The doctrine of Purgatory is Biblical

Matthew 12Matthew is also exclusively writing about the unpardonable sin, with that I agree, however the words he writes to express that the sin is unpardonable carries the additional implication that sins are forgiven in the age to come. The forgiveness of these sins is not what he's discussing, but is still an implication nonetheless. Con seems to be arguing that we know Matthew conveys the same information as Mark because he conveys the same information, and then just throws on the unjustified assumption that no additional implications are present. Con makes a leap from demonstrating that Matthew and Mark convey the same information to the unsupported conclusion that the passage in Matthew contains no additional implications, by falsely equating conveying the same information with regards to the eternal sin with being the same in all aspects.I'm not saying Matthew 12 teaches purgatory. I'm saying that it implies purgatory, and it does, because the implication of saying that the eternal sin will not be forgiven in either this age or the age to come implies that there is forgiveness of other, non-eternal sins in the age to come. This reading of Matthew would in no way invalidate Mark, unless it was argued that the primary teaching of Matthew 12 was purgatory or something, which is certainly not what I'm doing.Matthew 5I find it strange that Con seems to think that the great council, charged with the most important matters, would itself be called upon to deal with every instance in which someone calls his brother 'raca' (interpreted 'senseless'). That's simply ridiculous. It's roughly the modern equivalent of me demanding that the Supreme Court judge the accusations I bring against my neighbor for playing his music too loudly one night, and if Con actually thinks that the Lord was warning people that the Sanhedrin itself would personally punish anyone who simply saying 'raca', then Con makes the Lord a fool.In this passage, the Lord is clearly extending the traditional view of 'you shall not kill'. In the same line that Con argues the Lord warned against the council, it also says:'whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.'It is clear that the Lord is using the council as an illustration, and it cannot mean the actual literal council which would have no cause to take up such a minor event as a petty exchange of insults. It is possible to make the council a metaphor, but there's not too much value or reason in making the reference to hell a metaphor, and since it doesn't make any sense for the Lord to switch from talking about temporal things to eternal things in the same sentence. While I think it's pretty obvious that the Lord would not pull a topic swap halfway through without any warning whatsoever, Con obviously disagrees, so I'll source a couple of commentaries that affirm 'raca' was not a matter that fell within the council's jurisdiction [1][2].1 Corinthians 3I blundered pretty egregiously by failing to adequately respond to Con's claim that the loss suffered was in terms of rewards. The word interpreted 'suffer loss', 'zemioo', means 'to affect with damage, do damage to or to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss' [3]. Would you claim a housing council damaged your house by blocking your attempt to extend it? Would you claim that someone injured you by not giving you something? Con tried to explain this away by making the loss about the rewards, but they didn't lose the rewards since they neither had the rewards nor were to receive the rewards in the first place! Thus they would not be suffering loss by not getting rewards never intended for them, and my first argument here still applies.2 Maccabees 12The Ankerberg Theological Research Institute is no doubt run by heretics.'And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below... two books of the Machabees, the first and the second...' - OEcumenical Council of Trent [4]The Greek Orthodox Council of Jerusalem accepts Maccabees [5], and so do the Eastern Orthodox in general according to this site [6]. I can't speak with confidence for the Oriental Orthodox, but I'm pretty sure they accept it as well, and if that is the case than all Apostolic churches consider it canonical rather than apocryphal.The Sadducees only held to the Torah, which is obvious when one reads about the Lord's encounter with them in Matthew 22, which I won't quote because I'm running a little low on characters. In it, the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, approach the Lord and try to launch a stumper at him. After answering, rather than appealing to a passage that clearly lays out the resurrection, such as one in Daniel 12, he strangely appeals to a passage in Exodus instead, and unless Con wishes to suggest that the Lord wasn't the brightest candle on the menorah, then the most reasonable explanation for why he did this is that the Sadducees rejected the other scriptures. The Hellenistic Jews accepted a wider canon than the Pharisees [7].All this is, of course, accepting that Romans 3 gives the Jews the power to set the canon, which I should have disputed earlier.2 Timothy 1It seems that Con was impressed by my accusation that his argument was non sequitur, and thereby decided to start accusing me of fallacies in return.Con seems to argue that since Paul didn't refer to the Lord in the second person, Paul wasn't praying, which is strange. It's obvious that the Lord's knowledge has no limit (cf. Psalms 147), so it's clear that he would know what Paul was asking. Paul wrote this into Sacred Scripture under the inspiration of God himself, and although Con tries to write this off as Paul exclaiming pointlessly or wishing vainly, it is obvious that one can ask for the intercession of the Lord without addressing him directly. For instance, look at the priestly benediction at the end of Numbers 6, given to Moses by YHVH himself.Reply to Con's ArgumentsPurgatory is only possible because the Lord spilled his blood for us. Salvation is only possible because the Lord spilled his blood for us. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.Con blatantly undermines his own argument on 1 John 5 by making the unpardonable sin an example of a mortal sin, as according to him there are only varying degrees of sin in an earthly sense, therefore John could not have been discussing spirtual death, but only physical death. However, those who blaspheme in Matthew 12 and Mark 3 don't drop dead on the spot, which completely invalidates Con's spurious claims and vindicates my argument that 1 John 5 is referring to spiritual death and life rather than physical death and life.I said John was likely talking about a spiritual reality because every other time in his epistle that he mentions life or death, it's spiritual and not physical, so the only reason anyone would argue that he suddenly started discussing physical death a couple of verses later without letting anyone know would be to prop up a false doctrine.ConclusionEven though my arguments were as pathetic as always, I appreciate my opponent's sticking it out with me until the end. This was a pretty solid debate, and I thank my opponent for making it so.Sources: 1. http://www.biblestudytools.com...;2. http://www.biblegateway.com...;3. http://www.blueletterbible.org...4. http://history.hanover.edu...;5. http://orthodoxwiki.org...;6. http://www.serfes.org...;7. http://en.wikipedia.org...;