The Doctrine of Purgatory in Catholic Biblical Perspective

[BreadOfLife]

Of course you would actually need to prove that the teachings you subscribe to carefully, faithfully, and accurately came from the Apostles themselves over the last 2,000 years. I don't think you can meet that burden of proof.

Irenaeus, in his treatise, Against Heresies, lists Infant Baptism as a wel-established Church practice from CHRIST Himself.

How would Irenaeus know this??
He was a student of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John. He writes about Infant Baptism:

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; INFANTS, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for INFANTS, sanctifying INFANTS; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . so that he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).


“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being SPIRITUALLY REGENERATED as NEWBORN BABES, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Now - PROVE Sola Scriptura . . .

 

[CovenantPromise]

Shows how little you know.

Tertullian wasn’t against Infant Baptism. He simply advised that people wait.

For that matter – Tertullian ALSO said that UNMARRIED ADULTS shouldn’t get baptized, as a matter of prudence, because they’re more prone to temptation. Because of this - he thought that everyone should delay Baptism.

These views were due to his eventual fall into the Montanist Heresy, which believed, among other things that sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven.

Gee – no WONDER he advised against most people being baptized . . .

How stupid! James 4:12
Do Not Boast of Tomorrow
12There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? 13Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business, and make a profit.” 14You do not even know what will happen tomorrow! What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.…

Sufficient for the day is its own troubles. Put not off until tomorrow what you can do NOW! Tertullian spoke a lot of smack-hay! He is not God, he does not know if a man will have tomorrow. And if one died that very day, he taught them to bet on tomorrow instead of doing what is right at the moment . The only thing any of us have for sure is the PRESENT, that is why it is named as such, for it is a GIFT. Get right with the Lord now, because that is the only time one has the chance to, THE HERE AND RIGHT NOW. "And the DAY will bring all things to light". "And many will be purified and made righteous and the wicked will remain evil!"

 

[CovenantPromise]

I'm not denying the purpose of water baptism. I'm pointing out that this particular passage has nothing to do with water baptism, but "spiritual water", i.e. a spiritual birth. Why else would he use the idea of being born? Because a baby does nothing to be born. The mother does everything. The mother gives birth. However, the word can also be used of the father, e.g. "begotten". The father begets spiritual children.

Again, one need look no further than the next few verses to see that there it has nothing to do with water baptism, but a spiritual birth.

It has no more to do with water baptism than what he says in chapter 7, verses 38,39 do.

And all water and fire baptism is of the Holy Spirit. And of course the Savior is water upon parched land . And the water of baptism from a righteous hand is of the Holy Spirit.

 

[CovenantPromise]

Irenaeus, in his treatise, Against Heresies, lists Infant Baptism as a wel-established Church practice from CHRIST Himself.

How would Irenaeus know this??
He was a student of Polycarp who was a student of the Apostle John. He writes about Infant Baptism:

Irenaeus
He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; INFANTS, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for INFANTS, sanctifying INFANTS; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . so that he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).


“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being SPIRITUALLY REGENERATED as NEWBORN BABES, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Now - PROVE Sola Scriptura . . .

You just did with scripture . No man can speak upon any true matter if it has not FIRST been revealed by He whom all Truth has come to be known. You fail to realize Christ is clear "Heaven and earth will pass away but MY words will never pass away" . The children are never to be hindered that is Christ's doctrine before men could form doctrines built upon the foundation laid by His first to know. The foundation coined it, all righteous men simply magnify it all! We being different instruments have different ways of saying the same thing the scriptures say. A drum does not sound like a piano, nor a trumpet like a flute, but each can play the same song according to their instrumentality .

Matthew 19:
Jesus Blesses the Children
13Then the little children were brought to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them and pray for them. And the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15And after He had placed His hands on them, He went on from there.…

For such is the kingdom of heaven . Christ preached the kingdom of heaven . It is for the infant and the OLD . What Christ said should be applied to and upon the infant and in their growing. As a matter of fact Wisdom is with the FAITHFUL in the womb. Hence why parents should serve God. The health of the child is important. God's hand weaves the faithful in the womb. Every work in faith draws us closer to the eternal Father. we will stumble and fall on occasion but with help , as we must give our children we carry any cross given us and we conquer sin! we are called to perfection and with Christ we accomplish it. "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" . He would not say it if it were not possible in Him!
Proverbs 22:
A Good Name
…5Thorns and snares lie on the path of the perverse; he who guards his soul stays far from them. 6Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

 

[reformed1689]

Irenaeus, in his treatise, Against Heresies, lists Infant Baptism as a wel-established Church practice from CHRIST Himself.

Again, this does not meet burden of proof.

 

[reformed1689]

Isn't that the same interpretation as Nicodemus? Doesn't he say the same thing?

That line of reasoning doesn't seem to make sense to me because if being born physically was necessary, then the entire host of heaven, not to mention the Father and the Spirit wouldn't qualify.

There's another problem which is that Nicodemus is already there. He's already been born in the flesh. He doesn't need to check that off the list. In fact, no one has to check that off their list of the things to do to be saved.

It would be like driving up to someone, and asking directions only to have them point out that you will need a car.

The context also seems to indicate that he's talking about the spirit because those things that are flesh are flesh while the spirit is spiritual, and verse 8 is especially focused on the Spirit alone.

Then there's the figure Hendiadys which is a pervasive figure of speech used throughout scripture. A spiritual birth with spiritual water is essential while pointing out that one must be born physically is completely redundant.

The point of the passage is you must be born again of spirit. He was pointing out that yes, Nicodemus, you have already been born of water, but you must be born of spirit as well.

 

[reformed1689]

Tertullian wasn’t against Infant Baptism. He simply advised that people wait.

Not exactly an endorsement of infant baptism if the ECF were unanimously in favor of it as you claimed.

 

[CovenantPromise]

Again, this does not meet burden of proof.

Putting BOL aside. What burden of proof? There is no burden in Truth only in dealing with the insolent ?You are the burden. The scriptures are clear about water baptism no matter what you say. And about not hindering the children and to raise your children in the faith and to not put off until another time what is RIGHT to do in the present. So really what are you saying ? I know what you are saying and you too are revealed as wolf in sheep's clothing= use of the TITLE "Christian" but you preach division and try to divide scripture against scripture. Why? because you have not the Holy Spirit PLAIN AND SIMPLE. WHOA, we are so at the end of the age . Now all that is needed it for my Righteous brothers to come forth and with their authority and smite the enemies of the faith.

 

[reformed1689]

Putting BOL aside. What burden of proof? There is no burden in Truth only in dealing with the insolent ?You are the burden. The scriptures are clear about water baptism no matter what you say. And about not hindering the children and to raise your children in the faith and to not put off until another time what is RIGHT to do in the present. So really what are you saying ? I know what you are saying and you too are revealed as wolf in sheep's clothing= use the TITLE "Christian" but you preach division and try to divide scripture against scripture. Why? because you have not the Holy Spirit PLAIN AND SIMPLE. WHOA, we are so at the end of the age . Now all that is needed it for my Righteous brothers to come forth and with their authority smite the enemies of the faith.

And now I remember why I had you on ignore.

 

[CovenantPromise]

And now I remember why I had you on ignore.

Don't worry God has not and is not ignoring you. Ignore is as bad willful ignorance. The heathen ignores the truth. You do know your breath was not accomplished through your own power right?
Wisdom speaks: a warning to the heedless

1:20 Wisdom calls aloud in the streets, she raises her voice in the public squares;

1:21 she calls out at the street corners, she delivers her message at the city gates,

1:22 'You ignorant people, how much longer will you cling to your ignorance? How much longer will mockers revel in their mocking and fools hold knowledge contemptible?

1:23 Pay attention to my warning: now I will pour out my heart to you, and tell you what I have to say.

1:24 Since I have called and you have refused me, since I have beckoned and no one has taken notice,

1:25 since you have ignored all my advice and rejected all my warnings,

1:26 I, for my part, will laugh at your distress, I will jeer at you when calamity comes,

1:27 when calamity bears down on you like a storm and your distress like a whirlwind, when disaster and anguish bear down on you.

1:28 Then they shall call to me, but I will not answer, they shall seek me eagerly and shall not find me.

1:29 They despised knowledge, they had no love for the fear of Yahweh,

1:30 they would take no advice from me, and spurned all my warnings:

1:31 so they must eat the fruits of their own courses, and choke themselves with their own scheming.

1:32 For the errors of the ignorant lead to their death, and the complacency of fools works their own ruin;

1:33 but whoever listens to me may live secure, he will have quiet, fearing no mischance.'

 

[shnarkle]

And now I remember why I had you on ignore.

Why would anyone unignore someone? It took me a few years before someone showed me how to click "ignore", and even then it took me a while to actually click on it, but then it became much easier, and this site has improved immensely. I've been reading your interactions with some of the other people on this thread, and already ignored them before even bothering to get into a discussion with them.

I'm getting really good at picking out those who are here just to hear their head roar. I just ignored whoever you're talking to, and I already forgot their name/handle...covenant something, who cares, right?

It's amazing how toxic some of these people can be. They're like acid, or bile barfed onto your computer screen. There's just no point in bothering to engage them at all.

 

[shnarkle]

The point of the passage is you must be born again of spirit. He was pointing out that yes, Nicodemus, you have already been born of water, but you must be born of spirit as well.

I don't agree with that specific interpretation, but ultimately we're agreeing that it's about a spiritual birth, and think it's important to see that the metaphor of birth indicates that it isn't something we do. A father begets a child. A mother gives birth. It's something that happens to us rather than something we do. So again, the idea of water baptism really doesn't fit at all.

 

[CovenantPromise]

Woe unto you who call good evil and evil good. It's funny, no proof against , no one can point out one lie, yet it is vomit? And now the measure of truth is not an argument with FACTS but rather with only accusations founded on opinion alone. I am in good company.

"Wisdom will soon pull away from the world and go into her chamber" ,The Book of Ezra.
Very sad......

 

[Berserk]

Covenant Promise,
Not only am I not Catholic, but I have even won a lawsuit against the Catholic Church! Yet Catholic posters have

Oh boy here we go with this nonsense again. John 3 is NOT talking about baptism.

Your claim has repeatedly been decisively refuted and your have no answer to the refutation other than mindless denials like this one.

 

[shnarkle]

Covenant Promise,
Not only am I not Catholic, but I have even won a lawsuit against the Catholic Church!

That sounds like a topic in itself. Inquiring minds need to know. C,mon spill...

 

[reformed1689]

Your claim has repeatedly been decisively refuted and your have no answer to the refutation other than mindless denials like this one.

Actually neither point is true.

It has not been decisively refuted. And I gave whole posts laying out an exegesis of the passage and pointed to an article I wrote on the matter as well. Try to have some honesty.

 

[CovenantPromise]

Covenant Promise,
Not only am I not Catholic, but I have even won a lawsuit against the Catholic Church! Yet Catholic posters have


Your claim has repeatedly been decisively refuted and your have no answer to the refutation other than mindless denials like this one.

I am only in here defending true doctrine . Whether it is a truth of those who call themselves Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant. I am simply defending what is obviously upheld in the foundation. As for your claim against the Catholic church, no doubt, wolves have been pervasive throughout that assembly but that is true for all the assemblies. Some have different bad behavior , but all is unacceptable . Abuse, completely worthy of a millstone .

Truth is truth , that is all I am defending . Also, rejecting and proving what are obvious lies within all the denominations. Since the denominations have been the introduction to "Christianity" I have to address all. That means showing no partiality. Sorry for whatever it is you have experienced and had to bring suit against. None of what the wolves say and do has anything to do with what Christ taught. I am simply only accepting all that which can be upheld by the foundation. I am simply a Christian , not owned by any assembly but Christ alone. I fellowship with all (as long as they are not bad mouthing the Mother of Christ) I commune with whom I can. I esteem what is true and admonish what is false.

I listen to what the fire and brimstone preacher say, I go to Traditional mass, I attend Orthodox mass, I ONLY EMBRACE THOSE WHO CALL CHRIST their Lord no other religions. I talk to scholars and Christian leaders. I do not feel it is wrong to challenge long standing doctrines. I have found, many called "doctors" or "fathers" of doctrines, have a lot of hay in their teachings. And I have a RIGHT as a lover of Christ to speak out against the hay. I do not blindly follow and I know as long as I obey what is revealed in scripture I am in the authority of the Church and that is CHURCH- obedience! It is not what many in here try and do toward me , which is dominate with their straw man doctrines ,which clearly can not stand up to the written Word.

 

[Taken]

Agreed. It is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the Glory of God alone. The reformers got that part right, but "scripture alone and faith alone" are not in the Bible.

You just AGREED...through "faith alone"...
Then say, "faith alone", is not in the Bible.

Mans ACT is BELIEF..."alone".
John 11:
[25] Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
[26] And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Gods ACT is FAITH......FULL-NESS for mans heartfelt BELIEF.
Eph 2: [8]...ye saved through faith; ... it is the gift of God:

Rom 10:
IF...THEN
[9] That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Luther made that up because he was mentally ill and was angry at the Pope.

Hogwash.
Luther was a diligent Catholic student and Catholic teacher.
Luther Challenged the highest authority of Catholic teaching, for answers.
And at first Luther was "IGNORED" and "Called names".

When the Catholic church did not hear him, Others Did, and Luther, being Catholic, challenging Catholic teaching, became a visible thorn the Catholic Church had to deal with.

It is an age old Catholic practice...of the Catholic Church, and it's leaders are "always RIGHT",
(It is no different today).

To challenge "the Catholic leaders"...is always followed by, booting the person out of the membership, and publically degrading the person.

Calling Luther mentally ill...mad....is a FRONT, and attempt to discourage ANYONE from considering Luthers questions.

Plain and Simple...Without FAITH ....
a man is Dead already.

James 2:17,26 – James clearly teaches that faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

IN Context:
James IS SPEAKING to the Tribes of Israel...Is that you?

James IS REFERENCING Mosaic LAW...does that apply to you?

James IS EXAMPLING Abraham being JUSTIFIED by HIS WORKS...does that apply to you?

Works are a cause, not just an effect, of our justification because good works achieve and increase our justification before God.

WORKS "WERE" HOW men "UNDER" the Law, "WERE" observed "AS BEING ...FAITHFUL.

Jesus DID not DESTROY the LAW...He fulfilled the LAW.

However NOT everyone BELIEVED or BELIEVES...IN Jesus the Lord Messiah...OR THAT Jesus fulfilled the Law.

And For a person who "WAS" UNDER the Law
And "REMAINS UNDER" the Law...THEY CONTINUE TO BE "JUSTIFIED"...BY DOING WORKS..."according TO the LAW"....and Abraham THEIR Example of "works"...and the VIEW of God toward Abraham, "for" his works, is an expectation for a man WHO Continues Under the Law.

YOU are teaching...YOU receive "JUSTIFICATION" BY DOING WORKS.

THAT ^ Application IS TAUGHT, "according to Mosaic LAW".

I am not, nor have ever been UNDER Mosaic Law.

Tribes of Israel WERE Taught, The LAW, and WERE Under the Law and "MANY" Continue UNDER Mosaic Law...and absolutely According to the Law, THEY ARE JUSTIFIED BY WORKS.

AND IN CONTEXT...James is speaking TO the Tribes of Israel...not Gentiles.

Since the Law does Not Apply to me, a Gentile...I must find in Scripture FOR JUSTIFICATION that does Apply to me...A Gentile.

My ACT of choosing to hear, follow, believe, and continue...LEADS TO;

MY ACT to Voluntarily GIVING MY BODY, unto to Death, Crucified WITH Christ.

^ THAT is not a life long string of me doing "WORKS"...That is myself making a ONE TIME choice and ACT of Commitment TO the Lord.

Jesus' Responsive ACT...IS:
Cleansing, Sanctifying and JUSTIFYING MY BODY to be Risen IN Glory.

1 Cor 6
[11] And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Rom 5
[9] Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Protestants cannot show us from the Scriptures that “works” qualify the “faith” into saving faith.

Just did. It is Applicable to a man UNDER the Law.
A mans Belief AND Works according TO the Law, justified a man, and the man given Faith.

It is NOT Applicable to a man IN Christ.

A man BELIEVING IN and FOLLOWING Jesus, Becomes Justified by Jesus' BLOOD.

Instead, here and elsewhere, the Scriptures teach that justification is achieved only when “faith and works” act together.

Justification IS achieved differently from men UNDER the LAW...and men NOT UNDER the LAW.
Belief and Works...OT covenant.
Belief and Submission of Body...NT covenant.

NOT under the Law...

Rom.4

1. [2] For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Rom.5

1. [1] Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2. [9] Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Your teaching is obscure..
You are a Gentile, presumably committed to Jesus....Yet operating as IF you are UNDER Mosaic Law in your teaching.

How do you explain that?

Scripture puts no qualifier on faith.

Sure it does.
Enlightenment...PRECEEDS receiving FAITH.
Enlightment IS hearing Gods Word.
A man cannot UNHEAR, what he heard.
A man CAN Believe or Reject what he hears.
A man WHO Believes Gods Enlightening TRUTH...receives "measures" (increments) of Faith.
FAITH...is given in measures.
A man who STOPS believing, REJECTS the enlightenment he is receiving...
The Lord STOPS giving measure of FAITH...
And the man is called, having FALLEN FROM FAITH.
FAITH-FULL-NESS, occures WHEN...
A man has CONTINUED being enlightened...
Continued believing...Continued receiving Measures of Faith....and Heartfully committed himself to the Lord.
Thereafter...
A man has RECEIVES, (the indwelling Spirit of God,) and IS ONCE and FOREVER, "SEALED" unto God, that THEY;
1) are NOT subject to Gods Wrath.
2) Are "set apart" to be Raised in Gory.

Rom 12:
[3] ...according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

2 Cor 1
[22] Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

1 Thes 5
[9] For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 4
[30] And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

WORKS of a man ALREADY SEALED...
THAT: Glorify God;
Are rewarded with Blessings and Gifts from God.

WORKS of a man ALREADY SEALED...
THAT: DO NOT Glorify God;
SHALL be burned, and the rewards and blessing the man "COULD" have had, is an opportunity lost to the past.

Arguing, your Catholic doctrine, based on James teaching TO the TRIBES of ISRAEL, is MOOT, in trying to make Mosaic LAW Applicable to Gentiles...WHO are NOT under the law.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Marymog]

Sure. Jesus speaking to Nicodemus.

OK.....So your interpretation, 2,000 years later, is that Jesus didn't mean water baptism in John 3:5!! You rely on you to properly interpret Scripture.

I suspect you don't know Aramaic or Greek or Latin for you to properly translate it into English so I think I can safely presume you are relying only on the English version of Scripture. I am not sure if you have any degree in 1st century or Jewish history to put Scripture in context. Perhaps you do...perhaps you don't but I'm doubting it.

I know you, like me, like to put into context what is said in certain passages. So John in context:

In John 1:31-34 Jesus was baptized. Jesus demonstrably showed us the way the heavens would be opened to us so that the Holy Spirit would descend upon us… through water baptism.

In John 2:1-11: Jesus transformed water into wine. He used water from six stone jars for the Jewish rites of purification. According to the Septuagint as well as the New Testament these purification waters were called baptismoi. Jesus transformed these Old Testament baptismal waters into wine—a symbol of New Covenant perfection (see Joel 3:18; Matthew 9:17).

John 3:22: Immediately after Jesus’ “born again” discourse to Nicodemus, what does He do? Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea where he remained with them and baptized.

John 4:1-2: Jesus’ disciples then begin to baptize at Jesus’ command.

John 3:5 does not say “unless one is born of water and then born again of the Spirit…” It says “unless one is born of water and Spirit…” In Lord’s own baptism in John 1 and Matt. 3 notice how when Jesus was baptized the Holy Spirit descended simultaneously upon him. This was one event, involving both water and the Spirit. And so it is with our baptism. It would be anachronistic to read into Jesus’ use of “water” to mean physical birth in John’s gospel. In fact, St. John had just used a word to refer to physical birth in John 1:12-13, but it wasn’t “water:”

In summary you got the context of John wrong. In context Jesus was baptized, transformed the “baptismal” waters, and then gave his famous “born again” discourse. He then baptized before commissioning the apostles to go out and baptize. To deny Jesus was teaching us about baptism in John 3:3-5 is to ignore the clear biblical context.

Historically who would be more reliable in their interpretation of this passage? David Taylor, 2,000 years later, or men who lived closest to the time of Christ?

I am sure you already know the credentials of Justin Martyr so there is no need to go into that. Here is what he said: “As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).


And the credentials of Bishop Irenaeus far outweigh yours and mine combined. Here is what he said: “‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

So tell me David.....Should I trust your 2,000 year old interpretation of that passage or the learned men who lived closest to the time of Christ and spoke/wrote Greek?

If you say I should trust you and not them please explain why?

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

No, I linked my site so I didn't have to write something I have already written.

I can see where that makes sense.