• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Ligurian

Cro-Magnon
Apr 21, 2021
3,609
541
America
✟30,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Luk 6:13
And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; G652

Luk 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles G652 with him.

(psst, Luke wasn't there.)


Seriously? Luke was sitting right there in Luke 22:14?
Then why's there no "Luke" in Matthew 10:2-4?

Whew... the 12 aren't called Apostles... not by themselves anyway.

Then you should change it to "The Apostles didn't call themselves apostles" if that is what you mean.

You said the 12 aren't called apostles, and they were.

You'd be amazed how often careful reading pays off.

But you are wrong on both accounts, lol:

Acts 15:23
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.

Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Does anyone know who those eyewitneses were? The blind multitudes were eyewitnesses. The disciples who turned back were eyewitnesses. But Dr. Luke in Antioch was not an eyewitness.

Paul even calls the Lord's brother James an apostle in Galatians 1:19. (Matthew 13:55) But the Lord's brothers tried to make Ιησους go to Jerusalem where they knew the Jews were waiting for Him, because they sought to kill Him, John 7. The world couldn't hate them because they were "of the world".

So who made James, Joses(surnamed Barnabas?) and Simon(Simeon of Acts?) and Judas the brother of James into apostles? Not Ιησους, that's for sure. A common name shows up all over the New Testament, and everyone else thinks they're all the same man?

Second-hand witness, or the witness of failed-disciples? I wouldn't want any of them at my trial. But most people would be just fine with it.


Whew... the 12 aren't called Apostles... not by themselves anyway.

We also see Paul call himself an Apostle often.

52% of the New Testament uses "apostle" as a title.

No, because you do create false arguments.

Well then, consider yourself not forgiven.
 
Upvote 0

Ligurian

Cro-Magnon
Apr 21, 2021
3,609
541
America
✟30,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private


Profitable for whom, the gentiles?

Paul's gospel is called a mystery, in Ephesians 6:19.

But the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven is not at all hidden in the Old Testament, and the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel can see it.


You're saying this \/ is from eyewitnesses? Where did it come from?

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: (Luke 24?)
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (Acts?)
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. (?)


Luke 24:10-12 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary [the mother] of James, and other [women that were] with them, which told these things unto the apostles.[11] And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.[12] Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

Why does Luke dismiss the words of Mary Magdalene? But then say Simon ran to see? Who ARE the mystery men in that chapter, and why didn't Luke name them both?

But then, Luke wasn't a witness to the Resurrection, and neither was Paul.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My reply was one post while yours was multiple, so I thought mine was shorter. However, I hadn't checked the word count, so maybe I'm wrong.

My position holds two kinds of death:

  1. Physical death, the death that humans and other living things undergo (cf. Acts of the Apostles 13:36)
  2. Death in sin (Ephesians 2:1-7), being separated from God
Your positions holds three kinds of deaths:
  1. Physical death, the death that humans and other living things undergo (cf. Acts of the Apostles 13:36)
  2. Death in sin (Ephesians 2:1-7), being separated from God
  3. Eternal, conscious torment
I don't think the "second death" of Revelation 2:11; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 20:14; 21:8 is a third kind of death (eternal, conscious torment). After all, since we already would have undergone physical death and death in sin prior to being cast into the lake of fire, would have had to have called the lake of fire either the "third death" (if all types of deaths are being counted) or the "first death" (if only the ECT type is counted).

Instead, since the lake of fire is called the "second" death, it makes more sense to understand it as the second instance of a single kind. For example, Jesus's comings are 1) physical/bodily, when He was born; 2) spiritual in A.D. 70 (Matthew 24); and 3) physical/bodily when He comes again. However, the reason the last of these comings is called the "second" coming (Hebrews 9:27-28) is because it's the second instance of a single type (i.e., the the physical/bodily comings).

In a similar manner, the deaths mankind can experience are 1) spiritual when one dies to sin, 2) physical/bodily when one stops being alive on earth, and 3) when one suffers the final judgment as a sinner. However, the reason the last of these deaths is called the "second" death (Revelation 2:11; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 20:14; 21:8) is because it's the second instance of a single type. Since the ones cast into the lake of fire are physically alive (after the resurrection) but spiritually dead, it doesn't make sense to say they're spiritually dying again. While those dead in sin can die physically, they can't die (i.e., become dead) spiritually since they're already dead spiritually (i.e., dead in sin). Therefore, it makes sense that the "second death" is the second instance of physical death.

The imagery in Revelation points to what it means, so the lake of fire can be understood as pointing to "the second death," which can only make sense as being physical death, rather than spiritual death. Would you agree that since it's called "the second death" even though it's the third time death happens, that it's the second instance of a single type of death (whether physical or spiritual)?
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My reply to this will be short. You write, "Not only do I believe in a literal beast with seven heads and ten horns, but I believe the literal truth they represent." Do you mean you believe John really did see an image of a beast, but that the beast simply represents a literal truth, rather than being literally true? You aren't actually saying the beast itself literally has seven literal horns, are you?

(Also, and I say this in sincerity, I'd be careful about the joke on assuming in light of Ephesians 5:3-4 and Colossians 3:8).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So you don't understand "Death" and "Hades" as referring to literal "Death" and "Hades," right? If so, why should we understand "torment" as literal? Why couldn't the image of Hades being tormented in the lake of fire represent literal people literally burning up (not just suffering a burn but "burning up")? This would allow the imagery of Revelation not to contradict the statements elsewhere of sinners being burned up/consumed.

For example, doesn't Matthew 13:40-41 teach this in identifying the tares, which are "burned" (katakaio, "to burn up, consume by fire") as not only the "things that offend" but also "those who practice lawlessness" (NKJV)? Wouldn't it be adding to the word of God to add the word "not" to Hebrews 12:29 (NKJV) so that it instead reads, "For our God is [not] a consuming fire [but a eternally tormenting one]"?
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Mark 9 doesn't say the person does not die or that one's consciousness is not quenched, but rather that the worm and fire cannot be stopped. Just because the worm and fire are unstoppable for us doesn't mean the consciousness of the sinner is permanent. For all we know from this passage, maybe our resurrected bodies will be dead when the fire and worms eat it. This is more than speculation: The verse Jesus quotes (Isaiah 66:24) is explicitly talking about "corpses," not living, conscious beings. Therefore, by quoting Isaiah 66:24, Jesus supports physical death as what happens to the lost after they're resurrected.

You ended saying, "They are made physically alive again, but they are still dead." I agree, as they are dead in sin. Since they're alive physically but dead in sin, what part of them is left to "die" when they experience the "second death"? It certainly isn't the part of them that's already dead, right?
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Suppose I were to tell someone, "Don't fear those who can kill your arguments but cannot kill your position; rather, fear the one who can destroy both your arguments and position in CF." If "the one" (underlined) that I was referring to was you, Pilgrim, would I be saying you can kill one's position? After all, if I were to say this, I'd be contrasting "the one" with "those who can kill your arguments but cannot kill your position."

If you'd agree my statement above would be saying you can kill one's position, then by the same logic, I've found the "verse to support it" in Matthew 10:28.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Contrasting parallelism causes your position to be the one that dies, my friend, as it's a contrast between two people: 1) those who lack ability to kill the soul and 2) the One who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Which one is God? If you answer 2), then God isn't 1), meaning He doesn't lack ability to kill the soul.

Putting my explanation in brackets isn't adding to the word; it's "expounding" on the Scriptures, as Jesus did: "And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24:27, NKJV, emphasis mine). Anytime we say what a verse means, we're expounding; if you call expounding "adding," then we'd both have to plead guilty.
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I addressed this earlier in this string of replies: Is the Book of Revelation the only place in Scripture teaching eternal torment? I will add that I'm happy you agree God can kill the soul. I would disagree somewhat with the claim that we don't "have" souls, as that language matches the wording of Matthew 16:26 and Mark 8:36 (NKJV), which describe a person as having "his own soul" and that one can "lose his own soul." However, I also agree that referring to one's soul is often equivalent to referring to one's "self" in Scripture, so I'm not dogmatic about the nuance.

Furthermore, saying God casts the lost into hell after killing them doesn't "kill" my position. That would explain quite well why that which suffers the torment of fire and worms are dead bodies rather than living, conscious beings, as taught in Isaiah 66:24, which Jesus quotes in Mark 9.

If God "kills" us, and, according to what it appears you're saying, does so "after physical death" (unless I'm misunderstanding you), then what exactly does He kill "after physical death"? Our body, our soul, or something else? How would you answer?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private


This post is going to be shorter, primarily because I don't see how most of what you've written on 1 Corinthians 15 contradicts my position. Although you argue that the lost will be raised in spiritual bodies, does that mean even God Himself is powerlessly unable to kill them, or does it mean that the spiritual bodies won't die on their own? If the resurrected bodies of the lost can't die, when what are the dead corpses of Isaiah 66:24?



Actually, I just quoted the phrase you used, that "we receive eternal life through our union with Him." For some reason, you brought up "eternal life" when I asked you about "immortality," the term used in 1 Timothy 6:16. Perhaps I'm not the only one talking "to" someone rather than "at" them.

But enough of that: We both agree that talking "with" each other is how we should go about this. Most likely, I misunderstood why you brought up eternal life when I asked about 1 Timothy 6:16's "immortality." Do you believe the lost can ever die after resurrection? It sounded to me like you're saying they can never die, but perhaps I jumped to conclusions.

I would say that the fire and worms are eating something in Mark 9, and based on the verse from which Jesus is quoting, Isaiah 66:24, the something they're eating isn't conscious, living beings. Would you agree or disagree?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But it certainly can refer to that, right? For example, doesn't Matthew 13:40-41 teach this in identifying the tares, which are "burned" (katakaio, "to burn up, consume by fire")? Doesn't it identify the tares not only the "things that offend" but also "those who practice lawlessness" (NKJV)? Doesn't Hebrews 12:29 (NKJV) teach that "our God is a consuming fire" rather than an eternally tormenting one?

My position holds two kinds of death:

  1. Physical death, the death that humans and other living things undergo (cf. Acts of the Apostles 13:36)
  2. Death in sin (Ephesians 2:1-7), being separated from God
I don't think the "second death" of Revelation 2:11; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 20:14; and Revelation 21:8 is a third kind of death (eternal conscious torment). After all, since we already would have undergone physical death and death in sin prior to being cast into the lake of fire, John would have had to have called the lake of fire either the "third death" (if all types of deaths are being counted) or the "first death" (if only the ECT type is counted).

Instead, since the lake of fire is called the "second" death, it makes more sense to understand it as the second instance of a single kind. For example, Jesus's comings are 1) physical/bodily, when He was born; 2) spiritual in A.D. 70 (Matthew 24); and 3) physical/bodily when He comes again. However, the reason the last of these comings is called the "second" coming (Hebrews 9:27-28) is because it's the second instance of a single type (i.e., the the physical/bodily comings).

In a similar manner, the deaths mankind can experience are 1) spiritual when one dies to sin, 2) physical/bodily when one stops being alive on earth, and 3) when one suffers the final judgment as a sinner. However, the reason the last of these deaths is called the "second" death (Revelation 2:11; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 20:14; 21:8) is because it's the second instance of a single type. Since the ones cast into the lake of fire are physically alive (after the resurrection) but spiritually dead, it doesn't make sense to say they're spiritually dying again. While those dead in sin can die physically, they can't die (i.e., become dead) spiritually since they're already dead spiritually (i.e., dead in sin). Therefore, it makes sense that the "second death" is the second instance of physical death.

The imagery in Revelation points to what it means, so the lake of fire can be understood as pointing to "the second death," which can only make sense as being physical death, rather than spiritual death. Would you agree that since it's called "the second death" even though it's the third time death happens, that it's the second instance of a single type of death (whether physical or spiritual)?
 
Upvote 0

Ligurian

Cro-Magnon
Apr 21, 2021
3,609
541
America
✟30,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private
Hebrews 12:29
Ephesians 2:1-7

2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Do you seriously think that Paul's gospel
...turned down by the churches of Asia...
is going to be found in the Revelation
to John, an apostle to the circumcision?
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Are you saying that one's view of hell shouldn't come from the symbolic book of Revelation? If so, do you believe in eternal conscious torment? I'm not aware of any passages outside of the symbolic Book of Revelation that teaches such. Outside of Revelation, passages appear to teach that "those who practice lawlessness" will be burned up (katakaio, "to burn up, consume by fire") the way chaff is (Matthew 13:40-42, NKJV). Similarly, we're told that "our God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29, NKJV). Would these passages suggest annihilation as the fate of the wicked?
 
Upvote 0

Andrewn

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2019
5,846
4,331
-
✟724,827.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But it certainly can refer to that, right?
This question reminds me of the History Channel program "Ancient Aliens" where each argument ends with the question, "Is it possible that so and so?" I guess everything is possible. Believe me, I don't mean to be argumentative. I wrote before that it is quite possible that some people may be annihilated.

For example, doesn't Matthew 13:40-41 teach this in identifying the tares, which are "burned" (katakaio, "to burn up, consume by fire")? Doesn't it identify the tares not only the "things that offend" but also "those who practice lawlessness" (NKJV)?
Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, 42 and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This doesn't say that people will become annihilated.

Doesn't Hebrews 12:29 (NKJV) teach that "our God is a consuming fire" rather than an eternally tormenting one?
Heb 12:25 See that you do not refuse the one who is speaking, for if they did not escape when they refused the one who warned them on earth, how much less will we escape if we reject the one who warns from heaven! 28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe, 29 for indeed our God is a consuming fire.

This doesn't say that people will become annihilated.

Physical death, the death that humans and other living things undergo (cf. Acts of the Apostles 13:36)

Of course.


Death in sin (Ephesians 2:1-7), being separated from God
I said this was the first death in my previous post.

I don't think the "second death" of Revelation 2:11; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 20:14; and Revelation 21:8 is a third kind of death (eternal conscious torment).
Rev 2:11 Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches. Whoever conquers will not be harmed by the second death.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him a thousand years.

Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire,

Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the sexually immoral, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

None of these say that people will become annihilated.

Interesting argument. But one should not count the physical with the spiritual. Even in the example you gave Jesus coming, you didn't count his spiritual coming in 70 AD.

The 2nd death is a consequence of the 1st death just as the 2nd resurrection is a consequence of the 1st resurrection.

The imagery in Revelation points to what it means, so the lake of fire can be understood as pointing to "the second death," which can only make sense as being physical death, rather than spiritual death.
It is both. God can destroy (apollymi) both soul and body in hell (Mat 10:28).

Would you agree that since it's called "the second death" even though it's the third time death happens, that it's the second instance of a single type of death (whether physical or spiritual)?
One cannot use this argument because the 2nd death is both physical and spiritual.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If the worms, which do not die, are of no consequence to either the person(s) being burned, nor the living why did Jesus even mention them? Was Jesus concerned about the life expectancy of worms? The worms could go on forever without ever affecting the living, therefore the worms that did not die must have had some significance to those in there with the worms.
While the lake of fire [LOF] is called the second death 2 times, no verse says that anyone or anything is thrown into the LOF then it/they die. The only activity ever mentioned in the LOF is the devil, false prophet, who is a person and the beast being tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Revelation 20:10
(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 [plural verb] day and night for ever and ever.

 
Upvote 0

Ligurian

Cro-Magnon
Apr 21, 2021
3,609
541
America
✟30,218.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Private

Are you saying that one's view of hell shouldn't come from the symbolic book of Revelation?

Look at the little I quoted from your post, and read what I said about those verses... obviously I want Revelation to interpret itself.

When you try adding the letters of Paul, you're using puzzle pieces that have an entirely different picture on them: They might fit, but your hybrid picture will never be complete. Therefore, the more words of Paul et al, that you try to add to That Picture of Revelation, the more void it becomes. Because Paul teaches 1 Corinthians 8:10, which would make one guilty of Revelation 2:14, if they were both the same gospel, given to the same people... which they are not.

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Matthew and John are two of the 12 Disciples; John was given the Revelation. These two are of one mind, and preaching the same Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, to whom the Son was sent, Matthew 15:24. The Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John CAN decode the Book of Revelation, and so can those Prophets the Son quotes in Matthew and John... because it's all the same gospel given to the same people.
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sorry for the late reply; I've been traveling. Regarding Matthew 10:41-42, we also need to include the verse before, verse 40. Together, Matthew 10:40-42 teaches that as chaff is burned up/consumed by fire, so will everything offensive and those practicing lawlessness be cast into a fiery furnace (2618, katakaio). It sounds to me that those practicing lawlessness will be burned up like chaff.

If God is a consuming fire, I don't see how that's different than saying He's an annihilating fire. Can fire consume something without annihilating it?

Regarding death, what makes you think that the first death is spiritual rather than physical? Hebrews 9:27-28 says that man dies once and afterward faces judgment in the same manner that Christ came for our sins but will come a second time. I see both the first coming and death as physical, as well as the second coming and death. Do you understand Hebrews 9:27 as referencing spiritual death? Similarly, doesn't 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 describe the resurrection from physical death?

Matthew 10:28 is significant. I'm fine with saying that those whose souls and bodies are destroyed in hell end up experiencing a death that, in your words, "is both physical and spiritual." Therefore, would you agree that when people experience the second death, they no longer live physically (in addition to not living spiritually, of course)?
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I didn't say the undying worms and unquenchable fire "are of no consequence to" those they consume. I'm saying they symbolize complete eradication. Similar language is used elsewhere to symbolize total obliteration, such as Isaiah's prophecy about Edom: "Its streams shall be turned into pitch, And its dust into brimstone; Its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day; Its smoke shall ascend forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; No one shall pass through it forever and ever" (Isaiah 34:9-10, emphasis added). Did the nation of Edom suffer eternal conscious torment, or did it undergo annihilation, being laid to waste and brought to ashes?
 
Upvote 0

Kilk1

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2019
609
196
Washington State
✟111,796.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Okay, so you're saying that Paul taught differently than Matthew and John. I didn't understand that that's your position. I would disagree and say Paul is actually discouraging people from eating in an idol's temple in 1 Corinthians 8:10-12. Even though some Christians might have known that idols are nothing (1 Corinthians 8:4), eating in an idol's temple could leave a different impression, causing a Christian to "sin against the brethren," "wound their weak conscience," causing the one eating in a temple to "sin against Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:12, NKJV). Finally, Paul and Barnabas (Acts of the Apostles 15:22-26) were involved in teaching the Gentiles to "abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts of the Apostles 15:25, NKJV). While Paul made some concessions to eating things in the marketplace, it doesn't contradict Revelation 2:14 anymore than it would contradict Paul himself in Acts 15:25.

Regardless of Paul's position, Matthew supports understanding the second death as being physical. Matthew 10:40-42 teaches that as chaff is burned up/consumed by fire, so will everything offensive and those practicing lawlessness be cast into a fiery furnace (2618, katakaio). Wouldn't this suggest that those practicing lawlessness will be burned up like chaff? Furthermore, Matthew 10:28 suggests that both body and soul will be destroyed in hell. Would you agree that when the spiritually dead undergo the second death, they are then dead both physically and spiritually?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,145
EST
✟1,123,523.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nothing in the book of Revelation or any other book in the Bible can contradict the words of Jesus, Himself.
Matthew 25:46
(46) And these shall go away into everlasting [aionios] punishment[kolasis]: but the righteous into life eternal.[aionios]
"Aionios" does NOT mean "age" because "age" is a noun and "aionios" is an adjective.
Also "kolasis" does not now nor has it ever meant "prune" or "correction." "Kolasis" means "punishment."
The Greek word "kolasis" occurs only twice in the N.T. the 1st
occurrence is Matt 25:46 and the 2nd is 1 John 4:18

1 John 4:18
(18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
Note, the one who has "kolasis" is not made perfect, that is "not corrected."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0