/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Yes that's pretty good

Gehenna is a symbolic name used for the post white throne hell, so it can get confusing.

https://biblehub.com/greek/1067.htm

The bosom of Abraham and paradise can also be called heaven.

Your titles should say "before white throne" and "after white throne" and you should just remove purgatory altogether since it is an invention.

No

>>841538

Yeah.

>>841543

So St. Paul was just inventing Purgatory when he described it in 1st Corinthians 3:11-15?

>For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble—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. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

>>842010

No, you are applying an invented idea back onto scripture when it isnt there in the text

https://carm.org/catholic/purgatory-and-1-cor-315

>>842014

Why should I trust some random ass website that clearly doesn't hold books that explicitly talk about Purgatory (like 2nd Maccabees 12:42 - 44, which are part of the biblical canon and considered inspired since Christ's death and Resurrection) over Scripture?

>>842027

You could start by not arguing fallaciously

>>842029

Fine. The site says that Purgatory is a recent invention of the Church. However, in 2nd Maccabees 12:42-44 (which was written before Christ became incarnate), it implicitly mentions Purgatory and how prayers for the dead would be pointless if they did not expect them to rise again and go to heaven at some point, meaning the concept of Purgatory is not a new one and St. Paul is basically drawing from this idea when writing 1st Corinthians 3:11-15.

>>842030

Also, verse 45 of 2nd Maccabees 12 literally talks about one of the leaders of the rebellion Judas praying for the atonement of the sins (venial being implied here) of the dead. So there's also that.

>>842030

>>842031

Maccabees is apocryphal, but that isn't even talking about purgatory either

https://carm.org/catholic/purgatory-and-2-maccabees-12-39-45

>>842032

>Maccabees is apocryphal

It was part of the original Vulgate canon of the Bible organized by St. Jerome ever since ~400 AD. It's only Martin Luther and the Reformers that removed it 1000 years later. That just mean the later editions of the Bible are missing 7 books, not that there are 7 extra books in the Orthodox and Catholic bibles.

>but that isn't even talking about purgatory either

It literally says it would be pointless to pray for the dead unless there was some hope for them to go to heaven and Judas the rebel prays for the forgiveness of their sins, meaning they have sins, but they aren't of the variety that cause eternal separation from God. That's exactly what Purgatory is described as being like: a place where those who are not perfect but aren't damned go in order that their venial sins might be purgated so they can go to heaven, because there is no imperfection in heaven but at the same time, these people that go there don't warrant eternal damnation since they have built their foundation on Christ despite the flaws in their nature. God won't send you to hell for a sin of a lesser nature, but at the same time they are sins, so you can't go to heaven until they are expunged.

>>842033

>"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."–(Jerome, Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

>>842034

He later changed his mind and decided that they were a part of Scripture. Even Luther quoted them to support his arguments when he needed them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books#Influence_of_Jerome

>Eventually however, Jerome's Vulgate did include the deuterocanonical books as well as apocrypha. Jerome referenced and quoted from some as scripture despite describing them as "not in the canon". Michael Barber asserts that, although Jerome was once suspicious of the apocrypha, he later viewed them as Scripture. Barber argues that this is clear from Jerome's epistles; he cites Jerome's letter to Eustochium, in which Jerome quotes Sirach 13:2. Elsewhere Jerome apparently also refers to Baruch, the Story of Susannah and Wisdom as scripture. Henry Barker states that Jerome quotes the Apocrypha with marked respect, and even as "Scripture", giving them an ecclesiastical if not a canonical position and use. Luther also wrote introductions to the books of the Apocrypha, and occasionally quoted from some to support an argument.

>>842036

>this guy said Jerome did not mean what he said so the apocrypha is cannon

>>842092

>People can't change their mind later on in life

>It was even up to Jerome to decide if the deuterocanonical books, not Councils like the Council of Rome:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

>Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.

>Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Amos one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

>Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

>The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

>Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle

Your position is ahistorical and untrue. Get over it.

>>842095

*If the deuterocanonical books were Scriptural or not,not Councils like the Council of Rome

>>842036

Ok. It still goes to show that this was not a settled issue, and there is reasonable dissent throughout church history.

I do not accept Maccabees as scripture, and regardless it does not teach purgatory. It's addressed in the article.

>>842095

The inspiration of any book is not based on a council. The job of a council/synod/meeting is to evaluate the evidence

>>842100

> It still goes to show that this was not a settled issue, and there is reasonable dissent throughout church history.

It was pretty much settled by about 400 AD. There was no real dissent with the canon until Luther's time, as can be evidenced by the fact that the Catholic canon can also be found within the all the Orthodox Bibles along with the Synod of Hippo, where it concurs with the Council of Rome not 10 years earlier. Literally it's just Luther and the Reformers that disagreed with this assessment due to both theological and linguistic reasons (For some reason they though the fact they were in Greek, even though there is a good deal of linguistic evidence to suggest that it is a translation from a Hebrew source, like idioms that don't exist in Greek being used in 1-2 Maccabees that exist in Hebrew makes them less scriptural). If you don't accept it as scripture, that's just your loss.

Also, it literally does and I went over a

pretty unquestionable reason why: You don't pray for the dead if you don't have hope that they will rise again (as in go to Paradise, since I doubt they believe in the Resurrection of the dead at Judgement Day) and Judas goes and prays for the atonement of their sins. That's literally what Purgatory is: the temporary expurgation of venial sins that prevent one from going to heaven and experiencing eternal life. I don't need an article to explain to me what basic reason and understanding of Scripture can tell me infinitely better.

>>842100

Councils are literally there to deliberate and to decide whether something is in line with Tradition or Scripture or not. That's literally why the first Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD got rid of the condition that catechumen needed to get circumcised to join the faith and the Council of Nicea made the Trinitarian formula explicitly clear to the Arian heretics (even if they had to go bad and make it even more clear due to later heresies not directly addressed by the initial formulation) (which most Christian groups still accept to this day)

>>842101

>There was no real dissent with the canon

How is it we have Bibles handed down to us that don't descend from the Catholic line?

You realize the Vulgate New Testament had errors in it in places like John 3:5 and Matthew 6:11 which the Greek did not represent?

Not to mention the removal of messianic prophecies it had in places like Psalm 2:12.

>where it concurs with the Council of Rome not 10 years earlier.

There's a reason why it's called deuterocanon, my anonymous friend. That's because everybody without exception knows it doesn't belong in the original language canon. It's some apocryphal writing that is only available in Greek. The attempt to call it "second canon" is just man's attempt to add things into it by the sheer seat of his pants. Not everyone follows temporal authority, hence, the received text Bibles accurately designate these as apocryphal texts. Furthermore, different temporal authorities have tried to add different sets of apocrypha. Ethiopians even added Enoch. Marcion removed the whole Old Testament. You can't trust such authorities, while you can trust God and what He says in Scripture about preserving his own words, if by the grace of God you might believe.

>Councils are literally there to deliberate and to decide whether something is in line with Tradition or Scripture or not.

Where does this statement come from in Scripture? You realize the verbally inspired Scripture both given and preserved to us by God is the final authority? The Apostle John even said the following statement: "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater".

>>842350

The prayer and discernment that happened at these councils were absolutely necessary because these heretical groups were simultaneously threatening the existence of the church and pulling people away from the faith. The Church needed to translate an implied truth (the inerrancy of the Word, the existence of the Trinity, the divine personhood of Jesus) into a clearly defined, easy to understand concept, otherwise there would just be another resurgence of these old heresies. So many of these theological concepts have been established so long ago by the church that you can often just point to a specific council or papal bull or writing of the Doctors of the Church or a great Saint and they utterly dismantle even the most tempting of today's heresies.

>>842366

>The prayer and discernment that happened at these councils were absolutely necessary

Would you say there is an event in history that was not necessary or is everything part of our Lord's plan?

>these heretical groups were simultaneously threatening the existence of the church and pulling people away from the faith.

Not sure which ones you are referring to here. The Arians held councils that led to false conclusions. They would have counted all God-fearing Christians as heretics yet they were heretics themselves. Other councils persecuted the righteous in various ways, bringing the weight of the empire and its laws against the pure churches who kept the word. As it says in scripture, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, so of course the existence of His church was never truly threatened, it only appeared to be.

>The Church needed to translate an implied truth (the inerrancy of the Word, the existence of the Trinity, the divine personhood of Jesus) into a clearly defined, easy to understand concept,

Those things already appear in Scripture, so while it's better to have additional instruction and affirmation you don't want to replace the infallible with the fallible, nor place the cart before the horse. So far as these councils helped define our language itself to precisely express the truths already contained in the Word they served a purpose, which is probably why they happened. I wouldn't say anyone or any group developed a new idea or defined a new truth that wasn't part of the pre-existent immutable truth of this universe, and which was already revealed to us in Scripture if we would but understand it.

>So many of these theological concepts have been established so long ago by the church that you can often just point to a specific council or papal bull or writing of the Doctors of the Church or a great Saint and they utterly dismantle even the most tempting of today's heresies.

Nothing that the Bible doesn't do better. Recall what the Apostle Paul said in Romans, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

He also wrote: "When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

Lastly, he wrote: "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Now when it comes to enforcing false doctrine, there is no possibility of establishing it through Scripture, but it would be require to turn to false councils in order to try to persecute the righteous with those false doctrines that state councils have too frequently enforced, such as the pro-Arian councils held in Italy by the court of Rome in those times.