Posted on 04/14/2005 12:00:51 PM PDT by Dean Baker
Baptist church 'fake pope' sign attracting attention, criticism By JEANNINE F. HUNTER, hunter@knews.com April 13, 2005
NEWPORT, Tenn. - Two days after being posted, a church marquee message that questions the purpose of the papacy is still attracting attention in this small community.
"What I am trying to do is to let people know there's only one way to heaven through Jesus Christ," said the Rev. Cline Franklin, pastor of Hilltop Baptist Church. "There's no need for help. God sent his son, Jesus Christ. We're all priests if we're saved. I don't need to go to anybody else to pray."
The sign's side facing Broadway, the main thoroughfare in Newport, reads, "No truth, No hope Following a hell-bound pope!" On the other side, facing the church parking lot, it reads: "False hope in a fake pope."
The message appeared days after Pope John Paul II's funeral last week.
"It is unfortunate when it comes from within the Christian church. It's really sad," said the Rev. Dan Whitman, 54, pastor of Newport's Good Shepherd Catholic parish and Holy Trinity parish in Jefferson City. "You learn how to deal with it and pray not to be that way yourself."
It does not reflect mainstream Baptist thought, said Dr. Merrill "Mel" Hawkins, associate professor of religion and director of the Center for Baptist Studies at Carson-Newman College in Jefferson City.
"When you see signs like that, they are almost like relics or artifacts of a bygone era," Hawkins said.
He spoke about animus between Protestants and Catholics persisting after the Protestant Reformation and for centuries, during which "harsh things were said, couched within misperceptions, misunderstandings."
Among the major misperceptions is that Catholics "venerate the pope on the same level as Jesus," Hawkins said, and that "the pope is connected to their salvation in place of Jesus Christ."
Catholics make up about 12 percent of the population in the South.
"Catholics are a minority faith in the South, and there's often bias toward minority religious communities because people don't understand," he said.
James Gaddis, a lay speaker who also chairs the board at First United Methodist Church, said he had not seen the sign but had heard about it.
"I understand that it's very degrading," he said. "I think it's tragic that any church group would stoop to this posture."
Following Tuesday night's council meeting, Newport Mayor Roland Dykes Jr. said he was a little saddened by the message.
"It doesn't behoove any of us to determine who is going to heaven or hell. I think the pope is a highly, highly respected person," he said.
Franklin's church is a five-year-old independent Baptist church. When asked what the message meant, he said: "What does 'pope' mean? It means father. We have a heavenly father, and the Bible says we shall call no man a father. "
He said people have been driving by or taking pictures or calling to share their views. He said the intent was not to offend Catholics and people are misunderstanding the sign.
Copyright 2005, Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.
First of all, they are not *my* Fathers; they are the Church Fathers. The teaching and practice of the Church Fathers is important, because it tells us what was passed down from the Apostles. The Fathers explicitly say that infant baptism was handed down from the Apostles. Are you calling them liars? Second, your claim that if infant baptism was so important it would have been made explicit in the NT is a non sequitur. I assume you know of the doctrine of the Trinity. Do you think that is important? The word Trinity is not in the Bible, nor is the doctrine spelled out explicitly in the NT. Nor is any explicit teaching on the nature of the hypostatic union, or on the filiation of the Son and the spiration of the Spirit. As history progresses, the Church continues to bring out the implications of that which has always been taught implicitly. That is how theology can still be done today. Just because something is not taught in the Bible explicitly does not mean that it is false, or that it should not be believed or practiced by all Christians. On the contrary, a practice that has been universally practiced since the first century, and for which the Fathers explicitly claim has Apostolic origins, clearly deserves to be recognized as standard, orthodox Christian practice, even if we cannot find it explicitly spelled out in the NT.
-A8
Missouri syndicate = Missouri Synod?
Why do you think the term born again is used in the Bible? Do you not see the correlation that as a babe is sinless in God's eyes, so too is a "born again" Christian with Christ's blood covering his/her sin.
I called them YOUR "Fathers" because my Father is God Almighty. Not some sinner like the Pope,all his cardinals, bishops, priests, fathers, you and me.
As to what is not taught in the Bible, but is implied by these Fathers of yours, I trust in Mark 7:7-9. I will not substitute man's ideas for God's commandments. His word is complete and needs no creeds from men to clarify.
You posted: "We know that Mary was sinless because the angel Gabriel declared her so ("full of grace")."
How do you know that this was so throughout the rest of her life, or was true at this instant in Mary's life? In the O.T. we see many examples of men the had the Spirit of God and then did not have the Spirit of God. As a matter of fact, I believe that it would be consistent with Catholic belief to say that an individual is ultimately close to God at one point in time, and then sins, so that only through Confession can they once again be close to God.
"So what you are telling me is.....man had the power and capability to kill God for 3 days. Wonder who was running things while He was dead. "
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
Christ's Resurrection is necessarily a glorious one; it implies not merely the reunion of body and soul, but also the glorification of the body.
Christ's body was to know no corruption, but rose again soon after death, when sufficient time had elapsed to leave no doubt as to the reality of His death.
Christ was the first to rise unto life immortal; those raised before Him died again (Col., i, I8; I Cor., xv, 20).
As the Divine power which raised Christ from the grave was His own power, He rose from the dead by His own power (John, ii, 19; x, l7-18).
Since the Resurrection had been promised as the main proof of Christ's Divine mission, it has a greater dogmatic importance than any other fact. "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (I Cor., xv, 14).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm
"Oh and not only that...you have to factor in, you get judged TWICE. You are sent to heaven or hell when you die, and then at the end of the book when all the dead are resurrected, you get judged AGAIN, when all the books are opened. Wonder if God will have goofed up and sent someone to the wrong place. How much more can we twist scripture to fit mankinds vain imaginations."
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
All shall rise from the dead in their own, in their entire, and in immortal bodies; but the good shall rise to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the resurrection of Judgment.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm
The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08550a.htm
The Roman Catechism thus explains why, besides the particular judgment of each individual, a general one should also be passed on the assembled world: "The first reason is founded on the circumstances that most augment the rewards or aggravate the punishments of the dead. Those who depart this life sometimes leave behind them children who imitate the conduct of their parents, descendants, followers; and others who adhere to and advocate the example, the language, the conduct of those on whom they depend, and whose example they follow; and as the good or bad influence or example, affecting as it does the conduct of many, is to terminate only with this world; justice demands that, in order to form a proper estimate of the good or bad actions of all, a general judgment should take place. . . . Finally, it was important to prove, that in prosperity and adversity, which are sometimes the promiscuous lot of the good and of the bad, everything is ordered by an all-wise, all-just, and all-ruling Providence: it was therefore necessary not only that rewards and punishments should await us in the next life but that they should be awarded by a public and general judgment."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm
OOPS, that wasn't bery good!! Make that I do not believe they go to hell.
There much better! So SOrry!
Galatians 1:6-9 warns to believe no other Gospel.
Because it accurately communicates spiritual regeneration.
Do you not see the correlation that as a babe is sinless in God's eyes, so too is a "born again" Christian with Christ's blood covering his/her sin.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with the doctrine of original sin. St. Paul teaches that through Adam, all were made sinners, and tainted with the guilt of sin. (Rom 5:12) That is why some infants die. The Bible teaches that death is a result of sin. But if infants have no original sin, then there would be no infant mortality. But there is infant mortality. Infants are sinners by [second] nature, and *that* is why they commit actual sins as they reach the age of accountability. Pelagianism is the heresy that denied original sin.
I called them YOUR "Fathers" because my Father is God Almighty.
God is my Father too. But Paul calls Abraham "father" (Rom 4). Paul calls Isaac "our father" (Rom 9:10). Paul calls himself "father" of the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:15) The fact that God is our Father does not preclude humans from being our Fathers in different (and lesser) senses.
Not some sinner like the Pope,all his cardinals, bishops, priests, fathers, you and me.
Do you think anyone denies that the Pope etc. are sinners? Peter and the Apostles were sinners, but yet they had authority over the Church. Being an authority in the Church is compatible with being a sinner.
As to what is not taught in the Bible, but is implied by these Fathers of yours, I trust in Mark 7:7-9.
Unfortunately, you have misinterpreted the verse. It is talking about the Pharisees. If Peter and the Apostles make a rule, we [Christians] must comply if we wish to remain in the Church, since Peter and the Apostles have the authority to make such rules, to bind and to loose.
I will not substitute man's ideas for God's commandments.
Is that what you would have told Peter to his face?
His word is complete and needs no creeds from men to clarify.
The Apostles compiled the "Apostle's Creed". Apparently, they thought that this creed *was* necessary. Do you know more than the twelve Apostles?
-A8
I don't see how that follows from what I said. But it is no doctrine of Catholicism that Church leaders are infallible. Rather, the doctrine holds that the Church is infallible in "her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals", according to the promise of Christ.
-A8
http://catholicoutlook.com/rock2.php
Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter Is the Rock
Quotations from Protestant scholars who agree that Matthew 16:18 refers to Peter personally
by Gary Hoge
One day, when Jesus was in the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matt. 16:13). The disciples gave a variety of answers before Peter finally said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16). What happened next is the subject of some controversy:
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:17-19).
To whom or to what was Jesus referring when He said, “On this rock I will build my Church”? What rock was He talking about? Catholics, noting that the name “Peter” (Greek: Petros) is really just the masculine form of the Greek word for “rock” (petra), say He was referring to Simon son of Jonah. If they’re right, if the Church was to be built in some sense on Peter himself, as head of the apostles, then this supports the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. Naturally, Protestants aren’t comfortable with that at all, and so historically, they have claimed that the “rock” to which Jesus referred was Peter’s faith, or perhaps, Christ Himself.
But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.
The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).
William Hendriksen
Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)
Gerhard Maier
Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)
Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)
John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc. (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)
John A. Broadus
Baptist author
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)
J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)
Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)
David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. (“The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)
Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community. (The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)
Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy. (“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)
From the Catholic Encyclopedia
******
I've read it......90% edible and 10% poison. Just enough truth to make the whole lie believeable.
We were warned about adding to and taking away from scripture.
worldly church doctrine
Trinity....word not found
Rapture....word not found
Purgatory...word not found
Mary, Mother of God....phrase not found
crucifix....word not found
eucharist...word not found
Vain imaginations of MEN.
Pharisees were just as impressive, and just as knowledgeable, but they managed to miss the whole concept that Jesus was the Messiah. After all...the people needed THEM to interpret what God wanted or said, Pharisees hung yokes around the necks of Gods people with their traditions, their complicated rules and legalism. "The traditions of men make the word of God of NO EFFECT."
It was the ignorant, the rejected, the unlearned who saw Christ for who He was. It is no different today.
Only a pure and unblemished sacrifice could atone for the sins of the world. Hence Christ could not have inherited original sin.
*****
So why didn't they crucify Mary? According to RCC beliefs, she had no original sin.
If you want to use reason in regard to Mary, here's my proof that Mary was with sin. First Scripture, then the Nicene Creed, and then reason.
Scripture
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Self explanatory.
Nicene Creed
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary,
First conceived by the Holy Ghost. Then born of the Virgin Mary.
Reason
First a few thoughts...
And now for the question...
If a sinful world could not corrupt Jesus, what differences does a sinful womb make?
And by the way, Development of Christian Doctrine was a waste of time. Secret teaching and an ever expanding understanding of God's Word. So either the early church hid theology from the masses (and continues to do so), or the early church had an incomplete understanding of the meaning of Scripture and tradition? No thanks.
The mikvah has been a part of Judaism since ancient times. No one was shocked at John when he told them to repent and be immersed.
*****
Agree....John was water baptising before he met Jesus. For what possible reason did Jesus feel he needed to be baptised. Could it be..because of the original sin passed thru Mary, that he had to defeat and did defeat for us.
Rapture - "rapture" is derived from the text of the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thess. 4:17—"we will be caught up," [Latin: rapiemur]).
In Matthew 1, we read of the announcement to Joseph, husband of Mary, of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.
Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.
But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.
In Luke 1, we read of the foretelling of the birth of Jesus. An angel appeared before Mary.
And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee.
And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Also in Luke 1, we read of the meeting of Mary with her cousin, Elizabeth
And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
Because no word shall be impossible with God.
And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda.
And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth.
And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.
And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Crucifix - (Latin: cruci fixus, fastened to a cross)
Definition: Eucharist
The word comes from the Greek "eukaristos," which means "grateful" and is now usually translated as "thanksgiving." It now refers to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, in which bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ. Eucharist has become essentially synonymous with "Communion" or "Holy Communion." It is used to refer to the sacrament as a whole or to the elements (bread and wine) themselves. The word "Eucharist" has been used to refer to the act of the "breaking of the bread" at least since the late first century. It came about because the words of institution are contained in a longer recitation, the "Eucharistic prayer" or prayer of thanksgiving. The earliest written account of the institution of the Eucharist is contained in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, written in the spring of the year 55 AD. The Didache, a church document from the end of the first century refers to the Eucharist by name, gives explicit instructions for the form of the prayers, and cautions, "Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the name of the Lord." The earliest complete Eucharistic prayer is in a document from 225 AD identified with Hippolytus. It is identical (almost word for word) to the Eucharistic prayer used today by nearly all catholic and orthodox churches.
Purgatory:
The classic text in the Old Testament bearing witness to the belief of the Jewish people in the existence of a state of purgation where souls are cleansed before
entering heaven is found in the Book of Maccabees.
In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ warns the Pharisees that anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this world or in the next (Mt. 12:32). Here Christ recognizes that there exists a state beyond this world in which the penalty due for sins, which were pardoned as to guilt in the world, is forgiven. St. Paul also affirms the reality of purgatory. In his first letter to the Corinthians, he says that "the fire will assay the quality of everyone's work," and "if his work bums he will lose his reward, but himself will be saved, yet so as through fire" (1 Cor 3:13, 15). These words clearly imply some penal suffering. Since he connects it so closely with the divine judgment, it can hardly be limited to suffering in this world, but seems to include the idea of purification through suffering after death, namely in purgatory.
Trinity - Yeah not in the bible but do you beleive in Gos the Father God the SOn and God the Holy Spirit? That sounds like the Trinity to me.
I would reply but I have been kicked off the thread, lol
If I hadnt been kicked off the thread I would also point out the significance of the waterjugs in John where the miracle at Cana took place. These too were "washing" jugs, almost as tall as a man, filed with water and a smidgeon of the red heifer
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.