology is that you establish a doctrine by vague or difficult to be understood scriptures – and parables at that. You should begin with the plainer scriptures and reserve the more obscure ones until you have more knowledge. And you need to consider ALL the scriptures on any one subject to get at the truth, BUT –and this is very important – always begin with plain and clear scriptures.

I merely repeat the doctrine of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church’s 2000 year old doctrine. I do not make new doctrine. It does not ever change.

Do you know why Jesus spoke in parables? Not because He wanted His audience to better understand Him, as what we have been taught in school (I studied in Catholic schools, yes), but because He did not want them to understand what He was teaching. The resurrection mentioned on that parable in Mark 12 is the resurrection of the just [only] to eternal life; it does not apply to all.

Jesus spoke in parables in order to fulfill prophecy. Ezekiel 20:49, Psalm 78:2, Matthew 13:34-35 Jesus knew most of His hearers would reject Him due to the hardness of their hearts.

Matthew 21:45 “Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.”

There is only one Day of Judgment, not two. John 5:26-29, Matthew 12:36

BTW, is this what you believe about the soul and what happens at death?

“The soul whose inseparable attribute is life will never admit of life’s opposite, death. Thus the soul is shown to be immortal, and since immortal, indestructible… Do we believe there is such a thing as death? To be sure. And is this anything but the separation of the soul and body? And being dead is the attainment of this separation, when the soul exists in herself and separate from the body, and the body is parted from the soul. That is death… Death is merely the separation of soul and body.”

Yes.

 

[Cachonga]

Hope3:

Who gave the Protestants the authority to question/change/alter/degrade/remove any of the books of the OT canon of Scripture that was already in place (canonized) by about the late 300’s by Church Councils and these same canons (both OT and NT) reaffirmed again by the Council of Trent?

Different topic for another thread.

The necessity and practice of praying for the dead came to us first through the Jews.

<and following …>

OK, so this is a good indication of where this tradition of men came from. However, ZhaneAugustine claimed that “there are plenty of **references in the bible **where we read about prayers for those who have died,” (emphasis mine), and that is what I was asking for.

 

[Robbinson]

Different topic for another thread.

OK, so this is a good indication of where this tradition of men came from. However, ZhaneAugustine claimed that “there are plenty of **references in the bible **where we read about prayers for those who have died,” (emphasis mine), and that is what I was asking for.

Just Macabees (to save others time)- Of course, I accept that as cannon - you used to (based upon your "former Catholic status) and now do not, I imagine. However, I’d point out that as Macabees was in the Seputagent, and scholars generally acknowledge the substantial majority of quotes in the NT of Old Testament come out of the Septuagent translation, these verses were known and studied by Jesus and the Apostles - its hard to imagine they weren’t praying for the dead.

Yes, Jews prayed, and still pray, for the dead. Interestingly, the Kaddish is prayed for the “purification of the soul” (purgatory ).

Hope you don’t mind my jumping in.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Cachonga]

Robbinson:

Just Macabees (to save others time)-

I would say that if Macabees is the only reference in “Scripture”, then ZhaneAugustine is misinformed about there being “plenty of references in the Bible”. I would also point out that the incident in Macabees involves men who were killed in battle and found to have idols hidden on their persons, and even the men who discovered them realized that God had killed them for their idolatry. If God kills someone for commiting such a sin, what indicates that any prayers for them would be of any benefit? To me, this is a clear indication that such a practice is a tradition of men, and not from God!

Just because the Jews did (and still do) pray for the dead doesn’t mean it’s from God. If the Temple was still up, they would probably still hold to the Corban rule, which Jesus condemned as a tradition of men.

I don’t mind you jumping in (it’s an open discussion, so even if I did, it wouldn’t matter). If this was a private discussion, I would use the PM service.

 

[panevino]

…

Just because the Jews did (and still do) pray for the dead doesn’t mean it’s from God. If the Temple was still up, they would probably still hold to the Corban rule, which Jesus condemned as a tradition of men.
…QUOTE]

Christians seem to of done it in 200’s

Cyprian - "…Let us on both sides always pray for one another…and our prayers for our bretheren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Fathers mercy…"Epistle LVI:5 - though admitedly this seems to be more support for heavenly intercession of saints rather than support for prayers for the departed, though I read both in it.

Tertullian - “Indeed she prays for his soul…” On Monogamy Ch X

isn’t the fact that jesus went to preach to the dead a kind of implication of praying for the departed - simple and perforated logic given it was OT saints i know, but it just popped in my head.

regarding Macc - I note that Tertullian refers to it as Holy scripture in "Origen de Principiis Ch 2:1:5 - “But that we may believe on the authority of holy scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where…” he quotes 2Macc7

 

[Cachonga]

panevino:

Christians seem to of done it in 200’s

There is still a lack of Scriptural support for the practice, and if this is the earliest documentable evidence you have for the practice within the church, then I would suggest that it is not apostolic in origen, and is nothing more than a tradition of men that has infiltrated the church (and that it took almost 200 years to do this).

isn’t the fact that jesus went to preach to the dead a kind of implication of praying for the departed - simple and perforated logic given it was OT saints i know, but it just popped in my head.

Jesus preaching to the dead is no more proof of praying for the dead than when the rich man cried out to Abraham from hell. Remember, Jesus didn’t preach to the dead until He had been crucified.

regarding Macc - I note that Tertullian refers to it as Holy scripture in "Origen de Principiis Ch 2:1:5 - “But that we may believe on the authority of holy scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where…” he quotes 2Macc7

Again, this is a different topic for another thread.

 

[Robbinson]

I would also point out that the incident in Macabees involves men who were killed in battle and found to have idols hidden on their persons, and even the men who discovered them realized that God had killed them for their idolatry. If God kills someone for commiting such a sin, what indicates that any prayers for them would be of any benefit?

What, in scripture, leads you to believe or assert that if someone suffers temporal punishment for sin (from God) this precludes forgiveness for sin by God in terms of salvation? Even protestants acknolwedge we may/will sin on this earth - in the new covenant we rely on the blood of Jesus and our faith to cleanse us of that sin (though we may suffer in this world (even to the point of death) for having committed those sins).

In the Old Covenant Jews relied on animal sacrifices made personally, but also by the high priest on behalf of all in the community who had sinned.

So it is in the Catholic faith today (we suffer temporally for our sins, even sins forgiven in terms of salvation) and that is, I believe, what the jews in macabees realized - the soldiers died “in sin” but they neverhteless prayed for them.

Just because the Jews did (and still do) pray for the dead doesn’t mean it’s from God. If the Temple was still up, they would probably still hold to the Corban rule, which Jesus condemned as a tradition of men.

This is certainly true - this fact, in itself, isn’t dispositive, but it is instructive of the Jewish understanding of death and sin and the fact that its included in “scriptures” included in the “accepted scriptures of Israel” studied and preached from by Jesus and the apostles is at least interesting, if not significnat

I don’t mind you jumping in (it’s an open discussion, so even if I did, it wouldn’t matter). If this was a private discussion, I would use the PM service.

I appreciate that - I was being curteous realizing I was “late to the party” in terms of the discussion stream.

Nothing commands us to pray for the dead - if you don’t believe the prayers are effective and don’t care to pray for deceased relatives, that is your perogative. I believe in the doctrine of purgatory and that prayers can assist in forgivenss of temporal sins (though they are saved), but candidly, even if I didn’t, I would pray for the dead because God stands outside time. I would pray that God, “today” (from our perspective) appear to my relatives in the moments before their death (which to us, happened in the past, but to God is happening “now”) to call out to them, lift the veil from their eyes and cause them to accept Jesus

One might say that the doctrine of not praying for the dead is a “tradition of men” - as its based upon (i) a rejection of scriptures included in the septuagent and determined to be cannon by the same group of Holy Spirit bishops you believe infallibly determined the 27 books of the NT which were cannnon and (ii) “man”'s interpretation (1500 years after Christ) of remaining scripture to declare void prior interpretation consistent with the doctrine of purgatory. 1 Cor 3:13-15 being a good example.

Ultimately -all of these issue of interpretation boil down to “authority”. Those who accept the authority given by Jesus to Peter and their apostles yield to apostolic interpretation of these verses (and determination of cannon). Those who reject this authority will ultimately interpret any number of verses differently. If you and I went a one hour lecture/sermon on any particular subject of faith, we would almost certainly come out with different understandings of some aspect of the teaching, based upon our backgrounds and perspectives - and that after having sat in the same room and listening to the same speech. Considering the complexity of scripture, the liklihood of this happening when we each apply our own interpreations is 100% . This is the value of apostolic teaching - explaining and passing down the historical understanding of what the apostles meant when they wrote verses addressing core issues of doctrine.

Alas - if the doctrine of apostolic succession did not hold water, we would indeed be lost in “traditions of men” in interpreting scripture - thus, our now horribly splintered body of Christ comprising over 40,000 denominations and all too often leading to “judgement, condemnation and uncharitable and unloving dialogue” among Christians - that is the saddest fruit of the Reformation of all.

We spend too much time arguing over issues like this rather than celebrating our mutual devotion to, and love of Christ.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[panevino]

posted by panevino
Christians seem to of done it in 200’s…

Tertullian - “Indeed she prays for his soul…” On Monogamy Ch X …

There is still a lack of Scriptural support for the practice, and if this is the earliest documentable evidence you have for the practice within the church, then I would suggest that it is not apostolic in origen, and is nothing more than a tradition of men that has infiltrated the church (and that it took almost 200 years to do this).

…

there is also the tombstone of a guy called Abercius (a bishop of Hieropolis) who dies at age of ~72. He wrote his own tombstone before dying sometime between 167 and 216.

extract of it is as follows
*"The citizen of a chosen city, this [monument] I made [while] living, that there I might have in time a resting-place of my body, * being by name Abercius, the disciple of a holy shepherd who feeds flocks of sheep [both] on mountains and on plains, who has great eyes that see everywhere. For this [shepherd] taught me [that the] book [of life] is worthy of belief. And to Rome he sent me…Verily I was passing through my seventy-second year. He that discerneth these things, every fellow-believer [namely], let him pray for Abercius. **And no one shall put another grave over my grave; but if he do, then shall he pay to the treasury of [the] Romans two thousand pieces of gold and to my good native city of Hieropolis one thousand pieces of gold.
"

I’d say this puts the practice of christian prayers to the departed to at least the mid 100’s

 

[Mailman]

Mailman - LOL - I guess I’d have to take issue with the suggestion there is any Catholic teaching that is “not in harmony with the holy writings”. There are teachings that are not expressly contained within the scritpures (based upon our understanding that the Deposit of Faith also includes oral tradition and magisterium teaching) but not inconsistent with scripture.

No need to LOL, Brian. If you find it hilarious that I believe what I believe just keep it to yourself to keep things decent. Like you, I also believe that it takes a fair amount of tortured exegesis to believe in the immortal soul doctrine considering its history and the many plain verses in scripture that say otherwise. But I’ve kept that to myself because I respect other people’s views and understand why, in spite of the clear evidence, people still can’t get it.

This begs, of course, the larger question of what scripture is telling us (interpretation) - I’m sure you “interpret” many verses in ways inconsistent with Church teaching - but many will “interpret” those same verses differently than you. Catholic interpretation on core doctrines can trace consistency back to the time of the apostles - I don’t think you can say the same.

Oh, yes, I surely can, Brian. Why do you suppose I can’t? Aren’t the teachings of the apostles found in the Bible (NT)? I can say with absolute certainty that my beliefs are consistent with what is written there. But I’m not surprised you can claim the same thing. That’s but natural. We are two different individuals which could very well have two divergent views.

You are correct that I do not agree with the Catholic Church on its interpretation of many verses in the Bible, which others also interpret differently. But what’s the problem with that? Does that make the Catholic Church right?

I don’t doubt your sincerity re: seeking (or thinking you have found) the truth. I sincerely believe the Catholic Church holds the fullest expression of the truth.

I don’t doubt your sincerity too, in your search for the true Church and finding it in the Catholic Church, so much so that you sincerely believe that your church holds the “fullest expression of the truth.” The reason why I’m voicing out my contrary views is that I know that sincere people can also be sincerely wrong.

I suppose a fair question would be - if an apostle taught “x” and another “disciple”/"follower of Christ said, “not x, but y” - who would we be more inclined to believe given the authority given the apostles by Christ?

Blessings,

Brian

What the apostle taught would be written in the NT, right? So, the teaching “x” would be found in the Bible. Now, then, I would be more inclined to believe in “x” because that’s in the Bible. But isn’t that not what I’ve been stressing all along – that the true doctrine is one which is in harmony with Holy Writ?

God bless.

 

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/lazarusatthegate.jpg?w=449&h=586

Benedict XVI’s favorite, Romano Guardini used the parable to reflect on the nature of revelation. You can find his homily (from The Lord) here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/18/romano-guardini-on-revelation/

dj

 

[Mailman]

Wow - you really have jumped into the your new theology, hook line and sinker.

But of course, Brian. You’ve jumped into yours hook, line and sinker, too, haven’t you? Isn’t that obvious in the way we defend our beliefs?

One of the interesting things about theology - if you study long enough, and spend enough time with effective communicators, you can find a “reasonable” basis for many divergent doctrines. The doctrines you are expousing have less support (scripturally, historically, and gramatically) than many others - but I understand them.

That’s exactly the way I see it with your theology, too. And I understand that too. But it’s not surprising why we hold this same view and sentiment, is it?

Why do you think God gave Moses authority of Israel and rejected Miriam and Aaron’s suggestion they had equal authority? And why do you think God rejected Korah’s suggestion that we are all “priests” with equal authority to Moses?

Haven’t you noticed I do not see the Catholic Church as the true Church? Why should I believe their priests have any authority from God or the apostles? You can address that question to a Protestant. I am not one, as I’ve told you before.

Why do you think God gave Peter and the apostles express authority to bind and lose and what “Church” do you think Jesus was describing when he described a “visible” Church one could go to to resolve disputes?

You believe it is the Catholic Church that has existed in apostolic succession. I don’t. So, just as you believe folks [is that the general public to you?] go to the CC to resolve disputes, likewise, I believe members of the true Church of God [only] go their Church to resolve disputes. And, yes, that true Church is “visible,” not to the world, but to its few members. The true Church does not resolve disputes of people outside the Church. And why should it? Jesus’ instruction to His Church was to “COME OUT from among them and be ye SEPARATE” (2 Cor. 6:17).

And if not the Catholic Church (which has existed in apostolic succession since the birth of the Church at Pentacost) - where were folks to go to “resolve those disputes” and how does one disintinguish which “church” denomination “has it right”.

You distinguish which is right by what you read about history only. I don’t, as I’ve already told you in the past. I put more weight on the writings of inspired men rather than on uninspired historians.

I’ll wager that you, in your sincere search, have held many divergent views on scripture than those you hold now - and imagine you will do so again in the future. Why? (its not personal to you) - because you don’t recognize authority and every denomination in history (which rejects apostolic authority) has ultimately splintered over internal disagreement over doctrine.

You are terribly wrong there, Brian. I was raised a Catholic and so was Catholic for a while but when I finally saw the light [that the RCC could not be the true Church and another one was], I haven’t looked back ever since (that was about 30 years ago). This just goes to show that you can also be wrong on the other things you now sincerely believe are true.

We can pray for each other and celebrate our common bond in Christ -that is most important.

Blessings,

Brian

Of course. But let’s not forget that not only should we have reverence for Christ in our hearts and honor Him as Lord (1 Pet. 3:15, GNB), we should also “be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks… BUT to do it with gentleness and respect” (v. 16).

God bless.

 

[Robbinson]

But of course, Brian. You’ve jumped into yours hook, line and sinker, too, haven’t you? Isn’t that obvious in the way we defend our beliefs?

Touchee - can’t argue there

Haven’t you noticed I do not see the Catholic Church as the true Church? Why should I believe their priests have any authority from God or the apostles? You can address that question to a Protestant. I am not one, as I’ve told you before.

Because if we start with Peter who Jesus expressly gave authority, we can read from historical writings who his successors, by the laying of hands were - these are the successive Catholic bishops - not JW or others and this absolutely not historical evidence, to my knowledge (happy to read some if you have it) to suggest it was JW or others (e.g., anyone other than a bishop claiming and showing authority coming from his predecessor in succession).

You believe it is the Catholic Church that has existed in apostolic succession. I don’t. So, just as you believe folks [is that the general public to you?] go to the CC to resolve disputes, likewise, I believe members of the true Church of God [only] go their Church to resolve disputes. And, yes, that true Church is “visible,” not to the world, but to its few members. The true Church does not resolve disputes of people outside the Church. And why should it? Jesus’ instruction to His Church was to “COME OUT from among them and be ye SEPARATE” (2 Cor. 6:17).

I do because History documents this. As to the visible Church- are you suggesting it was God’s plan to make the “visible” Church invisible to the world and only visible to its “secret members”? Scripture describes the Church as a light on a hill - the gospel is intended for everyone - I can’t imagine a scriptural, or logical, basis for there being an “invisible” “visible” church

You distinguish which is right by what you read about history only. I don’t, as I’ve already told you in the past. I put more weight on the writings of inspired men rather than on uninspired historians.

Clearly scripture is our principal guide - but that doesn’t mean we ignore historical evidence that support authority and the identity of the apostles successors or historical evidence of what the apostles direct disciples understood the apostles to mean by their teaching.

You are terribly wrong there, Brian. I was raised a Catholic and so was Catholic for a while but when I finally saw the light [that the RCC could not be the true Church and another one was], I haven’t looked back ever since (that was about 30 years ago). This just goes to show that you can also be wrong on the other things you now sincerely believe are true.

Absolutely - I’m not claiming personal infalliblity, I imagine I’m wrong about alot of things - we all are - which is why we need an authoritative voice in understanding the teachings of scripture.

I’m glad you found a long term home and have found contentment - but if you are a JW (don’t recall if you ever identified yourself that way), there are some very core doctrines which don’t hold water in any exegesis. I have several JW friends - we talk often - I admire their devotion to God and always happy to dialogue.

Of course. But let’s not forget that not only should we have reverence for Christ in our hearts and honor Him as Lord (1 Pet. 3:15, GNB), we should also “be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks… BUT to do it with gentleness and respect” (v. 16).

God bless.

Absolutely - always in patienece, love and respect.

Blessings friend.

 

[Cachonga]

Robbinson:

What, in scripture, leads you to believe or assert that if someone suffers temporal punishment for sin (from God) this precludes forgiveness for sin by God in terms of salvation? Even protestants acknolwedge we may/will sin on this earth - in the new covenant we rely on the blood of Jesus and our faith to cleanse us of that sin (though we may suffer in this world (even to the point of death) for having committed those sins).

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking here. Of course we are all subject to sin, even the elect (so long as we are alive in this physical body). However, I find nothing in Scripture to indicate that any chastisement from God will extend into the non-physical world (just punishment in hell for those who reject God’s gift).

In the Old Covenant Jews relied on animal sacrifices made personally, but also by the high priest on behalf of all in the community who had sinned.

If sacrifices had to made personally (according to Scripture), how could anyone make a sacrifice for someone else? What makes you think the annual sacrifice included those who had already left this life?

So it is in the Catholic faith today (we suffer temporally for our sins, even sins forgiven in terms of salvation) and that is, I believe, what the jews in macabees realized - the soldiers died “in sin” but they neverhteless prayed for them.

Please show me from Scripture (excluding the deuterocanonicals) where we can pray for someone known to have “died in sin”. Show me where God allows for such a thing.

This is certainly true - this fact, in itself, isn’t dispositive, but it is instructive of the Jewish understanding of death and sin and the fact that its included in “scriptures” included in the “accepted scriptures of Israel” studied and preached from by Jesus and the apostles is at least interesting, if not significnat

Please show me from Scripture (excluding the deuterocanonicals) where we can pray for someone known to have “died in sin”. Show me where God allows for such a thing.

Nothing commands us to pray for the dead - if you don’t believe the prayers are effective and don’t care to pray for deceased relatives, that is your perogative. I believe in the doctrine of purgatory and that prayers can assist in forgivenss of temporal sins (though they are saved), but candidly, even if I didn’t, I would pray for the dead because God stands outside time. I would pray that God, “today” (from our perspective) appear to my relatives in the moments before their death (which to us, happened in the past, but to God is happening “now”) to call out to them, lift the veil from their eyes and cause them to accept Jesus

But if there is such a place as purgatory, and we can help our loved ones by praying for them, doesn’t it seem rather cruel for God NOT to clearly proclaim this to us in His word? I just returned from a trip to visit one of my brothers, and while I was there I stopped by the graveside of my father and youngest brother. I thanked God for allowing me to know them, and for all we had been through together, but I did not pray for them specifically (nor did I pray to them for any kind of “intercession” with God). While God is certainly free to do such things, I do not believe the God of the Bible would create such a place and not make it as clear to His people as He does Heaven and Hell.

One might say that the doctrine of not praying for the dead is a “tradition of men” - as its based upon (i) a rejection of scriptures included in the septuagent and determined to be cannon by the same group of Holy Spirit bishops you believe infallibly determined the 27 books of the NT which were cannnon and (ii) “man”'s interpretation (1500 years after Christ) of remaining scripture to declare void prior interpretation consistent with the doctrine of purgatory. 1 Cor 3:13-15 being a good example.

Now here you are straying off topic into the area of the canon, to which I will not reply here.

Ultimately -all of these issue of interpretation boil down to “authority”. Those who accept the authority given by Jesus to Peter and their apostles yield to apostolic interpretation of these verses (and determination of cannon). Those who reject this authority will ultimately interpret any number of verses differently. If you and I went a one hour lecture/sermon on any particular subject of faith, we would almost certainly come out with different understandings of some aspect of the teaching, based upon our backgrounds and perspectives - and that after having sat in the same room and listening to the same speech. Considering the complexity of scripture, the liklihood of this happening when we each apply our own interpreations is 100% . This is the value of apostolic teaching - explaining and passing down the historical understanding of what the apostles meant when they wrote verses addressing core issues of doctrine.

Again, you are straying off topic.

Alas - if the doctrine of apostolic succession did not hold water, we would indeed be lost in “traditions of men” in interpreting scripture - thus, our now horribly splintered body of Christ comprising over 40,000 denominations and all too often leading to “judgement, condemnation and uncharitable and unloving dialogue” among Christians - that is the saddest fruit of the Reformation of all.

And again, you are off topic.

We spend too much time arguing over issues like this rather than celebrating our mutual devotion to, and love of Christ.

This is still off topic.

 

[Cachonga]

panevino:

there is also the tombstone of a guy called Abercius (a bishop of Hieropolis) who dies at age of ~72. He wrote his own tombstone before dying sometime between 167 and 216.

You still haven’t provided any Scriptural support. Also, even though he writes “pray for Abercius”, he says nothing about purgatory, temporal punishment, or anything else of that nature.

 

[panevino]

You still haven’t provided any Scriptural support. Also, even though he writes “pray for Abercius”, he says nothing about purgatory, temporal punishment, or anything else of that nature.

Yep- was focused on early church writtings.
I think there are some catacomb inscriptions that also point to prayers for departed.

Any thoughts on this verse
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

1john5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

 

[Cachonga]

panevino:

Yep- was focused on early church writtings.I think there are some catacomb inscriptions that also point to prayers for departed.

Since you don’t have any Scripture to point to, how many of those inscriptions prayed for the person to be released from temporal punishment (and when were the inscriptions made)?

Any thoughts on this verse
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

Interesting that other passages like Luke 12:10 (“And every one who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.” RSV) and Mark 3:28-29 (’“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” – ’ RSV) make no mention of “the [world] to come”. I would point out that Matt 12:31 clearly states “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” (RSV), which shows that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly a “sin unto death” (as your next scripture reference states), which agrees with the other verses already mentioned. There are also numerous references to the “age to come”, which show this to be when men are judged at the end (see here). I find no indication that there will be any forgiveness of anyone at that time (or anytime after death), only rewards and punishments

1john5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

As already shown, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the “sin unto death”. Since this doesn’t apply to dead people (unless you can explain to me how dead people can sin, how you can “see” it, and know how to pray for it) I don’t understand how you think it applies to purgatory.

 

[Robbinson]

Since you don’t have any Scripture to point to, how many of those inscriptions prayed for the person to be released from temporal punishment (and when were the inscriptions made)?

Interesting that other passages like Luke 12:10 (“And every one who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.” RSV) and Mark 3:28-29 (’“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” – ’ RSV) make no mention of “the [world] to come”. I would point out that Matt 12:31 clearly states “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” (RSV), which shows that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly a “sin unto death” (as your next scripture reference states), which agrees with the other verses already mentioned. There are also numerous references to the “age to come”, which show this to be when men are judged at the end (see here). I find no indication that there will be any forgiveness of anyone at that time (or anytime after death), only rewards and punishments

As already shown, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the “sin unto death”. Since this doesn’t apply to dead people (unless you can explain to me how dead people can sin, how you can “see” it, and know how to pray for it) I don’t understand how you think it applies to purgatory.

If you dont want to see it, you will never see it. In the last thread, you just stated “off topic” to the hard ones .

Seriously - its all about scripture interpretation - is it “your” interpretation, “joe’s” interpretation, "cindy’s interpretation or the Church’s interpretation

I get the feeling that if the apostle Paul were speaking with you and told you what he meant, you might disagree if you interpreted his words differently (Not really, I hope not - but its close when we ignore the interpretations of the Church passed down from the apostles). At least think about it that way for a nano second.

 

[panevino]

Since you don’t have any Scripture to point to, how many of those inscriptions prayed for the person to be released from temporal punishment (and when were the inscriptions made)?

are you really asking me to provide an incription that has the words “temporal punishment” on it? - why?
I am showing a practice of praying for the departed by christians in the mid 100’s and early 200’s backed up by book of Macc (written sometime BC ) and held to be scripture by Tertullian.

i also found this - apparently Perpetua was martyred in 203.

The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicity 2:3
*After a few days, while we were all praying, on a sudden, in the middle of our prayer, there came to me a word, and I named Dinocrates; and I was amazed that that name had never come into my mind until then, and I was grieved as I remembered his misfortune. And I felt myself immediately to be worthy, and to be called on to ask on his behalf. And for him I began earnestly to make supplication, and to cry with groaning to the Lord. … But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then was the birth-day of Geta Cæsar, and I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.

1. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment*

so thats, Cyprian, Tertullian, Abercius, Perpetua & book of Maccabees

inscriptions
Catacomb of Domitilla, third century:
. . . . SPIRITVS
TVVS IN REFRIGERIO
The beginning of the inscription, containing the name, has disappeared. “May thy spirit be in refreshment”. The very ancient prayer in the Canon of the Mass entreats for the dead locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis (a place of refreshment, light, and peace).

Catacomb of Priscilla, third century (in verse):

VOS PRECOR O FRATRES. ORARE. HVC QVANDO VENITIS
ET PRECIBVS. TOTIS. PATREM. NATVMQVE ROGATIS
SIT. VESTRÆ. MENTIS. AGAPES. CARÆ. MEMINISSE
VT DEVS. OMNIPOTENS. AGAPEN IN SÆCVLA SERVET

i.e. “I beg you, brethren, whenever ye come hither [to the service of God] and call in united prayer on the Father and the Son, that ye remember to think on your loved Agape, that Almighty God may preserve Agape in eternity.” A second, fragmentary, piece of the inscription recalls the sentence of death pronounced in Paradise, de terra sumptus terrae traderis (thou wast taken from the earth and unto the earth shalt thou return). Agape lived twenty-seven years; so had it been appointed to her by Christ. The mother, Eucharis, and the father, Pius, erected the gravestone to her.

do you know of any writtings that object to the practice in the early church?

Interesting that other passages like Luke 12:10 (“And every one who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.” RSV) and Mark 3:28-29 (’“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” – ’ RSV) make no mention of “the [world] to come”. I would point out that Matt 12:31 clearly states “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” (RSV), which shows that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly a “sin unto death” (as your next scripture reference states), which agrees with the other verses already mentioned. There are also numerous references to the “age to come”, which show this to be when men are judged at the end (see here). I find no indication that there will be any forgiveness of anyone at that time (or anytime after death), only rewards and punishments

As already shown, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the “sin unto death”. Since this doesn’t apply to dead people (unless you can explain to me how dead people can sin, how you can “see” it, and know how to pray for it) I don’t understand how you think it applies to purgatory.

the verses indicate to me that there may be venial sins (ie: sins not unto death) that may be dealt with after death. assisted by our prayers

and verse like 1 cor 3:13 points to something that occurs to the departed (even if you dont agree to it being the process of purgatory) that I would like to pray for.
*
Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.*

 

[Cachonga]

Robbinson:

If you dont want to see it, you will never see it. In the last thread, you just stated “off topic” to the hard ones .

You misunderstand. I didn’t have a preconcieved notion that purgatory didn’t exist, and therefore I don’t see it in Scripture. I was raised Roman Catholic. I went to a private Catholic school for the first 3 1/2 years of my education. My senior year of high school, I wanted to know the truth so much that I went to church daily (except Saturday - even God took a day off). The only reason it’s there is because the church says it’s there, and I find that highly questionable at best.

As for not answering “the hard ones”, am I being faulted for trying to stick to the topic? Remember, the topic is whether or not the story of Lazarus and the rich man identifies hell or purgatory. I think there has been plenty of evidence (even from Catholics) that this does not indicate purgatory. Issues like the canon, church authority, etc… are not the topic. If you want to discuss those issues, you might want to start a thread dedicated to them.

Seriously - its all about scripture interpretation - is it “your” interpretation, “joe’s” interpretation, "cindy’s interpretation or the Church’s interpretation

Now here’s a problem even Catholics have. You may have noticed that there were a few Catholics who did think the rich man was in purgatory. I hear a lot about the “infallible teaching magisterium” of the church, yet it has “infallibly” defined very little Scripture. If your “infallible” authority hasn’t defined a particular Scripture (such as the story of Lazarus and the rich man), on what basis can Catholics have diametrically opposed views and still claim to be in union with the church? Since this is off topic, feel free to treat this question as rhetorical, but at least think about what it means.

I get the feeling that if the apostle Paul were speaking with you and told you what he meant, you might disagree if you interpreted his words differently (Not really, I hope not - but its close when we ignore the interpretations of the Church passed down from the apostles). At least think about it that way for a nano second.

I don’t believe I’m disagreeing with Paul at all. However, I do believe that if he was to come back and see the church of today, he would not recognize it, and would certainly not consider it to be “Christian”.