Hell.

[Montalban]

Yes, you did.

You have not shown me that I said that this verse is only in your bible.

 

[ChristianT]

Having no beginning and no end is the definition of eternal!

It looks like you are just unable to ever admit you are wrong.

Actually the context of eternal and an understanding of nothing is what refutes you.

Eternal is only for things that exist either physically or superphysically (er natural). Nothing is not a created thing, it is the lack of something. The lack of something can be eternal, however it may also be ignored as nonexistent, ergo pointless if not negligible. So... I guess if death is the state of a soul becoming nonexistent, it's you becoming pointless and negligible? Basically an emotional hell? Meh.

 

[Montalban]

Having no beginning and no end is the definition of eternal!

Yes, I can see you're confusing the two easily.

Being nothing is nothing.

However God being eternal has 'being'. He is 'something'.

 

[Timothew]

It actually sounds like Mont is saying you aren't interpreting it along with other verses as the "Christian next door" does. Of course, I'm not him so I can't vouch 100% accuracy.

He said "That's just your version". If he said that I don't interpret it the same way as the guy next door, that another thing. Why should I assume the guy next door got it right? Or why assume that I'm wrong, when I quote the bible verbatum? The ESV's translation is the same as "my version." Is Montalban saying the translation committee for the ESV also got it wrong, and my neighbor got it correct?

 

[Montalban]

Then I asked you what your verson said in Luke 13:3, but you never answered.

That's because it is missing the point. I suggest reading my previous post about where we both read the same thing and come to different interpretations.

Your version of this verse is different in interpretation.

 

[Montalban]

He said "That's just your version". If he said that I don't interpret it the same way as the guy next door, that another thing. Why should I assume the guy next door got it right? Or why assume that I'm wrong, when I quote the bible verbatum? The ESV's translation is the same as "my version." Is Montalban saying the translation committee for the ESV also got it wrong, and my neighbor got it correct?

If you ignored everything else I've said about your version of events, I guess you could draw that - but it's all about interpretation of what you read - which I guess, since you read what I said one way, it must be right, even though I WROTE IT!

 

[Timothew]

You have not shown me that I said that this verse is only in your bible.

Yes I did. Post 339.

 

[Montalban]

Yes I did. Post 339.

That is not what I said. I've even explained it.

But as I noted you seem to think your reading of the bible, and now what I write to be just as it 'is' as well.

I had hoped you'd move from circular reasoning but instead you're now applying it to your reading of my posts.

 

[Montalban]

Is this where you declare you've won???

 

[Montalban]

Actually the context of eternal and an understanding of nothing is what refutes you.

Eternal is only for things that exist either physically or superphysically (er natural). Nothing is not a created thing, it is the lack of something. The lack of something can be eternal, however it may also be ignored as nonexistent, ergo pointless if not negligible. So... I guess if death is the state of a soul becoming nonexistent, it's you becoming pointless and negligible? Basically an emotional hell? Meh.

This is indeed what nothingness is.

I have tried also reasoning with Objectivists. They come to a conclusion and because they've 'reasoned' their way to that conclusion it must be reasonable and there's no shifting them from that belief.

 

[he-man]

This is indeed what nothingness is.

Mat 13:28 He said to them, a man1, an enemy has done this thing. And the servants said to him, Do you wish then that we go and gather2 them up?
1* Greek ανθρωπος man

2* Greek συλλέγω gather, collect

Deu 28:20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

perish

literary die, especially in a violent or sudden way. ▶suffer complete ruin or destruction.
© Oxford University Press, 2004

Job 4:8 Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same. 9 By the blast of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed.

consume

eat, drink, or ingest. ▶use up. ▶(especially of a fire) completely destroy.
© Oxford University Press, 2004

 

[GOD is LOVE is GOD]

He said "That's just your version". If he said that I don't interpret it the same way as the guy next door, that another thing. Why should I assume the guy next door got it right? Or why assume that I'm wrong, when I quote the bible verbatum? The ESV's translation is the same as "my version." Is Montalban saying the translation committee for the ESV also got it wrong, and my neighbor got it correct?

You are confusing interpretation with translation. They are in fact 2 entirely different things!

Translation is not interpretation. An interpretation, even if correct, is still not a faithful translation. Interpretation is the province of the exegete; it is the realm of the expositor, not that of the translator. We cannot judge the sense of what is said until we know what is said; yet we cannot express what is said in the original unless we possess an essentially equivalent expression thereof in translated form. We cannot determine the correct sense of a word apart from a valid basis upon which to form such a conclusion. Translation must come first; only then may interpretation follow.

Here is a great site that explain the difference ~ and how important it is NOT to confuse the terms:

Bible Translation/Interpretation - Do You Know the Difference?


Blessings to you!

 

[Soulgazer]

How about 'the commandments of the Lord'?

1 Corinthians 14:37-38 (KJV)
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

There is a difference between dead writings and "God's Word". All the commandments of the Lord are written on each and every heart. "Gods Word" is Jesus Christ, whom is inside each and every one of us. You can either hear His voice, or you cannot. If you can't, nothing written will make any difference.

 

[Timothew]

This is indeed what nothingness is.

I have tried also reasoning with Objectivists. They come to a conclusion and because they've 'reasoned' their way to that conclusion it must be reasonable and there's no shifting them from that belief.

I went to your link, because I am really trying to understand you POV. I should understand it because I once held it. But just like when a magicians trick is explained, it is hard to see the illusion again; Once I saw the truth about hell, it is hard to see the illusion of eternal torment.

But, I went to your link. It says this: "Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness..."
You seem to be denying this. You seem to be saying that unless a person experiences their punishment it isn't punishment at all. It can be demonstrated that both of these statements are false. When I am asleep, I am unconscious. But reality still exists, independent of my consciousness.
If a person's son has to be punished, one way of doing this is by "grounding them". If a boy is grounded for a week, he is still punished while he is asleep. He is unconscious, but the reality of his punishment remains independent of his consciousness.

You say that death is no punishment because the person being punished has no consciousness of their punishment. Death is the punishment, and it is a reality that remains independent of the person's consciousness. If a person's punishment is death, and they remain dead for all of eternity, then they have received an eternal punishment, independent of their consciousness or lack of consciousness.

 

[Timothew]

You are confusing interpretation with translation. They are in fact 2 entirely different things!

Translation is not interpretation. An interpretation, even if correct, is still not a faithful translation. Interpretation is the province of the exegete; it is the realm of the expositor, not that of the translator. We cannot judge the sense of what is said until we know what is said; yet we cannot express what is said in the original unless we possess an essentially equivalent expression thereof in translated form. We cannot determine the correct sense of a word apart from a valid basis upon which to form such a conclusion. Translation must come first; only then may interpretation follow.

Here is a great site that explain the difference ~ and how important it is NOT to confuse the terms:

Bible Translation/Interpretation - Do You Know the Difference?


Blessings to you!

I wasn't translating or interpreting Luke 13:3.
I was QUOTING Luke 13:3. Jesus' words contradict what Montalban was saying. Jesus said "Unless you repent, you will likewise perish."
I said "I believe that. I believe that unless a person repents, they will perish." Then Monatlban said, "That just your interpretation."
Well, it isn't. It's a quote.

 

[Lysimachus]

No. Nothingness isn't forever. It's nothing. It's neither never, nor forever.

I must disagree with you based on how the term "eternal" and "forever" are used so often.

I do believe consequences of death are "eternal". It means there will never again be a resurrection. The punishment is "forever", not the punishing.

I realize it's hard to catchup on what's been discussed in the past when joining a thread, but I'll repost what I said earlier for your evaluation:

"Everlasting punishment" (Matt. 25:46) is not endless punishing, nor is "everlasting destruction" (2 Thess. 1:9) endless destroying, any more than "eternal salvation" (Heb. 5:9) is endless saving, or "eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:2) is endless judging, or “eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12) is endless redeeming, or “everlasting gospel” (Rev 14:6) is endless preaching. The "eternal" pertains to the result, and not to the process. The results or consequences are eternally irrevocable. And of course, it is worthy of mention that the words “everlasting” and “eternal” in the New Testament are both translated from the same Greek word, “aionos”.

Scriptures do not teach endless burning of the ungodly. Only the righteous will dwell in everlasting burnings (Isa. 33:14-16) and survive.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I noticed this interesting discussion on another "hell" thread:

Originally Posted by NILLOC

Originally Posted by hl2 Being outside the city is.. being destroyed.

What? Where do you get that?

.
I am curious about that also.
I would think one is tormented outside the City, much like the rich man in this covenantle parable of Luke 16

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

Luke 16:23And in the hades lifting up his eyes existing in torments, he is seeing the Abraham from afar
and Lazarus in the bosom of him.

 

[Montalban]

I must disagree with you based on how the term "eternal" and "forever" are used so often.

Seems like forever!

I do believe consequences of death are "eternal". It means there will never again be a resurrection. The punishment is "forever", not the punishing.

Then you only partly disagree with me... on the punishment

You partly disagree with Timothew who denies it's forever.

I realize it's hard to catchup on what's been discussed in the past when joining a thread, but I'll repost what I said earlier for your evaluation:

"Everlasting punishment" (Matt. 25:46) is not endless punishing, nor is "everlasting destruction" (2 Thess. 1:9) endless destroying, any more than "eternal salvation" (Heb. 5:9) is endless saving, or "eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:2) is endless judging, or “eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12) is endless redeeming, or “everlasting gospel” (Rev 14:6) is endless preaching. The "eternal" pertains to the result, and not to the process. The results or consequences are eternally irrevocable. And of course, it is worthy of mention that the words “everlasting” and “eternal” in the New Testament are both translated from the same Greek word, “aionos”.

Scriptures do not teach endless burning of the ungodly. Only the righteous will dwell in everlasting burnings (Isa. 33:14-16) and survive.

I disagree with the concept of 'scriptures teaching'. They say something but often the 'teaching' comes from peopel's reading of them and interpreting what they think scripture says.

Your interpretation is similar to Islam's - that we simply pass through a fire. I'm always amazed how many doctrines from Islam have crept into some Protestant groups.

However for my understanding the punishment is forever in direct parallel to heaven being forever.

However like with Timothew you theory doesn't account for scripture that says the opposite.

And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (2 Thess. 1:9).
"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7).
These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever," (Jude12-13).
Is Hell Eternal? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[Timothew]

And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (2 Thess. 1:9).

I'm not sure how you get NON-destruction from this verse.

 

[Soulgazer]

I'm not sure how you get NON-destruction from this verse.

Once something is destroyed, and providing it is not repaired, it remains destroyed for eternity.


And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (2 Thess. 1:9)

This tells me that the author was saying that the recipients would be destroyed with no hope of resurrection, which supposedly takes place in the presence of the Lord, and through His power.


"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7). Sodom and Gomorrah are gone forever, but they are certainly not still burning, unlike Centralia PA.


That is how I interpret it, though I am unsure of how author was interpreting Enoch; It's written as Parable, but some took it literally, in which case he meant an eternity in punishment. As Jude is such a short writing and a one hit wonder, there is no way to know for sure.