Can Matthew 10:28 and Ezek 18:4 be believed just as they are written?

[BobRyan]

You cannot just make a claim that three millenniums of Jews should have believed Scripture means what you believe about this and think you have made a point about the parable of the dead being. .

While a tiny group might have believed in prayers to the dead just as you say -- and that Abraham was in charge of all the dead saints in heaven - and that Christ was God such that He was watching all conversations between the dead -- and could therefore accurately report late breaking news on the latest conversations between the dead etc.

It is certain that this is not the belief of those Jews to whom Christ addressed the parable - the ones who were scoffing at His parables up to that point in time.

 

[BobRyan]

Jews listening to Christ's parable in Luke 16 who were likely to "believe the Bible" , would have been prone to accept these texts "as they read"

Eccl 9:4-6
Isaiah 38:18-19
Psalms 146:3-4
Psalms 6:5
Psalms 30:9
Psalms 115:17

And they may be right.

Is 38
18 “For Sheol cannot thank You,
Death cannot praise You;
Those who go down to the pit cannot hope for Your faithfulness.
19 “It is the living who give thanks to You, as I do today;
A father tells his sons about Your faithfulness.

Psalm 146:3-4(NASB)
3 Do not trust in princes,
In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.
4 His spirit departs, he returns to the earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.

Psalm 6:5
5 For there is no mention of You in death;
In Sheol who will give You thanks?

Psalm 30:9
9 “What profit is there in my blood, if I go down to the pit?
Will the dust praise You? Will it declare Your faithfulness?


Psalms 115:17
17 The dead do not praise the Lord,
Nor do any who go down into silence;

Eccl 9:4-6
4 For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. 5 For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. 6 Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.

Is 66
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Mal 4
For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

Ezek 28
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18 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.
19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.


These texts help us know what the Sadducees might have been thinking when Christ affirms their own teaching that "God is not the God of the dead but of the living".

 

[BobRyan]

My post #116 was stated as a response to this -

Root of Jesse said: ↑
Do you believe everything every Church Father says? Or do you pick and choose? The Church accepts what the Church Fathers wrote that was correct, and does not accept what they wrote that was not. In other words, they aren't infallible.

This was post #116

===="BobRyan, post: 68867659, member: 235244"]Why would anyone turn a blind eye to Mark 7:6-13 to believe anything that man-made tradition happens to come up with?

Surely you are not suggesting that -- are you?

Because Mark 7:6-13 makes the sola scriptura solution clear enough --

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that

You have to "prove" that you did not say in post #116 that God said in Mark 7 that we can reject "anything" we want if it can be said to be a tradition of men.

I have highlighted your statement in bold -- that you would like to attribute to me - in post 116. I have included post 116 here so all can see that your statement -- claiming that I said any such thing in 116 -- is without evidence in fact.

I did not say "God said in Mark 7 we can reject "anything" that is a tradition of men. Rather I was making the point in response to the suggestion that perhaps I (or someone) was going around accepting every wild goose story that happens to come along to us as tradition from ECFs -- as man's tradition. My response was to the contrary saying we should test what is being said to see if it contradicts rather than simply accepting anything that comes along.

I see a pattern here given your refusal to admit you are lying

your factless accusation "noted".

To which I called you out on claiming Jesus in Mark 7 claimed we reject or even test ALL or ANYTHING labeled tradition.

Anyone actually reading Mark 7 can see just where Christ uses terms to identify "tradition".

Mark 7
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that

And clearly the "Sola Scriptura" teaching of the Protestants accepting Christ's model in Mark 7 is to test all doctrine and tradition against scripture to see if it contradicts or not. The nonsensical idea that they then must claim that all doctrine and tradition are shown to be in error -- is of course not taken seriously by anyone on this board.

And in reply you claim you did not understand why I called you out for claiming Mark 7 supports your stated twice notion that Jesus says we can/should reject all tradition

Indeed - as noted above - no one takes that false accusation seriously.

 

[BobRyan]

My post #116 was stated as a response to this -

Root of Jesse said: ↑
Do you believe everything every Church Father says? Or do you pick and choose? The Church accepts what the Church Fathers wrote that was correct, and does not accept what they wrote that was not. In other words, they aren't infallible.

This was post #116

====="BobRyan, post: 68867659, member: 235244"]Why would anyone turn a blind eye to Mark 7:6-13 to believe anything that man-made tradition happens to come up with?

Surely you are not suggesting that -- are you?

Because Mark 7:6-13 makes the sola scriptura solution clear enough --

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

You have to "prove" that you did not say in post #116 that God said in Mark 7 that we can reject "anything" we want if it can be said to be a tradition of men.

I have highlighted your statement in bold -- that you would like to attribute to me - in post 116. I have included post 116 here so all can see that your statement -- claiming that I said any such thing in 116 -- is without evidence in fact.

I did not say "God said in Mark 7 we can reject "anything" that is a tradition of men. Rather I was making the point in response to the suggestion that perhaps I (or someone) was going around accepting every wild goose story that happens to come along to us as tradition from ECFs -- as man's tradition. My response was to the contrary saying we should test what is being said to see if it contradicts rather than simply accepting anything that comes along.

BTW Bob, this is another gross distortion

Another false accusation - that is not supported in real life??.

please be serious.

I just noticed and perhaps you would like to retract now and claim it was not your intent. In this case of your opinion about Root of Jesse's comment at best - and am not certain it was meant to be taken for what I could consider "at best" as it seems rather intentional towards me and disparaging towards Root of Jesse as well. Which is why I added empty quote to him as when people make embedded comments in a reply to me which are either directed at or allegedly attributable to someone else, am not sure that other person has been given sufficient notice of it. Nor in this particular case do I think the person doing so has any good intent in making such remarks, so I thought Root of Jesse should see this.

A more convoluted line would be hard to imagine. feel free to come right and and make a point that can be shown to hold up to the actual details that have been posted.

Root was replying not to someone who particularly holds any belief of a ECF in any regard, but to someone who had suggested because in HIS OPINION one particular ECF quotes (there are actually 2 others) have been allegedly said by some (meaning in some credible position to know) to have supported a very unorthodox position which that poster suggested to Root meant that the orthodox here are unable to appeal to that particular ECF and essentially being dishonest with themselves

Again - your sentence structure makes it nearly impossible to follow your point.

I said before I am not even certain one understands much less have used that method in explaining why you clearly said Mark 7 has Jesus "hammering the traditions" of the one true Church of His day.

On the contrary - it is obvious to all that I have pointed to Christ's own use of the "Sola Scriptura" method in Mark 7 and I repeatedly show that He was using it at the very highest levels -- using it against traditions of the one-true nation church magisterium of his day. Showing how even THEY could be held accountable to this "Sola Scriptura" test of Mark 7 - to "see iF those things spoken to them -were SO" Acts 17:11

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Not sure how that display of logic helps your case that we aught to play "yes it does, no it doesn't" but I can agree perhaps that not everyone is prepared to address facts logically and would prefer to play games they think they are good at. Games which like tic-tac-toe prove nothing other than one likes to play games. I for one enjoy games, but those type of games do not appeal me to me anymore unless it is with my grandkids, and some of them need help learning the logic lessons of such games so am happy to play with them. I would like to assume most of us here have learned those lessons already. Which is why someone here expressing, no insisting they need or want to try to improve their skill at such games here is really lost on me. Fun stuff though, have at it with someone else.

I've been watching this discussion from the sidelines, and I've got to say that you have a penchant for tormenting yourself with endless debate. The problem, here, is that the apparent jury in this debate would seem to be the opposing counsel, which means that the opponent can only lose if he wishes to. It's a hopeless cause, and you know it.

The facts, as I see it, say that

• Hell is a place of everlasting fire. Everlasting fire without an everlasting fuel makes no sense. Hell does not exist just because God thinks fire is pretty.
• Hell is a place where the worm does not die, which is to say that the process of decaying never reaches completion. Hell is not a place full of starving worms. They didn't do anything wrong, and I hardly think the worms were sent there to suffer forever.
• Hell has been called the "abyss," which is thought to be a bottomless pit. It follows the same line of thought as above, being a process that necessarily implies an eventual conclusion, but that conclusion never comes. A person can fall forever, just as he can burn forever and decay forever, without ever being fully expended. If it is not bottomless, then it is still eternally permanent, being a place of prison for the spiritual beings forever.
• No one needs to be resurrected to go to Hell. People in Hell are genuinely dead. They are also permanently in the state of being destroyed.
• Adam and Eve were told that they would die the very same day that they took the forbidden fruit. All that happened that day was that they were kicked out of paradise into this land of the living. Some people think that Adam and Eve did not die that day, but they did very much die. The Fall was that death. This world, relative to Hell, is also a paradise, and the day we die we are kicked out of this paradise into a second death. Being in Hell is the second death.
• A soul in Hell is nonexistent in this world. All verses implying that death is nonexistence hold true for a soul in Hell. A soul in Hell is out of sight, out of mind and nonexistent, for all intents and purposes. For that very reason, this entire discussion has no practical value if all of the participants escape Hell. Hopefully, none of us will ever go there. Those who do go there won't believe in Hell, anyway, making this discussion equally useless to them, also.

No, the real problem with eternal suffering is not that the Bible suggests otherwise. The real problem is just that Hell is so incredibly awful that some people very much do not want to believe in it. I cannot blame them for not wanting it, nor do I want them to want it. However, there is no logic, no evidence, no scripture or any authority to convince them that everlasting suffering is a thing to want to believe in. I cannot reason a man into wanting what he fundamentally does not want. Hence, I think that this discussion has the potential to continue for as long as Hell, itself, though hopefully not as torturous. DrBubbaLove, I admire your effort, but I think you're a glutton for punishment, having argued this long and hard.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That is a far cry from what you claim I said---



And this is why it is non-productive to discuss anything with you. You do not seem to understand what is written and you twist things around and make statements that I have said this or that when I hadn't. And then you use more words than anyone I've ever read to say nothing. Sorry, but this is useless. This is game playing at a level I've seldom seen. Unbelievable. If you can't answer the question, then don't, but don't make stuff up! I asked for scriptures, you won't give them---fine, not a problem. They are obviously not there and neither are your ideas about forever torment in hell, not that you will ever admit that. It is more than obvious what the OT Jews believed as they wrote those verses you do not seem to like and want to make them mean something that was decided (by non-Jews )they meant hundreds of years after they were written. It's your right to believe whatever you want.

And you have dismissed facts with seven words, asked me to show where you did, did so and now denied you did so and rant that you can't get someone to engage you with what amounts to a game of tic-tac-toe. Ok you win that game. I conceded your Scripture rendering trumps anything anyone else can say. That was easy. You're the tic-tac=toe Scripture citing champ of the year. Here is your sign. Whenever you are done celebrating, come back and let's play an adult game.

When you want to have a real discussion and have finished sharping your ability to cut and paste Scripture posts, invite me back to engage in a real discussion whenever you feel ready. And whenever you are ready let's start with your explaining the delima of having God not only ignore an impeded tradition you have claimed is wrong, but provides support for reinforcing that view to the people holding it. After you have rested of course.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I've been watching this discussion from the sidelines, and I've got to say that you have a penchant for tormenting yourself with endless debate. The problem, here, is that the apparent jury in this debate would seem to be the opposing counsel, which means that the opponent can only lose if he wishes to. It's a hopeless cause, and you know it.

The facts, as I see it, say that

• Hell is a place of everlasting fire. Everlasting fire without an everlasting fuel makes no sense. Hell does not exist just because God thinks fire is pretty.
• Hell is a place where the worm does not die, which is to say that the process of decaying never reaches completion. Hell is not a place full of starving worms. They didn't do anything wrong, and I hardly think the worms were sent there to suffer forever.
• Hell has been called the "abyss," which is thought to be a bottomless pit. It follows the same line of thought as above, being a process that necessarily implies an eventual conclusion, but that conclusion never comes. A person can fall forever, just as he can burn forever and decay forever, without ever being fully expended. If it is not bottomless, then it is still eternally permanent, being a place of prison for the spiritual beings forever.
• No one needs to be resurrected to go to Hell. People in Hell are genuinely dead. They are also permanently in the state of being destroyed.
• Adam and Eve were told that they would die the very same day that they took the forbidden fruit. All that happened that day was that they were kicked out of paradise into this land of the living. Some people think that Adam and Eve did not die that day, but they did very much die. The Fall was that death. This world, relative to Hell, is also a paradise, and the day we die we are kicked out of this paradise into a second death. Being in Hell is the second death.
• A soul in Hell is nonexistent in this world. All verses implying that death is nonexistence hold true for a soul in Hell. A soul in Hell is out of sight, out of mind and nonexistent, for all intents and purposes. For that very reason, this entire discussion has no practical value if all of the participants escape Hell. Hopefully, none of us will ever go there. Those who do go there won't believe in Hell, anyway, making this discussion equally useless to them, also.

No, the real problem with eternal suffering is not that the Bible suggests otherwise. The real problem is just that Hell is so incredibly awful that some people very much do not want to believe in it. I cannot blame them for not wanting it, nor do I want them to want it. However, there is no logic, no evidence, no scripture or any authority to convince them that everlasting suffering is a thing to want to believe in. I cannot reason a man into wanting what he fundamentally does not want. Hence, I think that this discussion has the potential to continue for as long as Hell, itself, though hopefully not as torturous. DrBubbaLove, I admire your effort, but I think you're a glutton for punishment, having argued this long and hard.

Thanks for your support and you summarized very well. Am currently recovering from conceding a match of tic-tac-toe against the current self declared champion BobRyan

 

[DrBubbaLove]

My post #116 was stated as a response to this -



This was post #116

====="BobRyan, post: 68867659, member: 235244"]Why would anyone turn a blind eye to Mark 7:6-13 to believe anything that man-made tradition happens to come up with?

Surely you are not suggesting that -- are you?

Because Mark 7:6-13 makes the sola scriptura solution clear enough --

6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”



I have highlighted your statement in bold -- that you would like to attribute to me - in post 116. I have included post 116 here so all can see that your statement -- claiming that I said any such thing in 116 -- is without evidence in fact.

I did not say "God said in Mark 7 we can reject "anything" that is a tradition of men. Rather I was making the point in response to the suggestion that perhaps I (or someone) was going around accepting every wild goose story that happens to come along to us as tradition from ECFs -- as man's tradition. My response was to the contrary saying we should test what is being said to see if it contradicts rather than simply accepting anything that comes along.




Another false accusation - that is not supported in real life??.

please be serious.




A more convoluted line would be hard to imagine. feel free to come right and and make a point that can be shown to hold up to the actual details that have been posted.




Again - your sentence structure makes it nearly impossible to follow your point.




On the contrary - it is obvious to all that I have pointed to Christ's own use of the "Sola Scriptura" method in Mark 7 and I repeatedly show that He was using it at the very highest levels -- using it against traditions of the one-true nation church magisterium of his day. Showing how even THEY could be held accountable to this "Sola Scriptura" test of Mark 7 - to "see iF those things spoken to them -were SO" Acts 17:11

Like I said, you can back track it all you wish and make up a reason for why you stated what you stated which the background given in your post does not even match why Root of Jesse said what he said. The "guy" you claim was running around quoting ECFs was on your side of this thread and using a quote of an ECF in response to Jesse in order to ridicule our position, which still obviously escapes notice of even a tic-tac-toe champion. Imagine that.

You have your reasons for not being able to fess up to even having made an overstatement which reflects a deep seated indoctrination against the Church and I get. Peasce be with you.

 

[Timothew]

...even though you spewed much in the above post I could equally disagree with...

It is hardly fair of you to ask me a million questions and then when it takes me more than 100 words to answer them to call my answer "spew".

Do you want to discuss what the Bible has to say about this decently or not?

 

[Timothew]

Thanks for entering the discussion. I hope that I can clear up some of your misconceptions.

The facts, as I see it, say that

We are talking about what the Bible says. The facts are what the Bible says, I hope we agree on that.

Hell is a place of everlasting fire. Everlasting fire without an everlasting fuel makes no sense. Hell does not exist just because God thinks fire is pretty.

Jesus specifically said that the fire destroys both body and soul, remember Matthew 10:28? So how can it be claimed that the fire doesn't destroy both body and soul without contradicting what He said? Also the Matthew 3:12 says that the chaff will be burnt up. How can the "chaff" remain on fire forever if it is burnt up? It can't. The Bible says that the wicked will perish and will be destroyed. Fire destroys what it burns. If the unrepentant will exist forever, why doesn't the Bible ever say that? If the Bible intends for us to believe that the wicked will not be destroyed, why does the Bible say that their end is destruction? Phillipians 3:19

Hell is a place where the worm does not die, which is to say that the process of decaying never reaches completion. Hell is not a place full of starving worms. They didn't do anything wrong, and I hardly think the worms were sent there to suffer forever.

The quote about fireproof immortal worms comes from Isaiah 66:24.
Here it is:
“And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
As you can see, the worms are eating dead bodies. If this is a picture of hell, then those who are in it are dead. This does not prove that those who are in hell are alive and conscious of torment forever. This is better proof that the wicked are destroyed than it is proof that the wicked remain alive in hell forever after they die. The same goes for the fire. It is burning dead bodies, not the souls of the living dead.

Hell has been called the "abyss," which is thought to be a bottomless pit. It follows the same line of thought as above, being a process that necessarily implies an eventual conclusion, but that conclusion never comes. A person can fall forever, just as he can burn forever and decay forever, without ever being fully expended. If it is not bottomless, then it is still eternally permanent, being a place of prison for the spiritual beings forever.

The Bible says that the wicked will perish and will be no more. The abyss is figurative language from the Book of Revelation which, as you know, is filled with figurative language.

No one needs to be resurrected to go to Hell.

No one has claimed that they do. The Bible says that people are resurrected for judgment. We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. That is where the judgment takes place and the saved are given eternal life and the wicked are sent to destruction. Peter calls this day "the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly". Since it is the day of "destruction of the ungodly" how can it be a day of non-destruction of the ungodly?

People in Hell are genuinely dead.

That's what I am saying. They are dead, which means that they are not alive. They are not conscious, so they are not conscious of eternal torment. If you think about it, they could not experience eternal torment anyway, since they would need to have eternal life to be tormented alive forever, and only those who put their faith in Christ will receive eternal life.

They are also permanently in the state of being destroyed.

A thing can either be destroyed or not destroyed. "Permanently in the state of being destroyed" makes no logical sense. Also, the Bible does not say that the wicked are "permanently in the state of being destroyed". The Bible says that "their end is destruction".

Adam and Eve were told that they would die the very same day that they took the forbidden fruit. All that happened that day was that they were kicked out of paradise into this land of the living. Some people think that Adam and Eve did not die that day, but they did very much die. The Fall was that death. This world, relative to Hell, is also a paradise, and the day we die we are kicked out of this paradise into a second death. Being in Hell is the second death.

God said that Adam and Eve would die if they ate the fruit and they did die. They did not die the same day they ate the fruit. Adam died much later, just as God said he would. Genesis 5:5 records the death of Adam.A soul in

Hell is nonexistent in this world. All verses implying that death is nonexistence hold true for a soul in Hell. A soul in Hell is out of sight, out of mind and nonexistent, for all intents and purposes. For that very reason, this entire discussion has no practical value if all of the participants escape Hell. Hopefully, none of us will ever go there. Those who do go there won't believe in Hell, anyway, making this discussion equally useless to them, also.

Since the Bible says that the wicked will perish and will be no more, they cannot continue to exist forever in hell or anywhere else. Unless the Bible is wrong?

No, the real problem with eternal suffering is not that the Bible suggests otherwise.

Actually, that is the problem with the doctrine of eternal suffering. There is no Biblical basis for it, and it is contradicted by many passages in the Bible that say that the wicked perish, they will be destroyed and they will be no more.

The real problem is just that Hell is so incredibly awful that some people very much do not want to believe in it. I cannot blame them for not wanting it, nor do I want them to want it.

If the Bible, just once, said that that the wicked would go to hell when they die where they would be tormented alive forever - and if it didn't also say that the wicked would perish and will be no more, then I would believe that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will live forever in torment. It isn't a matter of what you or I wish were true. It is a matter of what the Bible says is true. But the shoe fits your foot as well. If those of us who believe that the wages of sin is death only believe that because we don't want to believe in hell and not because the Bible says it, then you must believe in eternal torment because that is what you want to believe. The only reason that I believe that the wages of sin is death is because the Bible says so.

However, there is no logic, no evidence, no scripture or any authority to convince them that everlasting suffering is a thing to want to believe in.

There is no scripture that says that the wicked go to hell when they die where they will suffer alive for all eternity. But there are many scriptures that specifically state that the wicked will perish and will be no more. What matters is what the Bible says, not what you want to be true.

I cannot reason a man into wanting what he fundamentally does not want.

The discussion is about what the Bible says. If you have scripture that proves that hell is everlasting torment, then post it. I have no reason to believe something that is not true.

Hence, I think that this discussion has the potential to continue for as long as Hell, itself, though hopefully not as torturous.

I believe the reason that this discussion goes on so long is that people who want to believe in eternal conscious torment stubbornly refuse to accept what the Bible plainly states.

Do you accept that Matthew 10:28 and Ezekiel 18:4 mean what they plainly state, or do you refuse to accept them because of a presumption of eternal torment?

 

[Timothew]

Like I said, you can back track it all you wish and make up a reason for why you stated what you stated which the background given in your post does not even match why Root of Jesse said what he said. The "guy" you claim was running around quoting ECFs was on your side of this thread and using a quote of an ECF in response to Jesse in order to ridicule our position, which still obviously escapes notice of even a tic-tac-toe champion. Imagine that.

You have your reasons for not being able to fess up to even having made an overstatement which reflects a deep seated indoctrination against the Church and I get. Peasce be with you.

Bubba, you claimed that the Church believed in ECT for 2000 years. I was not "ridiculing your position". I was showing you that the whole church did not believe in ECT for 2000 years. The fact that Irenaeus believed in the wicked discontinue to exist is not ridicule of your position. If you want to claim that the ECFs believed in ECT, you need to prove that. But even if you were able to prove that, it wouldn't change what the Bible says. The ECFs were human and could be just as wrong as you are.

 

[Timothew]

Thanks for your support and you summarized very well. Am currently recovering from conceding a match of tic-tac-toe against the current self declared champion BobRyan

Bob defeated you in your tic-tac-toe.
Actually the Scriptures that Bob posted defeated you. If you want to defeat Bob, you need to go to each of the scriptures he posted and prove that they do not mean what they say.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It is hardly fair of you to ask me a million questions and then when it takes me more than 100 words to answer them to call my answer "spew".

Do you want to discuss what the Bible has to say about this decently or not?

Actually "spew all over the table", which "spew" is short form at least in my world, is not or was not intended as a negative phrase directed at you as much as reflecting a similar sentiment you had in writing the above reply. People in meetings or teleconf can do that when upset about one point and in the process make a jumbled lengthy reply covering many points, maybe related maybe not, so all present are not sure which point to address in reply or if the speaker had a preference or priority what that was or how those points relate to what someone might have said earlier.
After reading your complaint about the length/my prior 4 posts - I thought I taken the time/effort to make four ordered replies to a lengthy one of yours and in return was getting a single one that felt I would be unable to easily determine which if any of my responses to you that post was making - much less keep it short as you seemed to expressing the desire for with some angst. So unlike my prior ordered effort to cover all the issues, which you specifically asked me to do, and in an effort to address that angst about me complying with your request, I picked a single point and made a brief reply without much effort at all on my part - especially compared to what I felt was my prior 4 rather direct, ordered, mid-size and focused replies as a response (in sequence) to issues you had raised and specifically asked me to address.

In doing that I realized you and others would have no idea why I had focused on only one thing you said in that one reply - so I had to say something. My choice of wordings reflected all that without going into the detail I just did, did not mean to offend you buy saying "spew" and still think it accurately described the situation from my view, at least at that particular moment, as you actually then followed with another reply to another (I think) of those earlier multi-responses posts of mine. So yeah I am fine and will continue to be careful with my choice of words with you.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Bubba, you claimed that the Church believed in ECT for 2000 years. I was not "ridiculing your position". I was showing you that the whole church did not believe in ECT for 2000 years. The fact that Irenaeus believed in the wicked discontinue to exist is not ridicule of your position. If you want to claim that the ECFs believed in ECT, you need to prove that. But even if you were able to prove that, it wouldn't change what the Bible says. The ECFs were human and could be just as wrong as you are.

Again, one cannot make claims about something someone said, even here without having support. If the person is not here to speak for themselves it becomes difficult to "prove" the claim as you cannot ask them to back you up. You just chided someone,nonaeroterraqueous, who had in one post summarized my position exactly. Your chides include multiple claims that are simply not true. Like this: "scripture says" -when actually -Neither of our positions is properly that if only Scripture clearly said something we could "prove" with Scripture our point. Our positions are that Scripture supports our points - which is a claim most Christians can or at least should make. So you cannot in a lengthy reply just claim Scripture "says" this or that and pretend that is the only way someone can read it. To you it is the proper way - but it is not the only way. If you are not willing to admit that much, then you are not admitting reality.

To this reply above. As I said in much earlier response and because I do face reality even correctly gave you two more possible ECF bullets for you to make a false target besides the single ECF Father quote you wanted to focus on, and you obviously do not have a full picture of even that single ECFs work you quoted from to make the claims you do. You were not willing to admit that the Saint you quoted was writing not in a forum where people complain about the volume of replies, but in a lengthy multi-volume collection of a targeted response (probably representing multiple letters to which we do not have any replies) to people in the Church holding a particular heresy. In that response he covers many things, including the issue in the quote you raise. If people studying that doc far longer, and with more qualification than me and I suspect you as well, can tell me that, guys it is not clear at all that in saying what he said he is really endorsing that view or even that he believes it or is just mentioning a way to look at it - especially if you consider what else that same Saint wrote that would conflict with that notion. So to me at least, if those guys are not sure about that and not just the ones that support the RCC - why should anyone reading a christian forum take the word of two schmos calling themselves DrBubbaLove and Timothew. Can each of us find something from an ECF that appears to support our view on that point? I know I can and think you can too.

So who is right in this case - or more precisely when/if there is no clear right/wrong answer at least against the opposing claims - who is expressing reality here? The guy who even told you and everyone here that there is not just the one ECF that you singled out who COULD be viewed as saying/expressing what you think they said/believed and so represent to you a "change" in Catholic beliefs, but in reality three total. The same guy who claims he has read enough of Saint Irenaues stuff as well as commentary on the very point you raised to know it is not as clear cut as you would like everyone present to think - which I also pointed out. And by the way and unlike you - that is exactly how you treat Scripture in your replies to people like the one above to nonaeroterraqueous . OR is it the guy gloating that He can find one quote of an ECF to attempt to refute that Catholics can reasonably rely on the traditions we do from the ECFs and then claim those doing so are being disgenious when they say they can depend on the ECF testimony of our teachings?

 

[mmksparbud]

And you have dismissed facts with seven words, asked me to show where you did, did so and now denied you did so and rant that you can't get someone to engage you with what amounts to a game of tic-tac-toe. Ok you win that game. I conceded your Scripture rendering trumps anything anyone else can say. That was easy. You're the tic-tac=toe Scripture citing champ of the year. Here is your sign. Whenever you are done celebrating, come back and let's play an adult game.

When you want to have a real discussion and have finished sharping your ability to cut and paste Scripture posts, invite me back to engage in a real discussion whenever you feel ready. And whenever you are ready let's start with your explaining the delima of having God not only ignore an impeded tradition you have claimed is wrong, but provides support for reinforcing that view to the people holding it. After you have rested of course.

You are expr4essing yourself with a lot of distortions of facts. It has been pointed out to you, by quoting your own words, that you change the words and meaning of what has been posted. This is not conducive to any discussion. You want to have the last word, not a problem, you can have it. You are wanting to engage in character assassination instead of the question at hand---I am having to be sidetracked by having to correct what you are saying I said with your misquoting and I will bow out of any further discussion with you. It's too time consuming to have to keep correcting your "misswording"---I am looking for discussions on what the bible says, not on what some people might have thought it says several hundred years after they were written.. It doesn't take a PHD to understand the verses you've been given and there are many translations to choose from, I usually use the KJV but have many others to check----not to mention commentaries and dictionaries.
I don't believe this issue is one of salvation, so much as how an everlasting torment reflects on the character of God. And to make Him into some diabolical, fiend that tortures someone who has one sin against him for eternity right alongside the guy who has 1,0000 makes Him worse than unjust and that He is not. He is just, and merciful and loving. Justice is His and the lost are punished according to their works. That is what the bible does say. Good bye.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't believe the Scriptures conflict with each other. It is no stretch to believe that someone who has been completely destroyed is eternally punished, since for all eternity they will never live again. That's eternal.

BTW, Romans 6:23 doesn't say "the penalty for sin is bodily death" it says the wages of sin is death. That's the eternal punishment, just as Jesus said in Matthew 10:28. "Fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body..." The punishment of being destroyed and remaining destroyed eternally is eternal punishment. There is no conflict in the Scripture.

You can shoot for heaven, I will put my faith in Jesus Christ for resurrection and eternal life.

You think that's not how we 'shoot for heaven'? Without God, there's nothing we can do. Duh. I wonder how eternal life is only for some and not for others...as if God makes people differently (before you were in the womb I knew you), some to perish and disappear, others to live eternally. Where does it say that in the Bible???

 

[Root of Jesse]

I will accept that as an apology. I know what you meant when you said "So, eternal punishment is a Carnival Cruise."
Since you are backing away from that, I will let it drop.


I will answer the questions in your post


I don't believe that, and I never said that I believed that God changed His Mind about our existence.



God bring people back from the dead is called "the resurrection of the dead". It is part of your creed, The Nicene Creed.


Because those who have been resurrected and given eternal life do not cease to exist. Those who have been resurrected from the dead and sent to their second death will cease to exist since there is no resurrection following the second death. It's quite simple to understand, really.


Just as the death penalty is a punishment, eternal destruction is also a punishment. The person does not have to be conscious of their punishment. People who have been punished by lethal injection are no longer conscious but I don't see you complaining that they have not been punished.



No

No

Improper question. We ARE told to fear it. Jesus said "Fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body..."


How could they get over it after they have been completely and utterly destroyed? This question doesn't make any sense, please rephrase it. Also I don't understand your comment, "your claiming they go through the change three times already". I never made that claim.

Bubba, this is not difficult to figure out.
Go to a funeral parlor. Ask them to see a dead person.
Is the dead person conscious or not conscious? Obviously, they are not conscious.
If they were brought back to life, would they be conscious or not conscious? Obviously, once they are alive again, they are conscious.
If they remain alive forever, would they be conscious or not conscious? Obviously, they would remain conscious.
If they die again are they conscious or not conscious? Obviously they are not conscious.
If they are never brought back to life, do they regain consciousness or they remain unconscious? Obviously, they remain unconscious.

So those who are resurrected from death and remain alive have eternal life. Those who reject God's offer of eternal life do not receive eternal life. They are not conscious for all eternity, since they would have to have eternal life to be conscious. They do not receive the gift of eternal life.

I went into great detail because it seems that you are not understanding this. I don't know why you can't understand this.

What about those in heaven in Revelation. They are, clearly, alive, but not corporeal. The only ones who appear in heaven with their bodies in Revelation are Jesus and Mary. Resurrection of the dead means our bodies will be reconnected completely with our souls, which are alive, whether in heaven or hell. We do not wait for the resurrection of our bodies, our souls precede us to our final destination, where we live for all eternity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

While a tiny group might have believed in prayers to the dead just as you say -- and that Abraham was in charge of all the dead saints in heaven - and that Christ was God such that He was watching all conversations between the dead -- and could therefore accurately report late breaking news on the latest conversations between the dead etc.

It is certain that this is not the belief of those Jews to whom Christ addressed the parable - the ones who were scoffing at His parables up to that point in time.

I don't see anyone praying to the dead, Bob. Can you show me where anyone prays to the dead? Catholics, I mean?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Bob defeated you in your tic-tac-toe.
Actually the Scriptures that Bob posted defeated you. If you want to defeat Bob, you need to go to each of the scriptures he posted and prove that they do not mean what they say.

Why. We believe they mean what they say. What we don't believe is that Bob knows what they mean...That's the issue, not whether Scripture is right or wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't see anyone praying to the dead, Bob. Can you show me where anyone prays to the dead? Catholics, I mean?

Catholic Catechism

==================================

958 Communion with the dead. "In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honored with great respect the memory of the dead; and 'because it is a holy and a wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins' she offers her suffrages for them."500 Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.