[Tj3]

"Sheol" is a place where the Hebrews believe the dead can be prayed for to encourage God to raise them to heaven. There are numerous historical references to such activity. That activity is also found in the complete Bible in
Maccabees 12:46.

The Jews did not even consider Maccabees to be scripture, and even Maccabees itself denies any inspiration from God by internal evidence, is not the word of God:

2 Maccabees 15:38 If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired. If it is poorly done and mediocre, it was the best that I could do.
NRSV

In Isaiah 28:10 the prophet is scolding the Priests for their bad teaching of the people causing them punishment after death. He says, "Your covenant with death shall be canceled, and your pact with "sheol" shall not stand." In other word's the people in "sheol" would be saved from the punishment they were experiencing.

Here is Is 28:10

Isa 28:10
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept,
Line upon line, line upon line,
Here a little, there a little."
NKJV

Exactly how do you get your interpretation out of that verse?

Acts 2:27 gives us a sample of the two,"Because you will not leave my soul in Hades."

This is speaking of Jesus, not of us. Look at the prior passage which provides the context:

Acts 2:22-25
22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. 25 For David says concerning Him:
NKJV

Hades had two parts, hell and Abraham's bosom, which we see described in Luke 16:19-31. This was where those saved before the cross remainded in comfort until Jesus came and released them into heaven, as described in 1 Peter 3:18-19.

Here is another to mentally chew on. When Jesus told the thief on the cross next Him, "Today you will be with me in paradise," John 20:17, was he speaking of heaven? If so, three days later, near his tomb, why did he tell Mary not to touch him because he had not ascended? If the paradise Jesus spoke of is heaven we have a biblical conflict.

Nope. It is explained above.

So we now see that in scripture it's not just sheol and Hades translate that into the Latin Purgatorio.

The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, not Latin.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 3, the apostle Paul is discussing the works of the faith. He says that each person's work in building the faith will be tested as if by fire. If the person's work remains, that person will be rewarded. But, "If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss;" (Greek word here translated as "loss" is "zemioo" which also means to experience detriment or receive damage). "But," Paul continues, "he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through flames."

1 Cor 3:11-16
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
NKJV

This refers to works. Works done for Christ will remain, but works done for other reason will not survive. This has nothing to do with purgatory. It has to do with works, not men being destroyed or punished in a fiery place. It is also worthwhile to note that this is not referring to literal fire here because works are an act, and cannot be burnt.

It is in Revelation that the Apostle John says that Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire. Rev 20:13. It doesn't make sense that Paul is saying that hell will be thrown into hell.

It makes sense to me. Why do you think that it does not make sense? Why do you you interpret Hades and the Lake of Fire both to be hell, and why not just accept what scripture literally says?

[arcura]

Tj3,
Wrong.
The Jews of Israel did not like Maccabees because it favored the Romans who kicking out the Greeks.
BUT...
The Jews outside of Israel DID use those books. That is why they were included in the original bible and they are still there in the complete bible.
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Wrong.
The Jews of Israel did not like Maccabees because it favored the Romans who kicking out the Greeks.
BUT...
The Jews outside of Israel DID use those books. That is why they were included in the original bible and they are still there in the complete bible.
Fred

Fred,

I agree that Jews did USE the books. That is quite different from stating that they were canonical. They never were considered scripture for the Jews, and I am sure that you are aware that Jerome opposed their inclusion in the canon, though most or at least many sources considered some of the books of the Maccabees to be of value as a historic record. The reasons that were not considered canonical are several, but the least amongst these is the fact that II Maccabees explicitly states that it is not an inspired work.

Here is a reference that you may find to be of interest with reference to the development of the canon:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the primary witnesses, not in order of time but certainly in stature against canonicity of the disputed books comes from a late period, the 4th century -- St. Jerome. Jerome produced the standard Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, and he felt that it was important for this purpose that he learn Hebrew. He discovered the opinion of the Jews in the matter of the canon, the falsity of the legend of the translation of the LXX, and as a result made many disparaging remarks about the disputed books, "calling them apocrypha" [this seems to have occurred about 390 AD, see "The Cambridge History of the Bible" Volume 2, 92]. Moreover, he seems to attach a certain importance to the idea that there should be 22 books in the Old Testament -- to accord with the number of Hebrew letters. This seems to have also been a motivating factor in his rejection of the deuterocanonical books. In line with the Protestant view, he also disparages the additions to Daniel and Esther, in the prefaces to those books. These remarks were to color the opinion of Christians in the West from that time forward and most explicit lists of the books given by the writers after him follow his thinking.

Yet the evidence from Jerome is not altogether against the books. He sometimes refers to them as "ecclesiastical" rather than "canonical" or "apocryphal" -- they are read in the church, but not to be cited for proof texts of doctrine. [See Jerome, "Against Rufinus"]
(Source: The Old Testament Canon)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Apochryphal books were first added to the canon of the Roman Catholic denomination in the 16th century at the council of Trent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.
(Source: The New Catholic Encyclopedia)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You chose your words carefully, and rightly so. There were many books included physically along with the Bible as reference material, but there were no more part of the canon of the Bible than the reference material that we find today included with study Bibles. Like Jerome, most Christians did not consider these books part of the canon, but considered some of them of value for reference. The reasons for their rejection are many, including as I showed, the quote from Maccabees which denied inspiration through to some doctrines which directly and explicitly contradict scripture such as found in Sirach.

But again, if you wish to discuss the canon, start another thread.

Tom

[arcura]

Tj3,
Thanks for that information that I already have seen.
The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and inspired The Church to promulgate the bible.
The Church was inspired to add the apocrypha to the bible so that is what it should be to make the bible complete as it is today.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Thanks for that information that I already have seen.

Why then do you ignore these facts?

The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and inspired The Church to promulgate the bible.

This depends upon what you mean by "the church". Scripture tells us that it is the body of Christ, not any denomination that God guides with His Holy Spirit.

The Church was inspired to add the apocrypha to the bible so that is what it should be to make the bible complete as it is today.

The Apochrypha was accepted by only one denomination and that happened in the 16th century. So your statement is contradictory. If your denomination claims that the whole Bible includes the Apochrypha, then why was it not part of the canon at the start? Why did the church as a whole reject these books, and why was it rejected as part of the Old Testament canon?

Second God does not contradict Himself, and he commanded that we not add or subtract from His word. How then could we accept verses like this as "inspired"?

Sirach 3:3 He who honors his father atones for sins; (Only Jesus death on the cross atones for our sins)

Sirach 6:13 Keep away from your enemies; be on your guard with your friends.
(Compare to Matt 5:44)

Sirach 7:36 In whatever you do, remember your last days, and you will never sin. (Compare to Rom 3:23)

Sirach 8:19 Open your heart to no man, and banish not your happiness.

Sirach 9:4 With a singing girl be not familiar, lest you be caught in her wiles. (Is there something wrong with singing women? Compare to Col 3:16)

Sirach 19:7-8
Tell nothing to friend or foe; if you have a fault, reveal it not, For he who hears it will hold it against you, and in time become your enemy. (Compare to James 5:16)

These are just a few examples of errors and contradictions in Sirach.

The Bible was complete at the end of the first century, all 66 books which were adopted by The Church, inspired and decided upon by God.

[arcura]

Tj3,
You KNOW what I mean by The Church.
It's the one that Jesus called my Church and established it with Peter as its first leader.
It Known as the Cathokic Church today also widely known as The Mother Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[sndbay]

Where specifically in the Catholic or KJV Bible does it say you cannot ever eat meat on a Friday and where specifically does it say the word 'Purgatory'?

Neither are in the Bible... Along with no sign of an Apple. We can chose to eat of forbidden fruits today just as Eve was warned not to do. Forbidden fruit is any and all that God has shown us to be evil. And disobedience is not looked upon favorably.

What is in both the Catholic and KJV Bible is Christ. Christ alone should be all anyone looks to for signs. Christ leads us to believe in what is written as "THE WORD" and that Word is Christ who brought THE WORD to you in flesh. His own Flesh and Blood.

Christ alone is enough! FOREVER and EVER...

[Tj3]

Tj3,
You KNOW what I mean by The Church.
It's the one that Jesus called my Church and established it with Peter as its first leader.

Peter was not made the leader of any denomination. There were no denominations in the 1st century. Your denomination was formed in the 4th century. Jesus remainded leader of the true church that He formed.

[wildandblue]

Are you talking about the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox? Has the Orthodox also had schisms befall it too, does anyone know? Because most of the Protestant groups split from the Roman Catholic church I think. Anyway that was mostly about who the earthly leader was, not basic doctrine, wasn't it?

[Tj3]

Are you talking about the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox? Has the Orthodox also had schisms befall it too, does anyone know?

Are you asking me? No, the 4th century is when the Roman Catholic denomination came to be. The schism between the Roman Catholic denomination and the Orthodox denomination occurred in the 11th century.

Has there been other divisions into more denominations within Catholicism - oh yes, many many Catholic denominations exist today, and some of the disputes between these denominations end up with rather strange results, such as this recent news article:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Unholy row threatens Holy Sepulchre

I find the dispute between these Catholic denominations even over the 19th century ladder to be hilarious.

Because most of the Protestant groups split from the Roman Catholic church I think. Anyway that was mostly about who the earthly leader was, not basic doctrine, wasn't it?

The disagreement between the non-Catholic denominations (many of which existed for years and centuries before the protestant reformation - indeed right back to the start of the church) is primarily over doctrine. The one exception that comes to mind is the Anglican denomination (Church of England, Episcopalian) where it was a leadership issue, but the Anglican church is in essence Catholic in any case - Just English Catholic rather than Roman Catholic.

[wildandblue]

OK thanks.
But you folks' basic thoughts about not going beyond scripture, while valid, could lead one to just sit around all day with a goofy look on their face, the way the Communists say religion is the opiate of the masses. Of course there are going to be cultural traditions. No one is saying walk around with your fish showing it to everone. It's more of a personal observance, like they say write this on your wrist and speak of it when you sit in your house and walk on the road. If there was no outward signs, how would our children know what we believe? Osmosis?

[Tj3]

OK thanks.
But you folks' basic thoughts about not going beyond scripture, while valid, could lead one to just sit around all day with a goofy look on their face, the way the Communists say religion is the opiate of the masses.

Really? I fail to see why you think following God's command not to go beyond what is written as out standard for doctrine would cause us to act like brainwashed communists. Perhaps you could detail out your reasoning on this point.

Of course there are going to be cultural traditions.

Yes, but as scripture says, cultural traditions of men should not be our standard, rather we should be submitting our manmade traditions to the teaching of the word of God.

[arcura]

wildandblue,
Please do not believe anything that Tj3 says about the Catholic Church because he is so OFTEN wrong.
The bible and history prove that The Church was founded by Jesus with Peter as it's first leader long before there were any denominations which came about after the reformation many centuries later
Later when other groups started to call themselves a church The Church adopted the name Catholic (which means universal) to distinguish itself from the scatered other Johnny-come-lately churches.
That is the truth, not what Tj3 of others like to peddle.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

wildandblue,
Please do not believe anything that Tj3 says about the Catholic Church because he is so OFTEN wrong.

Fred,

I back up what I say. I do not just post unsubstantiate opinion as you just have.

The bible and history prove that The Church was founded by Jesus with Peter as it's first leader

What is your evidence/substantiation for this Fred? Do you know that one of the best known Cardinals of your denomination issued a statement which disagrees with your opinion?

long before there were any denominations which came about after the reformation many centuries later

The first denomination came about in 325AD - yours.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, proces­sions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."
(Source: Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is the truth, not what Tj3 of others like to peddle.

Like I said Fred, I am willing to substantiate my claims - and you?

[zsuzsanna]

I'm sorry but I hit a wrong key and didn't get to finish what I was typing. In Isaiah, it states that the WOLF shal dwell with the lamb, yet I have only seen one set of Christmas cards with that picture on it. Also, Luke and John never even met Jesus. They were not his desciples. What they wrote in what we have as the Bible, Catholic or not, is what they were told by the original desciples. I have read and studied the scriptures all my life, and it's been along one and I was just recently made aware of these things. Thank you for your input. Zsuzsanna

[zsuzsanna]

I'm sorry but I hit a wrong key and didn't get to finish what I was typing. In Isaiah, it states that the WOLF shal dwell with the lamb, yet I have only seen one set of Christmas cards with that picture on it. Also, Luke and John never even met Jesus. They were not his desciples. What they wrote in what we have as the Bible, Catholic or not, is what they were told by the original desciples. I have read and studied the scriptures all my life, and it's been a long one and I was just recently made aware of these things. Thank you for your input. Zsuzsanna

Sorry, I didn't mean to write John, of course he was an original desciple. I meant to write Mark. Actually his name was John Mark.

[arcura]

zsuzsanna,
From where do you get the idea that Like and John never met Jesus?
I believe they both did as the bibke states.
Also there are many disciples of Jesus who never met him face to face.
Millions are alive today I'm one of them.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[zsuzsanna]

zsuzsanna,
From where do you get the idea that Like and John never met Jesus?
I believe they both did as the bibke states.
Also there are many disciples of Jesus who never met him face to face.
Millions are alive today I'm one of them.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Didn't mean to mislead you about the descipleship. What I meant was I believe from what I have read in the new testament that Luke and John Mark were not of the original 12 apostles (desciples) that Jesus chose. I didn't mean that they were not his followers as we all are of course. It is very late now as I'm reading this, however I promise that tomorrow I will send you the scriptural information I have that makes me believe that those two never met Jesus, just as Paul did not. This has no real significance as to what is written in their books, it's just that I was surprised to know that it was all hearsay and not witnessed by either of them. Yes, I know Jesus had many desciples and not all are mentioned by name. Again, I was only referring to the original twelve. I will have more information for you tomorrow. Peace to you also friend. Zsuzsanna

[zsuzsanna]

This is more of a question than an answer, but can anyone tell me what a senior member and an ultra member are? What is the difference? Thanks. Zsuzsanna

[Tj3]

Didn't mean to mislead you about the descipleship. What I meant was I belive from what I have read in the new testament that Luke and John Mark were not of the original 12 apostles (desciples) that Jesus chose. I didn't mean that they were not his followers as we all are of course. It is very late now as I'm reading this, however I promise that tomorrow I will send you the scriptural information I have that makes me believe that those two never met Jesus, just as Paul did not.

One cannot establish a fact based upon silence. Just because we have nothing specific in scripture that says that Mark and Luke met Jesus in the flesh does not mean that they didn't.

Paul actually did meet Jesus (See Acts 9). Yes, it was after Jesus' resurrection, but Paul met Jesus nonetheless.