[Tj3]

You can search whatever you'd like, but if you are really trying to understand the Catholic teaching on purgatory you should know that it is NOT HELL.

Heaven - Purgatory - Hell ------> NO ONE in Purgatory goes to hell.

We agree. That is because there is no purgatory.

[Tj3]

In purgatory, Christ "removes ... the remnants of imperfection".

So your assertion that we need something other than Christ is false.... and it seems all you really object to is the "timing" of Christ's work.

Wrong.

Heb 10:14-15
14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
NKJV

[Tj3]

Wow.:eek:

You stated: So if "Jesus is all we need," why would purgatory be necessary?

Which makes no sense... since purgatory IS through Christ.

It's like asking: "if "Jesus is all we need." why would Jesus be necessary?"

Any clearer yet?

Purgatory, so far is simply claim made by your denomination with no scripture to back it up.

[Tj3]

Tj3, Wondergirl, et al.

Matt 16: 13-20 The Primacy of Peter (The first, Simon who is called Peter Matt 10:2)

This was already addressed in my previous post. I see nothing in your post which counters what I said previous for this part of the question, nor have you responded to what T said, so it stands as is.

The Catholic Church has always understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter.

I don't care what the men in your denomination believe. I care what God said in His word.

In plain language of today, the simple meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won't prevail against it.

But that is not what it says. That is your private interpretation.

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of the keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

What were the keys that Jesus says that He is giving? We see that the Pharisees had previously held the keys:

Luke 11:52
52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
NKJV

The keys were knowledge, but what knowledge would bind people and what knowledge was it that the Pharisees did not use to loose themselves by entering in? It was the key of the truth and specifically the truth of the gospel. The Pharisees were the priests who had the key of truth by which they could guide the people into salvation, and instead of losing the keys to open the door, they bound the key, took it away from the people and bound themselves by not using it. Jesus gave the keys to the disciples. We see in Matthew 16:13 that he was speaking to the disciples:

Matt 16:13
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
NKJV

The gospel was not given just to one man, but to the disciples to use to take into the word to bring salvation to the people. Note that even the Pharisees were not given the keys, but Luke 11:52 says that they took the keys. Who from? It was from the people of Israel. The keys were never intended to be in the hands of only some people or one person, but Jesus took the keys from the Pharisees and gave them to the disciples, people who had already entered into their salvation and who knew that to use the keys, they had to give them to the people, that they too might enter. If they use the keys, people will no longer be bound and can enter and be saved. It is the keys of knowledge that loose men to be free in Christ and be no longer bound by sin.

You made the claim that the keys are the key of David mentioned in Isaiah 22:20-23. But that is not the case. Jesus addresses that in the book of Revelation:

Rev 3:7-8
7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,
'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens":
NKJV

So Jesus has and uses that key alone. Jesus has the key and He alone uses it to open and shut.

Below is a list of various references to the Primacy of Peter.

Like Fred, you are copying and pasting from the "Catholic Apologists Cheat Sheet" website without giving credit. As I showed when I refuted Fred, you need to read these before blindly posting them. Many of them have no bearing whatsoever on the topic. and the rest are refuted by reading the context. But I need to head off to breakfast right now. I'll refute these later.

I'll deal with this list later.

[cozyk]

[QUOTE=sndbay]The Truth is and will always be, we as mortal men can not reveal unto each other. For it is written only the Father which is in heaven reveals.

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The revelation of what the Father has given us all, is written in scripture. Not part of what is written but all that is written. Why it was written is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as [were] some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them
Committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

This is written...They, the disciples included, followed the spiritual ROCK and the ROCK was Christ.





This is written...Christ is with us every minutes of everyday. We have "HIM" if you choose to have "HIM" Why would you want a mortal person to follow? Do you need someone or some object as the example of those people did when Moses went up on the mount unto God?

This is written that those having victory with heaven open unto them. They were singing the song of Moses.... Revelation 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.

Sing the Song of Moses[/QUOTE

I'm sorry, I don't understand any of that. Please tell me in your own words without quoting scripture. Bible "speak" is so full of metaphors, absolutes, twisted sentences, and backward talk that it is no wonder different faiths can't agree on a single interpretation. So please, in lay language tell me why it matters if there is a purgatory or not when you as Christians should strive to live your best life anyway and God is a forgiving God.

[ScottRC]

Scott, Timing? So what happened at the time Christ was nailed to the cross? I believe Christ picked the timing. So once again I rebuke the idea that there is another time for it to take place again.. It would be nailing Christ to the Cross again.

Sorry, I so rarely talk to someone who believes in universal salvation... thanks for helping me understand your beliefs.

Peace.

[Tj3]

Below is a list of various references to the Primacy of Peter.

Okay, let's look at these:

Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32... Peter always mentioned first, as foremost apostle.

Let's deal with these as a group. But first let's talk about the premise. Even if it were true that Peter was mentioned first, does not make him the foremost Apostle? No. That is a presumption without validation. Ordering of the names is a weak argument and is, at best circumstantial. Without any other specific evidence, such an argument will not stand. Further, there are notable exceptions to this also which suggest that this was not done intentionally to present a specific message of primacy, for example, John 1:44.

A very significant example is Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem. If Peter had primacy, certainly it should have been evident at the council, but Peter was neither the spokesman (Paul and Barnabas were), nor did he speak first, and typically the decision maker or chairman will be the last to speak to provide the summary as to what the decision is and what is to be done and that was James.

Let's look at the next section:

Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69... Peter speaks for the apostles.

Matt 18:21-22
21 Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"
NKJV

Mark 8:29
29 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."
NKJV

Luke 12:41-42
41 Then Peter said to Him, "Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?"
NKJV

In these three, the context would suggest that Peter is simply speaking on his own accord. There is no evidence that he is a spokesman. You best argument in this regard would be the other verse that you mention:

John 6:66-69
67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also want to go away?" 68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
NKJV

This is at best a very weak argument, but falls apart when you see the one time that a spokesman is clearly and obviously identified, it is NOT Peter but James. This is at the first church council in jerusalem:

Acts 15:13, 19-20
13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me... 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
NKJV

Acts 2:14-40... Pentecost: Peter who first preached.

Not true. They all were speaking prior to Peter, because they said that they heard them in their own languages.

Acts 2:4
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
NKJV

Peter then spoke up to explain what was happening. The fact that Peter was the last one to speak (not the first) and gave the sermon does not imply anything with respect to leadership. The fact that all the apostles were speaking is also emphasized by the fact that crowd responded to them all, not just Peter:

Acts 2:37
37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
NKJV

Acts 3:6-7... Peter worked first healing.

The first miracle in the New Testament was performed by Jesus, not any of the apostles (John 2:1-12). Numerous miracles were performed in the Gospels and by other disciples (not necessarily apostles) such as in Luke 10:17-20, so the miracles in Acts 3 were not even the first performed by believers in the New Testament. Even if the intent is to address the first miracles performed by the Apostles after Pentecost, this is still not accurate, because the first miracles performed after Pentecost were in Acts 2 and scripture does not record the specifics of the first.

Acts 2:43-44
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through
The apostles.
NKJV

Acts 10:46-48... Gentiles to be baptized revealed to Peter.

And many other things were revealed through other Apostles. So?

This was actually revealed much earlier, even in the Old Testament when God revealed through Isaiah that the New Covenant would include the Gentiles:

Isa 49:6
6 Indeed He says, 'It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, And to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.'"
NKJV

Also, if you are focusing on baptism, don't forget that the New Testament baptism is in fact a Jewish Old Testament mikveh.

Jn 1:42... Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock).

This argument was previously refuted in this thread. It means stone, and scripture even tells us this:

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

Mt 16:18-19... "on this Rock ... keys ... bind ... loose"

This argument previously refuted. I am not going to repeated in once again in this post.

Is 22:22; Rev 1:18... keys as symbol of authority.

This argument previously refuted. I am not going to repeated in once again in this post.

Jn 21:17... "feed my sheep"

This was not unique to Peter. Evidence that this was also for other church leaders is found here:

1 Peter 5:1-4
5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.
NKJV

Neither was this authority given to Peter alone to dispense. Here are the words of Paul:

Acts 20:25-29
25 And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
NKJV

Lk 22:31-32... "Simon ... strengthen your brethren".

Luke 22:31-32
31 And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren."
NKJV

The context of this is that Peter declared that he would never deny Christ and then proceeded to become the apostle who is most noted for his denial, 3 times of Christ.

Further as shown above, the job of strengthening the brethren was given to all the church leaders.

Lk 10:1-2, 16; Jn 13:20; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14; Acts 5:1-5... "vicars" (substitutes) of Christ.

The word "vicar" means replacement, so that in itself is interesting, but let's examine these references. I would also like to note that you posted this to support the Primacy of Peter, and yet few if any of these passages refer to Peter as an individual, and some not at all.

Lk 10:1-2

Luke 10:1-3
10:1 After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. 2 Then He said to them, "The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.
NKJV

How do you get Peter as a substitute for Jesus out of this? Did you read these verses before you copied them off that website and pasted them here?

Lk 10:16

Luke 10:16
16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me."
NKJV

This is not referring to Peter, but to the 70, and has nothing to do with "substitutes" for Jesus.

Luke 10:17
17 Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name."
NKJV

Jn 13:20

John 13:19-20
20 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me."
NKJV

Look at the context. This is referring to all the Apostles, and has nothing to do with "substitutes" for Jesus.

2 Cor 5:20

2 Cor 5:19-20
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.
NKJV

Paul here is speaking to the church at Corinth, therefore this is referring to all believers. It calls us ambassadors, not substitutes for the Lord. An ambassador represents, he does not substitute for the country's leader.

Gal 4:14

Gal 4:14-15
14 And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
NKJV

An angel is a messenger - he ({aul) was a messenger for Jesus.

As for receiving him as they would have received Jesus, consider then how you might interpret this passage:

Matt 25:40
40 "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
NKJV

Does this mean, in your theology, that all the poor, sick and the needy are "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
NKJV

Does this mean, in your theology, that all the poor, sick and the needy are "?

Acts 5:1-5

Acts 5:1-4
5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
NKJV

How do you get this one to mean substitutes for Jesus?

[ScottRC]

Below is a list of various references to the Primacy of Peter.

Two things...

First, there is a big leap from Primacy (pretty well accepted by both Catholic and Protestant alike) and INFALLIBLE SUPREMACY.

Secondly, this probably should be a new thread.:)

[Tj3]

Two things...

First, there is a big leap from Primacy (pretty well accepted by both Catholic and Protestant alike)

I know of very few protestant groups who would accept primacy of any single man (other than Jesus). It would be interesting to know what "protestant" groups you are thinking of.

and INFALLIBLE SUPREMACY.

Infallible primacy is a relatively recent doctrine even in Roman Catholicism.

Secondly, this probably should be a new thread.:)

I agree.

[JoeT777]

Two things....

First, there is a big leap from Primacy (pretty well accepted by both Catholic and Protestant alike) and INFALLIBLE SUPREMACY.

Secondly, this probably should be a new thread.:)

I agree. I've got one more response for Tj3 and I'll get back on topic. I'll have to think through starting a new thread. I'm not sure I can dedicate the time that will no doubt be needed.

Semper Fi; Stand strong, It is he that giveth strength to the weary, and increaseth force and might ... But they that hope in the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.

God's peace be with you sir.



JoeT

[JoeT777]

This was already addressed in my previous post. I see nothing in your post which counters what I said previous for this part of the question, nor have you responded to what T said, so it stands as is.
I don't care what the men in your denomination believe. I care what God said in His word.
But that is not what it says. That is your private interpretation.

Let’s address this once again; please refer to my “denomination” as a Church, (capitalized), if for no other reason than for a modicum of respect for me. I take your use of “denomination” as disrespect to the Catholic Church (at least it always seems to be couched that way). I ask that you address the Catholic faith with the same respect you would give yours. Reasonable men can agree to disagree (and I took you to be reasonable); but disrespect is a mark of immaturity and ignorance.

What were the keys that Jesus says that He is giving? We see that the Pharisees had previously held the keys: Luke 11:52 52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered." NKJV
The keys were knowledge, but what knowledge would bind people and what knowledge was it that the Pharisees did not use to loose themselves by entering in? It was the key of the truth and specifically the truth of the gospel. The Pharisees were the priests who had the key of truth by which they could guide the people into salvation, and instead of loosing the keys to open the door, they bound the key, took it away from the people and bound themselves by not using it. Jesus gave the keys to the disciples. We see in Matthew 16:13 that he was speaking to the disciples:

The gospel was not given just to one man, but to the disciples to use to take into the word to bring salvation to the people. Note that even the Pharisees were not given the keys, but Luke 11:52 says that they took the keys. Who from? It was from the people of Israel. The keys were never intended to be in the hands of only some people or one person, but Jesus took the keys from the Pharisees and gave them to the disciples, people who had already entered into their salvation and who knew that to use the keys, they had to give them to the people, that they too might enter in. If they use the keys, people will no longer be bound and can enter in and be saved. It is the keys of knowledge that loose men to be free in Christ and be no longer bound by sin.

This rendition of the keys of knowledge being the same sense used in Matthew makes no sense at all; it hurts (painfully so) credulity.

Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 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.

In verse 17 Jesus is obviously pleased seeing that this knowledge didn’t come from human reason, but rather the knowledge was a Grace from Aba (I’m told, that Christ was the first to refer to God as Aba [Father] – did you know that? Interesting isn’t it). So as a reward, or as acknowledgement, you would have Jesus say, Woe to you Peter... you have not gained access, yet you have stopped those who wished to enter! And thereafter say I will build a church on your faith to which the gates of hell will not prevail. Excuse me for finding this impossible to swallow. It doesn’t even meet you definition of “scripture interprets scripture.”

You made the claim that the keys are the key of David mentioned in Isaiah 22:20-23.

The keys of heaven are like (similar to) the keys of the House of David, a mark of authority, a mark of primacy. What was NOT said was that the keys to heaven = keys to the House of David.

But that is not the case. Jesus addresses that in the book of Revelation: Rev 3:7-8 7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, 'These things says He who is holy, He who is true, "He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens": NKJV So Jesus has and uses that key alone. Jesus has the key and He alone uses it to open and shut.

Like Fred, you are copying and pasting from the "Catholic Apologists Cheat Sheet" website without giving credit. As I showed when I refuted Fred, you need to read these before blindly posting them. Many of them have no bearing whatsoever on the topic., and the rest are refuted by reading the context. But I need to head off to breakfast right now. I'll refute these later. I'll deal with this list later.

It’s interesting that you should bring up the book of Revelations because it was one point that I didn’t properly address the plain and simple reading of Matt 16:15-19; especially, the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name. The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant. But I would suggest it wasn’t the set of keys conferred on St. Peter, the keys to heaven the right to bind or loose in heaven and earth. The reason is that these keys are located in heaven, held by an angel church that is using the keys to keep open the door, presumably the door of holy righteousness. Another reason I don’t think they are the same keys is because we see three sets of keys in sacred Scripture, the Keys of Heaven, the Key of the bottomless pit (hell), and the Keys of the House of David. Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet: and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth. And there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit. But in Revelations, where John is escorted through God’s Kingdom in Heaven, we don’t hear of the Key’s of Heaven. Are we to presume that there are Keys to earthly kingdoms, hellish kingdoms, but no keys to heaven in heaven? And the reason, the Keys to Heaven reside with the Successors of St. Peter.

Yes, I did quote something without giving due credit. I corrected the problem.

The Truth is and will always be, we as mortal men can not reveal unto each other. For it is written only the Father which is in heaven reveals.
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
The revelation of what the Father has given us all, is written in scripture. Not part of what is written but all that is written. Why it was written is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as [were] some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them
committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
This is written...They, the disciples included, followed the spiritual ROCK and the ROCK was Christ.
This is written...Christ is with us every minutes of everyday. We have "HIM" if you choose to have "HIM" Why would you want a mortal person to follow? Do you need someone or some object as the example of those people did when Moses went up on the mount unto God?
This is written that those having victory with heaven open unto them. They were singing the song of Moses.... Revelation 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.
Sing the Song of Moses

I'm sorry, I don't understand any of that. Please tell me in your own words without quoting scripture. Bible "speak" is so full of metaphors, absolutes, twisted sentences, and backward talk that it is no wonder different faiths can't agree on a single interpretation. So please, in lay language tell me why it matters if there is a purgatory or not when you as Christians should strive to live your best life anyway and God is a forgiving God.

Cozyk: I’m not sure what’s being said here either. I’m glad it was you that asked the question.

[Tj3]

Let's address this once again; please refer to my “denomination” as a Church, (capitalized), if for no other reason than for a modicum of respect for me.

Why? It is a denomination, and why do you insist that we use capitalization? I would not use capitalization for any other church when calling it a church, why do you demand special consideration for yours? And you did not appear to care about other when you call your denomination "The Church", suggesting that the rest of us are not part of "The Church". I have never said that it is not a church. I often call it the Roman Church or Roman Catholic Church, but if I call it "a church", it will be with a lower case "c", as I would with any other church. The term denomination is not derogatory - many churches use that themselves, but you do not seem to realize how arrogant your terminology comes across. If you choose to refer to your denomination as "The Church", then I tend to revert to calling it "your denomination" so that we are clear what it is that you are referring to. So your choice of terminology will, to a degree, determine mine.

This rendition of the keys of knowledge being the same sense used in Matthew makes no sense at all; it hurts (painfully so) credulity.

I notice that in your two paragraphs that you did not address the points that I raised.

So as a reward, or as acknowledgement, you would have Jesus say, Woe to you Peter... you have not gained access, yet you have stopped those who wished to enter!

Did you even read what I said? Go back and have another read of it. I do not know how you got this from what I said.

The keys of heaven are like (similar to) the keys of the House of David, a mark of authority, a mark of primacy. What was NOT said was that the keys to heaven = keys to the House of David.

Explain how you see any similarity.

It's interesting that you should bring up the book of Revelations because it was one point that I didn't properly address the plain and simple reading of Matt 16:15-19; especially, the Key of David that the Holy One opens and no man shuts. Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name. The key of the House of David relate to the same earthly keys given Eliacim, son of Helcias. "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of full and unlimited authority over the Kingdom of Juda. This too would be a direct reference to the Primacy of authority, a very good reason to accept St. Peter as the Prince of the Church Militant.

Except Jesus has the key and Peter doesn't. Your logic escapes me. Nothing in scripture supports the idea that a man heads the true church. Scripture directly and explicitly says otherwise.

But I would suggest it wasn't the set of keys conferred on St. Peter,

Before we go this far, you need to provide some evidence that there were keys given solely to Peter. You have not validated that yet.

the keys to heaven the right to bind or loose in heaven and earth. The reason is that these keys are located in heaven, held by an angel church that is using the keys to keep open the door, presumably the door of holy righteousness. Another reason I don't think they are the same keys is because we see three sets of keys in sacred Scripture, the Keys of Heaven, the Key of the bottomless pit (hell), and the Keys of the House of David. Rev 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet: and I saw a star fall from heaven upon the earth. And there was given to him the key of the bottomless pit. But in Revelations, where John is escorted through God's Kingdom in Heaven, we don't hear of the Key's of Heaven. Are we to presume that there are Keys to earthly kingdoms, hellish kingdoms, but no keys to heaven in heaven? And the reason, the Keys to Heaven reside with the Successors of St. Peter.

Again, your logic escapes me. You appear to be making presumptions which you have not validated.

Yes, I did quote something without giving due credit. I corrected the problem.

Good. In the future I would suggest that you also check out the references before posting them. The originator does not appear to have done much if any validation before being posting the references on internet.

[Lilmkiss]

Scott, Timing? So what happened at the time Christ was nailed to the cross? I believe Christ picked the timing. So once again I rebuke the idea that there is another time for it to take place again.. It would be nailing Christ to the Cross again. REBUKE!

100% right and again if you are going to make a claim that Jesus is part of or is pergatory show scripture or be quiet scott.

[ScottRC]

100% right and again if you are going to make a claim that Jesus is part of or is pergatory show scripture or be quiet scott.

"Show scripture"..?

How many times do you have to be reminded that I don't subscribe to the heresy of sola scriptura? I've given my reasonings, showing Scripture and Tradition... and I've yet to see anyone offer anything reasonable that shows purgatory is a non-Biblical concept...

And please try to show some manners... this is a public forum and you don't have the right to tell ANYONE to "be quiet"... it's rude and very unChristian.

[Tj3]

"Show scripture"..?
How many times do you have to be reminded that I don't subscribe to the heresy of sola scriptura? I've given my reasonings, showing Scripture and Tradition...

I don't subscribe to the heresy of establishing doctrine based upon manmade tradition.

and I've yet to see anyone offer anything reasonable that shows purgatory is a non-Biblical concept...

You keep your eyes closed when reading the posts? :D

And please try to show some manners... this is a public forum and you don't have the right to tell ANYONE to "be quiet"... it's rude and very unChristian.

Just like you don't have the right to call people names.

[JoeT777]

Why? It is a denomination, and why do you insist that we use capitalization? I would not use capitalization for any other church when calling it a church, why do you demand special consideration for yours? And you did not appear to care about other when you call your denomination "The Church", suggesting that the rest of us are not part of "The Church". I have never said that it is not a church. I often call it the Roman Church or Roman Catholic Church, but if I call it "a church", it will be with a lower case "c", as I would with any other church. The term denomination is not derogatory - many churches use that themselves, but you do not seem to realize how arrogant your terminology comes across. If you choose to refer to your denomination as "The Church", then I tend to revert to calling it "your denomination" so that we are clear what it is that you are referring to. So your choice of terminology will, to a degree, determine mine.

Ok Tom, I get the picture.

[arcura]

Scripture showing the existence of Purgatory has been provided here.
No meaningful scripture has been shown to prove Purgatory does not exist.
That is the way I see it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Wondergirl]

No meaningful scripture has been shown to prove Purgatory does not exist.

Of course it has, Fred. I provided it pages ago.

[Tj3]

Scripture showing the existence of Purgatory has been provided here.
No meaningful scripture has been shown to prove Purgatory does not exist.
That is the way I see it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

That copy and paste list that you found on internet and provided on this thread was refuted quite a while back. If you wish, or keep claiming that those references prove purgatory, I'd be happy to re-post.

There have been pages of scripture which show that purgatory is not possible and not scriptural posted by a number of people, but not yet has one reference been provided which supports purgatory when examine in context of scripture.

[De Maria]

I don't subscribe to the heresy of establishing doctrine based upon manmade tradition.

But you do, its called "Sola Scriptura".

You keep your eyes closed when reading the posts? :D

Just like you don't have the right to call people names.

I guess we've arrived at the point we should agree to disagree.

Sincerely,

De Maria