Temporal and Eternal Punishment

[mozier]

A point about purgatory in another forum has made me ponder a question, but am having difficulty with it. This is due to my not knowing my Bible as I should, no doubt, and I am ashamed to even ask it. Yet I need to know:

Is there anything in the Bible that specifically states a distinction between temporal punishment and eternal punishment of sin?

Catholics say that Jesus took away the eternal punishment for sin, but not all of the temporal punishment (that is why you need purgatory). I just cannot find this specifically stated in the Bible. Did not Jesus take away ALL punishment for sin?

I would really like any help on this, with thanks given ahead of time.

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

[DHK]

There is no temporary punishment such as purgatory. Such a concept cannot be backed up with Scripture. When one dies they either go to Heaven or Hell. Hell is described in Luke 16 where the rich man was tormented in this flame and begged for Lazarus to come and cool the tip of his tongue (as if that would really alleviate any pain). He was delusional about the state of his eternal pain.
Ultimately that place called Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire described in Rev.20:11-15. One fiery Hell into another. Thus Hell, for all intents and purposes, is eternal.
Likewise heaven. Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. He was looking forward to being with Christ in Heaven, as soon as he left his earthly body. There were no stops inbetween. He knew where he was going.
DHK

[Joseph_Botwinick]

DHK,

A possibly unrelated question, but you said: When one dies they either go to Heaven or Hell. Does this happen right when they die or later?

Joseph Botwinick

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mozier:
Is there anything in the Bible that specifically states a distinction between temporal punishment and eternal punishment of sin?
#1. The Bible never says that a person will always get caught by the police for every crime they commit. The idea that temporal punishment is always exhaustive for very wrong done is pure mythology invented by the RCC.

#2. The two ARE different. The torment and persecution inflicted on the saints by the RCC during the dark ages (for example) was "temporal punishment" but was unjust. The Lake of Fire on the other hand IS just.

#3. There are also cases where temporal punishment is mentioned as "good" and "of God" but never is it said to cover all "sin" done in this life.

In Christ,

Bob

[DHK]

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 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

Philippians 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

Paul indicates that it happens right away. It is our resurrection that we wait for.

[Joseph_Botwinick]

So, the Christians soul goes to the Lord while their body awaits the ressurection? Is that correct? Is the same true of the opposite (i.e.: those who are lost and go to hell)?

Joseph Botwinick

[DHK]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
So, the Christians soul goes to the Lord while their body awaits the ressurection? Is that correct? Is the same true of the opposite (i.e.: those who are lost and go to hell)?

Joseph Botwinick Yes.

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Is the same true of those who are lost and going to hell?

Joseph Botwinick

[DHK]

John 5:28-29 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Revelation 20:4-8 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.
6 This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

Revelation 20:11-15 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Jesus describes two resurrections: one for the just, and one for the unjust.
Revelation gives much more detail about these two resurrections. They are separated by a thousand years. The resurrection of the saved happens first. The millennial kingdom is between the two. After the Kingdom Period is over, Satan shall be loosed, and all unsaved from every conceivable place will be raised (the resurrection of the unsaved) and will then be given their final sentence and be cast into the lake of fire.
DHK

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Thanks for the info.

Joseph Botwinick

[Briony-Gloriana]

...and an RCC responds with

"There shall not enter into it(Heaven) anything defiled" (Apoc. 21:27)

Christ said, "Amen, I say to thee, thou will not come out from it until thou hast paid the last penny". (Matthew. 5:26)

After a battle, Judas Machabeus ordered prayers and sacrifices offered up for his slain comrades."And making a gathering, he sent twelve drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. AQnd because he considered that they had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Machebeus 12: 43-46).

[dean198]

The early Christians taught that believers go straight to heaven upon death, whereas the wicked go to Hades to await judgement. The erroneous chiliasts taught that believers also go to Hades, to the part reserved for the righteous, and denied that Christ emptied this part of Hades after his resurrection.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:
...and an RCC responds with


After a battle, Judas Machabeus ordered prayers and sacrifices offered up for his slain comrades."And making a gathering, he sent twelve drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. AQnd because he considered that they had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Machebeus 12: 43-46). We use the Bible here; story books don't count.

[Kamoroso]

Here are some scriptures about the fact that the wicked will perish.

Ps 37:20 20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

Ps 68:1-3 1 Let God arise, let his enemies be scattered: let them also that hate him flee before him.
2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.
3 But let the righteous be glad; let them rejoice before God: yea, let them exceedingly rejoice.

Ps 73:27 27 For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish: thou hast destroyed all them that go a whoring from thee.

Ps 112:10 10 The wicked shall see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.

Isa 41:11-12 11 Behold, all they that were incensed against thee shall be ashamed and confounded: they shall be as nothing; and they that strive with thee shall perish.
12 Thou shalt seek them, and shalt not find them, even them that contended with thee: they that war against thee shall be as nothing, and as a thing of nought.

Luke 13:2-5 2And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

John 3:14-18 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish,but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him hould not perish, but have everlasting life.17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 10:28 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

1 Cor 1:17-18 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

II Th 2:10-12 10 And with all deceivableness of because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

2 Pet 2:12 12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

2 Pet 3:9-12 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Jude 1:7 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, re set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

[BobRyan]

sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.

For, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.

And because he considered that they had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid for them.

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." #1. The story-book calls them "THE DEAD" not even "The DEAD in Christ" so the RCC by using this is claiming to PRAY FOR the DEAD and in that regard even TO THE DEAD!! What a confession.

#2. The story-book charges that these DEAD (and not merely their dead bodies) are THEMSELVES ASLEEP!!! This means that the RCC is claiming that THE DEAD being prayed for are NOT in purgatory but are ASLEEP according to this story.

#3. The story-book charges that THE DEAD receive NO BENEFIT from this prayer APART from the RESURRECTION of the DEAD. The RCC would have to RENOUNCE ALL claims to benefits IN DEATH to claim this "story".

#4. The story book claims that THE DEAD who die in the MORTAL SIN of IDOLATRY CAN be benefitted by prayers for forgiveness. The RCC today REJECTS the idea that ANYONE can be benefitted IF THEY die in mortal sin which they claim IDOLATRY is!! They would have to change their teaching on MORTAL vs VENIAL sin distinctions where they claim that in Purgatory it is ONLY THE VENIAL sins that are dealt with because those with MORTAL SINS can't be there.

But except for all that "attention to detail" this is a good text for Catholics!! (And I so love it when they fall for using it). It is "instructive" that they have SO LITTLE in support of their man-made tradition (that so contradicts scripture) that the BEST they can find to support it is this text that so debunks their ideas on death and what happens in death!!

In Christ,

Bob

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[DHK]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
"Story-book?"

It sounds like "flush the qu'ran" talk. Very disrespectful, and not at all constructive to the discussion.

The point should be that this was a human, and not God, who had asked for prayers for the dead ("In Christ" would have been quite a stretch, this being a few hundred years before Christ). It's like using the episode in Scripture where a king used a medium to communicate with Samuel as justification for necromancy, in a way. It may sound disrespectful, Tragic, but IMO but that is what many of those books are. They are fictious and fraudulent. Try reading the 13th and 14th chapters of Daniel--stories of Bel and the Dragon, and of Daniel in the lion's den a second time, and tell me whether or not they sound like a child's fairy tale book.
DHK

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

[DHK]

We are making a comparison with God's revelation to man. The Word of God is inspired of God. It is sent down from God to man. They are the actual words of God meant for man.

The apocryphal books are no more inspired than Shakespeares writings, T.S. Elliot, Karl Marx, or any other person. In fact, as I mentioned to you already, some of them are fictious--made up stories with no basis in fact; stories as from a story book. It would do you well to read the aforementioned books that I referred you to. When compared to the inspired Word of God, I have no respect whatsoever for these books to be classified as inspired. They are fraudlulent and ought to be treated as such.
DHK

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by mozier:
Is there anything in the Bible that specifically states a distinction between temporal punishment and eternal punishment of sin?Whether you believe in purgatory or not, I believe all Christians believe in God's temporary sanctifying discipline.

NASB - 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=2co+4&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en)

Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. NASB - Hebrews 12:4-11 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Hebrews+12&section=0&translation=nas&oq=1%2520Thes%25204&new=1&nb=1th&ng=4&ncc=4)

You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons,

"MY SON, DO NOT REGARD LIGHTLY THE DISCIPLINE OF THE LORD,
NOR FAINT WHEN YOU ARE REPROVED BY HIM;
FOR THOSE WHOM THE LORD LOVES HE DISCIPLINES,
AND HE SCOURGES EVERY SON WHOM HE RECEIVES."

It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.Catholics believe some of this discipline happens after death.

[av1611jim]

For additional information go here:
www.kingdombaptist.org (http://www.kingdombaptist.org)

In HIS service;
Jim

[billwald]

There is no mention of eternal punishment in Gen thru Josh. Don't think there is any in the OT. Off hand, can't think of any.

[tragic_pizza]

Interesting thought, bill...

[Alcott]

If purgatory has in any sense a reality, we are living in it now. We are bound for the eternal kingdom, yet we are still undergoing spiritual discipline and facing the consequences of many wrongs.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:

The point should be that this was a human, and not God, who had asked for prayers for the dead
The "point is" that when we looked at the actual details in the text -- they did not support purgatory no matter what you think of the guy asking for prayers for the dead.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Discipline is never called "punishment" in the Bible (OT or NT) NOR is it ever associated with "a debt owed" when used in the context of HEb 12. The discipline that produces changed character has nothing to do with "paying a debt for 25 temporal sins" etc. AT least not in actual scripture.

This is why the RCC is reduced to going to a text in Maccabees that totally negates the RC view on the state of man in death AND the kind of sins that qualify for Purgatory vs Hell.

In Christ,

Bob

[tragic_pizza]

[ June 10, 2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[Briony-Gloriana]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:
...and an RCC responds with


After a battle, Judas Machabeus ordered prayers and sacrifices offered up for his slain comrades."And making a gathering, he sent twelve drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. AQnd because he considered that they had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Machebeus 12: 43-46). We use the Bible here; story books don't count. </font>[/QUOTE]Ahh one of the many differences between us, smile.gif DHK the RCC has not edited the Bible to remove the bits that make us uncomfortable

[Briony-Gloriana]

and as usual Bob you are so rabid in your prejudices it is simply a waste of time to read your vitriolic rubbish it certainly makes a mockery of your message sign off graemlins/tear.gif

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:
...and an RCC responds with


After a battle, Judas Machabeus ordered prayers and sacrifices offered up for his slain comrades."And making a gathering, he sent twelve drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. For, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. AQnd because he considered that they had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Machebeus 12: 43-46). We use the Bible here; story books don't count. </font>[/QUOTE]Ahh one of the many differences between us, smile.gif DHK the RCC has not edited the Bible to remove the bits that make us uncomfortable </font>[/QUOTE]__________________________________________________

No. They didn't need to edit it. What they did was add to it to support their concepts.

The Scriptures were canonized approximately 1000 years before the RCC added their Apocryphal books to justify a doctrine (many doctrines) not taught by the early Christian Churches of the Book of Acts thru Revelation.

Of course, the Rcc doesn't hold to the primary doctrin of Sola Scriptura either.

In HIS service;
Jim

[hillclimber]

Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:
and as usual Bob you are so rabid in your prejudices it is simply a waste of time to read your vitriolic rubbish it certainly makes a mockery of your message sign off graemlins/tear.gif I rather like Bob's posts on this issue. Prejudices, though discouraged as somehow evil, help define who I am.

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
The Scriptures were canonized approximately 1000 years before the RCC added their Apocryphal books to justify a doctrine (many doctrines) not taught by the early Christian Churches of the Book of Acts thru Revelation.The Council of Rome in 382 was the first complete OT list in RCC tradition and it included the Apocrypha. This list was confirmed in other councils and used for the first official Vulgate by Jerome around 400, but was not formally canonized until the Council of Trent in the 1500s as a response to challenges from Luther about their canonicity.

If you are calling the Council of Trent when the Apocrypha was first canonized, you must be consistent and say that was also when the entire bible was first canonized.

[dean198]

Gold - Many early church writers listed the books of the OT as virtually the same as the protestant bible - including Jerome. the apocrypha was first canonised in N. Africa, but it was not universally accepted for a number of centuries.

[DHK]

Originally posted by dean198:
Gold - Many early church writers listed the books of the OT as virtually the same as the protestant bible - including Jerome. the apocrypha was first canonised in N. Africa, but it was not universally accepted for a number of centuries. That is an inaccurate statement. The apocrypha was never canonized. They were inter-testamental books that were technically supposed to be a part of the Old Testament, and yet never accepted by the Jews. The canon of the Old Testament was completed by 400 B.C. In order for a book to be part of the O.T. canon it had to be written before that date. None of the aporcyphal books met that criteria. Every last one of them were fraudulent.
There were a couple of books that had some value as far as historical value is concerned (1 and 2 Maccabbees), but the majority of these books were just made up stories not worthy of the term Scripture. The last two chapters of Daniel (13 and 14) are two prime examples. Fairy-tales could be better written than these books.

They were never accpeted by the Jews.
They were never accepted by the Christians outside of the Catholic Church.
Sometimes they were included in various translations of the Bible other than the RCC, but were almost always put in the center of the Bible, between the two testaments to indicate to the reader that these were not inspired books, but simply put there for the readers reference and reading--much like your concordance is put in the back of your Bible. Most Christians knew the Apocrypha was never inspired. Throughout the ages Christians have always known that there are only 66 inspired books. Concordances, dictionaries, apocryphas, and whatever else your Bible might have included in it are not inspired--only the 66 books of the Bible.
DHK

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dean198:
Gold - Many early church writers listed the books of the OT as virtually the same as the protestant bible - including Jerome. the apocrypha was first canonised in N. Africa, but it was not universally accepted for a number of centuries. They were never accpeted by the Jews.</font>[/QUOTE]Please correct me if I am wrong, but last I checked, the Jews don't accept any of the New Testament either. I am not sure this is a trong argument against a manuscript.

They were never accepted by the Christians outside of the Catholic Church.[/QUOTE]

Again, please educate me on this. Were not the early Christians Catholic? When did the Catholic Church begin?

Joseph Botwinick

[dean198]

That is an inaccurate statement. The apocrypha was never canonized. Yes it was. It was called the Council of Carthage. Look it up, you might learn something. However, just because the N. African church accepted it as canonical doesn't mean I have to. I go by the OT canon of the early church, not the fourth or fifth century church.


They were inter-testamental books that were technically supposed to be a part of the Old Testament, and yet never accepted by the Jews. There is some debate as to whether they were accepted by Alexandrian Jews.

The canon of the Old Testament was completed by 400 B.C. In order for a book to be part of the O.T. canon it had to be written before that date. None of the aporcyphal books met that criteria. Every last one of them were fraudulent.
There were a couple of books that had some value as far as historical value is concerned (1 and 2 Maccabbees), but the majority of these books were just made up stories not worthy of the term Scripture. The last two chapters of Daniel (13 and 14) are two prime examples. Fairy-tales could be better written than these books.
Yes, your textbook definition which is totally oversimplified and fails to take into account the good in the intertestamental theology of the Jews. Even Paul alluded to Ecclesiasticus in Hebrews. But there is no point arguing since I accept the Hebrew canon and reject the apocrypha as canonical.


They were never accpeted by the Jews.
They were never accepted by the Christians outside of the Catholic Church.
Sometimes they were included in various translations of the Bible other than the RCC, but were almost always put in the center of the Bible, between the two testaments to indicate to the reader that these were not inspired books, but simply put there for the readers reference and reading--much like your concordance is put in the back of your Bible. Most Christians knew the Apocrypha was never inspired. Throughout the ages Christians have always known that there are only 66 inspired books. What nonsense. The Ethiopic Church was never part of the RCC, yet they accept the apocrypha. Some of the early church fathers accepted at least some of them, and they were not part of the RCC. The Nestorian Church accepts some of them, and they are not RCC either.


Concordances, dictionaries, apocryphas, and whatever else your Bible might have included in it are not inspired--only the 66 books of the Bible.
DHK Yes, you're preaching to the choir. Perhaps if you reread what I wrote you will see that I actually believe that the Protestant canon is correct.

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by dean198:
Gold - Many early church writers listed the books of the OT as virtually the same as the protestant bible - including Jerome. the apocrypha was first canonised in N. Africa, but it was not universally accepted for a number of centuries. Sure there were many lists by individuals that did not include the apocrypha.

I'm curious, when do you believe that the OT non-apocryphal books were canonized by the Christian Church?

[BobRyan]

If I am not mistaken - Briony took exception to the post below --- but could not actually name A SINGLE DETAIL that was in error!!


Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.

For, if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.

And because he considered that they had fallen asleep with godliness had great grace laid for them.

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." #1. The story-book calls them "THE DEAD" not even "The DEAD in Christ" so the RCC by using this is claiming to PRAY FOR the DEAD and in that regard even TO THE DEAD!! What a confession.

#2. The story-book charges that these DEAD (and not merely their dead bodies) are THEMSELVES ASLEEP!!! This means that the RCC is claiming that THE DEAD being prayed for are NOT in purgatory but are ASLEEP according to this story.

#3. The story-book charges that THE DEAD receive NO BENEFIT from this prayer APART from the RESURRECTION of the DEAD. The RCC would have to RENOUNCE ALL claims to benefits IN DEATH to claim this "story".

#4. The story book claims that THE DEAD who die in the MORTAL SIN of IDOLATRY CAN be benefitted by prayers for forgiveness. The RCC today REJECTS the idea that ANYONE can be benefitted IF THEY die in mortal sin which they claim IDOLATRY is!! They would have to change their teaching on MORTAL vs VENIAL sin distinctions where they claim that in Purgatory it is ONLY THE VENIAL sins that are dealt with because those with MORTAL SINS can't be there.

But except for all that "attention to detail" this is a good text for Catholics!! (And I so love it when they fall for using it). It is "instructive" that they have SO LITTLE in support of their man-made tradition (that so contradicts scripture) that the BEST they can find to support it is this text that so debunks their ideas on death and what happens in death!!

</font>[/QUOTE]You have to wonder when people "object" but can not actually quote anything that is an error!!

It is very typical whenever someone has run out of argument and "Feelings" are all that remain. Typically those feelings are that all the "inconvenient facts" should have been supressed rather than posted here.

I think I understand why she feels that way. But why post it??

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

I say the above to point out that this rabbit trail about WHY The Apocrypha is merely a story book and not scripture - is not really needed!

I SHOW IN The details of the apocryphal account that it denies the primary arguments of Catholicism! The very fact that they would even want it mentioned at all - attests to the fact that they had NOTHING ELSE to go on but a text that debunks Catholicism on many many points.

In Christ,

Bob

[dean198]

Sure there were many lists by individuals that did not include the apocrypha.

I'm curious, when do you believe that the OT non-apocryphal books were canonized by the Christian Church? I think it was more than just a few individuals - I have never come across an early church leader that accepted the RC canon. Perhaps you have?

I don't believe the OT books have ever been 'canonised' by the church catholic....as I understand it every branch of the catholic church has different canons.

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by dean198:
I have never come across an early church leader that accepted the RC canon. Perhaps you have?Would favourable quotations from the deuterocanonicals by the church fathers count as acceptance of the canon?
Catholic Answers : The Fathers and the Deuterocanonicals (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9807frs.asp)

Originally posted by dean198:
I don't believe the OT books have ever been 'canonised' by the church catholic....as I understand it every branch of the catholic church has different canons. So there is no canon? Catholics couldn't possibly have added to something that didn't exist, could they?

[av1611jim]

What a "train wreck" of a thread. This is a classic derailment!!!

graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

In HIS service;
Jim

[dean198]

Would favourable quotations from the deuterocanonicals by the church fathers count as acceptance of the canon?
Catholic Answers : The Fathers and the Deuterocanonicals
It might show that some of them accepted the apocrypha, but it might just show that they used the apocrypha, as the Anabaptists did in the sixteenth century. The NT writers quoted from the book of Enoch, but no church other than the Ethiopic, to my knowledge, includes that in the OT canon.


So there is no canon? Catholics couldn't possibly have added to something that didn't exist, could they? The definition of Catholic, according to Vincent of Lerins, was something believed always and everywhere. Different branches have had different canons, so only those on which they agree, can by definition, be considered Catholic. The early church writers who spoke of the canon recognised only the books of the Hebrew Canon. So primitive catholicism would have to recognise those. Later branches of the catholic church recognised different books in addition, but this recognition cannot by definition be considered catholic, for it was neither universal nor believed always.
The 39 books are considered canonical by everyone, and have always been so considered, and are therefore canonical by catholic consent. Others are not. Even the eastern Orthodox and RCs are not agreed, and neither of these has a greater claim to being catholic than the other (nor for that matter does the Assyrian Church of the East, the Copts and others churches with apostolic succession).

[DHK]

I. The Apocrypha.
A. Fourteen books found between Old and New Testaments.
1. I Esdras, II Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiaticus, Baruch, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, I Maccabees, II Maccabees.
2. The word "apocrypha" means "secret" or "hidden."
3. These books were included as a part of the Old Testament Canon by the Council of Trent, 1546 A.D.
B. Written in Greek.
C. Never quoted in the New Testament.
D. Never accepted by the Jews.
E. Rejected by Protestants but accepted by Roman Catholics.
1. They are rejected by the Protestants as wholly spurious and not to be allowed even an inferior place in the Sacred Canon.

The Date of the Apocrypha:
The date II Esdras is about 30 B.C.
Esther was written about 165 B.c.
The Wisdom of Solocom was written near the end of the first century B.C.
Ecclesiaticus has been assigned to about 180 B.C.
Bel and the Dragon to the time of the Ptolemies.
Baruch was written after the destruction of Jerusalem--70 A.D.
The date of I Maccabees is placed after 135 B.C., and II Maccabees sometime after 161 B.C.

The Attitude of the early Church Fathers:
It is a significant fact that the best of the early Fathers adopted the Hebrew Canon as giving the authoritative Scriptures of the Old Testament. Augustine repeatedly stated the distinction between the Hebrew Canon and the Apocrypha, and in discussing a passage in II Maccabees declared that the book did not belong in the Hebrew Canon to which Christ bore witness.
Rufinus positively asserts that "The books of the Hebrew Canon are the inspired Scriptures." While Origen thought there were passages in the Apocrypha that were cited by the New Testament, he emphatically declared, "But this will give no authority to apocryphal writings, for the bounds which our fathers have fixed are not to be removed; and possibly the apostles and evangelists, full of the Holy Ghost, might know what should be taken out of those writings and what not. But we, who have not such a measure of the Spirit, cannot, without great danger presume to act in that manner."
That these books are sputious as to canonicity, and have no right to a place in the Word of God, is abundantly established. In rejecting these books the Protestant Bible takes the proper Scriptural position in maintaining that the Hebrew Canon contains the only Scriptures of the Old Testament recognized by our Lord and the New Testament writers. (notes in the Analytical Dixon Bible, Dixon Publishing Co.)

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dean198:
Gold - Many early church writers listed the books of the OT as virtually the same as the protestant bible - including Jerome. the apocrypha was first canonised in N. Africa, but it was not universally accepted for a number of centuries. They were never accpeted by the Jews.</font>[/QUOTE]Please correct me if I am wrong, but last I checked, the Jews don't accept any of the New Testament either. I am not sure this is a trong argument against a manuscript.

They were never accepted by the Christians outside of the Catholic Church.</font>[/QUOTE]Again, please educate me on this. Were not the early Christians Catholic? When did the Catholic Church begin?

Joseph Botwinick [/QUOTE]

[DHK]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:

Again, please educate me on this. Were not the early Christians Catholic? When did the Catholic Church begin?

Joseph Botwinick The early Christians were not Catholic. They were true born again Christians. Catholicism started near the beginning of the fourth century when Constantine paganized "Christianity" introducing much of the pagan culture into the church, and making "Christianity" the official state religion of the land. He himself made a false profession of faith that he might use "Christianity" for his own political gain. This was the beginning of the Catholic Church, which true believers have been opposed to ever since its inception.
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dean198:
[qb] Gold - Many early church writers listed the books of the OT as virtually the same as the protestant bible - including Jerome. the apocrypha was first canonised in N. Africa, but it was not universally accepted for a number of centuries. Jerome never accepted the Apocrypha. You ought to read his biography. The only reason that Jerome included the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate was because he was under great pressure by the Catholic's to do so. It was with great protestation and defiance that he did this abhorrent deed. He really didn't have a stomach for it, but under the pressure of the RCC, he was compelled to put the Apocrypha in the Vulgate!!
Things need to be put in their proper perspective before quoting people as their sources.
DHK

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by av1611jim:
What a "train wreck" of a thread. This is a classic derailment!!!

graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/laugh.gif

In HIS service;
Jim Good point.

The thread is on temporal punishment vs eternal punishment. When it gets too hot for the RC position - all they have to do is quote the apocrypha and suggest a few rabbit trails and "presto"! The subject changes TO the historic works of the Apocrypha and why they were or were not included WITHOUT regard to the fact that the incident quoted from the Apocrypha does nothing but refute Catholicism!

You have to admit it works pretty well and you would be silly not to use it if you are RC on this thread and things started looking bad.

In Christ,

Bob

[DHK]

It started on page one, in the twelfth post, when Briony-Gloriana tried to defend purgatory using the Apocryphal book, II Macabbees.

[dean198]

Again, please educate me on this. Were not the early Christians Catholic? When did the Catholic Church begin?
The name catholic simply means universal. the Greek katholikos meaning “according to the whole. it was used as early as the time of Ignatius (c.110). Far from being invented in the fourth century to describe a centralised church, it originated in the first or second century and described the number of Churches scattered throughout the world, that held the same faith and practice in the absence of a centralised authority. A centralised catholicism is a contradiction of terms. It was the sum total of churches that collectively and individually held to the 'rule of faith' (the apostles' creed) and were governed by the successors of the apostles. No one bishop was higher than any other, as Cyprian clearly testified during his disagreements with Stephen the bishop of Rome. The 'catholic' church then is simply another name given to the churches which held the apostolic faith from the first or early second century. Nothing hierarchical about the name, and the name existed long before the rise of the papacy to universal bishopric and temporal power, which is dated from the time of Gregory the Great. As for Constantine - yes, very real changes in catholic practice were brought into being. Never before were bishops appointed by emperors, as began, if I am not mistaken, at the time of the reign of Constantine's sons (who made sure Arians filled important bishoprics). Never before could an unbaptised pagan dictate or even suggest church policy, as happened at Nicaea. Never before were imperial punishments enacted against dissenters. In fact the primitive catholic church was clear that bishops could ONLY be appointed by neighbouring bishops, with the consent of the home congregation - that is catholicism. What is called Roman Catholicism asserts that centuries of innovations and departures from the faith are actually a part of the essence of the faith. In so doing they actually have separated themselves from the catholic church.

[dean198]

Jerome never accepted the Apocrypha. You ought to read his biography. I'm assuming that the 'you' here is not directed against me, even though it is my words about Jerome that you quote. But if so, then may I suggest that you READ what I wrote:

"Many early church writers listed the books of the OT as virtually the same as the protestant bible - including Jerome"

Let me break this down - many early church writers [i.e. from the second to the fourth century], listed the books of the OT[ie gave lists of the accepted canon of the OT] as virtually the same [that is, the same list] as the protestant bible [in other words, they listed the 39 books of the Hebrew canon, which is the canon that Protestants use] - including Jerome [that means that I am asserting that Jerome held to the same canon as Protestants].

Again, if this was not directed at me, please ignore my breakdown.


The only reason that Jerome included the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate was because he was under great pressure by the Catholic's to do so. It was with great protestation and defiance that he did this abhorrent deed. He really didn't have a stomach for it, but under the pressure of the RCC, he was compelled to put the Apocrypha in the Vulgate!!
Things need to be put in their proper perspective before quoting people as their sources.
DHK Your reference to the RCC is anachronistic. Where did you get that from? Dave Hunt? Jack Chick? it was Leo, the bishop of Rome, if I am not mistaken, who wanted the apocrypha in the Latin Vulgate. There was no RCC at the time, except in seed form. The bishop of Rome had made no claims to universal jurisdiction over the churches (or even over all the churches of the west), he had no temporal power - they didn't even bow before images that early on. and transubstantiation was about six centuries away.

[dean198]

While Origen thought there were passages in the Apocrypha that were cited by the New Testament, he emphatically declared, "But this will give no authority to apocryphal writings, for the bounds which our fathers have fixed are not to be removed; and possibly the apostles and evangelists, full of the Holy Ghost, might know what should be taken out of those writings and what not. But we, who have not such a measure of the Spirit, cannot, without great danger presume to act in that manner."
Excellent quote, but I am not aware of it. Could you provide the reference? Too many times these kind of quotes are made up out of nowhere, so I like to be able to look them up for myself.

[DHK]

Originally posted by dean198:

Excellent quote, but I am not aware of it. Could you provide the reference? Too many times these kind of quotes are made up out of nowhere, so I like to be able to look them up for myself. [/QUOTE]
That is as much documentation as the notes provided in my Bible give me. It does not provide the original source, and I wasn't about to spend all day looking for it.
DHK

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by dean198:
The definition of Catholic, according to Vincent of Lerins, was something believed always and everywhere. Different branches have had different canons, so only those on which they agree, can by definition, be considered Catholic.
In every issue of Christian doctrine, there are detractors within Christendom. I believe you would be hard pressed to find universal support of any Christian belief at any point in time, even the early church.

[dean198]

I'm surprised to see you ditch Vincent of Lerins, especially since his rule that to be catholic a teaching had to be "believed everywhere, always and by all" was REAFFIRMED BY THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL!!!! [Session 3, Chapter 4].

[Eric B]

First time I heard of Daniel Bel and the Dragon as "13th and 14th chapter of Daniel". Then Tobit includes "the letter of Jeremy".
There's also a 3 Corinthians, which is apart of the Acts of Paul.
There were other such "New Testament apocrypha" which were read as scripture by the Church, for a time, such as the epistles of clement, and Barnabas.

[DHK]

Originally posted by Eric B:
First time I heard of Daniel Bel and the Dragon as "13th and 14th chapter of Daniel". Then Tobit includes "the letter of Jeremy".
There's also a 3 Corinthians, which is apart of the Acts of Paul.
There were other such "New Testament apocrypha" which were read as scripture by the Church, for a time, such as the epistles of clement, and Barnabas. I have a copy of those books also. They aren't called "The Lost Books of the Bible," for no reason at all. They were "lost" on purpose.
DHK

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by DHK:
It started on page one, in the twelfth post, when Briony-Gloriana tried to defend purgatory using the Apocryphal book, II Macabbees. Yes but the "proof" she used - debunks practically all of Catholicism.

Since it can not be denied that the text "exists" and is an ancient text and a well known text among both Jews and Christians.

And since it debunks the Catholic position...

What difference does it make that they are "also wrong" about it being inspired???

The text is already very useful in dismanteling the Catholic argument.

In Christ,

Bob

[Briony-Gloriana]

Again, please educate me on this. Were not the early Christians Catholic? When did the Catholic Church begin?

Joseph Botwinick [/QB][/QUOTE]

On Simon Christ promised to build His church, saying; "thou art peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). After the Resurrection He confirmed Peter's authority over the Church, saying to him "Feed my lambs; feed my sheep" (John 21: 15-17).

In this the RCC has Peter the first pope of the church established by Jesus Christ...

[DHK]

Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:

In this the RCC has Peter the first pope of the church established by Jesus Christ... This is easily refutable, but just so you don't accuse us of getting our facts all wrong, we will ask you to provide the facts for us.
1. When (what date) did Peter become the first pope at Rome.
2. How long was Peter in Rome.
3. When did Peter come to Rome.
4. When did Peter die?
5. How did Peter die?
6. At what age did Peter die?

[violet]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:

In this the RCC has Peter the first pope of the church established by Jesus Christ... This is easily refutable, but just so you don't accuse us of getting our facts all wrong, we will ask you to provide the facts for us.
1. When (what date) did Peter become the first pope at Rome.
2. How long was Peter in Rome.
3. When did Peter come to Rome.
4. When did Peter die?
5. How did Peter die?
6. At what age did Peter die? </font>[/QUOTE]What difference does it make since those events are not found in Scripture? Giving a date or details of death would have to come from other sources and, well... I think we all know how you feel about other sources...

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:

In this the RCC has Peter the first pope of the church established by Jesus Christ... This is easily refutable, but just so you don't accuse us of getting our facts all wrong, we will ask you to provide the facts for us.
1. When (what date) did Peter become the first pope at Rome.
2. How long was Peter in Rome.
3. When did Peter come to Rome.
4. When did Peter die?
5. How did Peter die?
6. At what age did Peter die? </font>[/QUOTE]According to Eusebius, Peter went to Rome to confront Simon Magus who was talked about in Acts and died by the hand of Nero in Rome. Footnotes in Philip Schaff's translation discuss possible dates and disagreements with other historical sources.

CCEL : Eusebius - Church History (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.thm#fnf_iii.vii.xv-p14.1)

Chapter XIV.—The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

..

6. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome385 against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.386

...

Chapter XXV.—The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter were honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion.

...

5. Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God’s chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself,541 and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero.542 This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.

[DHK]

Originally posted by violet:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Briony-Gloriana:

In this the RCC has Peter the first pope of the church established by Jesus Christ... This is easily refutable, but just so you don't accuse us of getting our facts all wrong, we will ask you to provide the facts for us.
1. When (what date) did Peter become the first pope at Rome.
2. How long was Peter in Rome.
3. When did Peter come to Rome.
4. When did Peter die?
5. How did Peter die?
6. At what age did Peter die? </font>[/QUOTE]What difference does it make since those events are not found in Scripture? Giving a date or details of death would have to come from other sources and, well... I think we all know how you feel about other sources... </font>[/QUOTE]It makes a great deal of difference. Briony is a Catholic. No Protestant accepts the view that Peter was a Pope in Rome, let alone even a pastor or bishop in Rome. Perhaps he went there under compulsion to die--if he was even there at all. Let the burden of proof fall on the Catholics to give what they believe and from what sources. After all, we would not want to be making "false accusations." Let them first set the stage for this discussion.
DHK