12 reasons why hell is not eternal couscious torment - Part One

[Classic Rider]

Adam and Eve were told ...in the day (Hebrew Yom) you eat you shall die. The Hebrew word Yom often means a regular day but many times (67 times in the OT) it means time or period of time. So it doesn't prove anything to say that they had to die within a yom. When the bible says .... The wages of sin is death... it means the whole package. It includes the destruction of the mind, body, soul, and spirit. As soon as Adam and Eve sinned the process of death started. They started growing old and started dying and within a period of TIME their bodies died. That was the wages of sin. Naturally if we are destroyed that will separate us from God so I don't have a problem with the idea that death (INCLUDES) separation from God spiritually. I have no problem with the idea that "the wages of sin is death" means not only natural death but also spiritual estrangement and separation from God as well and also the final extinction of the soul and the ultimate eternal separation from God that that will bring. Death includes all of that. Ephesians talks about being spiritually dead and that is true. But it never says that since sinners are spiritually dead that when Paul says the wages of sin is death He means only that and nothing more. If the wages of sin doesn't also include the death of the body then why do we die? And if the wages of sin being death doesn't also include the destruction of the soul then why does Jesus threaten sinners by saying that God is able to destroy both body and soul? The wages of sin being death means that if we don't believe in Christ we will perish. It doesn't just mean the spiritual estrangement from God that the sinners experiences here on earth. When Paul said the wages of sin is death He meant all of it. He meant that we will start aging, we are estranged from God, our bodies die, our soul is punished and destroyed and then we will never be resurrected so we will never be reunited with God. To say that separation from God is part of the mix doesn't prove a thing for the eternal torture people.

 

[Classic Rider]

Finally, to the idea that it is just our physical bodies here on earth that are mortal and not our souls then that means that if through the gospel Jesus gives us immortality then we aren't going to experience physical death.... and yet everyone does. That is silly. What is really meant is that the soul is mortal and Jesus through the gospel gives us an immortal soul and eternal life.

I have pretty much made all the points I need to make and am pleased with my arguements so I am going to argue about other things for a while. The rest of you can keep howling at the moon. Ha. Ha.

 

[chessman]

Correction. A Greek lexicon SAYS it does mean to suffer misery in hell, as one of its various meanings.

They studied the language and THEN wrote the lexicon.

Yes, I understand that Thayer's Greek Lexicon has that possible meaning based on the two verses he referenced. And yes, he's not around anymore to discuss ("argue") his evidence both for/against that meaning in Matt 10:28 and/or James 4:12. It's not my goal to "argue" his meaning but rather to discuss the reasoning he used and the implications thereof. Which can be evaluated, even though he's not around to debate it further. There are several points of reason against his definition 1e given for the word "destroy" as used in Matt 10:28 and James 4:12. Here are some that I can think of. I just simply thought them through and thought it might be worth sharing with others in a post (since I documented it anyway). It's not necessary for you to consider these points but if you so desire and if you desire to provide any counter-arguments or point out errors in my thinking process here, I'd appreciate it.

1. Thayer's Greek Lexicon was published in 1890 without the aid of all the Greek language scholarship developed since then using the numerous Greek manuscripts found since then (some older than his and in better condition to the ones he had available). Plus the advent of computer technologies to accurately catalogue each and every usage and cognate of a word (no small or error proof job without a computer's help). Plus the well established 1st Century Jewish based hermeneutical principles (what did the writings mean to a 1st Century Jew, versus an 19th Century Englishman) have become recognized as utterly important since the late 1800's.

But my point here is that other, more modern, Greek Lexicons disagree with his 1e as a possible semantic range of meaning for the word itself:

Dodson dictionary
ἀπόλλυμι (Verb)

(a) I kill, destroy, (b) I lose, mid: I am perishing (the resultant death being viewed as certain).

From: Public Domain Greek-English lexicon by John Jeffrey Dodson (2010)
​

Or From Logos' dictionary:

ἀπόλλυμι
destroy, destroyed
perish, perished, perishes
lose, loses, losing
lost
die, dying
put to death
passing away​

2. Also with respect to thinking his possible meaning (1e) through, the idea that the word itself has a figurative definition is obviously wrong and contrived. No word has a "figurative or metaphorical definition" (except the words figurative and metaphorical, I suppose). On the contrary, it's usage within sentences and contexts establishes the word is being used figuratively or metaphorically. The context and usage determines whether (or not) any word (not just this one) is used in a figurative or metaphorical way, not the definition itself. Take the Greek word λόγος, Logos (word), for example. One of it's definitions is NOT logos = Jesus. But it's figurative usage sure is at numerous times (especially in John's writings). Greek to English Dictionaries (Lexicons) are supposed to define (by translation) Greek words, not interpret passages for us. And for "logos", they do just that. But Thayer stepped beyond the bounds of a definition into the area of interpretation by publishing 1e obviously.

3. Point 2 is why I pointed out that in James 4:12 it doesn't even mention Hell, yet Thayer includes "Hell" within his definition 1e for the word apolesai and references James 4:12 for his justification. That's ridiculous and obviously his personal interpretation of a post judgment place called Hell derived from other passages and other words. I happen to agree with him that after the GWTJ the lost are sent to Hell for "apolesai". But I don't get Hell from the meaning from that particular verse or from "apolesai"'s definition. The definition of apolesai is not a synonym for Hell (literally or figuratively) yet he has literally included Hell into his possible English definition of apolesai for these two verses. That's just plain wrong. Obviously so.

4. Also, do you think God is merely able to metaphorically (figuratively, so-to-speak) destroy souls in Hell but will not actually exercise His ability to metaphorically (figuratively) destroy souls in Hell? It seems one or the other options to reconcile Matt 10:28 with ECT is possible but not both of these at the same time.

It seems Thayer takes the figurative supposition of destroy into Matt 10:28 and/or James 4:12 but not the idle threat approach. Yet you mentioned that Matt 10:28 just says God's able to do that (literally destroy souls, as the text says) but will not ever follow through with that ability. Which is technically correct. That's what it says. He's able to. But the point is that Auburn is figuratively able to "destroy" LSU. A figurative ability to "destroy" anyone is nothing special. We all can do that.

So which is your view, 1 or 2 (you've mentioned both)?

1) A figurative definition of apolesai?
or
2) an idle threat of a literal definition of apolesai?
or
3) both 1) and 2) i.e. an idle threat of a figurative definition?
or
4) Jesus' literal command to literally fear the literal God who is literally able to literally destroy literal souls in the literal future in a literal place called Hell (Gehenna)?​

I see no reason to answer anything other than 4). But then again, I don't believe in the Eternal torment of lost people's bodies or their souls in Gehenna. Why? Because they don't have the gift of Eternal Life or posses immortality naturally within either their bodies or their souls or a combination of both. Both are derived from God and sustained by God as all things created are.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Tim and Classic Rider a question what was in that cup Jesus spoke of in the garden that day and why did he drink it?

Thanks..

tob

*edit: didn't see you there onelove maybe you'd like to answer that question as well?

That cup represented what he came to do: to die for the sins of mankind. That he did and thus tasted death for every man.

 

[Willie T]

That cup represented what he came to do: to die for the sins of mankind. That he did and thus tasted death for every man.

I'm sorry, but that can't be. Jesus told two of His disciples that they would also drink of the SAME cup He was to drink of. ( Matthew 20:23 and Mark 10:39 )

 

[tim-from-pa]

I recommend that you find a Greek lexicon, to understand the range of meanings for that word. These meanings were discovered by scholars who understand the Greek language.

Further, if Jesus meant annihilation of the soul, then He was directly contradicted by John, the beloved disciple, in Rev 20:10 who notes that satan, the antichrist and the false prophet will be "tormented forever and ever". In the same chapter, John then describes the GWT judgment, in which all who do not possess eternal life will be cast into that same LoF.

Your narrow view of "apollumi" creates a direct conflict between Jesus and John.


Another example of a narrow view of a word. James defined physical death as separation of soul from body in James 2:26. So it is easy to understand that spiritual death is separation from God. In fact, Paul spoke of this in Eph 2:1, when he told the Ephesian believers that they WERE "dead in sins". Were they physically dead? Of course not. They were spiritually dead, separated from God. He makes that very clear in 2:12 (you were separate from Christ). That's spiritual death. And through faith in Christ, the believer is regenerated, born again, given eternal life, and is no longer spiritually dead.


Apparently you keep skipping over Rev 20:10.

I did find such a lexicom.it's because of the Greek that I believe the way I do. In addition when one sees Greek mytholgy one can see where these false doctrines came from. I didn't overlook anything in Revelation. If you're so into Greek, The forever and ever is translated eons which also can mean for the duration of that age.

Question: if you believe eternal conscious torment is the penalty for finite sins, then maybe you can explain to the entire board why you think Jesus is still burning in hell today? I thought he was resurrected!

 

[tim-from-pa]

I'm sorry, but that can't be. Jesus told two of His disciples that they would also drink of the SAME cup He was to drink of. ( Matthew 20:23 and Mark 10:39 )

They did. They suffered and died, just not for the sins of mankind, but for the Kingdom of God. Reminds me of being baptized into his death. I just got a little detailed explaining the reason why Jesus died. But after he took that cup, we know what happened next, and that was what it was about -- simple as that.

 

[Willie T]

They did. They suffered and died, just not for the sins of mankind, but for the Kingdom of God. Reminds me of being baptized into his death. I just got a little detailed explaining the reason why Jesus died. But after he took that cup, we know what happened next, and that was what it was about -- simple as that.

Thanks for clearing that up. A lot of confusion can arise when we fail to be a bit more specific with our examples.

 

[FreeGrace]

First I wanted to answer the issue about when Jesus said to fear him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell ...... some people said that Jesus only said He is able to destroy body and soul, not that He will...He just wanted people to fear and respect God. So imagine this... Let's say there was a King who constantly arrested people and threw them into a dungeon and tortured them for the rest of their lives. However, there is one thing that he never did. He never fined anyone any amount of money. Now let's say that the King has a son and the son wanted people to fear his dad. So the son calls together a crowd and tells them this...."You people need to fear my dad the king because He is able to fine you 1000 dollars." Then the people say..."are you saying that your dad is actually going to start fining people?" and the son says "No, of course not, I just said he is able to." The people responded, "That is silly, if you really wanted to scare us, why didn't you just say fear the King because he actually does throw people into dungeons and torture them for the rest of their lives..... why threaten us with a lesser punishment that the King will never do when you could have threatened us with a far greater punishment that the King actually does?" And the son said " I don't know, I am new at this threatening gig...perhaps with a little more practice..."

The point of the story is obvious How does it make sense, if Jesus wants us to fear God, to threaten people with a lesser punishment that God supposedly never does when He could have just threatened them with a greater punishment which He supposedly does all the time?

The problem with your view is that by removing an eternal existence of torment, one removes any real fear of eternity, since there won't be any. Therefore, it would make no difference to those who reject the whole concept of heaven and hell as to how they might live. What's the difference? If they will cease to exist, then they have no real accountability.

There is no fear of the LoF is there is no LoF. Just what the devil would love for everyone to believe. No need to believe in Christ, who SAVES us from the LoF.

There is nothing to be saved from if there is no eternity.

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes, I understand that Thayer's Greek Lexicon has that possible meaning based on the two verses he referenced. And yes, he's not around anymore to discuss ("argue") his evidence both for/against that meaning in Matt 10:28 and/or James 4:12. It's not my goal to "argue" his meaning but rather to discuss the reasoning he used and the implications thereof. Which can be evaluated, even though he's not around to debate it further. There are several points of reason against his definition 1e given for the word "destroy" as used in Matt 10:28 and James 4:12. Here are some that I can think of. I just simply thought them through and thought it might be worth sharing with others in a post (since I documented it anyway). It's not necessary for you to consider these points but if you so desire and if you desire to provide any counter-arguments or point out errors in my thinking process here, I'd appreciate it.

1. Thayer's Greek Lexicon was published in 1890 without the aid of all the Greek language scholarship developed since then using the numerous Greek manuscripts found since then (some older than his and in better condition to the ones he had available). Plus the advent of computer technologies to accurately catalogue each and every usage and cognate of a word (no small or error proof job without a computer's help). Plus the well established 1st Century Jewish based hermeneutical principles (what did the writings mean to a 1st Century Jew, versus an 19th Century Englishman) have become recognized as utterly important since the late 1800's.

But my point here is that other, more modern, Greek Lexicons disagree with his 1e as a possible semantic range of meaning for the word itself:

Dodson dictionary
ἀπόλλυμι (Verb)

(a) I kill, destroy, (b) I lose, mid: I am perishing (the resultant death being viewed as certain).

From: Public Domain Greek-English lexicon by John Jeffrey Dodson (2010)
​

Or From Logos' dictionary:

ἀπόλλυμι
destroy, destroyed
perish, perished, perishes
lose, loses, losing
lost
die, dying
put to death
passing away​

2. Also with respect to thinking his possible meaning (1e) through, the idea that the word itself has a figurative definition is obviously wrong and contrived. No word has a "figurative or metaphorical definition" (except the words figurative and metaphorical, I suppose). On the contrary, it's usage within sentences and contexts establishes the word is being used figuratively or metaphorically. The context and usage determines whether (or not) any word (not just this one) is used in a figurative or metaphorical way, not the definition itself. Take the Greek word λόγος, Logos (word), for example. One of it's definitions is NOT logos = Jesus. But it's figurative usage sure is at numerous times (especially in John's writings). Greek to English Dictionaries (Lexicons) are supposed to define (by translation) Greek words, not interpret passages for us. And for "logos", they do just that. But Thayer stepped beyond the bounds of a definition into the area of interpretation by publishing 1e obviously.

3. Point 2 is why I pointed out that in James 4:12 it doesn't even mention Hell, yet Thayer includes "Hell" within his definition 1e for the word apolesai and references James 4:12 for his justification. That's ridiculous and obviously his personal interpretation of a post judgment place called Hell derived from other passages and other words. I happen to agree with him that after the GWTJ the lost are sent to Hell for "apolesai". But I don't get Hell from the meaning from that particular verse or from "apolesai"'s definition. The definition of apolesai is not a synonym for Hell (literally or figuratively) yet he has literally included Hell into his possible English definition of apolesai for these two verses. That's just plain wrong. Obviously so.

4. Also, do you think God is merely able to metaphorically (figuratively, so-to-speak) destroy souls in Hell but will not actually exercise His ability to metaphorically (figuratively) destroy souls in Hell? It seems one or the other options to reconcile Matt 10:28 with ECT is possible but not both of these at the same time.

It seems Thayer takes the figurative supposition of destroy into Matt 10:28 and/or James 4:12 but not the idle threat approach. Yet you mentioned that Matt 10:28 just says God's able to do that (literally destroy souls, as the text says) but will not ever follow through with that ability. Which is technically correct. That's what it says. He's able to. But the point is that Auburn is figuratively able to "destroy" LSU. A figurative ability to "destroy" anyone is nothing special. We all can do that.

So which is your view, 1 or 2 (you've mentioned both)?

1) A figurative definition of apolesai?
or
2) an idle threat of a literal definition of apolesai?
or
3) both 1) and 2) i.e. an idle threat of a figurative definition?
or
4) Jesus' literal command to literally fear the literal God who is literally able to literally destroy literal souls in the literal future in a literal place called Hell (Gehenna)?​

I see no reason to answer anything other than 4). But then again, I don't believe in the Eternal torment of lost people's bodies or their souls in Gehenna. Why? Because they don't have the gift of Eternal Life or posses immortality naturally within either their bodies or their souls or a combination of both. Both are derived from God and sustained by God as all things created are.

So, all of that to claim that there is no eternity for nonbelievers? If that were so, why should or would anyone need to believe in Christ? And what exactly did Christ die on the cross for? Save us from WHAT, exactly?

If He died to save us from ceasing to exist, what's the point? If we just cease to exist, then it doesn't matter how we live or what we believe.

Your view really abuses the whole message of the gospel.

So, please tell me what the demon possessed girl meant by following Paul and company and shouting "these men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved"?

Saved from WHAT, exactly?

Why would being saved from nothingness be a big deal?

I just don't get your view.

 

[FreeGrace]

Question: if you believe eternal conscious torment is the penalty for finite sins, then maybe you can explain to the entire board why you think Jesus is still burning in hell today? I thought he was resurrected!

You're wrong on both counts. I don't believe anyone is in torment for the penalty for their sins. That's WHY Christ died for all sins. Why do you believe that He didn't? Scripture is very clear on this.

Second, I have no idea where you got the idea that I think that Jesus is still buring in hell? That's just silly. He NEVER "burned in hell", to use your phrase. Apparently you are unfamiliar with what spiritual death means. During the time on the cross, when it went all dark outside, Jesus was being forsaken by His Father, the ONLY time in all eternity where the Second Person of the Trinity was actually separated from the Father and Spirit. That's spiritual death, and WHEN Christ was paying for all the sins of humanity. It didn't require Him to be in hell to pay for them. Another erroneous assumption.

The LoF was created for the devil and his angels. And God will cast all humans who rejected the free gift of eternal life into it as well.

 

[Willie T]

You're wrong on both counts. I don't believe anyone is in torment for the penalty for their sins. That's WHY Christ died for all sins. Why do you believe that He didn't? Scripture is very clear on this.

Second, I have no idea where you got the idea that I think that Jesus is still buring in hell? That's just silly. He NEVER "burned in hell", to use your phrase. Apparently you are unfamiliar with what spiritual death means. During the time on the cross, when it went all dark outside, Jesus was being forsaken by His Father, the ONLY time in all eternity where the Second Person of the Trinity was actually separated from the Father and Spirit. That's spiritual death, and WHEN Christ was paying for all the sins of humanity. It didn't require Him to be in hell to pay for them. Another erroneous assumption.

The LoF was created for the devil and his angels. And God will cast all humans who rejected the free gift of eternal life into it as well.

Unfortunately for such an idea, the Bible all too clearly tells us that God never left Jesus... not even for a second.

 

[turnorburn]

A 9 year old girl in a church in Texas knew what was in that cup when the Pastor asked his church.. why is it so difficult for adults to see?



tob

 

[turnorburn]

It is my opinion that the church has wandered far afield from the church she once was.. in these last days there are more than a few doctrines that swerve completely off the beaten path the path that Christ trod.

tob

 

[tim-from-pa]

You're wrong on both counts. I don't believe anyone is in torment for the penalty for their sins. That's WHY Christ died for all sins. Why do you believe that He didn't? Scripture is very clear on this.

Second, I have no idea where you got the idea that I think that Jesus is still buring in hell? That's just silly. He NEVER "burned in hell", to use your phrase. Apparently you are unfamiliar with what spiritual death means. During the time on the cross, when it went all dark outside, Jesus was being forsaken by His Father, the ONLY time in all eternity where the Second Person of the Trinity was actually separated from the Father and Spirit. That's spiritual death, and WHEN Christ was paying for all the sins of humanity. It didn't require Him to be in hell to pay for them. Another erroneous assumption.

The LoF was created for the devil and his angels. And God will cast all humans who rejected the free gift of eternal life into it as well.

Where I got the idea that you believe Jesus is in hell is because if that's the price for sin is to burn for eternity, then Jesus must be there yet in order for the price to be paid of all those sins of mankind.

 

[chessman]

I had this question for you WRT the meaning of destroy in MATT 10:28 (the point of my post)

So which is your view, 1 or 2 (you've mentioned both)?

1) A figurative definition of apolesai?
or
2) an idle threat of a literal definition of apolesai?​

You didn't answer.

So, all of that to claim that there is no eternity for nonbelievers?

my post was about the best logical definition of "destroy" in Matt 10:28. Not so much about my views of the fate of un-believers or my view of the Gospel. My only claim about the un-beleivers' fate is the same as yours, they don't have the gift of Eternal Life but rather their fate is The Second Death. A Second Death that's more (not less) fearful than their 1st death.

...no eternity for nonbelievers? If that were so, why should or would anyone need to believe in Christ?

To receive Eternal Life, that's why.

And what exactly did Christ die on the cross for? Save us from WHAT, exactly?

To save us from The Second Death, the LoF, Eternal destruction of the body and soul forever, the punishment for sin. Same answer as you give, right?

If He died to save us from ceasing to exist, what's the point? If we just cease to exist, then it doesn't matter how we live or what we believe.

Doesn't matter to who? It most certainly matters to humans. In fact, it's a life or death matter. And it most certainly matters to God, too. It's the whole reason for creation (to glorify His Son through by the saving of those destined for Eternal Life from those destined for The Second Death). I don't see how you think I've implied His death doesn't matter. For goodness sake, He died so that we can live eternally with Him. That's a lot of mattering.

Your view really abuses the whole message of the gospel.
...
I just don't get your view.

I think I see the problem here. In one breath you say that you don't get my view, then in the next say my view is an abuse to the whole Gospel. Which is it? You don't get my view or it's an abuse? It can't be both.

So, please tell me what the demon possessed girl meant by following Paul and company and shouting "these men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved"?
Saved from WHAT, exactly?

The Second Death, the Lake of Fire, Eternal Destruction of both the body and the soul. That's what we have been saved from, right?

Why would being saved from nothingness be a big deal?

It's not my view that people are saved from nothingness nor have I said so.

You're right, I think, you just don't get my view. But regardless all this is off-topic to my question about how your two different posted views of Matt 10:28's "destroy" the body and soul seem to conflict with each other and neither view makes much sense of the text of Matt 10:28. Is it a metaphorical destruction of the body and the soul that Jesus says fear or is it a command to fear something God will never actually (literally) do.

Which is it on your view?

 

[JLB]

Unfortunately for such an idea, the Bible all too clearly tells us that God never left Jesus... not even for a second.

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

 

[JLB]

It is my opinion that the church has wandered far afield from the church she once was.. in these last days there are more than a few doctrines that swerve completely off the beaten path the path that Christ trod.

tob

:amen

 

[Drew]

There are. Start with John 3:16. Jesus said perish. What is that but destruction of the person, as that is the intrinsic definition of perish?

Paul, as does the Old Testament, says that the penalty of sin is death. Again, that's the intrinsic definition of death ie to no longer be.

How will that come about? The Bible answers that in the book of Revelation. It is brought by the second death, destruction by fire. Destruction by fire and perishing and annihilate are synonymous. They all mean the same thing. But if you don't like the word annihilate, then let's just call it the second death.

Well I am back. I hope the discussion will focus around the texts and exegesis, and that we can leave statements like "Satan loves it when people deny eternal torment" out - such statements are not helpful. Of course, this comment is in no way directed at you (time-from-pa).

I entirely agree with you (I think) - unless there are really compelling arguments to the contrary, we should read "perish" and "death" as what these terms mean by definition - end of life. I cannot emphasize enough how odd it is to take a concept like "death" and transmute it into a notion that is all about life - we would never get away with such a move in other domains. I would really like to know the actual justification for taking a concept like "death" and morphing into a concept that is actually all about conscious life.

 

[Drew]

I'm thinking that's why the annihilation cult got started..tob

This is the problem with these forums - people are allowed to engage in this style of combative rhetoric. Look: I, and I believe others, are making (and will make) arguments that are grounded in logic and the scriptures. To suggest that we belong to a cult is to take the low road that is so often taken in these forums, namely to try to win the argument through demonizing one's opponent. And the word "cult" is a demonizing term; I assure that I am not a member of any cult. Let's discuss the texts, and how they should be properly understood given the cultural matrix from which they arise.