No, the text does not state that they are in hell, the text does not state that the people who prayed for them knew that they were in hell, nor does the text state that they prayed for them so that they may see the resurrection of the just. You are simply making things up out of thin air.
No, you have not established that they are in hell. Of course we know that objectively idolatry is grave sin, but grave sin is not the only requirement for a sin to be mortal. The other two factors are known only to God, and that is why God only and no man knows who is in Heaven and who is in Hell.
God, not Rome, declares what a mortal sin was or is, and for which these men were executed for. Only by special pleading, making things up out of thin air, can you argue that they might have repented before their death.
Meanwhile, requiring that they text explicitly state they were in Hell is not required, and I did not say it did, but that text explicitly states they executed for what is a a mortal sin in Scripture, and thus unless they repented - which is nowhere indicated, then thus they were in Hell. Why cannot you accept that? Do you really want to argue that this was not a mortal sin, a capital crime (
Deuteronomy 7:25; 12:3; Exodus 32:20; 1Chronicles 14:12;
Joshua 7:1-25)for which these men were executed?
As for "nor does the text state that they prayed for them so that they may see the resurrection of the just" being making things up out of thin air, instead your denial is what is out of thin air, since the text indeed states that,
And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in
that he was mindful of the resurrection: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. (2 Maccabees 12:43-44)
Thus it was because he hoped that they that were slain should have risen again that he made the offering, that they would see the resurrection of the just. The NAB notes themselves state on this, "The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9, 14, 23, 36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. This belief is similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. (
scripture)
Then I agree that what is a false doctrine? Purgatory? I think you already know my answer to that.
It means that if prayers could be efficacious for the dead who objectively were already in hell then Rome is wrong, but in the light of Scripture both Rome and 2Mac. are.
Sure you can. But the evidence is against you. That is your problem. Please feel free to start a new thread on this topic.
Rather, what
the evidence is against is that the church of Rome is distinctively the NT church.
But what is the basis for your assurance of truth? For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
What? This is your answer? You actually think you can certainly get the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility and of that being essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and the church being supreme (above Scripture) authority on Truth out of (in Greek) "church living God pillar and ground the truth," versus the church supporting (pillar) and settled on the Truth? (cf. 1Co_15:58; Col_1:23)
You must read into Scripture what is contrary to it in order to support Rome. Wholly inspired writings of God we ascertained and established as being so before a church of Rome presumed it was essential for this, historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium.
Thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p>
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The as "without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better," (Heb. 7:7), so the church as an organization of fallible s
No, the text does not state that they are in hell, the text does not state that the people who prayed for them knew that they were in hell, nor does the text state that they prayed for them so that they may see the resurrection of the just. You are simply making things up out of thin air.
No, you have not established that they are in hell. Of course we know that objectively idolatry is grave sin, but grave sin is not the only requirement for a sin to be mortal. The other two factors are known only to God, and that is why God only and no man knows who is in Heaven and who is in Hell.
God, not Rome, declares what a mortal sin was or is, and for which these men were executed for. Only by special pleading, making things up out of thin air, can you argue that they might have repented before their death.
Meanwhile, requiring that they text explicitly state they were in Hell is not required, and I did not say it did, but that text explicitly states they executed for what is a a mortal sin in Scripture, and thus unless they repented - which is nowhere indicated, then thus they were in Hell. Why cannot you accept that? Do you really want to argue that this was not a mortal sin, a capital crime (
Deuteronomy 7:25; 12:3; Exodus 32:20; 1Chronicles 14:12;
Joshua 7:1-25)for which these men were executed?
As for "nor does the text state that they prayed for them so that they may see the resurrection of the just" being making things up out of thin air, instead your denial is what is out of thin air, since the text indeed states that,
And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in
that he was mindful of the resurrection: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. (2 Maccabees 12:43-44)
Thus it was because he hoped that they that were slain should have risen again that he made the offering, that they would see the resurrection of the just. The NAB notes themselves state on this, "The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9, 14, 23, 36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. This belief is similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. (
scripture)
Then I agree that what is a false doctrine? Purgatory? I think you already know my answer to that.
It means that if prayers could be efficacious for the dead who objectively were already in hell then Rome is wrong, but in the light of Scripture both Rome and 2Mac. are.
Sure you can. But the evidence is against you. That is your problem. Please feel free to start a new thread on this topic.
Rather, what
the evidence is against is that the church of Rome is distinctively the NT church.
But what is the basis for your assurance of truth? For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
What? This is your answer? You actually think you can certainly get the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility and of that being essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and the church being supreme (above Scripture) authority on Truth out of (in Greek) "church living God pillar and ground the truth," versus the church supporting (pillar) and settled on the Truth. (cf. 1Co_15:58; Col_1:23)
You must read into Scripture what is contrary to it in order to support Rome. Wholly inspired writings of God we ascertained and established as being so before a church of Rome presumed it was essential for this, historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium.
Thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The as "without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better," (Heb. 7:7), so the church as an organization of fallible souls was blessed by infallible and wholly inspired-of-God (which even RC theology does not hold popes are when speaking) OT Scriptures, being prophetically doctrinally, built upon that Truth.
ouls was blessed by infallible and wholly inspired-of-God (which even RC theology does not hold popes are when speaking), being prophetically doctrinally, built upon that Truth.