Annihilationism, do the Wicked Perish?

[Alfred Persson]

Oh I can be persuaded by scripture and logical analysis, but I can't be persuaded by baseless assumption such as this silly one you made. Paul didn't identify that man nor specify third heaven, you're under your own illusion.

The Logic is elementary:

I went to New York
I went to NYC

Therefore, NYC is in New York.

Caught up to third heaven
Caught up to paradise

Therefore, paradise is in third heaven

 

[Alfred Persson]

No I don't. I believe in his dual nature as much as you do, it is taught in Rom. 1:1-4, but dual nature is NOT dual beings or dual persons, one goes to God the other goes to Hades. The Scripture is clear: "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father." (Jn. 20:17)

No, your concept of dual nature is odd and peculiar to you. Confusing persons with nature is at the base of your misunderstanding. I suggest a Christian book store or its internet equivalent, to learn what Christians believe about the dual natures of Jesus.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Oh I can be persuaded by scripture and logical analysis, but I can't be persuaded by baseless assumption such as this silly one you made. Paul didn't identify that man nor specify third heaven, you're under your own illusion.

The Logic is elementary:

I went to New York
I went to NYC
Therefore, NYC is in New York.

Caught up to third heaven
Caught up to paradise
Therefore, paradise is in third heaven
OR
Therefore, third heaven is paradise.

"Paradise" is either a "compartment in third heaven" or a "description of third heaven".

Either way, you lose.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The Logic is elementary:

I went to New York
I went to NYC
Therefore, NYC is in New York.

Caught up to third heaven
Caught up to paradise
Therefore, paradise is in third heaven
OR
Therefore, third heaven is paradise.

"Paradise" is either a "compartment in third heaven" or a "description of third heaven".

Either way, you lose.

This is not a piss contest, man. It ain't about win or lose. Your logic is utterly irrelevant because that man in 2 Corinthians 12:2 was NOT IDENTIFIED. There was no evidence to suggest this man was either the thief or Jesus, also, neither claimed they'd go to third heaven when they were both hung on the cross. Actually, following in your logic, third heaven should be a compartment of Hades, and that would be more aligned with the Scripture, but that was refuted, wasn't it.

 

[Alfred Persson]

This is not a piss contest, man. It ain't about win or lose. Your logic is utterly irrelevant because that man in 2 Corinthians 12:2 was NOT IDENTIFIED. There was no evidence to suggest this man was either the thief or Jesus, also, neither claimed they'd go to third heaven when they were both hung on the cross. Actually, following in your logic, third heaven should be a compartment of Hades, and that would be more aligned with the Scripture, but that was refuted, wasn't it.

You lost. The deduction is elementary. You won't make it because it doesn't agree with you.

As I said, I have no illusions scripture fact will sway you. You have your beliefs, and that is that. Like Pharoah, only worse.

****

The Logic is elementary:

I went to New York
I went to NYC
Therefore, NYC is in New York.

Caught up to third heaven
Caught up to paradise
Therefore, paradise is in third heaven
OR
Therefore, third heaven is paradise.

"Paradise" is either a "compartment in third heaven" or a "description of third heaven".

Either way, the logic is impeccable. Only someone like Pharoah would find it hard to accept.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You lost. The deduction is elementary. You won't make it because it doesn't agree with you.

As I said, I have no illusions scripture fact will sway you. You have your beliefs, and that is that. Like Pharoah, only worse.

****

The Logic is elementary:

I went to New York
I went to NYC
Therefore, NYC is in New York.

Caught up to third heaven
Caught up to paradise
Therefore, paradise is in third heaven
OR
Therefore, third heaven is paradise.

"Paradise" is either a "compartment in third heaven" or a "description of third heaven".

Either way, the logic is impeccable. Only someone like Pharoah would find it hard to accept.

WHO was caught up to third heaven, sir? WHO was that man Paul wrote about? If that was himself, what does that have to do with either the thief or Lord Jesus on the day of crucifixion? Your silly logic is irrelevant, you're making baseless assumptions.

 

[Alfred Persson]

WHO was caught up to third heaven, sir? WHO was that man Paul wrote about? If that was himself, what does that have to do with either the thief or Lord Jesus on the day of crucifixion? Your silly logic is irrelevant, you're making baseless assumptions.

Irrelevant and incompetent, that straw man's only purpose is to evade the logic:


The Logic is elementary:

I went to New York
I went to NYC
Therefore, NYC is in New York.

Caught up to third heaven
Caught up to paradise
Therefore, paradise is in third heaven
OR
Therefore, third heaven is paradise.

"Paradise" is either a "compartment in third heaven" or a "description of third heaven".

Either way, the logic is impeccable.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Irrelevant and incompetent, that straw man's only purpose is to evade the logic:


The Logic is elementary:

I went to New York
I went to NYC
Therefore, NYC is in New York.

Caught up to third heaven
Caught up to paradise
Therefore, paradise is in third heaven
OR
Therefore, third heaven is paradise.

"Paradise" is either a "compartment in third heaven" or a "description of third heaven".

Either way, the logic is impeccable.

Your silly logic is irrelevant, you're making baseless assumptions. Jesus was NOT "caught up to third heaven" that day, you're contradicting Jn. 20:17.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Your silly logic is irrelevant, you're making baseless assumptions. Jesus was NOT "caught up to third heaven" that day, you're contradicting Jn. 20:17.

Logic is never irrelevant, or silly. Its either "sound" or "unsound".

But straw men arguments are silly. Of course Christ wasn't "caught up to third heaven", He's omnipresent God the Son, never ceased being there. He was waiting for the thief, to welcome him after he died.

As for Jesus' human soul, that went to hades to preach to the spirits in prison. But its the "same Jesus" who does both. For us that would be impossible, but not for God the Son who is hypostatically subsisting in two natures, Omnipresent Spirit that is God, and incarnate human nature the "son of Man".

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Logic is never irrelevant, or silly. Its either "sound" or "unsound".

But straw men arguments are silly. Of course Christ wasn't "caught up to third heaven", He's omnipresent God the Son, never ceased being there. He was waiting for the thief, to welcome him after he died.

As for Jesus' human soul, that went to hades to preach to the spirits in prison. But its the "same Jesus" who does both. For us that would be impossible, but not for God the Son who is hypostatically subsisting in two natures, Omnipresent Spirit that is God, and incarnate human nature the "son of Man".

God the father, the son and the spirit are three distinct beings (or persons), you're conflating them as one. Jesus the Son is not Holy Spirit the comforter. Also, Jesus as God the Son is not omnipresent, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, that's why Jesus said he must leave for the Comforter to come.

 

[Alfred Persson]

God the father, the son and the spirit are three distinct beings (or persons), you're conflating them as one. Jesus the Son is not Holy Spirit the comforter. Also, Jesus as God the Son is not omnipresent, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, that's why Jesus said he must leave for the Comforter to come.

Cracker Jack box Trinitarianism? Who believes such odd ideas about the Holy Trinity. What denomination?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Cracker Jack box Trinitarianism? Who believes such odd ideas about the Holy Trinity. What denomination?

I'm not a fan of labels, including trinitarian.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I'm not a fan of labels, including trinitarian.

No one professes the Trinitarianism you describe. Its obvious you skimmed an article on the subject, and misunderstood even that minor treatment.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No one professes the Trinitarianism you describe. Its obvious you skimmed an article on the subject, and misunderstood even that minor treatment.

No one professes God the son as omnipresent. If that was true, then there'd be no need for any missionary work, no need to preach any gospel, no need to do anything since he's already "omnipresent".

 

[Alfred Persson]

No one professes God the son as omnipresent. If that was true, then there'd be no need for any missionary work, no need to preach any gospel, no need to do anything since he's already "omnipresent".

d. The deity of the Son. The deity of the Son was denied in the early Church by the Ebionites and the Alogi, and also by the dynamic Monarchians and the Arians. In the days of the Reformation the Socinians followed their example, and spoke of Jesus as a mere man. The same position is taken by Schleiermacher and Ritschl, by a host of liberal scholars, particularly in Germany, by the Unitarians, and by the Modernists and Humanists of the present day. This denial is possible only for those who disregard the teachings of Scripture, for the Bible contains an abundance of evidence for the deity of Christ.1 We find that Scripture (1) explicitly asserts the deity of the Son in such passages as John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Tit. 2:13; 1 John 5:20; (2) applies divine names to Him, Isa. 9:6; 40:3; Jer. 23:5, 6; Joel 2:32 (comp. Acts 2:21); 1 Tim. 3:16; (3) ascribes to Him divine attributes, such as eternal existence, Isa. 9:6; John 1:1, 2; Rev. 1:8; 22:13, omnipresence, Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13, omniscience, John 2:24, 25; 21:17; Rev. 2:23, omnipotence. Isa. 9:6; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 1:8, immutability, Heb. 1:10–12; 13:8, and in general every attribute belonging to the Father, Col. 2:9; (4) speaks of Him as doing divine works, as creation, John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10, providence, Luke 10:22; John 3:35; 17:2; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3, the forgiveness of sins, Matt. 9:2–7; Mark 2:7–10; Col. 3:13, resurrection and judgment, Matt. 25:31, 32; John 5:19–29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Phil. 3:21; 2 Tim. 4:1, the final dissolution and renewal of all things, Heb. 1:10–12; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 21:5, and (5) accords Him divine honour, John 5:22, 23; 14:1; 1 Cor. 15:19; 2 Cor. 13:13; Heb. 1:6; Matt. 28:19.

Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (pp. 94–95). Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

d. The deity of the Son. The deity of the Son was denied in the early Church by the Ebionites and the Alogi, and also by the dynamic Monarchians and the Arians. In the days of the Reformation the Socinians followed their example, and spoke of Jesus as a mere man. The same position is taken by Schleiermacher and Ritschl, by a host of liberal scholars, particularly in Germany, by the Unitarians, and by the Modernists and Humanists of the present day. This denial is possible only for those who disregard the teachings of Scripture, for the Bible contains an abundance of evidence for the deity of Christ.1 We find that Scripture (1) explicitly asserts the deity of the Son in such passages as John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Tit. 2:13; 1 John 5:20; (2) applies divine names to Him, Isa. 9:6; 40:3; Jer. 23:5, 6; Joel 2:32 (comp. Acts 2:21); 1 Tim. 3:16; (3) ascribes to Him divine attributes, such as eternal existence, Isa. 9:6; John 1:1, 2; Rev. 1:8; 22:13, omnipresence, Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13, omniscience, John 2:24, 25; 21:17; Rev. 2:23, omnipotence. Isa. 9:6; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 1:8, immutability, Heb. 1:10–12; 13:8, and in general every attribute belonging to the Father, Col. 2:9; (4) speaks of Him as doing divine works, as creation, John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10, providence, Luke 10:22; John 3:35; 17:2; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3, the forgiveness of sins, Matt. 9:2–7; Mark 2:7–10; Col. 3:13, resurrection and judgment, Matt. 25:31, 32; John 5:19–29; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Phil. 3:21; 2 Tim. 4:1, the final dissolution and renewal of all things, Heb. 1:10–12; Phil. 3:21; Rev. 21:5, and (5) accords Him divine honour, John 5:22, 23; 14:1; 1 Cor. 15:19; 2 Cor. 13:13; Heb. 1:6; Matt. 28:19.

Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (pp. 94–95). Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

Matt. 18:20 is talking about the body of Christ. The church is not a physical building, but the assembly of his people, two or three constitute an assembly, while he himself is in heaven seated at the right hand of the father; Matt. 28:20 is the Great Commission, the church hadn't even received the annointing of the Holy Spirit yet; Jn. 3:13 is about his heavenly origin and godly nature. None of these indicate "omnipresent".

 

[Alfred Persson]

Matt. 18:20 is talking about the body of Christ. The church is not a physical building, but the assembly of his people, two or three constitute an assembly, while he himself is in heaven seated at the right hand of the father; Matt. 28:20 is the Great Commission, the church hadn't even received the annointing of the Holy Spirit yet; Jn. 3:13 is about his heavenly origin and godly nature. None of these indicate "omnipresent".

"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20 NKJ)

Christ is anywhere two or three are gathered in His name = omnipresence.

You claimed "No one professes God the son as omnipresent."

Truth is the reverse:

Every major denomination (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) in Christendom professes God the Son is omnipresent.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Christ is anywhere two or three are gathered in His name = omnipresence.

Is a gathering of two or three in his name omnipresent? All over the earth? Like air? Are there two or three gathered with you in front of the screen? If you're alone, or the people around you are not "in his name", then you're making a false statement. "Where two or three are gathered together in My name" is a strict condition, whereas true "omnipresence" must be unconditional. This is the false doctrine of amillennialism.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Is a gathering of two or three omnipresent? All over the earth? Like air? This is the false doctrine of amillennialism.

Another red herring, this isn't about the "gathering" or "Amillennialism.

Christ is personally present everywhere two or three are gathered in His Name:

"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20 NKJ)

= omnipresence.

You claimed "No one professes God the son as omnipresent."

Truth is the reverse:

Every major denomination (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) in Christendom professes God the Son is omnipresent.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." (Matt. 18:20 NKJ)

= omnipresence.

False statement. "Where two or three are gathered together in My name" is a strict condition, only under this condition is the body of Christ present, that's not omnipresence.