1. All my posts were in reference to 2 Maccabees.
2./3. If it passes test #2, you’ll assert that the doctrine is false, because your own personal opinion of scripture will have been formed denying the deuterocanonical doctrines.
If it passes test #3, you’ll say it wasn’t necessary for doctrine.
But the truth is sublime: 2 Maccabees is necessary for properly understanding the doctrine present but admittedly somewhat vaguely stated in Hebrews, Revelation and 2 Peter.
For instance, Shysters preying on Protestants (like Joseph Smith) have come up with all sorts of nonsense to explain what “baptizing for the sake of the dead” refers to. But if you understand from Maccabees the notion that doing good deeds can help you atone for the sins of people in purgatory, then we can understand that “for the sake of the dead” means that the blessed act of baptism isn’t only helping those baptized, but the good deeds help those whose name they are done in be lifted out of purgatory.
Since you ascribe to doctrines opposed to Maccabees, you won’t accept that this is what “baptism for the sake of the dead” means.
Well thanks for cutting to the chase:) You told me all I need to know. In order to slip works based atonement, praying for the dead and purgatory doctrines you need the Apocryphal as a package. Just grabbing Maccabees would look all too suspect.
If your statement is the Blood of Christ is only good for some sins or depends on the situation, then I see why Rome needs the Apocrypha. Because the same book you keep citing Hebrews has the famous verse: it is appointed unto men to die once and then judgment.
Sir, we obviously disagree but I respect your honesty in stating the Roman doctrine has vague origins. Threadbare is more like it.
I guess we can dispense with the contradiction discussion. Because if we put the Apocrypha on equal footing then this “Bible” then truly would have contradictions. You would have 99.999999% Grace vs 0.0000000001% works atonement, pray for the dead and purgatory. Then again having such a “contradiction” would play into the hands of the tradition and church/pope infallibility argument. So the Pope and Vatican need that question mark on Scriptures.
All too clear now. Thank you for clearing it up.
Again I applaud your honesty.