Books Outside the Bible

[BreadOfLife]

The usual word is Testament, for Old and New Testaments.

Uhhhh, yes, I’m awareof that.
However - the Canon of the OT existed before the NT Canon – so, technically, there are TWO canons.

As for the Deuterocanon – this was part of the OPENJewish canon of the TWO centuries PRIOR to the birth of Christ and during His lifetime on earth. The Jewish Canon wasn’t closed until LONG AFTER His Ascensionto the Father and the Destruction of the Temple.

So the question is WHY would you adhere to a Canon that was edited and revised by men who rejected Christ??

Anyway – NONE of you are addressing the 200 or so quotes, references and allusions to these Books in the NT.
I wonder WHY that is . . .

 

[Prayer Warrior]

This long lecture wouldn't happen to be on YouTube would it?

No, but it's on a website--thenarrowpath.com. Go to "Topical Lectures" and scroll down to "Church History." The title of the lecture is "The Canon of Scripture." Steve Gregg is the Bible teacher, and this is his ministry's site.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Might be a useful video for reference.

I responded to Mayflower. It's an audio lecture, and I told her where to find it in the post right above this one.

 

[epostle]

The Absurdity of the Romanist Position on Tradition ( by Brian Schwertley)

The Roman Catholic position on tradition requires Romanists to believe in something that is incredible and absurd. The Romanist position is that the whole oral revelation of Christ and the apostles was entrusted to the church hierarchy. This large deposit of truth is just as important, authoritative and binding as the written word of God. This doctrinal position raises a few questions. First, how does this huge volume of material pass from one generation to the next? Obviously, no normal person could memorize or master such a huge deposit of oral teaching. Is it transferred mystically from one generation of bishops to the next by the laying on of hands? Is it stored in the subconscious? Is it miraculously transferred to the conscious mind by the power of the Holy Spirit? Remember, we are talking about a virtual library of material. The Roman Catholic doctrine of an authoritative oral tradition requires a greater miracle than even the divine inspiration of Scripture itself.

Second, if the church hierarchy is in possession of this vast unwritten body of inspired truth from the very beginning then why dole it out in little snippets over a period of almost two thousand years? Keep in mind there was only one Christ and twelve apostles. Even if we include Paul and the inspired evangelists the oral tradition would at most only include a few dozen men. The papal church has had dozens of popes and literally thousands of bishops. Why not simply write down the whole inspired oral tradition and have it printed so the whole church could benefit from it? Why not put it all out in the open so that all may drink from this well of inspired wisdom? Why wait until A.D. 1079 to tell the church that God required the celibacy of the priesthood? Just think of all those poor priests who were sinning by getting married because the earlier popes and bishops didn’t share the oral tradition on this matter. Why wait until A.D. 1854 to tell the church about the immaculate conception of Mary? This oral tradition could have helped all those earlier generations in their adoration of the blessed virgin. Why wait until the1960’s to tell the laity to read the Bible in their own language?

The truth of the matter is that there will never, ever come a time when all the supposed oral traditions will be written down. Why? Because the Romanist fiction of authoritative tradition that resides with the popes and bishops gives the church hierarchy incredible power. If the oral tradition were written down for all to examine then the pope and bishops would lose all their flexibility. They would no longer be able to make up new doctrines and ordinances. They, just like everyone else, would be forced to submit to an objective written standard. With an unwritten, unverifiable, evolving, changing standard a new doctrine or practice can be made up and imposed on the people for more power or to increase the popularity of the church officials. This gives the Roman Catholic hierarchy a cult-like power over their flock.

Third, why would the God of infinite wisdom commit some of His revelation to writing and the rest to oral tradition? While written revelation is easily preserved from corruption, oral tradition is easily corrupted and lost. Charles Hodge writes,

It is of course conceded that Christ and his Apostles said and did much that is not recorded in the Scriptures; and it is further admitted that if we had any certain knowledge of such unrecorded instructions, they would be of equal authority with what is written in the Scriptures. But Protestants maintain that they were not intended to constitute a part of the permanent rule of faith to the Church. They were designed for the men of that generation. The showers, which fell a thousand years ago, watered the earth and rendered it fruitful for men then living. They cannot now be gathered up and made available for us. They did not constitute a reservoir for the supply of future generations. In like manner the unrecorded teachings of Christ and his Apostles did their work. They were not designed for our instruction. It is as impossible to learn what they were, as it is to gather up the leaves, which adorned and enriched the earth when Christ walked in the garden of Gethsemane.

This impossibility arises out of the limitations of our nature, as well as its corruption consequent on the fall. Man has not the clearness of perception, the retentiveness of memory, or the power of presentation, to enable him (without supernatural aid) to give a trustworthy account of a discourse once heard, a few years or even months after its delivery. And that this should be done, over and over from month to month for thousands of years, is impossibility. If to this be added the difficulty in the way of this oral transmission, arising from the blindness of men to the things of the Spirit, which prevents their understanding what they hear, and from the disposition to pervert and misrepresent the truth to suit their own prejudices and purposes, it must be acknowledged that tradition cannot be a reliable source of knowledge of religious truth. This is universally acknowledged and acted upon, except by Romanists. No one pretends to determine what Luther and Calvin, Latimer and Cranmer, taught, except from contemporaneous written records. Much less will any sane man pretend to know what Moses and the prophets taught except from their own writings.​

Further, when a pope or the bishops come up with a new doctrine from the supposed trough of unwritten apostolic tradition, how are we to determine whether or not they simply made it up out of their own imagination? Are we supposed to simply accept their word on it? Is this not a blind faith in the words of men? When the apostles first delivered the inspired teachings in the generation after the death of Christ they backed up the new revelations with miracles, signs and wonders (2 Cor. 12:12; Ac. 14:3; Heb. 2:3-4; cf. Ex. 4:5; 1 Ki. 17:24; Jn. 10:25). The Roman Catholic Church offers no verification at all.

What a load of taurus exrcetum. First he makes a lot of noise about Tradition but does't name one of them. He has preconceived notions of what Tradition is sacred and constructs a huge straw man. The Authority of Scripture has always been a Sacred Tradition but he can't remove his Calvin/Presbyterian blinders to see it. It is impossible for the Pope to invent new doctrines. Brian Schwertley is just another anti-Catholic liar.

​

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Don't worry, my dear Epo, I'm not finished posting the article.

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Might be a useful video for reference.

If you listen to the lecture, I'd be very interested to hear what you think about it. Steve has a whole series on church history that I'm going through. I've found all of them to be very informative.

 

[BobRyan]

If Mary is sinless - do you actually believe that she achieved this state on her OWN??
She needed a Savior

oxymoron.

1. sinless people do not need a Savior from sinlessness.
2. Sinful people do. period.

The sinless angels of heaven do not refer to Christ as "their" savior from sin.


1 Mary was not sinless - Christ was her Lord and Savior
2. Mary was not born from a sinless womb of immaculate conception
3. Stephen - "full of grace" - also was not sinless
4. When someone attempted the "blessed be Mary the mother of Jesus" idea out on Jesus - His response was "ON THE CONTRARY - blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” - Luke 11:27-28

Christ Himself gave us the perfect response to that scenario

And this post is an exercise in logical stupidity.

Emotionalism in response to Luke 11 detail.. reveals your argument is "with the text".
Try to be less transparent if that is going to be your solution.

If Mary is sinless – SOMEBODY made her that way.

Adam, the Angels etc - created sinless -- somebody MADE them that way. Does not mean they "need" a Savior or refer to their creator as "Their savior".

It is nonsensical to say that their creator MADE them sinless and thus SAVED them from their Creator MAKING them sinful.

Post reason... logic. something substantive.

If Mary is sinless - do you actually believe that she achieved this state on her OWN??
She needed a Savior

oxymoron.

1. sinless people do not need a Savior from sinlessness.
2. Sinful people do. period.

 

[BobRyan]

Far from distinguishing tradition from the gospel, as evangelicals often contend, the Bible equates tradition with the gospel and other terms such as “word of God,” “doctrine,” “holy commandment,” “faith,” and “things believed among us.” All are “delivered” and “received”:

Mark 7:6-13

7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts 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, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Finally – Purgatory isn’t a “false” teaching – but a Scriptural one (2 Macc. 42-46, Matt. 5:25-26, 1 Cor. 3:12-15, Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59).

Until you read the actual Bible and find not one reference to anyone in purgatory in Matt 5:25-26
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in 1 Cor. 3:12-15
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59

And after having read the actual Bible - we also find
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in 2 Macc 42-46

In no case above do you have someone dying then being tortured/tormented before entering heaven. That doctrine is one of many that have been "made up".

Thank you for that extremely ignorant perversion of Purgatory.

Will vapid emotionalism be your "solution" to everything?? seriously??

First of all – Purgatory isn’t necessarily a place of torment – but a state of final purification.

That is a lie.

1. A state is not a process it is static. The whole point of purgatory is not the STATE of torment but the PROCESS of purification by that torment.
2. it is TORMENT - that one is obligated to free their loved one from if they have an love at all for their departed loved one.

The process described in 1 Cor. 3:12-15 is descriptive and revealing . . .

And does not show that any torment or fire is being applied to anyone after they die - to get them purified for heaven.

You "need" a text with your actual doctrine in it - to make your case. 1Cor 3 is not it.

Now - let’s see what Scriptural acrobatics you need to perform to dance your way out of this . . .

 

[BobRyan]

More examples of what we do NOT find in 1 Cor 3 -

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgement, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

The RCC has the PERSON burned by fire - as PUNISHMENT for sin... 1 Cor 3 says nothing at all about that. They just "make that up"

================= another detail "not in 1 Cor 3" -

In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification',
and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").

 

[BreadOfLife]

oxymoron.

1. sinless people do not need a Savior from sinlessness.
2. Sinful people do. period.

The sinless angels of heaven do not refer to Christ as "their" savior from sin.
1 Mary was not sinless - Christ was her Lord and Savior
2. Mary was not born from a sinless womb of immaculate conception
3. Stephen - "full of grace" - also was not sinless
4. When someone attempted the "blessed be Mary the mother of Jesus" idea out on Jesus - His response was "ON THE CONTRARY - blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” - Luke 11:27-28

Christ Himself gave us the perfect response to that scenario

Emotionalism in response to Luke 11 detail.. reveals your argument is "with the text".
Try to be less transparent if that is going to be your solution.

Adam, the Angels etc - created sinless -- somebody MADE them that way. Does not mean they "need" a Savior or refer to their creator as "Their savior".

It is nonsensical to say that their creator MADE them sinless and thus SAVED them from their Creator MAKING them sinful.
Post reason... logic. something substantive.

oxymoron.
1. sinless people do not need a Savior from sinlessness.
2. Sinful people do. period.

Another exercise in abject stupidity.

Adam didn't need a Savior??
Tell that to Adam.

As to your other asinine points - Stephen was full of grace at the time of his death.
He was NOT "Kecharitomene" - Mary WAS.

As for you completely LOST point regarding Luke 11:27-28, Jesus was pointing out to the woman that it was His mother's OBEDIENCE to God - and NOT her natural connection with Him that garnered her favor with God.

finally - EVERYBODY needs a Savior - even an UNBORN baby who never had the opportunity to sin.
Your knowledge of God's Word is appalling . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

More examples of what we do NOT find in 1 Cor 3 -

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgement, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

The RCC has the PERSON burned by fire - as PUNISHMENT for sin... 1 Cor 3 says nothing at all about that. They just "make that up"

1 Cor. 4:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

READ your Bible, son . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Mark 7:6-13

7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts 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, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”



Until you read the actual Bible and find not one reference to anyone in purgatory in Matt 5:25-26
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in 1 Cor. 3:12-15
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59

And after having read the actual Bible - we also find
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in 2 Macc 42-46

In no case above do you have someone dying then being tortured/tormented before entering heaven. That doctrine is one of many that have been "made up".

Will vapid emotionalism be your "solution" to everything?? seriously??

That is a lie.

1. A state is not a process it is static. The whole point of purgatory is not the STATE of torment but the PROCESS of purification by that torment.
2. it is TORMENT - that one is obligated to free their loved one from if they have an love at all for their departed loved one.
And does not show that any torment or fire is being applied to anyone after they die - to get them purified for heaven.
You "need" a text with your actual doctrine in it - to make your case. 1Cor 3 is not it.

1 Cor. 4:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

READ your Bible, son . . .

 

[BobRyan]

I showed you that the “Armor of God” Paul describes in Heb. 6:13-17 is taken from Wis. 5:17-20.
.

What exactly do you think is in Hebrews 6:13-17??

And there is not a single verse of the NT that looks like Wis 5:17-20
Wisdom 5:17-20
17 He shall take his zeal for armor
and arm creation to requite the enemy,
18 Shall put on righteousness for a breastplate,
wear sure judgment for a helmet,
19 Shall take invincible holiness for a shield,
20 and sharpen his sudden anger for a sword.
The universe will war with him against the foolhardy;


more Bible - less making stuff up

Looks like some of the verses got transposed.

If you read my ORIGINAL listing of these verses in post #503 – you will see the correct listing:
Eph. 6:13-17 follows the – armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, and shield of God described in Wis. 5:17-20.
.

Hint: NOTHING in Eph 6 says

17 He shall take his zeal for armor
and arm creation to requite the enemy,
18 Shall put on righteousness for a breastplate,
wear sure judgment for a helmet,
19 Shall take invincible holiness for a shield,
20 and sharpen his sudden anger for a sword.
The universe will war with him against the foolhardy;

YET you say that the nonsense we find in Wis 5 - should be thought of as taken and written in Ephesians 6 no matter that nothing of the kind is found in Eph 6???

Please at least try to be serious!

 

[BobRyan]

Heb. 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sonsdescribed in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb 11
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;

The mother receives back her son from the dead in the case of Elisha who brought her son back to life in 2 Kings 4. Has nothing to do with 2Macc 7 and has nothing to do with purgatory.

Less fiction... more Bible please.

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor. 4:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

His WORK burned - but HE is never said to be burned.
His WORK burned - but HE is not said to be DEAD while it happens
READ your Bible, son . . .


More examples of what we do NOT find in 1 Cor 3 -

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgement, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

The RCC has the PERSON burned by fire - as PUNISHMENT for sin... 1 Cor 3 says nothing at all about that. They just "make that up"

================= another detail "not in 1 Cor 3" -

In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification',
and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, but it's on a website--thenarrowpath.com. Go to "Topical Lectures" and scroll down to "Church History." The title of the lecture is "The Canon of Scripture." Steve Gregg is the Bible teacher, and this is his ministry's site.

A little advice for you @Mayflower . . .
Before you take ANYTHING Steve Gregg has to say seriously - listen to this debate between him and Catholic apologist Tim Staples., who obliterates his positions on various topics, point-by-point.

Roman Catholicism Debate - Steve Gregg vs Tim Staples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LOtI0oGgg

 

[BreadOfLife]

Heb 11
35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;

The mother receives back her son from the dead in the case of Elisha who brought her son back to life in 2 Kings 4. Has nothing to do with 2Macc 7 and has nothing to do with purgatory.

Less fiction... more Bible please.

35 Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;

The mother receives back her son from the dead in the case of Elisha who brought her son back to life in 2 Kings 4. Has nothing to do with 2Macc 7 and has nothing to do with purgatory.

Less fiction... more Bible please.[/QUOTE]
First of all - NOBODY mentioned Purgatory at ALL in relation to this example.

Secondly - I predicted you would perform some Scriptural acrobatics to dodge this - and you delivered.
You took ONLY the first part of Heb. 11:35 and completely left out the rest of it. Your dishonesty is disgusting - and cowardly . . .

Here is the FULL text of those verses:

Heb. 11:35
Women received back their dead, raised to life again. There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.

1 Macc. 7:1-41
It also happened that seven brothers with their mother were arrested and tortured with whips and scourges by the king to force them to eat pork in violation of God’s law.a

One of the brothers, speaking for the others, said: “What do you expect to learn by questioning us? We are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our ancestors.”
At that the king, in a fury, gave orders to have pans and caldrons heated.

These were quickly heated, and he gave the order to cut out the tongue of the one who had spoken for the others, to scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of his brothers and his mother looked on.

When he was completely maimed but still breathing, the king ordered them to carry him to the fire and fry him. As a cloud of smoke spread from the pan, the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, with these words:

“The Lord God is looking on and truly has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his song, when he openly bore witness, saying, ‘And God will have compassion on his servants.’”b

After the first brother had died in this manner, they brought the second to be made sport of. After tearing off the skin and hair of his head, they asked him, “Will you eat the pork rather than have your body tortured limb by limb?”
Answering in the language of his ancestors, he said, “Never!” So he in turn suffered the same tortures as the first.

With his last breath he said: “You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up* to live again forever, because we are dying for his laws.”c

After him the third suffered their cruel sport. He put forth his tongue at once when told to do so, and bravely stretched out his hands,as he spoke these noble words: “It was from Heaven that I received these; for the sake of his laws I disregard them; from him I hope to receive them again.”
Even the king and his attendants marveled at the young man’s spirit, because he regarded his sufferings as nothing.

After he had died, they tortured and maltreated the fourth brother in the same way.
When he was near death, he said, “It is my choice to die at the hands of mortals with the hope that God will restore me to life; but for you, there will be no resurrection to life.”

They next brought forward the fifth brother and maltreated him.
Looking at the king, he said: “Mortal though you are, you have power over human beings, so you do what you please. But do not think that our nation is forsaken by God.
Only wait, and you will see how his great power will torment you and your descendants.”

After him they brought the sixth brother. When he was about to die, he said: “Have no vain illusions. We suffer these things on our own account, because we have sinned against our God; that is why such shocking things have happened.
Do not think, then, that you will go unpunished for having dared to fight against God.”

Most admirable and worthy of everlasting remembrance was the mother who, seeing her seven sons perish in a single day, bore it courageously because of her hope in the Lord.

Filled with a noble spirit that stirred her womanly reason with manly emotion, she exhorted each of them in the language of their ancestors with these words:
e “I do not know how you came to be in my womb; it was not I who gave you breath and life, nor was it I who arranged the elements you are made of.
Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shaped the beginning of humankind and brought about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life, because you now disregard yourselves for the sake of his law.”
Antiochus, suspecting insult in her words, thought he was being ridiculed. As the youngest brother was still alive, the king appealed to him, not with mere words, but with promises on oath, to make him rich and happy if he would abandon his ancestral customs: he would make him his Friend and entrust him with high office.
When the youth paid no attention to him at all, the king appealed to the mother, urging her to advise her boy to save his life.
After he had urged her for a long time, she agreed to persuade her son.

She leaned over close to him and, in derision of the cruel tyrant, said in their native language: “Son, have pity on me, who carried you in my womb for nine months, nursed you for three years, brought you up, educated and supported you to your present age.

I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things.* In the same way humankind came into existence.
Do not be afraid of this executioner, but be worthy of your brothers and accept death, so that in the time of mercy I may receive you again with your brothers.”

She had scarcely finished speaking when the youth said: “What is the delay? I will not obey the king’s command. I obey the command of the law given to our ancestors through Moses.

But you, who have contrived every kind of evil for the Hebrews, will not escape the hands of God.
We, indeed, are suffering because of our sins.f
Though for a little while our living Lord has been angry, correcting and chastising us, he will again be reconciled with his servants.

But you, wretch, most vile of mortals, do not, in your insolence, buoy yourself up with unfounded hopes, as you raise your hand against the children of heaven.

You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty and all-seeing God.
Our brothers, after enduring brief pain, have drunk of never-failing life, under God’s covenant. But you, by the judgment of God, shall receive just punishments for your arrogance.

Like my brothers, I offer up my body and my life for our ancestral laws, imploring God to show mercy soon to our nation, and by afflictions and blows to make you confess that he alone is God.
Through me and my brothers, may there be an end to the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation.”

At that, the king became enraged and treated him even worse than the others, since he bitterly resented the boy’s contempt.
Thus he too died undefiled, putting all his trust in the Lord.
Last of all, after her sons, the mother was put to death.

 

[Mayflower]

A little advice for you @Mayflower . . .
Before you take ANYTHING Steve Gregg has to say seriously - listen to this debate between him and Catholic apologist Tim Staples., who obliterates his positions on various topics, point-by-point.

Roman Catholicism Debate - Steve Gregg vs Tim Staples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LOtI0oGgg

I think I'm putting this aside for now. I lost what y'all were talking about a long time ago.

 

[BreadOfLife]

His WORK burned - but HE is never said to be burned.
His WORK burned - but HE is not said to be DEAD while it happens

Look - I've pretty much established that you're about the most dishonest poster on this board. Some of the others take a break from their lies - but not YOU.

Here is the text of 1 Cor 3:10:15.
According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it, for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.

If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work.

If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved,* but only as through fire.

Just WHAT do YOU think "The DAY" is referring to, Einstein??
Hint: The DAY of the LORD (Judgement Day).

Sooooo, WHAT makes you think the person ISN'T dead and being judged??
Are you really this dense - or is it just an act??

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor. 4:15
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

His WORK burned - but HE is never said to be burned.
His WORK burned - but HE is not said to be DEAD while it happens
READ your Bible, son . . .


More examples of what we do NOT find in 1 Cor 3 -

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgement, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offences can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.

The RCC has the PERSON burned by fire - as PUNISHMENT for sin... 1 Cor 3 says nothing at all about that. They just "make that up"

================= another detail "not in 1 Cor 3" -

In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, "gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita" (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta". How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops "to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification',
and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion" (Sess. XXV, "De Purgatorio").

Look - I've pretty much established that you're about the most dishonest poster on this board. Some of the others take a break from their lies - but not YOU.

More vapid emotionalism? really? that is all you have ???

Please be serious.

Here is the text of 1 Cor 3:10:15.

Not sure if you can be trusted at this point in your over-the-top emotional state to quote a simple Bible text.

But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The WORK is what is burned.
The MAN is never said to be dead.
The MAN is never said to be burned while dead.
The MAN is never said to be burned .. only his work/teaching/doctrine... hay, stubble, straw (details matter)
The "day" - vs "the night" - in the day it is revealed if the work is fluff or not. Hay, wood, stubble or gold. For each man's doctrine is teaching built on the foundation - which is Christ.

The is about evangelists - their WORK is their teaching and that teaching is built on the foundation of Christ. It has nothing to do with being dead and then "punished" as the RCC says about purgatory.

The point remains.

Details matter no matter how emotional you get in response to them.


If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved,* but only as through fire.

Just WHAT do YOU think "The DAY" is referring to, Einstein??
Hint: The DAY of the LORD (Judgement Day).

Sooooo, WHAT makes you think the person ISN'T dead and being judged??
Are you really this dense - or is it just an act??[/QUOTE]