Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You were asking about the great gulf between the souls in hell. We don't know what all the souls in the burning side of hell are saying or maybe asking. Jesus Christ did not say there is a rich man in hell-no need to give his name -since he is lost - and the only thing happening to him is there is flame tormenting him and he is thirsty. Jesus gave us clues as to what was going on there. a place
of torment / he was in torments/plural The rich man knew others can be there too. Jesus only told us what He wanted to in the story. He did not say and the only thing going on there is thirsty wicked people. Just like for heaven, we only know what we were told. Does that mean nothing else happens there? no
I do find it interesting that in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, they both
died, but Lazarus was carried by the angels, as if that happened right after his
death...and it does not mention that he was buried.
How could I be said to not be giving support from Scripture and then needing to be asked about the Sermon on the mount? Those statements do not rationally go together. Just as irrational as the idea of Universalism aligns with a "narrow way" or a "not inherit" happiness.That's because all you guys are doing is talking, without showing scripture or anything (except the one single verse in apocalyptic literature which is questionably translated into some English translations in the Revelation which you seem to think "completely justifies teaching eternal suffering in conflict with the rest of scripture"): what part of the sermon on the mount contradicts universal reconciliation? How does the sermon on the mount support "eternal suffering"?
James 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Galatians 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
How could I be said to not be giving support from Scripture and then needing to be asked about the Sermon on the mount? Those statements do not rationally go together. Just as irrational as the idea of Universalism aligns with a "narrow way" or a "not inherit" happiness.
But since it was asked, Unilateralism is directly opposed to not being able to "inherit" a "life" that we were created to live eternally would not leave those NOT inheriting in suffering and in agreement with what God Himself endorses to what was and had been the prevailing Jewish thought of the next life in that day, and would leave someone not "inheriting" that life in eternal suffering (no purpose for existing as CS Lewis put it is a terrible thing. A "terrible thing" and the opposite of the life of eternal happiness being inherited could only at best be a miserable state/condition. That sort of suffering can be said rationally true even without imaging an external eternal source (to the individual) of their suffering. Not inheriting does not preclude suffering, but it is also illogical to suggest the lack of it entails happiness, so am unclear why we would need to imagine it is not suffering. Beside the tradition Jesus obviously endorsed by offering story about it rather depicts suffering.
Am unclear how one could take "not inheriting" and stretch that to "maybe He meant a abode/Kingdom of eternal happiness could or would be inherited later". That stretch of His Words would avoid saying the lack of inheritance was meant as a temporary condition/abode for "bad people", but that strecth is not evident (unsupported) in the rest of the picture painted by the Bible of the human condition.
Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
=============
Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
----------------
Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Don't forget about the part as to the names written in the book of life.
Apparently not interested in Jesus saying the wicked shall not inherit His Kingdom either and we (that would be everyone else "talking" in this thread) get why the only comment finally made to that point is the Sermon itself does not say "eternal suffering". Since the Kingdom being inherited is always counter presented as inheriting eternal happiness verses eternal suffering, perhaps God knows that rational people would not need to have that pointed out every time the possible inheritance is presented. That one needing to see God has giving Mercy where He says there will be none in order to view God as Honest and Love, I can understand why even Jesus "talking" about that suffering would need to be ignored.Look, call me when you've got actually scripture to introduce to support some kind of rebuttal to the OP, or, to show some kind of support for something you teach. I'm zero interested in what "everyone believes" and I'm not interested in people's endless talk talk. All you've demonstrated is, you have no scriptural (or, otherwise) refutation of the OP verses, and, no scriptural support for your opposing doctrine (which if wrong is the highest form of blasphemy). Obviously you couldn't care less if you're blaspheming God, nothing is going to stop you from preaching "endless suffering" except Divine intervention itself.
Revelation 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Apparently not interested in Jesus saying the wicked shall not inherit His Kingdom
Since the Kingdom being inherited is always counter presented as inheriting eternal happiness verses eternal suffering
You seemed to try to tie the people in hell that are thirsty with the part as to come - to him that is athirst in Revelation and they can drink freely from the
fountain. Yet, we are shown just a few verses down that they will not be drinking, but being instead found in the lake of fire. Unless you think the saints will be taking drinks to those burning in the lake.