Is purgatory a Biblical or extra biblical teaching?

[Fervent]

@concretecamper as for canonization:

Old Testament Canonization
• Jewish Roots: The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was canonized in stages. The Torah (first five books) was accepted by the 5th century BCE. The Prophets (Nevi'im) followed, and the Writings (Ketuvim) were likely finalized by the 2nd century CE.
• Council of Jamnia (c. 90 CE): this council is often cited as a moment when Jewish leaders affirmed the Hebrew canon, excluding books like Tobit and Maccabees found in the Septuagint (Greek translation).

• Early Recognition: By the 2nd century CE, many Christian communities were using the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters. However, other texts like Hebrews, Revelation, and James were disputed (called antilegomena).
• Marcion’s Canon (c. 140 CE): Marcion proposed a radical canon excluding the Old Testament and most New Testament writings. His controversial list spurred the church to clarify its own canon.
• Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 CE): This early list from Rome includes most New Testament books but omits some later-accepted ones like Hebrews and James.

You're just throwing mud on the wall, huh? Why should we care what anti-Christ Jews believed was canonical? Or gnostic heretics like Marcion?

 

[concretecamper]

And your canon?

I remember listening to Frank Turek explain to a student how, in his mind, the canon of Scripture was determined. He went through this lengthy process and couldn't see that all he was doing was agreeing with man made ideas and processes.

I like Frank when he argues for God's existence, but when he starts against the Catholic Church, he sounds like a 1st grader.

 

[Fervent]

I remember listen to Frank Turek explain to a student how, in his mind, the canon of Scripture was determined. He went through this lengthy process and couldn't see that all he was doing was agreeing with man made ideas and processes.

I like Frank when he argued for God's existence, but when he starts against the Catholic Church, he sounds like a 1st grader.

Not sure who that is, but trying to separate the canon from tradition is only going to lead to logic pretzels. I say this as someone who doesn't hold to the idea of an inspired Holy Tradition, but then my view tends towards the Wesleyan Quadrilateral rather than either Sola Scriptura or Magisterium.

 

[Lukaris]

and yet not one word in 1 Cor 3 about a person being burned after death, not one word about someone suffering after dying, while dead, not one word about praying them out of the not-mentioned place of torment in the entire chapter.

A Rev 20 says that the wicked are resurrected then judged then cast into the lake of fire and burned according to their works, the deeds done in the body. saying nothing about suffering while dead, or suffering in death that they can be accepted into heaven.

2 Cor 5:10 speaks of everyone being judged but says nothing about people suffering while dead., as a means/mechanism for getting them dusted off and cleaned up to enter heaven.

John 5, John 16, Rev 5, Rev 3, Rev 13 says nothing about people suffering while dead., as a means/mechanism for getting them dusted off and cleaned up to enter heaven.

2 Mac 12:43-46 makes it clear that no benefit at all realized apart from the resurrection

Matt 5: 25f: 12, 32; Lk 12, 58f; 1 Cor 3, 15: 1 Pt 3, 18-20Mt 5, 25f: 12, 32; Lk 12, 58f; 1 Cor 3, 15: 1 Pt 3, 18-20
says nothing about people suffering while dead., as a means/mechanism for getting them dusted off and cleaned up to enter heaven.

AI search for Catholic doctrines based on tradition rather than defined in scripture include:

"Catholic doctrines based on Sacred Tradition (unwritten teachings of the apostles) rather than being explicitly detailed in Scripture alone include
the Assumption of Mary, her perpetual virginity, infant baptism, the specific structure of bishops, priests, and deacons, and the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

"Other doctrines and practices rooted in Sacred Tradition include the belief that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, her perpetual virginity, the practice of infant baptism, apostolic succession, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, prayers for the dead, and the tripartite structure of the clergy (bishops, priests, and deacons)."

=====================

"Examples of doctrines based on tradition alone

• The Assumption of Mary: The belief that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul is a doctrine derived from Sacred Tradition, with no specific scriptural reference.
• The Real Presence of the Eucharist: The belief in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist is supported by tradition, as evidenced in early Christian writers.
• The celebration of Sunday: The practice of gathering for worship on Sunday, the Lord's Day, is traced back to early Church tradition.
• Certain liturgical practices: Some prayers and rituals, such as the veneration of saints, the use of holy water, and the Mass itself, were established by the Church over time.

Other examples of traditions

• Priestly celibacy: The discipline of priests not being married is a tradition of the Catholic Church.
• Prayers for the dead: This practice, dating to ancient times, is based on tradition rather than a direct biblical command

========== end quote

Beliefs and doctrines found in tradition, not defined in scripture

BEgin quote

• The papacy:
  The concept of the Pope as the head of the Church and the successor to Saint Peter is a tradition based on the interpretation of scriptures like Matthew 16:18.
• Marian Dogmas:
  Beliefs such as the Assumption of Mary (her bodily taking into heaven) and her Perpetual Virginity are not explicitly stated in the Bible, though the Catholic Church considers them part of Sacred Tradition.
• Transubstantiation:
  The doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is rooted in scripture, but the specific term and full explanation are rooted in tradition.
• Purgatory:
  The existence of purgatory is a doctrine developed from tradition and its role in a state of final purification, which is based on biblical concepts about being cleansed from all sin before entering heaven.
• Infant baptism:
  While baptism is biblically based, the practice of baptizing infants is an early church tradition and not explicitly detailed in the Bible.
• Priestly celibacy:
  The tradition that priests are not permitted to marry is a discipline developed over time and is not found in the Bible.

I am not Catholic and was only relaying information about where purgatory is understood. You have added a whole catalog of issues beyond the immediate topic but I will try to discuss some.

Re purgatory, I believe an understanding of rehabilitation for some in the afterlife prior to the resurrection. Especially as if being saved by fire from 1 Corinthians 3:11-17 and references to the physical body in Matthew 5:21-30.

As far as prayer for others, it should be understood as prayer for the living although at our level, there are earthly living & departed. Progressive revelation shows us the valley of the dry bones in Ezekiel 37:1-14. The Lord’s spoke to His Father before raising Lazarus ( John 11:41-44). The Lord educated the sadducees on the resurrection ( Matthew 22:23-40) that God is of the living ( verse 32) and concluded with the commandment to love God & neighbor. Isn’t prayer a major part of this? There is an interesting statement in Ruth 2:20. The Lord’s Prayer is to the Father’s will be done on earth as in heaven ( Matthew 6:9-13).

As far as baptism of children, entire households were baptized like in the book of Acts 10:44-48 ( per Cornelius in Acts 10:1-48), Would children have been excepted when the Lord said not to forbid the children in Matthew 19:13-15? Would the children only be blessed while everyone else is baptized?

As far as the Eucharist, John 6:23-59, 1 Corinthians 11:23-34, Matthew 26:26-30 etc. make it clear to me although some will say not so.

All I can discuss for now.

 

[Dan Perez]

I remember listening to Frank Turek explain to a student how, in his mind, the canon of Scripture was determined. He went through this lengthy process and couldn't see that all he was doing was agreeing with man made ideas and processes.

I like Frank when he argues for God's existence, but when he starts against the Catholic Church, he sounds like a 1st grader.

Just check the GREEK text and then check VINES GREEK DICTIONARY that covers all the NEW TESAMENT. and then

Check STRONG. that has all Hebrew and Greeks in. the Bible and they Are not there and also NOT. POPE , !!

dan p

 

[concretecamper]

Just check the GREEK text and then check VINES GREEK DICTIONARY that covers all the NEW TESAMENT. and then

Check STRONG. that has all Hebrew and Greeks in. the Bible and they Are not there and also NOT. POPE , !!

dan p

Ugh, still looking for a Latin derived word in Greek and Hebrew text. Keep looking

 

[Dan Perez]

Ugh, still looking for a Latin derived word in Greek and Hebrew text. Keep looking

WHY. not just google it ??

dan p

 

[BobRyan]

Those in purgatory are considered saved but need some healing. It is prior to the resurrection.


Per University of St. Andrew in Scotland:


Purgatory is a temporary abode; a soul in Purgatory is considered ‘saved’ and destined for heaven at, or sometimes before, the Last Day, the Day of Judgment

indeed that is "The idea" being proposed.

Now then - to see "if those things are so" as the Bereans did in Acts 17.

The idea of having some remnant sin, being put in a temporary prison & release until payment is completed is found in Matthew 5:21-26.

Those words are not found there nor is that teaching found there.

Can you "read such ideas into the text"? Possibly. When it comes to reading an idea into the text, a lot of instances can be found

 

[BobRyan]

@concretecamper as for canonization:

Old Testament Canonization
• Jewish Roots: The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was canonized in stages. The Torah (first five books) was accepted by the 5th century BCE. The Prophets (Nevi'im) followed, and the Writings (Ketuvim) were likely finalized by the 2nd century CE.

The Jewish historian Josephus (not a Christian by any measure) stated that the Jewish canon had been complete for over 300 years and was kept in the Temple unchanged by the many newer writings that had surfaced since that times and not considered to be inspired text.

The Jewish canon has fewer books because it merges works that are separate in the Christian tradition, eg 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, or Ezra and Nehemiah. That 24-book division goes back at least to the end of the first century AD, when it is recorded in 2 Esdras.

So, the number of Old Testament books is 24 or 39, and that is no great problem. But here we turn to Josephus, also writing around 95 AD in the Against Apion. He divided the books somewhat differently than the later Jewish canon, but also gives us a different total, namely 22:

“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain all the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death… the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.”

5+13 + 4 = 22

 

[chevyontheriver]

Can it be clearly seen in Scripture or is it just something 'alluded' to, but not contextually supported.

That's actually the wrong question. At least not the first question that should be asked. The first question should be 'what do we make of prayers for the dead?'

The Jews prayed for their dead. They still do. The Christians prayed for their dead. The majority (Catholics and Orthodox and uncommon Protestants) still do. How did that start? Why did it continue?

Only when those questions are answered does it make any sense to look at how purgatory systematizes prayers for the dead.

It's clever that some people will say that the word 'purgatory' is not in the Bible. But prayers for the dead are in the Bible. And have been practiced by Christians and Jews all along. Why? And what makes sense of it?

 

[RamiC]

It's clever that some people will say that the word 'purgatory' is not in the Bible. But prayers for the dead are in the Bible. And have been practiced by Christians and Jews all along. Why? And what makes sense of it?

A definition of "Purgatory" might also help.

Since "Trinity" is a word that is also not in the Bible, but the CF definition of "Christian" requires belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost no one should get anywhere in this thread based on arguing that the specific word "purgatory" is not.

 

[chevyontheriver]

A definition of "Purgatory" might also help.

Yup. I'm not sure everybody thinks of the same definition when they see the word. For example, some think it's a way out of hell.

Since "Trinity" is a word that is also not in the Bible, but the CF definition of "Christian" requires belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost no one should get anywhere in this thread based on arguing that the specific word "purgatory" is not.

But they have argued that anyway. As if that clenches the argument for them. My question is more fundamental. Christians have prayed for the dead from the beginning. The Jews have prayed for the dead from way back. That's just factual. And purgatory is merely an explanatory framework for it.

 

[BobRyan]

The concept of purgatory is hinted in the Bible,

"hinted" as in "you may find an opening to read may more into the text than what it says".

No doubt there exists such sorts of "hints" for a great many doctrines that Christians in general have not held.

Regarding the idea that 'every Christian truth must be referenced in the Bible', listen to what Dr Steve Ray have to say.

In fact the idea of basing doctrine on tradition when it is not found/defined in scripture is not at all foreign to Catholic practice

 

[BobRyan]

A definition of "Purgatory" might also help.

Since "Trinity" is a word that is also not in the Bible, but the CF definition of "Christian" requires belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost no one should get anywhere in this thread based on arguing that the specific word "purgatory" is not.

One God Deut 6:4
In three persons Matt 28:19

Is not all that difficult to find in scripture EVEN though the word trinity is not in the Bible.

So then the Purgatory teaching that the dead are currently suffering extreme pain/torment in purgatory on their way to heaven, and that getting the living to earn an indulgence for them would help them get into heaven sooner, long before the resurrection of the saints at Christ's coming..etc is not at all found in scripture. So to say that there is a tradition that teaches it , found in some groups, is not at all disputed.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the Apostle Paul, were SO"

 

[BobRyan]

You're just throwing mud on the wall, huh? Why should we care what anti-Christ Jews believed was canonical?

Your so-called "anti-christ Jews" in the case above are those Jews living at the time of Christ and also many centuries before Christ. Jews that kept sacred scripture preserved in the Temple and declared to be blessed by God for doing so, in Rom 3:1-4

Rom 3​

1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

They were the ones entrusted with the oracles of God, entrusted with defining and preserving the Hebrew Bible, entrusted with that canonized text unchanged since the time of Malachi as their own historian points out.

Bashing them in the shoot-from-the-hip fashion we see in your post , is not in line with Paul's teaching in Rom 3

Or gnostic heretics like Marcion?

Heretics have existed in every age. That does not justify bashing the people of God in every age. I think we can all agree on this point

Acts 17:

Paul at Berea​

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men

The readers of Luke's text in Acts 17 had the concept of "The scriptures" and so also did the nonChristian Jews in the synagogue in Berea as we are told in Acts 17

Paul at Berea​

Acts 17:
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men

1. They had what they call "Scriptures" long before the council of Jamnia

The readers of Luke's text in Acts 17 had the concept of "The scriptures" and so also did the nonChristian Jews in the synagogue in Berea as we are told in Acts 17

Luke 24:
26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

...

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

Luke's readers had the concept of "ALL the SCRIPTURES" in Luke 24. This was long before any so-called "Jamnia" event.

Christ taught "from all the scriptures" according to Luke 24 and Luke's readers knew what that meant as they read his gospel

This is irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

A definition of "Purgatory" might also help.

you won't find that "defined" in scripture

 

[Fervent]

Your so-called "anti-christ Jews" in the case above are those Jews living at the time of Christ and also many centuries before Christ. Jews that kept sacred scripture preserved in the Temple and declared to be blessed by God for doing so, in Rom 3:1-4

By 90 AD the jews who were settling the canon were those who rejected Jesus, and the temple had been destroyed.

Rom 3​

1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

They were the ones entrusted with the oracles of God, entrusted with defining and preserving the Hebrew Bible, entrusted with that canonized text unchanged since the time of Malachi as their own historian points out.

Bashing them in the shoot-from-the-hip fashion we see in your post , is not in line with Paul's teaching in Rom 3

I'm not "bashing them", I'm pointing out that the exclusion of the Greek books that happened at the turn of the 2nd century by the Jews was an attempt to de-legitimize Christianity which was dependent on the Greek OT in the Old Greek and the Septuagint.

Heretics have existed in every age. That does not justify bashing the people of God in every age. I think we can all agree on this point

Acts 17:

Paul at Berea​

10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men

The readers of Luke's text in Acts 17 had the concept of "The scriptures" and so also did the nonChristian Jews in the synagogue in Berea as we are told in Acts 17

You're reading your presuppositions into the text here

Paul at Berea​

Acts 17:
10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men

1. They had what they call "Scriptures" long before the council of Jamnia

Yeah, and the Scriptures they had included the books excluded from the Hebrew corpus by the Jews.

The readers of Luke's text in Acts 17 had the concept of "The scriptures" and so also did the nonChristian Jews in the synagogue in Berea as we are told in Acts 17

Luke 24:
26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

...

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

Luke's readers had the concept of "ALL the SCRIPTURES" in Luke 24. This was long before any so-called "Jamnia" event.

So then the Jews at Jamnia removed Scriptures when they excluded those books found in Greek.

Christ taught "from all the scriptures" according to Luke 24 and Luke's readers knew what that meant as they read his gospel

This is irrefutable.

Yeah, and Christ taught from the books excluded in the Protestant canon.

 

[BobRyan]

By 90 AD the jews who were settling the canon were those who rejected Jesus

Not true.

As Luke 24 and Acts 17 prove ... long before 70 AD they already had what they referred to as "all the scriptures". So much so that Luke uses the term for his readers in those chapters without any hesitation.

, and the temple had been destroyed.

I'm not "bashing them", I'm pointing out that the exclusion of the Greek books that happened at the turn of the 2nd century by the Jews was an attempt to de-legitimize Christianity which was dependent on the Greek OT in the Old Greek and the Septuagint.

It is non-Christian Jews in Acts 17:11 , in the Synagogue, deciding for the Gospel based on "searching the scriptures".

Greek Jews were reading the Septuagint.

There is nothing in the apocryphal Greek texts that is needed in Christianity. Not one of our doctrines needs it.

Yeah, and Christ taught from the books excluded in the Protestant canon.

In Luke 24 Luke speaks of Christ teaching from Moses and all the prophets. The greek additions were never considered inspired and were not included in the Hebrew Bible , and this was the case centuries before Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

Always in His Presence said:
Can it be clearly seen in Scripture or is it just something 'alluded' to, but not contextually supported.

More specifically , does it pass the Acts 17:11 test of "What is so" that even a nonChristian Jew would be able to apply and get to the right answer.

That's actually the wrong question.

Not for the people in Acts 17:11 that accepted the Bible by applying that bible test of 'What is so" vs "what is not so"

The first question should be 'what do we make of prayers for the dead?'

Should "What does the BIBLE make of prayers to the dead and for the dead".

There are no prayers for the dead in the Bible

What is more Isaiah 8:19-20 has some pretty good advice

Hebrews 9 says "it is appointed to man once to die and then comes the judgment"
Not "and then comes torment while you wait for someone to earn an indulgence for you , so you can move on to the next step"

 

[Fervent]

Not true.

As Luke 24 and Acts 17 prove ... long before 70 AD they already had what they referred to as "all the scriptures". So much so that Luke uses the term for his readers in those chapters without any hesitation.

you're inferring a scope that isn't present in the text. The septuagint was complete as well, and it wasn't until after the turn of the 2nd century that the "apocrypha" were excluded from the Hebrew canon

It is non-Christian Jews in Acts 17:11 , in the Synagogue, deciding for the Gospel based on "searching the scriptures".

Berea was heavily Hellenistic, so it is hghly likely the Scriptures those non-Christian Jews searched were one of the Greek translations.

Greek Jews were reading the Septuagint.

And what was the primary language of Berea?

There is nothing in the apocryphal Greek texts that is needed in Christianity. Not one of our doctrines needs it.

Your argument is circular.

In Luke 24 Luke speaks of Christ teaching from Moses and all the prophets. The greek additions were never considered inspired and were not included in the Hebrew Bible , and this was the case centuries before Christ.

The scope of the Hebrew Bible wasn't decided until after the 2nd century, whch is why Jamnia is important. Many of Jesus' quotes match the Greek translations, and Jesus references the contested books and even directly quotes from Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon. The Jews excluded those books because they so strongly supported Christianity.