I'm wondering if there's anyone who can explain the doctrine of purgatory?
Given that the doctrine didn't even exist until Gregory I revealed it in about 593 AD, did purgatory not exist until that time, given that it was completely unknown to christendom before that time, so far as I can find, all the way back to the time of the apostles? I mean, if the apostles knew about it, then why did it not become a central doctrine until 593 AD?
What are the authoritative definitions for that place, and who goes there, and by what criteria?
I realize this has probably been asked many times, but reading through the posts, it appears there was application of all kinds of logical fallacies on both sides of the argument. Can anyone summarize the criteria for that place with a bird's eye view of that criteria without having to read through myriads of ancient literature?
This captured my attention because of the thief on the cross who was told by Jesus that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day as is recorded in the Greek texts.
I noticed that some claimed the thief had done his suffering on his cross to negate his need for cleansing, while others claimed he had done his indulgence and prayer works for everything before his crucifixion, and the crucifixion itself purged his thefts. It seems like those explanations strain at imagination, with no adherents willing to admit that maybe the doctrine itself is flawed, or downright false, or even originating from one or more of the many religions of Rome at that time. The ancient Greeks and Roman religions spoke of a place in the afterlife called the Asphodel Fields, where dwelled a varied selection of human souls...those whose sins equaled their goodness, were indecisive in their lives, or were not judged. This is very similar to purgatory. The ancient Egyptian and buddhist religions also had a similar place in their belief systems.
So I'm wondering how anyone can so easily make claimed assumptions about that thief without addressing only the known facts. I mean, it seems dangerous for anyone to not desire to test doctrines to see if they can withstand scrutiny rather than accepting it blindly; without question, just because someone in the ancient past claimed it's true who is not among the apostles who lived and walked with Jesus.
Given that the doctrine didn't even exist until Gregory I revealed it in about 593 AD, did purgatory not exist until that time, given that it was completely unknown to christendom before that time, so far as I can find, all the way back to the time of the apostles? I mean, if the apostles knew about it, then why did it not become a central doctrine until 593 AD?
What are the authoritative definitions for that place, and who goes there, and by what criteria?
I realize this has probably been asked many times, but reading through the posts, it appears there was application of all kinds of logical fallacies on both sides of the argument. Can anyone summarize the criteria for that place with a bird's eye view of that criteria without having to read through myriads of ancient literature?
This captured my attention because of the thief on the cross who was told by Jesus that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day as is recorded in the Greek texts.
I noticed that some claimed the thief had done his suffering on his cross to negate his need for cleansing, while others claimed he had done his indulgence and prayer works for everything before his crucifixion, and the crucifixion itself purged his thefts. It seems like those explanations strain at imagination, with no adherents willing to admit that maybe the doctrine itself is flawed, or downright false, or even originating from one or more of the many religions of Rome at that time. The ancient Greeks and Roman religions spoke of a place in the afterlife called the Asphodel Fields, where dwelled a varied selection of human souls...those whose sins equaled their goodness, were indecisive in their lives, or were not judged. This is very similar to purgatory. The ancient Egyptian and buddhist religions also had a similar place in their belief systems.
So I'm wondering how anyone can so easily make claimed assumptions about that thief without addressing only the known facts. I mean, it seems dangerous for anyone to not desire to test doctrines to see if they can withstand scrutiny rather than accepting it blindly; without question, just because someone in the ancient past claimed it's true who is not among the apostles who lived and walked with Jesus.