Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Jacob]

Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) biblical or not?

Which verses in the Bible support ECT and which verses in the bible support the doctrine that the wicked perish instead?

Shalom.

I do not know if the following will help you or not, but it may be good to read Steve Gregg's book on three views of Hell. It may not answer your question, but it may be a good read for you since you are interested in these kinds of ideas. I am a Jew. I know that the Hebrew word sheol is sometimes translated as hell.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[Lazy afternoon]

[MENTION=1746]freelight[/MENTION] , [MENTION=10835]Caino[/MENTION] , [MENTION=16505]CherubRam[/MENTION] , [MENTION=10015]Lazy afternoon[/MENTION] , [MENTION=17493]KingdomRose[/MENTION] ... I'm sincerely sorry to say this... but... no matter how solid your arguments are for annihilation ... your denial of the "Godhead" as Jesus is YHWH is going to set you up to be used against this argument. [MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION] will never consider a single word you type ... because you are outside of the recognition of Php. 2:9f, 11 and John 10:30. I'm not saying this to hurt you or upset you... but I'm saying it as a "FACT" ... your witness here is blown ... because of your denial of the Tri-Unity. You don't think it matters... but if you understood how theologically discrediting it is deny the Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ and how important the recognition of Father and Son as ONE is to defend the LOVING NATURE of God... you would reconsider your position .. if not for this single argument... which is a BIGGY.

Firing up my LapTop and about to get real here,

- [MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION]

EE,

You are a very poor bible student, who tries to make the verses say what you believe.

You have been told by one who knows.

LA

 

[Lazy afternoon]

You are one of the sharpest scripture users here... but... you deny the divinity... so even if you argue in the favor of annihilation... remember... I will be your "Adversary" and I will pick apart all of your arguments.

I'm not going to argue the TriUnity Here... but... Jesus is God... and because of this... I can't ally with you on this discussion... even though we both are taking the stance of Annihilation.

This is my final warning about this matter. I'll argue Annihilation all day long... but I won't side with someone here who denies that Jesus is God. It destroys the entire argument that scripture poses towards Annihilation to deny Jesus' Divinity in TOTALITY as the ALMIGHTY ONE!

You're pretty awesome, but I'm about to lock into an epic discussion and I have to make my stances enormously clear... because this is a serious discussion.

- EE

You are changing the subject of this thread for no good reason.

Jesus has been given the Fathers name.

You claim Jesus gave it to Himself or He lost it to gain it again.

So you can take your modalism to another thread like a good fellow.

LA

 

[Derf]

Rosenritter,
I thought this was a very well-written post! I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but you did a good job of explaining your position with scripture--something that is lacking in much of this thread--not that the scripture is lacking, but the arguments are mostly emotional with some scripture sprinkled in.

No, there is serious contradiction between Jesus and the rest of the bible, if that passage uses literal elements rather than symbolic. We are left with a choice of which we will believe: that the point of Christ's speech was to bring forth new revelation about the state of death and a punishment that would precede judgment, or that his parable was using symbolic elements to illustrate a different message.

The description is so vivid, surely the Lord Jesus would not have attempted to present a picture He would know would drive people to believe in such a picture of hell, or pre-hell, perhaps, while not meaning to?? There's an interesting treatise about Hades, sometimes ascribed to Josephus, which seems to be lifted straight from Jesus story of the rich man and Lazarus. It's a short read: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/hades.htm

My point here is that if it was written by Josephus, it gives a Jewish, perhaps Jewish-Christian, perspective, that aligns very well with Jesus story. If it was not by Josephus (and I have my doubts), it at least shows fairly early evidence for Christians using the story as a description of Hades.

When God punishes Adam for sin, he tells him that the effect of his death is "returning to the dust from whence he came." Genesis 3:17-19

Spoiler

Genesis 3:17-19 KJV(17) And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
(18) Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
(19) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

I think your point here is important, and I'll try to return to it--maybe tomorrow.

Job tells us that in death. the dead lay still, are quiet, and even the wicked are free from trouble and oppression. See Job 3:12-22,

Spoiler

Job 3:11-22 KJV(11) Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?
(12) Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?
(13) For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest,
(14) With kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves;
(15) Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver:
(16) Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.
(17) There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.
(18) There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor.
(19) The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master.
(20) Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery, and life unto the bitter in soul;
(21) Which long for death, but it cometh not; and dig for it more than for hid treasures;
(22) Which rejoice exceedingly, and are glad, when they can find the grave?

This is a great quote! But I think it could be easily over-mined for truths about death. For one, it is certainly poetic in nature. But if it is taken literally, then it describes something that doesn't make sense--it describes a place where all the bodies, or all the souls, perhaps, are after death. Job says he would have been "with" kings and counselors and princes, and "there" wicked cease from troubling and weary be at rest. "There" prisoners rest together, and they don't hear the voice of the oppressor.

Are we really saying that there is a repository of bodies or souls that are not feeling? Maybe we could say that, but it seems a stretch.

But Job does mention his ghost being given up. His spirit separates from his body in some fashion. Does it go to a certain place? not sure from this.

David tells us that in death ones thoughts cease to be, that even their thoughts perish. See Psalms 146;2-4

Spoiler

Psalms 146:2-4 KJV(2) While I live will I praise the LORD: I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
(3) Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
(4) His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Again, David waxes poetic here. The context is in what princes can do for the author--their "thoughts" are likely what they intend to do, which ceases when they die. I don't think it is trying to say there it no after-death consciousness, though it certainly doesn't confirm that there is any...except the the "breath goeth forth", which I think is reference to a man's spirit again. Where is it going?

But we shouldn't read it too literally, else we won't be trusting in the Son of Man (vs 3)!

Solomon tells us that that the dead no longer experience love, hatred, envy, and don't even have the benefit of the knowledge that they are dead. See Ecclesiastes 9:4-6

Spoiler

Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 KJV
(4) For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
(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.
(6) Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Yet God promised Abraham something he never saw, and never will see, if this is true. Poetic again? I think so.

But even here, there is a place of the dead. Ecc 9:3, which introduces your quote, mentions it.

Isaiah tells us that the dead cannot praise God. See Isaiah 38:18-19

Spoiler

Isaiah 38:18-19 KJV(18) For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
(19) The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth.

Hezekiah was also being poetic, and using the contrast so often used in Hebrew poetry. But here again is an idea of a place--"the pit"--into which the dead go, and cannot come back out again--"cannot hope for thy truth". Was Hezekiah so fatalistic that he had no hope of resurrection at all? I doubt it.

Psalms describes death as "going down into silence" and Jude describes an eternal death as the "blackness of darkness forever." When Jesus intended to raise someone, Jesus referred to death simply as "sleep." See Psalms 115:17, Jude 1:12-13, Luke 8:52-53, John 11:11-14
Psalms 115:17 KJV
(17) The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

True--they have no voices. The people on earth cannot hear them. just like the rich man's brothers couldn't have heard him if he had tried to talk to them, and Lazarus would have had to return from the dead to tell his brothers anything. But the rich man communicated with Abraham and Abraham communicated with the rich man. I don't see any contradiction here.

Jude 1:12-13 KJV
(12) These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
(13) Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Interesting that these people are described as "twice dead" already. Yet they are described in previous verses as "filthy dreamers" (meaning they still have thoughts) in Jude 8, they corrupt themselves in "what they know" in Jude 10, and they "speak evil" in Jude 8 and 10. How is that possible if their thoughts have already perished (a la David), they "know not anything" (a la Solomon) and they have no voices (a la Hezekiah)

Luke 8:52-53 KJV
(52) And all wept, and bewailed her: but he said, Weep not; she is not dead, but sleepeth.
(53) And they laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead.



John 11:11-14 KJV
(11) These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
(12) Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.
(13) Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
(14) Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

David, as well as the other kings of Judah, "slept with his fathers" (1 Kings 2:10) Jesus seems to take the euphemism a step further, as you pointed out, to suggest that there was something less final about the girl's and the other Lazarus's death. But that seems to me to be more a statement about the finality, or lack thereof, of their deaths, rather than the state of their mental activity during it.

Paul tells us that the judgment awaits us after death, not an indeterminate holding or punishment preceding judgment. See Hebrews 9:27. Regardless, it should be common sense that justice requires judgment before punishment, not the other way around.

Spoiler

Hebrews 9:27 KJV(27) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

And after judgment, death again? How then are men appointed once to die if they can now die twice? This is a question whether ECT is true or not. I'm wondering if the "second death" in Rev 2:11, Rev 20:6 & 14, and Rev. 21:8 might be vastly different from the first death.

When Paul comforts the survivors of the dead, he does not tell them that their loves ones are in heaven or otherwise with Jesus. Rather he tells them that Jesus will raise them from the dead as he returns. To paraphrase William Tyndale, wouldn't Paul have rather comforted them telling them that their loved ones were in heaven, if only he had known it? See 1 Thes 4:13-18

Spoiler

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 KJV(13) But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
(14) For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
(15) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
(16) 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:
(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.
(18) Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Likewise, Paul also says that if we are not raised, we are without hope and of all men most miserable. Paul wasn't aware of any sort of reward or existence without resurrection. He, like Jesus, also refers to death as sleep, rather than conscious experience. In another place, he says that those who died in faith have not received the promises. See 1 Corinthians 15:15-22, also Hebrews 11:13.

Spoiler

1 Corinthians 15:15-22 KJV(15) Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
(16) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
(17) And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
(18) Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
(19) If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
(20) But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
(21) For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
(22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Hebrews 11:13 KJV
(13) These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Good points!

So what are the possible consequences of these possible choices?

1) Jesus thought he was relating real events and reality. Jesus is incorrect but the prophets and apostles are correct.
2) Jesus thought he was relating real events and reality. Jesus breaks his own rule of "the scripture cannot be broken" and the prophets and apostles of both testaments are mistaken in their beliefs and doctrine. Likewise, the Holy Spirit that authored the scriptures both before and after this parable was spoke is mistaken about the reality of death.
3) Jesus never intended to relate real events or reality, and expected his audience to recognize his meaning through symbolic elements.There is no conflict between Old or New Testament, the words of Jesus or his apostles, the Son of God does not contradict the Father or Holy Spirit.

It seems a little strange to me that anyone would choose option 1 or 2 without having given fair examination to option 3.

Not to nit-pick, but I think you've left off a few choices. I'd like to add these two:
4) There's a distinction between what the living experience when a person dies and what the dead person experiences (@Lon mentioned this one). I'm not sure I can tell who's experiencing what, but it explains the poetics mentioned above.
5) Something might have changed between the old testament and the new--this wouldn't explain all the seeming discrepancies, but it might explain some.

If death involved a conscious experience, it would seem a little strange to see the scripture consistently describe it as sleep, darkness, silence, the absence of being, freedom from oppression, the absence of thought, hatred, love, envy, and self-awareness, from which our only hope is resurrection from the dead. A resurrection from the dead, I might add, which Paul says is the definition of the gospel.

Let's keep looking at that parable. What might be the intent of placing the symbol of the Jewish nation in the Greek Hades, and placing a symbol of the gentile without Moses and the prophets (yet who places his help in God) in the bosom of Abraham? Is it possible that Jesus was telling the Pharisees something with this upside-down juxtaposition?

Imo, the Lazarus story is a parable, and it's not a parable. For one thing, despite Abraham's insistence that Lazarus' resurrection wouldn't help, Jesus resurrected Lazarus anyway. (Some would argue it was a different Lazarus, but the name in Jesus' story, which he told to the Pharisees, couldn't have been a mere coincidence.) And it seemed to prove that it wouldn't help the rich man's brothers (John 12:10), but it no doubt helped some--leading to the triumphal entry.

I don't agree that Lazarus was "without Moses and the prophets". That's a bit speculative.

 

[way 2 go]

There's no easy way to do this... so I've got to grab somewhere and "Begin".

The Death Argument is as good a place as any.

Types of "Death" and "Meanings of Death".

The most forgotten MEANING of "Death" in scripture... {Beelzibul) ... This name is the closest to the actual name that is known for the Dark one... it means "Lord of the FLIES" ... which is a slur for DEATH...

in other words... 1 Cor. 15:54f, 56 and Heb. 2:14 are pinion for this discussion as DEATH is indeed a NAME for Satan. Cha-Ching... the pain is about to be brought... ECT supporters... and I mean pain in the literal Destroyer sense. If you're going to go traditional on the HELL thing... you better know "Hell"'s "self-proclaimed" "king". Do you know the scriptures? Do you know ALL the scripture about death... or are you building your ECT doctrine without the "keyless" ingredient?

1.hell does not have a king.
2.the lake of fire is a place of punishment for the devil
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

DEATH in Scripture...

1) Name for Satan Himself... (Angel of Death) ... AKA Death... incarnate

2) The Dust returning to Dust

(Gen. 3:19 ...
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”)​

Who does the "dusting"?

(Gen. 3:14 And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.)​

and ... uh-oh... @way 2 go and @Lon ... you're both off on a bad foot already... (Or should I say "Heal"... Gen. 3 pun)... In this sacred context of "Death"... Beelzibul himself is called out to have "Life" by Elohim HEEM-Self... #Oh No! What now?

Did you see it? "All the days of your LIFE". Are you going to question the Almighty's usage of the word LIFE here? It's in the context of the entire DEATH discussion in Gen. 2 and 3 ... and Satan himself is deemed by God to have LIFE. Do you want to argue that Beelzibul himself has "Spiritual Life" and his "Tempting" was of God?

yes the devil is alive .

Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

rich man died.

Luk 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.

rich man is alive and speaking .

What say you both? Because this HEAT and Kitchen is only going to get HOTTER... from here forward.

I sure hope you know your "false morning star" scripture... because I believe it's going to "Destroy" your assertions about "Hell" ... and I haven't even gotten to the Gehenna of the matter yet. @Derf and I didn't even delve in there. I just referenced it and @Derf searched scripture sincerely... but I never fully dropped the scripture there. I'm past the point of holding back now... and I have considered this matter very carfully.

Are you (Lon and Way 2 Go) both prepared to go full blown archaeology, biblical geography, eschatology and scripture study on these matters?

I'm not sandbagging any more... on this topic. I feel okay dropping all of these cards on the table.

but... first... Please address these questions...

1) Did Satan TEMPT upon God's Desire?

here ?
Mat_4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

yes

2) Is God an Author of Confusion?

for Christians , no .

but

1Ki 22:20 and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another.
1Ki 22:21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’
1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’

3) Is James a legitimate Bible book and Can God deceptively Puppet the Devil and PAWN His "Tempting" off "through" Beelzibul... and say... "I don't tempt"... or was the Devil already rouge?

huh?

4) All the days of your LIFE. Are you going to question the Almighty's usage of the word LIFE here?

nope. I understand someone can be dead and alive at the same time.

Luk 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.

I understand someone can be alive and dead at the same time too.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins.

5) It's in the context of the entire DEATH discussion in Gen. 2 and 3 ... and Satan himself is deemed by God to have LIFE. Do you want to argue that Beelzibul himself has "Spiritual Life" and his "Tempting" was of God?

asked and answered I think , if not restate.

did Adam die the day he ate from the tree like God said he surely would?

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

:chuckle:

 

[Lon]

You're like Trump, you say all sorts of snarky things to these people on TOL from your presumptive spiritual hilltop and then whine and cry persecution when someone dishes it back to ya.

Me? I take it just fine when I know its coming. Even here, with Rosenritter, I'm fine. I already said so. Perhaps he and I will work it out.
All I said was I don't want to drag the Lord Jesus Christ through banter discussion. Well that and I'd likely leave. I 'try' to shake dust when I don't like as much coming from me as from the other guy. IOW, it's mutual, when I want to leave, so that I'm not also contributing to the conversation-gone-South or sour.

I actually admire your qualities such as loyalty to what you believe is the truth.

Awfully kind thing to say. I might wind up just thinking you are weird, but liking you.

 

[Lon]

I have to say... the argument employed here is excellent... but it has holes... don't throw in the towel on this argument yet... I have to express that @Lon is a "Replacement Theology" believer and thus his understanding of what is being said by him in the account of Lazarus and the Rich man is slightly tainted by that one fact.

I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable with Replacement Theology or Supersessionism as a label. I guess, after a loose fashion I might be considered such, but I'm not positive that God has no future plans for Israel. Even in their worst apostasies, God sought them to draw them back.

Their way to God, as Paul says, is through the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Lon]

@Lon ... you were blasting @Rosenritter earlier and they were blasting you ... and honestly ... I have to say... it's not in step with your typical debate style... I'm not sure what happened. Rosenritter has gotten animated before... but I'm wondering why this particular "doctrine" is so close to home for you?

Good to know. I'd say perhaps 1) that I tend to blast those who are against our faith and are on TOL in a decided attempt to lead Christians astray. I don't believe true Christians can be led astray, but I don't have any appreciation for it.
As such, Rosenritter seems to have seen that and jumped on it. I'm okay with it but, like you are doing here, prefer it in gentle tones. It helps that he has done this with others. It is easier to when I realize it isn't always 'to me' personally, but a general frustration to all and treated just the same. I believe he has been clear that ECT is, to him, an offensive message to unbelievers and a horrible picture of God presented to them. For me: 1) When the answer is Jesus, it doesn't matter what is atrocious. God sent His one and Only Son. The remedy has been paid. 2) I don't believe people who are not motived by love, will not be motivated by hell either. I could be wrong, but I don't tend to mention hell. Romans 6:23: The wages of Sin is 'death.' I always say "separation for God, and what is truly good. When we sin, we are going against things that are loving and good." Most people get it AND get that Jesus died and rose, to save them.

I have warned you about the necessity to buffer between Satan and Jesus. It was our first communication. This is one of the results of removing "free will" from the equation... ECT becomes a quick theological purchase when you begin to "Tamper" with the revealed "Loving Nature of Jesus".

Unclear whether I or Rosenritter, but for me: We are not going to agree any time soon about either. My will would have been 'HisWill' without the Fall. My every
longing is to get back there. "Not my will, but Thine." Next, regarding ECT. I believe scripture clearly says it AND I believe preaching against it WILL be more damaging to unbelievers, if they go to an eternity without God, then being 'lied' to, that they'd be annihilated, would be a grave sin. Conversely, if they are annihilated, they'll be relieved that they are not going to exist, in their own torment, day and night forever. Which, seems the better position to you? Me? I know what I am going to say and this too, against your view, especially as I believe scriptures point that direction. If I am wrong, I have provided the GREATER service in my being wrong than one who lies, simply because of 'preference' and what 'they' feel is a nicer God. I can't and won't change based on emotional appeals. Whatever is true, is what we must be preaching.
"Some people believe in annihilation, most Christians do not." It will always be my answer into the future.

I'm going to lay out the primary support for annihilation and the scripture support for it that is buried in intentional abandon of "All Scripture".

1) The usage of Death and it's various meanings in scripture
2) The necessity of recognizing "Typification of the Devil"
3) The Adam and Satan argument... and how scripture clearly says that "Adam DIED".
4) Eternal LIFE for the SAVED ... DEATH for the Wicked ... The clear Contrast that is cited, dismissed and ignored
5) Annihilation passages are far beyond what @Lon cited FROM THE FIRST 25 PAGES.
6) Gathering all passages that refer to "Hell" and connecting them to the Jewish structure
7) Intellectual Honesty and the revealed "Character of God".
8) Unyielding Scriptural Honesty
9) Recognition of BOTH arguments
10) Clear refutation with clearly linked scripture that binds to "Eschatology" in the OLD and NEW testament
11) Is God Love and does Love TORTURE FOR ETERNITY?
12) LIFE is not just "existing"... it is "Being". Eternal LIFE means "Eternal Being"... not Eternal Existing Death... otherwise... you are simply lying to God and saying that Eternal life is granted to the "Living" and the "Dead"... in the SPIRITUAL sense.
13) Satan's fate as laid out in SCRIPTURE....

Largely, we have our own views. I've laid mine out: ALL people went 'physically' to the grave (Sheol). Hades/Paradise is a holding place. Hades is a place where all unbelievers and those who will not be saved go. Paradise 'was' a place that held all of those who trusted God for salvation, before that salvation was provided. Luke 16:19-31 After the Lord Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, Paradise is empty. When He died, He freed the captives Luke 4:18; 23:43 Matthew 27:52-53 Ephesians 4:8

So.... here goes... since @way 2 go ... and @Lon are demanding that a person is unscriptural if they side against ECT ... and @Rosenritter is the only individual here that is decided on Annihilation and also... (I know Way 2 go and Lon do too... on this... but I am pointing out the systems of belief on @Rosenritter's side) fully believes in "Grace" ... "Faith Alone",.. "The Divinity of Jesus" and "Absolute Adherence to Scripture" as @Lon ... and @way 2 go ... I'm going to go straight @Nameless.In.Grace on this and side with @Rosenritter here.
@Derf and @glorydaz are outstanding mods for this discussion... as they are mostly impartial to this topic. They represent both of our arguments and their input is brought forth from a sincerely "Impartial" perspective.

@freelight , @Caino , @CherubRam , @Lazy afternoon , @KingdomRose ... I'm sincerely sorry to say this... but... no matter how solid your arguments are for annihilation ... your denial of the "Godhead" as Jesus is YHWH is going to set you up to be used against this argument. @Lon and @way 2 go will never consider a single word you type ... because you are outside of the recognition of Php. 2:9f, 11 and John 10:30. I'm not saying this to hurt you or upset you... but I'm saying it as a "FACT" ... your witness here is blown ... because of your denial of the Tri-Unity. You don't think it matters... but if you understood how theologically discrediting it is deny the Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ and how important the recognition of Father and Son as ONE is to defend the LOVING NATURE of God... you would reconsider your position .. if not for this single argument... which is a BIGGY.

Firing up my LapTop and about to get real here,

- @Evil.Eye.<(I)>

Remember ... I sincerely respect all of you... so be prepared... I'm digging in here and I think I'm going to nurse this discussion for a bit.

However you feel led. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Reply to EE #6558.....

You are mired in the muck of the same bog that Lon and others are mired in.

Nope. JW's are 1 to 600 orthodox (right theology) Christians. Nice try, but no points for silly assertion.
You just are not this smart nor this 'holy' or 'blessed.' :nono: God chooses His own. It means, by the numbers - "Sorry."

You can't rise above the surface and see what the scriptures are really bringing out.

But the one in 600 of us 'can.' :chuckle: (sorry, I'm trying to take you seriously but you are just asserting right now and offering nothing but your opinion and egocentric rationalizing. Even if you were the valedictorian, and you admitted you are not, you don't get to address the class of 600 with unbiased pass. 600 Christians believe you are wrong. The whole school. Were you even on the honor roll? Why do you think you are the only one right out of 600? How likely is that to happen? :nono:

To use Luke 16's parable to support a fiery hell is pathetic.

Unless it is from God?

It is obvious that it is metaphorical, bringing out the hypocrisy and irresponsibility of the religious leaders of those days, and how they will fare with God, the "Greater Abraham." There is no attempt to teach a fiery hell where people suffer pain and where just a drop of water will cool their tongue.

This part is untrue. Of course it teaches that: Luke 16:24. You may well argue it is a metaphor, but you cannot argue it isn't 'taught.' He says it.

You will deny the reality of annihilation, "no matter what evidence there is in the scriptures," because some of us here don't believe in the "Godhead" of three Persons or that Jesus is Jehovah?

Luke 16:10 :think:

How sad. You discount scriptures no matter how truthful, to cling to the idea of Jesus being God. Why?

Acts 17:11 Matthew 25:23; 24:45

The Bible does not teach it. You can try and rip up me and others here, but you will not succeed. The scriptures are plain, and anyone who has bothered to read the posts on this thread and other threads about the Trinity and Jesus NOT being YHWH, will readily see that you are barking up a tree with nobody in it. You are a lot of hot air. And you say you are on "the highway to hell." A self-fulfilling prophecy no doubt.

Different topic, different thread.

 

[Lon]

There's no easy way to do this... so I've got to grab somewhere and "Begin".

Spoiler

The Death Argument is as good a place as any.

Types of "Death" and "Meanings of Death".

The most forgotten MEANING of "Death" in scripture... {Beelzibul) ... This name is the closest to the actual name that is known for the Dark one... it means "Lord of the FLIES" ... which is a slur for DEATH...

in other words... 1 Cor. 15:54f, 56 and Heb. 2:14 are pinion for this discussion as DEATH is indeed a NAME for Satan. Cha-Ching... the pain is about to be brought... ECT supporters... and I mean pain in the literal Destroyer sense. If you're going to go traditional on the HELL thing... you better know "Hell"'s "self-proclaimed" "king". Do you know the scriptures? Do you know ALL the scripture about death... or are you building your ECT doctrine without the "keyless" ingredient?

Spoiler

Mark 3:22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."

Luke 11:15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons."

Luke 11:18-19 "If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. "And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? So they will be your judges.

2 Kings 1:2 And Ahaziah fell through the lattice in his upper chamber which was in Samaria, and became ill. So he sent messengers and said to them, "Go, inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I will recover from this sickness."

Matthew 10:25 "It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household!

Matthew 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."

DEATH in Scripture...

1) Name for Satan Himself... (Angel of Death) ... AKA Death... incarnate

I don't think Satan the best segue into a discussion of Hell. He does go there in the end. He is not there now.
To me, to note that there is a hades. Satan is not there. Hades, Satan, and his angels, and all wicked, will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

2) The Dust returning to Dust

(Gen. 3:19 ...
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”)​

Who does the "dusting"?

(Gen. 3:14 And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.)​

Bodies Go to the dust. Abraham Lincoln's body, is dust and bones. This is pretty clear.​

and ... uh-oh... @way 2 go and @Lon ... you're both off on a bad foot already... (Or should I say "Heal"... Gen. 3 pun)... In this sacred context of "Death"... Beelzibul himself is called out to have "Life" by Elohim HEEM-Self... #Oh No! What now?


Did you see it? "All the days of your LIFE". Are you going to question the Almighty's usage of the word LIFE here? It's in the context of the entire DEATH discussion in Gen. 2 and 3 ... and Satan himself is deemed by God to have LIFE. Do you want to argue that Beelzibul himself has "Spiritual Life" and his "Tempting" was of God?

Our earthly days are numbered, as is his. There is no disagreement on this part, but rather what happens next..

How about a little ditty I like to call "The Book of James"....

Let's stop here for a second...

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any man.​

@way 2 go and @Lon ... What now?

Did Satan TEMPT upon God's Desire?

Is God an Author of Confusion?

Is James a legitimate Bible book and Can God deceptively Puppet the Devil and PAWN His "Tempting" off "through" Beelzibul... and say... "I don't tempt"... or was the Devil already rouge?

What say you both? Because this HEAT and Kitchen is only going to get HOTTER... from here forward.

For me? A disconnect. I'm not seeing a point, let alone one that I'm supposedly against :idunno:

I sure hope you know your "false morning star" scripture... because I believe it's going to "Destroy" your assertions about "Hell" ... and I haven't even gotten to the Gehenna of the matter yet. @Derf and I didn't even delve in there. I just referenced it and @Derf searched scripture sincerely... but I never fully dropped the scripture there. I'm past the point of holding back now... and I have considered this matter very carfully.

I have considered it too and am fairly concise and clear about it. Gehenna is a place of torment. It is generally given as the Lake of Fire, and always a place of judgement.

Are you (Lon and Way 2 Go) both prepared to go full blown archaeology, biblical geography, eschatology and scripture study on these matters?

I realize there are coinciding places like the Valley of Hinnom

1) Did Satan TEMPT upon God's Desire?

No

2) Is God an Author of Confusion?

No

3) Is James a legitimate Bible book and Can God deceptively Puppet the Devil and PAWN His "Tempting" off "through" Beelzibul... and say... "I don't tempt"... or was the Devil already rouge?

Rogue, yet unable to work, according to Job, without allowance.

4) All the days of your LIFE. Are you going to question the Almighty's usage of the word LIFE here?

No. Does it mean what you think it does? Probably not. I will live around 80-90 years on this earth, probably. Multiply 90 by 365 and you'll be close to knowing my likely days, God willing.

5) It's in the context of the entire DEATH discussion in Gen. 2 and 3 ... and Satan himself is deemed by God to have LIFE. Do you want to argue that Beelzibul himself has "Spiritual Life" and his "Tempting" was of God?

Needs to be clarified. It is a convoluted question for me.

 

[way 2 go]

regarding Luke 16

Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
Luk 16:24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’

did Jesus in his earthly ministry ever say anything that was not true, a lie ?

such as headlight fluid or muffler bearings

 

[way 2 go]

I couldn't agree more... and as "Death" has varying meanings in scripture... I believe that it is important to scripturally back each one that is being used... to defend it's intended... "Argumentative" implication... from the individual citing it.

For instance...

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...lical-or-not&p=5024591&viewfull=1#post5024591

Gen. 5 contextually follows Gen. 2 and 3 and implies that God is speaking of the "first death" when he speaks to Adam in Gen. 2 and 3.

He couldn't have been referring to eternal fate... because Jesus Christ has always been the intended answer to this "issue" of eternal fate... in Jesus Christ's mind.

Jesus healed us of spiritual death , not physical , we Christians still die.

Contextually... and in conjunction with the post I linked... Gen. 5:5 "So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died." ... seems to be ignored by you.

yes Adam died physically @ 930yrs
Gen 5:5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

but died spiritually the day he ate from the tree , like God said he would.

By arguing that DEATH means "Eternal Torture"... you are actually bending scripture.

:nono:
Jesus said it
Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Death can mean "Spiritual Death", Death of Flesh, and ofcoarse... it's a namsake.

we agree

I think I've waited until now to nail these matters down.

I believe in "Absent from the Body... the Soul Exists" in this "AGE"... and I believe that Satan can initiate "Carnal Death"... but only ONE has genuine claim on SOUL DESTRUCTION.

sin causes death
Rom_7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
​

I know you argue the meaning of "DESTROY"... but... Mt. 10:28 clearly links dust to dust death with the type of destruction that ONLY Jesus can ... ahem... provide for the SOUL.

we are body soul and SPIRIT.

Joh_4:24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

the spirit continues on dead or alive.

So... I look forward to your replies to this and the former link that I am laying out very carefully.

We can't be flippant with our usages of death, now. It's going to have to be seriously scripture linked and backed by scholarly provision of context.

 

[Rosenritter]

Hello Lon,

I'm not sure why I can't be private messaged. According to it I had 3 slots left? I just found the Sent items folder so I cleared more space...

[h=3]Sent Items contains 34 messages. You have 55 messages stored, of a total 75 allowed. (Empty Folder)[/h]
It's a little confusing reading that post because it seems like I'm being referenced in the 3rd person. But none of those quotations you posted are personal attacks: I could explain clearly the what and why of each sentence, if they need explanation. If you disagree with an assessment and feel it is inaccurate, it would be my expectation that you would challenge it: specifically, not by posturing or questioning whether I had age, credentials, or aptitude for argument.

For example, let's take a short quotation that you said bothered you: "I don't think you believe God is actually good" - since we agree on whom we are naming "God" then the part we are defining is "good." Here's the standard that was already named: "Good cannot abide keeping people alive for the purpose of infinite torture without hope of redemption." Have you heard stories of people that kidnap women or children and keep them trapped in cages, inflicting abuse for weeks or months until they die, then start again? Is that "good?"
So how can keeping trillions alive, specifically with the ability to feel pain, torment, and/or despair, simply for the purpose of ensuring that this pain, torment, and despair will never EVER cease, be good? That's the same thing, but multiplied by infinity plus.

Unless you can honestly say "that is good" then my assessment was on target "You don't believe God is actually good." I was being gracious concerning your character earlier, when I said that I believed you tried not to think about it. I quoted Tertullian before to give an example of someone that not only thought about it, but relished the idea with satanic glee. I don't think you're like Tertullian, and that's not an attack.

If you have a love of God and a respect of scripture, then "God is love" (scripture) and "God is love" (what we should know from his spirit) combined with that confrontation "You don't really believe God is good" should spark you to be willing to reassess why there is a contradiction. The simple answer is that one or more of your premises must be mistaken. But it hasn't seemed like you are willing to start re-examining your premises.

None of those were personal attacks. Confrontations, most certainly. Not attacks on your person.

P.S. I don't know Caino, nor recognize his name, and as such I'm not defending anyone in particular. I did see you attack someone in direct response to the statement "The penalty of sin is eternal death" which is the exact same thing as Romans 6:23. I confronted you because it's especially relevant. Don't reject the scripture no matter who quotes it.

Romans 6:22-23 KJV
(22) But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
(23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Death here is obviously "eternal death" because that's the obvious opposite of "eternal life." You attacked "the penalty of sin is eternal death" and said it was from some wild pagan source and dismissed it. But that's exactly what Paul preached. That's why you were first confronted.

If you want me to explain anything I've said, please ask. I try not to make wild statements. Maybe private message might be more appropriate if it can get working again...

I appreciate love of brothers and assume you are getting body ministry to you as well. Let me take a moment, not to belabor, but to own up to my end and give you my end as well. I was going to post this to EE for answer in thread after I found I couldn't PM you:

EE,
Started here. If he didn't mean to be condescending and producing ad hominem (attack the person, not the content), he surely wouldn't have had to try harder to purposefully offend:

From here on, it is 'his way' or the highway:

Arrogant underhanded comment. He really doesn't have the prowess to have said it.


So he became, upon his own insistence, the protectorate of Urantia folk who eschew the scriptures as errant and just the words of men, not God. Perhaps 'kinder to sinners than God' in the process. Good heart, misplaced head.

Worse? It is an attack on me that starts here and gets worse as we go. He drew first blood.


It isn't an attack, but is a hasty assessment that is inaccurate.


Comes across snarky and insincere mixed with incredulous

Accusatory absurdity AND an ad hominem regarding my character and adherence to scripture.



Might be a true assessment in his mind. With all the above and the rest of the thread, it amounts to slander as well.

I can keep going, but this is enough. I'm more than ready to bury this, but you may need to give some of your side, that we can truly bury it.

 

[Rosenritter]

Scriptures for ECT (first 25 pages)
John 5:29 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.

Everyone, LA, Lon, you should all know better than spamming the canon isn't persuasive to anyone, and in order to properly address 25 pages (passages?) you'd need at minimum three times the text. These boards aren't built for that.

When you post an argument, be prepared for someone to respond to any part of it. For example, at random I just picked the last passage that Lon calls "scriptures for Eternal Conscious Torment" ...

and I say, "Lon, how do you possibly consider John 5:29 as a scripture for Eternal Conscious Torment" without employing circular reasoning, by assuming the very thing that you are already trying to prove?" If this is what you consider "evidence" of "eternal conscious torment" then I question your discernment. Evidence that there is such a thing as damnation vs eternal life, but "damnation" is not defined as "eternal conscious torment"...

... and at this point it is imperative on Lon to stop whatever argument he had put in motion and deal with this question before going any further. That's why it's good to keep points as small as possible and get confirmation (mutual agreement) before zipping forward at Mach 3.

The same method should apply to anyone who wants to engage in a fair rational discussion with the intent of resolution. That's how I expect to be counter questioned too.

 

[Rosenritter]

Lon, I don't have time always for huge discussion. Once upon a time I did. Yesterday was Victoria Day, I had a little the time off. As much as I would love to line-item every thing (and I very well could) I have to pick some stuff to pass by. I wasn't passing by stuff yesterday. Today, some no doubt. Let's address a little, quickly:

A) Have you noticed that I don't tell anyone how old I am, what I've written, what education I have, or where I have gone to school? It's because it's irrelevant in a discussion like this. Any attempt to say "I've paid for an education" and attempting to use that as a superiority card is going to get you poked by some well deserved mocking. Scripture only is the accepted method... right? Can you agree here?

B) It so happens I not only know the rebuttals (except for sometimes there are responses so crazy that who could predict them) but I also know the rebuttals for those rebuttals, and (as I have demonstrated a couple times already) can show how those ECT arguments self destruct, even from the very verses they gave for their own support. Don't pretend superiority, intellectual (and spiritual) honesty requires that arguments be followed through to the end.

C) Luke back slightly further in your gospel of Luke back to when Jesus starts speaking: Luke 15:1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. ... Jesus continues speaking without changing his location all the way through Lazarus and the rich man. The gospels don't have to keep repeating "And the multitude was still present" every step of the way Lon. And how did the Pharisees hear in Luke 16:14 unless they were also present, able to hear? Jesus addressed the Pharisees that were present, which also would be part of that multitude (multitude means "many.") Your so-called "rebuttal" just fell apart.


D) I'll quickly respond to your 10 points.. 13 points, actually?

1) Where is the rule of "parables don't use proper names" written, Lon? The parable of Aholah and Aholibah also uses names: it is not a true story, it is a representative parable. Even the Scofield reference bible which states in footnotes "Parables do not have proper names" at the gospel of Luke ironically (and contradictory) calls Ezekiel 23 a parable.

2) The parables before and after Lazarus and the rich man also lack the so-called "parable introduction." If you would be honest about this, and assemble the list of Christ's parables, you would also observe this. Some say "And Christ spake a parable...." and some do not. Again, this so-called point doesn't have backing.

3) Saying "Abraham's bosom is a real place" seems like an utter stretch of circular logic. Where is it written that "Abraham's bosom" is a real place, Lon? Not in scripture, Lon. Maybe in someone's theology textbook. Not in scripture.

4) There are other parables that don't state application straight out. Again, look to your parables. But if you don't see the application of Lazarus and the rich man you have NOT been paying attention. I was being so careful to be nice and coach you through this, but you wouldn't respond. Who was the rich man, Lon? Did they repent, even when one came back from the dead?

5) Jesus does not always separately explain every parable. Can you show me where the "aside" is for the parable of the prodigal son? Check your parables Lon. This list that you're using doesn't seem very honest.

6) Whomever made this list lacks basic logic. One can speak to your disciples even with a crowd present. The crowd was present in Chapter 15, Christ continues to speak without interruption. It does not say "he spoke privately with his disciples" and apparently Luke does tell us that THE PHARISEES COULD HEAR WHAT HE SPOKE TO HIS DISCIPLES.

7) Point seven doesn't even make sense. Any setting will have a little description. Some may rely on existing story or fictional background, but that isn't even a point.

8) This parable isn't about the afterlife Lon. It's about the Pharisees then and there, and refers to events in the gospels, and even contains a prophecy. If you think it's about an afterlife, you aren't trying to read it as a parable. Besides, again, I would wonder "where was that rule you cited writ?" (not in scripture, it wasn't)...

9) The story setting of someone dying and finding themselves in a hell is a common story ground. It's not original. Read a little Greek literature and I'm sure you can find similar stories. The setting is window dressing for the message, not the message itself. Did you notice that Jesus spoke of "Hades" (it is hades in the Greek) rather than gehenna, which he uses for the hell fire of judgment everywhere else? If he actually meant "HADES" (in the Greek mythology sense here) that would be how he would say it.

10) See above, the story setting is not foreign to his audience, and not even foreign to people now. You can watch "Hercules the Legendary Journeys" with Kevin Zorbo on the sci-fi channel and be familiar with the setting...

11) Moses is not mentioned as a person, he is "Moses and the prophets" as in "They have Moses and the prophets" which are books of the Law, Lon. The point would be irrelevant regardless, but get this right at least. "They have Moses and the prophets" refers to the scripture.

12) The parable doesn't have error Lon. A fictional setting isn't an error. And man marrying 10 virgins at once isn't preaching polytheism. These settings aren't the message of the parables. Attempt to read the parable (as a parable) first, because until then you aren't qualified to say it doesn't read as a parable. I'll help.

13) If you were a Pharisee at the time of Christ, and you heard this parable directed at you, you would not only understand what Jesus was saying, but you would be furious. It's obviously not about life after death, but if it were, the "hell" is a thing to be taken rather lightly. One can have conversations apparently and talk with Abraham... at least if you are in the Gentile's hell. Regardless, don't confuse "the resurrection to life" with "existing as a conscious spirit ghost while dead." The law and the prophets spell out very clearly that the dead don't have thought or feeling or knowledge that they are dead. That same scipture that Jesus attacked the Saduccees on that "Ye know not the scriptures, therefore you greatly err." Jesus EXPECTED that their knowledge should match what the Old Testament scriptures said on the subject!

Mark 12:24 KJV(24) And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

If there was a mysterious experience about being alive while dead, the Old Testament doesn't tell it at all. And if that experience was reality, why would Jesus chide them for not relying on scripture for their answers on this?


Lon, if that was the substance of points that deserve consideration... do you have anything more solid than that?

You were the one who started first, and with plenty of condescension. If we can work past it great. If not, we can ignore one another.


You are the one trying to one-up me. I would have likely met you half-way. There is illusion of either of us changing to the other. I don't really care about that. I care about what is true. It seems you are skittish around troublesome passages and try to explain them away. That is at least how it appears. I've covered some of that in the 25 page scripture summation, and we'll see, perhaps.


I get this a lot. Imho, I was better studied than you 'before' I paid, even back then. You keep 'thinking' you are seeing holes but absolutely not.
I either get to leave you in your ignorance, or attempt to show you, your stubbornness is actually NOT as good as Peter and John. That you claimed it? Of course. I see it all the time and rarely true. Those were Apostles. You? Me? :nono: I don't use verses like this. I know better. Instead 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:15 If one does, they will be. If no, they won't.


YOU were doing it first. You came to the rescue then started the snarky comments about my 'supposed' education. Your bad. Glory head smacked because I was doing it back to you, but I didn't start it.


:doh: Means 'to take on a truth.' Do you realize you 'took on' 1 John 4:16 when you believed it? We are getting petty about things.


Can you see the other side of this? Nobody of the millions on this other side ever told you what they think it means and why?


I would never have said He did.


Yes, it is your decision. Luke 16:1 He also said to the disciples... Have you never been over this material with a pastor or Bible teacher?
Why don't you know the rebuttal already? You've misread a few dozen things I've written as well. I believe, if you are going to try to be this vested, you should show yourself an approved workman. Did you realize you didn't know Luke 16:1? Were you going to tell me the Pharisees showed up? Luke 16:14 Then were you going to tell me Luke 16:18 was a parable? :think: Luke 17:1 And he said to his disciples...


Yep. I line-item my response so I can prove it as well. You have a huge group of Protestant churches, all that are more than capable of defending and showing why they believe you are wrong. You oddly, jump on me like you can win but it isn't me you have to convince. If you could, I'd be on board. I've been over this a number of times. Against @EvilEye, I believe the scriptures point opposite. My answer to everybody is simply this: God is good. If there is a hell, it is either necessary, or God didn't create it. If people are not annihilated, somehow such is necessary. Why? Don't know, not God. I never want to lie to anybody on the other side either. How will you feel if you tell atheists they are going to be wiped out, so "don't worry about it" and then they are in an eternity and you encouraged them there by what you believed, but was a lie? Me?? I'd rather say: God is God and I am not, than make this kind of mistake/lie. It'd be a wicked on for overstepping my bounds. Rather, I say "most believe this, and it has scriptural presence. A small group believes this other, and they have some scriptural presence." That's my answer.

Not true. No scripture you've given has been a surprise.

Not sure I deserve anything. Rather, I believe scripture and the church should be listened to. Most don't get that far.
400 pages. Forget the arguments. Look at the scriptures and bring them before God.

It does not give a qualifier, therefore one isn't there, or one is implied. According to Luke 16:1;17:1, He wasn't talking to the multitude. You have a bad habit (imho) of taking one meaning and running with it, regardless of what may NOT be true. I believe that is why Paul said you should share all things with your teacher. Many on here are doing the lone-ranger and it will ever be to their own detriment.

Look in all your bibles. Does ANY one of them call it 'the parable of the rich ruler?' :think:


I hit this in the 10 or so reasons. It perhaps could be used as one of several reasons you might believe it a parable.

I disagree. Protestants disagree. Your bibles all disagree. They are very careful NOT to call this a parable. Didn't notice?


If I can correct you. This is 1) before the Lord Jesus Christ's Death Burial and Resurrection. 2) This is to Jews who were under the Law. The rich man neglected the Law, his duty to God, and duty to man.


"Reasonable" has to be upon the premise that either of us can treat the other civilly.


I go to websites. I realize many do not. My expectation is that you are teachable when you are wrong. I don't claim annihilationists are wrong. RATHER, a lot of your hasty statements and conclusions are wrong and frankly, from inexperience. You do this with GloryDaz also. I haven't seen you do this with others to date.

1) Unlike any other parable, real men were named. Abraham, real person. Lazarus, real name, even if we don't know him.
2) No parable introduction is given. Many parables were started as simile or metaphor by comparison. That does not exist in this story.
3) Real places are mentioned. The Lord Jesus Christ mentions the bosom of Abraham
4) Parables follow an analogy by simile or parable pattern and at the end, an application is given
5) The Lord Jesus Christ pulled His disciples aside and explained to them what the parable meant later
this was not the case.
6) Luke 16:1;17:1, clearly the Lord Jesus Christ was not talking to the crowds. He spoke plainly to His disciples
7) The description of the real place between paradise and fire, takes time to explain a place that the Lord Jesus Christ doesn't do
with the settings of parables, laying out how that place exists with the chasm as well.
8) Parables do not deal directly with the afterlife, but are comparative to earthly living now and/or spiritual principles to apply
9) The parable fits facts concerning the realities of life and death, as given in both the OT. and NT. That doesn't mean you agree. It simply means it actually fits with expectation of the grave and a place that would hold those set for heaven, and those not.
10) It is the only story that speaks outside of common experience and understanding of the peoples around Him
11)Moses is also specifically mentioned, specifically and with detail uncharacteristic, in dialogue that you'd seen a parable
12) This would be the only 'parable' that taught an error about important things that mattered.
13) The Pharisees and Sadducees debated hotly (kind of like you and I) the difference between dying and being nothing, or living after death.
Because of that, it should be expected that the Lord Jesus Christ would preach consistently, by necessity, even if it were a parable, only the truth about life-after-death.

There are quite a few more. Some of them discussed in this very thread. -Lon

 

[Lon]

Hello Lon,

I'm not sure why I can't be private messaged. According to it I had 3 slots left? I just found the Sent items folder so I cleared more space...

Sent Items contains 34 messages. You have 55 messages stored, of a total 75 allowed. (Empty Folder)

Thank you for the attempt.

It's a little confusing reading that post because it seems like I'm being referenced in the 3rd person.

I explained, clearly, that I was going to send it to EvilEye in thread. When I saw your post, I decided to put it in your post.
So yes, 3rd person. It shouldn't have been too confusing, even in third person, however :idunno:

But none of those quotations you posted are personal attacks

:think:

If Caino starts to use scriptural authority, we should encourage him at that point (to do otherwise would seem hypocritical.

By extension, "you are a hypocrite." Well, perhaps you didn't mean it or mean to, but you said it. It is not hypocritical to go against poor theology. I do not agree with Mormons. They are sometimes right whenever their beliefs cross ours, but 'their' greater need is truth. A truth with a little lie is incorrect. You 'can' encourage a good point, but there is no room for the hypocrisy comment in such. Any measure, is rather an 'option' rather than hypocrisy.

2. You have started to contradict yourself.

It doesn't matter if you didn't 'mean it' as a slam. 1) I didn't, so it is a false accusation and really from your problematic reading comprehension as well as hasty assessment that is completely wrong. You 'equated' paradise and heaven as the same place where I clearly marked them as two separate places. Paradise no longer exists. Therefore 2) you tried to make your error and comprehension my particular problem.

You can make anything say anything if you selectively reverse the meanings of key words!

Again, an accusation and again, your fault, not mine. You need to read and understand what a soul that experiences death means BUT you tried to make it my problem instead of admitting that you have partial definitions that aren't accurate
Continuing:

I could explain clearly the what and why of each sentence, if they need explanation. If you disagree with an assessment and feel it is inaccurate, it would be my expectation that you would challenge it: specifically, not by posturing or questioning whether I had age, credentials, or aptitude for argument.

I question them, as shown, because your understanding is the actual problem. Such leads to questioning your age, credentials, and aptitude.
As a teacher, I would grade you as C- if I were attempting to make you achieve greater than you had been. A C or C+ as a normal grade but with room for improvement and a B- If it was the best you could do and I didn't believe you'd handle discouragement as well as trying to get you to raise your level of work. As a teacher, if I had to guess, I'd say your problem was reading comprehension and rushing work, rather than digesting the information of the assignment and coming to a well-reasoned and rounded response. As a man bible theologian, I'd likely have given you the lower of the grades for your paper and presentation.

For example, let's take a short quotation that you said bothered you: "I don't think you believe God is actually good" - since we agree on whom we are naming "God" then the part we are defining is "good." Here's the standard that was already named: "Good cannot abide keeping people alive for the purpose of infinite torture without hope of redemption." Have you heard stories of people that kidnap women or children and keep them trapped in cages, inflicting abuse for weeks or months until they die, then start again? Is that "good?"
So how can keeping trillions alive, specifically with the ability to feel pain, torment, and/or despair, simply for the purpose of ensuring that this pain, torment, and despair will never EVER cease, be good? That's the same thing, but multiplied by infinity plus.

Non sequitur. You are using 'innocent' lives for your analogy and purposefully creating atrocious conditions. I know well your argument, but it is yet non sequitur. Ask, don't tell in this case. It is one more of those 'I'm right you are wrong, my way or the highway' sorts of assertions that just don't apply. God IS actually good. It "doesn't matter" what you think. It matters what you and/or I both know. Until we 'both' know it, there is no communication, no learning, and a LOT of strawmen and scape-goats.

Unless you can honestly say "that is good" then my assessment was on target "You don't believe God is actually good."

It wasn't. That is the point AND the hasty conclusion is wrong and wrongheaded as well as offensive. You made the scenario.

I was being gracious concerning your character earlier, when I said that I believed you tried not to think about it.

:nono: You were being ignorant. It was a 'wrong' statement to make. You may have felt magnanimous, but it didn't come across as but
your poor thinking and poor thinking of me. Such is offensive. I DO and did think very long and hard about this. You have a choice as what to do with that information.

I quoted Tertullian before to give an example of someone that not only thought about it, but relished the idea with satanic glee. I don't think you're like Tertullian, and that's not an attack.

Not sure then, 'why' it was brought up. We can discuss those reasons in ensuing posts.

If you have a love of God and a respect of scripture, then "God is love" (scripture) and "God is love" (what we should know from his spirit) combined with that confrontation "You don't really believe God is good" should spark you to be willing to reassess why there is a contradiction. The simple answer is that one or more of your premises must be mistaken. But it hasn't seemed like you are willing to start re-examining your premises.

No. This is condescending and 'assuming' you are correct. I actually can tell you how I got to the end of this road, if you'd ever ask. Your assessment and assumptions are wrong. You 'can' keep on your road with annihilation. I already told you the only 'sin' that I think is involved with it, in giving an unsaved a false hope. We can talk about that if you want to hear another perspective than your own.

None of those were personal attacks. Confrontations, most certainly. Not attacks on your person.

:nono: Both.

P.S. I don't know Caino, nor recognize his name, and as such I'm not defending anyone in particular. I did see you attack someone in direct response to the statement "The penalty of sin is eternal death" which is the exact same thing as Romans 6:23. I confronted you because it's especially relevant. Don't reject the scripture no matter who quotes it.

Your mind jumped to a scripture. His did not.

Romans 6:22-23 KJV
(22) But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
(23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Does that say something about 'cessation' to you? :think:

Death here is obviously "eternal death" because that's the obvious opposite of "eternal life." You attacked "the penalty of sin is eternal death" and said it was from some wild pagan source and dismissed it. But that's exactly what Paul preached. That's why you were first confronted.

We'll take a look...

If you want me to explain anything I've said, please ask. I try not to make wild statements. Maybe private message might be more appropriate if it can get working again...

I think we are okay, and moving forward again. We'll play it by ear for a bit?

In Him -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

The reason people fight so hard against this scripture in Luke is because they don't like the idea of suffering for their sins. It's no surprise. All throughout scripture, God rewards good and punishes evil. Our very own consciences convict us of our sins.

To be absent with the body is to be present with the Lord.

2 Cor. 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.​

The beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom (the Father of Faith).

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;​

"He lift UP his eyes"...seeing them "afar off".

Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.​

Was that only a false hope our Lord was giving....that they would be carried by angels to the place God had prepared for them?

We see it isn't unusual that angels would do this.

Mark 13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.​

My only question would be when those in Hades/Sheol (translated hell here) are resurrected, will they suffer eternally or face the second death.

 

[Lon]

A) Have you noticed that I don't tell anyone how old I am, what I've written, what education I have, or where I have gone to school? It's because it's irrelevant in a discussion like this. Any attempt to say "I've paid for an education" and attempting to use that as a superiority card is going to get you poked by some well deserved mocking. Scripture only is the accepted method... right? Can you agree here?

Not necessarily. I realize it is a social problem, but I don't believe the scriptures are against them, as many seem to think. Paul, when appropriate, laid his credentials on the table and shut up his nay-sayers. "If you think you have something to brag about, I have more...."

B) It so happens I not only know the rebuttals (except for sometimes there are responses so crazy that who could predict them) but I also know the rebuttals for those rebuttals, and (as I have demonstrated a couple times already) can show how those ECT arguments self destruct, even from the very verses they gave for their own support. Don't pretend superiority, intellectual (and spiritual) honesty requires that arguments be followed through to the end.

Again, "you think you have credentials? I have more....." You can feign superiority, but I'm not buying it. I went to Multnomah, a sister seminary to Dallas TS. All my professors disagree with you, and strongly as well (both places). One of us is asserting, that is for sure. We can take your scriptures one at a time, but I'm telling you, flat out, you've made a LOT of reading comprehension mistakes in our conversation as well as some you've presented on your own.

C) Luke back slightly further in your gospel of Luke back to when Jesus starts speaking: Luke 15:1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. ... Jesus continues speaking without changing his location all the way through Lazarus and the rich man. The gospels don't have to keep repeating "And the multitude was still present" every step of the way Lon. And how did the Pharisees hear in Luke 16:14 unless they were also present, able to hear? Jesus addressed the Pharisees that were present, which also would be part of that multitude (multitude means "many.") Your so-called "rebuttal" just fell apart.

:nono: This again is a rookie move. It is why I hold suspect your education, prowess as well as having spent any real time over this subject, honestly. Luke 16:1 is 'after' Luke 15:1 Sorry. Luke 17:1 is the sandwich that closes your contest. I think there are some 'good' reasons for thinking Luke 16:19-31 a parable, but not this particular.

D) I'll quickly respond to your 10 points.. 13 points, actually?

There are more, I just did a few that I remembered.

1) Where is the rule of "parables don't use proper names" written, Lon? The parable of Aholah and Aholibah also uses names: it is not a true story, it is a representative parable. Even the Scofield reference bible which states in footnotes "Parables do not have proper names" at the gospel of Luke ironically (and contradictory) calls Ezekiel 23 a parable.

Samaria and Judah were places

2) The parables before and after Lazarus and the rich man also lack the so-called "parable introduction." If you would be honest about this, and assemble the list of Christ's parables, you would also observe this. Some say "And Christ spake a parable...." and some do not. Again, this so-called point doesn't have backing.

You are thinking it is just me saying this. Did you look in all your bibles? Did you find even one (1) case of this being named a 'parable?' :think:

3) Saying "Abraham's bosom is a real place" seems like an utter stretch of circular logic. Where is it written that "Abraham's bosom" is a real place, Lon? Not in scripture, Lon. Maybe in someone's theology textbook. Not in scripture.

Not scripture, but history: 4 Maccabees 13:17 Look for what you haven't heard before?

4) There are other parables that don't state application straight out. Again, look to your parables. But if you don't see the application of Lazarus and the rich man you have NOT been paying attention. I was being so careful to be nice and coach you through this, but you wouldn't respond. Who was the rich man, Lon? Did they repent, even when one came back from the dead?

Have any experience, coach? Ever coached before? The Lord Jesus Christ did not pull aside His disciples and explain this 'parable' to them. Put me in, coach (your language often seeks the condescension marks).

5) Jesus does not always separately explain every parable. Can you show me where the "aside" is for the parable of the prodigal son? Check your parables Lon. This list that you're using doesn't seem very honest.

Ah, "doesn't seem" honest. :think: Do you ever read yourself? The Lord Jesus Christ did not explain every parable BUT not having done so here 'could' suggest it was because it isn't. :think:

6) Whomever made this list lacks basic logic. One can speak to your disciples even with a crowd present. The crowd was present in Chapter 15, Christ continues to speak without interruption. It does not "he spoke privately with his disciples" and apparently Luke does tell us that THE PHARISEES COULD HEAR WHAT HE SPOKE TO HIS DISCIPLES.

:nono: You are that man. Read Luke 16:1 and Luke 17:1. Go ahead. Do it by hovering over both, right now.
"Who" does it 'say' He was talking to???? I grant some folks were there. Inconsequential. Rather "Who" was He talking to? What does Luke 16:1 and Luke 17:1 'say????' You are the man trying to explain stuff away, my friend. That man is you. What does it say? Answer truthfully, even if you don't type it here. It is clear enough. This one, was from me. You are welcome. -Lon

7) Point seven doesn't even make sense. Any setting will have a little description. Some may rely on existing story or fictional background, but that isn't even a point.

Simple: Hades is an actual place. Paradise was and 'actual' place. The Lord Jesus Christ, in conveying the story, 'describes' the places AND 'they actually exist' as given in the OT and NT.

8) This parable isn't about the afterlife Lon. It's about the Pharisees then and there, and refers to events in the gospels, and even contains a prophecy. If you think it's about an afterlife, you aren't trying to read it as a parable. Besides, again, I would wonder "where was that rule you cited writ?" (not in scripture, it wasn't)...

You missed a point....back up. Parables are used to 1) Matthew 13:10-13 to convey truth only to those who understand. Luke 16:19-31 doesn't fit the parable pattern in that it is straightforward and without analogy. There is no metaphor or simile, but direct people with direct application. Parables do not 'explain' things to people that would help them understand what actual places would be like as happens here. This one did not come from me, but I understand why it is used. It is also another reason, among these and others, that your bibles do NOT call this "The Parable of the Rich Man."

9) The story setting of someone dying and finding themselves in a hell is a common story ground. It's not original. Read a little Greek literature and I'm sure you can find similar stories. The setting is window dressing for the message, not the message itself. Did you notice that Jesus spoke of "Hades" (it is hades in the Greek) rather than gehenna, which he uses for the hell fire of judgment everywhere else? If he actually meant "HADES" (in the Greek mythology sense here) that would be how he would say it.

You don't tend to listen, but listen up, teachable moment: Hades and Gehenna are two different places. Hades, in Revelation 20:14, is thrown into the Lake of Fire (Gehenna). Paradise isn't Heaven (and doesn't exist any more). Hades isn't the Lake of Fire (does exist, but will be thrown in).

10) See above, the story setting is not foreign to his audience, and not even foreign to people now. You can watch "Hercules the Legendary Journeys" with Kevin Zorbo on the sci-fi channel and be familiar with the setting...

"Experience" You know anybody, who has been in Hades? :jawdrop:

11) Moses is not mentioned as a person, he is "Moses and the prophets" as in "They have Moses and the prophets" which are books of the Law, Lon. The point would be irrelevant regardless, but get this right at least. "They have Moses and the prophets" refers to the scripture.

:doh: Do you like arguing just to argue? I've met teenagers like this, not many adults. You are being a simpleton. Even "Moses and the prophets" is talking about a 'real person and persons' who would have written the books. :doh: "Real" people. Do you understand?

12) The parable doesn't have error Lon. A fictional setting isn't an error. And man marrying 10 virgins at once isn't preaching polytheism. These settings aren't the message of the parables. Attempt to read the parable (as a parable) first, because until then you aren't qualified to say it doesn't read as a parable. I'll help.

It would be unconscionable, for the Lord Jesus Christ, to relate a story, about REAL places, and NOT portray them accurately. lain:

13) If you were a Pharisee at the time of Christ, and you heard this parable directed at you, you would not only understand what Jesus was saying, but you would be furious. It's obviously not about life after death, but if it were, the "hell" is a thing to be taken rather lightly. One can have conversations apparently and talk with Abraham... at least if you are in the Gentile's hell. Regardless, don't confuse "the resurrection to life" with "existing as a conscious spirit ghost while dead." The law and the prophets spell out very clearly that the dead don't have thought or feeling or knowledge that they are dead. That same scipture that Jesus attacked the Saduccees on that "Ye know not the scriptures, therefore you greatly err." Jesus EXPECTED that their knowledge should match what the Old Testament scriptures said on the subject!

ONLY in the sense that they no longer are aware, by their 5 senses, what is happening on the earth. Do you REALLY know what the OT said about the subject? :think: I rather believe, you have taught incorrectly. The view I laid out for you earlier in thread, is very consistent with OT and NT.

Mark 12:24 KJV(24) And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

If there was a mysterious experience about being alive while dead, the Old Testament doesn't tell it at all. And if that experience was reality, why would Jesus chide them for not relying on scripture for their answers on this?

Mark 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.　
Genesis 5:24 2 Kings 2:11 Daniel 12:2 Isaiah 26:19 Psalm 16:10 :think:

Lon, if that was the substance of points that deserve consideration... do you have anything more solid than that?

...not done with these yet. You gave a hasty reply and were not able to topple a one of them. You can in your mind all you like. Did you READ your Bibles yet? Did you find even 1 (one) that said "The Parable of the Rich Ruler and Lazarus?" :think: Add that one to your growing list. # 14. -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

Jesus healed us of spiritual death , not physical , we Christians still die.


yes Adam died physically @ 930yrs
Gen 5:5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

but died spiritually the day he ate from the tree , like God said he would.

Whatever that means. For the sake of argument.
Death being "separation" (from God) or the spirit from the body.
Perhaps even condemned to die. It can mean a surety something will happen.

Gen. 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.​

These two verses, using the same words, show it could be speaking of the inevitability of their being returned to dust, or even being condemned to die for their sin.

1 Kings 2:37
For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.

Exodus 10:28 And Pharaoh said unto him, Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die.​

 

[glorydaz]

regarding Luke 16

Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
Luk 16:24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’

did Jesus in his earthly ministry ever say anything that was not true, a lie ?

such as headlight fluid or muffler bearings

I had missed this, and it's exactly what hit me today as I was reading this text once again. It is supported all thoughout the teachings of Paul, as well. The "angels" is what nailed it for me. :thumb: