The soul of man

[OzSpen]

Yep that was my point. Exegesis, done right, must first (and carefully) be done with original meanings made to the original audience in mind, versus our own meanings. That's what I said. Thanks for spending the time to reference a published work confirming the first rule of exegesis.

Take destruction of the body and soul in Hell, for example. I highly doubt that Jesus' original audience had Dante's inferno in mind. Rather, they had destruction in mind. Also, my point.

Jesus' original audience had in mind what the rest of Scripture confirms (see my post #360) where unbelievers after death experience everlasting torment and contempt and not your understanding of eternal destruction, which seems to be your contemporary imposition on the text.

Seems as though you have violated the first rule of exegesis with which you agree with me - what did the original author mean and how did the original readers understand what the writer stated?

Oz

 

[chessman]

what did the original author mean and how did the original readers understand what the writer stated?

Easy, destruction.

Matthew 2:13 (LEB) Now after they had gone away, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, saying, “Get up, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. For Herod is about to seek the child to destroy him.” ​

On your 'exegesis' Joseph would have thought Herod meant to torment baby Jesus??? I don't think so.

Seems as though you have violated the first rule of exegesis.

This is what happens when you impose your contemporary understanding of destruction on the text. I've given you an example of the original audience understood destroy (from proper use) but it was not torment. Jesus did not mean a current view.

 

[OzSpen]

Easy, destruction.

Matthew 2:13 (LEB) Now after they had gone away, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph, saying, “Get up, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. For Herod is about to seek the child to destroy him.” ​

On your 'exegesis' Joseph would have thought Herod meant to torment baby Jesus??? I don't think so.

Seems as though you have violated the first rule of exegesis.

This is what happens when you impose your contemporary understanding of destruction on the text. I've given you an example of the original audience understood destroy (from proper use) but it was not torment. Jesus did not mean a current view.

I'm following exactly what Fee & Stuart gave as the first rule of exegesis:

Exegesis is the careful, systematic study of the Scripture to discover the original, intended meaning. This is basically a historical task. It is the attempt to hear the Word as the original recipients were to have heard it, to find out what was the original intent of the words of the Bible. This is the task that often calls for the help of the "expert," that person whose training has helped him or her to know well the language and circumstances of the texts in their original setting. But one does not have to be an expert to do good exegesis.
(Fee & Stuart 1993:19-20, emphasis in original).​

That is, the original intended meaning of Matt 2:13 (ESV) is not the same as the original intended meaning of Matt 10:28 (ESV).

Oz

Works consulted
Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart 1993. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

 

[chessman]

That is, the original intended meaning of Matt 2:13 (ESV) is not the same as the original intended meaning of Matt 10:28 (ESV).

It's the same word, used in the same way, in the same century, by the same author, given to the same audience. Poof, proper exegesis.

I'm following exactly what Fee & Stuart gave as the first rule of exegesis

Are you sure??? Seems as though you are assuming a 'run over toy' exagerated meaning of the word "destroy" into Matt 10:28 when it's obviously talking about the straightforward (and very fearful) destruction of a man's body and soul in Hell.

BTW, when you backed over the toy, did the toy's soul get 'destroyed' or just it's body?

 

[OzSpen]

It's the same word, used in the same way, in the same century, by the same author, given to the same audience. Poof, proper exegesis.

While it is the same word used, apollumi, it is NOT used in the same way in Matt 2:13 (ESV) and Matt 10:28 (ESV). In Matt 2:13, the meaning is explained in Matt 2:19 (ESV),

19 But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's life are dead.”​

Matt 2:13 (ESV) refers to the threat to kill the child and not to the eternal destruction of a child.

The NT Greek language is like other languages where the one word can have a range of uses. Take the English word, form, as an example.

• Here I form a sentence, which means I construct it.
• I sat on a form at the school waiting for my granddaughter. It was a longish school seat that accommodated several people.
• Children wear uniforms to school in Australia, which deals with their clothing.
• Form a straight line of students, i.e. get them in order, etc.

It's the same with NT Greek where words can have various meanings.

Are you sure??? Seems as though you are assuming a 'run over toy' exagerated (sic) meaning of the word "destroy" into Matt 10:28 when it's obviously talking about the straightforward (and very fearful) destruction of a man's body and soul in Hell.

The meaning of 'destroy' in Matt 2:13 if far removed from the meaning of 'destroy' both body and soul in Gehenna (hell) in Matt 10:28 (ESV).

BTW, when you backed over the toy, did the toy's soul get 'destroyed' or just it's body?

How foolish of you to erect a straw man of my position.

Please go back to #360 where I wrote: This is what happens when you impose your contemporary understanding of destruction on the text. I've given you an example previously of when I reversed over my child's toy it was destroyed (from proper use) but it was not annihilated. However, this is using a current view.

What I stated about my child's toy had nothing to do with your straw man of a toy's soul.

Bye, bye,
Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

It's the same word, used in the same way, in the same century, by the same author, given to the same audience. Poof, proper exegesis.


Are you sure??? Seems as though you are assuming a 'run over toy' exagerated meaning of the word "destroy" into Matt 10:28 when it's obviously talking about the straightforward (and very fearful) destruction of a man's body and soul in Hell.

BTW, when you backed over the toy, did the toy's soul get 'destroyed' or just it's body?

I don't know Chessman, I don't know Greek and am no theologian. I do hope you realize that Oz has the initials DR after his last name.

But I'll tell you this simple thing.

It's 2016 and I write:

I flew to Paris in 6 hours.

And then I write:

The birds flew to Florida.

Now it's 3,000 years later and our civilization is dug up.
The above is found.
Would you suppose that the people of that time will think that we knew how to fly like a bird?

Destroy could be used to mean different ideas.
I'm not going to go to the Greek, however, I know for sure that Greek has more precise words for everything and they could not be translated into English perfectly. I know this from knowing a different language fluently. Some words could not even be translated and need sentences to be explained - I'm speaking of expressions.

A toy could be destroyed.
It no longer functions.
It's in a RUINED state.
But it is still visible.
It does NOT disappear.

Of course, annihilation is a very comforting thought. I could do whatever I want here and the only consequence will be that I won't live forever in a place away from God - which cannot be a good place.

Another modern idea is that hell does exist, but only for a time since a good God would not let us be tormented forever.

My suggestion to you is that you consider the HOLINESS of God.
§God came to earth to teach us how to spend eternity with Him.
He made it clear - whether we like it or not.

We are not ALLOWED BY GOD to make up our own version of scripture.

I've posted the Didache on several occasions and will not do it anymore since anyone could Google this document, which is the closest we have to when Jesus walked the earth.

Why does anyone suppose that the Apostles and those who came directly after them, were so intent on letting us know WHAT WE ARE TO DO to have eternal life IF IT WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE???

Think on that as you're reading the New Testament next time.

Wondering

P.S. Toys don't have a soul. Hope I haven't misunderstood.
Jesus said to fear he that can destroy both the body and soul.
Could have meant satan.
Could have meant a man.
The body could be killed. It could be destroyed. It's still visible.
My soul could be killed also. Satan can kill the soul.
A man could kill my soul. I still have one - it's just killed.
Destroy does not mean to disappear.

 

[smaller]

The NT Greek language is like other languages where the one word can have a range of uses.

It's the same with NT Greek where words can have various meanings.

Truthful observation made even more complex because the Nature of the Word is "Spiritual."

Proverbs 1:23
Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

I questioned with the opening poster when he first started his claims for eternal annihilation, IF he thought that the claim made his supposed sight somehow better than the alternative of eternal torture.

Eternal torture is on the menu of scriptural reality.

Rev. 14:
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Eternal annihilation is a continual/continuing event. It is the torture of the wicked dead, DEAD not meaning necessarily DEAD as the natural mind or natural meaning perceives or equates the term DEAD to no longer existing.

The Spirit considers the unbelievers dead. Yet they were/are alive:

Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Even after salvation the Spirit sees us as it pertains to our flesh, in this way:

Colossians 3:3
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Revelation 3:1
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

Not all is as it appears on surface analysis or surface views. We are provided "letter" of Word, but letter points us to Spirit/Spiritual reality. Without Spirit reality letter being only 'dead letter' symbols.

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Ω or ω without Spiritual understanding are merely letters.

Dead and death have many LAYERS in scriptural Spiritual terms. There is death. And there is second death into which the first death is cast. But in neither case does it mean not existing or that there is no activity.

The posture of eternal annihilation being no longer existing may make some believers feel better or even make them think they are superior to others in their understandings, but that doesn't mean their sights are TRUE and/or TRUTHFUL to the Word/Spirit.

 

[Randy]

This suggests awareness to me and I would state any being in such a state is destroyed but not unmade. They perish never to be seen again on this earth. And I think billions will be deceived by the beast. The punishment is the same as satan and his angels.

Rev14
Then another angel, a third, followed them, crying with a loud voice, “Those who worship the beast and its image, and receive a mark on their foreheads or on their hands, 10 they will also drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and they will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image and for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”

12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and hold fast to the faith of Jesus.

 

[GodsGrace]

Truthful observation made even more complex because the Nature of the Word is "Spiritual."

Proverbs 1:23
Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

I questioned with the opening poster when he first started his claims for eternal annihilation, IF he thought that the claim made his supposed sight somehow better than the alternative of eternal torture.

Eternal torture is on the menu of scriptural reality.

Rev. 14:
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Eternal annihilation is a continual/continuing event. It is the torture of the wicked dead, DEAD not meaning necessarily DEAD as the natural mind or natural meaning perceives or equates the term DEAD to no longer existing.

The Spirit considers the unbelievers dead. Yet they were/are alive:

Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Even after salvation the Spirit sees us as it pertains to our flesh, in this way:

Colossians 3:3
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Revelation 3:1
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

Not all is as it appears on surface analysis or surface views. We are provided "letter" of Word, but letter points us to Spirit/Spiritual reality. Without Spirit reality letter being only 'dead letter' symbols.

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Ω or ω without Spiritual understanding are merely letters.

Dead and death have many LAYERS in scriptural Spiritual terms. There is death. And there is second death into which the first death is cast. But in neither case does it mean not existing or that there is no activity.

The posture of eternal annihilation being no longer existing may make some believers feel better or even make them think they are superior to others in their understandings, but that doesn't mean their sights are TRUE and/or TRUTHFUL to the Word/Spirit.

Great post.

 

[Jim Parker]

Destroy could be used to mean different ideas.

Words ARE constantly used to mean different ideas and have been as far back as we can discover.
If I am unimpressed with a musician's talents, I might complain, "He stinks."
Do I mean that he smells bad?
Or do I mean his playing is lousy? (And did I just say his playing was infested with lice?)

So, making a doctrine out of the meaning of a word is not a good practice.

On the other hand, making a living off of gullible people by posing as a religion expert has been a good scam since the first cave man stepped out of his cave one march morning and noticed that it was just a bit warmer and the sun was just a bit further up in the sky than it was after the last full moon and got the idea of painting his body and dancing around like a fool and telling the tribe that he was making the sun come back and they should feed him or he'll let it go away again..... (extra long run-on sentence...no extra charge)


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)



DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[GodsGrace]

Words ARE constantly used to mean different ideas and have been as far back as we can discover.
If I am unimpressed with a musician's talents, I might complain, "He stinks."
Do I mean that he smells bad?
Or do I mean his playing is lousy? (And did I just say his playing was infested with lice?)

So, making a doctrine out of the meaning of a word is not a good practice.

On the other hand, making a living off of gullible people by posing as a religion expert has been a good scam since the first cave man stepped out of his cave one march morning and noticed that it was just a bit warmer and the sun was just a bit further up in the sky than it was after the last full moon and got the idea of painting his body and dancing around like a fool and telling the tribe that he was making the sun come back and they should feed him or he'll let it go away again..... (extra long run-on sentence...no extra charge)


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)



DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

Run on sentences are allowed when they make sense

I still wonder how people could be convinced of doctrine that is so clearly false.
This could be a reason. Take some truth and turn it into a lie. Or make up doctrine that sounds good and acceptable to us as humans, and other reasons...

 

[Jim Parker]

I still wonder how people could be convinced of doctrine that is so clearly false.

While the flim-flam preacher is expounding his "special revelations from the HOLYghost" he is careful to include the suggestion that his audience have been chosen to be privileged to partake of that "special revelation" and are, therefore, holier than the rest of Christianity. It worked for Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell and Ellen G. White and Jim Jones and ...and...and....

Just stroke egos by telling people that they are the chosen few to have been entrusted with the "REAL" meaning of the scriptures (especially Revelation and the apocalyptic sections of Daniel) and a good percentage will fall for it and even send monthly contributions to the flim-flam man's "ministry." (And, yes, Jimmy Bakker and Robert Tilton and Peter Popoff have all made a
comeback after having been exposed as total frauds.) People get very religious about other people saying anything bad about their favorite flim-flam preacher.

"Mercedes Benz"


Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?

Everybody!
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

That's it! ​

Nothing new under the sun....


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

 

[GodsGrace]

While the flim-flam preacher is expounding his "special revelations from the HOLYghost" he is careful to include the suggestion that his audience have been chosen to be privileged to partake of that "special revelation" and are, therefore, holier than the rest of Christianity. It worked for Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell and Ellen G. White and Jim Jones and ...and...and....

Just stroke egos by telling people that they are the chosen few to have been entrusted with the "REAL" meaning of the scriptures (especially Revelation and the apocalyptic sections of Daniel) and a good percentage will fall for it and even send monthly contributions to the flim-flam man's "ministry." (And, yes, Jimmy Bakker and Robert Tilton and Peter Popoff have all made a
comeback after having been exposed as total frauds.) People get very religious about other people saying anything bad about their favorite flim-flam preacher.

"Mercedes Benz"


Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?

Everybody!
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

That's it! ​

Nothing new under the sun....


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

Very good.
I like to remind people that
God is not Santa
We serve Him, not the other way around.

Who is Helen G. White?

Tomorrow...
Wondering

 

[Jim Parker]

Who is Helen G. White?

Oops! Ellen. (not Helen)
She was a self proclaimed prophetess and sole possessor of the spirit of prophesy who founded the 7th Day Adventist church in the 1840's when Jesus failed to come in accordance with the predictions of the New Advent movement of the early 19th century.
She went on to predict a later date for Jesus return. (Jesus didn't get the memo)
SHe also endorsed and propagated the nonsense that the date of His return was accurate but the event was wrong. What actually happened was the Jesus went into the heavenly tabernacle in 1844 and opened the books to see who was saved and who wasn't. (Thus conflating Jesus and Santa Clause seeing who's been naughty or nice.) According to the SDA church, Jesus is still there looking up who's been naughty or nice because, as God, that's apparently the one thing He doesn't know.

So the SDA church, while adhering to the basic tenets of Christianity, tends to be a bit......... ummm ....odd.

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

While the flim-flam preacher is expounding his "special revelations from the HOLYghost" he is careful to include the suggestion that his audience have been chosen to be privileged to partake of that "special revelation" and are, therefore, holier than the rest of Christianity. It worked for Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell and Ellen G. White and Jim Jones and ...and...and....

Just stroke egos by telling people that they are the chosen few to have been entrusted with the "REAL" meaning of the scriptures (especially Revelation and the apocalyptic sections of Daniel) and a good percentage will fall for it and even send monthly contributions to the flim-flam man's "ministry." (And, yes, Jimmy Bakker and Robert Tilton and Peter Popoff have all made a
comeback after having been exposed as total frauds.) People get very religious about other people saying anything bad about their favorite flim-flam preacher.

"Mercedes Benz"


Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a color TV ?

Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?
I'm counting on you, Lord, please don't let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a night on the town ?

Everybody!
Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

That's it! ​

Nothing new under the sun....


iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)




DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

Jim,

Thanks a million for linking us to the lyrics of Janis Joplin's, 'Mercedez Benz'. I used to play some of her earlier songs in my radio DJ jobs in the 1960s and 1970s. This song has a haunting resemblance to some of what comes from the TV in the name of Christianity today.

Thank you for the excellent expose of some of the false doctrine that has been around. You have reinforced 1 John 4:1 (ESV): 'Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world'.

Oz

 

[WIP]

Might be good to get things back on topic.

 

[smaller]

So the SDA church, while adhering to the basic tenets of Christianity, tends to be a bit......... ummm ....odd.

iakov the fool

IF I recall one of the SDA precepts is the eternal snuff out of unbelievers in permanent death, rather than eternal torment.

Perhaps the opening poster can identify if the SDA is his sect?

As pointed out to him, repeatedly now, is he appears to think that precept, which I can't remedy, scripturally, is somehow "better" than the more credible provable in writing alternative. It isn't.

I have no issues with an "eternal LoF" with attendant eternal torture because we DO have that quite set in writing to observe, debates about occupants notwithstanding. I don't know why any believers would have a problem for example with the devil and his messengers being "eternally tortured."

Rev. 21
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Said "second death" does NOT automatically mean "no longer existing" just as the FIRST DEATH doesn't. Obviously "the dead" came OUT of the first state of death, and into that SECOND STATE of death. Were they merely "dead and gone" and THAT was their fate, they could have simply been left in the FIRST STATE of DEATH.

Rev. 14 speaks directly to "continuing torment."

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Doesn't look like one and done, dead and gone to me whatsoever.

And, these scriptures have been presented to the guy to address, repeatedly, without credible and direct response, to the above facts.

I have been through many of these kinds of conversations prior. They have long elaborate theories, but when it comes down to the end of the story and the bottom line comparisons to the end facts above, all the concoctions and stories still can't run the table of scriptures to eliminate the facts above.

 

[chessman]

Rev. 14 speaks directly to "continuing torment."

Rev 14 doesn't mention "continuing torment". Why do you put words in quotation marks and say it is a direct Biblical quote?

he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb

Notice, it does NOT say "continuing torment". And even more importantly this torment occurs in the presence of the Lamb. It's illogical and hard to believe that the Lamb is present in the Lake of Fire.

Is it your view that the Lamb is present in the Lake of Fire?

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

The "smoke of their torment" (which we just read occurs in the presence of the Lamb, not in the Lake of Fire) ascends forever. So??? That doesn't say or even imply that they are tormented continually forever.

Anymore than Edom's destruction and "day of the Lord's vengeance" smoke rising forever implies Edom's continuing torment.

Isaiah 34:8-10 (NKJV) For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance, The year of recompense for the cause of Zion. Its streams shall be turned into pitch, And its dust into brimstone; Its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day; Its smoke shall ascend forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; No one shall pass through it forever and ever.​

 

[smaller]

Rev 14 doesn't mention "continuing torment". Why do you put words in quotation marks and say it is a direct Biblical quote?

Notice, it does NOT say "continuing torment". And even more importantly this torment occurs in the presence of the Lamb. It's illogical and hard to believe that the Lamb is present in the Lake of Fire.

Is it your view that the Lamb is present in the Lake of Fire?



The "smoke of their torment" (which we just read occurs in the presence of the Lamb, not in the Lake of Fire) ascends forever. So??? That doesn't say or even imply that they are tormented continually forever.

Anymore than Edom's destruction and "day of the Lord's vengeance" smoke rising forever implies Edom's continuing torment.

Isaiah 34:8-10 (NKJV) For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance, The year of recompense for the cause of Zion. Its streams shall be turned into pitch, And its dust into brimstone; Its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day; Its smoke shall ascend forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; No one shall pass through it forever and ever.​

Just smoke you say? No accompanying torment for said smoke? I guess if I squinted hard enough to eliminate the term 'torment' from the equations it's possible. But for some reason it's not disappearing.

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

As to taking place in the "Presence" of the LAMB. Pretty sure that's there too.

There is no place that is "apart" from OMNIPRESENCE. I do reject the notions of "eternal separation from God's Omnipresence."

There is no such place that 'exists.'

Psalm 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

 

[chessman]

Just smoke you say?

Did I say "just smoke"??? No! Why misrepresent what I said???

No accompanying torment for said smoke?

this torment occurs in the presence of the Lamb

How you get "no accompanying torment" from my post is odd understanding.

There is no place that is "apart" from OMNIPRESENCE.

2 Thessalonians 1:9 (LEB) who will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength, ​

I'm pretty sure there is just such a place. A place of destruction.