Glory, I think you missed the point. Isaiah also speaks of another fire that shall not be quenched, but that fire didn't keep burning. I think you have somehow missed what the meaning is of the word "quench" and "quenched." As such, your entire understanding of what is meant by a fire that cannot be quenched is going to be influenced.
Isaiah 34 if you need the reference again. It goes into great detail describing the land after the fire has burned its course, but it says that the fire shall not be quenched, and that the smoke shall rise up for ever and ever. This is particularly applicable, because it seems you think that language means that the fire never stops burning and that it therefore tortures people for ever, when you see it in Revelation.
You do realize that I was speaking to Kingdom Ruse, don't you? About Luke 16 not being a metaphor? Those verses I gave addressed her point. They each described exactly what the wicked man was experiencing. If you're so stuck on proving another point that you can't see that, it's not my problem. It's yours. A little to full of yourself, would be my thought. :chew:
Are you trying to claim that a fire that cannot be quenched is impossible with God? Really? I suggest you focus on God's mercy rather than something that, with our human understanding, we might not be able to imagine. You really can't outsmart what is written in scripture.
As far as your advice about how to appeal to Kingdom Ruse, I have no desire to try and convince her. She is blind and deaf to Scripture. She doesn't even accept Jesus Christ is God.
Your mistake is in substituting the word "torment" where it says "punishment."
Scripture says that the punishment of sin is death. It does not say that the punishment of sin is torment.
If life eternal is a life that never ends, death eternal is a death that never comes back to life.
This is succinctly stated in Romans,
(Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
See the contrast? If the life is eternal, then so also must be the death. That was your reasoning, was it not? Now if you read that earlier passage again, without substituting "torture" where the scripture says "punishment" what is the problem?
Hopefully you won't object that death isn't a punishment. Because death is well known as the ultimate final punishment.
(1Sa 28:9) And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?
(1Sa 28:10) And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
Same greek word used in this verse for both eternal life and eternal torment. As much as i would like it to be annihilation also, i cannot believe it since scripture is clear otherwise, and if i wanted to believe that eternal didnt mean it with the torment, i would also have to believe that life is not eternal either. There is no other way to see it unless you believe life isnt eternal too.
Both cannot be correct.
Verse: Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
That also goes with this:
Daniel 12:2
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
Glory, I think you missed the point. Isaiah also speaks of another fire that shall not be quenched, but that fire didn't keep burning. I think you have somehow missed what the meaning is of the word "quench" and "quenched." As such, your entire understanding of what is meant by a fire that cannot be quenched is going to be influenced.
Yes, I know you think I've missed everything. What you missed, with my point, had NOTHING to do with a fire that cannot be quenched. It had to do with the reality of Luke 16....resembling the verses about hell fire.
To make matters worse, as you continue to scold me for what I "missed", you missed my main point, and that is that the refiner's fire was a cleansing fire...burning away the dross so that God could save. Which is why I mentioned Israel, who God will save in the last days because His mercy endures forever.
Isaiah 34 if you need the reference again. It goes into great detail describing the land after the fire has burned its course, but it says that the fire shall not be quenched, and that the smoke shall rise up for ever and ever. This is particularly applicable, because it seems you think that language means that the fire never stops burning and that it therefore tortures people for ever, when you see it in Revelation.
The rich man is Judah, because Judah is the symbol of the nation of Judah. Judah does have Moses and the prophets. And as you surmised, the Jewish Pharisees are targeted by the parable and are they definitely know their lineage from Judah.
Doesn't Paul also say "And so shall all Israel be saved?" Israel technically is the name of Judah's father, given to him by God himself. It isn't at all unusual to see the peoples of Israel referred to by their tribal name (one of the sons of Jacob).
If we move back to your question of "what happens to the rest of the dead" I'll point something out. All of the saints that have already shown faith in Christ are raised when he returns. They are not hurt by the second death. The rest of the dead do not live until a thousand years later.
But when you read the account of that judgment, it makes a distinction between those that are cast into the fire and those that enter the city. But everyone in that judgment was already under condemnation, evidenced that they were not in that first resurrection, that they instead were in the resurrection of damnation.
I asked a Church of Christ bible student one time if, according to the text, every person in the great judgment entered the fire, or if some entered the city. That it specifies that some have their name written in the book of life, and some do not. He didn't realize the consequence of his answer and from the text, he said that some entered into life.
If you want to figure out how that could happen, that anyone would enter that second resurrection and have their name written in the book of life where it may not have been before, I would refer you to the earlier passages I gave, that it is better to "Fall upon the Rock and be broken" than to have the Rock fall upon you and be crushed to powder.
Agreed--my wording was poor. My point is that the penalty usually follows the judgment, and the exercise of judgment is the implementation of the penalty. So if the penalty is already assessed, though judgment has not occurred, there is a miscarriage of justice--which God would never be guilty of.
Therefore, if God is just, and justice has been fairly applied, then our deaths must mean that we have been judged and found wanting, at least to some degree.
Thanks for that verse. I was lacking that clearer exhibit of the resurrection of the unjust.
But your answer to "why" leaves me unsatisfied. It removes the need to understand ANYTHING, or even to reason at all, since "God planned it and will do it", whatever "it" is. I'll touch on the "why" question again below.
I didn't think others could either, and your Acts 24:15 quote reinforces my opinion. But it was part of the argument flow. If the unjust are resurrected bodily, then the bodily part of their penalty must not be complete--or there is a new charge to be adjudicated.
The "why" question comes to mind again. Why do the once dead need to be raised to die again? I'll discuss your answers below.
Jesus also talks about the workers that come near the end of the day, yet get the same payment. I'm ok with that argument--including the potential for repentance. I wonder about the timing and what appears to be a prejudgment: Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. [Rev 20:6 KJV]. But perhaps the first judgment includes those that are faithful in this life, while the unfaithful aren't precluded from repenting between resurrection and judgment. Once again, though, if there's no consciousness between the time of death and the resurrection, then what has changed for those people? Perhaps God gives them another chance with just the offer. Or perhaps He nudges them toward belief with a temporary punishment/chastisement. I'm not completely committed to either, and I have a hard time finding it in scripture.
I'm not real fond of the idea that God needs some kind of nebulous "closure", unless it is to complete an unfinished judgment or promise.
If we are judged according to our deeds, what you've laid out here doesn't sound like justice. In other words, if we are rewarded, if I can use the term here, with just death for a lifetime of torturing other people, compared to a single act of stealing, for instance, now God seems more like a sadist--He allows horrific acts while a person is alive, but then doesn't require an eye for an eye or tooth for tooth. Rather He provides an instantaneous transition to oblivion.
So now Christ's death was unnecessary for salvation? Are you sure you want to go there?
We are, and apparently our knowledge of the truth isn't all the same. I'm not sure how that works--in the full spectrum of those who are saved, are there some saved that have so little knowledge of Christ's death (either past or future) that they could be said to have none? That presents a conundrum for me. If Christ's death is sufficient to allow for the resurrection of all of mankind, meaning he has paid the debt of death, and the only thing left is whether someone believes in Christ or not, those that have not heard have not had the chance to reject Him or accept Him. Thus, if the final judgment (whatever the penalty might be) is due to rejection or acceptance of Christ's sacrifice, what happens to those that haven't heard? The standard Christian answer is that they are doomed. I'm not so sure, but I don't have a good scriptural reason, except relying on the perfect justness of God.
Amen. This seems to be the visible manifestation of acceptance of Christ's authority in our lives.
And I would apply much of that argument to Lazarus as well. My point was not that the rich man was excluded, but that Lazarus wasn't either, anymore than he was--at least by Jesus and/or Abraham, as you acknowledged in #7. The rich man could well be said to have excluded Lazarus, as well as the Gentiles.
I take some issue with your exclusion of Isaac and Jacob and not Judah. Judah, personally, did NOT have Moses and the prophets. Nor did any of his brothers. If you go down that path to prove Judah, you have to go down that path to disprove him as well.
I can think of something more fitting. The pharisees were rulers of the people (denoted by the color of his clothing), and had the ability to deny the good things in life to others (Matt 23:13), along with at least the scribes. The "richness" of the rich man was therefore not just richness of money and goods, but richness of access to the truths of scripture. The "poorness" of Lazarus was then poorness of access to the truths of scripture--similar in nature and extent to the poorness of the Gentiles as previously discussed. The scribes are one of the rich man's brothers, perhaps. The number of brothers isn't necessarily directly correlatable to a real set of things or people or groups, but could easily be a reference to the attempt to achieve salvation through works of man--the number "6" indicating man. There are others that could be numbered, like the priests (who fleeced the people at the temple through the money changers), the Saducees, the Herodeans. I'm missing one, so I'll take nominations. But I'm a little partial to the man-centered religion denoted by the number 6. Your #9 below supports this interpretation, if Lazarus's help is God. This is not original with me, but I think it's better than your Judah connection.
As pointed out above, the rich/poor barrier was not a monetary thing. In fact, if Lazarus in the story is connected with Lazarus who rose from the dead, then there's plenty of reason to believe that he was somewhat wealthy, but still outside the elite of the religious classes of the 6, or they would be less likely to want to murder him after his resurrection. Now I'm the one speculating...
I think you're prejudiced by your interpretation. No offense taken--we all think of our own interpretations as best.
The fact that you are looking for a FOOTNOTE inserted that has no source text as a standard of evidence leaves both you and Lon looking rather pale in your understanding of what constitutes a valid argument. Likewise, I know that neither you nor Lon would relinquish your erroneous argument were I to bother scanning paper bibles and recognize this particular absurd standard of evidence. I don't think you are sincere on this.
Matthew Henry calls Lazarus and the Rich Man a parable, "This he shows in the other parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which has likewise a further intention, and that is, to awaken us all to take the warning given us by the written word, and not to expect immediate messages from the other world (v. 19-31)."
John Gil says that Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable.
"No mention is made in this parable of the burial of this man, nor any words used expressive of it, or that in the least hint it"
Albert Barnes calls Lazarus and the Rich Man a parable. "In hell - The word here translated hell ("Hades") means literally a dark, obscure place; the place where departed spirits go, but especially the place where "wicked" spirits go. See the Job 10:21-22 notes; Isa 14:9 note. The following circumstances are related of it in this parable:"
It seems that pretty much most recognized Bible commentators (or at least the most famous ones) recognize this passage as a parable. And you (and Lon) are telling me, that unless a Bible publisher tampers with the purity of the text to insert their own comments, it cannot be a parable? Please, show some intellectual honesty here.
If you can show me where the bible clearly says, "The wages of sin are a punishing which never ends" then I may be able to admit error. However, I am fairly certain that where the adjective eternal is used, the Greek text uses punishment, as a noun, rather than punishing, which would be a verb.
That is, the opposite of an eternal life is an eternal punishment, not an eternal punishing. That's what God told us at least. That's how it is writ.
@everyone, It seems to me that too many emotions are getting in the way of the peace here. I think it would be beneficial to put our heads together to agree upon the questions that we would want to see answered before we fight over answers. Would anyone be up for that? If no one else here, maybe @Lon would assist via private message.
Yes, I know you think I've missed everything. What you missed, with my point, had NOTHING to do with a fire that cannot be quenched. It had to do with the reality of Luke 16....resembling the verses about hell fire.
That's strange. What did I miss here? I was sure you said your points included both 1) About Luke 16 not being a metaphor and 2) that a fire that could not be quenched was possible with God.
Here's the text I was reading that I replied to:
Originally Posted by glorydaz You do realize that I was speaking to Kingdom Ruse, don't you? About Luke 16 not being a metaphor? Those verses I gave addressed her point. They each described exactly what the wicked man was experiencing. If you're so stuck on proving another point that you can't see that, it's not my problem. It's yours. A little to full of yourself, would be my thought. :chew:
Are you trying to claim that a fire that cannot be quenched is impossible with God? Really? I suggest you focus on God's mercy rather than something that, with our human understanding, we might not be able to imagine. You really can't outsmart what is written in scripture.
As far as your advice about how to appeal to Kingdom Ruse, I have no desire to try and convince her. She is blind and deaf to Scripture. She doesn't even accept Jesus Christ is God.
Yes, I know you think I've missed everything. What you missed, with my point, had NOTHING to do with a fire that cannot be quenched. It had to do with the reality of Luke 16....resembling the verses about hell fire.
To make matters worse, as you continue to scold me for what I "missed", you missed my main point, and that is that the refiner's fire was a cleansing fire...burning away the dross so that God could save. Which is why I mentioned Israel, who God will save in the last days because His mercy endures forever.
No, proving once again that you failed to read my posts. You just glance and assume you know what I said.
@everyone, It seems to me that too many emotions are getting in the way of the peace here. I think it would be beneficial to put our heads together to agree upon the questions that we would want to see answered before we fight over answers. Would anyone be up for that? If no one else here, maybe @Lon would assist via private message.
Absolutely. As I said, I'd been a bit confrontation as to our posturing on sides. You are very strongly adhering to your doctrine and expressing it in confidence. While I appreciate conviction, and even admire it, it is important that you recognize in orthodox (right theology) circles, few hold to annihilation. That said, there is a growing movement toward that position. Take heart in at least this: If Glory or I 'could' conscientiously hold to annihilation doctrine by conviction of scriptures, we surely would join you. The ONLY reason we are not, is that we truly believe the scriptures we share with you, even those who receive The Mark, and the rich man in Hades, these convince us we cannot eschew what God says.
I love that you are trying to be loving to God. I used to wrestle with the same thing you do: How is God good if this happens? One of the ideas I came through, and through scripture study, was that hell is the absence of God and left to our own, as a possibility. For me, a separation from God and rejection of Him, is a rejection of all He is, a rejection of Philippians 4:8. It is unconscionable to me, that anyone CAN reject the Lord Jesus Christ. How? James 1:17 How can anyone reject all and every good thing??? I realize they are unconvinced, by why eschew the representative of every good thing? :idunno:
Makes no sense, but what else IS left if the Author of every good thing is rejected? To me, that has to be hell. If they 'live' forever, by their own choice, without access to every good thing they rejected, the end result would be a fire of one's own making. There are scriptures that suggest I'm not out-of-line, but I appreciate your incredulity. Mine is novel by idea, I agree.
Why then share it? Simply this: I too, had to come to a conclusion regarding ECT and the nature of a good God. If you look even at your own idea of annihilation, it is STILL a loss of all that is good in God, for eternity. Their dust will stand as a testament, for eternity, of their rejection, a fire all its own. IOW, I don't see an advantage to your theological perspective, even then. I don't think annihilation or conscious loss of God is of any advantage. In the one: None existence thus complete loss. In the other: Existence with complete loss but one desires in rejecting all that is good.
[MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION] ... ( [MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] ... I encourage you to check the post as well...) You haven't replied to this LINK HERE yet. Also here... Link HERE Could you please look at this when you get a chance? I used the magnificent ear biter to continue our back and forth. Also ... [MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] ... I'm beginning to articulate this matter more clearly... so this post and the 2 links missed by W2G would begin to go deeper into how I perceive it all binding together.
New... emphasized structural arguments in addition to current arguments...
1. Punishment is defined by scripture and death means to cease existence on a plane of existence.
Rm. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Wage and Punishment are synonymous here. Gift and Reward are synonymous as well.
We KNOW that The first death only kills the Flesh... and on that note... have you seen any zombies lately?
We know that the second death kills the Soul... According to Jesus.
There is a dishonesty about kill and death here. In this life... our dust ceases, but our souls go on. We leave this plane of existence though...
Is this disputed?
Jesus says this...
Mt. 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell
My issue is that the word "Kill" is being blurred from its actual context when Jesus uses it. There is scripture adherence being demanded... but suddenly Killing the Soul or Destroying the Soul is literally being redefined exactly as Christ Deniers change "God" in John 1:1 to "a God".
This is not okay and it is a proof that intellectual dishonesty is occurring.
Killing a soul means to completely cease to exist.
If this were a lie, then killing of the body wouldn't mean that loved ones leave us on this "side" of things.
My point... A Divine Christilogical ... Dispensational ... Zionist ... Grace age believer in the afterlife, as in... Sheol or Heaven that sees "Annihilation" at the close of it all isn't redefining Eternal Life or Eternal Death... but the ECT crowd is.
Eternal Life or Eternal Death. This is plainly stated by Romans.
2. The Biggest of all ECT verses and it's issue...
Revelation 20:10*The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
The issue comes in here...
Rv. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea is no more.
The old earth is bound to a euphemism for Death... and to say that is "Exists" is to deny the actual meaning of "Death".
Now... Day and night are no more in the New Earth and Heaven... by scripture... so there is a further issue with utilizing ECT to define Rev. 20:10.
Rv. 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever
This is my issue with ECT... It fully goes against the Mercy nature of God and His asking us to "Love our Enemies".
3: Luke 16:1 - Luke 17:3 is Jesus speaking in parables. To even deny this is lying. This is indicative of "false doctrine". Also, dispensationally... the parable is about NOW... not at the close of all ages.
This is further reinforced by this...
Luke 16:26*And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
There is a "great gulf fixed". This is a reference to the sea of separation in death and this parable is about unbelieving Jews... in this Grace Age. Romans 11 makes it clear that this isn't a permanent gulf.
Also...
Revelation 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.
Notice it... "No more Sea".
More proof?
Revelation 15:2 And I saw something like a sea of glass mixed with fire, beside which stood those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name. They were holding harps from God,
Sea of Glass... this is the place of separation that Christ is referring to in Luke 16 and it means that it is different dispensationally then... drum roll... Hell fire / The Lake.
4. Scripture emphatically prophesies the annihilation of Satan... For example
Isaiah 14
Spoiler
The Fall of Lucifer
12*
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
13*
For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
14*
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’
15*
Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.
16*
“Those who see you will gaze at you, And consider you, saying: ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms,
17*
Who made the world as a wilderness And destroyed its cities, Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’
18*
“All the kings of the nations, All of them, sleep in glory, Everyone in his own house;
19*
But you are cast out of your grave Like an abominable branch, Like the garment of those who are slain, Thrust through with a sword, Who go down to the stones of the pit, Like a corpse trodden underfoot.
20*
You will not be joined with them in burial, Because you have destroyed your land And slain your people. The brood of evildoers shall never be named.
21*
Prepare slaughter for his children Because of the iniquity of their fathers, Lest they rise up and possess the land, And fill the face of the world with cities.”
Babylon Destroyed
22*
“For I will rise up against them,” says the Lord of hosts, “And cut off from Babylon the name and remnant, And offspring and posterity,” says the Lord.
23*
“I will also make it a possession for the porcupine, And marshes of muddy water; I will sweep it with the broom of destruction,” says the Lord of hosts.
Assyria Destroyed
24*
The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, “Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand:
25*
That I will break the Assyrian in My land, And on My mountains tread him underfoot. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, And his burden removed from their shoulders.
26*
This is the purpose that is purposed against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations.
27*
For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?”
Philistia Destroyed
28*This is the burden which came in the year that King Ahaz died.
29*
“Do not rejoice, all you of Philistia, Because the rod that struck you is broken; For out of the serpent’s roots will come forth a viper, And its offspring will be a fiery flying serpent.
30*
The firstborn of the poor will feed, And the needy will lie down in safety; I will kill your roots with famine, And it will slay your remnant.
31*
Wail, O gate! Cry, O city! All you of Philistia are dissolved; For smoke will come from the north, And no one will be alone in his appointed times.”
32*
What will they answer the messengers of the nation? That the Lord has founded Zion, And the poor of His people shall take refuge in it.
This coincides with the restoration of Zion and Israel... as well as The judgment.
It is dispensationally in support of MAD... but if MAD and the like deny it... it is a denial of the fate of the enemies of Israel.
The Devil is prophesied to be SLAIN and covered with ROTTING bodies... just as Gehenna has always meant.
This is only 1 of so many like it that dispensation and Annihilation are simultaneously irrefutable.
I'm not highlighting any of Isaiah 14 because the Judgment verbiage should be enormously clear that binds to "the day of the Lord... aka the great and terrible day." The order is very clear and for the record... "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day".
I re-assert that we are the Hell Fire and I now hunker down that the king of Sheol is a false king and some of his minions aren't His at all.
This is why I exemplify the follow verse from Jude 9
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”
Now... note that body of Moses is likened unto "Body of Christ".
Case and point... "Lost sheep of Israel"... held in the Pit.
Jesus will break all of Israel free from "Slavery" one final time.
Case and point...
Romans 11
[MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] and [MENTION=13955]glorydaz[/MENTION] ... if you get a chance... please check this out. It is a continuation of posts I made earlier and answers to in going arguments that were in a postured loop.
I'm still off for now... but I wrote this up and figured I'd post it.
Ezekiel is a book that seems to be underreferenced here and that is a mistake.
Your mistake is in substituting the word "torment" where it says "punishment."
Scripture says that the punishment of sin is death. It does not say that the punishment of sin is torment.
If life eternal is a life that never ends, death eternal is a death that never comes back to life.
This is succinctly stated in Romans,
(Rom 6:23) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
See the contrast? If the life is eternal, then so also must be the death. That was your reasoning, was it not? Now if you read that earlier passage again, without substituting "torture" where the scripture says "punishment" what is the problem?
Hopefully you won't object that death isn't a punishment. Because death is well known as the ultimate final punishment.
(1Sa 28:9) And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?
(1Sa 28:10) And Saul sware to her by the LORD, saying, As the LORD liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.
10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Mt. 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell
My issues is that the word "Kill" is being blurred. There is scripture adherence being demanded... but suddenly Killing the Soul or Destroying the Soul is literally being redefined exactly as Christ Deniers change "God" in John 1:1 to "a God".
This is not okay and it is a proof that intellectual dishonesty is occurring.
All respect...
It is a reasonable exegesis. One note: It doesn't say "Will" but "Can." Again, for me: Doubt. This verse, when I first read it, by itself, may very well have convinced me to have been an annihilationist. Rather, those who receive The Mark of the beast, and the rich man, have me fairly cemented that conscious torment exists. I've talked a bit about what that 'torment' might consist of, and what those flames might be.
Let me put it a bit further: A person without God, already is gnashing teeth, they are complaining already. Left exactly the way they are, for eternity? For you and I, hell. Pure hell. We long for, groan for redemption. We want this life, the way it is, and with us in sin, to stop.
For us: 1 John 3:2
As far as Hell being the final stop for the "wicked"... I disagree that these people "don't have a king"... if you go back... you will note I linked the word "king" to "self-appointed".
I agree with you to a degree... but I can't help but note that you keep overlooking the actual flesh death of Adam in Gen. 5. This is a Death that is initiated by "Satan"... and quite frankly... Jesus says He can do the same thing to the Soul.
The Body Decays and scripture speaks of this. Heck... we know this as a medical fact. The body ceases. Are you denying that there is a "possibility" that Jesus could "cease a soul"?
Addressed this in my post above. A lot of pictures of Hades now, have the Devil in goats legs, horns and a pitchfork, but he is more a rover than a dweller. Job has him roaming between Heaven and Earth. I do agree, I do not as much think of him in this regard and understand the connection you are making for the thread.
The message of Luke 16:1 then Luke 17:1 Thought the Pharisees where there, the message was to the disciples. I appreciate you are not certain about it being a true story. "If" it is only a parable, even "if," the story still talks about an actual place.
Think of this: If you are correct, and this were to the Pharisees, and a story, the eternal torment is twice the warning with more weight of eternal torment against them. IOW, if you are correct, it makes it even more dire that it portrays truth because it would specifically be a warning about their damnation.
@Evil.Eye.<(I)> (you asked specifically for response)
I make a motion that we all try to be more concise. I am one of the worst offenders, I know. We can often shorten posts but at the cost of including support, so before we tell anyone "you are wrong" we should give each other the opportunity to say "can you support that please" ... eh? Sounds good?
1. Jesus did say that the second death destroys the soul. He didn't say "kill" but "destroy." We already have in scripture that souls can be killed in the here and now. I'll omit verse references but they are plenty. E-sword and word search finds them quickly. Combine the passages and the first death kills body and soul (but there will be a resurrection), but the second death destroys body and soul in hell (and there will be no resurrection from hence.)
2,4. Revelation 20:10 is the passage with which I said ECT supporters may make an honest mistake. You've already alluded to one of the passages that prophesies the complete annihilation of Satan in judgment. The language is clear and it could not be much more precise in saying that the devil will be burnt up by fire, reduced to ashes, and be no more. The misunderstanding of Revelation 20:10 requires
1) an assumption that the devil is immortal,
2) lack of knowledge of Old Testament passages that prophesy what will happen to the devil in the judgment, and
3) a misunderstanding of what happens when you apply an action "for ever" to an object with a finite duration.
If you were to look back far enough in this thread it has been discussed before, enough to satisfy at least one person who formerly believed in Eternal Conscious Torment (at least with regards to spirits) and was happy to adjust. Way 2 Go might remember. He was all cheering and approval at first because he assumed I was Eternal Conscious Torment for a while.
@way 2 go ... ( @Lon ... I encourage you to check the post as well...) You haven't replied to this LINK HERE yet. Also here... Link HERE Could you please look at this when you get a chance? I used the magnificent ear biter to continue our back and forth. Also ... @Derf ... I'm beginning to articulate this matter more clearly... so this post and the 2 links missed by W2G would begin to go deeper into how I perceive it all binding together.
New... emphasized structural arguments in addition to current arguments...
1. Punishment is defined by scripture and death means to cease existence on a plane of existence.
Rm. 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Wage and Punishment are synonymous here. Gift and Reward are synonymous as well.
We KNOW that The first death only kills the Flesh... and on that note... have you seen any zombies lately?
We know that the second death kills the Soul... According to Jesus.
There is a dishonesty about kill and death here. In this life... our dust ceases, but our souls go on. We leave this plane of existence though...
Is this disputed?
Jesus says this...
Mt. 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell
My issue is that the word "Kill" is being blurred from its actual context when Jesus uses it. There is scripture adherence being demanded... but suddenly Killing the Soul or Destroying the Soul is literally being redefined exactly as Christ Deniers change "God" in John 1:1 to "a God".
This is not okay and it is a proof that intellectual dishonesty is occurring.
Killing a soul means to completely cease to exist.
If this were a lie, then killing of the body wouldn't mean that loved ones leave us on this "side" of things.
My point... A Divine Christilogical ... Dispensational ... Zionist ... Grace age believer in the afterlife, as in... Sheol or Heaven that sees "Annihilation" at the close of it all isn't redefining Eternal Life or Eternal Death... but the ECT crowd is.
Eternal Life or Eternal Death. This is plainly stated by Romans.
2. The Biggest of all ECT verses and it's issue...
Revelation 20:10*The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
The issue comes in here...
Rv. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea is no more.
The old earth is bound to a euphemism for Death... and to say that is "Exists" is to deny the actual meaning of "Death".
Now... Day and night are no more in the New Earth and Heaven... by scripture... so there is a further issue with utilizing ECT to define Rev. 20:10.
Rv. 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever
This is my issue with ECT... It fully goes against the Mercy nature of God and His asking us to "Love our Enemies".
3: Luke 16:1 - Luke 17:3 is Jesus speaking in parables. To even deny this is lying. This is indicative of "false doctrine". Also, dispensationally... the parable is about NOW... not at the close of all ages.
This is further reinforced by this...
Luke 16:26*And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
There is a "great gulf fixed". This is a reference to the sea of separation in death and this parable is about unbelieving Jews... in this Grace Age. Romans 11 makes it clear that this isn't a permanent gulf.
Also...
Revelation 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.
Notice it... "No more Sea".
More proof?
Revelation 15:2 And I saw something like a sea of glass mixed with fire, beside which stood those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name. They were holding harps from God,
Sea of Glass... this is the place of separation that Christ is referring to in Luke 16 and it means that it is different dispensationally then... drum roll... Hell fire / The Lake.
4. Scripture emphatically prophesies the annihilation of Satan... For example
Isaiah 14
Spoiler
The Fall of Lucifer
12*
“How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
13*
For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
14*
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’
15*
Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.
16*
“Those who see you will gaze at you, And consider you, saying: ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, Who shook kingdoms,
17*
Who made the world as a wilderness And destroyed its cities, Who did not open the house of his prisoners?’
18*
“All the kings of the nations, All of them, sleep in glory, Everyone in his own house;
19*
But you are cast out of your grave Like an abominable branch, Like the garment of those who are slain, Thrust through with a sword, Who go down to the stones of the pit, Like a corpse trodden underfoot.
20*
You will not be joined with them in burial, Because you have destroyed your land And slain your people. The brood of evildoers shall never be named.
21*
Prepare slaughter for his children Because of the iniquity of their fathers, Lest they rise up and possess the land, And fill the face of the world with cities.”
Babylon Destroyed
22*
“For I will rise up against them,” says the Lord of hosts, “And cut off from Babylon the name and remnant, And offspring and posterity,” says the Lord.
23*
“I will also make it a possession for the porcupine, And marshes of muddy water; I will sweep it with the broom of destruction,” says the Lord of hosts.
Assyria Destroyed
24*
The Lord of hosts has sworn, saying, “Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand:
25*
That I will break the Assyrian in My land, And on My mountains tread him underfoot. Then his yoke shall be removed from them, And his burden removed from their shoulders.
26*
This is the purpose that is purposed against the whole earth, And this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations.
27*
For the Lord of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?”
Philistia Destroyed
28*This is the burden which came in the year that King Ahaz died.
29*
“Do not rejoice, all you of Philistia, Because the rod that struck you is broken; For out of the serpent’s roots will come forth a viper, And its offspring will be a fiery flying serpent.
30*
The firstborn of the poor will feed, And the needy will lie down in safety; I will kill your roots with famine, And it will slay your remnant.
31*
Wail, O gate! Cry, O city! All you of Philistia are dissolved; For smoke will come from the north, And no one will be alone in his appointed times.”
32*
What will they answer the messengers of the nation? That the Lord has founded Zion, And the poor of His people shall take refuge in it.
This coincides with the restoration of Zion and Israel... as well as The judgment.
It is dispensationally in support of MAD... but if MAD and the like deny it... it is a denial of the fate of the enemies of Israel.
The Devil is prophesied to be SLAIN and covered with ROTTING bodies... just as Gehenna has always meant.
This is only 1 of so many like it that dispensation and Annihilation are simultaneously irrefutable.
I'm not highlighting any of Isaiah 14 because the Judgment verbiage should be enormously clear that binds to "the day of the Lord... aka the great and terrible day." The order is very clear and for the record... "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day".
I re-assert that we are the Hell Fire and I now hunker down that the king of Sheol is a false king and some of his minions aren't His at all.
This is why I exemplify the follow verse from Jude 9
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”
Now... note that body of Moses is likened unto "Body of Christ".
Case and point... "Lost sheep of Israel"... held in the Pit.
Jesus will break all of Israel free from "Slavery" one final time.
Case and point...
Romans 11
@Rosenritter and @glorydaz ... if you get a chance... please check this out. It is a continuation of posts I made earlier and answers to in going arguments that were in a postured loop.
I'm still off for now... but I wrote this up and figured I'd post it.
Ezekiel is a book that seems to be underreferenced here and that is a mistake.
The gates of the rich man do reference a place that could have existed, but we have no proof that it is an actual place. Abraham's Bosom is an item from Jewish folklore, Hades is a reference from Greek folklore. You haven't actually demonstrated that any of those are actual places.
The message of Luke 16:1 then Luke 17:1 Thought the Pharisees where there, the message was to the disciples. I appreciate you are not certain about it being a true story. "If" it is only a parable, even "if," the story still talks about an actual place.
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.
That's strange. What did I miss here? I was sure you said your points included both 1) About Luke 16 not being a metaphor and 2) that a fire that could not be quenched was possible with God.
Here's the text I was reading that I replied to:
And here is where you claim that the point had nothing to do with a fire that cannot be quenched.
I'm reading the posts, but I'm awfully confused why you say your point has nothing to do with what you actually put in the text.
Oh, so I see the problem. My post above was the post I was referring to....about the refining fire being a cleansing. Then Kingdom Ruse started talking smack, and I switched over to arguing against her claim that Luke 16 was only a metaphor. The verses you cited were in answer to her claims, and I didn't see you speaking of the cleansing point at all. Perhaps I hadn't made it clear enough.
I will say this. There are too many long, long posts in this thread. It's a mess.
The gates of the rich man do reference a place that could have existed, but we have no proof that it is an actual place. Abraham's Bosom is an item from Jewish folklore, Hades is a reference from Greek folklore. You haven't actually demonstrated that any of those are actual places.
Well, I can.... :think: Hades is mentioned in scripture with Gehenna as it's Hebrew counterpart, as far as my concept of them. Also, Abraham's Bosom, by concept, was the same thing as Paradise, in that Abraham was there, and as I understand it. Part of this depends on whether my whole concept of life-after-death both for trusting Jews before Christ, and Christians afterward, and conversely those who eschew Him, being Hades/Paradise, now Hades/Heaven; is right. So, there are scriptures that mention hades prior to this, as well as Paradise, if you'd grant that Abraham's bosom is the same, being that he was there. :e4e: -Lon
To the ones who believe that death itself is eternal:
Why then are the dead resurrected to receive judgement if eternal death is the punishment, itself?
Daniel 12:2
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.
Revelation 20:11-15
Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 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. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
John 5:28 Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice 29 and come out—those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.…
Why not leave the dead- forever dead, if thats the punishment as you say?
It says those judged unrighteous, will be cast into the lake of fire (revelation 20:15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.)
which it says is what the second death is:
Revelation 20:14
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death--the lake of fire.
Why was death placed into the lake of fire too, if death itself is the punishment? Again, they are ressurected to life, before being punished.
What happens in the lake of fire?
Revelation 20:10
And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, into which the beast and the false prophet had already been thrown. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
The rich man is Judah, because Judah is the symbol of the nation of Judah. Judah does have Moses and the prophets. And as you surmised, the Jewish Pharisees are targeted by the parable and are they definitely know their lineage from Judah.
I guess you're saying that the rich man is symbolic of the rejection of Jesus, the only means of salvation, by the nation of Judah as a whole, who claimed to cling to Moses and the prophets, but in reality were basing their salvation in their works, and denying the salvific power of faith, as represented by Abraham, whose faith was reckoned righteousness.
And I suppose I can also see that "Judah" is outside the kingdom, while many others are within, similar to Matt 8:11, 12.
But while Jesus may have been talking about the nation of Judah, it was mainly because of, and directed at, the leaders, and the impact they were having on His ministry and their own future by their rejection of Him. This can be seen in a number of other verses, like Matt 23:37 (directed at the seat of authority of Judea), and Mark 11 and 12 wherein are named the different groups of leaders (I found the sixth brother here!): chief priests, scribes, and elders in Mark 11:27, Pharisees and Herodians added in Mark 12:13, and Sadducees complete the list in 12:18.
So I still think it's a stretch that the brothers were Judah's brothers. Yet it's not too important who they are if we agree Jesus is referring to those that believe they have a lock on the kingdom of God.
And despite the irony you see in Jews being in a Greek hell, it doesn't mean that such a hell doesn't exist. The discussion then becomes, as [MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] and I both pointed out, "Did Jesus give a false portrayal of our post-life condition in His attempt to explain an unrelated subject?"
That's where we go to other scripture to determine if there is something akin to the place of torment the rich man finds himself in. And yes, there is, if the descriptions in Mark 9:43-48 and Rev 14:10,11 and 20:10,15 can be taken literally.
Rev 20:15 segues nicely to your next comment:
If we move back to your question of "what happens to the rest of the dead" I'll point something out. All of the saints that have already shown faith in Christ are raised when he returns. They are not hurt by the second death. The rest of the dead do not live until a thousand years later.
But when you read the account of that judgment, it makes a distinction between those that are cast into the fire and those that enter the city. But everyone in that judgment was already under condemnation, evidenced that they were not in that first resurrection, that they instead were in the resurrection of damnation.
If you want to figure out how that could happen, that anyone would enter that second resurrection and have their name written in the book of life where it may not have been before, I would refer you to the earlier passages I gave, that it is better to "Fall upon the Rock and be broken" than to have the Rock fall upon you and be crushed to powder.
I think I like your description here, though I might take issue with a couple of things.
First, (here's your "earlier passages" post for reference), I don't think your list of verses can necessarily be applied to post-death circumstances. The ones that are in the book of life might already be repentant before they died, even without a full (or even partial?) saving knowledge of Christ.
My second issue is that this:
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [Rev 20:4 KJV]
seems to be limited to only those that were killed or at least persecuted because of their tenacious clinging to Christ through persecution. 2 Tim 2:12 intimates something similar.
There's also a mention in that verse of a group ("they") sitting on thrones with judgment given to them. These might be those that Paul referred to in 1 Cor 6:3. Might also fit in with a pre-trib rapture construct.
If the first resurrection is limited to the persecuted, then it allows for believers (perhaps from time periods with no persecution, or perhaps that weren't the greatest witnesses for Christ on earth, as in Jude 23), already written in the book of life, to be resurrected in the second.
The story of rich man/Lazarus is a good example of the inability to repent afterwards, though not the only one.
If instead the "first resurrection" mentioned in Rev 20:4 requires judges to be there before they are resurrected, then perhaps all of the Christians have been resurrected prior to the second judgment.
I suppose, though, that in either case there are potential believers, say from the old testament times, that could be offered the choice. I'm open to the idea.
At the end of all this, though, I'm not sure we've moved any closer to determining if ECT is biblical or not, as the lake of fire could be either temporary or permanent no matter what we decide above. The loss of the rich man/Lazarus story to the ECT proofs might be conceded without losing complete scriptural support.
