The Doctrine of Eternal Torture in Hell

[Major1]

He isn't 'WHAT' because He is God? In the Grave? I never said he was still in the grave. Still fulfilling the law? I never said he didn't fulfill the law. Not sitting in eternal hell because he is God? If being in eternal hell is the price, 'being God' never changed the price. If the price for sin is eternal hell, it's eternal hell for whoever took my/your place. And since the gospel of the church is accept Jesus or burn in hell for eternity, then Jesus being in hell in our place is the only way their gospel could be true. And since the gospel of the church is accept Jesus or burn in hell for eternity, then Jesus being in hell in our place is the only way their gospel could be true.. I honestly don't know 'what' you are missing in my POV or 'why' you're missing it? Did this help?

WOW! This is some of the most disturbing thinking I have ever heard. I don't think anyone is missing what you said.The reason we (me) are missing what you are saying is because it is so unbelievable and so far removed from Scripture.

You said.............
"And according to 'orthodoxy' that price is eternal hell, or according to others here, it is 'annihilation'. So if 'that' is the price we're to pay, if we don't accept Him, then why didn't he ever pay that price? Why isn't he 'sitting in eternal hell' or floating with emails in 'annihilation space', paying 'the price' in our place???"

It has nothing to do with "Orthodoxy" but instead everything with the Scriptures.
Luke 16:23...................
"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

Jesus certainly paid the price God demanded for our sin. Going to hell was not the demand of the Father. God demanded BLOOD and Jesus did just that.
You have posted something entirely different than what the Scriptures say and now I must challenge you to verify that comment with Scripture which say what you have posted.

God said in Hebrews 9:22.........
"And almost all things are by the law, purged with BLOOD and without the shedding of BLOOD there is no remission of Sin".

You also just said...........
"And since the gospel of the church is accept Jesus or burn in hell for eternity, then Jesus being in hell in our place is the only way their gospel could be true."

Again I must point out to you the error of your comment. The church did not demand a gospel!!! The church did not say that the lost would burn in hell. Jesus said that my friend.

Matt. 25:41.........
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. . ."

Mark 9:43-44.............
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for the to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and that was by and through the power and will of God the Father and not the church. The church did not come into existence until Pentecost which was much later and it did not demand a gospel but instead BELIVED the gospel. The church did not invent hell or the torment of the lost. That was all God's plan my friend.

Many, many who believe as you do, say, "God wouldn't allow such a thing to happen."

Sure He will! God allows people to suffer all the time. God allowed Hitler to murder 6,000,000 Jews, did He not? God allowed Herod to kill the children under two years old, did He not? If God will allow innocent babies to be murdered, then why wouldn't He allow a Christ rejecting sinner to burn in Hell? Did God not allow Jesus Christ, an innocent and sinless man, to be beaten and murdered? If God will allow His only begotten Son to suffer and be murdered, then why should God save a sinner from Hell when he chooses not to trust Christ as Savior?

 

[Major1]

You are absolutely right people do read their theology into the Bible and that is exactly what you have done here. I doubt very seriously if you could parse a Greek verb if your life depended on it. Yet you appointed yourself the end all, be all authority on Biblical Greek, without any lexical or grammatical support you blew off nine Greek languages sources, including quotes from Philo and Plato, and determined that they are all wrong.
.....Had you bothered to actually read the sources I quoted, you might have learned that many scholars think that Plato coined the adjective “aionios” since the first occurrence of “aionios” was in Plato’s writing, 423 –347 BC, Timaeus 37d where he uses aionios for that which transcends the world of time. Philo, 25BC-50AD, said in De Mundo, 7, “in [aioni] eternity nothing is passed, nothing is about to be, but only subsists.”

This is quite humorous you lecture on how a lexicon is made and you totally ignored the nine Greek language sources I posted. Yes, the words “aion” and “aionios” are sometimes used for something that is not eternal. That is called hyperbole.
.....Once again, Simon was not actually a stone but Jesus called him petros/stone. James and John were not actually sons of thunder but Jesus called them that. Herod was not actually a fox but Jesus called him that. When Jesus said "take the beam out of your own eye then you can see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye," nobody literally had a beam in their eye. That is the figure of speech called hyperbole.

Actually this whole conversation is amusing isn't it? The Scriptures are 100% true or they are 100% wrong as their can not be a compromise that fits some but not others.

Scriptures are posted in the black and white, but the one who wants to reject the horror of hell then begins to tear apart the Words of God.

 

[Major1]

No, it's not based on faulty reasoning. The reasoning is sound. They are an example, they suffered aionios fire. That fire is "NOT" still burning therefore aionios "CANNOT" mean eternal. I am well aware of the Lexicons and other works that claim aionios means eternal. However, the "BIBLE" makes it clear that they are wrong. People read their theology into the Bible. People impose their theology onto their commentaries. People impose their theology onto their lexicons.

The way a lexicon is made is by looking at all of the usages of a word and coming to a definition that fits those usages. People read passages that speak of things of God being aionios. For instance God's mercy is aionios. They deduce from that that since God is eternal, His mercy must be eternal, therefore, aionios must mean eternal. The problem is that it is clearly used of finite periods of time. The root aion means an age. If a definition doesn't fit with the Scriptures it's wrong.

Lets look at this a little closer as it seems to be the real misunderstanding of "Annihilation" theology.

The Greek word: "aion" is translated as "forever," and "aionios" is translated, "everlasting," or "eternal."

Strong's Greek Dictionary defines "aion" as follows: "an age, perpetuity, the world, a Messianic period, course, eternal, forever, evermore, without end."

Strong's defines the adjective aionios as follows: "perpetual, eternal, forever, everlasting."

Now just because a word translated WRONGLY can still make sense does NOT justify doing so. Perchance someone might wish to translate Mark 9:41 as follows: "For whosoever shall give you a GLASS OF ICE COLD LEMONADE to drink in my name… shall not lose his reward." Does not the verse make equal SENSE as when it is correctly translated "A CUP OF WATER?" Yes it does, but that is NOT what the Holy Spirit inspired to be preserved for us. Hence, "a glass of ice cold lemonade" is wrong, just as translating Rom. 16:26 as "the everlasting God," is wrong. The Holy Spirit inspired the word aionios, which translated to our English equivalent "eonian," and this is how it must be translated if we are to be faithful to God’s Word.(http://bible-truths.com/aeonion.htm).

Now we need to stop and think for a moment about this. The opinion that "aionion" means simply an AGE or AGE to AGE instead of eternal makes a mockery of Jesus himself and of the very nature of God. In 1 John 1:2 it says that it is the life which is made manifest, the life that was with the Father from the beginning. Is that just age-long? Is Jesus just a temporary being? Or is he eternal? Unending? Does he have an age-long dominion, or an eternal dominion as we are told in 1 Timothy 6:16?

Do we only know the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he sent, for an age ??????
That would make sense if God himself is just age-long and not eternal. That would explain also why we reap from the Spirit only age-long life in an age-long kingdom —because the Spirit himself is only for an age rather than being eternal (

No? God really is eternal? His dominion is eternal? Right, because that’s what aionion typically means. So, just like God, our salvation and redemption and inheritance are eternal as is the judgment on those who don’t believe.

I encourage you all to sit and think about what you are proposing.

 

[razzelflabben]

He isn't 'WHAT' because He is God? In the Grave? I never said he was still in the grave. Still fulfilling the law? I never said he didn't fulfill the law. Not sitting in eternal hell because he is God? If being in eternal hell is the price, 'being God' never changed the price. If the price for sin is eternal hell, it's eternal hell for whoever took my/your place. And since the gospel of the church is accept Jesus or burn in hell for eternity, then Jesus being in hell in our place is the only way their gospel could be true. He isn't in eternal hell because eternal hell is false theology. I honestly don't know 'what' you are missing in my POV or 'why' you're missing it? Did this help?

I think, if I understand you correctly, what you are missing is that Christ was righteous, we are not. Hell cannot hold/contain righteousness...look at it another way, blood was required, that is true but the blood that paid the debt was righteous blood and since God cannot reside in sin, death/hell could not contain the righteous Christ. Does that make sense to you. I think your theology on this is new to some of us and so we are trying to figure out what you are really trying to say and what doesn't make sense to you so that communication can continue.

 

[Major1]

I think, if I understand you correctly, what you are missing is that Christ was righteous, we are not. Hell cannot hold/contain righteousness...look at it another way, blood was required, that is true but the blood that paid the debt was righteous blood and since God cannot reside in sin, death/hell could not contain the righteous Christ. Does that make sense to you. I think your theology on this is new to some of us and so we are trying to figure out what you are really trying to say and what doesn't make sense to you so that communication can continue.

Agreed.! In fact, I have heard anyone suggest that Christ had to go to hell in order for salvation to be a reality for us.

Very strange to me.

 

[aiki]

If being in eternal hell is the price, 'being God' never changed the price. If the price for sin is eternal hell, it's eternal hell for whoever took my/your place.

You don't seem to understand the Gospel. Christ was not just some human, corrupted by sin and thus under the condemnation of God like the rest of us. He was the perfect, sinless Lamb of God who "takes away the sin of the World." It is his moral perfection, his absolute sinlessness that makes him the one and only perfect substitute for all of sin-cursed humanity. His perfect purity, righteousness and divinity uniquely qualified him to fully atone for our sin, which we could not as finite, sinful creatures ever hope to do for ourselves. This is all carefully laid out in Romans and Hebrews. You see, it is our sinfulness, our imperfection, that makes the judgment of God upon us eternal. We can't ever properly (that is, perfectly) atone for our sin and so when we reject Christ's perfect sacrifice for us, we are left to make an atonement that, because of the corruption of ourselves by our sin, never ends. Hell, then, cannot be eternal for the perfect, sinless Lamb of God, though it is so for us.

Selah.

 

[mmksparbud]

I can't stay on here long, I am still having computer problems If anyone else is having them please report them as they won't look into things unless more than one person reports a problem. I tried to catch up but there is soooo much--
This caught my eye though not addressed to me.

hum...so you are then going with the Ezekiel verse means that man does not have a heart or a spirit until they come to the point of salvation at which time God gives them both a "new" heart and spirit, but neither is really new, just "fresh"...care if I laugh at this point at how far removed from literary comprehension rules that really is?

Unless I misunderstood, which is highly probable, you believe we are literally given a new heart when we are saved??
"care if I laugh at this point at how far removed from literary comprehension rules that really is?"
You are laughing at someone who says we are given a fresh (renewed)heart instead of a literal new one?
I've known many people who have come to the Lord---many of them had a bad heart when they did---there has never been one of them that actually got a new heart--they still died of heart problems. The heart is made new in spirit terminology. It is refreshed, it is made spiritually clean--never once has that been made manifest with a literal, newly remade heart without any defects.
However, with a new made heaven and earth, there has to be more than a spiritual meaning --
2Pe_3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe_3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

This is going to require more than refreshing---this is going to require a remaking--literal and completely remaking--of the earth and heavens to have them back to where God made them original, before sin came into being---which was without a hell.

hum...that then would mean they have one to begin with, something you have been refusing to accept. You see, you just confessed in this paragraph that man has an eternal spirit that God gave him...according to you, it returns to God, then God returns it back to man...now I could refute this but first you must see what you just said....you just confessed that man has an eternal spirit, that is a spirit that returns to God and then God gives back to him...we will talk about all that giving and taking back later when you grasp that you yourself have said in this post.

How can you refute what you yourself have said? You have said the soul returns to God who gave it---it is what the scriptures say.
Gen_2:7 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.
Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.


Without God's breath of life, Adam would have remained a pile of dust. At death, that breath goes back to God---and that pile of dust remains a pile of dust, unless God breathes it back into man.

 

[Hillsage]

I think, if I understand you correctly, what you are missing is that Christ was righteous, we are not.

YES!!! Christ fulfilled 100% of God's righteous requirements and we did not, and never could have. That's why he was qualified to take our place, while He paid the full price of sin. And He did so for everybody and for all time, on that occasion. But His being 100% righteous in no way changed 'the price' he paid for sin. And the price he paid was not ETERNAL HELL, the price he paid was the death of a man not deserving death. 'Death' was the sentence for sin in the garden and that is the sentence Jesus paid for on the cross.

Hell cannot hold/contain righteousness...

Can you support that statement from scripture, because I don't think scripture agrees;

PSA 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

The "thou" spoken of above, is the LORD who is total righteousness.

look at it another way, blood was required, that is true but the blood that paid the debt was righteous blood and since God cannot reside in sin, death/hell could not contain the righteous Christ. Does that make sense to you.

"God cannot reside in sin" Do you have a verse to support that? Because it doesn't make sense to me to say that, and then turn right around and claim to have the Holy Spirit/GOD living in you....someone who still commits sin...I assume. And personally, I know I haven't obtained sinless perfection yet.

I think your theology on this is new to some of us and so we are trying to figure out what you are really trying to say and what doesn't make sense to you so that communication can continue.

Thank you razzleflabben, you have answered very well here. I was seriously considering not responding to anyone else. Continued futility would accomplish nothing worthy. Plus, at lunch, I received a pretty humbling but honorable position of accountability from a younger church elder today. Something which I believe is going to necessarily limit time coming here 'to play with you all'. But your post's sincerity has moved me to dialogue with you, but I'll be limiting it there. Hopefully we can make some progress.

Time for bed.

 

[Major1]

You don't seem to understand the Gospel. Christ was not just some human, corrupted by sin and thus under the condemnation of God like the rest of us. He was the perfect, sinless Lamb of God who "takes away the sin of the World." It is his moral perfection, his absolute sinlessness that makes him the one and only perfect substitute for all of sin-cursed humanity. His perfect purity, righteousness and divinity uniquely qualified him to fully atone for our sin, which we could not as finite, sinful creatures ever hope to do for ourselves. This is all carefully laid out in Romans and Hebrews. You see, it is our sinfulness, our imperfection, that makes the judgment of God upon us eternal. We can't ever properly (that is, perfectly) atone for our sin and so when we reject Christ's perfect sacrifice for us, we are left to make an atonement that, because of the corruption of ourselves by our sin, never ends. Hell, then, cannot be eternal for the perfect, sinless Lamb of God, though it is so for us.

Selah.

You are correct on every comment. Our brother in question really does not understand the gospel as his posting show.

You see, the reason that the "Good News" of the gospel is good, is because the "Bad News" of the rejection of the Lord Jesus is really bad.

 

[Major1]

YES!!! Christ fulfilled 100% of God's righteous requirements and we did not, and never could have. That's why he was qualified to take our place, while He paid the full price of sin. And He did so for everybody and for all time, on that occasion. But His being 100% righteous in no way changed 'the price' he paid for sin. And the price he paid was not ETERNAL HELL, the price he paid was the death of a man not deserving death. 'Death' was the sentence for sin in the garden and that is the sentence Jesus paid for on the cross.


Can you support that statement from scripture, because I don't think scripture agrees;

PSA 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

The "thou" spoken of above, is the LORD who is total righteousness.


"God cannot reside in sin" Do you have a verse to support that? Because it doesn't make sense to me to say that, and then turn right around and claim to have the Holy Spirit/GOD living in you....someone who still commits sin...I assume. And personally, I know I haven't obtained sinless perfection yet.


Thank you razzleflabben, you have answered very well here. I was seriously considering not responding to anyone else. Continued futility would accomplish nothing worthy. Plus, at lunch, I received a pretty humbling but honorable position of accountability from a younger church elder today. Something which I believe is going to necessarily limit time coming here 'to play with you all'. But your post's sincerity has moved me to dialogue with you, but I'll be limiting it there. Hopefully we can make some progress.

Time for bed.

Habakkuk 1:13..........

You who are of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong, why do you idly look at traitors
and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?

In fact, the full rendering is, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil.”

Where are the evil wicked lost? Hell.

Congratulations on your new position. I am also saddened that you no longer choose to talk with me on this subject.

 

[razzelflabben]

I can't stay on here long, I am still having computer problems If anyone else is having them please report them as they won't look into things unless more than one person reports a problem. I tried to catch up but there is soooo much--
This caught my eye though not addressed to me.




Unless I misunderstood, which is highly probable, you believe we are literally given a new heart when we are saved??
"care if I laugh at this point at how far removed from literary comprehension rules that really is?"

laugh all you want that is your inference and assumptions of what I said, which as usual is wrong. So you would be laughing at your wrong assumptions and inferences. But see, that is the problem, you suggesting that by new there wasn't one there to start out with... what I am suggesting is that by a "new" heart and "spirit" what is being said is there is one there to begin with and God is making it "new", or designing it so to speak. Your assumptions and inferences would be much more accurate if you would follow the comments and claims to begin with.

You are laughing at someone who says we are given a fresh (renewed)heart instead of a literal new one?

no, I am laughing because you suggest that there is a renewed heart but a new spirit when the text talks about both in the same way. IOW's I'm laughing because you want us to change understanding without reason. If the heart is renewed, then the lang. of the passage says that the spirit is also renewed, not a new one given.

I've known many people who have come to the Lord---many of them had a bad heart when they did---there has never been one of them that actually got a new heart--they still died of heart problems. The heart is made new in spirit terminology. It is refreshed, it is made spiritually clean--never once has that been made manifest with a literal, newly remade heart without any defects.

well, in the first place you were asked to deal with the "new" spirit and you offer nothing but an inconsistent look at the passage then talk only about the heart...which is what is making talking to you so cumbersome.

However, with a new made heaven and earth, there has to be more than a spiritual meaning --
2Pe_3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe_3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

let's not make these posts to complicated, you seem to be having enough problems following whether that is computer issues or something else is beyond our understanding, we can assume but only you and God alone know for sure why you can't follow the easiest of concepts.

This is going to require more than refreshing---this is going to require a remaking--literal and completely remaking--of the earth and heavens to have them back to where God made them original, before sin came into being---which was without a hell.

again, let's stick to one concept at a time, you haven't even addressed the "new spirit" mentioned in Ezekiel other than to say in a previous post that the heart is renewed but the spirit is new which is not consistent with the text. So you need to reconcile your double standard here for us before we can talk once again about the new heaven and new earth...we can come back to the new heaven and new earth, it's not as complicated as you might think.

How can you refute what you yourself have said? You have said the soul returns to God who gave it---it is what the scriptures say.
Gen_2:7 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.
Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

I'm not refuting anything...I have asked you to explain Ezekiel in light of man not having an eternal part. You didn't do that, you said in a previous post that you wouldn't deal with the passage consistently then made this post where you refuse to talk about the "new spirit" at all.

Without God's breath of life, Adam would have remained a pile of dust. At death, that breath goes back to God---and that pile of dust remains a pile of dust, unless God breathes it back into man.

no one is questioning God's creation of man, the sooner you figure that out the better this conversation will go.

Now, how about dealing with the "new spirit" that is talked about in the ezekiel passage....

 

[razzelflabben]

YES!!! Christ fulfilled 100% of God's righteous requirements and we did not, and never could have. That's why he was qualified to take our place, while He paid the full price of sin. And He did so for everybody and for all time, on that occasion. But His being 100% righteous in no way changed 'the price' he paid for sin. And the price he paid was not ETERNAL HELL, the price he paid was the death of a man not deserving death. 'Death' was the sentence for sin in the garden and that is the sentence Jesus paid for on the cross.

you seem hung up on the idea of eternal hell rather than what that really means. See, eternal hell basically, shortest version I know to explain it is eternity separated from God. As God, Jesus could not be eternally separated from Himself and didn't need to be because He Himself was without sin. Just like all believers are not eternally separated from God because the debt was already paid for that sin.

Let's try this a different way...remember a long while back when I talked about not being able to separate my father from his sin...Jesus allows us to be separated from our sin so that we don't need to be separated from God.
This is true because Jesus as being God in flesh, was without sin, iow's no death was required of Him, only us. His death then paid our debt, the debt isn't eternal hell, the debt is eternal separation because of our sin. When we are separated from our sin, it is no more, no debt is needed. I hope that helps you to understand this.

Can you support that statement from scripture, because I don't think scripture agrees;

PSA 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

The "thou" spoken of above, is the LORD who is total righteousness.

God is omnipresent...that doesn't mean that He is dwelling in all those places it means that nothing can contain Him. Look at passages like...I Kings 8:27;
"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!

I Cor. 3:16-17
Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.


Notice first that no dwelling place can contain Him, this is consistent with the passage you present about God being omnipresent. But His dwelling is not in hell because HE cannot dwell with evil....I John 1:6
If we say we have fellowship with Him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.

II Cor. 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?

Psalms 5:4 For you are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; with you, evil people are not welcome.

and Habakkuk 1:13 Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

We often forget in our zeal to prove that God is omnipresent that He is also Holy. this may seem contradictory to some until we look at all the passages and how they reconcile with the totality of our understanding that there is nothing that can contain God and yet, He has dwelling places.

"God cannot reside in sin" Do you have a verse to support that? Because it doesn't make sense to me to say that, and then turn right around and claim to have the Holy Spirit/GOD living in you....someone who still commits sin...I assume. And personally, I know I haven't obtained sinless perfection yet.

see above, I think it is pretty clear but if you need more, I'll find some additional passages for you.

Thank you razzleflabben, you have answered very well here. I was seriously considering not responding to anyone else. Continued futility would accomplish nothing worthy. Plus, at lunch, I received a pretty humbling but honorable position of accountability from a younger church elder today. Something which I believe is going to necessarily limit time coming here 'to play with you all'. But your post's sincerity has moved me to dialogue with you, but I'll be limiting it there. Hopefully we can make some progress.

Time for bed.

Actually, before I read this paragraph I was trying to figure out a way to thank you for actual dialogue which seems not to be happening much on this thread....how refreshing to have a give and take not just a repeat of one's opinion. May your new ministry be beneficial in your growth as well as others.

 

[mmksparbud]

laugh all you want that is your inference and assumptions of what I said, which as usual is wrong

I wasn't the one laughing! I quoted you!!!!
OK---tell you what----I got into a conversation part way, as there was too much for me to catch up on and I only quoted a portion of your post, so now you're bringing up stuff that I hadn't even looked at---so to not further complicate matters, I am signing off until I can get my computer fixed. Sometimes it works real well for a while, then it acts up again. I'll unwatch for now. Besides, there has been nothing new on here that I haven't heard before. And nothing which changes my mind on ECT.

 

[razzelflabben]

I wasn't the one laughing! I quoted you!!!!
OK---tell you what----I got into a conversation part way, as there was too much for me to catch up on and I only quoted a portion of your post, so now you're bringing up stuff that I hadn't even looked at---so to not further complicate matters, I am signing off until I can get my computer fixed. Sometimes it works real well for a while, then it acts up again. I'll unwatch for now. Besides, there has been nothing new on here that I haven't heard before. And nothing which changes my mind on ECT.

I believe that, what I have a hard time believing is that you are being open to the word of God when you refuse to even address the passages you are asked to address.

 

[Der Alte]

I wasn't the one laughing! I quoted you!!!!
OK---tell you what----I got into a conversation part way, as there was too much for me to catch up on and I only quoted a portion of your post, so now you're bringing up stuff that I hadn't even looked at---so to not further complicate matters, I am signing off until I can get my computer fixed. Sometimes it works real well for a while, then it acts up again. I'll unwatch for now.

Have you tried defragging your hard drive?

Besides, there has been nothing new on here that I haven't heard before. And nothing which changes my mind on ECT.

Many of us are aware that it is almost impossible to reach the really hardcore UR and annihilationist posters. So my goal here is to keep posting the truth and possibly reaching those on the fence thinking about joining or leaving a heterodox group.

 

[Major1]

I wasn't the one laughing! I quoted you!!!!
OK---tell you what----I got into a conversation part way, as there was too much for me to catch up on and I only quoted a portion of your post, so now you're bringing up stuff that I hadn't even looked at---so to not further complicate matters, I am signing off until I can get my computer fixed. Sometimes it works real well for a while, then it acts up again. I'll unwatch for now. Besides, there has been nothing new on here that I haven't heard before. And nothing which changes my mind on ECT.

God love ya brother, but it is clear to me that nothing said is going to change your mind.

You as well as others have been presented the Scriptures and if you reject them you certainly will not accept anything from any person.

 

[razzelflabben]

I cant believe how much downright dishonesty I am seeing here. Try as the traditionalists might, aionios does NOT mean forever and ever. It means age and the range of meanings it carries all have to do with age. Age during, pertaining to an age, age lasting ect......

and yet you refuse to address the way the lang is constructed when the word is repeated, if you ask me, that is equally dishonest to what you are accusing others of being. So maybe, just maybe, instead of making accusations we all should just address the points made and stop trying to avoid what is more difficult for the given version one wants to defend?!

Funny thing is that there is a greek word that actually and primarily means everlasting, forever ect. The word is aidios and it is NOT found in any of the texts that seem to say that people will burn forever. I mean, why not use the one word that actually and primairly means forever if you are trying to convey a sense of eternal torment? Makes no sense whatsoever.

let's look into this...Matthew 25:46 - And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

the definition of the word everlasting from the Lexicon...

1. without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2. without beginning
3. without end, never to cease, everlasting
   

seems pretty eternal to me, but let's keep looking...the same word is used in Matthew 18:8; Matthew 25:41 and 46; Mark 3:29

Now interesting enough, this is the same word used in many different passages for eternal life and the very eternal nature of God. But, let's not dwell on that since you want to focus a different word, which btw, this is pretty clear that eternal means eternal.

According to the Strong's concordance website which includes the Lexicon, aion is derived from the above aiōnios...Now notice some of the places this word is used....Matthew 6:13 God's eternal glory...now this word is most often used in connection to the earth, which we know will be made new, but does NOT negate the above passages that talk about the eternity of hell. Also notice the passages that are related to hell repeat the word. As I have pointed out this is an emphasis that tells the read that this is more than just "forever" iow's it is to say "forever and more than forever" a point you refuse to address.

So here is the bottom line. where I did not find your chosen word used, (didn't look that long) we do know that the word aidios is used two times, Romans 1:20 where we are talking about the eternal power of God, just like the above word, aion is used and again Jude 1:6 where we see the word being used to talk about the everlasting darkness of the angels (aka hell, remember hell was created for Satan and his angel followers, the demons....here is the verse and the angels which kept no their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Which all seems pretty clearly to be saying eternal or everlasting no matter how you want to slice it. Now, admittedly that leaves a lot of questions still, but one thing at a time.

The fact is that there are 500 plus scriptures that directly state that the end of the wicked is death and destruction. There is a passage in nearly every page of scripture that states this. So how in the world does on come up with the nonsense theology that is eternal torment?

well, we have all tried to talk to you about this so I won't make this post unduly long by going over it again. Taking only the above as you asked us to, there is no doubt that scripture talks about an eternal hell. I mean, this is to use your own logic and discussion points...

What traditionalists do is they reinterpret all of these hundreds and hundreds of scriptures to try to make them fit with the few that seem to fit their theology. This is shockingly careless and willfully dishonest. But this is how they come up with these ideas that death doesnt mean death and destruction doesnt mean destruction. Its just willful ignorance.

careful....it appears from an investigation of your own objection that it is you who are refusing to accept what scripture says, maybe the wise man doesn't jump to conclusions about who is and who is not trying to force scripture to fit their theology... We can deal with destruction in a bit, don't make things so complicated you can't keep track of what has been said, it seems that some here have fallen into that hole.

The reason they do this is mainly because they truly believe in the idea of the immortal soul. And since the soul lives forever, it must either be punished forever or live in bliss forever. The problem is that the bible nowhere teaches the concept of an immortal soul. There are over 800 verses in scripture that reference the soul, and not a single one of them even hint that the soul is immortal. As a matter of fact, quite a few of these passages plainly state that the soul can, does, and will die. Ezekiel 18:20 and Matthew 10:28 are just a couple of those passages. If the soul were really immortal, dont you think that even one of these 800 plus verses would say so?

again, one thing at a time, refute the above...then we will talk again about the immortal soul/spirit

But I guess it doesn't matter. I have come to the conclusion that those who defend the eternal torment doctrine know full well how dishonest they are being with the scriptures. After all, most of these guys would never let you get away with applying their own exegesis to other biblical subjects. Imagine, for example, a college kid who claims that he can sleep with all the college girls he wants because there are 4 passages in scripture that say to be fruitful and multiply. And when you confront him with the 100 plus verses that speak against sexual promiscuity, he tells you that you must reinterpret all those passages to fit with the few passages he purports to be on his side. It goes without saying that this type of exegesis is not ok. Its wrong and its dishonest. Yet this is exactly what traditionalisys do with the eternal torment doctrine. They take a few passages in Revelation, and one from Matthew, an reinterpret hundreds of scriptures in light of those few. In doing so, they break every exegetical rule under the sun. They know theyre engaging in bad exegesis but they do it anyway. And thats what really makes me mad. Its the fact that traditonlists know full well that they are mishandling the scriptures yet they keep right on doing it.

here is the problem, I used your own "exegesis" above and showed you that scripture is clear that hell is eternal...that does not answer some of the other questions we have about hell like immoral soul/spirit, etc. but the question is whether or not you will accept that scripture clearly does say that hell is eternal. Once we establish whether or not you will accept this simple truth using your own "exegetical" study we can move on, precept upon precept.

There isnt a traditionalist Ive debated in real life that I havent absolutely embarassed whem we compared scriptures. But I am not even sure I am going to deal with these people anymore. Like I said, they live in a fantasy land where death dont mean death and destruction dont mean destruction and burn up doesnt mean burn up. They just flat out make up new definitions for these words. If they did this in any other context, a psychiatrist would diagnose them as delusional and unfit to stand trial. I had more to say but Im not even in the mood to keep writing about this

all in due time...do you accept what scripture clearly says about the eternal nature of hell or not?

 

[Major1]

I cant believe how much downright dishonesty I am seeing here. Try as the traditionalists might, aionios does NOT mean forever and ever. It means age and the range of meanings it carries all have to do with age. Age during, pertaining to an age, age lasting ect......

Funny thing is that there is a greek word that actually and primarily means everlasting, forever ect. The word is aidios and it is NOT found in any of the texts that seem to say that people will burn forever. I mean, why not use the one word that actually and primairly means forever if you are trying to convey a sense of eternal torment? Makes no sense whatsoever.


The fact is that there are 500 plus scriptures that directly state that the end of the wicked is death and destruction. There is a passage in nearly every page of scripture that states this. So how in the world does on come up with the nonsense theology that is eternal torment?


What traditionalists do is they reinterpret all of these hundreds and hundreds of scriptures to try to make them fit with the few that seem to fit their theology. This is shockingly careless and willfully dishonest. But this is how they come up with these ideas that death doesnt mean death and destruction doesnt mean destruction. Its just willful ignorance.


The reason they do this is mainly because they truly believe in the idea of the immortal soul. And since the soul lives forever, it must either be punished forever or live in bliss forever. The problem is that the bible nowhere teaches the concept of an immortal soul. There are over 800 verses in scripture that reference the soul, and not a single one of them even hint that the soul is immortal. As a matter of fact, quite a few of these passages plainly state that the soul can, does, and will die. Ezekiel 18:20 and Matthew 10:28 are just a couple of those passages. If the soul were really immortal, dont you think that even one of these 800 plus verses would say so?


But I guess it doesn't matter. I have come to the conclusion that those who defend the eternal torment doctrine know full well how dishonest they are being with the scriptures. After all, most of these guys would never let you get away with applying their own exegesis to other biblical subjects. Imagine, for example, a college kid who claims that he can sleep with all the college girls he wants because there are 4 passages in scripture that say to be fruitful and multiply. And when you confront him with the 100 plus verses that speak against sexual promiscuity, he tells you that you must reinterpret all those passages to fit with the few passages he purports to be on his side. It goes without saying that this type of exegesis is not ok. Its wrong and its dishonest. Yet this is exactly what traditionalisys do with the eternal torment doctrine. They take a few passages in Revelation, and one from Matthew, an reinterpret hundreds of scriptures in light of those few. In doing so, they break every exegetical rule under the sun. They know theyre engaging in bad exegesis but they do it anyway. And thats what really makes me mad. Its the fact that traditonlists know full well that they are mishandling the scriptures yet they keep right on doing it.


There isnt a traditionalist Ive debated in real life that I havent absolutely embarassed whem we compared scriptures. But I am not even sure I am going to deal with these people anymore. Like I said, they live in a fantasy land where death dont mean death and destruction dont mean destruction and burn up doesnt mean burn up. They just flat out make up new definitions for these words. If they did this in any other context, a psychiatrist would diagnose them as delusional and unfit to stand trial. I had more to say but Im not even in the mood to keep writing about this

Flat out wrong!!! If it was not so sad to read such words, it would be laughable.

"into the age of the ages"
Translated as "forever and ever"; "forevermore".
(https://carm.org/look-phrase-forever-and-ever)

Is the English phrase "forever and ever" a proper translation of the Greek? Does it mean without end? Is it ever used of something not eternal? Does it refer to eternal torment? These questions are important because both the universalist, and the annihilationist position denies the eternality of hell fire.

Annihilationist and Universalists totally reject the Word of God and have no explanation except to argue the meaning of words. The word in question here by my friend is the Greek word, "aionios ". They take the literal Greek phrase of "eis tous aionas ton aionon, -- into the age of the ages" which is commonly translated as "forever and ever," "forevermore," and state that it refers to an age of time, a finite period of time. That is the bottom line argument going on here.

Now it is true that the basic root of "aion" means age. But that is only the beginning not the end of the explanation of that word. What they are failing to state or maybe understand is that it is not true that all words derived from that root mean a finite duration of time.
The phrase means "unlimited duration of time, with particular focus upon the future - ‘always, forever, forever and ever, eternally."

Additionally, the phrase is used to describe both God's eternal attributes and His eternal nature as well as eternal torment.

The people who argue this word "Aionios" will say that it applies only to eternal torment in hell but will in the same voice accept the fact that it is the very same word used to describe Go's eternal attributes, character and nature.

Following two verses contain the usage of the Greek phrase "eis tous aionas ton aionon = into the age of the ages."
The context demands clearly that it means "forever," "without end."

CONCERNING ETERNAL TORMENT:

Rev. 19:3..........
"And a second time they said, "Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever and ever,".

Rev. 20:10.........
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever,".
It clearly shows that it means "forever," "without end."

CONCERNING THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD USING THE SAME EXACT PHRASE:

Gal. 1:5.....
"to whom be the glory forevermore, Amen"

Phil. 4:20.....
"Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen,".

1 Tim. 1:17....
"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen,".

2 Tim. 4:18........
"The Lord will deliver me from every evil deed, and will bring me safely to His heavenly kingdom; to Him be the glory forever and ever. Amen,".

The point is that if the word means something in describing God's character it must also mean the same thing when used to describe His eternal as it is the same phrase. Not only is that plain common sense, in is the Greek grammer. Clearly then, the phrase "forever and ever" is a correct translation of the Greek ""eis tous aionas ton aionon -- forever and ever". Every instance of the phrase shows eternality.

The Annialationist and the Universalist and my dear friend here being responded will probably say that Rev. 19:3 is not eternal because it is the description of smoke from the City of Babylon. But, the judgment that is cast upon her is only the beginning of the eternal punishment of the wicked, indicated in the statement that the smoke from her goes up forever and ever.

The phrase is always speaking of eternal duration.

 

[Major1]

and yet you refuse to address the way the lang is constructed when the word is repeated, if you ask me, that is equally dishonest to what you are accusing others of being. So maybe, just maybe, instead of making accusations we all should just address the points made and stop trying to avoid what is more difficult for the given version one wants to defend?! let's look into this...Matthew 25:46 - And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

the definition of the word everlasting from the Lexicon...

1. without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2. without beginning
3. without end, never to cease, everlasting

seems pretty eternal to me, but let's keep looking...the same word is used in Matthew 18:8; Matthew 25:41 and 46; Mark 3:29

Now interesting enough, this is the same word used in many different passages for eternal life and the very eternal nature of God. But, let's not dwell on that since you want to focus a different word, which btw, this is pretty clear that eternal means eternal.

According to the Strong's concordance website which includes the Lexicon, aion is derived from the above aiōnios...Now notice some of the places this word is used....Matthew 6:13 God's eternal glory...now this word is most often used in connection to the earth, which we know will be made new, but does NOT negate the above passages that talk about the eternity of hell. Also notice the passages that are related to hell repeat the word. As I have pointed out this is an emphasis that tells the read that this is more than just "forever" iow's it is to say "forever and more than forever" a point you refuse to address.

So here is the bottom line. where I did not find your chosen word used, (didn't look that long) we do know that the word aidios is used two times, Romans 1:20 where we are talking about the eternal power of God, just like the above word, aion is used and again Jude 1:6 where we see the word being used to talk about the everlasting darkness of the angels (aka hell, remember hell was created for Satan and his angel followers, the demons....here is the verse and the angels which kept no their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Which all seems pretty clearly to be saying eternal or everlasting no matter how you want to slice it. Now, admittedly that leaves a lot of questions still, but one thing at a time. well, we have all tried to talk to you about this so I won't make this post unduly long by going over it again. Taking only the above as you asked us to, there is no doubt that scripture talks about an eternal hell. I mean, this is to use your own logic and discussion points... careful....it appears from an investigation of your own objection that it is you who are refusing to accept what scripture says, maybe the wise man doesn't jump to conclusions about who is and who is not trying to force scripture to fit their theology... We can deal with destruction in a bit, don't make things so complicated you can't keep track of what has been said, it seems that some here have fallen into that hole. again, one thing at a time, refute the above...then we will talk again about the immortal soul/spirit here is the problem, I used your own "exegesis" above and showed you that scripture is clear that hell is eternal...that does not answer some of the other questions we have about hell like immoral soul/spirit, etc. but the question is whether or not you will accept that scripture clearly does say that hell is eternal. Once we establish whether or not you will accept this simple truth using your own "exegetical" study we can move on, precept upon precept. all in due time...do you accept what scripture clearly says about the eternal nature of hell or not?

Agreed. I just post in #1279 basically the same answer. But for some reason I think that our brethren will reject these truths work real hard to try and find a loophole to squeeze through.

Just me speaking here, but I have seen in my experience that when a denomination or church or person has to work as hard as these people are having to work, their theology is almost always going to be unbiblical and incorrect.

IMO, the Scriptures are written in a way that when read and prayed over always fit everything into perfect order and understanding without all the work. That IMO is because the truth is always easy to prove.

Then in answer to your question of......
"do you accept what scripture clearly says about the eternal nature of hell
or not?"

NO! If they did we would not be having this wonderful conversation.

 

[Major1]

Once again you prove that you traditionalists live in a fantasy world. You are flat out [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] me off because you know damn well that youre being dishonesty with the scriptures. First off, you cannot reinterpret 500 plus pasages of scripture to fit in with few. This is not only false exegesis. It is plain dishonest.


And YOU are the one who is wrong about aionios. Aion means age....ios is a suffix that means pertaining to. Put those 2 things together and you have pertaining to an age
Its not that hard if you just read the word for what it actually says instead of reading youe nonsense into it. aionios in particular is used in many places in scripture that very obviously do not mean forever.


Btw, whos arguing against the definition of everlasting? All I said was that aidios is the only word in the greek language that primairly means this. Please stop being willfully dishonest with the scriptures and with my statements.

Who in the world cursed you????? You need to actually read my post friend. I do not curse and have no reason to do so with you. It is therefore YOU who are putting words in place that do not apply.

I am in no way cursing you, only saying that you are wrong. But this is always what happens when those (You) are shown to be in error. Instead of talking about the Scriptures or Bible doctrines you resort to personal comments or uncivil comments.

I could have posted many more Scriptures but what would be the point. YOU still did not speak to the gramaticl fact that the same word used to describe God's eternal character is the same one used to describe eternal torment.

Instead of speaking to me, why not speak to that point.

You said..........
"Aion means age....ios is a suffix that means pertaining to".

Exactly my point!!!! The suffix is always dependant upon the context where it is used.

Now you said............
"The fact is that there are 500 plus scriptures that directly state that the end of the wicked is death and destruction. There is a passage in nearly every page of scripture that states this. So how in the world does on come up with the nonsense theology that is eternal torment? "

Then you said..........
"Btw, whos arguing against the definition of everlasting?"

YOU ARE!!!

And there is NOT 500 verses in the Bible that support the idea that the lost person is not tormented eternally!!! That is simply not true. The truth is that there is not one single verse in the Bible which states the people in hell will be consumed.

The real truths is simply that we do not need the Greek to be able to see that hell is literal place where the lost are tormented eternally.

Mt 25:46..........
"And these (Lost) will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life".

Jude 13: ......
"for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever" "outer Darkness" .

2 Th 1:9 .......
"And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord".

Mt 25:41......
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels".