/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>648451

Yes it is and no we aren't.

IIRC the Orthodox have Sheol which is kind of similar. Some protestant groups believe in post mortem salvation, but not explicitly purgatory.

>Is purgatory biblical?

Not even close.

>And are Catholics the only ones who believe in purgatory?

Pretty sure

>>648456

Orthodox here.

Sheol is the abode of the dead in the Old Testament, in the New Testament it's translated into the Greek as Hades. We just believe it's a place of rest for the dead until the general resurrection and final judgement. We don't have a dogma like purgatory, but we do pray for the dead and believe they can benefit from our prayers.

>>648451

only the catholic church has it as a dogma other churches are free to believe it

>>648463

Is it actually dogma though?

>>648464

>"III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm

>>648474

Cool thanks

>>648461

Note that Sheol = Hades = Hell. Paradise is separate from Hades, and is where the saints dwell.

>>648451

Purgatory is a heresy.

>>648463

No other church is free to believe it since no other church accepts the fanfiction it's based on

It's not biblical

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_toll_house

>>648509

>>648512

t. faithlets

>>648523

You wanna proof us wrong or use ad hominem

II Maccabees 12:39-46

Matthew 5:25-26

I Corinthians 3:11-15

Now go and sin no more

>>648542

The only one that seems to be sayi g that is the meme book one

>>648543

<Waah my doctrine is taught against in the Scripture therefore I don't believe that this book is Scripture

Pathetic

>>648547

>literally a few verses out of almost 40,000 teaches a doctrine

>duurrrd it's dat one

>>648534

Do you want to know how many proofs I have proofed and had faithlets throw them out because of what they are?

No. Purgatory is not Biblical.

>>648557

See, here's another faithlet who hasn't bothered to believe anything but his whims

>>648560

Luke 23

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

>Today

c*Tholics BTFO

>>648542

>2 Maccabees

This is under the old covenant, meaning that Paradise was not available yet with the exception of Enoch and Elijah, yet Purgatory is supposed to be part of Paradise. Furthermore, Purgatory is for those who died free of mortal sin but haven't given the corresponding penance, while those who are prayed for in 2 Maccabees died as idolaters.

>Matthew

Show me Church Fathers teaching that this is about a Purgatory.

>1 Corinthians

Show me Church Fathers teaching that this is about a Purgatory.

>>648573

go back to krautchan

oh wait :^)

>>648824

2 Corinthians 5:21

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The righteousness of God is perfect.

Also, see 2 Corinthians 5:6—

<Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

>2 Sam 12:13-14

David was punished in this life, not sent to a fictional afterworld. Hebrews 12 teaches that whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth. It means the Father has power over your life when you are in subjection to him. It does not imply being sent to hell or fictional afterworlds.

>Mt. 12:32

Wait so you think people who are reprobate might eventually be saved? Why are you mentioning this in regard to the manmade doctrine of purgatory?

>2 Mac 12:44-46

Not God's word.

>1 Cor 3:15

The word of God says his work shall be burned. This passage is dealing with who will be rewarded for what.

>1 Cor 15:29-30

>baptizing for the dead

Are you a mormon?? Seriously?

Paul said "what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?" Notice the "IF" in that question. It is a hypothetical situation where the dead cannot rise again, not an actual thing. Please do better with context when posting here, don't reinforce mormon doctrine.

>From these references, we can see that something more than just Heaven or Hell is possible after death, even for believers.

Where is it mentioned though?

2 Corinthians 5:6—

<Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

Romans 6:23—

<For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

>>648899

>Where is it mentioned though?

Right next to where the Holy Trinity is mentioned.

>>648997

1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

>>648463

The Catholic church holds a lot as dogma compared to others

>>648509

Orthodox do

>>649002

>1 John 5:7

Not God's word.

>>649004

Orthodox don't believe in purgatory

>>649054

The toll houses and purgatory are not the same thing, you clearly just heard some meme about the toll houses and don't know anything about them. Do you even know what the point of purgatory is? temporal punishment for sins, this is nothing like the concept of the toll houses.

>>648563

Actually it is two lines plus a subject. Perhaps it is time for you to go back.

>>649007

heretic

>>649088

Says the guy adding to Sacred Scripture.

>>649054

I mean we don't believe in purgatory and yes, buying salvation from a Pope with money reeks heresy. I don't believe that the aerial toll houses are related to it.

>>649132

Your buddy was trying to deny the Trinity, so I did what I had to do. Prove his lies wrong. It's right there in 1 John 5:7.

>>649002

I don't see the word Trinity anywhere in this verse

>>649159

What's up with all these modalists?

>>649159

He wasn't denying the Trinity, he was denying that the trinity is mentioned in the Bible, because it isn't. 1 John 5:7 isn't authentic Scripture, so in addition to arguing the wrong point, you failed to make your own.

>>649174

>he was denying that the trinity is mentioned in the Bible, because it isn't.

It is directly mentioned there in 1 John.

>>649174

There goes the Ehrman fan club

>>648575

>This is under the old covenant, meaning that Paradise was not available yet with the exception of Enoch and Elijah, yet Purgatory is supposed to be part of Paradise.

Purgatory if anything is part of hell, just like limbo of the fathers, bosom of Abraham

>Furthermore, Purgatory is for those who died free of mortal sin but haven't given the corresponding penance, while those who are prayed for in 2 Maccabees died as idolaters.

Ver. 40. Of the donaries, &c. That is, of the votive offerings, which had been hung up in the temples of the idols, which they had taken away when they burnt the port of Jamnia, (v. 9.) contrary to the prohibition of the law. Deut. vii. 25.

All such things should have been destroyed, (Jos. vii. and 1 K. xv.) or melted down. Perhaps the soldiers intended to bring them to Judas. He excused them charitably, and hoped that their temporal chastisement might have served to expiate their fault.

Ver. 42. Forgotten. Syr. "imperfect." Gr. "effaced."

Some copies, "that they might not, on account of the sin committed, be entirely blotted out."

They were convinced that some sins might be forgiven in the other world, particularly when the living interceded.

Ver. 45. With godliness. Judas hoped that these men who died fighting for the cause of God and religion, might find mercy; either because they might be excused from mortal sin by ignorance, or might have repented of their sin at least at their death

Charity requires us to judge thus, when there are no positive proofs to the contrary

To pass over other proofs, we will only mention S. Aug. (hær. liii.) and S. Bernard, (Cant. lxvi.) who plainly account those "heretics," who deny purgatory.

>Show me Church Fathers teaching that this is about a Purgatory.

Tertullian The Soul, 100,10. Cyprian Epistle 4,2. Origen Homily 35 on Luke 12. St. Ambrose Commentary on Luke 12. St. Jerome Commentary on Matthew 5.

>Show me Church Fathers teaching that this is about a Purgatory.

St. Augustine Explanations of the Psalms 37.3. St Cyprian Epistle 51.20. Origen (in Lucam, hom. 14), Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvii.), Lactantius (lib. vii. c. 21), Basil (in Isa. iv.)

Yes, purgatory (and the reasoning behind the need for a purgatory) are, in fact, scriptural. And, while Catholics are the only ones that have developed and defined the belief, I think you can see other christian denominations recognise the need for something like it even if they won't explicitly state it.

Some verses often used that suggest purgatory:

"He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the LORD."

>Malachi 3:3

"For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [12] Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw – [13] each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. [14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. [15] If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

>1 Corinthians 3:11-15

"When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning."

>Isaiah 4:4

"And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come"

>Matthew 12:32 (suggesting that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come)

"Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny"

>Matthew 5:25-26

There are some other verses that are often used, but these here, as you can see, seem to suggest that there is a place of punishment or purification that isn't eternal like Hell.

It's also based on the need for such a place.

So, while Christ died for the eternal consequences of our sins, that we may live, it is recognised that when we sin (especially of a habitual kind), that we develop certain temporal attachments to sin. So that even though we are forgiven of these sins, breaking, say, a habit of pornography becomes harder the more you indulge it.

One of the passages that is often used to point out the difference between eternal and temporal consequences of sin is 2 Samuel where David is forgiven of his sins with Bathsheba, but still has to endure punishment here on earth accorded to those sins.

It is with this distinction that I think you find agreement in other denominations like Orthodoxy. While they don't talk of purgatory, they do recognise these consequences in three ways:

1. Aerial toll-houses, the teaching of some Orthodox whereby after you die you will pass through various toll-houses manned by demons and will be taxed based on your attachments to sins on earth. If you bear attachment still, they may drag you down to Hell. This, I believe, recognises the temporal consequences of sin and in some descriptions is similar to purgatory.

2. Some Orthodox who teach universal reconciliation see those passages referring to purgatory as being the same as Hell. So that we pass through fire and are cleansed before all proceeding to God in the end.

3. Simply in the need to confess the times that you "missed the mark" even though Orthodox don't believe in the concept of mortal sins that would need to be confessed in order to be in a state of grace. Not confessing sins is just going to perhaps stop you from deification. Be a hindrance. That recognition of the need for healing and the healing aspect of confession in some ways attests to the effects of sin in a temporal way.

I'm in a bit of a rush, so I may have missed things, but the idea behind purgatory is, indeed, biblical and the reasoning behind it is sound even if the conclusion that is reached is not always the Catholic definition of purgatory. Protestants such as C S Lewis, after all, believed in purgatory simply because he believed we needed to be cleansed before entering God's perfect presence. Which makes sense considering how dangerous it was for Israelites to enter God's presence in an impure state in the OT.

>>649354

I should also add that purgatory makes sense within a Catholic understanding of sin and of justification. So it requires certain foundational beliefs first. Protestants and Orthodox traditionally don't believe it or have need of such a belief because their ideas about sin and justification differ from those of the Catholic church.

It would not really make sense for a OSAS-believing Protestant who espouses forensic justification to believe in purgatory. It would also not make much sense, with an Orthodox understanding of sin, to believe in such a rigid accounting of our sins in this life.

So it's not so much that it's completely illogical or unbiblical as it is just the natural conclusion of a given set of assumptions about sin and salvation.

>>649354

>Yes, purgatory (and the reasoning behind the need for a purgatory) are, in fact, scriptural

Purgatory is neither scriptural inasmuch as purification through purgatory is never taught and as it is antithetical to a biblical worldview. A fallen creature can never by temporary suffering expiate the infinite offensiveness of their sin against an infinite holy God. Even one stain merits eternal wrath. The only way to be right with God is through absolute perfection, which is why Jesus died, suffering the wrath merited by the elect, and giving to them His perfect righteousness.

>"He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the LORD."

Says nothing of purification in purgatory.

>"For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [12] Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw – [13] each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. [14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. [15] If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

A metaphor about the judgement of Christian teachers.

>"When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jerusalem from its midst by a spirit of judgment and by a spirit of burning."

Says nothing of purification in purgatory.

>"And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come"

Says nothing of purification in purgatory.

>"Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny"

Says nothing of purification in purgatory.

>but these here, as you can see, seem to suggest that there is a place of punishment or purification that isn't eternal like Hell.

No, no they do not.

>So, while Christ died for the eternal consequences of our sins

Christ died for our sins period. If Christ died for just part of our sins, the rest of it being left for us, our faith is in vain.

>eternal and temporal consequences of sin

Punishment is an eternal consequence of sin.

>2 Samuel where David is forgiven of his sins with Bathsheba, but still has to endure punishment here on earth accorded to those sins.

Chastisement, not punishment.

>Which makes sense considering how dangerous it was for Israelites to enter God's presence in an impure state in the OT.

Indeed, which is why we must be totally cleansed by the blood of the lamb.

>>649505

>A fallen creature can never by temporary suffering expiate the infinite offensiveness of their sin against an infinite holy God. Even one stain merits eternal wrath.

God should strike down every single creature, not from life but from existence, as being completely and irredeemably corrupted by original sin.

I'll not address your other points, as there are none else but the vain contradiction of the post you've replied, line by line, which is a huge waste of time.

>>649354

>>649552

Where is it mentioned?

See >>648899

The righteousness of God is perfect. Refer to 2 Corinthians 5:21.

Colossians 1:14 says that we have redemption through his blood. What you're suggesting here, then, is that his blood is insufficient. And that it must be purified.

>>649572

>Where is it mentioned?

see >>648997

>>649581

1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

>>649160

In the same way Christ never speaks of purgatory directly, He never speaks of the Trinity directly. This is the issue with Sola Scriptura.

When you encounter a modalist, you're encountering yourself cast in a different mirror.

You approve of the Trinity, but cast out purgatory, your exegesis is partial and biased.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

>>649742

>In the same way Christ never speaks of purgatory directly, He never speaks of the Trinity directly.

Yes he does.

Matthew 28:19

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

>You approve of the Trinity, but cast out purgatory,

Where is it? Show me where a third place is mentioned along side eternal life or death. Eternal life and death are the only options. The opposite of either one is always automatically called the other; if you don't die, then you have eternal life. If you don't have eternal life, then you will perish.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting the word of God like this. All three persons of the Trinity are clearly explained and delineated throughout Scripture. The ultimate scripture that states the relation of all three is 1 John 5:7, but there are mentions by name of them everywhere.

You are leading others astray into modalism or other antitrinitarian beliefs by perpetuating this meme. I'm not kidding. Continuing like this, and I'll regard you as a heretic.

>>649821

continue*

>>649680

>>649007

>>649869

Incorrect.

>>650026

1 John 5:7 is a corruption that the inspired apostle never wrote. It is not God's word.

It's where God puts Catholics for eternity. It's exactly like heaven but a little farther away, so he doesn't have to look at them.

Well, the fact that there is a narrow path implies the possibility of getting lost in the way in a imperfect manner (i.e multitude of "churches", of gospels, of grave sins in a overall good life, ignorance mixed with superstition, but with bona fide).

So, even agreeing with the fact that there's only one gate and one judgement, I cannot rule out the possibility of someone coming to the road to find the lost. Or more biblically, Luke 14:21-24.

>>650082

You teach baptism for the dead and that the word of God does not contain any mention of the Trinity. There are plenty of direct trinitarian formulae throughout the Bible, I've already linked several, and 1 John 5:7 is the ultimate reference stating the relationship directly. Therefore your whole premise is false, and also perpetuating more than one false doctrine in the process. Why won't you admit it was a bad idea to base an entire argument on the absolute corruptibility of scripture and anti-trinitarian arguments?

>>650091

>You teach baptism for the dead

wrong

>and that the word of God does not contain any mention of the Trinity

Because it doesn't. I can see you are confused however, I do not deny the trinity like Mormons. As I said before, there is scriptural evidence for the trinity, but none is direct.

>I've already linked several, and 1 John 5:7 is the ultimate reference stating the relationship directly.

You linked one, Matt 28:19. 1 John 5:7 was not written by the inspired apostle and therefore cannot be a reference to the trinity.

>Why won't you admit it was a bad idea to base an entire argument on the absolute corruptibility of scripture and anti-trinitarian arguments?

Because that is not at all what I based my arguments on. Now why won't you admit it was a bad idea to base on argument on premises your opponent didn't use?

>>650100

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

>ONE

>>650120

>The first two editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament didn't even have it, and that is essentially what became the TR.

Actually, out of 252 variances, the KJV used:

Used Beza's 9th TR (1598) in 113/252 places

Used Stephanus' 3rd TR (1550) in 59/252 places

Used Erasmus' 3rd TR (1522), or Bishop's, Geneva, Comp. Polyglot, or Latin Lexicons in 70/252 places

And guess what? None of the 252 is 1 John 5:7, all agree on that point. That wasn't changed until much later. This has a very similar resolution as 1 John 2:23b had, and when you realize this, you will remain just as confused as you are now and will simply find something new to attack.

>I am relying on the Word of God

You can't even point to it. How are you relying on something you can't even tell me? What does the Word of God say in Isaiah 59:21? Quote me the verse from the Word of God right now.

>>650129

>the KJV used:

There you go again. I did not comment at all on what manuscripts the KJV used. I only said the first two editions of Erasmus' work didn't include it. But lo, the KJV of course used the third edition, by your own admission. The latter editions from Beza and Stephanus were influenced by Erasmus' work and therefore cannot be relied on either.

>you will remain just as confused as you are now and will simply find something new to attack.

I am not confused and I am not attacking anything. lol You're the one crying about how I'm a confused mormon papist modalist heretic.

>You can't even point to it. How are you relying on something you can't even tell me?

I am pointing to and telling you the Apostle John did not write the Comma Johanneum. What don't you understand?

>Isaiah 59:21

That's pretty irrelevant, but alright, I'll bite.

וַאֲנִ֗י זֹ֣את בְּרִיתִ֤י אֹותָם֙ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֔ה רוּחִי֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָלֶ֔יךָ וּדְבָרַ֖י אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי בְּפִ֑יךָ לֹֽא־יָמ֡וּשׁוּ מִפִּיךָ֩ וּמִפִּ֨י זַרְעֲךָ֜ וּמִפִּ֨י זֶ֤רַע זַרְעֲךָ֙ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֔ה מֵעַתָּ֖ה

וְעַד־עֹולָֽם׃ ס

>>650140

>The latter editions from Beza and Stephanus were influenced by Erasmus' work and therefore cannot be relied on either.

Well, it's a good thing the translators knew what they were doing then. Also, isn't it kind of fallacious, or should I say convenient, to act like Erasmus' work is legitimate but only when it is convenient for you? Just an interesting observation. I myself don't rely on any of them.

>I am not confused and I am not attacking anything.

Sure you are, you are honed in on attacking the concept that the word of God never changes. You want us to think it can be changed, added to and subtracted from from new revelations.

>I am pointing to and telling you the Apostle John did not write the Comma Johanneum.

You just said before that you are relying on the Word of God. Well, can you even tell me what that is? If it's not the KJV, please tell me what is it. Please specify what exactly it is that you are relying on.

>וַאֲנִ֗י זֹ֣את בְּרִיתִ֤י אֹותָם֙ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֔ה רוּחִי֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָלֶ֔יךָ וּדְבָרַ֖י אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי בְּפִ֑יךָ לֹֽא־יָמ֡וּשׁוּ מִפִּיךָ֩ וּמִפִּ֨י זַרְעֲךָ֜ וּמִפִּ֨י זֶ֤רַע זַרְעֲךָ֙ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֔ה מֵעַתָּ֖ה

וְעַד־עֹולָֽם׃ ס

So you are relying on this right? Care to explain to us common people what it means?

>>650153

>it's a good thing the translators knew what they were doing then.

There it is. Relying on fallible men.

> isn't it kind of fallacious, or should I say convenient, to act like Erasmus' work is legitimate but only when it is convenient for you?

I don't think it's legitimate. By relying on the KJV, you have to take the position it is legitimate. I pointed out why your position is untenable by citing problems from your source text.

>I myself don't rely on any of them.

But you rely on the KJV. The KJV was translated from Greek texts that were, at the very least, influenced by Erasmus et al. Therefore, you are indeed, relying on their work, whether you acknowledge it or not.

>you are honed in on attacking the concept that the word of God never changes. You want us to think it can be changed, added to and subtracted from from new revelations.

God's word doesn't change. What men print on paper changes and can be added to or subtracted to. You have to admit this yourself, as the KJV has had revisions, the 1611 text is not the same as the 1769. The Cambridge text is not identical to the Oxford text. There are copies of the KJV that erroneously say "“Thou shalt commit adultery.” It happens, my dude.

>You just said before that you are relying on the Word of God. Well, can you even tell me what that is? You just said before that you are relying on the Word of God. Well, can you even tell me what that is? If it's not the KJV, please tell me what is it. Please specify what exactly it is that you are relying on.

The Word of God comprises the words the inspired Biblical authors wrote. No more, no less.

>So you are relying on this right?

Not really, as I cannot read Hebrew.

>Care to explain to us common people what it means?

Nope.

I know what you're trying to do, and I'm not biting because whatever English translation I prefer is irrelevant. The issue presented here is: whether 1 John 5:7 was written by the Apostle John. You are taking the affirmative position, which means you have the burden of proof. Attacking my preferred translation will not prove the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 or the perfection of the KJV.

>>650167

>By relying on the KJV, you have to take the position it is legitimate.

Of course I do.

>I pointed out why your position is untenable by citing problems from your source text.

No, all you did was simply say that it's wrong and then finally after dragging it out say that it originates with Erasmus. But that has nothing to do with my source text as I'm not citing him, nor do I think his text was actually accurate to the originals. And he had more than one.

>You have to admit this yourself, as the KJV has had revisions, the 1611 text is not the same as the 1769.

It's the same words. You can change spellings and things like that, there are thousands of instances where the word "be" was originally spelled "bee." But does this result in any change? No.

>The Cambridge text is not identical to the Oxford text.

The 1900 is the correct format for print and the one I recommend, but again, the words are the same in either as they are in the 1611. The main differences you can point to between those texts are word spellings, like "counseller" or "counsellor." There is no actual changes of substance in any of the main line editions of the KJV, except for typographical errors such as contained in the 1631 London edition that you mentioned. But by 1629, Cambridge had already released a much more accurate, true to the text edition. So that example is far from being relevant. And my own physical copy happens to have a minor typo in Psalm 109. Does that somehow mean I don't know what it really says?

>The Word of God comprises the words the inspired Biblical authors wrote. No more, no less.

Correct. And it is the words themselves, not the corporeal writings that matter.

>Not really, as I cannot read Hebrew.

So then you haven't got any way to know Isaiah 59:21— is this what I am to believe? So I guess then you wouldn't understand the implications of this scripture on the matter at hand either. Because there it says that

<As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

And what this means, if true, is that there is no time when the original word of God will be lost. The very words he spoke were preserved from henceforth, to every single generation. No gaps. No rediscoveries. And no Westcott-hort critical text.

>Attacking my preferred translation will not prove the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 or the perfection of the KJV.

It shows that I'm the only consistent person who is being forthright here. I'd have more to ask of you on why you believe scripture at all, but it seems like you're not someone who would respond. So I'm happy with this position. My initial post hasn't changed.

>>650187

>I did not say the Comma Johanneum originates with Erasmus.

Ok good, because it doesn't.

>If you cite the KJV, you're citing him implicitly.

Or not.

>Then why do you rely on a greek text influenced by him?

You just said it doesn't originate from him. Are you re-altering your position?

>Like I said, it results in a change of what men printed on the paper. You admit this.

Of course it does. It does not though change the words, which is the same as what said the originals. I've actually been over all of the variations in editions, none of the intentional formatting or orthography changes would imply a different translation. Sorry to disappoint you again.

>No. But that's not the point I presented.

I thought it was called the word of God, not the paper.

>I can know what it says in a variety of ways.

And none of them holds up to any kind of standard.

>The key words used in that verse are "depart out of thy mouth."

You're vacillating from one standard to another, exactly as I would expect.

>You're just trying to pivot onto another issue.

Really, it's funny you say these things. The issue was that you are promoting outright heresy like baptism of the dead and purgatory. But you not being able to hold that side of the conversation is not more than I would expect.

You are too dishonest to even advocate for anything on this, you just want to set your own subjective standards and shift them to whatever is needed to disagree, yet because you know you can't live up to any of these impossibly conflicting standards yourself, you are therefore unable to present a belief. We know what that type of inadequacy is called.

>You keep scrambling to shift the burden on to me and attack propositions that I didn't make.

That is exactly, and I mean exactly what you did. Look at your first post, that's what we were supposed to be talking about. But I've let you change the subject too often from then. You still haven't answered anything that was asked then. It's mostly been all about your antitrinitarian assertions— also blasphemously false. Saying I change the subject is a second projection of your own slippery behavior onto me, and it's intellectually dishonest. I've answered for myself but you've just scrambled to hide what you believe all along and not answer for anything you originally said. I think you described your own activity well. Better than I could have. It's not much more than I would expect however. There is only one real standard after all, leaving any dissenters to turn to this kind stuff and complain when they are subsequently exposed and treated as what they really are.

>>650235

>Or not.

If you rely on a translation that used Erasmus' work, you have to rely on Erasmus' work. It's that simple.

>You just said it doesn't originate from him. Are you re-altering your position?

The KJV has the comma, ya goose.

>would imply a different translation. Sorry to disappoint you again.

I didn't say it was a different translation. Again, you're putting words in my mouth.

>And none of them holds up to any kind of standard.

If you apply the same standard to the KJV, it doesn't hold up either.

>You're vacillating from one standard to another, exactly as I would expect.

I literally quoting the text you gave me. I used your standard. First the KJV is perfect and now when I quote I'm moving the goal posts? c'mon.

>The issue was that you are promoting outright heresy like baptism of the dead

I did no such thing

>and purgatory.

Is not heresy.

>But you not being able to hold that side of the conversation is not more than I would expect.

There is nothing further to say on the matter. I moved to the trinity to illustrate that you and I both believe something that is not explicitly stated in scripture, just like purgatory is not explicitly stated in scripture. You then cited the comma johanneum, which is not the word of God. You still have not demonstrated that John actually wrote it. Therefore, my comparison of purgatory being equal to the trinity, that is to say, real but not explicit in scripture, has not yet been refuted.

>you just want to set your own subjective standards and shift them to whatever is needed to disagree,

Says the guy who advocates for KJV onlyism and literally cannot present any supporting evidence. You're taking the affirmative position, have the burden of proof, my dude. You're just frustrated because I am not giving you anything to attack and you're crumbling under the untenable nature of your position.

>because you know you can't live up to any of these impossibly conflicting standards yourself, you are therefore unable to present a belief. We know what that type of inadequacy is called.

You have not pointed out a single inconsistency. You have only managed to insult me and argue strawmen.

>That is exactly, and I mean exactly what you did. Look at your first post, that's what we were supposed to be talking about.

I addressed this above, but I'll say it again. I compared purgatory to the holy trinity, as neither are explicitly stated in scripture. You argued that my comparison fails because the trinity is explicitly stated in scripture. If your argument were true, you would be right, and my comparison would fail. However, you have not provided support for your position other than the comma johanneum, which was not written by the Apostle John. Therefore, because you did not cite a verse explicitly mentioning the holy trinity and haven't proven that the comma johanneum is legitimate, you have not broken my analogy. You mentioned Matthew 28:19, but that verse also does not support the "three in one" doctrine of the trinity. That, is another discussion we haven't even gotten into.

> your antitrinitarian assertions— also blasphemously false

You keep saying I'm anti-trinitarian. If you reread my posts, including my first one, you'll see I have never denied the trinity. You're again attacking a strawman.

>Saying I change the subject is a second projection of your own slippery behavior onto me, and it's intellectually dishonest.

We got into a discussion about the comma johanneum, then you asked me to tell you what translation I prefer, when that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the comma. If that's not changing the subject, I don't know what is.

>I've answered for myself but you've just scrambled to hide what you believe all along and not answer for anything you originally said.

I'm not hiding what I believe. You just aren't addressing it. I've had to tell you multiple times, "that's not what I said" or "that point is irrelevant."

>It's not much more than I would expect however.

Derision doesn't make you seem smart and it doesn't help your position.

>There is only one real standard after all, leaving any dissenters to turn to this kind stuff and complain when they are subsequently exposed and treated as what they really are.

I'm still ready to talk, mate. You're the one complaining and tucking tail. You just waived your hand to the argument I made from Isaiah. You did not address that I said the translators were fallible men. You have not presented evidence that John wrote the comma. You have not explained how you can rely on the KJV, which relied on Erasmus' work, but reject Erasmus' work. You attacked me for being antitrinitarian, when I am not. You attacked me for being a mormon, when I am not. You attacked me for supporting Westcott-Hort, when I made absolutely no mention of it. You attacked me for supporting baptism for the dead, when I do not.

>>650235

The fact is, you fell for an incomplete and inconsistent ideology. You were filled with empty rhetoric and you were taught how run a script that most people aren't prepared to defend against. I know the script, and I'm not playing along. This is why you keep trying to argue points I did not make and why you think I am being inconsistent.

>>649354

I don't see how any of those warrant the belief that there is a post-mortal spiritual realm/state that serves as the antechamber to Heaven where people can freshen up before being admitted into the presence of God.