Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[Derf]

no that would be sleep ,slept

1Ki 11:43 And Solomon slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David his father. And Rehoboam his son reigned in his place.
1Ki 2:10 So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.

Joh 11:11 After saying these things, he said to them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him."

then for people like you

Joh 11:14 Then Jesus told them plainly, "Lazarus has died,

Or maybe for people like you, since you seem to think "sleep" is different from "death". But Jesus is speaking plainly to His disciples, who didn't understand that "asleep" meant "dead". You're saying "dead" means "asleep", which is turning Jesus words on their heads. Follow the passage.

[Jhn 11:11 KJV] These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. (Jesus introduces the term "sleep")
[Jhn 11:12 KJV] Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. (The disciples think Jesus means "sleep".)
[Jhn 11:13 KJV] Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. (The narrator explains that Jesus really meant "death", but that the disciples thought He meant "sleep")
[Jhn 11:14 KJV] Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. (The story continues with Jesus affirming what the narrator had just explained to the reader--that "sleep" was a euphemism for "death", and not the other way around.)

"second death" is permanent separation from God.

That may be part of what "second death" is, but you are pulling a definition from your own mind, while I got my definition straight from the bible. Would you rather trust your definition (indicative of a traditional reading, perhaps) or would you rather use the definition provided by the bible?

This seems important, w2g. That we really think through the standard story to see if it really fits with what the bible says. The parts that fit, we should retain and hold fast to. The parts that don't fit exactly, we should question to see whether they are true, or if they are part of a narrative that we've been taught all our lives but was merely from someone's commentary of the bible, and not from the bible itself.

If the standard story, as you've laid out, is true, then we should find ourselves back at that same story if we are dilligent in searching the scripture, to see "whether these things be true"
[Act 17:2 KJV] And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
[Act 17:3 KJV] Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
[Act 17:4 KJV] And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
[Act 17:5 KJV] But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
[Act 17:10 KJV] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[Act 17:11 KJV] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Why did the Jews of Thessalonica seek to get Paul? Because they were sticking to their own story, and would not allow him to tell them it meant something different from what they thought it meant--what they had been taught all their lives, no doubt.

Why did Luke call the Bereans more noble? Because they were willing to hear a different story, and they sought through the scripture to see which story was true.

If we can't search the scriptures with the intention of learning what they really say, we are no better than those Thessalonican Jews who refused to here the truth..to their condemnation.

I'm not saying my story is correct here. But the standard story seem deficient to me, and I would like to know what's true.

 

[way 2 go]

Or maybe for people like you, since you seem to think "sleep" is different from "death". But Jesus is speaking plainly to His disciples, who didn't understand that "asleep" meant "dead". You're saying "dead" means "asleep", which is turning Jesus words on their heads. Follow the passage.

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

you said
If that was the first death, then the second death must have been when they died physically, right?
:nono:

sleep is God's way of referring to biological death not the first or second death


the annihilation crowd always wants to conflate biological death and the second death as the same kind of death .

the first death is separation from God then it follows that the second death is also separation from God.

 

[Derf]

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

you said
If that was the first death, then the second death must have been when they died physically, right?
:nono:

sleep is God's way of referring to biological death not the first or second death


the annihilation crowd always wants to conflate biological death and the second death as the same kind of death .

the first death is separation from God then it follows that the second death is also separation from God.

I think what you are saying is that physical death is NOT part of the penalty for sin. Am I understanding you right?

 

[way 2 go]

I think what you are saying is that physical death is NOT part of the penalty for sin. Am I understanding you right?

I'm talking about what the first and second death are , sounds like you want to move the goal post

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

Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

 

[Derf]

I'm talking about what the first and second death are , sounds like you want to move the goal post

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

Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

I'm trying to figure out how you think physical death is related to Gen 2:17. How is that unrelated (as in moved goal posts)?

 

[Hobie]

Here is a study that reads almost as a personal testimony, that I came across on this...

"There are numerous scriptures that seem to clearly indicate that there is no eternal life for the wicked (not even in Hell). Here are quite a few that I found from the PC Study Bible after doing a search for the words "eternal life" in the concordance...

Matt 19:16—"And someone came to Him and said, 'Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?'"

This man spoke of obtaining eternal life. It wasn't as if he already possessed it. Preachers today would probably say to him "Son, you already have eternal life; it's just a matter of where you will spend it." But Jesus never said that.

Matt 19:29-30—"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life."

They will inherit eternal life. This indicates that not everyone has it already.

Matt 25:46—"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

This verse admittedly uses the phrase "eternal punishment," but it is juxtaposed against the phrase "eternal life." Death by annihilation in the Lake of Fire could certainly be called "eternal punishment" because it is eternal in its consequences. Death on earth is only temporal because everyone will be raised again at the resurrection. Death in the Lake of Fire, however, is eternal: there is no reversing it and no coming back from it. If Jesus meant for the punishment to last eternally, he probably wouldn't have contrasted it with the phrase "eternal life" which is clearly meant only for believers. If Jesus had intended what most churches believe he did with this verse, he should have said, "Both the righteous and the unrighteous will go away to eternal life, but the unrighteous will spend it being tortured while the righteous spend theirs in paradise."

John 3:16—"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

This is the most quoted verse in the Bible and also one of the clearest accounts on the annihilation of the wicked. "...Whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." John didn't write that "...whoever believes in Him shall not have everlasting life in torment, but rather have everlasting life in Heaven." The way most churches interpret this, they mentally replace the very clear word "perish" with something that means nearly the opposite: "never perish."

John 3:36—"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

John 4:14—"...but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life."

John 5:24—"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

Once again, the words "eternal life" and "life" are associated strictly with the righteous. The word "death" is reserved for the unrighteous, who will not go to Heaven. It takes a good bit of theological gymnastics to continually reinterpret these divinely inspired Words of God to mean the exact opposite of their natural meanings. Since when does "death" mean "eternal life away from God"? If John intended to say that, he should have used almost any other word instead of "death."

John 6:40—"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:47—"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."

John 6:54—"He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

John 6:68—"and Simon Peter answered Him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.'"

John 10:28—"and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand."

Rom 5:21—"so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Rom 6:23—"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

This is another very popular verse which is quite clear in its teaching. "The wages of sin is death (not eternal life in torture), but the gift of God is eternal life..."

Gal 6:8—"For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life."

Once again, "eternal life" is from the Spirit and "corruption" is reaped from the flesh.

Titus 3:7—"so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

1 John 3:15—"Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."

No murderer has eternal life abiding in him. Most Christians claim that all people, saved and unsaved, have eternal life abiding in them, but this is certainly not what the scriptures teach.

1 John 5:11—"And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."

Eternal life is only in God's son. The unrighteous do not have the gift of eternal life.

All of the above scriptures were reached in a search for the words "eternal life" in the PC Study Bible. The search actually returned 42 occurrences of the phrase in the NASU version of the Bible. I did not incorporate every single verse because many were essentially repeats of verses I did include (for instance, some of the Gospels record virtually the same teachings of Jesus) and a few others were slightly less clear. However, in the entire Bible, there is not a single verse that records anything to the affect that "everyone has eternal life; it's only a matter of where each will spend it." Yet this is what most of the church today believes."...https://www.truthaccordingtoscriptur...p#.XkzF_cJYa1s

 

[JudgeRightly]

Those who reject that God will separate from Himself those who reject Him and cast them into the lake of fire where they will spend the rest of eternity (and those who reject that those who love Him will spend the rest of eternity with Him) must also, as the logical conclusion to their position, reject that Christ going to the cross was the only way to save mankind from his sin.

Christ Himself pleaded with His heavenly Father THREE TIMES, if there was any other way, to let the cup of wrath pass from Him, but ultimately He submitted His will to His Father's will, because there WAS NO OTHER WAY.

If there had been, Christ would have done that, instead.

The fact that Christ did NOT do anything other than go to the cross, and became sin for us, and so and had His Father's wrath poured out on Him, is proof that there was NO OTHER WAY.

In other words, God couldn't create a coin that had enough value to pay off the demands of justice (which counters the claim that God could simply forgive everyone and have them live with Him for eternity), and since God placed eternity in our hearts (that we are creatures that will last for eternity) and originally intended for man to live forever with Him in the garden, and still intends for man to live with Him in both heaven and earth, He cannot simply destroy that which He created to live forever (which counters the claim that God could simply destroy (read as "annihilate") those who reject Him, and allow those who love Him to live with Him forever), simply because it's not possible to destroy such a thing.

That leaves us with creatures (humans and angels) designed to last forever (note the Tree of Life in Genesis), divided into two overarching groups:

The first group is those who love God, who will live forever with Him. These will want to live with Him, and will enjoy doing so for eternity.

The second group is those who Hate God. Here, God is faced with a dilemma. God cannot wipe them from existence, because doing so is not possible, nor can He justly allow them to live with Him, since they would harm those who love Him, nor can He forgive them outright, as per Luke 17:3, because it would teach them that repentance isn't necessary, which is the entire message He preached while on earth, and would make Himself out to be contradictory.

So what's God to do?

Here is the answer:

If you hate someone, do you want to be with them for all of eternity? Of course not, it would only drive you to further hatred of that person, and given the time and opportunity, that hatred leads to the desire to murder, and then to murder itself.

In other words, given the time and opportunity, those who hate God would would kill Him to vindicate themselves. Oh wait, they already did. They hated Jesus Christ so much that they put Him to death. And they would do it again, given the time and opportunity.

So, if God can't forgive them (because they refuse to repent and turn to Him), and He can't destroy them (because He designed man to last forever, and something designed that way cannot be destroyed), and they don't want to live with Him anyways, then the logical and reasonable solution (for God is the God of Reason) is to simply separate them from Himself for the rest of eternity, because that is exactly what they want.

This separation is what is called the Lake of Fire.

As for what the lake of fire is exactly, not much is said in the Bible, except for what it is like.

I recommend reading the following article from GotQuestions.com, as they go into a small amount of detail explaining this, and it's something that I think they hit the nail on the head with.

https://www.gotquestions.org/lake-of-fire.html

Eternal separation from God is the only logical conclusion from what is said by Jesus Himself and from His actions.

Denying that Hell/the Lake of Fire is real and eternal essentially undermines the entire gospel of Christ. Doing so will only lead people away from God.

 

[Derf]

If you hate someone, do you want to be with them for all of eternity? Of course not, it would only drive you to further hatred of that person, and given the time and opportunity, that hatred leads to the desire to murder, and then to murder itself.

A little off topic, but this is why the second command is as important as the first--that we love one another. If we are in heaven with anyone we still hate, it would lead to the desire to murder, as you say. But I'm not sure how murder could be effected once we are clothed in our glorified bodies. I don't think they will be susceptible to murder, will they??

But then we might be able to ask the same question of those in hell. If they are allowed to maintain their hatred for others, then it would lead to murderous thoughts and finally murderous acts. But they, too, will be in bodies that are meant to last forever, right? Even enduring a lake of fire? So those in hell, if they are able to make contact with one another (not sure about that), they might eventually end up trying to inflict harm on each other forever. God had to wipe out the whole earth, save Noah and his family, for the same problem--violence against one another.

This would help us understand, perhaps, what the "lake of fire" might be--it might be the uncontrolled passions and actions of billions of people, inflamed with hate, though I'm not limiting it to that.

Makes me think of the movie "Death Becomes Her". Two ex-friends (fought over the same guy) drank a portion granting them immortality. But they hated each other and kept trying to find ways to hurt the other. The "hurt" was physical only, and didn't affect their "life", but they ended up destroying each other's bodies, which they put back together with glue or other substances.

Bruce Willis was the guy, so in effect it was a lesser known sequel to "Die Hard", I guess. (joking)

 

[ok doser]

A little off topic, but this is why the second command is as important as the first--that we love one another. If we are in heaven with anyone we still hate, it would lead to the desire to murder, as you say. But I'm not sure how murder could be effected once we are clothed in our glorified bodies. I don't think they will be susceptible to murder, will they??

But then we might be able to ask the same question of those in hell. If they are allowed to maintain their hatred for others, then it would lead to murderous thoughts and finally murderous acts. But they, too, will be in bodies that are meant to last forever, right? Even enduring a lake of fire? So those in hell, if they are able to make contact with one another (not sure about that), they might eventually end up trying to inflict harm on each other forever. God had to wipe out the whole earth, save Noah and his family, for the same problem--violence against one another.

This would help us understand, perhaps, what the "lake of fire" might be--it might be the uncontrolled passions and actions of billions of people, inflamed with hate, though I'm not limiting it to that.

Makes me think of the movie "Death Becomes Her". Two ex-friends (fought over the same guy) drank a portion granting them immortality. But they hated each other and kept trying to find ways to hurt the other. The "hurt" was physical only, and didn't affect their "life", but they ended up destroying each other's bodies, which they put back together with glue or other substances.

Bruce Willis was the guy, so in effect it was a lesser known sequel to "Die Hard", I guess. (joking)

Give a look at Robin Williams in "What Dreams May Come" sometime.

 

[way 2 go]

I'm trying to figure out how you think physical death is related to Gen 2:17. How is that unrelated (as in moved goal posts)?

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

Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

the first death is undone and second death is avoided by life in Jesus Christ

Joh_3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

biological death still happens to Christians as it is apart of the curse of the fall.

 

[Derf]

Give a look at Robin Williams in "What Dreams May Come" sometime.

I've never seen that one. Looks interesting.

 

[Derf]

biological death still happens to Christians as it is apart of the curse of the fall.

"apart from the curse of the fall"???
But biological death is what God was initiating when he didn't allow them to eat of the tree of life after the fall. It is part and parcel of the fall.

What you are saying is that Adam and Eve were never meant to live forever biologically.
And you are ignoring Job's assurance that he will see God in his flesh and with his own eyes (physical, though changed):

[Job 19:26 KJV] And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God:
[Job 19:27 KJV] Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; [though] my reins be consumed within me.​

And you are ignoring Paul's assertion that we will be changed in the twinkling of an eye:

[1Co 15:51 KJV] Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
[1Co 15:54 KJV] So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.​

Biological death doesn't happen to those Christians that don't sleep in vs 51--the death part is not the important part, it's the resurrection part--the death part can be substituted with the changing of the body in to its glorified form.

You are ignoring what happened to Jesus Christ--that He was raised in the flesh, the first fruits of the resurrection:

[1Co 15:20 KJV] But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
[1Co 15:21 KJV] For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead.​

And if Christ brought about a bodily resurrection, being the first one, then 1 Cor 15:21 assures us that it is to correct the death that happened through Adam's sin. And if those two deaths are the same, then there MUST be a physical part of that first death that was countered with the physical component of Christ's resurrection.
Jesus' body was raised physically:

[Jhn 20:20 KJV] And when he had so said, he shewed unto them [his] hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
[Jhn 20:27 KJV] Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.​

That doesn't discount the possibility of a different component of death--that of the soul or spirit or whatever else you want to call it. We can still have that discussion But without the bodily resurrection Paul assures us our faith is vain. That means the resurrection had to overcome the physical component, else there is no point to belief in Jesus.

[1Co 15:14 KJV] And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.
[1Co 15:16 KJV] For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
[1Co 15:17 KJV] And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins.
[1Co 15:18 KJV] Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.​

All of those verses tie the resurrection back to death--physical death--and that is the kind of death Adam brought into the world. And if it's not a bodily resurrection, vs 18 says that those who have already died (fallen asleep) are perished--there's no hope for us if there's no bodily resurrection. That makes the bodily resurrection the most important part of the gospel of Christ. THE MOST IMPORTANT PART!

The bodily resurrection of Christ, overcoming the bodily death brought about by Adam's sin, is not only CENTRAL to the Christian faith, there's no real faith without it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Those who reject that God will separate from Himself those who reject Him and cast them into the lake of fire where they will spend the rest of eternity (and those who reject that those who love Him will spend the rest of eternity with Him) must also, as the logical conclusion to their position, reject that Christ going to the cross was the only way to save mankind from his sin.

Christ Himself pleaded with His heavenly Father THREE TIMES, if there was any other way, to let the cup of wrath pass from Him, but ultimately He submitted His will to His Father's will, because there WAS NO OTHER WAY.

If there had been, Christ would have done that, instead.

The fact that Christ did NOT do anything other than go to the cross, and became sin for us, and so and had His Father's wrath poured out on Him, is proof that there was NO OTHER WAY.

In other words, God couldn't create a coin that had enough value to pay off the demands of justice (which counters the claim that God could simply forgive everyone and have them live with Him for eternity), and since God placed eternity in our hearts (that we are creatures that will last for eternity) and originally intended for man to live forever with Him in the garden, and still intends for man to live with Him in both heaven and earth, He cannot simply destroy that which He created to live forever (which counters the claim that God could simply destroy (read as "annihilate") those who reject Him, and allow those who love Him to live with Him forever), simply because it's not possible to destroy such a thing.

That leaves us with creatures (humans and angels) designed to last forever (note the Tree of Life in Genesis), divided into two overarching groups:

Okay, let's break this down a bit...

The first group is those who love God, who will live forever with Him. These will want to live with Him, and will enjoy doing so for eternity.

The second group is those who Hate God. Here, God is faced with a dilemma. God cannot wipe them from existence, because doing so is not possible, nor can He justly allow them to live with Him, since they would harm those who love Him, nor can He forgive them outright, as per Luke 17:3, because it would teach them that repentance isn't necessary, which is the entire message He preached while on earth, and would make Himself out to be contradictory.

So, essentially a "black and white" scenario with no shades of grey or anything, something akin to fundamentalism that's sorely lacking in reason. You seem to equate unbelief or doubt with "hate" which doesn't make any sense. You also seem to equate belief, fervent or otherwise in a different God to being the same. Atheists don't "hate" God, they just don't believe in the likelihood of any deity's existence. Agnostics etc by a similar token. If your definition of "hate" is not having a belief akin to your own, then that's just arrogant waffle, as is the bizarre notion that people who don't believe the same as you would wish you harm by association if they were in the same realm as yourself in the afterlife. Why do you think that folk would be out to harm the likes of you in such? Are all of the "non believers" on this plane out to make your life a misery or something? Of course not.

So what's God to do?

Here is the answer:

Oh, is it the only answer as to what God has to do? Because you sure seem confident of being His spokesperson.

If you hate someone, do you want to be with them for all of eternity? Of course not, it would only drive you to further hatred of that person, and given the time and opportunity, that hatred leads to the desire to murder, and then to murder itself.

Except the average person doesn't have such and it's utterly bemusing that you think that they do if they don't share your belief. It's a wonder that you dare step outside of your house for fear of such rabid "God haters" willing to commit such harm...

In other words, given the time and opportunity, those who hate God would would kill Him to vindicate themselves. Oh wait, they already did. They hated Jesus Christ so much that they put Him to death. And they would do it again, given the time and opportunity.

Didn't Jesus say that they knew not what they were doing and for them to be forgiven? Does it make it easier for you to write off your neighbour and reduce them to being murderous psychopaths simply for not having the "right" belief on this plane of existence?

So, if God can't forgive them (because they refuse to repent and turn to Him), and He can't destroy them (because He designed man to last forever, and something designed that way cannot be destroyed), and they don't want to live with Him anyways, then the logical and reasonable solution (for God is the God of Reason) is to simply separate them from Himself for the rest of eternity, because that is exactly what they want.

Oh, so everyone who isn't "redeemed" in this physical existence "want" what you subjectively postulate will happen as their eternal separation from God. Unending suffering throughout eternity? Yeah, that makes sense...Do you see into people's hearts JR? Do you even have the barest notion of things outside of a belief system? You talk about hate/love and yet I've yet to see you display an understanding of either. All I've seen from you is judgement, a common trait in fundamentalism unfortunately and a complete lack of compassion, empathy and understanding and totally bereft of love You'll talk about people like John Lennon being "straightened out" before he got shot and the like and promote a system that's legalistic and oppressive to the core with the advocation of government nonsense but where's the love? There isn't any.

This separation is what is called the Lake of Fire.

As for what the lake of fire is exactly, not much is said in the Bible, except for what it is like.

I recommend reading the following article from GotQuestions.com, as they go into a small amount of detail explaining this, and it's something that I think they hit the nail on the head with.

https://www.gotquestions.org/lake-of-fire.html

Eternal separation from God is the only logical conclusion from what is said by Jesus Himself and from His actions.

Denying that Hell/the Lake of Fire is real and eternal essentially undermines the entire gospel of Christ. Doing so will only lead people away from God.

Why would the lack of the eternal suffering of other people undermine God? Also, what do you think the doctrine of eternal suffering does, draw people to belief?! :doh:

People have families, loved ones etc JR and your doctrine is as alienating as it gets, especially to those who have lost people close.

 

[ok doser]

... your doctrine is as alienating as it gets, especially to those whose have lost people close.

so don't share it with them :duh:

 

[Derf]

Also, what do you think the doctrine of eternal suffering does, draw people to belief?! :doh:

As if truth is determined by popularity.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As if truth is determined by popularity.

Nobody was arguing that it was.

 

[NWL]

Derf

I've read through some of your replies but can't work out what side of the fence you are on, do you believe in a literal hell with it being a place pf torment or no? Do you believe the second death is a literal place of torment?

A couple of things that did stand out were two points you've made. Firstly, you stated that according to Job 19:27 that Job would literally see God in the flesh, suggesting he would be resurrected in the with a fleshly body, I'm not sure if someone else has already made this point but Job redacted the statement himself and further claimed to have seen God, although not as you claim, Job seeing God was in relation to seeing God in a spiritual sense and this is what he himself showed. If you have read the book of Job you would know Jehovah answers Job and humbles him, Job's reply?

"..Then Job said in reply to Jehovah: 2 “Now I know that you are able to do all things And that nothing you have in mind to do is impossible for you. 3 You said, ‘Who is this who is obscuring my counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I spoke, but without understanding About things too wonderful for me, which I do not know. 4 You said, ‘Please listen, and I will speak. I will question you, and you inform me.’ 5 My ears have heard about you, But now I do see you with my eyes. 6 That is why I take back what I said, And I repent in dust and ashes.”(Job 42:1-6)

Job didn't literally see God, rather he saw God in a spiritual sense of understanding by Gods divine power when answering Job. Jobs statement of "After my skin has thus been destroyed, While yet in my flesh, I will see God" in Job 19:26 was him saying that whilst he was still alive he will see God, Job wasn't saying "whilst yet in my flesh [in heaven] he will see God"

Secondly, you state "The bodily resurrection of Christ, overcoming the bodily death brought about by Adam's sin, is not only CENTRAL to the Christian faith, there's no real faith without it", Jesus rose but not in the same body he died in, he rose as a spirit, he took on human form temporarily at times but remained a spirit in nature. 1 Cor 15:45 states "The first man was named Adam, and the Scriptures tell us that he was a living person. But Jesus, who may be called the last Adam, is a life-giving spirit..The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.", Jesus is a life-giving spirit and was raised as a spirit, "He [Jesus] was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit" (1 Peter 3:18).

This is consistent with the understanding of what a ransom is, a ransom is giving something on behalf of something else, or exchange. Jesus gave up both his body and his blood on behalf of mankind, "By this “will” we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time" (Hebrews 10:10) Jesus gave his body on behalf of mankind, therefore to say that Jesus was raised in the flesh again is to claim that Jesus took back the thing that he sacrificed and gave his life a ransom for. So let me ask, if Jesus took back the thing that he sacrificed, then what exactly has he sacrificed?

 

[Derf]

Nobody was arguing that it was.

If the doctrine of eternal torment is something that would prevent people from coming to Christ, which you seemed to assert in the post I commented on, and you are using that as a reason NOT to promote it, then YOU were arguing that it was. Did you change your name to "Nobody"?

 

[Arthur Brain]

If the doctrine of eternal torment is something that would prevent people from coming to Christ, which you seemed to assert in the post I commented on, and you are using that as a reason NOT to promote it, then YOU were arguing that it was. Did you change your name to "Nobody"?

It alienates a lot of people for what should be glaringly obvious reasons that shouldn't need spelling out. Nothing I posted implied that truth is determined by popularity, that's all your own inference. If you believe eternal torment to be "truth" then you promote it as you will but it doesn't make it so.

So, no I didn't change my name as there's no need to.

 

[way 2 go]

"apart from the curse of the fall"???
But biological death is what God was initiating when he didn't allow them to eat of the tree of life after the fall. It is part and parcel of the fall.

a part of