Annihilationism Is Actually...Biblical

[Jordan Henshaw]

I do not post a laundry list of gotcha questions.

You called them "gotcha" questions, not me.

That tells us a lot about how you yourself perceive your own argument.

I was just trying to understand your position better. Asking questions is an extremely good way of doing that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh. Duh. Thank you.

Wait a second... in what parallel universe is Mathew spelled with 2 t's?

I'm pretty sure I warped into a different world or something because 5 seconds ago I would have bet my life on Mathew being spelled with 1 t.

It's gotta be the Russians!

You had one “t.” Hence why I said you need two “t”’s. But it is all good. We all make mistakes every now and then.

May God bless you.

 

[Der Alte]

Why is that? Why can't the means of destruction(ceasing to exist) be the presence of the Lord, or from the presence of the Lord? Is His presence not powerful enough to cause to cease to exist, if Love Omnipotent so wills it?

Something/someone which no longer exists cannot be "from the presence of" anyone or anything. FYI the definition of the preposition "from" from Merriam-Webster dictionary. Please show me how something/someone which does not exist fits any of these definitions.

Definition of from
1a —used as a function word to indicate a starting point of a physical movement or a starting point in measuring or reckoning or in a statement of limits
-came here from the city
-a week from today
-cost from $5 to $10
b —used as a function word to indicate the starting or focal point of an activity
-called me from a pay phone
-ran a business from her home
2—used as a function word to indicate physical separation or an act or condition of removal, abstention, exclusion, release, subtraction, or differentiation
-protection from the sun
-relief from anxiety
3—used as a function word to indicate the source, cause, agent, or basis
-we conclude from this
-a call from my lawyer
-inherited a love of music from his father
-worked hard from necessity​

 

[Der Alte]

You called them "gotcha" questions, not me.
That tells us a lot about how you yourself perceive your own argument.
I was just trying to understand your position better. Asking questions is an extremely good way of doing that.

Discussion
1. an exchange of views for the purpose of exploring a subject or deciding an issue
-The discussion about the club budget went on for hours.
2. talking or a talk between two or more people​

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

Something/someone which no longer exists cannot be "from the presence of" anyone or anything. FYI the definition of the preposition "from" from Merriam-Webster dictionary. Please show me how something/someone which does not exist fits any of these definitions.

Definition of from
1a —used as a function word to indicate a starting point of a physical movement or a starting point in measuring or reckoning or in a statement of limits
-came here from the city
-a week from today
-cost from $5 to $10
b —used as a function word to indicate the starting or focal point of an activity
-called me from a pay phone
-ran a business from her home
2—used as a function word to indicate physical separation or an act or condition of removal, abstention, exclusion, release, subtraction, or differentiation
-protection from the sun
-relief from anxiety
3—used as a function word to indicate the source, cause, agent, or basis
-we conclude from this
-a call from my lawyer
-inherited a love of music from his father
-worked hard from necessity​

This is what you keep doing. This is why no one reads your posts in their entirety.

You made your point in the first sentence. You did NOT need to copy/paste the meaning of the word "from". That is NOT what we are debating.

All you seem to be able to do is attack tangents with tangents.

You have yet to answer a single question anyone has asked you. That is WRONG. That is NOT socially acceptable.

And in response to your actual post, you are making the massive logical error of making an attack based on the very assumption your opponent is actively refuting. If you can't understand what that means in relation to your first sentence, I will no longer respond to you. All you have done is spew insanely erroneous logic and cut/paste from your fallible sources to support some tangent that no one else even cares about try to make your ridiculous logical reasoning seem authoritative.

I'm going to give you one last chance to answer an easy, simple question that any decent human being would answer without hesitation. If you don't answer it, goodbye. If you do answer it, we may have something to talk about.

What does the Tree of Life mean to you?

 

[ClementofA]

Something/someone which no longer exists cannot be "from the presence of" anyone or anything. FYI the definition of the preposition "from" from Merriam-Webster dictionary. Please show me how something/someone which does not exist fits any of these definitions.

Definition of from
1a —used as a function word to indicate a starting point of a physical movement or a starting point in measuring or reckoning or in a statement of limits
-came here from the city
-a week from today
-cost from $5 to $10
b —used as a function word to indicate the starting or focal point of an activity
-called me from a pay phone
-ran a business from her home
2—used as a function word to indicate physical separation or an act or condition of removal, abstention, exclusion, release, subtraction, or differentiation
-protection from the sun
-relief from anxiety
3—used as a function word to indicate the source, cause, agent, or basis
-we conclude from this
-a call from my lawyer
-inherited a love of music from his father
-worked hard from necessity​

See your posted Webster's definition # 2 above.

"protection from the sun" or *destruction from the sun (which can cause skin cancer)* or *destruction from a psunami* is like destruction from the presence of the Lord (2 Thess.1:9) where destruction means ceasing to exist.

"relief from anxiety" or *destruction from anxiety or an atom bomb* is like destruction from the presence of the Lord (2 Thess.1:9) where destruction means ceasing to exist.

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.​

And 1000 years later, the beast and the false prophet, who is a person, are still in the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
​

Can you prove from Rev.20:10 & the Greek that all 3 beings will be tormented? Or is it only referring to the devil getting torments?

Where is there any proof in the book of Revelation, besides 20:10, that anyone else will be tormented in the lake of fire?

Is there any proof the beast & false prophet are conscious or being tormented before Rev.20:10 & after they are in the lake of fire?

Rev.19:20 says "These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone", but where does it say they are alive after that moment they were cast in, or after their bodies reached the fire?

 

[Butch5]

You know, the funny thing is, the phrase, "eternal death" doesn't even make sense.

Because "death" is when you pass being alive to not being alive. It is a process with a start and with and end. You can't be forever in the process of dying if you will never ever actually die. Because then you're not dying at all. You're living.

I agree. I find that there are quite a few beliefs like that. If people would stop and think about what they're saying they'd realize that some of these things don't make sense.

 

[Der Alte]

See your posted Webster's definition # 2 above.
"protection from the sun" or *destruction from the sun (which can cause skin cancer)* or *destruction from a psunami* is like destruction from the presence of the Lord (2 Thess.1:9) where destruction means ceasing to exist.

The sun or a tsunami does not make people cease to exist.

"relief from anxiety" or *destruction from anxiety or an atom bomb* is like destruction from the presence of the Lord (2 Thess.1:9) where destruction means ceasing to exist.

Wrong! See above. If a person is killed by an atomic bomb their atoms might be dispersed but then they are not "from the presence" anything.

Can you prove from Rev.20:10 & the Greek that all 3 beings will be tormented? Or is it only referring to the devil getting torments?

I already have in this thread but as usual my response was ignored.

Where is there any proof in the book of Revelation, besides 20:10, that anyone else will be tormented in the lake of fire?
Is there any proof the beast & false prophet are conscious or being tormented before Rev.20:10 & after they are in the lake of fire?
Rev.19:20 says "These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone", but where does it say they are alive after that moment they were cast in, or after their bodies reached the fire?

Rev 20:10
(10) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Rev 20:10
και [and] G2532 CONJ βασανισθησονται [tormented] G928 V-FPI-3P ημερας [day] G2250 N-GSF και [and] G2532 CONJ νυκτος [night] G3571 N-GSF εις [unto] G1519 PREP τους [the] G3588 T-APM αιωνας [forever] G165 N-APM των [the] G3588 T-GPM αιωνων [forever] G165 N-GPM
G928 βασανίζω basanizō
From G931; to torture: - pain, toil, torment, toss, vex.​

Basanizo the word translated "tormented" is a future, passive, indicative, third person plural properly translated "they shall be tormented." Dead people can't be tormented.

V-FPI-3P
Part of Speech: Verb
Tense: Future
Voice: Passive
Mood: Indicative
Person: third [they]
Number: Plural​

 

[Der Alte]

I agree. I find that there are quite a few belief like that. If people would stop and think about what they're saying they'd realize that some of these things don't make sense.

That is exactly why εις κολασιν αιωνιον/eis kolasin aionion in Matt 25:46, correctly translated "into eternal punishment," cannot be translated "into eternal death." Jesus knew the word for death, He is quoted as saying it 17 times in the gospels. If Jesus had meant death in Matt 25:46 that is what He would have said.

 

[Der Alte]

...The section in red is also an argument from silence. You have simply assumed that Jesus would have corrected them. Maybe He didn't want to.
The section in blue is a False Dichotomy. You only give two options, either Jesus had to correct them, or their teaching was correct. However, there is another option. Their teaching was wrong and Jesus didn't want to correct them.

Jesus criticized and corrected the Jews many times. Is your position that Jesus would let the Jews go on believing and teaching about eternal punishment in hell if it was false?

Now I looked into it and saw something incredible. In Jeremiah 32 when he was referring to this valley he said:
Young's Literal Translation
And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, so as to cause Judah to sin.
So....in this place where supposedly God will torture us with unending fire, YHVH says that burning ones own child is a detestable abomination, and that he himself WOULD NEVER EVEN CONSIDER such a thing!
So how can we say God will torture us for all of eternity when he clearly says he would never even think of such a thing? And he is doing it all in the context of this valley called Gehinnom. How clever!!!
Am I the only one that just sees it plainly? (Obviously, many even on this site do as well)

The Jews were sacrificing their own children to a pagan deity. God did not command nor did it come into His mind to sacrifice children to a pagan deity. This has nothing to do with God punishing the unrighteous

 

[DavidPT]

That is exactly why εις κολασιν αιωνιον/eis kolasin aionion in Matt 25:46, correctly translated "into eternal punishment," cannot be translated "into eternal death." Jesus knew the word for death, He is quoted as saying it 17 times in the gospels. If Jesus had meant death in Matt 25:46 that is what He would have said.

Jesus also knew the word for torment, yet He didn't use that word in that verse either.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented(basanizo) day and night for ever and ever.

If He meant this, why didn't He say?----And these shall go away into everlasting torment(basanizo).

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Where is (basanizo) in this verse? How can ECT doctrine possibly work without (basanizo)?

As to Revelation 20:10, the text doesn't say humans cast into the LOF shall be tormented(basanizo) day and night for ever and ever. The text plainly says it is satan that will. That argument is moot if one tries to apply the fate of satan to that of humans cast into the LOF.

Let me guess though----your arguments above are valid but mine aren't, right?

 

[Der Alte]

Jesus also knew the word for torment, yet He didn't use that word in that verse either.
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented(basanizo) day and night for ever and ever.
If He meant this, why didn't He say?----And these shall go away into everlasting torment(basanizo).

My argument was addressed at those folks who want to make Matt 25:46 read "eternal death." In his "Dialogue with Trypho a Jew", Justin Martyr wrote in the late 1st/early 2nd century "It is not punishment unless you are conscious to experience it." Do you suppose you know more about the Greek than Justin?

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

"fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." It does not say that God has or will destroy even one single soul in hell. In fact there is not one single verse in the Bible which says that.

Where is (basanizo) in this verse? How can ECT doctrine possibly work without (basanizo)?

Matthew 25:46 Revelation 14:11, Revelation 20:10

As to Revelation 20:10, the text doesn't say humans cast into the LOF shall be tormented(basanizo) day and night for ever and ever. The text plainly says it is satan that will. That argument is moot if one tries to apply the fate of satan to that of humans cast into the LOF.
Let me guess though----your arguments above are valid but mine aren't, right?

Your argument about Rev 20:10 is invalid. See my [post #248] above. The verb translated "shall be tormented" is a future, passive, indicative, third person plural. They shall be tormented. One of "they," the false prophet, is a human.

 

[Butch5]

Jesus criticized and corrected the Jews many times. Is your position that Jesus would let the Jews go on believing and teaching about eternal punishment in hell if it was false?

We're not told. That's why it's an argument from silence.

 

[Shempster]

Jesus criticized and corrected the Jews many times. Is your position that Jesus would let the Jews go on believing and teaching about eternal punishment in hell if it was false?


The Jews were sacrificing their own children to a pagan deity. God did not command nor did it come into His mind to sacrifice children to a pagan deity. This has nothing to do with God punishing the unrighteous

The point of this is actually this is that God would said that he would never consider burning his children in fire. He is telling us that he would never burn his creation in fire.

 

[Der Alte]

The point of this is actually this is that God would said that he would never consider burning his children in fire. He is telling us that he would never burn his creation in fire.

Wrong! My post which you quoted was discussing what Jesus said about the eternal fate of the unrighteous. And what you did quote you just happened to leave out some very important information. That is what folks do when they try to wrest scripture to make it fit their assumptions/presuppositions. Here is your proof text. Please show me where God said "He would never consider burning His children in fire?" I don't see the word "fire" anywhere. Other than "my heart" I don't see God using the first person pronouns,I, me, mine etc. anywhere.

Jeremiah 32:35 And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, so as to cause Judah to sin.​

Just to summarize God said He did not command and it did not even come up on His heart to command Israel to commit the abomination of sacrificing their sons and daughters to the pagan deity Molech and to cause Judah to sin.

 

[Shempster]

Wrong! My post which you quoted was discussing what Jesus said about the eternal fate of the unrighteous. And what you did quote you just happened to leave out some very important information. That is what folks do when they try to wrest scripture to make it fit their assumptions/presuppositions. Here is your proof text. Please show me where God said "He would never consider burning His children in fire?" I don't see the word "fire" anywhere. Other than "my heart" I don't see God using the first person pronouns,I, me, mine etc. anywhere.

Jeremiah 32:35 And they build the high places of Baal, that are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come up on my heart to do this abomination, so as to cause Judah to sin.​

Just to summarize God said He did not command and it did not even come up on His heart to command Israel to commit the abomination of sacrificing their sons and daughters to the pagan deity Molech and to cause Judah to sin.

Sorry didn't mean to set you off there.
Yes it says "pass through" and not does not mention fire.
The NIV says "sacrifice". The YLT also says "pass through, but doesn't mention fire.
The KJV does mention fire. The Message bible mentions burning their children in the fire.

Any way he does say that he did not command it, nor did it even enter his heart. So what is the difference? It seems like he is disgusted at the idea of burning people, so why would he do that to us?
I am merely suggesting that God is giving us a little picture of his heart and character. That's all.

 

[Der Alte]

Sorry didn't mean to set you off there.
Yes it says "pass through" and not does not mention fire.
The NIV says "sacrifice". The YLT also says "pass through, but doesn't mention fire.
The KJV does mention fire. The Message bible mentions burning their children in the fire.
Any way he does say that he did not command it, nor did it even enter his heart. So what is the difference? It seems like he is disgusted at the idea of burning people, so why would he do that to us?
I am merely suggesting that God is giving us a little picture of his heart and character. That's all.

Set me off? I merely stated my view. You apparently ignored everything I said and repeated your position. Here is the statement I was addressing. "God would said that he would never consider burning his children in fire. He is telling us that he would never burn his creation in fire." God never said these words. That is what you think God meant. One should not try to put words in God's mouth

 

[Der Alte]

. . .Any way he does say that he did not command it, nor did it even enter his heart. So what is the difference? It seems like he is disgusted at the idea of burning people, so why would he do that to us?
I am merely suggesting that God is giving us a little picture of his heart and character. That's all.

Genesis 18:20-21
(20) And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
(21) I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Genesis 19:24-25
(24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
(25) And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

 

[Shempster]

Genesis 18:20-21
(20) And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
(21) I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.
Genesis 19:24-25
(24) Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
(25) And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

Touche

 

[Jordan Henshaw]

Set me off? I merely stated my view. You apparently ignored everything I said and repeated your position. Here is the statement I was addressing. "God would said that he would never consider burning his children in fire. He is telling us that he would never burn his creation in fire." God never said these words. That is what you think God meant. One should not try to put words in God's mouth

So in other words, you don't think Hell is real?

He never burned up Sodom and Gomorrah with eternal fire?