Is purgatory a Biblical or extra biblical teaching?

BobRyan said:
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.

Click to expand...

Fervent said:

you're inferring a scope that isn't present in the text.

Click to expand...

It is explicit in the text.

Fervent said:

The septuagint was complete as well

Click to expand...

True it was complete.

Fervent said:

, and it wasn't until after the turn of the 2nd century that the "apocrypha" were excluded from the Hebrew canon

Click to expand...

Josephus points out in the first century that nothing was included outside of what we today would call the 39 books (arranged differently in our text as compared to the Hebrew Bible of course).

This is irrefutable.

In addition the apocrypha was never part of the Hebrew Bible and this also is irrefutable. So Josephus' statement holds up.

And of course -- even the apocrypha makes no mention at all of souls in torment after death waiting to be cleaned up and sent to heaven. It just isn't there. And there is no example of Paul teaching that souls are in torment after death waiting to be purified for heaven. It just isn't there so the Bereans could not have bee looking to find some way to validate such a statement never mentioned by Paul in the first place.

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

Fervent said:

Your argument is circular.

Click to expand...

Not true and your response adds to my point in that even you quote absolutely nothing from the Apocrypha speaking about the dead suffering in torment awaiting to be allowed into heaven after a period of dusting off, nor any mention of people earning indulgences to help get them out of such an unsavory place, nor any benefit at all possible for them before the bodily resurrection.

Rather the apocrypha speaks of those guilty of the mortal sin of idolatry, worship of false gods, dying while devoted to heathen gods, paganism.

Even the Catholic church today does not argue for that as the fruit of a true Christian bound for heaven who is aware that the Bible condemns the pagan practice of worshiping pagan gods.

BobRyan said:

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



Not true and your response adds to my point in that even you quote absolutely nothing from the Apocrypha speaking about the dead suffering in torment awaiting to be allowed into heaven after a period of dusting off, nor any mention of people earning indulgences to help get them out of such an unsavory place, nor any benefit at all possible for them before the bodily resurrection.

Rather the apocrypha speaks of those guilty of the mortal sin of idolatry, worship of false gods, dying while devoted to heathen gods, paganism.

Even the Catholic church today does not argue for that as the fruit of a true Christian bound for heaven who is aware that the Bible condemns the pagan practice of worshiping pagan gods.

Click to expand...

yeah, your argument is circular. The doctrinal applicability or inapplicability of the excluded texts is precisely what we're supposed to be establishing so to claim that we don't need it doctrinally is nothing but a circular argument.

BobRyan said:

It is explicit in the text.

Click to expand...

no, you're reading it into the text.

BobRyan said:

True it was complete.

Josephus points out in the first century that nothing was included outside of what we today would call the 39 books (arranged differently in our text as compared to the Hebrew Bible of course).

Click to expand...

Where?

BobRyan said:

This is irrefutable.

Click to expand...

It's a claim, without a clear citation. Where and when does Josephus say such a thing?

BobRyan said:

In addition the apocrypha was never part of the Hebrew Bible and this also is irrefutable. So Josephus' statement holds up.

Click to expand...

claiming Josephus said something is not evidence.

BobRyan said:

And of course -- even the apocrypha makes no mention at all of souls in torment after death waiting to be cleaned up and sent to heaven. It just isn't there. And there is no example of Paul teaching that souls are in torment after death waiting to be purified for heaven. It just isn't there so the Bereans could not have bee looking to find some way to validate such a statement never mentioned by Paul in the first place.

Click to expand...

You're just slinging mud now, and completely skipping over the points i brought up by shifting your argument from what you were claiming before. So where does Josephus say what you says he says?

BobRyan said:

"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.

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

Click to expand...

To be clear, Catholics categorize the Word of God into Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Neither contradicts the other. Realize too that the Catholic Church was in existence before one Word of the New Testament was written. So those early Catholics did not have any of the New Testament. When the new books of the Bible were chosen none were allowed that contradicted Catholic Church doctrine.

BobRyan said:

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



Not true and your response adds to my point in that even you quote absolutely nothing from the Apocrypha speaking about the dead suffering in torment awaiting to be allowed into heaven after a period of dusting off, nor any mention of people earning indulgences to help get them out of such an unsavory place, nor any benefit at all possible for them before the bodily resurrection.

Rather the apocrypha speaks of those guilty of the mortal sin of idolatry, worship of false gods, dying while devoted to heathen gods, paganism.

Even the Catholic church today does not argue for that as the fruit of a true Christian bound for heaven who is aware that the Bible condemns the pagan practice of worshiping pagan gods.

Click to expand...

When the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in the late 300s all apocryphal books were rejected.

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

I mentioned that it was the wrong question to ask because it's framed all wrong. These non-Christian Jews would already accept prayers for the dead and would not see that as anything new that they had to comb through the OT to see if it should be added to what they believed. What they needed to verify was specifically whether reports about Jesus were supported by the OT. Your 'test' isn't something they would have done for things they already believed and done. That's something you have added with your false and un-Scriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura, trying to make the Jews of Berea adherents of your false and novel doctrine. They were not Sola Scriptura people even though they used their OT Bibles, most probably the Septuagent version, to examine the novel ideas about Jesus.

BobRyan said:

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"

Click to expand...

I said the first question should be 'what do we make of prayers for the dead?' Because that was indeed what was so. The Jews prayed for their dead. They still do today. This is true whether or not you are able to find or cannot find evidence in the Bible for it. Or whether you have excluded books from your Bible that say it was so.

BobRyan said:

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

Click to expand...

That's a good dodge. You thus don't have to answer any question about the Jews praying for their dead or how Christians always prayed for their dead. And since you deny that the Bible says anything about praying for the dead, you feel you can be confident in rejecting the whole thing. But it stands that the Jews did and do pray for their dead and that the Christians did pray for their dead and the majority still do.

BobRyan said:

There are no prayers for the dead in the Bible

Click to expand...

But there are. You managed to censor books that mention of them out of the OT and then cleverly claim they aren't in the OT. They're in the NT too. You just are unwilling to see it so you can't see it because you've made up your mind. Not very Berean of you. The Bereans wouldn't rule it out a priori.

BobRyan said:

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

Click to expand...

Prayers for the dead have NOTHING to do with mediums and necromancy.

BobRyan said:

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"

Click to expand...

The truth is you die and you are judged. I accept that. If I die in the faith without being fully sanctified I hope that someone will pray for me while I am purified and sanctified and made ready to behold the vision of God in heaven. I'm not quite ready for that at the moment. And if I die tonight I will not be quite ready either.

One thing I would mention to those who criticize Christian groups who affirm books like Ecclesiasticus ( Sirach), Baruch, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees etc. is that the early churches fought early heresies that tried to discredit the Old Testament books of the law, prophets, Psalms, history ( Nehemiah, 1 & 2 Chronicles etc.)& wisdom ( Ecclesiastes, Job etc.). There were some that even undercut the New Testament that is held in common.

A major example is a sect called the gnostic followers of Marcion:



possibly the first Christian biblical canon ever compiled, consisted of eleven books: the Gospel of Marcion, which was a shorter version of the Gospel of Luke, and ten Pauline epistles.[2][3][6]Marcion's canon rejected the entire Old Testament, along with all other epistles and gospels of what would become the 27-book canon of the New Testament, which during his life had yet to be compiled.[2][3]



It was the early Christian bishops like St. Irenaeus who took on these groups and affirmed the core Old Testament that is commonly held. The New Testament was also not entirely commonly held although even debated writings ( like Hebrews) were considered truthful ( probably like the common “apocrypha” or Deuterocanon).




St. Irenaeus did not often cite the common “apocrypha” but he didn’t reject it. St. Irenaeus also knew the more apocryphal book of Enoch and took some truth from it ( & so did St. Jude in his letter).




John Wycliffe in 1382 made the first English translation of the Bible including the “Apocrypha” without a blink.


Unfortunately for John Wycliffe the political situation around him was ruthless and bloody ( not to mention the Black Death). Because of this, Wycliffe was unjustifiably considered an agitator and his Bible translation seditious ( it wasn’t & the authorities probably didn’t read it) but Satan uses division to ruin us.

Clare73 said:

"Purgatory" is not a Biblical concept.

Click to expand...

Not directly, anyway.

Clare73 said:

There are only two groups of people, the redeemed and the condemned (Jn 3:18).

Click to expand...

Obviously. And only the redeemed to to purgator.

Clare73 said:

We are born condemned objects of wrath by our sinful nature (Eph 2:3).

Click to expand...

Right, which is irrelevent to this discussion.

Clare73 said:

We are redeemed by saving faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8-9).

Click to expand...

So say we all.

Jipsah said:

Not directly, anyway. indirectly. .

Click to expand...

There is no Biblical basis for purgatory, either directly or indirectly.

Clare73 said:

There is no Biblical basis for purgatory, either directly or indirectly.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 3:14-15

Jipsah said:

1 Corinthians 3:14-15

Click to expand...

< sigh >

Read it again. . .

His work will be tested with fire, not the man, and the man whose work does not survivie will receive no reward, which reward does not refer to salvation.

Good day,

I would submit the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory fall in to this category.


Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that “no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195.

In Him,

Bill

Dan Perez said:

And in. the KJV BIBLE. there is no Greek word called PURGATORY , LIMBO. POPE , NUNS. OR COMFESSIOAL. !!

dan p

Click to expand...

There’s no word Trinity either, and the word hell doesn’t exist in the Greek texts, nevertheless the principles for which these words were invented do exist in the Bible. I’m not saying that evidence for purgatory exists in the Bible, I’m just saying that the argument you’re using is weak.

Clare73 said:

< sigh >

Read it again. . .

His work will be tested with fire, not the man, and the man whose work does not survivie will receive no reward, which reward does not refer to salvation.

Click to expand...

Purgatory has nothing to do with salvation. Only the saved go there.

Jipsah said:

Purgatory has nothing to do with salvation. Only the saved go there.

Click to expand...

But it does have everything to do with atonement for sin, which is where the problem begins.

"Now, again, in Catholic theology, this is sensibly spoken of penance and purgatory, not of hell or of salvation. The above description fits very nicely with the Catholic (and biblical) concept of purgatory. We “owe God a righteous life”; not in order to be saved (as both Protestants and Catholics agree that we can be saved while still possessing actual sinfulness and less than perfect sanctity), but in order to (already saved) enter heaven, where no sin is allowed (Rev 21:27; implied also by the tenor and content of Isaiah 6:1-8, where the prophet Isaiah comes in contact with God)."

"6) The fact that Israelites at various times became corrupt, or that the poor were excessively oppressed by the rich and powerful (condemnations throughout the prophets), or that the Jubilee Year was not always properly observed, does not eliminate the applicability of the metaphor. Every analogy to human existence will be flawed to some extent because of human sin, but that doesn’t wipe out the principle that our Lord was trying to put across by means of these metaphors. Men might oppress unduly (including debtor’s prisons) but we know that God is just, and He will let us out when we “pay” what we owe."

A Biblical Argument For Purgatory (Matthew 5:25-26)

Always in His Presence said:

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

For simplicity sake, can I humbly ask that extemporaneous writings and history be minimized (please don't write 1,000 words) and Scripture be emphasized.

Let's start with one verse at a time, discuss the verse contextually and then go to the next - just a suggestion.

Click to expand...

It seems to be a concept developed from the Apocrypha. It's not canonically legitimate. Humans lack actual knowledge about what canonization could mean, in terms of conveying historical truth as humans lack the ability to actually write history. Among the thousand civilizations ever existed on the surface of earth, only the Chinese and the Jews can have a rather complete set of history.

(Possibly that God left the Chinese history to be a reference, which is the only reference available. Humans however don't have the sense to examine it in details, as the god of this world has blinded the minds of humans)

Chinese history is canonized, without canonization there will be no Chinese history. That's how critical canonization is in terms of preserving historical information. Canonization is about continued effort from an authority in terms of preserving its content and passing it through generations. It's the successive Chinese governments which are responsible for keeping and conveying the Canon of history.

By the same token, canonization of both NT and OT involves continued effort from a dedicated authority. OT canonization started with King Hezekiah, it's said that 17 out of 24 books of are with the seal of King Hezekiah. Kings can be an authority as how the Chinese conveying secular history. However kings (Caesar) cannot be a reliable authority working for God. God has to choose His own earthly authority in the different periods of time (similar effect of successive Chinese governments preserving the secular history). By the time of Jesus' days, the Pharisees are in Moses' seat acting as such an authority. The last 2 books added to the OT Canon are supposed to be the two books written in Aramaic instead of Hebrew, forming the 24 book OT Canon, as guarded by the Pharisees (Sadducees don't actually have a Canon as they only embrace the first 5 books which is the Law) as such an authority. (the corresponding authority for the NT Bible is God's earthly Church)

The Chinese claim to have 5000 years of history. The first 2500 years of canonical history (Shiji) was written by a single person sitting home without leaving his own house. You can imagine that how a single person sitting home without going anywhere could possibly write a history of 2500 years reliably. This however marks the maximum level of human capability in terms of writing history! It's Satan's effort to fool humans into overestimating their ability, and it's Satan's effort in leading humans to an ideal which can never achieved by humans (that's the Tree of Knowledge). Humans thus based on this mission impossible ideal to judge that the Bible is "imperfect" or "erroneous" by overlooking the actual human capability.

That said. purgatory is not a canonical concept and is not legitimate (if you know what canonization could mean). LXX is an effort to translate the Jewish writings to the Hellenistic world to benefit even the Jews who can only speak Greek (may include even Saint Stephen the first Martyr). It's accuracy is maintained by the various publishers instead of a central authority (such as the Pharisaic elites in the Jewish Great Sanhedrin). On the other hand, the Hebrew version of the canonical OT Scripture are "published"/copied by the scribes authenticated by the Pharisees/Great Sanhedrin. They are controlled copies while the LXX are uncontrolled copies.

When the NT Bible was canonized, Christians handily used the LXX as the OT Canon because it's written in Greek (the same as the NT Bible). However the true nature of canonization is that, OT belongs to the Jews. It's the Jews' testimony and their canonization from King Hezekiah till Ezra till the Pharisees. NT on the other hand belongs to Christians. It's the Jewish Christians' testimony and it's the Christians' canonization. The legitimation of Apocrypha is excluded. LXX can only be a reference to the original Jewish OT Canon.

The Judgment of Covenant (vs. Law) is a subjective judgment from a just and fair God (who is Christ). Jesus will sum up all factors (including one's heart and mind) to provide a fair judgment under all circumstances to determine who shall enter Heaven. Purgatory is never needed in this situation.

Jipsah said:

Purgatory has nothing to do with salvation. Only the saved go there.

Click to expand...

< sigh >

See posts #112, #115.

RamiC said:

"Now, again, in Catholic theology, this is sensibly spoken of penance and purgatory, not of hell or of salvation. The above description fits very nicely with the Catholic (and biblical) concept of purgatory. We “owe God a righteous life”; not in order to be saved (as both Protestants and Catholics agree that we can be saved while still possessing actual sinfulness and less than perfect sanctity), but in order to (already saved) enter heaven, where no sin is allowed (Rev 21:27; implied also by the tenor and content of Isaiah 6:1-8, where the prophet Isaiah comes in contact with God)."

"6) The fact that Israelites at various times became corrupt, or that the poor were excessively oppressed by the rich and powerful (condemnations throughout the prophets), or that the Jubilee Year was not always properly observed, does not eliminate the applicability of the metaphor. Every analogy to human existence will be flawed to some extent because of human sin, but that doesn’t wipe out the principle that our Lord was trying to put across by means of these metaphors. Men might oppress unduly (including debtor’s prisons) but we know that God is just, and He will let us out when we “pay” what we owe."

A Biblical Argument For Purgatory (Matthew 5:25-26)

Click to expand...

The purpose for Christ’s sacrifice was to pay for all of our sins.