Where Did these Beliefs Come From?

[Deeje]

As you can see from these passages. The Apocalypse of Peter present very clear implication that there is an afterlife in the form of heaven and hell where the dead live anew. Now, its unclear if they are spirits or raised whole in some sort of other plane of existence, but it does give you scriptural support for the existence of a literal hell and heaven and very good argument for the existence of souls. There is no mention of the purgatory in this text and the punishment and rewards are implied to be eternal.

Since I have no interest in apocryphal books, nor do I have to depend on them for a vision of 'heaven or hell', the Bible will suffice for any further responses.

There is no "heaven or hell " scenario as opposite destinations for the human soul in any passage of the Bible.
That is because the Bible teaches about resurrection, not the continuation of life after death, but a restoration of it.
A "soul" in the Hebrew scriptures was a living, breathing creature, both animals and man. All were called "souls" in the Genesis creation account.

Souls are not immortal...they die. (Ezekiel 18:4) Adam "became" a soul when God started him breathing. (Genesis 2:7)

Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10....
"For the living know that they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor do they have a reward any longer, for their memory is forgotten. . . . . Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity, planning, knowledge, or wisdom in Sheol where you are going." (NASB)

"Sheol" is the common grave of mankind...the place where we all go when we die. As you can see, it is not a place of consciousness, but a place of rest. All thought processes cease.
Jesus confirmed it with the death of Lazarus....

John 11:11-15....
"This He said, and after this He said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going so that I may awaken him from sleep.” 12 The disciples then said to Him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will come out of it.” 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about actual sleep. 14 So Jesus then said to them plainly, “Lazarus died, 15 and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let’s go to him.”

Lazarus was sleeping in death...and Jesus woke him up....that is the resurrection. (John 5:28-29)

 

[pearl]

As you can see from these passages. The Apocalypse of Peter present very clear implication that there is an afterlife in the form of heaven and hell where the dead live anew.

2 Maccabees.
Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was approaching, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there.f* Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.g
43He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;
44for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45But 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.
46Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.

 

[epronovost]

Since I have no interest in apocryphal books

Why?

You said scriptures and apocryphal books are scriptures. In fact, its even more strange as you have dismissed the practices and writings of Christian leaders of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries as "corrupt" yet would dismiss the scriptures that these very same leader decided to ignore. I don't know you, but if someone I consider corrupt tells me not to pay attention to something, I'll be even more attentive to it.

 

[Deeje]

Why?

You said scriptures and apocryphal books are scriptures.

They were not included in the canon because their content was out of harmony with the rest of scripture.

The Bible is a library of 66 smaller books that all tell portions of the same story written over 1600 years by authors as diverse as.....a shepherd, farmer, tentmaker, fisherman, tax collector, physician, priest, prophet, or king. When any writing demonstrates serious contradictory content, that is evidence that it is not inspired of God and should therefore not be included. If the Bible is the word of God, then it is he who determines its content, not any man. As it stands today, as we should expect, there is no contradictory content.

In fact, its even more strange as you have dismissed the practices and writings of Christian leaders of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries as "corrupt" yet would dismiss the scriptures that these very same leader decided to ignore.

If you understand the situation that was taking place in the later half of the first century, apostasy was already manifesting itself, but this was kept in check by the presence of the apostles. Jesus and those who became his ‘ambassadors’, (his 12 apostles) had warned about this apostasy before it happened. (Matthew 13:24-30; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Acts 20:30)

Jesus warned that the the devil would sow seeds of counterfeit Christianity that would spread like “weeds” in the world, and would grow together with the “wheat” right up until the “harvest” time. This was the time connected with Christ’s promised return. He said that his angels would collect these fake Christians and destroy them. The apostles warned that from among their own congregations, men would rise and speak twisted things to draw the disciples away after themselves.....and this is exactly what happened. I believe that history clearly shows that it happened, just as they said it would.

When the last apostle John passed away, the restraining influence was taken away, (2 Thessalonians 2:3,6-12) and the apostasy went into full swing. What transpired from the second century onward, was the complete corruption of “the church”. What finally emerged was Roman Catholicism in the 4th century, and history attests to the fact that it’s founder was a pagan Roman Emperor whose main objective in declaring Roman Catholicism the state religion, was to consolidate his religiously divided empire....it was politically motivated, not because the Emperor himself was interested in becoming a Christian. He pretended to be, but was renown for building pagan temples along with Christian churches. He is reported to have been a worshipper of Zeus to his dying day.

By fusing the two religions into one state religion, he combined aspects of both in order to keep all his constituents happy. The resulting “church” however was totally alienated from the God they claimed to worship. Their beliefs were grounded in pagan sun worship dressed up with a thin veneer of Christianity......little of it demonstrated anything like original Biblical Christianity.....why do you think they rejected sola scriptura? I have found that their beliefs were not from the Bible.

I don't know you, but if someone I consider corrupt tells me not to pay attention to something, I'll be even more attentive to it.

Good...so you should. Why do you think I did? Having grown up in the church and finding its teachings to be contrary to what the Bible taught, and being warned not to ask questions, I studied the Bible throughly to discover what the first Christians believed and practiced because, the only way to tell a counterfeit from a fake is to have a good knowledge of the real thing.

The list of questions in the OP is just a sample of the beliefs that I believe were never part of original Christian teaching, and very easy to trace back to their origins. The sad fact is that too few people actually know what the first Christians believed. They accept the counterfeit as the real thing because it’s all they have ever known. Like the Jews when Jesus walked the earth, the people were thoroughly ingrained with Pharisaical teachings, which Jesus condemned outright. (Matthew 23) History is repeating....and apparently, for the same reasons. The same deceiver (the father of lies) is at work, and he knows how to manipulate human thinking.

That is why I made sure that my research was thorough. Look outside the box and you might just discover the truth.....it’s an amazing journey in my experience.

 

[Deeje]

2 Maccabees.
Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was approaching, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there.f* Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.g
43He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;
44for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45But 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.
46Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin.

Please tell us what you believe this passage of an apocryphal book is saying.....

 

[epronovost]

The Bible is a library of 66 smaller books that all tell portions of the same story written over 1600 years by authors as diverse as.....a shepherd, farmer, tentmaker, fisherman, tax collector, physician, priest, prophet, or king. When any writing demonstrates serious contradictory content, that is evidence that it is not inspired of God and should therefore not be included. If the Bible is the word of God, then it is he who determines its content, not any man. As it stands today, as we should expect, there is no contradictory content.

Actually there are several contradictions in the NT as we speak. The four Gospels have many points of disagreements though they are, to be fair, on relatively small points like "what were Jesus' last words on the cross", what's Jesus exact genealogy, etc. You also commit a grave fallacy by implying that if X contradicts the Canon, then it's certainly false or not inspired. It basically commits a fallacy of assumed premise, that the Canon is inspired. There are several apocryphal texts which shares a lot in common like the so called "gnostic Canon". If there are "false scriptures" and "true scriptures" you cannot say that because some don't match the others that they are false, the opposite is just as likely. You would need another, more objective, criteria by which to measure them against one another. You could also assume that they are all true, but that they are some conciliatory scriptures missing for they were either destroyed, lost to time, never passed down in written form, etc.

Though I notice you do not mention in what the Apocalypse of Peter directly contradicts other points in the selected Canon. It does have several points in common with Revelation (also called the Apocalypse of John). The Apocalypse of Peter has been noted to have a certain kinship in style and content with the Second Epistle of Peter, which is Canon too.

The question then remains unanswered. Why do you reject apocryphal scriptures and specifically this one, especially one that, based on your dogma, was written by an Apostle who knew and followed Jesus back when he was still alive unlike Paul?

That is why I made sure that my research was thorough. Look outside the box and you might just discover the truth.....it’s an amazing journey in my experience.

I find it odd that your quest for religious truth didn't brought you in contact with any of the apocryphal Christian scriptures.

 

[epronovost]

Please tell us what you believe this passage of an apocryphal book is saying.....

2 Maccabees isn't an apocryphal book, at least not like the Apocalypse of Peter or the Gospel of Mary are. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox consider it Canon as do Anglicans though all other protestants consider it apocryphal.

 

[Deeje]

Actually there are several contradictions in the NT as we speak. The four Gospels have many points of disagreements though they are, to be fair, on relatively small points like "what were Jesus' last words on the cross", what's Jesus exact genealogy, etc.

Small inconsequential differences may only be scribal or translation errors. If the Book had been written by God himself, that would be a different story......but he gave humans the privilege of being his secretaries. He inspired their thoughts but not their choice of words.

You also commit a grave fallacy by implying that if X contradicts the Canon, then it's certainly false or not inspired. It basically commits a fallacy of assumed premise, that the Canon is inspired.

If I did not believe that the canon was inspired, I would not be here defending it. As an unbeliever, you make your own choices about what, and who to believe. That has nothing to do with me.....the Bible says that Jesus is the only way to salvation when this system of things eventually goes down....but it also says that no one can come to the son without an invitation from his Father (John 6:65)......God is choosing us as much as we think we are choosing him. He does not issue that invitation to just anyone....in fact relatively "few". (Matthew 7:13-14) You have to have the qualities that he is looking for in the future citizens of his Kingdom.....
If you don't want what God is offering, then he already knows it. No invitation will be issued.

There are several apocryphal texts which shares a lot in common like the so called "gnostic Canon". If there are "false scriptures" and "true scriptures" you cannot say that because some don't match the others that they are false, the opposite is just as likely. You would need another, more objective, criteria by which to measure them against one another. You could also assume that they are all true, but that they are some conciliatory scriptures missing for they were either destroyed, lost to time, never passed down in written form, etc.

I didn't choose the canon....nor did the church. I believe that its God's word...remember?

Though I notice you do not mention in what the Apocalypse of Peter directly contradicts other points in the selected Canon. It does have several points in common with Revelation (also called the Apocalypse of John). The Apocalypse of Peter has been noted to have a certain kinship in style and content with the Second Epistle of Peter, which is Canon too.

If its not in the canon then its either contradictory or its not necessary.
If there were many things that Jesus taught that were not included in the Bible record, why would you expect all the things conveyed by the apostles to rate higher mention?

The question then remains unanswered. Why do you reject apocryphal scriptures and specifically this one, especially one that, based on your dogma, was written by an Apostle who knew and followed Jesus back when he was still alive unlike Paul?

If its not in the accepted canon, (one that is minus the apocryphal texts) then to us, it isn't scripture. God chose what was to be included in his word....not men. I trust him more than I would ever trust "the church" which IMO makes a complete mockery of Christianity, and clearly teaches things that Christ never did.

I find it odd that your quest for religious truth didn't brought you in contact with any of the apocryphal Christian scriptures.

As above. The complete Bible as it stands today has all we need to gain salvation......the trouble is, so many have dismissed it as myth and legend, so its contents will go unheeded and unappreciated until the day they come face to face with the judge of all of us. Like the days of Noah, Jesus said....and here we are. (Matthew 24:37-39)

 

[epronovost]

I didn't choose the canon....nor did the church. I believe that its God's word...remember?

Yeah, you can absolutely believe that the Canon is the word of God, but you can't say that the Church didn't chose it because they absolutely did. They voted on the establishment of the Canon. They did so in Nikea in 323 and in the following Councils. It's also in those same councils that many doctrine you reject were established like the trinity for example. The fact that the Canon is established by the Church is in the very definition of the term. That's not your choice to believe or not. This is a matter of well attested historical fact with plenty of record. As mention before, what you call the Canon isn't universal, you consider 2 Maccabees as apocryphal while other denominations think its not. Similarly, you consider Revelations to be canonical while the Armenian Apostolic Church didn't until the Crusaders forced them to accept it.

 

[Deeje]

Yeah, you can absolutely believe that the Canon is the word of God, but you can't say that the Church didn't chose it because they absolutely did. They voted on the establishment of the Canon. They did so in Nikea in 323 and in the following Councils. It's also in those same councils that many doctrine you reject were established like the trinity for example. The fact that the Canon is established by the Church is in the very definition of the term. That's not your choice to believe or not. This is a matter of well attested historical fact with plenty of record. As mention before, what you call the Canon isn't universal, you consider 2 Maccabees as apocryphal while other denominations think its not. Similarly, you consider Revelations to be canonical while the Armenian Apostolic Church didn't until the Crusaders forced them to accept it.

You seem to think that God cannot differentiate between what is his will....and what is the will of men....he can use even his enemies to accomplish his will, if he so chooses. He exiled his people in Babylon as a punishment for their disobedience, but there were still faithful ones among them who did not fall away to Babylonian worship. (e.g. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego) When it was time, he used another nation to wipe out Babylon.
He doesn't even have to like people who worship false gods, to use them for his purpose.

If it was time to bring his completed word into the world, who else was he going to use? There was no other "Christianity"....just like there was no other Judaism when Jesus walked the earth. God still used that nation, even though its record of faithfulness and obedience was abysmal, to bring his son into the world. He keeps to his schedule regardless of who thinks they are in charge.

You don't know God at all....do you?

 

[epronovost]

You don't know God at all....do you?

Considering the absolute lack of any counter argument in your response or any sort of acknowledgement that you cannot declare the canonical scriptures right on the basis that you find them right and the apocryphal scripture false on the basis that they are false. That's you declaring what your God says based on your personal biases and beliefs and not the other way around, God declaring what your beliefs should be.

There are no mentions in your scriptures that says that there should be a division between canon and apocryphal scriptures and which should be witch. You did quoted scriptures mentioning that there would be false prophets and corrupt teachings, but no scriptural support as to what are the characteristics of such false prophets and corrupt teachings and if you were to present those, you have yet to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the texts you reject, some of which you seem to have never even read or heard of before, match those characteristics.

This is a scriptural debate, you have to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong to have debate and if you want to exclude some scriptures, you have to explain why. You can make an argument that certain dogma in Christianity have little to no support in canonical scripture. That's a fair point. Similar to the hypocrisy of those Churches, you do seem to have one of your own, calling for sola scriptura yet ignoring apocryphal scriptures. If you base your belief in God on scriptures alone, then there are no such thing as canonical and apocryphal scriptures as this is a fundamentally political demarcation established by an organized and hierarchized Church to make the demarcation between orthodox dogma and heresy. A sola scriptura Christian would have to take ALL of the Christian scriptures to learn of the message of God.

 

[Deeje]

This is a scriptural debate, you have to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong to have debate and if you want to exclude some scriptures, you have to explain why.

A scriptural debate....????? with all that scripture you have posted......did I miss something?
I have explained all I am going to, to someone who purports to know scripture without quoting a single verse.....

I am not interested in your opinions, and apparently you are not interested in mine so "stalemate".....
Without scripture you have nothing of value to add anything here....

2 Maccabees isn't an apocryphal book, at least not like the Apocalypse of Peter or the Gospel of Mary are. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox consider it Canon as do Anglicans though all other protestants consider it apocryphal.

I offer you the same invitation...what is that passage of scripture about?
It is of no consequence to me who accepts it, if I do not consider them to be genuine canonical scripture....?

 

[pearl]

Please tell us what you believe this passage of an apocryphal book is saying.....

12:42-45 This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v42) and sacrifices (v. 43) for the dead are efficacious. Judas probably intended his purification offering to ward off punishment from the living. The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9,14,23,36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. There is a similarity to the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.
The first and second Books of Maccabees, though regarded by Jews and Protestants as apocryphal, not inspired Scripture, because not contained in the Jewish list of books drawn up at the end of the first century A.D., have always been accepted by the Catholic Church as inspired and are called “deuterocanonical” to indicate that they are canonical even though disputed by some.
First and second Maccabees presents extreme persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes, it is apocalyptic literature.

 

[metis]

12:42-45 This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v42) and sacrifices (v. 43) for the dead are efficacious. Judas probably intended his purification offering to ward off punishment from the living. The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9,14,23,36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. There is a similarity to the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.
The first and second Books of Maccabees, though regarded by Jews and Protestants as apocryphal, not inspired Scripture, because not contained in the Jewish list of books drawn up at the end of the first century A.D., have always been accepted by the Catholic Church as inspired and are called “deuterocanonical” to indicate that they are canonical even though disputed by some.
First and second Maccabees presents extreme persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes, it is apocalyptic literature.

Yes, and the main reason why the books were not included in the Jewish canon was largely to do with their relatively late writing and out of the fear of theological contamination because of the heavy Greek influence at that time in the entire Mediterranean region.

The reality is that they are compatible with the Tanakh in terms of what they teach as you well know.

 

[epronovost]

A scriptural debate....????? with all that scripture you have posted......did I miss something?
I have explained all I am going to, to someone who purports to know scripture without quoting a single verse.....

Not quoting a single verse? A quoted two entire paragraphs of the Apocalypse of Peter and gave you a link to the the full text. I have yet to see any sensible response from you the subject. Why is that?

On that matter, you didn't respond to my quote from the Gospel of John that had Jesus claiming to be one and the same with God the Father, the scriptural basis for the trinity and the divinity of Jesus. That you also conveniently side-stepped.

It is of no consequence to me who accepts it, if I do not consider them to be genuine canonical scripture....?

On what ground do you reject out of hand the scriptures that contradict you and not those who support you? How is it not just you shutting your hears and going la-la-la when someone shows that there is scriptural support for concepts you personally dislike for some unmentioned reason. It can't be because they have no scriptural support since they do. You just don't like the scriptures that supports those concepts.

 

[Deeje]

12:42-45 This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v42) and sacrifices (v. 43) for the dead are efficacious. Judas probably intended his purification offering to ward off punishment from the living. The author, however, uses the story to demonstrate belief in the resurrection of the just (7:9,14,23,36), and in the possibility of expiation for the sins of otherwise good people who have died. There is a similarity to the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.
The first and second Books of Maccabees, though regarded by Jews and Protestants as apocryphal, not inspired Scripture, because not contained in the Jewish list of books drawn up at the end of the first century A.D., have always been accepted by the Catholic Church as inspired and are called “deuterocanonical” to indicate that they are canonical even though disputed by some.
First and second Maccabees presents extreme persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes, it is apocalyptic literature.

And there you have it....all the reasons why these non-canonical books were rejected as uninspired, because they completely contradict the rest of the scriptures.....but fully support Catholic doctrine.

Prayers for the dead for the example, are completely unnecessary because the dead are no longer alive or conscious, according to the Hebrew Scriptures. (Ecclesiastes 9:10) Their sins are paid for with their own death, (Romans 6:7) because Christ died for the sins of all, and a resurrection will mean a period of judgment for the unrighteousness, who are resurrected along with the righteous. (John 5:28-29)

God has no reason to punish those who reject him with anything but death. For those in “gehenna”, (not “hell”) their death is permanent. (Matthew 10:28) There is no purgatory or hell of conscious torment because “the wages of sin is death”. That’s it. Only God knows who is in gehenna....those who will never see life again.

Resurrection (as the Bible teaches it) was not something achieved immediately after someone died. Ancient Jewish belief did not include an immortal soul, because the resurrection was a completely different concept. It was a future restoration of life, not a continuation of it in some spiritual realm.

Immortality of the soul was an adoption from Platonic Greek ideas. Jesus proved that with the resurrection of Lazarus. This man had been in a tomb for 4 days when Jesus called him out of his grave. (John 11:11-14) He came out with his life and his body fully restored, still in his grave wrappings. He had nothing to say about where he had been, because “the dead do not know anything”. (Ecclesiastes 9:5) Jesus said he had been “sleeping”.

If Judas entertained any ideas about future forgiveness, then he had not remembered the teachings of his master at all. Jesus called him “the son of destruction”.....a man guilty of committing “the unforgivable sin”. There was never going to be forgiveness for him, from either God or his former brotherhood, which is why I believe, that he committed suicide. He had nowhere to go. (Mark 14:21)

These non-canonical writings are an attempt to provide information that the inspired writings deliberately omit, such as the activities and events relating to Jesus’ life from his early childhood on up to the time of his baptism, or an effort to manufacture support for doctrines or traditions that find no basis in the Bible or are in contradiction to it.

The Apocryphal “Acts,” such as the “Acts of Paul” and the “Acts of Peter,” lay heavy stress on complete abstinence from sexual relations and even depict the apostles as urging women to separate from their husbands, thus contradicting Paul’s authentic counsel at 1 Corinthians 7.

Interestingly, in its Introduction to the Books of Maccabees, The Jerusalem Bible says concerning Second Maccabees: “The style is that of hellenistic writers, though not of the best: at times it is turgid, frequently pompous.”
Not the way one describes an inspired work of God......is it?

 

[metis]

The Apostles Creed, formally puts together in the 3rd century but which includes some material from the end of the 2nd century, says this: "...the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints...".

The "communion of saints" was viewed within the Church as being a reference to possible interactions within Jesus' Kingdom both on Earth and in Heaven. Thus, even though the dead are no longer part of the Kingdom on Earth, the belief was that we can both pray for them and that they can pray for us and/or intercede for us with God. This was not unknown within Judaism as what shows up in Maccabees, which is a pre-Christian Jewish book.

OTOH, is this correct? How could I possibly know, but the early and present Church believes it is, and that's my point.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nope and neither in the Catholic Church anymore. You can thank Benedict XVI, now unbaptized baby rot in hell like everybody else.

You're thinking of limbo, which was never doctrine in the first place. It was a possibility. Purgatory is unrelated.

 

[pearl]

And there you have it....all the reasons why these non-canonical books were rejected as uninspired, because they completely contradict the rest of the scriptures.....but fully support Catholic doctrine.

I have posted concerning 2 Mac only, which is canonical. Many religions believe in prayer for the dead.

Interestingly, in its Introduction to the Books of Maccabees, The Jerusalem Bible says concerning Second Maccabees: “The style is that of hellenistic writers, though not of the best: at times it is turgid, frequently pompous.”

Can you give the site for this other than the 'Watch Tower library on line?

Not the way one describes an inspired work of God......is it?

in justice to the author 2 Maccabees, his intent was to use certain historical events as a means to edify, instruct and inspire his readers. Allowances may be made for those exaggerations, distortions, and fanciful descriptions proper to the literary form known as "pathetic history".

If Judas entertained any ideas about future forgiveness, then he had not remembered the teachings of his master at all. Jesus called him “the son of destruction”.....a man guilty of committing “the unforgivable sin”. There was never going to be forgiveness for him, from either God or his former brotherhood, which is why I believe, that he committed suicide. He had nowhere to go. (Mark 14:21)

Wrong Judas!

 

[Deeje]

I have posted concerning 2 Mac only, which is canonical. Many religions believe in prayer for the dead.

What is accomplished by praying for those who are “sleeping” in death and whom Jesus will resurrect when his kingdom rules this earth? (John 5:28-29) They are no longer alive but in an unconscious condition, waiting for their lives to be restored in the “new earth” to come. (2 Peter 3:13) There are no immortal souls living in some kind of ‘holding tanks’ for the good, the not-so-good, and the wicked. All the dead (both righteous and unrighteousness) will come to life in the resurrection.....but the incorrigibly wicked, will never see life again. It’s really that simple. If you don’t have an immortal soul, then you don’t have to invent places for them to go....

Can you give the site for this other than the 'Watch Tower library on line?

I wouldn’t really expect to find it much anywhere else, but even the word “apocrypha” means...”(of a story or statement) of doubtful authenticity, although widely circulated as being true.”
If the church cannot find it’s doctrines in authentic scripture, then doesn’t that raise some red flags for you? If the Catholic Church holds to beliefs that are not taught in the scripture that Jesus and his apostles used and quoted from, can you justify that without making excuses? If Jesus did not teach a large proportion of what the RCC believes and practices, then what is the true source of these beliefs and practices?

in justice to the author 2 Maccabees, his intent was to use certain historical events as a means to edify, instruct and inspire his readers. Allowances may be made for those exaggerations, distortions, and fanciful descriptions proper to the literary form known as "pathetic history".

Ascertaining some historical aspects from these writings is a far cry from claiming them as scripture, “inspired of God”. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Wrong Judas!

Which is why I asked for your clarification......it is not my scripture and therefore not something that holds any credibility for me. If you quote something, please include an explanation....I had no idea why you posted it. What was the point?