The doctrine of Purgatory is Biblical

Opening RemarksI will first defend my own case before contending Con's positive arguments.Matthew 12Con claims that if my interpretation of Matthew 12 is valid, then Mark 3 is not, however this is completely non-sequitur. I agree that the unpardonable sin has no forgiveness, and it is the primary topic as shown in the parallel passags. However, this does not mean that Matthew 12 cannot contain additional information that Mark 3 does not which could carry the implication of forgiveness in the age to come, as it's not as though Mark 3 says that no sins can be forgiven in the age to come, only that that one sin which is already known as being unforgivable is eternal. I ask Con to elaborate on this argument because I feel as though I am failing to understand it; as it stands I make no sense of it and therefore conclude that I misunderstand.Matthew 5Some important information to keep in mind is 2 Timothy 3:'(16) All scripture is inspired by God [theopneustos] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness'And also 1 Corinthians 9:'(9) For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? (10) Does he not speak entirely for our sake?' Therefore I pose the question to Con, 'For it is written that the Lord said "truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny." Is it for worldly punishment that the Lord is concerned, especially given what he spoke to the crowds mere moments before "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account."?'I am, of course, neither the first nor the last to interpret this metaphorically. In defense of this method of interpretation, I call upon St. Augustine [1] and Origen the heretic [2], Augustine for his disagreement with me on what the prison is and Origen because he is a heretic.Added to this, of course, is that throughout his sermon, the Lord Jesus speaks constantly of hell and sin. It is most peculiar to argue that he began warning against hell (cf. Matthew 5:22), then digressed briefly to give purely secular legal counsel (Con's interpretation of Matthew 5:26), before returning to hell once more (cf. Matthew 5:29).1 Corinthians 3Con denies that the believer himself passes through fire, however the verse states that 'he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.', which is close enough for government work. Con also arbitrarily seperates the believer from his works, of which the poor ones are purged by the fire.In countering my claim that one does not suffer loss in heaven, Con contends that the loss is suffered in terms of rewards, however his claim that some in heaven have many rewards whereas others have none seems to consist of little more than speculation, and strange speculation at that given that heaven itself ought to be reward enough for anyone.2 Maccabees 122 Maccabees is not Apocrypa, but anticipating dispute over this point I also provided 2 Timothy 1 to bolster the same argument. I will briefly defend my usage of Maccabees, but it is not a critical point.Con argues that the Jews rejected Maccabees, and that other canonical books which he refers as pejoratively as 'Apocrypa' were not quoted in the New Testament. However, it is known that some Jews rejected some thirty-four Old Testament books that are almost universally accepted today (some of which were clearly accepted by the Lord Jesus himself), which makes Con's decision to trust the Jews who happened to agree with him appear arbitrary or affected by confirmation bias. Should Con choose to reject all Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, he ought to find himself throwing out Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon along with Maccabees [3].For my part, as what constitutes Sacred Scripture was not defined, I feel justified in using a definition agreeable to the majority of Christians (Catholic + Orthodox).2 Timothy 1Con fails to address the meat of this argument, instead falling back to an counter based purely on semantics. I have no intention of defining my way to victory, but if Con wishes to haggle over what constitutes a prayer, definition of the relevant term is a must.The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'prayer' as 'a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity'.Let me check this definition against what Paul wrote.'a solemn request' - There is nothing in Paul's request that implies flippancy or an otherwise irreverant attitude, and it is written most formally ('may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day').'for help' - Paul asks for mercy for Onesiphorus, which is a petition for help not on his behalf but on behalf of another. That still qualifies.'addressed to God' - 'may the Lord' should suffice as evidence.That is why exactly I think Paul was offering prayer; because he was. Even if he wasn't, the essentials of my argument remain.Reply to Con's ArgumentsCon's argument in favor of his view seems to consist mainly of two points; that the Lord Jesus cleanses from all sin, therefore purgatory is uneeded and that there is no differentiation between degrees of sin.First, Con's usage of 1 John 1:7 ought to be addressed.'(7) but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (8) If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.'It is important to note that the way in which the blood of the Lord cleanses from sin is not specified. If I say to someone that I will cleanse them of all bacteria, I could do so by washing them, incinerating them, dousing them in a powerful chemical bath, nuking them, etc. as long as the end goal of removing all bacteria was achieved. Similarly, as long as the ends of cleansing from all sin and the thing doing the cleansing (the blood of the Lord Jesus) remain constant, the exact method used might vary.Secondly, Con claims that there are no varying degrees of sin.'(16) If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. (17) All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.'Con counters with Romans 6:23, which he then interprets in a way contradictory to the above passage. According to him, all sin leads to death, although what John wrote above stands directly in contradiction to that by stating literally the exact opposite. To reconcile this, Con sources a website saying that a mortal sin is one that causes God to strike the sinner down on the spot, an interpretation which is inconsistent with the rest of John's letter.1 John 5:12'He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life.'David Bates explains:'St. John again explains that Jesus grants us supernatural life, but he then goes on to say that a person without Son “has not life”. What’s another way of saying “has not life”? That’s easy, “has death”. Those without the Son are spiritually dead. Given this context, when John speaks about “death” in the main passage under consideration, it’s far more likely that he is referring to a spiritual reality rather than a physical one.' [4]If this is true, then Con's interpretation of Romans 6 is wrong, and it can be concluded that there are eternal distinctions between various sins.ConclusionAs my character count has almost dipped into the negatives, I will end my round here by answering Con's last question.I answer that the manner of cleansing is not specified.Sources:1. http://www.newadvent.org...2. http://www.newadvent.org...3. http://www.bible.ca...4. http://restlesspilgrim.net...