the fallacy of eternal torment and related issues

Flynmonkie · Jul 1, 2005

Pilgrim 33 said:
The word "damnation" as used [/color]here needs deeper study)

John 10:27-28, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

Now, don't marvel at this but only the saved can hear His voice.

Once, again, the issue is not judgment, nor is it life or damnation, neither is it of the resurrection of the saved. The issue is the judgment of the unsaved.

Yes, this is what grabbed me. In addition the comparison of Acts 24:15 to Ephesions 9, in context.

Pilgrim 33 · Jul 1, 2005

daneel said:
Your statement is incorrect in this regards to only being able to be raised up in Jesus only.

Then you will have to first refute the finality of Jesus' words in:

John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

How will the dead stand before God in the judgement?

Well, I know the saved will be judged...

Revelation 20:13, "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."

if they are not raised up from the sea?

Where does it say those in the sea that will be raised are unsaved?

from hell?

But hell gets thrown into the lake of fire and is destroyed, so where does it say people are resurrected from hell before hell is destroyed?

I think the verse is better understood thus:

"...and death and the grave delivered up the dead which were in them..."

Just as this verse...

Revelation 6:8, "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

is better rendered thus...

"...and his name that sat on him was Death, and the grave followed..."

It seems so much of the misunderstandings are a result of rendering "the grave" as "hell".

from death?

Ecclesiastes 9:5, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

Unless they are saved they are forgotten history, any reward or punishment that was due them they already received in this life, the unsaved were convicted long before they became absent inasmuch as they were never known before the foundation of the world was laid, Eph 1:4 and were never foreknown as Romans 8:29-30 refers to us.

resurrection:

G386
ἀνάστασις
anastasis
an-as'-tas-is
From G450; a standing up again, that is, (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, general or by implication (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth): - raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.

As to the Greek definitions for resurrection, I agree, for Jesus says this is only possible by Him for those in Him.

Pilgrim 33 · Jul 1, 2005

I think we need to stop for a moment and reconsider:

John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

For if this verse does indeed mean just what Jesus is saying, that life and resurrection to life is only possible through Jesus, then there is no sense in further disputing the issue and we must therefore conclude that resurrection of the unsaved is not possible and that everything we have learned in our life up to this point regarding the resurrection of the unsaved has been in error and we must therefore reconsider what we previously thought to be so.

Der Alte · Jul 1, 2005

stevebradley said:
[SIZE=-1]Merely 1 person's opinion, and nothing but a strawman anyway as any Christian can level the same accusation at anybody who believes something different to them.

That post was quite meaningless[/SIZE]

My post was just as meaningful as the pages on pages on pages of cut/pastes from doods who have been dead over 100 years, which do not cite any historical, primary sources.

And you drive by sniping adds to the discussion how?

Pilgrim 33 · Jul 1, 2005

We've already discussed this verse...

Revelation 20:4-5, "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

Notice in the following verse, though the timing is different, that there is a marked similarity in the two verses (yes, they belong in opposite order):

Revelation 6:9-10, "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwellon the earth?"

Notice here that the martyrs, though they ask when judgment takes place, they are not asking to be avenged of those that caused their deaths but, rather, are asking they be avenged of those that are still alive on the earth.

Why do they ask vengeance on those alive and not those that tortured and killed them centuries before?

Is the implication that there is no unsaved dead to exact revenge, ie justice and judgment, upon?

Revelation 20:6, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

ok, so the martyrs are resurrected, then a thousand years later the rest of the dead in Christ are resurrected.

Revelation 20:12, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

This is kinda deceptive for the dead refers to the rest of the dead in 20:5; two books are opened, one, the book of life and, the second, the judgment of the saved based upon their works.

And, yet, the rest of the dead standing before God are those Christians resurrected a thousand years after the martyrs are resurrected.

And, no, it does not, imo, make sense to try to say those standing before God being judged on their works are the unsaved dead for the unsaved were found wanting before the foundation of the world without their works, of which, we know cannot save them anyway.

Who is left? First, we have the living saved who are "caught up"...

1 Thessalonians 4:17, "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

And, finally, there are those that are alive and unsaved...

Revelation 20:15, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

...and, along with their precedessing dead unsaved which are now dust, are burned, all the unsaved, to nothingness when...

2 Peter 3:10, "...[]...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."

And, lastly, we are left one end-all question...

2 Peter 3:11-12, "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 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?"

Der Alte · Jul 1, 2005

Pilgrim 33 said:
[SIZE=-1]Well, as much as it behooves me to enlighten you as you are still upside down and backwards with respect to the true facts of the matter as it is you who came into my house and attacked my faith as this is my thread in my little corner of world.[/SIZE]

You don't own the forum. You don't own the thread. You ain't paying rent. You don't share the Theology of the forum. The fact that you might be the OP does not entitle you to anything. I explained my position, you have not addressed that. You indicated that I should "prove" something or other about all the 100+ y/o undocumented, unsubstantiated, quotes you were posting.

And once again, I share the Theology of this forum, if you do not share that Theology, the burden of proof is on you to refute it, not for me and other like minded individuals to prove it.

Pilgrim 33 said:
[SIZE=-1]If you have any doubts about this I strongly suggest you contact Admin with respect as to exactly why this thread is exactly where it is.[/size]

Totally irrelevant to anything. There are several UT groups posting here, if they post material that attacks the Theology of the forum traditional Christian members will challenge them as well.

Pilgrim 33 said:
[SIZE=-1]And, no, sir, you do NOT have the right to character assassinate anyone. . .[/size]

How have I character assassinated anyone? You posted pages and pages of writings which appeared to be Universalist, I drew a conclusion based on what I read. If I have misinterpreted something, then it is incumbent on you to clarify, instead of you getting on your holier than thou, high horse and ranting about character assassination, etc.

[SIZE=-1]and you do not have the right to cut down anyone's personal beliefs which means you are way out of line regardless of where you are be it[/size]

Now let me see if I understand you correctly. You think you have the right to bad mouth the beliefs of anyone who does not agree with you but you have the absurd idea that neither I, nor anyone else, have a right to point out the errors of your argument, as I have done?

Examples of your bad mouthing, "convoluted reasoning and avoidant tactical responses," " mainstream believers when stripped of their out of context proof-texting tools always become antagonistic" "moved here to the bottom of the cult bucket."

For example, I pointed out how you misrepresented several scriptures and some things I said. You seem to have overlooked that post.

[SIZE=-1]Timbuktu or Nevius' historically demonized China.[/SIZE]

Is this supposed to mean something?

[SIZE=-1]Should you wish to change your holier than thou know it all condemnating attitude and come down to earth for a mature discussion I'll be interested but not before.[/SIZE]

Like I said, you are in my house attacking my faith and my beliefs, I don't care how you got here. Your quotes from 100+ y/o dead guys attack traditional Christianity, without, as I have noted, any historical, documentation. Since you quote them as if they are authoritative, it is the same thing as you saying it.

Don't talk to me about mature discussion until you want to get down off your high horse and address the misrepresentations I pointed out

Pilgrim 33 · Jul 1, 2005

Flynmonkie said:
Yes, this is what grabbed me. In addition the comparison of Acts 24:15 to Ephesians 9, in context.

Acts 24:15, "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."

Ephesians 9

umm, which version might that be?

Flynmonkie · Jul 1, 2005

Pilgrim 33 said:
Acts 24:15, "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust."

Ephesians 9

umm, which version might that be?

True. I will check into it again later. Brain is screaming TMI TMI TMI!

gort · Jul 1, 2005

Daneel quote:
Your statement is incorrect in this regards to only being able to be raised up in Jesus only.

Then you will have to first refute the finality of Jesus' words in:

John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

Why should Jesus need to be refuted? Yes, He is the resurrection and the Life.

As all things are given to the Son by the Father, Jesus had power to raise Lazarus in those verses.

In the time of the judgement Jesus has the power to raise those in Him to eternal life.

Jesus also has the power to raise those up "not in Him" to judgement by their works.

Act 24:15 And I have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment,

<><

For if this verse does indeed mean just what Jesus is saying, that life and resurrection to life is only possible through Jesus, then there is no sense in further disputing the issue and we must therefore conclude that resurrection of the unsaved is not possible and that everything we have learned in our life up to this point regarding the resurrection of the unsaved has been in error and we must therefore reconsider what we previously thought to be so.

You'll also notice in the chapter the verse in contained in is that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

It is'nt judgement time yet. Nor is it the first resurrection. Nor resurrection to life eternal.

LittleNipper · Jul 1, 2005

John 5:28-29

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the RESURRECTION OF LIFE; and they that have done evil, unto the RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION.

gort · Jul 1, 2005

Littlenipper quote:

John 5:28-29

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the RESURRECTION OF LIFE; and they that have done evil, unto the RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION.

Thanx for the verse. Of particular interest is the "hear his voice" part.

I look forward to heaven where we'll have time to memorize the entire Bible, and recall any verse at will.

I sadly lack in this department today.

<><

Pilgrim 33 · Jul 1, 2005

To recap, briefly, my purpose for initiating this thread, a few things that have happened in its course and what I expect to derive from it.
The current handed down perception of the doctrine of hell and eternal torment is fast losing my support as it is also fast losing support of many within the evangelical ranks, particularly, these past few decades and, presumably, due, among other things, to an influx of new and varied translations and, also, with the prophesied increase of knowledge we currently attribute to the computer and technological age.

Granted, cultic beliefs are an issue but, at best, they are just a side issue as the thread's purpose does not entail those beliefs the cultists hold that first and foremost are the reasons for their being regarded cultic; i.e., the specifc issues regarding salvation, those and nothing more are what call us to regard them outside mainstream Christianity. If the tenets of salvation were agreed upon we would think them a little odd for a few quirky beliefs but we could not regard them as outside the "in Christ" zone. Even in the gospel of salvation's most simplistic form,

John 3:16, "...that whosoever believeth in him...should...have everlasting life."

So, even at that minimal level of belief, we should be cautioned in calling another that "believes in Him" not of Christ, indeed, we are cautioned with, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?"

But, then, this is not the purpose of the thread either for the thread has to do, not with the tenets and elements of salvation but, rather, just the opposite, the validity behind what has been handed down and become the modernly held perception of hell and the viability of the concept of eternal torment. Yes, unfortunately, some of the cults DO have a better understanding of the matter for in refusing the early Catholic views, their historical supporters and the Middle Ages' authors', painters' and poets' colorful renditions of "angels and mankind suffering in everlasting flames of torture" for the cultists appear to have been better prepared in that they did not have Christendom's preconceived colorized versions distorting their (albeit, granted) sincere desire to seek out The Truth. Then, that does not mean that I subscribe to other of their belifs or thinking. If me questioning the validity of a nonsalvation issue makes me a cultist then there is a very large part of Christendom today that have suddenly become cultists inside churches of every denomination for the very same reason, questioning eternal torment.

Many questions were asked early on in the thread that conventional biblical understanding cannot answer without convoluted reasoning and avoidant tactical responses alluding to the unknowing mysteries and purposes of God. And, yet, on the other hand, views like Conditional Immortality, while not answering all of the questions either, do answer a lot more questions and much more simply than the (if I may) "traditionally modern" view.

To date, those questions have yet to be answered and generally are silently ignored as they are, imo, genuinely seen to be unanswerable by current viewpoints of hell and eternal torment advocates even though the questions themselves are far too simple not to have equally simple answers.

This thread originally started over in the General Theology section; oddly, mainstream believers when stripped of their out of context proof-texting tools always become antagonistic when faced with simple questions they cannot pick and choose even the smallest of phrases to create and on the spot theology to buttress any current understanding into a belief. So, understandably, the thread, apparently after enough crying, was moved here to the bottom of the cult bucket.

In the course of the thread so far it has not been the intent to prove the doctrine of hell and eternal torment wrong but, rather, there simply is not the necessary and required body of evidence to support it and that is an altogether different approach. Nor is it approached lightly after almost fifty years as a Christian, with the majority of it from a Southern Baptist background with a few varied years in other denominations; yes, I attended college and bible college and mission work and yes, very much of every day has always been devoted to The Lord, His Word and His work. No two people learn the same thing in the same way in the same times and the only thng for sure in this respect is that the further we move beyond the simplistic to whosoever believeth the more it treacherously becomes to whomsoever much is given. But then that is another matter, another judgment entirely, isn't it, as it no longer is an issue "IF" one is saved but, instead, has become one of that believer's rewards and retributions based on how he lived his faith be it with the most simplistic or the most learned understanding.

The original and still intent for my initiating this thread are contained, for the most part, within the following questions and their, still, unfound answers; I trust those interested know the corresponding verses the following questions speak to...

How can the unsaved be resurrected to life since resurrected life is only possible through Jesus?
Eternal life in hell is still eternal life, so how can the unsaved have eternal life without having accepted Jesus?
If death and hell are cast into the Lake of Fire and destroyed how can there be anyone in eternal torment?
If all things are created new how can there be any unsaved people living eternally in eternal torment in the new creation?
How can there be any evil left over from the old creation in the new creation if all the old creation and all the old creation's evil are destroyed and burnt up to nothingness and, later, all things are created anew?
Scripture affirms that hell will be destroyed so it cannot be everlasting.
Scripture affirms that the very elements of the whole of creation will melt away (presumably) in the lake of fire and that all things will be created anew so, again, "hell" cannot be everlasting.
Since the remains of the unregenerate are dust and forgotten memories and all the dust and creation's elements are melted and burnt to nothingness before a new creation can be created then, being absent the breath of life, there is no soul to torture everlasting in an everlasting torture chamber that does not exist.
God's everlasting torture chamber--the very concept is antithetical to the justice and mercy of an all powerful God and since all power has been given to Jesus this is an even greater affront to the very love and sacrifice of Jesus.
For God to take dust that no longer exists and add memories that are forgotten and no longer exist and to, once again, add His breath of life just so His breath of life and non-existent dust and forgotten memories can be tortured forever in God's personal torture chamber--the very concept of God torturing His very breath of life throughout all eternity is even ludicrous for without His breath of life there can be no soul anymore than non-existent dust and forgotten memories alone could have a conscious state to be tortured forever in.

Simply put, is there eternal life apart from Christ? If not (as we Christians believe), then how are the unsaved supposed to live eternally (for how else are we to interpret endless hell unless the victim is alive somehow)?

ICor 2: speaks of the natural man being unable to receive the things of God. Natural meaning according to nature. All things begin in this life after the manner of nature, plants, animals, man. All begin according to their reproductive nature. Only if they could be (as man can) be reborn in another manner could they escape the end consequence of their nature: death.

Now then, the conclusion of this is that the natural man dies according to the nature of his nature because he has not been reborn. Christ told this to Nicodemus when he said a man had to be reborn. Annihilationism solves another problem; the age old question of why a holy, loving, merciful God would take pleasure in inflicting endless torment to the unsaved.

Revelation speaks to the devil, the beast and the false prophet being thrown into the lake of fire to be tormented forever. That makes sense, for two reasons. First, they are not natural as is natural man and, consequently, cannot die as natural man can, a point that raises the question as to whether or not anything granted eternal status (at least in the case of the devil who was before iniquity was found in him Ezek 28:12) can be put to death. Then, too, their presence in the eternal lake of fire could serve the purpose of what happens when you challenge God, Is 14:12.

So, does natural man die dead dead or is he granted eternal life? As far as being convicted in absentia, the unsaved are convicted long before they became absent inasmuch as they were never known before the foundation of the world was laid, Eph 1:4 and were never foreknown as Romans 8:29-30 refers to us. (Without question, Romans 8 is one of the most profound doctrinal works in the bible).

Lately, I've noticed that words like "eternal", "everlasting", "for ever" and "for ever and ever" seem to simplify when the lake of fire and Peter's fire are viewed as one and the same.

2 Peter 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."

2 Peter 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?"

Jesus IS the (ONLY) Resurrection...and that resurrection is (ONLY) for those that "believeth in me"

John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

Additionally, any life "in the beyond" is only possible through Jesus for only He IS "the life", and His life is only possible for those "in" Him and His life is only possible through His resurrection of those "in" Him.

Resurrection of the unsaved is the issue here, not judgment, iow, the unsaved must be resurrected before they can stand before God in judgment. But, how can they if resurrection is only by Jesus and only for the saved?

Revelation 20:4-5, "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

This is not apropos to the resurrection of the unsaved. This tells me the martyrs are resurrected; it also tells me that the rest of the believers (ie all except the martyrs) are resurrected a thousand years later when Satan is loosed from his prison (v 7). Yes, all this is the first resurrection. And, it speaks only to the saved, not the unsaved.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

Here I see the second half of the first resurrection spoken of in Rev 20:4-5 (above verse just discussed): "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished" which, again, speaks to the resurrection of the saved.

But, what of the resurrection of the unsaved?

John 5:28-29, "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

(off-track comment: Are Christians perfect and unable to sin and commit evil? The word "damnation" as used here needs deeper study)

John 10:27-28, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

Now, don't marvel at this but only the saved can hear His voice.

Once, again, the issue is not judgment, nor is it life or damnation, neither is it of the resurrection of the saved. The issue is the judgment of the unsaved.

We've already discussed this verse...

Revelation 20:4-5, "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

Notice in the following verse, though the timing is different, that there is a marked similarity in the two verses (yes, they belong in opposite order):

Revelation 6:9-10, "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwellon the earth?"

Notice here that the martyrs, though they ask when judgment takes place, they are not asking to be avenged of those that caused their deaths but, rather, are asking they be avenged of those that are still alive on the earth.

Why do they ask vengeance on those alive and not those that tortured and killed them centuries before?

Is the implication that there is no unsaved dead to exact revenge, ie justice and judgment, upon?

Revelation 20:6, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."

ok, so the martyrs are resurrected, then a thousand years later the rest of the dead in Christ are resurrected.

Revelation 20:12, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."

This is kinda deceptive for it refers to the rest of the dead in 20:5; two books are opened, one, the book of life and, the second, the judgment of the saved based upon their works.

And, yet, the rest of the dead standing before God are those Christians resurrected a thousand years after the martyrs are resurrected.

And, no, it does not, imo, make sense to try to say those standing before God being judged on their works are the unsaved dead for the unsaved were found wanting before the foundation of the world without their works, of which, we know cannot save them anyway.

Who is left? First, we have the living saved who are "caught up"...

1 Thessalonians 4:17, "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

And, finally, there are those that are alive and unsaved...

Revelation 20:15, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

...and, along with their precedessing dead unsaved which are now dust, are burned, all the unsaved, to nothingness when...

2 Peter 3:10, "...[]...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."

And, lastly, we are left one end-all question...

2 Peter 3:11-12, "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 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?"

I think we need to stop for a moment and reconsider:

John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

For if this verse does indeed mean just what Jesus is saying, that life and resurrection to life is only possible through Jesus, then there is no sense in further disputing the issue and we must therefore conclude that resurrection of the unsaved is not possible and that everything we have learned in our life up to this point regarding the resurrection of the unsaved has been in error and we must therefore reconsider what we previously thought to be so.

gort · Jul 1, 2005

I think we need to stop for a moment and reconsider:

John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

For if this verse does indeed mean just what Jesus is saying, that life and resurrection to life is only possible through Jesus, then there is no sense in further disputing the issue and we must therefore conclude that resurrection of the unsaved is not possible and that everything we have learned in our life up to this point regarding the resurrection of the unsaved has been in error and we must therefore reconsider what we previously thought to be so.

Hi, I wanted to say thanx. I enjoyed the game. My ride on the Mobius strip has to come to an end. Too much ad nauseum makes one sick.

toodles

<><

Pilgrim 33 · Jul 1, 2005

Many questions were asked early on in the thread that conventional biblical understanding cannot answer without convoluted reasoning and avoidant tactical responses alluding to the unknowing mysteries and purposes of God.

To date, those questions have yet to be answered and generally are silently ignored as they are, imo, genuinely seen to be unanswerable by current viewpoints of hell and eternal torment advocates even though the questions themselves should be far too simple not to have equally simple answers.

At least, that seems the bulk of responses from a number of forums and a few boards over the past couple years. At times it's seemed as if it were perceived by the masses as though salvation and eternal torment were inextricably intertwined and any attempt to seperate them sacrilegious and, yet, I am reminded, historically, eternal torment has been a powerful tool of fear to control the masses while its origins and influences on Christendom have been deeply pagan.

Der Alte · Jul 2, 2005

P33 said:
[size=-1]The original and still intent for my initiating this thread are contained, for the most part, within the following questions and their, still, unfound answers; I trust those interested know the corresponding verses the following questions speak to...
How can the unsaved be resurrected to life since resurrected life is only possible through Jesus?[/size]

The Greek word used for those resurrected to aionion," eternal, everlasting, never ending, life is zoe. The word zoe is never applied to those resurrected to aionion eternal, everlasting, never ending, torment. When one read ALL the scripture in-context one learns that there are two types of sentient, conscious, awareness after judgement, eternal zoe and eternal torment.

[size=-1]Eternal life in hell is still eternal life, so how can the unsaved have eternal life without having accepted Jesus?[/size]

See previous answer. Eternal zoe vs. eternal punishment/torment. These two questions try to undermine Gods omnipotence. If God says something will be done, He is capable of causing it to happen, whether we understand or agree with it or not.

[size=-1]If death and hell are cast into the Lake of Fire and destroyed how can there be anyone in eternal torment? [/size]

Hell could be a specific place, with physical dimensions, and could conceivably be thrown into the LOF. But death is a transient, punctiliar condition, without physical characteristics, therefore could not be thrown anywhere. How to harmonize? The angel of death and the demon of hell are thrown into the LOF and their power to kill, etc. destroyed.

Rev 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

[size=-1]If all things are created new how can there be any unsaved people living eternally in eternal torment in the new creation?[/size]

Ignores the omnipotence of God and attempts to rationalize Gods action. First ref. Any man IN Christ, all things, pertaining to him, are made new. Second ref. Everything that is there before the throne has been made new, not everything that was ever created.

2 Co 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

[size=-1]How can there be any evil left over from the old creation in the new creation if all the old creation and all the old creation's evil are destroyed and burnt up to nothingness and, later, all things are created anew?[/size]

See previous answer about new creation. It would have been very helpful if you had cited some scripture in these questions. You appear to be proof texting, pieces of different unrelated verses thrown together to support your assumptions and presuppositions. Where is the burned up into nothingness part?

[size=-1]Scripture affirms that hell will be destroyed so it cannot be everlasting.[/size]

Do you mean when the demon of hell is thrown into the LOF?

[size=-1]Scripture affirms that the very elements of the whole of creation will melt away (presumably) in the lake of fire and that all things will be created anew so, again, "hell" cannot be everlasting.[/size]

Where does scripture affirm this? Once again misapplying the verse on the new creation.

[size=-1]Since the remains of the unregenerate are dust and forgotten memories and all the dust and creation's elements are melted and burnt to nothingness before a new creation can be created then, being absent the breath of life, there is no soul to torture everlasting in an everlasting torture chamber that does not exist. [/size]

Since the remains of the SAVED are dust and forgotten memories and all the dust and creation's elements are melted and burnt to nothingness before a new creation can be created then, being absent the breath of life, there is no soul to REWARD everlasting in an everlasting HEAVEN that does not exist.

[size=-1]God's everlasting torture chamber--the very concept is antithetical to the justice and mercy of an all powerful God and since all power has been given to Jesus this is an even greater affront to the very love and sacrifice of Jesus. [/size]

I addressed this in my previous post. Man setting himself and his sense of justice, mercy, right and wrong, good and bad, etc. at as the yardstick by which to measure Gods mercy, justice, etc.

[size=-1]For God to take dust that no longer exists and add memories that are forgotten and no longer exist and to, once again, add His breath of life just so His breath of life and non-existent dust and forgotten memories can be tortured forever in God's personal torture chamber--the very concept of God torturing His very breath of life throughout all eternity is even ludicrous for without His breath of life there can be no soul anymore than non-existent dust and forgotten memories alone could have a conscious state to be tortured forever in. [/size]

For God to take dust that no longer exists and add memories that are forgotten and no longer exist and to, once again, add His breath of life just so His breath of life and non-existent dust and forgotten memories can be REWARDED forever in God's personal HEAVEN throughout all eternity is even ludicrous for without His breath of life there can be no soul anymore than non-existent dust and forgotten memories alone could have a conscious state to be REWARDED in.

And once again substituting mans standards for Gods, this is the big fallacy of the annihilationist argument.

Pilgrim 33 · Jul 2, 2005

Der Alter,
Thank you for your response. In order to keep some semblence of order to the discussion I would recommend covering but one question at a time...

pilgrim 33 said:

How can the unsaved be resurrected to life since resurrected life is only possible through Jesus?

Click to expand...

Der Alter said:
The Greek word used for those resurrected to aionion," eternal, everlasting, never ending, life is zoe. The word zoe is never applied to those resurrected to aionion eternal, everlasting, never ending, torment.

1. Aionion
From the adjective, Aionios, (of or belonging to an age) I find aionion ("Before or since the world began"), as used in the phrases, "chronois", "aioniois", or "pro chronon aionion" (in, or before age-times) and, as also, used in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10,

"In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day."

The finality of destruction (olethros, from ollumi), we see contained within its meaning, "ruin, destroy and death", also, used in 1 Corinthians 5:5,

"To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

seems to say that destruction of the unsaved is permanent and conclusive within and, no later than, by the end of this age.

2. Zoe
I've found the following definitions of the words translated, "Life", helpful:

zoe = life in all its manifestations; from the life of God down to the lowest vegetable. It is life in activity, and thus especially is the opposite of death. It involves resurrection life and eternal life; and hence, as such, is the "gift of God". For the same reason its verb zao is frequently used of, and put for, resurrection life.

bios = life, as lived, manner of life; life as led, &c.; zoe being life as one experiences it; bios as others see it. This is used therefore, only of mankind, who not only live but lead lives. Hence the differences between ZO-ology and BIO-graphy. Zoe is life in its principle; bios is life in its manifestations (Luke 8:14). Bios is also put by the figure of speech, Metonymy of the Adjunct, for livelihood, or that which supports animal life.

psuche = the breath of animal life; one of the manifestations of zoe, common to all living animals. In one passage (Isa. 10:18, the Heb. nepesh, Gr. psuche) is applied to vegetable life. It is used of the living individual as such.

Here, it appears evident that the life of the unsaved ends with all finality at their death.

Ecclesiastes 9:5, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."

Even their sentience, composing their memories, are forgotten and lost forever. How could those memories be brought back for judgment? For without one's memories what value could judgment have on someone if they had no memory of what they were being judged for?

3. Resurrection
I've found 8 verbs and 3 nouns for "resurrection.

Matthew 22:31-32, "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Psalms 1:5, "...the ungodly shall not stand (rise, be resurrected) in the judgment,"

Hebrews 11:35, "...others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:"

Obviously, from Hebrews 11:35, there is more than one resurrection for the saved as vs 35 speaks of a better (first 'part') resurrection for the (tortured) martyrs, of which it seems apparent that the resurrection of believers has at least two parts as spoken of in Revelation 20:4-5,

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

Der Alter said:
The word zoe is never applied to those resurrected to aionion eternal, everlasting, never ending, torment.

"Resurrection" and "life" are almost synonomous in that resurrection is meaningless without its accompanying life which is only possible through Jesus Christ:

John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:"

Is there some way to get around Jesus' definite sounding words that state that resurrection is not possible except through Him and then only for those in Him being resurrected to eternal life?

It seems to me that either our understanding of phrases like, "resurrection to damnation" etc mean something other than what we have always been led to believe or else Jesus is simply not the ONLY means to resurrection.

I believe believers will, at different times, be resurrected to life; I also believe believers will be resurrected to a judgment for believers; and, I believe there will be a judgment for the nonbelievers still alive on the earth at that time of the end.

As to the judgment of the already dead unbelievers, while I believe it might be possible they could be judged (in abstentia) based upon their works:

Revelation 20, "...and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works";

although, it is questionable why the unsaved would need to be judged guilty of that which they were already convicted of in abstentia before the foundation of the world was laid,

in which case, any reason for bringing them back to full life for either in abstentia or physically present judgment wherein the outcome is already foreknown serves no value at best and double jeopardy at worst for either way they've already in their deaths received their just rewards and, second, we know beforehand that any judgment of the unsaved based upon their works cannot lead to salvation; in which case, the judgment of the dead based upon their works written in the book can then only apply to the saved.

Without, minimally, God's breath of life, an unsaved individual possesses no life whatever and without which they are nothing but forgotten memories and dust.

A common tendency is to refer to the soul of man as though it were but one part of man; another tendency is to consider the soul as immortal. Both are, imo, untruths for even after creation Adam was not immortal else the Tree of Life would have been unnecessary. That which defines a man, his memories embodied within his sentience, we are told ends and is lost at death. In this regard, the only difference I see between the unsaved and the saved is that, upon spiritual birth in Christ, the believer's memories are preserved within his new spirit.

Blessings,
Pilgrim 33

Pilgrim 33 · Jul 3, 2005

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman](eternal destruction)[/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]'Aion, transliterated aeon, is a period of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (peri ouravou, i. 9,15) says: "The period which includes the whole time of one's life is called the aeon of each one." Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life (aion) is said to leave him or to consume away (Iliad v. 685; Odyssey v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millenium; the mythological period before the beginnings of history. The word has not "a stationary and mechanical value" (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many aeons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one aeon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow's life, another of an oak's life. The length of the aeon depends on the subject to which it is attached.[/size][/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]It is sometimes translated world; world represents a period or a series of periods of time. See Matt 12:32; 13:40,49; Luke 1:70; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6; Eph 1:21. Similarly oi aiones, the worlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. 1 Cor 2:7; 10:11; Heb 1:2; 9:26; 11:3. The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to aei is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, aei does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (aei) liars (***. 1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Acts 7:51; 2 Cor. 4:11; 6:10; Heb 3:10; 1 Pet. 3:15. Aei means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject's life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. "The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum."[/size][/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]In the New Testament the history of the world is conceived as developed through a succession of aeons. A series of such aeons precedes the introduction of a new series inaugurated by the Christian dispensation, and the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are to mark the beginning of another series. Eph. 1:21; 2:7; 3:9,21; 1 Cor 10:11; compare Heb. 9:26. He includes the series of aeons in one great aeon, 'o aion ton aionon, the aeon of the aeons (Eph. 3:21); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describe the throne of God as enduring unto the aeon of the aeons (Heb 1:8). The plural is also used, aeons of the aeons, signifying all the successive periods which make up the sum total of the ages collectively. Rom. 16:27; Gal. 1:5; Philip. 4:20, etc. This plural phrase is applied by Paul to God only.[/size][/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting. They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, aidios, which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jude 6. Aionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus the phrase eis ton aiona, habitually rendered forever, is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, LXX, Exod 21:6; 29:9; 32:13; Josh. 14:9 1 Sam 8:13; Lev. 25:46; Deut. 15:17; 1 Chron. 28:4;. See also Matt. 21:19; John 13:8 1 Cor. 8:13. The same is true of aionios. Out of 150 instances in LXX, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Gen. 48:4; Num. 10:8; 15:15; Prov. 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Hab. 3:6; Isa. 61:17.[/size][/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]Words which are habitually applied to things temporal or material cannot carry in themselves the sense of endlessness. Even when applied to God, we are not forced to render aionios everlasting. Of course the life of God is endless; but the question is whether, in describing God as aionios, it was intended to describe the duration of his being, or whether some different and larger idea was not contemplated. That God lives longer then men, and lives on everlastingly, and has lived everlastingly, are, no doubt, great and significant facts; yet they are not the dominant or the most impressive facts in God's relations to time. God's eternity does not stand merely or chiefly for a scale of length. It is not primarily a mathematical but a moral fact. The relations of God to time include and imply far more than the bare fact of endless continuance. They carry with them the fact that God transcends time; works on different principles and on a vaster scale than the wisdom of time provides; oversteps the conditions and the motives of time; marshals the successive aeons from a point outside of time, on lines which run out into his own measureless cycles, and for sublime moral ends which the creature of threescore and ten years cannot grasp and does not even suspect.[/size][/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded. That aiodios occurs rarely in the New Testament and in LXX does not prove that its place was taken by aionios. It rather goes to show that less importance was attached to the bare idea of everlastingness than later theological thought has given it. Paul uses the word once, in Rom. 1:20, where he speaks of "the everlasting power and divinity of God." In Rom. 16:26 he speaks of the eternal God (tou aioniou theou); but that he does not mean the everlasting God is perfectly clear from the context. He has said that "the mystery" has been kept in silence in times eternal (chronois aioniois), by which he does not mean everlasting times, but the successive aeons which elapsed before Christ was proclaimed. God therefore is described as the God of the aeons, the God who pervaded and controlled those periods before the incarnation. To the same effect is the title 'o basileus ton aionon, the King of the aeons, applied to God in 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 15:3; compare Tob. 13:6, 10. The phrase pro chronon aionion, before eternal times (2 Tim. 1:9; ***. 1:2), cannot mean before everlasting times. To say that God bestowed grace on men, or promised them eternal life before endless times, would be absurd. The meaning is of old, as Luke 1:70. The grace and the promise were given in time, but far back in the ages, before the times of reckoning the aeons.[/size][/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]Zoe aionios[/size][/font][font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1] eternal life, which occurs 42 times in N. T., but not in LXX, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or aeon, or continuing during that aeon. I repeat, life may be endless. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios. Kolasis aionios, rendered everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other then that in which Christ is speaking. In some cases zoe aionios does not refer specifically to the life beyond time, but rather to the aeon or dispensation of Messiah which succeeds the legal dispensation. See Matt. 19:16; John 5:39. John says that zoe aionios is the present possession of those who believe on the Son of God, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47,54. The Father's commandment is zoe aionios, John 1250; to know the only true God and Jesus Christ is zoe aionios. John 17:3.[/size][/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]Bishop Westcott very justly says, commenting upon the terms used by John to describe life under different aspects: "In considering these phrases it is necessary to premise that in spiritual things we must guard against all conclusions which rest upon the notions of succession and duration. 'Eternal life' is that which St. Paul speaks of as 'e outos Zoe the life which is life indeed, and 'e zoe tou theou, the life of God. It is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which time is not a measure. We have indeed no powers to grasp the idea except through forms and images of sense. These must be used, but we must not transfer them as realities to another order."[/size][/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]Thus, while aionios carries the idea of time, though not of endlessness, there belongs to it also, more or less, a sense of quality. Its character is ethical rather than mathematical. The deepest significance of the life beyond time lies, not in endlessness, but in the moral quality of the aeon into which the life passes. It is comparatively unimportant whether or not the rich fool, when his soul was required of him (Luke 12:20), entered upon a state that was endless. The principal, the tremendous fact, as Christ unmistakably puts it, was that, in the new aeon, the motives, the aims, the conditions, the successes and awards of time counted for nothing. In time, his barns and their contents were everything; the soul was nothing. In the new life the soul was first and everything, and the barns and storehouses nothing. The bliss of the sanctified does not consist primarily in its endlessness, but in the nobler moral conditions of the new aeon, the years of the holy and eternal God. Duration is a secondary idea. When it enters it enters as an accompaniment and outgrowth of moral conditions.[/size][/font]

[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]In the present passage it is urged that olethron destruction points to an unchangeable, irremediable, and endless condition. If this be true, if olethros is extinction, then the passage teaches the annihilation of the wicked, in which case the adjective aionios is superfluous, since extinction is final, and excludes the idea of duration. But olethros does not always mean destruction or extinction. Take the kindred verb apollumi to destroy, put an end to, or in the middle voice, to be lost, to perish. Peter says "the world being deluged with water, perished (apoleto, 2 Pet. 3:6); but the world did not become extinct, it was renewed. In Heb. 1:11,12, quoted from Ps. 102, we read concerning the heavens and the earth as compared with the eternity of God, "they shall perish" (apolountai). But the perishing is only preparatory to change and renewal. "They shall be changed" (allagesontai). Compare Isa. 51:6,16; 65:22; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1. Similarly, "the Son of man came to save that which was lost" (apololos), Luke 19:10. Jesus charged his apostles to go to the lost (apololota) sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. 10:6, compare 15:24, "He that shall lose (apolese) his life for my sake shall find it," Matt. 16:25. Compare Luke 15:6,9,32.[/size][/font] [font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][size=+1]In this passage, the word destruction is qualified. It is "destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power," at his second coming, in the new aeon. In other words, it is the severance, at a given point of time, of those who obey not the gospel from the presence and the glory of Christ. Aionios may therefore describe this severance as continuing during the millenial aeon between Christ's coming and the final judgment; as being for the wicked prolonged throughout that aeon and characteristic of it, or it may describe the severance as characterising or enduring through a period or aeon succeeding the final judgment, the extent of which period is not defined. In neither case is aionios, to be interpreted as everlasting or endless.-Marvin R. Vincent[font=Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman][/font] [/size][/font]

Pilgrim 33 · Jul 3, 2005

in the original documents that later became the Bible no one ever wrote or spoke the word "hell"?

Soul Searcher · Jul 3, 2005

Pilgrim 33 said:
in the original documents that later became the Bible no one ever wrote or spoke the word "hell"?

Indeed.. I also find it curious that in the KJV the word sheol was translated 31 times as grave and 31 times as hell and 3 times as pit,

It would seem that either the translator thought the word hell meant something very similar to the word grave or was trying to pull a fast one on us.

Pilgrim 33 · Jul 3, 2005

Soul Searcher said:
Indeed.. I also find it curious that in the KJV the word sheol was translated 31 times as grave and 31 times as hell and 3 times as pit,

It would seem that either the translator thought the word hell meant something very similar to the word grave or was trying to pull a fast one on us.

Without a doubt, the translators were pro-catholic.

they weren't trying to pull a fast one.

They DID pull a fast one!

the fallacy of eternal torment and related issues

The First Official FrankenMonkie ;)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

The First Official FrankenMonkie ;)

pedantric

Contributor

pedantric

Well-Known Member

pedantric

Well-Known Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The kingdom is within

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency