Annihilationism Is Actually...Biblical

[Der Alte]

Mass murderers...like Saul (who became the apostle Paul, the worst of sinners), who was persecuting Christ & the church, like an Inquisitionist, including both men & women? Or David, who committed premeditated murder & adultery after God had shown him many miracles? Or Thomas who refused to believe Christ was raised after Thomas had been with Jesus for years & seen numerous healings & works of God done by the Lord? But for the grace of God, there go we all. Is anything too difficult for Love Omnipotent?

Which one(s) of these was saved/reconciled after death and after they had been punished for some period in fire?
.....Please show me at least one verse, more would be better, where "Love Omnipotent," God Himself, says that He will save/reconcile all mankind after death and punishment even if they don't repent in this life? Unless you can do that your "Love Omnipotent" and "milk carton expiry date" catch phrases are meaningless.

 

[Der Alte]

duplicate

 

[Der Alte]

duplicate

 

[Der Alte]

duplicate

 

[Der Alte]

duplicate. The post didn't seem to be posting So I clicked more than once then brrrrp they all posted at once.

 

[ClementofA]

Out-of-context and disregards the Jewish understanding.

The - or rather "a" - Jewish extrabiblical opinion, which is uninspired, is not Scripture. And to quote you:

Irrelevant not scripture.

Even as you quote this passage God restricts His compassion to those whom He has caused grief. "if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness." Why didn't Jeremiah say, "He will have compassion on all men according to His abundant lovingkindness?

Evidently grief includes those cast into the lake of fire (Rv.20:10; Rom.2:4-9). God's kindness is towards all (Rom.2:4-16, etc) as He will draw all to Himself (Jn.12:32).

A few more verses which contradict your interpretation of vss. 31-32.

Lamentations 3:25 The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeks him. ​

Why didn't Jeremiah say the LORD is good to all men not just those who wait for him?

Nothing there contradicts Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER. You have not expressed any logic that proves there is a contradiction between v.25 & what 31 clearly states. God can at the same time not be "good" to a man & also not cast him off forever. So there is obviously no contradiction. Casting off temporarily is not casting off forever. Not being good to a man temporarily is not the same as casting off forever.

Lamentations 4:16
(16) The anger of the LORD hath divided them; he will no more regard them: they respected not the persons of the priests, they favoured not the elders.​

Here Jeremiah says of certain people "he will no more regard them" not "he will have compassion on them"

As translated by NIV it says only what is, not how long it will be into the future:

16 The LORD himself has scattered them; he no longer watches over them. The priests are shown no honor, the elders no favor. (NIV)

So it also is perfectly harmonious with:

Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER

Lamentation 3:62-66
(62) The lips of those that rose up against me, and their device against me all the day.
(63) Behold their sitting down, and their rising up; I am their musick.
(64) Render unto them a recompence, O LORD, according to the work of their hands.
(65) Give them sorrow of heart, thy curse unto them.
(66) Persecute and destroy them in anger from under the heavens of the LORD.​

If Jeremiah believed that God would have compassion on all men, regardless of whether they repented or not why would he ask God to "Persecute and destroy [all his enemies] in anger from under the heavens of the LORD?"

In the following context the compassion comes - after - He causes grief:

Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the CHILDREN OF MEN.…

.....The Jews only understood the children of Israel to be "men."

Jewish Encyclopedia-Gentile
With regard to the text "This is the law when a man dieth in a tent" (Num. xix. 14), they held that only Israelites are men, quoting the prophet, "Ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men" (Ezek. xxxiv. 31); Gentiles they classed not as men but as barbarians (B. M. 108b). The Talmudic maxim is, "Whoever has no purification laws can not contaminate" (Naz. 61b). Another reason assigned is that it would have been utterly impossible otherwise to communicate with Gentiles, especially in the post-exilic times (Rabinovitz, "Mebo ha-Talmud," p. 5, Wilna, 1894). Patriotism and a desire to regain a settlement in the Holy Land induced the Rabbis, in order not to delay the consummation of a transfer of property in Palestine from a Gentile to a Jew, to permit the deed to be written on the Sabbath, an act otherwise prohibited (B. Ḳ. 80b).
2. The barbarian Gentiles who could not be prevailed upon to observe law and order were not to be benefited by the Jewish civil laws, framed to regulate a stable and orderly society, and based on reciprocity. The passage in Moses' farewell address: "The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran" (Deut. xxxiii. 2), indicates that the Almighty offered the Torah to the Gentile nations also, but, since they refused to accept it. He withdrew His "shining" legal protection from them, and transferred their property rights to Israel, who observed His Law. A passage of Habakkuk is quoted as confirming this claim: "God came from Teman, and the Holy One from Mount Paran. . . . He stood, and measured the earth; he beheld, and drove asunder [ = "let loose," "outlawed"] the nations" (Hab. iii. 3-6); the Talmud adds that He had observed how the Gentile nations steadfastly refused to obey the seven moral Noachian precepts, and hence had decided to outlaw them (B. Ḳ. 38a).
GENTILE - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

A single Jewish opinion of uncertain date is not inspired Scripture. Inspired Scripture is God breathed & relates God's opinions which are always true. Is it God's opinion that non Jews are not men?

"Now, that neither you nor any else mistake the allegory, note, saith God, this flock of my pasture are not sheep literally, but they are men..." [Matthew Poole's Commentary]

"And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men,.... This is observed, to show that all that had been said in this chapter concerning sheep, and a flock of sheep, was to be understood, not in a literal sense, but in a figurative one, of such as were rational and spiritual persons; a set of men..." [Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible]

Ezekiel 34:31 Commentaries: "As for you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, you are men, and I am your God," declares the Lord GOD.

Nothing in Ezek.34:31 says only Jews are men & non Jews are non human. A Jewish interpretation that non Jews are non humans is irrelevant, uninspired and anti-scriptural.

100 Scriptural Proofs That Jesus Christ Will Save All Mankind
100 Scriptural Proofs That Jesus Christ Will Save All Mankind

 

[Butch5]

Typical heterodox wresting and obfuscation. I guess that is the only way URites and annihilationists can support their arguments, twist what other people say. I did not say or imply that the suffering of the wicked after judgement was not eternal. We were discussing Jude 7.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrhah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.​

And how the adjective "aionios" does not modify "vengeance" or "suffering" it modifies "fire."

Jude said that Sodom and Gomorrah were set forth as an example to those who would live ungodly, suffering the vengeance of aionios fire. Jesus said the wicked would suffer ainios punishment which He said was aionios fire. They are the same thing. You agreed that in Jude the suffering and the burning are not eternal. If the suffering in Jude is not eternal neither is the suffering Jesus spoke of. The Lake of fire is not eternal.

Where was the fire before God sent it down from heaven?

Genesis 19:24
(24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;​

I don't have that problem so where it was before isn't at question. The question is where is it now?​

Prove it? Just saying that doesn't make it so. Did you see my [post #746] this thread where I quoted 35 OT scriptures which clearly show that olam means eternal.

It's common sense. If you want your child to clean their room you don't tell them to clean the whole house. Hyperbole is a figure of speech where one exaggerates to make a point. When you're telling someone how something is to be done you do in literal language so that they understand how to do it.

It's over, give it up.

 

[Butch5]

Typical heterodox wresting and obfuscation. I guess that is the only way URites and annihilationists can support their arguments, twist what other people say. I did not say or imply that the suffering of the wicked after judgement was not eternal. We were discussing Jude 7.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrhah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.​

And how the adjective "aionios" does not modify "vengeance" or "suffering" it modifies "fire."

Jude said that Sodom and Gomorrah were set forth as an example to those who would live ungodly, suffering the vengeance of aionios fire. Jesus said the wicked would suffer ainios punishment which He said was aionios fire. They are the same thing. You agreed that in Jude the suffering and the burning are not eternal. If the suffering in Jude is not eternal neither is the suffering Jesus spoke of. The Lake of fire is not eternal.

Where was the fire before God sent it down from heaven?

Genesis 19:24
(24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;​

I don't have that problem so where it was before isn't at question. The question is where is it now?​

Prove it? Just saying that doesn't make it so. Did you see my [post #746] this thread where I quoted 35 OT scriptures which clearly show that olam means eternal.

It's common sense. If you want your child to clean their room you don't tell them to clean the whole house. Hyperbole is a figure of speech where one exaggerates to make a point. When you're telling someone how something is to be done you do in literal language so that they understand how to do it.

It's over, give it up.

 

[ClementofA]

If you know that BDAG has the definitions eternal/eternity for aion/aionios why do you keep posting that they only mean age/age lasting and not eternal/eternity.

Show me where i ever said that. Secondly, why should i care what man's opinions as per BDAG say after you said:

Irrelevant not scripture.

Then are also all your quotes re Jewish beliefs & opinions irrelevant? And your quotes of church fathers? And opinions of lexicons? And BDAG references to non scriptural usages of aionios? So you won't be quoting any of these ever again, since they are, as you say, "Irrelevant not scripture"?

 

[ClementofA]

Which one(s) of these was saved/reconciled after death and after they had been punished for some period in fire?
.....Please show me at least one, more would be better, where "Love Omnipotent," God Himself, says that He will save/reconcile all mankind after death and punishment even if they don't repent in this life? Unless you can do that your "Love Omnipotent" and "milk carton expiry date" catch phrases are meaningless.

It seems they will "come to Him" & "be ashamed" of themselves:

Isa.45:24 The people will declare, "The LORD is the source of all my righteousness and strength." And all who were angry with him will come to him and be ashamed.

And he that "comes to Him" shall find rest & He shall not cast out (Mt.11:28; Jn.6:37).

Isa.45:23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

100 Scriptural Proofs That Jesus Christ Will Save All Mankind
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/ScripturalProofs.html

 

[Der Alte]

duplicate

 

[Der Alte]

The - or rather "a" - Jewish extrabiblical opinion, which is uninspired, is not Scripture. And to quote you:
Evidently grief includes those cast into the lake of fire (Rv.20:10; Rom.2:4-9). God's kindness is towards all (Rom.2:4-16, etc) as He will draw all to Himself (Jn.12:32).

I didn't know Jeremiah had the NT. Was Jeremiah talking about things which would happen 3000 years in the future? Funny how your interpretation switches back and forth, to suit your assumptions/presuppositions because below you say "it says only what is, not how long it will be into the future."

Nothing there contradicts Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER. You have not expressed any logic that proves there is a contradiction between v.25 & what 31 clearly states. God can at the same time not be "good" to a man & also not cast him off forever. So there is obviously no contradiction. Casting off temporarily is not casting off forever. Not being good to a man temporarily is not the same as casting off forever.

So you think quoting Jer 3:31 over and over and over while ignoring the rest of Lamentations somehow makes your interpretation correct?

As translated by NIV it says only what is, not how long it will be into the future:
16 The LORD himself has scattered them; he no longer watches over them. The priests are shown no honor, the elders no favor. (NIV)

Cherry picking versions. Find one which appears to support your assumptions/presuppositions and ignore the rest. Let's look at the Jewish Publication Society and Septuagint

JPS Lam 4:16
(16) The anger of the LORD hath divided them; He will no more regard them; they respected not the persons of the priests, they were not gracious unto the elders.
LXX Lam 4:16
(16) The presence of the Lord was their portion; but he will not again look upon them: they regarded not the person of the priests, they pitied not the prophets.​

A single Jewish opinion of uncertain date is not inspired Scripture. Inspired Scripture is God breathed & relates God's opinions which are always true. Is it God's opinion that non Jews are not men?

That was not a single Jewish opinion. From the same link.

Gamaliel also expresses himself to the same effect, adding that the Gentiles, by their impure motive, incur the penalty of Gehenna. Eleazar of Modi'im sides with him, saying that "the Gentiles practise benevolence merely to taunt Israel.
Eliezer b. Hyrcanus is less tolerant. According to him, the mind of every non-Jew is always intent upon idolatry (Giṭ. 45b). The cattle of a heathen is unfit for sacrifices ('Ab. Zarah 23b). Explaining Prov. xiv. 34, he maintains that the non-Jews only practise charity in order to make for themselves a name (B. B. 10b; Pesiḳ. 12b; Gamaliel is credited with the same opinion in B. B. 10b). … as a rule Gentiles cling to vain things and are rejected (Prov. xxviii. 19; Gen. R. lxxxii.). … Eleazar of Modi'im, in reference to Micah iv. 5, explains that Israel, though guilty of the same sins as the Gentiles, will not enter hell, while the Gentiles will (Cant. R. ii. 1)…. On the whole, he is very bitter in his condemnations of the heathen. "They profit by their deeds of love
Simon ben Yoḥai is preeminently the anti-Gentile teacher. In a collection of three sayings of his, beginning with the keyword (Yer. Ḳid. 66c; Massek. Soferim xv. 10; Mek., Beshal-laḥ, 27a; Tan., Wayera, ed. Buber, 20), is found the expression, often quoted by anti-Semites, "Ṭob shebe-goyyim harog" (="The best among the Gentiles deserves to be killed").
Judah ben 'Illai recommends the daily recital of the benediction. "Blessed be Thou . . . who hast not made me a goi" (Tosef., Ber. vii. 18: Men. 43b, sometimes ascribed to Meïr; see Weiss, "Dor," ii. 137). Judah is confident that the heathen (Gentiles) will ultimately come to shame (Isa. lxvi. 5; B. M. 33b).The Gentiles took copies of the Torah, and yet did not accept it (Soṭah 35b).
Eliezer, the son of Jose the Galilean, calls the Gentiles poor "goyyim dawim," because they would not accept the Torah (Mek., Yitro. 62a), referring to Hab. iii. 6 and Ps. cxlvii. 20.
Josiah holds that every idolatrous heathen is an enemy of Israel (Mek., Mishpaṭim, 99a).
Simon ben Jose likens Israel to a stone, and the Gentiles to a potsherd (Isa. xxx. 14), applying the proverb: "If the stone falls on the pot, wo to the pot; if the pot falls on the stone, wo to the pot." This he offered as a consolation to persecuted Israel (Esther R. iii. 6).
Some of the parables of Joshua b. Levi illustrate strikingly the reciprocal feelings entertained in his day between Jews and Gentiles. The latter accused the former of being descended from illegitimate compulsory connection between their female ancestors and the Egyptians (Pesiḳ. 82b); the Jews, in turn, likened the Romans to dogs (referring to Isa. lvi. 11; Midr. Teh. to Ps. iv. 8;
Levi is, however, very severe in his reflections on the morality of the Gentiles (Cant. R. to vi. 8; see Bacher, l.c. p. 329, note 7). Levi claims that the injunction not to take revenge (Lev. xix. 18) does not apply to Gentiles (Eccl. R. viii. 4)
one of Johanan's sayings, though he is also the author of another which holds that, as the Torah was given as a heritage to Israel, a non-Israelite deserves death if he studies it (Sanh. 59a).​

"Now, that neither you nor any else mistake the allegory, note, saith God, this flock of my pasture are not sheep literally, but they are men..."

Matthew Poole's Commentary]

A single scholars opinion. Thus irrelevant, right?

"And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men,.... This is observed, to show that all that had been said in this chapter concerning sheep, and a flock of sheep, was to be understood, not in a literal sense, but in a figurative one, of such as were rational and spiritual persons; a set of men..."

Another single scholar's opinion. But do you really want to quote Gill "such as were rational and spiritual persons?" Which excludes those where were not rational or spiritual persons.

 

[Der Alte]

Jude said that Sodom and Gomorrah were set forth as an example to those who would live ungodly, suffering the vengeance of aionios fire. Jesus said the wicked would suffer ainios punishment which He said was aionios fire. They are the same thing. You agreed that in Jude the suffering and the burning are not eternal. If the suffering in Jude is not eternal neither is the suffering Jesus spoke of. The Lake of fire is not eternal.

According to you Jesus said the punishment [noun] was aionios [adj] and the fire [noun] was aionios. [adj] Jude did not say the suffering [no adj] or vengeance [no adj] was aionios. Check which words the adjectives modify.

I don't have that problem so where it was before isn't at question. The question is where is it now?

Since the fire, and only the fire, is aionios and it is no longer in Sodom then it must have gone back to God like the spirit does when man dies.

It's common sense. If you want your child to clean their room you don't tell them to clean the whole house. Hyperbole is a figure of speech where one exaggerates to make a point. When you're telling someone how something is to be done you do in literal language so that they understand how to do it.
It's over, give it up.

If you wish to lecture, instruct me on hyperbole in the Bible please read some scholarly writing on the subject see e.g. "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" not made up examples. People can make up an example which they think proves anything they want it to.

 

[ClementofA]

I didn't know Jeremiah had the NT. Was Jeremiah talking about things which would happen 3000 years in the future?

How far into the future is "forever"? As in:

Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER

Cherry picking versions. Find one which appears to support your assumptions/presuppositions and ignore the rest.

Yes, you did. Even though you've previously stated you trusted the NIV & NET translations, you didn't quote them, but others. Why is that?

​

That was not a single Jewish opinion. From the same link.

Jewish opinions aren't inspired. They deny the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, salvation by grace, that OT prophecies refer to Jesus Christ, etc, etc, etc. Jesus said the Pharisees were of their father the devil. Furthermore, you said:

Irrelevant not scripture.

Then are also all your quotes re Jewish beliefs & opinions irrelevant? And your quotes of church fathers? And opinions of lexicons? And BDAG references to non scriptural usages of aionios? So you won't be quoting any of these ever again, since they are, as you say, "Irrelevant not scripture"?

A single scholars opinion. Thus irrelevant, right?

Why don't you ask yourself who said:

Irrelevant not scripture.

If that is your position, then perhaps you should pay more attention to what you consider to be Scripture, as in:

For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

 

[Der Alte]

How far into the future is "forever"? As in:
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER

Yanking something out of context and claiming it predicts a NT event is not the same as actually reading "for ever" in scripture. And just for future reference what exactly does "for ever" in Lam 3;31 mean? Here are some choices "the age of mountains,''"the age of a man,""a lifetime,""a long time""indeterminate age"

Yes, you did. Even though you've previously stated you trusted the NIV & NET translations, you didn't quote them, but others. Why is that?

Yes I did what? I do have a lot of trust in the NIV and NET and I frequently quote the NIV, since most folks younger than me can't understand the KJV. But you have a propensity for cherry picking sources which seem to support your assumptions/presuppositions and ignoring sources which contradict you Which you did in this case both the JPS and LXX contradict your agenda.

Jewish opinions aren't inspired. They deny the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, salvation by grace, that OT prophecies refer to Jesus Christ, etc, etc, etc. Jesus said the Pharisees were of their father the devil. Furthermore, you said:

"Jewish opinions aren't inspired." I want you to remember this every time you post a bunch of links from anoynomus people with no, zeo, none stated or demonstrated expertise in the Biblical languages or Bible history, including the link at the bottom of this post. What the Jewish sources which I quote have, which none of your links have, they are the only documented evidence of the historical beliefs and practices of the Jews. Wait a minute wasn't Jesus and His disciples Jews and wouldn't they know what other 1st century Jews believed?

Then are also all your quotes re Jewish beliefs & opinions irrelevant? And your quotes of church fathers? And opinions of lexicons? And BDAG references to non scriptural usages of aionios? So you won't be quoting any of these ever again, since they are, as you say, "Irrelevant not scripture"?

Evidently you don't have any idea what a lexicon or concordance is or how they are created. Since you blew them off as "opinion." Do you know what "peer reviewed" means? Legitimate, reliable publishers do not print just anything somebody writes. Subject matter writings such as lexicons, concordances etc. are submitted to subject matter experts for review. Publishers must do this to protect their reputation. They would not stay in business long if they printed everything somebody sent to them. On the other hand the stuff you link to, such as Beauchamin, is not peer reviewed just a bunch of UR folkse scribbling out their opinions

Why don't you ask yourself who said:
If that is your position, then perhaps you should pay more attention to what you consider to be Scripture, as in: [Irrelevant link omitted]

I have been at this forum for almost 2 decades. I think the present owner is the third one since I've been here. I learned a long time ago that most hard core heterodox are almost impossible to reach. So I am primarily posting for those on the fence either thinking about joining or leaving such groups.

 

[Der Alte]

It seems they will "come to Him" & "be ashamed" of themselves:
Isa.45:24 The people will declare, "The LORD is the source of all my righteousness and strength." And all who were angry with him will come to him and be ashamed.
And he that "comes to Him" shall find rest & He shall not cast out (Mt.11:28; Jn.6:37).

The usual out-of-context proof texts.
Jesus speaking to the Galileans who FYI were alive and listening to Him. I don't see anything about the dead here

Mat 11:28-30
(28) "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.
(29) Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
(30) For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."​

Where does Jesus say the unrighteous dead in hades will be laying down their burdens and coming to Him?

Joh 6:35-37
(35) Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
(36) But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
(37) All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.​

What about the ones that the Father did not give Jesus? Why didn't Jesus say everyone will come to me?

100 Scriptural Proofs That Jesus Christ Will Save All Mankind

​

The usual meaningless link to writings by anonymous people with no stated or demonstrated expertise in Biblical languages or Bible history. Might as well ask the guy who picks up my trash on Tue. Now for your out-of-context proof text from Isa.

Isa 45:6
(6) so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other.​

Will the sun be rising and setting for the dead unrighteous in hades? This must refer to events in this world and living people.

Isa 45:16
(16) All the makers of idols will be put to shame and disgraced; they will go off into disgrace together.​

Will there be idol makers in hades, will they be put to shame and disgraced or will they turn to God and be saved?

Isa 45:13
(13) I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the LORD Almighty."​

Obviously this passage is about King Cyrus who God used to punish Israel about 700 BC

Isa 45:22
(22) "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other.​

I didn't know there were any "ends of the earth" in hades where the unrighteous dead are, so this must be talking about people in this life.

Isa 45:24
(24) They will say of me, 'In the LORD alone are deliverance and strength.'" All who have raged against him will come to him and be put to shame.​

Will those who raged against God be saved , vs. 22, or will they be put to shame?
Still waiting for at least one, more would be better, where "Love Omnipotent," God Himself, says that He will save/reconcile all mankind after death and punishment, even if they don't repent in this life? Unless you can do that your "Love Omnipotent" and "milk carton expiry date" catch phrases are meaningless.

​

 

[Butch5]

According to you Jesus said the punishment [noun] was aionios [adj] and the fire [noun] was aionios. [adj] Jude did not say the suffering [no adj] or vengeance [no adj] was aionios. Check which words the adjectives modify.

Side stepping? Jude said they were an example for those who would live ungodly. That would be the wicked. Jesus indicated that the wicked would suffer aionios punishment in aionios fire. We see from Jude that the suffering and the burning were not eternal. It's pretty clear.

Since the fire, and only the fire, is aionios and it is no longer in Sodom then it must have gone back to God like the spirit does when man dies.

Speculation? Building doctrine on Speculation?

If you wish to lecture, instruct me on hyperbole in the Bible please read some scholarly writing on the subject see e.g. "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" not made up examples. People can make up an example which they think proves anything they want it to.

No lectures. It's just common sense. Instruction manuals don't use hyperbole.

 

[Der Alte]

Side stepping? Jude said they were an example for those who would live ungodly. That would be the wicked. Jesus indicated that the wicked would suffer aionios punishment in aionios fire. We see from Jude that the suffering and the burning were not eternal. It's pretty clear.

Repeating your previous argument which I have already addressed does not make it any more valid. You are trying to compare apples and cantaloupes. Was the example of Sodom etc. of living people in this world or was it dead people being punished in hades or wherever? Was the punishment Jesus talked about of the wicked after judgement or was it of living persons in this life? You keep forgetting which adjectives modified which nouns.

Speculation? Building doctrine on Speculation?

Jude said the fire was aionios, it was sent down on Sodom etc. from God in heaven it is no longer at Sodom etc. it must be somewhere.

No lectures. It's just common sense. Instruction manuals don't use hyperbole

I certainly appreciate this unsupported opinion. Jesus instructed His disciples quite often using parables.

 

[Butch5]

Repeating your previous argument which I have already addressed does not make it any more valid. You are trying to compare apples and cantaloupes. Was the example of Sodom etc. of living people in this world or was it dead people being punished in hades or wherever? Was the punishment Jesus talked about of the wicked after judgement or was it of living persons in this life? You keep forgetting which adjectives modified which nouns.

The punishment is of living people. Whether what Jude said or after the judgement. The point that you keep ignoring is that both of these are punishment of the wicked. Jude said this punishment was an example of aionios fire. Jesus said the wicked would suffer the same fate.

Jude said the fire was aionios, it was sent down on Sodom etc. from God in heaven it is no longer at Sodom etc. it must be somewhere.

Yeah, it went out.

I certainly appreciate this unsupported opinion. Jesus instructed His disciples quite often using parables.

He taught them using parable. I'm not sure He used hyperbole to instruct them how to do something.

 

[Der Alte]

The punishment is of living people. Whether what Jude said or after the judgement. The point that you keep ignoring is that both of these are punishment of the wicked. Jude said this punishment was an example of aionios fire. Jesus said the wicked would suffer the same fate.

No Jesus did NOT say the wicked would suffer the same fate. The word translated "example" also means "sample" The point that you keep ignoring is in Jude aionios only modifies fire when Jesus spoke He said both the punishment and the fire was aionios.

Yeah, it went out.

So you are arguing that the eternal fire was not eternal although Jude said it was?

He taught them using parable. I'm not sure He used hyperbole to instruct them how to do something

Mat 16:26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?[Mar 8:36, Luk 9:25]

 

[Butch5]

No Jesus did NOT say the wicked would suffer the same fate. The word translated "example" also means "sample" The point that you keep ignoring is in Jude aionios only modifies fire when Jesus spoke He said both the punishment and the fire was aionios.

I'm not ignoring anything. The point is that they both suffer aionios fire. It's only because you define aionios as eternal that you have to keep arguing.

So you are arguing that the eternal fire was not eternal although Jude said it was?

Jude didn't say it was eternal fire. He said it was aionios fire. I've already proven time and again that aionios cannot mean eternal.

Mat 16:26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?[Mar 8:36, Luk 9:25]

Come on man. I expected more. You know that giving an example and giving direction are to different things.

 

[ClementofA]

Yanking something out of context and claiming it predicts a NT event is not the same as actually reading "for ever" in scripture. And just for future reference what exactly does "for ever" in Lam 3;31 mean? Here are some choices "the age of mountains,''"the age of a man,""a lifetime,""a long time""indeterminate age"

Since you've accepted the KJV translation "forever" (Lam.3:31) in all the many discussions of this verse we've had before, what brings up your question here? Do you find that your dozen or so other attempts to de-fuse my argument have been inadequate? Do you not accept the NIV & NET translations "forever" which you have said before that you trust? Is your trust in them waning?

Yes I did what? I do have a lot of trust in the NIV and NET and I frequently quote the NIV, since most folks younger than me can't understand the KJV. But you have a propensity for cherry picking sources which seem to support your assumptions/presuppositions and ignoring sources which contradict you Which you did in this case both the JPS and LXX contradict your agenda.

Yes, you did cherry pick JPS & one translators opinion re how the LXX should be rendered.
Even though you've stated before you trust NIV & NET which i quoted.

"Jewish opinions aren't inspired." I want you to remember this every time you post a bunch of links from anoynomus people with no, zeo, none stated or demonstrated expertise in the Biblical languages or Bible history, including the link at the bottom of this post.

I want you to remember your statement "Irrelevant not scripture" when you quote extrabiblical nonchristian Jewish opinions, church fathers, lexicons, & other sources which come under the heading of "Irrelevant not scripture". So you can be reminded by yourself, in your opinion, that what you are posting is "Irrelevant not scripture":

Irrelevant not scripture.

What the Jewish sources which I quote have, which none of your links have, they are the only documented evidence of the historical beliefs and practices of the Jews. Wait a minute wasn't Jesus and His disciples Jews and wouldn't they know what other 1st century Jews believed?

To quote you again: "Irrelevant not scripture." Are nonchristian extrabiblical Jewish beliefs inspired? They deny the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, salvation by grace, that OT prophecies refer to Jesus Christ, etc, etc, etc. Jesus said the Pharisees were of their father the devil. Evidently you can't make your case from the inspired Scriptures, so you rely on uninspired Jewish speculations about Scripture, Jewish horror tales, myths, etc. Jesus quoted from the Scriptures as being authitative, not the traditions of men that oppose the Word of God.

Evidently you don't have any idea what a lexicon or concordance is or how they are created. Since you blew them off as "opinion." Do you know what "peer reviewed" means? Legitimate, reliable publishers do not print just anything somebody writes. Subject matter writings such as lexicons, concordances etc. are submitted to subject matter experts for review. Publishers must do this to protect their reputation. They would not stay in business long if they printed everything somebody sent to them. On the other hand the stuff you link to, such as Beauchamin, is not peer reviewed just a bunch of UR folkse scribbling out their opinions

It was you who said "Irrelevant not scripture.". Are you now arguing that what is not scripture is relevant? IOW, are you double-minded? Or are you putting lexicons & scholarly opinions on an equal level to inspired Scripture? You do realize that scholars disagree amongst themselves just as do laymen? So which scholar should you place blind faith in? Or should you pray & ask the Teacher, the Lord Jesus, to enlighten you, instead of looking to men (e.g. uninspired Jews) for worldly wisdom?

Irrelevant not scripture.

Eminent lexicographer John A. L. Lee, in his book "A History of New Testament Lexicography" (2014), which has been well reviewed by his peers, points out many errors in BDAG & how lexicons have often blindly copied from one another, including their mistakes.

"Baldwin’s use of the lexicons as authoritative raises the question: Do the lexicons provide authoritative boundaries for the meaning and glosses of αὐθεντέω in the various contexts? Lee, Nida and Louw are agreed that the answer is ‘no’, not only for αὐθεντέω, but in general. Lee asserts, ‘The body of attestations accumulated in the lexicons has reached its greatest extent yet. But because of the ways it has been gathered there is an inherent unreliability’ (Lee, Lexicography, p. 124). Nida and Louw write: ‘We must not assume that the English glosses in a Greek–English lexicon can provide accurate information about the designative and associative meanings of a Greek term’ (Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, p. 59)"
http://jgrchj.net/volume10/JGRChJ10-7_Westfall.pdf

"No one has drawn more attention to the methodological issues and, well, let's face, flaws, in our New Testament Greek lexicons that John A. L. Lee. In a good summary statement of the state of affairs of our lexicons, Lee says "The concise, seemingly authoritative statement of meaning can, and often does, conceal many sins - indecision, compromise, imperfect knowledge, guesswork, and, above all, dependence on predecessors."

Lee is quoted again: "...NT lexicons are contaminated by glosses from the standard translations, going back as far as the Vulgate."

Advances in the Study of Greek

"The first three chapters chronicle the three leading characteristics of the NT lexicographical tradition: reliance on predecessors, employment of the gloss method, and dependence on versions. Lee demonstrates how lexicographers in their choice of glosses frequently drew on the rendering of a given word in current translations and shows the chain of development from the KJV to Tyndale, from Tyndale to Luther, and from Luther via Erasmus to the Vulgate. He also points to the limitations of the gloss method and advocates a definition approach instead... Hence even BDAG (2000) is but the last in a series of works with a long, checkered pedigree that should now give way to new efforts..."

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/47/47-3/47-3-pp481-547_JETS.pdf

The Curious Case of Gerhard Kittel, the Nazi lexicographer:
The Curious Case of Gerhard Kittel

Myth: Biblical Reference Works Are Objective
Myth: Biblical Reference Works Are Objective (Gupta)

" Lee goes on to say that lexicographical work in Greek – especially the vocabulary of the LXX – is far from over not just in terms of demand, but in terms of accuracy. There is a huge amount of sources not yet incorporated into our understanding of Koine Greek. Undertaking exhaustive and integrative analysis of this body of language is therefore essential to interpreting Scripture rightly." Lexicography for the Church

"Recent studies have...demonstrated the inadequacies of many of the standard Greek lexicons, including Bauer & Dankers:"

Christian Identity in Corinth: A Comparative Study of 2 Corinthians ...By V. Henry T. Nguyen

Christian Identity in Corinth

I have been at this forum for almost 2 decades. I think the present owner is the third one since I've been here. I learned a long time ago that most hard core heterodox are almost impossible to reach. So I am primarily posting for those on the fence either thinking about joining or leaving such groups.

What matters is what is Scriptural, not labelled "orthodox" or "hereodox". Re universalism as arguably a majority view at times in the early church:

Church Fathers & Universalism since Early Church times

 

[ClementofA]

Mat 16:26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?[Mar 8:36, Luk 9:25]

Lose it for how long? It doesn't say forever. Can one who loses their soul find it again later? Did king Nebuchadnezzar lose his soul for 7 years when he ate grass like an animal...UNTIL...God restored him & he worshipped Love Omnipotent:

Dan.4:33 The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws.
34a But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him...
35 All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, 'What have You done?'
36 At that time my reason returned to me. And my majesty and splendor were restored to me for the glory of my kingdom, and my counselors and my nobles began seeking me out; so I was reestablished in my sovereignty, and surpassing greatness was added to me.
37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt and honor the King of heaven, for all His works are true and His ways just, and He is able to humble those who walk in pride.

Here again a punishment is...UNTIL...a certain point:

Matt 5:25-26 Come to terms quickly with your adversary before it is too late and you are dragged into court, handed over to an officer, and thrown in jail.
I assure you that you won't be free again until you have paid the last penny.

Which is spoken of in the context of references to Gehenna, both before & after this passage. Likewise here is yet another passage re punishment...UNTIL...a certain time:

Mt.18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 That is how My Heavenly Father will treat each of you, unless you forgive your brother from your heart.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mt.16:26, KJV)

A parallel passage states:

What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self? Lk.9:25

The word for "lose" is apollumi. The same Greek word used of the lost sheep, coin, & prodigal son who were "lost" & later found (Luke 15).

Unique Proof For Christian, Biblical Universalism