>ALL of those who “endure”, as churchmouse puts it, Purgatory, will end up in Heaven. Purgatory is an interval, a way station, a pause, and from the point of view of eternity, almost a triviality. SO I think it’s tendentious to call it “quite an oversight.”
So when the RCC was selling indulgences of hundreds of years... um... they were wrong, or is a hundred years just a slight pit-stop of torturous purging on the way to eternity?
>And that doubt is justified, since we find Tertullian writing in the early 200’s about ‘sacrifices’ for the dead being a custom of Christians. I think that would count as “before Origen” and as remotely resembling.
Quote please, and source sited. Empty claims are just empty. And if it does not suggest a purging of the residue of sin before heaven, guess what? It is something which MAY suggest it, but that ain’t good enough.
Just like the empty claims the RCC puts on the Marion Doctrines (Luke 1:1-4). Anything added was not known by Luke, or that is what he claims, and he was interviewing the participants, prolly even Mary herself.
So when the RCC was selling indulgences of hundreds of years... um... they were wrong,...
I don't see what indulgences has to do with my contention. Seriously. What's the connection?
...or is a hundred years just a slight pit-stop of torturous purging on the way to eternity?
Yes, compared to eternity even thousands of years are just a pit stop.
Quote please, and source sited. [sic]Empty claims are just empty.
So your side does not need to back up its claims but when I make a claim it's an empty claim unless I show otherwise? I do not work in response to rudeness. Google "Tertullian Purgatory", or try asking nicely.
It is something which MAY suggest it, but that ain’t good enough.
I'm sorry. I missed the meeting where you were declared arbiter of what is good enough. Could I see the minutes?
Just like the empty claims the RCC puts on the Marion Doctrines (Luke 1:1-4). Those of us who talk about Mary generally speak of "Marian Doctrines".
Get back to me when you want to have a discussion. It has already been established ad nauseamthat Catholics and some Protestants view the Bible quite differently. Those who say so in a nasty way don't make it any clearer and don't advance discourse. It's so interesting: this morning as I was reading Scripture it came to me that for some the doctrines of Sola Scriptura and double-predestination provide license to express hatred and wrath. It's rather Islamic in the sense that what seems like a reasonable criticism of the Catholic Church for her violence in the past turns out NOT to hinge on a condemnation of wrath but on the fact that it was Catholics being wrathful. Protestant wrath, however, is not only licit but a duty.
Our shall we start again politely and charitably? Your call.