This name, according to the narrative in Ex. iii. (E), was made known to Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another, parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2, 3, P) it is stated that the name was not known to the Patriarchs. It is used by one of the documentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if at all by the others. Its use is avoided by some later writers also. It does not occur in Ecclesiastes, and in Daniel is found only in ch. ix. The writer of Chronicles shows a preference for the form Elohim, and in Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii. Elohim occurs much more frequently than Yhwh, probably having been substituted in some places for the latter name, as in Ps. liii. (comp. Ps. xiv.).
Not enough information, which is always my concern regarding God BUT I'm moving!
[Did you see that coming?] Lots of people disagree with me on this, including most orthodox likely, but I honestly believe, a life of eternity, without God, is/would be a blazing fire. Worse? Our own ungodliness and rejection of Him would feed that fire, for eternity. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" would be appropriate with such. What would they have left? I don't want that to go to far OTHER than show why such isn't as 'wicked' as most imagine. I have no idea what the fires of Hell are and don't envision them being 'physical' flames. At the very least, it helps explain my thoughts and ideas of God's Holiness.
Jesus uses lots of scriptural references, and it's usually a good idea to look up what he's quoting. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" is not an eternal conscious torment reference - the full source actually describes the effects of annihilation.
Psalms 112:9-10 KJV
(9) He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour.
(10) The wicked shall see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.
Yes, I have given them. Rev 14:10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
Lon, does this "tormented with fire and sulfur" happen before the judgment or after? Where does this fall chronologically in the book?
Regardless, notice that it doesn't assign an infinite duration, whether those tormented survive this fire and sulfur until the next plague is released upon the earth, or whether it is the deadly torment of a volcano or worse. Regardless, this torment is only applicable to people who are alive. It speaks of those that worship the beast. Other passages tell us that the dead cannot worship, so without additional information, we must presume that it speaks of those who are still living upon the earth.
Jude 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
Good example! Sodom and Gomorrah suffered from eternal fire, and they aren't still burning. Eternal fire reduced them to ash and the fire spent itself out. Again, not a good support for eternal conscious torment, but a bit of the opposite...
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.
I asked before: how is that passage supposed to lend support for eternal conscious torment? Damnation is the act of condemning, and one raised to the resurrection of damnation means they are likely to suffer the effects of damnation. That passage has nothing about eternal conscious torment in it.
Jesus uses lots of scriptural references, and it's usually a good idea to look up what he's quoting. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" is not an eternal conscious torment reference - the full source actually describes the effects of annihilation.
Psalms 112:9-10 KJV
(9) He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour.
(10) The wicked shall see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.
Lon, does this "tormented with fire and sulfur" happen before the judgment or after? Where does this fall chronologically in the book?
For me, and you are free to disagree, The rich man was in conscious torment. There is no question that is what is relayed. Remember, I do not believe it is a parable nor, even if it were, that anything contrary to what is true, is expressed. It isn't (for me) a reasonable assumption.
Because of that, while I can see several scriptures going both ways, it is important to read them through the other fellows eyes.
For the record, let me state again: I am not wholly against Annihilation other than I think its greatest sin is taking for granted a truth and teaching it to unbelievers, 'as if it were irrefutable fact' that they will be annihilated. That's it. Other than that, I have no problem with the contention as it is in neither of our hands any way. This is well within the bounds of God's business alone. I tell people what I 'think' and always leave this between them and God. I am not God's mediator. He has a Mediator. I rather trust Him to do His work and I will not even unintentionally lie on His behalf if I can help it. These are my convictions. I am not trying to shove them down your throat, just carry this part of the conversation as well as explained how vested I am in the topic.
Regardless, notice that it doesn't assign an infinite duration, whether those tormented survive this fire and sulfur until the next plague is released upon the earth, or whether it is the deadly torment of a volcano or worse. Regardless, this torment is only applicable to people who are alive. It speaks of those that worship the beast. Other passages tell us that the dead cannot worship, so without additional information, we must presume that it speaks of those who are still living upon the earth.
I've heard this often but, if you would, for your own sake, think this through: Are you then okay with it? "Oh these people deserve it!"
Such didn't give me solace when I first heard it, and it still doesn't today.
Good example! Sodom and Gomorrah suffered from eternal fire, and they aren't still burning. Eternal fire reduced them to ash and the fire spent itself out. Again, not a good support for eternal conscious torment, but a bit of the opposite...
The problem, as I see it, is that this fire is eternal. The area of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't have a perpetual fire burning in its physical location.
Again, it fine to disagree. Let's be sure we are seeing each other's points.
I asked before: how is that passage supposed to lend support for eternal conscious torment? Damnation is the act of condemning, and one raised to the resurrection of damnation means they are likely to suffer the effects of damnation. That passage has nothing about eternal conscious torment in it.
Both conditions are contrasted and the main thrust isn't that either ceases to exist, but to endure eternally, life, or conversely damnation.
I do see, and understand how you are reading it and believe it viable, yet questionable. Again, my greatest concern is that one who might not be annihilated, take comfort that he/she will be annihilated, and I be found giving false hope as the cause of it (in addition to my other 2 concerns also already given). -Lon
2. The miracle and fact that Jesus, having the power over life and death, has promised to and will raise everyone who has ever lived, both the just and the unjust. Acts 24:15 "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Why? Because our Creator has planned it that way and will do it. If he didn't raise us, the first death would be permanent, and then being slain in this life would be eternal punishment.
So could "the dead, small and great" in Rev 20:12 refer to those that HAD been dead, but that were now standing, after the second resurrection
4. God alone has the power over life and death, so the answer is God (Jesus). In what circumstances? Everyone is being raised once, after he returns, destroying the world powers that would rise against him and finally establishing a kingdom under his rule, since by that point we should have gotten fed up with seeing what happens when we rule ourselves. "Knowledge of good and evil" really isn't such an awesome choice.
Only Jesus is the resurrection and the life. If Jesus resurrected all of the dead, why? Were they not better off dead? doesn't such a resurrection already tend toward the sadism people complain about with the ECT hell? Isn't the act of resurrecting a person for the purpose of killing them again sadistic even without the everlasting part? Why resurrect a dead person, one that has already paid for his sins (Rom 6:23)?
5. Yes, why would Jesus raise the dead to the resurrection of damnation? I can give you a couple reasons that come to mind, including closure and the potential for repentance. Some people might argue that it would be unjust for God to forgive anyone who repents in the final day, and to that I would suggest that maybe we need to learn more about our God from what he left for us in scripture. Don't be like Jonah and become angry if God chooses to be merciful. That's his right.
Yes, the process of judgment might be its own type of torment, and no one gets to smack talk their way out of that experience. But in the worst case scenario, they end up dead a second time and they won't remember it anyway.
To REALLY torment them, even if just for a little while, by casting them bodily in the fire?
Compared to what people do to each other on this earth, even what you described there is pretty slight. How hot is a fire so large that it is described as a lake? I can't say. That's not really important. But even assuming it is the fire uses for the mechanism that kills, fires that are hot enough could kill before someone hits the ground. Nebuchadnezzar's furnace killed his own guards as they were throwing in the Hebrews. Fire is really about the finality of destruction, not pain.
Therefore, if Jesus's death is the only mechanism for resurrection, and these people are resurrected, does Jesus' death somehow apply to them?
No one is saved by Christ's death. We are saved by God's grace, which is freely given to those that put their faith in him. Some people may have never heard anything resembling the gospel, but because they will be resurrected, they will face judgment. The judge of the quick and the dead is the same as the mediator between God and men, the same God that takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but wills that he repent, and is willing to wipe out transgressions. It doesn't matter whether someone died before or after the physical event of Christ's death. We are saved by grace through faith. I think I would also add in that faith in God includes willingness to keep his commandments.
a) Love God Mark 12:30
b) Love thy neighbor Mark 12:31
c) Love your enemies Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27, 35
d) Love one another John 13:34
e) without a love of the truth we cannot be saved 2 Thessalonians 2:10
Revelation 22:14 KJV
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Any sin can be forgiven, provided that we repent of our sin. The sin that cannot be forgiven is rejection of the Holy Spirit, because if you really know what the Holy Spirit is, and choose to reject it, you are rejecting God, his sacrifice, his willingness to forgive. If someone doesn't know what they are rejecting, it's a matter that education might address.
Hebrews 6:4-6 KJV
(4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
(5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
(6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
I don't see that it says anywhere that Lazarus was outside the city. he was laid at the rich man's gate (And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, [Luk 16:20]), but that doesn't mean the whole city.
7. You are technically correct. More correct on that point.
And you just assume the rich man had Moses and the prophets--not a bad assumption, but an assumption nevertheless. Abraham's statement was that his brothers had Moses and the prophets, not him.
8. The children of Abraham that could call him "Father" were all recipients of Moses and the prophets. Considering that he has five brothers this rules out Isaac or Jacob. If it is said that his brothers had Moses and the prophets, it would be hard to say how he would be excluded.
Romans 3:1-2 KJV
(1) What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
(2) Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
The rich man is Judah. Or more precisely, the rich man is the symbol of of the people of Judah. That's why he has five brothers. They are named Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulan (see Genesis 35:23) He is described as wearing purple and fine linen because those identify which brother he is, they are associated with Judah in the prophecy in Genesis 49:8-12, "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah.... he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes..." Considering he addressed this to the Pharisees and his prophecy is about the Jewish nation, can you think of anything more fitting?
Judah (and especially the Pharisees) had Moses and the prophets. They ignored them. John 5:39, Luke 24:27.
Thus Jesus' hearers would have presumed that Lazarus was a descendant of Abraham (his name is certainly more Hebraic than Hellenic).
9. The name Lazarus has meaning, "God is his help" and also rubs some salt in the wounds about the other Lazarus. I suppose we might allow this Lazarus to be Jewish as well, but his association is with those despised by the Jews, the dogs (Matthew 15:26, Mark 7:28). But look at the further dog reference here that also matches to gospel accounts:
Matthew 15:27 KJV
(27) And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Mark 7:28 KJV
(28) And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
Luke 16:21 KJV
(21) And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
I have found it a pretty good rule that the Bible does a good job of interpreting its own symbols. If the dogs are gentiles and seek crumbs from the master's table, then Lazarus, licked by dogs, also desiring crumbs from the master's table, does seem like a dog.
Besides, the "great gulf fixed" between the two characters would be fitting for the Jew-Gentile separation that was deemed insurmountable. Rich Jews might not think highly of poor Jews, but that wasn't that inseparable barrier.
And when Lazarus ends up where the rich man expects he should be, in the symbol of Jewish reward, it's awfully ironic when the rich man finds himself in the picture of Gentile hell. These are reasons I lean towards Gentile: the symbols all seem to point in that direction. If those details weren't significant, why would the bear special mention?
Another good post!
I agree with the twice dead portrayal. But it allows for some interesting consequences. First, that the death of Adam "in that day" could then be a recognition of a future fact not yet realized. Second, that there are people that have no chance of repentance--their judgment has already taken place, in a sense--or that both their body and soul would be destroyed by the one that has the power to do so.
I thought death was the judgment!?! Why is there more?So was the first death...permanent, that is. What made it temporary then?? I think this is an important question that isn't often considered. The second resurrection (described, but not labeled as such in Rev 20:12; and implied in Rev 20:6) was indeed a resurrection. Just as you rightly pointed out above--that "dead" can mean those appointed to a death not realized. So could "the dead, small and great" in Rev 20:12 refer to those that HAD been dead, but that were now standing, after the second resurrection. Who is the only one that can empower people to be resurrected? And in what circumstances can it be allowed?
Only Jesus is the resurrection and the life. If Jesus resurrected all of the dead, why? Were they not better off dead? doesn't such a resurrection already tend toward the sadism people complain about with the ECT hell? Isn't the act of resurrecting a person for the purpose of killing them again sadistic even without the everlasting part? Why resurrect a dead person, one that has already paid for his sins (Rom 6:23)? Is it for that person's sake? Surely not (unless we admit of a repository of souls that are not happy where they are, similar to the rich man's state)! To REALLY torment them, even if just for a little while, by casting them bodily in the fire? Adam and Eve were not promised torment if they disobeyed, but death--peaceful, unconscious, nothingness, if that's what death is. God seems to be breaking a promise if they are resurrected at all, if I understand the logic behind annihilationism.
And the mechanism? what mechanism is available to resurrect people? Is there something else out there than Jesus' death to get past their death? I don't know what it is, and it would seem to make Jesus a liar, and the Christian faith a sham, to have anything else available.
Therefore, if Jesus's death is the only mechanism for resurrection, and these people are resurrected, does Jesus' death somehow apply to them? I'm sure I'll hear from @Lon about universalism, but it seems to make sense of two things many/most Christians believe in some form:
1) That belief in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is the ticket (if I can be so crass) to eternal life, and
2) That the unforgivable sin is unbelief in Jesus' DBR.
So, if Jesus' DBR applies to all sons of Adam, but disbelief is cause for condemnation, and if death is defeated in Jesus, perhaps the only thing left is to be alive forever without Jesus, who is the sustainer of all things--the "second death" is an eternal lack of sustainment by the only one that sustains (Col 1:16,17).
I don't see that it says anywhere that Lazarus was outside the city. he was laid at the rich man's gate (And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, [Luk 16:20]), but that doesn't mean the whole city.
And you just assume the rich man had Moses and the prophets--not a bad assumption, but an assumption nevertheless. Abraham's statement was that his brothers had Moses and the prophets, not him. And Abraham's statement didn't apply directly to the rich man, it applied even less directly to Lazarus--to try to apply it in the negative is certainly to take scripture where it doesn't go by itself. Thus an assumption of one or the other in regard to Lazarus is presumptive...except that angels carried Lazarus to Abraham's bosom. We can look back and see that that could apply to either Gentiles or Jews, but Jesus' audience would be unlikely to think of it ever applying to Gentiles. Thus Jesus' hearers would have presumed that Lazarus was a descendant of Abraham (his name is certainly more Hebraic than Hellenic). And at this time in Jesus ministry, all of His disciples would have, too.
I'll give you the "dog" reference--that it was about Gentiles. But Lazarus wasn't one of the dogs--they were just empathetic to his plight, as they shared it. He had been denied the good things from the rich man's table, just like the Gentiles had been.
I admit of a little trepidation as I delve into deeper meanings of the parable/non-parable. The more mystical my (and your) speculations get, the further we might go from the original intent. An interesting exercise, no doubt, but rife with potential problems, imo.
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Granted that Paul is talking about "visions of the Lord" and one could say that this was an experience of vision and not reality, but it doesn't really seem like this Paradise is an empty abandoned lot.
Revelation 2:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Wanted to revisit this again. None of it needs response, but I wanted to ensure clarification. Paradise is in Heaven, now. What I meant in saying it doesn't exist should have been rather "It is moved."
To be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord, now. Before Christ, there was no access to the Father, thus Paradise was a duplex with Hades, in my understanding.
So, a bit of acquiescence to your point, terms do overlap. For our discussion? I think it important at least, that you understand that I think Paradise was a different place prior to the Lord Jesus Christ's redemption work and moved afterwards. As I had said earlier, Paradise is subsumed into Heaven now.
This name, according to the narrative in Ex. iii. (E), was made known to Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another, parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2, 3, P) it is stated that the name was not known to the Patriarchs. It is used by one of the documentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if at all by the others. Its use is avoided by some later writers also. It does not occur in Ecclesiastes, and in Daniel is found only in ch. ix. The writer of Chronicles shows a preference for the form Elohim, and in Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii. Elohim occurs much more frequently than Yhwh, probably having been substituted in some places for the latter name, as in Ps. liii. (comp. Ps. xiv.).
I may have already answered this question, but it's an important question. I'll hit it harder.
Is our God a God that would ever reject sincere repentance?
Psalms 51:17 KJV
(17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
I had someone answer "Yes" to that once. What? Keep in mind the conditions were "sincere repentance."
Luke 20:17-18 KJV
(17) And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
(18) Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Which is better, to be broken?
Luke 4:18-19 KJV
(18) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
(19) To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Or to be ground to powder?
Malachi 4:1-3 KJV
(1) For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
(2) But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
(3) And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.
Fall upon the Rock and be broken, or force him to fall upon you and be ground to powder. This, besides being a message of repentance, also carries the potential for destruction. And the symbols are compatible with total destruction, not infinite preservation of conscious torment.
So when will most people that have ever lived in this world ever meet their Rock? I can think of a time that will come for everyone. At that time, it will matter whether one falls upon the Rock or the Rock falls upon him.
I used to think hell was not a good translation. Then I studied it more and it continued to make more sense and to click into place. If there is a poor usage, I think it is in the modern misuse of the word. If you look to the word origins, it makes a lot of sense:
For example, check out this word gem:
A hellbox is a receptacle where cast metal sorts are thrown after printing. The job of sorting the type from the hellbox and putting it back into the job case was given to the apprentice, known as a printer's devil.
Hell is where the dead are cast out. When Jonah prays from the belly of hell, it is because he has been cast down to the depths and will certainly die without help. The old English meaning matches so very well. At least, it certainly matches from the view of resurrection and final destruction of the wicked. Funny that.
No, because hell is a poor translation. It's one fault I find with the KJV. You'll find it to be Sheol in Hebrew and Hades in Greek (as I recall). I did a study on this quite some time ago and it's very interesting.
There is a place of the dead...just as Jesus said in Luke 16. You can see it referred to many times in Scripture. After the resurrection the saints who had died would be moved to the "third heaven" - Paradise. IMO.
I think the original Jewish application of Paradise was the garden of Eden, but Paul uses it for the abode of God, and Paradise is on earth when Jesus returns.... the common element is eternal life or the tree of life. Paradise would be the garden of God where we can live forever with him. So rather than being a place per se, a place can be made Paradise depending on his blessing and presence. I think that would explain all those applications.
Wanted to revisit this again. None of it needs response, but I wanted to ensure clarification. Paradise is in Heaven, now. What I meant in saying it doesn't exist should have been rather "It is moved."
To be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord, now. Before Christ, there was no access to the Father, thus Paradise was a duplex with Hades, in my understanding.
So, a bit of acquiescence to your point, terms do overlap. For our discussion? I think it important at least, that you understand that I think Paradise was a different place prior to the Lord Jesus Christ's redemption work and moved afterwards. As I had said earlier, Paradise is subsumed into Heaven now.
Agreed. Derf asked really good questions and is paying attention. I sent him a pos saying the same thing.
Also... your answers to the very character of God were diametrically opossed. You actual leaned towards the Honesty and Mercy of God, while W2G connected God to "deception" and "willful temptation".
Keep these things in mind. It's in their post that they also used the most excellent ear biter to cap off.
1Ki 22:18 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?”
1Ki 22:19 And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left;
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.’
1Ki 22:23 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.”
1Ki 22:28 And Micaiah said, “If you return in peace, the LORD has not spoken by me
1Ki 22:34 But a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breastplate. Therefore he said to the driver of his chariot, “Turn around and carry me out of the battle, for I am wounded.”
1Ki 22:35 And the battle continued that day, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Syrians, until at evening he died.
It is very dangerous to misinterpret events as God being "willingly deceitful". There is much more to this story than you are bringing in and for that matter... you are blurring the line of Permissive events with God's will.
And the wages of sin is death. You are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. There's another death.
2. The miracle and fact that Jesus, having the power over life and death, has promised to and will raise everyone who has ever lived, both the just and the unjust. Acts 24:15 "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Why? Because our Creator has planned it that way and will do it. If he didn't raise us, the first death would be permanent, and then being slain in this life would be eternal punishment.
So, that being said, physical death is not permanent. It's a putting off of the tent we dwell in.
4. God alone has the power over life and death, so the answer is God (Jesus). In what circumstances? Everyone is being raised once, after he returns, destroying the world powers that would rise against him and finally establishing a kingdom under his rule, since by that point we should have gotten fed up with seeing what happens when we rule ourselves. "Knowledge of good and evil" really isn't such an awesome choice.
Yep, and sin entered the world, and Satan became the God of this world. Is it any wonder so many men sinned?
5. Yes, why would Jesus raise the dead to the resurrection of damnation? I can give you a couple reasons that come to mind, including closure and the potential for repentance. Some people might argue that it would be unjust for God to forgive anyone who repents in the final day, and to that I would suggest that maybe we need to learn more about our God from what he left for us in scripture. Don't be like Jonah and become angry if God chooses to be merciful. That's his right.
Compared to what people do to each other on this earth, even what you described there is pretty slight. How hot is a fire so large that it is described as a lake? I can't say. That's not really important. But even assuming it is the fire uses for the mechanism that kills, fires that are hot enough could kill before someone hits the ground. Nebuchadnezzar's furnace killed his own guards as they were throwing in the Hebrews. Fire is really about the finality of destruction, not pain.
So, my question would be, why will Israel be refined by fire as a cleansing and not all men?
Malachi 3:3-5 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.
I can't rule out there could be another option to ECT or annihilation, and Israel is the main reason I can't.
Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Where is Jesus? At home or like Paul teaches in you, or is it a future among you that this deity shows up? The mystery is still one to those who claim know it! seeing the majority await that among deity to ride into town.
Paul didn't mean that Jesus is literally in a person. That's ridiculous. It's like Jesus said in John chapter 17, verses 20-23. For someone to be "in" someone else, it's the same as saying they are unified. Jesus is actually where the scriptures say he is---in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
The Bible does NOT "plainly teach" that Jesus is EVERYWHERE. There are a boatload of scriptures saying PLAINLY that Jesus is in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
Acts 2:33
Acts 7:55,56
Romans 8:34
Ephesians 1:20
Colossians 3:1
Hebrews 1:3
Hebrews 8:1; 10:12; 12:2
I Peter 3:22
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.
Yes that is true. Could you tell us a little bit about Steve Gregg's book? Surely people who have looked deeply into the subject have found out that hell has been translated from three Greek words and they all mean something different, thus confusing billions of people over the centuries.
It looks like you are condensing this a bit. That's fine, I'll move in that direction too:
1. The "rule of proper names" isn't scriptural, but it is stated in a footnote in the Scofield reference bible. Footnotes are not gospel.
3 & 11. Israel was well known for adopting pagan customs and ideas fast. Golden calves. Groves. Priests of Baal. Necromancers with familiar spirits. Abraham's Bosom has pagan roots. You won't find it from scripture. Seems the Jews weren't totally immune.
7. You weren't able to find any other bible passage that uses the Greek "hades" in relation to fire, were you? If death and hell were fire already, they wouldn't have to be thrown there in Revelation 20:14. Every other instance of hades and sheol (hell) is death, corruption, the worm, decay, the grave, the tomb. Far from proving a connection, you are.
8. Your question is both irrelevant and confused. Lazarus and the rich man doesn't name Moses as a person, it is one of the ways the Jews referenced scripture. Not that it matters anyway, it wouldn't matter if Moses was personified in this parable as well.
(Why don't you just switch to the name "Abraham" who is personified instead of trying to argue Moses, who was not?) It would be meaningless anyway, because any amount of actors are allowed in a parable. Arguing that it can't be a parable because if has symbolic actors is an exercise in circular logic.
10. Do you disagree that the people of Christ's day would have heard of stories where people went to hell and back? Or do you disagree that the Jewish prophets of scripture spoke of death and hell as nothingness? Or do you disagree that they were inspired? You said you disagree. With which part?
13. When Jesus addressed the Pharisees and the Sadducees over poor understanding, it was never because they took their understanding from scripture, but because of what they said and did and believed that went against scripture. Not once did he chide them for believing scripture as it was written.
2. Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) has no introduction of "He spoke this parable unto them" 4. Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) has no specifically stated application. 5. Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) has no specifically given explanation.
6. There isn't an honest Bible that calls the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) a parable. Why? It's not in the Greek Text.
14. In spite of all this the Parable of the Prodigal Son is well known as a parable. Many well known parables lack all your identifying characteristics. Yet only because the future of ECT depends on it, this one is denied as a parable,
15. I would wager an electronic copy of Tyndale's English translation that you haven't a single scripture saying that the dead are currently in Paradise.
And speaking of Tyndale, we still have his and my challenge to answer how Christ's answer to the Sadducees, specifically stated for the purpose of proving the resurrection, could have possible proven his point at all if "the dead are alive in any fashion" were the case. If the dead were alive at all, then they wouldn't need a resurrection to qualify God as the God of the Living.
You can't answer this... not in any non-evasive way, without losing "the dead are conscious" which would be required for a "the dead or tormented or in bliss this side of the resurrection."
By the way, I'll put this out there because a friend of mine points this out. A Conservative Christian Evangelical friend, mind you, of which you said there would be none... that even if you believed "Lazarus and the rich man" were a literal story, there's nothing in there about an eternal duration. It's pre-resurrection, before the destruction of the wicked in the judgment.
.... as such, it sort of renders even a positive assumption moot for sustaining a belief in Eternal Conscious Torment. Logically and rationally it shouldn't be in one of your top three points because regardless one way or the other, it doesn't technically address the question at hand. Allowing death to not be death might allow ECT to survive to fight another day, but it doesn't discount total destruction to ash that the wicked be no more at Doomsday.
Let me go a different direction: The Lord Jesus Christ spoke in parable to speak only to those who had ears to hear, so it is different in purpose than the OT parables. Secondly, perhaps precision: The Lord Jesus Christ's parables, more specifically, would allow you to bring up your OT point, without contradicting the main thrust of this observation. Concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, it is true.
It isn't an evasion. It is a 'disagreement.'
On this one, do a little study, if interested. Abraham's bosom is a very Jewish concept that predates the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ as well as exists well after.
You said "coach." The point being, it is point/counterpoint in that the data is surmised. The stack, if it goes with "No parable explanation" adds to the "not a parable" weight. IOW, it is its own evidence by the lack. I 'agree' Some parables weren't explained, but absolutely the absence supports very well, it may not be a parable at all. Another way of saying it: Because it "doesn't" have a parable explanation, it is more likely it is because it isn't 'because the Lord Jesus Christ explained many of His "parables."
It does for me, and most, and even your own bibles in your house.
I disagree. It is straining the text, and imho, breaks.
Honestly, it looks a lot more like vibrato.
Spoiler
Mat_11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
Luk_10:15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades.
Luk_16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
Act_2:27 For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One see corruption.
Act_2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
Rev_20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
Rev_20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Hell and Hades are not the same. The point 'fails with or for you.' If you said that, it'd be better received. The truth of the point is clear: do you find another parable that mentions Moses? :think:
We disagree.
You may download this PDF over the disagreement if you like, or simply believe what you've believed to date.
:doh: You missed my point. It is not at all that I like to argue. This is another case, I believe, on your part, of not enough time and not reading for depth.
This is importing. Jewish culture and religion were very resistant to outside influence.
Some agree with you. Others don't. I believe when the Lord Jesus Christ addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees, in their disagreement, that He discounted the poor understanding that some took from the OT. I also believe the model I gave is consistent with His teaching regarding the OT. I am aware that not all see this as clearly as I purport. It is not, however, my model. I adopted it from Multnomah Seminary, having found it makes a lot of sense of all scripture revelation regarding death and afterlife. It all fits together in a very cogent manner and is consistent to all revelation.
Um, no. Nice try. Did you find even ONE (1)? :nono: No you did not.
I asked you to find this in any of your Bibles. Wikipedia is written and sustained by nonprofessionals. Perhaps I'll challenge this article upon the basis that no Bible calls it a parable (on purpose I might add). IOW, Wikipedia is wrong this time, and it isn't what I asked you to produce, knowing full-well, you'd not be able to do so.
[/FONT]
To me? Thin and really about your own persuasions. Those men/women were alive in Paradise, though their bodies dead.
Again, overblown vibrato and opinion. It may very well in your own mind, but you do not represent a denomination. The only 'denominations' that agree with you are JW's and Seventh Day Adventists.
I didn't call you a pup because of your Annihilation stance :doh: This is a fallacy, that calling you a young pup, by any necessity means I am calling another annihilationist a young pup.
I didn't call you a pup because of your Annihilation stance :doh: This is a fallacy, that calling you a young pup, by any necessity means I am calling another annihilationist a young pup.
If you won't answer my question to you because I am a "young pup" ... then will you at least acknowledge Tyndale, who asked the same question? By the way, I am probably not as young as you think.
I don't see any willful temptation in those verses Way 2 Go posted. I see God blinding someone who already chose to follow false Gods,but that is also consistent with other passages as well.
Isaiah 66:4 KJV
(4) I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.
2 Thessalonians 2:10-11 KJV
(10) And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
(11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
The lying spirit in the mouths of those prophets were false prophets to begin with, not prophets of God, but prophets of devils. When people are determined enough to deny truth, God will even help choose their delusions for them.
1Ki 22:18 And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?”
1Ki 22:19 And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left;
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.’
1Ki 22:23 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.”
1Ki 22:28 And Micaiah said, “If you return in peace, the LORD has not spoken by me
1Ki 22:34 But a certain man drew his bow at random and struck the king of Israel between the scale armor and the breastplate. Therefore he said to the driver of his chariot, “Turn around and carry me out of the battle, for I am wounded.”
1Ki 22:35 And the battle continued that day, and the king was propped up in his chariot facing the Syrians, until at evening he died.
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 ?
Oh please. Jesus was using METAPHOR to make a point that had nothing to do with literal burning in a fire. Tell me---was Jesus "lying" when he said the Kingdom was like a mustard grain that grew into a tree? (Matt.13:31,32) Or was he using illustrations to get a point across, just like Aesop's Fable about Chicken Little and the "sky is falling" was a commentary on something deeper than the sky actually falling.
