# Trips to Lourdes to cut time spent in purgatory



## Double Barrel BB (Dec 6, 2007)

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>*Trips to Lourdes to cut time spent in purgatory*

<!--NO VIEW-->

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Pope Benedict XVI is offering relief from purgatory to Roman Catholics who travel to Lourdes over the next year, the Vatican said yesterday.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=308 align=right border=0 hspace="0"><TBODY><TR><TD width=8 rowSpan=2> </TD><TD width=300><CENTER>
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





</CENTER></TD></TR><TR><TD class=caption><CENTER>Pope Benedict XVI prays to a statue of Madonna of Lourdes in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican

</CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Pilgrims to the shrine in south-west France will receive "plenary indulgences" from the Pontiff, which the Church says reduce the time spent being "washed" of sin after death. The indulgences will be available from this weekend until Dec 8, 2008.

The Church teaches that people who do not go directly to heaven must spend time in purgatory, where they can be purified of residual sin.

It is the latest initiative to get more pilgrims to the shrine, famous for the reported healing properties of its water. In August the Vatican opened an airline service offering pilgrims direct flights from Rome to Lourdes.

For those who cannot make the journey to France, the Pope will also grant indulgences to Catholics who pray at places of worship dedicated to the Madonna of Lourdes from Feb 2 to Feb 11. Indulgences may also be granted under special circumstances to people too sick to visit the shrine, the Vatican said.

<SCRIPT language=javascript src="/core/NetGravity/mpu.js"></SCRIPT>
The offer comes as the shrine prepares to commemorate the 150th anniversary of when the Madonna was said to have appeared to a peasant girl in 1858.

The Pope is expected to visit next year, possibly in September or October.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


----------



## toddboucher (Dec 6, 2007)

wow talk about a new travel advertising campain.


----------



## jneil (Dec 6, 2007)

Glad to hear it. Are any of our TV preachers going to offer $alvation specials as well?


----------



## RJY66 (Dec 6, 2007)

I would love for our Catholic friend(s) to explain how this concept got started.  Is it based on some interpretation of scripture or a papal decree?

Obviously, the majority of the people who frequent the board are protestants or "evangelicals" so we are not going to agree with it.  I would still like to hear an explanation and not see the person offering it get beat up on.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

FYI:  Let's have a little BIBLICAL CONTEXT before anybody gets all excited...

THE POWER TO GRANT INDULGENCES
Once it is admitted that Christ left the Church the power to forgive sins (see PENANCE), the power of granting indulgences is logically inferred. Since the sacramental forgiveness of sin extends both to the guilt and to the eternal punishment, it plainly follows that the Church can also free the penitent from the lesser or temporal penalty. This becomes clearer, however, when we consider the amplitude of the power granted to Peter (Matthew 16:19): "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 shaft loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Cf. Matthew 18:18, where like power is conferred on all the Apostles.) No limit is placed upon this power of loosing, "the power of the keys", as it is called; it must, therefore, extend to any and all bonds contracted by sin, including the penalty no less than the guilt. When the Church, therefore, by an indulgence, remits this penalty, her action, according to the declaration of Christ, is ratified in heaven. That this power, as the Council of Trent affirms, was exercised from the earliest times, is shown by St. Paul's words (2 Corinthians 2:5-10) in which he deals with the case of the incest man of Corinth. The sinner had been excluded by St. Paul's order from the company of the faithful, but had truly repented. Hence the Apostle judges that to such a one "this rebuke is sufficient that is given by many" and adds: "To whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." St. Paul had bound the guilty one in the fetters of excommunication; he now releases the penitent from this punishment by an exercise of his authority -- "in the person of Christ." Here we have all the essentials of an indulgence


----------



## FishFanatic (Dec 6, 2007)

It is beyond me how anyone could believe in any of what was said in the article.  It is SOOOO plainly obvious that these were things that the Catholic church made up to make rule easier during the middle ages.  They don't exist in the Bible and it didn't matter at the time, because the Church did not allow anyone to have a Bible or read for that matter!  So they could make up whatever they wanted to better control the people.  So, that is why I cannot fathom how anyone could still hold any merit to this stuff.  Unless you haven't read much on the early Catholic church.


----------



## Darcy (Dec 6, 2007)

Saint Bernadette of Lourdes, who's body is miraculously preserved as it was the day she died.... interesting story, to say the least.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> Unless you haven't read much on the early Catholic church.




So you are an expert on Catholicism, old and new?  You seem to know quite a lot about their 2,000 year Odyssey.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

Purgatory:

It is said (2 Maccabees 12:46): "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in heaven, for they are in no need; nor again for those who are in ************, because they cannot be loosed from sins. Therefore after this life, there are some not yet loosed from sins, who can be loosed therefrom; and the like have charity, without which sins cannot be loosed, for "charity covereth all sins" [Proverbs 10:12]. Hence they will not be consigned to everlasting death, since "he that liveth and believeth in Me, shall not die for ever" [John 11:26]: nor will they obtain glory without being cleansed, because nothing unclean shall obtain it, as stated in the last chapter of the Apocalypse (verse 14). Therefore some kind of cleansing remains after this life. 

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/7001.htm


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)




----------



## FishFanatic (Dec 6, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Purgatory:
> 
> It is said (2 Maccabees 12:46): "It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." Now there is no need to pray for the dead who are in heaven, for they are in no need; nor again for those who are in ************, because they cannot be loosed from sins. Therefore after this life, there are some not yet loosed from sins, who can be loosed therefrom; and the like have charity, without which sins cannot be loosed, for "charity covereth all sins" [Proverbs 10:12]. Hence they will not be consigned to everlasting death, since "he that liveth and believeth in Me, shall not die for ever" [John 11:26]: nor will they obtain glory without being cleansed, because nothing unclean shall obtain it, as stated in the last chapter of the Apocalypse (verse 14). Therefore some kind of cleansing remains after this life.
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/summa/7001.htm



None of that says anything about a place such as purgatory.  You are stretching so far you're doing the splits.  And the reason why?????  Maccabees.  About as valid a biblical book as the menu at Macadoos. (Burger joint in Valdookie)


----------



## FishFanatic (Dec 6, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> So you are an expert on Catholicism, old and new?  You seem to know quite a lot about their 2,000 year Odyssey.




No I'm not an expert.  Or wait maybe I am....depends....what constitutes an expert?  Anyhow, I have read up on the objective factual actions of the Catholic church in the past 2000 years....and oh yes they was crooked as a hillbilly's smile.  It doesn't take  an expert to read the history, find the additions they claimed to be from God (not in the Bible)....see what atrocities they did with them.....and then still see those very same beliefs held on to by Catholics today.   But its the Catholic church though....can't question that.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> None of that says anything about a place such as purgatory.  You are stretching so far you're doing the splits.  And the reason why?????  Maccabees.  About as valid a biblical book as the menu at Macadoos. (Burger joint in Valdookie)



Protestants have difficulty with the doctrine of Purgatory for basically two reasons: First, when Martin Luther translated the Bible into German in 1532, he removed seven books of the Old Testament, including the two Books of Maccabees, where at least implicitly the purification of the soul is found. Second, John Calvin preached that we had lost our free will due to Original Sin and that God had predetermined whether a soul was saved or condemned; therefore, if we cannot choose to sin and if our eternal destiny is predetermined, who needs a Purgatory? In all, the Protestant leaders cast aside centuries of Christian Church teaching when they denied the doctrine of Purgatory

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0585.html


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> It doesn't take  an expert to read the history, find the additions they claimed to be from God (not in the Bible)....




Like what?


----------



## FishFanatic (Dec 6, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Like what?



Well for starters.......the structure or heirarchy of men between Joe Catholic and God.  Jesus would kick the table with that system on it over in a heart beat.  People already have enough problems with their pride getting in the way of admitting their is a God........how does it make any sense to tell them...."Yes there is a God and oh by the way...you need to go through Father Bodiddly first...."  And I know that you would say thats not how it works...and maybe it isn't....but its the perception that counts.


----------



## FishFanatic (Dec 6, 2007)

Not to me boss.  To the the unbeliever.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 6, 2007)

Anagama said:


> every Primitive Baptist is a toothless uneducated Bubba who can't even read the Bible he loves so dearly.





I can't help it. I cracked a smile at that one.

I worked right across the hall from a new employee one time that I found out after a few days was an elder at a Primitive Baptist Church. I walked up to him and asked if the difference between me and him was we had air conditioning in the church and he didn't.

Needless to say, he let me know what the differences are and we enjoyed many a Bible and Theology discussion after that. He overlooked my sarcasm and I took him seriously.



OK, back on topic now guys for what seems to be shaping up to a standard Catholic bashing thread.

Oh, by the way, my interpretation on Purgatory. There ain't one. You would think that the thief on the cross would have a good bit of time in Purgatory to spend to make up for his deeds and cleanse his soul even after he was saved. But, Jesus told him that he would be with Him "This Day" in paradise. Now, my understanding of Purgatory is that it ain't exactly Hades, but it sure ain't a paradise either. To me, that thief was saved and then went to Heaven with Jesus right then. He did not have to go to jail first and then roll doubles or pay $50 or use a "get out of jail free" card.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> Not to me boss.  To the the unbeliever.



What does that mean?


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 6, 2007)

PWalls said:


> Oh, by the way, my interpretation on Purgatory. There ain't one. You would think that the thief on the cross would have a good bit of time in Purgatory to spend to make up for his deeds and cleanse his soul even after he was saved. But, Jesus told him that he would be with Him "This Day" in paradise. Now, my understanding of Purgatory is that it ain't exactly Hades, but it sure ain't a paradise either. To me, that thief was saved and then went to Heaven with Jesus right then. He did not have to go to jail first and then roll doubles or pay $50 or use a "get out of jail free" card.



A (small) chuckle and a LOUD AMEN  !!!


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> No I'm not an expert.  Or wait maybe I am....depends....what constitutes an expert?  Anyhow, I have read up on the objective factual actions of the Catholic church in the past 2000 years....and oh yes they was crooked as a hillbilly's smile.  It doesn't take  an expert to read the history, find the additions they claimed to be from God (not in the Bible)....see what atrocities they did with them.....and then still see those very same beliefs held on to by Catholics today.   But its the Catholic church though....can't question that.




So, based on your statements above.  What would you do about the Catholic Church then if you could?  

I promise not to get mad.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

Anagama said:


> The thing is Jesus didn't go right to Heaven did He?


----------



## PWalls (Dec 6, 2007)

I have one more opinion on Purgatory. It's mine and please don't get upset about it.

Purgatory seems to be purely man-made for selfish reasons.

Let's think about it for a minute and compare the two differences in Theology.

I believe that once a person is saved they go straight to Heaven when they die. Doesn't matter one bit what they did in life. All sins are erased and they are right with God. People who believe in Purgatory think that a person goes there to "work" out their sins in penance. They still go to Heaven but only after a while.

Here's the selfishness. Now, I struggle sometimes with my belief because I have a hard time with say a murderer going straight to Heaven and then someone like Mother Tersa going straight there and both enjoying equal fellowship with God. What did that murderer do to deserve Heaven? Of course, I then immediately realize that there wasn't anything I did to deserve Heaven either. And, I realize that a persons rewards in Heaven are based on their Earthly actions. But if you take that belief too far, then you want to set up a class of Christian at the point of Heavenly entry. You don't want to see that murderer on equal footing with Mother Teresa. So, the solution to that is you let Mother Teresa right on in because surely her sins were minor. The murderer though gets to hang out in Purgatory for a while and work off his sins until he is as "good" as Mother Teresa was. That is a doctrine that makes "sense" and our human emotions can understand. I mean we now have a class system that ensures that no one is "better" than anyone else when they enter Heaven.

But, this belief totally ignores divine mercy and grace to not only forgive a sinner, but to forget the sins of the sinner. Purgatory implies that I can believe in 1John 1:9 and be forgiven of my sins, but then that I ahve to worry about them coming back later and affecting my entry into Heaven. I do not see that doctrine in the Bible.

Again, this is my opinion on the doctrine of Purgatory. Take it only as that.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 6, 2007)

Anagama said:


> The thing is Jesus didn't go right to Heaven did He?



Ahhh. Knew that would come up. So, Jesus didn't go to Heaven? So that means He must have meant He went to ************ for a couple of days/nights? Whoa, can't have that. He did say "This day in Paradise". Maybe He went somewhere else? Well, that conviently leaves something like Purgatory.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

PWalls said:


> Ahhh. Knew that would come up. So, Jesus didn't go to Heaven? So that means He must have meant He went to ************ for a couple of days/nights? Whoa, can't have that. He did say "This day in Paradise". Maybe He went somewhere else? Well, that conviently leaves something like Purgatory.



Doesn't it though...

I am petty sure JESUS did not go to ************.  What say ye?


----------



## PWalls (Dec 6, 2007)

Anagama said:


> Do you believe that you must "pay to the last penny" for your sins?



I definately believe that I have to pay for the those sins. It's called consequences. When I make bad decisions with God's money, I get in trouble here on Earth. I get in debt or can't give like I want to. I miss out on blessings that I could recieve. I tear up my relationship with God. Terrible consequences. All hear on Earth. The sin was committed on Earth and my punishment and consequences are on Earth.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

PWalls said:


> .... I tear up my relationship with God. Terrible consequences. All hear on Earth. The sin was committed on Earth and my punishment and consequences are on Earth.



(Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."

Just on earth?


----------



## PWalls (Dec 6, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
> 
> Just on earth?



Context. Talking about the unforgiveable sin.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

PWalls said:


> I believe that once a person is saved they go straight to Heaven when they die. Doesn't matter one bit what they did in life. All sins are erased and they are right with God.





PWalls said:


> Context. Talking about the unforgiveable sin.



OK I am lost.  work with me, I'm a little slow.  Can you elaborate on the unforgiveable sin for me and the rest of the "audience"??

Funny thing is Double BB dumps this stuff out but never (rather, rarely) partakes...must be hiding...


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 6, 2007)

The unforgiveable sin is to not accept Christ, therefore blaspheming the Holy Spirit.


----------



## redwards (Dec 6, 2007)

....maybe....maybe not.....right about now may be a good time for all of us to take a break and take a quiz....
What's your belief?


----------



## FishFanatic (Dec 6, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> So, based on your statements above.  What would you do about the Catholic Church then if you could?
> 
> I promise not to get mad.



Dawg2.....have you put your faith in Jesus Christ and believe that he died on the cross for your sins, and because of that you will spend eternity in heaven?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

redwards said:


> ....maybe....maybe not.....right about now may be a good time for all of us to take a break and take a quiz....
> What's your belief?



Must be pretty accurate...
1.  Eastern Orthodox (100%)  
2.  Roman Catholic (100%)  
3.  Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (95%)  


I am #2 in case anybody was curious.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> Dawg2.....have you put your faith in Jesus Christ and believe that he died on the cross for your sins, and because of that you will spend eternity in heaven?


Yes.

But not if I went in a Mall in Omaha, NE and killed 8 people and myself.


----------



## FishFanatic (Dec 6, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Yes.
> 
> But not if I went in a Mall in Omaha, NE and killed 8 people and myself.



Cool....see you in heaven then.  Sorry if I offended you with any of my statements.  They are the way I feel, but I do feel that its pointless to argue it.  Just got carried away.  

Betcha I lead more people to the Lord than you do though!!!!


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> Betcha I lead more people to the Lord than you do though!!!!



You brought this on...


2 Peter, chapter 2  KJV

  1: But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in ****able heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 
2: And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 
3: And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their ****ation slumbereth not. 
4: For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to ************, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 
5: And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 
6: And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 
7: And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 
8: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds 
9: The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 
10: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. 
11: Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. 
12: But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; 
13: And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 


Real cute.  I would never say 





FishFanatic said:


> Betcha I lead more people to the Lord than you do though!!!!



Very ignorant, somewhat FALSE.

I quoted KJV fo you, just to make sure there were no misunderstandings


----------



## FishFanatic (Dec 6, 2007)

Wow.....I was being very fesicious.  Sorry I made you type all that...or cut and paste.  I thought maybe the small font, dancing banana, and bald headed yellow chuckling guy would help show that.  Maybe I need to add some rolling yellow balls laughing, or something like that.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> Wow.....I was being very fesicious.  Sorry I made you type all that...or cut and paste.  I thought maybe the small font, dancing banana, and bald headed yellow chuckling guy would help show that.  Maybe I need to add some rolling yellow balls laughing, or something like that.




I was being facetious as well

Unless of course you were serious


----------



## PWalls (Dec 6, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Funny thing is Double BB dumps this stuff out but never (rather, rarely) partakes...must be hiding...



He is the instigator of discussion and debate. He surfs and finds these articles and posts them here for us to have discourse on. He does participate on occasion.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Funny thing is Double BB dumps this stuff out but never (rather, rarely) partakes...must be hiding...






Talk about stirrin' the pot...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 6, 2007)

PWalls said:


> He is the instigator of discussion and debate. He surfs and finds these articles and posts them here for us to have discourse on. He does participate on occasion.



We posted at the same time, must have been thinking the same thing at the same time....ironic huh?

I noticed you used the word "instigator."

He sure can find some good ones


----------



## FishFanatic (Dec 6, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> I was being facetious as well
> 
> Unless of course you were serious



Well...uh....I don't know now.....how serious would you be if I was serious?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> Well...uh....I don't know now.....how serious would you be if I was serious?



I would only be as serious as you were serious, but only if you were serious...


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Dec 7, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> OK I am lost. work with me, I'm a little slow. Can you elaborate on the unforgiveable sin for me and the rest of the "audience"??
> 
> Funny thing is Double BB dumps this stuff out but never (rather, rarely) partakes...must be hiding...


 
Not hiding... I have a job, and I have 4 kids at home(10,6,18 months, 2 months)... so my time on the computer is just when I have a break...

I know what I believe, and a lot of you know what I believe, I am an Calvinist...

I post the news I think interesting and will spark a good conversation/debate here...

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Not hiding... I have a job, and I have 4 kids at home(10,6,18 months, 2 months)... so my time on the computer is just when I have a break...
> 
> I know what I believe, and a lot of you know what I believe, I am an Calvinist...
> 
> ...




I like your posts by the way.


----------



## RJY66 (Dec 7, 2007)

First, thanks to those who took the time to expound on the article.....dawg2 and Anagama.  

I could sit here all day and refute the ideas of purgatory and indulgences with scripture after scripture.  There are so many of them, I frankly don't have time, and of course it would change no one's mind.  We'll have to call it a gentlemen's impasse.  

To me, it flies in the face of salvation through faith and not works which is the basic fundamental principle of Christianity.  Jesus Christ by himself purged my sins according to Hebrews 1:3.  Faith in him according to Ephesians 2: 8-9 is what is required, nothing more or less.  
The book of Hebrews further teaches that Christ himself is our HIGH PRIEST, not a mere man.  It utterly amazes me how the Gospel message has been twisted and mutilated by religion in the last 2,000 years.  It must grieve the Lord Jesus in ways unimaginable.  

The bottom line is this folks.  Jesus Christ and he alone is the only thing in this universe that can cleanse you of sin and get you into heaven.   Nothing you can do in this world or the next outside of acceptance of his FINISHED work could even come close,  including taking a trip to France, or merely warming a seat at church.  These are nothing more than useless, religious rituals.  If it were not so incredibly sad it would be funny.  

Because I believe this, and absolutely refuse to play his religious game, the pope would probably tell me I am lost.  My response to him would be "sir, time will tell which one of us is lost".  No power on this earth could make me kiss his ring and call him father because my earthly father is an old Carolina country boy and my heavenly father because of Jesus Christ is God himself.  The pope don't match either description.  

I hope I offend no one in saying what I had to say.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2007)

Some more Biblical Context

Hebrews 9:22 
22  Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Acts 4:12
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

John 14:6
6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

> Do you believe that you must "pay to the last penny" for your sins?



Not if the sins have been forgiven.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Not if the sins have been forgiven.



If you are Baptised, go in a mall in Omaha, NE,  and kill 8 people in cold blooded murder, kill yourself, then where are you going?


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2007)

Anagama said:


> So how do you come to Christ? Because to get to the Father you must go through Christ. At the wedding feast they ask Christ Mother they did not go directly to Him. She ask for Christ help She then told the servants to do as He instructed.



Your referring to the wedding at cana...in John 2...? Is one situation in many...I think if Mary were to be established as the intercessor...Jesus would have said so in John 14 or John 7:37

37  In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Your referring to the wedding at cana...in John 2...? Is one situation in many...I think if Mary were to be established as the intercessor...Jesus would have said so in John 14 or John 7:37
> 
> 37  In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.



Go to this thread and take the quiz...

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=155187


----------



## PWalls (Dec 7, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> If you are Baptised, go in a mall in Omaha, NE,  and kill 8 people in cold blooded murder, kill yourself, then where are you going?



Baptism has nothing to do with Salvation.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

PWalls said:


> Baptism has nothing to do with Salvation.



OK, then if you are "saved," then same question as above.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> If you are Baptised, go in a mall in Omaha, NE,  and kill 8 people in cold blooded murder, kill yourself, then where are you going?



Most likely to ************.

One of the "strange" things about my beliefs is that I believe you actually have to repent of your sins in order to be forgiven for them.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

PWalls said:


> Baptism has nothing to do with Salvation.



Except that its essential for it.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 7, 2007)

Anagama said:


> So how do you come to Christ? Because to get to the Father you must go through Christ. At the wedding feast they ask Christ Mother they did not go directly to Him. She ask for Christ help She then told the servants to do as He instructed.



"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through Me".

He didn't say you also had to go through Mary or any other "Saint" to get to Him first. Add a priest in there and you got you a old-fashioned pyramid scheme going. Sinner to Priest to Mary to Jesus to God.

I prefer to go direct to the Source.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Except that its essential for it.



Disagree. It is public evidence of it. A proclamation that the new believer uses to show the committment he/she has undertaken. A visual reconciliation of the old man being washed away and the new man rising out of the water. But not necessary or required. Nowhere does Scripture say that water baptism is necessary for Salvation.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

PWalls said:


> Baptism has nothing to do with Salvation.



But it really does according to the KJV and my version of Bible:

John 3:2
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

_AND if you say that is "Physical Birth" then why was this said:_

Jhn3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 


 Jhn 3:7  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Most likely to ************.
> 
> One of the "strange" things about my beliefs is that I believe you actually have to repent of your sins in order to be forgiven for them.



Me too.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2007)

Its quite simple...The first is the physical  birth, the second is the spiritual birth, as referred to in both scriptures..  Should you make it into the kingdom, and I hope you do, this really won't matter, except to say that I am sure we will find those that did not receive a 2nd baptism of water....Baptism is a public statement of faith, a symbol of our salvation..nothing more...


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

PWalls said:


> Disagree. It is public evidence of it. A proclamation that the new believer uses to show the committment he/she has undertaken. A visual reconciliation of the old man being washed away and the new man rising out of the water. But not necessary or required. Nowhere does Scripture say that water baptism is necessary for Salvation.



You are right.  It is indeed a public and symbolic proclamation of the new man within.  An outward show of our inward faith in Christ, and of our repentence.  It also symbolic of the new man being buried, and the new man being raised up out of the grave.  It is also symbolic of Christ's burial and resurrection, which we look forward to.

And it is also required of God for our sins to be remitted, and for us to enter the kingdom of God.   Its like the children of Israel who refused to look upon the brazen serpant Moses lifted up in the wilderness.  Those who didn't believe were too proud to just look - and so they died.

 Acts 2: 37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 
  38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ _for the remission of sins_, and ye shall receive the gift of the gHoly Ghost. 

Matt. 3: 13 ¶ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 
  14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 
  15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it bbecometh us _to fulfil all righteousness._ Then he suffered him. 

 John 3: 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 
  4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 
  5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, _Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God._


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Me too.



No wonder I'm 55% Catholic...


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Its quite simple...The first is the physical  birth, the second is the spiritual birth, as referred to in both scriptures..  Should you make it into the kingdom, and I hope you do, this really won't matter, except to say that I am sure we will find those that did not receive a 2nd baptism of water....Baptism is a public statement of faith, a symbol of our salvation..nothing more...



The first is baptism by water, the second is baptism by the Holy Ghost.

Both required.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> You are right.  It is indeed a public and symbolic proclamation of the new man within.  An outward show of our inward faith in Christ, and of our repentence.  It also symbolic of the new man being buried, and the new man being raised up out of the grave.  It is also symbolic of Christ's burial and resurrection, which we look forward to.
> 
> And it is also required of God for our sins to be remitted, and for us to enter the kingdom of God.   Its like the children of Israel who refused to look upon the brazen serpant Moses lifted up in the wilderness.  Those who didn't believe were too proud to just look - and so they died.
> 
> ...




Some folks skip over that part of the Bible for some reason


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> The first is baptism by water, the second is baptism by the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Both required.



So what about the thief on the cross next to Christ...?


----------



## Spotlite (Dec 7, 2007)

WOW.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> WOW.



Yea, we're having fun...glad you could join us...


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Some folks skip over that part of the Bible for some reason



Well, I may be 21% Taoist and 55% Catholic, but I'm also a 75% Mainstream conservative protestant kinda guy.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> So what about the thief on the cross next to Christ...?



1) Is "paradise" the same thing as eternal life with God?

2) I cannot judge the thief's heart, nor do we know how guilty he was of whatever he was up there on the cross beside Jesus for.  Those guys had a nasty habit of letting guilty men walk, and crucifying innocent men...

3) How do we know he hadn't been baptized?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Well, I may be 21% Taoist and 55% Catholic, but I'm also a 75% Mainstream conservative protestant kinda guy.



That's funny right there!


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted by hawglips
> Most likely to ************.
> 
> One of the "strange" things about my beliefs is that I believe you actually have to repent of your sins in order to be forgiven for them.






dawg2 said:


> Me too.



But you know, it doesn't seem very strange to me at all.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> But you know, it doesn't seem very strange to me at all.



Because it isn't.  It is very basic.


----------



## Spotlite (Dec 7, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Yea, we're having fun...glad you could join us...



Reading only. I dont dare get in these anymore. Some might like it and / or gain from it and thats cool.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> Reading only. I dont dare get in these anymore. Some might like it and / or gain from it and thats cool.



I haven't been bitten yet, so it's pretty safe....so far anyway


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Because it isn't.  It is very basic.



That's the way I see it.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Because it isn't.  It is very basic.



Are you sure you're only 57% Mormon?


----------



## PWalls (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> One of the "strange" things about my beliefs is that I believe you actually have to repent of your sins in order to be forgiven for them.



How is that strange? Repentence and Confession go hand in hand. I can confess with my mouth all I want to about how I sinned. But, if I am not repenting of them, then how will the Lord honor that and forgive me?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Are you sure you're only 57% Mormon?



That is about right.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 7, 2007)

I'm moving to the back rwo on this one. Been down this road too many times on here and I don't like my attitude sometimes. I can come across rough in some of these.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> 1) Is "paradise" the same thing as eternal life with God?
> 
> 2) I cannot judge the thief's heart, nor do we know how guilty he was of whatever he was up there on the cross beside Jesus for.  Those guys had a nasty habit of letting guilty men walk, and crucifying innocent men...



1) One thing we know, Its where Jesus went...and Jesus went to sit by the Right hand of the Father 


2) Romans 5:12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..
& Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2007)

Spotlite said:


> Reading only. I dont dare get in these anymore. Some might like it and / or gain from it and thats cool.



Fair enough...but I miss your input...


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> 1) It where Jesus went...and Jesus went to sit by the Right hand of the Father



Jesus went to have the gospel preached to those in the spirit prison who had been disobedient.

1st Peter 3
 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 
  19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 
  20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by fwater. 
  21 The like figure whereunto even _baptism doth also now save us_ (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 





> 2) Romans 5:12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..



We are all sinners.  Its just a matter of whether we have repented of them -- and been baptized.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 7, 2007)

PWalls said:


> How is that strange? Repentence and Confession go hand in hand. I can confess with my mouth all I want to about how I sinned. But, if I am not repenting of them, then how will the Lord honor that and forgive me?



He can't and won't, IMO.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

PWalls said:


> How is that strange? Repentence and Confession go hand in hand. I can confess with my mouth all I want to about how I sinned. But, if I am not repenting of them, then how will the Lord honor that and forgive me?



Repent:
1: to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life
2 a: to feel regret or contrition 

Confess:
1: to tell or make known (as something wrong or damaging to oneself) : admit <he confessed his guilt>
2 a: to acknowledge (sin) to God or to a priest 

Furthermore:  Catholics do not believe the mere "telling of one's sins" obtains their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and truly amending ones ways (REPENTING in other words), confession is worthless,  and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before they had "confessed" because they have not REPENTED.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> 1) One thing we know, Its where Jesus went...and Jesus went to sit by the Right hand of the Father
> 
> 
> 2) Romans 5:12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..
> & Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God



Not IMMEDIATELY after he died he didn't.

From earlier in this thread:



Anagama said:


> He did say "This day in Paradise" so where did he go?
> 
> He told Mary Magdaline
> 
> ...


----------



## PWalls (Dec 7, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Furthermore:  Catholics do not believe the mere "telling of one's sins" obtains their forgiveness. Without sincere sorrow and truly amending ones ways (REPENTING in other words), confession is worthless,



You'll not find too many Baptists (or at least the ones I hang out with) argue against that either.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Jesus went to have the gospel preached to those in the spirit prison who had been disobedient.
> 
> 1st Peter 3
> 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
> ...



Looking at these verses in context, Noah and his family (8 people) were saved from the destruction of the earth...not by the water itself...and when you look at verse 21, in context, baptism is being referred to as a symbol of something else...what, the ark, no, the water, no, but rather their Faith to enter into the arc..and later by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ...


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Not IMMEDIATELY after he died he didn't.
> 
> From earlier in this thread:



OK...he stopped off in Prison along the way..do you think he left him there...or took him on to be with the father..which, for me, would be paradise...


Thats it from me today boys...I bid you peace and farewell...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

PWalls said:


> You'll not find too many Baptists (or at least the ones I hang out with) argue against that either.



See.  We are more alike in faith than some think.

I have had some tell me "Confession" is useless in Catholicism, but they do not understand the "context" of Confession, being that it is an act of "Penance" or "Repentance" for past digressions with an attitude of not committing them again.

COme back up to the front row.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> ...and when you look at verse 21, in context, baptism is being referred to as a symbol of something else...what, the ark, no, the water, no, but rather their Faith to enter into the arc..and later by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ...




I dunno about that...it says not bathing filth from your body (bathing).  That would mean Baptism.  If it did not mean Baptism, then why the clarification?



hawglips said:


> 1st Peter 3
> 21 The like figure whereunto even _baptism doth also now save us_ (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 7, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> I dunno about that...it says not bathing filth from your body (bathing).  That would mean Baptism.  If it did not mean Baptism, then why the clarification?



Here you go brother...this does a much better job than I can tonight...

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/1Pet_3_21.htm


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 7, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Here you go brother...this does a much better job than I can tonight...
> 
> http://www.carm.org/doctrine/1Pet_3_21.htm



Solid scriptural article, thanks.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 7, 2007)

StriperAddict said:


> Solid scriptural article, thanks.



One problem though.  it still says in John 3:5 you have to be baptised.  Even in the KJV.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 8, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> Looking at these verses in context, Noah and his family (8 people) were saved from the destruction of the earth...not by the water itself...and when you look at verse 21, in context, baptism is being referred to as a symbol of something else...what, the ark, no, the water, no, but rather their Faith to enter into the arc..and later by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ...



Yes, the ark was necessary to save Noah, baptism is necessary to save us (in conjunction with faith in Christ and repentence). 

Where was Jesus between the time of death and the time he told Mary Magdelene that he had not yet gone to his Father?   Peter answers that.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 10, 2007)

One final question...Are you telling me that you believe that anyone who has repented of their sins and confessed Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior, but who has not been baptized by immersion before death, will not make it to heaven?


by the way, I am a baptist...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 10, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> One final question...Are you telling me that you believe that anyone who has repented of their sins and confessed Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior, but who has not been baptized by immersion before death, will not make it to heaven?
> 
> What did Jesus say:  3:5. Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
> 
> ...



See red comments above.  No, it does not have to be "immersion."


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 10, 2007)

So what does, "born of water" mean to you?

and remember, Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, who was, or should have been, very familiar with the old covenant teachings, and would have therefore understood what the water symbolized...i.e. John 3:5  cleansing by Spirit, and the "and" in this verse is not used to indicate "in addition to"  something else, and thats why Jesus used the terminology otherwise this verse would be in contention with ever other verse that teaches us that Salvation is by grace through faith...and not of ANY works of our own...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 10, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> So what does, "born of water" mean to you?



"...born AGAIN of water..." means baptized:  To me.


----------



## toddboucher (Dec 10, 2007)

This seems like a problem with completeness. If you believe in purgatory you feel that when Jesus died on the cross that sacrifice wasn't good enough. Its the same with these groups which have other book anned to the bible what they are saying is the bible is not complete of everything God what to say. I quess they feel God is saying O-no I forgot that lets, write this other book.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 10, 2007)

toddboucher said:


> Its the same with these groups which have other book anned to the bible what they are saying is the bible is not complete of everything God what to say. I quess they feel God is saying O-no I forgot that lets, write this other book.



What groups rewriting the Bible?

Do you mean these groups:



dawg2 said:


> Protestants have difficulty with the doctrine of Purgatory for basically two reasons: First, when Martin Luther translated the Bible into German in 1532, he removed seven books of the Old Testament, including the two Books of Maccabees, where at least implicitly the purification of the soul is found. Second, John Calvin preached that we had lost our free will due to Original Sin and that God had predetermined whether a soul was saved or condemned; therefore, if we cannot choose to sin and if our eternal destiny is predetermined, who needs a Purgatory? In all, the Protestant leaders cast aside centuries of Christian Church teaching when they denied the doctrine of Purgatory
> 
> http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0585.html



Just trying to clarify what you mean


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 10, 2007)

dawg 2

Calvin and Luther merely were standing on history:
see the second council of orange 529 AD for total depravity, really sad to read and think of how far the church went astray. 

also to the books of the Bible many protestant groups left the apocrypha in their Bibles. The Geneva and King James are excellent examples of this. It was only in the 18th century that these were removed.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 10, 2007)

addictedtodeer said:


> dawg 2
> 
> Calvin and Luther merely were standing on history:
> see the second council of orange 529 AD for total depravity, really sad to read and think of how far the church went astray.
> ...




Just trying to figure out who *toddboucher* is saying re-wrote or changed the Bible.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 10, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> "...born AGAIN of water..." means baptized:  To me.



I guess well see soon enough...and I know one other thing, if'n it does mean one has to be sprinkled, or immersed, or dipped in the river, or whatever qualifies as being "baptized", ya'll will have a lot more room to yourselves...by the way, what does qualify as being "born again of water" and how pruified or clean does the water have to be?


and Oh btw...sorry for derailing this thread...

I know a good travel agent in GA if anyone feels like they need to make this trip...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 10, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> I guess well see soon enough...and I know one other thing, if'n it does mean one has to be sprinkled, or immersed, or dipped in the river, or whatever qualifies as being "baptized", ya'll will have a lot more room to yourselves...by the way, what does qualify as being "born again of water"?
> 
> 
> and Oh btw...sorry for derailing this thread...
> ...



Let me clarify with some "quotes" from a website, that I fell clear up the muddy waters a bit.

QUOTE:

Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance. 

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means....

The necessity in this case is shown by the command of Christ to His Apostles (Matthew 28): "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them", etc. Since the Apostles are commanded to baptize, the nations are commanded to receive baptism. The necessity of baptism has been called in question by some of the Reformers or their immediate forerunners. It was denied by Wyclif, Bucer, and Zwingli. According to Calvin it is necessary for adults as a precept but not as a means. Hence he contends that the infants of believing parents are sanctified in the womb and thus freed from original sin without baptism. The Socinians teach that baptism is merely an external profession of the Christian faith and a rite which each one is free to receive or neglect. 

An argument against the absolute necessity of baptism has been sought in the text of Scripture: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you" (John 6). Here, they say, is a parallel to the text: "Unless a man be born again of water". Yet everyone admits that the Eucharist is not necessary as a means but only as a precept. The reply to this is obvious. In the first instance, Christ addresses His words in the second person to adults; in the second, He speaks in the third person and without any distinction whatever....

X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT
The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood....

(1) The Baptism of Desire
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate". The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John 3), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John 14): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him." And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

I am pretty sure, based on the above info, that you will be there.


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 10, 2007)

I kinda got that idea from 1 Corinthians 13 also, but I wasn't sure where you or some of the others drew the line...


----------



## FX Jenkins (Dec 10, 2007)

Is there any where in the Bible where it says water means placental fluids?[/QUOTE]

No, I think this why God gave us this conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus, in that Nicodemus asks, can a man go back into his mothers womb in verse 4...and then Jesus clarifies in verse 6...

but then another question we can ask is what is meant by the Kingdom of God, is it heaven or the church...?  

debating this verse was a nice sideline but for me its run its course...I am going to "try again"  to make room for the original context of this thread..


----------



## toddboucher (Dec 10, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Just trying to figure out who *toddboucher* is saying re-wrote or changed the Bible.


I didn't mean rewrite the bible but now that I think of it the JW have done that. I was talking about putting other writting or teaching by leaders equal or really above the Bible.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 10, 2007)

toddboucher said:


> I was talking about putting other writting or teaching by leaders equal or really above the Bible.




Like what though, I am still lost.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 10, 2007)

FX Jenkins said:


> I guess well see soon enough...and I know one other thing, if'n it does mean one has to be sprinkled, or immersed, or dipped in the river, or whatever qualifies as being "baptized", ya'll will have a lot more room to yourselves...




Mark 16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 
  16 He that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ******************. 

In light of the very explicit statement from Christ (and other scriptures already cited in this thread) that indicate baptism is necessary to be saved, I'm curious what reasoning preachers give their congregations today to convince them that there is no need to be baptized.  

I don't recall my various Methodist preachers ever saying why it isn't really needed -- only saying that it isn't necessary.


----------



## redwards (Dec 10, 2007)

hawglips said:


> Mark 16
> 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
> 16 He that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be ******************.
> 
> ...


So, if what you state is absolutely true, then we should assume the 'Simon' referred to in this scripture below was saved and went to heaven, correct?


> Acts 8:13 (NASB)
> *13 Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs **and great **miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed. *


In context: *Acts 8:4-13* 

Here is a little bit more of that same chapter...referring to the 'Simon' above...
In context: *Acts 8:14-25* 
So...you believe he went to heaven?

Edited to add: Note, I am not in any way trying to refute the scripture which you quoted (Mark 16:15-16).
It is just difficult for me to reconcile your statement with the statement Jesus made to the thief on the cross.
Luke 23:32-43


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 10, 2007)

redwards said:


> Edited to add: Note, I am not in any way trying to refute the scripture which you quoted (Mark 16:15-16).
> It is just difficult for me to reconcile your statement with the statement Jesus made to the thief on the cross.
> Luke 23:32-43



Which bings me back to what I said earlier in this thread (emphasis in RED):



dawg2 said:


> X. SUBSTITUTES FOR THE SACRAMENT
> The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquæ or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood....
> 
> (1) The Baptism of Desire
> ...


----------



## hawglips (Dec 11, 2007)

Anagama said:


> So what was the prison?
> 
> Was it Hades? Why preach to souls that have no chance?
> 
> ...



I believe the prison Peter spoke of is a different place.

Its sounds like its a place where non-believing souls await final judgment and the resurrection.  A place where they are preached to, in order to be given a chance to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  After all, lots of people have come into and departed from this world without the chance of accepting it.  Wouldn't seem quite just to  d**n  someone to h**l when they never had a chance.

Peter sheds a little light on that.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 11, 2007)

redwards said:


> Note, I am not in any way trying to refute the scripture which you quoted (Mark 16:15-16).
> It is just difficult for me to reconcile your statement with the statement Jesus made to the thief on the cross.
> Luke 23:32-43



"Paradise" is what?  That is the first question.

Secondly, how do we know the thief was guilty of what he had been hung on the cross for?

Thirdly, how do we know the thief Jesus made the statement to was an unbaptized non-believer?

If we take paradise to mean a place the souls of the righteous await final judgment and the resurrection, then it is not hard to make sense of it.


----------



## redwards (Dec 11, 2007)

hawglips said:


> "Paradise" is what? That is the first question.


Paradise...definitions...better than I can state (click on the link)


hawglips said:


> Secondly, how do we know the thief was guilty of what he had been hung on the cross for?


Because he stated that he was...Luke 23:40-42 (NASB)
*40* But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 
*41* "And we indeed {are suffering} justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 
*42* And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 


hawglips said:


> Thirdly, how do we know the thief Jesus made the statement to was an unbaptized non-believer?


We don't...scripture does not reveal that answer.


hawglips said:


> If we take paradise to mean a place the souls of the righteous await final judgment and the resurrection, then it is not hard to make sense of it.


I evidently misunderstood the intent of your post.


----------



## RJY66 (Dec 12, 2007)

I believe that the "paradise" or Abraham's bosom described in the 16th chapter of Luke was a place reserved for the souls of those people who kept the old covenant and the law.  These people were not in torment but were being "comforted".  Evidently, they could see people who were in torment according to the parable as Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man could communicate with each other.  

They could not enter the presence of God until Christ brought redemption to man.  Even so, God in his justice and love "comforted" them because they were obedient and faithful to what had been revealed to them.  On the cross, Jesus knew he was headed there and made the statement to the thief who was being crucified with him.  

I can see how this could be confused and twisted into the concept of purgatory.  But like the levitical presthood, sacrifices of animals, and other rituals of the law, this place, if it still exists, is empty and or obsolete.  Read the book of Hebrews.  Heck, read all of the writings of Paul.  The concept of purgatory is simply another attempt by man to earn something that cannot be earned.  Plus its a great way to make money.  Talk about an easy sell.  

It is amazing.  The early apostles spent their  lives  and were  martyred trying to convince people that salvation came by God's grace to those who put their faith in Christ.  People had a hard time understanding that then, and here we are 2,000 years later still struggling with the concept.

Salvation will lead to good works as a person matures in his faith.  The scripture plainly says that anyone born of God will not continue to practice sin.  However,  it does not work the other way around.  Good works, religious rituals, etc, cannot lead to salvation.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 12, 2007)

RJY66 said:


> It is amazing.  The early apostles spent their  lives  and were  martyred trying to convince people that salvation came by God's grace to those who put their faith in Christ.  People had a hard time understanding that then, and here we are 2,000 years later still struggling with the concept.
> 
> Salvation will lead to good works as a person matures in his faith.  The scripture plainly says that anyone born of God will not continue to practice sin.  However,  it does not work the other way around.  Good works, religious rituals, etc, cannot lead to salvation.



So, how do you define being "born of God?"

How can you tell who has been and who has not been born of God?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

RJY66 said:


> I can see how this could be confused and twisted into the concept of purgatory.  But like the levitical presthood, sacrifices of animals, and other rituals of the law, this place, if it still exists, is empty and or obsolete.  Read the book of Hebrews.  Heck, read all of the writings of Paul.  The concept of purgatory is simply another attempt by man to earn something that cannot be earned.  Plus its a great way to make money.  Talk about an easy sell.




Hey, since you seem to have the inside track on this, hook me up, I need to make a little extra money on the side.
Plus its a great way to make money.  Talk about an easy sell.  
What are you talking about





RJY66 said:


> The scripture plainly says that anyone born of God will not continue to practice sin.



Really.  I beg to differ.


----------



## RJY66 (Dec 12, 2007)

hawglips said:


> So, how do you define being "born of God?"
> 
> How can you tell who has been and who has not been born of God?



First John 5:1-5

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves his child as well.  This is how we know that we love the children of God:  by loving God and carrying out his commands.  And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God has overcome the world.  This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith.  Who is it that overcomes the world?  Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God".  

That fellow scholars is where the spiritual rubber and road meet.


----------



## RJY66 (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Hey, since you seem to have the inside track on this, hook me up, I need to make a little extra money on the side.
> Plus its a great way to make money.  Talk about an easy sell.
> What are you talking about
> 
> ...



Great.  But its not me you differ with.  First John 5:18....."Now we know that anyone born of God does not CONTINUE to sin, the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one does not touch him".  

Any of us can, will and certainly do commit sin.  The ongoing practicing of it as a lifestyle apparently is a sign of trouble.  

As far as the purgatory thing goes.....Well, if I bought into the concept, it seems to me to be a good deal or should I say "investment".  I can go make a trip, see the Pope, whatever, and I get to spend a shorter time in purgatory.  What a deal!  Eternal rewards in exchange for mortal inconvenience.....you can't beat that!  I guess you never heard of the sale of indulgences???


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 12, 2007)

RJY66 said:


> As far as the purgatory thing goes.....Well, if I bought into the concept, it seems to me to be a good deal or should I say "investment".  I can go make a trip, see the Pope, whatever, and I get to spend a shorter time in purgatory.  What a deal!  Eternal rewards in exchange for mortal inconvenience.....you can't beat that!  I guess you never heard of the sale of indulgences???




Who is selling them?  I did not see them in the Church Bulletin this weekend.

Must have missed them.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 12, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> Purgatory:
> 
> It is said (2 Maccabees 12:46):




Any idea how many religions accept these (I am speaking of all 7 of the Apocrypha in the Catholic study bibles, not including the 6 books that even the Catholic church rejected) as inspired works?  I know the Catholics do, as of 1546 (well, more than half of them) but I was curious if anybody else does?

This question is for anybody, not just dawg2.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 13, 2007)

Anagama said:


> The Church has always excepted the Deuterocanonical books which are part of the Septuagint. If you’d like I have some quotes from the New Testament that come from the Deutrocanon and even some of the ECF’s writings quoting from them.



Well, if you would like me to show you the quotes from the New Testament that come from Greek pagan religious sources, I can do that, too, but that hardly means that "the Church" "has always accepted" Greek pagan religious writings as divinely inspired.

What do you mean?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 13, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> Any idea how many religions accept these (I am speaking of all 7 of the Apocrypha in the Catholic study bibles, not including the 6 books that even the Catholic church rejected) as inspired works?  I know the Catholics do, as of 1546 (well, more than half of them) but I was curious if anybody else does?
> 
> This question is for anybody, not just dawg2.



I am curious as to why you think they are not used in other faiths.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 14, 2007)

dawg2 said:


> I am curious as to why you think they are not used in other faiths.



I am not sure I claimed that.  Rather, I asked a question.  In other words, I am curious.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 14, 2007)

Anagama said:


> Good point. The Greek version of the Old Testament was called the Septuagint. In the time of Christ, He and His Apostles used the Septuagint which included Deuterocanonical books.




Well, it depends upon what you mean by "used."  Christ never quoted one of them, did he?

And were any of the others quoted by one of the apostles in a context showing that they believed them to be divinely inspired?  My understanding of the first century Jews was that they did not treat these same books as divinely inspired, either.

They have factual errors and are internally inconsistent, unlike the books of the Bible.


----------



## hawglips (Dec 15, 2007)

How about the scriptures Christ quoted, as well as those that were mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, that we don't have?


----------



## PJason (Dec 15, 2007)

hawglips said:


> How about the scriptures Christ quoted, as well as those that were mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, that we don't have?



Do you have an example?


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 17, 2007)

Anagama said:


> Well then you would have to leave out Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, none of which are quoted by Jesus or anyone in the New Testament.




Well, I would if this were my argument to begin with, I suppose.  It was not.  I was responding to somebody else's argument with a question.  Which it appears you have answered with a list that I will review in the near future.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 17, 2007)

Anagama said:


> No in the Greek speaking world which Jesus and the Apostles where a part of, the Greek Old Testament was used, and believed to be inspired.



Weird.  I read on a Catholic study web site that 
"The Jews did not have access to the entire LXX texts in original Hebrew; using this as a basis, they rejected the Deuterocanonical books as not being inspired."  It gives an _explanation_ for  why they did not believe these books to be inspired (an explanation with which the writer of the site cannot hide his disagreement), but it makes no claim that they believed it inspired.

I have the complete works of Josephus at home.  If you do not, they are pretty easy to acquire these days.



> We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine…”


Against Apion, 1.8.
Josephus's count combines several Old Testament narratives into a “book,” thus the thirty-nine of our current count is the twenty-two mentioned by Josephus.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 17, 2007)

I will say that a quick review of your list does not appear to reveal a single clear case of a citation from the apocryphal books.  Some "similarity" language does not mean it was being quoted.  I will try to give this analysis more depth when I have time.


----------



## Malum Prohibitum (Dec 17, 2007)

Until I get more time, here is a pretty short article on the subject.


The Apocrypha, Inspired of God? By Wayne Jackson


----------



## PJason (Dec 17, 2007)

Malum Prohibitum said:


> Weird.  I read on a Catholic study web site that
> "The Jews did not have access to the entire LXX texts in original Hebrew; using this as a basis, they rejected the Deuterocanonical books as not being inspired."  It gives an _explanation_ for  why they did not believe these books to be inspired (an explanation with which the writer of the site cannot hide his disagreement), but it makes no claim that they believed it inspired.
> 
> I have the complete works of Josephus at home.  If you do not, they are pretty easy to acquire these days.
> ...



Can you link to that site?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 17, 2007)

Anagama said:


> Can you link to that site?



I would like to see it as well.


----------



## PJason (Dec 19, 2007)

This is the Decree that came out about the indulgence. Thought some would like to read it:




> APOSTOLIC PENITENTIARY
> 
> DECREE
> 
> ...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Anagama said:


> This is the Decree that came out about the indulgence. Thought some would like to read it:



Troll!


----------

