|
Post by StAnne on Jul 18, 2013 11:14:53 GMT -5
Wisdom 3 The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,a and no torment shall touch them. 2 They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their passing away was thought an affliction 3 and their going forth from us, utter destruction. But they are in peace.b 4 For if to others, indeed, they seem punished, yet is their hope full of immortality; 5 Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself.c 6 As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings* he took them to himself.d 7 In the time of their judgment* they shall shine and dart about as sparks through stubble;e 8 They shall judge nations and rule over peoples, and the LORD shall be their King forever. usccb.org/bible/wisdom/3usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/#WisdomI posted this a few posts up ... perhaps you missed it ... an entire page of Scripture & ECFs on Purgatory - including the Wisdom passage. scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.htmlIndulgences - go to catholic.com and enter Indulgences in the search box. One to start ... www.catholic.com/tracts/myths-about-indulgencesStAnne ~ I had to be really tired to have missed those posts! Thanks for bringing them to my attention. I plan to review them more thoroughly as time permits, as I'm learning new things from this discussion and need time to process. However, you did a fine job of answering my questions earlier and I appreciate your efforts. Perhaps some of the removed books from the Bible will help explain some passages that have been confusing to me for some time? Yes - it's a lot to review - the Wisdom passage is beautiful, isn't it. Early on, I found the Jewish belief of prayer for the dead to be an interesting continuity. And you're welcome. This link will give you access to all of the books of the Bible ... and is the version used at Mass. usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/The Douay-Rheims ... more in the language style of KJV ... haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 18, 2013 13:00:31 GMT -5
StAnne ~ I saved those two links from your previous posts so as I can review some of the seven (7) books that were deleted from the original canon by Martin Luther. Perhaps it was such acts of editing in the past that causes some of us to wonder about the Bible's contents ~ additions, subtractions, and later additions by scribes? The question that now arises in my mind is as to why Martin Luther felt it was necessary to do this? Perhaps you can shed some light on this matter for me as I'm still trying to digest what I have discovered recently from your postings? I'm sorry if I came across as a little irritated due to what I did not know about a number of Catholic practices. However, I'm still curious where the idea that Mary was born without original sin, the virgin birth, and her elevated status in Heaven as equals with Jesus Christ. That's another subject I may need some clarification on to wrap my thoughts around? Perhaps you have a link that can make that clearer for me to understand, too? Also, as a result of the New Covenant under Christ, why the need for priests as intermediaries between us and God ~ isn't that contradictory of scriptures like the following? Ephesians 2:14-16 and Hebrews 9:11-28. Also, Jesus Christ took the place of the High Priest for us and became our direct link to the Father according to the last scripture reference concerning Jesus as our High Priest. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202%3A14-16&version=NIV;AMP;KJV www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:11-28&version=NIV;AMP;KJV www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-High-Priest.html
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 18, 2013 16:46:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 18, 2013 17:09:09 GMT -5
I'm not at home ... go to catholic.com and use the search box on your topics. PM me after you get the Catholic perspective and we'll discuss from there. k?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 18, 2013 17:34:38 GMT -5
I'm not at home ... go to catholic.com and use the search box on your topics. PM me after you get the Catholic perspective and we'll discuss from there. k? Perhaps that would be better than trying to discuss back and forth on line, as others may not share the same interest to become more informed? However, I have some research to do on Mary at the present. I have been checking out different verses and references relating to Purgatory and find it an interesting topic to explore. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, StAnne!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 18, 2013 17:38:53 GMT -5
StAnne ~ Thank you for providing that history lesson on the reformers. So, I take it that Martin Luther removed those 7 books that were originally part of the biblical canon? I was unaware of that fact myself until reading the contents of your references. However, what about Pergatory? Can you share with us the verses from Wisdom 3:1-7 which spells out this intermediary realm for the dead? Also, was this what they used to justify the selling of indulgences and prayers for the dead through the Church ~ or was that based on some other scripture in another one of these deleted books to the Bible, due to changes by the reformers?
Wisdom 3 The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,a and no torment shall touch them. 2 They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their passing away was thought an affliction 3 and their going forth from us, utter destruction. But they are in peace.b 4 For if to others, indeed, they seem punished, yet is their hope full of immortality; 5Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself.c 6 As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings* he took them to himself.d7In the time of their judgment* they shall shine and dart about as sparks through stubble;e 8They shall judge nations and rule over peoples, and the LORD shall be their King forever. usccb.org/bible/wisdom/3usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/#WisdomI posted this a few posts up ... perhaps you missed it ... an entire page of Scripture on Purgatory - including the Wisdom passage. scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
Why, then, -does the RCC have people pay for masses said for the dead? (and, of course, it is the to the "church" that the money goes.)
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 18, 2013 20:28:47 GMT -5
Why, then, -does the RCC have people pay for masses said for the dead? (and, of course, it is the to the "church" that the money goes.) It isn't obligatory. It is a small offering, a sacrificial gift, generally $5-$10 that goes to the support of the priest if the person is able to do so. A priest may not accept more than 1 (Mass stipend)per day, regardless of whether he celebrates Mass more than once in that day.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 18, 2013 21:00:43 GMT -5
StAnne ~ Some brief answers here while you're researching ... The question that now arises in my mind is as to why Martin Luther felt it was necessary to do this? Perhaps you can shed some light on this matter for me as I'm still trying to digest what I have discovered recently from your postings? Getting rid of the content that is too obviously Catholic? He also wanted rid of James and Revelation and at least one other book ... (off the top of my head and not looking it up). However, I'm still curious where the idea that Mary was born without original sin, the virgin birth, and her elevated status in Heaven as equals with Jesus Christ. Mary is definitely NOT equal status with Christ. The others - PM when you're ready. Also, as a result of the New Covenant under Christ, why the need for priests as intermediaries between us and God ~ Through Holy Orders a priest acts not in his own person but in the person of Christ in the sacraments instituted by Christ - as St Paul writes in 2 Cor 2:10. It is to Redemption through his sacrifice that Christ is our mediator, our only mediator.Haydock Ver. 14. Christ destroyed the enmity which, like a wall of separation, stood between Jew and Gentile, and united them into one people. He did this in his flesh, by his own blood, or the sacrifice he made of his flesh on the cross. (Calmet)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 19, 2013 0:03:58 GMT -5
Why, then, -does the RCC have people pay for masses said for the dead? (and, of course, it is the to the "church" that the money goes.) It isn't obligatory.It is a small offering, a sacrificial gift, generally $5-$10 that goes to the support of the priest if the person is able to do so. A priest may not accept more than 1 per day, regardless of whether he celebrates Mass more than once in that day. You mean to tell me that only one donation of all the donations can be accepted that day by the priest?
What happened to all the other donation money of the day ?
Where does that money go?
How does the priest even intercede for someone who is already dead?
If the dead are already considered to be "saved," what does the priest have to do for them?
Money or no money- what is the point of the whole thing?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 0:29:56 GMT -5
It isn't obligatory.It is a small offering, a sacrificial gift, generally $5-$10 that goes to the support of the priest if the person is able to do so. A priest may not accept more than 1 per day, regardless of whether he celebrates Mass more than once in that day. You mean to tell me that only one donation of all the donations can be accepted that day by the priest?
What happened to all the other donation money of the day ?
Where does that money go?
How does the priest even intercede for someone who is already dead?
If the dead are already considered to be "saved," what does the priest have to do for them?
Money or no money- what is the point of the whole thing?
Edit of my earlier statement - a priest may not accept more than 1 Mass stipend per day. When a person requests Mass to be said for an intention, the church office gives you a card for or mails a card to the family (or living person) for whom the Mass is to be offered. A stipend for a Mass intention is separate from and has nothing to do with a priest's other compensation. If you request Mass for someone (deceased or living)- you put the small stipend in the offering basket, send it electronically, mail it, take it to the church office ... whatever - marked for the Mass intention. To your other questions - if you want to know what Catholics believe about it do an internet search - catholic apologetics prayers for the dead
This link to Purgatory at catholic.com covers some of your questions including the Mass stipend. www.catholic.com/tracts/purgatory
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 19, 2013 0:48:14 GMT -5
How about this:Catholic Church and Pogroms"The Roman Catholic Church did not, for the most part, condone violence against Jews. The fathers of the Church developed, and the later popes beginning with Gregory I elaborated, a doctrine wherein the Jews were to be preserved, so that their suffering would be t estimony as to the correctness of Christian doctrine, until their final conversion at the end of days. However, the church preached a theology and devised a legal code that made it clear to all that Jews were inferior and accursed. Worshippers were regularly reminded that the Jews murdered God, in Masses and later in passion plays and church art such as the Judensau. Even those Papal Bulls that granted the Jews protection generally reminded the recipients that the Jews were an accursed race. It could scarcely have been surprising then, that the mobs, and often secular armies, plundered and murdered Jews at almost every opportunity." How about this you say ... Just be sure you'll be as proud of your quoted words when you stand before the Lord as you are here in this forum ... If your god was murdered by the Jews, why should he be feared?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 9:27:31 GMT -5
StAnne ~ Some brief answers here while you're researching ... The question that now arises in my mind is as to why Martin Luther felt it was necessary to do this? Perhaps you can shed some light on this matter for me as I'm still trying to digest what I have discovered recently from your postings? Getting rid of the content that is too obviously Catholic? He also wanted rid of James and Revelation and at least one other book ... (off the top of my head and not looking it up). However, I'm still curious where the idea that Mary was born without original sin, the virgin birth, and her elevated status in Heaven as equals with Jesus Christ. Mary is definitely NOT equal status with Christ. The others - PM when you're ready.
Also, as a result of the New Covenant under Christ, why the need for priests as intermediaries between us and God ~ Through Holy Orders a priest acts not in his own person but in the person of Christ in the sacraments instituted by Christ - as St Paul writes in 2 Cor 2:10. It is to Redemption through his sacrifice that Christ is our mediator, our only mediator.Haydock Ver. 14. Christ destroyed the enmity which, like a wall of separation, stood between Jew and Gentile, and united them into one people. He did this in his flesh, by his own blood, or the sacrifice he made of his flesh on the cross. (Calmet) StAnne ~If Mary is not rated right up there in exalted status with Jesus, than why did the Popes call her a "co-redeemtrix" in their praise, as found in the article I cited earlier? Also, why do people pray through Mary instead of directly to Jesus, if there is no more need for a priestly representative to make supplications on our behalf? More Misconceptions About Mary Catholic Popes have referred to Mary as "co-redemptrix," "the gate of heaven," "Advocate," and "Mediatrix," ascribing to her a cooperative role in the work of salvation. It should be noted that the official Catholic stance is that Mary's elevated status "neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator." christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/qt/marymisconcepts.htm (Misconceptions About Mary ~ Doctrines of Mary the Mother of Jesus)By the way, here are a few Catholic answers I found on Ask Yahoo.com, but I'm still not clear on this one? Also, if Mary is not elevated right up there with Jesus, why is she called a "co-redeemer" along with Jesus? That part is definitely confusing to me? Also, if Mary was born without "original sin," wouldn't her own mother have to be born the same to convey such a status upon her? Isn't this just another example of Catholic dogma instituted by the Popes relating to Mary's exalted status in heaven as a queen-mother? I also realize that Catholics believe in praying through the dead saints in heaven, including Mary, the mother of Jesus. What I don't understand is where this tradition orginated in the Bible of praying to the saints to intercede on our behalf? Perhaps you can enlighten us on that one, too? answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120802201620AAJDh6v
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 10:13:54 GMT -5
Perhaps this article pertain to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, would be in order to understand the Catholic perspective?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)
I noticed also within this article it addresses the reason why the Reformers revised the original canon of sacred scripture, which was another question I was puzzled over in this discussion. (There is a cross-reference within the above article to the Apocryphal as shown below.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocryphal
Here are the books found in the Catholic Bible, thanks to StAnne, so as we can see the difference and placement of these books referred to above as the Apocrypha. Although they were not included in further Bible translations after the original KJV of 1611, it's a pity they were not added as an Appendix to the Bible, as they are interesting to read and perhaps could fill in some of the gaps in understanding certain scriptures, IMHO? This is a good site to save to your computer so as you can read these other books of the Apocrypha for their content.
usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 12:51:12 GMT -5
StAnne ~If Mary is not rated right up there in exalted status with Jesus, than why did the Popes call her a "co-redeemtrix" in their praise, as found in the article I cited earlier? Also, why do people pray through Mary instead of directly to Jesus, if there is no more need for a priestly representative to make supplications on our behalf? I will not be drawn into 'discussion' on numerous statements/questions from non-Catholic sources. I will, however, be happy to discuss one to one, and one at a time, from the Catholic perspective. Not in an attempt to convince necessarily, but to inform what the Catholic perspective really is. Much of what it isn't is presented in your post.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 12:56:47 GMT -5
Apocrypha is the Protestant term. Deutrocanonical is the Catholic term - just for starters. Okay. So by whose authority are the books labeled of 'dubious authenticity'? If that were true, then none of the books of the Bible should be accepted by non-Catholics since the entire Bible was preserved, protected and canonized by the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 12:57:43 GMT -5
Here are the books that Luther didn't want added to the final canon of scripture, which can be found within this Wiki article along with the reasons for his actions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 13:09:15 GMT -5
Apocrypha is the Protestant term. Deutrocanonical is the Catholic term - just for starters. Okay. So by whose authority are the books labeled of 'dubious authenticity'? If that were true, then none of the books of the Bible should be accepted by non-Catholics since the entire Bible was preserved, protected and canonized by the Catholic Church. StAnne ~ The answer to your question can be found in the same article I quoted as a reference article from Wiki on the Apocrypha. Here's that paragraph that deals with this subject matter. However, I'm sorry this is not a Catholic site, as you requested. Personally, without being open to reviewing outside sources to check the accuracy of your own Catholic sources, how can you determine if something is bias or not?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 13:24:41 GMT -5
Here are the books that Luther didn't want added to the final canon of scripture, which can found within this Wiki article along with the reasons for his actions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon Here are the books that Luther didn't want added to the final canon of scriptureUmmm - no - it isn't that Luther didn't want the books 'added' to the final canon. They were already in the canon from approx late 300s-400. Council of Trent made them binding. Luther wasn't successful in actually removing any books. The 7 Deuterocanonicals were placed separately in the Bible. They were removed from the KJV after the 1611 edition.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 13:35:51 GMT -5
StAnne ~ The answer to your question can be found in the same article I quoted as a reference article from Wiki on the Apocrypha. Here's that paragraph that deals with this subject matter. However, I'm sorry this is not a Catholic site, as you requested. Personally, without being open to reviewing outside sources to check the accuracy of your own Catholic sources, how can you determine if something is bias or not? The Catholic sources generally openly discuss the opposing views in order to clarify the Catholic position - so I am quite aware of most of what you post. In the early going I also consulted opposing views - until I was more than satisfied that I didn't need to in order to know what they were. A good example from your quote ... about the Septuagint ... However, the Jewish canon was not finalized until at least 100–200 years into the Christian era, at which time considerations of Greek language and beginnings of Christian acceptance of the Septuagint weighed against some of the texts. Some were not accepted by the Jews as part of the Hebrew Bible canon.The Septuagint was the chosen version because the NT writers frequently quoted from it. And while the roots of Christianity are indeed Jewish, there was no reason to choose the Jewish canon over what the NT writers used. These are just the Matthew ones - the long list goes on - at the link References in New Testament Order Matthew Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26 Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15 Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1 Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8 Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12 Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24 Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14 Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4 Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60 Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2 Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1 Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10 Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11 Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15 Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15 Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6 Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37 Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3 Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19 Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17 Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17 Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10 Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17 Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17 Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1 Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19 Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23 Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3 Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15 Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13 Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21 Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22 Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10 Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15 Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15 Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2 Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4 Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54 Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17 Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28 Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17 Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35 Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2 Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46 Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13 Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20 Top www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 13:44:34 GMT -5
StAnne Personally, without being open to reviewing outside sources to check the accuracy of your own Catholic sources, how can you determine if something is bias or not? While I responded to this specifically to the Canon - I also want to respond to it generally. Why do you think it's of merit to post things from non-Catholic sources that say Catholics teach things they don't really teach; or that present a teaching so out of context that it isn't applicable. ??
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 13:52:46 GMT -5
Here are the books that Luther didn't want added to the final canon of scripture, which can found within this Wiki article along with the reasons for his actions: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon Here are the books that Luther didn't want added to the final canon of scriptureUmmm - no - it isn't that Luther didn't want the books 'added' to the final canon. They were already in the canon from approx late 300s-400. Council of Trent made them binding. Luther wasn't successful in actually removing any books. The 7 Deuterocanonicals were placed separately in the Bible. They were removed from the KJV after the 1611 edition. StAnne ~ Perhaps I should have worded the above statement in highlights this way, since it does sound confusing? Here are the books that Luther disputed as to being contained within the final canon of scripture. However, my reference site does clarify what I was trying to convey more accurately. Also, Luther wasn't successful in actually removing any books; however, they were removed from the original KJV after the 1611 edition. Personally, I don't see the harm in retaining these books and feel it was an error to make such an issue out of it. Perhaps if they had been retained in later Bible editions, as originally decided by the Council of Trent, the confusion over certain scriptures would be reduced? Like you pointed out about Pergatory from the Book of Wisdom, which is a major part of Catholic teaching. It definitely leaves one confused and bewildered as to where it came from in the first place ~ myself included. That's why I asked you these questions in the first place, as I couldn't find any reference in my KJV. However, as I pointed out, I feel what Catholics call Pergatory is what Protestants refer to as the Bema Judgment Seat for the believers when they die. After the purification process, these same believers will return with Jesus when he comes back the Second Time to reign for 1,000 years after the Great Tribulation and then, the Final White Throne Judgment (Revelations 20). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 14:03:52 GMT -5
Here are the books that Luther didn't want added to the final canon of scriptureUmmm - no - it isn't that Luther didn't want the books 'added' to the final canon. They were already in the canon from approx late 300s-400. Council of Trent made them binding. Luther wasn't successful in actually removing any books. The 7 Deuterocanonicals were placed separately in the Bible. They were removed from the KJV after the 1611 edition. StAnne ~ Perhaps I should have worded the above statement in highlights this way, since it does sound confusing? Here are the books that Luther disputed as to being contained within the final canon of scripture. However, my reference site does clarify what I was trying to convey more accurately. Also, Luther wasn't successful in actually removing any books; however, they were removed from the original KJV after the 1611 edition. Personally, I don't see the harm in retaining these books and feel it was an error to make such an issue out of it. Perhaps if they had been retained in later Bible editions, as originally decided by the Council of Trent, the confusion over certain scriptures would be reduced? Like you pointed out about Pergatory from the Book of Wisdom, which is a major part of Catholic teaching. It definitely leaves one confused and bewildered as to where it came from in the first place ~ myself included. That's why I asked you these questions in the first place, as I couldn't find any reference in my KJV. However, as I pointed out, I feel what Catholics call Pergatory is what Protestants refer to as the Bema Judgment Seat for the believers when they die. After the purification process, these same believers will return with Jesus when he comes back the Second Time to reign for 1,000 years after the Great Tribulation and then, the Final White Throne Judgment (Revelations 20). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon From the purification of purgatory one goes to heaven. Bema is a Greek word that means judgment seat. For Catholics, the bema or judgment seat of God (Romans 14:10) or of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10) refer to our particular judgment at death and/or the General or Last Judgment at the end of the world. forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=559692
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 14:13:12 GMT -5
StAnne Personally, without being open to reviewing outside sources to check the accuracy of your own Catholic sources, how can you determine if something is bias or not? While I responded to this specifically to the Canon - I also want to respond to it generally. Why do you think it's of merit to post things from non-Catholic sources that say Catholics teach things they don't really teach; or that present a teaching so out of context that it isn't applicable. ?? StAnne ~ Would you mind providing examples of the above, so as I can defend myself? Some of the topics I brought up for discussion were taken from Catholic sources and others were from Wiki. The ones from Wiki has a number of references added at the end to check out the sources. However, if you refuse to check outside sources and view their opposing views and the reasons behind them as immaterial, how can you properly discuss some of these subjects with peope like me from the Protestant persuasion? Most of the sources I presented are from general information gleaned. Also, I provided the answers of some Catholics from Ask Yahoo.com to add to the discussion and provide some other Catholic viewpoints. Also, earlier articles regarding Origen and rumors that he may have endorsed reincarnation, according to New Agers, was something I just learned about and wanted some answers. Personally, after reviewing some of his writings, I don't hold to that opinion myself. However, he definitely believed in "pre-determination of souls" from scriptures he cited in his writings. Undoubtedly, those examples were construed as arguments for reincarnation by some New Age followers today? As far as other topics under discussion, like the priesthood, Mary, and Martin Luther's attempt to change the order of the canons, I feel that has been thoroughly addressed from my own perspective. However, I'm more than open to comments or additional evidence from you or anyone else on these subjects, as they relate to the Sacred Texts under discussion. My threads are designed to create learning and awareness on different topics and not to criticize one's beliefs, just for the record.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 14:28:01 GMT -5
StAnne ~ Perhaps I should have worded the above statement in highlights this way, since it does sound confusing? Here are the books that Luther disputed as to being contained within the final canon of scripture. However, my reference site does clarify what I was trying to convey more accurately. Also, Luther wasn't successful in actually removing any books; however, they were removed from the original KJV after the 1611 edition. Personally, I don't see the harm in retaining these books and feel it was an error to make such an issue out of it. Perhaps if they had been retained in later Bible editions, as originally decided by the Council of Trent, the confusion over certain scriptures would be reduced? Like you pointed out about Pergatory from the Book of Wisdom, which is a major part of Catholic teaching. It definitely leaves one confused and bewildered as to where it came from in the first place ~ myself included. That's why I asked you these questions in the first place, as I couldn't find any reference in my KJV. However, as I pointed out, I feel what Catholics call Pergatory is what Protestants refer to as the Bema Judgment Seat for the believers when they die. After the purification process, these same believers will return with Jesus when he comes back the Second Time to reign for 1,000 years after the Great Tribulation and at the end, the Final White Throne Judgment (Revelations 20). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther's_canon From the purification of purgatory one goes to heaven. Bema is a Greek word that means judgment seat. For Catholics, the bema or judgment seat of God (Romans 14:10) or of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10) refer to our particular judgment at death and/or the General or Last Judgment at the end of the world. forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=559692 StAnne ~ I agree with your definition of Bema seat of judgment; however, the Protestant view on this and the Catholic one may different according to your belief in the rapture or not? I would like to point this out by an opinion poll on Ask Yahoo.com with their responses. However, I guess this also relates to the many different views relating to the "rapture" before Christ's coming and whether you believe in such a future rapture or not? Since Matthew 25 does give the impression of a selection being made at the Final Judgment between the sheep and goats, I can see your point here. However, earlier I presented an article that would support the rapture, if you check back on my posts? It dealt with this Bema Judgment of believers and the purification process after death for believers, which Catholics call Pergatory. I believe many Protestants believe this Bema Seat of Judgment occurs after death ~ but some also believe it occurs just before the Millenial rule of Christ for 1,000 years on earth, from articles I have read, whereas others believe in just one Judgment where everything transpires. However, who knows for sure, except that the Bible speaks of these different types of judgments as indicated below? bible-truth.org/FAQ-Death.html#002 However, this article seems to cover all bases on the judgment, which you might find interesting to read? www.gotquestions.org/great-white-throne-judgment.html (Discussion of different Judgments) answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080504161812AA7lCm8 (Ask Yahoo.com responses on the different Judgments)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 15:06:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jul 19, 2013 15:07:35 GMT -5
... However, I guess this also relates to the many different views relating to the "rapture" before Christ's coming and whether you believe in such a future rapture or not? What exactly is Catholic teaching on this topic? We will all, ' the living and the dead' be raptured, ' taken up with Christ' at His Second Coming. But in the 1800s, some began to claim that the rapture would occur before the period of persecution. This position, now known as the "pre-tribulational" view, also was embraced by John Nelson Darby, an early leader of a Fundamentalist movement that became known as Dispensationalism. Darby’s pre-tribulational view of the rapture was then picked up by a man named C.I. Scofield, who taught the view in the footnotes of his Scofield Reference Bible, which was widely distributed in England and America. Many Protestants who read the Scofield Reference Bibleuncritically accepted what its footnotes said and adopted the pre-tribulational view, even though no Christian had heard of it in the previous 1800 years of Church history. www.catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 15:20:12 GMT -5
StAnne shared this site earlier, which I find quite amazing: www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htmAfter reviewing the many cross-references relating to original books removed from the canon, I feel it's a shame they were not retained, as they would probably help illuminate a number of scriptures that leave us in the dark? However, you can save this list for future reference on your computer along with the original list of books of the Bible that she provided earlier. I personally plan to check some of these passages out now that I have a means of doing so.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 19, 2013 15:29:12 GMT -5
... However, I guess this also relates to the many different views relating to the "rapture" before Christ's coming and whether you believe in such a future rapture or not? What exactly is Catholic teaching on this topic? We will all, ' the living and the dead' be raptured, ' taken up with Christ' at His Second Coming. But in the 1800s, some began to claim that the rapture would occur before the period of persecution. This position, now known as the "pre-tribulational" view, also was embraced by John Nelson Darby, an early leader of a Fundamentalist movement that became known as Dispensationalism. Darby’s pre-tribulational view of the rapture was then picked up by a man named C.I. Scofield, who taught the view in the footnotes of his Scofield Reference Bible, which was widely distributed in England and America. Many Protestants who read the Scofield Reference Bibleuncritically accepted what its footnotes said and adopted the pre-tribulational view, even though no Christian had heard of it in the previous 1800 years of Church history. www.catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture
StAnne ~ Thanks for your answer pertain to Catholic belief on when the rapture occurs. There are so many theories out there regarding this subject, that sometimes I'm hesitant to bring it up in discussion. However, your reference provides some general information on how the other views on the rapture came about in time. So, I guess we have John Nelson Darby to thank for our "pre-tribulational" views on the rapture, going back to the 1800's. Also, durng this time, I feel we had a number of religious sects springing up that supported "soul sleep" or "conditional immortality and annihilationism" from studying that subject in the past. christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/f/whatissoulsleep.htmcarm.org/soul-sleep
|
|