Purgatory: Purifying Fire or Fatal Fable?

Proclaiming the Glory of Jesus Christ in Mexico ^ | 10/29/2011 | Mike Gendron

[cva66snipe]

LOL I usually ignore spelling errors if I can at least understand. There is one posting on these threads tho that has gotten so bad I just ignore.

I'm likely the worst for that. I rely on spell check which catches some errors. But the way my ability to read and transcribe or think and transcribe can quickly lead too incomplete sentences. The problem is I can't detect them a lot of times. Not intentional or lazy but it's just a neurological issue I was born with.

[starlifter]

Au contraire...I do believe God, but try to avoid self-serving righteous interpretations from cultists.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

***
You make one good confession then can do whatever you like and still get a free pass. Now THAT’s a cult.
****
Ya, that’s a Jesus cult...You are responding to scripture I posted...Don’t want to believe God, don’t...Believe your religion instead...
****

Where do you even get this stuff? Make a good confession and do what you like? Do you really believe that you or anybody else can fool God?

Are you suggesting that God is stupid? Do you think God doesn’t know if you are not sincere? That you are not repentant?

Would that be considered blasphemy on your part?

[WPaCon]

It is far more likely that Jesus had the gift of tongues and spoke Latin than to suggest that the Roman magistrate and a centurion were conversant in Aramaic or Hebrew.

As I'm sure you very well know, it is also very possible that Jesus spoke to Pilate in Greek.

[paladinan]

Ummm and just who DISTRIBUTES these merits??? HUH.???? Hey kiss a relic..say a pray ..send some money to Rome..

(???) Er... my dear lady, it would really help matters if you could keep something of a better grip on your temper. I understand that some of these things seem outrageous (and even dangerous) to you... but some of your beliefs seem equally outrageous and dangerous to me; despite this, I do think it'd be better to keep cool heads and talk through the issues, rather than turning in a rage and spitting temper-induced venom, mockery, and insults. I've done nothing of the sort to you; could you return the favour, even as a courtesy?

The authors of the catechism are mislead and spiritually blind..

Again: this sort of heated rhetoric really helps nothing, and it makes any sort of communication rather more difficult; how would you react, for example, if I called you "misled and spiritually blind"? It's an insult without basis, and nothing more.

Let me put it this way: if your position is true, then it'll be just as true in lower-case characters as it would be in ALL-CAPS (which signify "shouting", in internet parlance), and it'll be just as true when spoken calmly and politely as it would be if cloaked in vituperative rhetoric. Rather than engage in a pointless screaming match, may we discuss this calmly, as befits thoughtful people?

[paladinan]

Carl wrote, in reply to my request for a Scriptural citation of "sola Scriptura":

An example is found in 2 Timothy 3, 4. [...] You see paladinan, Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15). He teaches that the Scriptures are useful for teaching, reproof (rebuking), correcting, and training in righteousness (3:16).

Would it surprise you to hear that the Catholic Church is completely in unison with you, on that belief? The Holy Scriptures are indeed God-breathed, vital, and utterly necessary, and to throw out even one scrap of it would be an intolerable error.

Because the Scriptures have this character, they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (3:17).

They certainly do (though you added the word "thoroughly", as your own gloss). But do you not see that this does not, in any sense, mandate the exclusive use of Scripture (i.e. "Scripture ALONE")? No one (least of all, the Catholic Church) is saying that the Scriptures are not NECESSARY; but that is not at all the same as saying that they are SUFFICIENT. Sacred Tradition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.) is also necessary, since it also is the Word of God; and infallible interpretation is also needed (cf. Acts 8:31), without which the meaning of Scripture can be hard to understand and easy to distort, even unto destruction (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-17), at very least.

So Paul tells Timothy that he must preach this Word, even though the time is coming when people will not want to hear it, but rather will want teachers to suit their fancy, or the middle ages church’s pocketbook which is what this doctrine was meant to enhance. Not any religious significance, just a device to make fat monks fatter.

Come, now! Even you know that your last two thoughts (re: monks and pocket-books) are mere playground taunts, with no substance other than insult value! If a Catholic were (God forbid) to denounce you as a mere pawn in a game of manipulative televangelists and preachers who bilk their congregations for at least 10% of their income (I assume you do contribute financially to your faith community? Do you do it to "make preachers fat"?), they would be just as illogical and unjustified. As for the warning that people will go astray after false teachings: do you not see that any Catholic could hurl the same back at you? It doesn't help much to point triumphantly at such a verse, say "This must refer to Catholics!" (I don't see that claim in Scripture, bythe way), and walk away in self-satisfaction; the claim must be proven, or else it is mere prejudice and screed.

But back to the point: where, exactly, does St. Paul (or any other Scripture writer) say that "the Bible ALONE is to be used in matters of salvific Faith, and you are forbidden to use anythign else, on pain of endangering your salvation"? I know, full well, that the Bible is vital, useful and necessary; but I do not see any Scriptural mandate to use "the Bible alone". Can you show it to me, chapter and verse, in the "plain sense of Scripture" (i.e. without the convolutions and interpretations of the "wisdom and traditions of men")? Because I have looked, quite extensively (as have many others, far more gifted than I), and I have found no trace. If it is not there, then all claims based on "sola Scriptura" must necessarily be rejected (since "sola Scriptura" would reject itself as unbiblical).

[Natural Law]

"Because the Scriptures have this character, they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (3:17)."

Not to draw too fine a point, but Timothy 3:16-17 does not say that the Scripture thoroughly equips. It says that Scripture contributes (is profitable) to us becoming equipped (furnished). The Greek word for Profitable (ophelimos) does not mean sufficient or exclusive, it means contributory and beneficial. It in no way even suggests exclusivity or the ironically unscriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

[paladinan]

RnMomof7 wrote, in reference to my comment:

another poster says the cross "opened the gates of heaven'.. so that man may choose to walk through them.

Correct, so far.

seeming to say He atoned for original sin..

Certainly, He did that... but not JUST that. He atoned for, and paid the eternal cost/punishment for, every last *actual* (i.e. committed by the individual in question) sin in all of human existence (past, present, and future). See CCC [Catechism of the Catholic Church], paragraph 1992.

and the rest is up to us.

Half a moment, here! You're blurring a great deal into the vague words, "the rest is up to us"; some of that is true (the salvation which Christ won for us will be of no use to us, whatsoever, if we reject it through sin and rebellion; so the "rest"--i.e. appropriating that salvation and preserving it, by the grace of God, to the end of our earthly lives--is certainly dependent on us), and some of that is false (i.e. the nonsensical suggestion that "we can somehow save ourselves, apart from Christ and His Grace and His merits"--that's a heresy known as Pelagianism, and the Catholic Church condemned that, utterly, over a thousand years before Martin Luther was even born).

[paladinan]

Sorry for the delay in getting my prior comments out, but: any thoughts? I hope I didn’t say something to offend...

[Carl from Marietta]

No, not at all. I’ve just been a little busy trying to make some money. I’ll take some time and reply, it may have to be a personal reply. But heck no, no offense at all, not in the least.

[paladinan]

:) What a concept...! No worries about speed; reply when you have leisure.

[guitarplayer1953]

7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 00253 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

IT DOES NOT SAY HE SAW ANYONE.

JOHN SAW THE THRONE IN THE FUTURE AFTER THE RESURECTION.

[guitarplayer1953]

7:59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 00253 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

IT DOES NOT SAY HE SAW ANYONE.

JOHN SAW THE THRONE IN THE FUTURE AFTER THE RESURECTION.

7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 00249 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. PMY MISTAKE HE SAW THE GLORY OF GOD. NO GOD HIMSELF ISIHIA SAW THE TRAIN OF GOD AND WAS FILLED WITH WOO.

[guitarplayer1953]

No one has seen god in His full glory. Isaiah saw only His train in the cleft of the cliff and was undone. Seeing the simulated of an angel is not seeing God many in the old testament when seeing an angel counted it as seeing God.

John 00018 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

[cva66snipe]

IT DOES NOT SAY HE SAW ANYONE.

Yes indeed it does and very plainly. Stephen states what he saw and witnesses gave account of his words. How would Stephen know who was at the right hand of Jesus he was seeing?

Acts ch 7 54The Jewish leaders were infuriated by Stephen’s accusation, and they shook their fists in rage.£ 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed steadily upward into heaven and saw the glory of God, and he saw Jesus standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 56And he told them, “Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing in the place of honor at God’s right hand!”

JOHN SAW THE THRONE IN THE FUTURE AFTER THE RESURECTION.

He would be seeing in The Revelation Chapter 4 a point in time where the Bride of Christ {Believers} are in heaven called forth from earth but before The Tribulations begin. The 24 Elders are in robes of white and seated. None the less John saw what he saw and lived his life. One point needed to be made here is this. How were they able too see what Moses and even Elijah could not? What had not yet been given too man? The Holy Spirit which dwells in us. Both accounts both Stephen and John they saw what they saw through The Holy Spirit. Why could the Apostle Paul going to Damascus not see Christ but only hear Him? Same reason. Paul had not yet accepted Christ and thus did not receive the Holy Spirit yet. What did Simon Peter realize and who told him? Was it Christ who even allowed him to know? Or the Father?

Matt ch 16 13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14“Well,” they replied, “some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets.” 15Then he asked them, “Who do you say I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John,£ because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 18Now I say to you that you are Peter,£ and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell£ will not conquer it. 19And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you lock on earth will be locked in heaven, and whatever you open on earth will be opened in heaven.” 20Then he sternly warned them not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Jesus tells him you did not learn this from any human being but my Father in heaven revealed it too you. The next verse too follow describes the church. It is a church of Divine Revelation of GOD to man through The Holy Spirit dwelling in each who believe. Man does not have too tell us the truth GOD through the Holy Spirit reveals too us. The Church is The Holy Spirit within us through our belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior that makes all who believe The Church. It's minister is The Holy Spirit. The gates of hell can not prevail against the power of The Holy Spirit nor The Trinity. When do we receive it? Or better yet when did Peter and the rest receive the keys?

John Ch 20 22Then he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven. If you refuse to forgive them, they are unforgiven.”

The Holy Spirit dwelling in us prays for us even in utterance can not hear nor understand. The Holy Spirit continually ministers too us. The Holy Spirit is the keys. That is the church. Very few churches these days meaning denominational go into just how important a roll The Holy Spirit is in our lives and how it teaches our individual spirits forming the church the truth too GODs will and not man.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***God many in the old testament when seeing an angel counted it as seeing God.***

Like when Abraham saw the three angels and barganed with them?

Read Genesis ch 18 about how many times Abraham talked to them and ....”The LORD SAID...”

v 13 And the LORD said...
v 17 And the Lord said...
v 20 And the LORD said...
V 22 And the men turned their faces from hence, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
V 26 And the LORD said...

Abraham addresses the third angel as The LORD several times.

v 33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left off communicating with Abraham.

Three showed up at Abraham’s camp, Two showed up at Sodom. Who was the third?

And it was MOSES who was placed in the cleft of the rock.

[cva66snipe]

I started replying to the prior post and didn’t see the second one yet. The reply took a lot of time for me too put together so I missed the second one. Sorry about that.

[guitarplayer1953]

That's fine I to sometime miss alot going from one poster to the next and have actually gotten in trouble posting to the wrong person and having to give an apology to them.

[guitarplayer1953]

All souls will be judged that is why we are admonished to die to self to save our souls in the next life. The souls you see in heaven are post white throne. The physical saints who come to earth are with Jesus upon the raising of the saints. Jesus does not make a uturn and return to heaven with the saints. when Christ comes it is for the battle and for His army.

[guitarplayer1953]

I would have to say they are in the 3rd heaven not the 7th heaven. In Revelation John see Jesus and then is taken to a higher part of heaven for the rest of the vision. And as said John has said by the Holy Spirit that there is no one in heaven.Are you calling John and the Holy Spirit liars?