[tjwmason]

And not a single solid scriptural reference in the whole thing. Your statement was unequivocal. Surely you can do better than that.

One does not get much more clear than II Maccabees 12, 44-45:

For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

F.W.I.W. that translation is that Authorised Version (also called the King James Version).

Of course, that is from one of the books which although held by ALL in the first 1500 years of the Church to be part of the Bible, was thrown out by Martin Luther. Nevermind that when S. Paul wrote "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Timothy 3, 16) he had in mind the Septuagint (which contains Maccabees), Martin Luther did not like it at all, so out it goes.

[hopespringseternal]

Funny, none of my Catholic friends seem to take the Apocrypha too seriously, and have indicated that the church doesn't either.

They tell me it is nice research material, but running around quoting it as scripture is frowned upon.

Not to mention that it is not quoted as scripture in the new testament.

Too many Catholics like to forget that Luther was Catholic, and he was a reformer, not an abolisher.

[presidio9]

One does not get much more clear than II Maccabees 12, 44-45

I suspect this person rejects Maccabees. There are many more examples in both the Old and New Testament.