- Nov 5, 2011
- 45,027
- 6,844
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I will not bandy words with you about this. All I will say is that I, for one, believe that the lost are annihilated ultimately, but not at death.
Implying something and showing it are two different things.No. There have been multiple posts which I suggest show the rather obvious flaw in your reasoning.
<Staff Edit>The word "apo" is most certainly in 2 Thessalonians 1:9:
That's because the verse does refute annihilation.And you most certainly did present it as refuting annihilation:
Not an assertion when I've backed it up with corroboration.That is what we are debating, you cannot simply assert it.
I've done this on more one occasion and you still haven't reciprocated to anyone in this fashion. The following is your very first post on this thread; http://www.christianforums.com/threads/annihilationism.7953299/page-11#post-69807195I do not believe you have made this case at all. It is important to distinguish between scholars with a theological position to defend and more "neutral" scholars with no skin in the game. If you can point us to some credible scholars who assert that "destruction" (or "perishing" of "death") were generally understood in that culture to be only about "the body", by all means, present their names and arguments.
Show me where death ever relates to the spirit.How, and please be precise, does it follow that if we are triune beings, "destruction" or "loss" is limited in application to the physical?
Same principle as before, but with a slight modification:
1. You assume that to go into the Lake of Fire means you will never burn up completely.
2. If this is a valid assumption - one borne out by non-circular arguments - then you definitely have a point.
3. If this is an invalid assumption - as I believe it is - it is of course entirely to be expected that there will be no Biblical texts that explicitly assert people in the Lake of Fire will be burned up. Why not? Because if you are wrong, statements about people being tossed in the Lake of Fire entail by virtue of common knowledge that things tossed into fires generally do burn up.
I really have no idea what you're referring to. This thread is about traditionalism vs conditionalism, so how exactly are holy men of the past relative to this topic?No, it's the kind of courage one has in defending the character of God against the dim view of him among the holy men in the past.
The point is that it is entirely plausible, and in fact I suggest highly likely, that when writers of Scripture refer to the "death" or "perishing" of someone, they are, in fact intending to represent that the entire person - body and soul - has / will ultimately perish precisely because to "perish" means for the whole person to cease to exist.Show me where death ever relates to the spirit.
The point is that it is entirely plausible, and in fact I suggest highly likely, that when writers of Scripture refer to the "death" or "perishing" of someone, they are, in fact intending to represent that the entire person - body and soul - has / will ultimately perish precisely because to "perish" means for the whole person to cease to exist.
Here is the problem. While I concede that some Biblical texts talk about fires that do not consume their fuel, it remains the case - obviously - that fires generally consume their fuel.No assumption, scripture never tells us that the Lake of Fire is a place of consumption.
Strawman, I never asserted that the lake of fire is "metaphorical".Now please tell us how a metaphorical Lake of Fire can destroy a metaphysical being?
Please just simply identify the post number(s) of posts where you have actually made the case - and not simply stated - that to the people of that time place, the term "death" / "perish" were restricted in application to the body. I concede that I have ye yet to make the case that these terms were indeed intended to be taken as including the totality of the spirit. Are you able to concede the same thing - that you have not really made the relevant case?I've done this on more one occasion and you still haven't reciprocated to anyone in this fashion.
Nor does scripture tell us that when the sun goes down, it gets dark. But that is hardly a case that if a writer of scripture told us the sun went down, they would not have intended us to understand by implication that it gets dark.No assumption, scripture never tells us that the Lake of Fire is a place of consumption.
The Bible supports eternal life, eternal death and the concept of an eternal suffering.
Matthew 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (NIV)
Revelation 14:11
"And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the markof his name." (NKJV)
Like it or not the traditional idea of an eternal torment comes from the scripture.
<Staff Edit>You haven't supplied anything that supports such a concept. Eternal punishment is not eternal torture and smoke rising forever does not equal eternal torture either.
The bible says death and destruction await the unsaved. There is no such thing as immortality for the unsaved.
And it is entirely possible if not highly probable that you're wrong given how the scripture conveys death as being a strictly physical thing.The point is that it is entirely plausible, and in fact I suggest highly likely, that when writers of Scripture refer to the "death" or "perishing" of someone, they are, in fact intending to represent that the entire person - body and soul - has / will ultimately perish precisely because to "perish" means for the whole person to cease to exist.
Yes, REAL fires, not metaphorical ones.Here is the problem. While I concede that some Biblical texts talk about fires that do not consume their fuel, it remains the case - obviously - that fires generally consume their fuel.
Not when the context is literal. We've already established that your sense of things is not how the Bible is interpolated.You are expecting that every time someone wants to represent something as burned up, they need to explicitly tell the reader that the item was burned up. This makes no sense. If I toss a piece of paper in a raging fire, the mere declaration "I tossed the piece of paper in the fire" is sufficient to indicate the paper gets burned up because, of course, that is what fires do - they consume paper away to nothing. With your line of thinking, my audience will assume that the piece of paper remains eternally on fire, just because I did not add ".....and the paper was consumed".
Unless of course they are metaphorical and consume whatever the writer of the metaphor wants them to consume.You are not recognizing the obvious general truth that fires, in general do consume what gets tossed in them.
Nor does scripture tell us that when the sun goes down, it gets dark. But that is hardly a case that if a writer of scripture told us the sun went down, they would not have intended us to understand by implication that it gets dark.
Fire also consumes matter that is not considered fuel, such as water. 1 Kings 18:33-38.Fires do basically two things:
1. Give off heat and light;
2. Consume their fuel.
You appear to be expecting that writers of scripture have to tell their readers what they already know - that fires consume their fuel.
You've already shown great adeptness at doing this, so I can only assume that this post is just another deflection in order for you to not deal with the real issue here.Please just simply identify the post number(s) of posts where you have actually made the case - and not simply stated - that to the people of that time place, the term "death" / "perish" were restricted in application to the body. I concede that I have ye yet to make the case that these terms were indeed intended to be taken as including the totality of the spirit. Are you able to concede the same thing - that you have not really made the relevant case?
All I want is a post number - how hard can that be to provide?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?