Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

stuart lawrence

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2015
10,527
1,603
65
✟70,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If you cannot be honest I will not continue discussion with you.
So I will ask you one last time, then I will place you on ignore.

Did you say
That's a good point mark
For you considered the word perish to mean non existence?
Darren

If in the next five minutes you do not truthfully answer the above I will place you on ignore. I cannot discuss with people who fail to be honest
 
Upvote 0

Darren J. Clark

Active Member
Jul 28, 2017
44
34
52
Brisbane
✟8,844.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No, you considered the word perish in John 3:16 to mean non existence, that's the truth

Right. Provide me a quote on this thread where I specifically equate perish with non-existence and while you are at it go back and read the exact conversation. My comment was regarding just one point Mark made regarding how we regard the language literally That is it.

While you are at it go back even further where I specifically state my position that I don't believe the "perish/destruction" language refers to "non-existence" but does refer to the loss of life and the faculty of consciousness.

In case this is not clear I will re-state my position: I do not believe that the Greek words behind "perish" and "destroy" refer to the "non-existence" (annihilation) of sinners in hell but rather the privation of life so that they do not have the capacity of consciousness.
 
Upvote 0

stuart lawrence

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2015
10,527
1,603
65
✟70,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Right. Provide me a quote on this thread where I specifically equate perish with non-existence and while you are at it go back and read the exact conversation. My comment was regarding just one point Mark made regarding how we regard the language literally That is it.

While you are at it go back even further where I specifically state my position that I don't believe the "perish/destruction" language refers to "non-existence" but does refer to the loss of life and the faculty of consciousness.

In case this is not clear I will re-state my position: I do not believe that the Greek words behind "perish" and "destroy" refer to the "non-existence" (annihilation) of sinners in hell but rather the privation of life so that they do not have the capacity of consciousness.
Your comment was made in regard to one solitary verse of scripture. Mark added nothing to that verse.
I am now placing you on ignore, I will no longer be able to read your posts
 
Upvote 0

Darren J. Clark

Active Member
Jul 28, 2017
44
34
52
Brisbane
✟8,844.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
If you cannot be honest I will not continue discussion with you.
So I will ask you one last time, then I will place you on ignore.

Did you say
That's a good point mark
For you considered the word perish to mean non existence?

No, I said "good point" in relation to a comment he made about a related issue regarding the use of language. If you me time I will go and get a screen shot of it.
 
Upvote 0

stuart lawrence

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2015
10,527
1,603
65
✟70,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
With all respect, you brought up Luke 20, and I'm exegeting the whole argument Jesus made in context. You're free to discuss the argument Jesus made, but right now you're not -- you're ignoring it in favor of another passage you like more.



Amen. I don't claim it does mean that. Dead means dead, not "destroyed"; but being dead doesn't simply mean the same thing as being alive. And other passages tells us WHY being dead doesn't mean ceasing to exist. It's not because God lied in Genesis 3:19; it's because of the point made in 2 Peter 2:19: "the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished..." The wicked are reserved and kept until the day of judgment. They will not escape the proper punishment even by dying.

And we agree on this, I believe. Where we disagree is what that punishment consists of. Here's a few passages from 2 Peter where he explains what it means.

2:6 "by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly."

2:12 "But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction."

There's no doubt about the ultimate fate of the wicked. God made Sodom an example of what will happen to them; and that example is _specifically_ that they were turned to ashes in a catastrophe of judgment.

"Dead" doesn't mean "turned to ashes" and "destroyed like irrational animals"; but "turned to ashes" and "destroyed like irrational animals" means much more than dead.
I think I'm going to leave this thread now William. I havent got anymore to say that I haven't said already. Thought I would tell you so you don't write any long post that doesn't get responded to.
I think you're a nice chap, so if you ever start a thread let me know, give me a link and I will take a look.
Hopefully one that affects Christians, not the lost!
God bless
 
Upvote 0

William Tanksley Jr

Active Member
Jul 28, 2017
75
45
49
Oceanside
✟11,409.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
You have it wrong. You did not quote any scriptures. You made reference to them. Perhaps if you were to quote the scriptures you made reference to and show how they support your position, then we might proceed.

This is such a petty objection on your part that I did not even slightly expect it; I see your literacy and I expect vastly more from you. I did quote from the Scripture, and you know I did, along with pointing at it by means of references. My reason for only quoting and referencing briefly is that it was necessary to _describe_ Gehenna's background in Biblical terms, and therefore necessary not to get lost in irrelevant contextual details.

You are free to select from any of my Biblical points about gehenna and dispute it, claiming specifically which one is out of context and why. Flatly denying that I quoted scripture should not be a strategy thinkable to you, because it is blatantly false.

My claim is simple: I said that Jesus' teaching about Gehenna is completely explained by the Old Testament's teaching about it, specifically by their prophetic teaching about its use as the most extreme punishment. I deny your claim, that Jesus' teaching about gehenna should be explained by invoking a Jewish consensus of eternal torment.

Your claim:
These teachings mirrored what many Jews believed and tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned the existing Jewish view of eternal hell.

...is false on very many points, because although you've quoted one Jew who explicitly believed that, you have not shown that it was actually a prevailing belief, and most importantly that one who unmistakably believed that the wicked lasted longer than gehenna itself actually was post-Jesus, and couldn't have possibly contributed to Jesus' own teachings, and may not even be reflecting them.

In fact, Jesus' teachings were radically contrary to the Jewish belief at the time (the link is to an article discussing that point from an actual scholar of Rabbinic writings who reads the originals, David Instone-Brewer, not just someone like you or me quoting from other secondary or tertiary sources).

Here, have a large quote, so you can see what I'm saying:

Instone-Brewer said:
They said there were three groups of Jews: the utterly evil who go to hell; the really good who go to heaven; and the majority in the middle. This third group go to hell, scream in the flames for a short while, and then go to heaven having been punished.

Another view was that this third group went to a second-rate heaven. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai taught this in Galilee. He was there for 20 years at roughly the same time as Jesus, so they probably met each other. He is famous for a parable which is very similar to Jesus’ parable of the banquet.

Yohanan’s parable went like this: ‘A king announced a surprise banquet and told everyone to be ready to come. The wise people got dressed and waited, but the foolish carried on working in their fields. When the banquet doors were suddenly opened, everyone came in, but the foolish didn’t have time to change. The king was angry when he saw their dirty clothes and told them to stand and watch while the wise ones enjoyed the food.’

JESUS’ SHEEP AND GOATS
When we contrast this with Jesus’ parables, we can see Jesus’ different emphasis. He said that those who came in dirty clothes were thrown out (Matthew 22:2-13). And he was very clear that they went to hell, because the king said: ‘throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (v13). In other words, he stressed that the not-so-bad Jews were going to hell.

Jesus was equally scathing about the idea that the not-so-bad went to hell for a short time before residing permanently in heaven. He repeatedly taught that there are only two ways, never three. You can be for God or against God, wheat or weeds, wise or foolish, wicked or faithful etc. There is no middle group. Matthew records the parable of the sheep and goats as Jesus’ parting shot. The only crime attributed to the goats was their failure to help people in poverty and in prison. The sheep go to their ‘eternal life’, but the others go to ‘eternal punishment’ (Matthew 25:46).

Incorrect. Check the bibliography of the articles. Encyclopedias are generally not full of myths and legends.

The ones which document the formation of myths are necessarily full of myths. These books are full of records of the origins of Jewish beliefs elaborating and adding detail which is nowhere found in the Bible, such as Judith or the incredibly speculative book 4Maccabees, or almost any of the Pseudepigrapha. You know that this is the case from the false myth that Gehenna was a garbage dump, which was invented by a rabbi.

You have not clearly shown anything about any of the sources I quoted.

I have not claimed to. Your sources are presumed to be reliable for what they claim to be, and I haven't contested anything about them, except your own personally sourced claims as to the usefulness of the sources in understanding Jesus' teachings, and of course I've pointed out that you carefully cherry-picked your quotes for topic without regard for temporal applicability.

Irrelevant that it is not divinely inspired. It is the only historical evidence I am aware of which shows from Jewish sources what the Jews believed historically.

I didn't say that the dictionaries were not divinely inspired (surely that doesn't need to be said!). I said that the rabbinic traditions they necessarily relied on were not divinely inspired. They are nothing more than human speculation, based in Old Testament hints which are valuable but not enough to determine a single viewpoint.

Furthermore, I've also questioned your claim about the widespread acceptance of this eternal-soul belief, for which you cited only a single source and that post-Jesus -- he was tied to your previous source only by the mutual agreement that gehenna is temporary (which by the way is not a Christian belief, and I personally reject it due to Jeremiah 31:40). The first speaker seems to have believed that gehenna is temporary because all the souls in it rise up (to heaven?), while the second one thought it was temporary because the souls go down and wither in the underworld. They contradict one another, a point you ignore but one which is critically undermining to your claim of consensus.

All irrelevant! The Jews should know what their forefathers believed and they have historical records to support them.

My first response is that we're talking about God's plans for judgment at the end of the age. The ancient Jews had no direct revelation from God about that; all they had was types and figures which were waiting for Jesus and his apostles to expand. They simply did not have enough information about the end of the age for their opinions to have any merit. You can quote as long a pedegree of opinion as you want, they still did not know.

My second response is that your argument depends on the Jewish opinion at the time being all in one direction -- that they all believed in eternal torment, so that Jesus would have to argue against that if He didn't want it believed. But this is radically wrong; the actual Jewish belief on the subject was deeply mixed, and sometimes confusing. Partial universalism (for ethnic Jews) and eternal destruction (for gentiles and traitors) was the order of the day, with eternal torment for the angels -- and this only in some incredibly vivid descriptions. We can gain from reading Jesus' words in contrast to this, but we must not let that context override Jesus' teaching.

My third response is that it appears you don't have much experience in historiography, or any familiarity with the transmission of Jewish teaching prior to Jesus. The Jews transmitted myth and history alike in the exact same narrative, which is now collected in a set of Talmudim. There you can read how they determined when a given Rabbi served by recounting a story he told about someone else conquering a coven of shape-changing witches. It's all very intelligently done, and one must suppose that they knew the difference between the story and the factual background (and in fact in the middle of that particular narrative the Talmudic collator breaks off to discuss some textual variants). But they did not distinguish them in the early written records they left; the reader has to do that work. I'm no expert in this, although I've college classes in textual transmission due to my study of Homeric Greek and Classical Latin. But this is something you can pick up if you read translations of the original sources a bit, which I have.

The late written records are clearer, because in the first century AD it became acceptable to directly quote scripture in written discourse; prior to that, Scripture could only be loosely alluded to by at most its opening lines (except in speech). Prior to that every scripture reading was accompanied by a Hebrew reading and a spoken loose translation; after that, the translations (Targumim) were written down in a number of languages, giving us more clues about how the Jews had interpreted their (and our) scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
T....
My claim is simple: I said that Jesus' teaching about Gehenna is completely explained by the Old Testament's teaching about it, specifically by their prophetic teaching about its use as the most extreme punishment. I deny your claim, that Jesus' teaching about gehenna should be explained by invoking a Jewish consensus of eternal torment.
You misrepresent what I said.
...is false on very many points, because although you've quoted one Jew who explicitly believed that, you have not shown that it was actually a prevailing belief, and most importantly that one who unmistakably believed that the wicked lasted longer than gehenna itself actually was post-Jesus, and couldn't have possibly contributed to Jesus' own teachings, and may not even be reflecting them.
And you quoted one modern Jew who gave us his opinion without citing any historical evidence at all. Unlike my quotes from the Talmud, [Tal] Jewish Encyclopedia[JE] and Encyclopedia Judaica,[EJ] which OBTW is more than one Jew. If the belief in hell was extensive enough to be discussed at length in the three sources I quoted that should suffice. And I provided links to two of those sources. Talmud and JE. And FYI here is the bibliography of the JE article I quoted from. That is certainly more than one person and the JE included several scriptural citations.
Bibliography:



    • Winer, B. R. i. 491;
    • Hamburger, R. B. T. i. 527-530;
    • Hastings, Dict. Bible, ii. 343-346;
    • H. Guthe, Kurzes Bibelwörterb. pp. 271-274, Tübingen and Leipsic, 1903;
    • G. Brecher, Das Transcendentale, etc. pp. 69-73, Vienna, 1850;
    • A. Hilgenfeld, Jüdische Apocalyptik, Index, Jena, 1857;
    • F. Weber, Jüdische Theologie, pp. 336 et seq.;
    • E. Stave, Der Einfluss des Parsismus auf das Judenthum, pp. 153-192 et seq., Haarlem, 1898;
    • James, Traditional Aspects of Hell, London, 1903.
Jesus' teachings were radically contrary to the Jewish belief at the time (the link is to an article discussing that point from an actual scholar of Rabbinic writings who reads the originals, David Instone-Brewer, not just someone like you or me quoting from other secondary or tertiary sources).
Here, have a large quote, so you can see what I'm saying:
Sorry I don't do links except to verify something that has been quoted. I am having a discussion with someone here on this forum not someone at a link. I quoted three sources and what Jesus said and compared and contrasted them. So saying "Jesus' teachings were radically contrary to the Jewish belief at the time." is meaningless without references.
The ones which document the formation of myths are necessarily full of myths. These books are full of records of the origins of Jewish beliefs elaborating and adding detail which is nowhere found in the Bible, such as Judith or the incredibly speculative book 4Maccabees, or almost any of the Pseudepigrapha. You know that this is the case from the false myth that Gehenna was a garbage dump, which was invented by a rabbi.
What I quoted from the JE, EJ and Talmud was not presented or described as myths but what ancient Jews believed.
I have not claimed to. Your sources are presumed to be reliable for what they claim to be, and I haven't contested anything about them, except your own personally sourced claims as to the usefulness of the sources in understanding Jesus' teachings, and of course I've pointed out that you carefully cherry-picked your quotes for topic without regard for temporal applicability.
Nonsense! I was addressing a specific topic not writing a treatise on all the beliefs of the Jews for the past several centuries. I, just as you and everyone else here does, quoted information in context which showed that, as I said, "In Israel before and during the time of Jesus there was a belief in a place of eternal punishment and they called it both Ge hinnom and sheol." That statement has never been refuted. I provided links to my sources so anyone who chooses can verify that I quoted the sources correctly and in context. The fact that there were some Jews who did not share that belief is irrelevant.
I didn't say that the dictionaries were not divinely inspired (surely that doesn't need to be said!). I said that the rabbinic traditions they necessarily relied on were not divinely inspired. They are nothing more than human speculation, based in Old Testament hints which are valuable but not enough to determine a single viewpoint.
Everything you say can also be said about the one guy you quoted. "Nothing more than human speculation, based in Old Testament hints which are valuable but not enough to determine a single viewpoint." Nothing that you have quoted or ever could quote disproves any of the 3 sources I quoted.
Furthermore, I've also questioned your claim about the widespread acceptance of this eternal-soul belief, for which you cited only a single source and that post-Jesus -- he was tied to your previous source only by the mutual agreement that gehenna is temporary (which by the way is not a Christian belief, and I personally reject it due to Jeremiah 31:40). The first speaker seems to have believed that gehenna is temporary because all the souls in it rise up (to heaven?), while the second one thought it was temporary because the souls go down and wither in the underworld. They contradict one another, a point you ignore but one which is critically undermining to your claim of consensus.
I never made a claim of consensus! First you accuse me of cherry picking to support my argument then you criticize me for including some different views. Can't you get your story straight?
My first response is that we're talking about God's plans for judgment at the end of the age. The ancient Jews had no direct revelation from God about that; all they had was types and figures which were waiting for Jesus and his apostles to expand. They simply did not have enough information about the end of the age for their opinions to have any merit. You can quote as long a pedegree of opinion as you want, they still did not know.
Irrelevant objection. Jesus often criticized the Jewish leaders for their teachings.
but He did not criticize the teaching that there was a place of eternal punishment and they called it both Gehinnom and sheol. I quoted three source not just one person.

My second response is that your argument depends on the Jewish opinion at the time being all in one direction -- that they all believed in eternal torment, so that Jesus would have to argue against that if He didn't want it believed. But this is radically wrong; the actual Jewish belief on the subject was deeply mixed, and sometimes confusing. Partial universalism (for ethnic Jews) and eternal destruction (for gentiles and traitors) was the order of the day, with eternal torment for the angels -- and this only in some incredibly vivid descriptions. We can gain from reading Jesus' words in contrast to this, but we must not let that context override Jesus' teaching.
Have you actually read my post? I never said "the Jewish opinion at the time being all in one direction -- that they all believed in eternal torment." There is a difference between "a belief" which I said and "the belief." which I did not say.
My third response is that it appears you don't have much experience in historiography, or any familiarity with the transmission of Jewish teaching prior to Jesus. The Jews transmitted myth and history alike in the exact same narrative, which is now collected in a set of Talmudim. There you can read how they determined when a given Rabbi served by recounting a story he told about someone else conquering a coven of shape-changing witches. It's all very intelligently done, and one must suppose that they knew the difference between the story and the factual background (and in fact in the middle of that particular narrative the Talmudic collator breaks off to discuss some textual variants). But they did not distinguish them in the early written records they left; the reader has to do that work. I'm no expert in this, although I've college classes in textual transmission due to my study of Homeric Greek and Classical Latin. But this is something you can pick up if you read translations of the original sources a bit, which I have.
All mildly interesting but not relevant to anything I posted. Once again I have been discussing a single topic not writing a treatise on Jewish history, textual transmission and all the other stuff you mentioned.
The late written records are clearer, because in the first century AD it became acceptable to directly quote scripture in written discourse; prior to that, Scripture could only be loosely alluded to by at most its opening lines (except in speech). Prior to that every scripture reading was accompanied by a Hebrew reading and a spoken loose translation; after that, the translations (Targumim) were written down in a number of languages, giving us more clues about how the Jews had interpreted their (and our) scriptures
Not relevant. I can read sources such as Jewish encyclopedias and the Talmud and quote relevant information from them without all that other stuff. If the sources I quoted are wrong, prove it. Some guy saying "I'm right and they're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" does not disprove anything.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Evidence of what? [1] The tenets of Greek philosophy?? [2]That's all early church generations did was debate people who held to Greek philosophy. [3] Well in time Church leaders went too far and granted the immortal soul. The only 'Evidence' that is missing is the evidence of the immortal soul prior to the 3rd generation inside of Christianity.
[4]There's not zero evidence. The immortal soul was not a part of Christianity. Come the middle of the 2nd century all the sudden it was. That's the evidence.
As I said No, zero, none evidence. Four empty claims which you have not backed up. Repeating assertions does not make them true. You want to see immortal souls before the second century. Standby.
In Isa 14 there is a long passage about the king of Babylon dying, according to many the dead know nothing. They are supposedly annihilated, destroyed, pfft, gone! But God, Himself, speaking, these dead people in שאול/sheol, know something, they move, meet the dead coming to sheol, stir up, raise up, speak and say, etc.

Isa 14:9-11 (KJV)
9) Hell [שאול ] from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

10) All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
11) Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, [שאול] and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

[ . . . ]
22) For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

In this passage God, himself is speaking, and I see a whole lot of shaking going on, moving, rising up, and speaking in . These dead people seem to know something, about something. We know that verses 11 through 14 describe actual historical events, the death of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.
Some will try to argue that this passage is figurative because fir trees don’t literally rejoice, vs. 8. They will try to argue that the passage must be figurative since God told Israel “take up this proverb against the king of Babylon.” vs. 4. The occurrence of one figurative expression in a passage does not prove that anything else in the passage is figurative. The Hebrew word משׁל/mashal translated “proverb” does not necessarily mean something is fictional. For example, Israel did not become fictional when God made them a mashal/proverb in 2 Chronicles 7:20, Psalms 44:14, and Jeremiah 24:9.

Here is another passage where God Himself is speaking and people who are dead in sheol, speaking, being ashamed, comforted, etc.

Ezek 32:18-22, 30-31 (KJV)
18) Son of man, [Ezekiel] wail for the multitude of Egypt, and cast them down, even her, and the daughters of the famous nations, unto the nether parts of the earth, with them that go down into the pit.
19) Whom dost thou pass in beauty? go down, and be thou laid with the uncircumcised.
20) They shall fall in the midst of them that are slain by the sword: she is delivered to the sword: draw her and all her multitudes.
21) The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of hell [שאול] with them that help him: they are gone down, they lie uncircumcised, slain by the sword.

22) Asshur is there and all her company: his graves are about him: all of them slain, fallen by the sword::[ . . . ]
Eze 32:30-31
(30) There be the princes of the north, all of them, and all the Zidonians, which are gone down with the slain; with their terror they are ashamed of their might; and they lie uncircumcised with them that be slain by the sword, and bear their shame with them that go down to the pit.
(31) Pharaoh shall see them, and shall be comforted over all his multitude, even Pharaoh and all his army slain by the sword, saith the Lord GOD.

Jesus speaking, a dead man in Hades had eyes, was in torment, saw Abraham, “cried and said,” asked for water, begged Abraham, etc.

Luk 16:22-28
(22) And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
(23) And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
(24) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
(25) But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
(26) And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
(27) Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
(28) For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
I have shown you that all of the early church fathers who quoted or referred to the story of Lazarus and the rich man understood it to be factual. And in response all I have gotten so far is "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
As I said No, zero, none evidence. Four empty claims which you have not backed up. Repeating assertions does not make them true.

I totally agree with the last sentence. Moving on, I'm asking YOU for evidence. Why do you keep saying I have no evidence, my entire point was that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE pre-Tertullian that the immortal soul was a tenet of Christianity. Ok I get it, the post you just made is your evidence, ok. But I'm just confused why you're asking me for evidence when I'm arguing LACK of evidence (pre-Tertullian). You've numbered my post 1-4 and said I have made 4 empty claims.

[1] The tenets of Greek philosophy??
When I wrote that, that was me simply asking you, 'Are you asking me to prove that Greek philosophy had the belief of an immortal soul?' It wasn't a (empty) claim it was a question. So, are you asking me for proof that Plato/Socrates/Aristotle taught the existence of an immortal soul for every person?

[2]That's all early church generations did was debate people who held to Greek philosophy.
Ok I'm not sure if you're mincing my words here, of course that wasn't ALL they did. I was exaggerating, Paul debated Greek philosophers a lot, and it did not stop with Paul. That's what I was saying. That's an empty claim? You're arguing that Christians debating against Greek philosophers is an empty claim? Just trying to understand what evidence you want.

[3] Well in time Church leaders went too far and granted the immortal soul.
I think you're demanding evidence for inductive reasoning. If 'X' was not taught prior to mid 2nd century, then all the sudden 'X' began showing up in mid 2nd century, then 'X' began entering the faith somewhere around mid 2nd century. That's all I was doing was pointing out inductive reasoning. I don't require proof that an early church father studied Plato (for example) in order to point out when the belief entered the faith. Are you saying that inductive reasoning is an empty claim?

[4]There's not zero evidence.
Again, what exact evidence are you referring to??
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

William Tanksley Jr

Active Member
Jul 28, 2017
75
45
49
Oceanside
✟11,409.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Divorced
I never made a claim of consensus!

This admission on your part is utterly crucial. Without a claim of consensus, your argument's baked. Look at your statement:

Jesus knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, when Jesus taught about man’s eternal fate, such as eternal punishment, He would have corrected them. Jesus did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell must have been correct.

Notice your argument here absolutely depends on there being a single, knowable teaching, "what the Jews believed about hell" for Jesus to know. If there was no consensus, no single "their teaching on hell" (which you're now admitting your evidence didn't prove), your entire consequent argument fails, immediately.

First you accuse me of cherry picking to support my argument then you criticize me for including some different views. Can't you get your story straight?

You cherrypicked quotes which you thought supported your view, which is poor research technique at best, and then you made an argument which required broad consensus behind your view without noticing that even your cherrypicked quotes showed no consensus.

Your argument fails for both reasons. They're not mutually exclusive.

Sorry I don't do links except to verify something that has been quoted. ... So saying "Jesus' teachings were radically contrary to the Jewish belief at the time." is meaningless without references.

I respect that links aren't part of the discussion, which is why I included the link, the scholar's name, and enough quotation for you to see which original material he's quoting from. I did the right thing, the same as you did, and do not deserve your scolding.

And you quoted one modern Jew who gave us his opinion without citing any historical evidence at all.

This is so wildly wrong about the words I quoted it's clear you didn't even read my quote. He's a Rabbinic scholar, he summarized his conclusions and quoted a complete parable recorded from a specific Rabbi who was in Palestine at the time of Jesus -- a more ancient source than your only evidence for any Jewish belief in eternal torment. Literally everything you said about my quote is wrong, and almost all of it is obviously wrong just from looking at my quote.

(I didn't mention he isn't a Jew, but he isn't.)

which OBTW is more than one Jew.

I claimed you quoted one Jew who supported your belief in eternal torment (the one about "Minim" and others being tormented even after gehenna is destroyed). I didn't claim you quoted one Jew total.

If the belief in hell was extensive enough to be discussed at length in the three sources I quoted that should suffice.

There you go again -- "the belief in hell," as though there were only one.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be judging the correctness of your belief based on the length of a modern source. That is absurd. The encyclopedia entries are a survey whose length is determined by factors in which the past extensiveness of a given belief does not predominate. Scharen's article is a popular presentation intended to support congregational belief in eternal torment, not to actually seriously survey ancient beliefs.

What I quoted from the JE, EJ and Talmud was not presented or described as myths but what ancient Jews believed.

I've given my response to this -- "what they believed" were myths without basis in divine revelation. None of the sources you quoted would _dare_ say that, but as Christians discussing Christ's teaching we _must_ make that distinction.

(And seriously, of course they're presented as myths. Example: "It is assumed that there is an angel-prince in charge of Gehenna. He says to God: "Put everything into my sea; nourish me with the seed of Seth; I am hungry.")

Everything you say can also be said about the one guy you quoted. "Nothing more than human speculation, based in Old Testament hints which are valuable but not enough to determine a single viewpoint."

What I quoted is current research on the types of beliefs in gehenna at the time of Christ. Your sources were not even attempting to consider what the beliefs in Palestine at the time of Jesus. Your argument depends on them actually doing what they didn't do.

And the scholar I quoted is of course explaining what Jewish myths were present at the time of Jesus. Unlike your sources, he has actually established dates for his quotes. Nor is he telling us, unlike you, that there was a single Jewish teaching that Jesus could either agree with or rebuke; he's showing the background of Jesus' teachings, not attempting to reinterpret them as you've done.

If the sources I quoted are wrong, prove it.

Your quotations don't prove what your argument needs. That's not your sources' fault, and I've made it very clear I don't blame them for it.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This admission on your part is utterly crucial. Without a claim of consensus, your argument's baked. Look at your statement:
Notice your argument here absolutely depends on there being a single, knowable teaching, "what the Jews believed about hell" for Jesus to know. If there was no consensus, no single "their teaching on hell" (which you're now admitting your evidence didn't prove), your entire consequent argument fails, immediately
.
I strongly disagree with this convoluted reasoning but in the future I will change my argument to say that "Jesus knew what the Jews believed about hell including the belief in eternal punishment, He never corrected the Jews
You cherrypicked quotes which you thought supported your view, which is poor research technique at best, and then you made an argument which required broad consensus behind your view without noticing that even your cherrypicked quotes showed no consensus.
Rubbish! I did exactly what your guy did, he only quoted one parable and that was supposed to refute everything I posted from the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. Lets get real here.
Your argument fails for both reasons. They're not mutually exclusive.
Nonsense.

I respect that links aren't part of the discussion, which is why I included the link, the scholar's name, and enough quotation for you to see which original material he's quoting from. I did the right thing, the same as you did, and do not deserve your scolding.
I looked briefly I saw one apparent misrepresentaton of the Talmud and one parable.

This is so wildly wrong about the words I quoted it's clear you didn't even read my quote. He's a Rabbinic scholar, he summarized his conclusions and quoted a complete parable recorded from a specific Rabbi who was in Palestine at the time of Jesus -- a more ancient source than your only evidence for any Jewish belief in eternal torment. Literally everything you said about my quote is wrong, and almost all of it is obviously wrong just from looking at my quote.
I'm not interested in some scholars conclusions. I am interested in credible, verifiable, historical evidence such as I provided i.e. the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud.
(I didn't mention he isn't a Jew, but he isn't.)
Which means he might be a Christian with a particular agenda. A Jewish scholar probably would not care how Jewish beliefs did or didn't influence Christianity.

I claimed you quoted one Jew who supported your belief in eternal torment (the one about "Minim" and others being tormented even after gehenna is destroyed). I didn't claim you quoted one Jew total.
Individual quotes from my post.

-sinners go to hell immediately after their death.
-The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell
-hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away"
-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
-heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, -the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews
-When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [ שׁאול /Sheol]][/color] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them

-the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment "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"
-The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment,
-the minim 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.
[/INDENT]
There you go again -- "the belief in hell," as though there were only one.
There you go again making absurd, specious objections. Of course I said "the belief in hell" because that is what I am discussing not the entire history of Jewish belief about the afterlife. Exactly what your guy did.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be judging the correctness of your belief based on the length of a modern source. That is absurd. The encyclopedia entries are a survey whose length is determined by factors in which the past extensiveness of a given belief does not predominate. Scharen's article is a popular presentation intended to support congregational belief in eternal torment, not to actually seriously survey ancient beliefs.
I judged the article at your link on the paucity of credible, verifiable, historical evidence. Thank you for this unsupported opinion Scharen was not the only source I quoted.

(And seriously, of course they're presented as myths. Example: "It is assumed that there is an angel-prince in charge of Gehenna. He says to God: "Put everything into my sea; nourish me with the seed of Seth; I am hungry.")
That's only one, got any more?

What I quoted is current research on the types of beliefs in gehenna at the time of Christ. Your sources were not even attempting to consider what the beliefs in Palestine at the time of Jesus. Your argument depends on them actually doing what they didn't do.
The same thing can be said about the parable your guy "quoted." I don't recall, did he cite a source?
And the scholar I quoted is of course explaining what Jewish myths were present at the time of Jesus. Unlike your sources, he has actually established dates for his quotes. Nor is he telling us, unlike you, that there was a single Jewish teaching that Jesus could either agree with or rebuke; he's showing the background of Jesus' teachings, not attempting to reinterpret them as you've done.
When you decide to stop representing what I said let me know.

Your quotations don't prove what your argument needs. That's not your sources' fault, and I've made it very clear I don't blame them for it.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for this unsupported opinion. My quotes support my arguments just as the quotes of your guy supported his one sided arguments.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I totally agree with the last sentence. Moving on, I'm asking YOU for evidence. Why do you keep saying I have no evidence, my entire point was that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE pre-Tertullian that the immortal soul was a tenet of Christianity. Ok I get it, the post you just made is your evidence, ok. But I'm just confused why you're asking me for evidence when I'm arguing LACK of evidence (pre-Tertullian). You've numbered my post 1-4 and said I have made 4 empty claims.
Logical fallacy, argument from silence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Here are a few pre-Tertullian.
-Clement [A.D. 30-100] The First Epistle to the Corinthians.
Chap. XI. —
On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom when all the country round was punished by means of fire and brimstone, the Lord thus making it manifest that He does not forsake those that hope in Him, but gives up such as depart from Him to punishment and torture.
-The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna Concerning the Martyrdom of the Holy Polycarp [A.D. 65-100-155.]
Chap. II. And, looking to the grace of Christ, they despised all the torments of this world, redeeming themselves from eternal punishment by [the suffering of] a single hour. For this reason the fire of their savage executioners appeared cool to them. For they kept before their view escape from that fire which is eternal and never shall be quenched, and looked forward with the eyes of their heart to those good things which are laid up for such as endure; things “which ear hath not heard, nor eye seen, neither have entered into the heart of man,” (1Co_2:9) but were revealed by the Lord to them, inasmuch as they were no longer men, but had already become angels.
Chap. XI
But Polycarp said, “Thou threatenest me with fire which burneth for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but art ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why tarriest thou? Bring forth what thou wilt.”
-Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.]First Apology Chap VIII
And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.
The tenets of Greek philosophy?
When I wrote that, that was me simply asking you, 'Are you asking me to prove that Greek philosophy had the belief of an immortal soul?' It wasn't a (empty) claim it was a question. So, are you asking me for proof that Plato/Socrates/Aristotle taught the existence of an immortal soul for every person?
No, proof that anything was copied from Greek philosophy.
](2)That's all early church generations did was debate people who held to Greek philosophy.
Ok I'm not sure if you're mincing my words here, of course that wasn't ALL they did. I was exaggerating, Paul debated Greek philosophers a lot, and it did not stop with Paul. That's what I was saying. That's an empty claim? You're arguing that Christians debating against Greek philosophers is an empty claim? Just trying to understand what evidence you want. [
/quote]
Irrelevant.
[3] Well in time Church leaders went too far and granted the immortal soul.
I think you're demanding evidence for inductive reasoning. If 'X' was not taught prior to mid 2nd century, then all the sudden 'X' began showing up in mid 2nd century, then 'X' began entering the faith somewhere around mid 2nd century. That's all I was doing was pointing out inductive reasoning. I don't require proof that an early church father studied Plato (for example) in order to point out when the belief entered the faith. Are you saying that inductive reasoning is an empty claim?[/
quote]

Logical fallacy, argument from silence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No evidence that church leaders went to far, etc.No evidence that anything was copied from outside Christianity.
[4]There's not zero evidence.
Again, what exact evidence are you referring to?
See above. Here are some quotes from the ECF how they defined "aion".
Ignatius [A.D. 30-107.] The Epistle to the Romans. Chap III
Nothing visible is eternal.16 “For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”[2 Cor 74:17-18, 5:1] For our God, Jesus Christ, Bow that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. Christianity is not a thing of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness.
"Aion"/eternal is the opposite of temporary.
Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] The First Apology
Chap XIII
For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.
"Aion"/eternal equates to "unchangeable."
Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies. Book I.
Chap X
3. the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets...
"Aion"/eternal is the opposite of temporary. So when the ECF say e.g. "eternal punishment" they mean "eternal punishment."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Logical fallacy, argument from silence. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Here are a few pre-Tertullian.
-Clement [A.D. 30-100] The First Epistle to the Corinthians.
Chap. XI. —
On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom when all the country round was punished by means of fire and brimstone, the Lord thus making it manifest that He does not forsake those that hope in Him, but gives up such as depart from Him to punishment and torture.
-The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna Concerning the Martyrdom of the Holy Polycarp [A.D. 65-100-155.]
Chap. II. And, looking to the grace of Christ, they despised all the torments of this world, redeeming themselves from eternal punishment by [the suffering of] a single hour. For this reason the fire of their savage executioners appeared cool to them. For they kept before their view escape from that fire which is eternal and never shall be quenched, and looked forward with the eyes of their heart to those good things which are laid up for such as endure; things “which ear hath not heard, nor eye seen, neither have entered into the heart of man,” (1Co_2:9) but were revealed by the Lord to them, inasmuch as they were no longer men, but had already become angels.
Chap. XI
But Polycarp said, “Thou threatenest me with fire which burneth for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but art ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why tarriest thou? Bring forth what thou wilt.”
-Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.]First Apology Chap VIII
And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years.

No, proof that anything was copied from Greek philosophy.

Irrelevant.

See above. Here are some quotes from the ECF how they defined "aion".

Ignatius [A.D. 30-107.] The Epistle to the Romans. Chap III
Nothing visible is eternal.16 “For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”[2 Cor 74:17-18, 5:1] For our God, Jesus Christ, Bow that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. Christianity is not a thing of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness.
"Aion"/eternal is the opposite of temporary.
Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] The First Apology
Chap XIII
For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.
"Aion"/eternal equates to "unchangeable."
Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies. Book I.
Chap X
3. the operation and dispensation of God connected with human salvation; and show that God manifested longsuffering in regard to the apostasy of the angels who transgressed, as also with respect to the disobedience of men; and set forth why it is that one and the same God has made some things temporal and some eternal, some heavenly and others earthly; and understand for what reason God, though invisible, manifested Himself to the prophets...
"Aion"/eternal is the opposite of temporary. So when the ECF say e.g. "eternal punishment" they mean "eternal punishment."

Ok I understand better now, thanks for graduating me away from a weak argument. I had heard the Tertullian point made before but didn't research church fathers critically to test it. Your post that I first commented on had Tertullian dates or later so I thought it was affirming it, but your last post has earlier. Ok so it's not a simple date of arrival but a more complex issue.

I wonder if what has been mentioned in here a few times is a matter of human nature, that people have this impulse to maximize the amount that you 'Scare' people into becoming Christian. I know it's 2017 and this might be very far from the truth in early Christianity, but I find the opposite to be true, at least for the people that I run into. Most roll their eyes at eternal punishment and see it as proof of how illogical it is, that finite crimes are met with an infinite sentence.

You gotta figure, a ton of these atheists think that after you die you just cease to exist ANYWAY. And a lot of atheists just wanna go to war with you over God torturing people for eternity. Well, there's not a doubt in my mind that I would stand more of a chance getting through to atheists with a message that was more along the lines of "Don't you want to live forever? Look at us, we age, we get fat & uglier, then die and that's it! Imagine having an incorruptible eternal spiritual body!!" That conversation will go over much better.

I know that I switched gears, and I know that the argument over what is more persuasive has zero to do with it's accuracy as being true. I just brought it up because others have, and because I believe the opposite is true as to its effectiveness. Again, a ton of atheists believe that they die and then that's it anyway!!

As for VERY early church fathers believing eternal torment, that kills my weak Tertullian argument, but still leads us into the main basis for this entire thread. Keep it up people this is a great exchange.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stuart lawrence

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2015
10,527
1,603
65
✟70,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Ok I understand better now, thanks for graduating me away from a weak argument. I had heard the Tertullian point made before but didn't research church fathers critically to test it. Your post that I first commented on had Tertullian dates or later so I thought it was affirming it, but your last post has earlier. Ok so it's not a simple date of arrival but a more complex issue.

I wonder if what has been mentioned in here a few times is a matter of human nature, that people have this impulse to maximize the amount that you 'Scare' people into becoming Christian. I know it's 2017 and this might be very far from the truth in early Christianity, but I find the opposite to be true, at least for the people that I run into. Most roll their eyes at eternal punishment and see it as proof of how illogical it is, that finite crimes are met with an infinite sentence.

You gotta figure, a ton of these atheists think that after you die you just cease to exist ANYWAY. And a lot of atheists just wanna go to war with you over God torturing people for eternity. Well, there's not a doubt in my mind that I would stand more of a chance getting through to atheists with a message that was more along the lines of "Don't you want to live forever? Look at us, we age, we get fat & uglier, then die and that's it! Imagine having an incorruptible eternal spiritual body!!" That conversation will go over much better.

I know that I switched gears, and I know that the argument over what is more persuasive has zero to do with it's accuracy as being true. I just brought it up because others have, and because I believe the opposite is true as to its effectiveness. Again, a ton of atheists believe that they die and then that's it anyway!!
In truth, the reason most won't turn to God, those who desperately seek a solution to their unhappy lives, has nothing to do with annihalation or eternal torment, but everything to do with their misconception of what would be required in order for them to be accepted as a child of God and remain one
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
893
744
59
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟172,170.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Aion"/eternal is the opposite of temporary. So when the ECF say e.g. "eternal punishment" they mean "eternal punishment."

First, a technical clarification. In the only place where the phrase "eternal punishment" appears in the Bible (Matthew 25:46), it is the adjective aionios which is used, not the noun aion.

More importantly, however, as a Conditionalist I do not hesitate to affirm that aionos means eternal and that it maintains this literal meaning in the phrase "eternal punishment". This is a very severe problem for Universalists, but it is not a problem at all for Annihilationists.

The point of disagreement between those who believe in annihilation, as I do, and those who believe in eternal conscious torment, is not the duration of the punishment, but it's nature. I believe that the unrighteous will be destroyed forever and thus will for all eternity be deprived of the joys of life with Christ. Annihilation IS a form of eternal punishment.

Further, since Matthew 25:46 contrasts "eternal punishment" with "eternal life", this very strongly implies that the unrighteous will NOT live forever. Eternal conscious punishment would require living forever.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Corbett

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 1, 2017
893
744
59
Severn, NC
Visit site
✟172,170.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In truth, the reason most won't turn to God, those who desperately seek a solution to their unhappy lives, has nothing to do with annihalation or eternal torment, but everything to do with their misconception of what would be required in order for them to be accepted as a child of God and remain one

Stuart, you bring up a healthy reminder. All of us who are Christians, whether we believe in Universalism, Annihilationism, or Eternal Conscious Torment, should work together in Christ to share the Good News about God's grace in Christ Jesus. And as you point out, this good news includes the wonderful fact that we do not have to do anything to earn God's acceptance, it is a gift of grace received by simple faith.
 
Upvote 0

stuart lawrence

Well-Known Member
Oct 21, 2015
10,527
1,603
65
✟70,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Stuart, you bring up a healthy reminder. All of us who are Christians, whether we believe in Universalism, Annihilationism, or Eternal Conscious Torment, should work together in Christ to share the Good News about God's grace in Christ Jesus. And as you point out, this good news includes the wonderful fact that we do not have to do anything to earn God's acceptance, it is a gift of grace received by simple faith.
Stuart, you bring up a healthy reminder. All of us who are Christians, whether we believe in Universalism, Annihilationism, or Eternal Conscious Torment, should work together in Christ to share the Good News about God's grace in Christ Jesus. And as you point out, this good news includes the wonderful fact that we do not have to do anything to earn God's acceptance, it is a gift of grace received by simple faith.
Eighty five percent of people who make a commitment to Christ subsequently walk away from the faith. It's easy to say that is simply because they all made a shallow commitment, but it would be far from the truth.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,576
6,063
EST
✟992,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
First, a technical clarification. In the only place where the phrase "eternal punishment" appears in the Bible (Matthew 25:46), it is the adjective aionios which is used, not the noun aion.
More importantly, however, as a Conditionalist I do not hesitate to affirm that aionos means eternal and that it maintains this literal meaning in the phrase "eternal punishment". This is a very severe problem for Universalists, but it is not a problem at all for Annihilationists.
The point of disagreement between those who believe in annihilation, as I do, and those who believe in eternal conscious torment, is not the duration of the punishment, but it's nature. I believe that the unrighteous will be destroyed forever and thus will for all eternity be deprived of the joys of life with Christ.
Annihilation IS a form of eternal punishment.
Further, since Matthew 25:46 contrasts "eternal punishment" with "eternal life", this very strongly implies that the unrighteous will NOT live forever. Eternal conscious punishment would require living forever.
In the gospels Jesus used the word death 17 times. When Jesus meant death He said death.

Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4
“‘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.’
Twice Jesus mentioned a punishment worse than death.
“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
“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
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ClementofA

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2016
5,459
2,197
Vancouver
✟310,073.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private

More importantly, however, as a Conditionalist I do not hesitate to affirm that aionos means eternal and that it maintains this literal meaning in the phrase "eternal punishment". This is a very severe problem for Universalists, but it is not a problem at all for Annihilationists.

Even lexicons don't agree with your first statement.

Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context. What biased scholars after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.

Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
9 "The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD..."

"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."

Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three

"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)

-----------------------------------------



"The Third Law of Theology: For every theologian there is an equal and opposite theologian."

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
 
Upvote 0