Bible Study Conditional Immortality

[chessman]

Kolasis does not mean torment, ...
What I see however is people inserting their doctrine of eternal conscious torment into the meaning of the word, rather than the word actually having that connotation innately.

I know from personal experience (mine) this is exactly what I was doing.

Matthew 25:46 And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” ​

First, if it meant torment, why is it translated punishment instead?

Also this verse appears in a section of Scripture using the separation of the goats from sheep. A group is separated on the left from a group on the right. Jesus is clearly setting eternal life in contrast to eternal __something____? To me, now that I've studied it, torment doesn't fit the contrast with life. An eternal life of torture is still an eternal life, is it not.

Goats are not sheep and left is not right and death is not life. But an eternal life of torture is still an eternal life.

Plus He's already said their punishment is "eternal fire" (which we know is a consuming fire, via other passages) just a couple verses before. Matt 25:41, 2peter 2:6, Heb 12:29, Matt 3:12, etc.)

Plus, He says that eternal fire is their second death (not torture) in Rev 20:14.

I've asked and asked what passage(s) directly teach that the final punishment of the wicked = eternal torture (even trying it in the Bible Study section before). I've never seen a Scripture that teaches their final eternal punishment is in fact eternal torture.

Again, maybe that's why it is translated punishment and not torture.

Odd, really, that someone would say the Greek word Kolasis means torture.

You listed some non-Biblical secular Greek usages of this word where it does not mean torture.

It is also used in the Roman Catholic Bible, WIS 14:10, to describe how physical (wooden as I recall) idols will be treated. It is in the verb form, however.

WIS 14:10 For that which is made [wooden idols] shall be punished together with him that made it.

 

[JLB]

I know from personal experience (mine) this is exactly what I was doing.

Matthew 25:46 And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” ​

First, if it meant torment, why is it translated punishment instead?

Also this verse appears in a section of Scripture using the separation of the goats from sheep. A group is separated on the left from a group on the right. Jesus is clearly setting eternal life in contrast to eternal __something____? To me, now that I've studied it, torment doesn't fit the contrast with life. An eternal life of torture is still an eternal life, is it not.

Goats are not sheep and left is not right and death is not life. But an eternal life of torture is still an eternal life.

Plus He's already said their punishment is "eternal fire" (which we know is a consuming fire, via other passages) just a couple verses before. Matt 25:41, 2peter 2:6, Heb 12:29, Matt 3:12, etc.)

Plus, He says that eternal fire is their second death (not torture) in Rev 20:14.

I've asked and asked what passage(s) directly teach that the final punishment of the wicked = eternal torture (even trying it in the Bible Study section before). I've never seen a Scripture that teaches their final eternal punishment is in fact eternal torture.

Again, maybe that's why it is translated punishment and not torture.

Odd, really, that someone would say the Greek word Kolasis means torture.

You listed some non-Biblical secular Greek usages of this word where it does not mean torture.

It is also used in the Roman Catholic Bible, WIS 14:10, to describe how physical (wooden as I recall) idols will be treated. It is in the verb form, however.

WIS 14:10 For that which is made [wooden idols] shall be punished together with him that made it.

... and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:42


Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' Matthew 22:13

The parable teaches weeping and gnashing of teeth, which being parabolic still teaches the truth and real outcome.

A parabolic or apocalyptic teaching still teaches the truth, even though it may have language that is symbolic.


JLB

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I looked at several dictionaries and it said to put an end to existence, to ruin someone emotionally or spiritually or to defeat someone utterly. I would say that I most often hear it used to describe something that is damaged to a point where it doesn't function the way it used to, but still exist in some way. I see that the main definition of destroy is to put an end to existence. Still I can see that being used figuratively, especially when there are other verses that use words figuratively.

The most often you hear the word described is, "something that is damaged to a point where it doesn't function the way it used to, but still exist in some way"?

Really?

de·stroy
verb\di-ˈstrȯi, dē-\
: to cause (something) to end or no longer exist : to cause the destruction of (something) : to damage (something) so badly that it cannot be repaired

: to kill (an animal) especially because it is sick, injured, or dangerous

: to defeat (someone or something) easily or completely
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/destroy

de·stroy
[dih-stroi]
verb (used with object)
1.
to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, ordissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2.
to put an end to; extinguish.
3.
to kill; slay.
4.
to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5.
to defeat completely.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destroy

de·stroy(dĭ-stroi′)
v. de·stroyed, de·stroy·ing, de·stroys
v.tr.
1. To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.
2. To tear down or break up; demolish. See Synonyms at ruin.
3. To do away with; put an end to: "In crowded populations, poverty destroys the possibility of cleanliness" (George Bernard Shaw).
4. To kill: destroy a rabid dog.
5. To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
6. To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/destroy

The word "destroy" comes from the Latin word "destruere" which is a combination of two words, "de"-"struere." The prefix of "de" is that of negation and "struere" which means to build up, pretty much the word carries the idea of a building being totally demolished.

When we then talk about both soul and body being destroyed, we are talking about their total destruction to where there is nothing left of them.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I think that's the point entirely.



I would think it's very relevant what they believe. If they're false which you have admitted also, then wouldn't they take scriptures out of context, add and subtract from them as they please?

I don't think you understand, your argument is logically fallacious and on that ground, invalid. It is fallacious because you're attempting to refute Annihilationism because of some of the groups that accept some version of the doctrine.

I can pretty much refute all of Christianity with this line of reasoning, but thankfully such reasoning has no rational basis but is an emotional argument.

The question is then, what do the Scriptures actually teach?

If this isn't a question you want to discuss then I don't see why you would continue discussing here, and if you want to throw the heretic card then do that in another forum.

 

[jeff77]

The most often you hear the word described is, "something that is damaged to a point where it doesn't function the way it used to, but still exist in some way"?

Really?

de·stroy
verb\di-ˈstrȯi, dē-\
: to cause (something) to end or no longer exist : to cause the destruction of (something) : to damage (something) so badly that it cannot be repaired

: to kill (an animal) especially because it is sick, injured, or dangerous

: to defeat (someone or something) easily or completely
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/destroy

de·stroy
[dih-stroi]
verb (used with object)
1.
to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, ordissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2.
to put an end to; extinguish.
3.
to kill; slay.
4.
to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5.
to defeat completely.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destroy

de·stroy(dĭ-stroi′)
v. de·stroyed, de·stroy·ing, de·stroys
v.tr.
1. To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.
2. To tear down or break up; demolish. See Synonyms at ruin.
3. To do away with; put an end to: "In crowded populations, poverty destroys the possibility of cleanliness" (George Bernard Shaw).
4. To kill: destroy a rabid dog.
5. To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
6. To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/destroy

The word "destroy" comes from the Latin word "destruere" which is a combination of two words, "de"-"struere." The prefix of "de" is that of negation and "struere" which means to build up, pretty much the word carries the idea of a building being totally demolished.

When we then talk about both soul and body being destroyed, we are talking about their total destruction to where there is nothing left of them.

I got pretty much the same definitions you posted. I was saying that in English I hear people use the word destroy to describe for example a car that has been destroyed in a wreck. The car is still there but does not function the way it used to.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I got pretty much the same definitions you posted. I was saying that in English I hear people use the word destroy to describe for example a car that has been destroyed in a wreck. The car is still there but does not function the way it used to.

Does the car still run or turn on if it is destroyed? Does a human being still live if it is destroyed?

 

[chessman]

... and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:42


Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' Matthew 22:13

The parable teaches weeping and gnashing of teeth, which being parabolic still teaches the truth and real outcome.

A parabolic or apocalyptic teaching still teaches the truth, even though it may have language that is symbolic.


JLB

I agree. And would the symbology of person thrown into a furnace teach what was thrown into it burns up and is consumed or would the hearer think that furnace ineffective in it's job of consumption?

Nobody thinks the wicked does not experience pain and anger.

 

[jeff77]

Does the car still run or turn on if it is destroyed? Does a human being still live if it is destroyed?

No it doesn't still turn on. I would say the immaterial part of the human lives on. I know we have already covered this. What I think is a possibility is that the word is being used figuratively. It is in some places in scripture isn't it?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

No it doesn't still turn on. I would say the immaterial part of the human lives on. I know we have already covered this. What I think is a possibility is that the word is being used figuratively. It is in some places in scripture isn't it?

You are assuming the immortality of the soul.

Also, what happens when both soul and body are destroyed as Matthew 10:28 says? Does the immaterial part still live on after it is destroyed?

 

[jeff77]

You are assuming the immortality of the soul.

Also, what happens when both soul and body are destroyed as Matthew 10:28 says? Does the immaterial part still live on after it is destroyed?

I believe they are destroyed, but is possible that the word is being used figuratively. I think that for ECT to be true this word in this verse would have to be used figuratively.

 

[JLB]

I agree. And would the symbology of person thrown into a furnace teach what was thrown into it burns up and is consumed or would the hearer think that furnace ineffective in it's job of consumption?

Nobody thinks the wicked does not experience pain and anger.

Not experience pain?

What does gnashing of teeth indicate to you?

What wailing indicate to you?


JLB

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I believe they are destroyed, but is possible that the word is being used figuratively. I think that for ECT to be true this word in this verse would have to be used figuratively.

Please provide a plausible explanation for it being a figurative usage of the term, if you would.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Not experience pain?

What does gnashing of teeth indicate to you?

What wailing indicate to you?


JLB

I think you should reread what he said.

"Nobody thinks the wicked does not experience pain and anger."

He agreed that the wicked experience pain and anger because he negated the idea that they don't.

 

[JLB]

I think you should reread what he said.

"Nobody thinks the wicked does not experience pain and anger."

He agreed that the wicked experience pain and anger because he negated the idea that they don't.

My question has always been, how long do they experience this torment that causes the gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Scripture itself provides some insight.

Shall we discuss what the scriptures teach us concerning how long the wailing and gnashing of teeth torment last's?

JLB

 

[Doulos Iesou]

My question has always been, how long do they experience this torment that causes the gnashing of teeth and wailing.

Scripture itself provides some insight.

Shall we discuss what the scriptures teach us concerning how long the wailing and gnashing of teeth torment last's?

JLB

They've already been discussed, the individual passages on the wailing and gnashing of teeth have no length in mind.

I'm curious if any of you are willing to look at the passages that very strongly support CI and address them, as I have done for the passages you guys often cite.

 

[DRS81]

I don't think you understand, your argument is logically fallacious and on that ground, invalid. It is fallacious because you're attempting to refute Annihilationism because of some of the groups that accept some version of the doctrine.

I do understand. I understand those denominations misinterpret who Jesus is. If they can't get that right then why would they get the concept of hell right since Jesus was the one who spoke of hell. These aren't just some groups that accept some versions. They don't have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Their doctrine isn't based on faith and grace, it's based on salvation by (works) and not salvation by (faith).

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I do understand. I understand those denominations misinterpret who Jesus is. If they can't get that right then why would they get the concept of hell right since Jesus was the one who spoke of hell. These aren't just some groups that accept some versions. They don't have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Their doctrine isn't based on faith and grace, it's based on salvation by (works) and not salvation by (faith).

I'm not Jehovah Witness, nor am I Christidelphian. The doctrine of Conditional Immortality/Annihilationism has been around for a very long time, since the 1st Century (and obviously I believe it is what Jesus and the Apostle's believed). I am not part of some outlier group or cult, and accept the doctrine based upon what Scripture says.

You continue to commit this logical fallacy despite being called out on it.

If you want to do this you can go elsewhere, further attempts to put Christians and cultists in the same boat will result in being reported.

If you knew anything about how these groups articulate their beliefs, and how we here articulate them, then you wouldn't make the comparison. I would not describe the doctrine any where close to how they do, except for some Seventh Day Adventists, though I disagree with a lot of what they say as well.

 

[Deborah13]

... and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:42


Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' Matthew 22:13

The parable teaches weeping and gnashing of teeth, which being parabolic still teaches the truth and real outcome.

A parabolic or apocalyptic teaching still teaches the truth, even though it may have language that is symbolic.


JLB

So there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness.
What is the outer darkness, do you think?

Please remember that I don't have a side I am supporting in this study. I'm just asking questions.

 

[JLB]

So there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness.
What is the outer darkness, do you think?

Please remember that I don't have a side I am supporting in this study. I'm just asking questions.

Great question Deb.

I posted one scripture associated with outer darkness that also has fire involved and one scripture that does not mention fire.

... and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:42


Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' Matthew 22:13

Does being cast into outer darkness always involve being cast into fire?

It is safe to say that both involve conscience torment, as described by wailing and gnashing of teeth.



JLB

 

[Butch5]

What does Jesus mean when He says "the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever and they have no rest day nor night" as we see here in..

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

tob

Hi tob,

We've looked at that passage, it's talking about people who are alive, not dead.