The Doctrine of Purgatory in Catholic Biblical Perspective

[reformed1689]

Then, perhaps YOU can take a stab at refuting Mary's title of "Kecharitomene".
Please explain how this doesn't set her apart as sinless.

I eagerly await your well-researched and intelligent response . . .

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It doesn't say All except Mary.

 

[BreadOfLife]

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It doesn't say All except Mary.

And YOU don't have a CLUE as to what Romans 3 is about.

Romans 3:10-12 states explicitly that it is referring to what has been written - specifically Psalm 14.
Rom. 3:10-12
As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

If you knew your bible - which you obviously don't - you would understand that this is a direct reference to Psalm 14, where it is speaking specificall of the foolish and the wicked. In verse 5, it says that God keeps company with the RIGHETOUS.
Ummmmmm, according to YOUR perverse interpretation - there is "NONE" righteous.

Rom. 3:10 is using inclusive language - not absolute language. If it were absolute - then Christ Himself would be sinful because HE is part of "ALL". So are infants and aborted babies. So are severely retarded, who do not have full use of their faculties.

Don't just quote the Bible - LEARN what it means . . .

 

[reformed1689]

And YOU don't have a CLUE as to what Romans 3 is about.

Romans 3:10-12 states explicitly that it is referring to what has been written - specifically Psalm 14.
Rom. 3:10-12
As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

If you knew your bible - which you obviously don't - you would understand that this is a direct reference to Psalm 14, where it is speaking specificall of the foolish and the wicked. In verse 5, it says that God keeps company with the RIGHETOUS.
Ummmmmm, according to YOUR perverse interpretation - there is "NONE" righteous.

Rom. 3:10 is using inclusive language - not absolute language. If it were absolute - then Christ Himself would be sinful because HE is part of "ALL". So are infants and aborted babies. So are severely retarded, who do not have full use of their faculties.

Don't just quote the Bible - LEARN what it means . . .

Learn what it means, yes, that is what Catholics need to do. Not just regurgitate false teachings of the Catholic False Church.

 

[Philip James]

God help you

Thank you,

And may HE fill you with the fire of HIS love!

Peace be with you!

 

[reformed1689]

And may HE fill you with the fire of HIS love!

Not sure if you are trying to imply something here...

 

[epostle]

I will never humble myself to false teaching. My authority comes from Scripture.

No, your authority comes from a false teaching invented by a mad man because he was angry with the Pope.

Each believer has that same authority to stand against false teaching.

This is an invented doctrine, an ideology that is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

YOU are the one who says I have no authority with no basis. You are the one clinging to heresy. God help you.

A heresy is a post-baptismal denial of a revealed truth. They are primarily listed in the Creeds. A heresy would be re-defining them to say what it was never meant to say in the first place.

Sola scriptura is completely useless in combating the false philosophies of today, namely materialism, that is bent on destroying civilization. Not only do you oppose the only thing left that has any hope against the current chastisement, you are part of it. Sola scriptura is used to justify the twin evils of abortion/contraception, euthanasia, same sex unions, sexual confusion taught in schools, and a list of moral crimes readily embraced by a growing number of "sola scriptura" churches.
The day is long spent, go back to sleep.

How prophetic is that?

 

[Taken]

WOW.

Every one of your posts is more revealing than the last regarding just how woefully-ignorant you really are.

No, it simply reveals YOUR LACK of UNDERSTANDING and WILLINGNESS to believe what you ARE TOLD, and FAIL to VERIFY WHAT you ARE TOLD is TRUE according to GODS WORD!

Time for another Bible lesson . . .
[/OUOTE]

LOL...oh no, more of YOUR churches made up "TRADITIONS"... ugh!

"Traditions"

aren't necessarily an event or a day or a practice like festivals or Sabbaths or Passover. The "Traditions" spoken of in 2 Thess 2:15 refer to ORAL TEACHING. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture. Your inability to grasp this is at the core of your confusion.

Traditions are long standing Practices.
OT men had long standing Practices, and I named a few FOUND IN SCRIPTURE!

Catholics, early on, BEGAN "establishing" TRADITIONS of their own. And you can FIND a LONG LIST of Catholic "TRADITIONS" "WRITTEN" in BOOKS, written by Catholics, produced by Catholics, distributed by Catholics, taught to Catholics.... that are BOOKS "other" than Scripture.

SO WHAT? There is NOT ONE Scripture that notifies ME, I am obligated to READ or BELIEVE ANY BOOKS written, BY ANYONE outside of Scripture.

As for coining the word "Trinity" - that's not what I was talking about.

Then why are you talking about THAT WORD?

Pay attention:

the Church - NOT Scripture defined the DOCTRINE of the Trinity.

And? WHO is obligated to BELIEVE "your" Description of the "Trinity"?

Which BTW, YOU have not given "your" definition of what YOU believe the Trinity means, but IMPLY, it is THREE, and ONE of the THREE is a "HUMAN".

She ALSO coined the word.

Really? "SHE", "your Catholic church" "coined the word "trinity" ? It wasn't a "man" who coined the word? Perhaps one of your "Catholic saints" ?
Do elaborate! LOL

It is an IMPLICIT teaching of Scripture - not an EXPLICIT one, Einstein. Learn the difference . . .

While you deflect to your implicit and explicit yabba dabba, my interest is in Gods Word, and that you can not SHOW IN SCRIPTURE the slightest Hint verifying your teaching that Mary was naturally born from her mothers Womb "SINLESS".

I am well aware that IS your long standing Catholic "TRADITION".
However the DIFFERENCE IS, the Jews long standing "TRADITIONS" are Scriptural.
AND
Many of the Catholics long standing "TRADITIONS" Are NOT Scriptural.
Learn the difference...

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

We already hashed out your heresy regarding your rejection of Christ's Hypostatic Union in another thread
No need to rehash here. Suffice it to say - it is a BASIC tenet of Christianity - and YOU reject it.

Good grief BOL.
Yes we have discussed in length...

MY Lord Jesus came down from Heaven in the LIKENESS as a man, seen as a man, called a man, AS Verified IN Scripture.
I Believe and Repeat what Scripture has revealed.

Your Lord Jesus IS A HUMAN MAN, created VIA God fertilizing Mary's Egg, with NO Verification IN Scripture.
You Believe and Repeat what "your Church has established as It's Doctrine'"...( out of the minds and words of men, NOT IN Scripture ).

The BASIC Tenet of Christianity IS:
To Follow Jesus, Believe He is the Christ sent from God in Heaven and submit ones own LIFE "TO HIM".

The BASIC Tenet of Christianity IS..."NOT" making one subject to the "catholic church".

Learn the Difference!

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

No, your authority comes from a false teaching invented by a mad man

A "mad man" ? What is this supposed "mad mans" name?

Really? And WHAT exactly is your BASIS IN FACT, to make that determination about a Dead man, you never knew?

because he was angry with the Pope.

Really? Angry with the Pope for WHAT?

Why IS IT a Catholics MO, is to FIRST DEGRADE a person, THEN state their own ideology?

Do you think, that somehow MAKES your own ideology TRUE?

WHAT EXACTLY do you think "sola scriptura" MEANS ?

This is an invented doctrine, an ideology that is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

WHAT EXACTLY do you think "sola scriptura" Means?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[reformed1689]

No, your authority comes from a false teaching invented by a mad man because he was angry with the Pope.

No, my learning comes from Scripture.

This is an invented doctrine, an ideology that is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

Clearly you have not studied the Pauline Epistles written to Timothy and Titus.

A heresy is a post-baptismal denial of a revealed truth.

I suggest you get a dictionary.

Sola scriptura is used to justify the twin evils of abortion/contraception, euthanasia, same sex unions, sexual confusion taught in schools, and a list of moral crimes readily embraced by a growing number of "sola scriptura" churches.

This is a flat out lie.

 

[Taken]

Then, perhaps YOU can take a stab at refuting Mary's title of "Kecharitomene".

Define "kecharitomene", and see if the Definition of that "word" means...SINLESS.

Please

explain how this doesn't set her apart as sinless.

No one is arguing that Mary was NOT set apart.

No one is arguing that Mary was NOT "IN CHRIST"....DUH, you were shown the Scripture of EXACTLY when that happened...(AFTER Jesus returned to Heaven!)

You should have learned those "IN" Christ "ARE" set apart!

Pss 4
[3] But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself:

Silly of you to ask someone to EXPLAIN something they are NOT debating!

The Debate is Mary's supposed "SINLESSNESS", from the time Mary was naturally born from her mother's womb.

You have NOT shown in Scripture ONE reference to Verifying that claim.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

"epostle, post: 654160, member: 7

Sola Scriptura is completely useless in combating the false philosophies of today, namely materialism, that is bent on destroying civilization.
Sola scriptura is used to justify the twin evils of abortion/contraception, euthanasia, same sex unions, sexual confusion taught in schools, and a list of moral crimes readily embraced by a growing number of "sola scriptura" churches.

REALLY? People are READING Scripture to FIND OUT, they were NATURALLY BORN with a MIND that can MAKE it's OWN "behavioral" CHOICES of the person?

LOL.

The Scriptures ARE FULL of descriptions of BEHAVIORS of people.
Behaviors THAT, are ACCEPTABLE to GOD...
...called Good.
Behaviors THAT, are UNACCEPTABLE to GOD..
...called Bad, Evil, Wicked.

You are trying to PASS OFF, "sola scriptura", as "A JUSTIFICATION" for "EVIL Behaviors"?

Scripture itself TEACHES, the CARNAL MIND IS AGAINST GOD.

NO WHERE in Scripture is it taught, "EVIL Behaviors" (conjoured up in the Carnal Mind), is JUSTIFIED.

You are MIXING, and trying to project, that a man with a NATURAL Carnal Mind, is USING Scripture as a Basis to BE JUSTIFIED to "BEHAVE" EVILY pertaining to SECULAR things.

Hogwash. A man WITH a Carnal Mind, NEEDS nothing IN Scripture to notify him HIS MIND can think EVIL and WICKED THOUGHTS, and he can ACT on those thoughts.

Parents, Schools, or otherwise ANY Caretaker who is Rearing, Teaching, Shaping the minds of Children can TEACH, ANYTHING they Please that fosters their OWN AGENDA, REGARDLESS of what Scripture says.

Sola Scriptura is completely useless in combating the false philosophies..

Nonsense. Scripture IS FULL of Gods TRUTH. Gods TRUTH WILL Never fade away, regardless IF one Believes it, or not.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

Learn what it means, yes, that is what Catholics need to do. Not just regurgitate false teachings of the Catholic False Church.

Instead of responding with idiotic or snarky replies - why don't you actually address the Scriptural evidence I presented??

CAN you do that?

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, it simply reveals YOUR LACK of UNDERSTANDING and WILLINGNESS to believe what you ARE TOLD, and FAIL to VERIFY WHAT you ARE TOLD is TRUE according to GODS WORD!
LOL...oh no, more of YOUR churches made up "TRADITIONS"... ugh!
"
Traditions are long standing Practices.
OT men had long standing Practices, and I named a few FOUND IN SCRIPTURE!

Catholics, early on, BEGAN "establishing" TRADITIONS of their own. And you can FIND a LONG LIST of Catholic "TRADITIONS" "WRITTEN" in BOOKS, written by Catholics, produced by Catholics, distributed by Catholics, taught to Catholics.... that are BOOKS "other" than Scripture.

SO WHAT? There is NOT ONE Scripture that notifies ME, I am obligated to READ or BELIEVE ANY BOOKS written, BY ANYONE outside of Scripture.

Then why are you talking about THAT WORD?

And? WHO is obligated to BELIEVE "your" Description of the "Trinity"?

Which BTW, YOU have not given "your" definition of what YOU believe the Trinity means, but IMPLY, it is THREE, and ONE of the THREE is a "HUMAN".

Really? "SHE", "your Catholic church" "coined the word "trinity" ? It wasn't a "man" who coined the word? Perhaps one of your "Catholic saints" ?
Do elaborate! LOL

While you deflect to your implicit and explicit yabba dabba, my interest is in Gods Word, and that you can not SHOW IN SCRIPTURE the slightest Hint verifying your teaching that Mary was naturally born from her mothers Womb "SINLESS".

I am well aware that IS your long standing Catholic "TRADITION".
However the DIFFERENCE IS, the Jews long standing "TRADITIONS" are Scriptural.
AND
Many of the Catholics long standing "TRADITIONS" Are NOT Scriptural.
Glory to God,
Taken

WRONG.

As I educated you before – Sacred Tradition is NOT simply a practice or a day or a festival. Sacred Tradition refers to ORAL Teaching. It was the SAME for the Jews of the OT. Here are some examples, Einstein:

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

As for Mary’s Immaculate Conception - I’ve already established the argument supporting this – about FIFTY posts ago. YOU are the one who has been dodging it ever since.

Are you ever going to address her status as “Kecharitomene” – or are you going to continue to run and hide and deflect??

 

[BreadOfLife]

Define "kecharitomene", and see if the Definition of that "word" means...SINLESS.

No one is arguing that Mary was NOT set apart.

No one is arguing that Mary was NOT "IN CHRIST"....DUH, you were shown the Scripture of EXACTLY when that happened...(AFTER Jesus returned to Heaven!)

You should have learned those "IN" Christ "ARE" set apart!

Pss 4
[3] But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself:

Silly of you to ask someone to EXPLAIN something they are NOT debating!

The Debate is Mary's supposed "SINLESSNESS", from the time Mary was naturally born from her mother's womb.

You have NOT shown in Scripture ONE reference to Verifying that claim.

Glory to God,
Taken

I’ve already defined this word for you about TWENTY times.
You keep dodging it because you cannot refute it.

Here it is one more time for your reading pleasure . . .
Kecharitomene is a perfect participle and indicates a COMPLETER action with a PERMANENT result. It translates as COMPLETELY, PERFECTLY and ENDURINGLY endowed with grace.

In other words – it is the completion of the endowment of grace. This is something that you don’t usually get until you die and are in Heaven. Now – if you knew your Bible – which you don’t – you would know that Rev. 21:27 states that NOTHING imperfect or impure can enter heaven. That means perfectly sinless.

Only that which has been completely and permanently endowed with grace can be sinless.
In other words – Kecharitomene . . .

YOUR turn.

 

[Taken]

WRONG.

As I educated you before – Sacred Tradition is NOT simply a practice or a day or a festival. Sacred Tradition refers to ORAL Teaching. It was the SAME for the Jews of the OT.

Dude why do you think you are educating me IN JEWISH Tradition? You;re not. It's IN Scripture!! I am Aquainted with Scripture! Not news!

Traditions are NOT exclusive to ORAL SPEECH!

Traditions are PRACTICES Learned, though, Speech, Hearing, Seeing & or Writings.

Your first example...

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene"

Matt 2:23 "called a Nazarene"
[23] And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Matt 2:23 "spoken by the prophets".
[23] And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which [ was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

SPOKEN and WRITTEN in OT Scripture;

Mic 1:
[1] The word of the LORD that came to Micah ...

Mic 5:2
[2] But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

It should not be necessary to mention (but I believe you lack understanding)....it was SCRIBES who "wrote" as the Prophets Spoke.

It was "recorders" who transcribed and assembled the "writings" into Scrolls.

It was ORAL and WRITTEN "TRADITION" that was taught in the OT....
"THAT" the Ruler of Israel would Come forth out of "JUDAH"...

AND HE DID!

And just as it says IN Micah, (the written word) came to pass.

Do you need to be TOLD...Bethlehem is in Judah, where Jesus was FIRST revealed. And Mary and Joseph were from Nazareth, and Jesus' boyhood residence?


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[reformed1689]

Instead of responding with idiotic or snarky replies - why don't you actually address the Scriptural evidence I presented??

CAN you do that?

What scriptural evidence? All you have provided is out of context scriptures with Catholic dogma regarding those scriptures and not actual exegesis. The Catholic church can be (and often is) wrong.

 

[epostle]

No, my learning comes from Scripture.

No, your learning is based on Scripture Alone, which is not found anywhere in Scripture. And you change the meaning of "dogma" to force fit it to agree with your man made system.

Clearly you have not studied the Pauline Epistles written to Timothy and Titus.

We don't ignore Paul passing his authority to Timothy and Titus. Thus we don't deny apostolic succession, which is indicated all over the NT. Sola scriptura is not indicated, or even inferred anywhere. You still haven't proven Tradition and the Magisterium is not needed for the rule of faith, because it's impossible.

I suggest you get a dictionary.

her·e·sy | \ ˈher-ə-sē , ˈhe-rə-\
Definition of heresy
1a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice To disagree with the party leadership was heresy.
b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards.
Merriam/Webster's dictionary.
This describes sola scriptura.

This is a flat out lie.

You must live in a cozy isolated world oblivious to daily news.

 

[epostle]

What scriptural evidence? All you have provided is out of context scriptures with Catholic dogma regarding those scriptures and not actual exegesis. The Catholic church can be (and often is) wrong.

Another meaningless assertion with no visible rebuttals, no evidence, no documentation, and no references to official church teaching. You demand scripture, scripture, scripture, and when you are given scripture, scripture, scripture, you hide behind a wall of "actual exegesis", but never give your opinion of true exegesis, just stupid insults. What a phony.

 

[epostle]

@David Taylor
Arianism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Catharism and Albigensianism all went by "Scripture Alone". The reason why you are so ignorant of church history is because it is embarrassing.

I think it is time to put you on ignore, it is the most charitable thing to do for a forum masochist who is addicted to be proven wrong.