Conditional Immortality Supports Annihilationion, Refutes Eternal Conscious Torment and Universalism

[ClementofA]

The translation you gave for Lamentations 3:31 is from the NIV. While the NIV is generally a good translation, and I use it extensively, in this case it has added two words which are not in the original Hebrew, nor in the LXX. The two words the NIV has added are "no one". Compare the following translations:

NIV Lamentations 3:31 For no one is cast off by the Lord forever.

ESV Lamentations 3:31 For the Lord will not cast off forever,

NAS Lamentations 3:31 For the Lord will not reject forever,

NKJ Lamentations 3:31 For the Lord will not cast off forever.

NRS Lamentations 3:31 For the Lord will not reject forever.

BGT Lamentations 3:31 ὅτι οὐκ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἀπώσεται κύριος

WTT Lamentations 3:31 כִּ֣י לֹ֥א יִזְנַ֛ח לְעוֹלָ֖ם אֲדֹנָֽי׃

BHT Lamentations 3:31 Kî lö´ yiznaH lü`ôläm ´ádönäy

The ESV, NAS, NKJ, NRS (all translations widely used by Christians in many settings, compared to the very unusual translations you often quote in your comments) all correctly leave out "no one". I've included the Greek LXX and the Hebrew with a transliteration of the Hebrew words into English for those who want to verify this. "no one" in not in the original text. Without "no one" this verse does not support your argument.

The context of Lamentation 3:31 indicates that it is talking about a person who humbles themselves and continues to trust God when they experience God's discipline, not about all people who have ever lived. For those interested, here is the context:

Lamentations 3: 25 The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him.
26 It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD.
27 It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.
28 Let him sit alone in silence when it is laid on him;
29 let him put his mouth in the dust-- there may yet be hope;
30 let him give his cheek to the one who strikes, and let him be filled with insults.
31 For the Lord will not cast off forever,
32 but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love;
33 for he does not afflict from his heart or grieve the children of men.

Of course you are correct that the words "no one" are not in the original. However the context is still speaking of "the children of men", so the words added by the NIV are in agreement with the context.

Thus the passage is still at odds IMO with your interpretation of Gen.6:3 based on the translation you posted, whereas i offered 5 alternate translations that read significantly differently & ruled out your interpretation of Gen.6:3.

31 For the Lord will not cast off forever,
32 but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love;
33 for he does not afflict from his heart or grieve the children of men.

Lamentations 3:31-33 as translated above appears to contradict your interpretation of Genesis 6:3.

Alternate translations from yours, however, solve the puzzle:

JPS Tanakh 1917
And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.'

Douay-Rheims Bible
And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

Young's Literal Translation
And Jehovah saith, 'My Spirit doth not strive in man -- to the age; in their erring they are flesh:' and his days have been an hundred and twenty years.

Concordant Literal Version
And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Not abide shall My spirit in the human for the eon, in that moreover, he is flesh. And come shall his days to be a hundred and twenty years.

Rotherham Emphasized Bible
And Yahweh said—My spirit shall not rule in man to times age—abiding, for that, he also, is flesh,—Yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

Thus far i have addressed your remarks & annihilation theory proof texts in a number of posts, as follows, which have not been answered:

Post # 215...page 11...re Matt.25:46 which is considered a stronghold for the anti-universalism positions, but i've shown is more favorable to universalism

Post # 220...page 11...Phil.3:19 refuted as an alleged annihilation proof text

Post # 221...page 12...apollumi comments of Mark Corbett refuted

Post #225...page 12....a list of annihilation proof texts easily explained away

Post #225...page 12....Dan. 12:2-3 shown as supporting Biblical universalism

Additionally, i have addressed the following with no answers:

Post #294...page 15...Rev. 20:10 shown to be harmonious with universalism

Post #316...page 16...Universalism in 1 Cor.15:22-28 & the book of Revelation


https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

I think you may be missing the entire spiritual message in your literal interpretation. Not being with God for eternity is spiritual death. Not being a child of God is spiritual death.

First, I'd like to point out that we actually believe that literal death means not being with God for eternity, and that not being a child of God means that will literally die. So taking this literal interpretation doesn't at all miss what you call "the entire spiritual message", but actually confirms it.

Second, why are you so confident and assured that your non-literal meaning has correctly captured all that needs to be understood, while our interpretation has missed something? As I point out, we actually affirm all the points you say we'd missed.

You are taking these verses literally and missing the entire message and teachings of this and other verses.

Go ahead; show us what we're missing. It's certainly true that literal meanings often aren't adequate; for example "dead" in Romans 6:11 surely isn't literal. But when we judge between literal and figurative meanings we usually have some reason for doing so.

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

I must emphatically disagree with this. I do not see one verse in support of anything you said. I see several isolated scripture references being thrown together to support assumptions and presuppositions. According to the historical evidence I provided, soon after Jewish children were sacrificed to pagan deities the name "Ge Hinnom" became the name of what we call "hell." Evidence which OBTW, except for being dismissed out of hand as Jewish myths, has not been addressed or refuted,

You have the right to disagree, of course, but since you admitted that I cited several scripture references (while at the same time denying that I have even one, ha ha, way to contradict yourself), it's clear that the ball is in your court. "Show don't tell" -- show me that the passages I quoted are being improperly used. If you'd like I'll go through that paragraph and insert specific references, but I think you'll see what I'm talking about (you're clearly quite literate).

The historical evidence you provided is all from very late date, MUCH after the Old Testament, and most of it is even after the life of Christ. But as I pointed out, none of it has clearly been shown to be in Christ's cultural background; it's pure speculation on your part to insert it there and insist Christ has to rebut it if He didn't believe it. Further, none of it is divinely inspired; everything in it about final judgment is at best allegory, and at worst speculation. I have perfectly good reason to call it Hebrew myth: it's Hebraic, and mythical. And you KNOW that's wrong to use; that's why you condemned people who used the monk's speculations from 1200.

And BTW, the "monk" was actually a Rabbi. Here's a quote:

“The traditional explanation for this seems to go back to Rabbi David Kimhi’s commentary on Psalm 27 (around 1200 C.E.). He remarked the following concerning the valley beneath Jerusalem’s walls:

Gehenna is a repugnant place, into which filth and cadavers are thrown, and in which fires perpetually burn in order to consume the filth and bones; on which account, by analogy, the judgement of the wicked is called ‘Gehenna.’​

“Kimhi's otherwise plausible suggestion, however, finds no support in literary sources or archaeological data from the intertestamental or rabbinic periods. There is no evidence that the valley was, in fact, a garbage dump, and thus his explanation is insufficient” (“Gehenna: The Topography of Hell,” Biblical Archaeologist 49/3 [1986], 188-89).

The sad thing is that Kimhi might have been coincidentally right in his claims about the origins of the word, and still wouldn't have been making a Biblically useful argument. Your sources, on the other hand, are not making a Biblical argument and are also not even possibly right. They are just speculating on what God might do, when God has not actually spoken to them. They are not prophets, and should not be listened to as though they were.

 

[Dirk1540]

Every early church father who quoted or referred to the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual.

• Irenaeus [120-202 AD] Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning. [was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John.]
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognised, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.
Link: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
• Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1 Chaper 11
On the Resurrection.“There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
• Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.] Part First
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality. For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
• The Epistles Of Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
A good man out of the good treasure bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.
• Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah (A.D. 260-312)
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence.​

Yes this is one of the major problems, if only the infiltration of Plato's immortal soul did not enter into church traditions SO early!! It would be nice if it at least started 200 years down the line. But I suppose that's too much to ask for considering how strong was the influence of Greek philosophy.

I mean Plato's immortal soul does reach back centuries before Christ! So it is at least a testament that it did not become leaven in the church until the 3rd generation. Ugh but I still think that was too soon!

 

[Der Alte]

You have the right to disagree, of course, but since you admitted that I cited several scripture references (while at the same time denying that I have even one, ha ha, way to contradict yourself), it's clear that the ball is in your court. "Show don't tell" -- show me that the passages I quoted are being improperly used. If you'd like I'll go through that paragraph and insert specific references, but I think you'll see what I'm talking about (you're clearly quite literate).

You have it wrong. You did not quote any scriptures. You made reference to them. Perhaps if you were to quote the scriptures you made reference to and show how they support your position, then we might proceed.

The historical evidence you provided is all from very late date, MUCH after the Old Testament, and most of it is even after the life of Christ.

Incorrect. Check the bibliography of the articles. Encyclopedias are generally not full of myths and legends.

But as I pointed out, none of it has clearly been shown to be in Christ's cultural background; it's pure speculation on your part to insert it there and insist Christ has to rebut it if He didn't believe it.

You have not clearly shown anything about any of the sources I quoted.

Further, none of it is divinely inspired; everything in it about final judgment is at best allegory, and at worst speculation.

Irrelevant that it is not divinely inspired. It is the only historical evidence I am aware of which shows from Jewish sources what the Jews believed historically. What we generally have today is people who could not locate a Hebrew verb if their life depended on it, trying to interpret Hebrew and tell others "This is what it really means, I'm right and everyone else is wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!"

I have perfectly good reason to call it Hebrew myth: it's Hebraic, and mythical. And you KNOW that's wrong to use; that's why you condemned people who used the monk's speculations from 1200.

I provide evidence, you provide opinion.

The sad thing is that Kimhi might have been coincidentally right in his claims about the origins of the word, and still wouldn't have been making a Biblically useful argument. Your sources, on the other hand, are not making a Biblical argument and are also not even possibly right. They are just speculating on what God might do, when God has not actually spoken to them. They are not prophets, and should not be listened to as though they were.

All irrelevant! The Jews should know what their forefathers believed and they have historical records to support them. But since those historical beliefs refute a lot of today's theories lets just dismiss them out of hand as myths and hang onto our assumptions/presuppositions.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes this is one of the major problems, if only the infiltration of Plato's immortal soul did not enter into church traditions SO early!! It would be nice if it at least started 200 years down the line. But I suppose that's too much to ask for considering how strong was the influence of Greek philosophy.
I mean Plato's immortal soul does reach back centuries before Christ! So it is at least a testament that it did not become leaven in the church until the 3rd generation. Ugh but I still think that was too soon!

Ah yes the same ol' vague "Plato's immortal soul," etc. etc. etc. "Greek philosophy,"etc. etc. etc. Zero evidence! Zero substantiation!Zero documentation!

 

[William Tanksley Jr]

But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but the living, FOR TO HIM ALL ARE ALIVE
Luke20:37&38
Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him: I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead but of the living. You are badly mistaken!
Mark12:26&27

Notice that Christ is here arguing in favor of the resurrection on the Last Day. He's very specific about it. He's not arguing "nobody's really dead" (as some have taken "all are alive to Him"), since he says that "the dead rise", so someone had to be dead first. I would take Jesus' words there to mean that all (of the righteous to whom He has covenanted life) are alive TO HIM, even if not to themselves, and He will make it so that He can keep His promises to them because of Who He is.

From Luke's account, we see the following:

... those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.​

Notice that only some are "found worthy to attain to that age", and their result is that "they can no longer die." Also note that this is completed at "that age", whereas at this age people still die and still marry.

But also notice what Christ is implying. Some are judged worthy, and attain to that age; others are not judged worthy and do NOT attain to that age. This is not about them attaining to a place (heaven), but to a time. This can only mean that their time ends.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Notice that Christ is here arguing in favor of the resurrection on the Last Day. He's very specific about it. He's not arguing "nobody's really dead" (as some have taken "all are alive to Him"), since he says that "the dead rise", so someone had to be dead first. I would take Jesus' words there to mean that all (of the righteous to whom He has covenanted life) are alive TO HIM, even if not to themselves, and He will make it so that He can keep His promises to them because of Who He is.

From Luke's account, we see the following:

... those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.​

Notice that only some are "found worthy to attain to that age", and their result is that "they can no longer die." Also note that this is completed at "that age", whereas at this age people still die and still marry.

But also notice what Christ is implying. Some are judged worthy, and attain to that age; others are not judged worthy and do NOT attain to that age. This is not about them attaining to a place (heaven), but to a time. This can only mean that their time ends.

Now why are you still trying to tell me people's time ends when I have already shown you from scripture people exist outside of the new heaven. I can assure you, I won't cease accepting what scripture states. Just telling you that, as I don't want you to waste your time writing comments that can't achieve anything..

Jesus plainly states to God all are alive.

I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
God is the God of the living not the dead.
And people who have died have consciousness in Sheol/ paradise, call it what you will.
So when the Bible speaks of people dying/ death comes to them, it doesn't mean they cease to exist at all

 

[St_Worm2]

I obviously think this topic (the final fate of the unrighteous) is very important or I wouldn't be discussing it. But it's important to balance thinking about the nature of Hell with other truths. Also, while engaging in discussion and debate about something we as Christians don't all agree on can help us learn, it might be worth it to take a break and think about something we do agree on. So if you want to take a short devotional break from debate on Hell, check out my very first Opening Post here at Christian forums (then come back and we can keep talking about Hell):

Sonflowers and Sonpeople

Hi Mark, while I don't believe I'll ever agree with annihilationism, I wanted to tell you that I GREATLY appreciate your Christian attitude in this thread Quite frankly, along with your clear knowledge of the subject matter at hand, your attitude makes it difficult to NOT want to consider what you have to say about a subject that has long been settled in my mind

Thanks!!

In Christ,
David

 

[Dirk1540]

Ah yes the same ol' vague "Plato's immortal soul," etc. etc. etc. "Greek philosophy,"etc. etc. etc. Zero evidence! Zero substantiation!Zero documentation!

Evidence of what? The tenets of Greek philosophy?? That's all early church generations did was debate people who held to Greek philosophy. Well in time Church leaders went too far and granted the immortal soul. The only 'Evidence' that is missing is the evidence of the immortal soul prior to the 3rd generation inside of Christianity.

There's not zero evidence. The immortal soul was not a part of Christianity. Come the middle of the 2nd century all the sudden it was. That's the evidence.

 

[Darren J. Clark]

NIV John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Do you believe that if we believe in Jesus we will literally have eternal life?

That is a good point, Mark.

 

[stuart lawrence]

That is a good point, Mark.

This is an important point. When we read words like perish in the Bible. Do we just take such words literally as we would naturally understand them, or, do we view the Bible as containing a spiritual message within the letter?
When you just read the letter and take it at face value according to human understanding of it you can run into trouble:

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever
Rev20:10
So we can say the above perish. But you cannot be tormented forever and ever if you completely cease to exist, that is not possible.
Who is going to the same place?
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderes, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolators and all liars, their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death
Rev21:8
So the above will also be tormented forever. And the above is the second death. And the above is virtually a duplicate of the following:
Outside( the city) are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers the idolators and everyone who practices falsehood
Rev21:15

All of these go to the fiery lake of burning sulphur where scripture tells us they will be tormented forever and ever. This is the second death.
The lake of fire( or fiery lake of sulphur) of rev20:14 is the same place and is the second death also. So in this place you are thrown, you are tormented forever. You do not literally get incinerated and cease to exist.
Why are they being tormented forever?
Jesus said, a world without his followers who have Gods presence in them, would be an intolerable place.

God is not tormenting you, you are being tormented by living in the place you are in. A place where Gods presence does not exist, an intolerable place. A place you ended up in because you rejected Christ. You chose a life without Christ, now your eternity must be spent apart from him.
You will be in anguish, like flames of anguish inside of you that never die. A lake of fire within you as it were

 

[Darren J. Clark]

This is an important point. When we read words like perish in the Bible. Do we just take such words literally as we would naturally understand them, or, do we view the Bible as containing a spiritual message within the letter?
When you just read the letter and take it at face value according to human understanding of it you can run into trouble:

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever
Rev20:10
So we can say the above perish. But you cannot be tormented forever and ever if you completely cease to exist, that is not possible.
Who is going to the same place?
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderes, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolators and all liars, their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death
Rev21:8
So the above will also be tormented forever. And the above is the second death. And the above is virtually a duplicate of the following:
Outside( the city) are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers the idolators and everyone who practices falsehood
Rev21:15

All of these go to the fiery lake of burning sulphur where scripture tells us they will be tormented forever and ever. This is the second death.
The lake of fire( or fiery lake) of rev20:14 is the same place and is the second death also. So in this place you are thrown, you are tormented forever. You do not literally get incinerated and cease to exist.
Why are they being tormented forever? Because they rejected eternal life, they are not in the city, they are in anguish in the flames within them. They are in an intolerable place day and night. It is a fire of anguish within them where the flames never die.
Jesus said, a world without his followers who have Gods presence in them, would be an intolerable place.
That intolerable place that you are in brings you to be tormented forever.
It doesn't work to pick some random scriptures and just take your literal understanding of them.

You break your own principle as soon as you state it. When we say "look at the meaning of perish" and similar language you say the following:

"Do we just take such words literally as we would naturally understand them, or, do we view the Bible as containing a spiritual message within the letter?
When you just read the letter and take it at face value according to human understanding of it you can run into trouble:"

Then you discuss the language of Rev 10:20; 21:8; 21:15; and 20:14 in a manner where you just take the language "literally as we would understand them". Your case rests on arbitrarily applying your rule to those text which would appear to go against your view.

Aside from that, Chris Date has already shared several videos explaining how Rev should be properly be understood (I think, there is at least one). At least take a look at and deal with the actual arguments for the Conditionalist readings of the texts you cite. You will find that normal rules of hermeneutics and exegesis are followed to make the case not an unsubstantiated "rule" that is inconsistently applied. Your approach is untenable, no offense intended. You just can't expect to be convincing when you break your own rule mid-paragraph.

 

[stuart lawrence]

You break your own principle as soon as you state it. When we say "look at the meaning of perish" and similar language you say the following:

"Do we just take such words literally as we would naturally understand them, or, do we view the Bible as containing a spiritual message within the letter?
When you just read the letter and take it at face value according to human understanding of it you can run into trouble:"

Then you discuss the language of Rev 10:20; 21:8; 21:15; and 20:14 in a manner where you just take the language "literally as we would understand them". Your case rests on arbitrarily applying your rule to those text which would appear to go against your view.

Aside from that, Chris Date has already shared several videos explaining how Rev should be properly be understood (I think, there is at least one). At least take a look at and deal with the actual arguments for the Conditionalist readings of the texts you cite. You will find that normal rules of hermeneutics and exegesis are followed to make the case not an unsubstantiated "rule" that is inconsistently applied. Your approach is untenable, no offense intended. You just can't expect to be convincing when you break your own rule mid-paragraph.

Of course I knew you would have to reject what I wrote. People always do in these debates, they never change their set beliefs. No, I gave you the scriptures directly according to what happens after the second death. That is what this whole thread is supposed to be debating. They tie in with each other.
You know, in my youth, I just took random scriptures and applied the literal meaning to them. And I thought I knew much, but I didn't.
I will repeat. A Jewish Christian said:
The Quran is written to accept the literal wording of it to understand the message. The Bible is not written that way.
If you want to understand as much as is possible to understand, don't rely on the Greek, don't look to as many scholars and theologians as you can find, just kneel down and ask God, through the Holy Spirit to teach you, abandoning reliance on your academic mind, no matter how great that mind us.
The Holy Spirit does not rely on you being able to translate the Greek to lead you into spiritual truth, nor does he rely on strongs concordance.
I didn't want to say this, but as you raised the subject again.
Why are people internet ministers, and forever posting videos on YouTube? Because by and large they are not ministers of churches. I will leave it there, unless you want to push me further concerning it
God bless

 

[Darren J. Clark]

Of course I knew you would have to reject what I wrote. People always do in these debates, they never change their set beliefs. No, I gave you the scriptures directly according to what happens after the second death. That is what this whole thread is supposed to be debating. They tie in with each other.
You know, in my youth, I just took random scriptures and applied the literal meaning to them. And I thought I knew much, but I didn't.
I will repeat. A Jewish Christian said:
The Quran is written to accept the literal wording of it to understand the message. The Bible is not written that way.
If you want to understand as much as is possible to understand, don't rely on the Greek, don't look to as many scholars and theologians as you can find, just kneel down and ask God, through the Holy Spirit to teach you, abandoning reliance on your academic mind, no matter how great that mind us.
The Holy Spirit does not rely on you being able to translate the Greek to lead you into spiritual truth, nor does he rely on strongs concordance.
I didn't want to say this, but as you raised the subject again.
Why are people internet ministers, and forever posting videos on YouTube? Because by and large they are not ministers of churches. I will leave it there, unless you want to push me further concerning it
God bless

Ok, you have said all that before. I am not just disagreeing with you. I am pointing out a flaw in your mode of argument, which you don't actually address. So repeating the claim again does not prove the point. As for your assertion about "internet preachers", I think that is a form of cavalier dismissal where any attempt to present to you a developed argument via the internet is automatically deemed invalid and waved away so you don't have to deal with it. It is irrelevant that the content is delivered via the internet. The arguments could be good or spectacularly poor but you need to actually read/listen to them and address them meaningfully rather than using yet another arbitrary rule to avoid doing just that.

You know Mark Corbett is a real minister in a real church, right. I was employed for a few years in a church to preach and teach the congregation about the Bible. Besides, even though you will find plenty of poor content on the internet authored by some non qualified people you will find good content on the internet authored by real life ministers of real life churches. This will probably be true for all sides of al theological debates. So all you have, again, is an arbitrary rule.

Let me be clear. I am not disagreeing with you per se. I am critiquing your methodology. I would do it if I was a Traditionalist.

I get it that you have encountered a lot of crap on the internet and I sympathize with you. I get it that you are bored with it all. What I don't understand is why, despite all that, you keep on inserting yourself back into these discussions.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Ok, you have said all that before. I am not just disagreeing with you. I am pointing out a flaw in your mode of argument, which you don't actually address. So repeating the claim again does not prove the point. As for your assertion about "internet preachers", I think that is a form of cavalier dismissal where any attempt to present to you a developed argument via the internet is automatically deemed invalid and waved away so you don't have to deal with it. It is irrelevant that the content is delivered via the internet. The arguments could be good or spectacularly poor but you need to actually read/listen to them and address them meaningfully rather than using yet another arbitrary rule to avoid doing just that.

You know Mark Corbett is a real minister in a real church, right. I was employed for a few years in a church to preach and teach the congregation about the Bible. Besides, even though you will find plenty of poor content on the internet authored by some non qualified people you will find good content on the internet authored by real life ministers of real life churches. This will probably be true for all sides of al theological debates. So all you have, again, is an arbitrary rule.

Let me be clear. I am not disagreeing with you per se. I am critiquing your methodology. I would do it if I was a Traditionalist.

I get it that you have encountered a lot of crap on the internet and I sympathize with you. I get it that you are bored with it all. What I don't understand is why, despite all that, you keep on inserting yourself back into these discussions.

I'm on four weeks enforced holiday from my job. My wife died, so it helps to pass the time.
I don't dismiss everyone's understanding on the internet. There are people on this website I acknowledge know more spiritual truth than I do.
But the vast majority come, believing they know much and are here to teach others what they THINK they know.
As someone else said. The participants of theological debates rarely if ever change their views, the silent observers of debates are more likely to.
really, I wouldn't say this debate should be all consuming for Christians. It doesn't concern their lives, if they know they are secure with God.
You know, a well known minister in the UK said. Eighty five percent of a certain type of Christian denomination( I will put it that way) don't understand the justification/ sanctification process for the believer. Going by personal experience I would say he is accurate. That denomination picks random scriptures and hinges everything on a literal understanding of them.
And those two things are far more important to understand than the subject matter of this thread

 

[stuart lawrence]

Ok, you have said all that before. I am not just disagreeing with you. I am pointing out a flaw in your mode of argument, which you don't actually address. So repeating the claim again does not prove the point. As for your assertion about "internet preachers", I think that is a form of cavalier dismissal where any attempt to present to you a developed argument via the internet is automatically deemed invalid and waved away so you don't have to deal with it. It is irrelevant that the content is delivered via the internet. The arguments could be good or spectacularly poor but you need to actually read/listen to them and address them meaningfully rather than using yet another arbitrary rule to avoid doing just that.

You know Mark Corbett is a real minister in a real church, right. I was employed for a few years in a church to preach and teach the congregation about the Bible. Besides, even though you will find plenty of poor content on the internet authored by some non qualified people you will find good content on the internet authored by real life ministers of real life churches. This will probably be true for all sides of al theological debates. So all you have, again, is an arbitrary rule.

Let me be clear. I am not disagreeing with you per se. I am critiquing your methodology. I would do it if I was a Traditionalist.

I get it that you have encountered a lot of crap on the internet and I sympathize with you. I get it that you are bored with it all. What I don't understand is why, despite all that, you keep on inserting yourself back into these discussions.

I really don't wish to be offensive. But it really is shallow interpretation of the letter to quote the word: perish and then state it refers to cessation of all existence. To quote the words: death and destruction as meaning the end of all existence is the same.
I will repeat, Jesus states to God all are alive. Just because they die to living on this earth in a body of flesh does not mean they cease to exist at all in Sheol/ paradise:

I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.
He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
Mark 12:26&27
You have to go beyond the literal letter much of the time to unearth the spiritual truth contained in it

 

[Darren J. Clark]

I'm on four weeks enforced holiday from my job. My wife died, so it helps to pass the time.
I don't dismiss everyone's understanding on the internet. There are people on this website I acknowledge know more spiritual truth than I do.
But the vast majority come, believing they know much and are here to teach others what they THINK they know.
As someone else said. The participants of theological debates rarely if ever change their views, the silent observers of debates are more likely to.
really, I wouldn't say this debate should be all consuming for Christians. It doesn't concern their lives, if they know they are secure with God.
You know, a well known minister in the UK said. Eighty five percent of a certain type of Christian denomination( I will put it that way) don't understand the justification/ sanctification process for the believer. Going by personal experience I would say he is accurate. That denomination picks random scriptures and hinges everything on a literal understanding of them.
And those two things are far more important to understand than the subject matter of this thread

You have my sincerest condolences for your loss. I know it must be tough and I feel for you.

 

[stuart lawrence]

You have my sincerest condolences for your loss. I know it must be tough and I feel for you.

That's kind of you. It was a few years ago my wife died, so I am ok. She is in a better place than this earth. That's comforting to know

 

[Adstar]

Others have challenged you to show those passages, or have shown you passages that clearly say otherwise. I just wanted to make the point that _no_ passage in the entire Bible says that all unrepentant people will, or should, "suffer forever" in gehenna, the lake of fire, or any other place-name used to refer to final punishment; and of course the suffering described "on the Day" or at the "day of wrath" is naturally understood to happen on the indicated finite time, a "day."

In contrast, the only place in the entire Bible where torment forever is mentioned is done to creatures, and for them alone it is NOT called "the second death." Everyone else thrown into the Lake of Fire receive "the second death"; they alone are said to be tormented forever and ever.

Mark's explanation of the "second death" actually needs to be confronted. You cannot merely brush it off -- not when your brush-off is a false statement about the Bible.

If you had read my first post in this thread you would have seen me quite scripture that make it clear that people will suffer torment in the eternal lake of fire forever.. So God back and read my posts. Don't make out that i could not bring up scripture when i have done so on multiple occasions..