/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>690436

Yes. Why? God said so through His Church.. Why is God trustworthy? He Is. Why is His Church trustworthy? Because it is founded by He Who Is. What will happen if you choose to ignore these obvious signs? Maybe eternal hellfire. Or maybe you'll go to purgatory and see for yourself. I'm about to pray my evening prayers for the souls in purgatory, so, maybe one of these prayers will help the one who denies this doctrine.

>>690442

>zero biblical evidence for purgatory

1 Corinthians 3:15 famalam

>>690443

if you actually read the chapter in its context you would know that refers to a believer’s works famalalalalam.

a believer can do works that dont have any eternal value — such as going to a soul sapping career. this will be burned. however preachi g the word has eternal value.

go read and quit being a faggot.

>>690445

2 Maccabees 12:46 famiry

>>690446

that book never existed in hebrew, retard.

>>690447

Your point being famalamalamdingdong?

>>690448

cringe

>what is the old testament

prophets sent to the ancient HEBREW-speaking nation of Israel starting with abraham. you know, the people God made a covenant with that was broken when Jesus was crucified by them?

the winnie the pooh does aramaic have to do with anyone other than the assyrians that God used to judge the samaritans He disinherited back in 2 Kings?

>>690450

>Maccabees was written by a prophet

The cringe, famalamalamalam!

>>690445

ding ding ding

even failed works that burn up are valuable. the loss is the reward in 1 cor 3:14

>>690446

WOOSH one context gets blown out time to MOVE THEM GOALPOSTS

>>690451

since you didnt address my point about hebrew i guess you ran out of arguments? k.

>>690453

boi you slow

why does something need to be in hebrew to be scripture? are you a jew, hmmmm?

>>690454

let's stick to 1 cor 3:15 - why does that prove purgatory? Why isn't the loss the reward in 1 cor 3:14?

>>690452

I think you need to learn what "moving the goalpost" actually means, sir

>>690456

i misread your post.

it does not prove purgatory indeed.

he used a verse from the bible; a book that he doesnt understand.

>>690455

now its just sad

do you know what the old testament is?

>>690458

>do you know what the old testament is?

Do you know what the deuterocanon is?

>>690459

>answering a question with a question

>>690460

a.k.a what you did with my question >>690455

The cringe, famalam.

>>690462

because you didn't answer my question >>690450 here.

>>690443

This passage is about those who are saved having their works tested. Not being stuck in limbo.

>>690446

>Judas believed that there be a day of resurrection before we're condemned or saved

>He thought moral sins can be removed after death

>Church Fathers used this passage to pray to their non-believing loved ones to ease their pain of punishment, not remove it.

>Jesus told us that those who aren't with Abraham are in a place of torment

>Jesus held the Jews responsible for the OT, yet they didn't have the apocryphal books, like Maccabees, in their canon.

repent

>>690463

The one about aramaic? How is that even remotely relevant to what we're discussing here?

>if it's not written in hebrew then we can dismiss it as not scripture

>oops guess that includes the whole NT

the absolute state of protestantism.

>>690467

anglican detected

>>690467

>hurr durr because the israelites spoke HEBREW and non israelites did not save for other semite tribes earlier than them such as edomites whose prophecies of their own destruction by said HEBREW speaking prophets came to pass as babylon and assyria had already discomfited them.

I don't know if that's english but okay

>maccabees isnt scripture, its apocrypha. that means parts that exegetically corroborate with scripture (old testament and new) is ok, but anything that contradicts the prophets or the apostles is garbage.

translation: anything that contradicts Father Luther's explanation of scripture goes in the trash

>maccabees goes in the trash. use a different book.

I use the septuagint, which has maccabees and, coincidentally, was also used by the apostles.

Are these some suffering right now who will be saved? Yes.

Are there some whose sins will be forgiven after death? Yes.

Is there a "purgatorial fire" for those who will be saved without going straight to Heaven first? Latin theological tradition has interpreted verses like 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 to refer to a purgatorial fire for those who, upon death, are destined for Heaven but have not been purified of their passions yet. Byzantine theology, however, has interpreted all verses about fire to be either A) penance, which is purification in the fire of the Holy Spirit, or B) the fire of Gehenna (or, in the case of a universalist reading, both). In Catholic theology, somebody who dies without having done sufficient penance goes to Purgatory, where they suffer as they are purified, but can be purified "quicker" through the prayers of the faithful and the sacrifice of the Mass. In Orthodox theology, somebody in the same situation goes to Hell, where they are imprisoned for a while but are saved through the prayers of the faithful and the sacrifice of the Liturgy. As such, the Catholics dogmatically assert the existence of Purgatory while the Orthodox reject it, but there isn't such a big difference between them at the same time - both assert that those who die in a state of grace but without being perfectly purified are held in a "waiting room", so to speak, where they complete the penance necessary, and are helped by the prayers of the faithful. But Catholics believe this "waiting room" is in Paradise, and could be described as a purifying fire, and Orthodox believe it is in Hades, and could be described as confinement.

I'm Orthodox, so I reject Purgatory.

While I'm at it, the usual Catholic use of 2 Maccabees is bizarre. It confirms that sin can be forgiven after one's death, not that this forgiveness happens in a "purgatory" or through painful fire, especially since this is before Christ opened Paradise for us.

I'll cite what an Orthodox priest says in my catechism - Orthodox theology hasn't made a real distinction between Hell and Purgatory like Catholic theology has.

>>690486

>using the septuagint makes you a special snowflake

>calling the apostles special snowflakes

W E W

>>690486

ACNA?

>>690489

>anglican or anything that is anglican that isn't named anglican

who cares?

>>690488

Unlike you, I like my scripture undefiled.

>>690487

>both assert that those who die in a state of grace but without being perfectly purified are held in a "waiting room"

where does this meme come from? everybody is in a state of not being "perfectly purified" until the resurrection.

and search the scriptures, the only time the term "purification" is used in the mosaic law is referring to a waiting period after a woman gives birth. I believe it's one or two weeks for a boy and double the time of that for a girl.

it has nothing to do with the resurrection.

where do people get this garbage from? certainly not from the scriptures.

>>690495

Alright, enjoy your kosher scriptures. I'll stick with what the apostles are using.

>>690495

The saints have reached theosis. They have necessarily been purified of both their sins and their attraction to sinfulness - in other words, they are free of original sin.

>>690504

>if they're free of original sin then why did they need to die?

They reached theosis after death, not before. Baptism removes original sin, but that is only completed in theosis.

>>690504

Masoretic text is what I was referring to when I say "kosher".. If you didn't have the reading comprehension to understand that and you're not being stupid on purpose…. WEW

>>690506

every believer including me reaches theosis after death. how redundant.

>>690507

if the talmudic orthodox jews believe that they are still God's chosen people and all of the prophets of the old testament corroborate with Jesus' fulfillment of their prophecies and directly ministered to his apostles, then there's no problem on my end. the issue is you're trying to convince me to take maccabees seriously. which I still don't obviously.

>kosher

a principle related to the food ordinances from Moses which are clearly done away with as Ezekiel broke these laws by commandment when he ate cow's dung and Peter explained the figure of those dietary laws being figurative of gentiles in Acts 10.

the word kosher is nowhere in the bible, but the principle is sufficiently explained using the MT and the TR. Both of which have been used authoritatively for hundreds of years in the King James version of the bible which has outsold every other version of the bible in the lingua franca.

>wew

yeah.

<wew

indeed

and I deleted my post because I referenced revelation 2:9 and 3:9 which are irrelevant verses when discussing the septuagint since we are presently (and apparently) disputing the authority of the masoretic (literally the ORIGINAL HEBREW) texts over what are INEVITABLY TRANSLATED versions of said original hebrew originals into greek by a f***ing eunuch.

>>690514

>every believer including me reaches theosis after death. how redundant.

What is redundant? That all who die justified will end up reaching theosis, and so that having a concept of purification after death is useless?

But purification after death is merely a continuation of purification during this life. Some die perfectly purified of sin, so that nothing stands in the way of theosis for them and they reach it after death. Some die still attached to sin and not having done sufficient penance, so they need to be purified to a certain degree before they can come together with Christ and the saints, and continue their deification.

>>690442

rum featuring a pirate should be in the left bottom corner, it's the ultimate normie drink

>>690515

I disagree. Dying is the only means of purification because as Paul very clearly illustrated in Romans 7, there is always a law of sin in our flesh. No person dies not attached to sin, that's why they have to die.

>>690517

I usually just stick to beer. Gin if I'm trying to slim down or get really drunk really fast.

I don't see liqueur on here, do you?

>>690520

Do you believe there is no penance to be had? Do you believe that the sacraments and faith cannot perfect us here and now? Why is the Holy Spirit described as a fire if this is not a fire that purifies by destroying evil and sin?

I believe you misread the apostle's intentions in chapter 7 of Romans. He describes his own struggle with sin, he does not say at all that this struggle cannot be conquered.

>>690520

Also, for Paul, sarx and soma, body and flesh, are not synonymous. The "flesh" is, for Paul, the body when it is enslaved by the carnal passions, while the "body" refers to the body itself, without implication as to how the individual uses it.

>>690524

>>690531

the only way the struggle can be conquered is by dying.

who are you trying to fool? me or yourself?

>>690535

Sigh. Whatever. This isn't the hill I plan to die on, and I clearly lack the wisdom and language to convince you at all.

Out of curiosity, to which church do you belong?

>>690536

it's fine dude sorry if I came off as aggressive I'm still processing the cognitive dissonance from the famalamalam guy.

I used to go to verity baptist church, one of the andersonite churches.

I got kicked out.

now I just read the bible and occasionally check this place to verify that it's still a cathodox helltrap.

Otherwise I talk to my friends who left with me after I got kicked out because roger jimenez is a complete retard. Don't get me started.

>>690536

wbu?

>>690537

I see. For some reason, I thought you were Reformed. What do you think of Reformed theology?

>now I just read the bible and occasionally check this place to verify that it's still a cathodox helltrap.

You don't go to a church? It's really a bad idea to get your Christian community time from here and not from a real life community that's united around the same beliefs.

>>690538

As I said above, I'm Orthodox.

>>690539

>i'm orthodox

oh ok. i didn't see that.

>what do you think of reformed theology?

absolute garbage. limited atonement is a ridiculous doctrine.

>you don't go to church?

>bad idea

>community

no I do go to church, I define church as a congregation of believers and I do that all of the time. The communities in which we live are immersed in the cognitive dissonance of state worship

they believe that the god that enforces ridiculous statutes through the family courts who use the duluth model to destroy the family and the use of fiat currency to steal from everybody. pig cops will enforce those statutes and guess what?

ALL churches are perfectly happy with it. Swimmingly. They won't do anything. They are complicit.

My buddy in Oregon got completely f***ed by the state and lost his house despite appealing successfully to the state constitution to deny family court jurisdiction.

loldidntmatter

At this point I cannot STAND religion, dude. there is no edification, just pride and greed from a spiritually sick and destitute congregation. I have a closer walk with God in private contemplation and prayer and then I decompress either by discussion on a conference call or at my residence. That edifies me and accomplishes the intended function of church and it checks out with the psalm 22:22 hebrews 2:12 cross reference definition. Therefore it is a church.

>>690541

I will pray for your friend. There is no justice apart from the Kingdom of God.

Yes purgatory is real, it's both biblical and necessary for biblical theology to make sense. Anyone who thinks they can live a sinful life and get straight into heaven because they accept Jesus is in for a surprise, the pains of Purgatory are every bit as severe as the pains of Hell, but they are finite.

>>690548

The physical kingdom already exists. It is the Church, of which the king is Christ. In fact, the Church is also called the True Israel traditionally, and Luke-Acts's theological agenda appears to be that the Church is the direct continuation of the Kingdom of Israel, although under a different divine dispensation.

>>690554

hi

>And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

there, Christ made a Church. the Church does not claim to be the Spiritual Kingdom, but the true path to it.

>>690558

hi

that's not what that scripture means.

>>690560

Is this the part where we get to see a Protestant tie himself in knots to justify an interpretation of scripture that goes against over 1900 years of Church teaching stretching right back to the apostles? I love this part.

>>690560

hi

what's it mean?

>>690563

it's like watching a .gif on replay

>>690565

>the verse you are referencing is referring collectively to the ministry of ALL of the apostles – even Paul – who have a testimony of Jesus Christ and the testimony thereof being the rock

Liar. Christ only spoke to Simon Peter in this verse.

>Jesus self refers to his testimony and foundation as being a rock.

Then why did Jesus Christ say "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."?

Why not "And I say to you all: That thou art the Rock; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Or "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon myself I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

>I'll appeal to what Christ said directly and what the prophets said as well.

Liar, you do no such thing.

>>690564

>>690563

also I think you both collectively blacked the f*** out and forgot literally about the first 4 chapters of revelation where God is telling John to tell 7 specific SEPARATE churches about church-specific affairs for them to deal with

>church of Laodicaea

>church of Ephesus

>church of Thyatira

etc.

are these all

>muh one true church?

no. No they're not.

That being said I do subscribe to the idea of a universal body of believers that will inhabit new Jerusalem after the resurrection and the judgment but generally speaking my eschatology is a bit shaky since I'm not 100% on the prophets so I can make the sufficient cross references in revelation. Zechariah and Daniel

>>690566

>in this verse

there's your problem. read the whole chapter, pleb. start at verse 13 for sake of efficiency:

<13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his DISCIPLES, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

plus he literally calls peter satan in this chapter so LOL at you, buddy.

anyway

>Then why did Jesus Christ say "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."?

because that's literally the apostle who answered first

if it was andrew or matthew who answered first then they would probably be peter rather than simon.

>Liar

<yea let God be true and every man a liar

I'm not perfect but at least I'm not a pleb like you. maybe this topic is above your paygrade, idolater.

>>690569

oh and paul rebukes peter to his face (Acts / Galatians)

>>690436

>In Psalm Ixv. 12: We have passed through fire and water, and thou hast brought us out into a refreshment. This place is brought in proof of Purgatory by Origen (Hom. 25 m Numeros), and by S.Ambrose (in Ps.xxxvi., and in sermon 3 on Ps. cxviii.), where he expounds the water of Baptism, and the fire of Purgatory.

>In Isaias (iv. 4) : If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning. - This purgation made in the spirit of judgment and of burning is understood of Purgatory by S. Augustine, in the 20th Book of the City of God, ch. 25.

>In Micheas, in the 7th chapter (8, 9): Rejoice not, thou my enemy, over me, because I am fallen : 1 shall arise, when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light. I will hear the wrath of the Lord, hecause I have sinned against him, until he judge my cause and execute judgment for me : he will bring me forth into the light, I shall behold his justice. This passage was already applied to the proof of Purgatory amongst Catholics from the time of S. Jerome, as the same S. Jerome witnesses by the last chapter of Isaias where he says that When I shall sit in darkness . . .I will hear the wrath of the Lord . . . until He judge my cause—cannot be understood of any pain so properly as of that of Purgatory.

>In Zachary (ix. 11): Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.

>In Malachy (iii. 3) : And he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver : and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold and as silver, &c. This place is expounded of a purifying punishment by Origen (Hom. 6 on Exodus), S. Ambrose (on Ps.xxxvi.), St. Augustine {de civ. Dei xx. 25), and S. Jerome (on this place).

>Corinthians (iii. 13, 14, 15): The day of the Lord shall declare {every mans work), because it shall he revealed by fire^ and the fire shall try every mans work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon^ he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. - How can a man be saved by fire in Hell? Hence, Purgatory. -

>All this interpretation, besides that it agrees very well with the text, is also most authentic, as having been followed with common consent by the ancient Fathers. S. Cyprian (Bk. iv. ep. 2) seems to make allusion to this passage. S. Ambrose, on this place, S. Jerome on the 4th of Amos, S. Augustine on Psalm xxxvi., S. Gregory {Dial. iv. 39), Rupert (in Gen. iii. 32), and the rest, are all expression the point; and of the Greeks, Origen in the 6th Homily on Exodus, Ecumeuius on this passage (where he brings forward S. Basil), and Theodoret quoted by S. Thomas in the 1st Opusculum contra errores Grcec.

>Machabees chapter 12 - It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may he loosed from sins.

Yes it is.

>>690565

>the verse you are referencing is referring collectively to the ministry of ALL of the apostles

Well no because he was talking in singular towards Peter specifically

>I say to THEE (singular) that THOU (again, singular) are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church

So no, he wasn't talking to the apostles collectively, he was addressing Peter specifically and saying that Peter will be the rock on which the church is built.

>I'll appeal to what Christ said directly and what the prophets said as well.

Christ said that his Church will be built on Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

>>690574

>>690565

And st. Chrysostom even said

>“The power which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”

And the Cyrils

>Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ” “You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am with you.”

>And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles “in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine.” And further on: “To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinance bow the head and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord himself.”

4th canon of Chalcedon

>“If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.” And further on: “And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne.”

>>690574

okay well by your logic satan is the head of your "apostolic" church because Jesus literally calls him satan in the same chapter.

what about the churches in revelation i pointed out?

what about

>get thee hence satan

also peter was specifically in jerusalem.

the f*** does rome have to do with the council at JERUSALEM?

what about all of the churches geographically in turkroach land?

>>690585

cringe

cyril and chrysostrom are not authoritative.

>>690569

>where God is telling John to tell 7 specific SEPARATE churches about church-specific affairs for them to deal with

Which is nonsensical on your part, were synagogues where the Jews worshiped not part of the Temple?

Likewise, despite the many Churches of Christ, they were all considered under one Church, this confusion is only appeared since the Reformation too. (orthodox schism notwithstanding)

>That being said I do subscribe to the idea of a universal body of believers that will inhabit new Jerusalem after the resurrection and the judgment but generally speaking my eschatology is a bit shaky since I'm not 100% on the prophets so I can make the sufficient cross references in revelation. Zechariah and Daniel

probably because you're wrong, and there will not be a universal body of believers. Christ prayed for unity, He never endorsed separation.

>there's your problem. read the whole chapter, pleb. start at verse 13 for sake of efficiency:

What in the world are you on about? He called on the disciples, Peter answered, and Christ spoke to Peter. It's in the verse itself! How have you confused yourself so badly?

>plus he literally calls peter satan in this chapter so LOL at you, buddy.

You LOL at Christ. I did not give St. Peter the authority, Christ Himself did.

>if it was andrew or matthew who answered first then they would probably be peter rather than simon.

But they didn't, and Christ knew this because He is God, and has all foreknowledge. Right? Right?

>>690578

>okay well by your logic satan is the head of your "apostolic" church because Jesus literally calls him satan in the same chapter.

Because Peter took on the spirit of Satan, and wanted to stop Christ's Passion. I mean, did you read the part where Peter was full of the Holy Spirit? Or the Pentecost?

If Peter was Satan, why declare the Church on Him? You question Jesus Christ's very authority.

>>690584

There is so much idiocy in this post I could be here all night.

>>690546

Is it the case also if you get a plenary indulgence?

>>690436

yeah

>>690450

>what does Aramaic have to do with anyone other than the Assyrians

<Literal language Christ first bespoke the Gospels in

Sad!

>>690436

Nope. If it was it would be mentioned a lot more than an alleged Purgatorial verse in the Apocrypha. Do not become blinded with Rome’s false teachings of the subject. It’s not real and it never has been.

>>690436

Wasn't the purgatory theory made up as a way for the pope to make money? I mean together with that weird treasury of the good deeds theory that he supposedly keeps somewere hidden so he can take you out of hell if you bride him? Serious question.

>>690632

No. The doctrine of Purgatory goes back as far as Augustine. It is a particular reading of 1 Corinthians 3:12-15.

The whole "treasury of merits" and "indulgence" thing did come later though, although I don't know the exact story behind it, and I do not expect that the reasons were financial or business-like at all.

>>690548

I wasn't expecting to see Pete on this board God bless !

>>690577

You do not understand either Chrysostom or Cyril's views on Peter, his relationship to the Pope, his relationship to the apostles and the episcopacy, who has the power of the keys, and the role the Church of Rome plays.

These two saints do not affirm papal supremacy, no matter how much you cherrypick them.

If that makes you feel better, saints like Jerome and Pope Leo lean very, very strongly on the side of papal supremacy and infallibility.

>>690729

God bless!

Indeed, Peter is a monster. His preaching has stood the test of time.