Is purgatory real?

ding ding ding
even failed works that burn up are valuable. the loss is the reward in 1 cor 3:14

WOOSH one context gets blown out time to MOVE THEM GOALPOSTS

since you didnt address my point about hebrew i guess you ran out of arguments? k.

boi you slow
why does something need to be in hebrew to be scripture? are you a jew, hmmmm?

let's stick to 1 cor 3:15 - why does that prove purgatory? Why isn't the loss the reward in 1 cor 3:14?

I think you need to learn what "moving the goalpost" actually means, sir

i misread your post.
it does not prove purgatory indeed.
he used a verse from the bible; a book that he doesnt understand.

now its just sad
do you know what the old testament is?

Do you know what the deuterocanon is?

...

a.k.a what you did with my question

The cringe, famalam.

because you didn't answer my question here.

This passage is about those who are saved having their works tested. Not being stuck in limbo.

repent

The one about aramaic? How is that even remotely relevant to what we're discussing here?

the absolute state of protestantism.

hurr durr because the israelites spoke HEBREW and non israelites did not save for other semite tribes earlier than them such as edomites whose prophecies of their own destruction by said HEBREW speaking prophets came to pass as babylon and assyria had already discomfited them.

maccabees isnt scripture, its apocrypha. that means parts that exegetically corroborate with scripture (old testament and new) is ok, but anything that contradicts the prophets or the apostles is garbage.

maccabees goes in the trash. use a different book.

obviously not 1 corinthians since i already showed you dont know what it says.

nice meme. from my perspective the roman catholic church are the protesters to the truth. just look at how embarassing your theology is. you literally dont understand the significance of what im pointing out,

anglican detected

I don't know if that's english but okay

translation: anything that contradicts Father Luther's explanation of scripture goes in the trash

I use the septuagint, which has maccabees and, coincidentally, was also used by the apostles.

I'm not episcopagan.

f***ing lol.
who said anything about luther? YOU mentioned luther first; but since you're appealing to recent historical precedence as your authority (read: traditions of men) how do you explain the waldensians to whom the pope bowed to and apologized whose tradition heavily overlaps with what catholics attribute to luther? I'm not a lutheran or an episcopalian. But if they're denigated by you based on how retarded you are, perhaps they merit some earnest investigation.
oh aren't you a special snowflake!
look at the snowflake, everybody.
I use the masoretic and TR. Both have stood the test of time despite their critics.
I guess the argument is over seeing as how you have no response to my points, nor can you even speak to the significance of them. Shoot, you can't even speak english. Sad.

Attached: sad.png (1000x320, 82.75K)

Are these some suffering right now who will be saved? Yes.
Are there some whose sins will be forgiven after death? Yes.
Is there a "purgatorial fire" for those who will be saved without going straight to Heaven first? Latin theological tradition has interpreted verses like 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 to refer to a purgatorial fire for those who, upon death, are destined for Heaven but have not been purified of their passions yet. Byzantine theology, however, has interpreted all verses about fire to be either A) penance, which is purification in the fire of the Holy Spirit, or B) the fire of Gehenna (or, in the case of a universalist reading, both). In Catholic theology, somebody who dies without having done sufficient penance goes to Purgatory, where they suffer as they are purified, but can be purified "quicker" through the prayers of the faithful and the sacrifice of the Mass. In Orthodox theology, somebody in the same situation goes to Hell, where they are imprisoned for a while but are saved through the prayers of the faithful and the sacrifice of the Liturgy. As such, the Catholics dogmatically assert the existence of Purgatory while the Orthodox reject it, but there isn't such a big difference between them at the same time - both assert that those who die in a state of grace but without being perfectly purified are held in a "waiting room", so to speak, where they complete the penance necessary, and are helped by the prayers of the faithful. But Catholics believe this "waiting room" is in Paradise, and could be described as a purifying fire, and Orthodox believe it is in Hades, and could be described as confinement.

I'm Orthodox, so I reject Purgatory.
While I'm at it, the usual Catholic use of 2 Maccabees is bizarre. It confirms that sin can be forgiven after one's death, not that this forgiveness happens in a "purgatory" or through painful fire, especially since this is before Christ opened Paradise for us.

I'll cite what an Orthodox priest says in my catechism - Orthodox theology hasn't made a real distinction between Hell and Purgatory like Catholic theology has.

W E W

ACNA?

who cares?

Unlike you, I like my scripture undefiled.

where does this meme come from? everybody is in a state of not being "perfectly purified" until the resurrection.
and search the scriptures, the only time the term "purification" is used in the mosaic law is referring to a waiting period after a woman gives birth. I believe it's one or two weeks for a boy and double the time of that for a girl.
it has nothing to do with the resurrection.
where do people get this garbage from? certainly not from the scriptures.

Alright, enjoy your kosher scriptures. I'll stick with what the apostles are using.

The saints have reached theosis. They have necessarily been purified of both their sins and their attraction to sinfulness - in other words, they are free of original sin.

They reached theosis after death, not before. Baptism removes original sin, but that is only completed in theosis.

Masoretic text is what I was referring to when I say "kosher".. If you didn't have the reading comprehension to understand that and you're not being stupid on purpose…. WEW

every believer including me reaches theosis after death. how redundant.

if the talmudic orthodox jews believe that they are still God's chosen people and all of the prophets of the old testament corroborate with Jesus' fulfillment of their prophecies and directly ministered to his apostles, then there's no problem on my end. the issue is you're trying to convince me to take maccabees seriously. which I still don't obviously.
a principle related to the food ordinances from Moses which are clearly done away with as Ezekiel broke these laws by commandment when he ate cow's dung and Peter explained the figure of those dietary laws being figurative of gentiles in Acts 10.

the word kosher is nowhere in the bible, but the principle is sufficiently explained using the MT and the TR. Both of which have been used authoritatively for hundreds of years in the King James version of the bible which has outsold every other version of the bible in the lingua franca.

yeah.

What is redundant? That all who die justified will end up reaching theosis, and so that having a concept of purification after death is useless?
But purification after death is merely a continuation of purification during this life. Some die perfectly purified of sin, so that nothing stands in the way of theosis for them and they reach it after death. Some die still attached to sin and not having done sufficient penance, so they need to be purified to a certain degree before they can come together with Christ and the saints, and continue their deification.

rum featuring a pirate should be in the left bottom corner, it's the ultimate normie drink

I disagree. Dying is the only means of purification because as Paul very clearly illustrated in Romans 7, there is always a law of sin in our flesh. No person dies not attached to sin, that's why they have to die.

I usually just stick to beer. Gin if I'm trying to slim down or get really drunk really fast.
I don't see liqueur on here, do you?

Do you believe there is no penance to be had? Do you believe that the sacraments and faith cannot perfect us here and now? Why is the Holy Spirit described as a fire if this is not a fire that purifies by destroying evil and sin?

I believe you misread the apostle's intentions in chapter 7 of Romans. He describes his own struggle with sin, he does not say at all that this struggle cannot be conquered.

Also, for Paul, sarx and soma, body and flesh, are not synonymous. The "flesh" is, for Paul, the body when it is enslaved by the carnal passions, while the "body" refers to the body itself, without implication as to how the individual uses it.

the only way the struggle can be conquered is by dying.
who are you trying to fool? me or yourself?

Sigh. Whatever. This isn't the hill I plan to die on, and I clearly lack the wisdom and language to convince you at all.
Out of curiosity, to which church do you belong?

it's fine dude sorry if I came off as aggressive I'm still processing the cognitive dissonance from the famalamalam guy.
I used to go to verity baptist church, one of the andersonite churches.
I got kicked out.
now I just read the bible and occasionally check this place to verify that it's still a cathodox helltrap.
Otherwise I talk to my friends who left with me after I got kicked out because roger jimenez is a complete retard. Don't get me started.

wbu?

I see. For some reason, I thought you were Reformed. What do you think of Reformed theology?

You don't go to a church? It's really a bad idea to get your Christian community time from here and not from a real life community that's united around the same beliefs.

As I said above, I'm Orthodox.

oh ok. i didn't see that.
absolute garbage. limited atonement is a ridiculous doctrine.
no I do go to church, I define church as a congregation of believers and I do that all of the time. The communities in which we live are immersed in the cognitive dissonance of state worship

they believe that the god that enforces ridiculous statutes through the family courts who use the duluth model to destroy the family and the use of fiat currency to steal from everybody. pig cops will enforce those statutes and guess what?

ALL churches are perfectly happy with it. Swimmingly. They won't do anything. They are complicit.

My buddy in Oregon got completely f***ed by the state and lost his house despite appealing successfully to the state constitution to deny family court jurisdiction.
loldidntmatter

At this point I cannot STAND religion, dude. there is no edification, just pride and greed from a spiritually sick and destitute congregation. I have a closer walk with God in private contemplation and prayer and then I decompress either by discussion on a conference call or at my residence. That edifies me and accomplishes the intended function of church and it checks out with the psalm 22:22 hebrews 2:12 cross reference definition. Therefore it is a church.

oh and to add my buddy went to his local calvary chapel with appx. 1000 people in Benton County and guess what they did? NOTHING.

Anyway, if you want proof go look it up. Carleton Bryant v. State of Oregon. It's public record.

I will pray for your friend. There is no justice apart from the Kingdom of God.

Yes purgatory is real, it's both biblical and necessary for biblical theology to make sense. Anyone who thinks they can live a sinful life and get straight into heaven because they accept Jesus is in for a surprise, the pains of Purgatory are every bit as severe as the pains of Hell, but they are finite.

the kingdom of God is internal until the resurrection. Thanks I'll pray for him again – bear in mind this happened a decade and a half ago. he's pretty much come to terms with it.

hey do you think we can have a physical kingdom now until the resurrection? Israel did (obviously the fraud that's over there in palestine is NOT Israel of the bible). I think we can.

Check out 1 Samuel 8 when the children of Israel are mad at Samuel for the trespasses of his children in the priesthood and demand a king to rule over them:

The physical kingdom already exists. It is the Church, of which the king is Christ. In fact, the Church is also called the True Israel traditionally, and Luke-Acts's theological agenda appears to be that the Church is the direct continuation of the Kingdom of Israel, although under a different divine dispensation.

I linked this sermon for a reason.
not making pete peters an idol but he pointed something out that is really important to me and should be important to christians everywhere.
every kingdom has prophets, priests, and kings.
all three must exist. the kings and priests are our politicians and lawyers respectively. What laws are they making and enforcing also respectively?
and here's the crux of my point, how does the church fit in with ensuring those fake laws – the laws of egypt – are pointed out to be fake.
NOTHING.

=N=
=O=
=T=
=H=
=I=
=N=
=G=

the ba'al worshippers and their pornography don't think that their spiritual kingdom is exclusively immaterial, why can't we?

This is what I don't get about cathodox and other assorted pietists such as this guy whose involvement on this thread is indeed auspicious in proving my point.

I doubt he can even speak to the statutes of the egyptians that are enforced by the priests, prophets, and kings of the U.S. and Europe and pretty much the entire world at this point.

hi

there, Christ made a Church. the Church does not claim to be the Spiritual Kingdom, but the true path to it.

hi
that's not what that scripture means.

Is this the part where we get to see a Protestant tie himself in knots to justify an interpretation of scripture that goes against over 1900 years of Church teaching stretching right back to the apostles? I love this part.

hi
what's it mean?

it's like watching a .gif on replay

the verse you are referencing is referring collectively to the ministry of ALL of the apostles – even Paul – who have a testimony of Jesus Christ and the testimony thereof being the rock. Jesus self refers to his testimony and foundation as being a rock.

Even David in one of his psalms that's even present at the end of 2 Samuel corroborates with my testimony. So you can talk about the church traditions all you want. I'll appeal to what Christ said directly and what the prophets said as well.

the history of an institution that has allowed the desolation of unrepentant sinners and saints alike?

You're literally making the same mistake that Stephen pointed out to the Jews about building a house for God to live in. THe most high doesn't dwell in a temple made with hands and the temple solomon built was a temple dedicated to the NAME of the Lord.

Functionally analogous for sake of argument.

Liar. Christ only spoke to Simon Peter in this verse.

Then why did Jesus Christ say "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."?

Why not "And I say to you all: That thou art the Rock; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Or "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon myself I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Liar, you do no such thing.

also I think you both collectively blacked the f*** out and forgot literally about the first 4 chapters of revelation where God is telling John to tell 7 specific SEPARATE churches about church-specific affairs for them to deal with
etc.

are these all
no. No they're not.
That being said I do subscribe to the idea of a universal body of believers that will inhabit new Jerusalem after the resurrection and the judgment but generally speaking my eschatology is a bit shaky since I'm not 100% on the prophets so I can make the sufficient cross references in revelation. Zechariah and Daniel

there's your problem. read the whole chapter, pleb. start at verse 13 for sake of efficiency:

oh and paul rebukes peter to his face (Acts / Galatians)

>In Micheas, in the 7th chapter (8, 9): Rejoice not, thou my enemy, over me, because I am fallen : 1 shall arise, when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light. I will hear the wrath of the Lord, hecause I have sinned against him, until he judge my cause and execute judgment for me : he will bring me forth into the light, I shall behold his justice. This passage was already applied to the proof of Purgatory amongst Catholics from the time of S. Jerome, as the same S. Jerome witnesses by the last chapter of Isaias where he says that When I shall sit in darkness . . .I will hear the wrath of the Lord . . . until He judge my cause—cannot be understood of any pain so properly as of that of Purgatory.

Yes it is.

Well no because he was talking in singular towards Peter specifically

So no, he wasn't talking to the apostles collectively, he was addressing Peter specifically and saying that Peter will be the rock on which the church is built.

Christ said that his Church will be built on Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

And st. Chrysostom even said

And the Cyrils

4th canon of Chalcedon

okay well by your logic satan is the head of your "apostolic" church because Jesus literally calls him satan in the same chapter.
what about the churches in revelation i pointed out?
what about
also peter was specifically in jerusalem.
the f*** does rome have to do with the council at JERUSALEM?
what about all of the churches geographically in turkroach land?

Attached: you-talk-like-a-fag-and-your-shits-all-retarded.jpg (483x351, 91.23K)

Cyril and Chrysostom again

Attached: 1350942235864.jpg (400x300, 37.89K)

cringe
cyril and chrysostrom are not authoritative.

Which is nonsensical on your part, were synagogues where the Jews worshiped not part of the Temple?

Likewise, despite the many Churches of Christ, they were all considered under one Church, this confusion is only appeared since the Reformation too. (orthodox schism notwithstanding)

probably because you're wrong, and there will not be a universal body of believers. Christ prayed for unity, He never endorsed separation.

What in the world are you on about? He called on the disciples, Peter answered, and Christ spoke to Peter. It's in the verse itself! How have you confused yourself so badly?

You LOL at Christ. I did not give St. Peter the authority, Christ Himself did.

But they didn't, and Christ knew this because He is God, and has all foreknowledge. Right? Right?

Yeah, they are not, the Council of Chalcedon isn't, but a dude on the internet is.

Attached: 1358696622148.png (586x487, 609.7K)

Because Peter took on the spirit of Satan, and wanted to stop Christ's Passion. I mean, did you read the part where Peter was full of the Holy Spirit? Or the Pentecost?

If Peter was Satan, why declare the Church on Him? You question Jesus Christ's very authority.

There is so much idiocy in this post I could be here all night.

oops.
the temple is our bodies. you do greatly err concerning the scriptures. even the prophets at the time of solomon understood that the temple was a temple to the NAME of the Lord.
absolutely hilarious
you think God dwells in a temple made with hands?
pleb-tier mistake.
who cares, I only care about the churches in scripture and my own personal congregation with other saved born again believers
I'm not denying an immaterial universal church, just a physical one like the roman catholic church.
Paul objectively had more authority than Peter because Jesus at the end of John 21 told Peter to tarry at Jerusalem
then he said "but what about him (John)"

Is it the case also if you get a plenary indulgence?

yeah

...

Nope. If it was it would be mentioned a lot more than an alleged Purgatorial verse in the Apocrypha. Do not become blinded with Rome’s false teachings of the subject. It’s not real and it never has been.

Wasn't the purgatory theory made up as a way for the pope to make money? I mean together with that weird treasury of the good deeds theory that he supposedly keeps somewere hidden so he can take you out of hell if you bride him? Serious question.

No. The doctrine of Purgatory goes back as far as Augustine. It is a particular reading of 1 Corinthians 3:12-15.
The whole "treasury of merits" and "indulgence" thing did come later though, although I don't know the exact story behind it, and I do not expect that the reasons were financial or business-like at all.

I wasn't expecting to see Pete on this board God bless !

You do not understand either Chrysostom or Cyril's views on Peter, his relationship to the Pope, his relationship to the apostles and the episcopacy, who has the power of the keys, and the role the Church of Rome plays.
These two saints do not affirm papal supremacy, no matter how much you cherrypick them.
If that makes you feel better, saints like Jerome and Pope Leo lean very, very strongly on the side of papal supremacy and infallibility.

God bless!
Indeed, Peter is a monster. His preaching has stood the test of time.