Purgatory - Another Unscriptural Lie

How this article ends up in my General newsfeed is beyond me, but it did. The National Catholic Register (NCR) published an article in defense of the Catholic belief in purgatory. Their irresponsible (and completely illogical) use of scripture to attempt the doctrine’s defense is mind boggling. So let's take it a step at a time.

The first scripture the writer cites is Psalm 51:6-10. They cite an unreferenced archaic translation. I checked my personal copy of the Confraternity-Douay, Saint Joseph Edition Catholic Bible (copyright 1963). Even it has more understandable English than the version the writer chose to cite. A modern English version (NWT) renders it:

6 Look! You find pleasure in truth in the inner person;

Teach my innermost self true wisdom.

7 Purify me from my sin with hyssop, so that I will be clean;

Wash me, so that I will be whiter than snow.

8 Let me hear sounds of joy and rejoicing,

So that the bones you crushed will rejoice.

9 Turn your face away from my sins,

And wipe away all my errors.

10 Create in me a pure heart, O God,

And put within me a new spirit, a steadfast one.

As the reader can easily see, there is no mention of the purgatory the Catholics teach as a temporary place between heaven and hell. But then the writer acknowledged that. He claims the concept of “cleansing” is the point he is making. Okay, so we need cleansing. That is true. In the context of the scripture above, this is a cleansing we request from God while still here on earth. However, to claim that since the word purgation is the same as cleansing and that this supports a cleansing that is forced by God on us after we leave earth is foundless. To illustrate: If someone were to tell you to “go jump in the lake,” you would understand they were telling you to go away, not to literally find a lake and jump in it (unless, of course, you were all at a lake and having fun). For someone to later claim that “lake” and “go way” were synonymous, would be ludicrous. Yet that essentially is what the writer of the purgatory article is doing.

Pretty much, the same goes with the rest of the scriptures the writer played so loosely with. 1 John 3:2-3 speaks of person purifying themselves, not God purifying us.

Now let's move onto a fascinating claim: “Purgatory is the culmination of that process by which a human being who has died in the grace of God is made utterly and completely full of the life…” Interesting claim. Absolutely no direct, undeniable link in scripture. While scripture does encourage us to live moral lives (and, because we are imperfect, constantly adjust our course), while scripture does say that God disciplines those he loves, these are all actions taking place here on earth, during the life of the individual, NOT something after we die.

The FACT is, there is not even one scripture teaching even the concept of an after-life “purgatory.”

About

Honey is Bee Barf!

Decades ago, one of our children came up to me and flatly declared, “I will never eat honey again. It is nothing more than bee barf!” My jaw dropped. I was dumbfounded. I almost wanted to laugh at the absurdity and vulgarity, but I could see the child was 100% sincere. I also wanted to counter the claim, but at the time I didn’t really know how honey was made. I concluded two things: 1) Even if the child never did eat honey for the rest of her life, it was not a health hazard nor was it a moral wrong. A person could go through their whole life not eating honey and not be adversely affected. 2) Children make black and white decisions all the time. It doesn’t mean that next week or next month the viewpoint will be completely forgotten. With that, I decided not to make a big deal of it.

I cite the parenting experience now because, although hilarious, I see the same black-and-white reasoning play out all the time regarding the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This especially came to the fore when reading one of the Ministry of Justice’s comments regarding blood transfusions. Here was an otherwise intelligent adult making such disjointed conclusions that somehow combined extremism with refusal of blood transfusions. This time, I did break out laughing. Of course, the implied accusation is that we illogically choose death. We don’t. We try to seek any and all viable alternatives to blood. We cherish life. We want to live. Just as resolutely, we want to obey God. Yes, life is precious, but just as Jesus stated, keeping our priorities straight is of paramount importance.

Really the Russian authorities come across like a clique in middle school that invent reasons to exclude others. No matter how illogical those reasons are, they are enforced with unyielding determination. There is no reasoning with them. There is strength in numbers and “Might makes Right,” and the clique of governmental authoritarians will do as they please no matter how ignorant or cruel it seems to others.

About

Russia, Public Opinion, And Jehovah's Witnesses

Perhaps you’ve heard about the Russian government’s decision to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses as an extremist group. What you may not know are all the details around the Kangaroo court sessions that were held that pitted the Ministry of Justice against the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (One definition of “Kangaroo Court” is “a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations.”) That was pretty much the case in Russia. Repeatedly the judge asked the Ministry of Justice to produce evidence of charges. They had none. Nor, from what I’ve heard, were the legal representatives of the religion permitted to submit crucial evidence. The Ministry of Justice was just going through the motions – his mind was made up to exert his power regardless of the court’s decision.

Now a week has gone by and the world seems to have picked up on the news. Some are elated by the news and reacted by taking hate-filled action against the religion. (Obviously, if the participants in these violent actions had a religion, it did nothing to teach them tolerance and kindness.) Others have reservations. One especially surprising cautionary note came from the Catholic Church who wonders which religion would be next.

Then came this article that struck me as a somewhat “knee-jerk” op-ed from Africa (??). It was written by Princewill Nimi, a “creative writer.” I think the title of his article alone was odd. It is true that we believe Jesus’ words that anyone claiming to be Christian should hold the conviction that they “are no part of the world,” but in what sense? We are not like religions that live as hermits or seclusionists. We are the neighbors of your community. We are both professionals in numerous trades and practices, and we are also “unskilled laborers.” For the greater part, we live in the community that we try to reach. (A very small group actually work as foreign missionaries, but that is the exception.) Personally, before qualifying to work in the Information Technology field, I held a number of “unskilled” jobs – everything from a gardener, to a warehouseman, to short-order cook, and more.

But the title of Princewill’s article seemed to take a different path in that it proclaimed we simply do not belong in the world. I don’t think he was taking the viewpoint that the world simply doesn’t deserve us. But it came across that we do not belong here; we are unwelcome here. If so, that is hate speech. The first three paragraphs of his article certainly seem to lend the reader to that conclusion. In those paragraphs, he mentions our public ministry. After doing this for over 40 years, I’m well aware of how some feel about that. However, I have also noted over the decades that some eagerly look forward to our visits and appreciate the kindness we extend. It might also be noted that the early followers of Christ did the same thing – they proactively went out to reach people. But we don’t stop there. We also participate in disaster relief for both members of our faith and those in the community who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In the 5^th paragraph, Princewill states “In line with their belief system that indicts the government of this world as being under the control of Satan.” I guess I need to ask how you would interpret the following:

John 8:43-47. Ask yourself, “Why would Jesus say that the Jewish religious leaders of his time had a “father” in the devil?” (Yes, they were murderously inclined, but it went deeper.)

John 14:30. Ask yourself, “If the ruler ‘of this world’ was his Father, God Almighty, why would Jesus state that ‘he has no hold on me.’”?

John 18:36. Here, Jesus was talking to Pilate, the man who would send Jesus to his death. Jesus was just asked if he was a king. Jesus’ response was that his kingdom rulership was not part of “this world.” Ask yourself, “What ‘world’ was Jesus talking about”?

2 Corinthians 4:4. In this passage, we find the answer to the question above. It is Satan that is the ruler of this world. It is that “world,” ruled by Satan, that Jesus is no part of. That is why Jesus stated all the above.

1 John 5:19. Finally, we have the clincher. John spells it out, with no need to “interpret” the meaning. The world is “in the power of the wicked one.” It is this world that we are separate from, want nothing to do with. All the governments belong to Satan. But God has not given up on mankind. In time, just as Princewill stated, God will destroy Satan so that (as so many Christians pray) God’s Kingdom “will come on earth just as it is in heaven.”

Princewill covered many other points that I just don’t have room to cover here. There is only one minor point I’d like to reply to. Toward the end of his article, he asked: “Aren’t the Jehovah’s Witnesses extremists of some sort?” I could have developed a very long response but the day following my reading his article, I came across an article stating “When Jesus healed in the synagogue on the Sabbath, the ruler of the synagogue had a very good point: there were six other days of the week Jesus could have healed (Luke 13:14). None of the people he healed had a life-threatening condition that couldn’t have waited until the next day. But Jesus had to violate the propriety of the sacred worship space in order to teach that “the Sabbath is made for humanity not humanity for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27), a principle which is still lost on Christians for whom holiness and respectability are synonymous. He had to destroy respectability in order to give dignity to afflicted people who had been the object of others’ shame because their afflictions were deemed to be God’s judgment against them.” So Jesus himself (both in his days and in our modern times) was/is perceived as illegal. That recalled to my mind how the early disciples were essentially labeled seditionists, and the public witnessing about Jesus as annoying chattering. As far as our not being involved in governmental activities, besides the scriptural proofs mentioned above, history itself testifies that has always been the case of true Christians.

So, rather unwittingly, Princewill classified us among the early true Christians who were also perceived as odd outsiders. Personally, I consider it an honor to be so labeled.

About

Jeremiah: "It Makes No Sense"

Is it right to question things you do not understand? Should authorities feel challenged or reassured that they are not employing “yes men”? If authorities are humble, they will be grateful for those that are respectfully willing to be truthful and give an opinion that differs from what the authority says. Even the God of the Bible respected men of this sort. Moses, Jeremiah, and others all spoke from the heart.

Regarding Jeremiah, more than once he was told to perform various actions that were actually object lessons such as burying a linen belt, remaining single, and observing a potter making a vessel. But at Jeremiah 32:25 Jeremiah was truly baffled by an instruction he received. He was told to buy a field. Jeremiah complied but then questioned Jehovah because it made no sense. Why buy a piece of land when all this time Jehovah has had Jeremiah prophesying that the Chaldeans (Babylonians) were coming to conquer and deport the peoples, and ruin the land.

In the rest of the chapter, Jehovah responds and goes on to explain that the direction to buy the field was prophetic of what the returning exiles from Babylon would do. So just as surely as Jeremiah completed a simple transaction during a turbulent time, just prior to the nation being captured and taken to Babylon, with the same assurance Jehovah tells Jeremiah that without fail there will be a repopulating of the land. Further, in chapter 33, Jehovah goes on to describe in detail the prosperous state the repatriated Israelites will experience.

About

Sons of Moses -- Whatever Happened to Them?

The two books of Chronicles aren’t my favorite Bible books. Admittedly, I don’t pay as much attention to what I am reading -- probably partly because it repeats information found in other books, and partly because of the long genealogical lists that just don’t captivate my interest. However, something did strike my interest and truthfully, for all the times I have read these chapters, I don’t remember the point (I’m about to mention).

So after Moses dies, Joshua takes the lead. But Moses had sons. What happened to them? Did they “ever amount to anything”? As it turns out, they did. They had responsibilities associated with the Levites and specifically in oversight of the storehouses.

No particular point to make here except that maybe, just like movies I’ve watched and rewatched, recreational books I’ve read and then read again, reading the Bible cannot be a one-time thing. For example, regarding movies, I recently (for the third time) watched Deja Vu. There were subtle clues and points in the movie that I completely missed the first two times I watched it. Similarly, to fully benefit from Bible reading, repeated reading is needed. Indeed, every year as I progress through my reading, I realize that I’ve learned (or maybe re-learned) something new. (I cannot say that my reading helped me to remember or recall, because I truly don’t remember certain points. Especially this point of Moses’ sons, I frankly don’t ever remember reading it.)

About

What Is A Ritual?

So much of the English language has been slaughtered s-o-o-o-o very badly, that it has become nearly impossible to understand what a person is saying. For example, when we hear a person say someone is "sick," we usually understand that to mean he has a health condition. However, when we refer to something as "sick," it may be taken that it was disgusting or that it was impressive. Years ago, the theme song for the original TV show "The Flintstones" had a line in it: "We'll have a gay old time." Back then, "gay" meant fun and carefree. Nowadays, no one in their right mind would ever use that phrase (“gay old time”) for fear of being severely criticized -- both from the "straight" and "gay" communities. In fact, there is yet another word, "straight." Although the original meaning of "extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend" is still in use, it has also come to refer to sexual orientation. I could cite dozens of other examples.

However, the one I want to discuss is the term "ritual." Today, just the healthy habit of daily brushing one’s teeth is loosely referred to as a ritual. However, doing something, even repeatedly, does not match the official dictionary definition of that word. Be assured, I am not complaining about people loosely using words in this manner. It would be like standing in the middle of a raging river and complaining that the stream is too strong. To base one’s intellectual evaluation of a matter on common usage is wrong. Languages change with time -- it is just one of those “facts of life.”

But with regards to religious practices, what truly constitutes a “ritual”? (Although I’ve written about it before, this article takes a slightly different angle.) Originally, Jehovah had never expressed any such desire to have ritualism associated with his worship. Even though corrupted humans had set up ritual worship, it was not until some 2,000 years later that anything formalistic was set up for true worship. Before that, for those humans that were loyal to God, sacrificing an animal seemed to represent the depth of appreciation some had for the true God. The healthier, the more prized, the animal was, the greater the demonstration of appreciation. It was more than a ritual killing, it was truly a sacrifice, a personal loss of valuable livestock, that was readily given. (In contrast to making a real sacrifice and just going through a cursory ritual, notice this account.)

Focusing on the very first sacrifices mentioned in the Bible: Scripture does not say what or how much insight Abel's parents gave to him and Cain. Scripture does not say what individual conclusions Abel and Cain may have reached in seeing the angels and the flaming sword standing at the entrance to the garden. They both seemed to know enough that there was a God to be acknowledged. What Abel did was a demonstration of heartfelt appreciation for Jehovah’s material blessings. He slaughtered the animal and offered it up. Was it a form a ritualistic worship?  One definition used of “ritual” is:  An “established or prescribed procedure for a religious or other rite.” So, no, Abel’s offering was not a ritual. In contrast to Abel, what Cain did seems to have been a perfunctory offering.

Today, what can we offer God that truly goes beyond merely performing some rite or ritual of a religion? Hebrews 13:15 recommends making a “sacrifice of praise.” But Jesus cautions us that mere “lip service” is insufficient. The sacrifice of praise we offer must be sincere and heartfelt. To know how to do that, we must first learn what God really wants from us. (Hint: Rituals, rites, and ceremonies are not what he wants.)

About

1 Corinthians 1:16 Jesus Made All Other Things

Nearly three years ago I covered Colossians 1:15. Just now I found an article written back in 2007 wherein a man advancing the Trinitarians’ ideology has decided to focus on verse 16. The author managed to gloss right over that scripture, not even thinking what the words in that verse mean. According to the New King James Version (NKJV), it reads: “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.” This article uses that scripture as its opening argument.

Just to demonstrate that the New World Translation is not that distant from the NKJV, Colossians 1:16 in that Bible reads: “by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.”

The main difference between the two translations are the opening words “All things were created” (NKJV) versus “all other things were created.” (NWT) Which is correct? Indeed, most modern-day translations all agree with the NKJV, so that puts Jehovah’s Witnesses up against a wall. Where did we come up with, why do we insert “other,” into that verse? Here is the official explanation. But really, verse 16 is very dependent on what preceded it in verse 15, that Jesus was “the firstborn of all creation.” I’m not going to argue that verse all over again. If you need to set the scene, go back and read my commentary on that verse.

Having established (in that prior article) that what verse 15 says is quite literally true (without trying to qualify and rationalize “first born” as the Trinitarians do), we accept that Jesus truly is, just as Paul wrote and intended, “the firstborn,” the first creation of Jehovah; Jehovah being the one Jesus himself called his own God. So in verse 16, when Paul wrote that “all things were created” through Jesus, it is simple logic to accept that it would have to be all other things (i.e. other than Jesus himself). Obviously Jesus did not create himself, so the verse has to be understood that it excludes Jesus. Whether the reader does that mentally or the translation helps the reader get the clear intent, the same resulting conclusion should be reached -- Jesus made everything else using God’s power.

That brings us to the next point of reason, the ending sentence: “All other things have been created through him and for him.” This sentence is what I was referring to when in the opening I claimed the Trinitarians always “manage to gloss right over that scripture, not even thinking what the words in the verse mean.” What does the word “through” mean to you? If you send a parcel “through” a shipping agent, who is doing the shipping? The agent is actually performing the work, but you are the shipper. If you are shipping a gift to a grandchild, the grandchild is not going to thank the carrier, he (or she) is going to thank you. If you are shipping illegal materials, it is not the carrier service that will be arrested, it is you. So if all [other] things were created through Jesus, who is the one that supplied the power? Answer: Jehovah God. The one Jesus called “my Father.”

But does the Greek word for “through” really carry that meaning? Here is what Strong’s Concordance says: “Definition: (a) gen: through, throughout, by the instrumentality of, (b) acc: through, on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of.” (Italics mine.) So yes, the original Greek means exactly what I claim it means.

Finally, comes the last two words of the last sentence: “for him.” If, as the Trinitarians try arguing with their convoluted rationalizations, that Jesus is God, why did Paul write “for him”? If Paul was arguing that Jesus is God, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to write “for himself”? Really, these last two words only work when you realize that Jesus is the recipient, God the Father is the giver. (Strong’s)

So rather than cower to the Trinitarians, we proudly declare that Jehovah is the only true God. Jesus was given certain abilities just like any father would lovingly train his son. Our teaching raises God to the level he deserves but we also praise Jesus as God’s Anointed One through whom all other things were made and to whom every knee should bend. And as to the twisted claim that we really do not have monotheistic beliefs, I would point to this article.

One closing thought: “There is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.” (1 Corinthians 8:6) So now, Mr. Bodie Hodge, who are those advancing Satan’s ideas? The weight of scripture demonstrates it is not Jehovah’s Witnesses. So who does that leave? You know, they say that when you point a finger, there are more pointing back at you.

About