"The body will be full of torment as full as it can hold, and every part of it shall be full of torment. They shall be in extreme pain, every joint of them, every nerve shall be full of inexpressible torment. They shall be tormented even to their fingers ends. The whole body shall be full of the wrath of God. Their hearts and bowels and their heads, their eyes and their tongues, their hands and their feet will be filled with the fierceness of Gods wrath."
--Jonathan Edwards
We should always be wary of what we are all too ready to accept, for perhaps here it satisfies a secret sadistic desire for the vengeance we can not take ourselves - "I want to see him fry." If I am to believe that the fate of the dammned is eternal conscious torment, I want to be certain it is the testimony of scripture. For if I have a secret desire to see out the vengeance I can not take for myself, I should be wary that I do not find in the testimony of scripture just that for which I secretly wish, having placed it there myself.
To start:
Matthew 10:28 (NRSV)
Luke 12:5 (NRSV)
Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 12:5 (NRSV)
But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:5 are parallel accounts. I suggest - and understand that this is speculative theology - that Matthew 10:28 here clarifies Luke 12:5 in that the body and soul both will be cast into hell (Gehenna), and there with fire will be destroyed. And also that Luke 12:5 clarifies Matthew 10:28 in that the body is already killed before it is destroyed in hell.
Now, because I don't know Greek, the best that I can do is look up words with Strong's. From that, I can at least tell that what is translated "kill" and what is translated "destroy" are differen words, and from their meanings this - in just the context of these two verses - is a plausible interpretation.
I'm well aware of the number of common passages that must be dealt with, and I would like to examine each of them. But what I will speculate as the hypoethical with which I would like to approach them, is that hell is destruction by fire of both the end body and soul to non-existence, and possibly that the fire and rot of hell itself is everlasting, though those cast into it are not.
Alternatively (and perhaps more interestingly), it may be that the body and soul rot and burn eternally in hell, but like those bodies which rot and burn on the battlefield, there is no life or consciousness in them and yet they persist and earn the scorn and disgust and contempt of the living.
Either such reading would be a compromise between the horrible, firey punishment of eternal torment readings, and the destruction of annihilationist readings. And I believe has great potential to satisfy both sets of texts without committing us to eternal conscious torment.
If there is any merit to discussing this, I would like to do so at a measured pace that does not involve posting a flury of proof texts without significant evaluation or examination of each, as significant examination is what is due each passage.
We also, I suggest, do not need to go on and on here about how it is a compromise brought on by liberalism, or either that the word of God is surely an offense to the natural mind. I generally believe these things and tend (as you can verify for yourself) to say as much. I tend to believe that hell is eternal conscious torment, and have absolutely no intellectual, philosophical, or ethical problem with it being so if indeed it is (as I have said elsewhere before). Specutively, I just want to try something different.