scripture that supports Purgatory

[truthHurts77]

Wow okay. Well Scripture shows me and My Spirit bears witness with HIS Spirit that I am indeed His Child as where I cry out abba Father. I do not need to go to any "Church" to be in His presence. Since His actual Presence lives in Me.. I am His temple. I pray that His presence resides in you by His Spirit.

i never said anything that would contradict anything you say here

except the part about not having to go to any Church

if God sets up a Church, it stands to reason He wants people to go there.

And the Holy Mass is NOT like any place else on Earth

as you know, God is with you wherever you go..

But guess what?

so is Satan

(and his followers)

 

[truthHurts77]

Can I suggest you read Spe Salvi.

yeh, if you tell me what the heck its about... who wrote it..

i dont read anything that is against the Church... tiresome...

 

[truthHurts77]

So please tell me. Why did Christ die? If one thinks His blood is not sufficient then is that not denying all that scripture teaches us?

it is not sufficient if one does not APPLY it to his life, his soul

 

[truthHurts77]

you are the one that trys to tell me that there is a purgatory to cleanse men from their sin. So I ask a simple question and get a deflection. hmmm okay well I can tell you that there is no need for purgatory for Christ shed His blood and rose from the dead.

fail to see why it can't be both... you have not shown anything to suport... t

 

[ebia]

yeh, if you tell me what the heck its about... who wrote it..

i dont read anything that is against the Church... tiresome...

Part of it is about purgatory. The current Pope.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I smiled when I stumbled across this thread, having been too busy these past few weeks to catch up on these things here at GT.

What we have for the OP is the standard handful of verses used by Catholic apologists for the doctrine of Purgatory (or purgation, as some modern apologists would have it).

None of these verses, including the one from II Maccabees explicitly states this doctrine in the form(s) which the Catholic Church teaches it today. One must imply much from these verses and mix in a great amount of Catholic Tradition to reach this conclusion.

 

[Albion]

None of these verses, including the one from II Maccabees explicitly states this doctrine in the form(s) which the Catholic Church teaches it today. One must imply much from these verses and mix in a great amount of Catholic Tradition to reach this conclusion.

so true, so succinct, and yet it seems to never register with our friends of the other persuasion.

 

[MamaZ]

fail to see why it can't be both... you have not shown anything to suport... t

Because on the shed blood cleanses sin. This is why Christ shed His blood. The final sacrafical Lamb. So I guess the Idea of a purgatory does not to me line up with the full context of scripture. For when we go home to be with Christ our corruptable bodies are no more. For we are changed in the twinking of an eye. Why would we need an aternative to what God has already provided Through Christ.

 

[winslow]

.

 

[Albion]

Where was Adam held until the death of Abraham?

There is an answer to that which the Medieval Catholic Church made. Reformed Christians are not adamant about rejecting it, but it is just speculation; and since the issue is not answered in Scipture, we prefer not to start guessing. Look up "Limbo of our Fathers."

 

[thegospelisgoodnews]

the roman catholic Church (the Original Church founded by Christ) did not make up Purgatory.

the word Purgatory is not in the written Word of God but Catholics do not just go by the written Word, but by every word that comes from God... and some of His Word comes through HIs Church witout being found in the written scirptures..

so anyhow... the concept of a place of purging IS in scirptre

there is 1 Cor 3:13-

St Mt 18:23 ("until...")

St Mt 12:32 (forgiveness in the age to come)

In Maccabees it speaks of praying for others, that they may be loosed from their sins... these were people who had died in battle

there are others but i can't htink of all of them... maybe i willl think of more by tomorrow

maybe you will find scriptures to support the spanish inquisition too!......maybe!

 

[Albion]

Actually, none of those verses supports Purgatory. They might be said to support SOME aspect or other of the nature of Purgatory as the Roman Catholic Church constructed the idea, but they could just as easily be describing a much different place or state in the afterlife--or even a situation on this Earth. Some of the so-called proof texts relating, allegedly, to Purgatory may well be referring to Hell or to the destruction of the world by fire.

 

[truthHurts77]

Because on the shed blood cleanses sin. This is why Christ shed His blood. The final sacrafical Lamb. So I guess the Idea of a purgatory does not to me line up with the full context of scripture. For when we go home to be with Christ our corruptable bodies are no more. For we are changed in the twinking of an eye. Why would we need an aternative to what God has already provided Through Christ.

if you knew the OT you would know how much God hates sin and how absolutely holy he is

and how unholy we humans are...

but we can achieve perfection... in Christ... Purgatory... The Church did NOT make up Purgatory... dont beleive all you hear sbout the RCC Most of it is OFF

purififcation takes TIME with us..

i have no more time on i-net

 

[Albion]

if you knew the OT you would know how much God hates sin and how absolutely holy he is

and how unholy we humans are...

What she was telling you is the #1 message of the Bible--that although what you say here is so, Jesus has saved us, paid the price, taken the sins of the world upon himself so that we would not have to face Hell.

But the Medieval Church put back an alternate Hell called Purgatory that it says we will all face, with the only concession being that it won't last beyond the end of the world. That completely mocks Jesus's assurance that, in Him, we no longer have anything to fear. Purgatory stipulates that our sins are NOT remitted after all.

 

[truthHurts77]

What she was telling you is the #1 message of the Bible--that although what you say here is so, Jesus has saved us, paid the price, taken the sins of the world upon himself so that we would not have to face Hell.

But the Medieval Church put back an alternate Hell called Purgatory that it says we will all face, with the only concession being that it won't last beyond the end of the world. That completely mocks Jesus's assurance that, in Him, we no longer have anything to fear. Purgatory stipulates that our sins are NOT remitted after all.

there is only one Church and it is the Roman CahtolicChurch

that Church did not "invent" Purgatory...

The Jews used to... probaly still do... pray for the souls of the dead, that they be "released from their sins" This is spoken of in Maccabbess, a book some Jews and all protestants reject... but at least one sect of the Jews accepts it and the RCC does...

it was Luther who threw those books out of the Bible because they did not conform to his doctrine, which is man made...

that being said (and there is so much more that could be said as welll)

there ARE allusions to Purgatroy in the Bible

1 Cor 3:13

St Mt 18:23

Rev which says something about your name being blotted out of the Book of LIfe... can't be blotted out if it wasn't there to begin with

i am running out of time for i-net today... God bless

 

[Annolennar]

it was Luther who threw those books out of the Bible because they did not conform to his doctrine, which is man made...

Actually, Luther moved the Deuterocanon to a new section called Apocrypha, but he did include them in his German translation of the Bible as he believed that they were good and useful texts (perhaps just not quite to the standard of "Scripture").

No doubt that the content of the books influenced the decision, but the objective reason he did so was to follow the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Jewish canon) rather than the Greek Septuagint (the "Christian canon" of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament and Early Church). Many (most?) translations of the Bible, both Catholic and Protestant, retained the Deuterocanon up until the 1800s.

Also, to be fair, it was hardly something he just came up with on his own. There were other Catholic parties at that time who were trying to accomplish the same thing (though of course ultimately rejected).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually, Luther moved the Deuterocanon to a new section called Apocrypha, but he did include them in his German translation of the Bible as he believed that they were good and useful texts (perhaps just not quite to the standard of "Scripture").

No doubt that the content of the books influenced the decision, but the objective reason he did so was to follow the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Jewish canon) rather than the Greek Septuagint (the "Christian canon" of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament and Early Church). Many (most?) translations of the Bible, both Catholic and Protestant, retained the Deuterocanon up until the 1800s.

Also, to be fair, it was hardly something he just came up with on his own. There were other Catholic parties at that time who were trying to accomplish the same thing (though of course ultimately rejected).

It is refreshing to me to read fair, unbiased posts of facts such as this. Thank you.

 

[MamaZ]

if you knew the OT you would know how much God hates sin and how absolutely holy he is

and how unholy we humans are...

but we can achieve perfection... in Christ... Purgatory... The Church did NOT make up Purgatory... dont beleive all you hear sbout the RCC Most of it is OFF

purififcation takes TIME with us..

i have no more time on i-net

I do know the OT. I see Gods loving compassion for His people throughout the OT. OF Course God is Holy. That is why there is only salvation through the cross. The perfect blood of the Lamb.

 

[truthHurts77]

Actually, Luther moved the Deuterocanon to a new section called Apocrypha, but he did include them in his German translation of the Bible as he believed that they were good and useful texts (perhaps just not quite to the standard of "Scripture").

No doubt that the content of the books influenced the decision, but the objective reason he did so was to follow the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Jewish canon) rather than the Greek Septuagint (the "Christian canon" of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament and Early Church). Many (most?) translations of the Bible, both Catholic and Protestant, retained the Deuterocanon up until the 1800s.

Also, to be fair, it was hardly something he just came up with on his own. There were other Catholic parties at that time who were trying to accomplish the same thing (though of course ultimately rejected).

dont know where you get your info but i get MINE from reliable sources

he removed those books

as to the rest of your post, i am running out of time 2b on the i-net

 

[Albion]

Actually, Luther moved the Deuterocanon to a new section called Apocrypha, but he did include them in his German translation of the Bible as he believed that they were good and useful texts (perhaps just not quite to the standard of "Scripture").

No doubt that the content of the books influenced the decision, but the objective reason he did so was to follow the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Jewish canon) rather than the Greek Septuagint (the "Christian canon" of the Old Testament quoted in the New Testament and Early Church). Many (most?) translations of the Bible, both Catholic and Protestant, retained the Deuterocanon up until the 1800s.

Also, to be fair, it was hardly something he just came up with on his own. There were other Catholic parties at that time who were trying to accomplish the same thing (though of course ultimately rejected).

​

It is refreshing to me to read fair, unbiased posts of facts such as this. Thank you.

I though so too when I first read it