Why don't Protestants believe in purgatory?

[GKC]

Thanks for that.

Maybe what I more clearly should say what my exact thoughts were while typing that.

I quoted Cayetan (The chief opponent to Luther and a very respected Cardinal) and Jerome (We all know who he was). And here I receive an excerpt from a rather unknown Priest basically just stating “they removed it” without even referring to what I said. And the question isn’t with, were they there. But what was thought of them by respected minds like a named.

Pertinent point, that. I’ve met it myself.

And not all sources are of equal value, though it’s the broad reading that makes it possible to discern them. All are biased, in some sense. But some are biased toward accuracy more than others.

 

[PJM]

Not heated - just emphatic.
I had mentioned the testimony of the ancient non-Latin churches a couple pages back as well.

I agree completely.

Seldom do I find ANGER; but often find opinionated / emphatic expressions [notably in my own post]

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Even though I was trying to end my contribution to this thread I must point out, they didn’t. Maybe I should add with early I meant the apostles, day to day things happening in the Bible and maybe let’s say 100 years later. I’m talking about the time of Christ. I am very well aware of every writing on it. I guess I should have been clear about my time frame. Which is, where it started, and if it started at Pentecost I expect to read about it be that Bible or even Apocrypha. Not some person who meditated later on and thought that’s what they meant.

Something like “and Jesus went to the top of the mountain to pray for the dead” would have convinced me in one fell swoop. Or anywhere where it is talked about.

But okay. I can end with, Hey, it doesn’t matter if you believe it. It’s not like not believing in Purgatory will add more time to your time in Purgatory or believing in it and you WILL go to hell if it doesn’t exist. Which is why I don’t really see the need to try and convince anyone. Just to see how people here understand the history

God bless

OK, so you believe is Sola Scriptura?

In complete sincerity;

How then do you understand these seemingly very precise; specific and exclusive passages?

Mt 16: 18-19
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19]** And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose **upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven"

FYI: if you don’t already know references the handing over to the Chuirch unlimited Powers & Authority of Governance. If you’d like more info on this please send me a private message.

John 17: 17-20
[17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world,** I also have sent them into the world**. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] **And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;
**

Mt 28: 19-20
[19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever** I have commanded you**: and behold** I am with you** all days, even to the consummation of the world.

There is more but these point out my concerns with your position.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

There were no “Scriptures” readily available for many for over 1000 years until the printing press, and Jesus did not write a book – He founded His Catholic Church and that Church produced the Sacred Scriptures as part of Her teaching. Of course no one may falsify the Scriptures.

The problem of “Biblical Differences” arises from the loss of the reality that Christ did not give us the Bible but His Church, and She authorised and gave us the Sacred Scriptures and no one has any authority to remove or add any books.

The Missing Books of the Bible
FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS
‘In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title “Apocrypha,” declaring, “These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading.” Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those of God’s work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Pauline epistles, II Peter, and II John); and non-canonical books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament). Many Church historians speculate that Luther was prepared to drop what he called the “non-canonical books” of the New Testament but refrained from doing so because of possible political fall-out.’
catholiceducation.org/en/…the-bible.html

There was nothing “reformed” by Luther but a revolt to suit his own whims and fancies. An example of the logical result was the capitulation to the immorality of contraception by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference in London in 1930 – exposed and corrected the same year by the great *Casti Connubii *of Pope Pius XI emphatically declaring contraception to be "a grave sin.”

The tragedy of the scattering is the thousands of sects today all led by those who feel they know better than Christ and His Magisterium.

Failing to follow the Christ in His own Church has led to the false belief, among many others, that there is no Purgatory. Why should anyone believe a made-up set of opinions against the Christ?

Nicely done:thumbsup: Not sure about the 1,000 years though.

 

[PJM]

Yes, it was written for former Catholics, but that was long before the Protestant Reformation. Those who leave the CC now do not necessarily deny Christ. Also, many of them do not even commit apostasy, since they never understood their faith in the first place. Their fault is that they did not study to show themselves approved, and never got past a childhood understanding of the faith.

We agree

The point I OFTEN try to make though is that by denial of the Real Presence; they are and they do; literally DENY CHRIST. It’s often said with a silent prayer for their right understanding. After all; FIVE different authoes of the NT [all HS guided]n trstify to it:shrug:

Continued Blessings,

Patrick.

 

[Wannano]

I can add this just to see where we come from

pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-the-apocrypha-scripture/

I’ll paste the conclusion if you don’t go through the effort in reading it, maybe just as a taster.

Conclusion

The above seven reasons build a compelling case that the Apocrypha should not be regarded as Scripture. All of this becomes very problematic for the Roman Catholic Church which has made a supposedly infallible declaration regarding the canonicity of the Apocrypha, a declaration which cannot be retracted. But what happens when the facts of history undermine the dogmatic position taken by Rome? And what is left of her infallibility if one of her “infallible” declarations is shown to be false?

To summarize: the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2) did not accept the Apocrypha. Neither did Jesus or the writers of the New Testament. Neither did Jerome, major theologians, and even Roman Catholic scholars up until the time of the Reformation. It wasn’t until 1546 at the Council of Trent that the Apocrypha was officially and infallibly declared to be Scripture, as even admitted to by Roman Catholic sources. The Apocrypha cannot pass the test of propheticity and certain books even contain doctrinal and historical errors. This, of course, is not to say the Apocrypha is not useful. It certainly is. But it is not Scripture. And Protestants are in good standing with the historical evidence and historic position of the Church when they refuse to acknowledge the books of the Apocrypha as canonical.

I have read the linked material this morning and found all seven reasoning fascinating. It appears that the RC Church had an accurate understanding of the value oof the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent. What I am not clear on is the need for the Church to make the Apocrypha canonical in 1546? The answer is probably staring me in the face.

 

[PJM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
Wow what a mouthful. I do appreciate the time that must have gone into this.

If I ask you is Jesus pure, holy and perfect. You would say yes. And I ask you did this pure, holy and perfect God suffer a death on a cross for our sins. You would say yes
Actually I WOULD say “yes” conditionally.

Did Jesus choose to die so that our sins COULD [as in might be] forgiven] is the necessary addendum to the point your trying to make.

Being NEW here on CAF, you may not yet be aware that this FORUM limits the lenght of POST. So as in this instance, it may be necessary to reply in 2 parts

That’s a very interesting topic to get into. John 3:16 I saw is a bit different in the NABRE but KJV and my Greek direct translation says a bit different. Maybe that’s the big difference we have. Just saying.

The foundation for my comment [PJM] rest in the bibles teaching of jist One God; faith and Church. Mt 16:18-19; Jn 17:17-20 & Mt 28:19-20 as examples

**Here friend is the problem [your’s not ours]

Protestant confuse what Jesus COULD have chosen to do WITH what Jesus ACTUALLY DID choose to do, regards one’s personal salvation…

I am not so sure. John 3:16 comes to mind again**

More than 1,000 years after the facts had been Holy Spirit defined, declared and lived.
[Mt 16:18-19; Jn 17:17-20; Jn 20:19-23; Mt 28:19-20]

**Each of these teachings is Jesus to His Apostles & through them to His Church.

I give YOU the Keys
I send THEM as you [Father] sent Me
For THEM do I consecrate Myself [Jesus here gives Himself as the warratny of Catholic truths]
YOU GO! Teach the world ALL that I taught YOU**

The Luther led “reformation” [revolution actually] as he is an Apostate catholic-priest in choosing to abandon his God in favor of making a god-in the image he Luther desired God to be; [Eph 4:1-7] knew full-well that in order to compete [actually over-through] the Catholic Church, that he HAD TO not only be “different than Catholicism” [why else would anyone else abandon their Catholic Faith? BUT ALSO he HAD to be be easier, less complex; and even [IMO] less profound; especially in his teachings on salvation Hence influenced by Wycliffe’s [another Apostate catholic-priest] the easily understood [BUT grossly wrong philosophies of “Propitiation” where in Jesus DID IT ALL, so ALL you have to do is declare that you love Jesus. Salvation [theoretically] accomplished; which then led to OSAS and other man-invented “salvation truths.” Confusing what God COULD have done with what our God [singular; and therefore can’t have different standards for you than He does for “Us”; ACTUALLY did choose to do

[COLOR=“blue”]I’m not so sure what you are getting at here. I would comment with a barrage of Bible verses but out of experience I know this won’t help. Just saying, any sane Protestant confession would have nothing but the Bible as a reference when taking on this subject. Maybe have a look

Let me further respond with a question
Show me please just one example from the entire bible; where God; Yahweh or Jesus was ever “OK”, tolerant of, accepted, or permitted ANY other faith believes besides those taught and expected to be accepted by God [or his prophets / church].

So putting an ant against a whale, what can the and really do, and with us against God it’s so much larger. I feel it comes forth as arrogant for man to feel he can do anything in relation to God
SO DO WE, HENCE OUR SHOCK AT THE PROTESTANT MAN-INVENTED PATHS TO SALVATION.

Can you elaborate? I get the idea we agree but somehow disagree. This confuses me

Quote:
And yes I know all those verses. It also says call no man your father but there when it is direct Jesus apparently meant it differently. Here when it’s very metaphorically it apparently means without a doubt purgatory

What about FATHER ABRAHAM[Gen. 16:15 & Lk 16:24]… and WHAT does this have to do with purgatory? I’m missing [no doubt MY fault] your point. Please clarify…

Nothing except taking on the form of debate you took. I always find it interesting when people take a form of debating contradicting other parts. This is the problem, Catholicism became so complex and intricate that you are bound to contradict yourself somewhere

And oh, you added to my argument when you said Jesus made it possible for us to be saved. So if I suffer for my sins, apparently a lot worse then a crucifixion, but it came from God. Does that make sense. Im not so sure

This to is another SHOCKER to us Catholics. Presuming that mortal man does NOT have to suffer for their sinfulness is extreme presumption [but certainly a whole lot easier and more salable]. It’s foolish in the extreme!

I would ask you to please refrain from using this tone. If you can’t answer me then don’t. Just saying the opposite and saying my argument is foolish will get us nowhere. Rather be constructive and help me understand then

I’m not exactly sure just what your distressing about here? The CAPS or the message?

END OF PT 1 PLEASE SEE NEXT POST FOR THE BALANCE

 

[PJM]

HERE’S PT 2 & THE BALANCE OF THE POST REPLY

I’m not going so far as to use the term “foolish” as I am attempting to point out that it’s simply wrong. I was responding to what I clearly understood [perhaps my error?] as a presumption on your belief that effectively seemed to indicate that because 'Jesus did it all" [which is an incorrect understanding]; that this philosophy then leads to all future sins of th OSAS, as being negated as well; also wrong.;

Take Up your Cross and Follow Me
Phil.2: 8 Luke.9 :23 .Mark.8: 34 Luke.9: 23 Luke.14: 7 [which BTW, means cannot attain heaven]

I’m not so sure. Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with a state of temporal punishment.

Quote:
And believe me, I’ve been doing a lot of research about various topics the past 2 years. I mean hours and hours. Your post didn’t shed new light. I’m a Protestant who can quote the Catholic Catechism to a very great extent. Yea, I’m bored a lot.
EXCELLENT! So perhaps my friend you can answer a simple question for US that no other Protestant has been able to do; [or perhaps just choose not too?]

Having been blessed to teach the Catholic Faith for nearly 30 years now; it is perplexing that I [ME] could not find even one time in the bible where God: Yahweh or Jesus ever was 'OK" with, tolerate of, permitted or [heaven forbid]; approved of ANY competing religious faith beliefs. My friend perhaps you can point out to me, where I over looked such?

Well that would be assuming I am not a Christian. Or am I not answering it correctly seeing no Protestant could? Hey Friend, I am just as much of a Christian as you are, I don’t even see the point of the question

Sorry:blush: my error but you completely lost me here. How do [or did?] I suggest you were not a Christian? The question is directed to you because you ARE a Christian:thumbsup:

I personally struggle trying to grasp where the justification for Protestantism is biblically- found and on what basis it exist? Was Christ FAITH somehow insufficient?

Interesting topic as that is the basis of the very existence of Protestants, but please elaborate. As it seems we agree more then you would like to admit.

Because of your interest is studying Christian Faiths, I hoped to avail myself of your expertise to answer this question for me. It’s one I have long struggled with:shrug:

Welcome to CAF; we’re delighted and grateful for your participation.

Continued Blessings,

Patrick [PJM]

 

[PJM]

I have read the linked material this morning and found all seven reasoning fascinating. It appears that the RC Church had an accurate understanding of the value oof the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent. What I am not clear on is the need for the Church to make the Apocrypha canonical in 1546? The answer is probably staring me in the face.

My friend [excuse my interrupting here]

But just to set the history right: TRENT did not “set” the Canon so much as just finding it useful to restore it AS IN to clarify it, to what it had been from the first defined Cannon can’t remember the year:shrug: forth or fifth Century.

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

 

[MichaelP3]

OK, so you believe is Sola Scriptura?

In complete sincerity;

How then do you understand these seemingly very precise; specific and exclusive passages?

Mt 16: 18-19
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19]** And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose **upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven"

FYI: if you don’t already know references the handing over to the Chuirch unlimited Powers & Authority of Governance. If you’d like more info on this please send me a private message.

I will just answer this one for now as I constantly have to shorten my messages to 6000 characters.

I’m not sure If you had a look at my Cardinal Newman thread where I covered the historical concept of this question as I assume you refer to the Papacy. I tried to avoid Scripture there, but have a look, as it flows in with what I am to answer.

But I like to take larger parts of the Chapter for a more full way to show the understanding.

8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Very much faith in the meanings of Jesus. Let’s see this as an intro to the story

12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? He asks a Question? Testing Faith, this would be the start of the body

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? You have seen what I can do, who am I testing their faith?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. So Peter answers the question where Jesus is the Subject proving his faith that Jesus is Christ

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Father in heaven, the Subject is still God related, but relates to everything is from God, and God made it possible for him to have this faith, Blessed is Peter for having such faith

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He is in a conversation with Peter and acknowledge him, While the question was “having faith who Jesus is” the very core of the previous verse (And the very Core of Christianity in fact), nothing indicates this changed. Rock/My Church/ Hell not prevail against “My” Church. All subjects still in reference to Jesus and faith in Him. .

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. We are all very aware of the miracles the Apostles did. They were Personally chosen out by Jesus to spread the gospel

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. Back to Jesus as the subject, kind of like a conclusion

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Jesus the subject, and ends with what He must go through for us and this would mark the start of Christianity.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. Peter may have professed who Jesus is, but does not have faith in what will happen. Seemingly faith is always coming up

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Peter have faith in Christ but has a long way to go.

And then we have the question as to why we only see this in Matthew. While the parallel verses and the writers didn’t deem this important except the part where everyone profess their faith. And nowhere further in any Biblical writing. Peter being rebuked in Antioch by Paul. James leading the Council of Jerusalem. Even if it is how Catholicism sees it, the other Apostles clearly didn’t. Or they didn’t deem it worthy of talking about.

And lastly, I touched on this in the other thread, but what evidence do we have Peter ever even was in Rome. So if I believe the verse like CC, still no evidence Rome can claim him.

Okay that was long. Im done for a while

 

[PJM]

I’m struggling here. Luther and then you talk about Anglicans. It’s pretty basic to know you should use Luther when referring to Lutherans.

And what’s the problem. Luther would agree he is just as fallible as any other teacher be that Catholic or not.

I don’t see the relevance with that answer and get the idea you didn’t even read my reply. Maybe read it again if you did.

Jerome had those books yes. If you read it you know we don’t deny it. But he did categorise them different. Today the Protestant don’t have it in their Bible but I can still walk into any Christian bookstore here and buy the Apocrypha and read as a good read.( I would have no problem with them in our Bible, but they would be more of an addendum like in the case of Jerome.) Which I did. Nobody is hiding them. Just referring to them as the Church Fathers did.

Friend, check your history! Not just excerpts written by biased Priests.

My friend, just a necessary clarification to your comments.

NOT ALL Catholic teaching LACKS Infallibility

Each of the following is Jesus specific; precise and exclusive to His Catholic Church through His Apostles [Mt 10:1-8 compared to Mt 28:19-20]

Mt 16:18-19
" 18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever** thou shalt loose** upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven

Jn 17: 17-20
[17] Sanctify THEM in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent THEM into the world. [19] And for THEM do I sanctify myself, thatTHEY also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not **for them **only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;" [Amen!]

Dear friend this is Jesus / God and He cannot Deny Himself:thumbsup:

Mt 28: 19-20
"[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

The Bible affirms and confirms that GOD; ist page to last page always and without exception taught:

One True God

Just One Set of faith beliefs [which GOD could not have waited for Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin or anyone else . more than a thousand years after the TEACHINGS were identified, defined and guided by the Holy Spirit, lived and practiced:shrug:

And Just One “Chosen People” Exo. 6:7 ; which Jesus termed “MY CHURCH” [above in Mt 16:18]

Infallibility is sadly not rightfully understood.

God Bless you,

Patrick

 

[MichaelP3]

My friend, just a necessary clarification to your comments.

NOT ALL Catholic teaching LACKS Infallibility

Each of the following is Jesus specific; precise and exclusive to His Catholic Church through His Apostles [Mt 10:1-8 compared to Mt 28:19-20]

Mt 16:18-19
" 18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever** thou shalt loose** upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven

Jn 17: 17-20
[17] Sanctify THEM in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent THEM into the world. [19] And for THEM do I sanctify myself, thatTHEY also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not **for them **only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;" [Amen!]

Dear friend this is Jesus / God and He cannot Deny Himself:thumbsup:

Mt 28: 19-20
"[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

The Bible affirms and confirms that GOD; ist page to last page always and without exception taught:

One True God

Just One Set of faith beliefs [which GOD could not have waited for Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin or anyone else . more than a thousand years after the TEACHINGS were identified, defined and guided by the Holy Spirit, lived and practiced:shrug:

And Just One “Chosen People” Exo. 6:7 ; which Jesus termed “MY CHURCH” [above in Mt 16:18]

Infallibility is sadly not rightfully understood.

God Bless you,

Patrick

wow

Please can we slow down. You have too much energy. I assure you I will get back to you one way or another on these. But this is getting time consuming.

Regards
Michael

 

[Wannano]

My friend [excuse my interrupting here]

But just to set the history right: TRENT did not “set” the Canon so much as just finding it useful to restore it AS IN to clarify it, to what it had been from the first defined Cannon [can’t remember the year:shrug: forth or fifth Century.

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

No problem interrupting, Pat, so do you disagree with Cardinal Cayetan (see post 269)?
[/quote]

 

[PJM]

I will just answer this one for now as I constantly have to shorten my messages to 6000 characters

Hi Michael, I suffer from the same ailment

So as not to miss any of your points; my reply will be on at least TWO [GW] consecutive POST replies…

I’m not sure If you had a look at my Cardinal Newman thread where I covered the historical concept of this question as I assume you refer to the Papacy. I tried to avoid Scripture there, but have a look, as it flows in with what I am to answer.

But I like to take larger parts of the Chapter for a more full way to show the understanding

.

8 Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?

9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?

11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Very much faith in the meanings of Jesus. Let’s see this as an intro to the story

12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees

I have not read Newman on this; but time permitting will do so later today

If you’re implication here is that I somehow either misstated Catholic teaching on Purgatory; or don’t perhaps fully grasp it correctly:shrug: I would ask that you be a bit more specific so that I can respond informed of your thinking here…

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? He asks a Question? Testing Faith, this would be the start of the body

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? You have seen what I can do, who am I testing their faith?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. So Peter answers the question where Jesus is the Subject proving his faith that Jesus is Christ

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Father in heaven, the Subject is still God related, but relates to everything is from God, and God made it possible for him to have this faith, Blessed is Peter for having such faith

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He is in a conversation with Peter and acknowledge him, While the question was “having faith who Jesus is” the very core of the previous verse (And the very Core of Christianity in fact), nothing indicates this changed. Rock/My Church/ Hell not prevail against “My” Church. All subjects still in reference to Jesus and faith in Him. .

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. We are all very aware of the miracles the Apostles did. They were Personally chosen out by Jesus to spread the gospel

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. Back to Jesus as the subject, kind of like a conclusion

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Jesus the subject, and ends with what He must go through for us and this would mark the start of Christianity.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. Peter may have professed who Jesus is, but does not have faith in what will happen. Seemingly faith is always coming up

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Peter have faith in Christ but has a long way to go.

Before addressing your next question permit me to offer hare a clarification on the point that I THINK? you’re trying to make

IF? I understand your point & its a good one: your understanding ;or at least questioning if Peter somehow lost his Faith?

And the answer is NO!

A correct understanding of these passages is that Peter was NOT rebuking God in the sense that we commonly understand a “rebuke” to be in our times. NO! What Peter was only suggesting to Jesus whom the FATHER had only a short time prior to this dialog; INFUSED heavenly knowledge into Peter on exactly WHO Jesus was [Is]…

Peter was suggesting that Jesus BEING God COULD find a less severe alternative to the Crucifixion. It is very likely that none of the Apostles [Peter included] understood the "rising from the dead in 3 days].

Then Jesus response to Peter [Isaiah 55:6-10] is along the line of : Peter; YOU don’t understand the MIND of God [at least not yet]; you’re thinking ONLY as a very mortal man.

cont on nxt POST

 

[PJM]

Continued from above

And then we have the question as to why we only see this in Matthew. While the parallel verses and the writers didn’t deem this important except the part where everyone profess their faith. And nowhere further in any Biblical writing. Peter being rebuked in Antioch by Paul. James leading the Council of Jerusalem. Even if it is how Catholicism sees it, the other Apostles clearly didn’t. Or they didn’t deem it worthy of talking about

Why indeed?

There are multiple teachings found in Matthew not found anywhere else. BUT note please NONE of this is disputed ANYWHERE else in the Bible…

I have a document that I can send you on PETER FIRST that list some 50 different cases that prove Peters position was [1] God’s intent [2] Understood and accepted by ALL of the other 11 Apostles. Send me a private message if you want it?

James was the 1st BISHOP of Jerusalem; While Peter was [IS] the LEADER we now call a “Pope.”

Please read carefully:
Isa. 22:15-25
Heb. 8: 7-10
Acts 1: 15-25

And lastly, I touched on this in the other thread, but what evidence do we have Peter ever even was in Rome. So if I believe the verse like CC, still no evidence Rome can claim him

Havent heard this one in awhile.

He and PAUL BOTH died in Rome

Go to www.newadvent.org
Select “P”
Go to Peter and read about it; then if doubtful GOOGLE:

WHERE DID ST PETER DIE

It’s even secular history:shrug:

Blessings,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

No problem interrupting, Pat, so do you disagree with Cardinal Cayetan (see post 269)?

Interesting that one of the clearest minds Catholicism ever had and many believe if he lived longer, he would have become Pope.

Point is, if Catholics claim to have given us the Bible, then why is the idea of the Bible from the time of Jerome different to the Catholic Bible today. We have the same Bible as Jerome translated. Nothing Catholic ab tooout this

Are you sure it was post 269? I REREAD it and could not find * why you alluded too.

This quote is from that POST by Michael

Interesting that one of the clearest minds Catholicism ever had and many believe if he lived longer, he would have become Pope.

Point is, if Catholics claim to have given us the Bible, then why is the idea of the Bible from the time of Jerome different to the Catholic Bible today. We have the same Bible as Jerome translated. Nothing Catholic about this

IT’s NOT unless you speak of some verbiage changes?

Use this FREE site to check out the

Latin Vulgate [Jerome’s Bible] & the Douay Rheims English Translation of the EARLY 16th Century; about 50 years before the KJB

biblestudytools.com/parallel-bible/

The ANSWER to you precise question though is the KING James 63 BOOK Bible with its revisions, 7-book-deletions and alterations.

Continued Blessings,

Patrick*

 

[PJM]

wow

Please can we slow down. You have too much energy. I assure you I will get back to you one way or another on these. But this is getting time consuming.

Regards
Michael

Take your time, I’m retired

But I do lok forward to hearing from you,

God Bless,

Patrick

 

[GKC]

Interesting that one of the clearest minds Catholicism ever had and many believe if he lived longer, he would have become Pope.

Point is, if Catholics claim to have given us the Bible, then why is the idea of the Bible from the time of Jerome different to the Catholic Bible today. We have the same Bible as Jerome translated. Nothing Catholic ab tooout this

Are you sure it was post 269? I REREAD it and could not find * why you alluded too.

This quote is from that POST by Michael

IT’s NOT unless you speak of some verbiage changes?

Use this FREE site to check out the

Latin Vulgate [Jerome’s Bible] & the Douay Rheims English Translation of the EARLY 16th Century; about 50 years before the KJB

biblestudytools.com/parallel-bible/

The ANSWER to you precise question though is the KING James 63 BOOK Bible with its revisions, 7-book-deletions and alterations.

Continued Blessings,

Patrick*

I suspect a typo.

 

[Wannano]

Interesting that one of the clearest minds Catholicism ever had and many believe if he lived longer, he would have become Pope.

Point is, if Catholics claim to have given us the Bible, then why is the idea of the Bible from the time of Jerome different to the Catholic Bible today. We have the same Bible as Jerome translated. Nothing Catholic ab tooout this

Are you sure it was post 269? I REREAD it and could not find * why you alluded too.

This quote is from that POST by Michael

IT’s NOT unless you speak of some verbiage changes?

Use this FREE site to check out the

Latin Vulgate [Jerome’s Bible] & the Douay Rheims English Translation of the EARLY 16th Century; about 50 years before the KJB

biblestudytools.com/parallel-bible/

The ANSWER to you precise question though is the KING James 63 BOOK Bible with its revisions, 7-book-deletions and alterations.

Continued Blessings,

Patrick*

Refer to post 269 again.it is the third paragraph from the bottom with quotation marks with a quote by the Cardinal.

 

[Wannano]

Are you sure it was post 269? I REREAD it and could not find * why you alluded too.

This quote is from that POST by Michael

IT’s NOT unless you speak of some verbiage changes?

Use this FREE site to check out the

Latin Vulgate [Jerome’s Bible] & the Douay Rheims English Translation of the EARLY 16th Century; about 50 years before the KJB

biblestudytools.com/parallel-bible/*

The ANSWER to you precise question though is the KING James 63 BOOK Bible with its revisions, 7-book-deletions and alterations.

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

Refer to post 269 again.it is the third paragraph from the bottom with quotation marks with a quote by the Cardinal.

Also take the time to read post 270 the link to “please convince me”
It is so interesting.