Why would God have to punish the wicked for eternity?

[Der Alte]

As you probably know, the ancient Hebrews did not have a robust conception of the afterlife, much less ECT. Everyone went to the same state/place: Sheol. That kind of thinking didn't develop until the intertestamental period.

Unfortunately, this is not correct. There existed among the Jews, at least 800 years BC, belief in a place of eternal fiery punishment and they called it both Ge hinnom and sheol, which was written in the 225 BC LXX and the N.T. as Gehenna and Hades. The first para. quoted here. The complete article is about 4 pages long. See link at the end.
From the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia

GEHENNA (Hebr.

; Greek, Γέεννα)​

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 (Soṭah 22a); according to Gen. R. ix. 9, the words "very good" in Gen. i. 31 refer to hell; hence the latter must have been created on the sixth day. Yet opinions on this point vary. According to some sources, it was created on the second day; according to others, even before the world, only its fire being created on the second day (Gen. R. iv., end; Pes. 54a). The "fiery furnace" that Abraham saw (Gen. xv. 17, Hebr.) was Gehenna (Mek. xx. 18b, 71b; comp. Enoch, xcviii. 3, ciii. 8; Matt. xiii. 42, 50; 'Er. 19a, where the "fiery furnace" is also identified with the gate of Gehenna). Opinions also vary as to the situation, extent, and nature of hell. The statement that Gehenna is situated in the valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, in the "accursed valley" (Enoch, xxvii. 1 et seq.), means simply that it has a gate there. It was in Zion, and had a gate in Jerusalem (Isa. xxxi. 9). It had three gates, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem ('Er. 19a). The gate lies between two palm-trees in the valley of Hinnom, from which smoke is continually rising (ib.). The mouth is narrow, impeding the smoke, but below Gehenna extends indefinitely (Men. 99b). According to one opinion, it is above the firmament, and according to another, behind the dark mountains (Ta'an. 32b). An Arabian pointed out to a scholar the spot in the wilderness where the earth swallowed the sons of Korah (Num. xvi. 31-32), who descended into Gehenna (Sanh. 110b). It is situated deep down in the earth, and is immeasurably large. "The earth is one-sixtieth of the garden, the garden one-sixtieth of Eden [paradise], Eden one-sixtieth of Gehenna; hence the whole world is like a lid for Gehenna. Some say that Gehenna can not be measured" (Pes. 94a). It is divided into seven compartments (Soṭah 10b); a similar view was held by the Babylonians (Jeremias, "Hölle und Paradies bei den Babyloniern," pp. 16 et seq., Leipsic, 1901; Guthe, "Kurzes Bibel-wörterb." p. 272, Tübingen and Leipsic, 1903).​

GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Der Alte]

Why are you interpreting what I said and asked in that post as getting in your face? I'm simply trying to reason through some of this with you is all, getting in your face never remotely crossed my mind. Getting in someone's face involves hostility. I wasn't being hostile towards you by simply asking some of those things. I don't consider you an enemy or something. We are simply just not on the same page in regards to some of this, regardless who is right or who is wrong.

You asked me to explain about several things I did not mention in the post you quoted but said nothing about what I did write. For example, Lazarus and the rich man. The 5 Early Church Fathers who quoted the story considered it to be factual. Even if not factual the story involved a rich man who violated a specific command.

Deuteronomy 15:7-8
(7) If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:
(8) But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.​

Lazarus did not even get the crumbs from the rich man's table.

 

[David's Harp]

I am back to the questions in the OP, as well as others. What does this eternal punishment really accomplish? How does it glorify God? If someone wants to remain a Christian, but just cannot reconcile this violent retributive view of God with the love of Christ, do we have any answers that can help them? Or is the only thing that can be done is to give them a list of verses to justify why they should believe in hell?

Hi okay, I kind of agree with what burningbush said above, though I'll try and put it into my own words. I think if we had a real sense of the weight of our sin and the utter depravity of mankind then we might have a better idea of the answers to these questions.

The number one commandment is to love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30). How many people - even Christians - can say they put God first in everything? I think ultimately God gives us what we really want - to be with Him or apart from Him. In a sense, the punishment would be self-inflicted. The only other alternative would be annihilation, and maybe it is God's Will that He does not wipe out the soul completely.

One other question you could ask is: if the wicked are not punished eternally, does that mean that our heavenly abode is not eternal either? This would raise questions as to what would happen afterwards.
I think that perhaps we are unable to comprehend what eternity means whilst on this earth in its current form. Remember God is eternal Himself - without beginning or end; from everlasting to everlasting. Perhaps this is the same for our souls, therefore if we are not with God, then we are eternally without Him, and will experience great suffering in the knowledge that we have no opportunity to get back to Him, even if we wanted to.

This is what makes Jesus' sacrifice so important. He came and warned us; suffering and dying for those who would believe that He is our hope and salvation of being reconciled to God. Yes God is loving, but too often now people forget about His divine and just Wrath. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).

 

[BurningBush84]

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.


Isaiah 34:9 ¶And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.


Since I feel it's relevant to the subject at hand, how should we be interpreting Isaiah 34:9-10 in light of Isaiah 65:17? How should we be interpreting Isaiah 65:17 in light of Isaiah 34:9-10?

Both accounts are involving the earth. Both accounts would be involving eternity if we take for ever and ever in Isaiah 34:10 in the literal sense. We already know that the new heavens and new earth are involving eternity, at least that's not debatable. But is Isaiah 34:9-10 also involving eternity? If it is and that someone can convincingly reconcile that with Isaiah 65:17, it seems to me that alone could indeed prove ECT since the LOF could be meant by this. Except it would mean the LOF would be an eyesore on the earth throughout all eternity, though.

One account says---and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind

The other account says---It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ev

If Hitler and you are right, then people like Hitler have no reason to fear God's wrath. Because God's wrath ultimately provides eternal sleep. Why fear eternal sleep ????

But there are other passages, and when you ADD them all up , you get ECT.

Isaiah 66:24
Daniel 12:2
Matthew 18:8
Matthew 25:41,46
Luke 16:19-31
Revelation 14:11
Revelation 20:10

 

[public hermit]

Unfortunately, this is not correct. There existed among the Jews, at least 800 years BC, belief in a place of eternal fiery punishment and they called it both Ge hinnom and sheol, which was written in the 225 BC LXX and the N.T. as Gehenna and Hades. The first para. quoted here. The complete article is about 4 pages long. See link at the end.
From the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia

GEHENNA (Hebr.

; Greek, Γέεννα)​

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 (Soṭah 22a); according to Gen. R. ix. 9, the words "very good" in Gen. i. 31 refer to hell; hence the latter must have been created on the sixth day. Yet opinions on this point vary. According to some sources, it was created on the second day; according to others, even before the world, only its fire being created on the second day (Gen. R. iv., end; Pes. 54a). The "fiery furnace" that Abraham saw (Gen. xv. 17, Hebr.) was Gehenna (Mek. xx. 18b, 71b; comp. Enoch, xcviii. 3, ciii. 8; Matt. xiii. 42, 50; 'Er. 19a, where the "fiery furnace" is also identified with the gate of Gehenna). Opinions also vary as to the situation, extent, and nature of hell. The statement that Gehenna is situated in the valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, in the "accursed valley" (Enoch, xxvii. 1 et seq.), means simply that it has a gate there. It was in Zion, and had a gate in Jerusalem (Isa. xxxi. 9). It had three gates, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem ('Er. 19a). The gate lies between two palm-trees in the valley of Hinnom, from which smoke is continually rising (ib.). The mouth is narrow, impeding the smoke, but below Gehenna extends indefinitely (Men. 99b). According to one opinion, it is above the firmament, and according to another, behind the dark mountains (Ta'an. 32b). An Arabian pointed out to a scholar the spot in the wilderness where the earth swallowed the sons of Korah (Num. xvi. 31-32), who descended into Gehenna (Sanh. 110b). It is situated deep down in the earth, and is immeasurably large. "The earth is one-sixtieth of the garden, the garden one-sixtieth of Eden [paradise], Eden one-sixtieth of Gehenna; hence the whole world is like a lid for Gehenna. Some say that Gehenna can not be measured" (Pes. 94a). It is divided into seven compartments (Soṭah 10b); a similar view was held by the Babylonians (Jeremias, "Hölle und Paradies bei den Babyloniern," pp. 16 et seq., Leipsic, 1901; Guthe, "Kurzes Bibel-wörterb." p. 272, Tübingen and Leipsic, 1903).​

GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Yes, I know if it isn't in the Jewish Encyclopedia, it isn't true. Unfortunately for you, your source doesn't disprove my point.

 

[Der Alte]

Including the problem of divine violence makes the cognitive dissonance some experience around ECT even more profound. And your example also brings up problematic treatment of women/girls: Lot offers his daughters to the mob to be gang raped, because that is apparently what righteous men do. He and his daughters are saved, but every other daughter that God made to be born in Sodom is killed by God, and is then tortured forever in hell.
So I am back to the questions in the OP, as well as others. What does this eternal punishment really accomplish? How does it glorify God? If someone wants to remain a Christian, but just cannot reconcile this violent retributive view of God with the love of Christ, do we have any answers that can help them? Or is the only thing that can be done is to give them a list of verses to justify why they should believe in hell?
Again, this is coming from a place of experience, and I am genuinely hoping for helpful answers. I just haven’t yet seen any here.
With my newer viewpoint, I would point out to them that not all Christians believe those things, including me, and offer a resource or two for them to look at before they walk away from faith altogether. But I have not had such an encounter since my views have shifted so don’t know how effective it would be.
Jason

PMFBI But as for me Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it. Lots of folks around here argue about the words "eternal punishment" and speculate that although Jesus said them maybe they don't really mean that. They speculate that maybe "aionios zoe" really means 'correction of the age" or some such.

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left vs. 41] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”[EOB, p. 96]​

…..Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, linked below, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
…..I doubt there is anyone better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.
Link to EOB online:
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.[EOB, p. 518]​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18.
…..Some badly informed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correct.”
Sorry, that is impossible, both “prune” and “correct” are verbs. “Kolasis” is a noun. A noun cannot be translated as a verb.
Also according to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
The word “correction” occurs one time in the N.T.
2 Timothy 3:16 ἐπανόρθωσις/epanorthosis. It looks nothing like kolasis.
…..It is acknowledged that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the native Greek speaking EOB scholars, supported by 2000 yrs +/- of uninterrupted Greek scholarship, are more than competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete Greek words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Much as English speaking scholars today know the meaning of obsolete English words which occur in, e.g. the 1611 KJV and can define them correctly.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, I know if it isn't in the Jewish Encyclopedia, it isn't true. Unfortunately for you, your source doesn't disprove my point.

Provide your evidence please? I quoted a Jewish standard reference encyclopedia, which lists more than 50 Jewish scholars as contributors. Do you have anything even close to that kind of scholarship? I don't mean quotes from random anonymous people online. You will pardon me if I don't hold my breath. There is a more recent Jewish Encyclopedia, I would quote it, but it is still under copyright.

 

[public hermit]

Provide your evidence please? I quoted a Jewish standard reference encyclopedia, which lists more than 50 Jewish scholars as contributors. Do you have anything even close to that kind of scholarship? I don't mean quotes from random anonymous people online. You will pardon me if I don't hold my breath. There is a more recent Jewish Encyclopedia, I would quote it, but it is still under copyright.

If you can't see how your post does not disprove what I said, that's on you. Beside, I know how this goes. I can waste my precious time showing you, I can cite credible sources supporting what I said about Sheol and the intertestamental period, and it will not make a dent in your willingness to consider the flaws in your position. That's why I posted my response to another poster. No offense, but this isn't my first day meeting you.

 

[Der Alte]

If you can't see how your post does not disprove what I said, that's on you. Beside, I know how this goes. I can waste my precious time showing you, I can cite credible sources supporting what I said about Sheol and the intertestamental period, and it will not make a dent in your willingness to consider the flaws in your position. That's why I posted my response to another poster. No offense, but this isn't my first day meeting you.

Balderdash! Empty claims. Please show me one post, 2 0r more would be better, but I will settle for one where you "cite[d] credible sources supporting what [you] said about Sheol and the intertestamental period." This IMHO will take some doing because the Jewish Encyclopedia quoted OT vss. in support of their conclusions. But give it the old college try.

 

[okay]

Why "eternal punishment?" My answer is Jesus said it, I believe it and that settles it. Matthew 25:46. You are asking the wrong question of the wrong audience in the wrong arena.

I think you are right. I have no interest in arguing for or against ECT. I was just hoping for answers to the actual questions the OP asked - the kind of answers that might be helpful for folks that are finding it hard to hold on to their faith because of questions related to ECT. People really do leave the faith over these kinds of questions - I cannot believe I am the only one here who has first-hand experience with this. Back when I believed ECT I would have given just about anything to have compelling answers to someone who was about to drop their faith, and therefore condemn themselves to eternal punishment. "Jesus said it, I believe it and that settles it" would end the conversation and be completely unhelpful.

I will move on and try to find the right audience in the right arena.

Cheers everyone. Enjoy your debate!

jason

 

[JulieB67]

I think you are right. I have no interest in arguing for or against ECT. I was just hoping for answers to the actual questions the OP asked - the kind of answers that might be helpful for folks that are finding it hard to hold on to their faith because of questions related to ECT. People really do leave the faith over these kinds of questions - I cannot believe I am the only one here who has first-hand experience with this. Back when I believed ECT I would have given just about anything to have compelling answers to someone who was about to drop their faith, and therefore condemn themselves to eternal punishment. "Jesus said it, I believe it and that settles it" would end the conversation and be completely unhelpful.

I was raised to believe in ECT as well and it serves no purpose. God has no delight in even the death of the wicked. So of course he wouldn't torture someone forever. When the bible is taken as a whole, it points to death, not life eternal in hell. Matthew 10:28 tells us that we are to fear God who can destroy both body and soul in hell. And Christ calls the Lake of Fire the 2nd death. Christ states those facts and I believe them.
And then after Judgement Day we will have a new heaven and earth and the former will be passed away.

I agree too that many people have left the faith or want no part of it because of this very doctrine and many hold on to the belief because they are scared at the possiblity of ECT.

 

[Der Alte]

I think you are right. I have no interest in arguing for or against ECT. I was just hoping for answers to the actual questions the OP asked - the kind of answers that might be helpful for folks that are finding it hard to hold on to their faith because of questions related to ECT. People really do leave the faith over these kinds of questions - I cannot believe I am the only one here who has first-hand experience with this. Back when I believed ECT I would have given just about anything to have compelling answers to someone who was about to drop their faith, and therefore condemn themselves to eternal punishment. "Jesus said it, I believe it and that settles it" would end the conversation and be completely unhelpful.
I will move on and try to find the right audience in the right arena.
Cheers everyone. Enjoy your debate!
jason

If me saying, "Jesus said it, I believe it and that settles it." upsets you I don't know what to tell you. In the past 2 decades, here at CF, I have heard all the arguments for UR, I have researched extensively I have even D/L the Jewish Publication Society JPS English translation of the OT and the Eastern Orthodox Greek EOB translation of the NT. I have linked to both several times.
Matthew 25:46 and Matthew 7:21-23 is about as clear as it gets. If you choose to believe otherwise, Good Luck, Even after seeing Jesus working miracles, healing the sick, raising the dead etc. some of His followers abandoned Him.

John 6:66-68
(66) From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
(67) Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
(68) Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.​

I just this instant noticed something off about John 6:66.

 

[okay]

If me saying, "Jesus said it, I believe it and that settles it." upsets you I don't know what to tell you.

Against my better judgement I will reply.

First, I am not upset. Perhaps I should have worded my post differently if you got that impression. Sorry about that.

Anyway, to me this conversation feels almost like someone is asking “why is the sky blue?”

And then you reply “I see it is blue, I believe it, that settles it.”

Back to the OP (I edited only by adding the bold face)

I have some questions for those who believe that hell is a real place and that the wicked will be punished forever. What would be the purpose of this? What does it accomplish? How does this give glory to God? Why would God require the wicked dead to suffer forever?

I am not looking to debate whether or not hell is real. <snip>

It seems the OP is granting your position on ECT, and trying to understand how you answer the questions within that framework. Perhaps I am wrong, but that was what I was looking for as well.

From my perspective, “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer. We are talking about an infinite God here, and we are all highly limited creatures. It is probably my most common answer to all kinds if questions…

Anyway, time for me to move on.

Cheers!

Jason

 

[Der Alte]

Against my better judgement I will reply.
First, I am not upset. Perhaps I should have worded my post differently if you got that impression. Sorry about that.
Anyway, to me this conversation feels almost like someone is asking “why is the sky blue?”
And then you reply “I see it is blue, I believe it, that settles it.”
Back to the OP (I edited only by adding the bold face)

In the event you have not already moved on. I don't see my saying "Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it." is not the same as saying “I see it [the sky] is blue, I believe it, that settles it.” The most common objection to quoting Matt 25:46 is many people will say "It does not say 'eternal punishment,' it really says 'correction of the age.'" or some such. The vs. cannot be translated that way because "aionios," correctly translated "eternal," in the KJV, is an adjective and "age" is a noun. An adjective cannot be translated as a noun. The objectors also claim that "kolasis" correctly translated as "punishment" should be "prune" or "correction."
The word “correction” occurs one time in the N.T. 2 Timothy 3:16 ἐπανόρθωσις/epanorthosis. It looks nothing like kolasis.

 

[DavidPT]

In the event you have not already moved on. I don't see my saying "Jesus said it, I believe it, that settles it." is not the same as saying “I see it [the sky] is blue, I believe it, that settles it.” The most common objection to quoting Matt 25:46 is many people will say "It does not say 'eternal punishment,' it really says 'correction of the age.'" or some such. The vs. cannot be translated that way because "aionios," correctly translated "eternal," in the KJV, is an adjective and "age" is a noun. An adjective cannot be translated as a noun. The objectors also claim that "kolasis" correctly translated as "punishment" should be "prune" or "correction."
The word “correction” occurs one time in the N.T. 2 Timothy 3:16 ἐπανόρθωσις/epanorthosis. It looks nothing like kolasis.

Can you or anyone else convincingly explain how eternal death, if also an option, that eternal death would not be everlasting punishment? Why would it only be everlasting punishment if one is conscious for forever, but would not be everlasting punishment if one is literally dead forever, as in no longer conscious?

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

When are wages typically paid? Are they not paid mainly after someone has completed something first? Obviously, we can't apply death in verse 23 to the first death since both the saved and unsaved die that death, regardless. Therefore, the death meant here has to be meaning the 2nd death and that it is payable after one has been bodily resurrected, judged and sentenced. The same way eternal life is granted after one has been bodily resurrected or changed in the same twinkling of an eye the dead are changed during, assuming they are still alive and remain at the time.


Nowhere in this verse does it say, For the wages of sin is eternal life, keeping in mind, in order for ECT to be true, one has to be granted eternal life first. Speaking of something like that, is there anything in 1 Corinthians 15, for example, that you can think of offhand that supports ECT, where that chapter informs us the lost also are made immortal? After all, it is ludicrous, that unless the lost are also made immortal, that they can somehow experience ECT.

Some argue that God made souls immortal, so there you go then, that's how ECT can be true. Except not one single person who insists that God made souls immortal have any actual Scriptures proving it is true. Plus, let's not forget, even if God did make souls immortal, He certainly didn't make bodies immortal. And clearly, when one is cast into the LOF, they are bodily cast into it.

 

[Der Alte]

Can you or anyone else convincingly explain how eternal death, if also an option, that eternal death would not be everlasting punishment? Why would it only be everlasting punishment if one is conscious for forever, but would not be everlasting punishment if one is literally dead forever, as in no longer conscious?
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
When are wages typically paid? Are they not paid mainly after someone has completed something first? Obviously, we can't apply death in verse 23 to the first death since both the saved and unsaved die that death, regardless. Therefore, the death meant here has to be meaning the 2nd death and that it is payable after one has been bodily resurrected, judged and sentenced. The same way eternal life is granted after one has been bodily resurrected or changed in the same twinkling of an eye the dead are changed during, assuming they are still alive and remain at the time.
Nowhere in this verse does it say, For the wages of sin is eternal life, keeping in mind, in order for ECT to be true, one has to be granted eternal life first. Speaking of something like that, is there anything in 1 Corinthians 15, for example, that you can think of offhand that supports ECT, where that chapter informs us the lost also are made immortal? After all, it is ludicrous, that unless the lost are also made immortal, that they can somehow experience ECT.
Some argue that God made souls immortal, so there you go then, that's how ECT can be true. Except not one single person who insists that God made souls immortal have any actual Scriptures proving it is true. Plus, let's not forget, even if God did make souls immortal, He certainly didn't make bodies immortal. And clearly, when one is cast into the LOF, they are bodily cast into it.

The rich man in Luke 16 was dead but he was conscious, he had a tongue, could speak and experience pain. Paul said "the wages of sin is death." The words of Paul cannot supersede the words of Jesus. Jesus used the word death 18 times. When Jesus meant death He said death. One ECF said punishment was not punishment unless the person was conscious.

Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho. IV
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.’​

I have read the end of the book.

Revelation 22:11
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Revelation 22:15
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
cf. Revelation 20:4, 20:8​

Last book, last chapter no more death, no more salvation only "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still:" Where are the unjust? Outside the New Jerusalem. The end, roll end credits, fade to black.

 

[LW97Nils]

If anyone is interested, I make a great case against Eternal Torment with a defense of Conditional Immortality.

I explain the 5 top verses that are used to defend (ECT - Eternal Conscious Torment).

You can check that at starting in my post here in another thread.

Is punishment everlasting not just as everlasting as eternal life?

 

[JulieB67]

The rich man in Luke 16 was dead but he was conscious, he had a tongue, could speak and experience pain.

We're talking about the second death which happens in the Lake of Fire.

When Jesus meant death He said death.

And yet you still don't believe Jesus when he talks about the second "death". You don't believe he means death in those instances. You believe he means "eternal life in hell". So you contradict yourself.

And you can keep quoting the Revelation passages but still don't understand that Christ is reiterating what will happen at Judgement Day. When he states "it is done" you don't believe that as well.

You cherry pick and the bible needs to be taken as a whole and when one does that we see that the wages of sin is death not eternal life in hell.

 

[BurningBush84]

We're talking about the second death which happens in the Lake of Fire.


And yet you still don't believe Jesus when he talks about the second "death". You don't believe he means death in those instances. You believe he means "eternal life in hell". So you contradict yourself.

And you can keep quoting the Revelation passages but still don't understand that Christ is reiterating what will happen at Judgement Day. When he states "it is done" you don't believe that as well.

You cherry pick and the bible needs to be taken as a whole and when one does that we see that the wages of sin is death not eternal life in hell.

How can the dead bury the dead ? Luke 9:60

Using your reasoning dead people cannot bury dead people.

You also ignore Revelation 14:11

 

[Der Alte]

We're talking about the second death which happens in the Lake of Fire.
And yet you still don't believe Jesus when he talks about the second "death". You don't believe he means death in those instances. You believe he means "eternal life in hell". So you contradict yourself.
And you can keep quoting the Revelation passages but still don't understand that Christ is reiterating what will happen at Judgement Day. When he states "it is done" you don't believe that as well.
You cherry pick and the bible needs to be taken as a whole and when one does that we see that the wages of sin is death not eternal life in hell.

You are the one who is cherry picking! I believe ALL scripture unlike you and others who only concentrate on the vss. which seem to support your assumptions/presuppositions. Before you criticize me again, please show me how John got everything mixed up and that Rev 20:11-14 actually occurred at or before Rev 21-22?
The LOF is called the second death twice but nowhere in Rev does it say that anything/anyone is cast into the LOF then they die, in fact Rev 21:24-28 says just the opposite,
If you were to read chap 21:11, 21:15 you would find that the righteous are in the new Jerusalem, which is definitely after the great white throne judgement, and outside are the still unjust, still filthy dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, murderers, idolaters, and liars.
Just imagine this epistle being sent to former pagan Christians in Samaria, Egypt, Italy, Greece and Asia [modern Turkey] they had no presuppositions they would have understood Rev to be chronological just as it is a written.