Annihilationism

[StanJ]

If you think your original response is valid, you should have no reason not to repost it, or simply provide the post number. That would involve three keystrokes.

I don't think, I know, and it's up to you to prove me wrong. Something obviously you are highly reticent or incapable of doing.

 

[StanJ]

What post contains your answer? All you need to do is take your mouse, cycle through your own posts, find the one where you answered my question, and indicate the post number.
Why are you not answering a fair and reasonable question?

Asked and answered.

 

[StanJ]

Every early church father who mentions Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual. See my post #353, this thread.
The Lazarus/rich man story is not introduced as a parable and Jesus does not explain it to His disciples later. In all authentic parables Jesus uses something well known to His audience, e.g. sheep and shepherd, widows losing money, wayward sons, etc. to clarify/explain an unknown or misunderstood Biblical truth.
.....What are the known elements of Lazarus and the rich man, and what is the unknown or misunderstood Biblical truth? A poor beggar begging and a rich man living expensively are the only known elements how does that explain/clarify an unknown/misunderstood Biblical truth and what is that truth? How does the second part of the Lazarus/rich man story explain the kingdom?
.....In all authentic parables the participants are anonymous; a certain man, a certain landowner, a certain widow, etc. At some point in history a wayward son squandered his inheritance, a widow lost money, a shepherd lost sheep, etc.
.....In the Lazarus/rich man story two of the persons are named Lazarus and a historical person Abraham. Since Jesus did not say this was a parable if Abraham was not in the place stated and did not say the words Jesus quoted, Jesus lied.

Don't want to go too far off-topic here but I recently came across an article that is predicated on a View that the Lazarus in Luke 16 is the same Lazarus as in John 11 except that John 11 depicts his resurrection. This would be interesting, as Luke 16 is dealing with a true story about a sick man in very poor health. If I can find the article again I'll post a link on this thread.

 

[Timothew]

If one wants to find specific posts in this, or any thread, type in a key word in the search box top right, type your screen name in the appropriate box, click the box for "This thread only" and click search. I have CF opened in another browser not signed in, I can search while leaving my reply open.

I agree, it would be simple to show if it were there, and impossible to find if it is not there.

 

[expos4ever]

and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: by Abraham's bosom is meant heaven, a phrase well known to the Jews, by which they commonly expressed the happiness of the future state: of Abraham's happy state they had no doubt....

Sorry, could not follow this; can you explain in your own words what the point of that lengthy extract is.

Paul seems to indicate in these verses that judgement immediately follows death.

Philippians 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: ​

I suggest that none of these texts require us to see judgment immediately after death. But if they did, we would have a huge problem since, I suggest, Romans 2 is unambiguous to the effect that judgment lies in the future. Do you disagree about Romans 2 in this respect?

Without getting into the details, I think the best way to make sense of all scriptural texts is to suggest that we all "sleep" till the future judgment. If that position can be otherwise supported - and I will not try to do so in the present post, then......

Philippians 1:3: The next thing Paul will know after his death is his resurrection, even though it will have been > 2000 years after he dies;

2 Corinthians 5:8: Same idea - if one "sleeps" after death it will appear to you that you go straight from the death bed into glory.

Hebrews 9:27: This one is easier - to say "after death" is not necessarily to say "immediately after death".

 

[Jan001]

The problem with this argument is that it is circular, unless you have otherwise made the case that that the concept of "death" as used in the time and place this text was written included, by definition, the notion of condemnation in hell. That seems a priori very unlikely, but please point me to a post where this case has been made. Let me try to explain a little further: if someone asked a typical American in 2016 "What does 'death' mean?, the response would most assuredly be "death in the full permanent 'lights-out' sense" - there would nothing about hell at all. That is what death generally means in our culture. So, if the statement "the wages of sin is death" were written today in North America, it would be reasonable to take it as supporting annihilation. Does that mean the writer could not possibly have intended us to take in the "eternal torment" sense? No, but you would have to make a case for that unusual reading and, importantly, that case could not be circular - it could at no point sneak in an assumption that "death", as a concept, entails an assumption of continued conscious existence.

Same thing with the notion of "perish"; if you are going to say that "perish" means to live on in a state of eternal torment, you need to make that case, not simply assume it.

Now, to be fair, it is within your rights to challenge me to make a case that the concept of "perish" (for example) as used in the world of first-century Palestine really did mean "lights out".

The Bible's content was written by Christians for Christians. The books in the Bible were not written for non-Christians. All Christians belonged to a local church with competent teachers of the faith teaching them the faith. The Christians in that time period knew that perish and destroy (when used in the spiritual sense) meant condemnation in hell forever. Jesus said the rich man was present in the flame of Hades/Hell/Gehenna. He said the rich man was being tormented by the flame. Jesus said that the rich man could not leave there.

Revelation 14:9-11
And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If any one worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also shall drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.” rsv​

 

[Jan001]

How do know this? You may have answered this is in the past - if you think you have an answer that is not circular (that does not assume the very thing you need to "prove" - that "destroy" means to "condemn to eternal fire"), please point us to such a post(s).

Jesus said the rich man was present in hell/Hades/Gehenna. He also said the rich man was being tormented by the flame. It is obvious that the rich man was not melting away, nor being annihilated, nor turning into charcoal. The rich man asked for a drop of water to cool his burning tongue. Jesus also said the rich man could not leave there.

Luke 16:19-26
“There was a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate lay a poor man named Laz′arus, full of sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried; 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz′arus in his bosom. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Laz′arus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Laz′arus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’" rsv​

 

[expos4ever]

Definition of Death: Death is the termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism.

Here is the problem: Yes, that is how someone who thinks that human beings are only physical beings whose existence is snuffed out forever at death would define the word death. But you know full well that this is an entirely inappropriate definition of death to apply in the present context where we all believe that there is an issue of the existence of a non-biological component to the human person - the Spirit. And the very thing we are debating is whether that spirit can "die". You are using a "biologist's" definition of death in a context where we need to consider the nuances that go along with a theological definition of death.

Now I hate to burst your bubble, but your questions are not well formed, nor meaningful. They are designed to support your point of view through circular reasoning.

Where -in what post have I engaged in circular reasoning?

I absolutely guarantee you will not provide us with a post in which circular reasoning has been demonstrated by me even though I have literally begged to you back up your accusation with evidence.

Now what does that say about what is going on?

 

[expos4ever]

In the Lazarus/rich man story two of the persons are named Lazarus and a historical person Abraham. Since Jesus did not say this was a parable if Abraham was not in the place stated and did not say the words Jesus quoted, Jesus lied.

You seem to think that there is some universal rule that forbids Jesus from constructing a fictitious story that nevertheless contains the names of real people. Why is that option not open to Jesus? Would it make me a liar (there's that sensitive word again!) if I were to construct some kind of morality tale that happened to contain an account of President Obama going for a Sunday stroll with me (which, of course, has not happened).

I cannot see how this is a lie by any reasonable standard. Would you call it a lie?

 

[Jan001]

An absolute deity who tortures a ignorant finite child of his own creation, a child fooled by a Satan creature who was allowed to mislead, that's not a just God at all! But no such deity exists except in the belief of one of the same finite minds.

Justice for those who completely reject life is to return to what they were before God gave life to them. Nothing, they will not exist, no records of them ever having existed.

The ignorant, who through no fault of their own are ignorant, are not condemned to hell. A man's spirit is created to live forever. A man is created in the image and likeness of His Creator Who cannot ever be destroyed. A man will either live with God forever or live without God forever after Jesus returns to raise everyone from the dead. The only place where God will not be is hell. All the unrepentant people who rejected Him by their works/deeds will be in hell for eternity.

Luke 20:46-47
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. rsv

Matthew 25:41-46
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” esv
​

Free will is an awesome gift with eternal consequences.

​

 

[Jan001]

Exactly. Destruction, as opposed to construction.
​

Stop torturing the dictionary.
Why would you want death and destruction to mean something else than death and destruction?
Why?
Death.
Not life in torment.

The unrepentant evildoers will live in everlasting torment in hell.

Matthew 25:41-46
Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” rsv​

 

[Colter]

The ignorant, who through no fault of their own are ignorant, are not condemned to hell. A man's spirit is created to live forever. A man is created in the image and likeness of His Creator Who cannot ever be destroyed. A man will either live with God forever or live without God forever after Jesus returns to raise everyone from the dead. The only place where God will not be is hell. All the unrepentant people who rejected Him by their works/deeds will be in hell for eternity.

Luke 20:46-47
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. rsv

Matthew 25:41-46
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” esv
​

Free will is an awesome gift with eternal consequences.

​

That's what I've been saying, these ideas of an eternal torture deity comes from the Bible. The concept of annihilation also comes from the Bible.

 

[Jan001]

Not all are called, even less are chosen.
Few people seek God, even fewer find Him.
You suggest He doesn't know this?

Few people are chosen by Jesus Christ to inherit eternal life because He judges each person by his own works and He appoints to eternal life only those people who work righteousness instead of evilness.

Romans 1:18-22
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, rsv​

Matthew 22:13-14
Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen. rsv

2 Corinthians 5:15
And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. rsv

1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; rsv

1 Timothy 2:3-6
This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. rsv

Deuteronomy 4:29
But from there you will seek the Lord your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul. rsv

​

​

 

[Jan001]

They will leave, as smoke that rises for ever, further and further away, disappearing in the distance.
And the smoke is just a by product of consumption by the fire.
This is what the Harvester does with the chaff, to get rid of it.
Or like the waste incineration facility in Gehenna.

If the people in hell were not continually burning forever, there would be no continual smoke to ascend forever and ever. Smoke comes from things that are presently burning.

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 mark of his name.” rsv​

 

[Jan001]

The rich man has never been to the LOF yet. All who enter the LOF will be destroyed. No one will remain alive for eternity. Only the righteous are given immortality.

​

No it's death like it says. No life for them.

​

Eternal torture is a false doctrine. It is not scriptural.

​

Being in it results in annihilated.

​

We disagree.

 

[Jan001]

That's what I've been saying, these ideas of an eternal torture deity comes from the Bible. The concept of annihilation also comes from the Bible.

The concept of spiritual annihilation is not found in the Bible.

 

[Der Alte]

I agree, it would be simple to show if it were there, and impossible to find if it is not there.

If I wanted to find out what a certain poster said about e.g. Abraham, I could type that name in the search box, the poster's SN and search then I could search and say with certainty that the poster did or did not say something about Abraham. So instead of endlessly saying "Did not" "Did too" the matter could be instantly resolved. I know kids who could do it. Last week a 6 year old had to show me how to find the "settings" icon on her Ipad.

 

[Der Alte]

You seem to think that there is some universal rule that forbids Jesus from constructing a fictitious story that nevertheless contains the names of real people. Why is that option not open to Jesus? Would it make me a liar (there's that sensitive word again!) if I were to construct some kind of morality tale that happened to contain an account of President Obama going for a Sunday stroll with me (which, of course, has not happened).
I cannot see how this is a lie by any reasonable standard. Would you call it a lie?

First in the Lazarus/rich man story the only thing which His audience could know was a poor man begging at a rich man's gate and a rich man living expensively. After death there is nothing which could be known or experienced by His audience.
.....When Jesus told parables, for examples, He used real things, well known to His audience, a certain man, a certain widow, a certain shepherd, etc. At some time in history everything Jesus mentioned actually happened, a widow lost money, a shepherd lost sheep, a wayward son squandered his inheritance, etc. He did not mention things that did not, could not and never happened. Jesus did not say "This is a parable" and He never explained the story to His disciples. If Abraham was not in the place where Jesus said or did not say the words that Jesus quoted, Jesus was lying.
.....So you see nothing wrong with Jesus making a patently false statement? Would Jesus use something fake, phony or false to teach truth to his disciples and others?

 

[Colter]

The concept of spiritual annihilation is not found in the Bible.

The concept of the annihilation of non-survivors is in the Bible. They die and never come back.

 

[StanJ]

Here is the problem: Yes, that is how someone who thinks that human beings are only physical beings whose existence is snuffed out forever at death would define the word death. But you know full well that this is an entirely inappropriate definition of death to apply in the present context where we all believe that there is an issue of the existence of a non-biological component to the human person - the Spirit. And the very thing we are debating is whether that spirit can "die". You are using a "biologist's" definition of death in a context where we need to consider the nuances that go along with a theological definition of death.

No problem here whatsoever except for those who want death to connote something it does not. You are more than willing to accept a definition when it suits your purpose but by the same token when a definition does not suit your purpose you want to equivocate about it which is very evident to all here who have seen your arguments. I for one won't allow you to vacillate to and fro about this issue. Death has to do with the body not the spirit. I've asked you on numerous occasions to show us where that includes a spirit and all you do is equivocate but never actually answered the question with scripture.

Where -in what post have I engaged in circular reasoning?
I absolutely guarantee you will not provide us with a post in which circular reasoning has been demonstrated by me even though I have literally begged to you back up your accusation with evidence.
Now what does that say about what is going on?

And thus the Merry-Go-Round continues. As this post very well illustrates, you will refuse to accept any, I repeat, any proof to the contrary. This is what is called inculcation. Look it up. You term it an accusation and I term it a factual statement. Simple denial cannot prove me wrong.