Annihilationism

[StanJ]

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

Not that anyone of your ilk has been able to prove from Scripture. Assertions are not proof.

 

[StanJ]

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?

And you seem to have no compunction whatsoever of accusing our Lord and savior of making up stories, despite the fact that you have been shown that Parables stem from true events. Picking and choosing what you will and won't believe out of the Bible is not how Christians read the Bible or at least it is not how they are supposed to read the Bible. Faith in Christ and his word dictates that we believe everything that God tells us is true not fictitious and certainly not made up.

 

[Colter]

Not that anyone of your ilk has been able to prove from Scripture. Assertions are not proof.

My ilk? You desire a God that tortures those you can't control but such a monster doesn't exist. The Bible books speak of your hell and annihilation.

 

[Der Alte]

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

.
I already explained, in my own words, in the post you quoted why I posted the quote from John Gill Link to post. Note how the quote harmonizes with the events in Luke 16:19-31. Jesus was talking to Jews who believed what the article said.
.

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?

.
I have explained my view of your one proof text several times. They may not require judgment immediately after death but they certainly can be interpreted that way.
.

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;

.
"think""suggest""if" is hardly conclusive! Paul didn't say "be with Christ by and by."

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

More supposition, "if one sleeps, it will appear."

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

.
The writer of Hebrews didn't say "by and by after this the judgment."

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: ​

 

[hedrick]

I agree Revelation 21:8 is not part of the scenario which begins in vs. 9 it is part of the preceding. Verse 8, is before vs. 9 but after vs. 4.

Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: [Γράψον/graphon] for these words are true and faithful. ​

.

John Gill Commentary on the Whole Bible ​

Rev 21:5 And he said unto me, write; what John had seen, and Christ had said, and was about to say; and particularly what concerned the renewing of all things, the whole being a matter of moment, and worth noting and taking down in writing, that it might be on record for saints to read, and receive comfort and advantage from; and to denote the certainty of it, as well as to show that it was a clear point, and to be known, whereas, when it was otherwise, he was bid not to write; see Rev_1:11.

Γράψον is an Aorist, Active, Imperative​

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translation​

We don't need the details of grammar to understand the timing. "Write this" was addressed to John. He was in the present, not in the time when the vision would happen. Similarly, vs 7 is an exhortation to John and his readers. That's the only thing that makes sense. The people in vs 3 have already lasted to the end. They don't need that exhortation. 8 is the converse of 7, and is also addressed to Christians to whom the letter is being sent. The lake of fire is future compared to them. The exhortation is based on the whole sequence of events, not just 21:1-4. Surely "write this" isn't limited to vs 1-4.

 

[expos4ever]

And you seem to have no compunction whatsoever of accusing our Lord and savior of making up stories, despite the fact that you have been shown that Parables stem from true events.

Where, and please be specific, have I been shown that Parables stem from true events? Who am I kidding, you will ignore this question as you ignore any and all questions that you either have no answer for or that show that you have caught in a............oops: I can't say what you do often here since you cry to the moderators when you are called out on your behaviour.

But all the readers know, they know.

Although you seem to invite this sort of thing even though most would be embarrassed to be shown to contradict themselves, here is material from a site you provided:

By definition, a parable is a true-to-life story used to illustrate or illuminate a truth. This is true even if all of the details never occurred exactly as presented in the story. They are special stories that may, or may not, reflect historical events. Nevertheless, they must be true-to-life. By true-to-life we mean that a parable must be based on a real-life situation that the hearers are familiar with. In other words, the story itself has to be based on events that could have happened, whether they ever actually did or not.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

Why are you unwilling to simply stand behind your accusations?

 

[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.

 

[StanJ]

My ilk? You desire a God that tortures those you can't control but such a monster doesn't exist. The Bible books speak of your hell and annihilation.

Yes, your ilk, people who don't believe what the Bible says. God doesn't torture anyone, their torment is self-induced, based on their realization that they could have had eternal life but didn't believe. Changing the meanings of words from the Bible or misrepresenting them is not what Christians do.

 

[StanJ]

Why are you unwilling to simply stand behind your accusations?

Again stating the facts and not accusations and if you can prove my statement of facts were wrong then please do so and stop your incessant pestering.

 

[StanJ]

Where, and please be specific, have I been shown that Parables stem from true events? Who am I kidding, you will ignore this question as you ignore any and all questions that you either have no answer for or that show that you have caught in a............oops: I can't say what you do often here since you cry to the moderators when you are called out on your behaviour.

But all the readers know, they know.

Although you seem to invite this sort of thing even though most would be embarrassed to be shown to contradict themselves, here is material from a site you provided:

By definition, a parable is a true-to-life story used to illustrate or illuminate a truth. This is true even if all of the details never occurred exactly as presented in the story. They are special stories that may, or may not, reflect historical events. Nevertheless, they must be true-to-life. By true-to-life we mean that a parable must be based on a real-life situation that the hearers are familiar with. In other words, the story itself has to be based on events that could have happened, whether they ever actually did or not.

Use those skills of yours that you demonstrated early on in this thread and go look for them. This ploy of yours is getting really old and tiresome.

 

[StanJ]

To think that Christ was ignorant of what Gehenna meant to the common people of His day or to assume that He was mistaken in using the rabbinic descriptions of Gehenna is to do great injustice to Him who was the greatest teacher who ever lived. Indeed, the mere fact that Christ utilized the rabbinic language connected with Gehenna, such as "unquenchable fire" and "never- dying worms," demonstrates beyond all doubt to any reasonable person that he deliberately used the word Gehenna to impress upon his hearers that eternal punishment awaits the wicked after the resurrection. No other conclusion is possible.The greatest problem that Annihilationists face when examining the intertestamental (between the Old & New Testaments) literature, is that the doctrines of the existence of the soul after death and eternal punishing are often manifest, with no "introduction" as would be required by a "new teaching." The Annihilationist view is that between the Old and New Testaments, Platonic philosophy infiltrated true Bible doctrine and entirely new concepts were introduced to replace the old beliefs about the soul and punishment. Yet, strangely lacking are any evidences of controversy in this area of belief. The Annihilationist answer to that would be that there was evidence of a difference of belief in the intertestamental writings. But since they can produce no actual apologetic or actual conflict from the historical records, they must argue from the silence of some intertestamental writers, who may discuss the future of the righteous without mentioning the wicked. Sometimes, as in the case of Fudge's and the Adventist Froom's quoting from Tobit, where it says that the unrighteous shall cease from all the earth, they claim that that proves the writer did not believe in eternal punishing. That is indeed a poor argument.

Excerpted from; http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm

 

[Colter]

Yes, your ilk, people who don't believe what the Bible says. God doesn't torture anyone, their torment is self-induced, based on their realization that they could have had eternal life but didn't believe. Changing the meanings of words from the Bible or misrepresenting them is not what Christians do.

God is the creator of the universe, if there is a place of hell and torture made for those who were unable to find salvation in a world fooled by Gods fallen angel, then it's a creation of the same God. To imply the torture is self induced and not Gods doing is simply dishonest.

 

[StanJ]

God is the creator of the universe, if there is a place of hell and torture made for those who were unable to find salvation in a world fooled by Gods fallen angel, then it's a creation of the same God. To imply the torture is self induced and not Gods doing is simply dishonest.

You seem to be insistent on misrepresenting what the Bible says? The Bible uses the word torment not torture and contrary to some people's opinion the two are not the same. They may have similar meanings or connotations given the context in which they are used but in regards to being used in scripture they have two distinct different meanings. You can continue to look at God as a torturer, but that only confirms that you really don't know him otherwise you wouldn't be misrepresenting him that way.

 

[expos4ever]

Indeed, the mere fact that Christ utilized the rabbinic language connected with Gehenna, such as "unquenchable fire" and "never- dying worms," demonstrates beyond all doubt to any reasonable person that he deliberately used the word Gehenna to impress upon his hearers that eternal punishment awaits the wicked after the resurrection. No other conclusion is possible.

No, at least not with respect to unquenchable fire. An unquenchable fire is not one that will magically not consume it's fuel; it is a fire that cannot be put out.

 

[hedrick]

To think that Christ was ignorant of what Gehenna meant to the common people of His day or to assume that He was mistaken in using the rabbinic descriptions of Gehenna is to do great injustice to Him who was the greatest teacher who ever lived.

The problem with this argument is that there were multiple views in the 1st Cent. Many saw time in Gehenna to be limited. You say rabbinic. Of course by that time, it was pretty much agreed that stays in Gehenna were in most cases limited to a year. But Jesus is before rabbinical Judaism. As far as I can tell from various sources, multiple views coexisted during Jesus' time. Indeed I suspect that one reason it's so hard to get agreement on these issues is that Jesus was using current beliefs as a background for talking about accountability, but was not teaching a specific view on the nature of hell.

One of the biggest causes of dissension among Christians is trying to get answers from Scripture to questions that it doesn't address specifically. The fact that we want an exact answer to something doesn't mean that God has given it to us.

 

[StanJ]

No, at least not with respect to unquenchable fire. An unquenchable fire is not one that will magically not consume it's fuel; it is a fire that cannot be put out.

He did say all "reasonable" people.

 

[StanJ]

The problem with this argument is that there were multiple views in the 1st Cent. Many saw time in Gehenna to be limited. You say rabbinic. Of course by that time, it was pretty much agreed that stays in Gehenna were in most cases limited to a year. But Jesus is before rabbinical Judaism. As far as I can tell from various sources, multiple views coexisted during Jesus' time. Indeed I suspect that one reason it's so hard to get agreement on these issues is that Jesus was using current beliefs as a background for talking about accountability, but was not teaching a specific view on the nature of hell.

So are you saying that Jesus wasn't aware of what he was saying? Jesus just put it up there without full knowledge of what most people of the day believed or thought? That's pretty much bringing Jesus down to our level which although he himself says he's not offended by, I still find sacrilegious. Please do supply some corroboration for your claims here. The fact that some Christians don't understand God's rationale or reason for doing things does not mean but they have the right to bring him down to their level of understanding. God is not only all loving and all-merciful but he is also all just and all-knowing. For anyone to advocate that they know God better then his own written word depicts him as, is to say the least, deluded.

One of the biggest causes of dissension among Christians is trying to get answers from Scripture to questions that it doesn't address specifically. The fact that we want an exact answer to something doesn't mean that God has given it to us.

The dissension is not caused by God or his word, it is caused by people who purport to know better than others about what the written word of God says, without having any actual corroboration within it. Arianism and Trinitarianism have always been an issue within the overall context of Christianity but today it is widely accepted by most Christian groups that Arianism is false teaching. The very fact that most sites such as CF hold Trinitarianism to be foundational to their beliefs, shows that. Traditionalism is foundational to Christianity, and as such should be and is treated with the same fervor that Trinitarianism is. Those wanting their beliefs spelled out in God's word doesn't negate or lessen the value of God's word when it's not there, it just means that those people have to learn about the reality of who God is, within his written word. It has been my observation over the 45 years that I've been a Christian, that most false teaching frequently emanates from misunderstanding and misrepresentation of one or two single scriptures. The issue on this thread is no different.
Many groups have tried to push this particular agenda in the past. Neo-Sadduceeism is the umbrella belief and has been propagated by many cults over the years, such as; Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh-day Adventists, Herbert W. Armstrong/plain truth magazine.

 

[expos4ever]

No you do not.

1. Wrong
2. Wrong
3. Wrong

Typical ad hominem from you.

If I am wrong, why aren't you proving I m wrong by pointing us to a post where I have been shown that parables stem from true events. Guess what? I can point to a post where, irony of ironies you, yes you posted a link that argues that parables need not be based on true events.

 

[expos4ever]

He did say all "reasonable" people.

I am sorry, I did not realize that you have the authority to redefine the concept of unquenchable. I defer to your well-earned authority on these matters.

After all, you have studied the Bible for 45 years.