Annihilationism

[Hieronymus]

The difference?

Between a reason and a purpose?
Well, the reason for a flat tire can be a nail that punctured it.
The purpose of a flat tire is none existent.

 

[DTate98]

The traditional view stems from a time when the church repressed people.
it keeps them scared and obedient.
A loveless faith.

First, yes. One must be afraid of the coming punishment. If there was nothing to be feared, who would repent? After salvation, there is nothing to fear. Then comes love. This comes from gratefulness for mercy.

 

[Hieronymus]

First, yes. One must be afraid of the coming punishment. If there was nothing to be feared, who would repent?

He who seeks God and loves Truth, humbles himself for the Lord and does his Will, because God made man not to perish but to live.
Didn't you know that?

 

[Der Alte]

You all seem to be unable to understand the meaning of the opposed terms: life and death.
You concoct ambiguous lines of thought to have death not be death.
It's as if you WANT it to be so that the unsaved will be conscious eternally while suffering.
The purpose of that is not there either.

You ignored my previous post. And you seem to be unaware of the difference between gold tarnishing, spilled wine, spoiled food, etc. and someone/something being destroyed, annihilated, no longer existing. We have not been discussing opposed terms life and death.

.The blatant, deliberate falsehood is this statement "They claim that the chaff will be burned but will never burn up."

Your deliberate, blatant falsehood here is this statement "They claim that the wages of sin is eternal life in hell."

 

[Hieronymus]

You ignored my previous post. And you seem to be unaware of the difference between gold tarnishing, spilled wine, spoiled food, etc. and someone/something being destroyed, annihilated, no longer existing. We have not been discussing opposed terms life and death.

Of course we're discussing life and death.
John 3:16




<Staff Edit>

 

[Der Alte]

Your argument doesn't actually show that the literal understanding for the second death is impossible. If you look at Rev 20, the devil, the beast and the false prophet are put into the lake of fire and tormented forever. (Incidentally, while aion can and often does mean just a long time, in this case the wording specifically means forever.) Those whose names aren't in the book of life go into the lake of fire, and for them it is said to be the second death. It is certainly possible that a lake that is designed to punish supernatural entities such as the devil might be fatal to normal people. The fact that the devil, etc are said to be tormented forever and people are said to suffer the second death could certainly indicate a difference. There is precedent in Jewish usage for the term second death to mean death of the soul. It's just that there's precedent for eternal torment as well.

Note the equivocal language "certainly possible" and "could certainly indicate!" The relevant scripture says "the lake of fire is the second death" there are no exceptions listed for "supernatural entities."

Rev 14:10 is also ambiguous. It doesn't say that people are tormented forever, as it does in Rev 20 for the devil. It says that the smoke of their torment goes up forever. There is OT precedent in Is 66 for people to die but the fire in which they die to go on.

When read in-context without ignoring/omitting parts of the verse, as has been done here, Revelation 14:11, not 10, is not ambiguous.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.​

Note "the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night," 10k times 10k years from now God's unchanging word will still say "they have no rest day nor night."

Which understanding you pick is going to depend upon your reading of passages in the Gospels and Paul, and whether you think it's possible for different authors to have different views on this subject. But in general I don't trust the judgements of posters here, because they show way too much confidence in their own viewpoints and far too little appreciation of how much the exegesis depends upon context.

While the no hell crowd ignores the historical evidence in the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud and the early church fathers relying solely on their own, shall we say, less than unbiased, exegesis. .

 

[Der Alte]

Of course we're discussing life and death.
John 3:16

If we are discussing life and death do you mean death as in,

Romans 6:23 the wages of sin is death, [θάνατος/thantos]
Romans 3:23 all have sinned and come short of the glory of God
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die [θάνατος/thanatos], but after this the judgment: ​

The Greek word for death is θάνατος, which occurs in the verses listed. I have been discussing ἀπόλλυμι/apollumi. Are you saying that apolummi and thantos mean the same thing?

<Staff Edit>

 

[Der Alte]

The traditional view stems from a time when the church repressed people.
it keeps them scared and obedient.
A loveless faith.

The traditional view existed long before there was a church to do anything.
The Jews, in Israel before and during the time of Jesus believed in a place of eternal, unending, fiery torment and they called it both Gehinnom/Gehenna and Sheol. When Jesus taught about,

• "Eternal punishment, Mt 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mk 9:43-48" and
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Mt 13:42, 50
• “better for him [a person who offends a little one] that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Mt 18:6
• “it had been good for him [the one who betrays Jesus] if he had not been born.” Mat 26:24​

These teachings reaffirmed and sanctioned the existing Jewish view of eternal hell. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Heb 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy
under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

Jesus used the word death 17 times in the gospels and if He wanted to say eternal death in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He said “eternal punishment.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died, young, old, good, bad, and knew that it was permanent. When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” they would not have understood it as death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Jesus knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, when Jesus taught about man’s eternal fate, such as eternal punishment, He would have corrected them. Jesus did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell was correct. Here is historical evidence to support this.

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a); [Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT the bias of Christian translators.]
It is assumed in general that sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
As mentioned above, heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link:Jewish Encyclopedia Online
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [follower of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link:Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

 

[StanJ]

Why do you suppose it is mentioned like that?
(i'm sorry, i don't have the Scripture location at hand.)

Fear God Alone (10:28) excerpt from the IVP Commentary.
Because God is judge in the end, we should not fear even persecutors who threaten death (vv. 26, 28). Mortals can destroy only one's body, while God can resurrect the body for damnation and destroy the whole person (with eternal torture; compare 3:12; 25:46). The choice is not between courage and fear but has to do with whom we will fear more (Minear 1950:169). Jesus may here recall the Jewish martyr tradition, which exhorted its followers not to fear those who think they can kill, because eternal suffering awaits the soul that disobeys God's command (4 Macc 13:14-15).

 

[StanJ]

It implies the same in this case.

Sorry that's not true in this case are most of the cases regarding Torment vs. Torture. See my earlier post 491 in this thread.

 

[StanJ]

You all seem to be unable to understand the meaning of the opposed terms: life and death.
You concoct ambiguous lines of thought to have death not be death.
It's as if you WANT it to be so that the unsaved will be conscious eternally while suffering.
The purpose of that is not there either.

Life and death deal with the body not the soul, always has been throughout scripture. I challenge you to show once where the spirit dies or is killed in Scripture.

 

[StanJ]

The traditional view stems from a time when the church repressed people.
it keeps them scared and obedient.
A loveless faith.

The Roman Catholic church has nothing to do with this issue. This is an issue of scripture and how it is properly exegeted.

 

[Hieronymus]

The traditional view existed long before there was a church to do anything.
The Jews, in Israel before and during the time of Jesus believed in a place of eternal, unending, fiery torment and they called it both Gehinnom/Gehenna and Sheol. When Jesus taught about,

Yes, well, the fire may not be quenched indeed, but fire devours, incinerates, like Gehenna, the waste dump of the area.

• "Eternal punishment, Mt 25:46"​

Indeed, the 2nd death is eternal.

• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mk 9:43-48"

Refers to Isiah iirc, worm and flame shal not die, but the person will.

and
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Mt 13:42, 50

Obviously it will not be fun to be incinerated.

• “better for him [a person who offends a little one] that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Mt 18:6

Drowning entails death.

• “it had been good for him [the one who betrays Jesus] if he had not been born.” Mat 26:24

Is this supposed to be proof of ECT?

Look, i have to do my homework in order to have a good reply based on Scripture.
But in Greek the difference between punishing (action) and punishment (fate) is bigger than in English.

If ECT is true God created man to have lots of people in eternal conscious torment for no purpose.
This will probably include many people i love, people who i'm supposed to love, for it is the Law of Christ to love your fellow humans.
They didn't receive the gift of belief and faith form God, so He wants people to be in torment / tortured consciously (i.e. alive) ETERNALLY, for his pleasure.
Is that Holy?​

 

[hedrick]

That's right, and it only relates to the body not the spirit.

First, there is some history to the term "second death." The Word commentary gives it in great detail. It can mean either complete annihilation or continuous dying, which is consistent with eternal torment. I do not see any suggestion, however, that it refers to the body only.

Indeed it would be inconsistent with normal Christianity if the wages of sin only affected the body. Dunn comment "At all events, the thought is again clearly of death as sin’s (final) payoff, that is, not just natural death, but death as the forfeiture of eternal life." You could conceivably take death metaphorically as including torment. There is some history of that interpretation.

 

[Hieronymus]

The Roman Catholic church has nothing to do with this issue.

But tradition has, regardless of who introduced it.

This is an issue of scripture and how it is properly exegeted.

Then we should compare both cases that can be made, and then you will see the 2nd death is indeed death.

 

[Hieronymus]

Folks, i'm gone here, i'm too emotional about this to have a proper discussion.
I will report one of my posts for the mods to have a look here, because i probably crossed some lines here...

I think ECT is foolish and satanic teaching.
God does not give life to end up in ECT.
And if He does, He can enjoy my screams too, eternally.

May the loving merciful God bless you all.

 

[Hieronymus]

How can I possibly defend something that you don't understand? You ask God what he meant in Genesis 6:13 & 17 when He destroyed all life and the world.

So there was no ark?

 

[Hieronymus]

It seems we cannot come to an agreement. But calling traditionalists "sociopaths" is wrong.

I apologise, i edited it, i hope it's sufficient.
I reported the message for further feedback from the mods.

 

[hedrick]

No person with a little love and kindness in their hearts can live with the traditional view, only sociopaths can.

This is way too strong. There are plenty of non-sociopathic Christians who accept the traditional position.

I do wonder, however, about the vision in Rev 21:4

he will wipe every tear from their eyes.
Death will be no more;
mourning and crying and pain will be no more,
for the first things have passed away.”

if in fact people we love are being tormented eternally at the same time. Perhaps Christians will come to take the position that they’re just grateful that God rescued them, and that their loved ones who died without faith are just getting what they deserve. But I doubt many of us would feel that way if we saw something like the that happening in today’s world. That Christians would come to accept this in the New Jerusalem doesn’t seem like something good.

It also directly contradicts the vision that pain has passed away, because they are part of the “first things.” Eternal torment prolongs those first things indefinitely.

Might the author of the Revelation still have accepted that, even though I think it’s self-contradictory? Perhaps. Plenty of interpreters understand him as doing so. Some have cited 22:15 “Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” as indicating that the rejects are still around outside the New Jerusalem.

But there’s a problem with this. 22:15 isn’t actually part of the final vision in 21, but rather is part of the epilog. That epilog is in large part an exhortation to the Christians living then. 22:14 is clearly addressed to them. So I don’t think the timeframe for 22:15 is that of the New Jerusalem.

However plenty of interpreters disagree with me, and thus by implication find the coexistence of 21:4 with eternal torment plausible. I just don’t see how.

 

[Hieronymus]

Or Is 34:10, where the smoke of Edom’s punishment goes up forever.

It just occurred to me that the smoke that is a by product of incineration may still be going up and further away AFTER the subject / object is devoured, and disappear in the distance, so to speak.
(just a thought)

I don’t feel strongly about choosing

As you may have noticed, for me it (ECT) is the deal-breaker.
I can not live with a belief in ECT.
I just can't do it...
I have been wrestling with the idea for more than a year at the time, i nearly went nuts over it, and i have never ever hated God as much as i did then.
And that implies that if ECT is true, i will suffer ECT myself.

Anyway, i was gone here, but i'm re-reading the topic, hence quoting an early post.