The Doctrine of Purgatory [Ecumenical]

Catholic Culture ^ | 12/01 | Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Amazing, isn't it, that some people actually want to ignore the liberty found in Christ alone and instead remain shackled to their own sins?

Are John and YHWH wrong? John tells us that the commandments are not 'grievous', that would be shackles to you. YHWH says His teachings/commandments are a blessing. 1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Who to trust and believe. Dilemmas, dilemmas. I still have to stay with YHWH on this though.

[Iscool]

So you are saying you don't believe James to be the inspired Word of God?

Of course it is...All the writers of the scriptures were equally inspired....

[Iscool]

Amazing, isn't it, that some people actually want to ignore the liberty found in Christ alone and instead remain shackled to their own sins?

Lots of folk just can't accept the fact that they are a good enough person to get to heaven...They refuse to believe it...

[ET(end tyranny)]

Why would God not clearly tell us of a place like purgatory if it really existed, especially since it contradicts so much of the Bible?

For the same reason that there are no verses in the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly state that a Messiah must be sacrificed as a blood sacrifice for the atonement of all mankind, and there aren't any verses in the Hebrew Scriptures that state that the crucified Messiah must be resurrected from the dead?

[ET(end tyranny)]

All Christians produce good works, even a one day old baby produces good works.

I would go a step further and say that you don't even have to be a Christian to produce good works.

[Just mythoughts]

For the same reason that there are no verses in the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly state that a Messiah must be sacrificed as a blood sacrifice for the atonement of all mankind, and there aren't any verses in the Hebrew Scriptures that state that the crucified Messiah must be resurrected from the dead?

What is the first prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures talking about then? Genesis 3:15 Note I said 'first' prophecy.

[Jmouse007]

Nether the Sermon on the Mount, not the Parable of the good Samaritan teach salvation by works, "good" or otherwise because neither "good works" or keeping the law can save us because no one except for the Lord Jesus Christ has ever kept it:

"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become (B)guilty of all." (James 2:10)

"Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;

because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:19-20);

"nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified." (Gal. 2:16)

We are saved upon the basis of faith in Christ alone, totally apart from works:

"and through Him (the Lord Jesus Christ) everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." Acts 13:39

"Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." "(Gal. 3:11)

The righteousness of God Himself is only attained through faith, it is emparted, credited to the one who has faith in Christ and that righteousness alone is sufficient to deliver us from our sin:

"What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; "(Romans 9:30)

"even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for here is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:22-23)

"Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

He (God the Father) made Him (God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2Cor. 5:20-21)

Salvation, justification and God's righteousness ONLY come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone, totally apart from works and unless you believe in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation, totally apart from ANY perceived merit or supposed "good works" of your own, you and everyone who rejects Jesus Christ will die in your sins:

""Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." "(John 8:24)

"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

"They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." "(Acts 16:31)

[ET(end tyranny)]

His sacrifice would end the need for any future blood sacrifices - he was the propitiation (satisfactory payment) for our sins. The veil of the temple between the Holy of Holies (the mercy seat of YHWH) and the rest of the temple was torn and we can come to God directly. Approach the throne of grace.

If indeed Jesus came as the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world, why do The Holy Scriptures proclaim that the Third Temple will be built and sacrifices resumed during the Messianic era?

Paul kept law until his death. He came back to Jerusalem keeping a Leviticus 23 feast (pentecost) and was arrested performing a nazarite vow.

Acts 21, some 30 or so years following the death of Jesus and his supposedly atoning sacrifice, we find that James, the head of Jesus' church, commanding Paul with the sanction of the whole of the Jerusalem Church, to keep the Nazarite Vow; a vow that required that Paul bring both sin and blood atonements for his sin? Was James mistaken in commanding Paul to bring atonement sacrifices or had the Holy Spirit failed to reveal to these followers of Jesus what his death actually meant? What did James, Paul, and the whole of the Jerusalem church know that we don't today that had them continue to observe the Sacrificial System and continue to bring blood sacrifices long after the death of Jesus?

Acts 21
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Numbers 6

 13 And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation:
14 And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings,

I actually see myself as a “by faith” child if Abraham. That's why we refer to Judeo-Christian faith. It is a continuum from Adam and Eve.

Actually, it isn't. Judaism and Christianity share some background, but, that's about it. Christianity isn't what Yehoshua taught or preached.

[ET(end tyranny)]

I think you are inferring things that are NOT in the text.

The enmity between snake and man, from mankind’s perspective, stems from the fact that in general, snakes are pests, and sometimes dangerous pests. From a snake’s perspective, it is an animal without the ability to reason and, thus, it acts on natural instincts – it must eat to survive, and its main job is to look for sustenance while protecting itself from predators.

The respective references to seed/offspring, point to mankind relative to Eve, and the family of snakes relative to the serpent.

This may be an early account of deception and disobedience, but it isn’t Messianic. Nothing in this verse refers explicitly to the Messiah. This verse describes the general notion that people will have a dislike for snakes and hit them in the head, while snakes will bite people in their feet.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[boatbums]

Christianity isn't what Yehoshua taught or preached.

Not getting personal here, but, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD CHRISTIAN MEANS???? Christ's Ones, belonging to Christ. Christian: the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints," "believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name "Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. Jesus Christ didn't teach Christianity - he is what Christianity is all about.

Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

[boatbums]

You said:

EVERY reference you gave can be interpreted to mean that an Atheist who follows all of the Commandments will not make it into Heaven.

Can someone ever be GOOD enough to make it to heaven on his own merits? NO

Can an atheist be saved? H-LL NO!

Are works important in a Christian's life? Absolutely, YES

Are works needed along with faith for someone to go to heaven? NO

Are we commanded to do good works then? YES

What for if they can't help us be saved? Christ said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." Good works, a lifestyle of obedience to God, a life that brings honor to God, actions that show we have become a new creation in Christ, actions that don't bring derision to the faith. All these things are because we are born again not in order to become born again.

[ET(end tyranny)]

But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name "Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. Jesus Christ didn't teach Christianity - he is what Christianity is all about.

You've just made my point. Thank you. Jesus taught the Hebrew Scriptures, customs and rituals. He instructed others in how to properly keep 'the way'. This later became known as JUDAISM. Some of Jesus' followers taught about Jesus instead and Christianity was formed and it had very little to do with Judaism.

John warns us.

1 John 2
18   Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19   They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

The antichrist and other antichrists were already around when John wrote his epistle.

John makes perfectly clear that MANY antichrists had gone out FROM THEM (early believers) teaching false doctrine regarding Jesus.  These "antichrists," or usurpers of the true Messiah, were promoting doctrines that presented a Christ that was in place of or instead of the TRUE Messiah.  They were teaching a "replacement" Messiah.  

John was a Hebrew; therefore, it is probable that the "us" John refers to in 1 John 2:19 is likely his brethren that followed Jesus.

1 John 4
6   We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

The "spirit of antichrist" is equated to a "spirit of error".  CLEARLY, antichrist represents an error - false teaching - that was (and IS) being spread.

Antichrist = erroneous doctrine.   Antichrist primarily represents a set of false teachings, not simply some future possible world religious/political figure, or something inserted under the skin.  Those accepting the error promoted by the "spirit of error" or "spirit of antichrist" are unintentional victims of the spirit of antichrist.
So, the "antichrist" was (and is) a doctrine or set of doctrines that oppose the truth concerning The Messiah. This set of doctrines was already being spread in the latter part of the first century as false teachers betrayed the truth and went out promoting teachings that were (and are) in opposition to the TRUE Messiah.

[Nosterrex]

Christianity has never been about good works. It is about a personal relationship with Christ Jesus. When it comes to good works, I make a distinction between civil righteousness and the righteousness before God. Even Atheists and Pagans are capable of doing good works (coram mundi), and they should be encouraged to do so. The righteousness before God (coram Deo) requires faith in Christ. “Without faith all works are sinful.” The only work that saves, is the work of Christ. Our righteousness is as filthy rags.

[ET(end tyranny)]

As an addendum I would like to add that just as there is a 'mark of the beast' there is a 'mark of YHWH' which I posted about earlier in the thread.

The 'mark of YHWH being His Torah/teachings/instructions/Commandments/Laws. See, YHWH IS OUR SAVIOR/REDEEMER/MESSIAH

So, what might the opposite, 'mark of the beast' be? hmmmm Could it be 'teaching that the Torah/teachings/instructions/Commandments/Laws' are not important anymore? I'd say, it's very possible.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Christianity has never been about good works. It is about a personal relationship with Christ Jesus. When it comes to good works, I make a distinction between civil righteousness and the righteousness before God. Even Atheists and Pagans are capable of doing good works (coram mundi), and they should be encouraged to do so. The righteousness before God (coram Deo) requires faith in Christ. “Without faith all works are sinful.” The only work that saves, is the work of Christ. Our righteousness is as filthy rags.

ChristianitySalvation has never been about good works. It is about a personal relationship with Christ Jesus YHWH. When it comes to good works, I make a distinction between civil righteousness and the righteousness before God. Even Atheists and Pagans are capable of doing good works (coram mundi), and they should be encouraged to do so. The righteousness before God (coram Deo) requires faith in Christ YHWH. “Without faith all works are sinful.” The only work that saves, is the work of Christ YHWH.

That I can mostly agree with.

Mat 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Jesus placed 'moral/civil' law above 'ceremonial' law.  This is why some 'thought' that he 'broke' the law.  You have to remember that Jesus taught in a period of transition, during the development of different schools of interpretation in Judaism. It is inevitable that there would be variant interpretations of the Law as recorded in the Gospels. With the Pharisees, Jesus accepts the Law of the Sabbath; he differs only in the interpretations of that law as found in the Oral Law. The Oral Law detailed the many conditions that allowed for the breaking of the Sabbath.

For example, the Rabbis of the Hillel School of Pharisaism declared that is was permissible to violate the Sabbath to preserve life, that in doing so you violate a Sabbath to ensure the observance of future Sabbaths. This was accepted interpretation by the Hillel Pharisees of which Jesus belonged, but not to the Shammai Pharisees or the Sadducees who were ultra-strict, always adhering to the 'letter of the Law' over the 'spirit of the Law' (Oral Law). It has been said that in elevating the spirit of the Law over the letter of the Law one can understand the minimizing of the ceremonial laws. But it is not that simple according to Jesus. As gentiles, we are not aware that the Oral Law brought a proper understanding to the Written Law if matters were in doubt.

These (least commandments) you ought to have done, without neglecting the others (grave-weightier commandments). In drawing such a contrast, Jesus does not annul the Written Law (613 laws), nor even the ceremonial laws; he only brings priority to the obedience of all the Laws.   Jesus did not stand against the Written Law or Oral Law, nor even Pharisaism, but only against the elevation of the 'letter of the Law' above the 'spirit of the Law'.

Rev 2:19
I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last [to be] more than the first.

Notice that works is mentioned twice.  The 'moral laws' and 'ceremonial laws'.

[boatbums]

You said:

there are no verses in the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly state that a Messiah must be sacrificed as a blood sacrifice for the atonement of all mankind, and there aren't any verses in the Hebrew Scriptures that state that the crucified Messiah must be resurrected from the dead?

Just what do you think all the, oh, 300 or so, prophesies about the Messiah are all about then?

Here are a few you can examine:

Genesis 3:15; Genesis 4:1; Gen. 22:8, 18; Gen. 28:14; Gen. 49:8, 10; Exodus 12:13; Ex. 12:46 (x-ref with Numbers 9:12 and Psalms 34:20 to John 19:31-36); Psalms 22; Psalms 69; Jeremiah 22:1; Jer. 23:5,6; Isaiah 11:10; Isa. 7:14; Isa. 9:1-2,6; Isa. 53; Isa. 42:1; Isa. 49:6; Isa. 50:6; Micah 5:2, Zechariah 9:9; Zech. 11:12; Zech. 12:10; Zech. 13:6; Daniel 9:25-27

I can get you some more if you're really interested.

[Nosterrex]

Why are you replacing Christ with the tetragrammaton? You do know that the NT is written in Greek?

[ET(end tyranny)]

I've already refuted Genesis 3:15

I will now obliterate Psalm 22

Psalm 22 (KJV)
16   For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.



From the Tanakh (The Jewish Bible)
(17) For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
(18) I may count all my bones; they look and gloat over me.
(19) They part my garments among them, and for my vesture do they cast lots.
(20) But Thou, O YHWH, be not far off; O Thou my strength, hasten to help me.
(21) Deliver my soul from the sword; mine only one from the power of the dog.
(22) Save me from the lion's mouth; yea, from the horns of the wild-oxen do Thou answer me.

From the KJV
Psalm 22
16   For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17   I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18   They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
19   But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
20   Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
21   Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
22   I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

From the Hebrew
kiy sebhâbhuniykelâbhiym `adhath merê`iym hiqqiyphuniy kâ'ariy yâdhay veraghlây

from the Hebrew
738 'ariy ar-ee' or (prolonged) earyeh {ar-yay'};  (in the sense of violence); a lion:--(young) lion, + pierce (from the margin).
1) lion
a) pictures or images of lions


King James Word Usage - Total: 80 lion 79, untranslated variant 1

Can you guess what verse is the VARIANT?

Why, it's this one.... For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Either this person in question was pierced by a lion, or the word pierce doesn't belong in the verse at all.  And what does (from the margin) mean?  It means that someone wrote pierced in the margin of some manuscript, so that when it was transscribed later, the word pierced could be inserted.  And it was.  Since verse 21 of the KJV correctly translates the word into lion, it would seem that the word pierce/d does not belong in verse 16 of the KJV at all.

Also, in case you wonder why the verses are off by 1, its because the first verse from the Tanach is used like an intro in the KJV.  The first verse from the Tanach is:

1 For the Leader; upon Aijeleth ha-Shahar. A Psalm of David.

The exact same word was used in Proverbs 26:13, yet in this verse it was correctly translated as LION.

Proverbs 26:13
The sluggard saith: 'There is a lion in the way; yea, a lion is in the streets.'

[bdeaner]

Of course it is...All the writers of the scriptures were equally inspired....

If they are equally inspired, then St. Paul's letters and James are harmonious and coherent doctrines, not contradictory statements. There cannot be more than one Truth. If the Bible appears to contradict itself, that's a good indication one is reading it wrong.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Why are you replacing Christ with the tetragrammaton? You do know that the NT is written in Greek?

The proper translation would have been Yehoshua (Joshua) and not Iesous. The point is that there is a big difference between a translation and a transliteration, and 'Jesus' originates from a transliteration, NOT a translation. So, 'Jesus' is a defective pronunciation of the original Greek word, Iesous, which was a transliteration - NOT a translation of the actual Hebrew name. The most profound fact, however, is that Christian leaders know this yet continue to intentionally misrepresent truth. They knowingly promote a false name.

Acts 7 (KJV)
45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;

Hebrews 4 (KJV)
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

Acts 7 (NASB)
45 "And having received it in their turn, our fathers (1) brought it in with Joshua upon dispossessing the nations whom God drove out before our fathers, until the time of David.

Hebrews 4 (NASB)
8 For (1) if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.

In BOTH of these verses the person being referred to is Joshua - the servant of Moses that lead Israel into the promised land. The reason the KJV says 'Jesus' is because it comes from the exact same Greek word, Iesous, and the King James Version translators apparently did not catch the error.

These verses help to further understand the difference between translation and transliteration. 'Joshua' is NOT a transliteration, but it does come from the Greek word Iesous, which IS a transliteration. 'Joshua' is a correct translation from the original Hebrew and is the actual "english translation". The translators CORRECTLY rendered 'Joshua' because they knew it to be the TRUE translation of the original Hebrew name for the servant of Moses. In short, they ignored the Greek transliteration, Iesous, because they knew it to be faulty.

If the translators of Scripture elsewhere, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures and also in most modern versions of the New Testament, CORRECTLY render the SAME Greek word, Iesous, as 'Joshua' in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, why do they refuse to correct the false rendering of 'Jesus'? IT IS THE SAME GREEK WORD! The English equivalent is 'Joshua' (Yeshua, Yahshua, Yehosua), NOT 'Jesus'.

Why is Jesus' name correctly translated ONLY in the cases where it doesn't apply to him? Why does Christianity willfully refuse to correctly render Jesus' Hebrew name even when they correctly render the exact same Greek word in cases where he is not the one being referenced?

This shows that even translators know 'Jesus' is NOT correct.

There was no J common in the English language until around the 16th century. Prior to that time, those words now shown with a J were pronounced as though the J was a Y. So 'Joshua', even in English, is proven conclusively to be (Yeshua, Yahshua, or Yehoshua) when the original Y sound is used. Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 'Jesus' to be anything close to the true name, because the 'J' sound did not exist when he was alive!

Also, because I use the JPS Divine Name Restored for the Hebrew Scriptures and I think it disgraceful that 'YHWH' was removed from the Scriptures while 'Baal' a pagan diety remains.

Also,

Baal 896 from the Greek

Baal = "lord"

1) the supreme male divinity of the Phoenician and Canaanitish nations, as Ashtoreth was their supreme female divinity

Keep in mind that in the early manuscripts there was NO capitalization. That came along later. I find lord/Lord/LORD to be too generic since in the earliest manuscripts there was only 'lord'. Next time you read the NT try replacing the 'lord/Lord/LORD' with Baal, and see how it makes you feel.

We are told to call upon His name, so why has it been removed???

Exodus 9
(16) But in very deed for this cause have I made thee to stand, to show thee My power, and that My name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Exodus 6
(2) And God spoke unto Moses, and said unto him: 'I am YHWH; (3) and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name YHWH I made Me not known to them.

Jeremiah 23
(26) How long shall this be? Is it in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies, and the prophets of the deceit of their own heart? (27) That think to cause My people to forget My name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers forgot My name for Baal.

Sometimes I'll write God, but, even that can be too generic at times. We are told to call upon YHWH. So, I try to comply as often as I can.