Annihilationism, do the Wicked Perish?

[CherubRam]

Fundamentally, I agree. But in scripture the unsaved are "dead", only the saved are "alive". Notice these "corpses" continue to suffer the undying worm:

"And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." (Isa. 66:24 NKJ)

Given the context of Mark 9:42-48, this implies these particular "dead" still suffer. There is no point in causing pain to their bodies only, if the souls within them have ceased to exist.

But we agree, Gehenna could burn up a body instantly, and the soul within it cease to exist instantly. So, punishment in Gehenna would be according to works. Those guilty of eternal sin, suffer eternally. Those not, suffer as long as their payment for sin requires.

Perhaps as in this analogy:

25 "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26 "Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.
(Matt. 5:25-26 NKJ)

Have you given any thought to the word "parable.?"

Parables Proverbs Riddles Dreams Visions.

The bible often is written in a parable without giving any indication that it is parabolic.

Numbers 12:8
With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

Psalm 49:4
I will turn my ear to a proverb; with the harp I will expound my riddle:

Proverbs 1:6
for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise.

Daniel 5:12
He did this because Daniel, whom the king called Belteshazzar, was found to have a keen mind and knowledge and understanding, and also the ability to interpret dreams, explain riddles and solve difficult problems. Call for Daniel, and he will tell you what the writing means.”

Ezekiel 20:49
Then I said, “Sovereign LORD, they are saying of me, ‘Isn’t he just telling parables?’”

Hosea 12:10
I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them.”

Matthew 13:3
Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed.

Matthew 13:10
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

Matthew 13:13
This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Matthew 13:34
Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

Matthew 13:35
So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”

Psalm 78
2 I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter hidden things, things from of old...

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, it doesn't. I said it cannot be put out.

NKJV says "their fire is never quenched," anything else is just wild worthless speculation.

The English word is irrelevant. The Greek word aion is used of short periods of time.

You're redefining words. Neither the greek word nor the english word is a "short" period of time.

You've got it backwards. Revelation is the book of symbolism not Isaiah.

No, you've got it backwards. Why don't we just agree to disagree, you go believe in whatever you wanna believe, see whatever you wanna see.

No, it's not. It's a mistranslation as I've stated repeatedly. If Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles all speak of the end of the aion, then an aion can end. Thus there is no way that it can mean eternity. Instead of trying to mistranslate the word people should find a way to understand it so that it fits everywhere it's used.

No, it's not mistranslation, it's your denial.

 

[CherubRam]

Parables Proverbs Riddles Dreams Visions.

The bible often is written in a parable without giving any indication that it is parabolic.

Numbers 12:8
With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

Psalm 49:4
I will turn my ear to a proverb; with the harp I will expound my riddle:

Proverbs 1:6
for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise.

Daniel 5:12
He did this because Daniel, whom the king called Belteshazzar, was found to have a keen mind and knowledge and understanding, and also the ability to interpret dreams, explain riddles and solve difficult problems. Call for Daniel, and he will tell you what the writing means.”

Ezekiel 20:49
Then I said, “Sovereign LORD, they are saying of me, ‘Isn’t he just telling parables?’”

Hosea 12:10
I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them.”

Matthew 13:3
Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed.

Matthew 13:10
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

Matthew 13:13
This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Matthew 13:34
Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

Matthew 13:35
So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”

Psalm 78
2 I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter hidden things, things from of old...

 

[Alfred Persson]

Have you given any thought to the word "parable.?"

Parables Proverbs Riddles Dreams Visions.

The bible often is written in a parable without giving any indication that it is parabolic.

Numbers 12:8
With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

Psalm 49:4
I will turn my ear to a proverb; with the harp I will expound my riddle:

Proverbs 1:6
for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise.

Daniel 5:12
He did this because Daniel, whom the king called Belteshazzar, was found to have a keen mind and knowledge and understanding, and also the ability to interpret dreams, explain riddles and solve difficult problems. Call for Daniel, and he will tell you what the writing means.”

Ezekiel 20:49
Then I said, “Sovereign LORD, they are saying of me, ‘Isn’t he just telling parables?’”

Hosea 12:10
I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them.”

Matthew 13:3
Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed.

Matthew 13:10
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

Matthew 13:13
This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Matthew 13:34
Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

Matthew 13:35
So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world.”

Psalm 78
2 I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter hidden things, things from of old...

Yes, God has specially gifted me to understand them.

 

[reddogs]

Yes, God has specially gifted me to understand them.

Be careful who gives you this 'gift' as the devil has 'spirits' doing his work too...

 

[CherubRam]

Be careful who gives you this 'gift' as the devil has 'spirits' doing his work too...

I think people have a difficult time doing away with there traditions, even if it is based upon Paganism. Such as angels, Trinity, cross, church, Hades, Hell, and keeping the Sabbath.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Be careful who gives you this 'gift' as the devil has 'spirits' doing his work too...

You can be forgiven the blasphemy as I don't do signs and wonders (like Christ did) proving it is the Holy Spirit doing the work.

And, I don't claim to be inspired, I claim my mind has been opened to understand enigma, and parable. I still make mistakes and correct them when they are shown to me.

Two enigmas I have shed light on by the Holy Spirit's enabling:

Jesus’ Janus Parallelism on PETROS in Matthew 16:18 | End Time News

In Matthew 16 18 Simon Peter's name in Greek is Petros. According to Oscar Cullmann, Dalman, Billerbeck[1] to name a few, in Jesus' day there was in Aramaic a Jewish proper name[2] meaning "firstborn" that when transliterated into Greek is spelled petros. . According to Markus Bockmuehl its...

endtimenews.net

Adonikam is the Name of the Beast having 666 meaning | End Time News

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six (Rev. 13:18 KJV) Many insist we use Gematria (substituting letters for numbers) to solve the riddle of 666 meaning, although they cannot...

endtimenews.net

 

[Butch5]

Fundamentally, I agree. But in scripture the unsaved are "dead", only the saved are "alive". Notice these "corpses" continue to suffer the undying worm:

Dead and alive referring to being saved is a metaphor. The unsaved aren't literally dead.

"And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." (Isa. 66:24 NKJ)

Given the context of Mark 9:42-48, this implies these particular "dead" still suffer. There is no point in causing pain to their bodies only, if the souls within them have ceased to exist.

How dies it imply continued suffering when that's not possible?

The fire is ti dispose of the bodies.

But we agree, Gehenna could burn up a body instantly, and the soul within it cease to exist instantly. So, punishment in Gehenna would be according to works. Those guilty of eternal sin, suffer eternally. Those not, suffer as long as their payment for sin requires.

Perhaps as in this analogy:

25 "Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26 "Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.
(Matt. 5:25-26 NKJ)

How does a finite being commit etenal sin?
What's the payment? Death.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Dead and alive referring to being saved is a metaphor. The unsaved aren't literally dead.

How dies it imply continued suffering when that's not possible?

The fire is ti dispose of the bodies.


How does a finite being commit etenal sin?
What's the payment? Death.

What you call metaphor is reality to me, I was born from above when I believed, born again. Its an experience, from death into life:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. (Jn. 5:24 NKJ)

But not all born again experience the new birth as strongly as I did, but all are born again equally, knowing God is now their ABBA, and their perception of the Gospel of Christ has taken new powerful meaning in their lives, and love for God and His people now radiates from the "new creature" within them. They manifest they are "alive" by their life:

41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common,
45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:41-47 NKJ)

However, back to the point.

There is no point tormenting dead bodies if the wicked souls are not imprisoned within feeling the torment.

The context of Mark shows its would be better to die unburied in the sea (which the ancients truly feared), than stumble a child----because Gehenna is far worse than horrible death.

This implies the soul imprisoned within the abominable resurrection body reeking of corruption is "alive" as you put it:

42 "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.
43 "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
44 "where`Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
45 "And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
46 "where`Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
47 "And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire--
48 "where`Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.' (Mk. 9:42-48 NKJ)

Finite beings commit eternal sin by blaspheming the Holy Spirit:
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin." (Mk. 3:29 NIV)

Finite beings commit eternal sin by Stumbling a child of God (see Mark 9:42ff)
The "worm does not die" which would be pointless if the wicked soul within it didn't experience the ongoing pain of being eaten alive.

 

[Butch5]

NKJV says "their fire is never quenched," anything else is just wild worthless speculation.

It not speculation. Just look at the definition of quench. It means to put out. Unquenchable fire can't be put out. That doesn't mean it won't go out.

You're redefining words. Neither the greek word nor the english word is a "short" period of time.

5 "But if the servant plainly says,`I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,'
6 "then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever. (Exod. 21:5-6 NKJ)

Is the servant going to serve the master for eternity or just his lifetime?

No, you've got it backwards. Why don't we just agree to disagree, you go believe in whatever you wanna believe, see whatever you wanna see.

Because one of us is wrong. Why would we want to go through life misunderstanding God's word?

No, it's not mistranslation, it's your denial.

Then can you please explain how something that ends can be eternal?

 

[Butch5]

What you call metaphor is reality to me, I was born from above when I believed, born again. Its an experience, from death into life:

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. (Jn. 5:24 NKJ)

But not all born again experience the new birth as strongly as I did, but all are born again equally, knowing God is now their ABBA, and their perception of the Gospel of Christ has taken new powerful meaning in their lives, and love for God and His people now radiates from the "new creature" within them. They manifest they are "alive" by their life:

41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common,
45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:41-47 NKJ)

However, back to the point.

There is no point tormenting dead bodies if the wicked souls are not imprisoned within feeling the torment.

The context of Mark shows its would be better to die unburied in the sea (which the ancients truly feared), than stumble a child----because Gehenna is far worse than horrible death.

This implies the soul imprisoned within the abominable resurrection body reeking of corruption is "alive" as you put it:

42 "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.
43 "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
44 "where`Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
45 "And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
46 "where`Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
47 "And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire--
48 "where`Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.' (Mk. 9:42-48 NKJ)

Finite beings commit eternal sin by blaspheming the Holy Spirit:
but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin." (Mk. 3:29 NIV)

Finite beings commit eternal sin by Stumbling a child of God (see Mark 9:42ff)
The "worm does not die" which would be pointless if the wicked soul within it didn't experience the ongoing pain of being eaten alive.

Are you claiming to have already been resurrected? After all, if it's literal then one must have been literally dead. If that one is later alive, they have to have been resurrected.

I'm not sure why people fixate on the worm not dying. That has nothing to do with the people. It's obviously hyperbole. However, as I said, it has nothing to do with the people.

However, your claim requires that man can live on after death. A claim no one has yet to establish in this thread. The problem is that those arguing your point are starting from a false premise. That premise being that man can live apart from the body. Instead of establishing that point people post passages and say things like, "this must mean" or "this implies". Those are not statements of fact, they are implications. Implications can be wrong if someone either misunderstands or lacks information, both of which, I would submit, are the case in this thread.

 

[Butch5]

It's funny how people are quoting my posts, yet no one has quoted post 135. Surely someone can answer it.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It not speculation. Just look at the definition of quench. It means to put out. Unquenchable fire can't be put out. That doesn't mean it won't go out.

Then the Lord himself will fan the flame to make sure it won't go out, see Matt. 3:12.

5 "But if the servant plainly says,`I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,'
6 "then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever. (Exod. 21:5-6 NKJ)

Is the servant going to serve the master for eternity or just his lifetime?

For eternity, if your master is Lord Jesus.

Because one of us is wrong. Why would we want to go through life misunderstanding God's word?

In God's word Jesus uses earthly things the disciples are familiar with to teach heavenly things they're not familiar with, that's a consistent pattern. There's no need to explain the literal valley of Hinnom to the disciples, they know exactly what and where that is.

Then can you please explain how something that ends can be eternal?

Simple. First of all, it never ends (Rev. 22:5); second, there won't be sun and moon, day and night, any indicator of time, therefore there's no time, time doesn't exist anymore, and that's eternity. Also in Rev. 22:5.

 

[Alfred Persson]

One of the biggest issues I see with this doctrine is that it impugns God's character, and it seems to me Christians who hold it don't care. The doctrine call God a liar. I can't understand why Christians would support such an idea. God said through the prophet Ezekiel,
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Eze 18:2–4.

God said the soul that sins shall die. However, the doctrine say no, that's not right. the soul that sins shall suffer eternal conscious torment. So, who's right, God or the doctrine?

The apostle Paul said,

23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 6:23.

Paul said, the wages of sin is death. The doctrine say, no that's not right. The wages of sin is eternal conscious torment.

The apostle John said,

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 3:16.

John tells us that God sent His Son so that the believers wouldn't perish. The doctrine says, no, that's not right. God sent His Son so that the believers wouldn't suffer eternal conscious torment.

My question to all of you who hold the ETC doctrine is, how is it that you know more about the penalty for sin thn the apostles, John and Paul and even most of all more than God Himself, the one who created the penalty?

".

It's funny how people are quoting my posts, yet no one has quoted post 135. Surely someone can answer it.

The soul does not die immediately after physical death, it lingers on as a "shade" and would pass into non-existence, if God didn't put it in a resurrection body.

They are dead, they will not live; They are deceased, they will not rise. Therefore You have punished and destroyed them, And made all their memory to perish. (Isa. 26:14 NKJ)

BUT, contrary to your definition of soul death, God says these souls are DEAD, yet they continue to exist as shades in Sheol:

Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come, it rouses the shades to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from their thrones all who were kings of the nations. (Isa. 14:9 RSV)

The "second death" is the death the unredeemable wicked die, and it is total separation from God and all that is good. How long a "shade" will persist is "according to works". Those who commit eternal sin, suffer eternally in an abominable resurrection body (that keeps them "alive"), forever burning in the garbage heaps in Gehenna fire, with a corrupting worm continually eating them while the lay, unable to move in the flame.

41 for whoever may give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because ye are Christ's, verily I say to you, he may not lose his reward;
42 and whoever may cause to stumble one of the little ones believing in me, better is it for him if a millstone is hanged about his neck, and he hath been cast into the sea.
43 'And if thy hand may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee maimed to enter into the life, than having the two hands, to go away to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable --
44 where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched.
45 'And if thy foot may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into the life lame, than having the two feet to be cast to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable --
46 where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched.
47 And if thine eye may cause thee to stumble, cast it out; it is better for thee one-eyed to enter into the reign of God, than having two eyes, to be cast to the gehenna of the fire --
48 where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched; (Mk. 9:41-48 YLT)

Gehenna is where body and soul are "destroyed", ruined for any good use just as new wine ruptures old wine skins. The destruction is one of ruin, not cessation of existence unless God ordain it so.

Gehenna is a place of intense physical pain communicated to the imprisoned soul within.

The body misused for immoral pleasure, is now the instrument by which an offended Holy God communicates His wrath.

If cessation of existence were all the wicked get, Christ would have told us so. Instead, He says its would have been better those who stumble God's children die a horrible death in the sea, rather than commit the sin. For now they will suffer Gehenna, therefore if your "hand foot eye...cause stumbling, cut it off.

I cannot think of a more graphic way to say Gehenna is worse than death.

The wicked hope this life is all there is, that death is the end. They will be sorely disappointed.

 

[Alfred Persson]

It's funny how people are quoting my posts, yet no one has quoted post 135. Surely someone can answer it.

'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna. (Matt. 10:28 YLT)

Two aspects to this, God is able to destroy (622 apollumi) both body and soul. 1)Body and soul can be consumed by the fire destroying both. 2)The fire of Gehenna which can't be quenched burns forever those resurrection bodies God ordains will persist, just as Satan the Beast and False Prophet persists (Rev. 20:10). The "destruction" then ruins them for any good use like the wineskins, but they continue to exist as trash. See the meaning of apollumi in Mt. 9:17.

The resurrection body is organically connected to the body that died like a seed is to the plant that springs from it (1 Cor. 15:37-38). When the wicked are raised up in contemptible bodies causing everlasting shame (Dan. 12:2), their souls are imprisoned within them.

The undying worm eats them "alive" forever; no reason to do that to a soulless corpse. Its done to punish the wicked soul imprisoned within.

Truly any death, regardless how feared by the ancients, even with a millstone around one's neck and tossed into the sea (thought to be the realm of chaos and evil), would be better than being cast into Gehenna:


41 for whoever may give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because ye are Christ's, verily I say to you, he may not lose his reward;
42 and whoever may cause to stumble one of the little ones believing in me, better is it for him if a millstone is hanged about his neck, and he hath been cast into the sea.
43 'And if thy hand may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee maimed to enter into the life, than having the two hands, to go away to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable --
44 where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched.
45 'And if thy foot may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into the life lame, than having the two feet to be cast to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable --
46 where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched.
47 And if thine eye may cause thee to stumble, cast it out; it is better for thee one-eyed to enter into the reign of God, than having two eyes, to be cast to the gehenna of the fire --
48 where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched; (Mk. 9:41-48 YLT)

 

[Butch5]

'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna. (Matt. 10:28 YLT)

Two aspects to this, God is able to destroy (622 apollumi) both body and soul. 1)Body and soul on Judgment day are reunited, and the wicked tossed into Gehenna or "lake of fire". Both can be destroyed, annihilated instantly consumed. Punishment is according to works.

But in the case of the very wicked, both body and soul persist in Gehenna, that destruction then reflects how apollumi is used in Mt. 9:17 where wineskins are "ruined", destroyed as to their purpose of existence.

The resurrection body is organically connected to the body that died like a seed is to the plant that springs from it (1 Cor. 15:37-38). When the wicked are raised up in contemptible bodies causing everlasting shame, their souls are imprisoned within them. Then the unquenchable fire of Gehenna burns, and the undying worm eats them "alive" forever. Truly any death, regardless how feared by the ancients, even at sea which was thought to be the realm of chaos and evil, doesn't compare to the horrible reality of Gehenna:


41 for whoever may give you to drink a cup of water in my name, because ye are Christ's, verily I say to you, he may not lose his reward;
42 and whoever may cause to stumble one of the little ones believing in me, better is it for him if a millstone is hanged about his neck, and he hath been cast into the sea.
43 'And if thy hand may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee maimed to enter into the life, than having the two hands, to go away to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable --
44 where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched.
45 'And if thy foot may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into the life lame, than having the two feet to be cast to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable --
46 where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched.
47 And if thine eye may cause thee to stumble, cast it out; it is better for thee one-eyed to enter into the reign of God, than having two eyes, to be cast to the gehenna of the fire --
48 where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched; (Mk. 9:41-48 YLT)

You didn't answer they question. You just posted a few verses that you misunderstand

 

[Tenchi]

Denial isn't an argument

No, it's not. But denial is appropriate when a good argument given is essentially ignored by one's opponent.

Actually, none of them teach it. It's supposed based on the erroneous "Immortal Soul" doctrine. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable about the coming judgment of Jerusalem and the Jewish leadership.

Actually, they all plainly teach it. As you've observed, your flat denial (and contradiction) of this fact doesn't serve as a rebuttal or argument.

Even if the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus has a meaning-layer concerned with the Jewish nation and coming judgment, this layer wouldn't preclude any and all other layers of meaning from existing in the parable. It is, in my view, a bizarre proposition to assert that Jesus gave in the parable an utterly false and highly misleading conception of the afterlife. In all of his other parables, Jesus used real and mundane things (servant and Master, marriage feasts, hidden treasure, lost sheep, agricultural references, wineskins, etc.) to make his point, to stand as symbols of a greater truth. Why, in this one instance, would Jesus resort to sheer fiction to make his point? And why do so when the parable would inevitably create confusion about a matter as important as the nature of the afterlife? God is not the Author of confusion, as Scripture states.

I don't have to impose any Greek ideas about the soul onto Jesus's words to derive from them what I have. He says what he says, describing the Rich Man in the flames of hell, thirsting horribly and wanting desperately to warn his family of the eternal jeopardy under which they stood. Jesus, not a Greek philosopher, is the one who gave the description of the afterlife. Jesus, not a Greek philosopher, is the one who described the place of torment of the Rich Man. Jesus, not a Greek philosopher, is the one who described "Abraham's Bosom," or Paradise, the place of rest for Lazarus.

Couple all this to other statements that Jesus made about what follows the death of the body and it is even more obvious, in my view, that he intended his parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus to reveal the actual nature of the afterlife.

Matthew 25:46
46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Matthew 13:41-42
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those who do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:49-50
49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mark 9:43-44
43 And if your hand offend you, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.

Matthew 22:13-14
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matthew 25:30
30 And cast the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I read all this in tandem with Christ's (not a Greek's) parable about the afterlife and what is revealed to me is nothing like annihilation.

The souls beneath the alter is a book of symbolism of future events.

John's Revelation contains symbolic elements but this doesn't mean that everything in his Revelation was figurative. For instance, John is in his own Revelation, doing various things; does this make him figurative and/or fictional? Obviously not. As well, all that is symbolic or metaphoric in his Revelation points to something real, not purely fictional. This is certainly the case with the martyrs beneath the altar in heaven crying out for divine justice. What would these martyrs be symbols of, exactly? Were their deaths merely symbolic, too? Is the justice for which they cry out also just figurative? How so? It seems to me that the whole scene John described of these martyrs beneath the altar becomes nonsensical if they aren't actually the souls of martyrs in heaven crying out to God for justice - just like John is actually talking to the glorified Christ, and actually observing angels, and actually offering us divine truth in his Revelation.

Firstly, the are souls. Souls require a body.

This is Begging the Question again: assuming as true the very thing about which we're debating. I don't grant that "souls require a body." It seems very clear to me from God's word that this isn't the case. So, making this remark here doesn't help your case any, as far as I'm concerned.

Secondly, they are under the altar. How exactly are living people under the alter?

??? How are there any of the things in John's Revelation that there are? How are there "bowls of divine wrath" poured out on the earth, or many-eyed cherubim winging about, or the glorified Christ standing among golden candlesticks, his face shining like the sun?

So, you'd have to prove that these soul don't have bodies in order to use this passage.

This is a demand that cuts both ways. If you want to say they aren't disembodied souls, you're going to have show how this is the case - especially when they are described in the verse as follows:

Revelation 6:9-10
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, do you not judge and avenge our blood on them who dwell on the earth?

The "souls" under the altar had been slain, which to say, their bodies had been killed. But here they are in heaven as "souls," crying out with audible voices for justice. Taken in conjunction with Christ's parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, it is unremarkable that these "souls" should be in heaven, acting as they are. And if I employ the principle of Occam's Razor to this instance, the simplest, most straightforward explanation for what John described is that the immaterial souls of the slain Christians actually exist in heaven in a distinguishable form located in a particular place, capable of thinking and speaking (and even being clothed in white robes - vs. 11). This is no more, nor less, than what the passage explicitly says.

That John was able to look upon the earth from heaven doesn't offer to me any problem reading the passage from Revelation 6 as its given, the bodies of the martyred souls in heaven in the ground on earth. That John had the vantage point that he did in no way that I can see requires that the souls under the altar have physical bodies. Clearly, having been slain, the martyrs didn't have such bodies. This is painfully obvious to me...

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

Moses and Elijah with Christ on the mountain is a vision of the coming Kingdom. Notice they appeared with Jesus "in Glory". In glory is used of the Resurrection.

??? This offers nothing that rebuts the idea that Moses and Elijah were actually with Christ on the mount during his brief moment of transfiguration, defying the idea that the soul does not survive the decease of the body. Nothing in the passage indicates anything about the occasion merely being a "vision of the coming kingdom."

Matthew 17:1-9
1 Six days later Jesus *took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and *led them up on a high mountain by themselves.
2 And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.
3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
4 Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
6 When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.
7 And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and do not be afraid."
8 And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.
9 As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead."

None of the disciples believed they'd seen an illusion, a mere dream, that was entirely symbolic in its content, but that they'd actually seen Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus - and they were so certain of the reality of what they'd seen that the trio of disciples suggested building three tabernacles on the mountainside in commemoration of the event. Jesus didn't reply, "That's a silly idea. The whole thing was just a symbolic vision of the coming kingdom." Instead, he tells them to keep the event to themselves until after his resurrection.

A natural, straightforward reading of the passage above does not lead me to thinking that Moses and Elijah were mere figments of a dream, that they were symbolic illusions. Instead, they are presented as actual beings, talking with Jesus, even, and regarded by the disciples who saw them as such. This occasion, then, for me offers very good cause to think that when the body dies, the soul goes on to a heavenly, spiritual existence (or to the torment of hell). Certainly, nothing you've offered in rebuttal comes anywhere close to providing a more reasonable, text-careful reading of the passage.

It absolutely is. Show us a literal passage of Scripture of souls without bodies.

??? I have. See above. See my last post.

Nice try, but that's not what you said. You said,

"The "second death" speaks, not of annihilation, but of separation from God and the resulting utter loss of all well-being."

Thus my statement that the definition of the second death is not separation from God.

Again, where do I offer the definition of "death" as "separation"? I describe something of what the "second death" entails, but I was not offering a definitive meaning of the word "death," as you wrongly asserted.

"Each of these passages in which Jesus is teaching on the punishment of hell clearly indicate separation as a feature of that punishment. So, yes, I can "prove" from Scripture that the "second death" in hell entails separation from God and is, I believe, the end, not of being, but of all well-being, as in the case of the Rich Man in Christ's parable in Luke 16."

Thus my statement that the definition of the second death is not separation from God. You contrasted separation from God with annihilation. In the context of this thread annihilation is the definition of death.

This was not my contention. You asserted that I had defined "death" as "separation" when I hadn't. It seems to me, you set this up as a Strawman of my remarks in order to have something easier to knock down.

"The "second death" speaks, not of annihilation, but of separation from God and the resulting utter loss of all well-being."

??? Pushing this Strawman again, here.

I said it has to be the same thing. I didn't say they had to be identical.

You had written that the second day was "just like" the first. To me, this clearly implies identicality.

A blue car and a red car are both cars. Obviously they are not identical.

Except if you were to say that the blue car was just like the red car. Most people, I think, would object to such a description since it asserts identicality.

Physical loss of life and torment are not the same thing. Thus torment cannot be the second death.

??? No these things are not the same. But the "second death" phrase uses "death" in a figurative sense, not in the sense in which it is used in reference to physical death. This is well-supported by the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The Rich Man's experience after the death of his physical body was not the annihilation of his soul, but the loss of all well-being in the torment of hell.

Sorry, you find logical fallacies in my posts. It's not begging the question. Just because you don't accept the premise doesn't make it wrong.

It is Begging the Question to assert as true a premise that is under debate. When you do this, you end up arguing circularly, defending your conclusion by means of an assumed premise (and vice versa). As you've given it, this is your argument about the human soul in a formal syllogism:

1.) If the soul does not survive the death of the body, it is not immortal.

2.) The soul does not survive the death of the body.

3.) Therefore, the soul is not immortal.

Until you have properly secured the second premise against defeaters of it, the premise does not support your conclusion. I have offered many defeaters of the second premise (see above) and so will not accept arguments that simply grant it as true. You will either have to defeat my defeaters, rebut them conclusively, or make much more modest your claims about the annihilation of the human soul.

On the contrary. It's taking the passage at face value.

??? This is flat-out false. The verse says nothing about what the soul is not, only what it is. This is the verse's "face value."

if anyone is reading into the passage it would be the one who speaks of God investing Adam with a soul. The passage says nothing about God investing Adam with a soul. It says that the man, created from dust, "Became" a living soul after God animated it with His breath. There is nothing here about God putting a soul in Adam.

But I don't conclude this from the verse itself, as you're trying do in arguing that it shows Adam's soul is not immortal, surviving the death of his body. The passage nowhere indicates Adam's soul was not immortal. It says only how God made Adam a "living soul." It is from the rest of God's word, through the lens of all that it has to say about the human soul, that I understand "living soul" to mean an immaterial part of the human person that endures beyond the decease of the physical body. Genesis 2:7 itself offers no support to the person wanting to say the human soul is not immortal. The verse itself says no such thing. At all.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Ge 2:7.

It also limits what the soul is unless one can show other Scripture that gives more detail

Nope, it doesn't. See my comments above. Consider your own words here. Where does Genesis 2:7 indicate what Adam's soul was not? Nowhere.

Or maybe this passage could be understood differently.

Or maybe it is to be read in exactly the way I described, which, obviously, I think it should.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

Someone with a Greek Philosophical presupposition might conclude that.

But my argument made no reference whatever to Greek philosophy, only to the content of Stephen's actual words and the reasonableness of understanding them, in their context, as I described.

However, Paul who was there wouldn't have concluded that. One has to wonder why it is that the Sadducees, Pharisees and Scribes, who had God's word for centuries didn't believe that man was alive after the body died.

None of this addresses my point made from Stephen's own words.

How come we only find that idea after we see pagan influences? We see this idea when the Essenes we influenced by Babylonia culture and then again when the Gospel went to the Gentiles. Paul tells the Corinthians that if there is no resurrection then their dead believers had already perished. How can he said that if they were alive somewhere? Obviously he couldn't.

This, too, is just deflection from my point about the natural, straightforward meaning of Stephen's words.

Stephen simply gave up his breath and died, just as Jesus did on the cross. Father, receive my breath.

Nope. This is mere contradiction, a raw denial of what I pointed out, not a reasoned rebuttal of what I wrote. As I already explained, it makes no sense for Stephen to have committed his "spirit" to God when he knew there was nothing to commit to God that would survive the death of his body. You've not shown at all from Stephen's own words that this thinking is in error. There is nothing he could reasonably have meant in saying to God, "receive my spirit" than that his immortal soul was about to separate from his body and go to God.

Your alternative - "receive my breath" - is just silly, honestly, a testament to how much you have to deny the blatantly obvious in God's word in order to defend your false doctrine. Such a final remark from Stephen would have about as much meaning as Stephen saying the same thing if he'd farted or burped. If "spirit" is just "breath," the carbon dioxide gas within Stephen's body that, upon exhalation, would dissipate instantly into the air and not actually go to God, how would this final exhalation of gas not be, essentially, the equivalent of an intestinal eruption from Stephen's south end, or a rude noise after eating? What makes Stephen's final gaseous moment worth talking to God about? And why offer it to God, what's more? Silly. Just silly.

You're reading your theology into the text rather than letting the text guide your theology. Earlier you mentioned Begging the Question. In order to avoid that here, can you provide Scripture that says God is eternal without using the word aion/aionios? If not, then your statement is Begging the Question

You don't appear here to know what "Begging the Question" is...

This is an appeal to authority. I don't have to be their equal to see a mistake. Just like I don't have to be a mathematician to correct a child's homework.

These are not equivalent instances. Any adult with a normal education can correct a child's math homework. But comparatively few adults have the language and translation skills necessary to properly correct a biblical languages/translator expert. And not just one, but dozens in the case of Matthew 25:46.

Also, I have not made a fallacious argument from authority, citing a single instance from one expert that supports my view, but pointing instead to the universal translation of the verse by many translation experts that contradicts your own. I've said to you, not simply that they're right and you're wrong and that's the end of the matter but that, to make your case properly, you'll have to demonstrate not only that you have an alternative translation that you prefer, but why that translation is to be adopted and the longstanding and uniform expert translation of the verse should be abandoned. What qualifies you to override and discard these other expert translations of the verse? Nothing that I can see.

It can easily be seen that bias is driving their translation.

Not from where I'm standing, it can't. If there is bias at play, it's in your view, not theirs.

Something that ends is not eternal thus, the definition of aion cannot be eternal.

As I've already explained, the term aion has as it's potential meaning more than just "an age." This is observed in its use in Scripture in describing eternal things, like God.

Well, this is only way to explain it so that it is harmonious with all of Scripture. As I've pointed out, to say that aion means eternal is simply wrong.

You've certainly asserted this, but you've not explained how this term, applied to God Himself, is not eternal in its meaning. Unless you think God is also not immortal...

If aion can mean "eternal" - as it does in reference to God - then it is not necessary that it be understood as "an age" in Matthew 25:46, especially given the parallelism at play in the verse.

One of the biggest issues I see with this doctrine is that it impugns God's character, and it seems to me Christians who hold it don't care.

Nonsense. This is just ad hominem arguing, really.

Paul said, the wages of sin is death. The doctrine say, no that's not right. The wages of sin is eternal conscious torment.

The apostle John said,

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Jn 3:16.

John tells us that God sent His Son so that the believers wouldn't perish. The doctrine says, no, that's not right. God sent His Son so that the believers wouldn't suffer eternal conscious torment.

My question to all of you who hold the ETC doctrine is, how is it that you know more about the penalty for sin thn the apostles, John and Paul and even most of all more than God Himself, the one who created the penalty?

Just a lot Strawman arguing here and more Begging the Question.

 

[Butch5]

No, it's not. But denial is appropriate when a good argument given is essentially ignored by one's opponent.

but you didn't give a good argument.

Actually, they all plainly teach it. As you've observed, your flat denial (and contradiction) of this fact doesn't serve as a rebuttal or argument.

Actually, you've made claim which you have not backed up with evidence. None of the passages state that the soul lives on after death. You've simply "inferred" that from the passages you posted. However, that assumption requires that man can live on after the body dies. That is something you haven't proved

Even if the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus has a meaning-layer concerned with the Jewish nation and coming judgment, this layer wouldn't preclude any and all other layers of meaning from existing in the parable. It is, in my view, a bizarre proposition to assert that Jesus gave in the parable an utterly false and highly misleading conception of the afterlife. In all of his other parables, Jesus used real and mundane things (servant and Master, marriage feasts, hidden treasure, lost sheep, agricultural references, wineskins, etc.) to make his point, to stand as symbols of a greater truth. Why, in this one instance, would Jesus resort to sheer fiction to make his point? And why do so when the parable would inevitably create confusion about a matter as important as the nature of the afterlife? God is not the Author of confusion, as Scripture states.

Layers? Do we get make up things Jesus meant? It's not possible for man to live apart from the body. Therefore the "Layer" you claim cannot exist. Again, you've not shown from Scripture where man can live apart from the body. That's an assumption you're bringing to the text.

I don't have to impose any Greek ideas about the soul onto Jesus's words to derive from them what I have. He says what he says, describing the Rich Man in the flames of hell, thirsting horribly and wanting desperately to warn his family of the eternal jeopardy under which they stood. Jesus, not a Greek philosopher, is the one who gave the description of the afterlife. Jesus, not a Greek philosopher, is the one who described the place of torment of the Rich Man. Jesus, not a Greek philosopher, is the one who described "Abraham's Bosom," or Paradise, the place of rest for Lazarus.

You don't have to, but you did. Firstly, consider who Jesus is speaking to. It's the Scribes and Pharisees. They didn't believe is a disembodied soul. Secondly, they were mocking Him. So it doesn't make sense that He would be trying to teach them something. Thirdly, He only spoke to them in parables as the Scriptures tell us. The purpose of the parables was so that seeing they would see and not perceive, and hearing they hear and not understand. So, the whole purpose was to say something to them in a way they wouldn't understand. That something was the coming judgment. With all of the millions of Christians who think this parable is about the afterlife surely the Pharisees would be able to understand that. Thus, it's not what He meant. You've also conflated Abraham's bosom and Paradise. They are not the same. Paradisios means a garden, not a man's chest. Then comes the question of why the Rich Man is Hades and not Gehenna. If he is suffering Eternal Torment why isn't he in the location that Jesus said was the place of Hell Fire? That's Gehenna

Couple all this to other statements that Jesus made about what follows the death of the body and it is even more obvious, in my view, that he intended his parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus to reveal the actual nature of the afterlife.

Matthew 25:46
46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Matthew 13:41-42
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those who do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:49-50
49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mark 9:43-44
43 And if your hand offend you, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.

Matthew 22:13-14
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Matthew 25:30
30 And cast the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I read all this in tandem with Christ's (not a Greek's) parable about the afterlife and what is revealed to me is nothing like annihilation.

Again, His parable is not about the afterlife. It's a judgment against Israel. A cursory reading would lead one to the conclusion if they held to the Greek philosophical idea of an immortal soul. However, that is not a Biblical concept.

John's Revelation contains symbolic elements but this doesn't mean that everything in his Revelation was figurative. For instance, John is in his own Revelation, doing various things; does this make him figurative and/or fictional? Obviously not. As well, all that is symbolic or metaphoric in his Revelation points to something real, not purely fictional. This is certainly the case with the martyrs beneath the altar in heaven crying out for divine justice. What would these martyrs be symbols of, exactly? Were their deaths merely symbolic, too? Is the justice for which they cry out also just figurative? How so? It seems to me that the whole scene John described of these martyrs beneath the altar becomes nonsensical if they aren't actually the souls of martyrs in heaven crying out to God for justice - just like John is actually talking to the glorified Christ, and actually observing angels, and actually offering us divine truth in his Revelation.

They are the souls of martyrs. But they are vision, not literally there at that time. It's a vision of the future.

This is Begging the Question again: assuming as true the very thing about which we're debating. I don't grant that "souls require a body." It seems very clear to me from God's word that this isn't the case. So, making this remark here doesn't help your case any, as far as I'm concerned.

It's not begging the Question because I established, unlike you, what a soul is from Scripture. Gen2:7 tells us that God breathed into the body that He breathed and that body became a living soul. Thus a soul cannot exist apart from a body. It doesn't matter whether or not you "grant it". It's stated plainly in Scripture.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 2:7.

??? How are there any of the things in John's Revelation that there are? How are there "bowls of divine wrath" poured out on the earth, or many-eyed cherubim winging about, or the glorified Christ standing among golden candlesticks, his face shining like the sun?

You didn't answer the question?

This is a demand that cuts both ways. If you want to say they aren't disembodied souls, you're going to have show how this is the case - especially when they are described in the verse as follows:

I've already established it with Gen 2:7.

Revelation 6:9-10
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, do you not judge and avenge our blood on them who dwell on the earth?

The "souls" under the altar had been slain, which to say, their bodies had been killed. But here they are in heaven as "souls," crying out with audible voices for justice.

Again, you're trying to use a vision to establish reality. That doesn't work.