Annihilationism

[Butch5]

So much for KJV-only-ism..
Which is a pity though i.m.o.
If you want to be sure, you'll have to verify with the Greek and Hebrew texts, or look for people who are good at that.
The internet is a good thing though, even youtube.
I'd be lost in doubts without it...

Yeah, I agree. One problem is that too many simply rely on a translation. Translations have translator bias, it's pretty much unavoidable.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yeah, I agree. One problem is that too many simply rely on a translation. Translations have translator bias, it's pretty much unavoidable.

Discernment is essential. We need (an ear for) the Truth, we need the Spirit of Truth, the Helper.
But sometimes one can get caught in a teaching that turns out to be fallacious.
Reader / hearer bias is also unavoidable...

But hey, Revelation 7:9 !

 

[aiki]

Please post any Scripture passages that you think prove that Annihilationism is untrue in this thread.

Let's discuss them. I have only one other request, please be polite when you post here, I've had a lot of bad experiences with people who think that God plans to have the unrepentant tortured alive in hell.

What the heck, I think I'll add a poll.

Matthew 25:46
46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

There is a parallelism here that requires that the eternal life of the righteous and the everlasting punishment of the wicked be understood as equally enduring. If the life of the righteous is forever, the punishment of the wicked is also forever. "Ah, but," the annihilationist will say, "the punishment is eternal annihilation. It is not that a person suffers eternally; they just wink out of existence permanently." Of course, this response ignores the fact that punishment is not punishment if it is not consciously endured. One cannot punish a rock, or a bag of dirt, or a log. Only what is conscious may be punished. There is no punishment, then, for the annihilated; annihilation eliminates consciousness and thus avoids punishment.

2 Thessalonians 1:9
9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

If one acknowledges that punishment is only punishment if it is consciously endured, then the "destruction" in this verse is not indicating annihilation but the sort of destruction spoken of in 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 10:9, or 2 Peter 2:6 where "destruction" does not mean "annihilation" but total ruin or loss of well being.

Revelation 14:11
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 mark of his name."

In this verse, those who have taken the mark of the Beast and have worshiped him and are cast into Hell do not vanish from existence as annihilationists contend but "have no rest day or night" and the "smoke of their torment" - which cannot rise from what has been removed from existence - "ascends forever."

Luke 12:46-48
46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47 And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Jesus teaches here quite clearly that there are degrees of punishment. But if the wicked are all just annihilated, how can this be? There can't be degrees of non-existence; one either exists or one does not. And there are many places in Scripture where the idea of degrees of divine punishment is taught: Matt. 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Jn. 15:22; Heb. 10:29; Rev. 20:11-15; 22:12, etc.

Luke 16:22-24
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 Then 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.'

Jesus taught in this parable that Hell is a place of torment. The Rich Man is not annihilated but suffers the torments of flame and thirst. "It's all figurative!" the annihilationist will say. Well, this is an odd thing, then. In every other of his parables, Jesus used the mundane, the commonplace, and the real to communicate spiritual truth. His parables involved servants and masters, lost coins, sheep and shepherds, sowing seed, wheat and tares, wedding feasts, and so on. Why in this one instance would Jesus abandon his usual method and teach a fiction? What is the point of the parable if what happens to Lazarus and the Rich Man is fantasy? Certainly, the parable is consistent with other things Jesus taught about Hell. He describes Hell as "eternal fire" (Matt. 18:9) and "the hell of fire" (Matt. 18:10) and "unquenchable fire" (Mk. 9:44). Jesus spoke of "outer darkness" where those in it wept and gnashed their teeth (Matt. 8:12). Are we to believe that all of these descriptions, like the parable, are false, that they are utterly fictional? That seems an enormous and willful misreading of Scripture. There is very good reason to understand the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man as communicating truth to us about the afterlife. And if it does, annihilationism cannot be true.

Selah.

 

[Hieronymus]

If one acknowledges that punishment is only punishment if it is consciously endured, then the "destruction" in this verse is not indicating annihilation but the sort of destruction spoken of in 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 10:9, or 2 Peter 2:6 where "destruction" does not mean "annihilation" but total ruin.

Then explain what the difference is between death, annihilation and destruction in the context of the fate of the wicked.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Matthew 25:46
46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

There is a parallelism here that requires that the eternal life of the righteous and the everlasting punishment of the wicked be understood as equally enduring. If the life of the righteous is forever, the punishment of the wicked is also forever. "Ah, but," the annihilationist will say, "the punishment is eternal annihilation. It is not that a person suffers eternally; they just wink out of existence permanently." Of course, this response ignores the fact that punishment is not punishment if it is not consciously endured. One cannot punish a rock, or a bag of dirt, or a log. Only what is conscious may be punished. There is no punishment, then, for the annihilated; annihilation eliminates consciousness and thus avoids punishment.

2 Thessalonians 1:9
9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

If one acknowledges that punishment is only punishment if it is consciously endured, then the "destruction" in this verse is not indicating annihilation but the sort of destruction spoken of in 1 Corinthians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 10:9, or 2 Peter 2:6 where "destruction" does not mean "annihilation" but total ruin.

Revelation 14:11
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 mark of his name."

In this verse, those who have taken the mark of the Beast and have worshiped him and are cast into Hell do not vanish from existence as annihilationists contend but "have no rest day or night" and the "smoke of their torment" - which cannot rise from what has been removed from existence - "ascends forever."

Luke 12:46-48
46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
47 And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Jesus teaches here quite clearly that there are degrees of punishment. But if the wicked are all just annihilated, how can this be? There can't be degrees of non-existence; one either exists or one does not. And there are many places in Scripture where the idea of degrees of divine punishment is taught: Matt. 10:15; 11:21-24; 16:27; Jn. 15:22; Heb. 10:29; Rev. 20:11-15; 22:12, etc.

Luke 16:22-24
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 Then 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.'

Jesus taught in this parable that Hell is a place of torment. The Rich Man is not annihilated but suffers the torments of flame and thirst. "It's all figurative!" the annihilationist will say. Well, this is an odd thing, then. In every other of his parables, Jesus used the mundane, the commonplace, and the real to communicate spiritual truth. His parables involved servants and masters, lost coins, sheep and shepherds, sowing seed, wheat and tares, wedding feasts, and so on. Why in this one instance would Jesus abandon his usual method and teach a fiction? What is the point of the parable if what happens to Lazarus and the Rich Man is fantasy? Certainly, the parable is consistent with other things Jesus taught about Hell. He describes Hell as "eternal fire" (Matt. 18:9) and "the hell of fire" (Matt. 18:10) and "unquenchable fire" (Mk. 9:44). Jesus spoke of "outer darkness" where those in it wept and gnashed their teeth (Matt. 8:12). Are we to believe that all of these descriptions, like the parable, are false, that they are utterly fictional? That seems an enormous and willful misreading of Scripture. There is very good reason to understand the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man as communicating truth to us about the afterlife. And if it does, annihilationism cannot be true.

Selah.

I understand where you are coming from because I once believed those same things. The problem with ECT is that it requires the belief in things that are not biblical: the immortality of the soul and that the wicked will live forever.

Why is the lake of fire called the second death if the wicked do not die, but are eternally alive and suffering in the fire? The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death, and so it makes sense that those found guilty before God would be dealt that punishment, and that God's justice would be satisfied. However, justice can never really be satisfied in ECT, because the punishment will never be fully met.

Yes, the Bible speaks of eternal fire, eternal punishment, and smoke that ascends forever, but those things can be interpreted differently than ECT if you dig a little deeper. What cannot be interpreted differently, however, is the Biblical teaching that death is the final punishment for sin, and that the dead are not consciously living in some ethereal form.

Psalms 146:3-4
Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation. His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish.

Matthew 3:12
"His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Revelation 20:14
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

The Bible uses strong and everlasting language for the fires of Hell for the very reason that it will be the final punishment and the end of evil. There is no end to evil, however, if the wicked will live forever in flames that never consume them.

Psalms 37:20
But the wicked will perish; And the enemies of the LORD will be like the glory of the pastures, They vanish-- like smoke they vanish away.

 

[hedrick]

Please read the thread from the beginning. People are posting passages without understanding what they mean. It's not reasonable to keep making the same response over and over.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

I see these passages about the worm not dying posted to try to prove ECT. The worm refers to maggots. What does that have to do with people? I'm actually in another discussion about "outer darkness." Where do you see an indication that "outer darkenss" is "Hell" and that it is eternal conscious torment?

You asked a question and I pointed out scripture. So if the worm means maggots it is scientifically impossible that maggots never die. If the outer darkness doesn't mean hell what do you think it means?

 

[hedrick]

The worm and its surrounding text is an allusion to Is 66:24. The people are dead. Remember, images like that aren't necessarily intended literally.

 

[Butch5]

You asked a question and I pointed out scripture. So if the worm means maggots it is scientifically impossible that maggots never die. If the outer darkness doesn't mean hell what do you think it means?

Have you considered the phrase 'their worm doesn't die' could be a figure of speech. The quote comes from Isaiah, so it would seem that we should get the meaning from it's use in the OT rather than applying a modern definition to the phrase. But still I don't see what this has to do with people.

Regarding outer darkness, if hell is a place of fire how can it be a place of darkness? Fire produces light.



 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Have you considered the phrase 'their worm doesn't die' could be a figure of speech. The quote comes from Isaiah, so it would seem that we should get the meaning from it's use in the OT rather than applying a modern definition to the phrase. But still I don't see what this has to do with people.

Regarding outer darkness, if hell is a place of fire how can it be a place of darkness? Fire produces light.



Have you ever been in a fire? Most people die of smoke inhalation because they can't see for the darkness of the smoke to get out. As for you claim "their worm doesn't die" could be a figure of speech.......could have is not a definitive answer now is it?

 

[ewq1938]

Have you ever been in a fire? Most people die of smoke inhalation because they can't see for the darkness of the smoke to get out.

It's not a vision issue. They choke to death because they can't breath enough oxygen to stay alive.

As for you claim "their worm doesn't die" could be a figure of speech.......could have is not a definitive answer now is it?

It is a figure of speech. Fire and worms are mentioned. Both are ways to destroy a human body, one from burning and the other through decomposition. What these things mean is destruction for the wicked. No resurrection for them, their worm or their fire is eternal meaning they will remain destroyed.

 

[Butch5]

Have you ever been in a fire? Most people die of smoke inhalation because they can't see for the darkness of the smoke to get out. As for you claim "their worm doesn't die" could be a figure of speech.......could have is not a definitive answer now is it?

Regardless, fire gives off light. How can that be outer darkness.

Regarding, 'their worm doesn't die', I was asking if you had considered the thought. Saying outer darkness is hell without any proof also is not a definitive answer.

 

[aiki]

I understand where you are coming from because I once believed those same things. The problem with ECT is that it requires the belief in things that are not biblical: the immortality of the soul and that the wicked will live forever.

Well, I don't agree. I think the Bible teaches exactly what you say it does not.

Why is the lake of fire called the second death if the wicked do not die, but are eternally alive and suffering in the fire?

Because "death" does not always mean "annihilation." Think about it: Why is there a second death if death means the utter end of one's existence?

The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death, and so it makes sense that those found guilty before God would be dealt that punishment, and that God's justice would be satisfied.

The only death that satisfies God's justice is the shed blood of the perfect sacrifice: Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. No sin-cursed, finite creature has it within themselves to atone for their sin against their infinite and holy Maker. And so, if they spurn the gift of salvation offered to them in Christ, they must pay for their sins for themselves, which as imperfect, limited creatures they can't ever fully do. This is why Christ's atoning sacrifice is so vital and why suggesting we can pay for our sins ourselves is a blasphemous assault on what he accomplished on the cross.

Yes, the Bible speaks of eternal fire, eternal punishment, and smoke that ascends forever, but those things can be interpreted differently than ECT if you dig a little deeper.

This does not even begin to rebut my observations. As far as I'm concerned, what you mean by "dig a little deeper" is "warp the truth of God's word."

What cannot be interpreted differently, however, is the Biblical teaching that death is the final punishment for sin, and that the dead are not consciously living in some ethereal form.

As I already pointed out, if death means annihilation then why is there a second death in Hell? The Bible does not mean "annihilation" whenever it speaks of death, or destruction, or perishing. Read Romans 6:1-11, or Colossians 3:3, or Matthew 9:17, or Hebrews 1:10-12, and so on.

As for the idea that the soul does not survive the death of the body, well, that is just simply false - and easily demonstrated from Scripture to be so:

Revelation 6:9-10
9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

If humans have no immortal soul that survives death, how do the souls of these Christian martyrs come to be in heaven crying out to God before the resurrection of the dead at Christ's return?

Luke 20:37-38
37 But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'38 For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him."

But Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob are all dead. This means either that God is not the God of these men (which Scripture contradicts flatly) who are dead, or that these men are in some sense still alive. But for these men to be alive without their physical bodies, which is what this passage plainly implies, they would have to have an immaterial nature that survives the death of their physical body (an immortal soul).

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

If there is no immortal soul that exists beyond the death of the physical body, how can the Lord bring with him those who sleep? He doesn't resurrect the dead until verse 16 but he is bringing people with him in verse 14. What's going on here? The obvious explanation is that Jesus is bringing the departed souls of the righteous dead with him to be reunited with their bodies in the resurrection. No other explanation makes sense.

In the passage that I cited from 1 Thessalonians 4 the bodies of the dead are still in their graves when Jesus returns with those who were "asleep in him." (verse 14) THe apostle John is speaking of the raising of the bodies of the dead from their graves while Paul clarifies that the souls of the dead which are already with Jesus in heaven are reunited with their physical bodies at the resurrection. This is in clear accord with Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man:

Luke 16:22-23
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

2 Corinthians 5:6-8
6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.
7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.
8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

Paul is here clearly indicating that it is possible to be absent from one's physical body and still exist (in the presence of the Lord). But how could this be possible without an immaterial nature that survives physical death? How can one be absent from one's body and yet present with the Lord if the soul does not survive the death of the body?

Luke 23:46
46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last.

If Jesus understood his spirit simply to be the animating energy of his body, his life-force, and that when his body died his spirit would cease to be, then his cry to God makes no sense. What, exactly, would Jesus be committing to the Father's care if his spirit does not survive the death of his body and go on to be with God?

Acts 7:59
59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Jesus could not receive Stephen's spirit if it ceased to be upon the death of his body. Clearly, Stephen did not believe that his spirit and his body were so inextricably linked. His words here indicate that he expected his spirit to survive the death of his body and go on to be with his Saviour.

And so on. You can see, I hope, that the idea that the spirit or soul of a person survives the death of the body and goes on to an existence beyond the grave is well-supported by Scripture.

Selah.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Regardless, fire gives off light. How can that be outer darkness.

Regarding, 'their worm doesn't die', I was asking if you had considered the thought. Saying outer darkness is hell without any proof also is not a definitive answer.

If fire gave off the light you claim then the many that died wouldn't have died because of that light they would have been able to find their way out. Your logic is waning and wanting.

 

[aiki]

Regardless, fire gives off light. How can that be outer darkness.

Have you never enjoyed a bonfire at night? The flames may tower high, but they don't dispel the night. It is still dark even if the bonfire is very great. THis idea, then, that flames and darkness cannot co-exist seems very silly to me.

Selah.

 

[hedrick]

Regarding outer darkness, if hell is a place of fire how can it be a place of darkness? Fire produces light.


But this assumes that there’s a literal fire. That’s unlikely. Most likely the fire is simply a picture of destruction (or punishment if that’s your approach). But I can imagine being thrown into the outer darkness to perish just as easily as being thrown into the fire to perish. The question is whether your hell is hot or cold.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Have you considered the phrase 'their worm doesn't die' could be a figure of speech. The quote comes from Isaiah, so it would seem that we should get the meaning from it's use in the OT rather than applying a modern definition to the phrase. But still I don't see what this has to do with people.

Regarding outer darkness, if hell is a place of fire how can it be a place of darkness? Fire produces light.



Have you considered you don't comprehend what you're arguing about....

Mark 9:42-441599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones, that believe in me, it were better for him rather, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were cast into the sea.

43 Wherefore if thine hand cause thee to offend, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life, maimed, than having two hands, to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched,

44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire never goeth out.

You should do your research on forest fires that block out light totally then perhaps you'll comprehend where there's fire there's much blinding smoke.

Please do your homework and here's something to get you started......https://www.google.com/search?q=forest+fire+black+out+from+smoke&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[Butch5]

If fire gave off the light you claim then the many that died wouldn't have died because of that light they would have been able to find their way out. Your logic is waning and wanting.

Are you seriously saying that? Anyone can see that a candle gives off light. If you don't want to address the subject just say so.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Well, I don't agree. I think the Bible teaches exactly what you say it does not.



Because "death" does not always mean "annihilation." Think about it: Why is there a second death if death means the utter end of one's existence?



The only death that satisfies God's justice is the shed blood of the perfect sacrifice: Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. No sin-cursed, finite creature has it within themselves to atone for their sin against their infinite and holy Maker. And so, if they spurn the gift of salvation offered to them in Christ, they must pay for their sins for themselves, which as imperfect, limited creatures they can't ever fully do. This is why Christ's atoning sacrifice is so vital and why suggesting we can pay for our sins ourselves is a blasphemous assault on what he accomplished on the cross.



This does not even begin to rebut my observations. As far as I'm concerned, what you mean by "dig a little deeper" is "warp the truth of God's word."



As I already pointed out, if death means annihilation then why is there a second death in Hell? The Bible does not mean "annihilation" whenever it speaks of death, or destruction, or perishing. Read Romans 6:1-11, or Colossians 3:3, or Matthew 9:17, or Hebrews 1:10-12, and so on.

As for the idea that the soul does not survive the death of the body, well, that is just simply false - and easily demonstrated from Scripture to be so:

Revelation 6:9-10
9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

If humans have no immortal soul that survives death, how do the souls of these Christian martyrs come to be in heaven crying out to God before the resurrection of the dead at Christ's return?

Luke 20:37-38
37 But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'38 For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him."

But Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob are all dead. This means, either that God is not the God of these men (which Scripture contradicts flatly) who are dead, or that these men are in some sense still alive. But for these men to be alive without their physical bodies, which is what this passage plainly implies, they would have to have an immaterial nature that survives the death of their physical body (an immortal soul).

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

If there is no immortal soul that exists beyond the death of the physical body, how can the Lord bring with him those who sleep? He doesn't resurrect the dead until verse 16 but he is bringing people with him in verse 14. What's going on here? The obvious explanation is that Jesus is bringing the departed souls of the righteous dead with him to be reunited with their bodies in the resurrection. No other explanation makes sense.

In the passage that I cited from 1 Thessalonians 4 the bodies of the dead are still in their graves when Jesus returns with those who were "asleep in him." (verse 14) THe apostle John is speaking of the raising of the bodies of the dead from their graves while Paul clarifies that the souls of the dead which are already with Jesus in heaven are reunited with their physical bodies at the resurrection. This is in clear accord with Jesus' parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man:

Luke 16:22-23
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

2 Corinthians 5:6-8
6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord.
7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.
8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

Paul is here clearly indicating that it is possible to be absent from one's physical body and still exist (in the presence of the Lord). But how could this be possible without an immaterial nature that survives physical death? How can one be absent from one's body and yet present with the Lord if the soul does not survive the death of the body?

Luke 23:46
46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last.

If Jesus understood his spirit simply to be the animating energy of his body, his life-force, and that when his body died his spirit would cease to be, then his cry to God makes no sense. What, exactly, would Jesus be committing to the Father's care if his spirit does not survive the death of his body and go on to be with God?

Acts 7:59
59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Jesus could not receive Stephen's spirit if it ceased to be upon the death of his body. Clearly, Stephen did not believe that his spirit and his body were so inextricably linked. His words here indicate that he expected his spirit to survive the death of his body and go on to be with his Saviour.

And so on. You can see, I hope, that the idea that the spirit or soul of person survives the death of the body and goes on to an existence beyond the grave is well-supported by Scripture.

Selah.

Your entire post here is just interpreting things through the immortal soul framework. I could go through all of those scriptures and explain why they don't mean what you think they do, but it is probably a waste of my time. The teaching of an immortal soul is not explicitly expressed anywhere in the scriptures; you pull it from places where it is not being taught.

One thing I will address, however, is the idea that death is always an "utter end of one's existence." It is the end of life, and the reason why there is a second death is because we must be resurrected from the first death. After the second death there will be no resurrection from it.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die...

 

[Butch5]

Have you never enjoyed a bonfire at night? The flames may tower high, but they don't dispel the night. It is still dark even if the bonfire is very great. THis idea, then, that flames and darkness cannot co-exist seems very silly to me.

Selah.

But, put the fire in a room and see if it dispels the darkness. The point is that "hell" and outer darkness are not connect.