Why Purgatory is not in the Bible - it does not exist

[DHK]

DHK. Fables you call it, what about the Virgin Birth or all the miracles, the assumption of Jesus and so on; of course I believe those fables and of course they are True.

The fable of the Assumption was not made official doctrine until 1950. And you don't know why??????
Hinduism has more believable fables then that.

If somebody was to read the Bible without instruction they would say that it is all a fable, the whole Bible is a fable they would say; but of course you and I know the difference, we believe it is all true.

If someone would read a Biology text with an degree of objectivity and read that in some distant past some "already existing atoms of gasses collided with each other creating a 'big bang,' and out of it came a perfectly ordered universe with its own galaxies, solar systems, and even a perfectly ordered earth," would you believe it? Most of the world believes it today and all the related science that goes with it.

Either you believe the Bible or you don't.
The Bible is inspired. The RCC is not.
The Bible is God's Word. The RCC teaches fables and heresy.
You say the Bible is inspired in one breath and in the next you tear it down like a piece of garbage. What do you believe?

Orthodox Christianity Faith is the completion of the Jewish religion.

Heresy. Christianity came from Christ, not from the Jews.
When Saul got saved he made a clean break from Judaism. It was from the Jews that he received the greatest persecution.
It was the Jews that had Christ put to death.

Had all of the Jews of Jesus’ time accepted him as the Messiah and entered the Church, there would have continued to be one true religion.

He offered them the Kingdom, but they rejected it. They now follow a false religion, one that rejects the true and living God.

But because Jesus of Nazareth was not accepted as the Messiah by the majority of the Jews of his time, a split occurred. Pre-Christian Judaism was the true religion; post-Christian Judaism is an incomplete religion because it lacks recognition of the Messiah it anticipates. If all the Jews back then during Jesus' time would have accepted Him as the Messiah and had entered into Christ's Church, there would have been a one continuous true Apostolic Universal meaning Catholic Faith [ until the protesters upset the pot ] But because Jesus was not accepted [ as some reject His One True Church ] as the Messiah by most of the Jews a split occurred. Before Jesus Judaism was the true religion after Jesus Judaism is an incomplete religion because it lacks the Messiah it anticipates

There was no split. The Jews rejected Christ. See John 1:11. They were the ones who crucified him.
On the Day of Pentecost there were about 100,000 Jews present to celebrate the Jewish feast of Pentecost. God used this day to enable Peter to preach the gospel and 3,000 were added to the "church" that was started by Christ in Matthew 16:18 a "church" or an assembly of 12 individuals, which had grown to 120 in Acts one. Now 3,000 were added to that number in Acts 2:41. This was the "church" or assembly in Jerusalem. Many more churches would be established yet.
All of the apostles left Judaism and followed Christ. They couldn't be both a follower of Judaism and a follower of Christ. Neither could Saul.

Can a man be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time?
Can one by a Hindu and a Christian at the same time?
Neither can he be a follower of the religion of the Jews and a Christian at the same time. Judaism and Christianity are opposed to each other, just as Islam and Christianity are opposed to each other.

 

[lakeside]

Only the twelve received the Holy Spirit in the upper chamber, the other 120 were below and witnessed the noise and Tongues of Fire, they never actually received the Full Infusion of the HS, as per Bible.

 

[annsni]

Only the twelve received the Holy Spirit in the upper chamber, the other 120 were below and witnessed the noise and Tongues of Fire, they never actually received the Full Infusion of the HS, as per Bible.

No, as per the Bible, they were all together - ALL of them, not just some of them. We need to read the passage in context and note that there is no chapter or verse separation and we see that it is speaking of the 120. The identity of the witnesses is clearly stated in verse 5: " Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven." We further see the rest of the story: "6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?"

Once we get to addressing the crowd (not their own people because they all have had the same language through this time so the other 108 would not have been included in the crowd but instead would have spoken), then the 12 stand together as the leaders and Peter speaks.

 

[Revmitchell]

Revmitchell, you still have not answer to those verses I show. What say you ?

I say you did not make your case. You work off of speculation and vagueness and proof of your claim. Yet there is no place in scripture that is called purgatory nor is there any place described as such a place. You only assume things like since Jesus was not in heaven immediately after his death then He must have been in purgatory. That is another logical fallacy called question begging.

The verses you have misused say nothing about purgatory.

 

[DHK]

Only the twelve received the Holy Spirit in the upper chamber, the other 120 were below and witnessed the noise and Tongues of Fire, they never actually received the Full Infusion of the HS, as per Bible.

Act 1:13-15
(13) And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
(14) These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
(15) And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
--There were 120 in the upper room--very clearly.

Now concerning 2:1
Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Adam Clarke says this:

They were all with one accord in one place - It is probable that the All here mentioned means the one hundred and twenty spoken of Act_1:15, who were all together at the election of Matthias. With one accord, ὁμοθυμαδον; this word is very expressive: it signifies that all their minds, affections, desires, and wishes, were concentrated in one object, every man having the same end in view;

Now on what basis can you say that the 120 did not receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You simply state it as a fact with nothing to back it up. Why?
It is just your opinion.

 

[lakeside]

This comes from a Protestant sect.


Many preachers of the United Pentecostal persuasion, and many others, that the 120 in Acts 1:15 received the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit!" All one has to do is look at the context of Acts 1-6 and he can see clearly that the 120 did not receive the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit."

In Acts 1:2 the word Apostles is used and the "them" in Acts 1:3 refers to the apostles. So, also, is the pronoun "you" found in Acts 1:4. It is said to the apostles, Acts 1:5, "for John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence." This promise is made to the apostles — it is a promise and not a command, Acts 1:4.

Acts 1:3 says, "to whom he showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God." There were fifty days from the Feast of the Unleavened Bread to the Day of Pentecost, ( Leviticus 23:15-16). If he spent forty (40) days, Acts 1:3, with the disciples, this would mean that there were ten (10) days after he ascended to heaven, Acts 1:9-11, until the day of Pentecost; for the text says he ascended on the fortieth day, Acts 1:3. It was during this time, the ten days, that the apostles returned to Jerusalem and selected one in the place of Judas, Acts 1:12-23.

At this meeting one is selected in the place of Judas, Acts 1:26, there were 120 people present at that meeting, and witnessed the selection of one in the place of Judas. But after this is done there is still time left, during the ten days, till the day of Pentecost. This is the reason for the first verse of Acts 2 being worded as it is.

"And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place," Acts 2:1. "And when the day of Pentecost was now come," shows there was a period of time before the day of Pentecost. Now, we have another meeting and this meeting is for the purpose of the "Holy Spirit being given."

In this meeting we have the words, "they," Acts 2:1,2,4, and "them,"" Acts 2:3,4, used. When a pronoun is used we must take a look at the preceding noun. The preceding noun is found in Acts 1:26 and it is "apostles." So, the "they," and the "them," has reference to the apostles which is named in Acts 1:26 and the pronouns follow in Acts 2:1-4 with the words, "they," and "them."

In addition to this information one is compelled to note that a statement is made in Acts 2:1-4, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." The ones that were filled with the Holy Spirit were the ones who "spoke in other tongues." I cannot but notice that in Acts 2:14 Peter "standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and "spake" forth unto them." The ones that "spake" were the ones who were filled with "Holy Spirit," v. 4 and the ones that "spake" were the "eleven," (Peter would make twelve): So it was the twelve that "spake" in tongues and it was the twelve that "spake" after the Holy Spirit was given; so we conclude that it was the twelve that received the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit."

It is interesting to note that what was taught was called "the apostles teaching." The teaching came from the "apostles," because they were the ones who received the Holy Spirit, Acts 1:26 and were the ones who were speaking, Acts 2:4 and the ones who were speaking was Peter with the eleven, Acts 2:14. Because of the word being delivered through the apostles, what they taught is called, "the apostles doctrine," Acts 2:42.

The apostles are referred to as the "Galileans," Acts 2:7. So, the Galileans spoke to the men of "Judea," Acts 2:14 and the apostles spoke to the men "Israel," Acts 2:22,36. One will observe that it is the apostles who take the lead at the beginning of the Gospel of Christ being preached. It is "Peter standing up with the eleven," (Acts 2:14). When the people on the day of Pentecost heard the words of the men speaking, this is what they said, "Now when they heard this they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Please observe that the text says they said this to the apostles! If there were "120 people" who received it, where is the statement that expresses their receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

The apostles continued to take the lead form the church's beginning. They performed miracles, Acts 3. It is stated that "by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch," (Acts 5:12). Those that were being persecuted were the "apostles," (Acts 5:40). When there was a need to select certain ones to take care of the widows who were being neglected, it is the "twelve" who called the multitude together (Acts 6:2). So, all of the emphasis is placed on the "twelve" until you have a man designated as Stephen beginning to preach the Gospel in Acts 6:8.

Now, we are back to the "apostles' doctrine," noted in Acts 2:42. The 120 people are not included because they did not receive the "baptism of the Holy Spirit," given in Acts 2:1-4. Now, there may be those who claim the 120 receive the "baptism of the Holy Spirit," but this my friends cannot be proved from the New Testament! Only the apostles were baptized with the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:1-4 and that is what the New Testament affirms.

 

[annsni]

Honestly, the gymnastics used to make it just the 12 is amazing. The context is king in this situation and it is clear that the 120 were together in one accord and NOT out in the streets saying "How can we understand these men?"

 

[Yeshua1]

Only the twelve received the Holy Spirit in the upper chamber, the other 120 were below and witnessed the noise and Tongues of Fire, they never actually received the Full Infusion of the HS, as per Bible.

Do you then deny the biblical teaching that ALL receive the SAME Holy Spirit, in the same measure once having been saved?

And when did you receive him, when you called upon the name of the Lord, as per Paul, or when you got sprinkled as a baby?

And on what basis are you confident that after death, absent from the body IS right then in the presence of the Lord?

 

[lakeside]

Yeshua, even St. Paul had doubt of his salvation, or do you have more of an inside scoop than St.Paul ? Only at the Judgment will you know for sure. Jesus will judge you ,you do not judge yourself.

 

[PreachTony]

Yeshua, even St. Paul had doubt of his salvation, or do you have more of an inside scoop than St.Paul ? Only at the Judgment will you know for sure. Jesus will judge you ,you do not judge yourself.

:BangHead:
The Bible is full of ways in which we can be assured of our salvation. To say we have to wait for the Judgment to know for sure if we are saved is to reveal a profound misunderstanding of the scripture.

 

[lakeside]

PreachTony,the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe. The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}. After all, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit along with the correct interpretation. She determined which books were inspired and which books were not. She is the "authentic interpreter of Scripture", not me or you.
The Bible did not come first, because the Bible wasn't fully written until the end of the first century. Further, the canon of Scripture wasn't determined until the end of the fourth century. Since there was no Bible, how is it that the Bible is the only authority? The answer is that we had the Church first, not the Bible. The Bible doesn't even talk about a Bible; it talks about the Church. Let's go back in history to Moses. The people did not know that Moses' writings were inspired because Moses' writings said they were inspired (which is the Protestant argument). The Jews believed that Moses' writings were inspired because of the tradition and the authority God put over them, who said that Moses' writings were inspired? It was an authority outside of Moses' writings that determined Moses' writings were inspired.

 

[Revmitchell]

PreachTony,the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe. The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}.

Uh that is not what those verses say. Those verses tell the church what to do. It does not give the church room to create doctrine apart from scripture itself. When the church acts it is only because it is guided by the Bible directly.

 

[PreachTony]

PreachTony,the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe. The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}. After all, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit along with the correct interpretation. She determined which books were inspired and which books were not. She is the "authentic interpreter of Scripture", not me or you.
The Bible did not come first, because the Bible wasn't fully written until the end of the first century. Further, the canon of Scripture wasn't determined until the end of the fourth century. Since there was no Bible, how is it that the Bible is the only authority? The answer is that we had the Church first, not the Bible. The Bible doesn't even talk about a Bible; it talks about the Church. Let's go back in history to Moses. The people did not know that Moses' writings were inspired because Moses' writings said they were inspired (which is the Protestant argument). The Jews believed that Moses' writings were inspired because of the tradition and the authority God put over them, who said that Moses' writings were inspired? It was an authority outside of Moses' writings that determined Moses' writings were inspired.

You keep saying that the church is our Authority, yet you seem blinded to the fact that the church you are touting is so far removed from any Biblical legitimacy that it's laughable. They turn from scripture and install traditions based on nothing even remotely scriptural. They heap praise and adoration on the head of a fallible leader whose office has zero scriptural authority. But I guess recognizing these facts would deal a bit of a blow to your much esteemed "one true church."

 

[HankD]

There is a verse in the Bible that is used by the Church of Rome for scriptural evidence other than the verse 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 for the existence of purgatory:

King James Matthew 5
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Douay-Rheims Matthew 5.
22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath anything against thee;
24 Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother, and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift.
25 Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

I am a former Catholic. Presently a Baptist by pedigree.
No I do not believe in purgatory as defined by the RCC.

HankD

 

[JonC]

You keep saying that the church is our Authority, yet you seem blinded to the fact that the church you are touting is so far removed from any Biblical legitimacy that it's laughable. They turn from scripture and install traditions based on nothing even remotely scriptural. They heap praise and adoration on the head of a fallible leader whose office has zero scriptural authority. But I guess recognizing these facts would deal a bit of a blow to your much esteemed "one true church."

That is because the Catholic Church links Catholicism to Apostolic authority and an era long before it's actual existence. Scripture, to them, is authoritative only to the extent it is what the Church has affirmed. In that line of thinking, the Church has determined which writings would be accepted and which would not. In other words, the tail wags the dog. This is a fruitless discussion as Catholics and non-Catholics do not have a common foundation.

 

[DHK]

This comes from a Protestant sect.

Many preachers of the United Pentecostal persuasion,

That is all I had to read. As far as I am concerned the UP is not Christian. They fall in the realm of the cults. They don't believe in the trinity. Like the RCC they don't believe in salvation by grace through faith but rather salvation through works. They believe that both baptism and tongues are necessary for salvation.

In the past (the Oneness as they are also called), were unable to show the way of salvation without using the book of Acts. It is absolutely imperative for them to use the Book of Acts, because that is where they get their doctrine of being baptized with the Holy Spirit with the consequence of speaking in tongues as a necessity for salvation. But it is not taught in any other book of the Bible and has to be inferred from the Book of Acts. It is heretical.

So when you quote from them as your source I would question everything they say. They are not a reliable source of information.

 

[DHK]

Yeshua, even St. Paul had doubt of his salvation, or do you have more of an inside scoop than St.Paul ? Only at the Judgment will you know for sure. Jesus will judge you ,you do not judge yourself.

Paul was confident.
He states his confidence here:
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.

 

[McCree79]

PreachTony,the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe. The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}. After all, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit along with the correct interpretation. She determined which books were inspired and which books were not. She is the "authentic interpreter of Scripture", not me or you.
The Bible did not come first, because the Bible wasn't fully written until the end of the first century. Further, the canon of Scripture wasn't determined until the end of the fourth century. Since there was no Bible, how is it that the Bible is the only authority? The answer is that we had the Church first, not the Bible. The Bible doesn't even talk about a Bible; it talks about the Church. Let's go back in history to Moses. The people did not know that Moses' writings were inspired because Moses' writings said they were inspired (which is the Protestant argument). The Jews believed that Moses' writings were inspired because of the tradition and the authority God put over them, who said that Moses' writings were inspired? It was an authority outside of Moses' writings that determined Moses' writings were inspired.

Peter put the work of Paul on par with OT scripture. If we place other Apostolic writings on par with scripture, per Peter, works of John, Paul, Peter, Matthew are all scripture. Luke/Acts and Mark written under Apostolic authority of Paul and Peter. James and Jude brothers of Jesus. Hebrews was allowed into the cannon, believed to have been written by Paul. Most likely it was Apollos or someone else, but at the time, it was believed to be Paul.

Scripture was not chosen by the church. Scripture declared itself to the church and the church received it....acknowledged it. As they stated, "we receive", not " we declare" or "we have chosen". The 2000 books that where eliminated were easy outs. They has little to no support from the churches. They had not been acknowledged has Apostolic as other writings.

Scripture was present well before the RCC. It was in the churches, circulated and acknowledged.

 

[McCree79]

Scripture was present way before the RCC. The letters the Apostles wrote were circulated. The OT scriptures were available. How did the we get the OT if the RCC wasn't there to to tell people what scripture was?

Before 1500, the church still had scripture. The letters where available. Teachers, had access to them and did teach from them. The claim of the RCC that there was no scripture before the 1546 is a myth. There is still 99 manuscripts existing today, that were written before 400 A.D. Written before 1546, there is still 5,700 Greek NT manuscripts surviving. If you count other languages, there is nearly 25,000 surviving NT manuscripts. The church had scripture. The church has always had scripture. To say they didn't is a RCC myth.
*facts taken from Article written by Wayne Grudem, research professor at Phoenix Seminary.

 

[DHK]

PreachTony,the bottom line is this: The Bible is not your only authority as you believe. The Church is the final authority {Mt 18:17-18; 1 Tim 3:15}. After all, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture guided by the Holy Spirit along with the correct interpretation. She determined which books were inspired and which books were not. She is the "authentic interpreter of Scripture", not me or you.

This is a lie and simply RCC propaganda which you have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
God gave us the Scripture. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? Don't ever again say you do, unless you can be honest about it. The Word of God means that the "words" came from God, and not from any so-called "church." Thus you do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God. You believe it to be "The Word of "'The Church.'"

What does Scripture say:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--It is not given by the RCC; but rather given by the very inspiration of God.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
--Notice a few things here:
1. In verse 20 The RCC has their own private interpretation. No member of the RCC is permitted to have an interpretation of the Bible that goes contrary to the priest, bishop or magesterium. It is the RCC interpretation, and that is what is meant by "private interpretation." That is the heretical position of the RCC.
2. In verse 21 No prophecy (or scripture) came...by the will of man.
They didn't make it up. It didn't come through papal pronouncements, councils, etc.
3. The scripture came from "holy men of God" (the prophets and the Apostles,"
4. The way it came: "as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." They and they alone were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. No others were. Not Oral Tradition or any other kind of Tradition. From Moses to the Apostle John--it was their writings that made up the inspired words of God. And then the canon of Scripture was closed.

The Bible did not come first, because the Bible wasn't fully written until the end of the first century.

Nonsense. The Jews had their "Bible" by 450 B.C. Most people never had a complete "Bible" until it came off the printing press in 1454.
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/gutenbergbible/

Further, the canon of Scripture wasn't determined until the end of the fourth century.

More RCC propaganda. Why perpetuate lies. It was complete in 98 A.D. when John wrote the last book, the book of Revelation.

Since there was no Bible, how is it that the Bible is the only authority?

Because it was God (whom you refuse to believe) that said it was our authority. 700 years before Christ was born He gave us this principle:

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The answer is that we had the Church first, not the Bible. The Bible doesn't even talk about a Bible; it talks about the Church.

There was and is no "The Church." More RCC propaganda.

Let's go back in history to Moses. The people did not know that Moses' writings were inspired because Moses' writings said they were inspired (which is the Protestant argument). The Jews believed that Moses' writings were inspired because of the tradition and the authority God put over them, who said that Moses' writings were inspired? It was an authority outside of Moses' writings that determined Moses' writings were inspired.

Why don't you quote your RCC source or webpage instead of plagiarizing?
The above is totally irrelevant. It has nothing to do with inspiration. God inspired the words that He gave Moses to write. If you don't believe that then you question the authenticity of God's Word. Jesus spoke many times of the "Books of Moses." Now, you question the integrity of Jesus, inferring that he was a liar??