Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
Hi NWL! What a great user name. I'm pretty happy with my 4-letter one, but three letters is even better, it seems.
If death is overcome only by Jesus Christ, then the fact that the wicked are resurrected tells me that they also are resurrected by His power, and probably because of His death.
The "second death" is defined specifically as the lake of fire.
But I'm not very satisfied with the standard story that man was created an eternal being, and therefore "death" is not really "death", at least when talking about the first death. That's why I'm suggesting if there is such a thing as annihilation, it comes with the first death. That makes the most sense to me. Then resurrection undoes the annihilation. Some may have a problem with reversing annihilation, but I think it makes the miracle of the resurrection that much more miraculous, rather than just giving a new body to an old soul. I'm not sure that the body-less soul is a needed part of the story, nor overwhelmingly supported by scripture. That doesn't mean there isn't any support--there are a few verses that seem to support the standard story about our existence as a body-less soul after the first death.
[Job 19:25 KJV] For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:
[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.
I'll think some more about what you said and whether Job's words in Ch 19 are connected to his words in Ch 42.
[Luk 24:39 KJV] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Jesus specifically said that He was not a spirit after His resurrection. To suggest that He really meant that He WAS a spirit, but had a temporary body is to completely deny the words of Jesus. Are you really wanting to do that?
Jesus' sufferings on the cross are also a part of it. And Jesus didn't take that back, any more than He took His death back. He is forever the one that died and rose again. Ransom paid in full.
Of what use is a dead body that decays? Why would anyone want THAT for a ransom? You can't go look at it to strengthen your faith, can you? If Jesus body was still in the tomb, then your argument would be more persuasive. But it wasn't. It was gone, and the same marks on that body were also on Jesus' body when He met with His disciples after His resurrection, giving evidence that it was the same body.
Plus, Jesus said this is what was going to happen:
[Jhn 2:19 KJV] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. ("It" is obviously the temple He spoke of.)
[Jhn 2:21 KJV] But he spake of the temple of his body. ("The temple" He spoke of is obviously His body.)
[Jhn 2:22 KJV] When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. (The body was obviously raised, according to what Jesus said, and they remembered what He had said about it.)
If you say Jesus only rose again as a spirit, you are either calling Him a liar, or you are calling the disciples liars. And in either case, you've destroyed the integrity of the gospels, making them worthless for the Christian faith--as Paul said.
I'm trying to work through this. I'm fairly certain there's a literal hell that's a place of torment. I'm not convinced by the arguments that annihilationists offer, mainly because of the resurrection. The resurrection is enacted on ALL men, according to Jesus. And it is AFTER the first death.
If death is overcome only by Jesus Christ, then the fact that the wicked are resurrected tells me that they also are resurrected by His power, and probably because of His death.
The "second death" is defined specifically as the lake of fire.
But I'm not very satisfied with the standard story that man was created an eternal being, and therefore "death" is not really "death", at least when talking about the first death. That's why I'm suggesting if there is such a thing as annihilation, it comes with the first death. That makes the most sense to me. Then resurrection undoes the annihilation. Some may have a problem with reversing annihilation, but I think it makes the miracle of the resurrection that much more miraculous, rather than just giving a new body to an old soul. I'm not sure that the body-less soul is a needed part of the story, nor overwhelmingly supported by scripture. That doesn't mean there isn't any support--there are a few verses that seem to support the standard story about our existence as a body-less soul after the first death.
This is a good point you make. But I think Job's reference to the "latter day" prefacing his first comments about seeing God give context to when his eyes will see God:
[Job 19:25 KJV] For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:
[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.
I'll think some more about what you said and whether Job's words in Ch 19 are connected to his words in Ch 42.
Your comment here is not nearly so well put. Christ gave ample evidence of a physical resurrection. He invited His disciples to touch His hands and His side. He ate before them. He even explained why He offered for them to touch Him:
[Luk 24:39 KJV] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Jesus specifically said that He was not a spirit after His resurrection. To suggest that He really meant that He WAS a spirit, but had a temporary body is to completely deny the words of Jesus. Are you really wanting to do that?
He sacrificed His life, not just His body. I'm not at all sure how that worked, whether Jesus still existed as a spirit while His body was dead, or if He somehow ceased to exist until God the Father raised Him from the dead. But there was a real death involved, and that death pays the penalty for sin promised to all mankind due to Adam's sin (and our own).
Jesus' sufferings on the cross are also a part of it. And Jesus didn't take that back, any more than He took His death back. He is forever the one that died and rose again. Ransom paid in full.
Of what use is a dead body that decays? Why would anyone want THAT for a ransom? You can't go look at it to strengthen your faith, can you? If Jesus body was still in the tomb, then your argument would be more persuasive. But it wasn't. It was gone, and the same marks on that body were also on Jesus' body when He met with His disciples after His resurrection, giving evidence that it was the same body.
Plus, Jesus said this is what was going to happen:
[Jhn 2:19 KJV] Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. ("It" is obviously the temple He spoke of.)
[Jhn 2:21 KJV] But he spake of the temple of his body. ("The temple" He spoke of is obviously His body.)
[Jhn 2:22 KJV] When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. (The body was obviously raised, according to what Jesus said, and they remembered what He had said about it.)
If you say Jesus only rose again as a spirit, you are either calling Him a liar, or you are calling the disciples liars. And in either case, you've destroyed the integrity of the gospels, making them worthless for the Christian faith--as Paul said.
Derf
Well-known member
a part of
What's your point here? Are you agreeing that it is a part of and not apart from? Are you correcting your statement, then? Ok. I appreciate that!
Derf
Well-known member
No, my belief doesn't either make it so or make it not so. Nor does yours. If it is part of the truth God gave us, then I don't know why it should be withheld from people--it's part of the truth. I might alienate those who are don't like it, but it should never alienate those who are seeking the truth.
If you don't see how your post implied truth should be determined by popularity, then maybe you should change your name from "Brain", at least. It was there, just I pointed out.
way 2 go
Well-known member
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 a part of the curse of the fall.
NWL
Active member
You seem switched on and reasonable which is a breath of fresh air compared to others who I've been speaking to here on TOL as of late. The way I see it is Sheol, or the Greek word equivalent, Hades, is simply the grave of mankind and is a non-litreal place. When we go back to basics and think what God told Adam and Eve what the punishment of sin would be we find the punishment of an eternal hell lacking both prior and after the first sin. God literally lists what the punishments for their sins were
(Genesis 2:17)But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.” (PRIOR TO SIN)
(Genesis 3:16-19) To the woman he said: “[1]I will greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in pain you will give birth to children, [2]and your longing will be for your husband, [3]and he will dominate you.” 17 And to Adam he said: “Because you listened to your wife’s voice and ate from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ [1]cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. [2]For dust you are and to dust you will return.”
Nowhere in the above do we find God stating "the punishment for a life of sin for you or your descendants is eternal torment", all we see is God saying "you will certainly die" both before, and "For dust you are and to dust you will return", after, mankind sinned. We also see the other punishments still in presence today, but again the punishment for eternal torment is lacking. Would it not be unjust for God to send people for eternal torment when he nowhere has stated this is the punishment for a life of sin, especially when he has already told us the price for sin is simply death. Likewise, we see the same words echoed in the NT, for Romans 6:23 states in regards to sin, "For the wages sin pays is death", if the wages for sin is death, according to the verse, then upon our death, our wages for our sin have been paid or else the scripture lies. Which again brings up the question of why would God punish us further if our wages had already been paid, it is unjust.
Again hell, shoel and hades -from my and many others understanding- all refer to the same thing and refer to the grave of mankind, if someone dies and goes to the grave/hell they have the prospect of being resurrected, Isaiah 26:19 says those of the dead "Your dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, you that dwell in dust", the dead are simply dwelling in the dust (dust just like in Gen 3:19), they are dead and doing nothing more. The "second death", namely the lake of fire or Gehenna, refers to a non-litreal place, the difference between the first death (Hell) and the second death, is that the second death refers to an eternal destruction, if you are cast into the lake of fire it symbolizes you are dead forever with no prospect of ever being resurrected or coming to life again. This why fire is used as a symbol in relation to it as fire destroys things in such a way it no longer exists, it is forever gone. Hence why in Jude 7 it states "In the same manner, Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah and the cities around them also gave themselves over to gross sexual immorality and pursued unnatural fleshly desires; they are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire", is Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah still on fire today as the bibles states the cities have punishment of everlasting fire? No, the everlasting fire, like the lake of fire, symbolizes eternal destruction, this is the meaning of the second death, eternal destruction, not eternal torment.
I think that reading from the old English of the KJV at times causes issues, a more modern translation states "I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth. Even after my skin has been destroyed, while still in this body I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes--I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!" (Job 19:25-27). Nothing in the passage suggests that when Job states "I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth" that Job's comments of "yet in my flesh I will see God" in v26 is about his resurrection.
Job was afflicted with deep boils by Satan that he had to scrape his skin with pottery for relief "So Satan went out from the presence of Jehovah and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8 And Job took a piece of broken pottery to scrape himself, and he was sitting among the ashes". Because Job lost everything apart from his wife you forsook him from Job chapter 3 through to 37 Job describes his gripe with the world, God then answers Job out of a literal windstorm from chapters 38-41. So when Job is sitting there and states "Even after my skin has been destroyed" he's referring to the affliction that he currently had, he was not referring to the decay of his body after death. Notice how other translations render Job 19:26:
GNT: Even after my skin is eaten by disease..
BST: and to raise up upon the earth my skin that endures these sufferings..
CEV: My flesh may be destroyed, yet from this body, I will see God.
ASV: And after my skin, even this body, is destroyed..
BSB: Even after my skin has been destroyed..
Derf said:
Scripture must be in harmony for it to be true, 1 Cor 15:45 and 1 Peter 3:18 clearly state that Jesus is a spirit, so you raise a good point when you show Luke 24:39 that has Jesus saying "for a spirit does not have flesh and bones". I will say this, the word "spirit" has more than one definition in the bible, it can relate to the Holy Spirit, the spirit man has in regards to the breath of life, to mans deep thoughts and mental disposition (Ps 34:18), it refers to the bodily composition of angelic being (Heb 1:14), God (John 4:24) and Jesus, it also refers to demons. One thing of note is that Angels, who are spirit are always called angels in the bible (messengers), however, whenever a demon or fallen angel is being spoken about in the NT they are referred to as "spirits" (see Rev 18:2, Matt 12:43, Mark 1:23, Mark 5:2, Mark 7:25, MArk 9:25, Luke 8:29) .
Acts 23:8,9, reads "For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both, And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God." Notice how the crowd differentiates between a spirit (demon) and an angel in Acts 23:8,9. So why am I saying all this, the account in Luke 24 states that when Jesus suddenly appeared to the apostles "they were terrified and frightened, they imagined that they were seeing a spirit", the apostles thought they were seeing a demon, since demons were no longer permitted to take on human form from the days of Noah when they fathered the Nephilim, Jesus assured them "see my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit (demon) does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have"
Jesus when appearing to the apostles did not take on the same human form when appearing to them, this is profoundly clear, as I will demonstrate with the below which talks about Jesus after is death:
(John 21:4-12) "Simon Peter said to them: “I am going fishing.” They said to him: “We are coming with you.” They went out and got aboard the boat, but during that night they caught nothing... Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus. 5 Then Jesus said to them:...“Cast the net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” So they cast it, but they were not able to haul it in because of the large number of fish. 7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter: “It is the Lord!” Now Simon Peter, on hearing that it was the Lord...plunged into the sea. 8 But the other disciples came in the small boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not a long way from land, only about 300 feet away. 9 When they came ashore, they saw there a charcoal fire with fish lying on it and bread. 10 Jesus said to them: “Bring some of the fish you just now caught.”...Jesus said to them: “Come, have your breakfast.” Not one of the disciples had the courage to ask him: “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord..."
Notice the above account, Jesus appeared to the apostles, after the feat Jesus performed one of the apostles stated "it is the Lord" and they all rushed to meet him, however upon getting closer to Jesus they did not recognize the man to be Jesus, hence the reason why it states "Not one of the disciples had the courage to ask him: “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord", why would such a question and refrain from asking it make any sense if they recognized the man to be Jesus. They didn't recognize Jesus as the body he was in was different since a spirit he materialized a body temporarily from the dust, hence why the apostles wanted to ask the man in front of them "who are you" but didn't as they had faith it was Jesus despite him being in a different body.
Angels in former times materialized bodies of flesh and ate and drank with Abraham (Gen 18:1-2,8), Jesus as a spirit could likewise do the same.
Derf said:
You say "He sacrificed His life, not just His body" but this is untrue as Jesus still lives, as I said you can't say something is a sacrifice if nothing has been lost, Jesus sacrificed his human life in the form of his blood and body, hence the reason why scripture states he "raised as a life-giving spirit" and "made alive in the spirit". You say "If Jesus body was still in the tomb, then your argument would be more persuasive", remember according to Jude 9 Satan wanted to use Moses body after he died and the Archangel had to prevent him from having his way "But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body", why would Satan want Moses body? It was most probably so that he would get the nation of Israel to start venerating Moses body in some type of false worship. Jesus was the greater Moses (Hebrews 3:3) God did not allow this to happen to his son, so did not let Jesus "see decay" Acts 13:35 but disposed of his body in some supernatural manner.
Paul stated about Jesus after his resurrection when he was in heaven "He [Jesus] is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being" (Hebrews 1:3), God is a spirit (John 4:24) and is invisible, thus, if Jesus is the "the exact representation of [Gods] very being" then he too must be an invisible spirit for this verse to be correct. Bodies of flesh and blood are not spirits and are not invisible, whats more, 1 Cor 15:50 states "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God", yet this is exactly what you're claiming Jesus has done if he was raised in his body.
Jesus gave up his life, thus to claim he took nullifies the sacrifice. You can't pay a million-pound ransom for a hostage, steal the money back and then claim that you've still paid the ransom, likewise, Jesus can't give his human body and blood, take it back and then claim the ransom has been paid, that is NOT what the word ransom means.
Last edited:
God's Truth
New member
Jesus is the Spirit, but you are confused about when Jesus is in the body he was explaining to his disciples that he wasn't a body-less Spirit.
He explained that he was raised with his body.
No, the scriptures don't say our breath is our spirit.
No way did the apostles think they were seeing a demon. Your reasoning is messed up. Angels can still come in human form and that is not what the disciples thought about Jesus either. They didn't think he was a demon in human form. You even said it couldn't happen anymore since Noah. They thought he was a spirit without a body, but Jesus shows them he has a body.
God's Truth
New member
You need to quote me exactly. Use the quote feature.
Jesus sacrificed his life when he came to earth and died.
Jesus lived in the Spirit where he went to prison/hell, and preached the gospel there to the people in their spirits who sinned even a long time ago in the times of Noah.
Show where it say Paul stated Jesus was the exact representation 'after'.
Jesus isn't invisible he has a body.
The spirit lives in a person's flesh body and that makes it a living soul. When a person dies in the flesh, their spirit goes to Jesus or it goes to prison/hell.
My beliefs are Jesus raised his body and then when he ascended he was transformed into the body we will all have at the resurrection.
What?
No spirits die. Jesus gave up his life on earth and experienced death for us.
Your analogy is not in the Bible, and it is incorrect. It is a reason why I won't accept people's analogies when debating because they are usually ridiculous, as yours is, but you don't see it.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You might very well believe eternal torment to be the truth and feel obliged to preach it if you do but that doesn't alter the part of my response you quoted in my reply to JR. He gave the opinion that denying eternal "hell" undermined the gospel and that doing so would lead people away from God. I responded with the obvious counter that doctrines of eternal suffering alienate many people which they do and for obvious reasons. None of that is stating or implying that truth itself is determined by popularity or a vote or some such. Facts are facts regardless of opinions, beliefs, political persuasions or personal whims. If eternal suffering isn't part of the truth then it isn't popularity that determines that by the same token. You read into and inferred something that simply wasn't there and I'm not responsible for that. I'll keep my name as it is thanks.
Derf
Well-known member
I think I can safely say you misunderstood JR's point. He wasn't saying it was something that causes people to want to jump on a bandwagon, so to speak, but something that would cause them to want to jump off a different bandwagon. The one going to hell. And that jumping off would allow them to see the truth that there is salvation (which we all need in order to avoid hell) in no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we MUST be saved.
You turned it around to suggest that JR was saying it was a draw, with which you disagreed with enough to face-palm.
Yet, faced with eternal suffering in hell, salvation in Christ is INDEED a draw, not by popularity, but by desperation.
The facepalm gives away your real meaning, but your follow-up statement reinforces it.
Alienation is the opposite of popularity, when it comes to doctrine.
Derf
Well-known member
I think TOL can be a great place to have these discussions, but we all need to be willing to hear where we might be wrong, else this becomes a forum where the best we can do is insult each other, since no one is ever going to change his mind.
I'm open to that. I think it follows the Old Testament accurately. I'm not so sure about the New Testament, but I don't know if something might have changed after Jesus' death, perhaps.
This is a fantastic question, NWL! And one I've been wrestling with. Here's another version of it. If death is the penalty for sin (Adam's and ours, however that works), then why, after we die once, are we then resurrected, and some of us die again (second death in Rev 20--the lake of fire). How could a just God punish us twice, when the stated punishment, even in the NT ("the wages of sin is death"), only one death is mentioned.
I think I have the answer, and it involves some of what I've been saying here. If death is allowed to mean exactly what we think of as death to the body--that we cease to function and our bodies decay--then the penalty for sin is fully paid when we die. And if we no longer exist (we've ceased to function and our bodies rot away), then we've been annihilated, if you'll allow me the use of the word.
But something happened when Jesus died for our sins, when He paid that penalty. Suddenly death has no hold on us anymore. We don't stay dead, but we are resurrected. We are ALL resurrected, according to Jesus, [Jhn 5:29 KJV] 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.
How is this possible? If Jesus' death only applies to those who believe, and the others are truly dead and gone, what power brings them back to life? And why? ANd if they ARE brought back to life, what kind of body are they given, since humans, by nature, have a physical body?
My suggestion is that Jesus' death applies to all mankind, but applies in a different way to those who believe--it has a greater application. It is summed up in this verse:
[1Ti 4:10 KJV] For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
How can there be any savior of men who aren't saved in some way? But if there's a special kind of salvation for those that believe, then it seems like we can apply the death of Jesus even to those that don't believe, because He became a man, and His death can be applied to every man's account. But then what? What if someone "doesn't believe", but has been raised up from the dead, never having to die again (since the penalty was paid for all mankind)? Where are they going to spedn this eternity that has been granted to them, if not with Jesus, whom they won't believe in? If God made all things, then one can't escape from the presence of God, death being no longer an option. And if God is death to those who see Him, as we are told numerous times in the Old Testament, then those who won't believe are in a catch-22 situation. They can't stay alive without encountering God, and they can't die. Maybe God prepares a place for them, like the devil and his angels, and somehow backs away from it, making it the most miserable place every conceived of, maybe a lake of fire. Or maybe just experiencing God is like being constantly on fire to those who don't believe in Him. I don't know.
I think the lake of fire is probably a real place, since it is referred to as "where the beast and the false prophet [are]" in Rev 20. But i'm not sure. The torment, however, I think is real. ANd the reason it is different than what was promised Adam and Eve is that something new has happened--the only begotten Son of God became human ("took on flesh"), and died to pay the penalty of all mankind. But some don't want to be saved. Because believing in Jesus Christ means believing that He, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, has the authority to tell us what to do. And if we don't like it, we can't live in His kingdom. And His kingdom is everywhere! All power is given unto Him in Heaven and on Earth.
Maybe. I disagree, but my argument doesn't depend on it.
God is spirit. I don't see how you can relegate all things "spirit" to demons without implicating God Himself. This is one of those things that may not support my view, if there is such a thing as a spirit that isn't a demon (as I've just shown there is). If people are part spirit, and somehow that spirit can become disembodied (like by death), then I don't know what the ability of that spirit is to somehow interact with live humans.
I acknowledge your point about angels eating in front of Abraham. But that's why Jesus' eating doesn't stand on it's own. Jesus also had to show
1. that he was physical (He offered for them to touch Him)
2. that his body was the same body (It had the same scars expected for someone who had been through crucifixion, and especially one who had died before the legs were broken, and thus was speared in the side.)
I've heard a few options for why Jesus wasn't immediately recognizable to His disciples, especially those who knew Him very well. One was that the crucifixion and prior torture marred His appearance, and that appearance will be with Him like that for eternity. I'm not very fond of that reasoning, as it makes it sound like there's no healing for our bodies in the resurrection. But that's exactly what resurrection is portrayed to be--our bodies in some form are enlivened again, to never die again.
The other option that I think I like better is that they were expecting His body to be marred, but it wasn't--it was mostly healed, and maybe was in a continuing process of healing. So the first time they saw Him, for instance, His face might have still been black and blue with much of His beard pulled out. And later, beard was fully there, no more bruises, and possibly the nail prints in His hands and the spear wound were also healed. You might notice He never offers to show anyone His hands and side after that first 8 days. But I'm speculating. A lot.
In your scenario, it was a different body, but had nail prints and spear wound at least two of the times. That makes the story Jesus was telling His disciples to be a false one--those wounds were a marker of something that had happened to Him, something they all saw and were expecting to see still, and if Jesus offered to show such to them that WASN'T caused by the crucifixion, then Jesus was deceiving them. Are you promoting a savior that deceives His followers?
Thanks for adding some new information to the bible. I'm not convinced I can trust it as truth. What are your sources?
I'm not sure I know why Satan would want Moses' body. But just because I don't know the reason, doesn't mean that Jesus didn't die and rise again bodily.
The fact that God is spirit is what makes Him need a representation--just like the representation of Him as a whirlwind to Job. That wasn't an EXACT representation of God's very being. But Jesus, who became a man, IS an exact representation--something humans can see, and that illustrates the attributes of God in human form. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but being brothers of Christ, WE still can. Paul was making the point that it is impossible with men, but not with God. (I've heard some say that Jesus no longer had blood, so He was no longer "flesh and blood", but He demonstrated He was still flesh and bone. I'm still mulling that one over.)
You said this already. And it's wrong because you are looking at the body as the ransom, and not the death. As long as Jesus truly died, the ransom, which demanded death, was paid.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Er, he was clear enough without any additional help with your "bandwagons" Derf:
"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" .
You're the one now asserting things as "truth" and if "hell" is the grave then nobody avoids it. Everyone dies.
What are you talking about? Where did I remotely suggest that JR was saying it was a "draw" and what is that even supposed to mean? I countered JR's post by pointing out that doctrines of eternal suffering are alienating to many people and for obvious reasons, that's it.
What, you mean by people being scared out of their wits end by such a prospect? None of this has anything to do with eternal suffering being truth or that any truth is determined by popularity, desperation, or anything else.
Reinforces what? That many people are alienated by doctrines of eternal suffering and the obvious reasons as to why? That's the truth Derf. That isn't stating or implying that truth itself is determined by a popularity contest by any stretch.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
so?
any doctrine except universalism is alienating to many people - that doesn't mean that universalism has any scriptural validity - it's a false doctrine, as are those that seek to reinvent eternal conscious separation from God
NWL
Active member
Don't get me wrong, when I say that dead people are simply dead I do not believe they have no hope for the future, as you pointed out there will be a "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous", so all those who are sleeping in death will one day rise again, as will be done through Jesus Christ. The bible states there will be a "new heaven and a new earth" (Rev 21:1), Jesus himself and a Psalmist once said, “Happy are the mild-tempered, since they will inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5) and respectfully "The righteous will possess the earth, And they will live forever on it" (Psalm 37:29), so there can be no doubt that some resurrected ones will be resurrected in a human body and reside on the earth just as we do today but in a state of perfection, and others though will rule with Christ in heaven in spirit bodies. To deny people will be on earth is to deny scripture.
You ask "What if someone "doesn't believe", but has been raised up from the dead, never having to die again (since the penalty was paid for all mankind)? Where are they going to spedn this eternity that has been granted to them, if not with Jesus". The judging of the dead (Rev 20:12,13), or better put, those who had been dead, is in relation to how someone who has been raised from the dead now acts after his resurrection and whether they choose to accept Jesus ransom or not after his resurrection, as Romans 6:23 states, "the wages sin pays is death" so the judging logically cannot be referring to the deeds prior to resurrected one's death but the deeds after he has been resurrected. Jesus said in John 5:28,29 "Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment", so again, the resurrection of judgment relates to one who did not accept Christ or know him being resurrected again to be given another chance and judged on his deeds after his resurrection. This understanding I believe is the most consistent with scripture.
I cannot believe that a God "who is love" could prepare what many describe as a torture chamber, if you found out that any human parent prepared a room in their house where they tortured their children who chose to rebel against them, or a government that created a torture prison for rebellious men you would condemn them as we inherently know such a place is evil, far be it that the true God could create such a place, it was about God himself who said "They have built the high places of Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart." (Jer 7:31), could a God who has made a world just to torture people for eternity really say such a thing? It goes against God's own attribute of love.
Only the ones who have accepted Christ will have the "resurrection of life", the ones who did not accept Jesus or know him will have the resurrection of judgment, thus, there will not be anyone who will have the resurrection of eternal life that doesn't already accept Christ, therefore your problem of "What if someone "doesn't believe", but has been raised up from the dead, never having to die again" doesn't exist, as no such resurrection will take place, rather that one will have the resurrection of judgment.
Then how is "death" and the "grave" thrown into it, "And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14)? Death and the grave are not tangible things, they cannot be tormented, picked up or thrown anywhere. Death and the grave/hell are thrown into the lake of fire as it a symbolic place that represents "eternal destruction". Matthew 25:41 states "Go away from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels", I will once again highlight Satan gets thrown into "the lake of fire" (Rev20:10) and according to Matt 25:41 have the punishment of "everlasting fire", remember scripture states this is the same type of punishment the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah received, please note they are not literally on fire today still burning despite having everlasting, the bible states about Sodom and Gomorrah "God’s overthrow of Sodʹom and Go·morʹrah and of their neighboring towns,” declares Jehovah, “no one will dwell there, and no man will settle there" (Jer 50:40), the punishment God gave was eternal, the cities were to never be inhabited again as per Jer 50:40, hence why the symbolism of "everlasting fire" was given and represents "eternal/everlasting destruction". How could Satan or his angels who are spirits even suffer pain by fire when they are not physical like man, the idea doesn't even make sense according to what we know. The lake of fire is symbolic of eternal destruction, hence why symbolic things, death and hell, can be thrown there.
I'm not relegating all things "spirit" to demons, as I previously mentioned, I say "the word "spirit" has more than one definition in the bible" and listed the different uses of spirits in my previous reply, one particular one I showed was how people referred to demons as spirits by Acts 23:8,9 where they parallel demons with angels referring to demons as spirits. As I showed Demons are often called spirits, Rev 18:2, Matt 12:43, Mark 1:23, Mark 5:2, Mark 7:25, MArk 9:25, Luke 8:29, angels are nowhere referred to as spirits by the common people in every day language, the only time angels are called a spirit is when they were referred to as "ministering spirits" by Paul in Hebrews 1:14.
If common people referred to Demons as spirits and it is stated about the apostles "they were terrified and frightened, they imagined that they were seeing a spirit", its more logical to presume they believed Jesus was a wicked spirit than them being scared because they thought Jesus had been resurrected as a spirit, as why would the apostles be scared of Jesus being in a spirit body? They naturally wouldn't, they would be scared though if they thought they were witnessing a demon appear, as any would be.
1. Angels in the past have wrestled with man, such as when one wrestled with Jacob (Genesis 32:1,24), Jesus in exactly the same way was able to materialize a body of flesh again as the angels did, eat and even be touched as angels did, yet this angel was still spirit person, they simply materialized a temporary fleshly body.
2. Then why did they not recognize Jesus and want to ask him, "who are you". I notice you mentioned that Jesus was possibly disfigured, but that still does not make sense why they wanted to ask Jesus "who are you". If one of the apostles shout "it is the Lord" and get ashore next to Jesus and notice his face was disfigured as they would have seen of him on the cross, then they wouldn't ask "who are you" as they know Jesus was already disfigured, it's not like there were hundreds of people who were being beaten and hung like Jesus so they thought the man standing in front of them could have been one of these men, as those men would have died as Jesus did through the process, Jesus was different as dies but was resurrected. The only reason it makes sense why they wanted to ask "who are you" was because they did not recognize the man in front of them as his body was a different body that he materializes as the angel did. The account of Jesus appearing to the apostles in the locked room (John 0) also destroys the thought that the apostles did not recognize Jesus due to wounds as he appeared twice to them prior to them seeing him again in the lake when they wanted to ask him "who are you" (John 21), why would they want to ask a man who they've seen for the third time "who are you", did they not recognize the wounds the third time around, not likely. They didn't recognize Jesus as the man they were looking at didn't look like Jesus. The evidence is clear.
Jesus wasn't deceiving anyone, he appeared the apostles at times with his wounds to bolster their faith that it was he, other times he appeared in other bodies possibly to show and make them aware that he was a spirit who was simply materializing bodies. Remember despite this grand evidence it states "To be sure, Jesus also performed many other signs before the disciples" to prove that he was Jesus. the apostles were dubious and Jesus knew this.
Were you not the one who just mentioned that Jesus face was possibly disfigured, hence the reason why people did not recognize him and that he may eternally be like that? Yet I'm hearing a condescending tone when I say "[God] disposed of his body in some supernatural manner"by Acts 13:35. I'm not adding to scripture, God could either dispose of Jesus body in a physical way or an supernatural way, its one of the two, since God is supernatural I presumed the method he used was supernatural, the scriptures are clear, God promised that Jesus body would not "see decay", thus God did not let this happen in some manner.
Well what other reason could you think why Satan would want Moses body other than the one I suggest, would you not agree Satan wanting Moses body highly likely had to do with false worship, using common sense?
God needs a representation??? where does the bible state or express that?? (new information to the bible, as you would say). You can't say Jesus is a human representation of God since that's not what the text says, the text says regarding Jesus after his resurrection he is the "exact representation of his being" (Hebrews 1:3) and not he is an "exact fleshly representation of his being" therefore if we take scripture for what it says over what you want it to say, Jesus is the exact representation of God's being, thus if God is a spirit, Jesus is a spirit, if God is invisible, Jesus is invisible, the text cannot mean anything other than what it states. The Greek word for representation in Heb 1:3 is charaktēr and relates to the print left after something like a signet ring being pressed into something, the imprint left itself is an exact copy of the signet ring impression itself, Jesus is likewise the exact imprint/representation/copy of God being, the verse is irrefutable in showing Jesus is whatever the Father is, the context states nothing about being a human or fleshly imprint, such a thought can only be assumed, and assumed wrongly.
It sounds like your trying to make an argument that you already know is false, just for the sake of it. Some people say Jesus was flesh and bone and no longer had blood, when asked "where was his blood" they admit, it was sacrificed, what many people fail to realize is both Jesus blood and body were sacrificed, "Also, he took a loaf...saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf....he did the same with the cup...saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.." (Luke 22:19, 20), therefore if they want to claim he no longer had blood as it was sacrificed then Jesus can't have a body of flesh either as this was also sacrificed just like his blood.
You said "it's wrong because you are looking at the body as the ransom, and not the death", you are incorrect, Jesus did not sacrifice his life because again, he is still alive, the life that he sacrificed was his human life, namely a body of flesh and blood which makes on a man. The bible is irrefutably clear that Jesus body and blood were the sacrifices (see also Luke 22:19, 20):
(Hebrews 10:10) "..By this “will” we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.."
(Hebrews 13:12) "..Therefore, Jesus also suffered outside the city gate in order to sanctify the people with his own blood.."
Jesus replaced the sin offering the Jews had to conduct every year, this is ever so clear from the bible, it was Jesus blood and body that acted the ransom, to deny such a thing is to deny the ransom itself, "[Jesus] entered into the holy place, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time, and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. 13 For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works so that we may render sacred service to the living God? (Hebrews 9:13-14).
The nation of Israel had to offer sin offering sacrifices to God, if someone were to get a bull, offer it to the priest to be killed so their sin could be forgiven but as soon as the bull was killed and placed on the alter the person took all the flesh and meat of the bull back and scraped off the blood from the alter would the sacrifice have been nullified or would it still be accepted by Yahweh?
If Jesus, the symbolic sacrificial lamb, was to give his blood and bloody for us, but then take back his blood and body this would be nullifying the sacrifice the same way my above example nullified their sacrifice. Sacrifice means to give up and lose something, if Jesus took back his body he lost nothing.
Last edited:
NWL
Active member
I can only apologize, I accidently quoted derf but wrote your name in the quotation box, I was replying back to him and not you.
God's Truth said:
Then why is Jesus still alive today? You can't say he sacrificed his life if he still has his life. You are correct in saying Jesus sacrificed his life, the thing you fail to see is that it was his human life that he sacrificed, since this was the case he cannot take back his human life, that being his flesh or blood without nullifying the sacrifice.
God's Truth said:
It's good to see you've learned something from our discussions God's Truth, although you keep using the term "hell" in place of Tarʹtarus, the demons were not in hell, they are in a spiritual prison called Tarʹtarus, you are clearly ignoring the text, remain truthful to them. Furthermore, the scriptures never state Jesus lived there or went there when he was dead, the scriptures were clear he went thereafter he had "been made alive in the spirit", 1 Peter 3:18-20 states "He [Jesus] was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. And in this state he went and preached to the spirits in prison", the scriptures state Jesus was a spirit when he preached to the wicked spirits, how else could he preach to them, how does a physical man go into a spiritual non-physical place, its impossible.
God's Truth said:
The book of Hebrews was written after Jesus died and was resurrected, Paul describes Jesus stating "He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high", Paul stated Jesus is (present tense) when describing him, thus we can only understand Pauls words to be relating to Jesus when he wrote Hebrews 1:3, that again being after Jesus resurrection. Since at that time God was an invisible spirit, Jesus too had to be an invisible spirit or else Paul was lying.
God's Truth said:
These two below verses were said of God after Jesus resurrection, whom you believe to be that God.
(1 Timothy 1:17) "..Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.."
(Colossians 1:15) "..He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God.."
To be an image of something means you look the same as the thing you image, when you look in a mirror whatever your image is is represented in the mirror and looks exactly like you, there isn't a single thing that is different. Likewise, Jesus is an image of God, whatever God appears to be Jesus looks exactly the same, thus if God is an invisible spirit Jesus too is an invisible spirit. What Col 1:15 doesn't say is"Jesus is the physical image of the invisible God", this is what you want the verse to say, again the verse simply says Jesus "is the image of the invisible God", we take scripture for what it says and not what we want it to say if we want to find the truth.
God's Truth said:
The bible does not teach what you have said above, souls are not immortal as you have been taught and that they go to hell (hell is nowhere described as a prison, my friend), Ezekiel 18:4 states "Look! All the souls—to me they belong. As the soul of the father so also the soul of the son—to me they belong. The soul who sins is the one who will die", Matthew 10:28 also states "And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Ge·henʹna". As you can see the soul dies, this is because the "soul" simply refers to "a person", it is not a mystical thing that lives inside us, the word "soul" is synonymous for "person" representing the persons life. Note what these scholars say about the bible usage of the word soul:
“There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [neʹphesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy·kheʹ] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450.
"Indeed, the salvation of the 'immortal soul' has sometimes been a commonplace in preaching, but it is fundamentally unbiblical. Biblical anthropology is not dualistic but monistic: human being consists in the integrated wholeness of body and soul, and the Bible never contemplates the disembodied existence of the soul in bliss.", Myers (ed.), "The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary", p. 518 (1987).
“The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.
God's Truth said:
I can agree with the latter half of your sentence, but obviously disagree with what type of body you believe he was raised with.
The ransom didn't require Jesus to experience death, the ransom required a sacrifice and a sacrifice by definition means to give or lose something, Jesus did not lose his life as you have claimed as he still lives, the thing Jesus gave up was his body and his blood, that being his human life. Once he gave these up it would be wrong of him to take them back as this would nullify the sacrifice of them.
I've nowhere stated my analogy is in the bible, my analogy is a basic example of a sacrifice, if you'd like you can provide an example of a sacrifice an I'll use that. The fact remains, if Jesus took back the sacrifice he gave he would have nullified the sacrifice. The nation of Israel had to offer sin offering sacrifices to God, if someone were to get a bull, offer it to the priest to be killed so their sin could be forgiven but as soon as the bull was killed and placed on the alter the person took all the flesh and meat of the bull back home would the sacrifice have been nullified or would it still be accepted by Yahweh?
Last edited:
Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
God alienates people? Oh well.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Derf
Well-known member
Here are the synonyms for resurrection, courtesy of Merriam-Webster.com:
- reanimation,
- rebirth,
- regeneration,
- rejuvenation,
- rejuvenescence,
- renewal,
- resurgence,
- resuscitation,
- revitalization,
- revival,
- revivification
At the same time, you can "renew" something without making that something "new" again. You can't revive something without making that something alive again.
To resurrect someone that someone first has to have been alive at one time, and then has to have not been alive, and then has to become alive again. Whether to eternal life or to judgment, it is still a resurrection.
Those are good questions, but hardly sufficient to assign the idea of hell to a purely metaphorical construct.
Sodom and Gomorrah were cities, which were made up of people, but personified in your reference. Death and Hades (also personified) were 2 of 3 things that were emptied of the dead that were in them. The sea was the third. The sea IS a place, or at least indicative of a number of places that have the same characteristics. The fact that one of the "things" that are emptied of their dead is an actual place(s), suggests that the others might be as well. I tend to think, however, that "place" is the wrong focus, and instead it should be "condition". I.e., the dead from "the sea" is those people that drowned in the sea, or possibly whose bodies were dumped in the sea. That would leave us to find 2 other "conditions" that would fit "death" and "hades". "Hades" makes me think of those people that were buried, if "Sheol" and "Hades" are the same kind of thing. The remaining, "death", might be those that just died and weren't either buried or dumped in the sea. It would include those who were eaten by animals, who were cremated, or whose remains rotted away (I guess that's about the same as "eaten by animals").
Having to deal with those three conditions points us more strongly back to the concept of dealing with bodies, rather than with disembodied souls or spirits. Bodies are resurrected from the sea, from the grave, and from whatever else might have happened to them. Spirits/souls don't have to stay where the bodies were buried, although I suppose they could.
How many references does it take? If angels are even once called "spirits" then your whole dichotomy of references to spirits being demonic references comes unhinged. Even your list of verses is telling, each use of "spirit" is modified with the adjective "unclean". If the word has to be modified, then "spirit" isn't to be immediately associated with "uncleanness".
Also, your reference to the disciples being afraid of Jesus because they thought he was a spirit, uses a different word, "phantasma", so I don't think the comparison works for you. I'm pretty sure they were just scared because they didn't ever expect anyone to come walking over the water to them.
I explained my thoughts on this in the last post. If they recognized Him early and didn't recognize Him later, it could be because He was healing from the wounds. The early appearances were more like what they saw Him as on the cross, and the later ones less so. I'm not bound to my version, and there are good people that would disagree. But the idea that Jesus just throws on a different body every time He visits the disciples is ludicrous. The whole purpose of showing them the wounds was to prove that it was really Him. And if He was sometimes someone else (no wounds) what would that mean to them? It would mean that someone could just as easily claim to be Christ who wasn't really. Any old or new body would do. Maybe a baby's body, or a woman's body. Doesn't really matter, because it's not a real part of Him.
Of course they would want to see some indications it was really Jesus! How many other people did they know who had returned from the dead? And those they did know, like Lazarus and a couple others, were brought back by Jesus, so how could Jesus be alive again?
How then did Jesus body get disposed of? Burning? That would prevent decay. Disappearing? That's hardly something a physical body does, but you said it was supernatural. I suppose Enoch and Elijah also had bodies that needed to be "disposed of". Funny, though, that all this time the Hebrews had been very careful about what happened to their bodies after death. If those old bodies just decay and never have anything happen to them, it was just superstition. I have a hard time believing that, especially when Jesus' body was obviously resurrected (despite your reluctance to believe it), Jesus resurrected other people in their actual bodies, and Revelation talks about people being resurrected by being given up by the sea.
You ARE adding to scripture, because scripture didn't say God disposed of the body. It only says the body didn't undergo decay. Two options that can meet those words: Jesus' old body stayed dead (and thus there's no hope for our resurrection), and Jesus old body was resurrected before decay set in (and thus there IS hope for our resurrection). Taking all of this into spiritual terms derives any meaning of it all, according to Paul.
I agree the thing about Satan wanting Moses' body is an odd thing. I can't say that your version is highly likely, however, since Moses' body had grown old, and the glory that used to shine from it faded. I think that means his body would eventually decay, so there's no problem with it becoming an object of worship. Who wants to worship and decaying body?
There's a better understanding of the passage, though. There is only one place that talks of Satan needing to be rebuked and the rebuker didn't feel himself worth of doing so.
[Zec 3:1 ESV] Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.
[Zec 3:2 ESV] And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?"
I think this is the instance Jude is referring to, though I'm not positive. It raises some difficulties, but it fits with the Jude passage if you assume one thing: that Joshua, being the high priest, and being in filthy rags, was being accused for the whole nation of Israel, who could be called "the body of Moses", just like the church, whose high priest is Jesus Christ, is called "the body of Christ". And we know that our works (following the law) are as filthy rags.
[Isa 64:6 KJV] But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
You're funny! Your example exactly refutes your position. The impression is DEFINITELY not the ring itself.
But regarding a representation, Paul tells us [1Ti 2:5 ESV] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
The human Jesus Christ represents God to us, and us to God.
Jesus isn't "still alive" since before He became flesh. He died and was resurrected. If He is "still alive" in a way that He did not die, then there was no resurrection. And if Jesus Christ is not raised, we have no hope.
If you say Jesus only had a temporary body that was sacrificed, and that body wasn't raised, and His spirit which animated that body never died, then there is nothing about Jesus that actually died and rose again. The thing that died must be the thing that rose again, if it is to be an actual resurrection (. If that was His spirit that died and was raised, and NOT His body, then somehow we have to understand how Jesus "became flesh" (John 1:14) in a way that He didn't really "become flesh", since His flesh wasn't a significant part of Him.
But Jesus was very clear that there was to be a death, and a rising, and the rising was of the same thing that died, else it wasn't a rising again.
[Mar 8:31 ESV] And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.
You say "blood and body", but the verses you give say "blood", except for Heb 10:10, which makes the point that the body was offered once for all time and with the rest of scripture declares that Jesus' body was broken for us, and that His body was raised alive again.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
way 2 go
Well-known member
good read
PneumaPsucheSoma
No man born by mediate procreation has authentic life; only being physically alive while being spiritually dead. So everyone is quite literally a spiritual zombie until they are resurrected in this life.