• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Eternal Torment is nowhere in The Bible

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by SavedByChrist94, Feb 8, 2014.

  1. he-man

    he-man he-man

    +168
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Ever been to a crematorium? Explain then, Do pigs go up in smoke like goats or lambs? How about the ungodly if they do not stand in the judgment they must be the enemies of the LORD

    Ps 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away

    Ps 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
    5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous

    Psa 18:8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured:coals were kindled by it.

    Psa 68:2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the ungodly perish from the face of God.

    2Th 1:9 who shall pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his might,

    Isa 9:18 For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke.

    Hos 13:3 Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chaff that is driven with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as the smoke out of the chimney.

    Ecc 9:6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.

    Psa 146:4 When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.

    2Th 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the face of God and from the glory of his might,

    Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

    Luk 13:25 When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, open to us,' then he will answer you, 'I do not know where you come from.'

    Mat 25:33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
     
  2. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting Berean through and through Supporter

    +2,347
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others

    I think you have this one concept correct.
    I give you full credit on this one. :)
     
  3. Norah63

    Norah63 Newbie

    +407
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Then is annihilation eternal? Which word gives the most pause, is it torment, or eternal?
    Apart from God there is torment. Either here and now, or later after life.
    Man has been trying to escape God ever since the garden. Yet we cannot, so in place of that we distance our selves from each other with views and opinions.
    Let the Lords prayer be answered in each today, that we be one as He and the Father are one.
    The one mind of Christ.
     
  4. DrBubbaLove

    DrBubbaLove Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist Supporter

    +1,663
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Ever been to a freak side show and listened to the spiel?

    The repetitive rhetoric sounds nice and is meant to convince people to believe something, usually by appealing to emotion. And they keep repeating it over and over. Ask them a question, ask them to explain how what they have said makes any sense at all and the "magic" of the spiel is broken because they cannot explain it. They can only repeat it.

    Again, if one wants to claim something is true then one should be able to answer questions/defend that position. Simply being able to repeat a spiel does not defend the position. If someone wanted to listen to broken records they could pay for copies of such spiels to play as they like. Here in this UT section of the CF we are suppose to be challenging the UT view being presented, not provide a bully platform for someone to repeat a broken spiel.

    So explain the view. Explain how the rendering of single verse given the definitions one has already posted makes any sense. The verse in question is being rendered as saying something that does not exist ("some people" who have already been "annihilated"=do not exist) are banished from some place ("the presence of the Lord").

    Being able then to explain how a flying pig can be "kicked out", "ejected", "cast out"....etc (the given definition of banished) FROM the farm; being able to use that depiction of something which does not exist in a sentence to "prove" one's view of a single verse makes any sense at all would be an example of defending one's position. If one cannot do that, then obviously one's view of that Scripture equally makes no sense to even oneself - as it obviously it makes no sense to me.

    We cannot speak of something which does not exist as being here or not over there. By definition of "non-existing" we cannot speak of something which does not exist as "being" anything. Yet that is exactly what this repeated broken spiel claims Scripture "says".
     
  5. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +1,608
    Baptist
    Married
    Twisting definition. Scripture does not say anywhere "eternal nonexistence.

    I have proved you wrong about Eternal Torment [ET] with historical evidence. You merely saying something has been refuted does not make it so. All I have seen is your opinion, "This does not mean eternal torment," etc.

    Faulty exegesis. Unless the LXX iis being quoted in the NT, what a Hebrew word meant is irrelevant.

    OT scripture are irrelevant. The Greek word orge does NOT mean face, breath, nostirl, etc.

    How many credit hours of Koine Greek do you have? Unsupported personal opinions of the meaning of Greek words, do not prove anything.

    How many credit hours did you say you say you had in Koine Greek? Just because some anonymous guy posts something online that does not make it true. The information at this site is based on Douglas Campbell's The Deliverance of God. Here are a few reviews of that book.

    This gives way to the fourth problem, the problem of Romans 1. I can only admit after reading this book that Campbell’s rereading of Romans 1 is possible, but to me highly unlikely. There are several assumptions that Campbell brings to this passage in particular (unlike his wonderful treatment of 2-3) that lead him to his conclusions. The most troubling factor methodologically speaking is Campbell’s insistence that a “good” reading constitutues not only a possible reading, but the best possible reading. I tend to agree that charitable readings are more commendable with negative, suspicious ones (Like E.P. Sanders insistence that Paul is simply illogical and inconsistent), but Campbell overplays his hand. He combines the hermeneutical theory that the best possible reading is the correct one, with false or contrived hangups that shut the door to any answers that don’t satisfy him. Campbell’s problems are only intelligible within his justification theory framework, not outside of it. Thus, the first problem I listed comes back in. Campbell finds difficulties that frankly only exist within a modern framework, something puzzling in a book that charges “traditional” readings with being modern themselves. I applaud his liberative, participationist reading, and I highly recommend it and endorse it, but the devil is in the details here, and the biggest devil of all is Romans 1. Others, like Michael Gorman and Stanley Stowers, have written alternative rereadings that do not attribute Romans 1 to “the teacher,” but still deal with the main issues that frustrate Campbell. It is interesting to me that Gorman’s short introduction to a “participationist” soteriology in Inhabiting the Cruciform God is much shorter and yet clearer at reframing the central issues. Gorman does not do the heavy exegetical work that Campbell does, but his short summaries of passages lend more credibility to a participationist soteriology than does sloshing through Campbell’s writing.

    The Deliverance of God: A Review | INTELLECTUAL CURRENCY

    Instead, it is handled from “the outside in,” developing a theory that entails any number of points that “must” be held given certain other commitments–and so Campbell ends up critiquing a system of his own devising rather than the position of any (group of) commentator(s).

    f. This weakness of the book is not just nit-picking! Campbell asserts that “JT” is not only the dominant reading of Romans (?!), but that it is the best, most credible alternative to his, that his reading solves all of its problems, and that one must therefore from this point on always adopt Campbell’s reading because of the way that it solves all of JT’s conundrums. Everyone else has underestimated the problem, thereby trapping themselves in too facile solutions, and so we need this entire project to set things right (931-36). Campbell simply won’t convince many to follow him down that road. In part, this is because of problem 2..

    c. Campbell wants to reject much of the material in Rom 1-2 as incompatible with Paul’s thought, and yet we find those very same components in other letters and clearly in Paul’s own voice: God’s wrath, judgment based on works, opposition to homosexuality, condemnation of various stereotyped sins, etc.

    Final Words on Campbell, Deliverance of God | Storied Theology

    It is the most elaborately constructed straw man I have ever witnessed, and to watch Campbell parry and thrust with it across hundreds of sprawling pages is a singular and uncanny spectacle (137).

    Barry Matlock’s Critique of “The Deliverance of God” | Dunelm Road

    Douglas Campbell’s recent work The Deliverance of God represents a major rereading of Paul’s letter to the Romans, especially its early chapters, and through this offers a broader reinterpretation of Pauline soteriology, deliberately set in dialogue with theological traditions, particularly those founded on forensic understandings of atonement. This article evaluates the key elements of Campbell’s argument, particularly (1) his depiction of Jewish soteriology (2) his suggestion that much of Rom. 1.18–3.20 utilizes the rhetorical device of ‘speech-in-character’, and therefore represents the opinion of Paul’s opponent rather than that of the apostle himself, and (3) his treatment of historical theology. The Deliverance of God is found to be stimulating and provocative at points, and to be a significant contribution to the field, but unconvincing in its major moves.

    Review Article: The Deliverance of God
     
  6. Ariston

    Ariston Newbie

    400
    +17
    Christian
    Married
    "Aion" means a duration of time as it is used in the New Testament as was demonstrated. Thus (aion) could not mean annihilationism. The passage that keeps being quoted from John was already refuted several times (see post 62). I just do not see it as tenable to hold that the Bible teaches anywhere that God is going to raise persons up bodily from punishments simply to annihilate them. "A resurrection to everlasting shame" (Daniel 12) suggest that the punishment is ongoing. Thus, in light of the ancient Pharisaic Jewish belief (see as defined in Josephus), Jesus, Paul, other passages from the New Testamment, and the Church Fathers, damnation appears to be clearly to eternal punishment and a privation from the presence of Jesus and his people.
     
  7. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +1,608
    Baptist
    Married
    Aion also means eternal, unending, everlasting, etc. I have documented in [post=65003784]Post #53[/post], this thread, that the Jews, at the time of Jesus, believed in a fiery hell of unending punishment. I quoted from the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud, which documents the historical beliefs of the Jews. Earlier in this thread someone dismissed the Talmud as a secular document. It isn't, but even if it was, it was written by Hebrew speaking Jewish rabbis and it still documents the religious history of the Jews.
     
  8. he-man

    he-man he-man

    +168
    Non-Denom
    Private
    :confused: deductive and inductive reasoning
    I think that is called Plagiarism. You should give a reference when you are using the words of someone else:


    Logos (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most important technique we will study, and Aristotle's favorite. We'll look at deductive and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive reason to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough. We'll study the types of support you can use to substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order to avoid them in your writing. [Some people just do not get it even though they claim to].

    Logos (Greek for 'word') refers to the internal consistency of the message--the clarity of the claim, the logic of its reasons, and the effectiveness of its supporting evidence. The impact of logos on an audience is sometimes called the argument's logical appeal. Logos: the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument.

    According to Aristotle, our perception of a speaker or writer's character influences how believable or convincing we find what that person has to say. This projected character is called the speaker or writer's ethos. We are naturally more likely to be persuaded by a person who, we think, has personal warmth, consideration of others, a good mind and solid learning. This impression created by the text itself is the intrinsic ethos.

    Does the arguer rely on testimony or authority by citing the received opinions of experts? Or does the author create some kind of authoritative reference group, citing public opinion on what most people think as support for his or her position?
    U-System | University Information Technology Services (UITS)

    Explain then, Do pigs on the left go up in smoke like goats or lambs or not? How about the ungodly if they do not stand in the judgment are they then considered as the enemies of the LORD?

    Which of these do you not agree with? Do you have any Biblical facts and figures or any Biblical testimony or authority or any effective Biblical supporting evidence by the text itself

    Ps 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away

    Ps 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
    5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous

    Psa 18:8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured:coals were kindled by it.

    Psa 68:2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the ungodly perish from the face of God.

    2Th 1:9 who shall pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his might,

    Isa 9:18 For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke.

    Hos 13:3 Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chaff that is driven with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as the smoke out of the chimney.

    Ecc 9:6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.

    Psa 146:4 When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.

    2Th 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the face of God and from the glory of his might,

    Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

    Luk 13:25 When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, open to us,' then he will answer you, 'I do not know where you come from.'

    Mat 25:33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
     
  9. Der Alter

    Der Alter This is me about 1 yr. old. Supporter

    +1,608
    Baptist
    Married
    Out-of-context proof text. The lake of fire [LOF] although it is called "the second death" is not synonymous with death or annihilation. Three living beings, one the false propeht, is a person are thrwon into the LOF but they do not die and are not annihilated instead they are tormented day and night forever and ever. Therefore being thrown into the LOF does not automatically result in death or annihilation.

    Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.​

    By annihilated, do you mean cease to exist or do you mean just death that every person must experience?

    Where does Jn 3:35-36 say cease to exist?

    Where have I ever said or implied that I am God? I deduce what you have been fed by what you are saying here, much of which is copy/pasted from various websites. For example, about 1/2 of post #1 and #3 is a copy/paste "Response to Matt Chandler" and most, if not all of your psots has a link to an annihilationist website.

    This verse does not say God destroys both body and soul in hell, only that He is able to. Can you provide any verse where God actually destroys a soul?

    The word translated "destroy" is ἀπόλλυμι/apollumi. Appolumi occurs 86 times in the NT, of this 71 times, 83%, cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here is a list of those definitions followed by the complete definition from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich Lexicdon of N.T. Greek.

    (1) ruin, (2) do not bring about his ruin, (3) put to death, the wicked tenants, (4) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death, (5) destroy the wisdom of the wise, (6) destroy the understanding, (7) lose, (8) lose the reward, (9) lose what we have worked for, (10) lose one’s life, (11) lose oneself, (12) The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’), (13) ruined, (14) die, the man dies, (15) As a cry of anguish, we are perishing!, (16) of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer, (17) die by the sword, (18) die of hunger, (19) be corrupted, (20) killed by the snakes, (21) those who are lost, (22) of things be lost, (23) pass away, (24) be ruined, (26) of bursting wineskins, (25) fading beauty, (26) transitory beauty of gold, (27) passing splendor, (28) Of earthly food, (29) spoiled honey, (30) Of falling hair, (31) a member or organ of the body, (32) remnants of food, (33) of wine that has lost its flavor, (34) of sheep gone astray, (35) Of a lost son [that returned].

    ἀπόλλυμι for its conj. s. Bl-D. §101 ( s.v. o[llumi ); Rob. 317; fut. ajpolevsw Hs 8, 7, 5, Att. ajpolw` 1 Cor 1:19 (Is 29:14 ); 1 aor. ajpwvlesa ; 1 pf. ajpolwvleka ; fut. mid. ajpolou`mai Lk 13:3 ; 2 aor. ajpwlovmhn ; the 2 pf. ajpovlwla serves as a pf. mid ., ptc. ajpolwlwv" ( Hom. +; inscr. , pap. , LXX , En. , Philo , Joseph. , Test. 12 Patr. ).

    1. act .— a. ruin, destroy.
    a. of pers. (Sir 10:3 ) Mk 1:24 ; Lk 4:34 . W. ref. to eternal destruction mh; ejkei`non ajpovllue do not bring about his ruin Ro 14:15 . Esp. kill, put to death (Gen 20:4 ; Esth 9:6 v.l .; 1 Macc 2:37 ; Jos. , C. Ap. 1, 122) Hs 9, 26, 7. paidivon Mt 2:13 ; Jesus 12:14 ; 27:20 ; Mk 3:6 ; 11:18 ; Lk 19:47 ; B 12:5; [kill] the wicked tenants kakou;" kakw`" aj. ( s. kakov" 1a) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death Mt 21:41 . tou;" gewrgouv" Mk 12:9 ; Lk 20:16 ; t. fonei`" Mt 22:7 ; t. mh; pisteuvsanta" those who did not believe Jd 5 ; pavnta" Lk 17:27 , 29 . W. sw`sai (1ike Charito 2, 8, 1) Js 4:12 ; Hs 9, 23, 4. Of eternal death ( Herm. Wr. 4, 7) yuch;n k. sw`ma aj. ejn geevnnh/ Mt 10:28 ; yuchvn B 20:1; t. yucav" Hs 9, 26, 3 ( cf. Sir 20:22 ).
    b. w. impers. obj. aj. t. sofivan t. sofw`n destroy the wisdom of the wise 1 Cor 1:19 (Is 29:14 ). aj. t. diavnoian destroy the understanding Hm 11:1.— g. without obj. J 10:10 .
    b. lose ( X. , Pla. +; PPetr. III 51, 5; POxy. 743, 23; PFay. 111, 3 ff ; Sir 6:3 ; 9:6 ; 27:16 et al .; Tob 7:6 BA; 4 Macc 2:14 ) t. misqovn lose the reward Mt 10:42 ; Mk 9:41 ; Hs 5, 6, 7. dracmhvn ( Dio Chrys. 70[20], 25) Lk 15:8 f ; aj. a} hjrgasavmeqa lose what we have worked for 2J 8 . diaqhvkhn B 4:6, 8. th;n zwh;n t. ajnqrwvpwn Hm 2:1; cf. s 8, 6, 6; 8, 7, 5; 8, 8, 2 f and 5. th;n ejlpivda m 5, 1, 7.— W . colloqu. flavor i{na pa`n o} devdwkevn moi mhv ajpolevsw ejx aujtou` that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me J 6:39 ( Bl-D. §466, 3; Rob. 437; 753).— aj. th;n yuchvn ( cf. Sir 20:22 ) lose one’s life Mt 10:39 ; 16:25 ; Mk 8:35 ; Lk 9:24 ; 17:33 ; cf. J 12:25 . For this aj. eJautovn lose oneself Lk 9:25 (similar in form is Tyrtaeus Lyr. [VII BC ], fgm. 8 Diehl 2 lines 12 ff : ‘The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’).

    2. mid .— a. be destroyed, ruined.
    a. of pers. perish, die ( schol. on Nicander , Ther. 188 ajpovllutai oJ ajnhvr =the man dies) 1 Cl 51:5; 55:6; B 5:4, 12; D 16:5; Hs 6, 2, 1 f. As a cry of anguish ajpolluvmeqa we are perishing! ( PPetr. II 4, 4 nuni; de; ajpolluvmeqa ) Mt 8:25 ; Mk 4:38 ; Lk 8:24 ( Arrian , Peripl. 3, 3 of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer). ejn macaivrh/ aj. die by the sword Mt 26:52 . limw`/ [die] of hunger (Ezk 34:29 ) Lk 15:17 . th`/ ajntilogiva/ tou` Kovre Jd 11 c (because of 11a and b it should perh. = be corrupted; cf. Polyb. 32, 23, 6). uJpo; tino" ( Hdt. 5. 126; Dio Chrys. 13[7], 12) uJpo; t. o[fewn killed by the snakes 1 Cor 10:9 ; cf. vs. 1 0. Abs. of a people perish J 11:50 . Of individuals (Lev 23:30 ) Ac 5:37 ; 2 Pt 3:9 ; 1 Cl 12:6; 39:5 (Job 4:20 ).—Esp. of eternal death ( cf. Ps 9:6 f ; 36:20; 67:3 ; 91:10 ; Is 41:11 ) J 3:16 ; 17:12 . ajpolevsqai eij" to;n aijw`na perish forever 10:28 (Bar 3:3 hJmei`" ajpolluvmenoi to;n aijw`na). ajnovmw" aj. Ro 2:12 ; mwrw`" aj. IEph 17:2; ejn kauchvsei because of boasting ITr 4:1; cf. IPol 5:2. Abs. 1 Cor 8:11 ; 15:18 ; 2 Cl 17:1.— oiJ ajpolluvmenoi ( opp. oiJ sw/zovmenoi , like Plut. , Mor. 469 D ) those who are lost 1 Cor 1:18 ; 2 Cor 2:15 ; 4:3 ; 2 Th 2:10 ; 2 Cl 1:4; 2:5. For this to; ajpolwlov" Lk 19:10 (Mt 18:11 —Ezk 34:4 , 16 ). ta; ajpolluvmena 2 Cl 2:7 ( cf. Dit., Syll. 3 417, 9 ta; te ajpolwlovta ejk t. iJerou` ajnevswsan ). b. of things be lost, pass away, be ruined ( Jos. , Bell. 2, 650 of Jerusalem) of bursting wineskins Mk 9:17 ; Mk 2:22 ; Lk 5:37 ; fading beauty Js 1:11 ; transitory beauty of gold 1 Pt 1:7 ; passing splendor Rv 18:14 ( w. ajpov as Jer 10:11 ; Da 7:17 ). Of earthly food J 6:27 ; spoiled honey Hm 5, 1, 5. Of the heavens which, like the earth, will pass away Hb 1:11 (Ps 101:27 ). Of the end of the world Hv 4, 3, 3, Of the way of the godless, which is lost in darkness B 11:7 (Ps 1:6 ).
    b. be lost (Antipho 54 Diels, Vorsokrat. ajpolovmenon ajrguvrion ; X. , Symp. 1, 5; 1 Km 9:3 ) ISm 10:1. Of falling hair Lk 21:18 ; Ac 27:34 ; a member or organ of the body Mt 5:29 f ; remnants of food J 6:12
    . Of wine that has lost its flavor Hm 12, 5, 3.—Of sheep gone astray Mt 10:6 ; 15:24 ; Lk 15:4 , 6 ; B 5:12 ( cf. Jer 27:6 ; Ezk 34:4 ; Ps 118:176 ). Of a lost son [who has returned]Lk 15:24 ( Artem. 4, 33 hJ gunhv. . . t. uiJo;n ajpwvlese kai. . . eu|ren aujtovn .—JSchniewind, D. Gleichn. vom verl. Sohn ’40). aj. qew`/ be lost to God Hs 8, 6, 4. M-M. B. 758; 766.

    BAG Lexicon online

    An empty, unsuppoprted assertion. Prove it from scripture, please?

    An empty, unsupported assertion. Prove it from scripture, please?

    An empty, unsupported assertion. Prove it from scripture, please?

    Empty, unsupported assertions. Prove it from scripture, please?

    Daniel 12:2 says "some [shall awake] to shame and everlasting contempt" It does not say they are dead and looked down on. 10[sup]100[/sup] times 10[sup]100[/sup] eons from now God's unchanging word will still say,

    Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.​

    Reading your own assumptions into the text. There are five verses with the phrase "wailing/weeping and gnashing of teeth." Please show me where any one of them says "weeping and gnashing of teeth because they are going to be annihilated?" Answer: None of them. 10[sup]100[/sup] times 10[sup]100[/sup] eons from now God's unchanging word will still read "wailing/weeping and gnashing of teeth."

    Mat 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Mat 13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Mat 24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Mat 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.​

    You have not shown that eternal fire means death, anywhere.

    Empty, unsupported assertion. How many semester hours of Koine Greek did you say you had? Unless you have stuidied Greek you have no basis for saying any word is mistranslated. Quoting Jn 3:35-36 does not prove wrath is mistranslated.

    Nothing is settled. All you have done is give your unsupported opinion over and over. No, zero. none evidence. I proved just the opposite in [post=65000969]Post #41[/post] from historical Jewish sources. FYI the Talmud is not a secular source, it is commentary on the OT by Hebrew speaking Jewish Rabbis. And irrespective of your opinion of it, the Talmud is documented history of what the Jews before and during the time of Jesus believed, not only about hell but many other topics as well..
     
  10. DrBubbaLove

    DrBubbaLove Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist Supporter

    +1,663
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    So after repeating the spiel several hundred times instead of answering direct questions of one's view, one switches gear to fall back to attacking the person asking the questions and hope no one else notices the questions HAVE NEVER BEEN responded to. Nice gig for some pastors I guess.

    Am sure that might work in some Churches to basically deter, silence or otherwise get people asking questions to go away. Again UT section is not a pulpit. It is provided to give UT Christians a place to EXPLAIN how their views makes sense to them, how it dovetails with other normative Christian beliefs and Scripture itself.

    So I will repeat the questions:

    Explain how the rendering of single verse given the definitions one has already posted makes any sense. The verse in question is being rendered as saying something that does not exist ("some people" who have already been "annihilated"=do not exist) are banished from some place ("the presence of the Lord").

    Being able then to explain how a flying pig can be "kicked out", "ejected", "cast out"....etc (the given definition of banished) FROM the farm; being able to use that depiction of something which does not exist in a sentence to "prove" one's view of a single verse makes any sense at all would be an example of defending one's position. If one cannot do that, then obviously one's view of that Scripture equally makes no sense to even oneself - as it obviously it makes no sense to me.

    We cannot speak of something which does not exist as being here or not over there. By definition of "non-existing" we cannot speak of something which does not exist as "being" anything. Yet that is exactly what this repeated broken spiel claims Scripture "says".

    What good is being able to cut and paste a repeated a spiel/mantra if one cannot explain how it makes any sense?
     
  11. he-man

    he-man he-man

    +168
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Yes, so why do you avoid to Explain, Do pigs on the left go up in smoke like goats or lambs or not? How about the ungodly if they do not stand in the judgment are they then considered as the enemies of the LORD?

    Which of those do you not agree with? Do you have any Biblical facts and figures or any Biblical testimony or authority or any effective Biblical supporting evidence by the text itself


    You are still evading the question of deductive and inductive reasoning which is called Plagiarism. You should give a reference when you are using the words of someone else:
    Logos (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most important technique we will study, and Aristotle's favorite. We'll look at deductive and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive reason to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough. We'll study the types of support you can use to substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order to avoid them in your writing. [Some people just do not get it even though they claim to].

    Logos (Greek for 'word') refers to the internal consistency of the message--the clarity of the claim, the logic of its reasons, and the effectiveness of its supporting evidence. The impact of logos on an audience is sometimes called the argument's logical appeal. Logos: the logic used to support a claim (induction and deduction); can also be the facts and statistics used to help support the argument.

    According to Aristotle, our perception of a speaker or writer's character influences how believable or convincing we find what that person has to say. This projected character is called the speaker or writer's ethos. We are naturally more likely to be persuaded by a person who, we think, has personal warmth, consideration of others, a good mind and solid learning. This impression created by the text itself is the intrinsic ethos.

    Does the arguer rely on testimony or authority by citing the received opinions of experts? Or does the author create some kind of authoritative reference group, citing public opinion on what most people think as support for his or her position?U-System | University Information Technology Services (UITS)

    So, then, Explain, Do pigs on the left go up in smoke like goats or lambs or not? How about the ungodly if they do not stand in the judgment are they then considered as the enemies of the LORD?

    Tell me then, which of these do you not agree with? Do you have any Biblical facts and figures or any Biblical testimony or authority or any effective Biblical supporting evidence by the text itself


    Ps 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away

    Ps 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
    5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous

    Psa 18:8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured:coals were kindled by it.

    Psa 68:2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the ungodly perish from the face of God.

    2Th 1:9 who shall pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the face of the Lord, and from the glory of his might,

    Isa 9:18 For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke.

    Hos 13:3 Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chaff that is driven with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as the smoke out of the chimney.

    Ecc 9:6 Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and forever they have no more share in all that is done under the sun.

    Psa 146:4 When his breath departs, he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish.

    2Th 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the face of God and from the glory of his might,

    Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

    Luk 13:25 When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, open to us,' then he will answer you, 'I do not know where you come from.'

    Mat 25:33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
     
  12. DrBubbaLove

    DrBubbaLove Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist Supporter

    +1,663
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I "avoid to explain" because neither defending or beating up orthodox views is the point of the UT section. The point of the UT section is for UT Christians to answer questions regarding UT views held. Questions like how one's view makes sense to one-self, or how one's rendering an understanding of Scripture makes sense to one-self.

    If one wants to debate orthodox views the UT section is not the place for that. If one wants to learn more about orthodox (ask question/ask people to explain) the UT section is not the place for that.

    So again back to topic and why we are all here,

    We cannot speak of something which does not exist as being here or not over there. By definition of "non-existing" we cannot speak of something which does not exist as "being" anything. Yet that is exactly what this repeated broken spiel claims Scripture "says".

    Explain why it is ok to claim Scripture states something which makes absolutely no sense.
     
  13. he-man

    he-man he-man

    +168
    Non-Denom
    Private
    So then why call it unorthodox and what are you doing here defending the orthodox view?

    A stated UT view:confused: I have not seen an answer to any scripture I have posted so I will try again and leave out the "Flying Pigs" who are toasted as wax that melts and as smoke that goes up the chimney.

    Strange but Metzger lists all 15 of the Nomina Sacra and the Greek, "word"as used in the MSS of John 1:1 is not listed as one of the 15.
    There is no line drawn at the top of LOGOS!


    The abbreviation of θεός/Theos and other substantives becomes the "nomina sacra" when a line is drawn at the top of the letters. The Nomina Sacra identified
    The Nomina Sacra are contracted Greek words representing 15 frequently occurring names (or titles) in Scripture. The contraction was written with an overline. We have previously identified these contractions as surrogates, with the earlier explanation that they were primarily used as short-hand notations. These contractions occur in both the Septuagint papyri manuscripts and the Greek Christian Scripture papyri manuscripts.
    On page 36 of the book cited, [Bruce Metzger's Manuscripts of the Greek Bible,] Metzger lists all 15 of the Nomina Sacra found in the entire Greek papyri collection, which includes the Septuagint. He reproduces them in their nominative (subject of the sentence) and genitive (possessive) forms[2] as follows:Appendix K: Nomina Sacra.

    Look now at the MSS Codex Sinaiticus and see if "word" has the Nomina Sacra over it and see that it does NOT but both θν and θϲ have the Nomina Sacra over them.
    Do you see the start of the second verse "ουτοϲ"? It does not say αυτος it says ουτοϲ. Tyndale properly translated that as 1:2 "The same"

    1 εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θν και θϲ ην ο λογοϲ
    2 ουτοϲ ην εν αρχη προϲ τον θν
    3 πατα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωριϲ αυτου εγενετο ουδεν ὁ γεγονεν

    Do you know what the Koine is for πρός? towards, near to, against, back, on the side of, in the eyes of, in the name of (+ gen); near, in addition to (+ dat); toward (+ acc) ; regarding, for, besides, except, with regard to (Jn. 1:1), concerning; (Low Nida specification) 89.7; compare regarding; headword

    Translated it reads:
    1:1 In a beginning was that word, and that word was with regard to God: and God was that word.

    1:2 This was in a beginning with regard to God.

    1:3 All things happened through Him, and without Him, nothing, happened to be.

    By whose authority did Christ speak? Joh_10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
    Rev_2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

    Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.
     
  14. DrBubbaLove

    DrBubbaLove Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist Supporter

    +1,663
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Because as stated in the sticky at the top of the UT section it give UT Christians a place to respond to questions regarding their UT beliefs. And it specifically states it IS NOT a place for orthodox views to be trashed, debated or ridiculed.

    So again back to topic and why we are all here,

    We cannot speak of something which does not exist as being here or not over there. In fact by definition of "non-existing" we cannot speak of something which does not exist as "being" anything. It would make NO SENSE for anyone UT or orthodox to speak that way about something which is said to not exist. Yet that is exactly what this repeated broken spiel claims Scripture "says".

    So please explain why it is ok to claim Scripture states something which makes absolutely no sense.
     
  15. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting Berean through and through Supporter

    +2,347
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    If you were to read Genesis, the creation of the world makes no sense.
    It says it, AND it makes no sense. What's your problem with that?
     
  16. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting Berean through and through Supporter

    +2,347
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Generally true. Forum chat is not a very strict platform though.
    Chat is just chat.
     
  17. DrBubbaLove

    DrBubbaLove Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist Supporter

    +1,663
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Ok, I will play, especially since I cannot get a proper response from He-man.
    There is a difference between making non-sensical statements and telling a story,myth,legend depicting Supernatural acts of God. God making something from nothing - which is actually infered and not explicit in the Creation myth - would be non-sensical if it were not for our beliefs regarding God's abilities. It does not defy logic because we assume an ability on His part. So am unclear what other point from this myth one thinks is non-sense.

    Even God's abilities could be discussed in non-sensical matters - can He make a rock too big for Him to move for example is a classic non-sensical question. Just as the idea of somehow "restricting" movement (and thereby location) of something which does not exist is non-sensical.

    Which is my point to the other poster in his saying that in his view a NT verse has the damned annihilated, but then spoken of as if they were located somewhere in the same sentence.
     
  18. he-man

    he-man he-man

    +168
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Right and I do not see any flying pigs, only pigs on the left who go up in smoke like goats or lambs.
    How about the ungodly if they do not stand in the judgment how can they stand anywhere when they perish from the face of God and are then considered as the enemies of the LORD?, not to mention that you ignore what the MSS says about the logos.

    Ps 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away

    Ps 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
    5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous

    Ps 68:2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the ungodly perish [אָבַ֖ד âbad] from the face of God. [ Joel 1:11 אָבַ֖ד (Chaldee); corresponding to H6 - destroy, perish]

    By whose authority did Christ speak? Joh_10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
    Rev_2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

    Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.

    Strange but Metzger lists all 15 of the Nomina Sacra and the Greek, "word"as used in the MSS of John 1:1 is not listed as one of the 15.
    There is no line drawn at the top of LOGOS!


    The abbreviation of θεός/Theos and other substantives becomes the "nomina sacra" when a line is drawn at the top of the letters. The Nomina Sacra identified
    The Nomina Sacra are contracted Greek words representing 15 frequently occurring names (or titles) in Scripture. The contraction was written with an overline. We have previously identified these contractions as surrogates, with the earlier explanation that they were primarily used as short-hand notations. These contractions occur in both the Septuagint papyri manuscripts and the Greek Christian Scripture papyri manuscripts.
    On page 36 of the book cited, [Bruce Metzger's Manuscripts of the Greek Bible,] Metzger lists all 15 of the Nomina Sacra found in the entire Greek papyri collection, which includes the Septuagint. He reproduces them in their nominative (subject of the sentence) and genitive (possessive) forms[2] as follows:Appendix K: Nomina Sacra.

    Look now at the MSS Codex Sinaiticus and see if "word" has the Nomina Sacra over it and see that it does NOT but both θν and θϲ have the Nomina Sacra over them.
    Do you see the start of the second verse "ουτοϲ"? It does not say αυτος it says ουτοϲ. Tyndale properly translated that as 1:2 "The same"

    1 εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θν και θϲ ην ο λογοϲ
    2 ουτοϲ ην εν αρχη προϲ τον θν
    3 πατα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωριϲ αυτου εγενετο ουδεν ὁ γεγονεν

    Do you know what the Koine is for πρός? towards, near to, against, back, on the side of, in the eyes of, in the name of (+ gen); near, in addition to (+ dat); toward (+ acc) ; regarding, for, besides, except, with regard to (Jn. 1:1), concerning; (Low Nida specification) 89.7; compare regarding; headword

    Translated it reads:
    1:1 In a beginning was that word, and that word was with regard to God: and God was that word.

    1:2 This was in a beginning with regard to God.

    1:3 All things happened through Him, and without Him, nothing, happened to be.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2014
  19. DrBubbaLove

    DrBubbaLove Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist Supporter

    +1,663
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Again as to flying pigs, the relevant question in this thread was whether one thinks we do not see flying pigs because they have been banished. Which would have to be the position taken if one wants people to believe the NT says people who do not exist have been "banished", which was the position you took regarding a single verse. A position that has repeatedly been refused a defense. So is the understanding of that verse given not defensible?
     
  20. he-man

    he-man he-man

    +168
    Non-Denom
    Private
    If you live on the correct farm it is only the goats on the left who go up in smoke like the fat of lambs.

    How about the ungodly if they do not stand in the judgment how can they stand anywhere when they perish from the face of God and are then considered as the enemies of the LORD?

    Ps 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away

    Ps 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
    5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous

    Ps 68:2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the ungodly perish [אָבַ֖ד âbad] from the face of God. [ Joel 1:11 אָבַ֖ד (Chaldee); corresponding to H6 - destroy, perish]

    By whose authority did Christ speak? Joh_10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
    Rev_2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

    Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.
    And not to mention that you ignore what the MSS says about the logos.

    Strange but Metzger lists all 15 of the Nomina Sacra and the Greek, "word"as used in the MSS of John 1:1 is not listed as one of the 15.
    There is no line drawn at the top of LOGOS!


    The abbreviation of θεός/Theos and other substantives becomes the "nomina sacra" when a line is drawn at the top of the letters. The Nomina Sacra identified
    The Nomina Sacra are contracted Greek words representing 15 frequently occurring names (or titles) in Scripture. The contraction was written with an overline.

    We have previously identified these contractions as surrogates, with the earlier explanation that they were primarily used as short-hand notations. These contractions occur in both the Septuagint papyri manuscripts and the Greek Christian Scripture papyri manuscripts.

    On page 36 of the book cited, [Bruce Metzger's Manuscripts of the Greek Bible,] Metzger lists all 15 of the Nomina Sacra found in the entire Greek papyri collection, which includes the Septuagint. He reproduces them in their nominative (subject of the sentence) and genitive (possessive) forms[2] as follows:Appendix K: Nomina Sacra.

    Look now at the MSS Codex Sinaiticus and see if "word" has the Nomina Sacra over it and see that it does NOT but both θν and θϲ have the Nomina Sacra over them.
    Do you see the start of the second verse "ουτοϲ"? It does not say αυτος it says ουτοϲ. Tyndale properly translated that as 1:2 "The same"

    1 εν αρχη ην ο λογοϲ και ο λογοϲ ην προϲ τον θν και θϲ ην ο λογοϲ
    2 ουτοϲ ην εν αρχη προϲ τον θν
    3 πατα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωριϲ αυτου εγενετο ουδεν ὁ γεγονεν

    Do you know what the Koine is for πρός? towards, near to, against, back, on the side of, in the eyes of, in the name of (+ gen); near, in addition to (+ dat); toward (+ acc) ; regarding, for, besides, except, with regard to (Jn. 1:1), concerning; (Low Nida specification) 89.7; compare regarding; headword

    Translated it reads:
    1:1 In a beginning was that word, and that word was with regard to God: and God was that word.

    1:2 This was in a beginning with regard to God.

    1:3 All things happened through Him, and without Him, nothing, happened to be.
     
Loading...