Annihilationism, do the Wicked Perish?

[for_his_glory]

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.

That's only because you are Judaic and follow Judaism as they do not recognize various parts of the NT as in what you listed being angels, Trinity, cross, church, Hades, Hell, and keeping the Sabbath.

 

[Butch5]

??? 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.

Of course not. You start with a false premise, that man can live apart from the body. However, you picked the wrong passage to use as support. Look at verse 9 where Jesus tells the three disciple not to tell the "VISION" to anyone until He has risen from the dead. Obviously, if Jesus told them what they'd see was vision they didn't think it was real.

 

[Butch5]

"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.

Am I pushing a Strawman? The quote is yours my friend, not mine. It's from post 17

 

[Consecrated Life]

Why would Jesus be comparing the fate of eternal sleep in the presence of nothingness, as being the absolute worst tragic fate that can happen to a person after enjoying a long life of unimaginable wealth. pleasure , & luxurious living , and enjoying every sin they desire with their untold wealth ?
I know young & old people today who would jump at the chance to win a billion dollar lottery in exchange for accepting that when their life on earth is over they will be unconscious forever .
They would call that a sweet deal .
Why does Jesus characterize such a deal as the worst thing that can ever happen to a person , when so many would love that deal ?

Mat 16:26

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

[Butch5]

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.

It's not Begging the Question because the assertion is not under debate. Just because you reject what the Scriptures state plainly doesn't make the premise false.

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 2:6–7.

That body that God created became a living soul. Thus the body is a living soul. You can deny it and claim it doesn't say this or that. But, what it does say is that the man became a living soul. The man, that body of dust, became a living soul.

What happens to that living soul at death?

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ec 3:18–21.

Notice, they all have one breath or spirit. They all go to one place. They all return to the dust. God created man of the dust of the earth. Man returns to the dust. The spirit or breath, which we find in Gen 2:7 the breath/spirit of life, returns to God. Just to make things a little clearer,

because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. 7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ec 12:5–7.

The dust returns to dust and the breath or spirit returns to God.

And, just to head off the next argument the words in red, breath and spirit are all the same Hebrew word ruach, which means wind, by extension breath, and figuratively, spirit.

 

[Butch5]

You don't have to reply to these posts. There's really no point in wasting your time. You've pretty much just denied what I've said so there's not really any point in continuing. If you would like to continue please establish, from Scripture, that man can live apart from the body. That would be by statement, not inference.

 

[Butch5]

Why would Jesus be comparing the fate of eternal sleep in the presence of nothingness, as being the absolute worst tragic fate that can happen to a person after enjoying a long life of unimaginable wealth. pleasure , & luxurious living , and enjoying every sin they desire with their untold wealth ?
I know young & old people today who would jump at the chance to win a billion dollar lottery in exchange for accepting that when their life on earth is over they will be unconscious forever .
They would call that a sweet deal .
Why does Jesus characterize such a deal as the worst thing that can ever happen to a person , when so many would love that deal ?

Mat 16:26

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Ask them that when they're actually facing death. You see, feelings and desires don't trump Scripture. You're trying to use subjective feelings to trump objective reality. The only thing that you can prove objectively is that the worst punishment is death. All of the other stuff you're claiming comes from "YOUR" understanding of Scripture. If your understanding of Scripture is wrong then all of what you're claiming is irrelevant. If you can prove man can live apart from the body, that's a start.

 

[hawkman]

Reminder for everyone in this thread .

TOS 1.3: Use self control and focus on reconciliation when discussing differences. Address the issue, not the person. Do not make derogatory personal remarks or you will be removed from the thread.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Why would Jesus be comparing the fate of eternal sleep in the presence of nothingness, as being the absolute worst tragic fate that can happen to a person after enjoying a long life of unimaginable wealth. pleasure , & luxurious living , and enjoying every sin they desire with their untold wealth ?
I know young & old people today who would jump at the chance to win a billion dollar lottery in exchange for accepting that when their life on earth is over they will be unconscious forever .
They would call that a sweet deal .
Why does Jesus characterize such a deal as the worst thing that can ever happen to a person , when so many would love that deal ?

Mat 16:26

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Ask them that when they're actually facing d. The only thing that you can prove objectively is that the worst punishment is death.

I thought you believed eternal torment in hell was the worst punishment ?
Now you say that eternal death is the worst punishment ?

" The only thing that you can prove objectively is that the worst punishment is death." (Butch5)

So set the record straight for me , which is the worst punishment to your mind, eternity in hell or eternal unconsciousness by Annihilation ?

 

[Butch5]

I thought you believed eternal torment in hell was the worst punishment ?
Now you say that eternal death is the worst punishment ?

" The only thing that you can prove objectively is that the worst punishment is death." (Butch5)

So set the record straight for me , which is the worst punishment to your mind, eternity in hell or eternal unconsciousness by Annihilation ?

Please follow the argument. There is no eternal torment in hell. So, that can't be the worst. The punishment is death. Look at what I posted. God said through Ezekiel, 'the soul that sins shall die.' Paul said, "the wages of sin is death." John said Gos sent His Son so those would believe would not perish.

 

[electedbyHim]

Matthew 10:28 “And do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Macarthur
It should be made clear that destroy does not here mean annihilation. The lost will not cease to exist, but in their resurrected bodies “will go away into eternal punishment,” just as the saved in their resurrected bodies will go into “eternal life” (Mat_25:46). The word behind destroy (appolumi) does not convey the notion of extinction but of great loss or ruin. Paul uses the same term in 2Th_1:9, where he speaks of “eternal destruction”—a phrase that would not make sense if “destruction” meant annihilation, which by definition cannot be eternal. That which is annihilated ceases to exist.

Destroy (622)(apollumi from apo = away from or wholly + olethros = state of utter ruin <> ollumi = to destroy <> root of apollyon [Re 9:11] = destroyer) means to destroy utterly but not to cause one to cease to exist. Apollumi as it relates to men, is not the loss of being per se, but is more the loss of well-being. It means to ruin so that the person ruined can no longer serve the use for which he or she was designed. The gospel promises everlasting life for the one who believes. The failure to possess this life will result in utter ruin and eternal uselessness (but not a cessation of existence) In summary, apollumi then has the basic meaning of describing that which is ruined and is no longer usable for its intended purpose. Woe!

RWP
Destroy both soul and body in hell (kai psuchēn kai sōma apolesai en geennēi). Note “soul” here of the eternal spirit, not just life in the body. “Destroy” here is not annihilation, but eternal punishment in Gehenna (the real hell) for which see note on Mat_5:22. Bruce thinks that the devil as the tempter is here meant, not God as the judge, but surely he is wrong. There is no more needed lesson today than the fear of God.

Pastor Cole
The second popular view we must reject is annihilationism. This is the view that God will destroy the unrepentant sinner, so that he ceases to exist. In other words, the soul is not immortal. Perhaps God will punish the person for a time, proportionate to his sin. But at some point, God will say, “That’s enough,” and the person will not suffer eternally. God will annihilate the person’s soul. Several professing evangelicals, most notably John Stott, have suggested if not embraced this idea. The Seventh Day Adventists teach this doctrine. Frankly, the idea sounds humane and appealing. But I cannot dodge Mt 25:46, where Jesus uses the same word “eternal” in the same verse to refer to eternal punishment and eternal life. If life is eternal, then so is punishment. Also, Rev 20:10+ states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented in the lake of fire and brimstone “day and night forever and ever.” Then, just a few verses later (Re 20:15), it states that all of those whose names are not found written in the book of life are also thrown into the lake of fire. “Day and night forever and ever” sure sounds eternal! The best defense of eternal punishment that I’ve read is Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.” He argues that since any sin is against the infinite God, it is worthy of infinite punishment.

Also....

Perish (622) (apollumi from apo = away from or wholly + olethros = state of utter ruin <> ollumi = to destroy <> root of apollyon [Re 9:11] = destroyer) means to destroy utterly but not to caused to cease to exist. Apollumi as it relates to men, is not the loss of being per se, but is more the loss of well-being. It means to ruin so that the person (or thing) ruined can no longer serve the use for which he (it) was designed. To render useless. The gospel promises everlasting life for the one who believes. The failure to possess this life will result in utter ruin and eternal uselessness (but not a cessation of existence). Apollumi then has the basic meaning of describing that which is ruined and is no longer usable for its intended purpose.

John MacArthur writes that "Apollumi (destroy) refers to utter devastation. But as the noted Greek scholar W. E. Vine explains, “The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words [Westwood, N.J.: Revel, 1940]). The term is often used in the New Testament to indicate eternal damnation (see, e.g., Mt 10:28; Lk 13:3; Jn 3:16; Ro. 2:12), which applies to unbelievers. But even with that meaning the word does not connote extinction, as annihilationists claim, but rather spiritual calamity that will continue forever. (MacArthur, J: Romans 9-16. Chicago: Moody Press)

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon defines apollumi as “to be delivered up to eternal misery” (p. 36). Since Thayer himself was a Unitarian who did not believe in eternal punishment, his definition could only be the result of his knowledge of the meaning of this Greek word. There is no lexicographical evidence for the annihilationist’s position that apollumi means “to annihilate” or “to pass into nonexistence.”

Robert Morey - That apollumi cannot mean “nonexistence” is clear from the way it is consistently used in the New Testament (Matt. 9:17; Luke 15:4, 6, 8, 9; John 6:12, 27; 2 Cor. 4:9; etc.). Do people pass into nonexistence when they are killed by a sword (Matt. 26:52) or a snake? (1 Cor. 10:9). Do people become nonexistent when they are hungry? (Luke 15:17). Do wineskins pass into nonexistence when they are destroyed by bursting? (Matt. 9:17). Is food annihilated when it spoils? (John 6:27). In every instance where the word apollumi is found in the New Testament, something other than annihilation is being described. Indeed, there isn’t a single instance in the New Testament where apollumi means annihilation in the strict meaning of the word. (Borrow a copy of Death and the Afterlife)

Apollumi is used some 265 times in the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT (the Septuagint). For example in Psalm 1 we read that

the LORD knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish (Lxx = apollumi) (Ps 1:6-see notes)

Jesus used apollumi to remind His disciples what happened when men "put new wine into old wineskins" for they knew that this would make "the wineskins burst… and the wineskins are ruined (apollumi)". (Mt 9:17). The point is that these wineskins did not cease to exist but they did cease to fulfill the function for which they were created. In short they were rendered useless. In a similar way, the noun form, apoleia, is used to describe the reaction of the disciples when they saw the woman anointing Jesus' head with "costly perfume" (Mt 26:8). They became "indignant when they saw this and said "Why this waste (noun form = apoleia)" In essence they were asking Jesus why are You letting the precious oil perish and be rendered useless? The ointment did not go out of existence, but was used for what they judged to be a useless purpose (were they ever wrong!). In a similar way all men and women are created by God for fellowship with Him and for His glory (cf Isa 43:7), but when they individually refuse to come to Him for salvation they lose their opportunity for redemption and for becoming what God originally created them for. Their lives are wasted and useless (eternally)! They are fit only for everlasting condemnation and destruction away from the presence and the glory of the Father. This is the awful picture of what it means to "perish". This is not the desire of God for as Peter writes "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." (2Pe 3:9-note)

 

[Consecrated Life]

Please follow the argument. There is no eternal torment in hell. So, that can't be the worst. The punishment is death. Look at what I posted. God said through Ezekiel, 'the soul that sins shall die.' Paul said, "the wages of sin is death." John said Gos sent His Son so those would believe would not perish.

How is eternal nothingness and sleep a punishment ?
It's NOTHING..... literally .
The majority of humans would take that sweet deal in a second if they knew for certain that would be the only repercussion to living a life on earth of all out lust sin and depravity .

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Can any of you answer this simple question - Imagine there's no clock, no calendar, no sun, no moon, how can you determine the "end" of any time period when there's no indicator of time? It is set at the beginning -

Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years, and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth." and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day (sun), and the lesser light to rule the night (moon). He made the stars also. (Gen. 1:14-16)

It is a simple scientific fact that time itself is neither a matter nor an energy, it's highly relevant from person to person, it goes quickly when you're rejoicing and it goes slowly when you're suffering. The only objective indicators are these celestial bodies. Without these celestial bodies, there's no way to perceive time, no sign or season, no day or night, therefore it's gonna be an eternity.

 

[Butch5]

Matthew 10:28 “And do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Macarthur
It should be made clear that destroy does not here mean annihilation. The lost will not cease to exist, but in their resurrected bodies “will go away into eternal punishment,” just as the saved in their resurrected bodies will go into “eternal life” (Mat_25:46). The word behind destroy (appolumi) does not convey the notion of extinction but of great loss or ruin. Paul uses the same term in 2Th_1:9, where he speaks of “eternal destruction”—a phrase that would not make sense if “destruction” meant annihilation, which by definition cannot be eternal. That which is annihilated ceases to exist.

Destroy (622)(apollumi from apo = away from or wholly + olethros = state of utter ruin <> ollumi = to destroy <> root of apollyon [Re 9:11] = destroyer) means to destroy utterly but not to cause one to cease to exist. Apollumi as it relates to men, is not the loss of being per se, but is more the loss of well-being. It means to ruin so that the person ruined can no longer serve the use for which he or she was designed. The gospel promises everlasting life for the one who believes. The failure to possess this life will result in utter ruin and eternal uselessness (but not a cessation of existence) In summary, apollumi then has the basic meaning of describing that which is ruined and is no longer usable for its intended purpose. Woe!

RWP
Destroy both soul and body in hell (kai psuchēn kai sōma apolesai en geennēi). Note “soul” here of the eternal spirit, not just life in the body. “Destroy” here is not annihilation, but eternal punishment in Gehenna (the real hell) for which see note on Mat_5:22. Bruce thinks that the devil as the tempter is here meant, not God as the judge, but surely he is wrong. There is no more needed lesson today than the fear of God.

Pastor Cole
The second popular view we must reject is annihilationism. This is the view that God will destroy the unrepentant sinner, so that he ceases to exist. In other words, the soul is not immortal. Perhaps God will punish the person for a time, proportionate to his sin. But at some point, God will say, “That’s enough,” and the person will not suffer eternally. God will annihilate the person’s soul. Several professing evangelicals, most notably John Stott, have suggested if not embraced this idea. The Seventh Day Adventists teach this doctrine. Frankly, the idea sounds humane and appealing. But I cannot dodge Mt 25:46, where Jesus uses the same word “eternal” in the same verse to refer to eternal punishment and eternal life. If life is eternal, then so is punishment. Also, Rev 20:10+ states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented in the lake of fire and brimstone “day and night forever and ever.” Then, just a few verses later (Re 20:15), it states that all of those whose names are not found written in the book of life are also thrown into the lake of fire. “Day and night forever and ever” sure sounds eternal! The best defense of eternal punishment that I’ve read is Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.” He argues that since any sin is against the infinite God, it is worthy of infinite punishment.

Also....

Perish (622) (apollumi from apo = away from or wholly + olethros = state of utter ruin <> ollumi = to destroy <> root of apollyon [Re 9:11] = destroyer) means to destroy utterly but not to caused to cease to exist. Apollumi as it relates to men, is not the loss of being per se, but is more the loss of well-being. It means to ruin so that the person (or thing) ruined can no longer serve the use for which he (it) was designed. To render useless. The gospel promises everlasting life for the one who believes. The failure to possess this life will result in utter ruin and eternal uselessness (but not a cessation of existence). Apollumi then has the basic meaning of describing that which is ruined and is no longer usable for its intended purpose.

John MacArthur writes that "Apollumi (destroy) refers to utter devastation. But as the noted Greek scholar W. E. Vine explains, “The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being” (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words [Westwood, N.J.: Revel, 1940]). The term is often used in the New Testament to indicate eternal damnation (see, e.g., Mt 10:28; Lk 13:3; Jn 3:16; Ro. 2:12), which applies to unbelievers. But even with that meaning the word does not connote extinction, as annihilationists claim, but rather spiritual calamity that will continue forever. (MacArthur, J: Romans 9-16. Chicago: Moody Press)

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon defines apollumi as “to be delivered up to eternal misery” (p. 36). Since Thayer himself was a Unitarian who did not believe in eternal punishment, his definition could only be the result of his knowledge of the meaning of this Greek word. There is no lexicographical evidence for the annihilationist’s position that apollumi means “to annihilate” or “to pass into nonexistence.”

Robert Morey - That apollumi cannot mean “nonexistence” is clear from the way it is consistently used in the New Testament (Matt. 9:17; Luke 15:4, 6, 8, 9; John 6:12, 27; 2 Cor. 4:9; etc.). Do people pass into nonexistence when they are killed by a sword (Matt. 26:52) or a snake? (1 Cor. 10:9). Do people become nonexistent when they are hungry? (Luke 15:17). Do wineskins pass into nonexistence when they are destroyed by bursting? (Matt. 9:17). Is food annihilated when it spoils? (John 6:27). In every instance where the word apollumi is found in the New Testament, something other than annihilation is being described. Indeed, there isn’t a single instance in the New Testament where apollumi means annihilation in the strict meaning of the word. (Borrow a copy of Death and the Afterlife)

Apollumi is used some 265 times in the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT (the Septuagint). For example in Psalm 1 we read that


Jesus used apollumi to remind His disciples what happened when men "put new wine into old wineskins" for they knew that this would make "the wineskins burst… and the wineskins are ruined (apollumi)". (Mt 9:17). The point is that these wineskins did not cease to exist but they did cease to fulfill the function for which they were created. In short they were rendered useless. In a similar way, the noun form, apoleia, is used to describe the reaction of the disciples when they saw the woman anointing Jesus' head with "costly perfume" (Mt 26:8). They became "indignant when they saw this and said "Why this waste (noun form = apoleia)" In essence they were asking Jesus why are You letting the precious oil perish and be rendered useless? The ointment did not go out of existence, but was used for what they judged to be a useless purpose (were they ever wrong!). In a similar way all men and women are created by God for fellowship with Him and for His glory (cf Isa 43:7), but when they individually refuse to come to Him for salvation they lose their opportunity for redemption and for becoming what God originally created them for. Their lives are wasted and useless (eternally)! They are fit only for everlasting condemnation and destruction away from the presence and the glory of the Father. This is the awful picture of what it means to "perish". This is not the desire of God for as Peter writes "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." (2Pe 3:9-note)

You know what's interesting about this? The same people who write the translations write the dictionaries. So of course they're going to agree. If you want to know what the words really mean get a concordance and look up every single instance of a word and look at the context of the passage. That'll show you how the Bible uses the word rather than what some theologians thinks.

 

[Butch5]

Can any of you answer this simple question - Imagine there's no clock, no calendar, no sun, no moon, how can you determine the "end" of any time period when there's no indicator of time? It is set at the beginning -

Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years, and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth." and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day (sun), and the lesser light to rule the night (moon). He made the stars also. (Gen. 1:14-16)

It is a simple scientific fact that time itself is neither a matter nor an energy, it's highly relevant from person to person, it goes quickly when you're rejoicing and it goes slowly when you're suffering. The only objective indicators are these celestial bodies. Without these celestial bodies, there's no way to perceive time, no sign or season, no day or night, therefore it's gonna be an eternity.

Why do you suppose there will be no celestial bodies

 

[CherubRam]

That's only because you are Judaic and follow Judaism as they do not recognize various parts of the NT as in what you listed being angels, Trinity, cross, church, Hades, Hell, and keeping the Sabbath.

Christians should not be following anything Pagan.

 

[Butch5]

How is eternal nothingness and sleep a punishment ?
It's NOTHING..... literally .
The majority of humans would take that sweet deal in a second if they knew for certain that would be the only repercussion to living a life on earth of all out lust sin and depravity .

Have you surveyed the majority of humans? It's not sleep it's death. It's loss of life. What did Adam lose when he sinned?

Genesis 3:22–23 (KJV 1900): 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Genesis 3:23–24 (KJV 1900): 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life

He lost eternal life. The wages of his sin was death.

 

[Consecrated Life]

It's not sleep it's death. It's loss of life. What did Adam lose when he sinned?

You believe people will be conscious of their existence after they have been Annihilated ?
How long will this post-Annihilation consciousness last ?
This post-Annihilation consciousness is a new twist I have not heard before .
Please explain ?

 

[Tenchi]

but you didn't give a good argument.

Well, you haven't yet shown this.

Actually, you've made claim which you have not backed up with evidence.

No, I've explained how each of the instances I cited demonstrate that the soul lives on after the death of the body. These verses/passages are my evidence (and others which I've not cited, besides).

None of the passages state that the soul lives on after death. You've simply "inferred" that from the passages you posted.

There are all sorts of true things that are only inferred from Scripture: The Trinity, for example. The Bible also never says anything explicit about the wrongness of locking your grandmother up in a closet for a month, but one can certainly infer the wrongness of doing so from Scripture. The Bible has nothing explicit to say about selling illicit drugs to children, but, again, it can be well-inferred from what the Bible does say that doing so would be very immoral. And so on. Your demand, then, that in order for it to be true, a Bible verse must explicitly declare (rather than just clearly imply) something to be so is an unreasonable, ad hoc demand. Such a demand opens the door for all sorts of false and evil things being permitted.

Layers? Do we get make up things Jesus meant?

??? This coming from the guy who has asserted that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is about the Jewish leadership and coming judgment! And, what's more, this objection is from a guy who demands explicit statements, not drawn inferences, for assertions about biblical truth. Amazing, the degree of your inconsistency. Where does the parable say one explicit word about "the coming judgment of Jerusalem and the Jewish leadership"? Nowhere. You must infer this entirely from the parable. But, having done so, allowing yourself the freedom to establish this particular inferential layer of meaning in the parable, you object when others do the same? That's convenient. And not a little hypocritical.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you can infer and impose figurative meaning on the parable, so can anyone else. I would point out, however, that I haven't actually inferred anything about the parable, only pointed out exactly what the parable says and objected to your ad hoc restriction of its meaning.

It's not possible for man to live apart from the body. Therefore the "Layer" you claim cannot exist.

I don't grant your premise. It's the very thing under debate in this thread. And so long as it is, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. And so, this little syllogism here helps your view not at all. I'd have to have agreed to it first, in order for it to have any argumentative force. I haven't, so it doesn't.

That's an assumption you're bringing to the text.

No, it's you who is bringing assumptions - and glaring inconsistency - to understanding God's word. See above.

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.

My, look at all the inferring going on here! What's happened to your explicit statements standard?

What's interesting to me here in your remarks is how completely they ignore the actual content of the parable, which is what I focused on. You're just deflecting from what I pointed out, which is that Jesus, not a Greek philosopher, is the one who gave the content of the parable; and that content describes a deceased Rich Man who is not annihilated, but conscious and in torment in a fiery place of punishment.

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.

Wow. It's astonishing how much inference and specious deduction is going on here! And not one bit of it from the content of the parable itself. In fact, you are denying the import of the explicit statements of the parable! Again, wow! Essentially, your argument here is that if the deeply spiritually-corrupt Pharisees could not understand the parable as it was given, it doesn't mean what it says! That's...nuts. I'm going to understand the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus precisely as Jesus gave it, not using the spiritual blindness of the Pharisees to justify a meaning-layer to the parable that denies the content of the parable entirely.

You've also conflated Abraham's bosom and Paradise. They are not the same. Paradisios means a garden, not a man's chest.

??? Where did I say "Abraham's Bosom" was literally the chest of the man Abraham? Nowhere. In point of fact, "Abraham's bosom" is used in the parable of Rich Man and Lazarus to describe the place of comfort and rest in which Lazarus dwelt after the decease of his body.

Luke 16:22
22 "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom...

Luke 16:25
25 "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.

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

??? These questions do nothing to diminish, or to justify denying entirely, the plain statements of Christ in the parable. My attitude is that I will conform my understanding to Christ's words, to his teaching, and not play fast-and-loose with what he has said because it doesn't fit well within my own concocted ideas.

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.

Just repeating ideas I've already rebutted from Scripture doesn't do anything to defeat what I've pointed out.

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

This does nothing to address the point I've made about the immortality of the human soul from the passage in Revelation 6. There are the souls of slain Christians in heaven crying out from beneath an altar. Vision or not, the plain implication in their presence under the altar is that these "souls" existed in heaven separately from their slain bodies on earth.

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.

See? You are going beyond what the verse actually says, here, adding your own negative assertion, a "cannot," to Genesis 2:7 for which it offers no ground. The verse does not say "a soul cannot exist apart from the body." This is your assumption, your extrapolation, that has no basis in Genesis 2:7 at all.

Genesis 2:7
7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Where's the bit about the soul not existing apart from the body in this verse? Nowhere.

It doesn't matter whether or not you "grant it". It's stated plainly in Scripture.

Not in Genesis 2:7. Not in Luke 16:19-31. Not in Revelation 6:9-11. Not in Matthew 17:1-9. And so on.

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

You've done no such thing. See above.

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

Why doesn't it "work"? Is the vision false simply because it is a vision? Is the vision deceptive, purposely misleading millions of readers of it to false conclusions about the afterlife and the nature of the soul? Or does the vision reveal true, actual things, though it employs figurative language in doing so? The seven "bowls of wrath" pour out a literal punishment of God onto the world, do they not? The glorified Christ in John's Revelation is a real, literal Person, is he not? The Four Horsemen deliver literal famine, war, pestilence and death upon the world, don't they? The Final Judgment is an actual event where God separates for eternity His own from those who are not His, isn't it? The seals, trumpets, angels, and heavenly events described in the Revelation all speak of real, actual things, figurative language notwithstanding.

 

[Tenchi]

Of course not. You start with a false premise, that man can live apart from the body. However, you picked the wrong passage to use as support. Look at verse 9 where Jesus tells the three disciple not to tell the "VISION" to anyone until He has risen from the dead. Obviously, if Jesus told them what they'd see was vision they didn't think it was real.

I don't see how any of this makes false or unreal what happened in the event. Was Jesus speaking with "visions" when he was speaking with Moses and Elijah? Was he chatting with mere illusions of real people? I think not. It seems very evident to me that whether or not Jesus referred to the event as a "vision," something more than a dreamy fantasy had occurred; something real had taken place that involved the actual Moses and Elijah who talked directly with Jesus for a time.

Only if I force the faulty notion of the mortality of the soul on the account of the Transfiguration of Christ do I have to contort the plain facts of the event, denying their obvious import concerning the nature of the human soul.

It's not Begging the Question because the assertion is not under debate. Just because you reject what the Scriptures state plainly doesn't make the premise false.

??? But it does put your assertion into the realm of debate when you're trying to argue for it with others. Your conviction about the "truth" of your false ideas about the soul by no means obliges others to take up your view, or to be persuaded by what has persuaded you. No, if you're going to persuade others of your view, you're going to have to argue for your view, not just assert it confidently as a foregone conclusion, as you've been trying to do in this thread. So, then, yes, your assertion is under debate and as such ought not to be offered as an incontrovertible fact.

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 2:6–7.

That body that God created became a living soul. Thus the body is a living soul. You can deny it and claim it doesn't say this or that. But, what it does say is that the man became a living soul. The man, that body of dust, became a living soul.

??? Who's denying what Genesis 2:7 plainly states? Not me. What I deny is your idea that this verse indicates what the "living soul" is not. It doesn't. All it says is that Adam became, by God's impartation of the "breath of life," a living soul. That's it. Nothing else is offered by the verse; certainly not any of your "and so the soul is not immortal" stuff.

Also, the verse doesn't say "the body is thus a living soul." When it says "a living soul," Genesis 2:7 is referring to the man - comprised of body, soul and spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24) - not merely to his physical body.

What happens to that living soul at death?

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. 19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. 20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ec 3:18–21.

Notice, they all have one breath or spirit. They all go to one place. They all return to the dust. God created man of the dust of the earth. Man returns to the dust. The spirit or breath, which we find in Gen 2:7 the breath/spirit of life, returns to God.

As I've already explained, I take the whole of God's word together in my understanding of the disposition of the human soul after the death of the body, which is why I can't subscribe to your view. Too much of the rest of Scripture denies the idea that soul does not survive the death of the body, as I've already shown.

And treating Ecclesiastes as a source of spiritual truth is one of the worst uses of the book that I can imagine. Solomon wrote the book in his old age, from his own worldly and cynical perspective, as a man who had wandered far from God in his pursuit of wealth and fleshly pleasures. Trying to establish Christian doctrine, spiritual truth, from Ecclesiastes, then, is a profound error, mistaking entirely the perspective and point of the book.


The following quotation was attributed to me in one of your last posts, Butch5, but I didn't write it, you did.

"You don't have to reply to these posts. There's really no point in wasting your time. You've pretty much just denied what I've said so there's not really any point in continuing. If you would like to continue please establish, from Scripture, that man can live apart from the body. That would be by statement, not inference."

You should hold yourself to your own standard here, Butch5. Much of your argument diverges sharply from what is explicitly stated. It's a bit...rich, then, for you to demand such a standard of argument from your opponents.

In any case, if you're done discussing this matter with me, that's fine. I think it's pretty evident whose view is out-of-line with God's truth.