Annihilationism

StanJ · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
Why are you not answering? Here is my question again:

Please just simply identify the post number(s) of posts where you have actually made the case - and not simply stated - that to the people of that time place, the term "death" / "perish" were restricted in application to the body. I concede that I have ye yet to make the case that these terms were indeed intended to be taken as including the totality of the spirit. Are you able to concede the same thing - that you have not really made the relevant case?

All I want is a post number - how hard can that be to provide?

Now: It may well be the case that you have asked me something I did not answer. Simply repost the question and I will answer it.

Asked and answered.

StanJ · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
Why should I be responsible for explaining your positions? Are you asking me to explain my view on the nature of the fire as in "The Lake of Fire". I will answer that shortly.

Who said you should be responsible for my positions? I already know your erroneous view of the Lake of Fire.

StanJ · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
You have repeatedly refused to answer a number of questions from me. Can you explain?

For my part, any lack of an answer from me is an oversight. If you point me to, or copy and paste, any meaningful question (exception: a gish gallop - if you simply post a link that contains pages and pages of questions, I will not answer that), I assure you that I will answer it.

And we will see whether or not you answer the questions that have been posed to you.

Probably because you keep on asking the same questions over and over and don't accept the original response.

You've already demonstrated that you know exactly what you post and where your posting it so this again is just avoidance.
If it really is an oversight then correct YOUR oversight.

StanJ · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
There is probably a technical term for the error in reasoning you are demonstrating, but I just don't know it. Suppose, just suppose - simply for the sake of argument - that the term "death", when used in Biblical times in relation to the human person, actually did encompass the "spirit" in its scope of application.
Are you going to say this is not at least possible? I do not know how you could possibly rule this possibility out.
If "death" was understood, by definition, to include death of the spirit, would a writer not be able to simply use the word "death" and expect his readers - who likewise signed up to the same definition that death includes the spirit - to understand that he is asserting death of the spirit?
Please answer this well-formed, clear, and meaningful question.

As I have not erred in reasoning, you'll have a hard time finding an actual word for it, but go ahead, feel free to try.
This may be part of your problem, you work in a suppositional world. That is a world that doesn't exist except in your own mind.
I live and exist in the reality of the word of God and it is not suppositional nor does it make assumptions as many here do. The Word of God is what we learn to have understanding of the nature and power of God and how he functions in our world.
Definition of Death: Death is the termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism.

Now I hate to burst your bubble, but your questions are not well formed, nor meaningful. They are designed to support your point of view through circular reasoning. A point that has been addressed many times, despite your refusal to accept it or acknowledge it.

Der Alte · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
Thanks - you are the only one (I believe) actually answered this question. Here is what I believe the relevant part of your answer:
You appear to be basically agreeing with Paul that judgment / punishment is really only meted out in the future, although Jesus spoke of it (at least with respect to the rich man in the Luke 16 account) as though it was happening in the present (Jesus's "present"). And you resolve that apparent contradiction by basically saying that when Jesus speaks of events in the present, He can be understood as referring to events in the future, just as Jesus considers his "present" existence to include his "past pre-Abraham" existence.

That seems awfully contrived to me: you have a difficult challenge of to solve:

1. The rich man is described by Jesus as already in torment in flames;
2. Paul writes of judgment only meted out in the future.
...and your answer appear to be to say that when Jesus refers to the "present" (i.e. the rich man is presently in flames in the Luke 16 account) He can be understood as referring to the future instead.
First, that casts Jesus in the position of saying things that would almost universally misunderstood by His audience - if Jesus says that something that is already happening - and, in fact, it will not happen for thousands of years - how is Jesus not misleading people? Perhaps I can agree that to Jesus, the present and the future collapse together.
But, and this is key, this would not be true for His listeners - they would very reasonably assume that when Jesus says the rich man is currently in flames, then he is indeed currently in flames. This is where I think your argument is particularly vulnerable: Jesus is not talking to Himself (Jesus, being as you say, able to see the future and the present as "contemporaneous"); He is speaking to others who surely will not have that mindset.
Of course, it always possible that I have misunderstood your argument. If so, please set me straight.

Yes, Jesus was speaking to others in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, He was also speaking to others in John 8:58 when He said "Before Abraham was I am." And that statement so enraged the Jews that they immediately picked up stones to stone Jesus thus violating at least 15 of their own laws.
.....Since Jesus considered Himself to be existing in the present before Abraham, ca. 1800-1600 years BC, while simultaneously being present in 1st century Israel He evidently was outside of time. Therefore there is nothing precluding Jesus to be referring to a future event in Luke 6:19-31.
......The Jews believed that an angel or angels immediately took the righteous to paradise and sinn ers to hell.

John Gill Commentary on the Whole Bible
and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: by Abraham's bosom is meant heaven, a phrase well known to the Jews, by which they commonly expressed the happiness of the future state: of Abraham's happy state they had no doubt; and when they spake of the happiness of another's, they sometimes signified it by going to Abraham; as when the mother of the seven sons, slain by Caesar, saw her youngest going to be sacrificed (p).

"she fell upon him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and said unto him, my son, לך אצל אברהם אביכם, "go to Abraham, your father", and tell him, thus saith my mother, &c.''

and sometimes, as here, by being in his bosom. So it is said (q), that Eliezer his servant (Abraham's, the same name with Lazarus) מונה בחיקו, "is laid in his bosom": and which may refer to the account in the Talmud (r), that when R. Benaah, the painter of caves, came to the cave of Abraham, he found Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, דקאי קמיה, "standing before him". And it is also said (s) of Rabbi, when he died, היום יושב בחיקו של אברהם, "this day he sits in the bosom of Abraham"; for as it was usual with them to represent the joys of heaven by a feast, so the partaking of them, by sitting down at a table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; see Matthew 8:11 and as their manner at meals was by lying along on couches at eating; he that lay next another might be said to lie, or lean, in his bosom: hence Abraham's bosom came to signify the near and intimate enjoyment of happiness with him in the other world.
…
the Jews [say], that when good men die, their souls are immediately received by angels, and taken under their care, and carried to heaven. So one of their paraphrasts (t) having mentioned the garden of Eden, which is but another name for heaven with them, adds,

"into which no man can enter but the righteous, whose souls are "carried" thither, ביד מלאכיא, "in the hand", or "by the means" of angels.''

And elsewhere they say (u),

"with the Shekinah come three ministering angels to receive the soul of a righteous man.''

Particularly it is said of Moses, at the time of his death (w), that

"the holy blessed God descended from the highest heavens, to take the soul of Moses, and three ministering angels with him.''

And sometimes they say (x), not only three angels, but three companies of angels attend at such a time: their words are these;

"when a righteous man departs out of the world, three companies of ministering angels meet him; one says to him, "come in peace"; and another says, "walking in his uprightness" and the other says, "he shall enter into peace", &c.''

…Moreover, no mention is made of the rich man being carried by angels, as Lazarus was; and if he was, he was carried, not by the good, but by the evil angels, and not into Abraham's bosom, but to hell. So the Jews (y) say,

"if a soul is worthy, how many holy troops, or companies, are ready to join it, and bring it up into paradise? but if not worthy, how many strange troops are ready to bring it in the way of hell? these are the troops of the destroying angels.''

However, this is said of him, as is not of Lazarus,

(p) Echa Rabbati, fol. 49. 4. (r) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 58. 1. (s) T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 72. 2. Juchasin, fol. 75. 2. (t) Targum in Cant. iv. 12. (u) Midrash Haneelam in Zohar in Gen. fol. 65. 1. (w) Debarim Rabba, sect. 11. fol. 245. 4. (x) T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 104. 1. (y) Zohar in Exod. fol. 39. 3.

Paul seems to indicate in these verses that judgement immediately follows death.

Philippians 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

StanJ · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
Further to the above, and trying to be even-handed about this, I think the following argument eliminates the seeming conflict with Romans 2 while also salvaging the belief that Luke 16 is intended to teach about the afterlife (I don't believe this, but that is another matter): In the Luke 16 account, Jesus uses a purely fictional story about a rich man and a guy named Lazarus. While that story is indeed set in the present (e.g. the rich man is presently in torment), as a "parable" (fictional account intended to convey a truth), the lesson is indeed about eternal destinies based on judgments that are actually made in the future. It would be like a high school teacher telling a fictional story about a lazy student who fails - in the present - to get into college because he does not work hard enough to get good grades. If that story is told to a bunch of 15 year olds who have yet to finish high school, the story is really an account of what their future might hold if they do not study hard enough.
In short, as long as one does not insist - as do some here - that the Luke 16 is a literal, factual account of an actual rich man already in flames, one can salvage the view that the Like 16 account really does tell us about the afterlife even it is a fictional account (fictional, because no one actually gets punished until the future)

By definition, a parable is a true-to-life story used to illustrate or illuminate a truth.
https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/the-rich-man-and-lazarus-luke-1619-31/

Assuming that Jesus would use made up stories with no truth in them to illustrate a spiritual truth calls into question the very understanding of what truth is. Jesus never lied nor were his parables fictional or made up of lies.

expos4ever · Jul 8, 2016

Der Alter said:
Yes, Jesus was speaking to others in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, He was also speaking to others in John 8:58 when He said "Before Abraham was I am."

But I suggest it is a very big leap from "I existed before Abraham" to "my statements about things happening in the present should be taken as actually happening in the future".

Der Alter said:
Since Jesus considered Himself to be existing in the present before Abraham, ca. 1800-1600 years BC, while simultaneously being present in 1st century Israel He evidently was outside of time. Therefore there is nothing precluding Jesus to be referring to a future event in Luke 6:19-31.

I suggest it is a leap to conclude "Jesus was outside of time" in the sense relevant to what we are talking about. I just don't see how a declaration by Jesus to the effect that He existed before Abraham justifies our taking Jesus' statements about the present - that the rich man is presently in torment - as statements about the future. But I am willing to leave it at that and let readers draw whatever conclusion they see fit.

I hope to respond to the rest of your post later, but do you not think that my post 739 is a more convincing argument in defense of the view that Luke 16 is about the afterlife - all one has to do is back off from the claim that it is a literal account.

expos4ever · Jul 8, 2016

StanJ said:
Asked and answered.

Where, what post numbers?

StanJ · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
Where, what post numbers?

Asked and answered.

expos4ever · Jul 8, 2016

StanJ said:
You've already demonstrated your lack of willingness to answer. Making excuses won't change that.

Let's be clear:

1. You accuse me of not answering your questions;
2. I clearly indicate that any such failure on my part to answer your questions was an oversight and I directly promised to answer any reasonable question.
3. You simply will not provide me with the question you claim I have not answered.
4. You accuse me of not being willing to answer questions!

Only a person with less than 20 neurons rolling around in their head would buy this.

Der Alte · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
Further to the above, and trying to be even-handed about this, I think the following argument eliminates the seeming conflict with Romans 2 while also salvaging the belief that Luke 16 is intended to teach about the afterlife (I don't believe this, but that is another matter): In the Luke 16 account, Jesus uses a purely fictional story about a rich man and a guy named Lazarus. While that story is indeed set in the present (e.g. the rich man is presently in torment), as a "parable" (fictional account intended to convey a truth), the lesson is indeed about eternal destinies based on judgments that are actually made in the future. It would be like a high school teacher telling a fictional story about a lazy student who fails - in the present - to get into college because he does not work hard enough to get good grades. If that story is told to a bunch of 15 year olds who have yet to finish high school, the story is really an account of what their future might hold if they do not study hard enough.
In short, as long as one does not insist - as do some here - that the Luke 16 is a literal, factual account of an actual rich man already in flames, one can salvage the view that the Like 16 account really does tell us about the afterlife even it is a fictional account (fictional, because no one actually gets punished until the future)

Every early church father who mentions Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual. See my post #353, this thread.
The Lazarus/rich man story is not introduced as a parable and Jesus does not explain it to His disciples later. In all authentic parables Jesus uses something well known to His audience, e.g. sheep and shepherd, widows losing money, wayward sons, etc. to clarify/explain an unknown or misunderstood Biblical truth.
.....What are the known elements of Lazarus and the rich man, and what is the unknown or misunderstood Biblical truth? A poor beggar begging and a rich man living expensively are the only known elements how does that explain/clarify an unknown/misunderstood Biblical truth and what is that truth? How does the second part of the Lazarus/rich man story explain the kingdom?
.....In all authentic parables the participants are anonymous; a certain man, a certain landowner, a certain widow, etc. At some point in history a wayward son squandered his inheritance, a widow lost money, a shepherd lost sheep, etc.
.....In the Lazarus/rich man story two of the persons are named Lazarus and a historical person Abraham. Since Jesus did not say this was a parable if Abraham was not in the place stated and did not say the words Jesus quoted, Jesus lied.

expos4ever · Jul 8, 2016

StanJ said:
Asked and answered.

What post contains your answer? All you need to do is take your mouse, cycle through your own posts, find the one where you answered my question, and indicate the post number.

Why are you not answering a fair and reasonable question?

expos4ever · Jul 8, 2016

StanJ said:
Probably because you keep on asking the same questions over and over and don't accept the original response.

If you think your original response is valid, you should have no reason not to repost it, or simply provide the post number. That would involve three keystrokes.

expos4ever · Jul 8, 2016

StanJ said:
Who said you should be responsible for my positions? I already know your erroneous view of the Lake of Fire.

What, and please be specific, is wrong with my view of the Lake of Fire?

expos4ever · Jul 8, 2016

StanJ said:
By definition, a parable is a true-to-life story used to illustrate or illuminate a truth.
https://www.bereanbiblesociety.org/the-rich-man-and-lazarus-luke-1619-31/

From the material in the above link (I added emphasis):

By definition, a parable is a true-to-life story used to illustrate or illuminate a truth. This is true even if all of the details never occurred exactly as presented in the story. They are special stories that may, or may not, reflect historical events. Nevertheless, they must be true-to-life. By true-to-life we mean that a parable must be based on a real-life situation that the hearers are familiar with. In other words, the story itself has to be based on events that could have happened, whether they ever actually did or not.

Your response?

Der Alte · Jul 8, 2016

If one wants to find specific posts in this, or any thread, type in a key word in the search box top right, type your screen name in the appropriate box, click the box for "This thread only" and click search. I have CF opened in another browser not signed in, I can search while leaving my reply open.

StanJ · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
Let's be clear:
1. You accuse me of not answering your questions;
2. I clearly indicate that any such failure on my part to answer your questions was an oversight and I directly promised to answer any reasonable question.
3. You simply will not provide me with the question you claim I have not answered.
4. You accuse me of not being willing to answer questions!
Only a person with less than 20 neurons rolling around in their head would buy this.

I don't think self deprication will help you.

Der Alte · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
. . . I hope to respond to the rest of your post later, but do you not think that my post 739 is a more convincing argument in defense of the view that Luke 16 is about the afterlife - all one has to do is back off from the claim that it is a literal account.

No I do not think your post is a more convincing argument in defense of the view that Luke 16 is about the afterlife.

StanJ · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
From the material in the above link (I added emphasis):
By definition, a parable is a true-to-life story used to illustrate or illuminate a truth. This is true even if all of the details never occurred exactly as presented in the story. They are special stories that may, or may not, reflect historical events. Nevertheless, they must be true-to-life. By true-to-life we mean that a parable must be based on a real-life situation that the hearers are familiar with. In other words, the story itself has to be based on events that could have happened, whether they ever actually did or not.
Your response?

As I posted the link, my response is that I agree with what the author says. Here's another part of his article;
"Therefore a parable must be a true-to-life story in order for it to have any meaning to those who hear it."
Now my question to you is, did Jesus tell the true to life story?

StanJ · Jul 8, 2016

expos4ever said:
What, and please be specific, is wrong with my view of the Lake of Fire?

Already answered.

Annihilationism

What is your view of the final state of the unrepentant.

Annihilationism (I believe the unrepentant will be destroyed)

Traditionalism (I believe the unrepentant will suffer eternal conscious torment in hell)

Universalism (I believe that everyone will eventually be saved)

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

Student & Correct Handler of God's Word.

Similar threads