Why are threads on Christian universalism so popular?

[Der Alte]

That story doesn’t give evidence against annihilation because Hades and Hell are two completely different places. Hades is the place in Sheol where the wicked go to wait until judgement day. Hell is the lake of fire where the people in Hades will go after judgement day. Some verses support annihilation some support eternal torment, so it’s really hard to say. And the word “die” is used in so many different ways in the scriptures that it’s hard to know exactly which meaning is being used.

Hades and hell are not necessarily two different places.
Before and during the time of Jesus the Jews had a significant belief in a place of fiery punishment which they called both "sheol" and Ge Hinnom" "Sheol" is written as hades in the 225 LXX and the NT and GeHinnom is written as "Gehenna" in both the 225 LXX and the NT. See Jewish Encyclopedia article "Gehenna"
link: GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[wendykvw]

Personally, I don't think I'll be giving up the book of Revelation any time soon. It's one of the reasons I "still" believe in the Christian faith. Besides, the issue over ECT or not-ECT has never been a big one for me, probably because unlike a number of others here on CF and elsewhere I wasn't raised in a Fundamentalist, ECT minded family.

Actually, I think some of the reason for the above is because when I was a kid and before I really understood Christianity and the Bible, my mom and dad barely made us darken the door of the local PCUSA church. If I remember correctly, the minister there---of the few dozen times I heard him preach---never broached the topic of Hell in any shape or form. Like ever. And that approach fit very well with the fact that we also didn't read the Bible in my family, nor did we really go to Sunday School. Like ever. So, being that I didn't read Revelation or anything that Jesus or Paul had to say on the subject of 'Hell,' I remained safely aloof from any possibility of being worried over ECT.

Later, (at age 17) when I first began to engage the Bible seriously (and I became a Christian), I went with a friend to a Southern Baptist church, but even then I was always aware of interpretive issues I had with some of the more literalist type of readings one could have on various topics. Let's just say I couldn't get on board with the Baptist pastor's preaching on a 'rapture,' among other things. However, I can say that upon becoming familiar with the concept of 'Worms not dying and Unquenchable Fire,' the possibility of any kind of Metaphysical Demise did become a little more concerning to me at that point ...

Of course and I didn't mean to imply that anybody should I just wanted to point out that no one should be too dogmatic about what Revelation says or doesn't say it is a very interesting but difficult book. And I do think it is significant. . I believe the quote that I shared from Orthodox may have mentioned that it was a difficult book. I agree with that sentiment.

 

[JulieB67]

Since you can't respond to me with anything like common courtesy, referring to my exegesis as a wall of text, there is no point in continuing.

I'm sorry for that comment. It's just that you've given them to me before when we've had discussions in the past on other threads about ECT. So I was kind of implying it's pointless at this point. I truly believe the second death is death period. I don't want to have to stretch or change meanings of words to believe a certain way. I take the Bible as whole and my conclusion always comes out that the wages of sin is death, period. We can escape that by repentance and belief on Christ. But I will never believe in ECT. I believe just as Christ taught that being thrown into the lake of fire is the second death and after that both the present heaven and earth will pass away.

You're basically stating the same thing that UR believers state -that the second death doesn't really mean death. Even though it certainly means death when taken back to the Greek. But you've changed the complete meaning of that word to suit your own doctrine.

 

[Hmm]

I've said the same thing. ECT is unacceptable; whatever it is, it's not that. George MacDonald's Unspoken Sermons are worth their weight in gold.

Unspoken Sermons by George MacDonald

Thanks for the reference. I Googled him and came across this extract from one of his sermons "Justice", which is given in full in your link.

I thought I'd copy the extract here because it gives a very clear explanation (the language is Victorian) of why "the punishment of the wrong-doer makes no atonement for the wrong done." but rather only their "confession and submission and initial restoration, an appeal to the divinest in me--to the eternal brotherhood? " has the power to do this.

It reinforces the point, if any reinforcement is needed, that ECT is not only immoral but a completely ineffective way of making any meaningful reparation to the wrongs we do to one another or to God.

"Suppose my watch has been taken from my pocket; I lay hold of the thief; he is dragged before the magistrate, proved guilty, and sentenced to a just imprisonment: must I walk home satisfied with the result? Have I had justice done me? The thief may have had justice done him--but where is my watch? That is gone, and I remain a man wronged. Who has done me the wrong? The thief. Who can set right the wrong? The thief, and only the thief; nobody but the man that did the wrong. God may be able to move the man to right the wrong, but God himself cannot right it without the man. Suppose my watch found and restored, is the account settled between me and the thief? I may forgive him, but is the wrong removed? By no means. But suppose the thief to bethink himself, to repent. He has, we shall say, put it out of his power to return the watch, but he comes to me and says he is sorry he stole it and begs me to accept for the present what little he is able to bring, as a beginning of atonement: how should I then regard the matter? Should I not feel that he had gone far to make atonement--done more to make up for the injury he had inflicted upon me, than the mere restoration of the watch, even by himself, could reach to? Would there not lie, in the thief's confession and submission and initial restoration, an appeal to the divinest in me--to the eternal brotherhood? Would it not indeed amount to a sufficing atonement as between man and man? If he offered to bear what I chose to lay upon him, should I feel it necessary, for the sake of justice, to inflict some certain suffering as demanded by righteousness? I should still have a claim upon him for my watch, but should I not be apt to forget it? He who commits the offence can make up for it--and he alone.

One thing must surely be plain--that the punishment of the wrong-doer makes no atonement for the wrong done. How could it make up to me for the stealing of my watch that the man was punished? The wrong would be there all the same. I am not saying the man ought not to be punished--far from it; I am only saying that the punishment nowise makes up to the man wronged. Suppose the man, with the watch in his pocket, were to inflict the severest flagellation on himself: would that lessen my sense of injury? Would it set anything right? Would it anyway atone? Would it give him a right to the watch? Punishment may do good to the man who does the wrong, but that is a thing as different as important.

[...]

Punishment, I repeat, is not the thing required of God, but the absolute destruction of sin. What better is the world, what better is the sinner, what better is God, what better is the truth, that the sinner should suffer--continue suffering to all eternity? Would there be less sin in the universe? Would there be any making-up for sin? Would it show God justified in doing what he knew would bring sin into the world, justified in making creatures who he knew would sin? What setting-right would come of the sinner's suffering? If justice demand it, if suffering be the equivalent for sin, then the sinner must suffer, then God is bound to exact his suffering, and not pardon; and so the making of man was a tyrannical deed, a creative cruelty. But grant that the sinner has deserved to suffer, no amount of suffering is any atonement for his sin. To suffer to all eternity could not make up for one unjust word. Does that mean, then, that for an unjust word I deserve to suffer to all eternity? The unjust word is an eternally evil thing; nothing but God in my heart can cleanse me from the evil that uttered it; but does it follow that I saw the evil of what I did so perfectly, that eternal punishment for it would be just? Sorrow and confession and self-abasing love will make up for the evil word; suffering will not. For evil in the abstract, nothing can be done. It is eternally evil. But I may be saved from it by learning to loathe it, to hate it, to shrink from it with an eternal avoidance. The only vengeance worth having on sin is to make the sinner himself its executioner."

I also found this photo of him and his son and daughter which was actually taken by Lewis Carroll and I thought, why not be completely wild and post a picture as well. He looks a bit like Rasputin.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If hell is the lake of fire how does it get thrown into the lake of fire?

Hades is thrown into the lake of fire not hell.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Or maybe the precious "lake of fire", the damnationist golden boy, is just a metaphor.

A metaphor for what exactly? "Fire" almost always has the connotation of judgement. God is a "consuming fire". However, it makes no sense to say that the devil was thrown into God.(20:10). Revelation says that the Lake of Fire is the second death. (20:14). I have a theory as to what this means, but it's my opinion only.

What is clear is that there is existence after death, and that God judges sinners. It is clear to me that sinners will not be found in heaven. Whatever the lake of fire may be, I want no part of it!

As an aside, if I'd been told that God was going to save me anyway, I would not have accepted Christ. My motive was purely selfish. I did not want to be shut out of heaven. I had no love for God and I despised what I knew of church. I did not know about hell or the lake of fire. Being shut out of heaven was incentive enough.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your making the assumption that the gate you are talking about is heaven or hell, it may be life now or death now. In Christ we have life now and few find it, death is the natural state of those without Jesus and that is most of humanity. I am a UR guy and I see it that Jesus gives us life now not just in the afterlife, but those without Jesus live in death now. So it depends on how you read and understand the scripture.

The gate is Christ theres no mistaking that.

 

[BNR32FAN]

A metaphor for what exactly? "Fire" almost always has the connotation of judgement. God is a "consuming fire". However, it makes no sense to say that the devil was thrown into God.(20:10). Revelation says that the Lake of Fire is the second death. (20:14). I have a theory as to what this means, but it's my opinion only.

What is clear is that there is existence after death, and that God judges sinners. It is clear to me that sinners will not be found in heaven. Whatever the lake of fire may be, I want no part of it!

As an aside, if I'd been told that God was going to save me anyway, I would not have accepted Christ. My motive was purely selfish. I did not want to be shut out of heaven. I had no love for God and I despised what I knew of church. I did not know about hell or the lake of fire. Being shut out of heaven was incentive enough.

My motivation was selfish as well because I was struggling in life I was alone and scared and the reason I came to Christ was so that He would give me blessings which He did and I am forever grateful to Him.

 

[Aussie Pete]

My motivation was selfish as well because I was struggling in life I was alone and scared and the reason I came to Christ was so that He would give me blessings which He did and I am forever grateful to Him.

There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to salvation. Some people fall in love with Jesus. Some admire Him and want to emulate Him. One thing I am sure of. God saves sinners. I did not consider myself a bad person. I've met very few people who admit to being bad, even some who should be locked up. The Holy Spirit used God's word to convict me and scare me into the Kingdom of God! That's not why I serve the Lord now. I know Jesus and that's the only motivation I need.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Your making the assumption that the gate you are talking about is heaven or hell, it may be life now or death now. In Christ we have life now and few find it, death is the natural state of those without Jesus and that is most of humanity. I am a UR guy and I see it that Jesus gives us life now not just in the afterlife, but those without Jesus live in death now. So it depends on how you read and understand the scripture.

So what is the second death?

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to salvation. Some people fall in love with Jesus. Some admire Him and want to emulate Him. One thing I am sure of. God saves sinners. I did not consider myself a bad person. I've met very few people who admit to being bad, even some who should be locked up. The Holy Spirit used God's word to convict me and scare me into the Kingdom of God! That's not why I serve the Lord now. I know Jesus and that's the only motivation I need.

Amen like I’ve said before God chose to use both fear and love to motivate people to come to Him and I believe that is because different people require different motivation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It reinforces the point, if any reinforcement is needed, that ECT is not only immoral but a completely ineffective way of making any meaningful reparation to the wrongs we do to one another or to God.

Punishment often doesn’t include reparation. When criminals get sent to jail or execution that doesn’t make amends to the one who was offended by the crime, it’s simply a punishment for the crime. I completely understand that eternal punishment may not seem to be just from our perspective but what if there are reasons unknown to us why God chose to implement it? I have to trust that whatever He has chosen is far better than any idea I can come up with and I think universalists need to contemplate that if God as loving and merciful as He is had determined that eternal punishment was necessary then I guarantee He has a perfectly reasonable explanation for it, not that He owes us any explanation because we’re supposed to trust in Him.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Hades and hell are not necessarily two different places.
Before and during the time of Jesus the Jews had a significant belief in a place of fiery punishment which they called both "sheol" and Ge Hinnom" "Sheol" is written as hades in the 225 LXX and the NT and GeHinnom is written as "Gehenna" in both the 225 LXX and the NT. See Jewish Encyclopedia article "Gehenna"
link: GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

I guess it depends on your definition of the word “hell”. The word hell actually never appears in the scriptures it’s an English word that was created to refer to the fiery place of torment in the afterlife for the wicked. From my understanding hell is different from Hades because hell refers to a different place of torment than Hades. That’s why I believe that hell is the lake of fire and Hades is the place of torment in Sheol. I also believe that when Jesus mentioned Gehenna He was referring to hell not Hades but I can see how that might be debatable since those in Hades will eventually end up in the lake of fire. So you believe hell and the lake of fire are two different places?

 

[Jeff Saunders]

The gate is Christ theres no mistaking that.

Yes the gate is Jesus and all must enter through Him there is no other way.That is why Jesus said no man comes to the Father but by me.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Christ detested death but He didn’t annihilate him. Death will be abolished, annihilated, in the lake of fire after judgement day.

It never says annihilated, you are adding that idea into the text . It says it’s everlasting punishment/ torment .

 

[BNR32FAN]

It never says annihilated, you are adding that idea into the text . It says it’s everlasting punishment/ torment .

“The last enemy that will be abolished is death.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:26‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Abolish

G2673

katargeō

1. to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
a. to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
b. to deprive of force, influence, power
2. to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
a. to cease, to pass away, be done away
b. to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
c. to terminate all intercourse with one

Some scripture support annihilation some support eternal punishment. I’m undecided on the subject.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

“The last enemy that will be abolished is death.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:26‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Abolish

G2673

katargeō

1. to render idle, unemployed, inactivate, inoperative
a. to cause a person or thing to have no further efficiency
b. to deprive of force, influence, power
2. to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish
a. to cease, to pass away, be done away
b. to be severed from, separated from, discharged from, loosed from any one
c. to terminate all intercourse with one

Some scripture support annihilation some support eternal punishment. I’m undecided on the subject.

The real question is what does your view say about God and his nature and his essence, which is love. UCT says God who knows all things before he does anything creates people who he knows he will have to torture them forever all the while saying he loves them, that’s more of a monster than a loving God. Annihilation is similar but at least he does not torture them forever just a little while. That’s better but no my idea of loving. UR said God had a plan to rescue all his creation and will do it in the end. Which view of God is the most loving?

 

[Hmm]

Punishment often doesn’t include reparation. When criminals get sent to jail or execution that doesn’t make amends to the one who was offended by the crime, it’s simply a punishment for the crime. I completely understand that eternal punishment may not seem to be just from our perspective but what if there are reasons unknown to us why God chose to implement it?

I think that we can confidently say that there are no good reason for an eternal punishment from any perspective, just as there are no good reasons for child abuse. God is not completely unknow to us - He revealed Himself perfectly in Jesus and can you really see Jesus throwing someone in a lake of fire forever?

I have to trust that whatever He has chosen is far better than any idea I can come up with

I agree but to me that proves He hasn't chosen ECT because it's pretty easy to come up with a better idea, such as a corrective punishment instead.

I think universalists need to contemplate that if God as loving and merciful as He is had determined that eternal punishment was necessary then I guarantee He has a perfectly reasonable explanation for it, not that He owes us any explanation because we’re supposed to trust in Him.

I'm not sure how it's possible to trust someone when we're not 100% certain that they're not going to torture us endlessly.

 

[Der Alte]

I guess it depends on your definition of the word “hell”. The word hell actually never appears in the scriptures it’s an English word that was created to refer to the fiery place of torment in the afterlife for the wicked. From my understanding hell is different from Hades because hell refers to a different place of torment than Hades. That’s why I believe that hell is the lake of fire and Hades is the place of torment in Sheol. I also believe that when Jesus mentioned Gehenna He was referring to hell not Hades but I can see how that might be debatable since those in Hades will eventually end up in the lake of fire. So you believe hell and the lake of fire are two different places?

I have been active at this forum since late '89, early '90, can't remember exactly. I quickly realized that the same specious arguments and the same out-of-context proof texts are endlessly repeated. So I began saving my responses so I didn't have to reinvent the wheel every time. Many who have responded to this post blew it off as a wall of text.
.....If I want accurate information about the faith and practice of the Jews before and during I should consult historical Jewish sources not anonymous people online. Here is one of those saved responses which has been revised and updated over the 3 decades or so.
My ¢¢ Below are quotes from three credible Jewish sources; the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1972 Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. Which to date have not been, and I am convinced cannot be, refuted.
= = = = =
…..It is very enticing to claim that the Christian concept of "Hell" was somehow derived from Dante's 14th century writing “Inferno,” or some later writing. But according to these three sources, at least 16 centuries before Dante even scribbled one single line, among the יהודים/Yehudim/ιουδαιων/Youdaion/Jews in Israel, before and during the time of Jesus, there was a significant belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom. Sheol and gehinnom are written Hades and Gehenna, respectively, in both the 225 BC LXX and the NT. As can be seen by the citations in this post The Jews later called both Sheol/Hades, and Ge Hinnom/Gehenna, “Hell.
…..There were different factions within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. These differing beliefs do not disprove anything in this post.

[1]1925 Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the sons 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). … 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);[“Soon” in this paragraph would be about 700 BC +/-, DA]​

Note: This is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT any assumed/alleged bias of “modern” Christian translators. DA
…..This refutes the false narrative that the fifteen [15] times Jesus mentioned “Gehenna” He was referring to the valley of GeHinnom/Gehenna where trash and bodies were supposedly always burning.

”(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai [30 BC-90 AD] 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 [Talmud]. 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]
“… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b).[Talmud] “When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; [Talmud] comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch [x. 6, xci. 9, etal] 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 toIsa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b)[Talmud].
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
Note, scripture references are highlighted in blue.
= = = = = = = = = =
[2]1972 Encyclopedia Judaica:
Gehinnom (Heb. גֵּי בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּי בְנֵי הִנֹּם, גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּיא הִנֹּם; Gr. Γέεννα; "Valley of Ben-Hinnom, Valley of [the Son (s) of] Hinnom," Gehenna), a valley south of Jerusalem on one of the borders between the territories of Judah and Benjamin, between the Valley of *Rephaim and *En-Rogel (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). It is identified with Wadi er-Rababi.
…..During the time of the Monarchy, Gehinnom, at a place called Topheth, was the site of a cult which involved the burning of children (II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; 32:35 et al.; ). Jeremiah repeatedly condemned this cult and predicted that on its account Topheth and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom would be called the Valley of the "Slaughter" (Jer. 19:5–6).
In Judaism the name Gehinnom is generally used as an appellation of the place of torment reserved for the wicked after death. The New Testament used the Greek form Gehenna in the same sense.
Link:
Gehinnom
http://www.jevzajcg.me/enciklopedia/Encyclopaedia Judaica, v. 07 (Fey-Gor).pdf
= = = = = = = = = =
[3]Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [i.e. followers 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.​

When Jesus taught e.g.,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell [Γέεννα/gehenna] where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, 3 times Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6 [A fate worse than death. DA]
• “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. …And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24 [A fate worse than death]
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12 [A fate worse than death. DA]​

…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell, c.f. Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and Talmud, supra.
In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.
…..A punishment worse than death without mercy is also mentioned in Hebrews 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. [A fate worse than death. DA] ​

…..“how much sorer punishment,””Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord,””It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” these deprecations certainly do not sound like everyone will be saved, no matter what.
…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He intended to say eternal death, in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.”
….The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, see Acts of the Apostles 23:8. They knew that everybody died; rich, poor; young, old; good, bad; men, women; children, infants; sick, healthy, and knew that it was permanent and often it did not involve punishment.
When Jesus taught, e.g., “eternal punishment” the Sadducees would not have understood it as simply death, it very likely would have meant something worse to them.
…..Re: Matt 25:46 concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,

“Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4​

…..Jesus attended Temple and synagogues for about 25 years +/-. He undoubtedly knew what the Jews believed about the fate of the unrighteous. He opposed the Jewish leaders many times, If the Jewish teaching on hell was wrong, why wouldn’t Jesus tell them there was no hell, no eternal punishment etc? Why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed, e.g.

"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"[/i] ([Judith xvi:17]Judith xvi. 17).
Link: Judith, CHAPTER 16​

 

[Der Alte]

I think that we can confidently say that there are no good reason for an eternal punishment from any perspective, just as there are no good reasons for child abuse. God is not completely unknow to us - He revealed Himself perfectly in Jesus and can you really see Jesus throwing someone in a lake of fire forever?
I agree but to me that proves He hasn't chosen ECT because it's pretty easy to come up with a better idea, such as a corrective punishment instead.
I'm not sure how it's possible to trust someone when we're not 100% certain that they're not going to torture us endlessly.

Well I guess Jesus was a liar.
“aionios” occurs 72x in the N.T.
“aionios” is translated world only 3 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is correctly translated eternal 42 times in the N.T.
“aionios” is correctly translated everlasting 25 times in the N.T.
Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times, Jesus never used “aionios” to refer something common, ordinary or mundane which was not/could not be “eternal.”
= = = = = = = = = =
In ten [10] of the following verses aionios is defined/described as eternal, everlasting, eternity etc, by paralleling or juxtaposition with other adjectives or descriptive phrases.
= = = = = = = = = =
…..Some people claim that “aionios” never means eternity/eternal/everlasting because it sometimes refer to something which is not eternal.
However, “aionios” is never defined/described, by adjectives or adjectival phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, in the New Testament, as in the following verses.
…..Jesus used “aionios” twenty eight [28] times. He never used “aionios” to refer to anything common, ordinary or mundane that was not or could not be eternal.
…..In the following ten [10] verses Jesus defines “aionios” as “eternal/forever/everlasting.”
See especially vss. John 3:15-16 and Matthew 25:46.

John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life. ​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.
Matthew 25:46
(46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.[/indent]
= = = = =

[1] Luke 1:33
(33) And he shall reign [basileusei][Vb] over the house of Jacob for ever; [aionas] and of his kingdom [basileias][Nn] there shall be no end.[telos] ​

In this verse the reign/basileusei, which is the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternity.

[2] John 6:58
(58) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.[aionios]​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”

[3]John 10:28
(28) I give them eternal [aionios] life, and they shall never [aion] perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. ​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”

[4]John 3:15
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionion] life.
[5] John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionion] life. ​

In these two verses Jesus parallels “aionion” with “should not perish.” Believers could eventually perish in a finite period, thus by definition “aionion life” here means eternal or everlasting life.

[6]John 5:24
(24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting [aionios] life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. ​

In this verse Jesus parallels “aionios” with “shall not come into condemnation” and “passed from death unto life.” “Aionios” does not mean “a finite period,” by definition here it means “eternal,” unless Jesus lets His followers come into condemnation and pass into death.

[7]John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting [aionios] life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposed aionios life with “shall not see life.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall not see life” By definition aionios means eternal.

[8]John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never [ου μη/ou mé] thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting [aionios] life.​

In this verse Jesus paralleled aionios with “shall [ου μη/ou mé][fn] never thirst.” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “shall never thirst.” By definition aionios means eternal. See footnote [fn] on “ou mé” below.

[9]John 6:27
(27) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting [aionios] life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. ​

In this verse Jesus contrasted “aionios meat” with “meat that perishes” If aionios means an indefinite age that is not opposite “meat that perishes.” By definition aionios means eternal.

[10]John 8:51
(51) Very truly [amen amen] I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never [ou mé eis ton aiona][fn] see death."​

In this verse Jesus juxtaposes “unto aion” with “never see death.” By definition “aion” means eternity.