LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

I don't read it that way. I read it as the struggles (sufferings) of Paul's ministry to spread the Word of Christ. What was "lacking in Christ's afflictions" was a large audience. The apostles, with the Holy Spirit, spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Tetelestai

IT IS FINISHED

PAID IN FULL

Not almost there
Not just one more thing
But FULL

---

I appreciate your response. Unfortunately, the "Tetelestai PAID IN FULL" "is a something of an urban legend in biblical exegesis" according to Catholic apologist Trent Horn.

Don't get me wrong. I like it and it sounds pretty cool, but it's not an accurate rendering of Tetelestia "it is finished."

According to scholars that noted that receipts (from near that NT time) that had "TETEL" stamped on them. It is an abbreviation. Five different Greek words exist that start with "tetel." One of them being "Tetelestia (it is finished)"

Another word tetelenotai, which literally means "tax" or "paid as taxes". It does not mean that a debt is fully paid.

In other ancient sources, tetelestai, refers to finishing art, sculptures, or a piece of cloth. It had nothing to do with paying of debts.

John 19:28 reads, "After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill (teteleothe) the Scripture), 'I thirst'".

Jesus is stating here that he is fulfilling the OT Messianic prophecies.

Dr. Scott Hahn, (former protestant pastor and scholar) Catholic theologian, has a very interesting hypothesis about this passage when he learn more from a Jewish friend about the Passover meal.

Essentially, every Passover meal has 4 cups of wine: the Cup of Sanctification (Kiddush), the Cup of Plagues, the Cup of Redemption, and the Cup of Praise.

IIRC the story correctly, a Jewish friend of Scott's noticed that the Bible never presents the 4th cup at the Last Supper. This Jewish fellow points out that the Third cup is the cup that Jesus blesses after the meal and institutes the New Covenant in His blood.

What happens next in Matthew 17:30

"When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives."

In the Jewish Passover, this hymm is the Great Hallel, which includes Psalms 115 through 118. After that the 4th cup is consumed.

But Jesus and the apostles NEVER drink the 4th cup. "They went out the Mount of Olives."

Fast forward to the last words of Jesus on the cross, He says, "I thirst." He drinks the wine vinegar and says, "IT IS FINISHED (tetelestai).

Dr. Hahn's proposal is that Jesus is now stating that the Passover is finished.

Finally, I'd encourage individuals to watch Dr. Scott Hahn's video on the Forth Cup. Full Disclaimer, it's 58+ mins long. This is really better watched during the Lenten season. It's an amazing spiritual reflection.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

By this logic, we cannot get to heaven without anyone listed in Mathew 1:1-16

I'm pretty sure you understood my question to be something else, totally.

Can you respond to my questions again without twisting the meaning?

---

I apologize if I made you feel like I was "twisting the meaning."

The questions is sort of a loaded question, so I responded in kind.

Having said that, to answer more directly, devotion to Mary is profoundly beneficial and encouraged in Catholic spirituality; however, it is not an absolute requirement for salvation.

Her faith, obedience, and intercession are incredible aids along our spiritual journey.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Purgatory presents the position that Hosea who bought Gomer back at a high price and without her working to earn back his trust could do what Christ could not do with the high price He paid for those who trust in Him.

---

Purgatorial doctrine was NOT the purpose of this passage.

The story of Hosea and Gomer shows us a symbol of covenant faithfulness, redemption and restoration, a sign of God's love, and a call to repentance.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Purgatory presents the position that the prodigal was received back by his father fully where Christ does not receive us back fully until cleaning up first.

---

Once again, the parable of the Prodigal son is NOT designed for Purgatorial Doctrine.

It's to show us that God will ALWAYS forgive us no matter what when we repent.

It details God's unconditional love and mercy, our need for repentance and conversion, the joy of reconciliation, the challenge of forgiveness, and the universal need for God's grace.


Please note the concept of Narrative Simplicity. Jesus wasn't trying to download the entire Gospel in this parable.

He never mentions anything about a Church that he establishes, the Holy Spirit, Jesus is our savor, or eternal life in the parable.

Mothra said:

---

I would submit that none of the verses you cite refer to an actual venue. In 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, Paul is heavily using metaphor, referring to both the wise builder, and the foolish builder, and the future day of judgment that will reveal the quality of each person's spiritual "work". Works built on this foundation with valuable, lasting materials (symbolizing godly motives and deeds) will earn a reward, while those built with temporary, worthless materials (wood, hay, straw) will be consumed by fire. Certainly, there is nothing in those verses to suggest Paul is referring to a venue where a person is purified over a lengthy period of time, as Chapter 3 makes no mention of purification. He is instead talking about the day of judgment.

---

We'll have to agree to disagree. Where does this purification take place? It can't be heaven or hell, for the reasons I previously mentioned.

The passages discussing "suffering loss". Once again, it CAN'T be heaven. There is NO suffering loss in heaven.

Mothra said:

---

In Isiah 6:6-7, Isiah has a vision. He is not dead, and has not passed on. Moreover, this verse again doesn't mention or reference any venue where a person is purified by fire over time.

---

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course, he's alive here. It was a vision, but he still needed to be cleanse of his sin verse 7 clearly states:

"See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for."

Mothra said:

---

As for Revelation, I agree with this statement. Christians saved by the blood of Christ are no longer unclean. They require no further cleansing process.

---

I apologize if I inferred martyrs in passage. Rev 21 is concerned with primarily presenting a new heaven and new earth.

To me, the simplest understanding of "nothing unclean shall enter heaven" means that we must be pure before we can stand before God.

Because we are ALL fallen creatures, we all have some cross to bear with respect to an attachment to sin. The Church simply states that we must be cleansed of those unhealthy desires.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No believer's soul will be judged for their salvation:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

The judgement of the believer will be to determine their rewards. To say that the believer will also be judged to determine the punishment for their sins would be denying the sufficiency of Jesus' sacrfice, which is to deny Jesus altogether, thus making one a non-believer and therefore ineligible for Jesus' promise above.

---

We have been over this passage at least two, if not three times before.

You are NOT reading John 5:24 with the correct understand/translation of the word "judged." The Greek is krino. It means "condemned".

I have shown SEVERAL times that MANY protestant bibles even translate this passage using the word judged.

Finally, numerous passages show that we will be judged after death:

2 Corinthians 5:10 - "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil"

Matthew 12:36-37 " … on the day of judgment, people will be held accountable for every careless word they have spoken, and their words will serve as the basis for their justification or condemnation"

Hebrews 9:27 - "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,"

Rev 20:12-13 - And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.

PLEASE make no mistake, when we die, we are ALL getting judged (hopefully not condemned.)

I may still owe a few of you a response. If you fell so, please repost or PM the time and date. I just returned from traveling for work.

I've had about 2.5 hours sleep since Wednesday at 11:30 AM. I've been working some unfortunate hours but blessed to be working.

PS. It's game day, so most likely won't be responding until Saturday at the least. I have to get up in a few hours.

Tailgating starts at 1PM.

Sic'em and Beat Auburn!

PS. If you are coming to the game and need a tailgate spot, please PM me. You are ALL welcome. I'm making smashburgers and sausage wraps. We have plenty of booze and beverages. We are located in "Bear Park" along the lagoon (Baylor basin). I fly the tallest Sailor Bear flag on the peninsula.

PPS - I can't complete with T-Rex's tailgate. His is a blast. We went to his at CU and plan on attending his in Arizona.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I would submit that none of the verses you cite refer to an actual venue. In 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, Paul is heavily using metaphor, referring to both the wise builder, and the foolish builder, and the future day of judgment that will reveal the quality of each person's spiritual "work". Works built on this foundation with valuable, lasting materials (symbolizing godly motives and deeds) will earn a reward, while those built with temporary, worthless materials (wood, hay, straw) will be consumed by fire. Certainly, there is nothing in those verses to suggest Paul is referring to a venue where a person is purified over a lengthy period of time, as Chapter 3 makes no mention of purification. He is instead talking about the day of judgment.

---

We'll have to agree to disagree. Where does this purification take place? It can't be heaven or hell, for the reasons I previously mentioned.

The passages discussing "suffering loss". Once again, it CAN'T be heaven. There is NO suffering loss in heaven.

Mothra said:

---

In Isiah 6:6-7, Isiah has a vision. He is not dead, and has not passed on. Moreover, this verse again doesn't mention or reference any venue where a person is purified by fire over time.

---

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course, he's alive here. It was a vision, but he still needed to be cleanse of his sin verse 7 clearly states:

"See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for."

Mothra said:

---

As for Revelation, I agree with this statement. Christians saved by the blood of Christ are no longer unclean. They require no further cleansing process.

---

I apologize if I inferred martyrs in passage. Rev 21 is concerned with primarily presenting a new heaven and new earth.

To me, the simplest understanding of "nothing unclean shall enter heaven" means that we must be pure before we can stand before God.

Because we are ALL fallen creatures, we all have some cross to bear with respect to an attachment to sin. The Church simply states that we must be cleansed of those unhealthy desires.

---

1) I think where we fundamentally disagree is that there is a purification process necessary prior to entering Heaven. So, you're operating under what I consider a mistaken assumption. I can find no scriptural support for the Catholic position on this. The idea that we need purgation or cleansing beyond what Christ has already done simply isn't in Scripture. Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" John 5:23. When we believe in Jesus Christ, and when we receive him by faith, we're already justified. We're presently in possession of eternal life.

2) Isaiah was OT - before Christ's sacrifice on the cross and the extension of grace and forgiveness to humanity. Animal sacrifices were still necessary at that point to make man clean. And interestingly, all that was necessary to make Isiah clean was a mere touching of his lips. He didn't require some extended purification process in a place called purgatory.

3) Again, I simply can't find any scriptural support for the position that a cleansing process - outside of belief and faith in Christ as Lord and Savior - is necessary to enter Heaven. That scripture simply doesn't exist.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Jews believed lots of things that Jesus said were false, because they were following tradition rather than the word of God. Jesus' criticism of the Sadducees regarding the resurrection is one such example. The Jews following the "Corban rule" was another.

---

ANNND, when they did, do and believed "lots of things that Jesus said were false", they were called out for it.

This happened all throughout the OT. When someone or group had a poor behavior, it was always brought to light that it was NOT correct and/or it was punished.

David's betrayal of Uriah and adultery with Bathsheba. It was brought to light and his sin was forgiven, but he was still punished.

Jephthah made a rash vow that should NOT have been made. It was brought to light and he was punished.

When we look at Maccabees, we see the wrong behavior of Judas' men (wear amulets of false gods), they were punishes as the only ones that died in battle. Contrast that to Judas' actions of taking up a collection to offer sacrifice is portrayed as a GOOD action.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The fact remains that praying for the dead is found nowhere in the Jewish canon, or in the New Testament.

---

As you know, there was no ONE Jewish canon during the time of Christ. It wasn't settled until after the destruction of the temple in AD70. But the fact remains that TODAY'S Jews still pray for the dead. That practice has been on going before Christ.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And it just doesn't follow that "praying for the dead" means there's a place of post-death punishment of venial sins. Again, pure eisegesis.

---

Why would prayers for the dead be necessary? What are they praying for? To get past the River Styx? No, Judas wanted forgiveness for his men in the afterlife.

---

1) There was no need for Jesus to "call out" praying for the dead, when the Jews didn't discuss that with him, like they did with the resurrection and the Corban rule. But what was clear, is that the Jews did and believed MANY OTHER wrong things, all based on their tradition, as Jesus himself noted:

"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Jesus wasn't limiting the Jews' errors to just their views on the resurrection and the Corban rule. To argue that since he didn't "call out" praying for the dead or any other of the many wrong things they did, that it meant Jesus felt it was in line with Scripture, is a fallacy.

2) Your view on the Jewish canon was already defeated in a previous thread. Remarkably, you're trying to pretend that it wasn't so people in this thread will get the wrong idea. I can point to people specifically to where we had that discussion, and they can see for themselves.

3) It's a fallacy to argue that since there's one non-scriptural source describing some Jews who believed in praying for the dead, that what it necessarily means is that they are praying for the dead so they could get out of a place of post-death punishment for their "venial sins". Like I said, pure eisegesis.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, but this is all just denial. I have presented the actual quotes from your popes, bishops, and doctors of your Church, even your catechisms, that elevate Mary to deity, and which have Mary usurp the role of Jesus. You'd have to either be completely dishonest or a complete fool to deny this. This is epic-level gaslighting on your part.

---

Yet, you twist passages without trying to understand the context or time in which they were written.

No Magisterial documents have ever been found stating the "Catholics want to make Mary God." No

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Jesus specifically tells us not to pray with vain repetitions, but that's what Roman Catholics do in their rosary prayers, which are to Mary and not God, no less. Jesus tells us that we should not call religious leaders "father", but Roman Catholics call all their priests "father" and even calls the pope "Holy Father". God tells us in his Ten Commandments not to make images and bow to them, but Roman Catholics do this to images of Mary and the saints. And so on, and so on. It is simply astounding how you can gaslight yourself on this.

---

Once again, pick anyone of these topics that you'd like to discuss in depth. I'm happy to.

Quite frankly, I don't believe that you WANT to discuss them. It appears to me (and maybe others) that you only desire to hurl them like (tired and false) insults (that we haven't heard for the last 500 years). These are some Jack Chick-level claims.

Unfortunately, I doubt any answer would settle your mind. All I can do is plant a seed and wait for the Holy Spirit to water and grow it.

---

1) None of those quotes were "twisted". The only "twisting" going on here is the pretzel you're putting yourself in trying to get out of them.

NO CHRISTIAN would EVER write or say anything that would even come CLOSE to suggesting that Mary, or anyone else besides Jesus for that matter, is the way to salvation. If you truly can't understand this, it means you're not a Christian.

2) We HAVE discussed those individual topics. Why are you LYING?? I've discussed them at length in other threads. Your views have all been shown to be historically, scripturally, and logically false. And again - if you truly can't understand why it's wrong to call a man "Holy Father", a woman "The ALL HOLY ONE" and the way to salvation, or to bow and pray to images, no matter the "context", then it means you're not a Christian. You don't have the Holy Spirit.

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Purgatory presents the position that Hosea who bought Gomer back at a high price and without her working to earn back his trust could do what Christ could not do with the high price He paid for those who trust in Him.

---

Purgatorial doctrine was NOT the purpose of this passage.

The story of Hosea and Gomer shows us a symbol of covenant faithfulness, redemption and restoration, a sign of God's love, and a call to repentance.

---

I agree with you regarding covenant faithfulness and redemption. I even agree about restoration. But, restoration of what?

If these stories are about restoration of our relationship with God then how does that happen without Purgatory or, is Purgatory not needed for our restoration?

If it's not restoration of our relationship with God what is being restored?

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I would submit that none of the verses you cite refer to an actual venue. In 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, Paul is heavily using metaphor, referring to both the wise builder, and the foolish builder, and the future day of judgment that will reveal the quality of each person's spiritual "work". Works built on this foundation with valuable, lasting materials (symbolizing godly motives and deeds) will earn a reward, while those built with temporary, worthless materials (wood, hay, straw) will be consumed by fire. Certainly, there is nothing in those verses to suggest Paul is referring to a venue where a person is purified over a lengthy period of time, as Chapter 3 makes no mention of purification. He is instead talking about the day of judgment.

---

We'll have to agree to disagree. Where does this purification take place? It can't be heaven or hell, for the reasons I previously mentioned.

The passages discussing "suffering loss". Once again, it CAN'T be heaven. There is NO suffering loss in heaven.

Mothra said:

---

In Isiah 6:6-7, Isiah has a vision. He is not dead, and has not passed on. Moreover, this verse again doesn't mention or reference any venue where a person is purified by fire over time.

---

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course, he's alive here. It was a vision, but he still needed to be cleanse of his sin verse 7 clearly states:

"See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for."

Mothra said:

---

As for Revelation, I agree with this statement. Christians saved by the blood of Christ are no longer unclean. They require no further cleansing process.

---

I apologize if I inferred martyrs in passage. Rev 21 is concerned with primarily presenting a new heaven and new earth.

To me, the simplest understanding of "nothing unclean shall enter heaven" means that we must be pure before we can stand before God.

Because we are ALL fallen creatures, we all have some cross to bear with respect to an attachment to sin. The Church simply states that we must be cleansed of those unhealthy desires.

---

Again, I simply can't find any scriptural support for the position that a cleansing process - outside of belief and faith in Christ as Lord and Savior - is necessary to enter Heaven. That scripture simply doesn't exist.

---

You interpret it it differently, and you might be right. But it does exist.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Purgatory presents the position that Hosea who bought Gomer back at a high price and without her working to earn back his trust could do what Christ could not do with the high price He paid for those who trust in Him.

---

Purgatorial doctrine was NOT the purpose of this passage.

The story of Hosea and Gomer shows us a symbol of covenant faithfulness, redemption and restoration, a sign of God's love, and a call to repentance.

---

I agree with you regarding covenant faithfulness and redemption. I even agree about restoration. But, restoration of what?

If these stories are about restoration of our relationship with God then how does that happen without Purgatory or, is Purgatory not needed for our restoration?

If it's not restoration of our relationship with God what is being restored?

---

Our righteousness.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No. "Accepted" as in conceding to God's will for her.

Semantics isn't going to work. The bottom line is that she wasn't being asked. She was being told. This isn't a form of divine "rape" any more than God deciding to kill people is divine "murder'. God can make these kinds of decisions at his will without our consent.

---

From Google AI -

To concede to someone's will means to yield or surrender to their wishes, which is a form of saying yes, but with a crucial difference. The word "concede" implies a sense of reluctance or being forced to give in, rather than a wholehearted or willing agreement.

You are essentially saying that she did NOT have a choice but to bear the Child.

So, you view it as God "forced her to give in." This is EVIL.

The only time in the first 1500 years of the Church that I can find that some believes that Mary was only a "passive vessel" was a Gnostic that also denied the full humanity of Jesus.

---

"You will", not "Will you?".

God does not, and never has, needed OUR PERMISSION to carry out his will. He can give life, and take it away at his will. He can make a woman pregnant, or end her pregnancy at his will. God is not subject to the "me too" movement. God's will can't be thwarted by the chance of our saying "no". You have a very wrong view of God's sovereignty.

Just look what happened to Jonah when he refused God's command to go to Ninevah. Was this the "evil" of God subjecting Jonah to forced labor?

When God struck people dead - was this the "evil" of God forcing death upon people's bodies without their consent? Was this murder?

When God put Adam to sleep and removed his rib - was this a forced medical procedure without Adam's consent?

Could the apostle Paul have said "no" to Jesus' command to preach his gospel? Jesus specifically said that Paul was his "chosen instrument" even before telling Paul about it. Is this another example of forced labor?

Stop bringing God down to our level.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No believer's soul will be judged for their salvation:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

The judgement of the believer will be to determine their rewards. To say that the believer will also be judged to determine the punishment for their sins would be denying the sufficiency of Jesus' sacrfice, which is to deny Jesus altogether, thus making one a non-believer and therefore ineligible for Jesus' promise above.

---

We have been over this passage at least two, if not three times before.

You are NOT reading John 5:24 with the correct understand/translation of the word "judged." The Greek is krino. It means "condemned".

I have shown SEVERAL times that MANY protestant bibles even translate this passage using the word judged.

Finally, numerous passages show that we will be judged after death:

2 Corinthians 5:10 - "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil"

Matthew 12:36-37 " … on the day of judgment, people will be held accountable for every careless word they have spoken, and their words will serve as the basis for their justification or condemnation"

Hebrews 9:27 - "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,"

Rev 20:12-13 - And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.

PLEASE make no mistake, when we die, we are ALL getting judged (hopefully not condemned.)

---

"Hopefully not condemned"?? Jesus' direct words are that a believer will NOT be condemned:

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." - John 3:18

And believers will be judged, but as I said, not for our salvation:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life." - John 5:24

You are denying Jesus' own words.

2 Corinthians 5:10 is talking about judgement of believers for rewards. Matthew 12:36-37 is talking about judgement of non-believers - Jesus' specifically told us that believers will not be condemned. Hebrews 9:27 can't be talking about believers being judged for their salvation, because it then it would be contradicting Jesus' very words. Revelation 20:12-13 is not talking about believers being judged for their salvation, but rather unbelievers. Otherwise, it too would be contradicting Jesus' own words.

Bottom line: all will be judged, but the believer will not be judged to determine their salvation. That's straight from Jesus. For the believer, they will be judged to determine their rewards. The belief that believers will be judged to determine their punishment for "venial sins" is contradictory to Scripture and denies the sufficiency of Jesus' blood to cleanse us from ALL sin, which Scripture also directly teaches.

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Purgatory presents the position that Hosea who bought Gomer back at a high price and without her working to earn back his trust could do what Christ could not do with the high price He paid for those who trust in Him.

---

Purgatorial doctrine was NOT the purpose of this passage.

The story of Hosea and Gomer shows us a symbol of covenant faithfulness, redemption and restoration, a sign of God's love, and a call to repentance.

---

I agree with you regarding covenant faithfulness and redemption. I even agree about restoration. But, restoration of what?

If these stories are about restoration of our relationship with God then how does that happen without Purgatory or, is Purgatory not needed for our restoration?

If it's not restoration of our relationship with God what is being restored?

---

Our righteousness.

---

Biblical righteousness? You mean the state of being in right standing with God? Without purgatory?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Purgatory presents the position that Hosea who bought Gomer back at a high price and without her working to earn back his trust could do what Christ could not do with the high price He paid for those who trust in Him.

---

Purgatorial doctrine was NOT the purpose of this passage.

The story of Hosea and Gomer shows us a symbol of covenant faithfulness, redemption and restoration, a sign of God's love, and a call to repentance.

---

I agree with you regarding covenant faithfulness and redemption. I even agree about restoration. But, restoration of what?

If these stories are about restoration of our relationship with God then how does that happen without Purgatory or, is Purgatory not needed for our restoration?

If it's not restoration of our relationship with God what is being restored?

---

Our righteousness.

---

Biblical righteousness? You mean the state of being in right standing with God? Without purgatory?

---

Not just right standing, but actual righteousness.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I would submit that none of the verses you cite refer to an actual venue. In 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, Paul is heavily using metaphor, referring to both the wise builder, and the foolish builder, and the future day of judgment that will reveal the quality of each person's spiritual "work". Works built on this foundation with valuable, lasting materials (symbolizing godly motives and deeds) will earn a reward, while those built with temporary, worthless materials (wood, hay, straw) will be consumed by fire. Certainly, there is nothing in those verses to suggest Paul is referring to a venue where a person is purified over a lengthy period of time, as Chapter 3 makes no mention of purification. He is instead talking about the day of judgment.

---

We'll have to agree to disagree. Where does this purification take place? It can't be heaven or hell, for the reasons I previously mentioned.

The passages discussing "suffering loss". Once again, it CAN'T be heaven. There is NO suffering loss in heaven.

Mothra said:

---

In Isiah 6:6-7, Isiah has a vision. He is not dead, and has not passed on. Moreover, this verse again doesn't mention or reference any venue where a person is purified by fire over time.

---

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree. Of course, he's alive here. It was a vision, but he still needed to be cleanse of his sin verse 7 clearly states:

"See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for."

Mothra said:

---

As for Revelation, I agree with this statement. Christians saved by the blood of Christ are no longer unclean. They require no further cleansing process.

---

I apologize if I inferred martyrs in passage. Rev 21 is concerned with primarily presenting a new heaven and new earth.

To me, the simplest understanding of "nothing unclean shall enter heaven" means that we must be pure before we can stand before God.

Because we are ALL fallen creatures, we all have some cross to bear with respect to an attachment to sin. The Church simply states that we must be cleansed of those unhealthy desires.

---

Again, I simply can't find any scriptural support for the position that a cleansing process - outside of belief and faith in Christ as Lord and Savior - is necessary to enter Heaven. That scripture simply doesn't exist.

---

You interpret it it differently, and you might be right. But it does exist.

---

What verses are you referencing? Those cited thus far don't mention or allude to a place or a process where purification takes place over time after death. And therein lies the problem with the Catholic position on this, IMO.

I would be more open to the idea if there was scripture that could reasonably be interpreted to suggest the existence of such a place, but nothing cited thus far even hints of same.

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Purgatory presents the position that Hosea who bought Gomer back at a high price and without her working to earn back his trust could do what Christ could not do with the high price He paid for those who trust in Him.

---

Purgatorial doctrine was NOT the purpose of this passage.

The story of Hosea and Gomer shows us a symbol of covenant faithfulness, redemption and restoration, a sign of God's love, and a call to repentance.

---

I agree with you regarding covenant faithfulness and redemption. I even agree about restoration. But, restoration of what?

If these stories are about restoration of our relationship with God then how does that happen without Purgatory or, is Purgatory not needed for our restoration?

If it's not restoration of our relationship with God what is being restored?

---

Our righteousness.

---

Biblical righteousness? You mean the state of being in right standing with God? Without purgatory?

---

Not just right standing, but actual righteousness.

---

Romans 3:21-22 : "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe."

2 Corinthians 5:21 : "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Actual righteousness, the righteousness of Jesus, is imputed to us through faith in him. There is no need to further purify or punish "venial sins" from someone who is already made righteous through Jesus. Jesus already paid for the punishment of ALL sin (1 John 1:7).

Mothra said:

---

1) I think where we fundamentally disagree is that there is a purification process necessary prior to entering Heaven. So, you're operating under what I consider a mistaken assumption. I can find no scriptural support for the Catholic position on this. The idea that we need purgation or cleansing beyond what Christ has already done simply isn't in Scripture. Jesus said, "Truly, truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" John 5:23. When we believe in Jesus Christ, and when we receive him by faith, we're already justified. We're presently in possession of eternal life.

---

You make a good point here; however, what we have here is misunderstanding in the word "judgment" and how it is used in John 5:24.

The original Greek word here is "krisis", which in this context means condemnation. As a matter of fact, many Bible translations more accurately translate and use "condemnation" such as the KJV, KJ21, CEV, EXB, GNV, AKJV, and many others.

There are several other passages that focus on the fact that we will be judged when we die such as Matthew 25:31-32, Acts 10:42, 2 Cor 5:10, 2 Tim 4:1, and Rev 20:11-12.

But let's backup just two verses to John 5:22 Jesus says

Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,

This time the word used for "judgment" is "krino", which "has a broader scope, encompassing making a decision, separating or discerning between things, and delivering an opinion.

Irrespective, when one looks at the entire passage, not just a limited verse, it is clear to see that Jesus is telling us that we are getting judged and true believers won't be condemned.

Mothra said:

---

2) Isaiah was OT - before Christ's sacrifice on the cross and the extension of grace and forgiveness to humanity. Animal sacrifices were still necessary at that point to make man clean. And interestingly, all that was necessary to make Isiah clean was a mere touching of his lips. He didn't require some extended purification process in a place called purgatory.

---

I see your point, but ANYONE who stands before God will have to be cleaned. No sin can stand before God.

Mothra said:

---

3) Again, I simply can't find any scriptural support for the position that a cleansing process - outside of belief and faith in Christ as Lord and Savior - is necessary to enter Heaven. That scripture simply doesn't exist.

---

I suppose that we'll have to agree to disagree with respect to scriptural support. I've presented several passages that show that we will be purged of our sins (1 Cor 3:11-15) and we MUST be clean before we enter the Kingdom of God (Rev. 21:27). You don't see it as such. Hopefully, I will get better at explaining and defending the Catholic position of purgatory.

Catholics fully agree that Jesus' sacrifice forgives us of our sins, but we still have the attachment to sin that must be cleaned up before we enter heaven.

How is our attachment to sin removed from us when we die?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) There was no need for Jesus to "call out" praying for the dead, when the Jews didn't discuss that with him, like they did with the resurrection and the Corban rule. But what was clear, is that the Jews did and believed MANY OTHER wrong things, all based on their tradition, as Jesus himself noted:

"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Jesus wasn't limiting the Jews' errors to just their views on the resurrection and the Corban rule. To argue that since he didn't "call out" praying for the dead or any other of the many wrong things they did, that it meant Jesus felt it was in line with Scripture, is a fallacy.

---

This is YOUR opinion that you are reading into the passage and a fallacy to state that Jesus implied that in his statement. It is stretching the passage into what YOU believe. Not what was discussed.

As stated, the OT never implied that praying for the dead was wrong.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) Your view on the Jewish canon was already defeated in a previous thread. Remarkably, you're trying to pretend that it wasn't so people in this thread will get the wrong idea. I can point to people specifically to where we had that discussion, and they can see for themselves.

---

No, my view wasn't defeated. Maybe in your mind it was, but the reality of the situation is that the Church had the authentic 73-book canon WAY longer than the shortened 66-book canon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3) It's a fallacy to argue that since there's one non-scriptural source describing some Jews who believed in praying for the dead, that what it necessarily means is that they are praying for the dead so they could get out of a place of post-death punishment for their "venial sins". Like I said, pure eisegesis.

---

1 Maccabees IS canonical. You don't accept it. Luther rejected it because, once again, it differed from HIS interpretation of the Bible.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) None of those quotes were "twisted". The only "twisting" going on here is the pretzel you're putting yourself in trying to get out of them.

NO CHRISTIAN would EVER write or say anything that would even come CLOSE to suggesting that Mary, or anyone else besides Jesus for that matter, is the way to salvation. If you truly can't understand this, it means you're not a Christian.

---

Once again, when one takes a passage out of context, it can be distorted and misunderstood. Several times in Psalms, the author states that God takes us under his "Wings". By this logic, we would assume that God is a giant bird. In reality, the author is describing a feeling or an attribute of God's love. This is similar those your "gotcha" passages that you appeal to ad nauseam. They should be read in complete context and in which the spirit they were written.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) We HAVE discussed those individual topics. Why are you LYING?? I've discussed them at length in other threads. Your views have all been shown to be historically, scripturally, and logically false. And again - if you truly can't understand why it's wrong to call a man "Holy Father", a woman "The ALL HOLY ONE" and the way to salvation, or to bow and pray to images, no matter the "context", then it means you're not a Christian. You don't have the Holy Spirit.

---

I disagree. I have also provided defense historically, scripturally, and logically my positions; however, you dismiss them as they don't fit your "reformed" theology.

You refuse to accept anything other than what you believe. That's dangerous.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

I agree with you regarding covenant faithfulness and redemption. I even agree about restoration. But, restoration of what?

If these stories are about restoration of our relationship with God then how does that happen without Purgatory or, is Purgatory not needed for our restoration?

If it's not restoration of our relationship with God what is being restored?

---

Great question.

I feel that Sam's response is a good one. He stated that our righteousness is being restored.

I agree.

As I stated on anther thread, when we sin, we cut ourselves off from God. Not the other way around.

God still loves us. He always loves us. He loves us SO much that he will allow evil to happen to us to call us to repentance. The OT (Exodus and Judges) is replete with examples of the Hebrews faithfulness, sin, judgement, repentance, and restoration. This cycle repeats itself many times.

When we repent, we restore that friendship with God. God will ALWAYS take us back. This is the main point of the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"You will", not "Will you?".

God does not, and never has, needed OUR PERMISSION to carry out his will. He can give life, and take it away at his will. He can make a woman pregnant, or end her pregnancy at his will. God is not subject to the "me too" movement. God's will can't be thwarted by the chance of our saying "no". You have a very wrong view of God's sovereignty.

---

You are taking away free will here. How do women get pregnant without their consent? Rape.

Against a woman's will, a man forces himself upon a woman. God wouldn't never do that. This is exactly what happens with the ancient Greek and Roman pantheon. Gods forcibly copulate with women and create demigods.

When one studies the grammar and context in the passages of this narrative, it is apparent that Mary fully consented to the pregnancy.

Luke 1:38

And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."

First, Mary she uses the word, idou, which is commonly translated "behold" and is used to call attention to or stress what follows.

Mary is saying here, "Hey, look, I'm the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."

Second, according the Catholic Answers author and apologist, Jimmy Akin

Jimmy Akin said:

---

"It has to do with the mood of the verb Luke depicts Mary using in this passage. When Mary says Let it be to me according to your word, the verb translated "let it be" is in the Optative Mood.
We don't have a grammatical form for the optative mood in English. Instead, we use auxiliary words and phrases like "Let," "May," and "If only."
The name optative derives from the Latin Optativus which means = To Have Wished. Sofor languages that have the optative moodyou use it to express a wishsomething you desire.
So when Mary says, "Let it be to me according to your word," she's expressing a wish or her desire. That's why it gets translated in English with "Let it be to me."
Luke is thus portraying Mary as expressing what she wisheswhat she desires to happen."

---

Here is Jimmy Akin's podcast that more completely explains Mary's consent.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Just look what happened to Jonah when he refused God's command to go to Ninevah. Was this the "evil" of God subjecting Jonah to forced labor?

---

God allowed the evil to happen to him. Notice how he repented inside the belly of the large fish. He did the will of God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When God struck people dead - was this the "evil" of God forcing death upon people's bodies without their consent? Was this murder?

---

God, as the author of life, can take it whenever he wants. We are not guaranteed our next breath from Him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

When God put Adam to sleep and removed his rib - was this a forced medical procedure without Adam's consent?

---

Please note what happened immediately before this. In Gen 2:19, God formed out of the ground all the animals and birds. In verse 20 he names them and (now the critical part) "no suitable helper was found."

Adam was looking for a suitable helper. With this "medical procedure", God provided woman for Adam.

Having said that, the first 11 chapters can be taken literally; HOWEVER, we are allowed believe that this is "Primeval History" and that they contain theological truths reflected in the narrative style that uses symbolic and allegorical methods to convey truths.

One doesn't have to believe that God really formed Women for the rib of Adam.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Could the apostle Paul have said "no" to Jesus' command to preach his gospel? Jesus specifically said that Paul was his "chosen instrument" even before telling Paul about it. Is this another example of forced labor?

---

God allowed Paul to suffer for the sins he committed. He fasted and prayed. He experienced repentance and conversion of heart.

He could have continued to say "no." But instead, he was obedient to God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Stop bringing God down to our level.

---

I fear it is the other way around. I have exalted by acknowledging his gift of free will and his omnipotence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life." - John 5:24

You are denying Jesus' own words.

---

Actually, you are not looking at the entire passage. I posted this with Mothra, but it bears repeating.

In John 5:22 Jesus says

Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,

This time the word used for "judgment" is "krin", which "has a broader scope, encompassing making a decision, separating or discerning between things, and delivering an opinion.

Irrespective, when one looks at the entire passage, not just a limited verse, it is clear to see that Jesus is telling us that we are getting judged and true believers won't be condemned.

This passage mentions NOTHINGS of rewards. It is very clear that Jesus is judging who will and will NOT be saved.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Matthew 12:36-37 is talking about judgement of non-believers - Jesus' specifically told us that believers will not be condemned.

---

But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

Both non-believers and believers are being judged here. Jesus says, "EVERYONE will give account …". Some will be acquitted and some will be condemned.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Hebrews 9:27 can't be talking about believers being judged for their salvation, because it then it would be contradicting Jesus' very words.

---

And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment.

Jesus never distinguishes between believers and non-believers here.
It is obvious that Jesus is referring to ALL men. Everyone dies. Everyone is getting judged. Jesus says so.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Revelation 20:12-13 is not talking about believers being judged for their salvation, but rather unbelievers. Otherwise, it too would be contradicting Jesus' own words.

---

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

"Great and small" means everyone.

The sea and Death and Hades refer to the completeness of this judgment.

What's more plausible, that Jesus is contradicting himself or you have misinterpreted the passages? Obviously the later.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Bottom line: all will be judged, but the believer will not be judged to determine their salvation. That's straight from Jesus. For the believer, they will be judged to determine their rewards. The belief that believers will be judged to determine their punishment for "venial sins" is contradictory to Scripture and denies the sufficiency of Jesus' blood to cleanse us from ALL sin, which Scripture also directly teaches.

---

In the parable of the Sheep and Goats, Matt 25:31-46, Jesus is sitting on his glorious thrown and sorts out the righteous from the unrighteous those that will be saved and those that sill suffer damnation.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) There was no need for Jesus to "call out" praying for the dead, when the Jews didn't discuss that with him, like they did with the resurrection and the Corban rule. But what was clear, is that the Jews did and believed MANY OTHER wrong things, all based on their tradition, as Jesus himself noted:

"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Jesus wasn't limiting the Jews' errors to just their views on the resurrection and the Corban rule. To argue that since he didn't "call out" praying for the dead or any other of the many wrong things they did, that it meant Jesus felt it was in line with Scripture, is a fallacy.

---

This is YOUR opinion that you are reading into the passage and a fallacy to state that Jesus implied that in his statement. It is stretching the passage into what YOU believe. Not what was discussed.

As stated, the OT never implied that praying for the dead was wrong.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) Your view on the Jewish canon was already defeated in a previous thread. Remarkably, you're trying to pretend that it wasn't so people in this thread will get the wrong idea. I can point to people specifically to where we had that discussion, and they can see for themselves.

---

No, my view wasn't defeated. Maybe in your mind it was, but the reality of the situation is that the Church had the authentic 73-book canon WAY longer than the shortened 66-book canon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3) It's a fallacy to argue that since there's one non-scriptural source describing some Jews who believed in praying for the dead, that what it necessarily means is that they are praying for the dead so they could get out of a place of post-death punishment for their "venial sins". Like I said, pure eisegesis.

---

1 Maccabees IS canonical. You don't accept it. Luther rejected it because, once again, it differed from HIS interpretation of the Bible.

---

I'm not reading any opinion into the words of Jesus. He specifically called out the fact that the Jews did MANY things from their tradition that was against the word of God. Those are his direct words, straight from Scripture.

The fallacy is entirely yours. Your argument was that since Jesus did not call out praying for the dead, that it meant it was in line with what God wanted. From Jesus' own words above, clearly there were other things Jesus could have called out, but didn't. So to argue that since Jesus did not call out something, it meant that something was okay with God, is logically false.

Yes, your view on the canon was defeated in another thread. History clearly shows that the Jews did not include the deuterocanon as part of their canon. Even Jerome said this, and that's why he didn't believe them to be canonical. The earliest known lists of the Christian canon are Melito's canon and Bryennios' list, neither of which included the books of the deuterocanon, like Maccabees. So your claim that "the Church had the 73 book canon WAY longer than the shortened 66 book canon" is just historically false. You've been told all this already, but apparently you're in denial. Jesus himself personally only validated the Jewish Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings) and never mentioned anything about the deuterocanonical books. That should pretty much settle it for Christians.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) None of those quotes were "twisted". The only "twisting" going on here is the pretzel you're putting yourself in trying to get out of them.

NO CHRISTIAN would EVER write or say anything that would even come CLOSE to suggesting that Mary, or anyone else besides Jesus for that matter, is the way to salvation. If you truly can't understand this, it means you're not a Christian.

---

Once again, when one takes a passage out of context, it can be distorted and misunderstood. Several times in Psalms, the author states that God takes us under his "Wings". By this logic, we would assume that God is a giant bird. In reality, the author is describing a feeling or an attribute of God's love. This is similar those your "gotcha" passages that you appeal to ad nauseam. They should be read in complete context and in which the spirit they were written.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) We HAVE discussed those individual topics. Why are you LYING?? I've discussed them at length in other threads. Your views have all been shown to be historically, scripturally, and logically false. And again - if you truly can't understand why it's wrong to call a man "Holy Father", a woman "The ALL HOLY ONE" and the way to salvation, or to bow and pray to images, no matter the "context", then it means you're not a Christian. You don't have the Holy Spirit.

---

I disagree. I have also provided defense historically, scripturally, and logically my positions; however, you dismiss them as they don't fit your "reformed" theology.

You refuse to accept anything other than what you believe. That's dangerous.

---

Completely ridiculous to compare describing God metaphorically having "wings" in the Psalms to direct statements declaring Mary to be the way to salvation.

I'm sorry - intellectually honest and intelligent people just don't make this kind of argument.

No, you have NOT provide valid historical, scriptural, and logical defenses for your positions. Your historically false claim above about the canon is just one such example. Your scriptural defenses are all non sequitur eisegeses. And frankly, your logic is poor, as your above comparison between the Psalms and statements about Mary clearly indicate.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"You will", not "Will you?".

God does not, and never has, needed OUR PERMISSION to carry out his will. He can give life, and take it away at his will. He can make a woman pregnant, or end her pregnancy at his will. God is not subject to the "me too" movement. God's will can't be thwarted by the chance of our saying "no". You have a very wrong view of God's sovereignty.

---

You are taking away free will here. How do women get pregnant without their consent? Rape.

Against a woman's will, a man forces himself upon a woman. God wouldn't never do that. This is exactly what happens with the ancient Greek and Roman pantheon. Gods forcibly copulate with women and create demigods.

When one studies the grammar and context in the passages of this narrative, it is apparent that Mary fully consented to the pregnancy.

Luke 1:38

And Mary said, "Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."

First, Mary she uses the word, idou, which is commonly translated "behold" and is used to call attention to or stress what follows.

Mary is saying here, "Hey, look, I'm the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word."

Second, according the Catholic Answers author and apologist, Jimmy Akin

Jimmy Akin said:

---

"It has to do with the mood of the verb Luke depicts Mary using in this passage. When Mary says Let it be to me according to your word, the verb translated "let it be" is in the Optative Mood.
We don't have a grammatical form for the optative mood in English. Instead, we use auxiliary words and phrases like "Let," "May," and "If only."
The name optative derives from the Latin Optativus which means = To Have Wished. Sofor languages that have the optative moodyou use it to express a wishsomething you desire.
So when Mary says, "Let it be to me according to your word," she's expressing a wish or her desire. That's why it gets translated in English with "Let it be to me."
Luke is thus portraying Mary as expressing what she wisheswhat she desires to happen."

---

Here is Jimmy Akin's podcast that more completely explains Mary's consent.

---

"Free will" does not mean God requires our permission for him to do anything to us. You're continuing to bring God down to our level, going so far as to subject him to the human "me too" movement. It's absolutely ludicrous.

You're ignoring my questions, because you know it's true. Go ahead, answer them. Here they are again:

1) When God coerced Jonah to go to Ninevah, was that the evil of forced labor against someone's consent?

2) When God put Adam to sleep and took out his rib, was that the evil of a forced medical procedure against Adam's consent?

3) When God made the apostle Paul (Saul) temporarily blind or purposefully made a man blind for the purpose of revealing God's works in him (John 9:3), was that the evil of blinding someone against their consent?

4) When God struck a person dead, obviously without their consent, was that the evil of murder?


There is absolutely no difference with any of these and God making a woman pregnant. Again - your view clearly isn't in line with God as he is revealed in Scripture.

Here's one reason I do not believe in Purgatory.

The name, of course, is based on 'purging'. Basically an unpleasant but necessary action to clean us filthy humans so we don't stink up Heaven, so to speak.

But that's just not how I see Jesus greeting us into His home.

There's been a lot of Greek and Latin bandied around, because as we know, Jesus was all about scholastic standards. Just an odd coincidence that Jesus picked fishermen and common workers for His disciples, instead of the learned priests and scribes He could have chosen.

Anyway, sarcasm aside it really should be obvious that Jesus spoke plainly to people, not mincing words or hiding His meaning, whether He spoke about sin, hope, or what God wants from us. There's a place where Jesus assures the disciples He has a place prepared for them in His Father's House, and Jesus says 'if it were not so, I would have told you'. I have to believe the same thing applies to Purgatory. Mention of Purgatory is just not anywhere in Scripture, and if it was a necessary stop before believers were allowed to walk on Heaven's clean streets, Jesus would have said so.

Also, consider the atmosphere. Going to Heaven is to be with God, the chief joy is to be with The Holy One.
Think how you feel when you are visiting your best friend, or better, coming home to your family after a long day. It's a good feeling, and you are looking forward to it.

There are not bouncers at the door to see if you measure up. Just loved ones glad to see you, who welcome you in.


The myth of Purgatory seems to be something the Pharisees would have come up with, frankly.

(mea culpa for the lousy grammar.)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"Free will" does not mean God requires our permission for him to do anything to us. You're continuing to bring God down to our level, going so far as to subject him to the human "me too" movement. It's absolutely ludicrous.

You're ignoring my questions, because you know it's true. Go ahead, answer them. Here they are again:

---

I never said that God needed our permission. You are creating a strawman argument here.

I answered your questions; however, I will respond again in kind.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

1) When God coerced Jonah to go to Ninevah, was that the evil of forced labor against someone's consent?

---

Jonah was a prophet of God who rejected God's will and gravely sinned by refusing to go to Israel's arch enemy to save them from their impending doom. Jonah's anger and desire to see his enemy destroyed caused him to sin against God by intentionally rejecting God's will and putting his own selfish desires first (this is what sin is after all).

God inflicted punishments on Jonah that were just, leading to Jonah's prayer of repentance for his denial of God's will. Even after repenting (Jonah 2) and fulfilling God's command (Jonah 3), Jonah still held hatred in his heart for the Ninevites and anger at God. This inability of Jonah to love forced God to teach him lessons about the value of all human life (Jonah 4) and what love of neighbor means.

It is not a story of coercion. It is a story of about the value that God places on ALL human life and the negative effects of putting our will above God's.

Finally, it is a parable meant to teach us a lesson, not a historical account.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

2) When God put Adam to sleep and took out his rib, was that the evil of a forced medical procedure against Adam's consent?

---

As I stated earlier, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are an allegory and not a recording actual events. This genre is meant to express fundamental truths about God and who man is in relation to God in ways the audience of that age could understand.

But to answer your question (again), Adam had just lamented that he had "not found a helper fit for him."

The fundamental truth is that man, created in God's image and likeness, was unique in all of creation and needed a partner that was of his essence. That is a truth that is being expressed in the story. God is addressing an essential need of humanity. This is a not a story of violating man's will but of adjusting creation to conform to man's need a need he clearly expressed.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

3) When God made the apostle Paul (Saul) temporarily blind or purposefully made a man blind for the purpose of revealing God's works in him (John 9:3), was that the evil of blinding someone against their consent?

---

Go back and read John 9 carefully. God did not make him blind. He allowed him to be born blind because he knew a greater good would come of it.

"It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him" (John 9:3).

God allows evil (the lack of a good) like blindness (the lack of sight) only if he can create an equal or greater good (a demonstration of God's glory that brings others to faith).

There was no blinding against one's consent here there was only allowing evil (God's permissive will) for a greater good.

With respect to Paul, this was a mix of punishment and a "wake up call."

Paul was a killer. God could have struck him dead, but he didn't. He used the punishment to get Paul's attention and give him time to fully reflect on his first-hand experience of Jesus' presence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

4) When God struck a person dead, obviously without their consent, was that the evil of murder?

---

Murder is the killing of an innocent and defenseless human being by another human being. God is incapable of murder as he is the author and source of life. God can choose to give us as much or as little of life as he likes because every second of it is a gift we did not earn.

God can also exact justice he is a God of infinite mercy and complete justice and if he chooses to take the life of someone as a just punishment for his crimes, he and he alone, as the author of life, can choose to do that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There is absolutely no difference with any of these and God making a woman pregnant. Again - your view clearly isn't in line with God as he is revealed in Scripture.

---

There absolutely is a difference. With all but one exception in human history, a man is required to make a woman pregnant.

Your examples are poor ones that have no relation to the context of the annunciation as described in Luke 1:


1. The angel Gabriel comes to Mary who he declares is full of grace a vessel who "has been" and is "now" filled with divine life.
2. Gabriel informs Mary that she has been chosen to give birth to the Messiah.
3. Mary asks how this will be as she is a consecrated virgin and is planning on remaining so. She knows how babies are conceived and wants to know how this will happen without sexual intercourse.
4. Gabriel informs Mary that the Holy Spirit will overshadow her to allow her to conceive (nothing is impossible with God) satisfying Mary's desire for understanding.
5. Mary freely consents to God's will and places her trust in him completely. This is an amazing act of faith, especially when you consider that the punishment for adultery (she was betrothed to Joseph) was death by stoning.

Mary did not need to be coerced as she trusted in God completely and offered her 'fiat' (her "yes") without hesitation. At no point in this story did the angel apply pressure to influence her decision. Mary never doubted God could do what the angel relayed, she merely wanted to know by what mechanism it would occur (she accepted what the angel told her and simply assumed that God could do anything). Mary accepted God's will out of a pure faith that resulted in a limitless trust in God's plan.

I feel sad for you. You have gone thru so much effort to deny something so simple as her "fiat" to fit your theological view. There is no shame in admitting that your view is incorrect and not congruent with the history of Christianity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Yes, your view on the canon was defeated in another thread. History clearly shows that the Jews did not include the deuterocanon as part of their canon.

---

Wow, this is completely false! There were many sects of Jews (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenees, etc.) that had different canons. They didn't have a single canon until the second century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Even Jerome said this, and that's why he didn't believe them to be canonical.

---

Jerome based his opinion on what he thought was "Hebrew truth." (i.e., that since there was only one Hebrew text as opposed to multiple Greek translation Jerome thought this text must go back to the original).

However, it was contrary to the Christian canon represented by the North African Council of Hippo (393) and Carthage III (397) and XVII (419). Protestant biblical scholar, F.F. Bruce said, these councils "... did not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east "

Moreover, the Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has revealed that Jerome's "Hebrew Truth" was incorrect.

The fact that rabbinic Judaism adopted a single normative text in the second Christian century causes these different text tradition to cease to be copied so that by the fourth century only one text (essentially what is known as the Hebrew MT) remained.

Protestant biblical scholar, JND Kelly, also argues that Jerome didn't have the advantage of knowing about the DSS or these other Hebrew texts. Therefore, his rejection was based on an error that was clearly contrary to the historic Christian canon.

The protestant "slam dunk" of Jerome's canon doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Finally, please note two other points:

Jerome is just ONE of the Church Fathers in this debate, he is NOT the entire magisterium.
In the end, Jerome (rightly,) followed the will of the Church and included the Deuterocanon as scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The earliest known lists of the Christian canon are Melito's canon and Bryennios' list, neither of which included the books of the deuterocanon, like Maccabees. So your claim that "the Church had the 73 book canon WAY longer than the shortened 66 book canon" is just historically false.

---

You completely misunderstand what Melito's list is.

Basically, Melito is providing a list of books for Christians to use in apologetics with the Jews. Therefore, these are the books Christians and Jews hold in common. Just as Catholics today may draw up a list of book that Catholics can use against Protestantism. But This does not represent the Christian canon.

The Bryennios list is a different matter. Like Melito it appears to be a list, drawn up for Christians, on the rabbinic canon with Aramaic names. However, it is impossible to date when this list was made. Some argue for an early 2nd century date, while other argue for a fourth, fifth or even later.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You've been told all this already, but apparently you're in denial. Jesus himself personally only validated the Jewish Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings) and never mentioned anything about the deuterocanonical books. That should pretty much settle it for Christians.

---

There is slim to no evidence that a three-fold division existing prior to Christ. The NT speaks of the "Law and the prophets" only.

The closest thing to a three-fold division is Luke 24:44, but Jesus says "the law, the prophets, and the Psalms" not writings. Moreover, even if he did affirm a three-fold division, we have evidence that the Deuterocanonical books were found within that division.

Jerome speaks of the Jews having Judith and Tobit among the "Hagiographa" (writings), Baruch was with Jeremiah (the prophets), and rabbinic literature speaks of Sirach being among the writings as well. Origen gives the Hebrew title of Maccabees which would suggest that it was also included among the Writings. So the Jews INCLUDED these books within the three-fold division, but they DENIED THEIR AUTHORITY. Therefore, the three-fold division does not exclude the Deuterocanon.

Protestant theologian, Lee Martin McDonald argues that the third division of the tri-fold division wasn't fixed until after Christ and Christians didn't adopt the three-fold Hebrew Scripture, but the Septuagint which had more divisions and the Deuterocanon was in that collection:

"The first two categories of the Hebrew Scriptures (Law and Prophets) were established well before the birth of Christianity, but the third category (the Writings) was not settled for some time after the separation of the church from the synagogue.

The Christians took longer to determine the boundaries of their OT Scriptures and also placed them in four divisions (Law, History, Poetry, Prophets) rather than the three divisions of the Jews. When that began to occur, some writings that are now classified as apocryphal literature were included in the Christian collection and welcomed in the Jewish community as well."

I'm sorry, but your very late argument fails. You think by writing a lot of words that you can somehow find a way around the fact that Mary was told "you WILL", not asked "will you?". She was chosen to give birth to Jesus. She was not asked.

God making a woman pregnant without her choice is no morally different than God doing anything to change someone's physical status (making them go blind, making then get swallowed by a fish, striking them dead) without their choice. You are merely (and desperately) trying to create an ad hoc exception for Mary's pregnancy that fails logically.

On the contrary - I feel really sorry for you. You are so brainwashed by your church's deception that you can't (or simply won't) see the painfully obvious Marian idolatry and blasphemy you're engaged in. I see someone completely trapped by demonic deception. It's only gonna take a miracle to open your eyes. Good thing that with God, all things are possible.

Many peoples problem is not that they dont know, it's that they don't know that they don't know and therefore they act like they do know

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm sorry, but your very late argument fails. You think by writing a lot of words that you can somehow find a way around the fact that Mary was told "you WILL", not asked "will you?". She was chosen to give birth to Jesus. She was not asked.

God making a woman pregnant without her choice is no morally different than God doing anything to change someone's physical status (making them go blind, making then get swallowed by a fish, striking them dead) without their choice. You are merely (and desperately) trying to create an ad hoc exception for Mary's pregnancy that fails logically.

On the contrary - I feel really sorry for you. You are so brainwashed by your church's deception that you can't (or simply won't) see the painfully obvious Marian idolatry and blasphemy you're engaged in. I see someone completely trapped by demonic deception. It's only gonna take a miracle to open your eyes. Good thing that with God, all things are possible.

---

Well, I guess this conversation has finally run its course. It is not I that is brainwashed. I'm afraid it is you.

My views stand firmly on 2000 years of scripture and tradition. Your view, the complete denial of Mary's role in salvation history, is SO protestant - so anti-Catholic, that you will reject what has been believed for centuries before the so-called "reformers" were born (ironically, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL believed in Mary's consent and obedience to God).

Even your second paragraph still twists and defies logical arguments and historical interpretation to support your anti-Catholicism. Maybe, even worse, is the fact that you fail to accept what the sacred author Luke says in the context in Greek.

Catholics doesn't engage in idolatry or blasphemy. To love Mary is to love Jesus. He is the reason why she shines. Just like the Sun is the reason why moon shines. It's a "Beaver" full moon tonight. Go outside, contemplate, and pray on this as you witness the beauty of God's creation. Maybe you will open your eyes and see the truth.

I hope that one day you will "get right" with the LORD.

Please know that I will continue to pray for you twice a day (during my daily rosary and my evening prayers.)

Peace and God Bless.