^^^ Long time Pastor.

Personally, I accept the Idea of purgatory - though I wouldn't use that word. The same way as I accept the ideas of heaven and hell even though I wouldnt use those words. Heaven could be the next realm that a soul experiences so long as such a realm/ world is better or closer to the eternal light than the last world such a soul experienced. Same with Hell. Hell would be the next realm/ world/ experience of the soul so long as such is worse or further from the light than the present experience.

As such, this Earth life is already heaven for many souls and hell for many souls. It is Purgatory as well, for many.

Purgatory would be any world - so long as the soul is going through a purgation of its karmaic burden.

However in the Roman Catholic definition, I want to know if the soul retains its freewill in such a state.

For me, freewill is an intrinsic quality of the Human Spirit that is never lost.

@Cgift

This thread is about the existence of purgatory or the state of purgation.I know the game you are trying to play;trying to disproove. the existence of purgatory in event of no clear biblical answers to those questions.

My replies was to proove to you that the logic could also be used against generally accepted christian beleifs.

The bible explicitly stated that not everything was written.The same thing applies to purgatory. I have been able to adduce biblical backing for the existence of purgatory.The apparent lack of biblical answers to those questions does not vitiate the proof of the existence of purgatory.

The bible was silent about sevral things including most of Jesus's life 2-12,13-29 but this not disproove the fact that Jesus existed.

Even the basic astronomical facts like the existence of other planets was not covered in the bible yet we know they exists

@Cgift

This thread is about the existence of purgatory or the state of purgation.I know the game you are trying to play;trying to disproove. the existence of purgatory in event of no clear biblical answers to those questions.

My replies was to proove to you that the logic could also be used against generally accepted christian beleifs.

The bible explicitly stated that not everything was written.The same thing applies to purgatory. I have been able to adduce biblical backing for the existence of purgatory.The apparent lack of biblical answers to those questions does not vitiate the proof of the existence of purgatory.

The bible was silent about sevral things including most of Jesus's life 2-12,13-29 but this not disproove the fact that Jesus existed.

Even the basic astronomical facts like the existence of other planets was not covered in the bible yet we know they exists.

You were asking me if freewill existed in purgatory can you also answer it for heaven?can a soul have the free will to leave eaven for hell?

^ Let me answer that last question for him. But my own perspective.

The answer is Yes.

If I were to answer using my own opinion yes a soul will have the freewill to choose not to be saved but that soul will have to head to hell as purgatory is only a temporary place of abode.The probability of any such occurrence is zero

Pastor AIO:

Abeg where did I spew anger? Or did your 'holy' spirit help you to interpret my words as anger, the same way that he has been helping you to interpret the bible to understand that people are baptised in order to replace those that are dead? As the ghetto youth would say over here, 'you're giving me bare laughs bruv, bare laughs'.

Did you strike a nerve?

Yes indeed, the nerve that is directly connected to my laughter muscles.

Commot dia! I was not asking you if i struck a nerve? It was the other poster that warned me not to go there. What are you feeling like?

Back to Chuks,

I think by now, i can confidently rechristen you Mr Evader. For the umpteenth time, you have evaded my questions. You seem set in your ways, (perhaps, we all are) as all the evidences we gave you, you refused to accept them without given us biblical counters. What will I do with you now?

You said you know the game I am playing? What game? Well, I could second-guess, perhaps using the analogy that if a house has shaky foundations, you can be rest assured that the building put on it as well will be built with same quality of shakiness.

Anyway, we are in the discussion of Purgatory and I do not see why my my questions are out of place. If we are discussing validity of existence and I go by extension to the mode of operation, have I stretched it too far? I don't think so. My questions still remain prolly for another thread (if you wish) but tomorrow morning I will resume with you. I need to go home to my sildren

Goodnight or good day.

Deep Sight:
^ Let me answer that last question for him. But my own perspective.

The answer is Yes.

Thanks jere Deepsight. You ansad correctly.

@cgift

Answering your questions can neither proove or disproove the existence of purgatory which is the main aim of this thread hence I would have to ignore them.By the way you did not answer my own questions

chukwudi44: If I were to answer using my own opinion yes a soul will have the freewill to choose not to be saved but that soul will have to head to hell as purgatory is only a temporary place of abode.The probability of any such occurrence is zero

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

chukwudi44: If I were to answer using my own opinion yes a soul will have the freewill to choose not to be saved but that soul will have to head to hell as purgatory is only a temporary place of abode.The probability of any such occurrence is zero

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? [b]You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. [/b]That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

1One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up 2and said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.”[b] 3He answered them, “I also will ask you a question. [/b]Now tell me, 4was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?” 5And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ 6But if we say, ‘From man,’ all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” 7So they answered that they did not know where it came from. 8And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.”Luke 20

If Jesus can do this then it is not surprising that a follower of Jesus (a true follower that is) would do the same. (I'm not saying that I'm speaking for whether a Chuks is a true follower or not, I'm just speaking for the principle.)

Often the best way of making a point is to use a Rhetorical question. The question itself needs no answer, just the asking of the question will be sufficient cos the person that you asked the question, if he has any intelligence, will know how utterly dumb his original question was. This was the case with the Chief priests that came asking Jesus questions. In their bid to avoid the obvious answer they said that they didn't know. You too, if you have any gumption, you ought to know the obvious answers to your questions. Why are you still complaining that it is not fair and dishonest? Would you call Jesus dishonest?

cgift:
The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

Even today we can learn new things and get revelations of Truth. The fact that the doctrine of purgatory came much later than the inception of the Church does not disqualify it. In fact Jesus promised us precisely this:


"I have yet many things to say to you but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it unto you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine, and declare it to you" (John16:12-15).

So doctrine did not finish with Jesus. The Holy Spirit guides the Church in forming doctrines.

Oh, but you say, 'then why are they not in agreement'.

There is a process of revelation called Dialectic. That is when 2 extreme opposite viewpoints are pitted against each other and progress is made from their interaction. The Pharisees whom Jesus tells us are the authoritative interpreters of Mosaic law used this methodology too. There were 2 extremes of pharisaic thought. They were called the school of Hillel and the the school of Shammai. Shammai were pedantic sticklers for legal detail while the Hillel school had a more relaxed interpretation. Talmud brings out teaching through the interaction of these 2 schools. Look it up on Google.


p.s Here is an interesting website that addresses your concerns, although here the issue is the canonisation of saints.

http://www.mark-shea.com/newrev.html

Are Saints "New Revelation?"

It seems, said my friend, that the Church contradicts itself. On the one hand, Catholic teaching declares revelation complete with the close of the apostolic era. Yet consider the canonization of, say, Joan of Arc. It appears a Catholic must believe one of the following:

1. Revelation continues. It was revealed to the Pope in 1920 that Joan of Arc was in heaven.

2. Revelation ended with the apostles, but before the Ascension, Christ gave Peter a long list of those who would eventually be canonized and Joan's name was on the list.

3. There is no revelation concerning Joan of Arc and we have no way of knowing where she is now.

To get to the bottom of this apparently insoluble mystery we have to understand what the Church means by "new revelation" and what it is up to in canonizing saints. When the Church declares that revelation is closed and that no further word from God is forthcoming, many people think it is saying that God clammed up in 90 AD, retired in stony silence to the utmost heaven of heavens and ceased showing himself to us mortals.

In reality, though, the Church means that, in offering His Son Jesus and in setting forth the fullness of the gospel through Him and His Apostles, God has already given us possession of the fullness of His gift to us, the gift of Himself (and once God has given God Himself, there's not much to add.)

If this is unclear, perhaps an illustration will help us get the hang of it. Compare, for example, the Catholic gospel with the Mormon picture of things. For the Catholic, the gospel in New Testament times was like a newborn baby. The Church has never denied the reality that baby must grow up and experience life more deeply. Indeed, the Lord Jesus assured us that He would lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13) and that the Church would deepen and grow in faith and understanding. But He said that this would happen, not via "new revelation" but via the Spirit reminding us of everything He has already said to us (John 14:26).

In contrast, Mormonism really does assert that God is still showing radically new things which have never ever been revealed before. Mormon belief in new revelation quite openly adds really new (and frequently contradictory) things to the deposit of faith handed on by the apostles. It adds, for example, new scriptures, a new announcement that God the Father was once a man like us and a declaration that the three persons of the Trinity are, in fact, three separate Gods. In short, Mormonism proclaims an evolving, polytheistic Godhead in flat contradiction to the revelation of the Old and New Testaments.

Now this is a different kettle of fish than the Catholic view of development of doctrine. For Mormonism quite happily seeks to innovate where the Church (beginning with the Apostles) has always sought to conserve and cultivate. What's the difference? The difference is between nurturing a baby to maturity and performing radical surgery on the baby to add an extra leg or two more pairs of eyes. Just as it is natural for a baby boy to eventually grow a beard, so it was natural for the Church to eventually grow, say, the doctrine of the Trinity from the seed of the apostolic preaching. For both the beard and the doctrine were in baby's genes from the start. But it does not therefore follow that it is natural for baby to grow a tumor. Nor is it natural for the Faith to suddenly proclaim a "new revelation" in flat denial of the preaching of Moses, the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles. For Catholics, the baby Faith needed the food and drink of the sacraments and the exercise of holiness to mature into the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. For those who believe in new revelation, the baby needed an ever-increasing number of noses, fingers, ears, and eyes.

Very well then, the Church does indeed proclaim the completion of public revelation with the end of the apostolic age. But to assert that there is no new public revelation does not mean that the Holy Spirit has been silent since the end of the apostolic era. Rather, it means that He is not saying anything different, any more than He is adding a fifth season to the original four. In short, as He creates spring anew every year (though it is millions of years old) so, in the gospel He is continually saying the same new thing again and again until we really hear it. And with each generation, men, women and children have really heard it and been made new--which takes us back to the canonization of St. Joan and the other saints.

Disclaimer: Everyone who knows me from here knows that I am not a Roman Catholic, I am merely stating my opinion of the issues as a neutral.

Lol @ d comparism of cgift and the pharisees. I couldn't agree more.

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

Chuks, Enough na!! Even if you insist on repetition for emphasis, if by now cgift hasn't got your point then he'll never get it.

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

cgift:

You are getting closer to my questions in alluding to the transient nature of this purgatory. What determines the length of stay? Could you please answer my other questions? You are being dishonest by throwing questions back at me in place of my own questions. That is not a fair way to debate. I had asked you some salient questions and you refused to answer saying you will only answer if I answer yours. Haba!! Chukwudi!! Na so e go be?

All right, let us come back home. I will open a thread for those my questions like I said before in order not to derail this one.

The issue we are discussing again is the existence of purgatory. Chukwudi, if I may ask, would you be fine if we delve into its origins in the catholic church, the position of the Holy Fathers on it and some other issues.

The essence is to establish the fact that Purgatory was never at the inception of the establishment of the catholic church and was only made a dogma centuries after due to some numerous factors which I will like to delve into in a short while. If it was not accepted as a dogma until much later years, that speaks much of the fallacy of the so-called Church traditions that were handed down through the time of Peter which you people claim. I will show you that it was a doctrine that arose at some time in the involvement of the RCC to satisfy some carnal desires other than actual piety.

In actual fact,I have on good authority from some of the writings of critical Church Father whom you adore so much and their inconsistencies on this doctrine and how they all all differed on the doctrine of Purgatory and other doctrines of the RCC. These are the same Fathers you accepted as the authority on the interpretation of the scriptures who have also instituted that no body is allowed personal interpretation of the scriptures except the one that has been interpreted by the Church Fathers. IF the church Fathers never agreed on the principle of Doctrines themselves, how do you place your own belief?

You have caved yourself into accepting a bare-faced lie that you cannot read, understand and believe interpretations that are contrary to the ones of the Church Fathers (who were men like yourself) despite their inconsistencies and oft disagreements with one another and have therefore stifled the opportunity for an accurate understanding of the scriptures. And you say you are fine with that?

See you in a while.

You are now attempting to disprove the doctrine of purgatory on the basis that the dogma was only promulgated later in the church and also that the church fathers had contrary opinions on it.

I would now address this two points one after another;The fact tha
t the dogma of purgatory was promulgated later in the history of the church does not vitiate it's existence of purgatory.God for instance has been in existence but the trinitarian nature of his existence was only made millienia's later.Does this now mean that God only became a trinity by the pronouncement of the council of nicea in 325 CE ? Was it the nicene creed that made Jesus God? The obvious answer to that is no as the trinitarian nature of God has always existed from the begining but the council's pronouncement was only an official declaration.

The second point you raised was that the church fathers differed on it.As the sayings go we only disagree to agree.Disagreements have always existed in doctrinal issues right from inception of the xtian faith,disagreement about the legality of the jewish laws gave rise to the first church council in Jerusalem.

Further the church fathers also diagreed among which books constituted scriptures.Before the synod of hippo in 393 CE and council of carthage in 397 CE there was no generally accepted canon.some of the church fathers disputed the authenticity of some of what we now regard as scriptures.Books like hebrew,1-3 John,2 pet,Jude and the revelations were heavily disputed.In fact the book of revelations almost didn't make it.Should we now use this as a basis for vitiating the authenticity of these scriptures?

WTF,the server was messing up ,I didn't even know and kept submitting.I just realised now it has been sending it all along.My sincere apologies for the repetitions

[]One of the extra-biblical backings for the catholic doctrine of purgatory could be found in the writings of the early third century matyr perpetua.Perpetua and her slave felicity were condemned to die by the roman authourities for refusing to denounce christianity.While undergoing her passion she a vision of her late brother dinocrates.In her own words




3. After a few days, while we were all praying, on a sudden, in the middle of our prayer, there came to me a word, and I named Dinocrates; and I was amazed that that name had never come into my mind until then, and I was grieved as I remembered his misfortune. And I felt myself immediately to be worthy, and to be called on to ask on his behalf. And for him I began earnestly to make supplication, and to cry with groaning to the Lord. Without delay, on that very night, this was shown to me in a vision. I saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid colour, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age who died miserably with disease— his face being so eaten out with cancer, that his death caused repugnance to all men. For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other. And moreover, in the same place where Dinocrates was, there was a pool full of water, having its brink higher than was the stature of the boy; and Dinocrates raised himself up as if to drink. And I was grieved that, although that pool held water, still, on account of the height to its brink, he could not drink. And I was aroused, and knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then was the birth-day of Geta Cæsar, and I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.

4. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. And where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and that pool which I had before seen, I saw now with its margin lowered even to the boy's navel. And one drew water from the pool incessantly, and upon its brink was a goblet filled with water; and Dinocrates drew near and began to drink from it, and the goblet did not fail. And when he was satisfied, he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment.

The link for the passion of SS Perpetua and Felicity is given below.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0324.htm

Deep Sight: ^^^ Long time Pastor.

Personally, I accept the Idea of purgatory - though I wouldn't use that word.

Me too, but I don't want to go into the subtleties of my own viewpoint because it is not the subject of this thread. I am just defending the notion that process continues after death.