Search This Blog

Monday, January 17, 2011

Why do Catholics have 7 extra books in their Bible?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question: 
Why do Catholics have 7 extra books**  in their Bible?  When were they added and why? 
(**
1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith)

Last question first, because it's just wrong, wrong, wrong!  Catholics did not "add" 7 books to the Bible.  They were removed during the Protestant Reformation by those who disagreed with the concepts (such as purgatory) that were taught in them. It can be proven historically that the 46 books of the Old Testament, which include the 7 books listed above, were in the first manuscripts, and in the first Bibles for the first 1500 years of the Church.  It was because of the Reformation that these books were removed.

Thus, they are not "extra".  The correct questions to ask are, "Why do Protestant Bibles not have these 7 books?"  "When were they removed?"
As Protestant church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books"source
(Note:  the term "apocryphya" is a disparaging word, meaning "false, or of questionable authenticity".  Catholics refer to these 7 books as the "deuterocanon", meaning, second canon, not apocryphya.)

The canon of Scripture (that is, the list of books that belong in the Bible) was determined by the Catholic Church initially in the 4th century, and later ratified at numerous church councils.  That is, it was the Catholic Church which, guided by the Holy Spirit, discerned what writings were theopneustos (God-breathed) and what were not.  See here for a non-exhaustive list of ancient Christian texts that existed in the first centuries.  I am amazed at this list--there are hundreds of manuscripts and writings about Jesus in existence that were rejected by the Catholic Church as not being inspired.  It makes one wonder how any Christian who rejects the
authority of the Catholic Church could trust the Church's decision to include, say, the Gospel of Mark but reject the Gospel of Thomas.  That is, each and every time a Christian cites Scripture, he is giving tacit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church, whether he realizes it or not.  For, as St. Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church." 
Another objection that's often raised regarding these 7 books is that they contain factual errors.  A common example is in the book of Judith it states that King Nebuchadnezzar is the king of the Assyrians, when history tells us he was actually a Babylonian king.  However, the book of Judith is not meant to be a historical novel.  Biblical scholars agree that this book is a parable. "The charge of historical error is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the book’s genre. The supposed "errors" are actually cues to the ancient audience to tell them what kind of literature they were reading. Everyone, and certainly every literate Jew of the period, knew which nation Nebuchadnezzar ruled. The reason he is presented as king of Assyria in the very first verse of the book is that the author wants to telegraph to his audience, right from the beginning, that they are not reading ordinary historical writing." source Incidentally, if we're going to dismiss books of the Bible because they contain factual errors, then we ought to dismiss the Gospel of Matthew, which contains a factual error:  Jesus says that the mustard seed "is the smallest of all the seeds."  It is not.  Thus, if Christians hold that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired, despite this factual error, they ought not dismiss other books of the Bible simply because they contain historical, geographic, scientific or other factual errors.

(Note:  Catholics profess the Bible to be inerrant
.  Yet we understand that in the example above of Jesus claiming the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, he is not proclaiming a truth of botany, but a parable.  "If we conclude that Jesus is making a scientific assertion we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were.Because (Matthew) is not making scientific assertions, it is wrong to charge (Matthew) with scientific error. If someone draws erroneous scientific conclusions from a misreading of (Matthew), the error belongs not to (Matthew) but to the person who has misread it.

Therefore we should not say that (Matthew) does not have "full scientific accuracy"—a statement that is bound to disturb the faithful and undermine their confidence in Scripture. Instead we should say that (Matthew)is not making scientific assertions and that we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were.

The same applies to statements such as "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible." In fact we should, for everything asserted in Sacred Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit, and he does not make mistakes.

The burden is on us to recognize what the Spirit is and is not asserting, and we may stumble into error if we make a mistake in doing this.

This applies to science or history or faith or morals or salvation or any other subject. The error belongs to us as interpreters, not to the Holy Spirit and not to the Scripture that he inspired." 
source

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online
Article from "This Rock" magazine on the Deuterocanon

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

72 comments:

  1. Unfortunately the author is wrong, wrong, wrong. The extra books were added around 1500 AD. Around 350AD the catholic church recognized only the original 66 books. The 7 extra books were added to support catholic doctrine, that are not based in scripture. Most catholic are ignorant of this fact. Does this mean Catholics are not Christian, of course not. However the hierarchy in the the catholic church who knowing preach these books as divine, do have issues with salvation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could you please provide your source for this assertion, please?

      It would be helpful if you could offer a manuscript of the Bible canon from 350 AD that recognized only the 66 books. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. 1546 AD was the date of Counsel of Tent - Which could probably help on the above persons "assertions." I stumbled across your page researching "lent" - Which then lead me to some other interests of the Apocrypha...

      A question I have though if you wouldn't be so kind to answer - If Jews do not apply the Apocrypha within their canon, why do Catholics?

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comment. I am curious though as to why you believe that Jews did not accept these 7 books.

      Delete
    4. Who was it that wrote these 7 books if it was not Jews? And who included them in the Septuagint if not Jews?

      Delete
    5. These books weren't included into the Catholic canon until 1546 AD @ Counsel of Tent. If you can share when they were included before this, that would be great.

      Delete
    6. As this is the second time you have typed this error, I suspect it is not a typo. Just a correction: It is the Council of Trent that was a Catholic council. Not the Council of Tent.

      Delete
    7. And please see this source for all of the examples of the Catholic canon including these 7 books prior to the Council of Trent.
      http://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/bible/apocrypha-by-dave-armstrong/

      Delete
    8. Okay, my apologies for not typing correctly. But you do know what I'm referencing or talking about. Are we speaking with "gentleness and respect?" Or are we trying to diminish one another?

      Delete
    9. However, thank you for providing your information. It is much appreciated as I'm currently researching. God bless!

      Delete
    10. As it was twice that you made this error, one would assume that you actually thought it was Tent and not Trent. I hope that I have saved you from making this error in the future. It just looks as if you're uninformed. As for speaking with "gentleness and reverence", I do believe it was as gentle and reverent as your comment above.

      Delete
    11. I've read through your source. Thank you for sharing. I do apologize if I have taken up some of your time. However, using the Tanakh where do these books fall into place?

      Delete
    12. First you have to answer the question: why use the Tanakh? Why not use only the Torah?

      Delete
    13. Either which - Since you brought it up please share for both. Where do they fall?

      Delete
    14. They are excluded from those canons.

      Now, my question to you, Anonymous: Using the Torah, where do Malachi, Psalms, Joel, Daniel, Habakkuk, Jonah, Obadiah fall into place?

      Delete
    15. I understand they are excluded.

      My question is "if" they were within them? Where would they be or are you implementing that they were never in them? Or we just don't have enough information as to where they would stand.

      As for your question to me. I'll be doing deeper research tonight and will get back to you, I'm not avoiding the question. I for sure thank you for taking the time to share with me. I'm learning here! lol

      Delete
    16. If these 7 books were within, this is where they would be: http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

      And no research is needed to answer my question, Anonymous. The answer is obvious: all of the books that I mentioned that are in your Old Testament are excluded from the Torah. There are some Jewish sects that declared that only the first 5 books of Moses are inspired.

      And I am heartened that you are learning something here!

      Delete
    17. I attempted to post earlier, unfortunately it didn’t post. So apologies upfront, this is a 2nd attempt at it. If the first one came through please post that or both – I’m trying to reiterate the last post.

      In response: I’m not sure of the amount of Jews that follow the Torah as the only Godly inspired books. However, from the research performed as I indicated the Tanakh is proclaimed as the Jewish Canon. The Tanakh consists of 24 books which equals the amount of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, which brings belief to Jews of its completion. Same does the Talmud, which is kind of similar to commentary of the Scriptures we can read today from different scholars. Another example of Jewish indication being a complete Canon is Josephus and Philo which were considered as some of the top Jewish scholars of 1st century AD. (70AD – 132) Josephus stated, “from Artaxerxes (time of Malachi’s day, 400BC) until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased.”

      Which we know Josephus holds a strong support for the life of Jesus Christ for followers. Jesus himself points at the Tanakh being complete as He indicates through the New Testament. Stating that, “from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah.” Can you tell me if Jesus ever quoted from the Apocrypha?

      Also, the link you posted is showing the lay out of the bible as of today. Can you share with me the lay out of the Tanakh if it would have had the Apocrypha within it? Hope you have a great night. God bless you!

      Delete
    18. I will have to disagree with you, friend. At the time of Christ, there was NO CONSENSUS about the Jewish canon. The Jewish canon was not yet closed.

      And even if there were consensus, why would we submit to the authority of a group of people who rejected Christ? Clearly, they got that big thing wrong, (and it's a biggie), so why would we trust their authority about what's inspired and what's not?

      It is simply an arbitrary choice that you are making to say, "I will go with the Jews who agreed upon the 66 book canon. But not those who declared there to be only 5 books. Or 72 books. Or 76 books."

      Delete
    19. Regarding Josephus and Philo, well, they were part of the Jewish sect that believed in the Masoretic text. But that proves nothing. No one is disputing that there weren't Jews who believed in the Hebrews canon.

      The point that is being made is that there were Jews who believed in the Greek canon.

      And that the NT authors cited the Greek translation, giving it authority and credibility.

      And that it is the Church, not the Jews, who have the authority to discern the canon of the Christian bible.

      Delete
    20. You do believe Jesus taught from the Tanakh, correct? If so, which books did Jesus teach from? Which then brings me to ask, are we implying that Jesus taught from a book and from a group that has no authority? To go even further Jesus was brought up in this particular culture as our savior within God's chosen people, the Jews. Somehow we discredit all God's chosen as wrong and invalid because of that? To your statement of Arbitrary, I wouldn't claim arbitrary but more so as following Jesus and our Savior's choice.

      I guess you can see that I'm getting confused. I hope you can shed some light on it. Thank you for taking the time yet again. :)

      Delete
    21. No, Anonymous. The NT quotes from the Septuagint mainly.

      See here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/quote01.html
      and here: http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

      Delete
    22. Regarding your comment that Jesus taught "from a group that has no authority"...I am confused. HOW did Jesus teach "from" a group of people? As a Christian I believe that Jesus was his own authority when he spoke, not the Jews.

      And I do not discredit the Jews, the chosen people. In fact, I defer to their canon--the Septuagint. I believe that they were the ones who discerned this canon as inspired.

      You seem to be discrediting them, however. Why is it that you believe that the Masoretic text is inspired but not the Septuagint? They were both used by the Jewish people at the time of Jesus--just different groups of Jews.

      Delete
    23. Sorry it has taken me a bit to get back to you.

      To your first comment:

      If your answer is “No.” Then I would need a deeper understanding of reference within Matthew regarding “jots and tittles,” which are references to the Tanakh and Hebrew writings. These references would not reflect the Septuagint writings as “Jots and tittles” would make of no sense. Jots are references to the dotting of the “I” and crossing the “t”s in today’s common English language. Also, tittles are references to strokes of the Hebrew writing style; an example would be how we stroke the pen across a paper to form a letter. Then there is another Jesus reference later within Matthew regarding Abel (Gen 4:8) to Zacharis (2nd Chron 24:20-22). The Septuagint canon is Gen to Daniel, when the Hebrew canon it is Gen to 2nd Chron. So this reference Jesus is making is directing to the Jewish (Hebrew, Tanakh) Canon, which I believe you have discredited as no census being taken. But yet then Jesus must of prophesized here to place the example in the New Testament of what the Jewish Canon will be in the future? (Absolute speculation here, I’m just going off of your discrediting of this reference from an earlier comment.) Then within Luke Jesus makes another reference to the “law” (Torah), “prophets” (Nevi’im), “writings” (Ketivum) – why leave out the Aprocrypha? Another indication of the Jewish Canon is these 3 books make up the name of the Tanakh – T (Torah), N (Nevi’im), K (Ketivum) aka Ta-Na-Kh. These are New Testament references that I’m sharing as well. So if you could please elaborate on this that would be greatly appreciated!

      To your 2nd comment:

      I didn’t mean to confuse but as for a group that has no authority, I’m referring to the Jews. In which you stated “why would we submit to the authority of a group of people who rejected Christ?” But Jesus was a Jew and everything that Jesus was teaching within the Synagogues of that time was of no authority (referring to the Tanakh – Jew, Jewish Canon) therefore wasting His time. I agree with you however, that Jesus was His own authority. But Jesus stated He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. So as you can see the examples that I have put above are those that show He was teaching from the Tanakh and not from the Septuagint. Your indication that I don’t believe the Septuagint to not be inspired is false, I claim the “Apocrypha” to not be inspired, as I follow Jesus but He makes of no reference, unless you can share? (I believe I’ve asked this question a few times.) Hope I didn’t apply more confusion, sincerely apologies upfront but hopefully you can assist.

      Delete
    24. Thanks for your comments, Anonymous.
      Regarding your reference to Matt 5:8, I find it curious that you cite that, as there are Bibles that translate it this way: "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
      IOTA is a reference to the Greek letter.

      Would then this not be an indicator that the Greek Septuagint is what Matthew is referencing?

      Delete
    25. Regarding Jesus referencing Abel to Zachariah, can you please cite what Bible verse in Matthew you are referencing?

      As far as the reference in Luke, I am uncertain how you believe that it leaves out the deuterocanon. Are not Sirach, Judith, Tobit and Baruch included in the "prophets"? And is not Wisdom included in the Psalms, as Proverbs are?

      Delete
    26. Regarding Jesus being His Own Authority--amen!

      But you have not yet shown that Jesus taught from the Jewish Bible. In fact, Matthew seems to use the Greek "iota", in the verse that you referenced.

      And I am not sure what you are saying about Jesus not quoting from the deuterocanon. Jesus also never quotes from Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum---none of which are quoted by Jesus.

      Are you willing to say that all of the above ancient books are not inspired because Jesus made no reference to them?

      Delete
    27. I'm not catholic but this is obviously false. The Latin vulgate was developed in the 4th century and that had the seven extra books

      Delete
    28. Thanks for your comment. Since the 4th century is when the first Bible were actually printed, this proves our point--from the very beginning the Bible included those 7 books of the deuterocanon.

      Delete
  2. 2 Macc. 12:45-46 says Praying for Dead...

    But The Word of God in Hebrews 9:27 plainly states, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.
    Can U Explain as its Contradicting..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure where the contradiction lies. Men do only die once. 2 Macc says nothing about men dying more than once.

      Delete
  3. What are the names of the seven extra books in the catholic bible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you read the article, they are listed at the top, in blue.

      And if you read the article you will note that your question is worded incorrectly. There are not 7 "extra books" in the Catholic Bible. Rather, the Protestant Bible is missing 7 books.

      Delete
    2. The old testament of the protection is the same as Jewish religion accept as inspired by God.The real issue is catholic going to hell lost in their work salvation.Confused on the free gift Jesus offer all.2 Corinthians 5:21
      For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
      Now to be cured one must take the medicine.Jesus is
      our spiritual cure.The cure for the illness of sin that causes death and hell.
      So 1 john 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.Salvation is not merit by humans .It not earn or gain by deeds or works .It's a free gift. God offers this free gift by way of His sacrifice on the cross.We only need to ask to receive His forgiveness for Jesus to give us the pardon from Judgement and hell. 1 john 5 - 13 john 6 - 47 act 15 - 11 roman 10 - 10 and 11 just some of the many scripture that show you can know you have gain heaven and escape hell .Not maybe but know for sure .Jesus said not maybe but know Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life.

      Delete
    3. Catholics say amen to all of the above verses!

      Delete
  4. To the Anonymous poster who gave a website: I am sorry, but I do not publish comments that include websites of questionable credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Catholicism in their own words says your damned if you think your sin are forgiven without having to do works and purgatory .Canon 30: "If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema." means damned.What the bible says "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1)."And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 2:13-14)next works salvation . Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."
    What the bible says "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal. 3:1-3).
    "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." (Gal. 5:1-3). Next Canon 30: "If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema."
    "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).
    "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 2:13-14). 1 john 1 9 If we confess our sins, Jesus is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness.... Folks no need for the blasphemy of Purgatory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Catholics give a heart amen to all of the above verses in the Bible!

      We are, however, as Canon 30 does say: damned if we die if we have mortal sin on our soul.

      I can't imagine any Christian believing that anyone who is in heaven has sin that remains!

      Delete
    2. I trust Jesus to cover all my sins w/ his blood.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, Anonymous, for your trust in Jesus. Catholics, too, trust Jesus to cover all of our sins with His blood.

      Delete
  6. I stumbled onto this website looking for ancient Catholic texts it is for a college assignment. I also need to know where do Angels play a role? Any advise is helpful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church, searching for "angels".
      http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=angels&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

      Delete
  7. What seems to bother me most of all is the fact that no one seems to care that most of the books that are attributed to any one author is scientific guess work at best. Clearly the gospels are written way after the fact and if they are in fact written by those who have been said to be the authors, the men (or women) would have been at or very near the ends of theirs lives. We need to remember that people live on average for shorter lives than we do as modern day humans and they also lived in a much greater risk of illness and attack. In the gospel of Luke he opens by writing to Theophilus essentially saying what he is about to tell is based on his study of many earlier works that he has studied at great length. He does no tell what it is he has studied nor who it was that wrote the works he read so what we have in the gospel of Luke is a second, third or even fourth telling of the events written in Luke.

    The other thing that really bothers me is this. The above article says that the Bible is not flawed but contradictions and factual errors abound in great numbers. We are told that it is not the book itself at fault but that of the reader. There is something fundamentally wrong with that claim. In the Bible it is almost always known when someone is speaking in riddles and someone is speaking literally per se, and when a passage is written as literal, say the topic this author used and the error within the book of Judith about king Neb.. That is clearly represented as fact, why on Earth would the author wish to hide the fact that this horrible king governed another kingdom other than the one he actually did. Surely those at the time would have known who he was and where he was from and there is no benefit to saying otherwise. Clearly this is a simple error that made its way into the Bible and once found the church couldn't say that it was an error so what are their options? Certainly they aren't going to say that there is something wrong in the book they beat their followers with so the only other choice they have is to blame the reader for not understanding.

    It is not my intention here to drive anyone away from their faith or drive a wedge into their beliefs, even of I could. I just find it humorous that their are millions out there that take the idea that the reader is wrong in reading what is presented as fact, actually as fact. But then again it is in no way surprising either.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for your comments, Anonymous.

    One quick question: when you say "We are told that it is not the book itself at fault but that of the reader"---who are you referring to as doing the "telling"?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I found this article very helpful. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/bible/the-apocrypha/

    ReplyDelete
  10. The large flaw that I believe everyone is missing commenting on is that both the Catholic Church and the Protestant church Bibles include the same 27 New Testament books. I do not believe in purgatory, but I do agree that that we find proof in Old Testament of an area in between Heaven and Hell (whether you refer to that as Ambraham's Bosom or Purgatory). I believe the Bible clearly shows that Jesus came to fullfill scripture and that's why we should take all our doctrinal basis from the New Testament. Not that the Old Testiment is flawed, but if we don't look at the Old Testiment in the light of Jesus later coming to early and dying on the cross for our sins we can get flawed consepts. Just has animal blood sacrifice is no longer necessary as it was before Christ's death, neither is the use of Amraham's Boson(or Purgatory). People tend to want to bring tradition into there beliefs and that's why people pull thing out of context from the old Testiment. Martin Luther's whole point was that we as Christian got to a point where we were more relying on our works and traditions to save us from our sins rather than the blood of Christ which is the only true thing that can save us. The fact that Christ blood washes our sins away is inconntradictable and irrefutably proven in scripture. Now to my point. After Christ death on the cross I don't see any mention of and "In between place" between Heaven and hell, people go to Heaven or people go to hell. Part of Christ 3 days in the grave was fighting Satin for people that were possibly in this "in between place" because they didn't have the opportunity to put their faith in Christ before they died. I don't think He went and told them "hey, if your family and friend pray for you might be able to come to heaven with me now". My final point and what I beleave is the most important is this: when Christ was dying on the cross, one of his last interactions(beside after he was raised from the dead) was with 2 men also dying next to Him. Both these men, like all of us were worthy of death, hell and damnation. One of these men had a hard heart and the other was broken and said that he recognized Jesus as a sinless savior. He confessed his failures and what was Jesus's response? Did He say "you will spend an unknown amount of time in purgatory while friends and family pray for you and your sins our cleansed? No, He said "today, you will be with me in Paradise". Not tomorrow, not next week, but today. I believe only one place is paradise and that's Heaven. Sadly, I know the 2nd thief on the cross when to Hell that day. Are we going to miss our chance to go to heaven because we think we might have a 2nd chance after we die? Or are we going to confess or sin, try to not fall into the same sin and trust in Jesus' blood like He told us to for the forgiveness from Damnation in Hell? I'm going to do what Jesus told me to because I'm imperfect and nobody except a Jesus can get me to Heaven. I'm not trying to throw Catholics under the bus because almost all of the Catholics I know have Saving Faith. But we can't teach people that no matter how they live their life there's a chance that through the prayer of believers they can Receive Salvations. Praise God that Jesus Death paid it all. All we have to do is realize that we are failures without Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for your comments, Anonymous.

    Firstly, regarding purgatory: if you died today, is your soul spotless and pure enough to stand before the Eternal Throne of heaven? Remember, Revelation says that "nothing unclean can enter heaven". If you've had an impure thought, a malicious thought, a jealous thought, acted in a way that was less than kind...you need to be "cleaned up a bit" before being face to face with Him.

    That's what purgatory is.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Secondly, regarding your statement " I believe the Bible clearly shows that Jesus came to fulfill scripture and that's why we should take all our doctrinal basis from the New Testament."

    The Bible NEVER sates we should "take all our doctrinal basis from the New Testament".

    That's a man-made tradition, Anonymous.

    Also, it doesn't follow that since "Jesus came to fulfill scripture" that "we should take all our doctrinal basis from the New Testament."

    The Christian faith was whole and entire before a single word of the New Testament was ever put to writ. It was proclaimed and professed by many long before any New Testament or Bible was in existence.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Finally, regarding the Good Thief (whom we Catholics call St. Dismas), we know that Jesus couldn't have meant that St. Dismas would be with Him in heaven TODAY, because Jesus didn't ascend to heaven on Good Friday, right? He went there 40 DAYS AFTER the resurrection.

    Regardless, it may be true that St. Dismas didn't go to purgatory (although there is no doubt that he was purged of his sins before entering heaven), but that doesn't mean that others don't have to go through purgatory.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am clean enough. Though I'm like scarlet, he has made me white as snow. He had the complete power to make us pure and to hint otherwise is to contradict His teaching.

    To say Christianity was entire before Christ is false. After the fall in the garden humanity created a large flaw, sin. The biggest point of the Old Testament is to point to the coming of Christ. Even the Ten Commandment show our failure. I think you would agree that no one can obey all the commandments. We should try though Christ to be moral examples, but as the Old Testament shows, we can't ever be good enough by our own efforts.

    Also, as far as the Thief. who are we to try to interpret what Jesus "meant"? He was very clear on letting people know when he was spreaking in parables. I think he literally meant what he said. Purgatory doesn't sound like paradise to me. Who's to say Jim and the thief didn't immediately go to Heaven? After all, Christ did 100% die.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks for your comments, Anonymous.

    But the Bible doesn't state we have to be "clean enough". It states NOTHING unclean can enter heaven.

    And "clean enough"? That seems to demonstrate a rather impoverished grasp of the Glory and Almighty Grandeur of the Godhead.

    No..."clean enough" is certainly NOT worthy to stand before God.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And you are correct that God does indeed have the power to make you clean as snow. He does that through the atoning power of His blood. And that happens in purgatory.

    You can be assured that if you've thought a malicious thought today, or any day after your "acceptance of Christ as your personal Lord and savior" that your soul is definitely NOT white as snow.

    Neither is mine, of course, unless I have just come out of the confessional ;).

    So that's why you and I both need purgatory. So we will be fit to stand before the King.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..."And that happens in purgatory."
      " That purgatory is a false doctrine is easy to prove from the Scriptures. When Jesus died on the cross, He said "It is finished" (John 19:30). Jesus completed the work of redemption at the cross. In His high priestly prayer to the Father, Jesus said, "I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do" (John 17:4). Hebrews 10:14 emphatically declares, "By one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy." Hence, those who believe in Christ are "made perfect" forever; no further "purging" is necessary. First John 1:7 says, "The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." Romans 8:1 says, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

      Jesus took care of "purging" our sins by His work of salvation at the cross. Hebrews 1:3 affirms, "After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Jesus provided full purification for our sins. "
      -Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your comments.

      You stated: When Jesus died on the cross, He said "It is finished" (John 19:30). Jesus completed the work of redemption at the cross. In His high priestly prayer to the Father, Jesus said, "I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do" (John 17:4). Hebrews 10:14 emphatically declares, "By one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy." Hence, those who believe in Christ are "made perfect"

      All of that is very Catholic!

      But the problem is that we are indeed made perfect...until we sin again. Then, we are NOT perfect. And that's why purgatory is necessary--the work of Christ happens in purgatory where we are cleansed and purified before our entry into the Eternal Godhead.

      Delete
    3. Regarding these comments: First John 1:7 says, "The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." Romans 8:1 says, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Jesus took care of "purging" our sins by His work of salvation at the cross. Hebrews 1:3 affirms, "After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Jesus provided full purification for our sins. "

      All of the above is also very Catholic!

      Not sure how any of the above disproves Purgatory? It is still Christ who is doing the purging in Purgatory. :)

      Delete
  17. And I didn't say Christianity was entire "before Christ'. I said Christianity was whole and entire BEFORE A SINGLE WORD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS PUT TO WRIT.

    What is it that the Apostles, and their disciples were using to profess the Truths of Christianity before the New Testament?

    It certainly wasn't the Bible...for it had yet to be written.

    They used Sacred Tradition, the kerygma, the paradosis, to spread the Good News.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Can you explain how Jesus told St. Dismas that he would be with HIM in paradise TODAY, when Jesus didn't go to heaven on Good Friday?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Because that's what he said. Do you think purgatory is paradise? I'm not going to try to twist Jesus' word into what I want Or think it means.

    ReplyDelete
  20. No, purgatory is NOT paradise. St. Dismas went to heaven. He did not go to purgatory.

    But that doesn't mean there is no purgatory, just because St. Dismas didn't go there.

    Just like it doesn't mean there's no hell, just because St. Dismas didn't go there.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And could you answer how it is that Jesus didn't go to heaven on Good Friday yet told the Good Thief "Truly I tell you today you will be with me in paradise"?

    Catholics have an answer to this.

    Not sure how you are able to reconcile it with your interpretation of Scripture?

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's tough to say for sure. However, I don't see anything in scripture saying that he didn't go to heaven temporarily. All I can take out of that scripture is how it reads. Greek scholars put punctuation in sentences so it wouldn't be broken up incorectly. The verse does have the comma after the word "today" as if to say "I'm speaking to you today". Every version of that verse I've seen has the comma before the word "today". So it reads "truly i tell you, today you will be with me in paradise". The second half of that verse is not broken up. If someone has ever seen a version where the comma is in a different place I would be interested to know.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You are saying that Jesus went to heaven temporarily? That's certainly NOT a Scriptural belief!

    As far as the comma placement, Greek scholars are NOT inspired, and therefore simply men who could have placed the commas incorrectly.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What is you interpretation? You agree that the thief went straight to heaven in your comment above. And If we say that that Jesus didn't mean what He said, then that puts everything he said and the Christian Faith as a whole into question. And I refuse to do that. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.(2 Timothy 3:16). Part of what I take from this is that God has inspired the scripture and just like He used imperfect people to write it, he also uses imperfect people to translate it. I find it amazing that through all the years and all the translations that the all the versions of the bible are as close as the are. Even the fact that we can't find version of that verse writen any other way shows that God worked to keep his word intact. The thousands of people that have been involved in translating and they've all been so close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We aren't saying Jesus didn't mean what He said. We just know that Jesus didn't go to heaven that day. So it's possible that what Jesus was was, "I tell you today, (as in, at this moment I am telling you), 'You will be with me in paradise'." And the gates of heaven weren't opened until Jesus' ascension.

      So how could the Good Thief be in heaven prior to Christ?

      Clearly, Jesus simply meant that because of St. Dismas' conversion, he would be in heaven.

      Delete
    2. And we are agreed that God used imperfect people to write and translate the Sacred Scriptures. But the people who wrote the Bible were INSPIRED. Those who translated it were not.

      That means that the INSPIRED writers could not err. They were given the charism of infallibility, protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

      But the translators were not protected by this charism of infallibility...and could therefore err in their translations.

      Delete
  25. Also, you seem to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is almost flawless. Now isn't that what led the church to denying Christ?Now I understand that the Catholic Church is different the the church in Rome before Christ coming. But the point is that I beleive it is dangerous to beleive that we have perfect interpretation of scripture. If it sounds like that's is what I'm saying, I'm sorry because I'm surely not trying to do that. But if we stand too strong on only the tradition of the church rather than Examining the "Living Word of God" daily, we are going to miss the true point of the church, which is reaching the lost and looking towards christ's return. I do respect a lot of what the Catholic Church stands on (specifically pro life issues and moral values). Thank you for this discussion and I will end my comments with this: Lord, I pray that you would help us all focus on what you've called us primarilly to do, reach those who are lost and dying with no hope in You. We know that are fight is not against flesh and blood, but against satan's principalities. We trust in you for the future of the church. In the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, Amen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one is claiming that the Church is almost flawless. In fact, our Church professes that she is indeed imperfect.

      Read this in our Catechism:

      The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect." In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: "Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state - though each in his own way - are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect."
      http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#825

      Delete
    2. And we are agreed that we should never stand on ONLY the Tradition.

      Catholicism embraces BOTH channels of God's revelation: Tradition AND Scripture.

      She rejects Tradition ALONE. She rejects Scripture ALONE.

      And thank you for that beautiful prayer. Amen!

      Delete
  26. Hi mister (Apologist) i was raised Catholic and technically still am I fully and sincerly believe in God but i also study the opposition and it makes me curious.Is there anything you can personally say from your own personal experience why God is real and or hook me up with legitimate website something intellectually powerful enough totally burn my roomates who are athiest and are trully believers in todays science...thank you kindly .."QUE DIOS TE BENDIGA"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi there! Glad you came to this site!

      There's a great website you should join: http://forums.catholic.com/index.php

      You can ask a question, and within minutes you'll have lots of responses and a lively dialogue.

      It's a great way to learn your faith!

      Delete
  27. i apologize for my grammar and entering a comment on wrong topic but i would be very grateful for a response thank you......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as dialogue with atheists--I suggest you read anything by Catholic apologist Trent Horn. He has some really great answers to some common atheistic questions.

      Delete