A question to Roman Catholics about Purgatory

[concretecamper]

1. No books were added to the Bible after 100 A.D. so nobody was "waiting 100's of years"

double ugh, THERE WAS NO BIBLE IN 100 AD

 

[concretecamper]

We could of course "Agree NOT to read it" and ignore what is revealed there - but that is not a very compelling solution.

In my experience, this is the mantra of protesntism

 

[BobRyan]

Ugh, none of the NT writers had any idea they were writing what would be know as the Bible.

Until you read the end of 2 Peter 3 and 1 Thess 2.

2 Peter 3:15 Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter includes the writing of Paul in scripture and writes as if the contemporary readers already know this is a fact.

Paul points out the same detail in 1 Thess 2:13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of mere men, but as what it really is, the word of God, which also is at work in you who believe

Each of these Bible details matter even when found to be inconvenient scripture

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
1. when we read those verses in Mark 7 we are seeing an argument for sola-scriptura vs tradition.
2. Jesus said to follow his example. Christians tend to do that.

adding to scripture, something that shouldn't be done

But we can read...

reading the actual words we find this - sola scriptura testing method demonstrated by Christ

Mark 7;
6 But He said to them...
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

So there we see "Word of God" = "Commandment of God" = "Moses said"
And it is in opposition to "your tradition" , "tradition of men", "Commandments of men"

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

We could of course "Agree NOT to read it" and ignore what is revealed there - but that is not a very compelling solution.

By contrast we have this in Acts 17:11 fully agreeing with the method of Christ in Mark 7

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

In my experience, this is the mantra of protesntism

In my experience Acts 17:11 and Mark 7 are both in the Protestant Bible and in the Catholic one as well.

 

[concretecamper]

2 Peter 3:15 Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

some people misunderstood Paul teaching were hard, and many misunderstood them, just like some misunderstood the teachings of the Tanakh.

You can do what Peter warns against and twist scripture to suit your needs, but Peter is very clear what will happen.

 

[concretecamper]

BobRyan said: ↑
1. when we read those verses in Mark 7 we are seeing an argument for sola-scriptura vs tradition.
2. Jesus said to follow his example. Christians tend to do that.



But we can read...

reading the actual words we find this - sola scriptura testing method demonstrated by Christ

Mark 7;
6 But He said to them...
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

So there we see "Word of God" = "Commandment of God" = "Moses said"
And it is in opposition to "your tradition" , "tradition of men", "Commandments of men"

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

We could of course "Agree NOT to read it" and ignore what is revealed there - but that is not a very compelling solution.

By contrast we have this in Acts 17:11 fully agreeing with the method of Christ in Mark 7

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



In my experience Acts 17:11 and Mark 7 are both in the Protestant Bible and in the Catholic one as well.

copy and paste the same tired verses a fourth time, it's still not gonna mean what you need it to mean.

 

[BobRyan]

copy and paste the same tired verses a fourth time, it's still not gonna mean what you need it to mean.

depends on if someone is actually reading those scriptures and whether they consider the scripture posted to be "The Word of God" or simply "tired verses of scripture that do not agree with some preferences of the one reading them"

 

[BobRyan]

some people misunderstood Paul teaching were hard, and many misunderstood them, just like some misunderstood the teachings of the Tanakh.
.

The detail you skimmed over is the one where Peter classes Paul's writings with "the rest of scripture" and where Paul says in 1 Thess 2 that his writing was being accepted as the written "Word of God".

Now what is truly "odd" is that you are objecting here even though both Catholics and Protestants agree on the 27 books of the New Testament text - being included in scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

27 books of the New Testament text

ugh, we are not talking about the 27 books.

Simple answer to decide this debate, QUOTE me the chapter and verse in scripture that tells us all which books are to be included in the NT. Was it Paul who published the TOC . No wait, it was James?