The Doctrine of Eternal Torture in Hell

[razzelflabben]

There is nothing left to say. I already made my case by showing you the plain written meaning of Scripture.[

plain written meaning of scripture is what we have been showing you....lol...no twisting ourselves into knots trying to justify our bias.

The second death is called the second death because it is related to the first death.

as you have been show, it is contrasted to eternal life, which means you once again are wrong my friend. You see, what is plainly written is compare and contrast not just compare.

Jesus destroying the soul is in relation to man destroying the physical body.

no, according to scripture it is always in conjunction with eternal life which is why we know from the plainly written text that you are wrong.

Your disagreement using a dead language that you have not spoken and written personally within the culture yourself (So as to change the plain meaning within God's Word in our own language) doesn't prove you are right in any way.

that "dead lang." you are complaining about is how we know anything at all about scripture. Not sure why that should be a problem for you but even without that we see that you are wrong. In fact, that is how we know we are right, because no matter how you slice it, it always comes up the same.

I choose to believe God preserved His Word within our language today for many reasons.

I think that is true of all of us here, not sure why you would act like it isn't. Looking at a translational issue doesn't change the meaning, it only enhances it.

But if you disagree, go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe.
I am not stopping you.
But don't expect me to believe the way you do.
It just does not make any logical sense.


...

the problem is Eternal conscious hell is the only thing that makes sense.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Eternal conscious hell is the only thing that makes sense.

Keep believing whatever you want to see.
I am not going to stop you.
Neither am I going to try and force you to see what I see.
If you don't see it, then there is a reason why that this is so.
I have already made my case for CI (Conditional Immortality).
Your disagreement (By your shaking your head metaphorically with your words) does not change the truth of what I believe God's Word says on the matter.


...

 

[razzelflabben]

That's good for you.
Keep believing whatever you want to see.
I am not going to stop you.
Neither am I going to try and force you to see what I see.
If you don't see it, then there is a reason why that this is so.


...

look, I came here to see if I was missing something in scripture cause if I was I would without question change my mind on the matter, what I saw was people twisting themselves in knots to avoid scriptures that seem pretty plainly written. you and others had a wonderful opportunity to convince me because I NEVER assume to know the answers, there is simply too much of God to know to make those assumptions, but you didn't even put forth a decent effort, you all just dismissed anything that challenged your understanding which is horribly sad and frustrating from someone who enjoys challenge as much as I do.

 

[Der Alte]

There is nothing left to say.
I already made my case by showing you the plain written meaning of Scripture. We gain immortality or eternal life only from the gospel.

If one ignores the plain written meaning of Luke 16:19-31, Isaiah 14:9-11, Ezekiel 32:20-23, Ezekiel 32:31-32.

The second death is called the second death because it is related to the first death.

That is incorrect. Not one single verse in Revelation says that anyone or anything is thrown into the LoF then dies. The beast, false prophet, devil, hell and death are thrown into the LoF but neither hell nor death are living entities they cannot die a first death. None of the five have died a first death so they cannot die a second death.

Jesus destroying the soul is in relation to man destroying the physical body.

Please provide one verse which says that God or Jesus has or will destroy even one soul?

The word "forever" and it's related words have been used in a temporal sense in many places in the Bible.

Not relevant. You must prove that forever does not mean everlasting, unending etc. not just assume it. There are many examples of hyperbole in the Bible. When Jesus said "First take the beam out of your own eye..." there was no actual beam in anyone's eye. It was hyperbole. Since God is eternal why would John use words that did not actually mean eternal when he said that God lives and reigns for ever an ever? Since John was communicating Bible absolutes if the words that John used do not mean eternal why didn't John use words that did?

Also, the ECT Proponent cannot explain the morality or the goodness behind ECT, either.

If God did or does it, it is moral, end of discussion. Some people argue that God did not destroy the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah or command the destruction of the Inhabitants of Canaan because that is immoral.

Your disagreement using a dead language that you have not spoken and written personally within the culture yourself (So as to change the plain meaning within God's Word in our own language) doesn't prove you are right in any way. I choose to believe God preserved His Word within our language today for many reasons.

Since the first English translation was in England in 1611, 1500 years + and 3,000 miles + separated from the time and place that old dead language was written, how did the English speaking scholars know how to translate those supposedly dead languages? How do the scholars who translated the more modern versions you have quoted know how to translate those dead languages? Sounds like someone wants to eat their cake and have it too. "When the Bible translation agrees with my assumptions/presuppositions then it is correct when it does not then it is wrong and only I decide which is or is not correct."

But if you disagree, go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe.
I am not stopping you.
But don't expect me to believe the way you do.
It just does not make any logical sense.

...

Your entire argument here is not logical.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If one ignores the plain written meaning of Luke 16:19-31,

Luke 16:19-31 does not teach Eternal Torment. There are only two ways one can interpret this story in a literal way. One way is to say that the rich-man was tormented by the heat of the flame in front of him. The second way is to say the rich-man was tormented in the actual flame despite Jesus's parables illustrating to us that the spirit world is a parallel of the physical world. I am on the fence as to which one took place. But it still is not a case for ECT. Nothing is mentioned as to the length of time the rich-man was spending in hades or the place of torment.

Isaiah 14:9-11,

As for Isaiah 14:9-11:
I am not in disagreement that the wicked will be conscious at different times in hell.
But this does not mean that ALL the wicked in hell will be experiencing the same sleep and wake cycle, though.

Ezekiel 32:20-23, Ezekiel 32:31-32.

Not in disagreement that the wicked will be concious after death at certain times. But these texts do not say they are being tortured in flames for thousands of years. Nor do they say they will be tortured in flames for all eternity, either.

That is incorrect. Not one single verse in Revelation says that anyone or anything is thrown into the LoF then dies. The beast, false prophet, devil, hell and death are thrown into the LoF but neither hell nor death are living entities they cannot die a first death. None of the five have died a first death so they cannot die a second death.

Revelation 21:8 lists various sins for the wicked whereby they will be cast into the Lake of Fire. This Lake of Fire is called the Second Death. If you do not like the name, I cannot help that. But it is what the Bible calls the Lake of Fire. For if there is a Second Death, then logic dictates that there is a First Death.

Please provide one verse which says that God or Jesus has or will destroy even one soul?

Jesus says in Matthew 10:28 that we are to fear Him (Jesus) who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna (i.e. the Lake of Fire). The contrast of destruction of the soul here is in contrast to man destroying the body. The analogy would not make any sense if the destruction was different. Your not wanting to see it, does not change the clear illustration made within the verse.

Not relevant. You must prove that forever does not mean everlasting, unending etc. not just assume it. There are many examples of hyperbole in the Bible. When Jesus said "First take the beam out of your own eye..." there was no actual beam in anyone's eye. It was hyperbole. Since God is eternal why would John use words that did not actually mean eternal when he said that God lives and reigns for ever an ever? Since John was communicating Bible absolutes if the words that John used do not mean eternal why didn't John use words that did?

It is not an assumption. Destruction means destruction based on other CI (Condtional Immortality) verses.
God used the global flood and Sodom and Gomora as examples to all who live ungodly.
Jesus destroys the soul just as man can destroy the body.
The second death is related to the first death.
Eternal life or immortality is only for the saints.
Variations on the word destruction like perish, being like smoke, stubble, being burned up, and corpses (lifeless husks) are all in reference to the wicked.

If God did or does it, it is moral, end of discussion. Some people argue that God did not destroy the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah or command the destruction of the Inhabitants of Canaan because that is immoral.

But it wasn't immoral for God to destroy his enemies here upon this Earth because they were sinful and they rejected God.

Since the first English translation was in England in 1611, 1500 years + and 3,000 miles + separated from the time and place that old dead language was written, how did the English speaking scholars know how to translate those supposedly dead languages? How do the scholars who translated the more modern versions you have quoted know how to translate those dead languages? Sounds like someone wants to eat their cake and have it too. "When the Bible translation agrees with my assumptions/presuppositions then it is correct when it does not then it is wrong and only I decide which is or is not correct."

Your entire argument here is not logical.

Uh huh. Well, God had no problem communicating to people in Acts chapter 2 (Whereby everybody could hear each other speak in their own language). I believe God does not change. I believe the God I worship is not the God of the dead (i.e. of the past) but of the living (i.e. in the here and now). God never required within His Word for us to learn an older dead language in order to understand Him. It's not Biblical.


...

 

[Tull]

Some folks are going to have to go to hell to believe its real

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Some folks are going to have to go to hell to believe its real

I never said hell was not real. I believe it is a very real and literal place. I just do not believe there is any Scripture saying that the wicked will burn down there for thousands of years. Yes, the story of Lazarus and the Rich-man appears to suggest he was in the flame, but he also could have been referring to the heat of the flame in front of him (either nearby or in the great gulf between him and Abraham). In other words, when the rich-man said "I am tormented in this flame" (Luke 16:24) it would sort of be like if I said "I am tormented in this soldier." (referring to the soldier in front of me). For the first appearance of the English word "this" is used by Adam to refer to Eve who was in front of him (Genesis 2:23). Granted, I am not discounting the idea that the rich-man was burning in the actual flame itself, but I do not believe he was burning down there for thousands of years consciously being aware of that fact because God is fair and just in His Judgments.

47 "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
(Luke 12:47-48).


...

 

[Tull]

I never said hell was not real. I believe it is a very real and literal place. I just do not believe there is any Scripture saying that the wicked will burn down there for thousands of years. Yes, the story of Lazarus and the Rich-man appears to suggest he was in the flame, but he also could have been referring to the heat of the flame in front of him (either nearby or in the great gulf between him and Abraham). In other words, when the rich-man said "I am tormented in this flame" (Luke 16:24) it would sort of be like if I said "I am tormented in this soldier." (referring to the soldier in front of me). For the first appearance of the English word "this" is used by Adam to refer to Eve who was in front of him (Genesis 2:23). Granted, I am not discounting the idea that the rich-man was burning in the actual flame itself, but I do not believe he was burning down there for thousands of years consciously being aware of that fact because God is fair and just in His Judgments.

47 "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
(Luke 12:47-48).


...

Believe what you want

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Believe what you want

Not at all. In fact, these past few days, I have been praying to the LORD for guidance as to which literal view on Luke 16:19-31 is the correct one? I am on the fence as to whether the rich- man was tormented in the flame itself or if he was tormented by the heat of the flame in front of him. I will not stop asking God until I die. But I know in time, He will answer me (Like He has before in the past on tough verses). For the Lord our God is faithful and true.


...

 

[razzelflabben]

Not at all. In fact, these past few days, I have been praying to the LORD for guidance as to which literal view on Luke 16:19-31 is the correct one? I am on the fence as to whether the rich- man was tormented in the flame itself or if he was tormented by the heat of the flame in front of him. I will not stop asking God until I die. But I know in time, He will answer me (Like He has before in the past on tough verses). For the Lord our God is faithful and true.


...

it isn't enough just to ask God, we also have to be willing to listen and accept what He says...since you have repeatedly ignored what was said to you, I'm thinking this might be one area in which you should work on.

 

[Tull]

Wouldn't you consider it a better use of time to tell people how to avoid Hell whether it last for eternity or ten minutes,what are people going to say if they believe you,oh,i guess God's not so bad after all,guess i'll be a Christian,is it supposed to make God more popular some how ? what is the point of trying to diminish hell or its impact ?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wouldn't you consider it a better use of time to tell people how to avoid Hell whether it last for eternity or ten minutes,what are people going to say if they believe you,oh,i guess God's not so bad after all,guess i'll be a Christian,is it supposed to make God more popular some how ? what is the point of trying to diminish hell or its impact ?

Because it would be preaching a lie or preaching that God is not into fair justice.
You believe in Eternal Torment, not because you prayed over the verses but because you merely accepted ECT as a package deal when you accepted Christ and became a Christian. For you, there is no way the church can be wrong on this. But believe whatever you want to believe. Don't worry about asking God for the correct understanding. Just believe whatever your church says. Surely they cannot be wrong.


...

 

[Tull]

Because it would be preaching a lie or preaching that God is not into fair justice.

Telling people how to avoid hell would be preaching a lie

 

[razzelflabben]

Because it would be preaching a lie or preaching that God is not into fair justice.
You believe in Eternal Torment, not because you prayed over the verses but because you merely accepted ECT as a package deal when you accepted Christ and became a Christian. For you, there is no way the church can be wrong on this. But believe whatever you want to believe. Don't worry about asking God for the correct understanding. Just believe whatever your church says. Surely they cannot be wrong.


...

who are you to judge others when you yourself refuse to answer challenges?

 

[Der Alte]

Luke 16:19-31 does not teach Eternal Torment. There are only two ways one can interpret this story in a literal way. One way is to say that the rich-man was tormented by the heat of the flame in front of him.

Nonsense! There is not one single instance of the other 49 occurrences of the phrase "in this," in the NT, where it could possibly be translated "in front of!" No, zero, none! I know what, let's all just make up our own interpretation of scripture to fit our assumptions/presuppositions. I wonder how all of the native Greek speaking ECF who understood the story of Lazarus and the rich man to be factual were wrong but people 2000 years +/- later somehow got it right? I guess the Holy Spirit didn't give anyone the correct interpretation until this century.

The second way is to say the rich-man was tormented in the actual flame despite Jesus's parables illustrating to us that the spirit world is a parallel of the physical world.

Do you have any scriptural examples which would help us understand how the spirit world is a parallel of the physical world concerning Lazarus and the rich man?

I am on the fence as to which one took place. But it still is not a case for ECT. Nothing is mentioned as to the length of time the rich-man was spending in hades or the place of torment.

If the rich man's torment ended at some time I wonder why Jesus didn't say that. That is a very important point for Jesus to omit. But Jesus did say this.

Luke 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.​

As for Isaiah 14:9-11:
I am not in disagreement that the wicked will be conscious at different times in hell.
But this does not mean that ALL the wicked in hell will be experiencing the same sleep and wake cycle, though.

Where does scripture say that some people will experience conscience existence after death and others will not?

Not in disagreement that the wicked will be concious after death at certain times. But these texts do not say they are being tortured in flames for thousands of years. Nor do they say they will be tortured in flames for all eternity, either.

When did Jesus say the rich man's situation would change?

Revelation 21:8 lists various sins for the wicked whereby they will be cast into the Lake of Fire. This Lake of Fire is called the Second Death. If you do not like the name, I cannot help that. But it is what the Bible calls the Lake of Fire. For if there is a Second Death, then logic dictates that there is a First Death.

The Lake of Fire and the second death are interchangeable terms, The lake of fire is the second death and the second death is the lake of fire. Not one verse says that anything or anyone is thrown into the LoF and then they/it dies.
.....Please explain to me how death and hell, neither of which is a living entity, can die a second death, when they have not and cannot die a first death? Then there is the beast, the false prophet and the devil who did not die a first death, are thrown alive into the LoF, which "is the second death" but they do not die then either, they are tormented day and night for ever and ever. Ergo the LoF is not synonymous with death or annihilation.

Jesus says in Matthew 10:28 that we are to fear Him (Jesus) who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna (i.e. the Lake of Fire). The contrast of destruction of the soul here is in contrast to man destroying the body. The analogy would not make any sense if the destruction was different. Your not wanting to see it, does not change the clear illustration made within the verse.

Please show me a verse which says that God or Jesus has or will destroy even one soul in hell? And show me where the LoF is identified as Gehenna?

It is not an assumption. Destruction means destruction based on other CI (Condtional Immortality) verses.
God used the global flood and Sodom and Gomora as examples to all who live ungodly.
Jesus destroys the soul just as man can destroy the body.

Still waiting for that verse which clearly states that God has or will destroy even one soul in hell. As I have repeatedly shown destruction does not necessarily mean destroy, annihilate, cease to exist etc.
.....Something I just now realized, we have a double standard going on here. It is argued that "forever" can't mean "forever" because it is used for temporal things. But here "destruction" must mean annihilate, cease to exist etc. although it is used to describe things that are not annihilated; tarnished gold, lost sheep and coins, faded flowers, broken wine skins, spilled wine, spoiled wine and food, ointment used on Jesus, prodigal son etc.

The second death is related to the first death.

Not for death, hell, the beast, the false prophet and the devil! If there is no first death there can be no second death!

Eternal life or immortality is only for the saints.

Already addressed this.

Variations on the word destruction like perish, being like smoke, stubble, being burned up, and corpses (lifeless husks) are all in reference to the wicked.

Everything in red only refers to the wicked being put to death in this world. They have nothing to do with the eternal fate of the wicked.

But it wasn't immoral for God to destroy his enemies here upon this Earth because they were sinful and they rejected God.

Anything that God has done or will do, even if finite, fallible man thinks otherwise, is or will be moral.

Uh huh. Well, God had no problem communicating to people in Acts chapter 2 (Whereby everybody could hear each other speak in their own language). I believe God does not change. I believe the God I worship is not the God of the dead (i.e. of the past) but of the living (i.e. in the here and now). God never required within His Word for us to learn an older dead language in order to understand Him. It's not Biblical.

Is it your argument that the KJV, and any other translation you deem correct, was "translated" by divine fiat? That the translators had no knowledge of the dead languages, that God gave them the correct translation without any scholastic effort on their part?
.....Unfortunately the KJV translators made no such claim for their translation. In the KJV 19 page preface "spirit" is mentioned 6 times and never once did the translators claim that the KJV was translated by direct inspiration of the Spirit. You can read the entire 19 pages at this link.
http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

 

[Der Alte]

Because it would be preaching a lie or preaching that God is not into fair justice.
You believe in Eternal Torment, not because you prayed over the verses but because you merely accepted ECT as a package deal when you accepted Christ and became a Christian. For you, there is no way the church can be wrong on this. But believe whatever you want to believe. Don't worry about asking God for the correct understanding. Just believe whatever your church says. Surely they cannot be wrong.
...

Rubbish! Biased rubbish. I have not seen anyone cite church doctrine as justification for their belief in "eternal punishment." Just the same old biased diatribe. While this was addressed to someone else it is a direct insult to anyone who disagrees with you. This appears that you think you are the only one who has ever "prayed over the verses." I suggest you quit making personal insults and deal with the scriptures, and grammatical and lexical evidence which is being presented. Do you think you can handle that or is personal insult all you can do?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Rubbish! Biased rubbish. I have not seen anyone cite church doctrine as justification for their belief in "eternal punishment." Just the same old biased diatribe. While this was addressed to someone else it is a direct insult to anyone who disagrees with you. This appears that you think you are the only one who has ever "prayed over the verses." I suggest you quit making personal insults and deal with the scriptures, and grammatical and lexical evidence which is being presented. Do you think you can handle that or is personal insult all you can do?

Folks do not have to cite church doctrine in order for ECT to be true for them. I used to believe in ECT. Remember? One of the biggest things holding me back in going against ECT was the fact that the majority of Protestant churches couldn't be wrong on such a major doctrine. Yet, ECT is accepted as fact just as much they believe in Jesus Christ. Also, if you feel offended in any way by my words, it was not meant to be an insult to anyone, but merely what I believe to be the truth. So you can take it any way you like, but my words were not intended with any malice or harm in any way. For if I am right (and I believe I am), then it is merely the truth. However, sometimes people do not like hearing the truth (for various reasons).

In either case, may God bless you.
And please do not take my belief about as to why I think people believe in ECT personally.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Telling people how to avoid hell would be preaching a lie

Like I said. I am not in disagreement that there is a hell. Preaching the wrong idea of what hell is about would be a lie is what I am saying. Going beyond the text and misrepresenting what God's Word says about it is wrong. We look thru a glass darkly.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, I will ask people to stop and think. How can you explain how ECT is loving, just, fair, and good?


...

 

[razzelflabben]

Rubbish! Biased rubbish. I have not seen anyone cite church doctrine as justification for their belief in "eternal punishment." Just the same old biased diatribe. While this was addressed to someone else it is a direct insult to anyone who disagrees with you. This appears that you think you are the only one who has ever "prayed over the verses." I suggest you quit making personal insults and deal with the scriptures, and grammatical and lexical evidence which is being presented. Do you think you can handle that or is personal insult all you can do?

here is another example of certain peoples gymnastics to "read scripture plainly" as per what the words mean. A certain poster has been trying to twist word meaning like for the word destruction then hollars foul when context, translation, etc. are brought in...so let us look at the possible word meanings for something like destruction. Let's say I bake a cake and put a lot of work into frosting it to perfection. I leave the cake sit on the table for the coming party. Our two year old son walks into the kitchen and decides that the cake looks too good to wait to have a taste. Takes a huge bite out of it. The cake is ruined, destroyed, right? Right! And yet the cake is still edible, it just doesn't look as good as it did. See, Der Alter, we can make our case no matter how we look at it because it is truth and a real, living, and true God would do that with the word He sends us, He would make it so that truth is truth no matter how you look at it.

Btw, you have made some really great posts, have really enjoyed your posts.