Evidence for God from Science

First I did read the article and it's simply a Catholic defense of purgatory doctrine much of which I've already rebutted. A few of those specific verses Catholics use in support of purgatory doctrine I have already refuted as support for purgatory. I can refute ALL of those you have listed as supporting purgatory.

Secondly, as I already stated, only a few church fathers believed in the pagan inspired doctrine of purgatory so it comes as no surprise that when the time came for reform, the reformers rejected the false doctrine of purgatory... 1500 years later. Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome held nothing at all of purgatory. Gregory had a vision in the middle of the night and taught something of purgatory but his teachings on this matter are antibiblical running contrary to such scriptural basics as the all-sufficiency and finality of Christ's atoning sacrifice and the uniqueness of God as the sole object of our devotion and prayer so must be discarded. It makes no sense to say that correcting a heretical practice isn't desirable or just if it occurs after a time but that's what you asserted.

You're trite comment at the end... a very pathetic attempt to sweep away a very strong and ordered position against purgatory (1) constitutes nothing less than a false assertion.

(1) Purgatory is a denial of the all-Sufficiency of Christ's Suffering; purgatory is contrary to the immediacy of Heaven or Hell after death; purgatory is based on the unbiblical teaching of "The Treasury of Merit"; the very idea of salvific merit violates clear Biblical teaching; Catholic Church tradition is not infallible; purgatory is inconsistent with other Catholic doctrines; purgatory involves the unbiblical belief in praying for the dead; purgatory is a practical denial of the mediatorship of Chris; purgatory is pagan in origin; and the historical testimony against the purgatory doctrine.

Let's consider one of my ordered examples against purgatory doctrine. Catholicism's Arguments Are Speculative and not exegetical: Consider this statement from one defender of praying to/for the dead:

"(1) The Church is Christ's body. (2) Christ has only one Body; not one on earth and one in heaven. (3) Christians are not separated from each other by death. (4) Christians must love and serve each other" (Madrid, TR 8 )."

Based on those four premises, the idea (conclusion) is that we must continue to pray for and ask for the help of those believers who have died. From a biblical perspective there are several serious problems with this argument. While Protestants affirm the first and fourth premises, we have strong objections to the third and qualifications for the second.

First, the second premise, while true, is easily misconstrued. That there is only one body of Christ does not mean there is no real distinction between its visible and invisible dimensions. Likewise, it does not mean that our duties to love can be performed the same way in each dimension.

For example, I cannot (and need not) now perform my duty to physically for my departed parents as I could and did while they were living on earth. I also can no longer perform my duty to engage them in fellowship; they are in the invisible realm, so conversations and other interaction are not possible. Prayer has no place from the living toward the dead.

Second, the third premise is flatly false. God's Word says that death is separation from others on earth (believers included). Paul says the dead are "absent" from the visible bodily realm (2 Cor. 5:6 NKJV) and that they "departed from this world (Phil. 123); he also comforted and assured the bereaved Thessalonian Christians that they would again one day be "with" believers who had already died (1 Thess. 417). It is simply false to claim that at death we will not be separated from other living believers.

Third, at least one implication of the fourth premise is inaccurate: while we must love and serve one another, we should not (and cannot) always do it the same way. Even on earth, when loved ones are unavailable, I cannot speak with them. According to Scripture, the dead are permanently unavailable until the Second Coming.

Fourth, there are several other mistakes in this argument. For one thing, it is beyond dubious to assume that because God has revealed to the dead some things that transpire on earth (e.g., Luke 5:10), this equates to they can hear us if we speak to them (or know our mind if we pray silently). Further, it is highly questionable to assume that prayer and asking others are the same. Biblically, prayer is always to the Creator and never to a creature (even an angel). While prayer is not identical to worship, prayer is part of worship, and worship should always be directed to God alone.

Also, it is invalid to infer that because the saints in heaven may be praying for us we should be praying to them. There is no logical connection between the two-they would be praying to God, not to any created being. If anything, this proves the opposite of what Catholics believe. it is a false analogy to maintain that because Jesus' mother on earth interceded to Him at the wedding in Cana, believers on earth should ask Mary for intercession to God in heaven on their behalf, This says nothing of the fact that when Mary was approached (on earth), she pointed those in need to Jesus, saying, "Do whatever he tells you" (John 2:5).

A close examination of every point in addition to an overall examination of the doctrine of purgatory shows it to be a false doctrine. Therefore, discarding the pagan practice from Christiandom is the right thing to do.

If you want to hold on to the false pagan doctrine of purgatory, may I suggest you become a follower of Plato instead of Christ rather than synergizing them and reaching heretical error. Plato said:

"The soul which has been polluted, and is impure at the time of her God has, in his word, laid before us two ways; one which by faith departure, and is the companion and servant of the body always, and is in love with and fascinated by the body and by the desires and pleasures of the body... do you suppose that such a soul as this will depart pure and unalloyed? That is impossible... and these must be the souls, not of the good, but of the evil, who are compelled to wander about places in payment of the penalty of their former evil way of life; and they continue to wander until the desire which haunts them is satisfied."

Hellenization occurred in the 4th century B.C. and the Jews, Jesus, the apostles, and early church fathers were well acquainted with it. The Jews, Jesus, the apostles, and most of the early church fathers did not let it draw them into heretical positions. A few did. Purgatory is one of those.

Luke 23:43 — many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol," meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus' statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life — perhaps by a bloody and repentant death — could be ready for admission in to heaven).

I'd make sure you study the resources you quote.

The greek word Paradeisos is not from the greek Sheol.
Psalm 86:13: "Your love for me is great; you have rescued me from the depths of Sheol."

Sheol is not decribed as a place anyone would want to be. This position is reached through the book of Enoch, where Sheol is pictured as a place where one awaits judgment, bliss for the believer, locked up for Hell for the wicked. This would be ambiguous, and for all he knew Jesus was saying, I'll see you at judgement and then off to Hell. But the world Sheol, which is Hebrew, was not used. The timing has nothing to do with it. "Now I say, you will be with me in paradise." That is a very weak explanation if Jesus told the man,' you will be with ME there.' Does Jesus need some cleansing as well?

In this case Jesus is saying to the thief, today you will be with me awaiting judgment. This interpretation not only seeks to distort what was said, but to actually change the words of Jesus.

jlay wrote:

Luke 23:43 — many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise,” He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol," meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus' statement “I say to you today you will be with me in paradise” does not mean there was a comma after the first word “you.” This means Jesus could have said, “I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise” (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was “today” or “now,” and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life — perhaps by a bloody and repentant death — could be ready for admission in to heaven).

I'd make sure you study the resources you quote.

The greek word Paradeisos is not from the greek Sheol.
Psalm 86:13: "Your love for me is great; you have rescued me from the depths of Sheol."

Sheol is not decribed as a place anyone would want to be. This position is reached through the book of Enoch, where Sheol is pictured as a place where one awaits judgment, bliss for the believer, locked up for Hell for the wicked. This would be ambiguous, and for all he knew Jesus was saying, I'll see you at judgement and then off to Hell. But the world Sheol, which is Hebrew, was not used. The timing has nothing to do with it. "Now I say, you will be with me in paradise." That is a very weak explanation if Jesus told the man,' you will be with ME there.' Does Jesus need some cleansing as well?

In this case Jesus is saying to the thief, today you will be with me awaiting judgment. This interpretation not only seeks to distort what was said, but to actually change the words of Jesus.

Where was Jesus preaching after his death and before his resurrection? And Jesus was there to preach, not to get cleansed. More to the point though, if such an intermediate place exists, why not purgatory? Sheol was the abode of the dead which was comprised of 2 distinct places, a lower one for the wicked and another for the resting place of the righteous, such as Abraham's bosom.

But again, for you, Age, and everyone else reading this thread, I have not the slightest inkling to debate this issue, not on this board at least. I wanted to present my side of the story the way I believe it to be true. Let the private interpretations fall where they may.

Dude, Jesus was in the tomb.

And Jesus was there to preach, not to get cleansed. More to the point though, if such an intermediate place exists, why not purgatory?

That's a whole other topic. And many would take excpetion to how you are interpreting that.

jlay wrote:Dude, Jesus was in the tomb.

Are you sure J? (1 Peter 3:18-20)

jlay wrote:

And Jesus was there to preach, not to get cleansed. More to the point though, if such an intermediate place exists, why not purgatory?

That's a whole other topic. And many would take excpetion to how you are interpreting that.

I'm sure they would. If only we had a supreme court of sorts to resolve the disagreement.

jlay wrote:I'd make sure you study the resources you quote.

The greek word Paradeisos is not from the greek Sheol.
Psalm 86:13: "Your love for me is great; you have rescued me from the depths of Sheol."

Sheol is not decribed as a place anyone would want to be. This position is reached through the book of Enoch, where Sheol is pictured as a place where one awaits judgment, bliss for the believer, locked up for Hell for the wicked. This would be ambiguous, and for all he knew Jesus was saying, I'll see you at judgement and then off to Hell. But the world Sheol, which is Hebrew, was not used. The timing has nothing to do with it. "Now I say, you will be with me in paradise." That is a very weak explanation if Jesus told the man,' you will be with ME there.' Does Jesus need some cleansing as well?

In this case Jesus is saying to the thief, today you will be with me awaiting judgment. This interpretation not only seeks to distort what was said, but to actually change the words of Jesus.

Actually, J, Byblos' sources are right on this one. Or, at least, they could be right. In the first century (and today, for that matter), there were various views on Paradise. One particularly common view was that it was equated with Hades (Sheol, in Hebrew). Specifically, Sheol/Hades was divided into two sections: paradise (Abraham's bosom) and what you and I might call "hell"--in short, one where the righteous went and one where the unrighteous went. These facts are well attested to in contemporary Jewish literature, as your reply above itself attests to.

Here is a brief excerpt from the TDNT (V:767-68) from the entry on paradise. You can look at it at your leisure.

Now, I'll leave it to Byblos to explain how a person's sins are "burned" away in paradise . . . but insofar as the argument about paradise=sheol goes, it is a perfectly valid and historically defensible position. I, for one, agree with that view of Sheol/Hades--I just don't take the purgatory view.

edit: Hence, you have the so called Apostles' Creed, which says, "He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again." It likely goes back to the fifth century and certainly reflects earlier Christian ideas. Outside of "soul sleep," then, Sheol/Hades must have some sort of positive connotation as well as the negative, which would align perfectly with the old arguments about paradise, as referenced in this thread.

Ok, that is all.

There is the contrast between “the lowest part” and “the highest part” of Sheol (Deut. 32:22). This figurative language implies that there are divisions or distinctions within Sheol. Perhaps the Old Testament's emphatic distinction between the righteous and the wicked in this life indicates that this distinction continues on in the afterlife. Thus the wicked are said to be in “the lowest part,” while the righteous are in “the higher part” of Sheol. While this is not clearly stated in the Old Testament, there seems to be some kind of distinction within Sheol. Later rabbinic writers clearly taught that Sheol had two sections. The righteous were in bliss in one section while the wicked were in torment in the other.

What we know for sure is that Jesus suffered and paid in full the consequences of our sins. All of them. Temporal and eternal. For the believer, there is nothing left to pay. Christ's death was both complete and sufficient for our sins and all their consequences. To say some suffering for sins remains for us is to insult His “once for all" finished work (Heb. 10:14-15). Because Jesus suffered [and paid] for our sins, there is "no condemnation" for those in Christ (Rom. 8:1).

The false doctrinee of purgatory denies the all-sufficieny of Christ's atoning death, at which he cried, "It is finished." Speaking of His salvific work, Jesus said to the Father, "I glorified you on earth by finishing the work that YOU gave me to do'' (17:4). Hebrews declares emphatically that salvation by Christ's suffering was a once-for-all accomplished fact: "By one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (10: 14).

Purgatory, the insistence that we must suffer for our own sins, is the ultimate insult to Christ's ultimate sacrifice. Purgatory is not after our death; it was in Christ's death, for "when he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (1:3 NRSV). Purification, or purging from our sins, was (past tense) accomplished through the Cross. Praise be to God that this is the only purgatory that ever needed to be suffered!

Of course, there is hell for those who reject this marvelous provision of divine grace and there are temporal cause-effect relations in this life regarding what we sow, and, consequently, reap (Gal. 6:8-9). Nevertheless, there is no evidence that in the next life we will pay for results of our sins, either eternally or temporally.

To argue that purgatory is part of our experiential sanctification is to overlook two very important points:

One, all experiatial sanctification is in this life, before death; the only sanctification after death is ontological (actual). The Bible calls this post death change glorification (Rom. 8:30; 1 John 3:2).

Two, sanctification is not a process of suffering for our sins; it is a process through which God, by His grace, delivers us from our sins; all of which Christ has suffered for, past, present, and future. To be sure, salvation is not fully obtained at the moment of initial justification. As the Bible repeatedly asserts, salvation comes in three stages: salvation from the past penalty of sin (positional justification), salvation from the present power of sin (practical sanctification), and salvation from the future presence of sin (ultimate glorification).

In none of these stages do we suffer for our sins as a condition for entering haven. Salvation is not something we do to obtain heaven; by Jesus' death, salvation is done!

Jesus paid it all. He washed it white as snow. (Isa. 1:18).

Purgatory does not diminish the finished work of Christ in any way whatsoever, no less than his Bema seat judgment would (I believe they are one and the same). That is a misconception perhaps rooted in the different views of salvation as imputed vs. infused. The fact remains though that many protestants believe in the Bema Seat Judgment of Christ. I don't know about you all but I am literally terrified at the prospect of standing face to face with Jesus and have to account for my deeds KNOWING FULL WELL HE ALREADY SAVED ME AND I AM HEAVEN-BOUND, it's still a very frightening albeit incredibly exciting thing to go through. That is how I've come to understand purgatory; I see no difference between it and the Bema seat judgment. We all MUST go through this intermediate step before getting to heaven, no one will escape it. The timing of which is also irrelevant (could be instantaneous and so can purgatory, nothing in the doctrine dictates length of time). Call it what you will but if you deny purgatory you must also deny the Bema Seat (particular) Judgment. To me it's all the same.

Byblos wrote:Purgatory does not diminish the finished work of Christ in any way whatsoever, no less than his Bema seat judgment would (I believe they are one and the same). That is a misconception perhaps rooted in the different views of salvation as imputed vs. infused. The fact remains though that many protestants believe in the Bema Seat Judgment of Christ. I don't know about you all but I am literally terrified at the prospect of standing face to face with Jesus and have to account for my deeds KNOWING FULL WELL HE ALREADY SAVED ME AND I AM HEAVEN-BOUND, it's still a very frightening albeit incredibly exciting thing to go through. That is how I've come to understand purgatory; I see no difference between it and the Bema seat judgment. We all MUST go through this intermediate step before getting to heaven, no one will escape it. The timing of which is also irrelevant (could be instantaneous and so can purgatory, nothing in the doctrine dictates length of time). Call it what you will but if you deny purgatory you must also deny the Bema Seat (particular) Judgment. To me it's all the same.

The false doctrine of purgatory certainly does attempt to diminish the finished work of Christ (but it cannot because it is a false doctrine and Christ's work was all sufficient). This was deliberate on the part of the Catholic church. We can go into that if you like. Merely saying that it doesn't, when it does, isn't good enough. You have to prove scripturally that first purgatory is real and secondly that it doesn't diminish the finished work of Christ (which it certainly attempts to undermine). You haven't done that. I will continue to prove my position scripturally; however. You merely come back repeating your opinion completely scripturally unsupported. Since it is only your opinion, and a heresy of the Catholic church, contradicting scripture: it needs to be rejected.

ageofknowledge wrote:

Byblos wrote:Purgatory does not diminish the finished work of Christ in any way whatsoever, no less than his Bema seat judgment would (I believe they are one and the same). That is a misconception perhaps rooted in the different views of salvation as imputed vs. infused. The fact remains though that many protestants believe in the Bema Seat Judgment of Christ. I don't know about you all but I am literally terrified at the prospect of standing face to face with Jesus and have to account for my deeds KNOWING FULL WELL HE ALREADY SAVED ME AND I AM HEAVEN-BOUND, it's still a very frightening albeit incredibly exciting thing to go through. That is how I've come to understand purgatory; I see no difference between it and the Bema seat judgment. We all MUST go through this intermediate step before getting to heaven, no one will escape it. The timing of which is also irrelevant (could be instantaneous and so can purgatory, nothing in the doctrine dictates length of time). Call it what you will but if you deny purgatory you must also deny the Bema Seat (particular) Judgment. To me it's all the same.

The false doctrine of purgatory certainly does attempt to diminish the finished work of Christ (but it cannot because it is a false doctrine and Christ's work was all sufficient). This was deliberate on the part of the Catholic church. We can go into that if you like. Merely saying that it doesn't, when it does, isn't good enough. You have to prove scripturally that first purgatory is real and secondly that it doesn't diminish the finished work of Christ (which it certainly attempts to undermine). You haven't done that. I will continue to prove my position scripturally; however. You merely come back repeating your opinion completely scripturally unsupported. Since it is only your opinion, and a heresy of the Catholic church, contradicting scripture: it needs to be rejected.

I already provided all the scripture there is to provide yet you chose to ignore it. Regardless, I will not debate this topic on this board. If you're interested in a debate go here, register and let me know when ready.

Byblos wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:

Byblos wrote:Purgatory does not diminish the finished work of Christ in any way whatsoever, no less than his Bema seat judgment would (I believe they are one and the same). That is a misconception perhaps rooted in the different views of salvation as imputed vs. infused. The fact remains though that many protestants believe in the Bema Seat Judgment of Christ. I don't know about you all but I am literally terrified at the prospect of standing face to face with Jesus and have to account for my deeds KNOWING FULL WELL HE ALREADY SAVED ME AND I AM HEAVEN-BOUND, it's still a very frightening albeit incredibly exciting thing to go through. That is how I've come to understand purgatory; I see no difference between it and the Bema seat judgment. We all MUST go through this intermediate step before getting to heaven, no one will escape it. The timing of which is also irrelevant (could be instantaneous and so can purgatory, nothing in the doctrine dictates length of time). Call it what you will but if you deny purgatory you must also deny the Bema Seat (particular) Judgment. To me it's all the same.

The false doctrine of purgatory certainly does attempt to diminish the finished work of Christ (but it cannot because it is a false doctrine and Christ's work was all sufficient). This was deliberate on the part of the Catholic church. We can go into that if you like. Merely saying that it doesn't, when it does, isn't good enough. You have to prove scripturally that first purgatory is real and secondly that it doesn't diminish the finished work of Christ (which it certainly attempts to undermine). You haven't done that. I will continue to prove my position scripturally; however. You merely come back repeating your opinion completely scripturally unsupported. Since it is only your opinion, and a heresy of the Catholic church, contradicting scripture: it needs to be rejected.

I already provided all the scripture there is to provide yet you chose to ignore it. Regardless, I will not debate this topic on this board. If you're interested in a debate go here, register and let me know when ready.

No. I rebutted the argument in the macro and selectively rebutted it in the micro. I have rebutted your entire position in the macro and addressed selected scriptures and theology in the micro including some of those you provided. If I spend a few days documenting scripture by scripture a refuttal of every single scripture you provided showing they do not provide proof for nor support the false doctrine of purgatory; you should be man enough to admit it. But you won't because letting go of closely held heresy is very difficult for Catholics. It's difficult for Muslims too.

In any event, it's really not necessary. I've already shown both in the macro and the micro, selectively, the doctrine of purgatory violates scripture and the scriptures used to support it are used inappropriately.

Suit yourself.

I'm not going to get into 20 conversations at the same time on a Catholic board with 20 different people going in 20 different directions whom all cosign each other's posts and talk over me to each other rather than to me and then declare a "victory" when there is none for them to have because their position is false. I've been there many times before and it's just chaos.

Much better is to have these one on one debates where the subject matter can be addressed in an orderly way. I see your "offer" as simply a diversion into chaos. That's all it represents in my experience. And there's no need. I've already shown the doctrine of purgatory to be false and I can keep showing it to be false verse by verse, concept by concept, from here until I die, become incapacitated, or Jesus returns.

So yes, it suits me fine.

ageofknowledge wrote:I'm not going to get into 20 conversations at the same time on a Catholic board with 20 different people going in 20 different directions whom all cosign each other's posts and talk over me to each other rather than to me and then declare a "victory" when there is none for them to have because their position is false. I've been there many times before and it's just chaos.

Much better is to have these one on one debates where the subject matter can be addressed in an orderly way. I see your "offer" as simply a diversion into chaos. That's all it represents in my experience. And there's no need. I've already shown the doctrine of purgatory to be false and I can keep showing it to be false verse by verse, concept by concept, from here until I die, become incapacitated, or Jesus returns.

So yes, it suits me fine.

1. just because you rebuke it does not make it false, try to be more understanding
2. please stop looking at the little differances and look at the huge similarities, seriously we are all christians we all believe Jesus Christ is the Lord and what He did for us, why dont you consider lookin at the 2 commandments that Jesus added because thats what every type of chirstian is doing. (except JW and mormons and other cults that proclaim to be christian)

Matt 22:37-40. Jesus said to him," 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'.

So please i know you love God very much but love your neighbor too because we are all children of God . In the least we should not squabble in arguments as such because we all have faith in the Lord; but we should speak about the Lord to people who have strayed from the path of truth and as hard as it is, pray and give it your best because your faith will save you in the end. All God wants us to do is believe in Him, love one another and speak and act in truth it is as simple as that.
God bless all but especially those close to us who have strayed from the path to God, for those are the souls who are in need.

Wow, someone brought up a subject even I know about. What a way to begin 2012. Here's a link to a document that quotes some ancient evidence for what the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-roots-of-purgatory). This will show you that the Third Council of Carthage thought the Bible included the seven Old Testament books that you find in Catholic Bible, in Eastern Orthodox Bibles, and in an appendix in the 1611 edition of the King James version, the books many call "the apocrypha." The Second Book of Macchabees, one of the seven, is important because it teaches that it's good to pray for the dead. I'm posting this (http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html) version of that council's documents because it cites some sources by a Protestant historian last-named "Hefele," the same scholar who edited the 38-volume set of Patristic documents you'll find at Calvin College's (http://www.ccel.org).