Let's Talk About Hell (6)

Timothew said:

I was using his faulty reasoning. Thank you for pointing out how illogical it is.

I said "IF annihilationism is Neo-saduceeism, THEN IS Eternal Tormentalism is Neo-Pharisiticalism?"

Click to expand...

oh, thanks for clearing that up.

gradyll said:

oh, thanks for clearing that up.

Click to expand...

I'm back from a brief and refreshing vacation.



Let's talk about John 3:16 and how it refutes the false doctrine of eternal torture in hell. There are a zillion bible passages that refute tormentism, but John 3:16 is familiar and clear enough for anyone to understand.

Timothew said:

I'm back from a brief and refreshing vacation.



Let's talk about John 3:16 and how it refutes the false doctrine of eternal torture in hell. There are a zillion bible passages that refute tormentism, but John 3:16 is familiar and clear enough for anyone to understand.

Click to expand...

I shall perish if Baltimore does not win tonight.

If life ever lasting simply meant becoming immortal and that was all Jesus promised, then perhaps there would be a point here. As it is and as we disagree on what the verse means, why not talk about how it makes sense that some folks believe we all meet the same fate when we leave this earth, basically identical to the damned after they "perish" after Judgment?

We cease to be and are said to be "just dead" until God remakes us (somehow still called a "resurrection"). The only difference then between that state and the damned after they "perish" is that God chooses to never again remake them.

John was originally a Naassene text, and it has undergone some alteration, so it might be helpful to review what they believed. First, they did not believe that you were born with a soul---and you did not get a soul until you believed in Christ---then and only then were you in danger of "dying", for until that point you had never really lived. The "unbeliever" and the "gentile" was like a shadow who disappeared when the light came on.

In John, Jesus does not "judge" anyone.... that dubious honor is reserved for whatever you put your faith in. For the Pharisee, it was Moses. Follow the Platonic reasoning, as the Naasene were thoroughly Hellenized:
(1)[SIZE=-1]5:45[/SIZE]Think not that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, on whom ye have set your hope.

(2) 8:15Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

(3). 8:50But I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.

This is rather ambiguous, and it is hard to set aside the messianic Jewish text such as Matthew when analyzing this statement. However, it is fairly easy to see that whomever the entity is, it is NOT Jesus. Judgment in this case is an evil act done by an evil entity.

(4). 9:39And Jesus said, For judgment came I into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they that see may become blind.

This statement is a little less ambiguous but it is important to put it into context. The Naassene were not Pharisee nor did they use the text of the pharisee that today we know as the old testament. They considered them spiritually blind because they clung to Moses instead of Jesus.

(5) 12:47And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 12:48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Again, that word is "Moses". Look back to #1. In the world of the Naassene there were followers of Jesus and followers of Moses. Judgement was a bad thing, that led to persecutions by those in power doing the judging. You could get a rock up side the head in a heartbeat for having a different opinion---- and the opinion of the Naasene was that Abraham did NOT have lunch with God, and Moses did NOT see God's butt. Both stoning offenses for "blasphemy against Moses". To sum it up, they believed that the followers of Moses would be judged by the law of Moses, and would end up in a bad place, whereas the Followers of Jesus were freed by the "truth" that they were not bound to the Law, and so escape Judgment. Gentiles would not be judged, because we weren't really alive to begin with.

Again, not much point of speaking of an afterlife absent something which remains of us after we die, like a human soul. To think God just remakes us in order to then judge that new copy of us (for a life the new me did not live) would seem to make a mockery out of the whole construct.

DrBubbaLove said:

I shall perish if Baltimore does not win tonight.

If life ever lasting simply meant becoming immortal and that was all Jesus promised, then perhaps there would be a point here. As it is and as we disagree on what the verse means, why not talk about how it makes sense that some folks believe we all meet the same fate when we leave this earth, basically identical to the damned after they "perish" after Judgment?

We cease to be and are said to be "just dead" until God remakes us (somehow still called a "resurrection"). The only difference then between that state and the damned after they "perish" is that God chooses to never again remake them.

Click to expand...

Did Baltimore win? Is DrBubbaLove alive or did he perish as he promised? I didn't get the score, so I don't know. Somebody please tell me if DrBubbaLove survived the loss of his favorite team.

In case you didn't perish, "life everlasting" means "being alive forever". Perishing means dying. Dying means "their life has ended". Perishing does not mean "continuing to live a very poor life."

Yes, the only difference betwen those who are dead and awaiting eternal life and those who receive the final punishment of eternal death is that those who will receive eternal life will have eternal life and will never perish again. This is a huge diffference, it is the difference between life and death. If my death is temporary, what's the big deal? If my death is permanent it is a very big deal. It's a huge problem, being dead.

DrBubbaLove said:

Again, not much point of speaking of an afterlife absent something which remains of us after we die, like a human soul. To think God just remakes us in order to then judge that new copy of us (for a life the new me did not live) would seem to make a mockery out of the whole construct.

Click to expand...

If you were referring to the Naasene belief, you have to live first in order to be resurrected. The Israelites were as bigoted as everybody else----if you were a gentile, you were no more alive than a piece of furniture and God brought you into existence for their use. This bigotry continues to this very day among some orthodox Jews.

Obviously, we contend that we are indeed alive and have souls. But modifying the extreme position a little bit, we got our souls when we became Christian. Will a person without a soul be raised from the dead and judged? No. There has to be something there before it can be raised, and if there is nothing there then there is nothing to judge.

So much for the historical view of John; for a more modern approach, I tend to take a more alchemical approach--- That "William" who was born, grew up, married, had kids and died, will indeed be judged. The Parts of "William" that were worth keeping are preserved--- His love for his wife and children, his devotion to duty that kept him working even when he wanted to sleep in-------- and the things that are not so good are burned up and destroyed; his insecurities and fears that kept him from speaking up to his boss and came out as slaps on his children, the time he slept with his wife's sister, etc.

I don't see that it has to be an "either or" approach. Man himself is not an "either or" being. He contains both good and evil that sloshes around like water in a jar. Who is "good"? Nobody that I know of....yet there must be something about us that God wishes to keep. Yet the "not good" obviously has no place in a perfect realm. We do what we can to purge the "not good" from ourselves, yet the only proof of that perfection would lay in us no longer being human, so nobody has reached it that I know of.

Timothew said:

Did Baltimore win? Is DrBubbaLove alive or did he perish as he promised? I didn't get the score, so I don't know. Somebody please tell me if DrBubbaLove survived the loss of his favorite team.

Click to expand...

They lost and I am still here, but even you got the point that "perish" can mean something bad happening to someone without them being "just dead". At the very instant any created thing is rendered incapable of EVER serving the purpose for which it is made, then for all practical purposes it has perished. Whether that created thing continues to exist or not in it's present form (or any form) is irrelevent to being able to say it has perished.

In case you didn't perish, "life everlasting" means "being alive forever". Perishing means dying. Dying means "their life has ended". Perishing does not mean "continuing to live a very poor life."

Click to expand...

Perish can mean that, but obviously even you recognized in my jest about the MLB playoffs, "perish" does not HAVE TO mean "just dead" or "not breathing".

And lets be clear that in this UT view, by "just dead" and "perish" it is understood this is meant to convey our souls, which are apparently merely our ability to breath, has stopped and we are essentially no more. It is also equal in this view to the SAME state of the damned after Judgment when they are once again "just dead" after having once again "perished". In this context a human soul has no meaning as far as our individuality goes, it is just the air or act of breathing or having "breath".

Yes, the only difference betwen those who are dead and awaiting eternal life and those who receive the final punishment of eternal death is that those who will receive eternal life will have eternal life and will never perish again. This is a huge diffference, it is the difference between life and death. If my death is temporary, what's the big deal? If my death is permanent it is a very big deal. It's a huge problem, being dead.

Click to expand...

A being that no longer exists by definition cannot have a "huge problem" or any problem at all for that matter. And as many have maintained for months regarding this view (and it was denied), it is finally nice to see it admitted that this view has all of us "perishing" at death.

How then that "perishing" is different from the punishment of "perishing again" is unclear, which is why others have said this view means we all initially go to Hell when we die. Also unclear how to simultaneously claim we all perish at death, while citing Jesus promise the faithful would not perish, and chide opposing views for saying people do not cease to exist, which is essentially equivalent of saying "just dead" or "perish".

Death not a big deal if temporary?????

Well in a view that insists there is nothing remaining of the original individual after death (they perished) I would think what happens next is a moot point. There is no afterlife in a construct that says we all perish at death.

And even for a life Judged as going to Heaven, that depiction of death cannot be considered "temporary" because there is no resurrection possible if nothing of the original remains. The original perished. So there can only be re-creation of a duplicate individual. Certainly we could say God is able to do that, but how can we say that is no big deal for the original who STILL no longer exists?

DrBubbaLove said:

If life ever lasting simply meant becoming immortal and that was all Jesus promised, then perhaps there would be a point here. As it is and as we disagree on what the verse means, why not talk about how it makes sense that some folks believe we all meet the same fate when we leave this earth, basically identical to the damned after they "perish" after Judgment?

We cease to be and are said to be "just dead" until God remakes us (somehow still called a "resurrection"). The only difference then between that state and the damned after they "perish" is that God chooses to never again remake them.

Click to expand...

The body alone CAN be destroyed ['apoleia'] , the spirit of a man is of God , cannot even be touched by anything physical, created... one cannot destroy the spirit , cannot destroy endless God...

spirit ALWAYS 'returns' to God -because there is only ONE spirit and that is God :-

Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

the only difference for those who die sinners is that their spirit MUST be resurrected until they decide to stop abusing with sin and Love... , then after God's baptising them Himself to know all truth [John 16:13] and trial of Love [baptism of fire] to PROVE they are not faking it even to themselves, God translates the saint perfected in Love to spirit, free of death then ...

DrBubba said:

They lost and I am still here,

Click to expand...

So you did not perish. If you had perished, you would be dead now.

DrBubbaLove said:

Again, not much point of speaking of an afterlife absent something which remains of us after we die, like a human soul. To think God just remakes us in order to then judge that new copy of us (for a life the new me did not live) would seem to make a mockery out of the whole construct.

Click to expand...

As I have suggested in other posts, we humans need to rethink our assumptions in regard to cosmology--ie, God, the Devil, Heaven, Hell, Creation, etc. I seriously doubt the theologians in Ancient times were right about very much of it. Indeed, most of them were little more than candles of darkness pretending to be candles of light. The blind leading the blind via misconceptions, wishful thinking, propoganda, slogans, and heaps of fertilzer....

Timothew said:

So you did not perish. If you had perished, you would be dead now.

Click to expand...

That statement is only true in one peculiar view of the afterlife that has EVERYONE persihing at death and includes a very limited usage of the word "perish". People speak all the time using perish to mean something other than ceasing to be. Ceasing to exist or simply "just dead" are not the only way to express perish.

BTW as you reminded all of us, our Lord in John 3 says it is possible we "not perish" yet this view of actually no afterlife where we ALL perish at death contradicts our Lord's promise. It does not help to imagine some of us - "got better" after we "perished". Neither does it makes since to imagine a dread of being "perished" again after being perished the first time.


In fact this view actually has no afterlife of any individual because we are all "just dead", "perished", "no more". The only thing possible after that is for God to "remake" copies of individuals. Since each person no longer exists at the point a copy is made, there is nothing about the copies which experienced the life the original led. How it is then Just for God to reconcile that copy with the life of the original escapes me, but apparently that works for some.

Perish doesn't mean "continue to be conscious and tormented".

Timothew said:

Perish doesn't mean "continue to be conscious and tormented".

Click to expand...

As I stated before, perish can mean utter ruin and is commonly used as I did to express such a feeling of utter ruin as when a team one is betting on lost.

The same could be said of ANY CREATED thing which is rendered FOREVER incapable of serving the purpose for which it was created. Such a thing has "perished" and is in effect made to be "no more" at least in regard to what it once was and also to what it could have been. It would be perfectly normal to describe such a process of ruin, even if ongoing, as destruction, perishing, death, utter ruin...etc, without having to imagine or requiring that nothing exists. The bat perished when it shattered, but the memory of the hit lives on and the pieces can still be seen in the Hall of Fame. For something still living example: the Dave we all knew perished the day his family was taken from him. He literally became something else, the hatred and bitterness transforming him into something more creature than human. What remained of him grew more and more evil.

Anyway, the fact one's own view REQUIRES a very limited understanding of the word perish in Jesus saying "should not perish" does not mean the word "perish" has only that meaning. The real question is whether or not that is what Jesus meant when He told His disciples that.

Given one's own view is in conflict with those Words because it has EVERYONE perishing when we die, am not sure why someone holding this belief of essentially no afterlife would want to quote Jesus saying some of us would not perish. It would have been helpful for this view had Jesus said "everyone will persih when they die, but no worries I will remake copies of those who believe in me, so your duplicate will then live forever."

Here is how the bible uses the word perish:
After a person perishes, they do not remain around forever.

Timothew said:

Here is how the bible uses the word perish:

But the wicked will perish:
The Lord’s enemies will be like the beauty of the fields,
they will vanish—vanish like smoke.
Psalm 37:20
​

After a person perishes, they do not remain around forever.

Click to expand...

And you have made it quite clear you believe we all perish at death, which effectively makes any talk of an afterlife utterly meaningless and refutes Jesus promise that some would not perish. So what is your point?

DrBubbaLove said:

And you have made it quite clear you believe we all perish at death, which effectively makes any talk of an afterlife utterly meaningless and refutes Jesus promise that some would not perish. So what is your point?

Click to expand...

Don't forget, Jesus promised to return and give life to those who have perished. So talk of the afterlife becomes very meaningful.

No, as you said yourself he said some "should not perish". In order to agree with your point He would need to say "some should not perish forever".

What afterlife?
The life of duplicates of each us?
How is that an afterlife for us?
Are we to believe it is only important that a person who believes they are us is created and then lives eternally?

DrBubbaLove said:

No, as you said yourself he said some "should not perish". In order to agree with your point He would need to say "some should not perish forever".

What afterlife?
The life of duplicates of each us?
How is that an afterlife for us?
Are we to believe it is only important that a person who believes they are us is created and then lives eternally?

Click to expand...

You are misrepresenting my position. I never said that the person who is resurrected is merely a duplicate of the person who died.

Not at all, and I never said you explicitly said that.

I am saying it is what results when one does away with a unique individual immortal soul for each us. Without that soul, people cannot be raised from the dead, because there is nothing, no soul to raise. No soul to be rejoined to a human body. Nothing. "Just dead". Those are all things you have explicityly said, no denying that.

Which means if we speak of resurrection at all, it can only mean something else. As the resurrected people in the Bible looked and passed for who they were before they died, the only logical conclusion is that a duplicate of the original was created. The fact God could do that and that such a duplicate could think they are indeed the original does not make it so

Want to make clear none of this is my belief, just a logical conclusion of the belief of others presented in this thread.