Chazn

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I must confess, I have never had a burden for debating RCs on these "side issues" for fear of getting bogged down. Nevertheless, I've been reading through much of your debate and have found it somewhat educational. I will grant you that. [Quote You must have been very tired because your answers are all wrong! ] Astralis, I have to admit I thoroughly disagree with you. As you're reply to Racer indicates, you would argue that Peter was NOT a great man. Personally I don't see how you could be MORE wrong. What amuses me the most, however, is that this thread started as an attempt to discuss the origins and criterion for determining what is canonical. With all due respecet, it seems that some people have a VERRRRY "high horse" on which that they like to climb. :inlove:

<Hate to burst your bubble, but actually I did, under the heading of "Papal Infallibility" back on July 6, 2002:> Racer, Sorry about that but in light of the fact that I'm merely a recent sojourner to this web sight and saw no mention of the Galatians text anywhere in this thread, I alluded to it. I find it both sad and amusing that RCs attempt to explain away the obvious of this text. It is also interesting that they attempt to use more obscure texts (relative to this and other issues) in an effort to argue their case. To be honest, since all people tend to believe what they want to believe. The question is not "why do you interpret this text this way?" but "what is keeping you from interpreting the text correctly, and without a preset bias?" The issue ceases to be an intellectual issue but a heart issue. If you want to engage in "intellectual" bla bla :blush: go ahead. But I think that God has a preferable way of going about things. He said "If they do not receive your message then shake the dust off your feet."

I'm surprised that in the midst of all of your discussions no one ever presented Gal.2:11 ff to the table. "11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." The context here, points to the fact that Peter, even after the resurrection and pentecost, where he was filled with the Holy Spirit, not only lacked the character that would be necessary to accompany infallibility but was, in his judgement, not infallable. <"You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?> I have neither the time nor inclination to get into the OT texts where attempts have been made to use them as proof texts for the support of this doctrine. Nevertheless the use of these texts for this purpose is really nothing more than a reflection of bad hermaneutics. Munari: I would agree with you that God superintended the writing of the 66 books of the protestant canon. But God certainly did not superintend your interpretation. And I respectfully oppose the RCCs interpretation as well. I recommend, as I have before, that you take a Berean approach to the scriptures and interpret it for yourself in the context out of which they were written, and without having any "leader" (Pope or otherwise) interpret it for you. As far as I am concerned the above text from Galatians says it all... Case Closed. Shoin Genicht. It's all over! Peter was not infallible. Nor were any of his alleged replacements. Again... a beautiful example of the violation of Paul's admonision to abstain from vain speculations, etc.

Astralis, Munari refered to the following verses not you. But I believe they were in context of arguing in favor of the doctrine of purgatory. Lana, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59) Quote Sometimes Protestants object that Jesus told the thief on the cross that, on the very day the two of them died, they would be together in paradise (Luke 23:43), which they read as a denial of purgatory. However, the argument backfires and actually supports purgatory by proving the existence of a state other than heaven and hell, since Jesus did not go to heaven on the day he died. Peter tells us that he "went and preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Pet. 3:19), and, after his resurrection, Christ himself declared: "I have not yet ascended to the Father" (John 20:17). Thus at that time paradise was located in some third state besides heaven and besides hell. from: http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32) "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15) 18 For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. 19 In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, 20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43

Lanakila, thank you for your response. I was troubled that I had neither the time nor the inclination to respond to Munari. Perhaps I'm being somewhat simplistic but God gives us only so much time to do so many things and I think that He would rather me argue about more relevant things (like telling unbelievers about the love of Jesus). Nevertheless, I think that, from the direction that this thread has taken us, we've gone from a discussion of what determines canonicity to the veracity of the doctrine of purgatory. THE APOSTLE PAUL WRITES: But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. (2 Timothy 2:23) and nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. (1 Timothy 1:4). I think that our discussion certainly has led me to the conclusion that Apocryphal literature yields fodder for just such fruitless and conjectural speculations. They do, indeed, produce quarrels and characterize many cultish practices and doctrines which presume upon things that we mortals not only don't know but are called upon to place trustingly into the hands of God. I think that canonicity is indeed discernible but not necessariily agreed upon depending upon the specific herecies one wishes to get behind. e.g. The Apocrypha is canonical for proponents of prayer to the saints and purgatory as well as other such doctrines. The book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price is canonical for proponents of the heretical notion that God is subject to the creation, temporal and we humans can become like Him. The Bible seems to allow for footholds for such speculations. It also provides evidence to the contrary. But it obviously warns against jumping conclusions and violating the above admonissions of Paul. "By grace are we saved through faith, yet not of ourselves LEST ANY OF US SHOULD BOAST. Blessings in the name of the one who died so that we might live.

munari, Your definition of the function of purgatory seems to be somewhat characteristically speculative. Furthermore, I don't see how the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus, in any way, fits your definition. Nevertheless, I still ask... Is there evidence for this doctrine in the NT or anything that utterly refutes it? It seems that, unless otherwise indicated, the NT holds that what happens in one's life while one is alive is what impacts whether a person winds up in heaven or the lake of fire. Hence, pergatory is, at best, conjectural and irrelevent. Again, I ask the question, does "appocrapha" unequivicolly agree with Protestant Canon on this issue?

Racer: I would tend to agree to give close heed to Irenaus. Perhaps I need to back -track on some previous posts but In light of what you just said, what books were in HIS canon (scripture) when he

I silk screened some shirts dealing with the theory of evolution. Two fish were talking to each other. Fish 1 = Ixthus fish Fish 2 = Darwin fish looking somewhat dejected, cut up into 5 or six pieces. Fish 1 "Say where are your missing links?" Fish 2 "Don't worry we'll find them." Fish 1 "Boy you sure have a lot of faith (don't you know you're not supposed to mix science with faith?)" On the back it says "When the theory of evolution becomes a law, I'll stop wearing this shirt." I gave a teenage boy who attends our congregation 10 shirts on the basis that he would find 9 other friends who would agree to wear the shirts at school on the same day. He himself, got into 15 conversations about the Lord in one day! Ideally I'd like to take this strategy and incorporate follow-up and debriefing sessions, but I lack time and focus. I've also been experimenting with bumper stickers that are NOT in English. They're designed to arouse curiosity so that people will call the number below. It's had some limited success but it really needs wide dissemination in the area where I live in order to create an aura that "there's a movement afoot". I do believe it can work. Right now I've only gotten it on about 100 cars. I'm hoping to get it on 1000 cars!

I'd like to do some reading on this, could you tell me which book and chapter I can find it in?

Some maintained that extreme caution must be exercised when using the Septuagint as a text-witness for an ancient Hebrew text-type fundamentally different from the Masoretic version; one must take into account the changes that were made in the course of translation for linguistic, exegetical, and interpretative reasons.

Some good stuff has been posted, thus far. I haven't had the time to read through all of it but that is my intent. The notion of purgatory, it seems, flies in the face of Jesus' account of the Rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16). There are probably other canonical NT texts that would refute this notion wouldn't you say? re: praying to the saints... I have a hard time with that one, however, is there any canonical NT text that would either support or refute such a practice? Would such inconsistencies or lack, thereof serve as an argument for or against canonicity? Someone mentioned that the NT supports the notion of a pre-resurrection purgatory. If you can, I'd like to know what those texts are. Thanks

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Astralis, Some Questions: 1. Wouldn't you think that Jeremiah being thrown into a sewage pit qualified him as a recipient of the kind of torture outlined in your quote from Heb.11? 2. Wouldn't the death of Zechariah son of Berekiah (Alluded to in Mt.23:35) of II Chron. qualify under the same criterion established by Heb.11? (By the way, I've always understood that Jesus' quote of Mt. 23:34-36 was His way of saying "You are responsible for the deaths of all the prophets from Gen. to II Chron. (Beginning to end, since II Chron. is the last book of the Jewish OT.) 3. Even with the Deuterocanonical books included, would II Chron. still have been the last book in the Jewish OT? 4. Could you refer to a doctrine or two that might be derived from a Deuterocanonical (interesting term! :-) ) book that would prove to be at variance with contemporary protestant theology? Thanks for your input.