The Doctrine of Purgatory in Catholic Biblical Perspective

BreadOfLife said:

That’s right – just keep exalting yourself.
God will have not be mocked . . .

As for your repeated accusations of my “contradicting” Scripture – you keep saying that – but haven’t produced ONE SHRED of evidence as to how . . .

Click to expand...

You are right , remember that. You have no power in Christ , you are just a great pretender, He has long left you! You are not wearing Christ heart as a crown but your own heart defiled by lies, LIES that is your crown!

BreadOfLife said:

Every other faithful ECF endorsed Infant Baptism as "APOSTOLIC" . . .

Click to expand...

Ah, so now after you were shown to be wrong your pick and choose.

If only one person gets what I have been saying then my work has produced righteous fruit unto Christ. Christ sends His word where He wants and it will prosper where He sends it.If His peace rest upon someone, then they too are destined to be a first fruit . If not , I am still told to sing , someone somewhere will get it. I just keep moving and don't stop.

Clearly prophecy is unfolding I am told by Catholics that I am not and am not accepted (THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN EVEN IN HERE), and that goes clear across the board with all the denominations
But IT IS ALL GOOD. And I know I am 100% correct that I have no husband of them WHY:
Isaiah 54:4-
Future Blessings for Zion
…4Do not be afraid, for you will not be put to shame; do not be humiliated, for you will not be disgraced. For you will forget the shame of your youth and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood. 5For your husband is your Maker— the LORD of Hosts is His name— the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; He is called the God of all the earth. 6For the LORD has called you back, like a wife deserted and wounded in spirit, the wife of one’s youth when she is rejected,” says your God.…

REV. 14 I am one of those who have been redeemed and follow the Lord wherever He goes. That means I follow only the truth in denominations and I have not been defiled by women= Queens and concubines . I have not been falsely indoctrinated. I am not defiled. I am given the New Song and the Lord Himself is my Husband as He says in Isaiah, and the so called doctrinal fathers in the precepts of the traditions of men are not. I am a favored one of MY MOTHER= Christ Mother and the mother to all born again and redeemed in Him.

Song of Solomon 8:
5Who is this coming up from the wilderness, leaning on her beloved? I roused you under the apple tree; there your mother conceived you, there she travailed and brought you forth. 6Set me as a seal over your heart, as a seal upon your arm. For love is as strong as death, its jealousy as unrelenting as Sheol. Its sparks are fiery flames, the fiercest blaze of all.…

As I have said many times before the Apple Tree is Israel, we have been awakened under the influence of Israel to the ONE TRUE FAITH AND GOD. My mother conceived all those who would be numbered as Elect and bore us there when she conceived and bore Christ. She is the Immaculate Conception of the faith. She is the SEAL of authentic Christianity . As she was upon Christ's arm and Heart she is to be upon ours. And SHE IS UPON MINE, I love her as Christ does. The wilderness is the inhospitable regions of denominations and the world and the treatment I receive for my doctrine from those falsely indoctrinated by the Queens and concubines and their wolves in sheep's clothing.
I have not travailed as my mother has to bring forth. But I am the Elect Bride and I am in her image and must teach in the purity she travailed for. I am a Queen, the last to be and all like me are the Rev. 12 prophecy come to be . And we are in the image of the Virgin mother of Christ! As the church is to be!
But I shall not be put to shame because My Lord said so. He has wonderful things in store for those who trust in Him and love Him. THE WORD OF THE LORD, THANKS BE TO GOD!

CovenantPromise said:

You are right , remember that. You have no power in Christ , you are just a great pretender, He has long left you! You are not wearing Christ heart as a crown but your own heart defiled by lies, LIES that is your crown!

Click to expand...

Your constant judgment of people’s hearts will only garner you God’s wrath (Matt. 7:2).
Only GOD knows the heart (1 Kings 8:39).

Your judgement means nothing . . .
1 Cor. 4:3-4
I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself.
My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.

David Taylor said:

Ah, so now after you were shown to be wrong your pick and choose.

Click to expand...

NOT picking and choosing.

Like Origen – Tertullian eventually went into heresy. Their writings prior to this are considered to be orthodox. However – Tertullian’s works on Baptism were written right before he officially professed the heresy of Montanism.

As I have educated you twice now – the Montanist Heretics decried Baptism for MOST people because they believed that a person could NOT be forgiven of sins committed after Baptism.

You need to do your homework on the Early Church and their Apostolic roots . . .

Marymog said:

Already have in this discussion about baptism.

Click to expand...

In John 3:5, the author is using the figure Hendiadys. For those unfamiliar with this figure of speech, I supply an exhaustive definition with examples from the bible for their edification:

Hendiadys; or, Two for One. Two words used, but only one thing meant.

Hen-di'-a-dys, from hen, "one", dia, "by", dis "two" (From duo, two) Literally, one by means of two. Two words employed, but only one thing, or idea, intended. One of the two words expresses the thing, and the other (of synonymous, or even different, signification, not a second thing or idea) intensifies it by being changed (if a noun) into an adjective of the superlative degree, which is, by this means, made especially emphatic.

The figure is truly oriental, and exceedingly picturesque. It is found in Latin as well as in Hebrew and Greek, and is very frequently used both in the Old and New Testaments.

The two words are of the same parts of speech: i.e., two nouns (or two verbs) always joined together by the conjunction "and". The two nouns are always in the same case.

Some examples:

"And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof" Gen.4:4: i.e. he brought the firstlings of this flock, yes--and the fattest ones too, or the fattest firstlings of his flock, with emphasis on "fattest".

"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven"Gen.14:24: i.e. brimstone, yes- and burning brimstone too; or, simply "burning brimstone" with emphasis on "burning"

They "buried him in Ramah and his own city" 1 Sam.28:3: i.e., in Ramah, yes-even in his own city; or, in his own city, Ramah.

"Of fame and of glory" 1 Chron. 22:5; i.e., of glorious fame
"I love the Lord, because he hath heard my voice and my supplications" Ps. 66:1; i.e., my supplicating voice with emphasis on "supplicating".

"I am not able to endure your iniquity and assembly" Isa 1:13; i.e., your iniquity, yes-your iniquitous assemblies.

"Execute ye judgment and righteousness" Jer. 22:3; i.e., execute judgment, yes- and righteous judgment too.

"A day of trumpet and alarm" Zeph.1:16; i.e., an alarming trumpet.

"He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire". First observe that there are no articles. e.g. "en pneumati hagio kai puri" with Holy Spirit and fire, i.e. "with burning purifying spirit" Not two things, but one: Judgment!

The contrast was with John's baptism which was with water which mingled the chaff with the wheat. The new baptism is not like that. It separates the chaff from the wheat by burning it up as the Baptist points out: "whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his garner: but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

"Except a man shall have been begotten of water and spirit."Jn.3:5; Again, there is no article to either of the two nouns.

That only one thing is meant by the two words is clear from verses 6 and 8, where only the Spirit (the one) is mentioned.

Christ is speaking to Nicodemus of "earthly things" (vs. 12). And as "a master in Israel", he knew perfectly well the prophecy of Ezek. 36: 25-27 concerning the kingdom. Concerning Israel, in the day of their restoration to their own land, The Lord had declared: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean...And I will put my spirit within you, " etc.

The cleansing of that day is not to be with literal water, as in the ceremonial cleansings of the Law, but with the Spirit of God.

Hence, only one thing is meant: "Except a man be begotten of water, yes- and spiritual water too, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". That spiritual water stands, by another figure (Metonymy), for the Holy Spirit Himself: as is clear from John 7:38,39: "water- (But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive...)".

Therefore, there is no reference here to ceremonial or ecclesiastical water- but to that baptism of the Spirit which is the one indispensable condition of entering into the kingdom of God; a moral sphere, which includes and embraces the Church of God, here and now, as well as the future kingdom foretold by God through the prophets.

shnarkle said:

In John 3:5, the author is using the figure Hendiadys. For those unfamiliar with this figure of speech, I supply an exhaustive definition with examples from the bible for their edification:

Hendiadys; or, Two for One. Two words used, but only one thing meant.

Hen-di'-a-dys, from hen, "one", dia, "by", dis "two" (From duo, two) Literally, one by means of two. Two words employed, but only one thing, or idea, intended. One of the two words expresses the thing, and the other (of synonymous, or even different, signification, not a second thing or idea) intensifies it by being changed (if a noun) into an adjective of the superlative degree, which is, by this means, made especially emphatic.

The figure is truly oriental, and exceedingly picturesque. It is found in Latin as well as in Hebrew and Greek, and is very frequently used both in the Old and New Testaments.

The two words are of the same parts of speech: i.e., two nouns (or two verbs) always joined together by the conjunction "and". The two nouns are always in the same case.

Some examples:

"And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof" Gen.4:4: i.e. he brought the firstlings of this flock, yes--and the fattest ones too, or the fattest firstlings of his flock, with emphasis on "fattest".

"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven"Gen.14:24: i.e. brimstone, yes- and burning brimstone too; or, simply "burning brimstone" with emphasis on "burning"

They "buried him in Ramah and his own city" 1 Sam.28:3: i.e., in Ramah, yes-even in his own city; or, in his own city, Ramah.

"Of fame and of glory" 1 Chron. 22:5; i.e., of glorious fame
"I love the Lord, because he hath heard my voice and my supplications" Ps. 66:1; i.e., my supplicating voice with emphasis on "supplicating".

"I am not able to endure your iniquity and assembly" Isa 1:13; i.e., your iniquity, yes-your iniquitous assemblies.

"Execute ye judgment and righteousness" Jer. 22:3; i.e., execute judgment, yes- and righteous judgment too.

"A day of trumpet and alarm" Zeph.1:16; i.e., an alarming trumpet.

"He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire". First observe that there are no articles. e.g. "en pneumati hagio kai puri" with Holy Spirit and fire, i.e. "with burning purifying spirit" Not two things, but one: Judgment!

The contrast was with John's baptism which was with water which mingled the chaff with the wheat. The new baptism is not like that. It separates the chaff from the wheat by burning it up as the Baptist points out: "whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his garner: but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

"Except a man shall have been begotten of water and spirit."Jn.3:5; Again, there is no article to either of the two nouns.

That only one thing is meant by the two words is clear from verses 6 and 8, where only the Spirit (the one) is mentioned.

Christ is speaking to Nicodemus of "earthly things" (vs. 12). And as "a master in Israel", he knew perfectly well the prophecy of Ezek. 36: 25-27 concerning the kingdom. Concerning Israel, in the day of their restoration to their own land, The Lord had declared: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean...And I will put my spirit within you, " etc.

The cleansing of that day is not to be with literal water, as in the ceremonial cleansings of the Law, but with the Spirit of God.

Hence, only one thing is meant: "Except a man be begotten of water, yes- and spiritual water too, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". That spiritual water stands, by another figure (Metonymy), for the Holy Spirit Himself: as is clear from John 7:38,39: "water- (But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive...)".

Therefore, there is no reference here to ceremonial or ecclesiastical water- but to that baptism of the Spirit which is the one indispensable condition of entering into the kingdom of God; a moral sphere, which includes and embraces the Church of God, here and now, as well as the future kingdom foretold by God through the prophets.

Click to expand...

Thank you. From whom did you receive this theory?

BreadOfLife said:

NOT picking and choosing.

Like Origen – Tertullian eventually went into heresy. Their writings prior to this are considered to be orthodox. However – Tertullian’s works on Baptism were written right before he officially professed the heresy of Montanism.

As I have educated you twice now – the Montanist Heretics decried Baptism for MOST people because they believed that a person could NOT be forgiven of sins committed after Baptism.

You need to do your homework on the Early Church and their Apostolic roots . . .

Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that you claimed the ECF were unanimous on this, they clearly were not.

David Taylor said:

That doesn't change the fact that you claimed the ECF were unanimous on this, they clearly were not.

Click to expand...

Uhhhh, YES, they were.

Even on the brink of professing the Montanist Heresy – Tertullian wasn’t against Infant Baptism. He never wrote a single word against it. He simply recommended waiting. As I stated before – He ALSO recommended waiting for unmarried ADULTS.

Pay attention . . .

BreadOfLife said:

Uhhhh, YES, they were.

Even on the brink of professing the Montanist Heresy – Tertullian wasn’t against Infant Baptism. He never wrote a single word against it. He simply recommended waiting. As I stated before – He ALSO recommended waiting for unmarried ADULTS.

Pay attention . . .

Click to expand...

So you are just assuming he was in favor of it without evidence. Noted.

David Taylor said:

So you are just assuming he was in favor of it without evidence. Noted.

Click to expand...

Nope, we have his writings which tell his opinion.
We also have the date, which, as I have educated you several times now, was right before his descent into Montanism.

BreadOfLife said:

Nope, we have his writings which tell his opinion.

Click to expand...

citation please.

Marymog said:

Hmmmm......so the Southern Baptist (which started 1700+ years after Christ died) know more about what the Apostles taught on infant baptism then Irenaeous?

Click to expand...

This reasoning always astounds me. Why stop at Irenaeus? Why not just go to the apostles? Duh..And if you read Irenaeus you'll know that he didn't have it all together either. Why people go to ecfs over scripture is beyond me. Well, its not. Its because the apostles don't say what you want them to say so its on to the next person in line, or the next language...whatever works.

If I ever want to know what David Taylor was like I should go ask his great, great, great, great, great, great grand children instead of his grand children on what they were told about you.......In theory that is what you are saying.

Click to expand...

Pssst, ask David Taylor. The n.t. knows nothing of infant baptism or bapitsmal regeneration. Bapitsm is for believers because they are saved, not to get saved.

BreadOfLife said:

Which is a Tradition of the Catholic Church.

The NT canon YOU adhere to was declared by the Church - not Scripture . . .

Click to expand...

Is the canon;

1. An authoritative list of biblical books
2. A list of authoritative biblical books

Gods word doesn't become authoritative because your church sat down at trent and voted them in. They are authoritative because they are Gods word. And B.F. Westscott ripped your prelates at trent a new one due to the utter lack of education on their part to even determine what was canonical or not. They are the ones that elevated your extra 7 books to the level of inspired scripture.

BreadOfLife said:

Your constant judgment of people’s hearts will only garner you God’s wrath (Matt. 7:2).
Only GOD knows the heart (1 Kings 8:39).

Your judgement means nothing . . .
1 Cor. 4:3-4
I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself.
My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.

Click to expand...

Now that is Funny coming from you. You must not go back and read what you post. I at least make judgements with no beam in my eye. It is the hypocrites in judgement that will not farewell. In big blue words your conscience is clear but in what you hypocritically preach you have not a leg to stand on. But as are all, you are entitled to your opinion.

Nondenom40 said:

Pssst, ask David Taylor. The n.t. knows nothing of infant baptism or bapitsmal regeneration. Bapitsm is for believers because they are saved, not to get saved.

Click to expand...

Yeah the whole argument about asking grand children (no matter what number of greats precede the grandchildren) instead of asking the grandparent who left the record is just asinine.

shnarkle said:

In John 3:5, the author is using the figure Hendiadys. For those unfamiliar with this figure of speech, I supply an exhaustive definition with examples from the bible for their edification:

Hendiadys; or, Two for One. Two words used, but only one thing meant.

Hen-di'-a-dys, from hen, "one", dia, "by", dis "two" (From duo, two) Literally, one by means of two. Two words employed, but only one thing, or idea, intended. One of the two words expresses the thing, and the other (of synonymous, or even different, signification, not a second thing or idea) intensifies it by being changed (if a noun) into an adjective of the superlative degree, which is, by this means, made especially emphatic.

The figure is truly oriental, and exceedingly picturesque. It is found in Latin as well as in Hebrew and Greek, and is very frequently used both in the Old and New Testaments.

The two words are of the same parts of speech: i.e., two nouns (or two verbs) always joined together by the conjunction "and". The two nouns are always in the same case.

Some examples:

"And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof" Gen.4:4: i.e. he brought the firstlings of this flock, yes--and the fattest ones too, or the fattest firstlings of his flock, with emphasis on "fattest".

"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven"Gen.14:24: i.e. brimstone, yes- and burning brimstone too; or, simply "burning brimstone" with emphasis on "burning"

They "buried him in Ramah and his own city" 1 Sam.28:3: i.e., in Ramah, yes-even in his own city; or, in his own city, Ramah.

"Of fame and of glory" 1 Chron. 22:5; i.e., of glorious fame
"I love the Lord, because he hath heard my voice and my supplications" Ps. 66:1; i.e., my supplicating voice with emphasis on "supplicating".

"I am not able to endure your iniquity and assembly" Isa 1:13; i.e., your iniquity, yes-your iniquitous assemblies.

"Execute ye judgment and righteousness" Jer. 22:3; i.e., execute judgment, yes- and righteous judgment too.

"A day of trumpet and alarm" Zeph.1:16; i.e., an alarming trumpet.

"He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire". First observe that there are no articles. e.g. "en pneumati hagio kai puri" with Holy Spirit and fire, i.e. "with burning purifying spirit" Not two things, but one: Judgment!

The contrast was with John's baptism which was with water which mingled the chaff with the wheat. The new baptism is not like that. It separates the chaff from the wheat by burning it up as the Baptist points out: "whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his garner: but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

"Except a man shall have been begotten of water and spirit."Jn.3:5; Again, there is no article to either of the two nouns.

That only one thing is meant by the two words is clear from verses 6 and 8, where only the Spirit (the one) is mentioned.

Christ is speaking to Nicodemus of "earthly things" (vs. 12). And as "a master in Israel", he knew perfectly well the prophecy of Ezek. 36: 25-27 concerning the kingdom. Concerning Israel, in the day of their restoration to their own land, The Lord had declared: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean...And I will put my spirit within you, " etc.

The cleansing of that day is not to be with literal water, as in the ceremonial cleansings of the Law, but with the Spirit of God.

Hence, only one thing is meant: "Except a man be begotten of water, yes- and spiritual water too, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". That spiritual water stands, by another figure (Metonymy), for the Holy Spirit Himself: as is clear from John 7:38,39: "water- (But this spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive...)".

Therefore, there is no reference here to ceremonial or ecclesiastical water- but to that baptism of the Spirit which is the one indispensable condition of entering into the kingdom of God; a moral sphere, which includes and embraces the Church of God, here and now, as well as the future kingdom foretold by God through the prophets.

Click to expand...

I’ve heard just about every other Scriptural acrobatic attempt tp steer this verse away from Baptism – but it simply doesn’t work, given the CONTEXT.
Context is ALWAYS the enemy of the Anti-Catholic . . .

To fully understand what Christ was saying to Nicodemus – we need to analyze the conversation.
The text says:

John 3:1-7
Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
He came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.
What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit.
Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’

Nicodemus was asking Jesus how a man is born AGAIN.
Jesus responds by telling him that a man must be born (again) of “water and spirit”. This is NOT a reference to natural birth because the questions was about how to be born AGAIN.
Besides – if it WERE talking about natural birth – it wouldn’t make sense because it would be sentencing every aborted or miscarried child to Hell because they were never born of amniotic fluid.

Just 2 chapters earlier, we witnessed the Baptism of Jesus.
What did we see? WATER and the HOLY SPIRIT in the form of a dove.

After Nicodemus leaves – where do Jesus and the Apostles go?
The text says that they went to Judea and spent time BAPTIZING.

These verses are literally DRENCHED in the transforming waters of Baptism . . .

CovenantPromise said:

Now that is Funny coming from you. You must not go back and read what you post. I at least make judgements with no beam in my eye. It is the hypocrites in judgement that will not farewell. In big blue words your conscience is clear but in what you hypocritically preach you have not a leg to stand on. But as are all, you are entitled to your opinion.

Click to expand...

PLEASE go back and read my posts. If you can find ONE post where I condemned a person's soul - as YOU did - I will publically apologize and renounce Catholicism.
Conversely, if you can't find one - YOU must apologize for your abomination.
Deal??

The fact is that I don't do that - even if YOU do.

David Taylor said:

citation please.

Click to expand...

You're asking me to prove a negative. That is asinine.
Prove YOUR position - in its FULL context.