(Protestant) Minister Who Had Near-Death Episode Believes In Purgatory

Spirit Daily ^ | 2005 | Michael Brown

[rwfromkansas]

believe as in have faith and trust in

[rwfromkansas]

I could have expressed myself better, but you know very well I don't mean I am perfect.

That is definitely not the case.

[SoothingDave]

In Matthew 19:9, Jesus uses the word "Porneia," which has a broader range of meaning than "Moicheia," which means adultery. In other words, he says, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, commits moicheia." If He was giving an exception for adultery, He could have used the more specific "moicheia" instead of porneia.

Why argue what the Greek means when we are blessed with the perfect Bible in English?

SD

[SoothingDave]

I could have expressed myself better, but you know very well I don't mean I am perfect.

So you are not perfect and yet you do not require any purification? I like riddles, explain this one to me.

SD

[silverleaf]

You may choose to come to the Father directly by yourself. No fault with that. But Christ Himself said often that His disciples were chosen (by God Himself as per the following passage from John) ...chosen and designated to carry on Christ's work on earth (including adminstering sacraments such as baptism)....because upon Jesus' death, his work on earth...was done.

Christ's prayer for Himself and His disciples, as recorded in John, is very descriptive about this:

JOHN 17: Jesus Prays for Himself
1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,
2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.
3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Jesus Prays for His Disciples
6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You.
8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.
9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.
10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them.
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves.
14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth."

[mike182d]

believe as in have faith and trust in

To not trust in God would be rejection, wouldn't it?

[Vicomte13]

I wrote: "There's another option: that everyone is right enough about the things the Holy Spirit cares about"

You replied: "So, no one disagrees on the Trinity? No one disagree on whether baptism is necessary? No one disagrees on whether faith alone is sufficient? No one disagrees on whether Jesus Christ was God? What, then, is necessary?"

It's not that people don't disagree about the Trinity, or whether baptism is necessary, or whether faith alone is sufficient, or whether Jesus Christ was God. They do. It may be that, although people care about these things, the Holy Spirit doesn't. Which may be why Jesus never spoke of the Trinity, why the unbaptized thief on the cross, and the unbaptized Enoch and Elijah all three went to heaven anyway.

What IS necessary?
Well, to know the full answer to that, we'd have to ask God, but I expect that we cannot go very far wrong when we listen to what Jesus himself actually had to say about the entirety of Scripture. Jesus synopsized it all and said what it meant. Maybe we should take our current Bible, pull the pages out - at least of the Old Testament anyway, since that's what Jesus was referring to - and just write the sentence that Jesus gave that synopsized what the whole thing meant, was intended to mean, was about, from the God's-eye view: "Love your neighbor as yourself, and love God above all - that is the entirety of the Law and the prophets." ("the Law and the prophets" being Jewish shorthand for the Torah and the rest of the Jewish scriptures).
Since Jesus was God, and that's what HE said the point was, maybe we should really get to the fundamentals and decide that loving your neighbor as yourself and loving God above all is what's necessary. And the rest isn't.

[mike182d]

Why argue what the Greek means when we are blessed with the perfect Bible in English?

lol!

[silverleaf]

Yes, "sexual immorality" is not further defined but it is clear from numerous examples in the Bible that a "contract" made between parties who were not "pure" (and there are other terms for "pure") would not conform with the intent of the Creator and would impede a true binding contract

[magisterium]

I'd be delighted to see some evidence to back up your assertion. Heck, I'm still waiting for direction from you to the quote you allege is in the Catholic Encyclopedia that says we believe Christ is "slaughtered" anew at Mass.

There is MASSIVE testimony to the existence of priests, bishops, popes, sacraments, purgatory (that *is* the point to this thread's title, after all) and a host of other "Cathoic" beliefs and practices during and immediately after the Apostolic Era. Several of us on this thread have already asked you to take a look at several sites with those sources. It seems you haven't and won't bother to look. I'm afraid there's nothing else for us to do on a forum like this, where there is an expectation of give-and-take between posters. You're not contributing to your end of that, so the conversation is pretty stultified.

Meantime, your latest passing shot seems to indicate that unity of faith is not at all important, as long as the lowest-common-denominator of acknowledging Christ is in place. Given the quick erosion and self-immolation of Christianity (in the generic sense) in much of the world, underway, in large measure, precisely because of our lack of unity, I'd be interested to hear your explanation for this lack of importance for unity in orthordoxy and orthopraxis.

[SaltyJoe]

Luke 14:11 "But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment; 12 and he said to him, `Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the attendants, `Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.'

Matthew 13: 37 He said in reply, "He who sows good seed is the Son of Man, 38 the field is the world, the good seed the children of the kingdom. The weeds are the children of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, 20 and the harvesters are angels. 40 Just as weeds are collected and burned (up) with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all who cause others to sin and all evildoers. 42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 25:29-30).



"So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.'" (John 6:53-55)

The Power of Christ compels Us


A Wedding Feast of Church with Our Groom, Jesus
(both in appropriate garments)

Matthew 16: 18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

[mike182d]

For the sake of brevity, I'd like to combine two statements because I think you've found a nail ready to be hit on the head. :-)

It's not that people don't disagree about the Trinity, or whether baptism is necessary, or whether faith alone is sufficient, or whether Jesus Christ was God. They do. It may be that, although people care about these things, the Holy Spirit doesn't. Which may be why Jesus never spoke of the Trinity, why the unbaptized thief on the cross, and the unbaptized Enoch and Elijah all three went to heaven anyway.

And...

"Jesus gave that synopsized what the whole thing meant, was intended to mean, was about, from the God's-eye view: "Love your neighbor as yourself, and love God above all - that is the entirety of the Law and the prophets."

You are absolutely right; it is all about love. But what kind of "love?" Love is the word of a thousand definitions and I can "love" everything from coffee to my daughter. Even the love one has for their bride is different than the love one has for their children. So, what kind of love is Christ calling us to?

Marriage. Marriage is the one example used the most throughout the whole of Scripture to explain God's love for humanity. We are not Jesus' best friend or good neighbor of His that lives across the street, we are His bride and our love for Him and God should reflect this. So, let's consider the following discussion in the light of marriage.

Before I married my bride we dated because it was not sufficient to just know her name and know that she loved me. In my love for her, I wanted to know who she was. Through dating for a year, I found out what her hopes, dreams, and desires were and I wanted nothing more than to share in those very same hopes, dreams, and desires with her.

Our love for God cannot be merely love of His name or loving that He loves us. If we are to love God as we love our spouse, it is imperative that we know what God's hopes, dreams, and desires are for humanity and wanting to share in them. That's why discussions over which Sacraments are needed, or if Jesus left us the Church, and so forth, are necessary because they deal with the hopes and dreams of God for us and to merely write them off as "unimportant" would be the same as me telling my bride that her ambitions in life, her past-times, and her desires are not important either and I can't imagine a marriage like that lasting very long.

[Search4Truth]

Are you familiar with Ray Comfort's work?

http://www.livingwaters.com/listenwatch.shtml

It was a real revelation to me in witnessing to the lost. Check it out. It will be well worth your time.

Regards, S4T.

[mike182d]

Yes, "sexual immorality" is not further defined but it is clear from numerous examples in the Bible that a "contract" made between parties who were not "pure" (and there are other terms for "pure") would not conform with the intent of the Creator and would impede a true binding contract

Well, the point of the article was to demonstrate that the English translation loses a lot of meaning in the original Greek text. In essence, what the passage is saying is that people who are not really married, who present the appearance of being married but cannot enter into union, can divorce. Throughout history there has always been civil and religious marriages recognized and Christ is saying that those who "marry" but are not really "married" are committing adultery and may "divorce." It's like the U.S. Government pronouncing a homosexual couple as being "married" and the Church allowing them to get "divorced" because they were never really "married" in the first place.

Does that make sense? That's kind of how annulments work, but its a complicated issue.

[mike182d]

It was a real revelation to me in witnessing to the lost. Check it out. It will be well worth your time.

With all due respect, I cannot imagine how responding to someone to asks you why you believe what you believe with "I don't argue" can be a very effective witness.

[SoothingDave]

Our love for God cannot be merely love of His name or loving that He loves us. If we are to love God as we love our spouse, it is imperative that we know what God's hopes, dreams, and desires are for humanity and wanting to share in them. That's why discussions over which Sacraments are needed, or if Jesus left us the Church, and so forth, are necessary because they deal with the hopes and dreams of God for us and to merely write them off as "unimportant" would be the same as me telling my bride that her ambitions in life, her past-times, and her desires are not important either and I can't imagine a marriage like that lasting very long.

Any self-respecting Protestant has to admit that God failed utterly in revealing these things about Himself, therefore they must be unimportant.

SD

[Quester]

In Matthew 19:9, Jesus uses the word "Porneia," which has a broader range of meaning than "Moicheia," which means adultery. In other words, he says, "Whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia, commits moicheia." If He was giving an exception for adultery, He could have used the more specific "moicheia" instead of porneia.

What you have just suggested is not a logical reading.

If "porneia" (i.e. sexual immorality) is a broader term ... then it includes adultery, rather than excludes it.

One could make a much more viable argument that Jesus used "porneia" because He didn't wish to be more specific (i.e. that he was referring to any type of sexual immorality).

It is argued by some that porneia here refers to incest and is used by St. Matthew to inform those who may be converting to Judaism/Christianity that they are obligated to discontinue marriage arrangements contrary to Jewish law in Levitians 17-18. This argument seems to be supported by the fact that porneia is used to refer to incest in 1 Corinthians 15:11."

Do you believe that Jesus is using the broader term here ... to specify incest ?

This would mean that incest would be the only reason why a marriage might be faithfully dissolved.

Is this what the Catholic Church teaches ?

[mike182d]

Do you believe that Jesus is using the broader term here ... to specify incest ?

The Church believes that Jesus isn't referring to adultery as being cause for divorce because He uses a different word in the exact same sentence. Obviously Christ must mean something other than adultery, and I think the question you're getting at is: what?

The part about incest is speculation on the part of the author writing that particular piece, but the Church teaches that no one can get divorced unless it was never really a marriage in the first place because "what God has joined, no man must separate." Therefore, annulments are not "Catholic divorces" but rather the Church recognizing someone's marriage as never happening in the first place and thus that whole time they were committing adultery. This is entirely consistent with what Christ is saying.

[mike182d]

Any self-respecting Protestant has to admit that God failed utterly in revealing these things about Himself, therefore they must be unimportant.

Ergo...God becomes unimportant.

[Vicomte13]

I'm not ignoring you, but your thoughts will require real time and focus to respond to properly. And I don't have the time to focus on that right now. But I will, perhaps over the weekend. Which means that this thread will otherwise be very dead by the time I respond, but I will resurrect it in order to do so.

Pax vobiscum.