Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Statistics released Nov. 24 by the FBI show hate crimes against religious groups increased by 9% from 2007 to 2008.
USA Today reported that in 2008, there 1,519 incidents against people based on their religion, the statistics show.
The figures reveal that while anti-Jewish attacks made up the highest percentage of the attacks (17%), there was an increase in hate crimes against Catholics — 75, up from 61 in 2007.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.
As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.
“Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.
“I’ve never seen our country so culturally divided and so polarized,” he said. “These issues are not going away.”
Why would you have a problem if someone stops sinning by confessing sins to a priest and never commits that same sin again because they believe that Christ works through priests?
” Taught by you and pastor Chucky’s view of scripture means nothing / History is not on your side”
Nor politeness on yours.
There is no scriptural support for Purgatory. That is why you quote church fathers.
Now let’s look at the progression...I’m having a polite discussion - two way exchange of views - with MarkBsnr. I’m supporting the idea that the Catholic Church did not corrupt scripture by inserting views in hundreds of years later. We also compare, without denigrating, Catholic and Baptist approaches to teaching scripture.
Into this discussion you drop in with, “It’s called leading the congregation into error by the sermon of pastor Chucky or Joey who has a worthless theology degree from Micky Mouse school of theology.”
I point out your past history of blatantly misreading 1 Cor 3 to force a reading of Purgatory...which suggests, if you missed my point, that you are leading folks into error by twisting scripture. I quote the scripture passage so any readers can see who is right.
You then respond, not with scripture, but with quotes from ‘church fathers’ and further attacks ridiculing (but not responding to) my quote of scripture.
I point out that I do not accept the church fathers if they conflict with the Apostles.
You once again ridicule my belief, but do not answer it.
If you are trying to convince folks that Catholic teaching is right, this probably isn’t the way to do it. And while I have no theology degree, let alone a mickey mouse one, nor do I have any official role in our congregation, I think I’m holding up fairly well against your learned attacks.
But of course, that is only because I’m too stupid to see the wisdom in your posts. < / sarcasm >
“If the Church had not decided on John as Scripture (with the Holy Spirit guiding it of course), then there would have been no great evidence for the divinity of Jesus...”
Big IF. The Gospel of John was accepted immediately. We know it was widely circulated within a few decades, since we have a fragment going back to perhaps 120 AD.
Also, if you read the Synoptics in light of the Old Testament, they ARE explicit. Jesus used - and the Jews understood him to be doing so - ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’ in relation to the prophecies of Daniel. The High Priest recognized blasphemy. And ‘worship’ used in context of calming a storm isn’t just respect for a great person - although I think you may be right about the ‘Wise Men’, and how they worshiped. That may well be a case of translators reading back into the text, and I’ll delete it from future evidence of the divinity of Christ.
When you combine the Synoptics with the Old Testament, and add the Epistles, and add John - I don’t see any reason why anyone would suggest we needed to wait until 325 AD to know Jesus is God.
No problem at all...and that was not my point, was it? You equate saying prayers for penance with the cross of Christ. If you forget or fail to confess any sins and do not "deal with it" here on earth, Purgatory is where you'll spend time suffering for those sins. In essence, you say that Jesus Christ's death on the cross as payment for all our sins is not enough. Somehow, human penance is equivalent to the suffering of Christ on the cross. I see a grave misunderstanding of the sacrifice of Jesus. You can't???
“””There is no scriptural support for Purgatory. That is why you quote church fathers.””
I can show you both -Church Fathers and Catholic Scriptural teaching through the ages
I would think you ought to be happy that heaven is a place of perfection.
Here is the scripture from scripturecatholic .com
. A State After Death of Suffering and Forgiveness
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.
Matt. 5:48 - Jesus says, “be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.
Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.
Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master.
Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God’s graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory.
1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead’s behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin.
Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and “under the earth” which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory.
2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Paul’s use of “that day” demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory.
Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory.
Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are “made” perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory.
1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the “prison.” These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision.
Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory.
Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word “unclean” comes from the Greek word “koinon” which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed.
Luke 23:43 – many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word “paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew “sheol,” meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord’s resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus’ statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life – perhaps by a bloody and repentant death – could be ready for admission in to heaven).
Gen. 50:10; Num. 20:29; Deut. 34:8 - here are some examples of ritual prayer and penitent mourning for the dead for specific periods of time. The Jewish understanding of these practices was that the prayers freed the souls from their painful state of purification, and expedited their journey to God.
Baruch 3:4 - Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory.
Zech. 9:11 - God, through the blood of His covenant, will set those free from the waterless pit, a spiritual abode of suffering which the Church calls purgatory.
2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.
Top
II. Purification After Death By Fire
Heb. 12:29 - God is a consuming fire (of love in heaven, of purgation in purgatory, or of suffering and damnation in hell).
1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).
1 Cor. 3:15 – “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” The phrase for “suffer loss” in the Greek is “zemiothesetai.” The root word is “zemioo” which also refers to punishment. The construction “zemiothesetai” is used in Ex. 21:22 and Prov. 19:19 which refers to punishment (from the Hebrew “anash” meaning “punish” or “penalty”). Hence, this verse proves that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, but the person is still saved. This cannot mean heaven (there is no punishment in heaven) and this cannot mean hell (the possibility of expiation no longer exists and the person is not saved).
1 Cor. 3:15 – further, Paul writes “he himself will be saved, “but only” (or “yet so”) as through fire.” “He will be saved” in the Greek is “sothesetai” (which means eternal salvation). The phrase “but only” (or “yet so”) in the Greek is “houtos” which means “in the same manner.” This means that man is both eternally rewarded and eternally saved in the same manner by fire.
1 Cor. 3:13 - when Paul writes about God revealing the quality of each man’s work by fire and purifying him, this purification relates to his sins (not just his good works). Protestants, in attempting to disprove the reality of purgatory, argue that Paul was only writing about rewarding good works, and not punishing sins (because punishing and purifying a man from sins would be admitting that there is a purgatory).
1 Cor. 3:17 - but this verse proves that the purgation after death deals with punishing sin. That is, destroying God’s temple is a bad work, which is a mortal sin, which leads to death. 1 Cor. 3:14,15,17 - purgatory thus reveals the state of righteousness (v.14), state of venial sin (v.15) and the state of mortal sin (v.17), all of which are judged after death.
1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter refers to this purgatorial fire to test the fruits of our faith.
Jude 1:23 - the people who are saved are being snatched out of the fire. People are already saved if they are in heaven, and there is no possibility of salvation if they are in hell. These people are being led to heaven from purgatory.
Rev. 3:18-19 - Jesus refers to this fire as what refines into gold those He loves if they repent of their sins. This is in the context of after death because Jesus, speaking from heaven, awards the white garment of salvation after the purgation of fire (both after death).
Dan 12:10 - Daniel refers to this refining by saying many shall purify themselves, make themselves white and be refined.
Wis. 3:5-6 - the dead are disciplined and tested by fire to receive their heavenly reward. This is the fire of purgatory.
Sirach 2:5 - for gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.
Zech. 13:8-9 - God says 2/3 shall perish, and 1/3 shall be left alive, put into the fire, and refined like silver and tested like gold. The ones that perish go to hell, and there is no need for refinement in heaven, so those being refined are in purgatory.
Mal. 3:2-3 - also refers to God’s purification of the righteous at their death.
I don't usually get involved in these religious debates, but I can't let this one go without comment. There are several references to the deity of Christ outside of John's writings.
A couple to examples:
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col 2:8-9 (KJV)
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, Phil 2:5-7 (NIV)
“”Purgatory is where you’ll spend time suffering for those sins. In essence, you say that Jesus Christ’s death on the cross as payment for all our sins is not enough.
“”
Is heaven perfection to you and do unrepentant sinners belong in heaven without being cleansed through contrite confession?
Do you have a problem with this?:
The first time you cut & pasted that ridiculous list in reply, I spent the better part of a day typing out a response. I refuse to repeat my work. If anyone wants, they can look at the scripture you cite, and then go here:
http://deeperstudy.com/link/commentaries.html
and read what Barnes or Gill have to say about those passages. They will find how utterly wrong it is to suggest these are about Purgatory, just as it is wrong to cite 1 Cor 3. After all, IAW the Vatican website, here is the Catholic commentary from the Vatican on 1 Cor 3:
“The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ8.HTM#$4AC
Perhaps the easiest summary of why you are wrong is this:
You write, “We are only made perfect through purification, and in Catholic teaching, this purification, if not completed on earth, is continued in a transitional state we call purgatory.”
Scripture says, “14 For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P11P.HTM
“has made [past tense] perfect forever”
We have been made perfect by the offering of Christ on the Cross. In fact, “But God...made us [past tense] alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved [past tense]— 6and raised [past tense] us up with him and seated [past tense] us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus...”
Not that we do not still sin in this life, but Jesus has rescued us and given us new birth - a new creation. “18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
“The first time you cut & pasted that ridiculous list in reply, I spent the better part of a day typing out a response. I refuse to repeat my work””
The truth bothers your heart. Now you have to use modernists to try and win the minds of your FR crowd because you realize you can;t win against Christ Chuch-The Holy Catholic Chuch!
Good Night ,dear Brother!
Don’t feel bad ,dear brother I was once a protestant in error much like you once
“”against Christ Chuch-The Holy Catholic Chuch!””
Missing the R’s
Should read.. Christ Church-The Holy Catholic Church!
“The truth bothers your heart. Now you have to use modernists to try and win the minds of your FR crowd because you realize you can;t win against Christ Chuch-The Holy Catholic Chuch!”
I hope what you are drinking doesn’t give you a bad hangover!
“you can;t win against Christ Chuch”
I;m not fighting Christ Chuch...just discussing the scriptures. Nor do I have an “FR crowd”, nor do I use ‘modernists’ - if anyone conflicts with the Apostles (as your church fathers often do) - ignore them! Trust the God-breathed scripture. “14 For by one offering he has made perfect forever those who are being consecrated.” - Hebrews 10
Why would I have a problem with Heaven being pure and holy just as God says he cannot even look upon sin? Scripture says:
Revelation 21:27
Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
But it also says:
Philippians 3:9
and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
and:
Titus 3:5-7
he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.
Thank you for your comments they are quite correct and very much welcome! :o)
Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
“”I hope what you are drinking doesn’t give you a bad hangover””
This statement proves you’re not living in truth.
I just lost a dear friend who passed away who lived a Catholic life of extreme humility that resembles nothing like protestantism
Perhaps you should show a little humility yourself and you might be regardeded as sincere,dear brother
I don't think you know what you are talking about, but it oens't stop you from talking about it. Vulgate is written in Latin, the correction was made (at an undisclosed time after the 5th century) in Greek. The Church didn't change it. There was no mistake. The dash is in different ink from the rest of the 5th century text. It was added leading at a latter date, leading all subsequent copies to say "God" isteand of "he."
The difference is crucial. Without the "God" in it one can argue that Jesus was adopted. That he was not born divine but made divine. It throws out the doctrine of Incarnation, or Jesus being the same "person" as the eternal Word. By changing it, it eliminates this interpretation. Just as addition of Comma Johanneum was intended to provide scriptural proof of Trinity which is not in the scriptures except in the latter-day Great Commission of Matthew's.
And we know it is a latter-day addition because the book of Acts tells us that everyone was baptized only in "his name" and not in the name of the Trinity.
Obviously, these changes were meant to affect doctrine and by all accounts (because they were not questioned) were part of the doctrinal development which affect the spirit of the changes.
The sentence you mention described my beliefs. I did not say that stating my belief was proof of them. I was describing my beliefs, and doing so accurately. Not everything is a conspiracy meant to mislead kosta50.
But we can't argue with your beliefs as if they were facts, which is what you are doing. If they are your beliefs then just state so and be done. If you said your opinion was that Jesus is God and then proceeded to give reasons why you think he is, that would be one thing, but you come out and say "Jesus is God," or "Bible is true." That's making an assertion of fact, not of opinion.
Concerning more than one way of looking at the Eucharist...consider:
Except that the writer cleverly avoids to mention those who taught the Eucharist as the
Your Portestant source also micharacterizes Justin Martyr (cherry-picking again, such a bad Protestant habit!) who actually writes:
Or Irenaeus who writes
"For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection." "Gnosis" c. 180 A.D.
As for the word itself Eucharist means Thanksgiving, not Sacrifice. The idea of the Eucharist being a "payment" for our sins is a western bastardization brought on through the legalistic Anselmian theology of (11th c.) atonement which the Catholics share with Protestant.
Yes happily, but I have to see them on Internet. They have been discovered quote some time ago and all I hear are references to them but I have yet to see them.
The Synoptics need to be understood in light of the OT, being written from a Jewish viewpoint. John was written later, and for a Gentile audience, and is more explicit for those who haven’t studied the Old Testament
I agree, but most people will tell you that John was explicitly written for Jewish audiences, whihc of course is nonsense.
As for your implication on "they fell down and worshiped him" there is nothing in the word proskyneo in Greek to suggest they were worshiping God. It means profund respect, which can apply to God as well as men or high rank.
Mat 2:2 makes it clear they didn't come to worship God but the new "King of the Jews." So, no divine worship would be appropriate. The correct term for divine worship would be lautreo (to serve). Proskyneo is reverence. And in all these instances the word proskyneo is used, as is in Mat 28:17 relating to a risen Jesus! Not even then is he worshiped as God!
The term lautreo (as expected) is used in Mat 4:10 when Jesus says "You shall revere (proskyneo) the Lord your God, and serve (lautreo) only him." The distinction is immediately clear to a Greek reader, but not to an English reader because the English Bibles (and most others) are a fraud.
In English, both words are translated as "worship" and messenger is translated as two different words, depending on what implied meaning was intended. That is a man-made Bible, my friend and you've been had believing otherwise.
Your attempt to link Mat 8:29 with divinity is likewise flawed. The term "son of God" refers to any anointed (meshiyah) person. In terms of the Jewish messiah, the warrior-king would have extraordinary powers granted him by God to prove that he is the chosen warrior-king, God's favorite, but not necessarily divine.
After all the apostles were supposedly healing people and raising people from the dead and and no one though they were divine because ofd these powers were granted them. Peter's shaddow was all that was needed to "heal" people! Yet no one said Peter was divine.
You yourself recognize that the Synoptics were written from the OT point of view, and in the OT there is no divine messiah anywhere. The Jewish messiah was never supposed to be divine. So, the Synoptics could not possibly hint at Jesus' divinity.
The term Son of God being taken as a a divine person is a result of Christian theology, and it would logically mean a divine person to Greeks (in whose language and for whom the Synoptics were written), but it is not what it meant to 1st century Jews, Christian or not.
As for Mat 13:41, Matthew took the "send the angels' from Mark 13:27 and made into "send his angles," but the word itself (aggelos, pron. angellos) doesn't necessarily mean God's angels; it simply means envoys or messengers,, just as Christ doesn't mean Jesus, but the anointed one. However both words are used in their original in Christian translations in order to imply divinity. This is an artificial distinction.
When you say only God sends angels, I am on the floor laughing. Read Luke 7:24 it reads in Greek:
The word in red (aggelon) is the same word otherwise translated as "angels" except, because these are John's "angels" it is translated as "messengers." Totally artificial distinction intended to fix a meaning the word never had in the original. Such is the extent of biblical fraud.
No first century Greek would read the word aggelos and immediately "filter out" the meaning; to him it would all mean one and the same thing—a messenger, some of God and others not. He would never say "angels are only sent by God" because nothing in Daniel's vision suggests the returning Son of Man (another fraud, the word is ben adam, son of Adam, a human being, no divinity implied) would be sending God's messengers.
Elsewhere in the Bible where it is meant to mean God's messengers the Bible plainly says messenger(s) of God which we redundantly translate as 'angel(s) of God.'
You write, “Perhaps you should show a little humility yourself and you might be regardeded [sic] as sincere,dear brother”
Earlier, you wrote (with humility and sincerity), “It’s called leading the congregation into error by the sermon of pastor Chucky or Joey who has a worthless theology degree from Micky Mouse school of theology.”
I’ll leave it to others to decide for themselves if there is a contradiction.
Busy morning - I’ll reply later today or tomorrow.
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.