Purgatory and Praying to Saints in Catholic Biblical Perspective

[BreadOfLife]

why does anyone have a problem for praying for the dead?

I dunno . . .

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

why does anyone have a problem for praying for the dead?

A Christian does not pray for the dead, it's the Souls of them who have past from this life.

Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the dead at all, as he is the God of the living. he came to Save peoples Soul when they live this life and then one can go to Heaven. that's why his name is Emmanuel God with us, as such that's how he Saves our Souls and that's why he is called Jesus.

One who prays to the dead is a Satanist.

 

[jaybird]

A Christian does not pray for the dead, it's the Souls of them who have past from this life.

Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the dead at all, as he is the God of the living. he came to Save peoples Soul when they live this life and then one can go to Heaven. that's why his name is Emmanuel God with us, as such that's how he Saves our Souls and that's why he is called Jesus.

One who prays to the dead is a Satanist.

thanks for clearing that up, when my loved ones pass away i always get confused, do i pray for my loved ones? or do i pray for their dead body? lol

 

[justbyfaith]

I stay away from Catholic arguments for the most part.

Because I believe that there is such a thing as a born again Catholic.

Of course, Catholics of this sort are far and few between...they would have to adhere to the biblical view of Ephesians 2:8-9.

 

[Illuminator]

thanks for clearing that up, when my loved ones pass away i always get confused, do i pray for my loved ones? or do i pray for their dead body? lol

You can pray for your dead loved ones who weren't perfect when they died.
Nobody I know ever prayed TO a dead body, except Jesus and Peter who prayed to dead bodies commanding them to rise. I'm never confused. Of course, history records exceptions...100's of them.

 

[Illuminator]

the Essenes of Qumran (sect of John the baptist) were teaching soul purification long before the RCC ever came into existence.

What was the date that the "RCC" came into existence? What evidence exists that the "RCC" is NOT the fulfilment of Judaism?

 

[jaybird]

What was the date that the "RCC" came into existence? What evidence exists that the "RCC" is NOT the fulfilment of Judaism?

i think the first church of Jerusalem, lead by James, was before the RCC. what happened to that church?

 

[BreadOfLife]

i think the first church of Jerusalem, lead by James, was before the RCC. what happened to that church?

First of all "RCC" is a false moniker. "Roman" simply refers to the Liturgical Rite.
There is only The Catholic Church. - and the Church at Jerusalem was part of this Church.

There are some TWENTY Liturgical Rites that comprise the Catholic Church, like the Maronite, Melkite, Byzantine, Coptic, etc. You wouldn't refer to ANY of them as "Roman Catholics".

As for the Essenes praying for the dead - this was a practice in Judaism - LONG before John the Baptist.

 

[Illuminator]

i think the first church of Jerusalem, lead by James, was before the RCC. what happened to that church?

There is no historical evidence that James taught anything contradictory or in opposition to Peter and Paul, it was all one and the same church. After the death of James, the centrality of the Church in Jerusalem shifted to Rome where Peter and Paul were martyred. There is truckloads of documents from the Early Church Fathers testifying to what happened to the historic Church during this time of what we call The Infant Church. Sadly, the truth of history is obscured, largely by Baptist mythology.

Have you ever made a sweat lodge? I have. Many years ago.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I stay away from Catholic arguments for the most part.
Because I believe that there is such a thing as a born again Catholic.
Of course, Catholics of this sort are far and few between...they would have to adhere to the biblical view of Ephesians 2:8-9.

It cracks me up every time I see this kind of ignorant manure.
It's not for YOU to determine who is born again and who isn't. That's between the individual and God.

It's not up to YOU.

 

[jaybird]

There is no historical evidence that James taught anything contradictory or in opposition to Peter and Paul, it was all one and the same church. After the death of James, the centrality of the Church in Jerusalem shifted to Rome where Peter and Paul were martyred. There is truckloads of documents from the Early Church Fathers testifying to what happened to the historic Church during this time of what we call The Infant Church. Sadly, the truth of history is obscured, largely by Baptist mythology.

Have you ever made a sweat lodge? I have. Many years ago.

i dont know about that, we know that James and the first church would have been closer to the Nazarenes / sect of Jesus and rome did not agree with the sect of Jesus as they accused the sect of Jesus as heretics.
we know that the Essenes and Nazarenes were closely connected if not the same group. we know that these two sects, along with James and the first church all disappear after the revolt of 70ad. and who benefits after all that, the pharisees and rome who had always been allied. pharisee Judaism becomes bigger than ever, and rome, the ones that kill Jesus, the 12 (not John he got life in prison), John the baptist, and st Paul, they become the new leaders of Christianity?? i guess when you kill everyone in charge its easy.

 

[Illuminator]

i think the first church of Jerusalem, lead by James, was before the RCC. what happened to that church?

The origin of the term "Catholic" is found in Romans 1:8, which Paul used to describe the entire church of the known world at the time.
QUESTION: CATHOLIC: Where did the word originate?
ANSWER: It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

QUESTION: What is the meaning of the word? ANSWER: It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is necessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

QUESTION: But is it Biblical?

ANSWER: Yes it is. It is inferred in Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world."
That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.
See Romans 1:8 the Greek word Katholicos is found.

 

[Illuminator]

i dont know about that, we know that James and the first church would have been closer to the Nazarenes / sect of Jesus and rome did not agree with the sect of Jesus as they accused the sect of Jesus as heretics.
we know that the Essenes and Nazarenes were closely connected if not the same group. we know that these two sects, along with James and the first church all disappear after the revolt of 70ad. and who benefits after all that, the pharisees and rome who had always been allied. pharisee Judaism becomes bigger than ever, and rome, the ones that kill Jesus, the 12 (not John he got life in prison), John the baptist, and st Paul, they become the new leaders of Christianity?? i guess when you kill everyone in charge its easy.

That's right, the pagan Romans killed the first 39 (+1) popes during the first 2 centuries of Christianity. Funny that fact is never mentioned by anti-Catholics. Over 70 verses in the NT clearly indicate Peter as leader of the universal Church and/or spokesman for all the Apostles. Linus was Peter's successor. Catholics slaughtering Catholics is a myth invented by "Bible alone" hate cults. The Bible contains history, but it is not a history book. The Herodian Jews were not Pharisees. Paul was a Pharisee. The Bereans were Pharisees. To claim that the Herodian Jews (who persecuted Paul) were the original Catholics is a lie from the pit of hell.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to write early church history based on the Bible alone. But sola scripturists don't care, they try to do it anyway.

 

[BreadOfLife]

i dont know about that, we know that James and the first church would have been closer to the Nazarenes / sect of Jesus and rome did not agree with the sect of Jesus as they accused the sect of Jesus as heretics.
we know that the Essenes and Nazarenes were closely connected if not the same group. we know that these two sects, along with James and the first church all disappear after the revolt of 70ad. and who benefits after all that, the pharisees and rome who had always been allied. pharisee Judaism becomes bigger than ever, and rome, the ones that kill Jesus, the 12 (not John he got life in prison), John the baptist, and st Paul, they become the new leaders of Christianity?? i guess when you kill everyone in charge its easy.

This is perhaps the most historically-ignorant rant on this thread - and that's saying a LOT.

Even IF you honestly believe that the true Church "disappeared" after the Jewish Revolt in 70AD and was replaced by the "evil" Catholic Church - you would have to explain WHY Rome persecuted and butchered Catholics for an additional 220 years.
You would ALSO have to explain why Jesus LIED in Matt. 16:18 when He explicitly guaranteed that the gates of Hell would NOT prevail against His Church.

Are you prepared to provide an explanation for either of these scenarios?

 

[Illuminator]

You would ALSO have to explain why Jesus LIED in Matt. 16:18 when He explicitly guaranteed that the gates of Hell would NOT prevail against His Church.

Permit me to re-phrase.
"...the gates of Hell shall NOT PREVAIL..."
"not prevail" does not mean "never attack". The attacks have rarely ceased in history. Satan got tired of attacking with heretics (Arius, Nestorius, Apollinaris etc. ad infinitum) He tried attacking from within the Church using corrupt popes. They existed, no Catholic denies this. But they did not prevail. No corrupt pope every taught one word of infallible teaching anyway, but they sure make for a juicy TV series.

Paul talks much about the end times, but he never said the Church would be overcome. That is a man made tradition that fails at every level.

 

[jaybird]

That's right, the pagan Romans killed the first 39 (+1) popes during the first 2 centuries of Christianity. Funny that fact is never mentioned by anti-Catholics. Over 70 verses in the NT clearly indicate Peter as leader of the universal Church and/or spokesman for all the Apostles. Linus was Peter's successor. Catholics slaughtering Catholics is a myth invented by "Bible alone" hate cults. The Bible contains history, but it is not a history book. The Herodian Jews were not Pharisees. Paul was a Pharisee. The Bereans were Pharisees. To claim that the Herodian Jews (who persecuted Paul) were the original Catholics is a lie from the pit of hell.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to write early church history based on the Bible alone. But sola scripturists don't care, they try to do it anyway.

Why would rome kill its own popes that makes as much sensa as rome killing Herod or rome killing the pharisee leaders, they don't kill their own people that they put into power.
If we found a lost book that claimed after Solomon the real temple moved to the philistine empire and the philistines were the true church, would you believe that? No one would believe that because they were the enemies of Israel just like rome was. Are you saying the Most High rewarded rome for killing Jesus by making rome the new church?

 

[jaybird]

This is perhaps the most historically-ignorant rant on this thread - and that's saying a LOT.

Even IF you honestly believe that the true Church "disappeared" after the Jewish Revolt in 70AD and was replaced by the "evil" Catholic Church - you would have to explain WHY Rome persecuted and butchered Catholics for an additional 220 years.
You would ALSO have to explain why Jesus LIED in Matt. 16:18 when He explicitly guaranteed that the gates of Hell would NOT prevail against His Church.

Are you prepared to provide an explanation for either of these scenarios?

Not ignorant when it's true. You know that stuff happened.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not ignorant when it's true. You know that stuff happened.

No - it's completely ignorant.

As I challenged you in my last post - explain to me WHY Rome persecuted and butchered Catholics for an additional 220 years.

Please also explain why you would accuse Jesus of LYING in Matt. 16:18 when He explicitly guaranteed that the gates of Hell would NOT prevail against His Church.

If you're NOT prepared to offer a an historical and Scriptural refutation of these questions - then your position based in abject ignorance and nothing else.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why would rome kill its own popes that makes as much sensa as rome killing Herod or rome killing the pharisee leaders, they don't kill their own people that they put into power.
If we found a lost book that claimed after Solomon the real temple moved to the philistine empire and the philistines were the true church, would you believe that? No one would believe that because they were the enemies of Israel just like rome was. Are you saying the Most High rewarded rome for killing Jesus by making rome the new church?

And this post show yet another glaring example of your ignorance.

Are you NOT aware that Christianity wasn't decriminalized in the Roman empire until the reign of Constantine in the FOURTH century??
Are you NOT aware of the Roman persecution of the Early Church up until then??

Finally - Rome isn't a Church. The Church AT Rome was where Peter and Paul both preached and died.
Rome was turn upside-down by Christ's Church and eventually accepted Christianity.

I suggest you crack open a history book - AND a Bible . . .

 

[jaybird]

No - it's completely ignorant.

As I challenged you in my last post - explain to me WHY Rome persecuted and butchered Catholics for an additional 220 years.

Please also explain why you would accuse Jesus of LYING in Matt. 16:18 when He explicitly guaranteed that the gates of Hell would NOT prevail against His Church.

If you're NOT prepared to offer a an historical and Scriptural refutation of these questions - then your position based in abject ignorance and nothing else.

We can deal with that but first let's go back to the ignorant statement.
Rome killed Jesus.
Rome killed 11 of the 12
Rome imprisoned the 12th
Rome killed st Paul
Rome killed John the Baptist.

Which one of these is wrong?