He spoke of purgatory in the parable. He didn’t use the word purgatory.
In the Lk 16 story Jesus spoke of Hadēs <ᾅδης>… NOT someone else’s dreamt up purgatory that you’ve borrowed.
1 Like
Well, I gave the evidence and the interpretation of early interpreters of the parable.
Mt 16:18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Purgatory shall not prevail against it.
how did EVERYONE miss Jesus here; your theory is a sorry joke! 
I see your point Davo. I must abandon purgatory.
Heaven and hell it is.
I still believe that only those alive at the time of Jesus could have blasphemed the Spirit.
What do you fellers think about Paradise, as in ‘you shall be with me in…’ ?
I think that though Jesus’ parable doesn’t call it that, paradise clearly means going above the earth into “Abraham’s bosom” 
Seriously, I have little sure idea what the Gospel writer assumed that this term meant.
1 Like
Good one Bob! 
I guess I have to be open to the possibility that someone could commit the blasphemy of the Spirit today.
Dave,
I haven’t looked into that one. I’ll have to look into it before I say anything.
“Jesus clearly spoke of purgatory.”
“I must abandon purgatory”.
“I still believe that only those alive at the time of Jesus could have blasphemed the Spirit.”
“I have to be open to the possibility that someone could commit the blasphemy of the Spirit today.”
Hollytree, I sincerely admire you and anyone with the ability to acknowledge that views his tradition insists are clear, are actually questionable. Props to you!
Yea Bob. When I see problems with my view I change it. I also have a problem with my interpretation of the universalist texts now. At the moment I’m going to have to go along with the Orthodox Christian Universalism as outlined by Robin Parry in 4 Views on hell. I’ve started reading his book "The Evangelical Universalist.
In scripture, divine judgment serves various ends. It has, as the tradition rightly points out, a retributive aspect. Someone is punished because they deserve to be. It is not hard to find this instinct in Scripture. But we err if we think that retribution exhausts what Biblical justice and punishment are about. Biblical justice is about putting wrong things right. As such, while retribution may possibly be a necessary condition of justice, it cannot be a sufficient condition, because retribution cannot undo the harms done and put right the wrongs. The primary end of God’s justice, with respect to creation, is not punishment, but salvation. And punishment itself is not merely suffering inflicted as a deserved consequence for wrong deeds. Punishment also functions as a deterrent…Furthermore it is also a corrective for those being punished…And these different purposes of punishment need not be mutually exclusive. God’s punishment of Israel say, can be SIMULTAEOUSLY RETRIBUTIVE AND RESTORATIVE ~~ Robin Parry in Four Views on Hell pages 113-114
2 Likes
Parry has a healthy view of justice. A healthy view of love and justice includes the retributive. Love and justice protect. Punishment is essentially a defense of the honor of the victim.
A couple of quotes from the book:
We have argued that the central purpose of punishment is to restore dignity, self-respect, and honor to the victim, by demonstrating that society does not passively acquiesce in the crime but is willing to risk even life and limb in response to it on behalf of the victim. The goal of defending the honor of the victims seems to be morally unobjectionable even to critics of punishment, and it seems to be more reasonable to expect that retributive motive will always be with us - or as Sharon Krause argues, that we need to preserve the motivation to defend one’s honor, a motive on which our liberties depend. Indeed, we have argued that virtually every current theory of punishment has an underlying retributive motive. ~~ page 190
The case for the essential continuity and even identity of revenge and retributive punishment is overwhelming, The two words are dictionary synonyms and are more or less interchangeable; if the revenger demands “retribution” we would not have any doubt about what he meant (nor would we ever think that he was referring to an entirely different conceptual system of punishment). As Zaibert points out, when in the Bible God says “Vengeance is Mine,” it is clear that He means retributive punishment, not sadistic pleasure. Both the revenger and the punisher aim at “justice” ~~ page 106
That’s neat! I found Parry especially helpful in proposing a Biblically grounded view of universalism that reflects traditional understandings of justice and the place of retribution in God’s plan. And his second edition included even more helpful wrestling with key texts. I appreciated his argument that ‘punishment’ can be both retributive and restorative.
Is this going to be another book? That people can buy?_
So your view is that there is punishment… So that as I understand you, Christ did NOT do away with punishment or restoration?
Bob - I too appreciate the perspective Parry brings to the subject.
The ‘restoration’ that the Father works in us is something I utterly hope for - being thankful at the same time, for sins forgiven, which Christ took care of. I think we’re on the same page there.
You are skirting the position, my/and others position is that Christ DID do the things he said he would do. And you all are denying that blood, you want to some how deflect the idea that you should well acknowledge what Christ has done, but can’t do it.
There is shame here. Shame on you guys waiting for something that has already happened. You are all smart enough to figure this out.
I was responding to Bob.