- Mar 19, 2016
- 4,195
- 1,972
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
can you give me a link to support "Just the other day he took out Matthew and replaced it with the didache."
Thanks
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Friend, the pope may add or remove books from the Bible as he pleases. Just the other day he took out Matthew and replaced it with the didache.
Other than that it seriously misrepresents what the doctrine of purgatory is, and relies on your own thinking (which is called into question by your misrepresentation of what the Church teaches about purgatory), I find that to be a compelling response.It goes to credibility. If there is a place for purging, then one cannot escape the conclusion that Christ did NOT become sin for us, as is written. The scriptures give me no reason to believe:
* there is sin,
* there are half way sins, and then
* non-sin.
You don't have to be God to know how this thread is going to end.
Other than that it seriously misrepresents what the doctrine of purgatory is, and relies on your own thinking (which is called into question by your misrepresentation of what the Church teaches about purgatory), I find that to be a compelling response.
The Catholic Church does not state that purgatory is a place. We know the nothing unclean can enter Heaven, the purification before Heaven is purgatory. That's it--you either believe the Bible or you don't.That's why I created this thread...to explore the definition of that belief and to see if it withstands the test of scripture. Some of the other roman catholics in this thread have called it "purging."
So, what's YOUR definition?
The Catholic Church does not state that purgatory is a place. We know the nothing unclean can enter Heaven, the purification before Heaven is purgatory. That's it--you either believe the Bible or you don't.
Then why haven't you bothered to study the only definition that matters? You know, the one given by the Catholic Church? I gave you the link already.
It goes to credibility. If there is a place for purging, then one cannot escape the conclusion that Christ did NOT become sin for us, as is written. The scriptures give me no reason to believe:
* there is sin,
* there are half way sins, and then
* non-sin.
Sin is sin, from what I have always known, and attempts at establishing what sound like "not quite" sin, but also "not quite" righteous....as if there is some middle ground between sin and righteousness. To my thinking, that would be like saying a woman can be "partially pregnant" without arguing the finer details of the fertilized egg not yet attached to the lining, etc.
So, there's no middle ground to Christ's crucifixion from what I understand that the apostles wrote. If someone has something substantial in the language of scripture in support of purging, then I'd be interested in seeing it.
You have to also remember God is also a righteous judge. He has to be just. What about those who where born and raised in a different geographical location in where they would never learn or know Christ? Should they just go to hell? Obviously, they can't just shoot up to heaven either.. so what is the right judgement here?
What about other people who may have hurt someone severely such as abusing someone that he/she commits suicide, should that just be "swept under the rug"? Imagine if a country had a leader who granted his followers a safe pass (or reward them to a life of paradise) to do any crime towards others. Is this leader just/righteous?
I will respond there but responding here isn't my cup of tea. I just get really tired of the polemics.I did that a year or so ago about other questions, and some folks took it personal, so that's why I took it here. I knew some adherents would find this eventually, and perhaps tone down some with the realization we're not in their sacred area. I don't like walking on egg shells.
As I’m sure you know, a great deal written in The Bible is hidden until someone seeks Christ. You are of course correct in your observation of why the king might have wanted his own church. People are reading the Bible the same way today reading without seeing. All we can do is pray.No, your use of the term apostolic church is incorrect. But that's OK. If my church were founded by a king so that he could get a divorce, I would probably want to obfuscate the meaning of the phrase as well.
All I can offer to you is what is written along this line:
[Romans 1:18-23] 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
My understanding doesn't go beyond what's written and what Holy Spirit reveals, as is stated in 1 John 2:27.
The question is supposed to show the need of being just and righteous. Yes, Christ saved us but he is still the Righteous Judge and it would not be right to just let any sin done to someone get swept under the rug. Just answer the question by yourself plain and simple, how can a leader be considered good based on those actions given?I'm not sure what these questions are driving at in relation to what I actually said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?