Annihilationism

[StanJ]

Strawman, I never asserted that the lake of fire is "metaphorical".

You're absolutely right, I don't remember you asserting that, but the fact is I just did, and have before, but I guess that only goes to show that you don't really pay attention to my responses?

 

[StanJ]

Yes because only the righteous have their body soul and spirit preserved:
1Th_5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The opposite is non-preservation of those same three aspects.

Your conclusion is an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever. Humans are tripartite and as such that is what Paul is referring to. We receive eternal life as tripartite beings, hence the word life. If we are not whole then we are in pieces and as such that is what Paul is referring to, not being whole but being left without wholeness. What the Bible does teach us is that our spirit/soul remains after our bodies die and nowhere does Scripture imply or even suggest to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, that death refers to our spiritual side.

 

[Timothew]

People get their ideas of Hell from a common reading of the Bible. Its ok not believe it, but have the courage to acknowledge it's there. Its when we act as if there has been a misunderstanding for thousands of years by billions of people that things go off the rails.

It is not enough to claim that something is true just because a lot of people believed that it is true. What matters is what the Bible says. John 3:16 proves that people either have eternal life or they will perish.

 

[expos4ever]

Paul is referring to the Judgment of Israel in Romans 2 not the judgement or punishment of individuals.

I replied by citing this text from Paul in Romans 2:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil

Now what do we have?

1. We have you directly asserting that Romans 2 does not deal with the judgment/punishment of individuals.
2. We have Paul asserting that every human being who does evil will be judged/punished.

How are you not directly contradicting Paul? Well, your answer is "context" - that the Romans 2 treatment is about the judgment of Israel. Well, if that were really true, you might have a leg to stand on. However, the possibility that Paul is talking about some national judgment of Israel is eliminated by this:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

It is clear from the clear and repeated references to the judgment/punishment of Gentiles, coupled with the explicit reference to "every human being" that the Romans 2 judgment is certainly not limited to Israel and indeed will apply to every human who has ever lived.

What is your response? I see no "context" other than a universal judgment of all person who have ever lived, Jew or Gentile. Please address the details of my challenge to your position.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

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

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

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

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

 

[expos4ever]

Deleted own post.

 

[Colter]

It is not enough to claim that something is true just because a lot of people believed that it is true. What matters is what the Bible says. John 3:16 proves that people either have eternal life or they will perish.

I agree with you Timothew, but the books used to make the current cannon list say conflicting things about the same subject.

This clip from the BOR and others give people the impression that the condemned are not simply executed but "tormented" "for ever and ever." That there will be "no rest for them day or night". I agree with the billions who have drawn the same conclusion from the same writings as to what it says, the impression it gives. The BOR in particular was heavily influenced by it's apocalyptic editors.

9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

 

[expos4ever]

You're absolutely right, I don't remember you asserting that, but the fact is I just did, and have before, but I guess that only goes to show that you don't really pay attention to my responses?

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

 

[expos4ever]

The bottom line however is that you still didn't answer my question despite all your verboseness.

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

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

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

 

[Der Alte]

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.

"Smoke rising forever" does equal "eternal torment," not "torture," when read in context.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. ​

"the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night." If those being tormented are annihilated the smoke is no longer theirs. That the torment lasts for ever and ever those words are reinforced by the words "and they have no rest day nor night." 10,000 times 10,000 eons from now God's unchanging words will still read "and they have no rest day nor night."

The bible says death and destruction await the unsaved. There is no such thing as immortality for the unsaved.

According to Luke 16:19-31, Ezekiel 32:18-22 and Ezekiel 32:30-31. there is immortality for the unsaved.

 

[Colter]

Hades was an invention of the Greeks, it took on the name of the God "Hades".


Hades (/ˈheɪdiːz/; Ancient Greek: ᾍδης or Άͅδης, Háidēs) was the ancient Greek chthonic god of the underworld, which eventually took his name.[1]

In Greek mythology, Hades was regarded as the oldest son of Cronus and Rhea, although the last son regurgitated by his father.[n 1] He and his brothers Zeus and Poseidon defeated their father's generation of gods, the Titans, and claimed rulership over the cosmos. Hades received the underworld, Zeus the air, and Poseidon the sea, with the solid earth—long the province of Gaia—available to all three concurrently. Hades was often portrayed with his three-headed guard dog Cerberus and, in later mythological authors, associated with the Helm of Darkness and the bident.

 

[expos4ever]

....and nowhere does Scripture imply or even suggest to anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear, that death refers to our spiritual side.

There is probably a technical term for the error in reasoning you are demonstrating, but I just don't know it. Suppose, just suppose - simply for the sake of argument - that the term "death", when used in Biblical times in relation to the human person, actually did encompass the "spirit" in its scope of application.

Are you going to say this is not at least possible? I do not know how you could possibly rule this possibility out.

If "death" was understood, by definition, to include death of the spirit, would a writer not be able to simply use the word "death" and expect his readers - who likewise signed up to the same definition that death includes the spirit - to understand that he is asserting death of the spirit?

Please answer this well-formed, clear, and meaningful question.

 

[expos4ever]

According to Luke 16:19-31,.......

Please be the first person to answer this question (two others have repeatedly refused to answer it). If you have already answered it - and I missed the answer - please simply direct me to the post:

In Romans 2, it is sensible for Paul to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people (like the rich man in Luke 16) who have already experienced torment, whether eternal or not, because........

 

[expos4ever]

Now please tell us how a metaphorical Lake of Fire can destroy a metaphysical being?

Ok, let's talk about this Lake of Fire thing. Do I believe it is a "real" fire? Probably not, not least because the book of Revelation (which is where, I believe, this term is used exclusively) is chock full of imagery that is clearly not to be taken literally.

So let's say that I agree that the Lake of Fire is not a real fire. This does not challenge my position that the lost are annihilated. Suppose a person wanted to construct a metaphorical image that captured the idea that the lost are ultimately annihilated.

What better image than fire - a force which is universally understood to, yes, reduce its fuel to smoke and ash.

So it is perfectly coherent to believe that the "Lake of Fire" is an image that appeals to something that every human knows - that fires consume their fuel - to make the point that the lost are ultimately annihilated.

It is well known that truths/ideas conveyed through the vehicle of literary device (such as metaphor) are often more effective in making a point than a purely declarative statement.

Now:

1. Do you deny that fires generally consume their fuel?

2. Do you deny that fires is something almost every human being who has ever lived is familiar with?

3. Do you deny that if, repeat if, a writer wanted to forcefully make the point the lost are consumed, describing a scenario in which they are cast into a Lake of Fire would be an effective way to make this very point?

 

[Timothew]

I agree with you Timothew, but the books used to make the current cannon list say conflicting things about the same subject.

This clip from the BOR and others give people the impression that the condemned are not simply executed but "tormented" "for ever and ever." That there will be "no rest for them day or night". I agree with the billions who have drawn the same conclusion from the same writings as to what it says, the impression it gives. The BOR in particular was heavily influenced by it's apocalyptic editors.

9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the people of God who keep his commands and remain faithful to Jesus.

I use the practice of interpreting unclear scripture in the light of clear scripture.
I think Rick Warren said this well:
"Always interpret unclear passages in the light of clear passages. Look at the full counsel of God in Scripture to get a clear understanding when you find a passage that seems contradictory or confusing."

The BOR has always had a lot of controversy associated with it. As you say, it was "heavily influenced by it's apocalyptic editors." If you look at the Bible as a whole it is striking just how much evidence there is for the destruction of the wicked as opposed to their continual torment. It is not good practice to draw a doctrine from one passage of scripture, especially from the BOR. Just take an honest look at all of the passages in the whole bible that speak of the destruction of the wicked. Every prophet and apostle agrees that the wicked will be destroyed. It is written in nearly every book of the Bible, from the Pentateuch (Moses believed in the destruction of the wicked) from the Psalms (David believed in the destruction of the wicked) to Isaiah (Isaiah believed in the destruction of the wicked) to Ezekiel (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to Malachi (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), the Matthew (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), the Luke (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to John (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to Paul (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to the author of Hebrews (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to James (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to Jude(also believed in the destruction of the wicked).

Even John of Patmos said that the lake of fire is the second DEATH, not eternal conscious torment.

I can either believe a whole lot of people throughout history who believed in the eternal conscious torment of the wicked OR I can believe Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, the author of Hebrews, and Jesus Christ Himself. You tell me. If Jonathan Edwards disagrees with what Jesus Christ said, who should I believe? Jonathan Edwards or Jesus Christ?

Has ANYTHING ever been true just because a lot of people think it is? Usually it is the opposite. The Big Crowd gets deceived and the minority know the truth.

 

[Der Alte]

Please be the first person to answer this question (two others have repeatedly refused to answer it). If you have already answered it - and I missed the answer - please simply direct me to the post:
In Romans 2, it is sensible for Paul to announce a future meting out of judgment and punishment for people (like the rich man in Luke 16) who have already experienced torment, whether eternal or not, because........

Did that already my Post #372 this thread.

 

[Colter]

I use the practice of interpreting unclear scripture in the light of clear scripture.
I think Rick Warren said this well:
"Always interpret unclear passages in the light of clear passages. Look at the full counsel of God in Scripture to get a clear understanding when you find a passage that seems contradictory or confusing."

The BOR has always had a lot of controversy associated with it. As you say, it was "heavily influenced by it's apocalyptic editors." If you look at the Bible as a whole it is striking just how much evidence there is for the destruction of the wicked as opposed to their continual torment. It is not good practice to draw a doctrine from one passage of scripture, especially from the BOR. Just take an honest look at all of the passages in the whole bible that speak of the destruction of the wicked. Every prophet and apostle agrees that the wicked will be destroyed. It is written in nearly every book of the Bible, from the Pentateuch (Moses believed in the destruction of the wicked) from the Psalms (David believed in the destruction of the wicked) to Isaiah (Isaiah believed in the destruction of the wicked) to Ezekiel (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to Malachi (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), the Matthew (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), the Luke (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to John (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to Paul (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to the author of Hebrews (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to James (also believed in the destruction of the wicked), to Jude(also believed in the destruction of the wicked).

Even John of Patmos said that the lake of fire is the second DEATH, not eternal conscious torment.

I can either believe a whole lot of people throughout history who believed in the eternal conscious torment of the wicked OR I can believe Moses, David, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Jude, the author of Hebrews, and Jesus Christ Himself. You tell me. If Jonathan Edwards disagrees with what Jesus Christ said, who should I believe? Jonathan Edwards or Jesus Christ?

Has ANYTHING ever been true just because a lot of people think it is? Usually it is the opposite. The Big Crowd gets deceived and the minority know the truth.

Tim, I have never believed in eternal torment or hell, I'm just stating the fact that people get that idea from the Bible and in more places than the BOR.

Quote attributed to Jesus:


Hell, a Fiery Furnace

Matthew 13:41-42, 49-50 “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Mark 9:43, 48-49 “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire…where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire.”

 

[expos4ever]

Did that already my Post #372 this thread.

Thanks - you are the only one (I believe) actually answered this question. Here is what I believe the relevant part of your answer:

I'll address your last point first. In John 8 when Jesus was in the temple present and debating with the Jewish leaders did He simultaneously exist before Abraham as He said He did? Since Jesus considered His existence "present tense," as it were, with a long ago historical event i.e. the birth of Abraham might He also consider a future event such as the rich man being tormented in a fiery hades, although apparently future to our finite human understanding, also "present tense" to Himself?

You appear to be basically agreeing with Paul that judgment / punishment is really only meted out in the future, although Jesus spoke of it (at least with respect to the rich man in the Luke 16 account) as though it was happening in the present (Jesus's "present"). And you resolve that apparent contradiction by basically saying that when Jesus speaks of events in the present, He can be understood as referring to events in the future, just as Jesus considers his "present" existence to include his "past pre-Abraham" existence.

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

1. The rich man is described by Jesus as already in torment in flames;
2. Paul writes of judgment only meted out in the future.

...and your answer appear to be to say that when Jesus refers to the "present" (i.e. the rich man is presently in flames in the Luke 16 account) He can be understood as referring to the future instead.

First, that casts Jesus in the position of saying things that would almost universally misunderstood by His audience - if Jesus says that something that is already happening - and, in fact, it will not happen for thousands of years - how is Jesus not misleading people? Perhaps I can agree that to Jesus, the present and the future collapse together.

But, and this is key, this would not be true for His listeners - they would very reasonably assume that when Jesus says the rich man is currently in flames, then he is indeed currently in flames. This is where I think your argument is particularly vulnerable: Jesus is not talking to Himself (Jesus, being as you say, able to see the future and the present as "contemporaneous"); He is speaking to others who surely will not have that mindset.

Of course, it always possible that I have misunderstood your argument. If so, please set me straight.

 

[expos4ever]

Did that already my Post #372 this thread.

Further to the above, and trying to be even-handed about this, I think the following argument eliminates the seeming conflict with Romans 2 while also salvaging the belief that Luke 16 is intended to teach about the afterlife (I don't believe this, but that is another matter): In the Luke 16 account, Jesus uses a purely fictional story about a rich man and a guy named Lazarus. While that story is indeed set in the present (e.g. the rich man is presently in torment), as a "parable" (fictional account intended to convey a truth), the lesson is indeed about eternal destinies based on judgments that are actually made in the future. It would be like a high school teacher telling a fictional story about a lazy student who fails - in the present - to get into college because he does not work hard enough to get good grades. If that story is told to a bunch of 15 year olds who have yet to finish high school, the story is really an account of what their future might hold if they do not study hard enough.

In short, as long as one does not insist - as do some here - that the Luke 16 is a literal, factual account of an actual rich man already in flames, one can salvage the view that the Like 16 account really does tell us about the afterlife even it is a fictional account (fictional, because no one actually gets punished until the future)

 

[StanJ]

You have repeatedly refused to answer a number of questions from me. Can you explain?
For my part, any lack of an answer from me is an oversight. If you point me to, or copy and paste, any meaningful question (exception: a gish gallop - if you simply post a link that contains pages and pages of questions, I will not answer that), I assure you that I will answer it.
And we will see whether or not you answer the questions that have been posed to you.

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