eternal suffering

[expos4ever]

This is, frankly, the very definition of absurdity and I politely suggest you have to know this - how could you not? You have to know that it would be inane to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people who are already in eternal torment.

This, I'm afraid, amounts to an opinion, not a statement of fact. What you may find absurd or inane is not necessarily what others will find so. Certainly, saying, "This is inane" is not anything like a reasoned argument. As I have explained above, I am well within the bounds of rationality and the text of Scripture in my view - however "inane" it may seem to you.

You are not dealing with my statement - you simply reject it. You must explain to us how it is sensible it is to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people who are already in eternal torment.

Let me try to pin you down. Please complete the following sentence:

It is sensible for Paul to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people who are already in eternal torment because........

 

[aiki]

You are not dealing with my statement - you simply reject it. You must explain to us how it is sensible it is to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people who are already in eternal torment.

Already done. You just can't accept my view. That's a problem on your end, though, not mine.

Selah.

 

[expos4ever]

Already done. You just can't accept my view. That's a problem on your end, though, not mine.

Selah.

Just complete the sentence please. I politely suggest that to do so would force the incoherence of your view to become clear.

 

[Timothew]

Already done. You just can't accept my view. That's a problem on your end, though, not mine.

Selah.

That's a disappointing response. I was hoping to see how you would respond.

 

[aiki]

That's a disappointing response. I was hoping to see how you would respond.

All you have to do is go through my previous posts. As I said, my answer has already been given quite fully.

Selah.

 

[expos4ever]

All you have to do is go through my previous posts. As I said, my answer has already been given quite fully.

Selah.

If it were an adequate answer, you could easily complete the sentence I started for you. But I suggest that you know that when your arguments are forced to be explicitly spelled out in a context - set by me in this case - which identifies the central challenge those arguments have to deal with - in this case, the sense of meting out punishment to those already in eternal torment - you realize how this cannot be achieved.

And so you do not deal with my challenge.

But, please, prove me wrong: all you need to do is to complete the sentence in a way that makes some kind of overall sense.

 

[OzSpen]

Anyone can find someone to agree with them, so an argument by "Appeal to Authority" doesn't work.

We agree that Apollumi has more than one meaning in Scripture.
We agree that it can mean "utterly destroy" or it can mean "ruin".
I think the issue is "What does it mean in the context of passages like Matthew 10:28?"
καὶ μὴ φοβεῖσθε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεννόντων τὸ σῶμα, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι· φοβεῖσθε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ.
Jesus just said "Don't fear someone who can kill the body, but can't kill the soul". Then He says "But Rather". But rather fear someone who CAN destroy BOTH the soul and body in Ge'enna. The context doesn't allow the meaning of "ruin", but the meaning of destroy fits perfectly. But since you have a commitment to the doctrine of eternal suffering in hell, you won't allow this. Since I am only interesting in what the Bible ACTUALLY SAYS and I want to derive my doctrine from what the Bible says rather than forcing the Bible to mean what my doctrine says that the Bible should say, I accept the meaning of Apollumi that makes the most sense in the context of the passage. Your commitment to the infernal doctrine prevents you from looking at the passage objectively.

No, you accept the view that fits your presuppositions that at final judgment that means annihilation for the unbeliever. Apollumi fits perfectly well with the meaning of 'ruin' at the final judgment where the unbeliever will suffer ruin eternally. It's called 'eternal punishment' (Matt 25:46 NIV).

 

[Der Alte]

The relevance of the 'j' reference is my pointing out that it is incorrect in the A&G from which you quoted.

And this affects my argument how?

Unbelievers are not annihilated at the final judgment, as I've attempted to show in my article: Do evil doers experience eternal destruction or annihilation at death?

I think you are tilting at windmills, my argument has never been annihilation but eternal punishment.

You continue to perpetrate your typo of 'appolumi' which should be apollumi. You are doing a copy and paste without correcting the typo.
Oz

And this affects my argument how?

 

[aiki]

If it were an adequate answer, you could easily complete the sentence I started for you. But I suggest that you know that when your arguments are forced to be explicitly spelled out in a context - set by me in this case - which identifies the central challenge those arguments have to deal with - in this case, the sense of meting out punishment to those already in eternal torment - you realize how this cannot be achieved.

And so you do not deal with my challenge.

But, please, prove me wrong: all you need to do is to complete the sentence in a way that makes some kind of overall sense.

I have already proven you wrong. In a number of posts. Your little gambit here to establish yourself as the one who calls the shots in our discussion isn't going to work. I'm not playing. You have my answer as I wish to give it. Accept it, or don't. But it has answered all of your objections quite well.

Selah.

 

[Timothew]

All you have to do is go through my previous posts. As I said, my answer has already been given quite fully.

Selah.

I did look through your previous posts and no, you never did answer the question.
I thought it was a good question that deserved an honest answer.

 

[Timothew]

No, you accept the view that fits your presuppositions that at final judgment that means annihilation for the unbeliever. Apollumi fits perfectly well with the meaning of 'ruin' at the final judgment where the unbeliever will suffer ruin eternally. It's called 'eternal punishment' (Matt 25:46 NIV).

Read the context of Matthew 10:28, the choices are being able to kill the body but not the soul OR being able to destroy both the body and the soul. The context doesn't allow the preservation of the soul in Gehenna for the purpose of tormenting it alive forever. Why do you ignore the context of what you are reading? You only accept what your presupposition allows you to accept. Read what the Bible actually says, for a change.

Regarding Matthew 25:46, It specifically says that only one of the groups goes to eternal life. Can't you see that?
Destruction IS eternal punishment. Can't you see that? When someone is destroyed and remains destroyed FOREVER, how is that only temporary punishment? Why can't you see the truth? Is someone forcing you to believe what is not true? Blink twice if you are being held against your will!

 

[aiki]

I did look through your previous posts and no, you never did answer the question.
I thought it was a good question that deserved an honest answer.

Then you require training in reading comprehension. Can't help you with that, I'm afraid.

Selah.

 

[Timothew]

Then you require training in reading comprehension. Can't help you with that, I'm afraid.

Selah.

What a cop out.

The truth is that you do not want to answer the question because answering it would expose the falsehood of your false belief. Go ahead and run away from the question. The fact that you run away shows the falsehood of your false belief just as well. You never answered the question and you know fully well that you have not. You are the one who requires training in reading comprehension. Anyone can plainly see that you have not answered the question.

 

[Timothew]

You are not dealing with my statement - you simply reject it. You must explain to us how it is sensible it is to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people who are already in eternal torment.

Let me try to pin you down. Please complete the following sentence:

It is sensible for Paul to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people who are already in eternal torment because........

Let me answer for aiki because he/she will not.

It is sensible for Paul to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people who are already in eternal torment because in aiki's mind it is fair that sinners will be tortured alive in hell forever...twice.

 

[aiki]

If you think others will be persuaded to your view by putting words in the mouth of your opponent, you are badly mistaken. Doing so just makes you look desperate and manipulative.

Selah.

 

[expos4ever]

If you think others will be persuaded to your view by putting words in the mouth of your opponent, you are badly mistaken. Doing so just makes you look desperate and manipulative.

I kind of knew when I came up with it that this question (post 441) was a showstopper - those who believe that Luke 16 teaches that the rich man is already in eternal torment are put into a clearly impossible position given that Paul situates judgment and the meting out of punishment in the future.

And their resulting punishment or reward, therefore, may commence immediately upon their death - which is what Christ's parable describes.

I suggest that you know that if you are forced to connect this statement of yours - which seems perfectly reasonable on its own - with what Paul writes, a violent contradiction results. And you seem unwilling to face this. And this is why you will not complete the sentence I presented to you. Well, here is how what you stated (above) actually plays out if we connect your statement with what Paul says in Romans 2:

But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation; however, the execution of judgment and the meting out of punishment (for the lost) actually occurs at death and not at this day of wrath after all and there are lots of people already in eternal torment as I dictate this letter.

This is the position you have to own - and don't pretend otherwise please - if, repeat if, one insists that the Luke 16 accounts teaches eternal torment for the rich man.

The irony is that one concede the rich man / Lazarus account is not literal and still argue for eternal torment. But, it seems you insist on going down with the ship (but won't admit it).

 

[Timothew]

If you think others will be persuaded to your view by putting words in the mouth of your opponent, you are badly mistaken. Doing so just makes you look desperate and manipulative.

Selah.

Since you never answered the question Mr. Ex put to you, you don't really have anything to complain about.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . And this is why you will not complete the sentence I presented to you. Well, here is how what you stated (above) actually plays out if we connect your statement with what Paul says in Romans 2:

But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation; however, the execution of judgment and the meting out of punishment (for the lost) actually occurs at death and not at this day of wrath after all and there are lots of people already in eternal torment as I dictate this letter.​

This is the position you have to own - and don't pretend otherwise please - if, repeat if, one insists that the Luke 16 accounts teaches eternal torment for the rich man.
The irony is that one concede the rich man / Lazarus account is not literal and still argue for eternal torment. But, it seems you insist on going down with the ship (but won't admit it).

I wonder what would happen if we let Jesus be the standard we interpret scripture by instead of making the words of Paul, or any other NT writer, be the standard which then requires us to dismiss the words of Jesus make them figurative, metaphor, etc. so they agree with one's assumptions/presuppositions.

Rom 2:5-9
(5) But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
(6) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
(7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
(8) But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
(9) Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;​

To whom was this addressed? Was P:aul's audience dead or alive? I'm pretty sure Paul was talking to people who were alive, and if that is true then the day of wrath was yet future for them. If we believe that the words of Jesus is the standard, when we read Luke 16:19-31, we could conclude that the day of wrath for those Paul was addressing in Romans will be they day they die as it was for the rich man.

 

[OzSpen]

Read the context of Matthew 10:28, the choices are being able to kill the body but not the soul OR being able to destroy both the body and the soul. The context doesn't allow the preservation of the soul in Gehenna for the purpose of tormenting it alive forever. Why do you ignore the context of what you are reading? You only accept what your presupposition allows you to accept. Read what the Bible actually says, for a change.

Regarding Matthew 25:46, It specifically says that only one of the groups goes to eternal life. Can't you see that?
Destruction IS eternal punishment. Can't you see that? When someone is destroyed and remains destroyed FOREVER, how is that only temporary punishment? Why can't you see the truth? Is someone forcing you to believe what is not true? Blink twice if you are being held against your will!

I ignore no context in Matt 10:28 and I have never denied there is one group going to eternal life. Destruction is apollumi = ruin and the context says it will go on for the same length of time as 'life' - eternally.

You will never ever convince me of the non-biblical doctrine of annihilation of unbelievers in Gehenna at the final judgment.

 

[Timothew]

I ignore no context in Matt 10:28 and I have never denied there is one group going to eternal life. Destruction is apollumi = ruin and the context says it will go on for the same length of time as 'life' - eternally.

You will never ever convince me of the non-biblical doctrine of annihilation of unbelievers in Gehenna at the final judgment.

For your own information, apollumi means "utterly destroy".

Since Jesus Himself couldn't convince you that unbelievers will be destroyed in Gehenna at the final judgment, you are correct. I will never convince you either. For your own sake, do not argue with Jesus Christ on the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 2 Peter 3:7
But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

You can argue with Christ, you can argue with what "apollumi" means, but the Bible also says that the wicked will be destroyed in the Old Testament, and that was not written in Greek. The Hebrew word used in Psalm 92:7 (as a convenient example) is "shamad" and it DOES NOT mean "ruin".

But don't argue with me, go ahead and argue with God. Tell Him that the wicked will not be destroyed.
The stupid man cannot know;
the fool cannot understand this:
that though the wicked sprout like grass
and all evildoers flourish,
they are doomed to destruction forever;

God's Word says that the stupid man cannot know that the wicked are doomed to destruction forever, and the fool cannot understand this.

I can't convince you of something you are unwilling to believe. I'm merely asking you to believe God's Word.