Is the Book of Revelation the only place in Scripture teaching eternal torment?

[Ligurian]

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.)

He was.

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.

The translators did ...whatever they decided to do... for whatever reason. Nobody calls them inspired, do they?

Matthew 10:1-2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James [the son] of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Revelation 2:2 I know thy works and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles and are not, and hast found them liars:
Revelation 18:20 Rejoice over her, [thou] heaven, and [ye] holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
apostolos = from apostello; a delegate:--apostle, messenger, he that is sent.
apostello = set apart, i.e. to send out:--put in, send (away, forth, out), set (at liberty).
Matthew 10:5-7 These twelve Ιησους sent forth and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, I am not sent but unto the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.


Should I be expecting an apology from you
for your "Create false arguments much?" statement?

Two apologies.

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.

 

[Ligurian]

Paul calls his gospel "Christ crucified". 1 Corinthians 1:23, 1 Corinthians 2:2, Galatians 3:1, etc.

How could that /\ have been taught... way back in Matthew 4:23?

In fact, "christ crucified" was NOT the Gospel Ιησους taught before this:

Matthew 16:21 From that time forth began Ιησους to shew unto His Disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised again the third day.

So... from the time of John's baptism, through the Sermon on the Mount, through all the parables/prophecies about what the Pharisees were going to do to the Prophet like unto Moses... a Gospel NOT about the crucifixion was being taught by the Son...

and you're saying it's all the same gospel to you?

Even though Paul never once mentions that woman from Matthew 26:13?
Paul never quotes the Sermon on the Mount... Or the parables...
If he had, then his gospel would not have been "mysteries"...
It would have been well-known to all, waaay BEFORE Paul came from Arabia.

There's nothing vicarious about the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven.
Neither imputations, nor reckoning-this or spiritual-that.
Just straight-up Law-Keeping 101.

It'd be hard to find two things MORE different than These Two Gospels.
[...]
Isaiah 43:1-7 [4] Since thou becamest precious in My sight, thou hast become glorious and I have loved thee: and I will give men for thee and princes for thy life.[5] Fear not, for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and will gather thee from the west.[6] I will say to the north, Bring; and to the south, Keep not back; bring My sons from the land afar off, and My daughters from the ends of the earth;[7] even all who are called by My name. For I have prepared him for My glory, and I have formed him and have made him.LXX

Jeremiah 38:1-6 At that time, saith the Lord, I will be a God to the family of Israel, and they shall be to Me a people.[2] Thus saith the Lord, I found him warm in the wilderness with them that were slain with the sword: go ye and destroy not Israel.[3] The Lord appeared to him from afar, saying, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore have I drawn thee in compassion.

Revelation 3:7-13 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth and no man shutteth, and shutteth and no man openeth:[8] I know thy works. Behold, I have set before thee an open door and no man can shut it, for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word and hast not denied My name.[9] Behold, I will make them of the assembly of Satan: which say they are Jews and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

I'm not sure what more I can say, which you will just ignore anyway, that would make this discussion profitable.

If you want to believe there are two gospels, okay.

That you cannot understand that the Gospel was veiled in the Old Testament is pretty obvious. It is sad when the Gospel remains a mystery to folk today.

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.

Funny, but the Gospel Paul preached was the same Gospel of those Who witnessed Christ's Resurrection:

1 Corinthians 15
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
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.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

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.

 

[Kilk1]

I have to disagree: this is not shorter than my response. Perhaps you meant well when you began and forgot to correct this statement after you were done.



But I am glad you recognize that there are two aspects of "being dead" in Scripture.

And I do not see "becoming no more" as something found in Scripture any more than we see spirits ceasing to exist.

While it is true that when men are dead and spoken of in the temporal realm they "are no more," to use this concept when it has relevance only to the fact that those who die are no more part of the temporal realm thus are no more is no better than trying to use it to support annihilation. It does not convey the spiritual truth we are taught that though men "are no more" in the temporal realm their spirits still exist and have not ceased to exist, and thus are only "no more" in a physical sense.




Sorry, no.

Consider that men are dead though physically alive.

Does this death precede their physical death or not?

So if you try to make physical death the "first death" so you can justify a second physical death—you are completely ignoring that there are two deaths involved.

That would make a physical death after being raised from the dead the third death, lol.

Just think about that a little bit.


Continued...

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)?

 

[Kilk1]

The same judgment, yes, but I have been consistent in making it known that I believe there will be differing degrees of punishment.

One example given is seen here:


Hebrews 10:26-29
King James Version

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


Both the unbelievers under Law (v.28) and the unbelievers of this Age (v.29) will go into the Lake of Fire because they are unbelieving.

But those who reject the more complete Doctrine of Christ (Hebrews 6:1-3) as seen in v.29 will receive greater punishment than those who rejected the Covenant of Law.

Because they have more to be held accountable for.

I view God's judgment to be just and meted out according to the guilt of the individual. This is true for believers as well:


James 3:1
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.


The "It's just so unfair" argument is philosophy, it isn't Bible Doctrine. God will justly judge and punish unbelievers according to His just and merciful nature.




And your teaching is ripe with syllogism. You have concluded that the Second Death is a physical death and ignored that there was death for the unbeliever (as well as all men) before physical death takes place.

Secondly, Prophecy has always used symbolism but it has always taught literal truth with the type, figure, parable, etc.

What you are doing is negating the very teachings themselves.

Not only do I believe in a literal beast with seven heads and ten horns, but I believe the literal truth they represent:


Revelation 17:9-14
King James Version

9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.


Five are fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece), one is (Rome), and the other is not yet come: the final Empire of the Tribulation.

Seven literal Empires with seven literal kings.

Ten literal rulers that will give their power (support) to the Eighth King who is the Antichrist.

You know what they say you do when you assume, lol.



I don't see "good reason," because you have completely left out the concept of death in man that is relevant to man's eternal destiny: he is dead because he does not have the life Christ came to bestow.

The order of the death man is partaker of are presented like this:

1. Man's death at conception and birth, which is the lack of the Life of Christ;

2. Man's physical death;

3. The Second death.


Which death is the Second Death more closely related to: man's physical death, or his lack of life at conception?

Death is separation, and man is born separated from God. He sins because of that separation from God.

The Second Death is the second separation from God, this time—it is everlasting.

While he is alive he still has hope to gain life which removes the power of the Second Death from him.

Like I said, you need to give this a little more thought. Was man dead first when he was conceived and born without Life? Or did he first die when he physically died?

Which of the two is the first death suffered by men?


Continued...

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).

 

[Kilk1]

Okay, consider those who are punished among men and go to prison: do they all suffer the same fate?

Yes, but they do not all receive the same sentences.

"Death and Hades" is a reference to the people who are dead and in Hades. Hades gives up her "dead." The place Hades is not thrown into the Lake of Fire, the dead of Hades are.

And no, I do not agree that "Death and Hades become no more rather than suffer eternal conscious torment?"

Because it is based on a false premise.

When the dead are cast into the Lake of Fire they will, as Scripture teaches consistently, go into everlasting punishment, torment, separation, and judgment.

Just as the seven heads and ten horns speak of people, so too does "death and Hades."




Option 1) is something I would agree with, because we do see differing degrees of punishment in the teachings concerning Everlasting Judgment.

Why you would not agree with Option 1) and conclude you "don't find" Revelation to prove eternal conscious torment seems to deny you believe the options you present.

As with the imagery of a prison in the temporal realm, it is the same place but those there have differing sentences.

But they are all there.

And I would ask, since the Beast and the Antichrist are taught to be literal men, and the Goats are literal men, and they all go to the same place—the burden falls on you to show they don't all receive the same punishment in relation to the duration.

I can't prove something that is so clearly presented in Scripture, and don't need to.

Where is this "becoming no more" you replace "cease to exist" with in Scripture?

As I said, you need to show where Scripture states spirits cease to exist. You need to show where Scripture states spirits "become no more."

Just saying that's what you believe doesn't do that.


Continued...

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]"?

 

[Kilk1]

No, it speaks of a body that doesn't cease to exist, thus feeds the worm in an everlasting duration.

So it not only helps us but makes it absurd to think the worm does die, or, in your terminology, the "body become no more," or the spirit in Hell "becomes no more."

I do agree that it fits perfectly well with them being dead, lol, because that is what they are.

What you are forgetting is that they are resurrected before they go into this punishment.

They are made physically alive again, but they are still dead.

Continued...

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?

 

[Kilk1]

What I said is clear: the verse doesn't say God will kill both soul and body in Hell.

Men can kill, but after they have killed they can do no more. God, however, can destroy both soul and body in Hell.

That is what is to be feared.

You don't seem to understand that you are trying to teach the exact opposite of what the Word of God states.

You are trying to say God will kill both soul and body in hell and that is not what Scripture teaches.

Find a verse to support it.


Continued...

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.

 

[Kilk1]

You defeat your argument by trying to make it a "contrasting parallelism."

This would demand the second is different from the first, lol.

No parallelism: men can kill the physical body only. End of teaching.

God has the power to destroy, not kill, both body and soul (person) in Hell. End of teaching.

And the end of your reasoning. It has been killed.






See what you have done?

You have just added to God's Word to support your belief.

There is no i.e., Who can kill/destroy, there is only Who has the power to destroy both soul and body in Hell.

Will you not admit that you are adding to the Word of God, and in doing so—making it of none effect?


Continued...

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.

 

[Kilk1]

No, it doesn't. lol

If "kill" had been the intent then the word kill is what we would see in the Word of God.

And it isn't.

The fact that two different words are used should draw our attention to what is being said.




And it doesn't say any of that, lol.

There is no implication that God cannot kill a soul, because God has killed many souls in the course of Biblical History.

Man is a soul, my friend, he doesn't have a soul. The mythology of a trichotomous nature in man leads to a number of great errors in interpretive efforts.

Annihilation is just one of those.




Of course I do, but how is that relevant to the teaching of Matthew 10:28?

There is no discussion of God killing a soul but destroying both the soul (person) and body in Hell.

If He had intended for men to think those who are cast into Hell were killed He would have used the same word that means kill.

Your reasoning is like unto asking "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?"




Because after they have killed the body there is no more they can do to the soul (person).

The teaching centers on fearing God WHo can destroy both soul (person) and body in Hell.


Luke 12:4-5
King James Version

4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


Notice that it is God that is killing and casting into Hell?

That is the overreaching intent of the teaching.

And it speaks about what takes place after physical death. And nowhere do we see men "killed" in Hell. This completely dismantles your argument.

Or, since it has an ongoing relevance, I should say it destroys your argument. We know it will not cease to exist despite the Biblical Basis to reject it.




Continued...

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?

 

[Kilk1]

And it doesn't seem that the points made there were given any consideration.

If they had you would not be asking me to go through it again.

This is why it is a good idea to talk with people, not at them.

I gave a detailed presentation from Scripture to support my view, and you have responded with a long lecture.




It is written to the saved discussing the resurrection of the dead. It is fairly easy to see what is relevant to those who are saved and what is relevant to the general discussion of the resurrection of the dead:


1 Corinthians 15:42-49
King James Version

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.


He doesn't specify the resurrection unto life, or, the resurrection of the redeemed only. We see that there are implications we would think only relevant to the redeemed, but that doesn't change the fact that he is speaking generally of the Resurrection of the dead which is denied by some, which is the entire reason he is speaking about it at all.



45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.


Will not the dead be raised by Christ, the One unto Whom all judgment has been given to?


46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.


Is it not a general truth that we all start out natural? here is the spiritual body of those resurrected from the dead. Or do you want to say that when men are raised from the dead and cast into Hell they don't receive a spiritual body?


47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.


A reference to Adam, and a reference to Christ.

This isn't parallelism either.




48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.


And as is the earthy, that is, as those who are natural—they are earthy. Like Adam.

They are that are heavenly (not spiritual) are heavenly.

This contrasts the earthy with the heavenly. It contrasts the difference in the resurrection, there will be those who are earthy (of Adam, or, like Adam), and there will be those who are heavenly, or in other words—like Christ:


49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.


The "we" is exclusive to those who are raised unto life.

Because it is God that raises the dead, and He gives the "seed" (the corpse) the body He decides:


1 Corinthians 15:35-38
King James Version

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:


37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.


Does this not imply that there are different bodies in the resurrection of the dead?

Do not all men have to die to be made alive again? The seed cannot be made alive unless it dies. But not all seeds will have the same body.

But all that are in Christ will have the same body, that is, they will be made like Christ.

Now, when the dead are raised what will be different between being made alive for those who already have life, and being made alive for those who are dead?

The life itself. And that is outside of the physical nature of the resurrection.

All men die, and all men are made alive again. We can distinguish which of this applies only to the redeemed and which applies to all men in the resurrection of the dead.

So does this teach all men will be raised in spiritual bodies or not?


46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.


Do we exclude the dead from being raised in spiritual bodies or not?


Continued...

And where are the dead at His coming?

Are they not in Hades? Are not their bodies recovered (Revelation 20:12-13) and made alive again?

This applies only to those who are in Christ, but the resurrection of the dead applies to all men, for all will be resurrected.

That is what Paul is combatting, the denial of the resurrection of the dead.




You would have to show that the dead are not raised in spiritual bodies.

That they are is consistent with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles who describe Eternal Judgment in terms of unending duration.

"Immortal" does not lend the dead the life they died lacking. The life they were born without.

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?

Again, you change the terms that are actually used in Scripture, and equate "immortality" with Eternal Life.

Secondly, it might interest you to know that the immortality that only God has is something we will put on when we are raised in spiritual bodies.

Consider:


1 Corinthians 15:53
King James Version

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.


This is the aphtharsia that only God has:


1 Timothy 1:17
King James Version

17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.


It is seen here also:


1Co 15:52
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, G862 and we shall be changed.


Keep in mind that this is not a rapture passage, it is simply speaking about the resurrection of the dead.

Paul states the dead will be raised incorruptible (translated immortal in 1 Timothy 1:17) and does not say only the redeemed dead will be raised incorruptible.

All of the dead will be raised incorruptible, but the body that they have differs: one will be earthy, one will be heavenly. As one dies in Adam so will they be raised. As one dies in Christ so will they be raised.


God bless.

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?

 

[Kilk1]

- The term "death" does not normally means "becoming no more."

Luk 15:24 for this son of mine was dead (nekros) and is alive again; he was lost (apollymi) and is found!’ And they began to celebrate.

- The Orthodox view is that the first death is the separation of human beings from God, who is the real life, and the second death is the definitive separation of sinners from God that will occur at the 2nd coming of Christ.

- The book of Revelation ends with sinners being separated from God in the LOF and the parables of Lord Jesus about the judgment end the same way.

- There are hints in the writings of the Apostle Paul about God becoming all in all and that sinners bow and praise Christ. But we are not told how exactly this is accomplished.

- You and I, and others, may speculate as to whether the separation of sinners is the ultimate end or whether it represents a post-mortem dynamic process. Will some sinners be pardoned? Will some sinners be annihilated? I have nothing against speculation except for when it is presented as confirmed biblical truth. It should never be taught as fact.

- I repeat for emphasis: the only end that the Bible teaches is a separation. The unwise virgins are standing outside knocking. It seems that that is the endgame. God may have another plan that He has not completely revealed, but this is only speculation.

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)?

 

[Ligurian]

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?

 

[Kilk1]

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?

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?

 

[Andrewn]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

 

[Der Alte]

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?

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.​

 

[Ligurian]

Kilk1 said: ↑
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?

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.

 

[Kilk1]

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.


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.


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.


Of course.


I said this was the first death in my previous post.


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.


It is both. God can destroy (apollymi) both soul and body in hell (Mat 10:28).


One cannot use this argument because the 2nd death is both physical and spiritual.

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)?

 

[Kilk1]

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.​

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?

 

[Kilk1]

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.

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?

 

[Der Alte]

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?

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."