Temporal and Eternal Punishment

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

 

Whether you believe in purgatory or not, I believe all Christians believe in God's temporary sanctifying discipline.

Catholics believe some of this discipline happens after death.

 

For additional information go here:
www.kingdombaptist.org

In HIS service;
Jim

 

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.

 

Interesting thought, bill...

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

We use the Bible here; story books don't count. </font>[/QUOTE]Ahh one of the many differences between us, DHK the RCC has not edited the Bible to remove the bits that make us uncomfortable

 

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

 

We use the Bible here; story books don't count. </font>[/QUOTE]Ahh one of the many differences between us, 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

 

I rather like Bob's posts on this issue. Prejudices, though discouraged as somehow evil, help define who I am.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

There is some debate as to whether they were accepted by Alexandrian Jews.

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.

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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

#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