Justification of Eternal Punishment

[Word based mystic]

Destroy really means destroy everlasting destruction really means everlasting destruction.

I'm reminded of what Gods word says in

II Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;


everready

once again you change the meaning of ever.
to mean never ending.

simple and powerful mistake.

ever = within that age, messianic age, relating to a period of time, within a frame of time relating to the earth.

thus everlasting is quite simply lasting for the time period of that age.

changed in meaning to mean (never ending) (bad) and opposite meaning of the modern english dictionary.

you continue to say that the soul is indestructible and has life and is not meant for destruction but torture never ending.

look at the meaning of destruction and perish
you change that also to mean the exact opposite.

/apóllymi ("violently/completely perish") implies permanent (absolute) destruction, i.e. to cancel out (remove); "to die, with the implication of ruin and destruction" (L & N, 1, 23.106); cause to be lost (utterly perish) by experiencing a miserable end.

change those meanings. irresponsible for one who seeks like a king to,
proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter

Don't just regurgitate suppositions from former pastors or preachers. search it out in detail.

especially when it obtains to the fatherly love character of God towards His created Children.

Torture with no end and no death is senseless
death that puts an end to misery and sin after being judged makes sense and stays within the bounds of FATHERLY LOVE towards his creation.

And this is why I so strongly object to this doctrine.
It does not (comprehend) the Fathers Love.
and makes him out to be a never ending torturer.

 

[quip]

I was watching one of his videos the other day. In the video a person asks him about Hell and he responds with an analogy. Through the analogy Cliffe attempts to explain why unending Hell, is a just, valid and deserving punishment. His reasoning is that offences committed against higher authority figures deserve more severe punishments. Thus an offence committed against God - the highest authority - demands the most severe punishment.

Here is the video that contains Cliffe's analogy. It starts from 16.05, ending at 19:13:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdlgI6oh7oM

Cliff aptly demonstrates relative morality. Mankind places more social value upon certain individuals over others. Harming individuals perceived as being more important to society (power, money, influence) incur generally higher penalties than a similar infraction to someone of equal or lesser status.

This is the epitome of a human inspried, selective, imprecise mode of morality. Now ask yourself a question: Does man-kind aspire to follow God's perfect morality (with inevitable failings) or rather does God follow the delimited moral structure of man-kind's variety?

Is there a difference....are they one and the same?

 

[Word based mystic]

I don't see where that is relevant in this when you obviously are obfuscating your responsibility in rightly dividing the word of truth.

Use the same rule when defining both words: "destroy" and "see".

i did not follow the discussion on ((see))

and how does (see) which implies intimacy with God equate to validating that the wicked soul is eternal/imperishable/indestructible.

The source of life never ending is only in Christ.

no other creation or being can be sustained unless it Has Life in Christ.

all things/former things shall pass away.
cease to exist, vanish away.
which is consistent with the soul perishing if it is not in Christ.

Even an earthly father or person has enough compassion on a rabid dog to end it's existence rather than put it in a cage and torture with never ending torment because it is diseased and rabid.

in the kingdom to come the new heaven and earth shall not have sin and will be based and founded in righteousness.
unlike the present heaven and earth which has decay and sin.

 

[Word based mystic]

i was working many hours to finish a commercial job.

i can go back and review the discussion on SEE.

are you referring to the scripture that says if someone sees him face to face you shall die.

 

[Cross Reference]

i did not follow the discussion on ((see))

and how does (see) which implies intimacy with God equate to validating that the wicked soul is eternal/imperishable/indestructible.

Your adamancy that we should take the word "destroy" in the literal sense. Try that with the word "see" as given in the beatitude I have asked you to do. God is a Spirit. Can anyone "see" a spirit????? No! So obviously "see"[ing] means something else, doesn't it??

 

[Ben Masada]

Babies are held blameless as in being innocent!! Ergo, NO damnation!!

Death = separation from God in whatever 'form' that might be, either from a life that cannot die or one that does.

Your reasoning does not make sense at all. If it were true what you say above, why would the Lord state through Prophet Isaiah that to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow, all we need is to repent and return to the obedience of God's Law? (Isa. 1:18,19) This is perfectly understood that the blameless can become as innocent as a baby before death. Then, if death is the salary of sin, what did the babies do to get such a salary?

 

[Word based mystic]

Amen! They are the ones who NEED to interpret scripture to make it fit their bias and we are condemned if we don't see it their way. For the reason "why" is anyones guess. Problem for me is that it "shades" everything else they say one might agree upon being recognized it is all based upon an untruth that only compromises their belief __ a belief that, in the finality, won't take us home to "Father's House".

i went back to look at some prior quotes.

in this one you are implying that if i don't take your speculative supposition on the wicked having eternal life and being indestructible than i shall not go to the Fathers House??

or if I dont change the meaning of forever (AION) period of time or of the age, but rather change the meaning to be (incorrectly) never ending I shall not inherit eternal life???

 

[Word based mystic]

if that is the case than your approach to salvation is (gnostic) in nature.

and the simpleton and idiot shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Cross Reference]

Your reasoning does not make sense at all. If it were true what you say above, why would the Lord state through Prophet Isaiah that to set things right with God so that our sins from scarlet red become as white as snow, all we need is to repent and return to the obedience of God's Law? (Isa. 1:18,19) This is perfectly understood that the blameless can become as innocent as a baby before death. Then, if death is the salary of sin, what did the babies do to get such a salary?

Babies are without and ANY law and where there is no law, there is no sin. Ergo, no penalty ___ as in being innocent.

 

[Ben Masada]

The body of a man can only die once, physically speaking. A "resurrected" body can never ever, physically speaking, die again.

Question: If his soul is not reconciled to God when graves are opened, what will be the disposition of such a body?

Your reasoning is really not functioning. As I read your post, I was reminded of Lazarus who died twice. Or didn't he?...

Then we have Isa. 26:14; II Sam. 12:23 and Job 10:21 whose quotes assert that any one once dead will never return from the grave again.

 

[Cross Reference]

Your reasoning is really not functioning. As I read your post, I was reminded of Lazarus who died twice. Or didn't he?...

Why believe he did when he ascended with Jesus when Jesus ascended? Is that too difficult to accept?

Then we have Isa. 26:14; II Sam. 12:23 and Job 10:21 whose quotes assert that any one once dead will never return from the grave again.

The supernatural permitted by God in Samuel appearing before Saul by the conjuring by the witch notwithstanding, can you name another exception? Remember Samuel was not in heaven but in Paradise Jesus referred to in His account/story of the rich man and Lazarus! I call it "God's holding tank" for those awaiting redemption by the cross experience of Jesus.

 

[Word based mystic]

Babies are without and ANY law and where there is no law, there is no sin. Ergo, no penalty ___ as in being innocent.

so you do affirm that if ones doctrine is not perfect they shall not obtain salvation.

I assume you have perfect understanding of all doctrine then?

knowledge and comprehension are quite different.

Comprehension is (experiencing) a truth. i.e. oneness and love with the father.

mental knowledge and understanding is quite different.

you judge others and their salvation by how they understand the perfection of doctrine.

very different than some of the threads i have followed you on.

and very disappointed on the comprehension of the Fathers Love and adding never ending torturer as on of His characters.

 

[Ben Masada]

Babies are without and ANY law and where there is no law, there is no sin. Ergo, no penalty ___ as in being innocent.

I think you are worse than me to understand. Babies die, did you know that? Now, you say that babies are without any law. If there is no law for babies, there is no transgression to die for. So, why do they die? If you need my help, they die because they were born. That's what takes one to die: To be born. No one dies for another or for even his own transgression of the Law, unless he or she commits a murder and the country adopts death sentence for murderers. Otherwise, one dies because he or she has been born. Death is only the third part of the cycle of birth, life and death.

 

[freelight]

Babies are without and ANY law and where there is no law, there is no sin. Ergo, no penalty ___ as in being innocent.

If you want to go by Paul's writings (or those attributed to him), it places all souls born 'under the law' so to speak (unless liberated from it 'in Christ'), so not sure that places an exception on babies, unless you propose a certain age of accountability as the little child matures. Of course we could assume that a baby under 2 yrs. old is basically 'innocent' as it hasn't had time to yet develop its character, conscience, moral-guidance, but this is debatable. Hence baby-blessings/baptisms are done, just to make sure 'original sin' is 'atoned' for by the sacrament of baptism. Different Christian denominations may vary on their view of this.



pj

 

[Cross Reference]

If you want to go by Paul's writings (or those attributed to him), it places all souls born 'under the law' so to speak (unless liberated from it 'in Christ'), so not sure that places an exception on babies, unless you propose a certain age of accountability as the little child matures. Of course we could assume that a baby under 2 yrs. old is basically 'innocent' as it hasn't had time to yet develop its character, conscience, moral-guidance, but this is debatable. Hence baby-blessings/baptisms are done, just to make sure 'original sin' is 'atoned' for by the sacrament of baptism. Different Christian denominations may vary on their view of this.



pj

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14 (KJV)

Who was Jesus referring to that exchange and why?

 

[Ben Masada]

Why believe he did when he ascended with Jesus when Jesus ascended? Is that too difficult to accept?

The supernatural permitted by God in Samuel appearing before Saul by the conjuring by the witch notwithstanding, can you name another exception? Remember Samuel was not in heaven but in Paradise Jesus referred to in His account/story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Remember, in this Samuel was NOT in heaven but, in paradise Jesus referred to in His account/story of the rich man and Lazarus!

You are not reading the quotes I give you. Samuel has nothing to do with the quote. His quote is about King David whose child died and he declared that he would never return from death. If you want to read it, it is in II Sam. 12:23. It has nothing to do with the witch of Endor.

Now, with regards to Lazarus, you say that he ascended with Jesus. Would you please quote that for me? It is not in the NT. Lazarus was a leper and had died. According to the NT, Jesus brought him back and later he died again. Does it make sense to you? I don't think so as you claimed that no one dies more than once.

And for Jesus' account of Lazarus was a parable. Everything goes as a parable is concerned as long as the lesson implied is revealed. And the lesson was to listen to "Moses" aka the Law as such a method has never passed away. (Luke 16:29,31)

 

[Cross Reference]

You are not reading the quotes I give you. Samuel has nothing to do with the quote. His quote is about King David whose child died and he declared that he would never return from death. If you want to read it, it is in II Sam. 12:23. It has nothing to do with the witch of Endor.

Sorry, I thought I was. So as to your II Sam reference I say, so what? How does pertain to anything?

Now, with regards to Lazarus, you say that he ascended with Jesus. Would you please quote that for me? It is not in the NT. Lazarus was a leper and had died. According to the NT, Jesus brought him back and later he died again. Does it make sense to you? I don't think so as you claimed that no one dies more than once.

In yellow, where does it say that?

And for Jesus' account of Lazarus was a parable. Everything goes as a parable is concerned as long as the lesson implied is revealed. And the lesson was to listen to "Moses" aka the Law as such a method has never passed away. (Luke 16:29,31)

It wasn't a lesson. Nor was it a parable. End of discussion.

 

[Timotheos]

Since you and Wbm see fit to play ignorant in your replies, why be so c*** sure of yourselves the word destroy, in the literal sense, be defined as being so as you demand? If you can't fathom out the word "see", as given in context to be a portrait of Spiritual intimacy with God, why don't you both back off to accept the absoluteness of what it means to be COMPLETElY severed from the grace of God?? __ something He cannot reverse. What have you to gain by refusing to do so?

Your post was a tad incoherent, but if I get the gist of what you are trying to say, you are upset with me for believing the Bible when it says that the wicked will be completely destroyed on the Day of Judgment and Destruction of the ungodly. What do I have to gain by believing what the Bible says? Eternal life? Hello?

 

[Timotheos]

Destroy really means destroy everlasting destruction really means everlasting destruction.

I'm reminded of what Gods word says in

II Thessalonians 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;


everready

Yes, thank you. Destroy really does mean destroy and not "torture alive forever in hell instead of destroy".

It amazes me that sometimes people who believe that the wicked will not ever be destroyed will use 2 Thess 1:9 to justify their belief that the wicked WON'T be destroyed.

 

[freelight]

The value of every soul...........

The value of every soul...........

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 19:14 (KJV)

Who was Jesus referring to that exchange and why?

Its a complex issue, especially for those who believe in the 'original sin' motif. I would tend to believe a new-born baby that dies, is 'innocent' in its own right and constitution (in so far as it goes), and that spirit-soul will continue its journey of experience, with its accompanying karma, thru-out its entire existence, with-in divine providence, as all souls are afforded the perfect justice and mercy of God. All souls are evolving along a path of learning, eternal progression towards perfect and fulfillment of being.

Now as that babe/child grows in years, he learns, is developing his personality, moral compass, integrity, character....so the 'judging-scale' may be different at different time-points of one's age. So, its assumed by some sects that a child at a certain age, has reached an 'age of accountability'. I recall from my LDS culture, they posited it around age '8', at which time a baptism into the faith is also officiated, since a child has some understanding at that age. I don't know if other Christian denimonitations have agreed on an 'age of accountability' or not, but interested to see what they put it at.

Even beyond these dogmas and assumptions, I believe 'God' is wholly fair, just and merciful in the case of every sentient being, and 'beliefs' such as 'original sin' or the relative measurements of 'accountability' do not always apply, since the divine love and wisdom mediates all in perfect proportion. Since God is wholly fair, and the source and epitome of divine justice and love,...there could NOT be an enforcement from Deity of detaining/maintaining souls in a state of ECT (eternal conscious torment), since that would be antithetical to divine love and logic.

Real justice is tempered with mercy, always.



pj