Hell

[he-man]

That is, until folks realize that the power of Scripture is in the allegoric structure God has woven into it, revealing that the annihilation of evil persons--spoken to in various ways in dozens of passages by various authors over many centuries--are actually consistent, self-affirming, metaphors representing how God saves every human being, by fragmentally removing bad parts from every human soul.

What part of no don't you understand?

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 1 Corinthians 2:13 (NIV)

Complete Destruction
ολεθρος For a somewhat weakened use of this strong word, which in Biblical usage implies "ruin," the loss of all that gives worth to existence (see Milligan ad 1 Thess 5 3 ), cf. BGU IV. IO27 xxvi.11 (iv/A.D.) (as amended Chrest. I. p. 501)—a representation of the great danger that was being incurred at Hermopolis by the withholding of their annona from the soldiers for three years. Like Lat. pernicies.

απολλυμι, to destroy wholly, cause to perish, (see "DESTROY," No. 1.) (a) Mid., of persons, to be put to death; εις απωλεια, destruction
Bullinger P. 223

PERISH (-ED, -.) 1. απολλυμι, to destroy, cause to perish. Here, mid., (which is peculiar to N.T. Oreek) used of the eternal doom of the sinner, (chiefly by Paul and John) to be utterly and finally ruined and destroyed, to be lost, brought to nought, put to death . Bullinger P. 581

(In N.T. the future punishment of sin is clearly defined as death and destruction.) (non occ.).

Ps 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

If the "outrageous doctrine" of the traditionalists were true, God would be a "cruel" and "vindictive" deity. In fact, He would be "more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards...." Indeed, the traditionalist's God is a "bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die."
bible-reasearcher.com/hell5.html #Note2

Pinnock states, "it would amount to inflicting infinite suffering upon those who have committed finite sin. It would go far beyond an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. There would be a serious disproportion between sins committed in time and the suffering experienced forever." Such vindictiveness, we are told, is totally incompatible with the character of God and utterly unacceptable to "sensitive Christians." It would "serve no purpose" and be an act of "sheer vengeance and vindictiveness," which is "out of keeping with the love of God revealed in the gospels."

LeRoy Edwin Froom, in his book The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, presents a list of seventy words that he says demonstrate total annihilation. On the basis of these words, Froom exults triumphantly that "no loopholes are left." Edward W. Fudge likewise cites this list, and concludes: "Without exception they portray destruction, extinction or extermination."

The most common term translated "destroy" in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word abad. It is used to describe the fate of the wicked, as in, for example, Proverbs 11:10. Evildoers are also said to be "cut off." Fudge and Pinnock both cite Psalm 37:22, 28, 34, and 38 as representative Stott asserts that the verb apollumi means "destroy," and the noun apoleia means "destruction."

He cites Matthew 2:13, 12:14, and 27:4, which refer to Herod's desire to destroy the baby Jesus, and the later Jewish plot to have Him executed. Stott then mentions Matthew 10:28 (cf. James 4:12): "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy [apolesai] both soul and body in hell." He regards this "destruction" as a reference to the soul's total annihilation in hell.

Stott also offers the contrast between believers and unbelievers as manifest proof: "If believers are hoi sozomenoi (those who are being saved), then unbelievers are hoi apollumenoi (those who are perishing). This phrase occurs in 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15; 4:3, and in 2 Thessalonians 2:10." He believes that this language of destruction points to the total annihilation of the wicked.

Stott concludes: "It would seem strange, therefore, if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed; ... it is difficult to imagine a perpetually inconclusive process of perishing."

 

[Der Alte]

Jewish Encyclopedia-Names of God-YHWH.

Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh (יהוה), the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel. This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility (see Jehovah). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai (אדני = "Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "keri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh. In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases.

This name, according to the narrative in Ex. iii. (E), was made known to Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another, parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2, 3, P) it is stated that the name was not known to the Patriarchs. It is used by one of the documentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if at all by the others. Its use is avoided by some later writers also. It does not occur in Ecclesiastes, and in Daniel is found only in ch. ix. The writer of Chronicles shows a preference for the form Elohim, and in Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii. Elohim occurs much more frequently than Yhwh, probably having been substituted in some places for the latter name, as in Ps. liii. (comp. Ps. xiv.).

In appearance, Yhwh (יהוה) is the third person singular imperfect "kal" of the verb ( הוה ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (אהיה, from ( היה, the later equivalent of the archaic stem ( הוה). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "hai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).

If the explanation of the form above given be the true one, the original pronunciation must have been Yahweh ((יהוה) or Yahaweh (יהוה). From this the contracted form Jah or Yah (יה ) is most readily explained, and also the forms Jeho or Yeho (יהו ), and Jo or Yo (יו contracted from יהו , which the word assumes in combination in the first part of compound proper names, and Yahu or Yah (יהו ) in the second part of such names. The fact may also be mentioned that in Samaritan poetry יהוה rimes with words similar in ending to Yahweh, and Theodoret ("Quæst. 15 in Exodum") states that the Samaritans pronounced the name Iαβέ. Epiphanius ascribes the same pronunciation to an early Christian sect. Clement of Alexandria, still more exactly, pronounces 'Iαουέ or 'Iαουαί, and Origen, 'Iα. Aquila wrote the name in archaic Hebrew letters. In the Jewish-Egyptian magic-papyri it appears as Ιαωουηε. At least as early as the third century B.C. the name seems to have been regarded by the Jews as a "nomen ineffabile," on the basis of a somewhat extreme interpretation of Ex. xx. 7 and Lev. xxiv. 11 (see Philo, "De Vita Mosis," iii. 519, 529). Written only in consonants, the true pronunciation was forgotten by them. The Septuagint, and after it the New Testament, invariably render κύριος ("the Lord").

NAMES OF GOD - JewishEncyclopedia.com ​

The letter "w" is a modern letter that at times takes the place of the double-u. Yahuah = Yahwah.

Irrelevant! The Hebrew alphabet had a letter for "W" the letter "ו" And as the article written by Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars says Yahuah=Yahwah is not the correct pronunciation. Note in the article historical evidence was provided. What is the authority for the pronunciation you use?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

What part of no don't you understand?

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 1 Corinthians 2:13 (NIV)

Complete Destruction
ολεθρος For a somewhat weakened use of this strong word, which in Biblical usage implies "ruin," the loss of all that gives worth to existence (see Milligan ad 1 Thess 5 3 ), cf. BGU IV. IO27 xxvi.11 (iv/A.D.) (as amended Chrest. I. p. 501)—a representation of the great danger that was being incurred at Hermopolis by the withholding of their annona from the soldiers for three years. Like Lat. pernicies.

απολλυμι, to destroy wholly, cause to perish, (see "DESTROY," No. 1.) (a) Mid., of persons, to be put to death; εις απωλεια, destruction
Bullinger P. 223

PERISH (-ED, -.) 1. απολλυμι, to destroy, cause to perish. Here, mid., (which is peculiar to N.T. Oreek) used of the eternal doom of the sinner, (chiefly by Paul and John) to be utterly and finally ruined and destroyed, to be lost, brought to nought, put to death . Bullinger P. 581

(In N.T. the future punishment of sin is clearly defined as death and destruction.) (non occ.).

Ps 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
6 Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

If the "outrageous doctrine" of the traditionalists were true, God would be a "cruel" and "vindictive" deity. In fact, He would be "more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards...." Indeed, the traditionalist's God is a "bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die."
bible-reasearcher.com/hell5.html #Note2

Pinnock states, "it would amount to inflicting infinite suffering upon those who have committed finite sin. It would go far beyond an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. There would be a serious disproportion between sins committed in time and the suffering experienced forever." Such vindictiveness, we are told, is totally incompatible with the character of God and utterly unacceptable to "sensitive Christians." It would "serve no purpose" and be an act of "sheer vengeance and vindictiveness," which is "out of keeping with the love of God revealed in the gospels."

LeRoy Edwin Froom, in his book The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, presents a list of seventy words that he says demonstrate total annihilation. On the basis of these words, Froom exults triumphantly that "no loopholes are left." Edward W. Fudge likewise cites this list, and concludes: "Without exception they portray destruction, extinction or extermination."

The most common term translated "destroy" in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word abad. It is used to describe the fate of the wicked, as in, for example, Proverbs 11:10. Evildoers are also said to be "cut off." Fudge and Pinnock both cite Psalm 37:22, 28, 34, and 38 as representative Stott asserts that the verb apollumi means "destroy," and the noun apoleia means "destruction."

He cites Matthew 2:13, 12:14, and 27:4, which refer to Herod's desire to destroy the baby Jesus, and the later Jewish plot to have Him executed. Stott then mentions Matthew 10:28 (cf. James 4:12): "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy [apolesai] both soul and body in hell." He regards this "destruction" as a reference to the soul's total annihilation in hell.

Stott also offers the contrast between believers and unbelievers as manifest proof: "If believers are hoi sozomenoi (those who are being saved), then unbelievers are hoi apollumenoi (those who are perishing). This phrase occurs in 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15; 4:3, and in 2 Thessalonians 2:10." He believes that this language of destruction points to the total annihilation of the wicked.

Stott concludes: "It would seem strange, therefore, if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed; ... it is difficult to imagine a perpetually inconclusive process of perishing."

Harsh literalism necessarily self-perpetuates its own errors. This is why the continual presenting of people's opinions--all of whom are engaged in the same self-perpetuating interpretive mistakes--and posting the same Bible passages which support your view while failing completely to falsify the other guy's view leads to the endless defense on theology boards and among scholars of various traditional theological positions which are never able to resolve the tensions in either their own doctrine or that of their opponents.

Again. The interpretive structure in the Bible is ALLEGORICAL. God uses an admixture of literal and symbolic meaning which, once seen and understood, is logical and coherent--as all prescriptive truth, once revealed, must be. This structure, designed by God and eminently pointed to by huge amounts of symbolic language from the Psalms to the prophets to Jesus as a hint to carnal man to seek that realm (allegory) He hides His meaning in.

God has woven the same allegorical structure He inspired His prophets to speak in by the use of people, their actions, reactions and circumstances as paints on the canvas of history to paint a bigger picture, to show greater and higher truths. This allegoric structure--gathered from multiple metaphors throughout scripture, all corroborating the same unified message--when properly judged by accepted truth criteria, asserts its own authority and legitimacy--and immediately shows the poverty of forcing meaning on the literal where it does not belong.

The dogmatic literalist is unable to see this because he erroneously uses the same literal interpretations (God's expression of Scripture) as God's meaning [truth]. The literalist fails to make the distinction between God's expression (what the Bible says) and His articulation (what the Bible means). Your constant posting of passages as "proof" of your position is like someone insisting that in Exodus 19:4 where God tells Israel, “I carried you on eagles’ wings.” must be interpreted literally because this word means "carried", and that word literally means "wings". When an objection is raised, the defender hotly states, "Show me where kanaph doesn't mean wings and I'll believe you!" The disconnect here, because the intellect is a spiritual machine, is itself spiritual. Study it out.

You'll claim this is foolishness, the verse is clearly symbolic--and I agree--but the problem is the literalist stops there, accepting ONLY the obvious metaphors of Scripture, when he should be discerning the hints left by the Lord (use of obvious metaphors + heavy use of symbolic language throughout as a call to further investigation of possible hidden meaning) and digging to find the deeper stuff. Instead, Christianity has fashioned a manmade, primarily literalistic interpretive scheme which by necessity forbids even the contemplation of further allegory and higher meaning--thus cutting itself off from higher knowledge in favor of exerting its control over what God is allowed to mean in His word.

Annihilation of individuals is one of the more common metaphors God uses to show how He applies new birth to human spirit and thus saves souls. It represents the destruction of bad elements within human spirit...goats, tares, etc.

In the past I posted a logical challenge to eternal tormentists and annihilationists on this and other theology boards showing that both positions denied God the perfection of His justice. Only the salvation of all souls is able to overcome this tension. I seem to recall that you took a weak stab at it here, He-man, but like all others to date, could not refute it. When something is shown to be logically true, the greater question is, why are those who see this still unwilling to concede the error of their favored doctrines?

 

[CherubRam]

Irrelevant! The Hebrew alphabet had a letter for "W" the letter "ו" And as the article written by Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars says Yahuah=Yahwah is not the correct pronunciation. Note in the article historical evidence was provided. What is the authority for the pronunciation you use?

English did not have a w letter long ago. The waw in Hebrew is pronounced UW.

Hebrew alphabet chart

 

[CherubRam]

Believing in Hell supports what the Serpent says and makes God a liar. The word "sheol" translates as "grave," it absolutely, positively does not mean "hell."

You do not seem to know the difference between an interpretation and a translation. You also fail to understand that Christ came speaking in parables.

2 Clem 5:4 Jesus said unto Peter, Let not the lambs fear the wolves after they are dead; and ye also, fear ye not them that kill you and are not able to do anything to you; but fear Him that after ye are dead hath power over soul and body, to cast them into the Gehenna of fire.

Gehenna is parabolic for eternal destruction. Gehenna: Mentioned twelve or thirteen times in the bible. Gehenna: Referring to the Valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna which is the city dump outside the walls of Jerusalem; it then was a place of constant burning of refuge. Only Pagan Jews believe in Hell, Orthodox Jews do not. The word "grave" does not translate as "Hell." Believing in Hell supports what the Serpent says and makes God a liar.

Yahshua said to his disciples: "How foolish of you to believe everything the prophets have said."

That is because they were not taking into consideration that parables were being used.

Do you want to believe that Yahuah will torture living being for all eternity with out mercy?

You never answered these questions.

 

[Der Alte]

English did not have a w letter long ago. The waw in Hebrew is pronounced UW.

Hebrew alphabet chart

Wrong! Your chart says the "ו" was pronounced 'waw." And that is the way it is taught in Bible colleges and seminaries.

 

[Der Alte]

Believing in Hell supports what the Serpent says and makes God a liar. The word "sheol" translates as "grave," it absolutely, positively does not mean "hell."

I have proved to you several times that the Jews before and during the time of Jesus believed in a place of eternal, unending fiery punishment for the wicked and they called it both Gehinnom and Sheol. It does not matter what you think or believe or what some modern Jews believe the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud prove the ancient belief.

 

[Der Alte]

The Hebrew word Sheol is translated as "Hades" in the LXX. While Hades can mean grave, the first century Jews that Jesus taught and debated with believed in a place of eternal, unending, everlasting punishment for the unrighteous, they called it both Gehinnom/Gehenna and Sheol. When Jesus taught about "Eternal punishment, Mt 25:46""the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mk 9:43-48" and "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Mt 13:42, 50, that supported and validated the existing view of eternal hell. Jesus was born into and grew to maturity in that culture. He knew what His countrymen, the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong Jesus would have corrected them. He did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell was correct.

The historical evidence for the above is in my [post=5877433]Post #4[/post] in this thread.

You do not seem to know the difference between an interpretation and a translation. You also fail to understand that Christ came speaking in parables.

Irrelevant! You can say parable all you want. That does not prove anything. As I have shown repeatedly from the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud, the first century Jews that Jesus taught and debated with believed in a place of eternal, unending, everlasting punishment for the unrighteous, they called it both Gehinnom/Gehenna and Sheol. When Jesus taught about "Eternal punishment, Mt 25:46""the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mk 9:43-48" and "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Mt 13:42, 50, that supported and validated the existing view of eternal hell. Jesus was born into and grew to maturity in that culture. He knew what His countrymen, the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong Jesus would have corrected them. He did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell was correct.

2 Clem 5:4 Jesus said unto Peter, Let not the lambs fear the wolves after they are dead; and ye also, fear ye not them that kill you and are not able to do anything to you; but fear Him that after ye are dead hath power over soul and body, to cast them into the Gehenna of fire.

Gehenna is parabolic for eternal destruction. Gehenna: Mentioned twelve or thirteen times in the bible. Gehenna: Referring to the Valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna which is the city dump outside the walls of Jerusalem; it then was a place of constant burning of refuge. Only Pagan Jews believe in Hell, Orthodox Jews do not. The word "grave" does not translate as "Hell." Believing in Hell supports what the Serpent says and makes God a liar.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over and over but it does not address, refute or disprove the historical evidence I posted. You have not provided any evidence about any so-called pagan Jews vs. orthodox Jews. Jesus never said anythng about any pagan jews. Gehenna was not parabolic for anything. There is no archaeological or historical evidence that the Hinnom valley, Gehenna, was ever used as a garbage dump. If the Jewish belief in hell was wrong Jesus would have corrected them instead what He taught validated their belief.

 

[Der Alte]

Yahshua said to his disciples: "How foolish of you to believe everything the prophets have said."

That is because they were not taking into consideration that parables were being used.

Jesus said no such thing! Jesus explained His parables to the disciples. If it is not identified as a parable or explained by Jesus or if it makes good sense in the plain sense then it is nonsense to look for any other sense. Most unorthdox groups claim that anything and everything that contradicts their false doctrines is figurative. But there are many groups making claims of figurative sayings but all different with different meanings.

 

[Der Alte]

You never answered these questions.

I believe what Jesus said.

Jesus taught about,

• "Eternal punishment, Mt 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mk 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Mt 13:42, 50,

Jesus taught there is a fate that is worse than death.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mat 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.​

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Where did I say that the Rich man/Lazarus story specifically mentioned duration? But I did say 10100 times 10100 eons from now God's unchanging word will still say "none may cross over from there to us."

This must be from that high degree of intellectual honesty you claim to possess.

What, specifically, do you mean when you say "10100 times 10100 eons from now God's unchanging word will still say "none may cross over from there to us." ? What is the duration of this statement and how does it apply to Lazarus and the rich man?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

There is no "fragmentally removing bad parts from every human soul," in these passages. I am not aware of any verse in the Bible which even remotely depicts fragmentally removing bad parts from every human soul!

I have patiently explained in this thread and others and provided links to videos explaining the basis for the fragmental removal by God of false elements from the human soul and the consistent allegoric structure in the Bible which bears this out.

On what basis do you claim this is wrong?

 

[Der Alte]

This must be from that high degree of intellectual honesty you claim to possess.

What, specifically, do you mean when you say "10100 times 10100 eons from now God's unchanging word will still say "none may cross over from there to us." ? What is the duration of this statement and how does it apply to Lazarus and the rich man?

What part of my statement do you not understand? "10[sup]100[/sup] times 10[sup]100[/sup] eons from now God's unchanging word will still say "none may cross over from there to us." The number 10[sup]100[/sup] is an example of exponential notation. It represents 10 followed by 100 zeros. I believe that the word of God exists forever unless/until God changes it. The passage "none may cross over from there to us." will remain in God's word unless/until He changes it. I know of nothing that states or implies that God will change His word.

 

[Der Alte]

I have patiently explained in this thread and others and provided links to videos explaining the basis for the fragmental removal by God of false elements from the human soul and the consistent allegoric structure in the Bible which bears this out.

On what basis do you claim this is wrong?

I do not follow links from people I do not know. I have picked up viruses and had my PC lock up trying to play such videos. If you have some evidence in text form which supports this theory please post it here.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I do not follow links from people I do not know. I have picked up viruses and had my PC lock up trying to play such videos. If you have some evidence in text form which supports this theory please post it here.

I've posted time and again, even reposted in response to your demand to see it. Not my fault you don't read it.

Again, my question: on what basis do you claim my view is wrong?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

What part of my statement do you not understand? "10[sup]100[/sup] times 10[sup]100[/sup] eons from now God's unchanging word will still say "none may cross over from there to us." The number 10[sup]100[/sup] is an example of exponential notation. It represents 10 followed by 100 zeros. I believe that the word of God exists forever unless/until God changes it. The passage "none may cross over from there to us." will remain in God's word unless/until He changes it. I know of nothing that states or implies that God will change His word.

So you are saying that the duration the rich man will remain in his condition is forever? Just so we're clear.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I believe what Jesus said.

• "Eternal punishment, Mt 25:46"

Even though sufficient doubt has been cast on this passage by an OT scholar as to its true meaning--whom you have not been able to refute.

• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mk 9:43-48"

Even though it's been pointed out to you that the worm passages are not in the oldest manuscripts and were probably added much later by a zealous scribe as an embellishment.

• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Mt 13:42, 50,

Even though you don't understand the meaning of Godly fire, which is purification re the destruction of false elements from the human soul as part of His plan to save all humans.

Jesus taught there is a fate that is worse than death.

I'm beginning to suspect it's trying to get an honest answer out of you in this lifetime.

 

[Der Alte]

Even though sufficient doubt has been cast on this passage by an OT scholar as to its true meaning--whom you have not been able to refute.

You have not cast any credible doubt on Matt 25:46, so there is nothing to refute. I quoted from a source older than Barclay, written by four scholars, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, which has been updated and revised at least 3 times, the last time 2001, and your one guy, Barclay, did not refute them.

Even though it's been pointed out to you that the worm passages are not in the oldest manuscripts and were probably added much later by a zealous scribe as an embellishment.

Wrong as usual! Only vss. 44 and 46 are questionable. Vs. 48 has never been in question and it has the worm reference. So your objection is meaningless! May I suggest that you actually read the scripture and the sources you quote.

Mar 9:48 where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'​

Even though you don't understand the meaning of Godly fire, which is purification re the destruction of false elements from the human soul as part of His plan to save all humans.

Repeating your specious argument about Godly fire, over and over, does not prove anything. Jesus never said anything about purifying Godly fire. In fact there is not one single reference to purifying fire in the entire Bible.

I'm beginning to suspect it's trying to get an honest answer out of you in this lifetime.

I'm begining to suspect that the only thing I will get from you are unproven, unsupported claims of figurative language

 

[Der Alte]

So you are saying that the duration the rich man will remain in his condition is forever? Just so we're clear.

The rich man will remain in his condition until God changes the words of Luke 16:26. Let me know when that happens.

 

[Der Alte]

I've posted time and again, even reposted in response to your demand to see it. Not my fault you don't read it.

Again, my question: on what basis do you claim my view is wrong?

Because there is no, zero, none credible, verifiable, historical evidence to support your "fragmental removal by God of false elements from the human soul." fantasy. I don't mean supposition about God destroying rebellious people in Israel supposedly being an allegory of the fragmental nonsense. That is not evidence that is an unsupported assertion, no more credible than someone in this forum claiming to cavort with angels.