Fre3dombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

LOL

These kind of debates honestly amuse me.

As ONLY God knows exactly what He is going to do with each of us when our time comes.

To endlessly argue about various beliefs or details of those beliefs is ( in my opinion ) a silly waste of time.

---

One thing various protestants make clear is they unlike even Paul know exactly how God will judge us.

Its clear they are not well read as you can find many perspectives and very smart humble people saying this is their best understanding and why but they could be wring. Protestants always know though! Lol

Such pride even when they cant defend position

---

So interesting how you believe Protestants to be some monolithic group with the same line of thought. Do you stereotype races of people as well?

I'd submit many Protestants share more in common with Catholicism than their fellow Protestants. It's a pretty broad spectrum.

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

LOL

These kind of debates honestly amuse me.

As ONLY God knows exactly what He is going to do with each of us when our time comes.

To endlessly argue about various beliefs or details of those beliefs is ( in my opinion ) a silly waste of time.

---

Have to disagree with this, especially if the belief could lead toward a path toward eternal damnation.

For all of our political discussions, there literally is no more important topic to debate, given the consequences.

---

OK, no one asked me but I feel moved to talk about the Elephant.

Full disclosure, I was raised Southern Baptist, spent some time as a United Methodist and once scared my dad by suggesting while in High School that the RC had some good ideas and I might become a priest, then after exploring Buddhism, the Sikh faith and - not kidding - Jediism, I found my way back to the Southern Baptists.

My point is that while sometimes odd and often stubborn, I have tried to be open-minded about Faith and the personal relationship we each have with God. Too often, however, "discussions" on certain topics devolve into arguments and create resentment and a refusal to budge on even the smallest point, and there is no wisdom gained.

I thought about pointing out some of the many errors in play in this thread, but given the atmosphere I don't see that as helpful. So I would just ask each of us, whatever our beliefs, upbringing, and preferences, take a step back and - even if only as an intellectual exercise and to work on personal honesty, seriously consider the other person's take and why they believe it.

Consider that every group of believers numbering in the millions or more would seem to have something valid that should at least be respected.

Or, we can just go on throwing crap at each other and convince the atheists that there is nothing here but noise and repeated stupidity.

---

I don't disagree with this. That said, I think we must point out error when we see it. In fact, I believe we are called to do that.

Now I also agree that should be done humbly, and I admit it's difficult to do when you are personally attacked. Doesn't mean that's not our calling.

Coke Bear is a good example of someone on this thread who appears to debate honestly and gracefully. I wish I lived up to that standard all of the time.

---

I have delved into these discussions many, many times in this forum, and have found NONE I'm debating/discussing with to be honest. You often get personal attacks, persistent dodging, diversion, detraction, and sophistry (like what you're seeing in this thread). The one you're responding to here is a prime example - after repeated attempts, I could not get him to answer whether he agreed that calling Mary "salvation of the universe", "God of this world", "Mediatrix", "ruler of my house", "peacemaker between sinners and God", and asking Mary to "grant us salvation" or telling her "I place my salvation in your hands" is idolatrous and heretical. He simply refused to call it out. Instead, he accused me of "pride", called me a "Pharisee", and then said that I was Satan. I don't trust people who call themselves "Christian" and can't call out obvious, egregious error and then attack the one who is calling it out. There's something really wrong with that. I can't agree with you on CokeBear. He does make a good faith attempt at answering questions and addressing the topic without ad hominems most of the time. but he simply won't think critically and honestly when it even comes close to suggesting Roman Catholicism is in error. That's been my experience, at least.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

LOL

These kind of debates honestly amuse me.

As ONLY God knows exactly what He is going to do with each of us when our time comes.

To endlessly argue about various beliefs or details of those beliefs is ( in my opinion ) a silly waste of time.

---

Have to disagree with this, especially if the belief could lead toward a path toward eternal damnation.

For all of our political discussions, there literally is no more important topic to debate, given the consequences.

---

OK, no one asked me but I feel moved to talk about the Elephant.

Full disclosure, I was raised Southern Baptist, spent some time as a United Methodist and once scared my dad by suggesting while in High School that the RC had some good ideas and I might become a priest, then after exploring Buddhism, the Sikh faith and - not kidding - Jediism, I found my way back to the Southern Baptists.

My point is that while sometimes odd and often stubborn, I have tried to be open-minded about Faith and the personal relationship we each have with God. Too often, however, "discussions" on certain topics devolve into arguments and create resentment and a refusal to budge on even the smallest point, and there is no wisdom gained.

I thought about pointing out some of the many errors in play in this thread, but given the atmosphere I don't see that as helpful. So I would just ask each of us, whatever our beliefs, upbringing, and preferences, take a step back and - even if only as an intellectual exercise and to work on personal honesty, seriously consider the other person's take and why they believe it.

Consider that every group of believers numbering in the millions or more would seem to have something valid that should at least be respected.

Or, we can just go on throwing crap at each other and convince the atheists that there is nothing here but noise and repeated stupidity.

---

I don't disagree with this. That said, I think we must point out error when we see it. In fact, I believe we are called to do that.

Now I also agree that should be done humbly, and I admit it's difficult to do when you are personally attacked. Doesn't mean that's not our calling.

Coke Bear is a good example of someone on this thread who appears to debate honestly and gracefully. I wish I lived up to that standard all of the time.

---

I have delved into these discussions many, many times in this forum, and have found NONE I'm debating/discussing with to be honest. You often get personal attacks, persistent dodging, diversion, detraction, and sophistry (like what you're seeing in this thread). The one you're responding to here is a prime example - after repeated attempts, I could not get him to answer whether he agreed that calling Mary "salvation of the universe", "God of this world", "Mediatrix", "ruler of my house", "peacemaker between sinners and God", and asking Mary to "grant us salvation" or telling her "I place my salvation in your hands" is idolatrous and heretical. He simply refused to call it out. Instead, he accused me of "pride", called me a "Pharisee", and then said that I was Satan. I don't trust people who call themselves "Christian" and can't call out obvious, egregious error and then attack the one who is calling it out. There's something really wrong with that. I can't agree with you on CokeBear. He does make a good faith attempt at answering questions and addressing the topic without ad hominems most of the time. but he simply won't think critically and honestly when it even comes close to suggesting Roman Catholicism is in error. That's been my experience, at least.

---

Don't disagree. It is especially true of freedom.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the soldiers committed idolatry, it is a mortal sin according to Roman (FIFY) Catholicism, which means they are in Hell, not in purgatory, and no amount of prayers or indulgences will help them.

---

Hey, you are correct here! If one has unrepentant mortal sin on their soul at the time of their death, they made their decision.

Please remember, these were Pre-Christian Jews. They had no specific delineation between mortal and venial sin. They did; however, have an understanding of sin and its varying degrees.

Judas Maccabaeus' offering may have been in vain, but that was totally up to God.

The principle still remains that Jews then and now still pray for the dead.

Mothra said:

---

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your attempts to answer the questions. We agree that purgatory is not mentioned anywhere in scripture. Where I think we will disagree is that scripture even alludes to such a place or suggests such a place exists. I do not believe the verse you cited even suggests its existence.

---

Slight correction here. I stated that word, "Purgatory" in not mentioned in scripture.

If that passage doesn't describe Purgatory, then one must explain what the fire and test are that St Paul describes on our Judgment day.

Mothra said:

---

I agree with you that "sinner's prayer" or "altar call" are not mentioned specifically, though Christ tells us on many occasions the key to salvation, and to spread the good news to others. The difference between those terms, and purgatory, is you are literally suggesting the existence of a place that isn't even suggested in scripture, and a path to salvation that differs from what Christ himself said in scripture. So this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

---

I'll have to disagree with you about the "existence of a place …". In 1 Cor 3:11-15, that has to be a place because something (the judgment and purification) obviously happens there.

I'll also add Isiah 6:6-7

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding in his hand a burning coal that he had removed from the altar with a pair of tongs. 7 He touched my mouth with it and said,
"Now that this has touched your lips,
your guilt has been removed
and your sin has been blotted out."

Here Isiah is in a divine vision experiencing the heavenly temple of God. He wasn't fit to be in the presence of the LORD in his condition. The seraphim used a burning ember to purge him of his sins so that he could be in the presence of the LORD.

Finally with respect to Rev. 21-27: "Nothing unclean shall enter heaven", how do we sinful people get clean before we enter heaven?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Thanks for your post, Coke Bear. I think I see two problems with your position, however.

The first is that there are a number of places where miracles happened in an instant. When Jesus touched someone, for example, the person was instantly healed. While in some occasions Jesus has the person do something further, it was the lepers who were healed but needed to present themselves to the priests to prove it so they could go home, and also the famous admonition 'go and sin no more'.

We also see the verse about the Rapture, when we are changed "in the twinkling of an eye", if I remember it right.

---

Thanks for your thoughts on this. It is very interesting that you used the passage, "in the twinkling of an eye." The late, great Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi ("Saved in Hope")used the same phrase when discussing his philosophy on Purgatory. We don't know how LONG it will take us to purify us for our attachment to sin. It could very well be in an instant. But we do know that it can't take place in Heaven, because sin can't enter there. It can't be hell, because there's no getting out.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nowhere does God say we go from confession to some holding place while we 'get better' from our former sin. Yes, there is sanctification but that is for this world. The closest we get to a Purgatory might be the thousand year rule of Christ, when we all make ourselves ready for eternity.

---

As Catholics, most of believe that we are living in the amillennialism right now. We are living the "(symbolic)1000-year rule of Christ."

Oldbear83 said:

---

The other is the whole point of decision. We like to think our decisions don't lock in until we're ready, but Scripture is clear that we sooner or later make the one that binds, and thank God for that, or we would never have peace, with Satan trying between threats and temptations to tear us away from our Lord. I believe that is also a root of the whole OSAS debate. There are clearly some who fall away, yet there are others who are fully sure of who they follow and how they will finish. If it seems that some people never doubt while others never trust, remember what Jesus said to Martha.

---

We get a whole lifetime to make our decision as to whether follow God or not. Hopefully most will repent of their sins and accept God's free gift of grace.

I, too, believe that some fall away. The Church has a correction point for this Confession. That's the beauty of the kerygma:
Creation: God created a good world and humanity with a purpose.
Fall: Sin entered the world, separating humanity from God.
Redemption: God, in his love, sent his son, Jesus, to die for our sins and reconcile us to himself.
Response: We are called to respond to God's love by believing in Jesus, repenting of our sins, and following him.

Essentially, at the individual level:

God loves us some much that he created us and has a wonderful plan for our lives.
When we sin, we cut ourselves off from God and his plan for us.
God loves us SO much that he sent his Son to die for our sins.
If we repent, believe in him, our sins are forgiven, and we can live together forever with Him.

Oldbear83 said:

---

In any case that quality of free decision makes Purgatory moot. A man who loves God will count all his earthly treasures and pleasures as nothing to carry with him, while a man who pays lip service to God but does not walk with Him is in deep peril that no amount of purging can take away.

---

Purgatory maybe moot for later in your example, but only God knows their heart.

The rest of us have an attachment to some sin(s). It's called Concupiscence. When we die, that attachment must be cleansed from our soul before we enter heaven.

Youre a clown said:

---

Catholics have murdered hundreds of thousands of protestants throughout the course of history. In fact, there are areas of central and South America in 2025 where if a Protestant were to preach the gospel and tell Catholics to stop committing blasphemy like bowing down and praying to the dead (i.e. witchcraft )/worshiping Mary (and catholics do worship Mary, though they hide it behind terms like 'veneration'), they will be murdered.

---

Please cite an authentic news source that back your claim that protestants are being killed by Catholics because they were accused of blasphemy. I would like to research that.

In actuality, many Christians (both Catholic and protestant) have been killed in these regions by secular, political, and criminal groups.

Second, if you would like to discuss the murder of "hundreds of thousands of protestants throughout the course of history" please cite a specific instance so that we can discuss in detail.

Please note that both sides of this debate share guilt over the thousands of lives lost during so-called Holy wars that were fought in Europe. There are no innocent parties here.

Youre a clown said:

---

But in all honesty, what's funny to me is that if us protestants are wrong about this and end up in purgatory, y'all can just pray to Mary whenever you see her appear in the clouds or in your toast, and I'll be out of there in no time!

---

Classy.

historian said:

---

It does seem that some Catholics place great emphasis on Mary when the reality is that she is one of many Biblical heroes but no greater than Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, Ruth, Esther, Elizabeth, Peter, Paul, or any of the many others.

---

We'll have to disagree about Mary being "no greater than" other Biblical heroes. She, a virgin, conceived thru Holy Spirit and gave birth to the Second part of the Trinity. I see NO other example of this of anything close to this. Luke tells us that "ALL generations will call her blessed."

She is God's greatest creature.

historian said:

---

I do not understand the Catholic practice of praying to her or any other saints. We should only pray to God (Father, Son, or Holy Ghost). No one else in heaven can answer our prayers.

---

What do you mean by "pray"? If you mean worship, then, YES, we 100% agree with you. We only should worship God.
If you mean to "ask for their intercession", then we'll disagree.

The Bible encourages us to pray for one another in many verses, James 5:16, 1 Tim 2:1, Matt 5:44, Phil 4:6, Gal 6:2, etc.

We believe those in heaven are more alive than we are on earth because they are living with God and experiencing beatific vision. They are still part of the Body of Christ.

The saints aren't answering our prayers. They are bringing them to God.

Why should we ask them to do this, because James 5:16 says that the "prayers of a righteous man is powerful and effective." Who is more "righteous" than those in heaven?

It is a false premise to exclude something because is it not mentioned in the Bible. If that were the case, we shouldn't celebrate Christmas or Easter. We shouldn't use wedding bands or Christmas trees (came from pagan origins). We shouldn't use pianos, organs, guitars, etc., in worship. We shouldn't use pews. I could go on.

The Bible NEVER makes the claim that we should ONLY follow the what's printed in the Bible. If that was the case, we didn't have the canon of the NT for 300 years. How did the early Christians know what to do and not do?

Please note that the Bible NEVER says that we should pray to the Holy Spirit. We do and we should.

historian said:

---

I have seen Catholic references to Mary as the "Mother of God" which is misleading. She was the human mother of the Christ child but what made Christ divine was His Father, God, not His mother, the woman God chose for that special purpose. In that sense, she was no greater or important than any of the many others God has chosen for His purposes throughout history. Do these examples mean that Catholics think of her as divine? I don't know. I have never talked to Catholics about such things. When I'm with Catholic friends we don't spend much time discussing theology.

---

We had a whole discussion on why "Mary is the Mother of God" on anther post, but here's a quick snippet:

Mary is the Mother of Jesus, who is God. Therefore, she is the Mother of God. Catholics do NOT believe that she gave birth to God, the Father.

Jesus has two natures, human and divine the Hypostatic Union. Women don't give birth to natures. They give birth to persons. The person of Jesus had both natures at conception, death, resurrection, ascension, and BIRTH. Much ink was spilled on this topic on one of the other threads. Please PM me if you'd like to discuss further.

Finally, NO, Catholics do not think of Mary is divine. She is a creature, infinitely below God. But is she God's greatest creature.

As I offered earlier, please PM directly if you have other issues that you like to discuss. Or if you're ever in Waco and would like to discuss some of your other objections, I'd be happy to meet you for a beverage or two at a local watering hole.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I will bet that not many Roman (fify) Catholics know about them either. Especially the ones who aren't really deep into Catholicism but instead are cradle or cultural Catholics. On the surface, Catholicism presents itself as Christianity to these people, and they don't notice. But it is my belief that those quotes above are the end goal of that Church. They want to warm people up slowly to the idea that Mary is their salvation. They can't make that sudden declaration from the beginning because it'll scare people off, so they prep their minds to slowly accept it. Why do you think that Roman (fify) Catholicism has their followers pray the rosary where they chant about Mary over and over and over? It's a self hypnosis. It's meant to condition the mind to eventually accept what Roman (fify) Catholicism really wants them to believe, which is that Mary is their god. Roman (fify) Catholicism is ancient pagan Mother goddess worship re-awakened. The woman that Catholics pray to and worship is NOT the real Mary, but rather the same pagan goddess behind Ishtar, a.k.a. Ashtoreth in the Old Testament. Ashtoreth is called the "queen of heaven" in the Old Testament, and worship of her is what caused God to harshly punish the Israelites. And Roman (fify) Catholicism calls Mary the "Queen of Heaven". It's no coincidence.

---

Dude, are you a conspiracy theorist? Seriously. Is this from Jack Chick tracts? Do you make this up or do you have an anti-Catholic book or magazine subscription makes these false claims for you.

Logically, this claim makes no sense.

If "Roman (fify) Catholicism really wants them to believe, which is that Mary is their god" really wanted people to do this, why is it NOT found in ANY Church documents? Why has no priest, bishop, or cardinal rejected this and left the Vatican and told the press about this "master plan"? How long is this plan supposed to take? Because it's NOT working. NO Catholic believe that "Mary is their God."

If you'd ever like to discuss the Rosary or the Queenship of Mary, I'm happy to discuss them on at a time. I'll also address those comments one at a time, when you choose.

Finally, really believe that a conspiracy exists to make people believe that "Mary is there God", you need help. I will continue to pray for you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The assumption of Mary is completely absent in Scripture as well as in the beliefs of the early church. It's not from God. It is merely the attempt by Roman (fify)Catholicism to feed into the mind that MARY is your savior, by elevating her to the same level as Jesus, giving her the same characteristics as Jesus - being sinless (the immaculate conception), perpetually pure (perpetual virginity) and ascended into heaven (assumption of Mary).

---

These are all biblical and have been taught from the earliest of times in the Church. Please pick one a at time to discuss.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the soldiers committed idolatry, it is a mortal sin according to Roman (FIFY) Catholicism, which means they are in Hell, not in purgatory, and no amount of prayers or indulgences will help them.

---

Hey, you are correct here! If one has unrepentant mortal sin on their soul at the time of their death, they made their decision.

Please remember, these were Pre-Christian Jews. They had no specific delineation between mortal and venial sin. They did; however, have an understanding of sin and its varying degrees.

Judas Maccabaeus' offering may have been in vain, but that was totally up to God.

The principle still remains that Jews then and now still pray for the dead.

---

The practice of praying for the dead is completely absent in Scripture. And from a single, non-scriptural reference to praying for the dead, it just doesn't follow that this means there's a place where people suffer for their "venial sins", and that "indulgences" from the living can lighten the suffering or expedite their release from that place. You need clear, explicit references from Scripture to support that idea, and there just isn't any. And there wouldn't be, because as I've pointed out this idea would go against the Bible's declaration that Jesus' blood cleanses us from ALL sin. Any attempt to justify purgatory would be cheapening the blood of Christ and going against the word of God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And Mary did not say "yes". She was chosen, she wasn't being asked. Salvation did not hinge upon her free will. It was JESUS by HIS free will to give himself that saved us.

---

Mary absolutely did say "YES" to God when this was presented to her by the Angel Gabriel. She gave her "Fiat."

When one studies the context and the Greek in their conversation, it is abundantly clear that she consented to God's plan.

If not, then God would have "forced" himself on her. She had free will to accept this. If she only accepted out of fear because it was God, then that is coercion.

My God would never do that.

Her response is a supreme example of faith and surrender. She is a perfect model to for all of believers in their response to God's call.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Heres another video. I know the thumbnail may again scare some off etc. may offer some prot insight into some confusion that they seem to have about Catholic belief re faith alone. Maybe some Catholics learn something as well

---

This guy is wrong on so many different issues, I lost count.

---

I listen to his podcasts weekly.

Please cite the worst issue and let's discuss why you think he's wrong.

BTW, he a former protestant (who wanted to be a pastor or seminary professor) with a philosophy degree that studied his way into the Church. He's NOT cradle-Catholic

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Like Mothra said, none of those verses support a place (or process) of post-death punishment for or "purification" from one's venial sins. This is an example of Roman (fify)Catholicism starting with the theology first, and then afterward finding the verses they need to support it. It's pure eisegesis.

---

Actually, this isn't correct. The Jews, long before Jesus, believed in praying for the dead.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Take for instance the oft used passage in I Corinthians 3: "Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

The above verse is dealing with what Paul calls the "Day", which is the Day of the Lord, a time of judgement where each person who built on Jesus' church (their ministry) will have their works tested for the sake of determining their reward. It's their WORKS that they did in building up the church that are tested through a "fire" - NOT the people themselves. This has nothing to do with punishment for that person's "venial sins". In fact there's nothing in this verse that even speaks to one's "venial sins". If Roman Catholicism is teaching that "purgatory" is merely the feeling of "loss" when one loses potential rewards, then this is a complete departure from what Roman Catholicism had always taught purgatory to be.

---

Actually, on each of our Judgement Day's, our SOULS and WORKS will be judged.

Catholicism does NOT teach that "purgatory" is merely the feeling of "loss".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the argument is, however, that while this verse is not directly referring to "purgatory", it's alluding to the potential place outside of heaven, a place where the "suffering" of losing rewards can occur (being that there can't be any suffering in heaven) - still, you can't automatically conclude, then, that this must be the place where people suffer as payment for their venial sins. There is no direct scriptural reference to this fact. You can't say that something exists merely on the fact that the potential for it to exist is there. You need positive evidence. And there just isn't any direct, positive evidence of a post-death process or place where there is "purification" of a person's sins that involves suffering. And why would there be? Such an idea completely undermines the Gospel and is an insult to the sufficiency of the blood of Christ as the perfect atonement that cleanses us from ALL sin. The idea is from the Devil himself, meant to lead people away from trusting in Jesus' finished work, and thus threatening their very salvation.

---

On the contrary. 1 Cor 3 tell us that we are getting judged. It can't be heaven, due to uncleanliness not entering heaven and it can't be hell, because there's no getting out of hell. It has to happen somewhere.

Jesus also states in Matt 5:25-26 - "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny."

This is an illustration of the need for justice and the payment (in "prison") of temporal consequences of sin. That prison is somewhere.

We say "AMEN" to Christ's perfect atonement forgives all our sinless, but when we die, we still have attachment and habits of sin that remain that must be removed before we enter heaven.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And Mary did not say "yes". She was chosen, she wasn't being asked. Salvation did not hinge upon her free will. It was JESUS by HIS free will to give himself that saved us.

---

Mary absolutely did say "YES" to God when this was presented to her by the Angel Gabriel. She gave her "Fiat."

When one studies the context and the Greek in their conversation, it is abundantly clear that she consented to God's plan.

If not, then God would have "forced" himself on her. She had free will to accept this. If she only accepted out of fear because it was God, then that is coercion.

My God would never do that.

Her response is a supreme example of faith and surrender. She is a perfect model to for all of believers in their response to God's call.

---

It was already decided that Mary was to bear Jesus. She wasn't given a choice. She merely accepted it.

"You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus."

NOT "Will you conceive and give birth to a son, and name him Jesus?"

You're view just isn't in line with Scripture.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

What is lacking in the blood of Christ that prevents salvation?

What does Mary provide that Christ blood does not?

---

Saint Paul said in Col 1:24

"I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."

Apparently if Paul's sufferings can have merit for others, so can Mary's.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Like Mothra said, none of those verses support a place (or process) of post-death punishment for or "purification" from one's venial sins. This is an example of Roman (fify)Catholicism starting with the theology first, and then afterward finding the verses they need to support it. It's pure eisegesis.

---

Actually, this isn't correct. The Jews, long before Jesus, believed in praying for the dead.

---

The Jews believed lots of things that Jesus said were false, because they were following tradition rather than the word of God. Jesus' criticism of the Sadducees regarding the resurrection is one such example. The Jews following the "Corban rule" was another.

The fact remains that praying for the dead is found nowhere in the Jewish canon, or in the New Testament.

And it just doesn't follow that "praying for the dead" means there's a place of post-death punishment of venial sins. Again, pure eisegesis.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Can I get to heaven without Christ?

Can I get to heaven without Mary?

Not rhetorical.

---

Well, God saw it fitting that he used Mary to give birth to Jesus.

I suppose the answer is "NO" to both in this version of reality.

God could have chosen another way, but he chose Mary to bring His Son into the world.

Assassin said:

---

As a Lutheran, I am damn happy we don't believe in Purgatory. It began as a Jewish and Pagan idea. Catholics picked it up around the 13th Century or so. However we do believe in Heaven and Hell. The belief in purgatory is seen as contradictory to the clear teaching of Scripture that the soul goes directly to either heaven or hell after death. So I watch my Ps and Qs.

---

Actually, this claim isn't correct.
Acts of Paul and Thecla - A.D. 160:
"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: 'Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous'"

Tertullian 211:
"We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of deathbirth into eternal life"

Origen AD 218-230 spoke of purification of souls after death and describing a kind of purifying fire that could prepare souls for heaven.

Gregory of Nyssa AD 382:
"… he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire" (Sermon on the Dead)

John Chrysostom AD 392:
"Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them" (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5)

Augustine AD 419:
"Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment" (The City of God 21:13)

"That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire" (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 AD 421).

The term "Trinity" was first used until the 3rd century, and the doctrine wasn't affirmed until 325. Just like the word "Purgatory" wasn't used until the 12th century, but the concepts have been discussed by the earliest Church fathers.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catholic Catechism that condemns those outside the church. So my understanding is that your church preaches one thing but then caveats it to try to make it make sense to the world. The Catholic Church teaches that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" which is a fundamental teaching that affirms the necessity of salvation through the Church. This teaching is rooted in the belief that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the (RC) Church, which is his Body. The (RC) Church is seen as the means through which Christ distributes His grace via the sacraments.

---

I'm not sure how this concerns the Catholic Church have a "monopoly on the Holy Spirit". I see nothing here about the Holy Spirit.

I will address your concerns.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Tell me if I get this wrong - popes have affirmed this teaching and have other priests for YEARS. But not too long ago, this wasn't popular on the world stage, so a pope somewhere decided that he'd nuance it so that Muslims and even some lowly protestants could be saved

---

For 1500 years, it was ONLY the Catholic Church. As time progress, the doctrine has not changed, but the understanding and interpretation of this teaching have deepened over time to reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of God's salvific will.

The Catechism says (CCC 846) - "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Reformulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body" (CCC 846).

Essentially, the Church presented the same teaching in a positive light.

With respect to Muslims, Jews, 14th century Native American, and even "lowly protestants" being saved, this is correctly addressed the next two paragraphs:
CCC 847: This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
CCC 848: "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

And of course recently, practicing gays are welcomed and not condemned exactly. Sound about right?

---

All sinners are welcome in the Catholic Church. Does your church exclude people? That doesn't sound like something Christ would do.

With respect to them not being "condemned exactly," you'll have to better explain what you mean. Pope Francis (whose pontifical theme was mercy), called for a more compassionate approach to these people while still strongly affirming the Church's traditional teachings on marriage and sexuality.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

So my experience with Catholics is that they all fear being outside the RC church because they will lose their salvation. They then extend that belief to devout protestants who live more morally than most Catholics. That of course is irrelevant to them because the RC church prioritizes church obedience over faith in Christ and faith in scripture.

---

Please cite specific evidence for this claim.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

I will say that I don't respect what appears to be a lack of consistency on this issue from the church, to me it just shows that they don't actually know, they're changing it as they go based on whatever the pope feels. I'd have more respect if they stayed true to their original interpretation rather than just change it up to make everyone feel better ... or even better, preached the truth and used scripture to show why they were wrong in the past to preach that those "faithful outside the church" are anathema to Christ.

---

Please cite specifics concerning that the Church is "changing it as they go based on whatever the pope feels." One or two will be fine to discuss. Any more than that may get too cumbersome in a post.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Last, since I don't want anyone wondering on where I stand in faith vs works - it is faith alone that Saves.

---

The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace through faith.

"Faith ALONE that saves" is clearly unbiblical as James 2:24 says that we are justified "NOT by faith ALONE."

Doc Holliday said:

---

The fire represents God's energy: for the righteous, its light and warmth, for the unrepentant, it feels like burning. Its God showing you who you really are.

---

Where is that in scripture?

It's very clear in 1 Cor 3:11-15 that it's NOT the unrepentant man that is having his works tested. In these passages, man's works (and soul) are being tested. The good works will survive, and the bad works will be burned up, but it states that that man will be saved, but only thru fire.

Unrepentant men cannot be saved.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It was already decided that Mary was to bear Jesus. She wasn't given a choice. She merely accepted it.

"You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus."

NOT "Will you conceive and give birth to a son, and name him Jesus?"

You're view just isn't in line with Scripture.

---

Accepted - "given approval or acceptance"; in other words, she said "yes."

Could she have said 'No?"

Actually, he "yes" isn't in line with your view of scripture.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I will bet that not many Roman (fify) Catholics know about them either. Especially the ones who aren't really deep into Catholicism but instead are cradle or cultural Catholics. On the surface, Catholicism presents itself as Christianity to these people, and they don't notice. But it is my belief that those quotes above are the end goal of that Church. They want to warm people up slowly to the idea that Mary is their salvation. They can't make that sudden declaration from the beginning because it'll scare people off, so they prep their minds to slowly accept it. Why do you think that Roman (fify) Catholicism has their followers pray the rosary where they chant about Mary over and over and over? It's a self hypnosis. It's meant to condition the mind to eventually accept what Roman (fify) Catholicism really wants them to believe, which is that Mary is their god. Roman (fify) Catholicism is ancient pagan Mother goddess worship re-awakened. The woman that Catholics pray to and worship is NOT the real Mary, but rather the same pagan goddess behind Ishtar, a.k.a. Ashtoreth in the Old Testament. Ashtoreth is called the "queen of heaven" in the Old Testament, and worship of her is what caused God to harshly punish the Israelites. And Roman (fify) Catholicism calls Mary the "Queen of Heaven". It's no coincidence.

---

Dude, are you a conspiracy theorist? Seriously. Is this from Jack Chick tracts? Do you make this up or do you have an anti-Catholic book or magazine subscription makes these false claims for you.

Logically, this claim makes no sense.

If "Roman (fify) Catholicism really wants them to believe, which is that Mary is their god" really wanted people to do this, why is it NOT found in ANY Church documents? Why has no priest, bishop, or cardinal rejected this and left the Vatican and told the press about this "master plan"? How long is this plan supposed to take? Because it's NOT working. NO Catholic believe that "Mary is their God."

If you'd ever like to discuss the Rosary or the Queenship of Mary, I'm happy to discuss them on at a time. I'll also address those comments one at a time, when you choose.

Finally, really believe that a conspiracy exists to make people believe that "Mary is there God", you need help. I will continue to pray for you.

---

Sorry, but this is all just denial. I have presented the actual quotes from your popes, bishops, and doctors of your Church, even your catechisms, that elevate Mary to deity, and which have Mary usurp the role of Jesus. You'd have to either be completely dishonest or a complete fool to deny this. This is epic-level gaslighting on your part.

Jesus specifically tells us not to pray with vain repetitions, but that's what Roman Catholics do in their rosary prayers, which are to Mary and not God, no less. Jesus tells us that we should not call religious leaders "father", but Roman Catholics call all their priests "father" and even calls the pope "Holy Father". God tells us in his Ten Commandments not to make images and bow to them, but Roman Catholics do this to images of Mary and the saints. And so on, and so on. It is simply astounding how you can gaslight yourself on this.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It was already decided that Mary was to bear Jesus. She wasn't given a choice. She merely accepted it.

"You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus."

NOT "Will you conceive and give birth to a son, and name him Jesus?"

You're view just isn't in line with Scripture.

---

Accepted - "given approval or acceptance"; in other words, she said "yes."

Could she have said 'No?"

Actually, he "yes" isn't in line with your view of scripture.

---

No. "Accepted" as in conceding to God's will for her.

Semantics isn't going to work. The bottom line is that she wasn't being asked. She was being told. This isn't a form of divine "rape" any more than God deciding to kill people is divine "murder'. God can make these kinds of decisions at his will without our consent.

Man, I've heard of bringing God down to man's level.... but subjecting God to the "me too" movement pretty much takes the cake.

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

What is lacking in the blood of Christ that prevents salvation?

What does Mary provide that Christ blood does not?

---

Saint Paul said in Col 1:24

"I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."

Apparently if Paul's sufferings can have merit for others, so can Mary's.

---

I don't read it that way. I read it as the struggles (sufferings) of Paul's ministry to spread the Word of Christ. What was "lacking in Christ's afflictions" was a large audience. The apostles, with the Holy Spirit, spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Tetelestai

IT IS FINISHED

PAID IN FULL

Not almost there
Not just one more thing
But FULL

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The fire represents God's energy: for the righteous, its light and warmth, for the unrepentant, it feels like burning. Its God showing you who you really are.

---

Where is that in scripture?

It's very clear in 1 Cor 3:11-15 that it's NOT the unrepentant man that is having his works tested. In these passages, man's works (and soul) are being tested. The good works will survive, and the bad works will be burned up, but it states that that man will be saved, but only thru fire.

Unrepentant men cannot be saved.

---

Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:1115 writes:

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

1.) The fire reveals and tests works, not souls.

2.) It speaks of "the Day": clearly referring to the Day of the Lord, final judgment, not a postmortem purgation before heaven.

3.) Salvation is already assured: "he will be saved." The fire doesn't save him; Christ already has.

Paul is using imagery to explain how the quality of each person's work in Christ will be revealed by God's judgment. The "fire" is metaphorical. The text itself says the person will be saved, not that they will undergo a temporary punishment to make them worthy. The idea that this passage supports purgatory only arises centuries later when magisterial teaching layers on theological assumptions absent from the early Church Fathers, especially in the East.

Orthodox theology, for instance, reads this as God's uncreated energy revealing truth: the same divine light is bliss for the righteous and torment for those opposed to God. The "fire" isn't a purifying torture chamber; it's God Himself.

So yes, the man in the passage is saved, because of Christ, not because he suffered a temporary purgatorial fire invented much later.

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Can I get to heaven without Christ?

Can I get to heaven without Mary?

Not rhetorical.

---

Well, God saw it fitting that he used Mary to give birth to Jesus.

I suppose the answer is "NO" to both in this version of reality.

God could have chosen another way, but he chose Mary to bring His Son into the world.

---

By this logic, we cannot get to heaven without anyone listed in Mathew 1:1-16

I'm pretty sure you understood my question to be something else, totally.

Can you respond to my questions again without twisting the meaning?

I agree with parts of that post but not all:

Mary was a virgin who conceived through the Holy Spirit. Luke did quote Elizabeth as saying that she was blessed among women and she declared herself blessed for all generations. Her Magnificat was a humble act of worship. I do not see any reason from anywhere in scripture to put her on any other pedestal. I know of no scripture that claims she was God's greatest creature. In fact, there are many Bible verses in both Old and New Testaments proclaiming that with God there is no partiality. There certainly are some Christians who have served God in extraordinary ways and the Bible places special emphasis on the martyrs of the faith (in Revelation, for example). I don't think there is any reason to believe that Mary was martyred.

According to Hebrews 7:25, Christ is our intercessor. We need no other and I certainly do not think any mere human could do better than Christ in that capacity. I also know of no scripture that places anyone else in that role.

You are absolutely correct that we should pray for one another and not just for fellow Christians but also for the unsaved and for our leaders. I do not do that enough. The saved people in heaven do not bring our prayers to God. They go directly to Him. He is omnipotent and does not need anyone's help. Maybe you mean the 24 elders in Revelation 5, who have the golden bowls with the prayers of believers which are like incense. In Revelation 8, an angel has a censor with the prayers of believers delivered before God. That's in the context of a prophecy on end times. I don't know if it refers to an ongoing thing from the first century to today. Regardless, I see no reason to believe that Mary was one of those elders. She certainly was not the angel.

I also know of no scripture that describes anyone in heaven praying for us. James 5:16 was referring to we believers. If we have God's righteousness in us (it certainly does not come from us), then our prayers on behalf of others can accomplish great things. I have experienced this personally so I know it to be true (people praying for me).

It might be a false premise to exclude something not mentioned in the Bible, but I doubt it. It is most definitely a false belief to proclaim doctrines not backed by scripture. In Revelation 22, Christ explicitly warned against adding to or taking away from the God's word. There have been all kinds of false teachings for 2,000 years in violation of this!

I have no problem with praying to the Holy Spirit, any more than I do with praying to God the Father or God the Son. They are all God and worthy of our worship and praise. But no one else deserves that.

Mary is not the mother of God. She was the human mother of the Christ child. I agree that Mary was not divine and was below God, just like all the rest of us. I still see no reason to conclude that she was the greatest anything.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Can I get to heaven without Christ?

Can I get to heaven without Mary?

Not rhetorical.

---

Well, God saw it fitting that he used Mary to give birth to Jesus.

I suppose the answer is "NO" to both in this version of reality.

God could have chosen another way, but he chose Mary to bring His Son into the world.

---

By this logic, we cannot get to heaven without anyone listed in Mathew 1:1-16

I'm pretty sure you understood my question to something else, totally.

Can you respond to my questions again without twisting the meaning?

---

You can even use this logic to make the argument that without Pontius Pilate to sentence Jesus to death and without the Roman soldiers to crucify him, then Jesus would not have been sacrificed for our sins, therefore we couldn't go to heaven without them.

God has used MANY people in his overall plan of salvation. But outside of Jesus, do we need something from any of those people PERSONALLY in their special capacity for our salvation? That clearly was your question. The answer is obviously no.

Purgatory presents the position that Joseph was more able to make right the relationship with his brothers who sold him into slavery than Christ is able to make right our relationship with Him.

I don't think ANY of us believe that to be true and yet, that is the position that Purgatory places before us.

Purgatory presents the position that Hosea who bought Gomer back at a high price and without her working to earn back his trust could do what Christ could not do with the high price He paid for those who trust in Him.

Purgatory presents the position that the prodigal was received back by his father fully where Christ does not receive us back fully until cleaning up first.

Lots of people believe what fans call "headcanon"; that they have figured out something important not actually in the writing or intended by the author, to the point that they will tell the author they are wrong and the fan is right.

Shouldn't be surprised then, to see people do the same thing in their religious beliefs.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your attempts to answer the questions. We agree that purgatory is not mentioned anywhere in scripture. Where I think we will disagree is that scripture even alludes to such a place or suggests such a place exists. I do not believe the verse you cited even suggests its existence.

---

Slight correction here. I stated that word, "Purgatory" in not mentioned in scripture.

If that passage doesn't describe Purgatory, then one must explain what the fire and test are that St Paul describes on our Judgment day.

Mothra said:

---

I agree with you that "sinner's prayer" or "altar call" are not mentioned specifically, though Christ tells us on many occasions the key to salvation, and to spread the good news to others. The difference between those terms, and purgatory, is you are literally suggesting the existence of a place that isn't even suggested in scripture, and a path to salvation that differs from what Christ himself said in scripture. So this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

---

I'll have to disagree with you about the "existence of a place …". In 1 Cor 3:11-15, that has to be a place because something (the judgment and purification) obviously happens there.

I'll also add Isiah 6:6-7

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding in his hand a burning coal that he had removed from the altar with a pair of tongs. 7 He touched my mouth with it and said,
"Now that this has touched your lips,
your guilt has been removed
and your sin has been blotted out."

Here Isiah is in a divine vision experiencing the heavenly temple of God. He wasn't fit to be in the presence of the LORD in his condition. The seraphim used a burning ember to purge him of his sins so that he could be in the presence of the LORD.

Finally with respect to Rev. 21-27: "Nothing unclean shall enter heaven", how do we sinful people get clean before we enter heaven?

---

Seems if youre osas youre clean no matter how much you sin as ling as at some point for a pico
Second you believed. Thief on the cross and some such

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You have been very dishonest in this thread.

I had to block BTD because his pride allowed nothing else, I hope you are not following him.

---

I Blocked him / her months ago for the personal attacks and lack of reasoned discussion. Way too emotional and lacking in any substance. Every answer was John 3:16. Boring

Point out a dishonesty? Be clear if it's just you not understanding. Ive stated nothing dishonest at all. Same as always.

---

With all due respect, this post describes you, freedom. As evidenced by all of the posts responding to you on this thread, you have a tendency to rub people the wrong way with your argumentative style. What typically happens is when you are confronted with the lack of logic or support for your theological positions, you posts devolve into inane rants and personal attacks against some protestant bogeyman. You've done it to me above, as with all of the other posters.

You have great difficulty defending your illogical and unsupported positions, and it makes you angry.

---

With all due respect you just described yourself. You equate your disagreement wirh my defense as me not posting a defense. You are bad at this. Most times you dont even debate so i move along perfectly content. You just say nah and project. Like this here very post you made. Its boring and nobody learns anything.

3 people pointed you to many verses etc to which you hardly responded as a perfect example. Shrug

And when youre aligned with the woman or dude i blocked well….

---

Of course your Catholic brethren have come to defend you. That would be expected. But the problem is, the facts are not what you have described. None of the verses you or your fellow Catholics have cited logically lead to the conclusion of a venue called purgatory.

As for your argumentative style, this thread is a microcosm of how you post. If someone refutes your position, as I did with your position on where Jesus went after his crucifixion, you ignore it because you cannot refute it. It is why my response to your post above has failed to receive a response.

You are unable.

---

Never saw your response on where jesus went so i guess im living rent free in your head. Probably got lost in all your posts saying nah and youre bad at this etc without offering anything of value or substance in response.

I see you're trying a bit more now which is good to see. May liven things up

Thats your style. Weve seen enough to know

Give you a hundred verses and at best you say "thats not what it means".

Post 15 other people across centuries expounding that thats what everyone from the beginning thought it means and you say "Im smarter. They were wrong. Ive read the Bible and listen to dudes in skinny jeans at Bible study small group on sunday"

Thats your style.

---

I'll ignore the ad hominems and projection and simply ask you to respond to the post in question, if you are able.

It's not a long thread. Should be easy for you to find.

Good luck.

---

Not gonna go hunt for your post