Is Hell Annihilationism or Eternal Torment

Hentenza · Friday at 8:49 AM

Valletta said:
Realize that ἕως οὗ or ἕως were used interchangeably in Koine Greek,

Not really.

Valletta said:
but I''ll give you some more examples where ἕως οὗ is used.

Acts 25:21 "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of his Imperial Majesty, I ordered him to be held until I could send him to the emperor." [1] RSVCE

Recall that Paul was held on his way to the emperor and after he arrived at the Emperor's.

Right and Paul elected to remain in custody until he appealed to the emperor and Festus ordered so. King Agrippa did not want to sent Paul to the emperor without exact charges so he wanted to talk to Paul. Agrippa then sends him to Rome by handing Paul over to a centurion so the “until” in Acts 25:21 remains.

Valletta said:
Here's an OT example:

Gen 28:15 Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done that of which I have spoken to you.” RSVCE

Here the Word of God is not telling us that God forsakes Jacob after God kept his promise.

The language here is Hebrew not Greek.

So far none of your examples have panned out. In order for your theory to work “until” can never be defined as a temporal terminus ad quem and that can never be true.

Here is an example.

“Jesus *replied, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.”
‭‭John‬ ‭13‬:‭38‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

John 13:38 (NASB2020) - Jesus *replied, “Will you lay down | YouVersion

Jesus *replied, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.

bible.com

You know what happened. The rooster crowed when Peter denied Jesus three times.

Valletta said:
As to Mary, Matthew was simply saying that Joseph never had any relations with her.

Nothing in this verse even hints at that.

“Now all this took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name Him Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭1‬:‭22‬-‭25‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 1:22-25 (NASB2020) - Now all this took place so that wha | YouVersion

Now all this took place so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN WILL CONCEIVE AND GIVE BIRTH TO A SON, AND THEY SHALL NAME HIM IMMANUEL,” which

bible.com

Joseph kept Mary a virgin to fulfill the prophesy in verse 23. Once the prophesy was realized there was no reason to keep Mary a virgin hence the “until” and Matthew does not say that she was kept a virgin.

Valletta · Friday at 1:29 PM

Hentenza said:
Not really.

Right and Paul elected to remain in custody until he appealed to the emperor and Festus ordered so. King Agrippa did not want to sent Paul to the emperor without exact charges so he wanted to talk to Paul. Agrippa then sends him to Rome by handing Paul over to a centurion so the “until” in Acts 25:21 remains.

The language here is Hebrew not Greek.

So far none of your examples have panned out. In order for your theory to work “until” can never be defined as a temporal terminus ad quem and that can never be true.

Here is an example.

“Jesus *replied, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.”
‭‭John‬ ‭13‬:‭38‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

John 13:38 (NASB2020) - Jesus *replied, “Will you lay down | YouVersion

Jesus *replied, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.

bible.com

You know what happened. The rooster crowed when Peter denied Jesus three times.

Nothing in this verse even hints at that.

Joseph kept Mary a virgin to fulfill the prophesy in verse 23. Once the prophesy was realized there was no reason to keep Mary a virgin hence the “until” and Matthew does not say that she was kept a virgin.

The Septuagint, used by the Apostles, was written in Koine Greek.

That's my point, Paul remained in custody in the time AFTER the "until."

Your logic is flawed. My point is that nothing is told by the word "until" after the subject event. In your example the subject event is Peter denying Jesus and the rooster crowing.

Finally you break away from the subject of grammar and elaborate on your opinion of the thoughts of God. Again, there is nothing in the Bible that states that Mary did not remain a virgin--that is your speculation outside of the Word of God.

Hentenza · Friday at 3:34 PM

Valletta said:
The Septuagint, used by the Apostles, was written in Koine Greek.

That's my point, Paul remained in custody in the time AFTER the "until."

Because it was Festus that wanted to keep Paul in custody until after he saw the emperor initially. Once Paul saw Agrippa the king initially was not going to keep him in custody because he did not have a charge for Paul to send to the emperor. Finally Agrippa did keep him in custody because Paul requested the meeting with the emperor.

Valletta said:
Your logic is flawed. My point is that nothing is told by the word "until" after the subject event. In your example the subject event is Peter denying Jesus and the rooster crowing.

Exactly but it is your logic that is flawed since there is nothing in Matt. 1:25 to suggest that the condition for the “until” was not met. In fact, the condition was met fully as Mary did give birth to Jesus. No provision was made by God, the Holy Spirit, Joseph, nor Mathew for Mary to remain a virgin afterwards. Unless you can cite a verse that makes provision for Mary to remain a virgin you don’t have anything biblical to prove your point.

Valletta said:
Finally you break away from the subject of grammar and elaborate on your opinion of the thoughts of God.

I proved my point of grammar and even explained that for your argument against the grammar to work then all instances of “until” would have to be for actions to continue but that is not the case as the rooster did not crow “until” after Peter denied Jesus three times and Peter did not continue denying Jesus after the rooster crowed. Your examples do not prove your assertion for Matt. 1:25.

Valletta said:
Again, there is nothing in the Bible that states that Mary did not remain a virgin--that is your speculation outside of the Word of God.

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she remained a virgin so your biblical argument is from silence. She was Joseph wife. Joseph agreed to keep her a virgin until after Jesus birth. As Joseph wife she was not to keep her body from him ( 1 Cor. 7:3-5). Secondly, both Joseph and Mary were devoted Jews and would have followed the nissuin tradition. Consummation legally and spiritually completed the marriage.

Valletta · Friday at 4:58 PM

Hentenza said:
Because it was Festus that wanted to keep Paul in custody until after he saw the emperor initially. Once Paul saw Agrippa the king initially was not going to keep him in custody because he did not have a charge for Paul to send to the emperor. Finally Agrippa did keep him in custody because Paul requested the meeting with the emperor.

Exactly but it is your logic that is flawed since there is nothing in Matt. 1:25 to suggest that the condition for the “until” was not met. In fact, the condition was met fully as Mary did give birth to Jesus. No provision was made by God, the Holy Spirit, Joseph, nor Mathew for Mary to remain a virgin afterwards. Unless you can cite a verse that makes provision for Mary to remain a virgin you don’t have anything biblical to prove your point.

I proved my point of grammar and even explained that for your argument against the grammar to work then all instances of “until” would have to be for actions to continue but that is not the case as the rooster did not crow “until” after Peter denied Jesus three times and Peter did not continue denying Jesus after the rooster crowed. Your examples do not prove your assertion for Matt. 1:25.

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that she remained a virgin so your biblical argument is from silence. She was Joseph wife. Joseph agreed to keep her a virgin until after Jesus birth. As Joseph wife she was not to keep her body from him ( 1 Cor. 7:3-5). Secondly, both Joseph and Mary were devoted Jews and would have followed the nissuin tradition. Consummation legally and spiritually completed the marriage.

I never suggested the condition for "until" was not met. I simply pointed out "until" says nothing about what happens after the condition is met. The Bible states Mary was a virgin. The Bible does not back up your extra-Biblical speculation that Mary had relations.

Hentenza · Friday at 5:29 PM

Valletta said:
I never suggested the condition for "until" was not met. I simply pointed out "until" says nothing about what happens after the condition is met. The Bible states Mary was a virgin.

The Bible only states that Mary would remain a virgin until after the birth of Christ, the virgin birth. The Bible does not state that Mary remained a virgin after Christ birth.

Valletta said:
The Bible does not back up your extra-Biblical speculation that Mary had relations.

What I stated was the historical and biblical context relating to Jewish traditions and biblical teachings on marriage. Both are part of a proper exegesis.

Jeff Saunders · Saturday at 1:12 PM

Valletta said:
Remember you are quoting a translation. "Brother" can be used for cousins or half-brothers or spiritual brothers as you said. The Koine Greek word translated into "until" says nothing whatsoever about what happens after the time of the subject event. Your conclusions are speculation not supported by actual Biblical text.

How can " he had no union or relations with her until Jesus was born" be anything other than, they had no sex until Jesus was born?
So in your view what happened after the "until", because the obvious and plain reading seems pretty clear to me.
It may go against your tradition, but at least be honest and say our tradition says she was an eternal virgin and that's what we are going to believe, we don't read Scripture the same.

Valletta · Saturday at 1:55 PM

Jeff Saunders said:
How can " he had no union or relations with her until Jesus was born" be anything other than, they had no sex until Jesus was born?
So in your view what happened after the "until", because the obvious and plain reading seems pretty clear to me.
It may go against your tradition, but at least be honest and say our tradition says she was an eternal virgin and that's what we are going to believe, we don't read Scripture the same.

Realize the Bible was not originally written in English. In the example from the Bible I gave, "Michal had no child until the day of her death" I do not believe it means mean Michal had children after her death. According to you such grammatical construction is "plain" and "pretty clear" to you. Do you think it means Michal had children after she died? If not, why the different interpretation with Mary? I have not been dishonest, it is not a secret that Catholics are not Bible-only, but we do believe that the Bible is the Word of God and tells us to stand fast by Tradition. Our Church has passed down our understanding. Realize that many Protestants were well aware of that Bible phrase and yet did not go along with your interpretation, For example, Luther and Zwigli, two leaders of the reformation, believed in Mary's ever-virginity. So did John Calvin.

Jeff Saunders · Saturday at 4:00 PM

Valletta said:
Realize the Bible was not originally written in English. In the example from the Bible I gave, "Michal had no child until the day of her death" I do not believe it means mean Michal had children after her death. According to you such grammatical construction is "plain" and "pretty clear" to you. Do you think it means Michal had children after she died? If not, why the different interpretation with Mary? I have not been dishonest, it is not a secret that Catholics are not Bible-only, but we do believe that the Bible is the Word of God and tells us to stand fast by Tradition. Our Church has passed down our understanding. Realize that many Protestants were well aware of that Bible phrase and yet did not go along with your interpretation, For example, Luther and Zwigli, two leaders of the reformation, believed in Mary's ever-virginity. So did John Calvin.

We are not talking about Michal, we are talking about Scripture about Mary not having relations with Joseph until Jesus was born, that is what I am talking about.
What do you think is being said if its not just as written?

Hentenza · Saturday at 4:26 PM

Valletta said:
Realize the Bible was not originally written in English. In the example from the Bible I gave, "Michal had no child until the day of her death" I do not believe it means mean Michal had children after her death.

Most translations do not render עַד as “until” but as “to”.

“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.”
‭‭2 Samuel‬ ‭6‬:‭23‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

2 Samuel 6:23 (NASB2020) - And Michal the daughter of Saul had | YouVersion

And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.

bible.com

“Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.”
‭‭II Samuel‬ ‭6‬:‭23‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

II Samuel 6:23 (NKJV) - Therefore Michal the daughter of Sa | YouVersion

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.

bible.com

“Saul’s daughter Michal was childless to the day she died.”
‭‭2 Samuel‬ ‭6‬:‭23‬ ‭NABRE‬‬

2 Samuel 6:23 (NABRE) - Saul’s daughter Michal was childles | YouVersion

Saul’s daughter Michal was childless to the day she died.

bible.com

“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.”
‭‭2 Samuel‬ ‭6‬:‭23‬ ‭ESV‬‬

2 Samuel 6:23 (ESV) - And Michal the daughter of Saul had | YouVersion

And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.

bible.com

You continue to bring examples that attempt to ridicule our position but quite frankly is failing. To suggest that someone having children after death is absurd. Even if the verse actually rendered עַד as until it would only mean that Michal did not have children until she died (from a moment in time until death). The condition has been met. Mary was still alive once the condition was met, therefore, there was no condition preventing Mary from having children with her husband.

Hentenza · Saturday at 4:59 PM

Valletta said:
I never suggested the condition for "until" was not met. I simply pointed out "until" says nothing about what happens after the condition is met. The Bible states Mary was a virgin. The Bible does not back up your extra-Biblical speculation that Mary had relations.

Let’s add another dimension to this argument. Luke was written before the destruction of the temple in 70ad most likely late 40’s to 50’s so he wrote a witness account of the life of Jesus including Mary.

“And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭2‬:‭7‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Luke 2:7 (ESV) - And she gave birth to her firstborn | YouVersion

And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

bible.com

2:7 καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸνπρωτότοκον καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ διότι οὐκ ἦναὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι

Had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱὸν πρωτότοκον (firstborn), the expression υἱὸν μονογενῆ (only child, only begotten child) would have been used. Luke knew that she had other children including James.

ProtestantChr1stian · 2026-06-08T03:18:33-0500

Jipsah said:
Which is to say you can't or wont address what I said. Imagine my surprise.

Well I'm certainly not get any from you, aml I? When asked a hard question, you retreat into religious posturing.

Not bit of it. I have a position to defend, as you do as well. The difference is that I'm willing to defend mine where you know as well as I your is indefensible.
I
f you have doubts about your beliefs, you might want to address them rather than simply responding with holier-than-thou religion affectation. Yeah, you're probably a much better person than I am, nothing more likely. But that lends no support to your baseless doctrine of eternal conscious torment. And the first and most obvious hole it in is that while Holy Writ time and again contrasts Eternal Life vs Death/Destruction, your doctrine requires you to believe that EVERYONE has eternal life by default. That while the Good Eternal Life of the Blessed is the Gift of God, the horrific eternal torment you believe to be the lot of condemned, can only be described as the Curse of God. And all the posturing and eye-rolling and Phriseeical role-playing can't make your position any more-unscriptural or any less untrue.

"Means" "separation from God
. in your doctrine, but we already know the value I place on your doctrine. How about let's try this: let's take Scripture at what it says? Instead of assigning self serving "meanings" to words that already have perfectly serviceable meanings attached to them, "Death" mens "death". "Die" means "become dead". " The opposite of life".

How about we we recast Romans 6:83. How about instead of "The wages of sin is death", so it says says "The wages of sin is eternal life separated from God". Just ain't the same, is it? How about "But the gift of God is eternal life as well, but a much nicer eternal life". I mean, that's what your lot believe that Romans 6:83 "really means",innit? So why not white out the one with what y'all believe is the unclear meaning, and replace it with what y'all thk is the coccect definition?

I'm sure that has some major significance in your eschatology, but I'm almost equally as sure that it's a contrivance designed to support your doctrine Uber alles as well

Darling, I am not retreating to "religious posturing". Remind and mind you, this IS A CHRISTIAN FORUM, save that as you're continuously gonna see only Scripture and related discussions.
Regarding your next point, you are indeed willing to defend your claims, but, you're unable to do so. You could go back and check that I have continually and actively answered and have backed my arguments up and you haven't becuz you're unable to. Mortal reasoning can never argue with supernatural and heavenly wisdom which the Bible teaches and that's absolutely visible and presented in my arguments.
Next, eternal torment and everlasting life are of the Bible. They're the concepts whose origin is the Bible and Christianity. Ask the Holy Spirit for heavenly wisdom and you shall see for yourself. The Holy Bible is not a random children's book to read and understand literally. It's the active and living Word of God Himself. Go back and read the replies I gave to other member of your "squad" I again tell you and you'll see everything answered and that too from the Scripture itself.
You're gonna debate a Christian, brace yourself for the Scripture as well, as that's what you're getting. Please refrain from trying to teach the book to it's own people who are living it since the beginning of their life. Period.

Is Hell Annihilationism or Eternal Torment

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Active Member

Similar threads