Brushing off a legitimate argument indicates that you can't rebutt it.
I did not claim they were pluses, that is your own incorrect assumption of my motivations. You claimed I am anti-Semitic, however, I am not in any way. Point and case. Second, I am far from being in line with the Roman Catholic church at all and disagree with many of their doctrines. The fact that you only see in dichotomies is an example of your incredible ignorance. If you were informed upon the Septuagint you would realize that my argument actually disagrees with the Roman Catholic canon.Also, note I did not use Maccabees as support of Purgatory, a doctrine I do not believe in as the Roman Catholics would teach it. Therefore, there is no need to distract from the point that you are wrong.
The canon was not set. Canonical scripture in Jesus's time was not settled, hence the council of Jamnia. You'd need to provide proof of this fallacious statement. The canon was constantly in debate and the only books settled upon were the five books of law and the prophets. The argument of them not quoting it fails miserably and only proves my point about the above. Few of the writings outside the Psalms were quoted and yet nearly all quotes are directly from the Septuagint, something you fail to able to deal with. You are ignorant of the history.
Them not quoting does not matter when Jesus clearly refers to it. Deny the evidence all you want, but at least you are aware of your own delusions about the validity of the Protestant canon.
Indeed the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. They preserved them for us very well and the Word of God endures forever in the canon of the Septuagint. The Word of God was no longer preserved by the Jews when they rejected Jesus, followed by their rejection of the Septuagint canon. The Jewish canon that you follow was set somewhere in the late first century AD, not before Christ as you fallaciously allege.
I never said Zechariah was unimportant, you assume too much. I agree that Zechariah contains many important Messianic prophecies and is personally one of the books I read most often.
Your last paragraph is not a rebuttal at all. If it was incorrect you could correct it, but you cannot because you are wrong.
I did not claim they were pluses, that is your own incorrect assumption of my motivations. You claimed I am anti-Semitic, however, I am not in any way. Point and case. Second, I am far from being in line with the Roman Catholic church at all and disagree with many of their doctrines. The fact that you only see in dichotomies is an example of your incredible ignorance. If you were informed upon the Septuagint you would realize that my argument actually disagrees with the Roman Catholic canon.Also, note I did not use Maccabees as support of Purgatory, a doctrine I do not believe in as the Roman Catholics would teach it. Therefore, there is no need to distract from the point that you are wrong.
The canon was not set. Canonical scripture in Jesus's time was not settled, hence the council of Jamnia. You'd need to provide proof of this fallacious statement. The canon was constantly in debate and the only books settled upon were the five books of law and the prophets. The argument of them not quoting it fails miserably and only proves my point about the above. Few of the writings outside the Psalms were quoted and yet nearly all quotes are directly from the Septuagint, something you fail to able to deal with. You are ignorant of the history.
Them not quoting does not matter when Jesus clearly refers to it. Deny the evidence all you want, but at least you are aware of your own delusions about the validity of the Protestant canon.
Indeed the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. They preserved them for us very well and the Word of God endures forever in the canon of the Septuagint. The Word of God was no longer preserved by the Jews when they rejected Jesus, followed by their rejection of the Septuagint canon. The Jewish canon that you follow was set somewhere in the late first century AD, not before Christ as you fallaciously allege.
I never said Zechariah was unimportant, you assume too much. I agree that Zechariah contains many important Messianic prophecies and is personally one of the books I read most often.
Your last paragraph is not a rebuttal at all. If it was incorrect you could correct it, but you cannot because you are wrong.
I did not claim they were pluses, that is your own incorrect assumption of my motivations. You claimed I am anti-Semitic, however, I am not in any way. Point and case. Second, I am far from being in line with the Roman Catholic church at all and disagree with many of their doctrines. The fact that you only see in dichotomies is an example of your incredible ignorance. If you were informed upon the Septuagint you would realize that my argument actually disagrees with the Roman Catholic canon.Also, note I did not use Maccabees as support of Purgatory, a doctrine I do not believe in as the Roman Catholics would teach it. Therefore, there is no need to distract from the point that you are wrong.
The canon was not set. Canonical scripture in Jesus's time was not settled, hence the council of Jamnia. You'd need to provide proof of this fallacious statement. The canon was constantly in debate and the only books settled upon were the five books of law and the prophets. The argument of them not quoting it fails miserably and only proves my point about the above. Few of the writings outside the Psalms were quoted and yet nearly all quotes are directly from the Septuagint, something you fail to able to deal with. You are ignorant of the history.
Them not quoting does not matter when Jesus clearly refers to it. Deny the evidence all you want, but at least you are aware of your own delusions about the validity of the Protestant canon.
Indeed the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. They preserved them for us very well and the Word of God endures forever in the canon of the Septuagint. The Word of God was no longer preserved by the Jews when they rejected Jesus, followed by their rejection of the Septuagint canon. The Jewish canon that you follow was set somewhere in the late first century AD, not before Christ as you fallaciously allege.
I never said Zechariah was unimportant, you assume too much. I agree that Zechariah contains many important Messianic prophecies and is personally one of the books I read most often.
Your last paragraph is not a rebuttal at all. If it was incorrect you could correct it, but you cannot because you are wrong.
I did not claim they were pluses, that is your own incorrect assumption of my motivations. You claimed I am anti-Semitic, however, I am not in any way. Point and case. Second, I am far from being in line with the Roman Catholic church at all and disagree with many of their doctrines. The fact that you only see in dichotomies is an example of your incredible ignorance. If you were informed upon the Septuagint you would realize that my argument actually disagrees with the Roman Catholic canon.Also, note I did not use Maccabees as support of Purgatory, a doctrine I do not believe in as the Roman Catholics would teach it. Therefore, there is no need to distract from the point that you are wrong.
The canon was not set. Canonical scripture in Jesus's time was not settled, hence the council of Jamnia. You'd need to provide proof of this fallacious statement. The canon was constantly in debate and the only books settled upon were the five books of law and the prophets. The argument of them not quoting it fails miserably and only proves my point about the above. Few of the writings outside the Psalms were quoted and yet nearly all quotes are directly from the Septuagint, something you fail to able to deal with. You are ignorant of the history.
Them not quoting does not matter when Jesus clearly refers to it. Deny the evidence all you want, but at least you are aware of your own delusions about the validity of the Protestant canon.
Indeed the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. They preserved them for us very well and the Word of God endures forever in the canon of the Septuagint. The Word of God was no longer preserved by the Jews when they rejected Jesus, followed by their rejection of the Septuagint canon. The Jewish canon that you follow was set somewhere in the late first century AD, not before Christ as you fallaciously allege.
I never said Zechariah was unimportant, you assume too much. I agree that Zechariah contains many important Messianic prophecies and is personally one of the books I read most often.
Your last paragraph is not a rebuttal at all. If it was incorrect you could correct it, but you cannot because you are wrong.
I'm not religious, but i doesn't make sense to send all sinners to hell, regardless of how bad their sins are. Purgatory makes sense, you're punished according to the severity of your sins, and are then let free. I'm not saying christianity is based on reason, but i don't think anyone would follow a religion that condemned them to hell for all eternity for one mistake.
Originally posted by cococryspies
I'm not religious, but i doesn't make sense to send all sinners to hell, regardless of how bad their sins are. Purgatory makes sense, you're punished according to the severity of your sins, and are then let free. I'm not saying christianity is based on reason, but i don't think anyone would follow a religion that condemned them to hell for all eternity for one mistake.
Just because it "makes sense" doesn't mean it exists. Indeed, from the manner in which you phrase your thoughts, it comes across that you believe "Purgatory" to be a man-made concept - highlighting its non-existence.
Per my comment above, it's my understanding that Judaism has a somewhat....varied approach towards the question of just what happens to one's "soul" when they die. The prevalent teaching would appear to be that all souls - irregardless of merit in life or evil - go to "Sheol," a place equated with the "Void" mentioned in Genesis, although it was confused mythologically with the Greek "Hades" - leading to the modern Judeo-Christian interpretation of "Hell." Besides this, there may have been a "Gehenna" (a pit outside of Jerusalem, I believe) where some souls would be deposited for a time before venturing to Sheol.
Believe me I know all about about greek/latin mythology (I've taken four years of latin) and i know that christianity and judaism are based off of beliefs of other religions.
And, no, I do not believe in purgatory, or any other aspect of christianity. It was created by the church. I was just saying that it made sense for them to create it.
There's also something in Catholicism that says that what catholics believe on earth, is held true in heaven, so basically whatever the pope says goes. Meaning, a devout catholic could believe that purgatory was created by the church.
Originally posted by cococryspies
Believe me I know all about about greek/latin mythology (I've taken four years of latin) and i know that christianity and judaism are based off of beliefs of other religions.And, no, I do not believe in purgatory, or any other aspect of christianity. It was created by the church. I was just saying that it made sense for them to create it.
There's also something in Catholicism that says that what catholics believe on earth, is held true in heaven, so basically whatever the pope says goes. Meaning, a devout catholic could believe that purgatory was created by the church.
Sorry, didn't mean to make it seem I was attacking you. That was more for anybody who actually believes in it....
The Papacy is a much larger issue I'd rather not get into....but I think they've stretched the "infallibility" of said institution too far when they can seemingly add or remove parts of dogma at their leisure.
Originally posted by Melcórë
Just because it "makes sense" doesn't mean it exists. Indeed, from the manner in which you phrase your thoughts, it comes across that you believe "Purgatory" to be a man-made concept - highlighting its non-existence.Per my comment above, it's my understanding that Judaism has a somewhat....varied approach towards the question of just what happens to one's "soul" when they die. The prevalent teaching would appear to be that all souls - irregardless of merit in life or evil - go to "Sheol," a place equated with the "Void" mentioned in Genesis, although it was confused mythologically with the Greek "Hades" - leading to the modern Judeo-Christian interpretation of "Hell." Besides this, there may have been a "Gehenna" (a pit outside of Jerusalem, I believe) where some souls would be deposited for a time before venturing to Sheol.
look melcore we know your one of the crab people, who look like crab but talk like people but c'mon, we know your really a crap 💃
now, my understanding of the jewish version of death is that souls that have been god go heaven or a place like and the bad ones just....end. which if true still makes the atheist(my atheism) view of death true. so either way, im set
Originally posted by Melcórë
Sorry, didn't mean to make it seem I was attacking you. That was more for anybody who actually believes in it....The Papacy is a much larger issue I'd rather not get into....but I think they've stretched the "infallibility" of said institution too far when they can seemingly add or remove parts of dogma at their leisure.
Taken it too far? How can it be taken too far? Christ appointed Peter his successors and it was his successors through him which became the anointed leadership of the Church- only through a continuing apostolic succession could the promise that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against" the church be realised.
Also, they havn't added the idea of purgatory it is mentioned in the Book of Revelation...not that that really matters as the Books of the Bible are products of the Church and Christian tradition. The authority of Holy Scripture is not superior to Holy Tradition if anything it is lesser.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory is “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” To summarize, in Catholic theology, Purgatory is a place that a Christian’s soul goes to after death to be cleansed of the sins that had not been fully satisfied during life. Is this doctrine of Purgatory in agreement with the Bible? Absolutely not!
Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins (Romans 5:8). Isaiah 53:5 declares, “but He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed.” Jesus suffered for our sins so that we could be delivered from suffering. To say that we must also suffer for our sins is to say that Jesus’ suffering was insufficient. To say that we must atone for our sins by cleansing in Purgatory is to deny the sufficiency of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus (1 John 2:2). The idea that we have to suffer for our sins after death is contrary to everything the Bible says about salvation.
The primary Scriptural passage Catholics point to for evidence of Purgatory is 1 Corinthians 3:15, which says, “If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.” The passage (1 Corinthians 3:12-15) is using an illustration of things going through fire as a description of believers’ works being judged. If our works are of good quality “gold, sliver, costly stones,” they will pass through the fire unharmed, and we will be rewarded for them. If our works are of poor quality “wood, hay, and straw,” they will be consumed by the fire, and there will be no reward. The passage does not say that believers pass through the fire, but rather that a believer’s works pass through the fire. 1 Corinthians 3:15 refers to the believer “escaping through the flames,” not “being cleansed by the flames.”
Purgatory, like many other Catholic dogmas, is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of Christ’s sacrifice. Catholics view the Mass / Eucharist as a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice because they fail to understand that Jesus’ once for all sacrifice was absolutely and perfectly sufficient (Hebrews 7:27). Catholics view meritorious works as contributing to salvation due to a failure to recognize that Jesus’ sacrificial payment has no need of additional “contribution” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Similarly, Purgatory is understood by Catholics as a place of cleansing in preparation for Heaven because they do not recognize that because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we are already cleansed, declared righteous, forgiven, redeemed, reconciled, and sanctified.
The very idea of Purgatory, and the doctrines that are often attached to it (prayer for the dead, indulgences, meritorious works on behalf of the dead, etc.) all fail to recognize that Jesus’ death was sufficient to pay the penalty for ALL of our sins. Jesus, who was God incarnate (John 1:1,14), paid an infinite price for our sin. Jesus died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 2:2). To limit Jesus’ sacrifice to atoning for original sin, or sins committed before salvation, is an attack on the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. If we must in any sense pay for, atone for, or suffer because of our sins – that indicates Jesus’ death was not a perfect, complete, and sufficient sacrifice.
For believers, after death is to be "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:6-8; Philippians 1:23). Notice that this does not say "away from the body, in Purgatory with the cleansing fire." No, because of the perfection, completion, and sufficiency of Jesus' sacrifice, we are immediately in the Lord's presence after death, fully cleansed, free from sin, glorified, perfected, and ultimately sanctified.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Purgatory is for people who didn't ask for forgiveness..."and he sent his only begotten son so that all [b]who believed in him... would have everlasting life." [/B]
Not exactly, because anyone who asks for forgiveness get's into heaven, no matter what you've done. So if Hitler went to confession before he died, then he's up in heaven now.
If you commit a mortal sin but don't confess, then you go to hell. If you commit minor sins but don't confess then you go to purgatory.
That's why I said that it was an attempt to bring reason to a dogma that doesn't make sense. Mass murderers could be in heaven if they confessed, but someone who ate meat on friday in 1930 but didn't confess is burning for eternity.