Posted on 11/05/2018 6:07:05 PM PST by Gamecock
Still you persist—dare I point out that the word is “write”, and not “right”? If you disparage Catholics, expect a slapped wrist.
Grow a pair.
As a non-Catholic who also wasn’t raised in a Protestant tradition, I always found the concept of Purgatory is be the least problematic of the Catholic beliefs.
No, the Bible doesn’t mention it. But so what, the Bible does not purport to be an exhaustive and comprehensive guide to all of natural and supernatural reality. Just because it is not specifically mentioned doesn’t mean it must not exist.
Conceptually though, it makes a lot of sense to me. For almost all of us, the process of sanctification is not complete the moment when die. So one would natural expect the process to continue post death until it is complete. Protestants hate to call this completion process “Purgatory” because it is tied up with all the history of the corruption of the Roman Catholic church (indulgences and all that). So the term “Purgatory” carries way too much baggage for them.
Lol
Scripture tells us:
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)
Spiritual healing of our souls comes from HIS suffering, not our own. We are made as righteous as Christ through faith.
There are plenty of Catholic Caucus threads about Purgatory you can escape to and not hear any opposing thoughts from non-Catholic Christians. Just because someone disagrees doesn’t make them “tickytackytrolls”. In fact, those who use that kind of language are the real trolls.
AMEN!
Nope, just telling the truth.
Nope, only your version of the “truth”.
The assurance of salvation is for those souls in Purgatory, not for those on earth. The souls in Purgatory have already passed their particular judgment and have had all their sins forgiven. They only await the final cleansing of their souls before being united with God in Heaven.
And yet Catholics continually neglect to include that verse when they address the faith vs faith plus works issue.
It's not that faith plus works save.
It's that faith that saves produces works, which is how you know you have saving faith.
Works are the evidence that saving faith exists. They don't *complete* it. They announce it.
It is interesting that you did not include the verses immediately following:
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. (James 2:24-26)I will stay with what the Bible actually. Peace.
You should really read more church history. Maccabees was indeed accepted and used in the liturgy of the early church. It was included in the Septuagint Old Testament which was the version used by the early church. Its inclusion in the Bible was definitively affirmed both by a series of North African councils and Pope Damasus I in the late 4th century.
Christ didn’t accept it ever.
The Jews didn’t accept it.
The biblical quotes of our Lord in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint, a 3rd century Greek translation of the Old Testament made by Jewish scholars in Alexandria. Maccabees and the other deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint were only rejected by Jewish authorities in the Late Antiquity after Christ. Of course, at the time they also rejected the entire New Testament.
Actually, the version of the Old Testament that was used by the early Christians was the Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonical books rejected by the Protestants.
Best fix this for you...
"The biblical quotes of our Lord in the New Testament are inspired by the Holy Spirit."
And that Holy Spirit inspired the evangelists to quote from the Septuagint Old Testament which includes the deuterocanonical books.
They wrote the New Testament epistles in Greek by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit so is it surprising that when quoting the Old Testament they also used Greek? Besides, you can't presume that they used the Septuagint because Jesus most likely taught in Aramaic and Hebrew and the NT writers wrote what He said using Greek - the common language of the region in the first century A.D.
One additional thing - something I've seen Catholics continue to miss - is that just because a writing was in the Septuagint did NOT mean it was Divinely-inspired. This Greek translation of the 39 books of the Jewish Old Testament created in Alexandria around 200 B.C. also included other writings that were not accepted as from God. They may have been included because they were historically "intertestamental" and, besides, there were more than just the 7 extra books Catholicism made part of their canon. There were 15 additional books. Why not accept them all if being in the Septuagint was important? Paul said that unto the Jews were given the "Oracles of God", why would they have rejected these books as from God and canonical seeing as they were written hundreds of years BEFORE Christianity existed?
Modern day rabbinical Judaism is actually a SISTER religion to Christianity. Both are derived from earlier temple Judaism. So we can't look at modern day Jewish faith and say we derived from them - we and they both derived from a common origin - second temple Judaism
Is it your contention that the Jewish people didn't have any idea what writings came from God and were authoritative prior to that time? If so, then that would contradict Jesus's own words when He referred often to them (i.e.; Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms, "it is written", etc.). We also have the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus who in his "Contra Apionem" refers to the tripartite division of the Old Testament, the recognition of the authoritative writings:
We have The New Testament as a Witness (circa 50-100 AD):
Another passage (Mt 23:35; compare Lu 11:51) seems to point to the final order and arrangement of the books in the Old Testament canon. It reads: "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar." Now, in order to grasp the bearing of this verse upon the matter in hand, it must be remembered that in the modern arrangement of the Old Testament books in Hebrew, Chronicles stands last; and that the murder of Zachariah is the last recorded instance in this arrangement, being found in 2Ch 24:20,21. But this murder took place under Joash king of Judah, in the 9th century BC. There is another which is chronologically later, namely, that of Uriah son of Shemaiah who was murdered in Jehoiakim's reign in the 7th century BC (Jer 26:23). Accordingly, the argument is this, unless Ch already stood last in Christ's Old Testament, why did He not say, "from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Uriah"? He would then have been speaking chronologically and would have included all the martyrs whose martyrdom is recorded in the Old Testament. But He rather says, "from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zachariah," as though He were including the whole range of Old Testament Scripture, just as we would say "from Genesis to Malachi." Hence, it is inferred, with some degree of justification also, that Chronicles stood in Christ's time, as it does today in the Hebrew Bible of the Massorets, the last book of an already closed canon. Of course, in answer to this, there is the possible objection that in those early days the Scriptures were still written by the Jews on separate rolls.
Another ground for thinking that the Old Testament canon was closed before the New Testament was written is the numerous citations made in the New Testament from the Old Testament. Every book is quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah. But these exceptions are not serious. The Twelve Minor Prophets were always treated by the Jews en bloc as one canonical work; hence, if one of the twelve were quoted all were recognized. And the fact that 2Ch 24:20,21 is quoted in Mt 23:35 and Lu 11:51 presupposes also the canonicity of Ezra-Nehemiah, as originally these books were one with Chronicles, though they may possibly have already been divided in Jesus' day. As for Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, it is easy to see why they are not quoted: they probably failed to furnish New Testament writers material for quotation. The New Testament writers simply had no occasion to make citations from them. What is much more noteworthy, they never quote from the Apocryphal books, though they show an acquaintance with them. Professor Gigot, one of the greatest of Roman Catholic authorities, frankly admits this. In his General Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, 43, he says: "They never quote them explicitly, it is true, but time and again they borrow expressions and ideas from them." As a matter of fact, New Testament writers felt free to quote from any source; for example, Paul on Mars' Hill cites to the learned Athenians an astronomical work of the Stoic Aratus of Cilicia, or perhaps from a Hymn to Jupiter by Cleanthes of Lycia, when he says, "For we are also his off-spring" (Ac 17:28). And Jude 1:14,15 almost undeniably quotes from Enoch (1:9; 60:8)-a work which is not recognized as canonical by any except the church of Abyssinia. But in any case, the mere quoting of a book does not canonize it; nor, on the other hand, does failure to quote a book exclude it. Quotation does not necessarily imply sanction; no more than reference to contemporary literature is incompatible with strict views of the canon. Everything depends upon the manner in which the quotation is made. In no case is an Apocryphal book cited by New Testament authors as "Scripture," or as the work of the Holy Spirit. And the force of this statement is not weakened by the fact that the authors of New Testament writings cited the Septuagint instead of the original Hebrew; for, "they are responsible only for the inherent truthfulness of each passage in the form which they actually adopt" (Green, Canon, 145). As a witness, therefore, the New Testament is of paramount importance. For, though it nowhere tells us the exact number of books contained in the Old Testament canon, it gives abundant evidence of the existence already in the 1st century AD of a definite and fixed canon. (https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0001836)
Again, my contention remains that there was no legitimate reason for the Jewish religious leaders to exclude the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books from their recognized writings from God. Unto them were given the "oracles of God", St. Paul said, they would not have discarded them as canonical if they truly were no matter when an "official" canon was compiled.
I said very clearly The Jewish canon closed AFTER
and you then say Is it your contention that the Jewish people didn't have any idea what writings came from God and were authoritative prior to that time
Just as Christian canon was closed in the 300s, but the majority of books were known as canon, you had the same with the Jewish canon -- the first five books were canon and so were the historical books, but then from the prophets onwards there was contention.
Why do you think that the Samaritans have a different canon?
He very clearly is referring to specific books, not defining canon.
Jesus also quotes from Sirach btw.
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.