Annihilation

[Drew]

I have not had the opportunity to delve into the arguments of this debate. I hope that I am correct in discerning that the whole issue of the relationship of "soul" to body is relevant to coming to a position on the matter of annihilation.

I know much less about the Bible than many of the contributors. However, I do have "non-Biblical" reasons for being skeptical about the existence of an immaterial soul. I have expressed these in past discussions and have not received much response (perhaps it is considered that arguments not specifically grounded in the scriptures are of little value?).

In any event, I will repeat my basic problem with the immaterial soul. It is the "interaction" problem - how can a non-physical soul animate a physical body? How can something utterly non-physical "cross over" into the physical domain and act causally? The whole idea seems incoherent (and I believe this is why the whole idea of an immaterial soul has fallen into some disrepute in philosophical academia).

So I am leaning towards thinking of the soul as "phenomena" rather than a "thing". When brains operate, the manifold of conscious experiences that result is the soul. This is not to take a position that "its over when we die". Very loosely, God "stores" knowledge of our physical state and re-constitutes us physically at the time of the general resurrection. In short, there is no soul without a body (in my opinion).

But getting back to some of the Biblical stuff:

Matt 10:28 seems to draw a very strong distinction between soul and body. A supporter of the "immaterial soul" argument may well say that this text clearly shows how a soul can live in the absence of a living body. However, I submit the following possibility for consideration: a human can kill another human but not ultimately kill their soul, even though the soul is (on my view) "phenomenology" of the physical.

Here is how this could work: When A is killed by B, A's soul disappears (on my understanding that soul is "phenomenology" of the physical). However, God somehow has stored knowledge of A's body and is eventually able to reconstitute him physically - and his soul then reappears. So B can can "kill the body but not the soul" as per the verse. On the other hand, God can effectively kill both by electing not to reconstitute A at the time of resurrection, effectively annihilating him.

My assertion is, therefore, that Matt 10:28 can be consistent with both a "no immaterial soul separate from the body" position and an "annihilationist" position, both of which I am presently inclined to accept.

 

[guibox]

Excellent observations, Drew and something worth pondering.

The other strange thing with fundamentalists is that they say, "Well, yes it says that God CAN kill the soul, but He won't."

:-?

Great God we have. That's like us takingour worst enemy who is on fire and me standing with the water bucket and doing nothing but maybe taking a drink out of it. "Sorry. You've got to burn down. Why should I put you out?"

Why...mercy, love. Things that our God is.

Matthew 28 is telling us just what Drew said. God will restore us in resurrection to glorification. He will not do the same with the wicked after the lake of fire. He has effectively destroyed their 'soul' (life)

That is why Christ came to save us...from death. When we sinned, we were dying. He came to save us from that death. Romans 6:23 bears this out. 'death' and 'life' are contrasted OC. You cannot make 'death' contrasted to 'eternal life' MEAN eternal life. For that is what conscious torment for eternity IS: ETERNAL LIFE.

I didn't make it so, as you fallaciously indicate- I just pointed out the words of Christ, which you are laboring feverishly to contextualize..

My dear OC. The bible is explained through cross referencing. The terms 'destroy', 'death' 'perishing', 'condemnation', 'damnation' and 'destruction' are all used interchangeably. We must get all nuances of the word and in what context they are being used to explain away any ambiguity that may occur.

The punishment of the wicked is also described as 'everlastin destruction'. Now please explain to me how 'destruction' a process, can be continually ongoing? I did a word study like I did with 'destroy' (did you at least look at that earlier on in this thread, OC?).

You know what I found?

In all the instances where 'destruction' was used to describe the fate of the wicked EVERY word that meant literally to 'destroy' was used, including the above example.

Now we take that meaning and correlate it with the rest. 'death', 'destroy' 'contempt' 'damnation' - they all mean the same thing, OC

Therefore, when we CAN explain language like Revelation 14 with Isaiah 34 and 'unquenchable fire' with Jeremiah, we see that the bible supports annihilation.

You cannot bury your head in the sand and ignore that the bible DOES explain itself and we are merely not pulling this out of the air because we do not like the concept of God torturing His children for trillions of years with burning fire (though the moral argument alone should make us dismiss it)

One needn't look where the SDA cult points us to buttress their soul sleep heresy. Look unto the Greek term used, and you will understand the meaning..

The Greek and Hebrew usage of the 'soul' does not imply some ethereal immortal substance that survives death. You will not even see Paul use the words together.

Enlighten us then, please. And show us the context the Greek is used.

A fire that cannot be put out will do its work uninterrupted...In other words it will destroy COMPLETELY. This same analogy used in Isaiah 66:24, last verse, about the 'worms dying not' is the same thing. Worms will eat their corpses until they are GONE.

A worm that does not die is an idiom for a decay that is without end. You insert and end where one is denied.

Do you really understand what you are saying here? First of all, how in the world can you have 'decay' without end? Second, decay means corpses or 'non living things' as Isaiah 66:24 rightly points out, and not active torment by fire. You ignore the finality of the worm's work. A worm that cannot die means that it will do its work COMPLETELY. A worm's job is to eat bodies. Once that body is COMPLETELY gone, the worm is finished. You miss the obvious symbolism here, OC

No, that's absolute nonsense. There is nowhere in the universe where God's presence is not, and there is barely a corner of this galaxy where sin is not felt and experienced.?

Oh? Then please explain why the wicked are destroyed by the brightness of Christ's coming and the righteous are not? Explain why God never revealed Himself fully in all His glory to Moses and the Israelites.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

That is why Christ came to save us...from death. When we sinned, we were dying. He came to save us from that death. Romans 6:23 bears this out. 'death' and 'life' are contrasted OC. You cannot make 'death' contrasted to 'eternal life' MEAN eternal life. For that is what conscious torment for eternity IS: ETERNAL LIFE.

I didn't make it so, as you fallaciously indicate- I just pointed out the words of Christ, which you are laboring feverishly to contextualize..

My dear OC. The bible is explained through cross referencing. The terms 'destroy', 'death' 'perishing', 'condemnation', 'damnation' and 'destruction' are all used interchangeably. We must get all nuances of the word and in what context they are being used to explain away any ambiguity that may occur.

eternal life and eternal punishment resulting from the Great Judgement are not in any manner ambiguous, unclear, or controversial.

The punishment of the wicked is also described as 'everlastin destruction'. Now please explain to me how 'destruction' a process, can be continually ongoing? I did a word study like I did with 'destroy' (did you at least look at that earlier on in this thread, OC?).

I read the earlier part of this thread. Destruction is an issue I did not respond to, and do not plan on doing so at this juncture, for one point followed to completion is better than 15 trailing off into nowhere. I hope you agree.

You know what I found?

In all the instances where 'destruction' was used to describe the fate of the wicked EVERY word that meant literally to 'destroy' was used, including the above example.

Now we take that meaning and correlate it with the rest. 'death', 'destroy' 'contempt' 'damnation' - they all mean the same thing, OC

Therefore, when we CAN explain language like Revelation 14 with Isaiah 34 and 'unquenchable fire' with Jeremiah, we see that the bible supports annihilation.

I'm certain that I can make a good argument for just about any position that's out there based upon scripture- after all, most of these theological positions have at least some scriptural basis. The real problem begins when
1. The plain words of Christ are denied
2. The literal- for example, "this is my Body" is contextualized and allegorized
3. Humanistic reasoning is applied to scripture, which was not written in the post-Enlightenment era

You cannot bury your head in the sand and ignore that the bible DOES explain itself and we are merely not pulling this out of the air because we do not like the concept of God torturing His children for trillions of years with burning fire (though the moral argument alone should make us dismiss it)

I don't know how much clearer I have to make this
1. It is not God who need be the actor in the torment- I explained this in my last post, and used the three youths as an example
2. Trillions of years means nothing in the eternal realm. trillions of years is the same as one day there.
3. Emotional arguments about what God would and would not do are entirely presumptive.

One needn't look where the SDA cult points us to buttress their soul sleep heresy. Look unto the Greek term used, and you will understand the meaning..

The Greek and Hebrew usage of the 'soul' does not imply some ethereal immortal substance that survives death. You will not even see Paul use the words together.

Enlighten us then, please. And show us the context the Greek is used

.
I've already been over this with you. Read the last verse of Matthew 25 in Greek. Use a lexicon, if you need to. The meaning is crystal clear.
That chapter makes all the apostates made because it indicates the following:
1. It ain't just about faith. What we do matters
2. Like it or not, and I don't, not everybody is going to be saved.
3. Eternal kolasis- punishment- is everlasting

God has stated that it is His will that NONE perish. Those who perish will not do so just because they reject the Jesus that Fundies present- I would too- but because they reject who Christ is now, and they will then. There are many who think they are 'saved' who will find themselves dealing with a God who they do not like, because He is not a tame lion.

A fire that cannot be put out will do its work uninterrupted...In other words it will destroy COMPLETELY. This same analogy used in Isaiah 66:24, last verse, about the 'worms dying not' is the same thing. Worms will eat their corpses until they are GONE.

A worm that does not die is an idiom for a decay that is without end. You insert and end where one is denied.

Do you really understand what you are saying here? First of all, how in the world can you have 'decay' without end? Second, decay means corpses or 'non living things' as Isaiah 66:24 rightly points out, and not active torment by fire. You ignore the finality of the worm's work. A worm that cannot die means that it will do its work COMPLETELY. A worm's job is to eat bodies. Once that body is COMPLETELY gone, the worm is finished. You miss the obvious symbolism here, OC

You recall that Christ quoted that passage from Isaiah? Here's how He prefaces hisquotation:

For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

You should recognize that from the Matthew 25 discourse. Same concept: reward vs punishment, if/then, action/consequence.

Many think of this as "I steal the cookie, my hand gets slapped." That is because they are foolish children with no wisdom at all. The concern is in what is going on in the spirit of the man who wants to steal the cookie, and how his action reinforces the evil in him.

No, that's absolute nonsense. There is nowhere in the universe where God's presence is not, and there is barely a corner of this galaxy where sin is not felt and experienced.?

Oh? Then please explain why the wicked are destroyed by the brightness of Christ's coming and the righteous are not? Explain why God never revealed Himself fully in all His glory to Moses and the Israelites.

I've already explained this, in brief, on this very thread, and repeated it:

Even the torment of God is not a torment, for in Him there is no shadow or turning. No, we shall live in His presence, and for those who love Him, the fire will not burn. For those who hate Him, even His love shall be a burning indignation. At some point in time, it may be that such will cease to exist, as we understand existence. Why? Because "in Him we live and move and have our being." When we are not in Him, we have not being.

Do you think He changes according to what we do? He is what He is. He is, however, different in our hearts- look how He appears to this servant:

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

Ahh, but is He a hard man? Only to the wicked. It has been written that seeing is believing, but this is false. Rather, believing is seeing. Think about that.
Regards
James

 

[SputnikBoy]

If literal, OC, what do you think torment - eternal or otherwise - will entail? Will it be constant prodding with a sharp instrument? continual flogging? perhaps being toasted on varying levels of racks like an oven - depending on the severity of one's 'wickedness'? What?

And, how much torment can one take before they eventually give out and die? After all, they are NOT immortal so they WILL die. Do you think the righteous saved - who have presumably been wringing their hands in glee watching the wicked get their just deserts - ever feel a sense of pity for them? Does God?

Or, might 'torment' - eternal or otherwise - have a different, a figurative connotation, do you think?

 

[Bubba]

These guys may be "Universalists" (I am not sure), but is there any truth in how they interpret the Greek in regards to Mt:25:46?
Beza

"Eternal" Punishment (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language.
By Tony Nungesser and Gary Amirault


"The entire concept of eternal or everlasting punishment hinges primarily on a single verse of Scripture--Matthew 25:46. This is the only place in the entire Bible where we find these two words together AND only in some Bibles. There are over a dozen English translations which do NOT contain the concept of "eternal punishment" on ANY of their pages, NOR the pagan concept of Hell.

The Greek form for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is "kolasin aionion." Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bare more fruit." "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion," in the singular form and means "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time." (Note: the two words in many, not all translations become reversed changing the Greek into English.)

"Aionion," as shown above, is the singular form of the adjective of the Greek noun "aion." Many people unfamiliar with the Greek do not realize that the endings of the same word change (inflection) to indicate its mood, case, gender, etc. Therefore, "aionion" may appear with different endings. "Aionion, aioniou, aionios," for example, are all different inflections of the adjective form of the noun "aion."

The noun "aion" in Greek literature has always meant "an indeterminate period of time. It could be as short as the time Jonah spent in the belly of a fish (three days or nights), the length of a man's life, or as long as a very long age.

The Bible speaks of at least 5 "aions" and perhaps many more. If there were "aions" in the past. This must mean that each one of them have ended for they are now past! The New Testament writers spoke of "the present wicked aion" which ended during that very generation. Obviously, it was followed by another "aion"-- the "aion" in which we presently live. If there are "aions" to come, it must mean that this one we live in will also end.

There is a verse which says "the consummation of the aions" showing that each "aion" ends. So how can they be eternal?

There is "the coming eon" (Matt.10:30, Luke 18:30
There is "the present wicked eon" (Gal.1:4)
There is "the oncoming eons (future)(Eph.2:7)
There is "the conclusion of the eon (present) (Mt.13:39,40)
There is "the secret concealed from the eons (past) (Eph.3:9)

Plainly, the Greek word "aion" transliterated "eon" cannot mean "eternal." A study into the Greek of the Biblical period and before will bear this out.

"Aionion" is the adjective of the noun "aion."

Since grammar rules mandate an adjective CANNOT take on a greater force than its noun form, it is evident that "aionion" in any of its adjective forms (ios, ou, on) CANNOT possible mean "everlasting" or anything remotely indicating eternity or unending time.

For example, "hourly" cannot mean "pertaining to days, weeks, months, or years. The word MUST mean "pertaining to an hour." Therefore, "aionion," the adjective form of the noun "aion" which clearly means a period of indeterminate TIME, CANNOT mean, "forever and ever, eternal, everlasting, eternity, etc) or other words which connote timelessness or unending ages.

Therefore, those many Bibles which do NOT contain the teaching of everlasting punishment or Hell are true to the original languages of Greek and Hebrew and those which teach everlasting punishment or Hell are false. Scholars are just as easily subjected to the "traditions of the elders" as the rest of us. It's time to let the original Greek and Hebrew languages of the Bible break down the traditions of men."

 

[SputnikBoy]

Very good, beza, and most thorough. You've certainly done your homework. I guess we could acknowledge innihilation of the wicked at this point and go home ...! :smt095

 

[Orthodox Christian]

If literal, OC, what do you think torment - eternal or otherwise - will entail? Will it be constant prodding with a sharp instrument? continual flogging? perhaps being toasted on varying levels of racks like an oven - depending on the severity of one's 'wickedness'? What?

And, how much torment can one take before they eventually give out and die? After all, they are NOT immortal so they WILL die. Do you think the righteous saved - who have presumably been wringing their hands in glee watching the wicked get their just deserts - ever feel a sense of pity for them? Does God?

Or, might 'torment' - eternal or otherwise - have a different, a figurative connotation, do you think?

SB, you still ow me an answer to my last question:

Now using your humanist frame of logic, let's hold God to another test: Why does He resurrect people just to kill them? How bizarre is that?

Regarding the poking, prodding and other human-type actions you (erroneously) attribute to God: I have stated repeatedly, and apparently have either not been understood or ignored by you, consider my last post:

God is not the actor in torment, it is hatred of Him that is. You will note that the three youths were cast into a fire that did not burn them or leave the smell of smoke, yet those who hated them and hated God were burned up.

God does not need prod or poke. His nature is unchanged and unmoved.

It has become quite clear that what I am saying here is not registering.

Regarding the righteous saved- of whom no man can state categorically that he is, only pray for God's mercy (Lord knows that will set someone off):
As I stated before, I iwsh it not so that anyone should suffer. I watch Judgement happening on this earth, however, as I see people who reject and resent the very help they need.

Does God pity the lost? Why don't you answer that, SB, the scripture is quite clear. Think of Jesus sitting outside Jerusalem. What is He doing as He describes the way they murder prophets?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

These guys may be "Universalists" (I am not sure), but is there any truth in how they interpret the Greek in regards to Mt:25:46?
Beza

"Eternal" Punishment (Matthew 25:46) is NOT True to the Greek Language.
By Tony Nungesser and Gary Amirault


"The entire concept of eternal or everlasting punishment hinges primarily on a single verse of Scripture--Matthew 25:46. This is the only place in the entire Bible where we find these two words together AND only in some Bibles. There are over a dozen English translations which do NOT contain the concept of "eternal punishment" on ANY of their pages, NOR the pagan concept of Hell.

The Greek form for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is "kolasin aionion." Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bare more fruit." "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion," in the singular form and means "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time." (Note: the two words in many, not all translations become reversed changing the Greek into English.)

"Aionion," as shown above, is the singular form of the adjective of the Greek noun "aion." Many people unfamiliar with the Greek do not realize that the endings of the same word change (inflection) to indicate its mood, case, gender, etc. Therefore, "aionion" may appear with different endings. "Aionion, aioniou, aionios," for example, are all different inflections of the adjective form of the noun "aion."

The noun "aion" in Greek literature has always meant "an indeterminate period of time. It could be as short as the time Jonah spent in the belly of a fish (three days or nights), the length of a man's life, or as long as a very long age.

The Bible speaks of at least 5 "aions" and perhaps many more. If there were "aions" in the past. This must mean that each one of them have ended for they are now past! The New Testament writers spoke of "the present wicked aion" which ended during that very generation. Obviously, it was followed by another "aion"-- the "aion" in which we presently live. If there are "aions" to come, it must mean that this one we live in will also end.

There is a verse which says "the consummation of the aions" showing that each "aion" ends. So how can they be eternal?

There is "the coming eon" (Matt.10:30, Luke 18:30
There is "the present wicked eon" (Gal.1:4)
There is "the oncoming eons (future)(Eph.2:7)
There is "the conclusion of the eon (present) (Mt.13:39,40)
There is "the secret concealed from the eons (past) (Eph.3:9)

Plainly, the Greek word "aion" transliterated "eon" cannot mean "eternal." A study into the Greek of the Biblical period and before will bear this out.

"Aionion" is the adjective of the noun "aion."

Since grammar rules mandate an adjective CANNOT take on a greater force than its noun form, it is evident that "aionion" in any of its adjective forms (ios, ou, on) CANNOT possible mean "everlasting" or anything remotely indicating eternity or unending time.

For example, "hourly" cannot mean "pertaining to days, weeks, months, or years. The word MUST mean "pertaining to an hour." Therefore, "aionion," the adjective form of the noun "aion" which clearly means a period of indeterminate TIME, CANNOT mean, "forever and ever, eternal, everlasting, eternity, etc) or other words which connote timelessness or unending ages.

Therefore, those many Bibles which do NOT contain the teaching of everlasting punishment or Hell are true to the original languages of Greek and Hebrew and those which teach everlasting punishment or Hell are false. Scholars are just as easily subjected to the "traditions of the elders" as the rest of us. It's time to let the original Greek and Hebrew languages of the Bible break down the traditions of men."

Unfortunately for the purveyors of this particular misinformation, translation is not simpy a matter of finding an explanation you would like out of the choices at hand. In other words, if you look at any word in any language, several possible meanings exist, depending on context and pretext.
So if you have several options, you cannot just pick according to your bias.

Speaking of bias and pretext: The very same term aionios is used for both eternal life and eternal punishment. The authors of this piece attempt to convince us that eternal punishment is not eternal. Therefore, neither is the eternal life. So, we have God giving us 'long life' like a Duracell battery.

I doan theenk so, senor.

Now let's get into some of the deeper chicanery

"The entire concept of eternal or everlasting punishment hinges primarily on a single verse of Scripture--Matthew 25:46.

Complete, bald-faced lie- but if it was true, then let's just toss out the words of Christ, eh? After all, there are some versions that don't contain this, according to the authors.
Oh, how people love their notion of truth over what is Truth.

watch:

There are over a dozen English translations which do NOT contain the concept of "eternal punishment" on ANY of their pages, NOR the pagan concept of Hell.

Note that editorial comment? A notion of an eternal hell is PAGAN.
In other words, it is one of those Hellenic devices.
Except Jesus deals with this in the stroy of Lazarus and the Rich man. "Oh," but they say "that's a parable." Really? Who says?

This prideful statement is my favorite:

It's time to let the original Greek and Hebrew languages of the Bible break down the traditions of men

I suppose it doesn't occur to these guys that the people who formulated the traditions they are rejecting actually spoke the language they are reading their culture and theological suppositions back into?

One thing is clear: These two are either arm-chair lexicon users, or they simply are relying on the general ignorance of their readers.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Re: salvation and end time

“I understand that most of your statement is couched so as to answer the soteriology and eschatology of the Evangelical Protestant.â€Â

Orthodox, what is your soteriology and eschatology?

Eastern Orthodox

â€ÂEven the torment of God is not a torment, for in Him there is no shadow or turning. No, we shall live in His presence, and for those who love Him, the fire will not burn. For those who hate Him, even His love shall be a burning indignation. At some point in time, it may be that such will cease to exist, as we understand existence. Why? Because "in Him we live and move and have our being." When we are not in Him, we have not being.â€Â

This statement for the most part I agree with. I believe there will be a limited amount of punishment for the individual and then they will cease to exist.

Do you agree with my assessment of God's nature and action in this darma, or do you simply agree with a variation on the results I suggested?
BTW, the results I suggest can be found in the conclusion of CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce."
I highly recommend the book.

 

[SputnikBoy]

SB, you still ow me an answer to my last question:

Now using your humanist frame of logic, let's hold God to another test: Why does He resurrect people just to kill them? How bizarre is that?

It's late over here (down under) so I'll just respond to your early question. As far as my humanistic frame of logic tells me, God will resurrect people as an act of justice. Before they ARE annihilated they will know the reason WHY they were not among the saved. No one - the saved or the unsaved - will be in ignorance as to why some didn't make it. That's as far as my thinking takes me on that question.

 

[Bubba]

Orthodox, you have made some good observations in the article I found, that I didn’t think fully through. Hopefully, those who contribute to this forum setting, also learn as they go.

“Even the torment of God is not a torment, for in Him there is no shadow or turning. No, we shall live in His presence, and for those who love Him, the fire will not burn. For those who hate Him, even His love shall be a burning indignation. At some point in time, it may be that such will cease to exist, as we understand existence. Why? Because "in Him we live and move and have our being." When we are not in Him, we have not being.â€Â

In respect to your paragraph, I agree with the general idea that you present in the beginning as well as the end. I would only add that the verse you quote is in regards to the believer as God’s new creation and the reprobate can not experience this union that the Christian has even now, much less the future. Considering that God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:10) and that for of Him and through Him and to Him are all things (Rom.11:36), even the reprobate has a part in God’s plan (Prov.16:4), such is God’s sovereignty, which C.S. Lewis doesn’t address in “The Great Divorceâ€Â, though it has been many years, since I read it.

Now with the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, do you not consider that the whole of the chapter including the first part of Luke 17 is directed solely at the Pharisees who were lovers of money (16:14) and took great pride in their supposed ethnic and religious heritage. Could not the emphasis of the story be that the Pharisee represented the Jews who believed to be of Abraham’s Seed and Lazarus represents the Gentile who actually were (Rom.2:21-22, Rom. 9:6-8). The emphasis was not the place of dead, but of who actually belongs to the Kingdom. If one does believe this story to be literal how does he deal with these issues:
1 Did you ever wonder how the rich man from his location in Hades could look over and see Lazarus in “Abraham’s bosom�
2. And what kind of comfort would anyone find in “Abraham’s bosom†if they could simply look far away and see others suffering in flames?
3 Then do you really think those in hell, or Hades, would be talking to “Father Abraham�
4. And why do you think the story has the richman addressing Abraham instead of God?
5. And would a “wicked†man even be concerned about his brothers?
Beza

 

[guibox]

The whole Rich Man and Lazarus has been shown to have gross inconsistencies in a literal interpretation, never mind that it is NOT speaking of the final fate of the wicked but Hades.

Hades is not Gehenna of which we get our 'eternal torment in fires'.

However, the midieval church and all it's spawn after it took the english 'hell' and lumped three different Greek and Hebrew words and made it all one.

Hence we now have the idea that 'the wicked man dies and goes to hell where Satan and his demons reside and they are tormented by eternal fire throughout eternity'

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Perhaps if OC's Orthodox and Catholic brethren had followed his own advice, we wouldn't be arguing about a concept that makes God a keep of an eternal Auschwitz.

Again, OC, you will have to prove that the wicked ARE immortal and that they have 'eternal life'. All your arguments hinge on the 'immortal soul' concept.

As for the question, 'why does God resurrect them to kill them again?' Sputnik pretty much said it. The wicked are already destroyed at Christ's second coming automatically by 'the brightness of His coming'. What about the wicked dead that are still sleeping in their graves? They haven't had a chance to see why they're fate has been sealed. Hence for justice's sake, they must be resurrected to face judgement.

The question still remains whether they are resurrected to be burnt forever or whether they are resurrected to be destroyed.

You still haven't addressed the biblical reasoning of the biblical language used and their obvious scripture references.

Is it alot easier to ignore the explanations the bible gives and believe your tradition? Do you so desperately want to make God to be a demon from hell that you ignore a rational explanation from the Bible for it's ambiguous english?

 

[Bubba]

Orthodox, do you really believe that a person can not know that they are saved? You are the second Eastern Orthodox person I have heard this from, is it part of the Eastern Orthodox position? I know this is a different topic then what we have been discussing here, send me a private message if you want.
Beza

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Hi: answers- as best as I can give- in red below:

Orthodox, you have made some good observations in the article I found, that I didn’t think fully through. Hopefully, those who contribute to this forum setting, also learn as they go.

“Even the torment of God is not a torment, for in Him there is no shadow or turning. No, we shall live in His presence, and for those who love Him, the fire will not burn. For those who hate Him, even His love shall be a burning indignation. At some point in time, it may be that such will cease to exist, as we understand existence. Why? Because "in Him we live and move and have our being." When we are not in Him, we have not being.â€Â

In respect to your paragraph, I agree with the general idea that you present in the beginning as well as the end. I would only add that the verse you quote is in regards to the believer as God’s new creation and the reprobate can not experience this union that the Christian has even now, much less the future. I think the reprobate fails to experience the truth that it's all God, that He fills and hoilds together everything that is. So they begin to 'unbecome' day by day through a life of sin and separation. Considering that God works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:10) and that for of Him and through Him and to Him are all things (Rom.11:36), even the reprobate has a part in God’s plan (Prov.16:4), such is God’s sovereignty, which C.S. Lewis doesn’t address in “The Great Divorceâ€Â, though it has been many years, since I read it.
One would not really see God as a positive actor in the Great Divorce, nor would one see much of how the reprobate taught those who repent. After all, the allegory really is about the consequence of sin. It's a philosophical allegory, more than theological in nature- though I belive Lewis proposed some very interesting possibilities in it. I think that the man who has been without hope and without faith, as Lewis was, and came to life in the grace of the glorious Trinity, as Lewis did, still can smell the smoke throughout their lives- I do.


Now with the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, do you not consider that the whole of the chapter including the first part of Luke 17 is directed solely at the Pharisees who were lovers of money (16:14) and took great pride in their supposed ethnic and religious heritage. Could not the emphasis of the story be that the Pharisee represented the Jews who believed to be of Abraham’s Seed and Lazarus represents the Gentile who actually were (Rom.2:21-22, Rom. 9:6-8). The emphasis was not the place of dead, but of who actually belongs to the Kingdom. If one does believe this story to be literal how does he deal with these issues:
Let me put it this way: I tend to be more Antiochan than Alexandrian in my reading of scripture. Nonetheless, one can find some very fruitful allegories and types in scripture, to be certain.

I think there are three points of extreme import in the story about Lazaros and the Rich Man was resurrection. Listen to what happens: Abraham tells the Rich Man

If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

And of course, this was exactly what happened: someone- or rather SOMEONE rose from the dead, and they did not believe.
Second point is the curse of unshared wealth, a theme which James expounds on in his universal letter.
The third point is that which prefaces the story: The Pharisees were trying to justify themselves.
Now, I don't believe for one second that Christ was using this story to teach about the afterlife. On the other hand, I don't believe either that He would concoct a story which contains immortal souls and present suffering if it were not the case. The symbolism and belief about life after death were very present in Jewish apocalyptic literature, most notably the Book of Enoch. Contrary to SDA apologists, the Christian notion of afterlife is NOT pagan in origin, but is derived from the Jewish apocalyptic tradition.
The Pharisees taught it, and I can prove this, if necessary.

1 Did you ever wonder how the rich man from his location in Hades could look over and see Lazarus in “Abraham’s bosom� I imagine that space, since it is directly linked to time, has as much meaning (none) to those in eternity as does time.
2. And what kind of comfort would anyone find in “Abraham’s bosom†if they could simply look far away and see others suffering in flames? One of the oddities about existence is that contrast is what creates vision. I can be grateful because I have suffered. I expect that the 'comfort' gained is in the knowledge that Lazaros had that he could have suffered likewise, had he not been alowed to suffer in life. I highly doubt he is comforted by the suffering of the Rich Man.
3 Then do you really think those in hell, or Hades, would be talking to “Father Abraham� Why not? Abraham burns at 40 watts, God at the colume of the sun. The damned probably cannot even discern the Son in His brightness. Besides, it is only Protestants who, believing that there is an immortal soul, nevertheless believe that the heroes of faith cannot hear us. They fear the implicit and pronounced Catholicism of it all.4. And why do you think the story has the rich man addressing Abraham instead of God? see above
5. And would a “wicked†man even be concerned about his brothers?
Beza

For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

 

[Bubba]

Orthodox, I am not an SDA, I am of the Reform Tradition and I do not believe in Soul Sleep for the believer. I do believe that the lost are kept in some type of stupor or soul sleep until the last day. I believe they will receive some sort of punishment (Rich Man) and then annihilated for eternity. I like you, believe most of the Revelation was fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem, so my eschatology is amillennial, partial preterist. One of the struggles I have been burden with, is that the reprobate, would spend eternity in hell in torment. Since I believe in double predestination, the whole idea that God would purpose to create individuals, with no hope for redemption (Rev.13:8, 17:8, 1Peter2:8) only to cast them into torment for eternity seem vile. Thus, my gravity towards annihilation, which I believe, if the traditionalist was honest, he would at least agree that Scripture gives this view validity (excluding the few verses that seem to say differently).

Beza

 

[guibox]

Now, I don't believe for one second that Christ was using this story to teach about the afterlife. On the other hand, I don't believe either that He would concoct a story which contains immortal souls and present suffering if it were not the case. The symbolism and belief about life after death were very present in Jewish apocalyptic literature, most notably the Book of Enoch. Contrary to SDA apologists, the Christian notion of afterlife is NOT pagan in origin, but is derived from the Jewish apocalyptic tradition.
The Pharisees taught it, and I can prove this, if necessary.[/color]

Okay, first you need to get off the 'anti'SDA' kick. It is not merely SDAs who believe such things.

Second, you don't think the Hellenistic Jews who were ruled by the Grecian Empire weren't influenced by their beliefs? Especially when the Hebrew scriptures promote NO such thing? All of a sudden in the intertestamental literature (around the heyday of the Greek Empire) we have non-canon books popping up with references to Greek beliefs and the Jew never believed such things before?

Third, if Christ was preaching to the Pharisees don't you think he'd use their own beliefs against them? Doesn't Christ reach us where we are at? Notice the references to Abraham. They took great stock in their status and even creating foolish doctrines to support it (Where else in scripture is Abraham's bosom supported, OC?). Christ used their own beliefs against them. If you take all the parables as truth, Christ would have been promoting poor money management in one of the others.

The truth is NOT in the story but in the point.

Fourth, where, ANYWHERE is there a reference to an immortal soul here, OC? This is an assumption you make. Instead we see they have physical bodies and then at the end of the parable (as you pointed out) we see where exactly BOTH of them are "If one rose from the dead". Christ gave them personification for the sake of the story. Nowhere in the scriptures is support given for conscious life in Hades or Sheol that is not obviously metaphoric.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Orthodox, I am not an SDA, I am of the Reform Tradition and I do not believe in Soul Sleep for the believer. I do believe that the lost are kept in some type of stupor or soul sleep until the last day. I believe they will receive some sort of punishment (Rich Man) and then annihilated for eternity. I like you, believe most of the Revelation was fulfilled at the fall of Jerusalem, so my eschatology is amillennial, partial preterist. One of the struggles I have been burden with, is that the reprobate, would spend eternity in hell in torment. Since I believe in double predestination, the whole idea that God would purpose to create individuals, with no hope for redemption (Rev.13:8, 17:8, 1Peter2:8) only to cast them into torment for eternity seem vile. Thus, my gravity towards annihilation, which I believe, if the traditionalist was honest, he would at least agree that Scripture gives this view validity (excluding the few verses that seem to say differently).

Beza

Actually, sorry I wasn't clear, I did not mean to group you with the SDAs, I am merely noting that they have been fervent purveyors of the notion that eternal punishment is a pagan concept.

I am certainly not looking to pigeon hole you personally.

And, as I had mentioned, in some sense I see destruction in scripture, and I see torment. It therefore makes great sense that those who suffer punishment do so as a natural consequence of their deeds. Think about that term- natural consequence.

If God wills that all would be saved- and scripture says so explicitly- then why are they not? Because every act every day entails us either becoming or unbecoming. Man is either transformed into the image of the Son, or man becomes wraithlike, he unbecomes. At some point in time, I presume that such wraiths will, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist, like a light that dims. But their light really never goes out, it simply decreases by halves infinitely.

Now that is hell- becoming infinitely more self-absorbed and alone, weeping and gnashing in the outer darkness..

 

[kwag_myers]

Funny how you omitted the comment that I was addressing.

Let's review, SputnikBoy wrote: "...'perish' means 'cease to exist'"

My point is that it can mean eternal misery, too. SputnikBoy's assumption is based on a narrow view of the word. He says that it means this, I say, not necessarily

So when and how is 'perish' used to mean 'eternal misery'? Please find the Greek word to mean this and WHERE in the scriptures it is used. Keep in mind that this meaning also must coincide with the Greek word for 'death' used in Romans 6:23 as they are saying the same thing.

So, you have two things to figure out for us and post, please:

1) What is the word used for 'perish' that means 'eternal misery'
2) Where in the scriptures (in what context) is this specific word used?

Thanks

Once again, let me explain that I was pointing out SputnikBoy's comment was not properly studied. You cannot make the statement, "It means this..." when the possibility exists that it may not necessarily mean "this". Now you're asking me to do the same thing. I've just established to possibility that "perish" could mean "eternal misery". In the context of Revelation 20:10-15, the punishment is for ever and ever. If it were temporary, or finite for humans, it would say so.

But if you want it, I'll post it when I'm finished. Just remember, you asked for it.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Now, I don't believe for one second that Christ was using this story to teach about the afterlife. On the other hand, I don't believe either that He would concoct a story which contains immortal souls and present suffering if it were not the case. The symbolism and belief about life after death were very present in Jewish apocalyptic literature, most notably the Book of Enoch. Contrary to SDA apologists, the Christian notion of afterlife is NOT pagan in origin, but is derived from the Jewish apocalyptic tradition.
The Pharisees taught it, and I can prove this, if necessary.[/color]

Okay, first you need to get off the 'anti'SDA' kick. It is not merely SDAs who believe such things.

Have I misrepresented what SDAs believe? If so, please feel free to elaborate.

Second, you don't think the Hellenistic Jews who were ruled by the Grecian Empire weren't influenced by their beliefs? Especially when the Hebrew scriptures promote NO such thing? All of a sudden in the intertestamental literature (around the heyday of the Greek Empire) we have non-canon books popping up with references to Greek beliefs and the Jew never believed such things before?

Ah yes, the Hellenic putrefication of the pure Semitic root, which had been kept pure by all of its Egyptian, Babylonian, Chaldean, and Sumerian interactions, right? :roll: :roll:

Have you even studied the origins of Semitic myths and culture?


Regarding -"non-canonical"- according to whom?

Third, if Christ was preaching to the Pharisees don't you think he'd use their own beliefs against them? Doesn't Christ reach us where we are at? Notice the references to Abraham. They took great stock in their status and even creating foolish doctrines to support it (Where else in scripture is Abraham's bosom supported, OC?).

Thanks for asking. Do you even know what this means? To "be in Abraham's bosom" means to enjoy happiness and rest (Matthew 8:11; Luke 16:23) at the banquet in Paradise. Christ used this to compare the closeness of the beggar Lazarus to the distance of the Rich Man. One sees this sort of intimacy in ancient Semitic culture, where they reclined together on couches to eat. Note that John the beloved reclined at Christ's bosom.

"Abraham's bosom" was an expression in the oral traditions of the Jewish Rabbi's for the state of bliss after death. So you reject their tradition (the Rabbis) but accept their bible canon. How absolutely convenient and utterly inconsistent.

Christ used their own beliefs against them. If you take all the parables as truth, Christ would have been promoting poor money management in one of the others.

Who says this is a parable? Show me in scripture where it says so.

So your position is that this was Christ teaching a fallacy to make a point, but our beloved gospel writer doesn't take pains to correct any possible misperception, as in the manner that John did in verses 22 and 23, Chapter 21.

Fourth, where, ANYWHERE is there a reference to an immortal soul here, OC? This is an assumption you make. Instead we see they have physical bodies and then at the end of the parable (as you pointed out) we see where exactly BOTH of them are "If one rose from the dead". Christ gave them personification for the sake of the story. Nowhere in the scriptures is support given for conscious life in Hades or Sheol that is not obviously metaphoric.

The entire story is told past tense, just as was the scripture where Christ went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison.

There is no end to the literal scriptures that you will contextualize so as to defend soul sleep.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The whole Rich Man and Lazarus has been shown to have gross inconsistencies in a literal interpretation, never mind that it is NOT speaking of the final fate of the wicked but Hades.

Hades is not Gehenna of which we get our 'eternal torment in fires'.

However, the midieval church and all it's spawn after it took the english 'hell' and lumped three different Greek and Hebrew words and made it all one.

Quite irrelvant. I am not a subscriber to Medieval Western theology, nor do I rely on English translations to verify eschatology.

]Hence we now have the idea that 'the wicked man dies and goes to hell where Satan and his demons reside and they are tormented by eternal fire throughout eternity'

Try not to expunge this from your scripture, the loss associated with doing so is grievous:

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Perhaps if OC's Orthodox and Catholic brethren had followed his own advice, we wouldn't be arguing about a concept that makes God a keep of an eternal Auschwitz.

Oh this is grand: Argumentum ad Hitlerum.
Perhaps you've inserted a slight editorial into your statement there?

Again, OC, you will have to prove that the wicked ARE immortal and that they have 'eternal life'. All your arguments hinge on the 'immortal soul' concept.

They hinge on the words of Christ that you have rejected.

As for the question, 'why does God resurrect them to kill them again?' Sputnik pretty much said it. The wicked are already destroyed at Christ's second coming automatically by 'the brightness of His coming'. What about the wicked dead that are still sleeping in their graves? They haven't had a chance to see why they're fate has been sealed. Hence for justice's sake, they must be resurrected to face judgement.

The question still remains whether they are resurrected to be burnt forever or whether they are resurrected to be destroyed.

You still haven't addressed the biblical reasoning of the biblical language used and their obvious scripture references.

Is it alot easier to ignore the explanations the bible gives and believe your tradition? Do you so desperately want to make God to be a demon from hell that you ignore a rational explanation from the Bible for it's ambiguous english?

Apparently, in spite of my very clear statements about God not needing to be a positive actor in this drama, you insist that I make Him out to be a tormentor. If you were to consider what I have clearly articulated on this very thread, you could see that my position is that no one could accuse God of being cruel for simply being who He is.

Your emotional/humanist argument has a regression that you have not addressed:He made angels and Satan eternal, and they rebelled. Was He a cruel God for doing so?