The Doctrine of Eternal Torture in Hell

[razzelflabben]

Did I miss something, or why are you debating over grammar? Interesting.

Not sure what this is referring to but words and meanings and some here seem to have forgotten that.

 

[Gabriel Anton]

Your pre-supposition on Luke 16:24 is flawed because you cannot explain how torturing the wicked in extreme amounts of pain within fire for thousands of years in hell is loving and good. In other words, it ignores God's goodness or morality. My pre-supposition on Luke 16:24 comes from understanding that God is loving and good even in His judgments. My pre-supposition on Luke 16:24 is consistent with the rest of Scripture whereby I do not see God torturing others for long extended periods of time sadistically. My pre-supposition comes from the fact that God's goodness and judgments can be explained and understood.

Peace be with you.

Matthew C18
34 Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt.[w] 35 [x]So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”

Judging the wicked sinners is about Justice. God can get angry. God can torture. God is Divine so He dishes out Divine Judgment, Divine Justice, Divine Wrath, Divine Punishment.

God Threatens sinners with Torture in case you haven't noticed.

Rejection of the Salvation offered by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is a Guilty Offense leading to Eternal Damnation/Death.

That's what sinners deserve for spitting in the face of Jesus Christ by rejecting His Offer of Salvation earned through His Sacrifice of Blood, Pain, Misery and Suffering by remaining in their sins and refusing to repent of their wickedness and believing in Jesus Christ.

God bless you.

 

[Butch5]

so your whole beef with me is that I didn't say they could exist apart from one another, or that they could or ???????????????? I don't know, you still are contradicting yourself and asking me to follow along as if I could read minds.

I've not contradicted myself at all. Read through the conversation and you'll see. You're not consistent with your own statements let alone mine.

 

[Hillsage]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking based on your post. In this post you indicate that the soul is the brain. I don't find that anywhere in Scripture.

I say 'the brain', but more technically I believe it is the 'brain at work'. A pretty well accepted definition of 'soul' is 'Mind, will, emotions', all of which are functioning attributes of a brain at work. But if you remove the 'spirit/life energy' where are those 'attributes'?

What I find is that God created the man and the man was lifeless. God then breathed into him the breath or spirit of life and the man became a living soul.

Whereas I'd say 'man became a functioning spirit, soul, body, or human being. But to "become a living soul" means that this human being had to be led of his spirit which was 'one' with 'the Spirit' in obedience to God.
I do not think that 'breath' and 'spirit' are exactly interchangeable. I know the spirit is "like the wind", but it is not 'the wind' literally.
Just for comparatives, what is your definition of 'the soul'...and not "the living soul". Because the adjective "living", preceding the noun "soul" changes everything in my definition.

 

[Butch5]

I say 'the brain', but more technically I believe it is the 'brain at work'. A pretty well accepted definition of 'soul' is 'Mind, will, emotions', all of which are functioning attributes of a brain at work. But if you remove the 'spirit/life energy' where are those 'attributes'?

The, mind, will, and emotions are figurative uses for the word soul. They are not the definition of it. This is one reason for the confusion. We can't use figurative uses as the definition. These same things are used with body parts also.

Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, And my eyes shall behold, and not another. How my heart yearns within me! (Job 19:27 NKJ)

To yearn is an emotion. Does the heart literally yearn? No, it pumps blood. It's a figure of speech. IF you do a word study you'll find out that you can touch a soul, you can eat a soul. One cannot touch or eat, the mind, will, or emotions.


NKJ Matthew 6:25 "Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?

The word life is the word soul. The soul eats and drinks.

Whereas I'd say 'man became a functioning spirit, soul, body, or human being.

But that's not what the Scriptures say.

But to "become a living soul" means that this human being had to be led of his spirit which was 'one' with 'the Spirit' in obedience to God.

When you said, "his spirit" what do you mean? According to Gen 2:7 there is one spirit in man and it is God's. It is His breath or spirit of life. Is that what you mean?

I do not think that 'breath' and 'spirit' are exactly interchangeable. I know the spirit is "like the wind", but it is not 'the wind' literally.

The Masoretic text uses Ruach and Neshemah interchangeably. The Greek text uses pnuema. It's the English that uses the different words breath, wind, and spirit. Translators translate the word depending on how they understand the text. Sometimes they translate it breath, sometime wind, sometimes, spirit, and even courage. It's just what they think it means. However, if we look for a definition that will fit in every occurance of the word we find that breath of wind are the only ones that fit. There are quite a few places where spirit won't work. Thus it is a metaphorical use.

Just for comparatives, what is your definition of 'the soul'...and not "the living soul". Because the adjective "living", preceding the noun "soul" changes everything in my definition.

There is no difference. A soul is a living being.

 

[razzelflabben]

I've not contradicted myself at all. Read through the conversation and you'll see. You're not consistent with your own statements let alone mine.

Im not consistent when I say repeatedly that man is made up of 3 parts the body soul and spirit, the soul and spirit being able to be separated by the "word" whatever translation you want to put there...whereas you have repeatedly said things like, man is two parts not three but yes scripture says that the soul and spirit can be separated but it is only separable by Christ but it isn't able to be separated but it isnt' the same thing because of Gen where there are only two parts of man but there are not just two parts of man because the soul and spirit can be separated but can't be separated...and on and on in an endless debate that no one can follow

 

[mmksparbud]

There have been many scriptures shown to you that state there is eternal punishment. You just choose to ignore them. The other scriptures you think state otherwise don't. As you have been shown but you ignore that too. God is just and eternal punishment is just and right because God is.

I ignore no scripture. There have been many scriptures shown you that death is death, that there is no eternal torment----you choose to ignore those and the different interpretations. The verses that you think state otherwise, don't, as you have been shown but you ignore that too. There is no eternal torment because God is just and eternal torment isn't.

 

[razzelflabben]

I ignore no scripture. There have been many scriptures shown you that death is death, that there is no eternal torment----you choose to ignore those and the different interpretations. The verses that you think state otherwise, don't, as you have been shown but you ignore that too. There is no eternal torment because God is just and eternal torment isn't.

and yet a few posts ago you admitted that there were passages and quibbled over the number rather than how to reconcile both sides with all scripture

 

[mmksparbud]

which is exactly the point...if we have the right understanding all the passages will be reconciled into one understanding. If we have to throw out certain passages, we are pretty sure that is a wrong understanding or God is a liar which is something I am not willing to go along with. That is exactly why I keep asking people to reconcile the passages that show both extremes

And that is what I do---put all the passages together and the different interpretations of some words and the character of God and you get-----no eternal torment in hell.

 

[mmksparbud]

how does the number of passages show a reconciliation of all passages?

I didn't say they did--I was just saying how many of each (about) there are.

 

[mmksparbud]

and yet a few posts ago you admitted that there were passages and quibbled over the number rather than how to reconcile both sides with all scripture

I'm not quibbling over the number--at the same time, an almost 2 to one measure seems, to me, another red flag.

 

[Neogaia777]

I didn't say that, I just asked for your scripture on that.... I am just asking you for the scripture, that is all...nothing more or less, we want to base the conclusion on scripture not our "superior thoughts"...I am not saying either way at this point....I am simply asking for scripture to back up the side you are saying.

Well, unfortunately, the only scripture I can give you is (Revelation 21:1) And, tell you that as I commune with Jesus, he is speaking things to me, to the Holy Spirit in me that is telling me these things which I believe are these thing spoken of in (John 21:25) and in (Revelation 22:10) (Daniel 12:9)...

Unfortunately the Bible doesn't say more on this than that, Just like it doesn't go into detail about the "deep things of Satan" it also doesn't tell us the "deep details about Hell" either...

Now, if you, and the reason I asked you, could present scripture to refute or is contrary to what I said, then, great, I'm wrong, I can abandon the line of reasoning and move on to something else, however, if you can't, then, I think I'm gonna "roll with it" for now, unless I learn otherwise in the future...

God Bless!

 

[Hillsage]

The, mind, will, and emotions are figurative uses for the word soul. They are not the definition of it. This is one reason for the confusion. We can't use figurative uses as the definition. These same things are used with body parts also.

I think the confusion is that scripture plainly says "your whole spirit and soul and body". And as pointed out, scripture also says spirit/soul can be divided. Then you have a scripture saying the body and soul can be destroyed in gehenna, but the spirit is absent. So, when you look at Genesis and don't plug all three parts into the creation of man, you've missed something, and that's the only confusion IMO.

Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, And my eyes shall behold, and not another. How my heart yearns within me! (Job 19:27 NKJ)

Again, from a doctor's perspective, do you know that there is an estimated 40,000 neuron cells in the heart which transmit signals to the brain? You never addressed my autorhythmic understanding last time so I'll elaborate even more. There are approximately 100 billion brain type neurons in the gut also. Medical research has proven that when you have a 'gut feeling' or a 'heart ache' that there really is brain type signals coming together and the brain has to wrestle with conflicting signals before 'arriving' at a decision. So the scriptures you just quoted support my position and not yours, really.

To yearn is an emotion. Does the heart literally yearn? No, it pumps blood. It's a figure of speech. IF you do a word study you'll find out that you can touch a soul, you can eat a soul. One cannot touch or eat, the mind, will, or emotions.

Yes the 'heart yearns' and "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks".

NKJ Matthew 6:25 "Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?

This scripture is not saying that your soul eats, drinks or puts on clothes. It is saying; don't worry, (with your mind, will, emotions) which is your 'soul'....worry about the ' life' source which comes from your spirit. Read the context of your Matt quote and you see it is talking about two sources of imput...treasures of earth and treasures from heaven. You can be led of your spirit or you can be led by your flesh. Your soul will make the decision as to which way you will go.

But that's not what the Scriptures say.

No, but your interpretation isn't what Scriptures imply either, because it is contrary to the rest of scripture and science.

When you said, "his spirit" what do you mean? According to Gen 2:7 there is one spirit in man and it is God's. It is His breath or spirit of life. Is that what you mean?

I'm saying that when God said "Let US make man in OUR image" God was a spirit even as scripture confirms. When this word was spoken there was the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit...all three were spirit.

John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

When God created man, he started with dirt.....that was man. Then, as "the Father of all spirits", he added/birthed 'a spirit', which was "of His spirit". And that spirit brought life to the clay making him a 'living human being' (spirit, soul, body). But if that living man would have begun serving the flesh he would have 'became a dying soul'. But that's not what happened to Adam/Eve. They were led of the spirit, and indeed "walked in the 'spirit' of the day". Therefore 'that living man' "became a living soul" after he was made a spirit, soul, body, or living human being.

Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap perishing/corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Paul understood these principles I'm speaking of;

2CO 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed,
6 So we are always of good courage; we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,

I am a spirit, I live in a body, and I have a soul (mind will emotions).

There is no difference. A soul is a living being.

And if a living soul was the spirit/body combination it would absolutely make no sense for scripture to PLAINLY state man's THREE parts in one verse.

1TH 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So if this verse makes sense to you, please explain it to me.

 

[Neogaia777]

God has a different perspective on killing than we do, since they all return to him, I do not think any innocent or pure go to hell, and that includes perhaps all infants and children, and probably most women, only God knows their hearts and can judge... Killing a youth while they are young, could perhaps "save" them from hell, if God foresees that they are good pure and innocent now, but might not be in their future, for example...

God Bless!

Most of those infants and children would have grown up in those cultures to becoming in danger of going to (or "having" to, out of necessity), (to be sent to) hell... By them dying when they did, by God killing them now, they (some of them) could be saved or spared eternally... (before they got to a point where almost none could)... For that is what those cultures were "making" (forcing) God to do to them, out of necessity, which cultures "had to" be done away with and not allowed to continue (doing what they were doing to people)...

God Bless!

 

[Der Alte]

I already addressed this--John also wrote Rev 20.

No not already addressed. Your responses are the equivalent of "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" You still have not explained how John was saying in Rev 21:8 "all liars....etc. shall have their part in the lake of fire..." while you keep saying "That was chapter 20." When John wrote chap. 21 did he forget what he said in chap. 20?

 

[Neogaia777]

No not already addressed. Your responses are the equivalent of "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" You still have not explained how John was saying in Rev 21:8 "all liars....etc. shall have their part in the lake of fire..." while you keep saying "That was chapter 20." When John wrote chap. 21 did he forget what he said in chap. 20?

That is referring to very near the time of the end, when God will make sure that all doing those things said, will no longer have an excuse for it any longer, they will no longer be "ignorant" or innocent in their wrongs, but will fully know themselves of their clear guilt and lack of any excuse or any kind of defense of/for what they are doing and continue to do, not just before God, but even in/with their own selves... They will fully know what they deserve and their clear choice to continue to do and act wickedly and do wrongly, having no excuse any longer, knowing they could have chose otherwise, and were even capable of choosing and doing otherwise, but didn't... And, beyond that, they're still unrepentant, even fully knowing this... And, some, are not even sorry, but are angry about this...

God Bless!

 

[mmksparbud]

No not already addressed. Your responses are the equivalent of "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" You still have not explained how John was saying in Rev 21:8 "all liars....etc. shall have their part in the lake of fire..." while you keep saying "That was chapter 20." When John wrote chap. 21 did he forget what he said in chap. 20?

No he didn't, but you have.

 

[Butch5]

I think the confusion is that scripture plainly says "your whole spirit and soul and body". And as pointed out, scripture also says spirit/soul can be divided. Then you have a scripture saying the body and soul can be destroyed in gehenna, but the spirit is absent. So, when you look at Genesis and don't plug all three parts into the creation of man, you've missed something, and that's the only confusion IMO.

Neither of those passages say that those are parts of man. That is being imposed on the text. If Paul has said, I pray your soul, body, and clothing, would be kept from destruction, would you argue that your clothing is part of man? I don't think you would make that argument. This shows that the sentence structure doesn't require that these are a part of man.

The word "your" indicates possession or ownership. That he says "your" that shows they aren't "you" If someone says your car, you don't assume the car is a part of you.

Soul in this case is being used of life. Notice the "whole" the body and the spirit combine to form the soul. Part one and part two combine to form the "whole". Just like Genesis 2:7 shows us the body and the spirit combine to form the life, the living soul.

Again, from a doctor's perspective, do you know that there is an estimated 40,000 neuron cells in the heart which transmit signals to the brain? You never addressed my autorhythmic understanding last time so I'll elaborate even more. There are approximately 100 billion brain type neurons in the gut also. Medical research has proven that when you have a 'gut feeling' or a 'heart ache' that there really is brain type signals coming together and the brain has to wrestle with conflicting signals before 'arriving' at a decision. So the scriptures you just quoted support my position and not yours, really.

Yes the 'heart yearns' and "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks".

The Scriptures weren't written to people who had modern science. God gave them to people and expected them to understand what He was saying. So, trying to compare modern science to something written thousands of years ago is comparing apples and oranges.

The point is that saying that the soul is the brain or the will, or emotions, etc. doesn't fit a lot of passages of Scripture. The only proper understanding of the word is one that can accommodate "EVERY" passage of Scripture where the word occurs.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Gen. 1:24 KJV)

The word creature here is soul. Are all living creatures just a mind or will or emotions? Are all living creatures just a brain? There are passages like this all over the Scriptures

This scripture is not saying that your soul eats, drinks or puts on clothes. It is saying; don't worry, (with your mind, will, emotions) which is your 'soul'....worry about the ' life' source which comes from your spirit. Read the context of your Matt quote and you see it is talking about two sources of imput...treasures of earth and treasures from heaven. You can be led of your spirit or you can be led by your flesh. Your soul will make the decision as to which way you will go.

You might want to read that again. 'Do worry about your soul, what you will eat or what you will drink. He didn't say don't worry with you soul.

No, but your interpretation isn't what Scriptures imply either, because it is contrary to the rest of scripture and science.

There is no implication and I didn't give an interpretation. I stated just what the passage says. On the contrary, you gave the interpretation that it's talking about thinking with your soul. That is contrary to Scripture.

You've got to make the distinction between literal and figurative uses of the word.

I'm saying that when God said "Let US make man in OUR image" God was a spirit even as scripture confirms. When this word was spoken there was the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit...all three were spirit.

John 4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

Firstly the "us" there is a Majestic Plural. However, just because God is spirit that doesn't necessitate that that is what God meant. God also is love. Is man love? It's doubtful when you look at all of the killing he does. Again, the point is that the idea is being imposed on the text. God said, 'let us make man in our image." It's then inferred that because God is spirit it must mean that man is spirit. No, doesn't have to mean that just because God is spirit that He means that man is spirit. That is an assumption. God didn't expound on what He meant when He said 'let us make man in our image".

However, let's look at that more closely. God said, 'let us make man in our image'. So, let's look at where God made man.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.1 (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

Look, Good made the man "BEFORE" He gave the spirit or before the soul came into being. This shows that beyond any doubt that the man existed before those receiving the spirit or becoming a soul. This shows beyond doubt that the soul and the spirit cannot be a part of man. Any understanding that doesn't align with the creation of man is incorrect no matter how popular the idea.

When God created man, he started with dirt.....that was man. Then, as "the Father of all spirits", he added/birthed 'a spirit', which was "of His spirit". And that spirit brought life to the clay making him a 'living human being' (spirit, soul, body). But if that living man would have begun serving the flesh he would have 'became a dying soul'. But that's not what happened to Adam/Eve. They were led of the spirit, and indeed "walked in the 'spirit' of the day". Therefore 'that living man' "became a living soul" after he was made a spirit, soul, body, or living human being.

But you won't find that anywhere in Scripture. There is nowhere in Scripture that says that God "birthed" a spirit in man. The only spirit in man is God's breath or spirit of life. That this is the case can be seen in the vision that God gave to Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 37, the valley of dry bones, God shows Ezekiel the bones and Ezekiel prophesies over them and flesh comes on them but there are not alive. God then tells Ezekiel to prophesy to the ruach and life comes into the them and they live. The God gives Ezekiel the interpretation of the vision and says,

12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, sa (Ezek. 37:12-14 KJV)

God told Israel that He would bring them out of their graves and would put "HIS" spirit in them and they would live. He didn't say I'll put your spirit back in you, He said, "I'll put my spirit in you." The only spirit in a man is God's spirit.

Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap perishing/corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Paul understood these principles I'm speaking of;

2CO 5:1 For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed,
6 So we are always of good courage; we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,

I am a spirit, I live in a body, and I have a soul (mind will emotions).

This passage isn't saying what you think it's saying. It's actually arguing my point. You should read the entire context which starts in chapter 4. The passage is actually speaking of the resurrection which you can see in chapter 4.

And if a living soul was the spirit/body combination it would absolutely make no sense for scripture to PLAINLY state man's THREE parts in one verse.

1TH 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So if this verse makes sense to you, please explain it to me.

You won't find anything in Scripture that teaches that man is a spirit, he's not. God created him from the dust of the earth.

I did explain it. Notice the word "wholly". Paul is addressing their entirety. They are living souls composed of body and spirit, thus Paul seeks the sanctification of their entirety. May your spirit be sanctified, may your life be sanctified and may your body be sanctified.

The verse says nothing about them being parts of the man.

The problem is the presuppositions we bring to the text. The passages you're posting don't say that there are three parts to man. You already believe that so when you see those passages you believe that that's what they are saying. Look for a single passage of Scripture that says there are three parts to man or that man is a spirit. You won't find any such thing in the Scriptures. You'll find passages that say your spirit or the spirit in man, but that doesn't necessitate that the spirit is the man. We know that there is a spirit in man because we saw that in Gen 2:7 it is God's. The words your and you are different. You denotes who you are, your denotes what is in your possession or is associated with you. So, when we see in Scripture "your spirit" we know that it is spirit that we are in possession of or associated with. Again, that is God's breath or spirit of life that He gives to every living thing.

 

[Gentlemantech48]

I find it interesting that I am 68 years old and did not realize there were Christian groups who do not believe that Hell is eternal but is rather an "unquenchable fire" that totally annihilates the unbeliever. First of all, I know that JW's have their own view on Hell and I'm not a JW! I have concluded however after looking at some good studies on this that Hell is not eternal torment and that the very few verses that "sound like" Hell is eternal are either parables of Jesus or a picture of being lost (such as in Revelation). I won't even attempt to list all the scriptures and words associated with Hell but it has always been very hard for me to believe that God would find it necessary to punish souls for eternity simply because they chose not to receive eternal life. In my prayers I have many times brought this up to God and asked why it would be necessary for unbelievers to suffer for eternity. Now, I am convinced that somewhere along the line, not long after the early church, that the idea of an eternal Hell was introduced as a way of frightening people into becoming a part of the church. In the studies of the various words used for "Hell" it becomes apparent to me that 90%+ of the Bible is clearly talking about the grave and unconsciousness. Why would 90%+ of the Bible use a word that is not about eternal torment and then suddenly Jesus changes the meaning of the word? The answer is that Jesus did NOT change the meaning, he was simply speaking in parables in order to hide the true meaning from the Pharisees or whoever else had their own beliefs about death, eternity, and Hell.

 

[Wunderlust]

Hell was used by religious authorities to keep people in line with the state which paid for their churches.