BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: journeyman on June 15, 2021, 10:03:32 PM
-
I believe the best argument against eternal torment is that it doesn't fit God's character. God uses pain to draw people to himself. There's no point to unending agony.
-
But the Bible isn't consistent on the issue.
The Old Testament isn't terribly interested in the afterlife, but everyone dies and... that's it. Except for the book of Daniel, which has many people resurrected for life or punishment.
The New Testament has eternal torment in some parts, annihilation in some other parts, and universalism in a few other parts. The conclusion the reader comes to is a reflection of their values.
Ethically, I would agree with you. If God is good, then eternal torment would be out of his character. But the Bible is ambivalent.
-
The Bible is consistent on this subject. If it seems inconvenient, it's because of our misunderstanding. The Bibe shows us how the unsaved will be tormented by the truth of their lives, but their lives will end.
The OT is better understood in light of the NT. For instance, the Patriarchs never received ownership of what God promised them and the NT tells us why.
It's good to consider God's character in attempting to understand his word.
-
The eternal torment vs annihilation question has been around forever for a very simple reason. There isn't enough clear scripture backed by other scripture on it to give a definitive answer.
What the word is clear on is that everybody will be judged. You will either hear the word, believe the word and become born again or you will be judged unworthy.
The New Testament has eternal torment in some parts, annihilation in some other parts, and universalism in a few other parts. The conclusion the reader comes to is a reflection of their values.
Universalism isn't found anywhere in Scripture. You have to do a whole lot of cherry picking of some scriptures while completely ignoring other scriptures to get anywhere close to it.
-
I believe the best argument against eternal torment is that it doesn't fit God's character. God uses pain to draw people to himself. There's no point to unending agony.
I believe the best argument against eternal torment is that it doesn't fit God's character. God uses pain to draw people to himself. There's no point to unending agony.
I believe that with our present finite understanding, we do not fully comprehend God's character. Do you know that there are some who say killing is a sin, but when we read through the Bible, it is clearly God's character to kill mankind either by His own hand or through the hand of mankind?
When it comes to eternal torment/punishment vs annihilation, it is a matter of "accepting" scripture as is or rendering scripture as wanted. Meaning: Scripture warns us what will happen to those who are not saved. We can't forget, God is ETERNAL and we have to "try" to view His Word from that perspective as best we can. Point of this, by wanting those Scripture to mean, no punishment, no torment... then the "warnings" are worthless and meaningless. One can even say, why fear God? Bur many will say, those who never believed will experience punishment and torment.
OK. Let's answer this question, does the Bible "say" punishment is temporary?
God is eternal, when He warns of punishment, why is that "not" eternal? Isn't God's Word everlasting? Again, if His Word states (says) punishment is eternal, why will some of mankind say it is not?
Are we really willing to "change" what Scripture "says" due to our interpretation of what we say God's character is all about?
-
I believe that with our present finite understanding, we do not fully comprehend God's character. Do you know that there are some who say killing is a sin, but when we read through the Bible, it is clearly God's character to kill mankind either by His own hand or through the hand of mankind?
Perfectly stated.
There's absolutely a "punishment" after judgement what isn't so clear is what the punishment/torment will definitively be. Will it be flames or will it be eternal separation from God or will it be total annihilation?
That's the question isn't it? I grew up being taught and believing the doctrine of eternal flames, wailing and gnashing of teeth and pain, pain everlasting pain. But on the other Bible Forums when asked to show scriptures clearly laying out this doctrine I was unable to to so and believe me brother I tried really, really hard.
It's never easy to realize that something you've wholeheartedly believed can't be substantiated with clear scriptures in context.
-
I believe that with our present finite understanding, we do not fully comprehend God's character. Do you know that there are some who say killing is a sin, but when we read through the Bible, it is clearly God's character to kill mankind either by His own hand or through the hand of mankind?
Perfectly stated.
There's absolutely a "punishment" after judgement what isn't so clear is what the punishment/torment will definitively be. Will it be flames or will it be eternal separation from God or will it be total annihilation?
That's the question isn't it? I grew up being taught and believing the doctrine of eternal flames, wailing and gnashing of teeth and pain, pain everlasting pain. But on the other Bible Forums when asked to show scriptures clearly laying out this doctrine I was unable to to so and believe me brother I tried really, really hard.
It's never easy to realize that something you've wholeheartedly believed can't be substantiated with clear scriptures in context.
Eternal punishment can be accepted. Whether we understand it, is another matter. Here is why I say this and I had said it on BF in the past. We can't fathom "eternal" separation from our creator. We can reject him now because of the free-will provided in flesh. If we didn't have free will, it would be impossible to transgress God's will. Do we understand that when we die, both believers and unbelievers will resurrect into eternal bodies (no flesh).
In this "state" of being, we will either be eternally near God or eternally separated from God. Right now, we cannot comprehend the bliss of being in a body void of any carnalities in the "full" presence of God. The Word does however provide descriptions we "can" presently comprehend (no tears, no hurts, no fears, joy, love, etc). Also, we cannot comprehend the agony of being in a body void of any carnalities but separated from the presence of God. The Word does however provide descriptions we "can" presently comprehend (burning in fire, gnashing of teeth, everlasting agony etc).
When we accept what "is" provided in the Scriptures, we also find the value in promises God provides to us.
Again, if the "bliss" was not eternal, what "value" does the promise of salvation hold and with this, if "agony" was not eternal, what "value" does the promise of eternal punishment hold?
Promises would be valueless.
We cannot forget, eternal punishment is MORE than a warning, it is a promise from God. A character of God is this, He IS eternal. As far as I understand, due to scripture, He MAKES promises as PART of His character.
-
The eternal torment vs annihilation question has been around forever for a very simple reason. There isn't enough clear scripture backed by other scripture on it to give a definitive answer.
I believe scripture becomes clearer as we come to know our Lord better. When people disagree about what God will do, someone is wrong. Saying or teaching something about God that isn't true matters.
-
I believe that with our present finite understanding, we do not fully comprehend God's character. Do you know that there are some who say killing is a sin, but when we read through the Bible, it is clearly God's character to kill mankind either by His own hand or through the hand of mankind?
Brother, I'm not saying our limited understanding can know everything about God, but we should grow in knowing him. And since God made us, he can do what he wants. I do believe his intentions toward his creation are meant for the better.
When it comes to eternal torment/punishment vs annihilation, it is a matter of "accepting" scripture as is or rendering scripture as wanted. Meaning: Scripture warns us what will happen to those who are not saved. We can't forget, God is ETERNAL and we have to "try" to view His Word from that perspective as best we can. Point of this, by wanting those Scripture to mean, no punishment, no torment... then the "warnings" are worthless and meaningless. One can even say, why fear God? Bur many will say, those who never believed will experience punishment and torment.
OK. Let's answer this question, does the Bible "say" punishment is temporary?
God is eternal, when He warns of punishment, why is that "not" eternal? Isn't God's Word everlasting? Again, if His Word states (says) punishment is eternal, why will some of mankind say it is not?
Are we really willing to "change" what Scripture "says" due to our interpretation of what we say God's character is all about?
In fact, the Bible says only God possesses immortality, so the idea that creation also possesses immortality isn't true.
And I'm not saying there will be no torment come judgement day. Rev.14:10 says the unsaved will be tormented in the presence of our Lord. And why is that? I believe it's because all their sihameful deeds will be exposed and people now hide their wrongdoing because they fear exposure and fear has torment. I don't see where knowing ones life is going to end after experiencing the embarrassing truth about oneself is meaningless.
The term "forever" can mean eternally, but it can also mean for the duration of ones life and with respect to final judgement of ungodliness, I believe it refers to the latter.
-
The Bible is consistent on this subject.
It really isn't. That's why the debate has been ongoing since the second century. If it were clear, it would have been settled immediately, not lasted for 1900 years. Instead, different views emerged and kept their footing because each one had enough support in this book or that book.
If a person thinks torture is acceptable, or if they think authority equals morality (might makes right), they're probably going to start with the parts of the Bible that teach eternal torment and read the rest from that point of view.
Or if a person thinks torture is always immoral, but they're more accepting of the death penalty and other harsh punitive measures, they're probably going to see the Bible verses that favor annihilation and read everything else through that lens.
And if they despise torture and capital punishment, and think prison should be rehabilitative and restorative, they're going to find those parts of the Bible that support universalism, and reinterpret the other stuff.
The conclusion a person comes to reflects their own values, not what the Bible as a whole says, because the Bible as a whole isn't consistent.
Universalism isn't found anywhere in Scripture. You have to do a whole lot of cherry picking of some scriptures while completely ignoring other scriptures to get anywhere close to it.
Not anymore cherry-picking than any other views on any other topic of debate. Each view has to put its preferred verses at the front of the line and make everything else go to the back.
Eternal torment is in the Bible, but it's only found in five books. Daniel, Mark, Matthew, Jude, and Revelation. Jesus taught eternal torment.
Annihilation is found in other parts of the NT. The gospel of John, 2 Thessalonians, and 2 Peter, maybe a couple of other books. There are a lot of parts in the Old Testament conducive to annihilationism, but the concept of absolutely, completely ceasing to exist after death didn't really emerge yet. Most OT authors thought of death as a place of shadowy ghosts.
The underlying premise of universalism is also supported in parts of the OT, but similarly the concept of resurrection, salvation, and the age to come hadn't really developed yet. Most of the OT has in mind a continuation of the world as they knew it, just better. Paul's seven letters (I follow the critical consensus that just seven are authentic, the others pseudonymous) teach universalism. The central thesis of Romans is a universalism through Jesus. Colossians and Ephesians are also pro-universalism.
-
The term "forever" can mean eternally, but it can also mean for the duration of ones life and with respect to final judgement of ungodliness, I believe it refers to the latter.
When we stand before God, we are after the duration of one's life. Due to this fact, eternal punishment cannot refer to interpretation of the latter.
Both the righteous and the unrighteous lives have ended and before God, all are in their eternal resurrected forms (Acts 24:15) and once in our eternal form, some (the righteous) experience eternity with God and some (the unrighteous) experience eternity apart from God.
-
Annihilation is found in other parts of the NT. The gospel of John, 2 Thessalonians, and 2 Peter, maybe a couple of other books. There are a lot of parts in the Old Testament conducive to annihilationism, but the concept of absolutely, completely ceasing to exist after death didn't really emerge yet. Most OT authors thought of death as a place of shadowy ghosts.
Usually the hashing out of such scriptures illuminates or corrects understanding. Care to post the verses for discussion?
-
It really isn't. That's why the debate has been ongoing since the second century. If it were clear, it would have been settled immediately, not lasted for 1900 years. Instead, different views emerged and kept their footing because each one had enough support in this book or that book.
If a person thinks torture is acceptable, or if they think authority equals morality (might makes right), they're probably going to start with the parts of the Bible that teach eternal torment and read the rest from that point of view.
Or if a person thinks torture is always immoral, but they're more accepting of the death penalty and other harsh punitive measures, they're probably going to see the Bible verses that favor annihilation and read everything else through that lens.
And if they despise torture and capital punishment, and think prison should be rehabilitative and restorative, they're going to find those parts of the Bible that support universalism, and reinterpret the other stuff.
The conclusion a person comes to reflects their own values, not what the Bible as a whole says, because the Bible as a whole isn't consistent.
The Bible tells us not to rely on humanistic understanding, but to seek after God, because his ways are not mans ways and that is why disagreement exists. The Spirit doesn't tell one person something and then another the opposite. The end of the ungodly is consistent throughout the scriptures
-
When we stand before God, we are after the duration of one's life. Due to this fact, eternal punishment cannot refer to interpretation of the latter.
The duration of ones life includes judgement day.
Both the righteous and the unrighteous lives have ended and before God, all are in their eternal resurrected forms (Acts 24:15) and once in our eternal form, some (the righteous) experience eternity with God and some (the unrighteous) experience eternity apart from God.
The resurrected form of the unsaved is corruptible, which will be completely consumed by the fire of Christ,
the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming 2Tim.2:8
Acts 24:15 says nothing about the ungodly existing beyond exposure by the Truth.
-
The end of the ungodly is consistent throughout the scriptures
Either the Bible is consistent but not at all clear, or the Bible is not consistent to begin with. Either one explains how the same debate has been going on for 19 centuries.
But if the Bible is utterly consistent, and is utterly clear, there's not a good explanation for why no one can agree on what it says.
The Bible's inconsistency here is one of the reasons I stopped trusting it.
-
We cannot forget, eternal punishment is MORE than a warning, it is a promise from God. A character of God is this, He IS eternal. As far as I understand, due to scripture, He MAKES promises as PART of His character.
I agree completely ( with the whole post actually ) and that's pretty much exactly how I left in in that old thread.
-
The underlying premise of universalism is also supported in parts of the OT, but similarly the concept of resurrection, salvation, and the age to come hadn't really developed yet. Most of the OT has in mind a continuation of the world as they knew it, just better. Paul's seven letters (I follow the critical consensus that just seven are authentic, the others pseudonymous) teach universalism. The central thesis of Romans is a universalism through Jesus. Colossians and Ephesians are also pro-universalism.
You're so far off base you may as well be on another planet. The central thesis of Romans is a universalism through Jesus? No. It's about the grace of God and that salvation only comes through faith in Jesus Christ.
Both Jew and gentile can be saved, yes, but only by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ ( being born again)
Paul wrote about the exact opposite of Universalism.
-
Just to put my two cents in on the general subject, I believe that eternal fire refers to eternal removal from an earthly paradise, but not to being burned alive forever and ever. God would be the worst monster imaginable if He burned human flesh alive for all eternity. It would be bad enough if it was just for a single day. Can you imagine being on fire for 24 hours?
No, it is like saying I'm going to throw garbage into a burn pile. The burn pile removes the trash--it doesn't torture it. To throw trash into an eternal fire is to remove the trash forever.
This is what the lake of fire is. It isn't Hell, which is also burned up in the Lake of Fire. Hell is removed forever. What remains after being thrown into the fire is nothing. The person is completely removed from the earthly paradise and is removed elsewhere, in outer darkness. There will be a measure of torment in outer darkness, but not torture. If anything, it is self-inflicted torture, because it is the torment of having chosen to live apart from God and His People.
Jesus clearly said that in the eternal punishment some would be punished *lightly,* and others more *heavily.* This indicates that the afterlife for the damned is not a torture chamber. Rather, God has a place for these people, just as He has a place for the righteous on the New Earth. It's just that the unrighteous must be eternally separated from the righteous. They must go into outer darkness, where the lack of spiritual blessings feels like being in an arid place.
-
The Bible's inconsistency here is one of the reasons I stopped trusting it.
I was being taught things that weren't consistent with other parts of scripture, so I stopped trusting the people teaching me. The Bible is consistent. Theologians aren't.
-
You're so far off base you may as well be on another planet. The central thesis of Romans is a universalism through Jesus? No. It's about the grace of God and that salvation only comes through faith in Jesus Christ.
What we're saying is not mutually exclusive. Paul believed salvation only comes through faith in Jesus. And he believed that salvation would come to "all Israel" and "the fullness of the Gentiles", "so that God may be all in all".
-
Just to put my two cents in on the general subject, I believe that eternal fire refers to eternal removal from an earthly paradise, but not to being burned alive forever and ever. God would be the worst monster imaginable if He burned human flesh alive for all eternity.
Yet, God burning people for eternity is exactly what some people at the time believed.
Isaiah 66 talks about corpses being burned in unquenchable fire, where the worm never dies. Judith 16 takes this and alters it to become eternal torment, so that "he will send fire and worms into their flesh, so they will weep in pain forever".
There is also 1 Enoch, which describes the perpetual torment of rebel angels. Of the leader of the rogue angels, God commands, "bind him feet and hands and throw him into the darkness". For these angel this is only what they suffer before the final day of judgment.
And Jesus uses the same wording from Judith 16, "thrown into Gehenna, where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched". In one of his parables, Jesus recites the 1 Enoch quote about perpetual torment in darkness almost word-for-word, except he uses it to describe the punishment of the final judgment. When he talks of "eternal punishment" in "eternal fire" which was "prepared for the devil and his angels", he's pulling from 1 Enoch's idea of perpetual suffering.
Same with Jude, which quotes 1 Enoch directly in verses 14 and 15, but also describes 1 Enoch's idea of eternal suffering in verses 6 and 7, "the angels .... serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire". There's no room for reading this fire as a metaphor.
This is what the lake of fire is.
The Revelation's lake of fire takes phrases from Isaiah 34 and Jeremiah 25 and -- like Judith 16 -- alters it to become eternal torment. It is no longer the smoke of an empty wasteland that rises forever. It is now "the smoke of their torment" that "rises forever and ever", "tormented with fire and sulfur", and "they will have no rest day or night". It's reiterated with "the lake of fire and sulfur", where they are "tormented day and night forever and ever", "which is the second death".
These parts of the Bible teach eternal torment, but there is nothing in the text so ambiguous that readers can conclude eternal torment is what people "do it to themselves", or even that the fire is a metaphor. These are, in my opinion, absolutely disingenuous apologetics meant to soften what these books explicitly say: God is passing judgment, and he sentences people to "torment" with "no rest day or night" in "fire and sulfur" that lasts "forever and ever".
-
Just to put my two cents in on the general subject, I believe that eternal fire refers to eternal removal from an earthly paradise, but not to being burned alive forever and ever. God would be the worst monster imaginable if He burned human flesh alive for all eternity.
Yet, God burning people for eternity is exactly what some people at the time believed.
Isaiah 66 talks about corpses being burned in unquenchable fire, where the worm never dies. Judith 16 takes this and alters it to become eternal torment, so that "he will send fire and worms into their flesh, so they will weep in pain forever".
I reject Judith 16. And Isa 66 is saying the same thing, I believe, that I said earlier. It speaks of eternal removal--not eternal torture. Fire can torture, and it can remove. I believe Isaiah is references the quality of fire that eternally removes.
There is also 1 Enoch, which describes the perpetual torment of rebel angels.
I reject 1 Enoch. A portion of it quotes an ancient prophecy of Enoch, which Jude also quotes. But I don't believe Jude is confirming the authenticity of 1 Enoch as a book.
And Jesus uses the same wording from Judith 16, "thrown into Gehenna, where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched".
Jesus more likely referenced Isa 66.24's view of this "worm." And Judith 16 may have had similar implications, although I reject Judith as non-canonical.
In one of his parables, Jesus recites the 1 Enoch quote about perpetual torment in darkness almost word-for-word, except he uses it to describe the punishment of the final judgment. When he talks of "eternal punishment" in "eternal fire" which was "prepared for the devil and his angels", he's pulling from 1 Enoch's idea of perpetual suffering.
1 Enoch may have quoted, word for word, material which Jesus saw from a different point of view. I don't believe Jesus ever indicated that the eternal fire represented the burning of flesh, or eternal torture. It brought torment and misery only because these angels and men were to be excluded from paradise--not because their bodies would be on fire for all eternity.
Jesus never said that. He could've said that, but didn't. If he quoted popular works of the time, he never interpreted this "fire" to be physical torture.
Same with Jude, which quotes 1 Enoch directly in verses 14 and 15, but also describes 1 Enoch's idea of eternal suffering in verses 6 and 7, "the angels .... serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire". There's no room for reading this fire as a metaphor.
You have to read this "fire" as a metaphor because angels don't have physical bodies like humans that die and suffer physical torment. Their torment is spiritual, the deprivation of God's spiritual ecstasies., or the loss of joy, bringing a kind of remorse and resignation.
This is what the lake of fire is.
The Revelation's lake of fire takes phrases from Isaiah 34 and Jeremiah 25 and -- like Judith 16 -- alters it to become eternal torment. It is no longer the smoke of an empty wasteland that rises forever. It is now "the smoke of their torment" that "rises forever and ever", "tormented with fire and sulfur", and "they will have no rest day or night". It's reiterated with "the lake of fire and sulfur", where they are "tormented day and night forever and ever", "which is the second death".
The image of an eternally-rising smoke indicates a city that has been forever destroyed--nothing about eternal torture.
These parts of the Bible teach eternal torment, but there is nothing in the text so ambiguous that readers can conclude eternal torment is what people "do it to themselves", or even that the fire is a metaphor. These are, in my opinion, absolutely disingenuous apologetics meant to soften what these books explicitly say: God is passing judgment, and he sentences people to "torment" with "no rest day or night" in "fire and sulfur" that lasts "forever and ever".
Suit yourself. I completely disagree. Jesus *never* called the Lake of Fire a "torture chamber." He said Hell will itself be thrown into the Lake of Fire. And you say this isn't a metaphor? A "place" is burned?
No, Jesus identified the Lake of Fire as a means of *removal* from God's paradise, from His promised Eden. He identified the eternal punishment not as a literal burning fire, but rather, as a separation from God and from His people, as Outer Darkness, as an arid condition, as torment, in the sense of a hopeless resignation or remorse.
Even more damning to your position is the fact Jesus described some eternal punishment as the equivalent of "few stripes," as opposed to some who will suffer "many stripes." Jesus never equated stripes with eternal torture. You're quite wrong, and want to make the Scriptures into something so extreme your conscience will allow you to reject it. I would take it deadly serious, however. Just my opinion.
-
He said Hell will itself be thrown into the Lake of Fire. And you say this isn't a metaphor? A "place" is burned?
No, Jesus identified the Lake of Fire as a means of *removal* from God's paradise, from His promised Eden.
Death and hell (the grave) were defeated by our Lord when he rose from the dead.
For our God is a consuming fire. Heb.12:29
A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. Psa.97:3
His enemies and the enemies of his people (death and the grave) are destroyed by his presence. Peter describes the return of Christ as a lake of fire, consuming all evil.
the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2Pet.3:10
-
When we stand before God, we are after the duration of one's life. Due to this fact, eternal punishment cannot refer to interpretation of the latter.
The duration of ones life includes judgement day.
Are you implying mankind stands in their flesh?
Both the righteous and the unrighteous lives have ended and before God, all are in their eternal resurrected forms (Acts 24:15) and once in our eternal form, some (the righteous) experience eternity with God and some (the unrighteous) experience eternity apart from God.
The resurrected form of the unsaved is corruptible, which will be completely consumed by the fire of Christ,
the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming 2Tim.2:8
Typo, the verse is 2 Thess 2:8... but this verse is about the person who is the anti-christ, which is a person in the future who will rule the earth before Christ's return. The verse is specific to that single person... not mankind.
Acts 24:15 says nothing about the ungodly existing beyond exposure by the Truth.
The scripture illuminates the truth that all of mankind is resurrected, if they have died prior to Jesus' return. Then when you apply the context of what happens to the unrighteous, then we understand their separation from God, is everlasting.
-
What we're saying is not mutually exclusive. Paul believed salvation only comes through faith in Jesus. And he believed that salvation would come to "all Israel" and "the fullness of the Gentiles", "so that God may be all in all".
That's not what he said at all. Those who believe and are born again become one church under Christ so there then there is no longer Jew or gentile among them.
Universalism says that all will eventually be saved no matter if they believed in God and lived righteously or if they were cannibalistic Satin worshipers.
-
This just popped up in a feed I have....
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/197226404_1138107726686437_3587870076418611724_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=a26aad&_nc_ohc=pd_I0DPWzWgAX-cfWUY&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=0320ef3a1e1b6e8dfd1fc08ac56822a5&oe=60D0CAB5)
-
He said Hell will itself be thrown into the Lake of Fire. And you say this isn't a metaphor? A "place" is burned?
No, Jesus identified the Lake of Fire as a means of *removal* from God's paradise, from His promised Eden.
Death and hell (the grave) were defeated by our Lord when he rose from the dead.
For our God is a consuming fire. Heb.12:29
A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. Psa.97:3
His enemies and the enemies of his people (death and the grave) are destroyed by his presence. Peter describes the return of Christ as a lake of fire, consuming all evil.
the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2Pet.3:10
I'm not a supporter of Annihilationism. But for all intents and purposes, from our perspective, they will all be gone forever--out of sight, and out of mind. Thanks! :)
-
I reject 1 Enoch. A portion of it quotes an ancient prophecy of Enoch, which Jude also quotes. But I don't believe Jude is confirming the authenticity of 1 Enoch as a book.
To say there's actually a whole other prophecy from Enoch without any evidence, is really just inventing "evidence" from thin air simply because you need it to exist. When the only evidence we have for this prophecy from Enoch is the book of 1 Enoch, and Jude quotes it, he's using that book. Actually, Jude uses 1 Enoch throughout his entire epistle. That is the simplest explanation of what's happening.
Jesus more likely referenced Isa 66.24's view of this "worm." And Judith 16 may have had similar implications, although I reject Judith as non-canonical.
Whether Judith is canonical or not is completely irrelevant. The point is that both Judith 16 and Jesus change the wording in Isaiah 66 to become neverending torment. They both remove the mention of corpses outside of Jerusalem, and they both add details to stress this is punishment in the afterlife.
1 Enoch may have quoted, word for word, material which Jesus saw from a different point of view.
I'm sure you've heard of Occam's Razor, but do you know what the principle actually is? It's not just "the simplest view is the right one". It's that without evidence we should not multiply entities unnecessarily. 1 Enoch was written centuries before Jesus was alive, so when Jesus quotes something almost word-for-word that is found in 1 Enoch, in a similar but heightened context, then he is quoting 1 Enoch. We don't get to make up the existence of an otherwise unknown "material" that had the exact same content as 1 Enoch but wasn't 1 Enoch.
If he quoted popular works of the time, he never interpreted this "fire" to be physical torture.
This sounds like when the kid in math class says "You never said we couldn't use a calculator" when caught using one during a test. There is nothing which justifies interpreting the fire mentioned by Jesus as anything other than literal fire, especially when we know from so much of the literature of the time that everyone understood the fire literally.
You have to read this "fire" as a metaphor because angels don't have physical bodies
According to... what?
The Bible shows angels have bodies. And, like in most everything else, we have a lot of ancient Jewish literature showing people understood this literally.
The image of an eternally-rising smoke indicates a city that has been forever destroyed--nothing about eternal torture.
Revelation 14 and 20 say nothing about a city being destroyed forever. If the author wanted to communicate eternal torment with his readers, he could not say it any clearer than he already did: individual followers of the beast suffering "torment" in "fire and sulfur" "forever and ever" "day and night" "without rest".
Jesus *never* called the Lake of Fire a "torture chamber."
Okay, but so what? Jesus never mentions the "trinity". That doesn't stop people from finding the concept in the Bible.
He identified the eternal punishment not as a literal burning fire, but rather, as a separation from God and from His people
Revelation 14 says the "torment" which individual followers of the beast suffer "day and night" "forever and ever" takes place "in the presence of the Lamb". How is that a separation?
Even more damning to your position is the fact Jesus described some eternal punishment as the equivalent of "few stripes," as opposed to some who will suffer "many stripes."
At worst, this would mean Jesus taught the severity of suffering in the eternal fire varied from person to person. At best, it's not about eternal punishment at all, but something else entirely (chastisement of the saved, or perhaps nothing to do with the final judgment at all).
The notion that the fire is an elaborate metaphor, regardless of speaker or context, is a later invention by people uncomfortable with the idea of burning people alive. But it came from a culture where one of their Law commands burning people alive for this or that sin. They did not share your or my modern disgust with the idea of people burning in fire.
-
What we're saying is not mutually exclusive. Paul believed salvation only comes through faith in Jesus. And he believed that salvation would come to "all Israel" and "the fullness of the Gentiles", "so that God may be all in all".
That's not what he said at all.
It's... word for word what he says.
In Romans 9
As it is written, ‘I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.’ What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’
A lot of Christians -- most commonly Calvinists -- think this is the clencher, that Paul taught there were people who would be condemned, no one had a right to challenge God, because he gets to choose who he will have mercy on. "Vessels of wrath" and all that.
It's the first half of an inclusio. The end of it is in Romans 11
So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead!
He starts to turn the idea around. It might seem like the people of Israel became "vessels of wrath", doomed to condemnation, but in reality it is part of God's plan for "reconciliation of the world".
And just in case people object to this universalist message Paul is heading toward, he calls his readers out
So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved .... Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy.
There's that idea of God's "mercy" again, he's coming up to the other side of the inclusio
For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
He starts his argument by saying God has the right to be merciful to whoever he wants. There are apparent "vessels of wrath", whose purpose is to provoke the salvation of others. It appears the people of Israel have become such "vessels of wrath", in order to provoke the salvation of Gentiles... but, the end result is that God will save "the full number of the Gentiles", and then in turn "all Israel will be saved". What, you resent the idea that God would save everyone through Jesus? Tough! God will be "merciful to all", so that "from him and through him and to him are all things".
Like you said, Paul taught salvation is contingent on Jesus. He does say "if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord", you'll be saved. He also said that "every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord".
Paul expected all people to be saved through Jesus in the end.
-
Are you implying mankind stands in their flesh?
The unsved will. Paul says of believers,
the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1Cor.15:52
The dead unbelievers won't be raised incorruptible and unbelievers living at that time won't be changed.
Typo, the verse is 2 Thess 2:8... but this verse is about the person who is the anti-christ, which is a person in the future who will rule the earth before Christ's return. The verse is specific to that single person... not mankind.
It doesn't matter what unsaved human he refers to, since they all have the same end. Look at what Paul is saying in 2Thes, compare it with Rev.19 where antichrist is cast alive into the lake of fire and ask yourself, "How is this person destroyed by the presence of Christ in one passage, but thrown into the lake of fire in the other passage???" The answer is, the presence of Christ is a consuming lake of fire to the ungodly.
The scripture illuminates the truth that all of mankind is resurrected, if they have died prior to Jesus' return. Then when you apply the context of what happens to the unrighteous, then we understand their separation from God, is everlasting.
After standing naked and having all their sins exposed before Christ, nonexistence will be eternal separation from God.
[/quote]
-
I'm not a supporter of Annihilationism. But for all intents and purposes, from our perspective, they will all be gone forever--out of sight, and out of mind. Thanks! :)
Any type of conscious separation from God that goes on for eternity with no hope of salvation is senseless.
-
I'm not a supporter of Annihilationism. But for all intents and purposes, from our perspective, they will all be gone forever--out of sight, and out of mind. Thanks! :)
Any type of conscious separation from God that goes on for eternity with no hope of salvation is senseless.
Senseless from the finite perspective of sinful mankind, or from the eternal perspective of a Holy God?
-
nonexistence will be eternal separation from God.
This statement fails to address a revealed truth of that separation from God... that the unbeliever separated, experiences the punishment. If they are annihilated, there is no gnashing of teeth, no punishment, etc. Either Scripture is truth and is to be accepted, or it's not truth and shouldn't be accepted.
-
Senseless from the finite perspective of sinful mankind, or from the eternal perspective of a Holy God?
From God's perspective brother. All through scruptire, God allows torment to draw people to him.
-
Senseless from the finite perspective of sinful mankind, or from the eternal perspective of a Holy God?
From God's perspective brother. All through scruptire, God allows torment to draw people to him.
You may not know it but you side stepped and changed from those who will be separated (God's Holy wrath), to referencing believers.
By removing the value of God's Holy wrath to those who DON'T turn to God due to the struggles they endure while "alive," they're troubles now, are nothing compared to after their physical death and once resurrected, stand before God in their eternal bodies and are separated from God, forevermore.
-
It's... word for word what he says.
I'm starting to think you're just playing games.
-
This statement fails to address a revealed truth of that separation from God... that the unbeliever separated, experiences the punishment. If they are annihilated, there is no gnashing of teeth, no punishment, etc. Either Scripture is truth and is to be accepted, or it's not truth and shouldn't be accepted.
Weeping and gnashing teeth occurs at Christ's judgement seat where the sins of the unrepentant are finally exposed and they see the glory of the redeemed, but are excluded from it. It doesn't mean they suffer as long as God lives. It means they suffer as long as they lived.
You may not know it but you side stepped and changed from those who will be separated (God's Holy wrath), to referencing believers.
By removing the value of God's Holy wrath to those who DON'T turn to God due to the struggles they endure while "alive," they're troubles now, are nothing compared to after their physical death and once resurrected, stand before God in their eternal bodies and are separated from God, forevermore.
The resurrected unsaved aren't raised with eternal bodies and the unrepentant who haven't died before the return of Christ aren't transformed to an immortal body. I cited 1Cor.15 to show that only the faithful are changed. Even wicked spirits aren't immortal.
-
I'm starting to think you're just playing games.
Each thread I've participated in, I engage fully with what I'm responding to, and I treat the topic seriously and respectfully. The Bible in particular is a thing I'm passionate about understanding.
Completely dismissing everything I wrote just to say a wordier version of "lol no" is pretty rude. I'm putting in the effort. You can't, or you won't, therefore... I'm "playing games"...
-
But the Bible isn't consistent on the issue.
The Old Testament isn't terribly interested in the afterlife, but everyone dies and... that's it. Except for the book of Daniel, which has many people resurrected for life or punishment.
Other good O.T. resurrection passages:
“So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands. For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.”
Job 14:12, 19:25
“He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces.”
Isaiah 25:8
“Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.”
Isaiah 26:19
“For You will not abandon my soul to [the grave]; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.”
Psalm 16:10
“As for me, I shall behold Your face in righteousness; I will be satisfied with Your likeness when I awake.”
Psalms 17:15
“All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him, Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.”
Psalms 22:29
“With a long life I will satisfy him And let him see My salvation.”
Psalms 91:16
“Shall I ransom them from the power of [the grave]? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O [grave], where is your sting?”
Hosea 13:14[\i]
-
I'm not a supporter of Annihilationism. But for all intents and purposes, from our perspective, they will all be gone forever--out of sight, and out of mind. Thanks! :)
Any type of conscious separation from God that goes on for eternity with no hope of salvation is senseless.
I don't believe it's senseless to believe that an omnipotent God can create men in His own timeless image and somehow make it work, despite human rebellion. So I believe God has a place for rebellious men to serve Him, still displaying His image, on an eternal basis. I just don't believe it is a torture chamber. But I do believe there will be an eternal appointment, based on the level of rebellion. You may not like the idea, but for me, that's what being created in God's image means--to be an eternal being.
It does make not sense to just keep people alive to burn them alive for all eternity. I don't believe God will do that. The fire has to do with an eternal separation--the rebellious must be eternally separated from those who have adopted the holiness of Christ. The two cannot be mingled.
There is a reason that God has kept in existence Satan and his angels--they are eternal beings, as well. It would also make no sense to simply keep them in existence to toast them in an oven for all eternity. That's monstrous--as monstrous as any Devil!
But Satan is thrown, after his opportunity to choose the wrong, into a bottomless pit. The fire is for removal from God's presence forever. The pit is for eternal separation from God's presence--it is not a fire--it is a pit.
-
Each thread I've participated in, I engage fully with what I'm responding to, and I treat the topic seriously and respectfully. The Bible in particular is a thing I'm passionate about understanding.
Completely dismissing everything I wrote just to say a wordier version of "lol no" is pretty rude. I'm putting in the effort. You can't, or you won't, therefore... I'm "playing games"...
You claimed that the central thesis of Romans is universalism through Jesus. I specifically addressed that and you pretty much ignored what I had written. Seemed like game playing to me.
But OK I'll take you at your word and if I'm wrong, my apologies. When I've the time I'll make a lengthier post and engage further. In fact I'll start a new thread on the subject.
-
Other good O.T. resurrection passages:
None of these are about resurrection.
I could go through each one to explore with you why I think that, if you would find it beneficial.
-
You claimed that the central thesis of Romans is universalism through Jesus. I specifically addressed that and you pretty much ignored what I had written.
I didn't ignore what you said, though?
I pointed out that what you had said was not mutually exclusive to what I had said, and then I laid out in detail why I think Romans contains Paul's pro-universalism thesis. I'm not sure how that could be mistaken as "playing games".
-
I pointed out that what you had said was not mutually exclusive to what I had said, and then I laid out in detail why I think Romans contains Paul's pro-universalism thesis. I'm not sure how that could be mistaken as "playing games".
Because you did exactly what I said someone would have to do to find Universalism in scriptures. You cherry picked some verses while completely ignoring others to claim they convey something that they do not.
Just to be clear, you are claiming that all, believers and non believers alike, those who both worship and outright reject God will be reconciled to God? That all that ever lived will have their names written in the Book of Life and ultimately be judged worthy to enter the Kingdom of heaven? That everyone that ever lived or will live will be saved?
I'm trying to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.
-
Because you did exactly what I said someone would have to do to find Universalism in scriptures. You cherry picked some verses while completely ignoring others to claim they convey something that they do not.
Do you not remember that I acknowledged what you said, and replied that all three views (eternal torment, annihilation, universalism) require cherry-picking different parts of the Bible?
For a Christian to believe one demands they selectively read certain parts of the Bible above others, and it usually reflects their own values more than anything else.
So I'm not cherry-picking anymore than any of the views has to. However, I think you're misunderstanding something I said from the start
Just to be clear, you are claiming that
What I said from the start is that I think the Bible is inconsistent. Some parts teach eternal torment, some teach annihilation, and some teach universalism.
Paul's seven authentic epistles were written before any of the rest of the NT, and often only a single epistle was available to each community. So I try to read Romans -- as our example -- with the input of the Old Testament and other Jewish writings, and with the historical development of Jewish eschatologies up until his time, and with his other six authentic epistles to clarify what he meant here or there. The conclusion I come to is Paul was a universalist.
If a person assumes the theological unity of the entire Christian Bible and that Paul can only be understood by harmonizing everything he says with the gospels or other epistles or Revelation, then what I'm doing must sound like "cherry picking". But I don't begin with the assumption of theological unity.
all, believers and non believers alike, those who both worship and outright reject God will be reconciled to God? That all that ever lived will have their names written in the Book of Life and ultimately be judged worthy to enter the Kingdom of heaven? That everyone that ever lived or will live will be saved?
This is mostly a correct summary of what I think Paul believed (not any of the rest of the NT), with two qualifications.
(1) Paul said "every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord". Paul believed "no one" could make this confession without the holy spirit moving them first, and he believed anyone who made this confession was saved. Meaning, Paul thought that for all people to get to this point, they are not "outright rejecting God", they are in a place of obedience and trust. This is basically his point in Romans 9-11, where he uses a form of theological determinism to justify his belief (the potter and the clay, vessels of wrath, "imprisoning" people in disobedience to provoke others to salvation, "God imprisons all so he may show mercy to all").
(2) We both know that being judged "worthy" is not a typically Christian way of framing salvation. So scratch that part, maybe rephrase it as "and ultimately be shown mercy", since that is the key word Paul used.
-
If a person assumes the theological unity of the entire Christian Bible and that Paul can only be understood by harmonizing everything he says with the gospels or other epistles or Revelation, then what I'm doing must sound like "cherry picking". But I don't begin with the assumption of theological unity.
And that's the problem right there.
Regarding eternal torment/ separation scriptures simply do not give us enough clear cut information to build a perfect doctrine concerning them. That's not inconsistency it's simply "seeing through a glass darkly."
Regarding Universalism we've been given plenty of information. Yes, Paul said "every tongue will confess." But that will happen at judgment when it will be too late for some. You've taken that completely out of context.
And yes, any doctrines must align with all of scripture or the doctrine is at fault. That's the biggest problem with a lot of trained theologians. They rely on their systems more than they rely on scriptures themselves and the fact that it is, in fact, God's given word.
You either believe all of it is true and it all interconnects or you've no reason to believe any of it. Theological Unity is essential to understanding God and developing doctrine. Without it you're trying to build your understanding upon sand instead of rock.
If you disregard it you're wasting time trying to understand any of it. Context is essential. Without it you're like a kite blowing in the wind.
As I've said. You can only claim Universalism by cherry picking and ignoring context. If you're belief doesn't align with ALL of scriptures then it is your belief that's at fault. Not Scripture.
As yes, I know the history of Judaism, The Church and The Gosple/ Good News.
-
Just like before, I see a lot of commentary about how I'm flawed and that I'm incapable of reading the Bible (one big ad hominem), and not one bit actually engaging the content of what I wrote.
I see this a lot. I'm respectful of the topic, I am up front with my methodology, I lay out how I get from A to B to C to... And the other person can't or won't actually interact with what I've written. They don't even bother explain why this or that assumption they make is warranted. They just call me an aimless kite or cherry picking because I don't accept the assumptions they do.
Thanks for the discussion.
-
I've not asked you to accept a single "assumption."
Your "engaging" has so far consisted of making bold statements and then taking things completely out of context in order to say that they mean something completely contrary to what they would mean - in context.
I could easily lay out the central thesis of Romans and show how, in context, it aligns with both OT and NT scriptures. Since you couldn't care less about context and claim that scripture itself is flawed then what would be served except the two of us throwing words at each other?
I've carefully read and considered each and every word you've written in this thread, responded and even asked for clarification. Thank you for clarifying your mindset.
You've taken my words as insults. They aren't meant to be insulting they're meant to inspire you to consider the way you view scriptures and the very nature of God.
-
I don't believe it's senseless to believe that an omnipotent God can create men in His own timeless image and somehow make it work, despite human rebellion.
God is creating men in the image of Christ, his own image. The rebellious aren't the image of God. They're the image of the devil.
So I believe God has a place for rebellious men to serve Him, still displaying His image, on an eternal basis. I just don't believe it is a torture chamber. But I do believe there will be an eternal appointment, based on the level of rebellion. You may not like the idea, but for me, that's what being created in God's image means--to be an eternal being.
To me it means made like Jesus. Like him in his character.
It does make not sense to just keep people alive to burn them alive for all eternity. I don't believe God will do that. The fire has to do with an eternal separation--the rebellious must be eternally separated from those who have adopted the holiness of Christ. The two cannot be mingled.
I see the fire as the judgement seat of Christ, where not only works are tried, but people also.
There is a reason that God has kept in existence Satan and his angels--they are eternal beings, as well. It would also make no sense to simply keep them in existence to toast them in an oven for all eternity. That's monstrous--as monstrous as any Devil!
But Satan is thrown, after his opportunity to choose the wrong, into a bottomless pit. The fire is for removal from God's presence forever. The pit is for eternal separation from God's presence--it is not a fire--it is a pit.
Satan isn't an eternal being. He'll be judged by Christ like any other mortal. The bottomless pit isn't the afterlife. It's a hole that can't be filled, like how the things of this world can never satisfy and he's chained in it.
-
I don't believe it's senseless to believe that an omnipotent God can create men in His own timeless image and somehow make it work, despite human rebellion.
God is creating men in the image of Christ, his own image. The rebellious aren't the image of God. They're the image of the devil.
No, God created all men in His image. People don't stop being created in His image simply because they misbehave.
Gen 9.6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Satan isn't an eternal being. He'll be judged by Christ like any other mortal. The bottomless pit isn't the afterlife. It's a hole that can't be filled, like how the things of this world can never satisfy and he's chained in it.
Sounds like a guess to me? The fact that Satan still exists, despite his rebellion against God, indicates he is an eternal being. A "bottomless pit" is not a state of mind.
-
No, God created all men in His image. People don't stop being created in His image simply because they misbehave.
Gen 9.6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Evil doers will lose their lives at the hand of one man, our Lord Jesus, who is the image of God. And the faithful are being made in his image,
put on the new man who has been created in God's image - in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth. Eph.4:24
But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. 2Cor.3:18
Come judgement day, all will see who was made in his image and who immortality is granted to.
Sounds like a guess to me? The fact that Satan still exists, despite his rebellion against God, indicates he is an eternal being. A "bottomless pit" is not a state of mind.
God allowing evildoers to continue for a time doesn't indicate immortality,
Even though a sinner might commit a hundred crimes and still live a long time, yet I know that it will go well with God-fearing people - for they stand in fear before him.
But it will not go well with the wicked, nor will they prolong their days like a shadow, because they do not stand in fear before God. Ecc.8:12-13
And the bottomless pit isn't a literal hole. It's like when King Solomon said,
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.....the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. Ecc.1:7-8
-
Has it been considered that this verse means nothing, at the least, or is lying, at the worse?
2 Thess 1: 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
What needs to be considered is that if a person is annihilated, they cannot be punished everlastingly "FROM" (apart) the glory/power of the presence of the Lord. To say a punished unbeliever is annihilated doesn't make sense because th3 verse is another which reveals that the punishment through separation from the presence of God, is everlasting.
A person must be existing forevermore to be everlastingly punished "from" the presence of God.
-
Has it been considered that this verse means nothing, at the least, or is lying, at the worse?
2 Thess 1: 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
What needs to be considered is that if a person is annihilated, they cannot be punished everlastingly "FROM" (apart) the glory/power of the presence of the Lord. To say a punished unbeliever is annihilated doesn't make sense because th3 verse is another which reveals that the punishment through separation from the presence of God, is everlasting.
A person must be existing forevermore to be everlastingly punished "from" the presence of God.
To be punished with destruction from God's presence everlastingly is to be annihilated. It doesn't mean on going or continuous torment.
-
Has it been considered that this verse means nothing, at the least, or is lying, at the worse?
2 Thess 1: 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,
What needs to be considered is that if a person is annihilated, they cannot be punished everlastingly "FROM" (apart) the glory/power of the presence of the Lord. To say a punished unbeliever is annihilated doesn't make sense because th3 verse is another which reveals that the punishment through separation from the presence of God, is everlasting.
A person must be existing forevermore to be everlastingly punished "from" the presence of God.
To be punished with destruction from God's presence everlastingly is to be annihilated. It doesn't mean on going or continuous torment.
Lets take this a step at a time then.
If a person is annihilated, I understand this to mean: they do not exist anymore?
If this is to vague, what does annihilated mean to you and lets keep this at say, 9th grade language so we do not fail to express our meaning.
-
Lets take this a step at a time then.
If a person is annihilated, I understand this to mean: they do not exist anymore?
If this is to vague, what does annihilated mean to you and lets keep this at say, 9th grade language so we do not fail to express our meaning.
You said it right. Not to exist anymore. At Christ's judgement seat, the unsaved will be tormented when the shame of their sins are laid bare. Every sin committed over the course of their lives <--- (in this sense "forever"),
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Rev.20:10
That is, by their evil committed during their existence. Then comes annihilation,
Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. Eze.28:18
-
Lets take this a step at a time then.
If a person is annihilated, I understand this to mean: they do not exist anymore?
If this is to vague, what does annihilated mean to you and lets keep this at say, 9th grade language so we do not fail to express our meaning.
You said it right. Not to exist anymore. At Christ's judgement seat, the unsaved will be tormented when the shame of their sins are laid bare. Every sin committed over the course of their lives <--- (in this sense "forever"),
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Rev.20:10
That is, by their evil committed during their existence. Then comes annihilation,
Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. Eze.28:18
Lets take the Ezekiel 28:18 step then. Why did you use that verse in correlation with Rev 20:10?
The reason I ask, is you use one verse that reveals how both spiritual creatures and humans will be tossed into the LoF and suffer forever and ever. While the other verse reveals how a "city" will be destroyed.
The removal of a city and all that, that city "means" or it's "embodiment" (the Ezekiel verse), from the face of the earth, how is it possible to use the verse to support annihilation of those from the Revelation verse? Read on to v19, seems with that additional illumination, it's no possible to use v18 to represent human annihilation because God is removing what they "stand for" and what the city represents.
-
Lets take the Ezekiel 28:18 step then. Why did you use that verse in correlation with Rev 20:10?
The reason I ask, is you use one verse that reveals how both spiritual creatures and humans will be tossed into the LoF and suffer forever and ever. While the other verse reveals how a "city" will be destroyed.
The removal of a city and all that, that city "means" or it's "embodiment" (the Ezekiel verse), from the face of the earth, how is it possible to use the verse to support annihilation of those from the Revelation verse? Read on to v19, seems with that additional illumination, it's no possible to use v18 to represent human annihilation because God is removing what they "stand for" and what the city represents.
Eze.28:12-19 is a prophecy about the king of Tyrus, who is described as the anointed cherub who was in Eden and is no doubt a figure of Satan.
Rev.20 is where the devil is tormented "in the lake of fire day and night forever and ever." In other words, he's tormented by Christs presence, which is a blasing fire and deadly to the unrepentant
A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. Psa.97:3
For our God is a consuming fire. Heb.12:29
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming 2Thes.2:8
You're thinking "forever and ever" can only mean "for all eternity" and while that term can mean that, it can also refer to the lenght of a persons earthly life, his existence. Like when people say, I'll love you forever. They mean until the end of their life.
-
Lets take the Ezekiel 28:18 step then. Why did you use that verse in correlation with Rev 20:10?
The reason I ask, is you use one verse that reveals how both spiritual creatures and humans will be tossed into the LoF and suffer forever and ever. While the other verse reveals how a "city" will be destroyed.
The removal of a city and all that, that city "means" or it's "embodiment" (the Ezekiel verse), from the face of the earth, how is it possible to use the verse to support annihilation of those from the Revelation verse? Read on to v19, seems with that additional illumination, it's no possible to use v18 to represent human annihilation because God is removing what they "stand for" and what the city represents.
Eze.28:12-19 is a prophecy about the king of Tyrus, who is described as the anointed cherub who was in Eden and is no doubt a figure of Satan.
Rev.20 is where the devil is tormented "in the lake of fire day and night forever and ever." In other words, he's tormented by Christs presence, which is a blasing fire and deadly to the unrepentant
Hooah, I've studied this also.
A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. Psa.97:3
For our God is a consuming fire. Heb.12:29
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming 2Thes.2:8
I'll get back to these.
You're thinking "forever and ever" can only mean "for all eternity" and while that term can mean that, it can also refer to the lenght of a persons earthly life, his existence. Like when people say, I'll love you forever. They mean until the end of their life.
I'm not thinking that at all. I'm viewing the inspired Word of God and looking at what is written from "His" point of view. So when "He" says, evermore, forever, etc... He's speaking from an "eternal" perspective. Not the perspective you relay and not being eternal.
-
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming 2Thes.2:8
Let's raise this one. I can assume that you want the word "destroy" to mean, annihilated?
-
I'm not thinking that at all. I'm viewing the inspired Word of God and looking at what is written from "His" point of view. So when "He" says, evermore, forever, etc... He's speaking from an "eternal" perspective. Not the perspective you relay and not being eternal.
From God's point of view, the reason he allows torment is for the purpose of repentance. What I'm saying is, when God's word speaks of forever, it may refer to a persons life,
he shall serve him for ever. Exo.21:6
It makes sense that sinners will be tormented by having the evil deeds they did "day and night" during their entire lives, that is, "forever and ever".
Let's raise this one. I can assume that you want the word "destroy" to mean, annihilated?
It's not a matter of what I want. It's a matter of wanting to know the heart of God. Destruction or to be destroyed may or may not refer to annihiltion, but the point I was making is that in 2Thes.2:8, antichrist is destroyed by the our Lords brightness, consumed by his word, so why cast him into the lake of fire, as in Rev.19? Unless Christs presence in glory is like a lake of fire.
-
It's not a matter of what I want. It's a matter of wanting to know the heart of God. Destruction or to be destroyed may or may not refer to annihiltion, but the point I was making is that in 2Thes.2:8, antichrist is destroyed by the our Lords brightness, consumed by his word, so why cast him into the lake of fire, as in Rev.19? Unless Christs presence in glory is like a lake of fire.
Well, it seems you are applying the English definition to the term "destroyed" and not realizing the meaning of the intent of the Scripture. Here is why:
Strong's Concordance
katargeó: to render inoperative, abolish
Original Word: καταργέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: katargeó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-arg-eh'-o)
Definition: to render inoperative, abolish
Usage: (a) I make idle (inactive), make of no effect, annul, abolish, bring to naught, (b) I discharge, sever, separate from.
HELPS Word-studies
2673 katargéō (from 2596 /katá, "down to a point," intensifying 691 /argéō, "inactive, idle") – properly, idle down, rendering something inert ("completely inoperative"); i.e. being of no effect (totally without force, completely brought down); done away with, cause to cease and therefore abolish; make invalid, abrogate (bring to nought); "to make idle or inactive" (so also in Euripides, Phoen., 753, Abbott-Smith).
["2673 (katargéō) means 'to make completely inoperative' or 'to put out of use,' according to TDNT (1.453)" (J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology "God, the World & Redemption," 389).]
Copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.
The "words/terms" that God inspired, do have meaning that can be much different then our English language. The term chosen as "destroy" is actually "will annul." Meaning is to render powerless, ineffective, etc.
So this is why, satan, the ac and the false prophet and all unbelievers are still existing after their judgement before Jesus and can then be tossed into the LoF. Ultimately rendering them all powerless and eternally separated from God and all those who remain with God.
-
It's not a matter of what I want. It's a matter of wanting to know the heart of God. Destruction or to be destroyed may or may not refer to annihiltion, but the point I was making is that in 2Thes.2:8, antichrist is destroyed by the our Lords brightness, consumed by his word, so why cast him into the lake of fire, as in Rev.19? Unless Christs presence in glory is like a lake of fire.
Well, it seems you are applying the English definition to the term "destroyed" and not realizing the meaning of the intent of the Scripture. Here is why:
Strong's Concordance
katargeó: to render inoperative, abolish
Original Word: καταργέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: katargeó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-arg-eh'-o)
Definition: to render inoperative, abolish
Usage: (a) I make idle (inactive), make of no effect, annul, abolish, bring to naught, (b) I discharge, sever, separate from.
HELPS Word-studies
2673 katargéō (from 2596 /katá, "down to a point," intensifying 691 /argéō, "inactive, idle") – properly, idle down, rendering something inert ("completely inoperative"); i.e. being of no effect (totally without force, completely brought down); done away with, cause to cease and therefore abolish; make invalid, abrogate (bring to nought); "to make idle or inactive" (so also in Euripides, Phoen., 753, Abbott-Smith).
["2673 (katargéō) means 'to make completely inoperative' or 'to put out of use,' according to TDNT (1.453)" (J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology "God, the World & Redemption," 389).]
Copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.
The "words/terms" that God inspired, do have meaning that can be much different then our English language. The term chosen as "destroy" is actually "will annul." Meaning is to render powerless, ineffective, etc.
So this is why, satan, the ac and the false prophet and all unbelievers are still existing after their judgement before Jesus and can then be tossed into the LoF. Ultimately rendering them all powerless and eternally separated from God and all those who remain with God.
I believe the presence of Christ is a destroying lake of fire to the wicked and there's no point to keep people of no use around for eternity, but there's also another word for "destroy",
But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Lk.17:29
They were annihilated.
-
I believe the presence of Christ is a destroying lake of fire to the wicked and there's no point to keep people of no use around for eternity, but there's also another word for "destroy",
But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Lk.17:29
They were annihilated.
Physical life ended by physical fire even though the source was supernatural. All those guilty of sin in those cities, are not annihilated. S/G has never been support for annihilation theology. Here is why:
What does S/G represent? Well, scriptural emphasis is about the sexual immorality and what will happen to those who commit such sin. S/G are for us to understand how terrible hell will be, even though eternal separation from God will be much worse (the Gospels reveal how worse), we (presently) cannot fathom (except we can accept the Gospels), how worse because we are not in our resurrected forms yet and cannot comprehend the eternal. So we are given what we "can" comprehend.
Study Jude. Lays it out pretty good for study about "on-going" destruction. See how the verses SPECIFY how S/G are similar (an example of) to, not the same as the fires of eternal punishment (hell or LoF).
-
Hell will be filled with people who don't believe in Hell.
-
Physical life ended by physical fire even though the source was supernatural. All those guilty of sin in those cities, are not annihilated. S/G has never been support for annihilation theology. Here is why:
What does S/G represent? Well, scriptural emphasis is about the sexual immorality and what will happen to those who commit such sin. S/G are for us to understand how terrible hell will be, even though eternal separation from God will be much worse (the Gospels reveal how worse), we (presently) cannot fathom (except we can accept the Gospels), how worse because we are not in our resurrected forms yet and cannot comprehend the eternal. So we are given what we "can" comprehend.
Study Jude. Lays it out pretty good for study about "on-going" destruction. See how the verses SPECIFY how S/G are similar (an example of) to, not the same as the fires of eternal punishment (hell or LoF).
Jude says those cities are an example of eternal fire. Those cities don't exist. That's all. It's the effect the fire had on those cities that's everlasting. The message is, they were annihilated, not they're on fire for thousands of years.
-
Jude says those cities are an example of eternal fire. Those cities don't exist. That's all. It's the effect the fire had on those cities that's everlasting. The message is, they were annihilated, not they're on fire for thousands of years.
We have to understand (accept) that cities are material (physical) and the resurrected body that people will have when they stand before God, is not material (not physical). Also, we have to understand (accept) that physical fire does "consume" material of this physical world.
We also must understand (accept) that all references in Scripture about the "spiritual" fires of hell (as revealed), do not consume but torture forever!! Have you thought to yourself, "why don't they consume?"
Scripture also reveals that these fires "destroy" and what does the term inspired by the Holy Spirit reveal? Answer: to render powerless, to separate, etc.
Hell is a "spiritual" matter, not a physical matter. Thus WHY we find in Jude that S/G a revelation to help us comprehend how what is in hell/LoF will be completely powerless and completely separated from God. As the physical and sinful S/G was cut off from the physical world, so too will sinful man be forever cut off from God after judgement.
-
We also must understand (accept) that all references in Scripture about the "spiritual" fires of hell (as revealed), do not consume but torture forever!! Have you thought to yourself, "why don't they consume?"
I've shown why the fire causes torment, but not without end.
Scripture also reveals that these fires "destroy" and what does the term inspired by the Holy Spirit reveal? Answer: to render powerless, to separate, etc.
Hell is a "spiritual" matter, not a physical matter. Thus WHY we find in Jude that S/G a revelation to help us comprehend how what is in hell/LoF will be completely powerless and completely separated from God. As the physical and sinful S/G was cut off from the physical world, so too will sinful man be forever cut off from God after judgement.
S&G don't exist anymore. At Christ's judgement seat, not only works are tested, but people themselves are judged.
Death and hell are "cast into the lof, meaning they don't exist anymore. Death and hell don't really need to be cast anywhere. They're abolished by our Lord. People believe death and hell go on eternally. They don't. Neither do the unsaved.
-
We also must understand (accept) that all references in Scripture about the "spiritual" fires of hell (as revealed), do not consume but torture forever!! Have you thought to yourself, "why don't they consume?"
I've shown why the fire causes torment, but not without end.
Can you do me a favor and point me to the post. I have taken terms and in one particular provided the Greek defining of the term to reveal how there is no "destruction" per English defining. That the verse cannot mean, the torment ends.
-
Can you do me a favor and point me to the post. I have taken terms and in one particular provided the Greek defining of the term to reveal how there is no "destruction" per English defining. That the verse cannot mean, the torment ends.
I've been showing it all through the thread. Slug, why are people going to be tormented in the presence of our Lord? Will they be tormented in his presence for eternity?
I understand theologians say the word "destroy" in the Bibpe can never mean annihilate, but,
the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth
Gen.6:7
Those people were annihilated. God can also annihilate spirits.
-
Can you do me a favor and point me to the post. I have taken terms and in one particular provided the Greek defining of the term to reveal how there is no "destruction" per English defining. That the verse cannot mean, the torment ends.
I've been showing it all through the thread. Slug, why are people going to be tormented in the presence of our Lord? Will they be tormented in his presence for eternity?
I understand theologians say the word "destroy" in the Bibpe can never mean annihilate, but,
the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth
Gen.6:7
Those people were annihilated. God can also annihilate spirits.
You've expressed your interpretation of "English" words. Let's dive into Hebrew concerning "destroy" in v7:
Strong's Concordance
machah: abolish
Original Word: מָחָה
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: machah
Phonetic Spelling: (maw-khaw')
Definition: to wipe, wipe out
Brown-Driver-Briggs
I. מָחָה verb wipe, wipe out (Late Hebrew id.; Arabic , efface, erase, cancel, obliterate; Aramaic מְחָא (I), compare Phoenician למחת according to stroke = exactly HoffinPhoenician Inschr., Abh. GGW, xxxvi. May 1889, 9). —
Qal Perfect3masculine singular מָחָה Numbers 5:23 3t.; 3 feminine singular מחֲתָה Proverbs 30:20 4t. Pf; Imperfect יִמְחֶה 2 Kings 21:13; וַיִּמַח (Baer; variant reading וַיִּמַּח) Genesis 7:23; 1singular suffix אֶמְחֶנּוּ Exodus 32:33; 4t. Imperfect; Imperative מְחֵה Psalm 51:3; Psalm 51:11; suffix מְחֵנִי Exodus 32:32; Infinitive absolute מָחֹה Exodus 17:14; construct לִמְחוֺת 2 Kings 14:27; Participle מֹחֶה Isaiah 43:25; feminine plural (לְ)מֹחוֺת Proverbs 31:3; (Ges Fl Nö De Str for ᵑ0 לַמְחוֺת); —
1 wipe, the mouth Proverbs 30:20; tears from (מעל) the face Isaiah 25:8; written curse, into the water (אלמֿים) for drinking Numbers 5:23 (P); Moses' name from the book (מספר) of God Exodus 32:32,33 (J); וּמָחִיתִי אֶתֿ יְרוּשָׁלִַם כַּאֲשֶׁר יִמְחֶה אֶתהַֿצַּלַּחַת מָחָה וְהָפַךְ עַלמָּֿנֶיהָ 2 Kings 21:13 and I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipeth a dish, — he doth wipe and turn it (but read probably מָחֹה וְהָפֹךְ) upside down.
2 blot out = obliterate from the memory, מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם from under heaven e.g. the name Deuteronomy 9:14; Deuteronomy 29:19; 2 Kings 14:27; the remembrance Exodus 17:14 (twice in verse) (J), Deuteronomy 25:19; the name for ever Psalm 9:6; transgressions (פשׁע; no more remembered by God against sinner) Psalm 51:3; Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 44:22; עָון Psalm 51:11.
3 blot out = exterminate, כלהֿיקוֺם all existing things Genesis 7:23 (J) and mankind, מֵעַל מְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה Genesis 6:7; Genesis 7:4 (J); מֹחוֺת מְלָכִין Proverbs 31:3 (with the text-change, see above) = destroyers of kings (i.e. impure women), but expression strange and dubious.
Niph`al Perfect3masculine plural נִמְחוּ Ezekiel 6:6; Imperfect יִמָּחֶה Deuteronomy 25:6; Judges 21:17; יִמַּח Psalm 109:13; 3feminine singular תִּמָּ֑ח Psalm 109:14; 4t. Imperfect; —
1 be wiped out מִסֵּפֶר חַיִּים Psalm 69:29.
2 be blotted out, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל of a name Deuteronomy 25:6, a tribe Judges 21:17; name ("" posterity) Psalm 109:13; from memory, of sins Nehemiah 3:37; Psalm 109:14; reproach, Proverbs 6:33.
3 be exterminated, מִןהָֿאָרֶץ Genesis 7:23 (J); of idolatrous works of Israel Ezekiel 6:6.
Hiph`il Imperfect2masculine singular תֶּ֫מַח Nehemiah 13:14; תֶּ֑מְחִי Jeremiah 18:23 (but tone suggests תֶּ֫מַח compare Ges§ 75. R. 17; Gie reads Qal and doubts Hiph`il altogether); Infinitive לַמְחוֺת Proverbs 31:3 ( = לְהַמְחוֺת but see Qal 3); — blot out, from the memory; pious acts Nehemiah 13:14; sins Jeremiah 18:23.
II. מָחָה verb strike (Aramaic מְחָא (II), ; according to L GeiUrspr. d. spr. 416 LagSemitic i. 26, BN 142 NöZMG xxxii, 1878, 409 weakend from = , Hebrew מָחַץ q. v. compare Dr§ 178 n.; Assyrian ma—û = crush, oppress, according to DlHWB 396); — Perfect3masculine singular consecutive, וּמָחָה ׳עַלכֶּֿתֶף וגו Numbers 34:11 (P) and the border shall strike upon (reach unto) the shoulder of the sea of Chinnereth ( > Di and others derive from I. מָחָה rub along by, brush past, skirt).
III. מָחָה verb denominative only
Pu`al Participle מְמֻחָיִם (Ges§ 75. R.13) in phrase ׳שְׁמָנִים מ Isaiah 25:6 fat pieces full of marrow.
מְחִי see II. מחה.
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Unabridged, Electronic Database.
Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc.
All rights reserved. Used by permission. BibleSoft.com
One step at a time, ok?
Step 1: Let's first establish "context." Is Moses writing about annihilation of mankind, or is he revealing that God will kill all of mankind and animal life with mankind? Once the context is established, then we can go into the use of the term "destroy."
Gen 6:7 is about blotting out, see bold part in quoted definition of the term above.
Step 2: This means "from" what or who? The answer is, from the earth (v7) and from God's memory. In simple terms, it means that God is removing evil from the face of the earth and then, He does not have to grieve over it, anymore. With the new earth He will not even remember the past evil.
How can one "leap" to a step that is about annihilation? I can't even find any (reputable) Commentary that dares to utilize this verse for annihilation.
-
One step at a time, ok?
Step 1: Let's first establish "context." Is Moses writing about eternal separation from God, or is he revealing that God will kill all of mankind and animal life with mankind? Once the context is established, then we can go into the use of the term "destroy."
Gen 6:7 is about blotting out, see bold part in quoted definition of the term above.
Step 2: This means "from" what or who? The answer is, from the earth (v7) and from God's memory. In simple terms, it means that God is removing evil from the face of the earth and then, He does not have to grieve over it, anymore. With the new earth He will not even remember the past evil.
How can one "leap" to a step that is about annihilation? I can't even find any (reputable) Commentary that dares to utilize this verse for annihilation.
Slug, I've read your whole post. I don't need to "leap" to a step that is about annihilation, because the example itself is annihilation. In this current creation, God teaches us about the new creation. He obliterated the unrepentant.
Does it really make sense to you that the unrepentant will be tormented in the presence of our Lord, the holy angels and no dout the redeemed for eternity?
Forget about commentary. Forget about my view. Listen to the Spirit of Christ in you.
-
He obliterated the unrepentant.
Does it really make sense to you that the unrepentant will be tormented in the presence of our Lord, the holy angels and no dout the redeemed for eternity?
I cannot find any scripture that teaches obliteration in an annihilation meaning.
Your second part is confusing because I've never raised torment in the presence of the Lord, all the verses I've posted represents separation from the Lord and the torment experienced is in the location where separated.
BTW, your response verifies you are ignoring the meaning of v7 that you raised.
-
Does it really make sense to you that the unrepentant will be tormented in the presence of our Lord, the holy angels and no dout the redeemed for eternity?
Forget about commentary. Forget about my view. Listen to the Spirit of Christ in you.
It doesn't seem to me that any human is immortal unless made immortal by God (clearly we weren't created immortal), but why wouldn't this make sense? In what sense would the unrepentant be in the presence of, say, 'the redeemed', given the two wouldn't be in proximity (the redeemed being located on the new earth and the unrepentant located...)? Unless you think they would be? If so, where and how?
Mind you, the implication that Slug1 - or anyone else, for that matter - isn't listening to the 'Spirit of Christ in [them]', and should perhaps forget about commentary (which by further implication is also contrary to the 'Spirit of Christ'?), is asinine.
-
Mind you, the implication that Slug1 - or anyone else, for that matter - isn't listening to the 'Spirit of Christ in [them]', and should perhaps forget about commentary (which by further implication is also contrary to the 'Spirit of Christ'?), is asinine.
Thus why I didn't address/respond to an emotional statement that is all about accusation.
-
I cannot find any scripture that teaches obliteration in an annihilation meaning.
People in the flood were annihilated.
Your second part is confusing because I've never raised torment in the presence of the Lord, all the verses I've posted represents separation from the Lord and the torment experienced is in the location where separated.
I know you didn't raise the point of the unsaved being tormented in Christ's presemce. I did. The location of torment is the presence of Christ and the unsaved won't exist there for eternity.
BTW, your response verifies you are ignoring the meaning of v7 that you raised.
The meaning of vs.7 is that the unrepentant were annihilated. Anyone reading the story about the flood should have no trouble understanding that.
-
It doesn't seem to me that any human is immortal unless made immortal by God (clearly we weren't created immortal), but why wouldn't this make sense? In what sense would the unrepentant be in the presence of, say, 'the redeemed', given the two wouldn't be in proximity (the redeemed being located on the new earth and the unrepentant located...)? Unless you think they would be? If so, where and how?
The saved and unsaved will be before the judgement seat of Christ, where the sins of the unsaved will be made known. This is where the torment occurs.
Mind you, the implication that Slug1 - or anyone else, for that matter - isn't listening to the 'Spirit of Christ in [them]', and should perhaps forget about commentary (which by further implication is also contrary to the 'Spirit of Christ'?), is asinine.
False teaching can permeate any congregation. Is it your belief that over hundreds of years, teaching things about God that aren't true could never happen?
-
Mind you, the implication that Slug1 - or anyone else, for that matter - isn't listening to the 'Spirit of Christ in [them]', and should perhaps forget about commentary (which by further implication is also contrary to the 'Spirit of Christ'?), is asinine.
Thus why I didn't address/respond to an emotional statement that is all about accusation.
I included myself in fallibility. I once believed in unending torment. I prayed about it.
-
I cannot find any scripture that teaches obliteration in an annihilation meaning.
People in the flood were annihilated.
Negative, they were killed.
I know you didn't raise the point of the unsaved being tormented in Christ's presemce. I did. The location of torment is the presence of Christ and the unsaved won't exist there for eternity.
The scriptures say "after" their sins are made known and they are judged, they are then separated for all eternity apart for God. While I will agree that the facts torment them, scripture reveals the torment is eternal.
The meaning of vs.7 is that the unrepentant were annihilated. Anyone reading the story about the flood should have no trouble understanding that.
In the Hebrew the term is "wiped out" and in English, blotted out is translated. Has nothing to do with "annihilation." Blotted out in used for English so we can understand that they are permanently removed from the Book of Life... not about annihilation.
Do you have ANYTHING that can be read in support of this annihilation theology?
-
The saved and unsaved will be before the judgement seat of Christ, where the sins of the unsaved will be made known. This is where the torment occurs.
Is your argument that because no one will be before the judgment seat for eternity, it's annihilation ultimately rather than ECT (I myself am not a believer in active torment for what it's worth, but torment vis-a-vis the full - rather than partial, as now - withdrawing of God's presence)? Or is your argument that it makes sense for the unrepentant to be tormented for a time 'in the presence of our Lord, the holy angels and no doub the redeemed for eternity'? [sic] But not for eternity? But then why should we think that torment occurs before the judgment seat of Christ? That would make it more than the judgment seat would it not?
False teaching can permeate any congregation. Is it your belief that over hundreds of years, teaching things about God that aren't true could never happen?
Of course not. What's asinine is the suggestion that Slug1 has been duped into false belief as a consequence of his ignoring the 'Spirit of Christ' within him, and so too with these commentaries that don't agree with your position, which coincidentally just happens to be the position of the 'Spirit of Christ' within you. That is, what you've done is discounted the possibility of genuine theological disagreement and instead simplified to an either/or: either your position is the one we agree with or else we're rejecting the 'Spirit of Christ'. Or at least, not listening to the 'Spirit of Christ'.
Negative, they were killed.
That's the wrong approach, imo. What you have is the mass killing of humanity save one family and a collection of animals. What would you call the mass killing of humanity in any other circumstance? Extermination? Wiping out? Genocide? Annihilation? Armageddon? Those people were killed, but it was such a great killing that we could justifiably say that God annihilated all but one family of the human off the face of the earth in Genesis 7. Further, it's more annihilation than killing because those peoples societies, cultures, etc., were lost except in the form of whatever Noah and his family continued in our postdiluvian world. If the flood were to happen today I doubt anyone would say that God merely killed 7 billion+ people. That's apocalyptic.
But to argue from Genesis 6 to annihilation seems a stretch regardless.
-
That's the wrong approach, imo. What you have is the mass killing of humanity save one family and a collection of animals. What would you call the mass killing of humanity in any other circumstance? Extermination? Wiping out? Genocide? Annihilation? Armageddon? Those people were killed, but it was such a great killing that we could justifiably say that God annihilated all but one family of the human off the face of the earth in Genesis 7. Further, it's more annihilation than killing because those peoples societies, cultures, etc., were lost except in the form of whatever Noah and his family continued in our postdiluvian world. If the flood were to happen today I doubt anyone would say that God merely killed 7 billion+ people. That's apocalyptic.
But to argue from Genesis 6 to annihilation seems a stretch regardless.
I personally "try" to keep as simplified as possible. Per the use of the Hebrew term in relation to v7, the best word in English is "exterminate."
-
I have a difficult time grasping why a God of love would torment someone in an inferno for eternity for living a short life span that's considered a 'vapor'. That in my view just doesn't fit the likes of a just and loving God. Especially when the word 'hell' isn't found in the earliest manuscripts. It seems that the word 'hell' was added by the translators.
-
I have a difficult time grasping why a God of love...
A loving God also wouldn't force someone to be in a relationship they didn't want to be in. It's interesting how the relationship between God and God's people is so frequently expressed in terms of marriage. It's as if the divine being demands a response from the other. What would existence look like if God allowed someone to continue to exist while fully rejecting Him? Do you suppose that a loving and just God ought to impose Himself on those who want nothing to do with Him?
But anyway, you wouldn't be up for God-as-abusive-partner, or ECT or annihilation either presumably (because again that's an eternal consequence for a 'vapor' despite our lives having supreme eschatological significance), so your position is universal salvation, or something similar, or is it actually annihilation?
-
That's the wrong approach, imo. What you have is the mass killing of humanity save one family and a collection of animals. What would you call the mass killing of humanity in any other circumstance? Extermination? Wiping out? Genocide? Annihilation? Armageddon? Those people were killed, but it was such a great killing that we could justifiably say that God annihilated all but one family of the human off the face of the earth in Genesis 7. Further, it's more annihilation than killing because those peoples societies, cultures, etc., were lost except in the form of whatever Noah and his family continued in our postdiluvian world. If the flood were to happen today I doubt anyone would say that God merely killed 7 billion+ people. That's apocalyptic.
But to argue from Genesis 6 to annihilation seems a stretch regardless.
I personally "try" to keep as simplified as possible. Per the use of the Hebrew term in relation to v7, the best word in English is "exterminate."
And not a Dalek to be seen.
-
And not a Dalek to be seen.
Well, this went over my head... please elaborate.
-
Negative, they were killed.
Killed, exterminated, etc. are terms that can mean annihilated. The people that died during the flood were completely wiped out. Same with S&G,
Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. Gen.19:24-25
That's annihilation.
The scriptures say "after" their sins are made known and they are judged, they are then separated for all eternity apart for God. While I will agree that the facts torment them, scripture reveals the torment is eternal.
As I pointed out in a previous post, the term "forever" can refer to a persons entire life before death. "Forever" doesn't necessarily mean eternally. And there really is no place where anyone can exist without God's notice,
Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. Psa.139:7-8
The only place someone can go out of God's presence is not to exist anymore.
In the Hebrew the term is "wiped out" and in English, blotted out is translated. Has nothing to do with "annihilation." Blotted out in used for English so we can understand that they are permanently removed from the Book of Life... not about annihilation.
Do you have ANYTHING that can be read in support of this annihilation theology?
Being removed from the Book of life shows that there is no more hope of life. Death is "cast into the lake of fire, that is, the presence of Christ because it doesn't exist anymore.
-
Is your argument that because no one will be before the judgment seat for eternity, it's annihilation ultimately rather than ECT (I myself am not a believer in active torment for what it's worth, but torment vis-a-vis the full - rather than partial, as now - withdrawing of God's presence)? Or is your argument that it makes sense for the unrepentant to be tormented for a time 'in the presence of our Lord, the holy angels and no doub the redeemed for eternity'? [sic] But not for eternity? But then why should we think that torment occurs before the judgment seat of Christ? That would make it more than the judgment seat would it not?
I believe that when we examine all scripture concerning the final state of the unsaved, the presence of God is like an annihilating lake of fire to them. Of course there will be torment at Christ's judgement seat, because unrepentant people fear having their sins exposed, but at that time there will be no place to hide.
Of course not. What's asinine is the suggestion that Slug1 has been duped into false belief as a consequence of his ignoring the 'Spirit of Christ' within him, and so too with these commentaries that don't agree with your position, which coincidentally just happens to be the position of the 'Spirit of Christ' within you. That is, what you've done is discounted the possibility of genuine theological disagreement and instead simplified to an either/or: either your position is the one we agree with or else we're rejecting the 'Spirit of Christ'. Or at least, not listening to the 'Spirit of Christ'.
Same thing could be said anyone, because either God allows never ending torment, or he doesn't. How far do you want to go with that?
-
And not a Dalek to be seen.
Well, this went over my head... please elaborate.
Doctor Who. The Daleks are known for their utterances of 'exterminate'.
If you'd like to tie this back to Genesis 6 - 7, then there's more of a connection between the Hebrew word for 'destroy' and the Dalek's use of the word 'exterminate' than there is in using Genesis 6 - 7 as an example of what will ultimately happen post judgement. If you'll accept such extreme cheek, that is.
-
I believe that when we examine all scripture concerning the final state of the unsaved, the presence of God is like an annihilating lake of fire to them. Of course there will be torment at Christ's judgement seat, because unrepentant people fear having their sins exposed, but at that time there will be no place to hide.
Interesting. What scripture equates God's presence with the lake of fire, and how does that work in light of, say, Revelation 20?
Same thing could be said anyone, because either God allows never ending torment, or he doesn't. How far do you want to go with that?
The point is to avoid making the claim entirely.
-
And not a Dalek to be seen.
Well, this went over my head... please elaborate.
Doctor Who. The Daleks are known for their utterances of 'exterminate'.
If you'd like to tie this back to Genesis 6 - 7, then there's more of a connection between the Hebrew word for 'destroy' and the Dalek's use of the word 'exterminate' than there is in using Genesis 6 - 7 as an example of what will ultimately happen post judgement. If you'll accept such extreme cheek, that is.
I was sticking to how the Holy Spirit inspired Moses in writing and the Hebrew term given to Moses to describe the results of the flood upon mankind and animals.
-
And not a Dalek to be seen.
Well, this went over my head... please elaborate.
Doctor Who. The Daleks are known for their utterances of 'exterminate'.
If you'd like to tie this back to Genesis 6 - 7, then there's more of a connection between the Hebrew word for 'destroy' and the Dalek's use of the word 'exterminate' than there is in using Genesis 6 - 7 as an example of what will ultimately happen post judgement. If you'll accept such extreme cheek, that is.
I was sticking to how the Holy Spirit inspired Moses in writing and the Hebrew term given to Moses to describe the results of the flood upon mankind and animals.
Yes, and the word used is not translated as 'annihilation'. That's a word we'd impose in reading the text. Or something like that is what I'd imagine you're getting at?
-
Killed, exterminated, etc. are terms that can mean annihilated.
You are ignoring the Hebrew defining of the terms utilized. If you held to what Scripture is saying, not what English is saying, then Scripture will be able to illuminate the truth in what God is saying. Once this illumination is accepted, then Revelation 20 can be understood.
-
Yes, and the word used is not translated as 'annihilation'. That's a word we'd impose in reading the text. Or something like that is what I'd imagine you're getting at?
Yes, we must accept what God says through His Word. Verse 7 does not say He annihilated the evil doers per the "type" of annihilation Journeyman is imposing.
-
Interesting. What scripture equates God's presence with the lake of fire,
A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about. Psa.97.3
Our God comes, he does not keep silence, before him is a devouring fire, round about him a mighty tempest. Psa.50:3
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire 2Thes.1:7-8
fire out of his mouth devoured Psa.18:8
Is not my word like as a fire? Jer.23:9
our God is a consuming fire Heb.12:29
There's many more. The fire that destroys all evil is the presence of our Lord.
and how does that work in light of, say, Revelation 20?
The fire which came out of heaven is the Word of God. Being "cast into the fire" is just another way of saying the unsaved faced Christ on judgement day.
Jesus will come and he'll be glowing? No. His presence will set the entire universe on fire.
The point is to avoid making the claim entirely.
I'll make the claim about myself then. I admit i was wrong and needed correction.
-
You are ignoring the Hebrew defining of the terms utilized. If you held to what Scripture is saying, not what English is saying, then Scripture will be able to illuminate the truth in what God is saying. Once this illumination is accepted, then Revelation 20 can be understood.
The great white throne judgement in Rev.20 and the judgement seat of Christ in 1Cor.3 are the same judgement. It's clear not only works must pass the fire, but people also. The fire is the presence of God.
-
Our God comes, he does not keep silence, before him is a devouring fire, round about him a mighty tempest. Psa.50:3
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire 2Thes.1:7-8
fire out of his mouth devoured Psa.18:8
Is not my word like as a fire? Jer.23:9
our God is a consuming fire Heb.12:29
There's many more. The fire that destroys all evil is the presence of our Lord.
You're confusing fire with the lake of fire. So, anything?
The fire which came out of heaven is the Word of God. Being "cast into the fire" is just another way of saying the unsaved faced Christ on judgement day.
I'm not sure I follow. You had said that, "the presence of God is like an annihilating lake of fire to them" (the unsaved), yet we have judgement in v12, and in v15 those whose name was not found in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. So how are you distinguishing between these two events? It seems like you're jamming them together.
Also, what about death and hades also being thrown in the lake of fire?
v14-15, "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."
Jesus will come and he'll be glowing? No. His presence will set the entire universe on fire.
Doubt (not that he won't be glowing, but that his mere presence will see everything burning).
-
You are ignoring the Hebrew defining of the terms utilized. If you held to what Scripture is saying, not what English is saying, then Scripture will be able to illuminate the truth in what God is saying. Once this illumination is accepted, then Revelation 20 can be understood.
The great white throne judgement in Rev.20 and the judgement seat of Christ in 1Cor.3 are the same judgement. It's clear not only works must pass the fire, but people also. The fire is the presence of God.
What I encourage you to view in the verses, is that the torment is experienced forever. The torment does not end after they are found guilty, the torment begins when they are found guilty and removed eternally from the presence of God.
-
You're confusing fire with the lake of fire. So, anything?
Im comparing the presence of our Lord to a lake of fire. Here's another one,
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 2Thes.2:8
The brightness of Christ's coming is like a lake of fire to the beast.
I'm not sure I follow. You had said that, "the presence of God is like an annihilating lake of fire to them" (the unsaved), yet we have judgement in v12, and in v15 those whose name was not found in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire. So how are you distinguishing between these two events? It seems like you're jamming them together.
Not jamming them at all. Works are tried at Christs judgement seat, where people are also tried,
If someone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as through fire. 1Cor.3:15
The fire people are subjected to is the presence of Christ.
Also, what about death and hades also being thrown in the lake of fire?
v14-15, "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."
Death and the grave won't exist anymore, because Christ himself defeated them.
Doubt (not that he won't be glowing, but that his mere presence will see everything burning).
I believe the presence of God is like a raging inferno. The verses I cited say that.
-
What I encourage you to view in the verses, is that the torment is experienced forever. The torment does not end after they are found guilty, the torment begins when they are found guilty and removed eternally from the presence of God.
Forever as it pertains to this life, not the next one.
-
Forever as it pertains to this life, not the next one.
Do you have any Scripture that can support "this" age is forever? I can only find verses that teach the "next age" is forever.
-
Do you have any Scripture that can support "this" age is forever? I can only find verses that teach the "next age" is forever.
I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times. Psa.77:3 (A long time, not eternal as God is)
and he shall serve him for ever. Exo.21:6 (For the rest of his life in this world, not eternal as God is)
the everlasting hills; Deut.33:15 (Very old, but not eternal as God is)
so shall it be in the end of this world. Mt.13:40 (aiōn forever, or age)
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Rev.20:10 (to the age of the ages, for his entire life, for the evil he comitted throughout it, but not eternally like God)
-
Im comparing the presence of our Lord to a lake of fire. Here's another one,
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 2Thes.2:8
The brightness of Christ's coming is like a lake of fire to the beast.
I know that you're making the comparison, and I'm asking where that comparison justified in Scripture? I don't know how to take what you've done here with 2 Thessalonians 2:8 as anything other than eisgetical. That's not what the verse is saying.
Not jamming them at all. Works are tried at Christs judgement seat, where people are also tried,
If someone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as through fire. 1Cor.3:15
The fire people are subjected to is the presence of Christ.
Yes judgement, not punishment. You seem to be conflating the two.
Death and the grave won't exist anymore, because Christ himself defeated them.
I'm pointing out that they are places, not people.
The verses I cited say that.
Was Moses on the mountain toasty, or bright?
-
I was sticking to how the Holy Spirit inspired Moses in writing and the Hebrew term given to Moses to describe the results of the flood upon mankind and animals.
The word in question in Genesis 6 is אֶמְחֶ֨ה , Strong's interpretation https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4229.htm
-
I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times. Psa.77:3 (A long time, not eternal as God is)
and he shall serve him for ever. Exo.21:6 (For the rest of his life in this world, not eternal as God is)
the everlasting hills; Deut.33:15 (Very old, but not eternal as God is)
so shall it be in the end of this world. Mt.13:40 (aiōn forever, or age)
You just "piecemealed" severed "parts" of three verses. Doing such is literal twisting of scriptures.
Btw, here is a proper understanding of the use of "aion" in that verse:
Strong's Concordance
aión: a space of time, an age
Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aión
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')
Definition: a space of time, an age
Usage: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.
HELPS Word-studies
165 aiṓn (see also the cognate adjective, 166 /aiṓnios, "age-long") – properly, an age (era, "time-span"), characterized by a specific quality (type of existence).
Example: Christians today live in the newer age (165 /aiṓn) of the covenant – the time-period called the NT. It is characterized by Christ baptizing all believers in the Holy Spirit, i.e. engrafting all believers (OT, NT) into His mystical body (1 Cor 12:13) with all the marvelous privileges that go with that (Gal 3:23-25; 1 Pet 2:5,9).
Copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.
Your piecemealing of scripture forms a "narrative" not aligned with the inspired intent of the Matthew scripture.
-
I was sticking to how the Holy Spirit inspired Moses in writing and the Hebrew term given to Moses to describe the results of the flood upon mankind and animals.
The word in question in Genesis 6 is אֶמְחֶ֨ה , Strong's interpretation https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4229.htm
Hooah, somewhere I posted the whole page just about into a post of mine.
-
I was sticking to how the Holy Spirit inspired Moses in writing and the Hebrew term given to Moses to describe the results of the flood upon mankind and animals.
The word in question in Genesis 6 is אֶמְחֶ֨ה , Strong's interpretation https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4229.htm
What are your thoughts on the best translation of the word in context? Slug1 offered 'exterminate' earlier in the thread.
-
What are your thoughts on the best translation of the word in context? Slug1 offered 'exterminate' earlier in the thread.
I like "blot out" or even "erase". The same word occurs in Exodus 17:14 in a discussion about Amelek and the NLT translates it in this way- After the victory, the LORD instructed Moses, “Write this down on a scroll as a permanent reminder, and read it aloud to Joshua: I will erase the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
As far as the theological discussion goes, I have nothing to contribute as Jews don't see the afterlife in this way.
-
What are your thoughts on the best translation of the word in context? Slug1 offered 'exterminate' earlier in the thread.
I like "blot out" or even "erase". The same word occurs in Exodus 17:14 in a discussion about Amelek and the NLT translates it in this way- After the victory, the LORD instructed Moses, “Write this down on a scroll as a permanent reminder, and read it aloud to Joshua: I will erase the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
As far as the theological discussion goes, I have nothing to contribute as Jews don't see the afterlife in this way.
Hey brother, our beliefs are very close in the following manner. As a Christian, per my posts throughout this thread, I believe God does separate those who don't believe in Him and this separation is eternal. I also believe "per" the many definitions i.e. exterminate, blot out, erase, etc... the element of God forgetting is actually, crucial.
Here is why, many say (believe) that a "loving" God will not torment unbelievers eternally. This "fails" to account for the fact that God does not "remember" them once they are separated from Him. God also wipes away "all" tears from those who are with Him eternally... they won't remember the unbelievers as well ( we are like-Christ).
-
Hey brother,
Hiya! :)
our beliefs are very close in the following manner. As a Christian, per my posts throughout this thread, I believe God does separate those who don't believe in Him and this separation is eternal. I also believe "per" the many definitions i.e. exterminate, blot out, erase, etc... the element of God forgetting is actually, crucial.
But belief in Judaism is less fundamental than one's actions. The bible has, by Jewish count, some 613 positive and negative commands. Belief would be only one of those. Obviously it's an important one. But if someone doesn't believe, or let's even say that they aren't sure, but otherwise lead a Godly life and does as God commands, this person isn't considered lacking.
This is different from Christianity, where the belief is considered more fundamental and obligatory.
Here is why, many say (believe) that a "loving" God will not torment unbelievers eternally.
I don't believe that God torments anybody eternally. No matter how bad a person is, they haven't committed an infinite amount of sin and therefore don't deserve an infinite amount of punishment. Forget about "loving", that wouldn't even be justice, in my perspective. Even Hitler in hell eventually is punished "enough", whereupon, I believe, his soul is destroyed.
-
I know that you're making the comparison, and I'm asking where that comparison justified in Scripture? I don't know how to take what you've done here with 2 Thessalonians 2:8 as anything other than eisgetical. That's not what the verse is saying.
It says Christ destroys the wicked one by the spirit of his mouth,
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, Jn.6:63
the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Jn.12:48
There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. Psa.18:8
It also says he destroys the beast by his brightness,
The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth. Psa.97:5
Read 2Pet.3 concerning the coming of our Lord. He tells all evil will be set ablaze by Christ's coming. God is like a lake of fire to the unsaved.
Yes judgement, not punishment. You seem to be conflating the two.
Death is punishment for sin.
I'm pointing out that they are places, not people.
They're not places. They're states, or conditions of people.
Was Moses on the mountain toasty, or bright?
Moses was protected by God, like a Person who has the power to end someones life, but chooses not to.
-
You just "piecemealed" severed "parts" of three verses. Doing such is literal twisting of scriptures.
Btw, here is a proper understanding of the use of "aion" in that verse:
Strong's Concordance
aión: a space of time, an age
Original Word: αἰών, ῶνος, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aión
Phonetic Spelling: (ahee-ohn')
Definition: a space of time, an age
Usage: an age, a cycle (of time), especially of the present age as contrasted with the future age, and of one of a series of ages stretching to infinity.
HELPS Word-studies
165 aiṓn (see also the cognate adjective, 166 /aiṓnios, "age-long") – properly, an age (era, "time-span"), characterized by a specific quality (type of existence).
Example: Christians today live in the newer age (165 /aiṓn) of the covenant – the time-period called the NT. It is characterized by Christ baptizing all believers in the Holy Spirit, i.e. engrafting all believers (OT, NT) into His mystical body (1 Cor 12:13) with all the marvelous privileges that go with that (Gal 3:23-25; 1 Pet 2:5,9).
Copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.
Your piecemealing of scripture forms a "narrative" not aligned with the inspired intent of the Matthew scripture.
What I did is show how the term "forever" can refer a persons entire life. His past life. It doesn't always mean living eternally like God lives forever or eternally.
Satan and the rest of the unsaved are tormented for the ages and ages in which their sins were committed. They don't go on eternally like God.
-
What I did is show how the term "forever" can refer a persons entire life. His past life. It doesn't always mean living eternally like God lives forever or eternally.
Specific to the torment after separation from God, it does mean evermore.
Satan and the rest of the unsaved are tormented for the ages and ages in which their sins were committed. They don't go on eternally like God.
For this statement to have validity, then that also must mean the "appointed day of judgement" has already occurred in the past.
-
It says Christ destroys the wicked one by the spirit of his mouth,
"Breath" in this context, not "spirit".
It was common belief among apocalyptic groups that the messiah would defeat the ruling world power during the final war by using his words.
Called the "sword of his mouth" in Revelation 19. Called the "word of his mouth" in Psalms of Solomon 17. Called "a flaming breath" in 2 Esdras 13. Called a "conviction" in 2 Baruch 40.
In all cases, this is separate from, and precedes, the final judgment. Revelation 19-20 and 2 Esdras 7 each describe the punishment as a place of fire -- lake of fire and sulfur in Revelation, and Gehenna of fire in 2 Esdras -- that torments forever. 2 Baruch 51 doesn't mention fire, but says it will be torment.
-
Specific to the torment after separation from God, it does mean evermore.
Interestingly, the unsaved are already separated from God, walking in darkness
For this statement to have validity, then that also must mean the "appointed day of judgement" has already occurred in the past.
No. It simply means the sins they committed in the past are brought to light on judgement day.
-
"Breath" in this context, not "spirit".
As shown, it's the word Christ spoke to them.
It was common belief among apocalyptic groups that the messiah would defeat the ruling world power during the final war by using his words.
Called the "sword of his mouth" in Revelation 19. Called the "word of his mouth" in Psalms of Solomon 17. Called "a flaming breath" in 2 Esdras 13. Called a "conviction" in 2 Baruch 40.
In all cases, this is separate from, and precedes, the final judgment. Revelation 19-20 and 2 Esdras 7 each describe the punishment as a place of fire -- lake of fire and sulfur in Revelation, and Gehenna of fire in 2 Esdras -- that torments forever. 2 Baruch 51 doesn't mention fire, but says it will be torment.
Our Lord Jesus has already defeated the ruling world power by his resurrection,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: Eph.1:21
He just hasn't destroyed them yet.
-
No. It simply means the sins they committed in the past are brought to light on judgement day.
And the torment is experienced all before, or only during their judgement? I ask this because when I had no faith in Christ, I wasn't tormented by my sinful life. I also knew that all I knew who had not faith in Christ, were not tormented by their sinful life. Today, those I know who do not have faith in Christ, are not tormented by their sinful life.
-
And the torment is experienced all before, or only during their judgement? I ask this because when I had no faith in Christ, I wasn't tormented by my sinful life. I also knew that all I knew who had not faith in Christ, were not tormented by their sinful life. Today, those I know who do not have faith in Christ, are not tormented by their sinful life.
Certainly during the judgement. Of course when we come to know our Lord we are ashamed of our sins. That's why people hide their sins.
But the unsaved do have some degree of torment now, because they have fear. They're afraid of other people. They're afraid of losing what they have. They don't have the peace of God that Jesus gives us.
-
That's why people hide their sins.
I am part of a faith based recovery ministry, those "in" Christ... hide their sin and are thus, in torment. Those "not" in Christ, are not tormented.
But the unsaved do have some degree of torment now, because they have fear.
Care to provide example(s)?
They're afraid of other people.
If this is an example, I don't understand.
They're afraid of losing what they have.
What? Their worldliness? If I am correct, I would have to also disagree.
They don't have the peace of God that Jesus gives us.
Nor do many Christians until properly discipled and from discipleship, understand what "renewing" of the mind, means.
-
I am part of a faith based recovery ministry, those "in" Christ... hide their sin and are thus, in torment. Those "not" in Christ, are not tormented.
When I was unsaved, I hid sin because I feared discovery.
Care to provide example(s)?
If this is an example, I don't understand.
Sure. John said,
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. 1Jn.4:18
And Isaiah says,
I, even I, am he that comforteth you: who art thou, that thou shouldest be afraid of a man that shall die, and of the son of man which shall be made as grass; Isa.51:12
Because people do fear what others can do to them.
What? Their worldliness? If I am correct, I would have to also disagree.
That's ok. Before coming to know the Lord, money was my life and during calamity, I worried about it. It's even worse if the person is wealthy.
Nor do many Christians until properly discipled and from discipleship, understand what "renewing" of the mind, means.
I agree. Christians need to think with the mind of Christ.
-
A good example of what burns the unsaved is the two witnesses,
And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. Rev.11:5
It doesn't say their enemies are immediately killed. Jesus said,
the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Jn.12:48
It's the word of our Lord that burns up the unrepentant.
-
That is an incredible stretch. You're inventing ambiguity where there isn't any.
-
That is an incredible stretch. You're inventing ambiguity where there isn't any.
There's no difficulty seeing God's word is like fire.
-
Oh, for sure. That analogy is made many times in the Bible.
That's not the stretch. The stretch is finding ambiguity in Revelation 11:5 just because it doesn't use the word "immediately" when it says the two witnesses will kill people with the fire of their mouth.
It's a profoundly exploitative "argument from silence".
-
Journeyman, a answer that I fail to find in your posts is after a person has been judged by God and found to be not in the Book of Life (Christ is not in them), when do they cease to exist?
-
Oh, for sure. That analogy is made many times in the Bible.
That's not the stretch. The stretch is finding ambiguity in Revelation 11:5 just because it doesn't use the word "immediately" when it says the two witnesses will kill people with the fire of their mouth.
It's a profoundly exploitative "argument from silence".
Agreed. Such an answer does address physical fire (somewhat), but does not address the spiritual nature that fire has when God's supernatural power is applied. Why, I can take J's conjecture and apply it to the three men tossed in the furnace and that ONLY rope will be consumed, not human flesh.
Anyway, J's answers fails to illuminate the nature of an "eternal fire" nor does J illuminate the nature of a resurrected body.
-
Oh, for sure. That analogy is made many times in the Bible.
That's not the stretch. The stretch is finding ambiguity in Revelation 11:5 just because it doesn't use the word "immediately" when it says the two witnesses will kill people with the fire of their mouth.
It's a profoundly exploitative "argument from silence".
Not from silence at all. The Lord plainly taught against us killing his enemies.
-
Journeyman, a answer that I fail to find in your posts is after a person has been judged by God and found to be not in the Book of Life (Christ is not in them), when do they cease to exist?
At that time, after suffering the truth about themselves in front of everyone.
-
It says "anyone who wants to harm them must be killed in this manner". Which manner? The fire from their mouths.
And it drives the point home that the two witnesses also call down plagues: drought, water turned to blood, and "every kind of plague". This is straight out of Exodus, where the plagues were fatal.
These two witnesses are killing people. Claiming they don't kill people just because the word "immediately" isn't used exactly is an argument from silence.
-
Agreed. Such an answer does address physical fire (somewhat), but does not address the spiritual nature that fire has when God's supernatural power is applied. Why, I can take J's conjecture and apply it to the three men tossed in the furnace and that ONLY rope will be consumed, not human flesh.
I thought the effect God's presence has goes without saying. Your example of the 3 in the fire illustrates the faithful won't be harmed by Christ. Those who wanted to harm the faithful, they'll die.
Anyway, J's answers fails to illuminate the nature of an "eternal fire" nor does J illuminate the nature of a resurrected body.
Ive been saying all along God's person is like fire and God is eternal. I think i told you Slug, the unsaved aren't raised immortal.
-
It says "anyone who wants to harm them must be killed in this manner". Which manner? The fire from their mouths.
Yes, I know. God's word spoken will judge them,
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. Lk.10:16
And it drives the point home that the two witnesses also call down plagues: drought, water turned to blood, and "every kind of plague". This is straight out of Exodus, where the plagues were fatal.
These two witnesses are killing people. Claiming they don't kill people just because the word "immediately" isn't used exactly is an argument from silence.
It does sound much like Egypt and those plagues were for the purpose of repentance.
-
Ive been saying all along God's person is like fire and God is eternal. I think i told you Slug, the unsaved aren't raised immortal.
Have you researched the Greek term "apollumi" for the English word, "destroyed?" I know that "annihilationist's" will use this term to mean total destruction (eliminated), but this also fails to understand the meaning of the term. It is more about loss of well-being. In conjunction with this condition, is that the loss lasts forever. Meaning the resurrection of the unrighteous must mean their forms are everlasting. Otherwise, the inspired term given to the writers to utilize, would make no sense if an unrighteous resurrected body was not eternal in nature.
-
It does sound much like Egypt and those plagues were for the purpose of repentance.
That isn't in the text anywhere. Explicitly, in the text, those plagues were a punishment because the Egyptians would not allow the Hebrews to go free.
If one wishes to look further, the concept of God being glorified through the power of the plagues may be found. For example, Exodus 10:1-2 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them, that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the Lord.” And again in Exodus 11:9 The Lord had said to Moses, “Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.”
But repentance? Nowhere in the text.
-
Have you researched the Greek term "apollumi" for the English word, "destroyed?" I know that "annihilationist's" will use this term to mean total destruction (eliminated), but this also fails to understand the meaning of the term. It is more about loss of well-being. In conjunction with this condition, is that the loss lasts forever. Meaning the resurrection of the unrighteous must mean their forms are everlasting. Otherwise, the inspired term given to the writers to utilize, would make no sense if an unrighteous resurrected body was not eternal in nature.
The meaning of "apollumi" is debatable. The compassion of our Lord is not and does not describe never ending torment. It isn't in his nature to allow it.
-
That isn't in the text anywhere. Explicitly, in the text, those plagues were a punishment because the Egyptians would not allow the Hebrews to go free.
If one wishes to look further, the concept of God being glorified through the power of the plagues may be found. For example, Exodus 10:1-2 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them, that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the Lord.” And again in Exodus 11:9 The Lord had said to Moses, “Pharaoh will refuse to listen to you—so that my wonders may be multiplied in Egypt.”
But repentance? Nowhere in the text.
The opportunity for repentance is offered to every sinner,
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Rom.9:16-18
-
The meaning of "apollumi" is debatable. The compassion of our Lord is not and does not describe never ending torment. It isn't in his nature to allow it.
We cannot fully understand His righteous nature, nor His sovereignty. What is revealed in Scripture about eternal punishment certainly "can be" fully within "His" righteousness and sovereignty.
If I may point out as well, the same Greek term for everlasting/eternal (Strongs 166), is used in Scriptures referring to life and punishment. Meaning, one cannot NOT be everlasting/eternal and the other IS everlasting/eternal. Your understanding concerning eternal punishment and eternal life puts the meaning of the term "at odds". You are attempting to "make" the meaning of the term mean two OPPOSITE meanings = only life is everlasting when the word is used, but the same term doesn't mean everlasting, when used for punishment.
-
We cannot fully understand His righteous nature, nor His sovereignty. What is revealed in Scripture about eternal punishment certainly "can be" fully within "His" righteousness and sovereignty.
If I may point out as well, the same Greek term for everlasting/eternal (Strongs 166), is used in Scriptures referring to life and punishment. Meaning, one cannot NOT be everlasting/eternal and the other IS everlasting/eternal. Your understanding concerning eternal punishment and eternal life puts the meaning of the term "at odds". You are attempting to "make" the meaning of the term mean two OPPOSITE meanings = only life is everlasting when the word is used, but the same term doesn't mean everlasting, when used for punishment.
We may not fully understand God's righteous nature, but we're moving in that direction, being transformed into his image.
Eternal torment isn't the opposite of eternal life.
-
Eternal torment isn't the opposite of eternal life.
I'm referring to how you are saying the term describing how long life in heaven is = eternal, yet the same term concerning how long punishment apart from heaven is = not eternal.
You are taking a single word, with a single meaning and making it mean two opposing meanings so you can continue to stand on a theology.
Here is an example per Scripture:
Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Greek 166 is the same in revealing HOW LONG everlasting punishment is and eternal life is. However, you and only you, are saying that term has two opposing meanings. With punishment = NOT everlasting/eternal and with life = IS everlasting/eternal.
-
I'm referring to how you are saying the term describing how long life in heaven is = eternal, yet the same term concerning how long punishment apart from heaven is = not eternal.
You are taking a single word, with a single meaning and making it mean two opposing meanings so you can continue to stand on a theology.
Here is an example per Scripture:
Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Greek 166 is the same in revealing HOW LONG everlasting punishment is and eternal life is. However, you and only you, are saying that term has two opposing meanings. With punishment = NOT everlasting/eternal and with life = IS everlasting/eternal.
The punishment for sin is death, which is eternal. Torment isn't eternsl.
-
The punishment for sin is death, which is eternal. Torment isn't eternsl.
The punishment/death is experienced forever. What that experience is, is revealed as tormenting. We cannot change what scripture reveals because sometime doesn't fit one's personal image of God's nature.
Your theology and all you say, states that punishment is NOT forever and that it has an end.
-
The punishment/death is experienced forever. What that experience is, is revealed as tormenting. We cannot change what scripture reveals because sometime doesn't fit one's personal image of God's nature.
Your theology and all you say, states that punishment is NOT forever and that it has an end.
Death isn't cast into the lake of fire to exist eternally. It's cast into the lake of fire so that it no longer exists.....eternally.
I'm not changing what scripture says. I'm changing the false teaching I was indoctrinated with for years.
-
The punishment/death is experienced forever. What that experience is, is revealed as tormenting. We cannot change what scripture reveals because sometime doesn't fit one's personal image of God's nature.
Your theology and all you say, states that punishment is NOT forever and that it has an end.
Death isn't cast into the lake of fire to exist eternally. It's cast into the lake of fire so that it no longer exists.....eternally.
I'm not changing what scripture says. I'm changing the false teaching I was indoctrinated with for years.
How can you drop the "indoctrination" card when I've attempted to help you with the meaning of the Greek terms utilized by the writers when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal what God wants mankind to know, through His Word?
The use of terms/language shows you (teaches) that the punishment is experienced evermore. Man lives and has a choice to make, those who choose to believe, have life evermore. Those who choose NOT to believe, are punished evermore. The term used means "forever more" and the term is used for both life and punishment.
Again, to say that the term means evermore for life but not for punishment, is to change the meaning of the Scripture.
-
How can you drop the "indoctrination" card when I've attempted to help you with the meaning of the Greek terms utilized by the writers when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal what God wants mankind to know, through His Word?
I'm just telling you how I was. I didn't ask God for counsel concerning church doctrine. I simply accepted it.
The use of terms/language shows you (teaches) that the punishment is experienced evermore. Man lives and has a choice to make, those who choose to believe, have life evermore. Those who choose NOT to believe, are punished evermore. The term used means "forever more" and the term is used for both life and punishment.
Again, to say that the term means evermore for life but not for punishment, is to change the meaning of the Scripture.
Having life extinguished will be permanent for the unrepentant. The fear of having ones sinful deeds exposed is an event which doesn't go on eternally,
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Mt.12:36
There won't be anywhere to hide. The unsaved will be naked before our Lord.
-
There won't be anywhere to hide. The unsaved will be naked before our Lord.
Agreed, 100%. I'm talking about the punishment AFTER judgement.
-
Agreed, 100%. I'm talking about the punishment AFTER judgement.
The punishment after the torment is the death of the body, soul and spirit.
-
The punishment after the torment is the death of the body, soul and spirit.
Jesus says the punishment lasts forever. The point of Jesus emphasizing that the punishment lasts evermore is because He doesn't want people to experience everlasting torment of the punishment. Jesus' Gospel message that "He" spoke revealed a consequence for rejecting Him.
Your point rejects what Jesus is emphasizing as you emphasize that those separated from God, will NOT experience the torment of everlasting punishment. Your message of the gospel means there is NO consequence for rejecting Jesus. Your message only as "judgement" as part of your gospel but no punishment.
Need I start posting the Scriptures about "changing" the Gospel?
-
Your message of the gospel means there is NO consequence for rejecting Jesus. Your message only as "judgement" as part of your gospel but no punishment.
I've heard this claim, but only from people who want to avoid death. And the gospel according to the justice of God has been bastardized by theologians.
-
I've heard this claim, but only from people who want to avoid death. And the gospel according to the justice of God has been bastardized by theologians.
It is difficult to take your post seriously because your position teaches that "death" is avoided. Jesus says the punishment of "death" is torturous and experienced evermore.
-
It is difficult to take your post seriously because your position teaches that "death" is avoided. Jesus says the punishment of "death" is torturous and experienced evermore.
God uses suffering to draw sinners to himself and our Lord Jesus came to put an end to death. Our merciful Lord has no purpose for unending torment.
Believers led by the Holy Spirit know that to allow torment solely for the purpose of torment is wrong.
-
God uses suffering to draw sinners to himself and our Lord Jesus came to put an end to death. Our merciful Lord has no purpose for unending torment.
Yet, Jesus accounts for the unending torment suffered by those separated from Him following their judgement.
Believers led by the Holy Spirit know that to allow torment solely for the purpose of torment is wrong.
This is only your theology, again Jesus accounts for the truth... those judged as unbelievers will be separated from Him after their judgement and suffer torment evermore.
-
Yet, Jesus accounts for the unending torment suffered by those separated from Him following their judgement.
This is only your theology, again Jesus accounts for the truth... those judged as unbelievers will be separated from Him after their judgement and suffer torment evermore.
Jesus taught how the unrepentant are tormented by exposure of their sins and having their existence ended at the judgement seat of Christ,
As the driving away of smoke Thou drivest away, As the melting of wax before fire, The wicked perish at the presence of God. Psa.68:2
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire....2Thes.1:7-8
It's not difficult to see how our Lord is seen as an all consuming lake of fire to all evil.
-
Jesus taught how the unrepentant are tormented by exposure of their sins and having their existence ended at the judgement seat of Christ,
As the driving away of smoke Thou drivest away, As the melting of wax before fire, The wicked perish at the presence of God. Psa.68:2
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire....2Thes.1:7-8
This only addresses before judgement and at the judgement, you are not addressing AFTER the judgement.
It's not difficult to see how our Lord is seen as an all consuming lake of fire to all evil.
True, but again, this does not address what happens AFTER judgement.
-
This only addresses before judgement and at the judgement, you are not addressing AFTER the judgement.
True, but again, this does not address what happens AFTER judgement.
The judgement seat of Christ is not only for trying conduct, but people also,
If someone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as through fire.[/u] 1Cor.3:15
Paul is saying the person himself will be saved, if he survives our Lord's presence.
-
The judgement seat of Christ is not only for trying conduct, but people also,
If someone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only as through fire.[/u] 1Cor.3:15
Paul is saying the person himself will be saved, if he survives our Lord's presence.
Ya just jumped a topic that is unrelated to the unbelievers experiencing torment AFTER God removes them from His presence for evermore. Inform me when you want to jump back.
-
Ya just jumped a topic that is unrelated to the unbelievers experiencing torment AFTER God removes them from His presence for evermore. Inform me when you want to jump back.
I didn't jump anything, because "everlasting" pertains to judgement for this life, whether works or the petson himself endures, or vanishes.