BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Mary was mother to one person, Jesus, in both his human and divine natures.

---

WHOA, WHOA there. NO, Mary was NOT the mother to Jesus' divine nature. That's saying that Jesus did not exist until he was born through Mary. That is about as heretical as it can get. If Roman Catholicism truly teaches this, then there can be no doubt that they are not from God.

---

Catholicism neither teaches nor implies this.

---

Then what you said, that Mary is the mother to Jesus' divine nature, contradicts Catholic teaching. You both can't be right.

And that is why Mary can not be the mother of God. If she is not the mother of Jesus' divine nature, and Jesus' divine nature is what makes him God, then Mary is not the mother of God.

---

Mary gave birth to a person, not a nature or even two natures.

She gave birth to one divine person. To deny this is to deny the Council of Ephesus (431).

The council refers to Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel - (God with us.)

Denying this is making oneself a heretic along with Nestorius.

BUDOS said:

---

Truly appreciate the response from you both. Again, such articulate responses give me good insight to help me in teaching my Bible class.

---

Please feel free to PM me with any questions that you might have that I may be of help.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you're really teaching, then don't teach what the Roman Catholics are saying. They don't have it right. NOWHERE in the bible is Mary the "Mother" with a capital "m". Mary is none of what they dogmatically say she is.

---

This is sad. What does a capital letter have to do with anything? Talk about a strange point to make with no meaning. Where did you dig up that argument? Did you make that up your self or did someone else make that up? It is very weak and is a very odd question. Besides the NT Greek was written in all CAPS.

Again, Luke 1:43, Elizabeth states -

"But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" The Greek that she uses for Lord is
Kurios. Kurios can be used to refer to the divine name Yahweh or Jehovah.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's food for thought: Jesus never called Mary his "mother" and even downplayed her significance. Why do Catholics, though, insist on venerating (excessively to the point of worship) her status as his mother, to the point where they capitalize the "m"? It seems like a diametrically opposed view to that of Jesus', doesn't it? If you're gonna teach anything, make sure you include that. But as I said, better that you not teach anything that Roman Catholicism teaches.

---

Now this is truly sad. You believe that your Jesus would "downplay her significance." Meaning that he would NOT be Honoring his Mother and Father; therefore, breaking a commandment.

In John, Jesus referred to Mary is "woman" because John linking his gospel to Genesis.

Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created ...
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Over the next several verses, Genesis describes the creation of the world using "days."
After John denies being the messiah, in verse 29 he uses the phrase, "the next day" when testifying about Jesus.
John 1:35, again he starts the passage with "the next day" and calls Jesus the 'Lamb of God' .
John 1:43, he begins the passage with "the next day" and Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael.
Finally, in John 2:1, the sacred author in describing the Wedding Feast at Cana, starts the passage with On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there ...

The three previous days plus the '3rd day' makes the Wedding Feast of Cana on John's "sixth" day. The sixth day in Genesis is when God created man and woman. The "sixth" day in John, Jesus calls Mary "woman."

Finally, again at the foot of the cross, John makes one last appeal and link to Eve to the readers in John 19:26-27:


When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

It is a clear link to the Genesis. It is NOT Jesus' attempt to "downplay his mother" which would be a sin.

It's truly sad that you think so lowly of Jesus.

Here is a link to Joe Heschmeyer's podcast Shameless Popery that much better lays out this teaching in both video and written form.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're literally agreeing with me that people were allowed to pay money to the Church to avoid or lessen time in "purgatory". As if calling it "charitable act" in the form of giving money makes that any less different. You're STILL saying that a money transaction can save someone from punishment after death. It's remarkable how much denial you're in. It's both astounding and sad to watch.

---

No sadly, you are twisting what both indulgences and purgatory actually are.

You are also showing why the Council of Trent put out reforms (the True Reformation) to eliminate the potential for abuse and misunderstandings that were happening in certain areas.

---

I'm not twisting anything, I'm telling exactly what happened. A POPE, bishops, and priests offered less time in purgatory in exchange for money. Yet you believe in the infallibility of your magisterium made up of popes, bishops, and priests.

The whole idea of purgatory is unbiblical. The whole idea behind indulgences, that there's this "treasury" or bank or extra merit from all the saints stored up that can be dished out people who need it to have their sins covered almost sounds like a joke. There is nothing even close to that anywhere in Scripture. It's just so obviously made up by the tradition of fallible man. It departs from infallible Scripture. And THAT'S why the true reform of the Reformation was needed.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No, what's sad is that you think that what I'm saying is even close to denying the hypostatic union.

Like I said, you're either just a clumsy thinker, or you're dishonest.

---

No, I absolutely do not believe that you are a clumsy thinker. I believe that you are so entrenched in your beliefs that you will not accept the truth when presented.

---

But see, the one who will not accept the truth when presented, is the one who starts talking about the Fatima message being "all about Jesus', then when clearly shown that it is not, he/she diverts to a bible verse where it's all about Jesus.

I mean, it's like you think people don't see this. Then you turn around and say that I'M the one who is "entrenched in their beliefs". It's absolutely remarkable, the level of defense mechanisms that get employed when people have cognitive dissonance.

---

No, the messages of Fatima all point to Jesus thru Mary.

Anyone can bring us to Jesus. Like most of us, I would guess that your parents brought you to church. They brought you to Jesus.

In Fatima, Mary is another agent bringing us to Jesus.

Why does the moon shine? Because of the sun. Why does Mary shine? Because of her Son.

---

The Fatima message, again:

"Another principal part of the Message of Fatima is devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, which is terribly outraged and offended by the sins of humanity, and we are lovingly urged to console Her by making reparation. She showed Her Heart, surrounded by piercing thorns (which represented the sins against Her Immaculate Heart), to the children, who understood that their sacrifices could help to console Her."

"To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."

"God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."


If you think this is about Jesus, then you are either a complete fool, or you're a liar and a deceiver.

I have been thinking about the debates on this thread, especially some of the emotion thrown out along the way. One thing that I keep coming back to, is the kind of people Jesus chose to follow Him. Jesus could have surrounded Himself with scholars and the wisest men in Judaism, but made a point of selecting common people, and making His message clear and simple.

"Repent"
"Go and sin no more"
"You must be born again"

Direct, to the point. And Jesus mixed praise with criticism. Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing He was Christ because it was revealed by the Holy Spirit, yet just moments later Christ rebuked Peter, calling him "Satan" for arguing against the need for Christ to die.

So it seems to me that when we discuss Christ's teaching and lessons, we should start with a plain reading of Scripture, and not look for subtle hints when the meaning is direct. It's also important to realize that the whole of the Bible is consistent, and the idea that God somehow changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament is debunked when you look at the Scriptures. 'Mercy' shows up in the Old Testament all the time, and there are many verses which clearly point ahead to Christ. So it's not a matter of whether Roman Catholic or Protestant doctrine/theories should be counted as 'right', but paying attention to the history written in Scripture.

The matter of Mary has been beaten into mush, so I am not going to bring it up again now, but the question of whether Salvation is of the moment or a process misses the point. To see what I mean, consider there is a man who has a drug problem. If someone intervenes when he has an overdose, you can say that his life was saved by the intervention, but if he goes back to the drugs he still dies. So you might say that a plan to guide him away from addiction to recovery is what saves him, but without that initial intervention it won't happen.

You need both, in other words.

And yes, that is the way with sin. We like to imagine that as Christians, we are good people now, obedient to God and pleasing to Him most of the time.

Please.

We reek of sin we still commit, even as Christians. Jesus warned that if you even think a certain way, you have committed the act as far as guilt is concerned. And while we have repented, have confessed our sin, and have accepted Christ as Lord, we must continue to persevere in that journey.

But this is not to say that God is some taskmaster, watching everything we do and looking for every screw up we make, in order to condemn us. Very much the opposite, our Father wants the very best for us, and that means He wants us to be perfect. There is a verse which says that, by the way.
The idea is that we want and need to be a little better every day, not out of fear of condemnation but in love of our Lord and to follow Him more closely. Not out of ego but humility. Not out of obligation but from devotion.

I hope this makes sense.

Oldbear83 said:

---

To see what I mean, consider there is a man who has a drug problem. If someone intervenes when he has an overdose, you can say that his life was saved by the intervention, but if he goes back to the drugs he still dies. So you might say that a plan to guide him away from addiction to recovery is what saves him, but without that initial intervention it won't happen.

You need both, in other words.

---

This is not a good analogy of salvation. If someone is saved from an overdose of drugs, but then goes back to drugs and dies, then he was never really saved from drugs. If we are saved from sin, but we sin again in life (which every Christian that has ever existed has done), we are still saved because ALL our sin was put on Jesus, and our faith in him imputed his righteousness to us. We are truly saved from sin, because Jesus is always interceding for us. Your analogy would be more analogous to salvation if the drug user goes back to drugs, but the drugs are put in Jesus instead, and he lives.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have been thinking about the debates on this thread, especially some of the emotion thrown out along the way. One thing that I keep coming back to, is the kind of people Jesus chose to follow Him. Jesus could have surrounded Himself with scholars and the wisest men in Judaism, but made a point of selecting common people, and making His message clear and simple.

"Repent"
"Go and sin no more"
"You must be born again"

Direct, to the point. And Jesus mixed praise with criticism. Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing He was Christ because it was revealed by the Holy Spirit, yet just moments later Christ rebuked Peter, calling him "Satan" for arguing against the need for Christ to die.

So it seems to me that when we discuss Christ's teaching and lessons, we should start with a plain reading of Scripture, and not look for subtle hints when the meaning is direct. It's also important to realize that the whole of the Bible is consistent, and the idea that God somehow changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament is debunked when you look at the Scriptures. 'Mercy' shows up in the Old Testament all the time, and there are many verses which clearly point ahead to Christ. So it's not a matter of whether Roman Catholic or Protestant doctrine/theories should be counted as 'right', but paying attention to the history written in Scripture.

The matter of Mary has been beaten into mush, so I am not going to bring it up again now, but the question of whether Salvation is of the moment or a process misses the point. To see what I mean, consider there is a man who has a drug problem. If someone intervenes when he has an overdose, you can say that his life was saved by the intervention, but if he goes back to the drugs he still dies. So you might say that a plan to guide him away from addiction to recovery is what saves him, but without that initial intervention it won't happen.

You need both, in other words.

And yes, that is the way with sin. We like to imagine that as Christians, we are good people now, obedient to God and pleasing to Him most of the time.

Please.

We reek of sin we still commit, even as Christians. Jesus warned that if you even think a certain way, you have committed the act as far as guilt is concerned. And while we have repented, have confessed our sin, and have accepted Christ as Lord, we must continue to persevere in that journey.

But this is not to say that God is some taskmaster, watching everything we do and looking for every screw up we make, in order to condemn us. Very much the opposite, our Father wants the very best for us, and that means He wants us to be perfect. There is a verse which says that, by the way.
The idea is that we want and need to be a little better every day, not out of fear of condemnation but in love of our Lord and to follow Him more closely. Not out of ego but humility. Not out of obligation but from devotion.

I hope this makes sense.

---

One thing I would add or suggest is God doesn't condemn us, we condemn ourselves.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have been thinking about the debates on this thread, especially some of the emotion thrown out along the way. One thing that I keep coming back to, is the kind of people Jesus chose to follow Him. Jesus could have surrounded Himself with scholars and the wisest men in Judaism, but made a point of selecting common people, and making His message clear and simple.

"Repent"
"Go and sin no more"
"You must be born again"

Direct, to the point. And Jesus mixed praise with criticism. Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing He was Christ because it was revealed by the Holy Spirit, yet just moments later Christ rebuked Peter, calling him "Satan" for arguing against the need for Christ to die.

So it seems to me that when we discuss Christ's teaching and lessons, we should start with a plain reading of Scripture, and not look for subtle hints when the meaning is direct. It's also important to realize that the whole of the Bible is consistent, and the idea that God somehow changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament is debunked when you look at the Scriptures. 'Mercy' shows up in the Old Testament all the time, and there are many verses which clearly point ahead to Christ. So it's not a matter of whether Roman Catholic or Protestant doctrine/theories should be counted as 'right', but paying attention to the history written in Scripture.

The matter of Mary has been beaten into mush, so I am not going to bring it up again now, but the question of whether Salvation is of the moment or a process misses the point. To see what I mean, consider there is a man who has a drug problem. If someone intervenes when he has an overdose, you can say that his life was saved by the intervention, but if he goes back to the drugs he still dies. So you might say that a plan to guide him away from addiction to recovery is what saves him, but without that initial intervention it won't happen.

You need both, in other words.

And yes, that is the way with sin. We like to imagine that as Christians, we are good people now, obedient to God and pleasing to Him most of the time.

Please.

We reek of sin we still commit, even as Christians. Jesus warned that if you even think a certain way, you have committed the act as far as guilt is concerned. And while we have repented, have confessed our sin, and have accepted Christ as Lord, we must continue to persevere in that journey.

But this is not to say that God is some taskmaster, watching everything we do and looking for every screw up we make, in order to condemn us. Very much the opposite, our Father wants the very best for us, and that means He wants us to be perfect. There is a verse which says that, by the way.
The idea is that we want and need to be a little better every day, not out of fear of condemnation but in love of our Lord and to follow Him more closely. Not out of ego but humility. Not out of obligation but from devotion.

I hope this makes sense.

---

One thing I would add or suggest is God doesn't condemn us, we condemn ourselves.

---

I would also mention three occasions in Scripture where humans react to seeing perfection or it's like.

In the first case, when Moses came down from spending time on the mountain with God, the people were terrified of him because he reflected God's glory to such a point that the Hebrews felt he was more than they could bear.

In the second, when Isaiah had his vision of Heaven and he saw the Lord's glory, he cried 'woe is me' because his sin was apparent to the point that he felt he was an offense to the Lord just being there, even though at that time Isaiah was probably one of the people who were actually closest to the Lord in heart and character.


And then of course, there was the time when Jesus saved the disciples from death and Peter, realizing something of Who Jesus was, begged Jesus to depart from him, because of his sin.

That is, when we see the perfect, we become painfully aware of our true level, and if we are not redeemed by God the shame and pain would indeed be eternal and unlimited. This is also what concerns me when believers bicker about the way God chooses to work.

God decides, God judges, and the idea that we have even a general understanding beyond the basics is sheer hubris.

We read about the thief on the cross, but unless you expect to die on a cross next to Christ, you can't apply his situation to your own;

We read about Paul's conversion from hating Christians to becoming one of the champions of the faith, but none of us will ever be in the same exact position.

We read about Saul and David, who both sinned against God, but David's sin was forgiven while Saul's was not. Why are we so sure we will end up the same as David?

We read about Job's suffering, but somehow we are sure we will not suffer from sickness, poverty and disgrace since we follow God?

Consider King Hezekiah, who was faithful to God and served Him early on, but he fell sick and after God healed him and granted him another 15 years of life, the King's pride turned him to sin and God became angry against Hezekiah. Should we assume that even if we are right with God now, that we will always do so just because we want to assume it?

Pride is a dangerous thing, especially in matters of faith.

It's freezing here which is why I keep getting sick. I apologize for not engaging more lately.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I have been thinking about the debates on this thread, especially some of the emotion thrown out along the way. One thing that I keep coming back to, is the kind of people Jesus chose to follow Him. Jesus could have surrounded Himself with scholars and the wisest men in Judaism, but made a point of selecting common people, and making His message clear and simple.

"Repent"
"Go and sin no more"
"You must be born again"

Direct, to the point. And Jesus mixed praise with criticism. Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing He was Christ because it was revealed by the Holy Spirit, yet just moments later Christ rebuked Peter, calling him "Satan" for arguing against the need for Christ to die.

So it seems to me that when we discuss Christ's teaching and lessons, we should start with a plain reading of Scripture, and not look for subtle hints when the meaning is direct. It's also important to realize that the whole of the Bible is consistent, and the idea that God somehow changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament is debunked when you look at the Scriptures. 'Mercy' shows up in the Old Testament all the time, and there are many verses which clearly point ahead to Christ. So it's not a matter of whether Roman Catholic or Protestant doctrine/theories should be counted as 'right', but paying attention to the history written in Scripture.

The matter of Mary has been beaten into mush, so I am not going to bring it up again now, but the question of whether Salvation is of the moment or a process misses the point. To see what I mean, consider there is a man who has a drug problem. If someone intervenes when he has an overdose, you can say that his life was saved by the intervention, but if he goes back to the drugs he still dies. So you might say that a plan to guide him away from addiction to recovery is what saves him, but without that initial intervention it won't happen.

You need both, in other words.

And yes, that is the way with sin. We like to imagine that as Christians, we are good people now, obedient to God and pleasing to Him most of the time.

Please.

We reek of sin we still commit, even as Christians. Jesus warned that if you even think a certain way, you have committed the act as far as guilt is concerned. And while we have repented, have confessed our sin, and have accepted Christ as Lord, we must continue to persevere in that journey.

But this is not to say that God is some taskmaster, watching everything we do and looking for every screw up we make, in order to condemn us. Very much the opposite, our Father wants the very best for us, and that means He wants us to be perfect. There is a verse which says that, by the way.
The idea is that we want and need to be a little better every day, not out of fear of condemnation but in love of our Lord and to follow Him more closely. Not out of ego but humility. Not out of obligation but from devotion.

I hope this makes sense.

---

One thing I would add or suggest is God doesn't condemn us, we condemn ourselves.

---

We read about the thief on the cross, but unless you expect to die on a cross next to Christ, you can't apply his situation to your own;

---

You don't have to be dying on a cross next to Jesus in order to be saved by doing what the thief did - repent, believe, and trust in Jesus for your salvation. That is the gospel message. It applies to everyone. There's a reason God put that story in the bible. You're trying to discount it or make it irrelevant, which is eyebrow raising. I'm curious as to how you think the thief's way to salvation is different from any of ours.

I know there has been much discussion recently about communion and various straw men etc etc.

In my reading tonight, I came across this quote from St Augustine. Now the astute observer will note he lived in the 300s.

He states "this is the sacrifice that the Church CONTINUALLY celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, a sacrament well known to the faithful".

I think it is so important to go back to what the people so close to Jesus' time were doing based on how they'd been instructed, as we live out our Christian faith millennia hence.

Fre3dombear said:

---

I know there has been much discussion recently about communion and various straw men etc etc.

In my reading tonight, I came across this quote from St Augustine. Now the astute observer will note he lived in the 300s.

He states "this is the sacrifice that the Church CONTINUALLY celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, a sacrament well known to the faithful".

I think it is so important to go back to what the people so close to Jesus' time were doing based on how they'd been instructed, as we live out our Christian faith millennia hence.

---

Who's contesting the fact that communion should be continually celebrated??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

I know there has been much discussion recently about communion and various straw men etc etc.

In my reading tonight, I came across this quote from St Augustine. Now the astute observer will note he lived in the 300s.

He states "this is the sacrifice that the Church CONTINUALLY celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, a sacrament well known to the faithful".

I think it is so important to go back to what the people so close to Jesus' time were doing based on how they'd been instructed, as we live out our Christian faith millennia hence.

---

Who's contesting the fact that communion should be continually celebrated??

---

Well, Jesus DID say "As often as you would..."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not twisting anything, I'm telling exactly what happened. A POPE, bishops, and priests offered less time in purgatory in exchange for money. Yet you believe in the infallibility of your magisterium made up of popes, bishops, and priests.

---

You again prove to NOT to know anything about Catholic teachings.
One cannot get "less time in purgatory" for obtaining an indulgence. We don't know how time works in Purgatory or Heaven.

The magisterium is only made up of the Pope and the bishops, in union with him. Not the priests.

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible under specific conditions. From Catholic Answers (to ensure that I get the wording correct:

"This infallibility is exercised through the extraordinary Magisterium, such as ecumenical councils and papal definitions, and the ordinary and universal Magisterium, when the bishops in union with the pope teach universally. This is rooted in Christ's promise to guide His Church in truth (Matthew 28:19-20) and the Church's role as the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)."

Please note that he did NOT say the bible was the pillar and bulwark of the truth. He said the Church is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The whole idea of purgatory is unbiblical.

---

You might want to read what Catholics actually believe before making comments like this.

Before I provide a definition and biblical understanding of the nature of Purgatory, I'll present two passages.

Rev 21:27 "But nothing unclean shall enter heaven."
Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…"

Sin cannon exist in heaven and in front of God.

No, the word "Purgatory" does NOT exist in the bible, but neither does the word, "Trinity", but their concepts do.

The Catechism states that Purgatory is for "All who die in God's grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification" (CCC 1030).

Simply put, most of us have some attachment to sin, whether it be lust, pride, gluttony, sloth, greed, wrath, or envy. We cannot stand in front of God with those or other worldly attachments like gossip, excessive video games, social medial, or television, etc. The bible says this.

When we die, we must be cleaned of these attachments. We can't be cleansed in hell, because once your there, you're not leaving. We can't be cleansed in heaven, but Rev 21:27 tells us that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven."

This cleansing, or purgation, has to happen somewhere. The Church calls it Purgatory. You can call it "Albuquerque" if you want, but it HAS to happen somewhere.


In II Maccabees 12:39-46, Judas Maccabeus and his Jewish fighter found their fallen brethren to be carrying "sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear" (vs. 40). Judas and his men that they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men "turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

The Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ.

Biblical foundation I Corinthians 3:11-15
"For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubbleeach man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

The DAY here is our judgment day. The fire that test our works is the purifying agent or purgatory. The good works will receive a reward (Treasury of Merit.) Our bad works, will be burned up. As I mentioned, this CANNOT happen in hell, because "he himself will be saved". It can't happen in heaven. It HAS to happen somewhere.

I have other supporting texts that we can discuss later like Matthew 12:32 and 5:24-25.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The whole idea behind indulgences, that there's this "treasury" or bank or extra merit from all the saints stored up that can be dished out people who need it to have their sins covered almost sounds like a joke. There is nothing even close to that anywhere in Scripture. It's just so obviously made up by the tradition of fallible man. It departs from infallible Scripture. And THAT'S why the true reform of the Reformation was needed.

---

Are the saints in heaven not part of the mystical body of Christ? Do you not remember what Paul said 1 Corinthians 1:24?

" Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."

Did St. Paul just say that something was "lacking in Christ's afflictions"? Holy smokes! How dare he say that Christ suffering and afflictions are lacking. Is he a heretic? Maybe we should throw out 1 Corinthians? (insert sarcasm emoji here.)

No St. Paul is urging us to all join our sufferings with Christ's sufferings to build up the kingdom of God.

Paul also tells young Timothy in 1 Tim 4:16:

"take heed to yourself and your teaching; hold to that, for by doing so you will save both yourself and your hearers."

In the end of the book of Job, God punishes job's foolish friends and tells them that he won't listen to their prayers until Job intercedes for them, which he does.

In Mark 2:5, at the healing of the paralytic In Capernaum, this man is brought by his four friends to Jesus.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

It wasn't' the man's faith that forgave his sins, it was the intercession of his faithful friends.

So yes, the saints can help us.

Edit: Here is a podcast/transcripts by Joe Heschmeyer - Are Catholics Saved by Works? that dropped last week that I listened to on this very topic of Treasury of Merit.

Here's another one of his podcast/transcripts that biblically defends Purgatory.

Finally, here's a great article(and audio format) from Tim Staples that defends Purgatory.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not twisting anything, I'm telling exactly what happened. A POPE, bishops, and priests offered less time in purgatory in exchange for money. Yet you believe in the infallibility of your magisterium made up of popes, bishops, and priests.

---

You again prove to NOT to know anything about Catholic teachings.
One cannot get "less time in purgatory" for obtaining an indulgence. We don't know how time works in Purgatory or Heaven.

The magisterium is only made up of the Pope and the bishops, in union with him. Not the priests.

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible under specific conditions. From Catholic Answers (to ensure that I get the wording correct:

"This infallibility is exercised through the extraordinary Magisterium, such as ecumenical councils and papal definitions, and the ordinary and universal Magisterium, when the bishops in union with the pope teach universally. This is rooted in Christ's promise to guide His Church in truth (Matthew 28:19-20) and the Church's role as the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)."

Please note that he did NOT say the bible was the pillar and bulwark of the truth. He said the Church is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The whole idea of purgatory is unbiblical.

---

You might want to read what Catholics actually believe before making comments like this.

Before I provide a definition and biblical understanding of the nature of Purgatory, I'll present two passages.

Rev 21:27 "But nothing unclean shall enter heaven."
Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…"

Sin cannon exist in heaven and in front of God.

No, the word "Purgatory" does NOT exist in the bible, but neither does the word, "Trinity", but their concepts do.

The Catechism states that Purgatory is for "All who die in God's grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification" (CCC 1030).

Simply put, most of us have some attachment to sin, whether it be lust, pride, gluttony, sloth, greed, wrath, or envy. We cannot stand in front of God with those or other worldly attachments like gossip, excessive video games, social medial, or television, etc. The bible says this.

When we die, we must be cleaned of these attachments. We can't be cleansed in hell, because once your there, you're not leaving. We can't be cleansed in heaven, but Rev 21:27 tells us that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven."

This cleansing, or purgation, has to happen somewhere. The Church calls it Purgatory. You can call it "Albuquerque" if you want, but it HAS to happen somewhere.


In II Maccabees 12:39-46, Judas Maccabeus and his Jewish fighter found their fallen brethren to be carrying "sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear" (vs. 40). Judas and his men that they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men "turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."

The Jews believed in praying and making atonement for the dead shortly before the advent of Christ.

Biblical foundation I Corinthians 3:11-15
"For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubbleeach man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

The DAY here is our judgment day. The fire that test our works is the purifying agent or purgatory. The good works will receive a reward (Treasury of Merit.) Our bad works, will be burned up. As I mentioned, this CANNOT happen in hell, because "he himself will be saved". It can't happen in heaven. It HAS to happen somewhere.

I have other supporting texts that we can discuss later like Matthew 12:32 and 5:24-25.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The whole idea behind indulgences, that there's this "treasury" or bank or extra merit from all the saints stored up that can be dished out people who need it to have their sins covered almost sounds like a joke. There is nothing even close to that anywhere in Scripture. It's just so obviously made up by the tradition of fallible man. It departs from infallible Scripture. And THAT'S why the true reform of the Reformation was needed.

---

Are the saints in heaven not part of the mystical body of Christ? Do you not remember what Paul said 1 Corinthians 1:24?

" Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."

Did St. Paul just say that something was "lacking in Christ's afflictions"? Holy smokes! How dare he say that Christ suffering and afflictions are lacking. Is he a heretic? Maybe we should throw out 1 Corinthians? (insert sarcasm emoji here.)

No St. Paul is urging us to all join our sufferings with Christ's sufferings to build up the kingdom of God.

Paul also tells young Timothy in 1 Tim 4:16:

"take heed to yourself and your teaching; hold to that, for by doing so you will save both yourself and your hearers."

In the end of the book of Job, God punishes job's foolish friends and tells them that he won't listen to their prayers until Job intercedes for them, which he does.

In Mark 2:5, at the healing of the paralytic In Capernaum, this man is brought by his four friends to Jesus.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

It wasn't' the man's faith that forgave his sins, it was the intercession of his faithful friends.

So yes, the saints can help us.

---

Saints are a Catholic invention. Mark 2 is talking about disciples not saints. Disciples means us, in the past and presently.. Saints was an appellation given by the Roman Catholic Church with its own criteria of what constitutes a Saint. Those guys carrying the stretcher would answer "huh?".if in the moment someone called them that term.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Fatima message, again:

"Another principal part of the Message of Fatima is devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, which is terribly outraged and offended by the sins of humanity, and we are lovingly urged to console Her by making reparation. She showed Her Heart, surrounded by piercing thorns (which represented the sins against Her Immaculate Heart), to the children, who understood that their sacrifices could help to console Her."

---

Do you think that Mary is happy with all of the sins of humanity? Her son suffered an excruciating death to save us, but humanity still does the worst things to another. Would making reparations (like fasting, prayer, and alms giving) make her happy? She says so. Nothing wrong here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."

---

It strange for you to imply that people become devoted to her Immaculate heart, repent from sinning, and turn to prayer to God, would not save many souls is wrong here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."

---

If one gets to know his Mother, he is getting closer to Jesus and God. They are repenting, fasting, praying, etc. They are leading better lives. I'm not sure why you struggle with this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you think this is about Jesus, then you are either a complete fool, or you're a liar and a deceiver.

---

Just because you don't understand the concepts, doesn't mean that I and others are a fools, liars, or deceivers.

Waco1947 said:

---

Saints are a Catholic invention. Mark 2 is talking about disciples not saints. Disciples means us, in the past and presently.. Saints was an appellation given by the Roman Catholic Church with its own criteria of what constitutes a Saint. Those guys carrying the stretcher would answer "huh?".if in the moment someone called them that term.

---

People can help us merit a "treasury" like salvation.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm curious as to how you think the thief's way to salvation is different from any of ours.

---

He didn't have the opportunity for baptism. That's one way.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

This is not a good analogy of salvation. If someone is saved from an overdose of drugs, but then goes back to drugs and dies, then he was never really saved from drugs. If we are saved from sin, but we sin again in life (which every Christian that has ever existed has done), we are still saved because ALL our sin was put on Jesus, and our faith in him imputed his righteousness to us. We are truly saved from sin, because Jesus is always interceding for us. Your analogy would be more analogous to salvation if the drug user goes back to drugs, but the drugs are put in Jesus instead, and he lives.

---

Are you stating that one cannot lose salvation?

Coke Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Saints are a Catholic invention. Mark 2 is talking about disciples not saints. Disciples means us, in the past and presently.. Saints was an appellation given by the Roman Catholic Church with its own criteria of what constitutes a Saint. Those guys carrying the stretcher would answer "huh?".if in the moment someone called them that term.

---

People can help us merit a "treasury" like salvation. According to Catholic theology. And what about merit? We live under grace not merit.

---

But the text you cite is not about saints but disciples

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not twisting anything, I'm telling exactly what happened. A POPE, bishops, and priests offered less time in purgatory in exchange for money. Yet you believe in the infallibility of your magisterium made up of popes, bishops, and priests.

---

You again prove to NOT to know anything about Catholic teachings.
One cannot get "less time in purgatory" for obtaining an indulgence. We don't know how time works in Purgatory or Heaven.

The magisterium is only made up of the Pope and the bishops, in union with him. Not the priests.

The magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible under specific conditions. From Catholic Answers (to ensure that I get the wording correct:

"This infallibility is exercised through the extraordinary Magisterium, such as ecumenical councils and papal definitions, and the ordinary and universal Magisterium, when the bishops in union with the pope teach universally. This is rooted in Christ's promise to guide His Church in truth (Matthew 28:19-20) and the Church's role as the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)."

Please note that he did NOT say the bible was the pillar and bulwark of the truth. He said the Church is.

---

Catholicism teaches that if one wears the scapular at their death, that Mary will release them from "purgatory" the Saturday after their death. There is a temporal dimension to "purgatory" in Catholic teaching, and it doesn't matter how you understand it, indulgences lead to "less" of it.

Of course I know the magisterium is only the pope and bishops. I was just making the point in the simplest way - the pope and bishops are fallible. The Catholic argument that they are infallible "under certain conditions" makes the whole idea of infallibility useless. Because when they ARE wrong, you can just say that it didn't count. A child can see through this ridiculous reasoning.

By the way, do you have an answer yet for how Church councils, made up of these same pope and bishops, can be infallible when they anathematize their own previous councils? I've asked you repeatedly.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The whole idea of purgatory is unbiblical.

---

You might want to read what Catholics actually believe before making comments like this.

Before I provide a definition and biblical understanding of the nature of Purgatory, I'll present two passages.

Rev 21:27 "But nothing unclean shall enter heaven."
Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…"

Sin cannon exist in heaven and in front of God.

---

Nothing unclean enters heaven, because Jesus makes us clean, by HIS work, not ours.

Sin can not exist in heaven, that's why Jesus imputed his righteousness to us when we believe in him.

It's as if you believe that Jesus' work on the cross was insufficient and we have to do the rest ourselves. That most certainly is NOT the Gospel.

Coke Bear said:

---

No, the word "Purgatory" does NOT exist in the bible, but neither does the word, "Trinity", but their concepts do.

The Catechism states that Purgatory is for "All who die in God's grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification" (CCC 1030).

Simply put, most of us have some attachment to sin, whether it be lust, pride, gluttony, sloth, greed, wrath, or envy. We cannot stand in front of God with those or other worldly attachments like gossip, excessive video games, social medial, or television, etc. The bible says this.

When we die, we must be cleaned of these attachments. We can't be cleansed in hell, because once your there, you're not leaving. We can't be cleansed in heaven, but Rev 21:27 tells us that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven."

This cleansing, or purgation, has to happen somewhere. The Church calls it Purgatory. You can call it "Albuquerque" if you want, but it HAS to happen somewhere.

---

You Roman Catholics have absolutely no idea what the Gospel is. JESUS paid for our sin so we don't have to. Again, it's like you believe that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection was insufficient and we have to do the rest ourselves.

Now compare your "purgatory" to what Jesus said and how he deals with our sin after we are saved - he washes our feet. He says, "Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean." Note that JESUS himself washes our feet, we do not wash it ourselves.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not twisting anything, I'm telling exactly what happened. A POPE, bishops, and priests offered less time in purgatory in exchange for money. Yet you believe in the infallibility of your magisterium made up of popes, bishops, and priests.

---

Biblical foundation I Corinthians 3:11-15
"For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubbleeach man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

The DAY here is our judgment day. The fire that test our works is the purifying agent or purgatory. The good works will receive a reward (Treasury of Merit.) Our bad works, will be burned up. As I mentioned, this CANNOT happen in hell, because "he himself will be saved". It can't happen in heaven. It HAS to happen somewhere.

I have other supporting texts that we can discuss later like Matthew 12:32 and 5:24-25.

---

This verse is not talking about purgatory. It's their works that are being tested by fire, not they themselves. It's to determine their reward, not to clean them to get into heaven.

Question: what is the "reward" that the verse says one gets after the test by fire? Because if you're saying this verse is about purgatory, then that "reward" must be heaven. But it's not heaven, because the other person got no reward, but they still got into heaven. So the "reward" isn't heaven. That's why this verse can't be about purgatory.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The whole idea behind indulgences, that there's this "treasury" or bank or extra merit from all the saints stored up that can be dished out people who need it to have their sins covered almost sounds like a joke. There is nothing even close to that anywhere in Scripture. It's just so obviously made up by the tradition of fallible man. It departs from infallible Scripture. And THAT'S why the true reform of the Reformation was needed.

---

Are the saints in heaven not part of the mystical body of Christ? Do you not remember what Paul said 1 Corinthians 1:24?

" Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church."

Did St. Paul just say that something was "lacking in Christ's afflictions"? Holy smokes! How dare he say that Christ suffering and afflictions are lacking. Is he a heretic? Maybe we should throw out 1 Corinthians? (insert sarcasm emoji here.)

No St. Paul is urging us to all join our sufferings with Christ's sufferings to build up the kingdom of God.

---

Paul considers the spreading of the Gospel in the face of heavy persecution to be the continuation of Jesus' affliction that he and all other apostles take part in, in order to form new believers and thus build up the body of Christ.

This is saying NOTHING about Paul having a "treasury of merit" to where someone can apply his merit to themselves to get out of purgatory. You're reading quite a bit into it there.

Coke Bear said:

---

Paul also tells young Timothy in 1 Tim 4:16:

"take heed to yourself and your teaching; hold to that, for by doing so you will save both yourself and your hearers."

In the end of the book of Job, God punishes job's foolish friends and tells them that he won't listen to their prayers until Job intercedes for them, which he does.

In Mark 2:5, at the healing of the paralytic In Capernaum, this man is brought by his four friends to Jesus.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

It wasn't' the man's faith that forgave his sins, it was the intercession of his faithful friends.

So yes, the saints can help us.

---

The question isn't whether living saints can help us. Indulgences are about past, departed saints and their merit, and how their merit is stored in a "bank" to where someone can obtain some of it in order to get out of purgatory. Not a single verse you're referencing even comes close to suggesting this. No one is buying this as "biblical" support of indulgences.

The incredible leaps you have to make with bible passages pretty much sums up how weak the support is biblically for Catholic beliefs.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Fatima message, again:

"Another principal part of the Message of Fatima is devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, which is terribly outraged and offended by the sins of humanity, and we are lovingly urged to console Her by making reparation. She showed Her Heart, surrounded by piercing thorns (which represented the sins against Her Immaculate Heart), to the children, who understood that their sacrifices could help to console Her."

---

Do you think that Mary is happy with all of the sins of humanity? Her son suffered an excruciating death to save us, but humanity still does the worst things to another. Would making reparations (like fasting, prayer, and alms giving) make her happy? She says so. Nothing wrong here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace."

---

It strange for you to imply that people become devoted to her Immaculate heart, repent from sinning, and turn to prayer to God, would not save many souls is wrong here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."

---

If one gets to know his Mother, he is getting closer to Jesus and God. They are repenting, fasting, praying, etc. They are leading better lives. I'm not sure why you struggle with this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you think this is about Jesus, then you are either a complete fool, or you're a liar and a deceiver.

---

Just because you don't understand the concepts, doesn't mean that I and others are a fools, liars, or deceivers.

---

"God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."

Devotion to MARY, not to Jesus. Work to spread devotion to MARY throughout the world, not to Jesus. MARY will be your refuge, not Jesus. MARY will lead you to God, not Jesus. MARY is a sure way to God, not Jesus.

Are you really this spiritually dense?? There's really nothing to say here, other than if you seriously think this is pointing to Jesus and not making it all about Mary, and that this isn't pure heresy, then you truly are blind, deceived, a complete fool, and a tool of Satan. Period.

WAKE UP. Before it's too late.

Jesus is the answer. Mary is just His Mother. She can't do anything for you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Paul also tells young Timothy in 1 Tim 4:16:

"take heed to yourself and your teaching; hold to that, for by doing so you will save both yourself and your hearers."

In the end of the book of Job, God punishes job's foolish friends and tells them that he won't listen to their prayers until Job intercedes for them, which he does.

In Mark 2:5, at the healing of the paralytic In Capernaum, this man is brought by his four friends to Jesus.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

It wasn't' the man's faith that forgave his sins, it was the intercession of his faithful friends.

So yes, the saints can help us.

---

The question isn't whether living saints can help us. Indulgences are about past, departed saints and their merit, and how their merit is stored in a "bank" to where someone can obtain some of it in order to get out of purgatory. Not a single verse you're referencing even comes close to suggesting this. No one is buying this as "biblical" support of indulgences.

The incredible leaps you have to make with bible passages pretty much sums up how weak the support is biblically for Catholic beliefs.

---

Indulgences are corrupt. They are a way for the Priest to profit off people and they are not Biblical. The truth is that sin is not permitted, even if you pay a Priest money. That doesn't make sin ok.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Catholicism teaches that if one wears the scapular at their death, that Mary will release them from "purgatory" the Saturday after their death. There is a temporal dimension to "purgatory" in Catholic teaching, and it doesn't matter how you understand it, indulgences lead to "less" of it.

---

First, Catholicism doesn't teach that at all. Scapulars are private devotions. The faithful are not bound to accept or honor it.

Which scapular? The Brown, Red, Black, Blue or any specific of the 18 different scapulars? I'm not sure what scapular that you are referring to.

Once again, you are twisting what you don't understand. I feel sorry for you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I know the magisterium is only the pope and bishops. I was just making the point in the simplest way - the pope and bishops are fallible. The Catholic argument that they are infallible "under certain conditions" makes the whole idea of infallibility useless. Because when they ARE wrong, you can just say that it didn't count. A child can see through this ridiculous reasoning.

---

A child can understand that NOT everything the Church does is going to be perfect. It's divine institution ran by fallible humans. The Holy Spirit only protect her when she speaks dogmatically and definitionally (and expressed so) on matters of faith and morals.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The whole idea of purgatory is unbiblical.

---

You might want to read what Catholics actually believe before making comments like this.

Before I provide a definition and biblical understanding of the nature of Purgatory, I'll present two passages.

Rev 21:27 "But nothing unclean shall enter heaven."
Hab. 1:13 says, "You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…"

Sin cannon exist in heaven and in front of God.

---

Nothing unclean enters heaven, because Jesus makes us clean, by HIS work, not ours.

Sin can not exist in heaven, that's why Jesus imputed his righteousness to us when we believe in him.

It's as if you believe that Jesus' work on the cross was insufficient and we have to do the rest ourselves. That most certainly is NOT the Gospel.

---

You read the whole verse more closely.

"Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life."

By your logic and interpretation of this passage, those who do "what is shameful or deceitful" should enter heaven by the sufficiency of Christ sufferings.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Indulgences are corrupt. They are a way for the Priest to profit off people and they are not Biblical. The truth is that sin is not permitted, even if you pay a Priest money. That doesn't make sin ok.

---

Dude, If you're going to jump into the deep end with us, please ensure that you can properly swim.

The Church does NOT allow money to be offered for indulges.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Paul also tells young Timothy in 1 Tim 4:16:

"take heed to yourself and your teaching; hold to that, for by doing so you will save both yourself and your hearers."

In the end of the book of Job, God punishes job's foolish friends and tells them that he won't listen to their prayers until Job intercedes for them, which he does.

In Mark 2:5, at the healing of the paralytic In Capernaum, this man is brought by his four friends to Jesus.

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

It wasn't' the man's faith that forgave his sins, it was the intercession of his faithful friends.

So yes, the saints can help us.

---

The question isn't whether living saints can help us. Indulgences are about past, departed saints and their merit, and how their merit is stored in a "bank" to where someone can obtain some of it in order to get out of purgatory. Not a single verse you're referencing even comes close to suggesting this. No one is buying this as "biblical" support of indulgences.

The incredible leaps you have to make with bible passages pretty much sums up how weak the support is biblically for Catholic beliefs.

---

Actually, Matthew 6:20 states -

"But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal."

These treasures in heaven can be applied to others.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."

Devotion to MARY, not to Jesus. Work to spread devotion to MARY throughout the world, not to Jesus. MARY will be your refuge, not Jesus. MARY will lead you to God, not Jesus. MARY is a sure way to God, not Jesus.

Are you really this spiritually dense?? There's really nothing to say here, other than if you seriously think this is pointing to Jesus and not making it all about Mary, and that this isn't pure heresy, then you truly are blind, deceived, a complete fool, and a tool of Satan. Period.

WAKE UP. Before it's too late.

---

I am awake. I don't know whether it's the devil or your own pride that fuels your desire to turn people from the Catholic Church. It has clouded your judgement. Truly sad.

Having a devotion to Mary ALWAYS leads one closer to Christ. Ask ANY Catholic priest that you can find that has a devotion to Mary. They will all tell you that they are better priests and closer to Jesus BECAUSE of her.

Surely there's a Catholic church in your town that has at least one priest that has a devotion to Mary.

Let me know what you find out.