[De Maria]

DEATH IF they were not covered under Jesus' blood.

Ok. I get the reference. So works of iniquity are sin.

Now, are these works tested? If so, where?

I don't see Tom believing that.
Where does he say that?

I didn't say that Tom believed that. He might or might not.

The fact is that the Catholic Church has one set of beliefs, one doctrine.

But Bible Christians have many. In fact, there are probably as many sets of beliefs as there are Bible Christians because you have no authority to standardize your beliefs. That includes you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

You never did answer my question is purgatory before or after the judgment?

I believe it is the Judgement.

and is the duration different lengths according to your sins?

Since this occurs outside of time, I don't believe that there is any duration to it.

[N0help4u]

Ok. I get the reference. So works of iniquity are sin.

Now, are these works tested? If so, where?

In the Judgment of the unbelievers. The great white throne judgment.
Unsaved sinners will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.

From what I looked up on the Catholic sites it says 12 months.
But the Bible says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord

[De Maria]

In the Judgment of the unbelievers. The great white throne judgment.
Unsaved sinners will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.

Great! And when will this take place which is described in 1 Cor 3:15?

[De Maria]

Just shows you do not get it!

If I say the sole standard for making a cake is to read recipes
That means I do not look up a cake recipe in the mechanics repair book
that does not mean that the cake IS made precisely according to the recipe I found in the recipe book.
But that I used the formula to make the cake. If motor oil is not in the recipe book I do not use motor oil.
Catholic Church uses motor oil in their recipe and then try to find a way to justify it even though it is not in
the recipe book.

No, Nohelp4u, that is wrong.

You and Tom and I use the same recipe book.

The recipe book states that traditions are part of the recipe (2 Thess 2:14).

You and Tom have taken the recipe book and changed it to remove traditions.

Also the recipe book which we, you, Tom and I, use says that the Church is the cook whom we must hear to determine how to cook and whether our cooking is done correctly.

You and Tom have disregarded those instructions.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

But Bible Christians have many. In fact, there are probably as many sets of beliefs as there are Bible Christians because you have no authority to standardize your beliefs. That includes you.

Maybe you'd be best to speak for your denomination rather than for Bible believing Christians. ;)

Those who believe in the Bible do have one set of doctrines. The problem with many churches - and this is true of Catholic as well as Protestant denominations - is that many choose to allow their doctrines to be established by interpretations of men rather than allowing scripture to interpret itself.

[N0help4u]

It does not say the Catholic Church is the cook that can cook up concoctions contrary to the word. Also you keep insisting that tradition is important when the Bible says about tradition

"Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites." Matthew 15:3, 6, 7

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked [Jesus], why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is WRITTEN [Jesus is quoting the Bible], This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...
And he said unto them, Full well YE REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD, THAT YE MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION.
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Mark 7:5-9, 13

[Tj3]

No, Nohelp4u, that is wrong.

You and Tom and I use the same recipe book.

Not true. Your denomination has added to the recipe book, and then modified the recipe book by interpreting the recipes in the manner which your leaders wanted, contrary to scripture:

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

The recipe book states that traditions are part of the recipe (2 Thess 2:14).

Maybe you mean a different 2 Thess 2:14? :D

2 Thess 2:14
14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV

[De Maria]

Good. Then you know that I have presented some of the scriptural basis for sola scriptura.

I've read your posts, but I've seen nothing which provides a basis for Sola Scriptura within your messages.

I am still waiting for you to validate your belief in tradition.

Certainly:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Does that suffice?

Keep in mind that the onus is on you

On me?

I don't mind. I've provided and will continue to provide the evidence for my position.

However, remember the OP. The question is to you:

Yet some people say we should neglect the Church and listen to Scripture alone?

Why, if doing so is to disobey Scripture?

So, actually, the onus is on you to prove why we must disobey the Church.

as I stated once before, and here is why:

- We all agree that the 66 books accepted and identified by the early church are canonical.

The early Church accepted and identified 73 books. Note that the first to remove the 7 books of the Old Testament were the Jews in the council of Jamnia:
About 90-95 A.D., or several decades after the beginning of Christianity, the Jews called a council to deal with the matter. In this council, called the "Council of Jamnia*", Jewish Pharisees, who survived the devastating destruction of Jerusalem and of their temple in 70 A.D., decided to remove books that were helpful to Christians. They removed the seven books, using various reasons as their "authorization" to do so. Keep in mind, that the Greek speaking Jews had been using the Septuagint for well over two centuries by this time. It was the Bible of the Greek speaking "Bereans" of Acts 17:10-15 for which Protestants like to quote to try to "prove" their false man-made doctrine of "Sola Scriptura".

Some non-Catholics charge that the seven books were not added to the Septuagint until the fourth century. If that were true, how could the Council of Jamnia have removed them in the first century if they were not there?
Canon of Scripture

But those were the Jews, the Christians continued to hold the 7 deuterocanonical books, what you call the apocrypha until the time of Luther. Luther then sided with the Jews who hated Jesus and took out the 7 books:

[I]By the actions of Protestant reformers in acceptance of the 39 book Old Testament, which was declared the whole of Scripture by the Jewish Pharisees at Jamnia, the Protestants have made it tantamount to approval of the Pharisaic Jews who rejected Jesus and persecuted the Church. [/I

]

- Your denomination and you accept additional books and tradition as canonical.

The canonical Scriptures tell us to accept tradition (2 Thess 2:14).

- Scripture says:

Prov 30:5-6
5 Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6 Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
NKJV

And Sola Scriptura is an addition to Scripture. So is Sola Fide and every man made tradition which contradicts Catholic doctrine.

The onus is therefore is on those who wish to add to the books accepted by all Christians as canonical to validate that the additional source(s) are the word of God.

It is actually on those who wish to remove authentic Scripture simply because they teach things which are not agreeable with their man-made traditions.

I note that you did not respond to my question. My questions was with respect to what Jesus used to validate sound doctrine.

I sure did.

Now, as to the source of the parables, if you are saying that Jesus relied on Rabbinic tradition, then you would be denying His divinity. The reason is that Rabbinic tradition is documented in the Talmud, and came from the Rabbis themselves, who often added to the law given in scripture, which is what Jesus referred to when He said:

Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

Often but not always. Jesus did not condemn all Rabbinic tradition. Only those which contradict the Word of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[N0help4u]

Often but not always. Jesus did not condemn all Rabbinic tradition. Only those which contradict the Word of God

EXACTLY the point we are trying to get across about the Catholic Church tradition contradicting the word of God.

[Tj3]

Certainly:

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Does that suffice?

Interesting - your Bible's verse numbering appears to be off. But no, that won't work because it speaks of what the Apostles taught in writing and verbally (note - no difference between the two), and they are dead therefore no longer on earth teaching in verbally - that leaves us with what they wrote, and scripture says not to go beyond what is written.

However, remember the OP. The question is to you:

So, actually, the onus is on you to prove why we must disobey the Church.

Actually, I would never suggest that we disobey the true church, but the true church is not a denomination. We have been through this over and over. What you want is not for us to obey the true church, but to submit to your denomination. That I will not do, because the doctrines of your denomination are contrary to God's word.

[I]The early Church accepted and identified 73 books.

The additional books were added by the Roman church at the council of Trent. I have the complete proceedings of the council in front of me.

[De Maria]

Not true. Your denomination has added to the recipe book, and then modified the recipe book by interpreting the recipes in the manner which your leaders wanted, contrary to scripture:

Lets see:
In the first century, the Jews in the council of Jamnia REMOVED 7 books from the Old Testament. They couldn't have removed them if they weren't there, could they?
deuter.htm

But Christians continued to use the 46 books of the Old Testament:
Septuagint

And the 73 books of the entire Bible were listed by Pope Damasus who served between 366 and 384:
As early as Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.393 in the Council of Hippo and several times thereafter:
The Canon of the Bible

That list was confirmed several times and finally, in response to Luther's attacks, in the council of Trent in 1556.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
NKJV

I'm glad you brought this up. Did you notice that it was Holy Men who were inspired to speak?

Maybe you mean a different 2 Thess 2:14? :D

2 Thess 2:14
14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV

Yes, I do. I mean the one in the 73 book Bible which uses the 46 books of the Old Testament which Jesus used.

2 Thessalonians 2 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

;)

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Lets see:
In the first century, the Jews in the council of Jamnia REMOVED 7 books from the Old Testament. They couldn't have removed them if they weren't there, could they?
deuter.htm

First, you mis-understand Jewish history - they removed nothing. They were defining Jewish canon. The fact that when Jewish canon was first defined, the apochryphal books were not there is yet another indication of their lack of canonical status.

The apochryphal books were not accepted by any denomination until the Council of Trent when the Roman Church chose to add them.

You need to get a new Bible with the right verse numbering!

[De Maria]

Interesting - your Bible's verse numbering appears to be off.

Since our Bible precedes yours, I would say that your bible's numbering is off.

But no, that won't work because it speaks of what the Apostles taught in writing and verbally (note - no difference between the two), and they are dead therefore no longer on earth teaching in verbally - that leaves us with what they wrote, and scripture says not to go beyond what is written.

We don't.

But let me ask you. Why did St. Paul instruct Timothy to select men who would teach?

2 Timothy 2 2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

Actually, I would never suggest that we disobey the true church,

Then which Church do you obey?

but the true church is not a denomination. We have been through this over and over. What you want is not for us to obey the true church, but to submit to your denomination.

Not at all. I am not the one telling you to disobey your Church. You are the one telling me to disobey mine.

I'm simply asking you on what Scriptural basis you tell me to disobey the Church?

That I will not do, because the doctrines of your denomination are contrary to God's word.

I've shown that they are not. I've also shown that yours are.

However, this begs another question, who are you to tell me what the Bible says?

Do you have a higher authority than the Church? Do I find your name in Scripture saying that you are the Pillar of Truth?

The additional books were added by the Roman church at the council of Trent. I have the complete proceedings of the council in front of me.

Good. Let me ask you, if the Catholic Church added the books in the Council of Trent, how is it that Luther removed them before the Council of Trent? He couldn't have removed what wasn't there in the first place, could he?

And how is it that these books are listed included in every Christian Bible before Luther came along?

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

First, you mis-understand Jewish history - they removed nothing. They were defining Jewish canon. the fact that when Jewish canon was first defined, the apochryphal books were not there is yet another indication of their lack of canonical status.

The apochryphal books were not accepted by any denomination until the Council of Trent when the Roman Church chose to add them.

You need to get a new Bible with the right verse numbering!

No, I'm certain, they were there. It is called the Septuagint. This included the 46 books of the Old Testament.

The Jews removed it in response to the fact that the followers of Christ were using it.

Besides, Christians were using the 46 books of the Old Testament before and after the council of Jamnia.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[Tj3]

Since our Bible precedes yours, I would say that your bible's numbering is off.

Heh heh heh - nice try, but no cigar. Odd, but you did you the correct numbering here:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1175162

But let me ask you. Why did St. Paul instruct Timothy to select men who would teach?

What is important is that they be faithful, Paul said, which means that they would teach Biblical doctrine, not traditions of men.

Then which Church do you obey?

The body of Christ of which Jesus alone is the head. I do not place any denomination above Jesus.

Not at all. I am not the one telling you to disobey your Church. You are the one telling me to disobey mine.

When your tells you to believe a doctrine which is not scriptural, I would indeed think that it is best to disobey your church. Scripture tells you this also.

However, this begs another question, who are you to tell me what the Bible says?

A person who can read.

Do you have a higher authority than the Church?

I do have a higher authority than yopur denomination. I follow Jesus and His word. That is a much higher authority than your denomination.

[N0help4u]

You say that you have shown that your churches doctrines are not contrary to the word of God but we are the ones that showed you that purgatory is contradicting the word of God AND Jesus' sacrifice.

[Tj3]

No, I'm certain, they were there. It is called the Septuagint. This included the 46 books of the Old Testament.

The Jews removed it in response to the fact that the followers of Christ were using it.

Besides, Christians were using the 46 books of the Old Testament before and after the council of Jamnia.

You need to study more about the history of scripture. You are mixing up so many things. You appear to think that because something is bound with scripture, it is part of the canon. Does that make study notes in the Thompson study Bible part of canon? No, of course not, and just because some additional books were added for reference purposes does not make them canonical.

A discussion such as this does not allow adequate time to deal with the mis-understandings that have been posted regarding how the canon was established.

[De Maria]

heh heh heh - nice try, but no cigar. Odd, but you did you the correct numbering here:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post1175162

True. I did the correct numbering.

What is important is that they be faithful, Paul said, which means that they would teach Biblical doctrine, not traditions of men.

Odd, I don't see the word "biblical" doctrine in there. I see where he said, "2 Timothy 2
2 And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.

Heard of me. Not what you have "read in Scripture".

The body of Christ of which Jesus alone is the head. I do not place any denomination above Jesus.

Nor do I. But, since Jesus created the Church, I accept her authority:

Matthew 16 18 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.

When your tells you to believe a doctrine which is not scriptural, I would indeed think that it is best to disobey your church. Scripture tells you this also.

Scripture tells me that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. Therefore Scripture tells me that Church doctrine is always consistent with Scripture. Otherwise, it wouldn't support the truth, would it? And that is what pillars do, support things. The Pillar of Truth, supports the truth.

So, try again.

A person who can read.

So, any person who can read is a higher authority than God's Church?

I'm glad you said that because it gives me the opportunity to highlight it and contrast it to the wisdom of the Church.

Example: Does the United States entrust the interpretation of the Constitution to anyone who can read? Of course not. That would be foolish and a recipe for anarchy.

God is not less wise than the US Government. God also does not entrust His Sciriptures to be interpreted correctly by anyone who can read. He entrusts that job to the one Institution which He calls the Pillar of Truth.

I do have a higher authority than yopur denomination. I follow Jesus and His word. That is a much higher authority than your denomination.

My denomination is the Church which Jesus built. And the Church which Jesus built is called the Pillar of Truth in the Bible. If you had a higher authority than that Church, you would be mentioned in said Bible, but you aren't.

So, try again. Just saying you have higher authority than the Church doesn't make it so.

I follow Jesus and His word.

Not true. You follow YOUR interpretation of Jesus word. That is not the same thing since your interpretation is erroneous.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[De Maria]

You say that you have shown that your churches doctrines are not contrary to the word of God but we are the ones that showed you that purgatory is contradicting the word of God AND Jesus' sacrifice.

You've done no such thing.

I've shown you that Sola Scriptura contradicts the Bible and you agreed.

And I've shown you that Purgatory is very much in Scripture. And you agreed that indeed at the Judgement seat, works of iniquity will be burned. That is precisely Purgatory.

Sincerely,

De Maria