Eternal life being tormented in Hell or Death, What is the wages of sin?

[dadof10]

Dadoften, you never answered. What does John 3:16 say in your Bible?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Your turn. According to Paul in 2Thes. 2:8, is the false prophet "destroyed"?

I'm not the bad guy here. Please stop being like this.

No one is calling you the "bad guy"....and stop being like what?

 

[TimothyW]

Yes. 2 Thess 2:8 specifically says that the lawless one will be destroyed. Why don't you believe it? And why don't you believe John 3:16? And as for how you are acting, since you asked, you are being a jerk. Please try to act like a decent Christian should.

 

[westtexas]

TimothyW, if you will I'd like you to explain a verse for me and then we can go from there. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Luke 5:37 says "and no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish." (KJV)
In this verse, what has happened to the bottles? Are they still bottles? Simply broken?

 

[dadof10]

Yes. 2 Thess 2:8 specifically says that the lawless one will be destroyed. Why don't you believe it?

So, the FALSE PROPHET will be "destroyed".

"and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev. 20:10)

Destroyed=tormented day and night for ever and ever.

I do believe it. I believe that the word "destroyed" can mean "tormented day and night for ever and ever", especially when it relates to the afterlife.

And why don't you believe John 3:16? And as for how you are acting, since you asked, you are being a jerk. Please try to act like a decent Christian should.

I believe that too. I just don't believe the word "perish" means to be annihilated and cease to exist.

 

[TimothyW]

TimothyW, if you will I'd like you to explain a verse for me and then we can go from there. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Luke 5:37 says "and no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish." (KJV)
In this verse, what has happened to the bottles? Are they still bottles? Simply broken?

I'll answer your question with a question. Is a dead person dead or alive? If the bottles are broken they are not unbroken. Are people people or are they bottles? If a person is destroyed, they do not remain undestroyed. Yes, a dead person is still a person. They are a dead person not a living person. They are not conscious. I have just been saying what the bible says.

 

[TimothyW]

So, the FALSE PROPHET will be "destroyed".

"and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Rev. 20:10)

Destroyed=tormented day and night for ever and ever.

I do believe it. I believe that the word "destroyed" can mean "tormented day and night for ever and ever", especially when it relates to the afterlife.



I believe that too. I just don't believe the word "perish" means to be annihilated and cease to exist.

I see. So as long as you get to define the words so that they don't mean what they mean you believe what they say. Annihilated is your word, not mine. The wages of sin is death. Death does not mean eternal life in hell being tortured. Eternal life is the opposite of death. John 3:16 gives 2 options, perish or have eternal life. Perishing is not having eternal life. Those who perish do not have eternal life on hell being tortured alive forever because they have perished. Words mean things whether or not you want them to.

I am just repeating what the bible says. The wicked will perish and the wicked will be no more. What does psalm 37:20 say? What does Psalm 37:10 say? I'm not saying anything the Bible hasn't already said.

 

[TimothyW]

Destroyed does not mean keep undestroyed forever in hell. Your definition is wrong. Sorry. Destroyed can't mean the opposite of destroyed. A word cant mean the opposite of itself.

 

[chessman]

2 Thessalonians 1:9 (ESV) They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.​

I do think their destruction will be eternal. I don’t think there is a second resurrection or a second chance for them to come back to life from their second death. Do you? I mean if their soul and their body is destroyed, how eternal will that destruction be? Pretty darn eternal. Once they are destroyed in Hell (body and soul) it’s final. I’m confused. Not by the Scripture but your logical flow here. Where does it say they [the lost deceived] will be eternally tormented in Hell?
“punishment of eternal destruction” sound exactly like the second death of Matt 10:28 to me.

2 Thes. 1:9 Gives new meaning to your interpretation

No it gives no new meaning to “destruction”, not to me it doesn’t. I assume you already believe people are alive in Hell so I guess you just see their “destruction” as a metaphor or something that the translators incorrectly translated that way. They should have used “torment” but didn’t evidently for some reason. So to you, it cannot mean they receive destruction. I don’t have any problem with its plain meaning. I’m surprised, in fact, you’d even mention 2 Thes 1:9 as I see it as a supporting passage for my understanding of the final punishment of the lost humans.

Your other point was to basically equate Paul’s “Lawless One” (human or demon?) to that same being (human of demon?) in John’s vision of The False Prophet. I assume to show it's "killing" is not annihilation.

However, are you using this passage in any way to take a position on whether “The False Prophet” is human or demon or are you still leaving either option open? I view The Lawless One as clearly Demonic (if no Satan himself).

I personally think it would be evidence for your side, for example, if you could show Scripture that proved The False Prophet was human (via what Rev 20:10 does say about torment). That’s the topic here.

To me via the evidences I’ve already presented (yet you just rejected outright with no explanation why, other than you don’t think all men means all men) shows that The False Prophet is definitely not human.

Also, here is Paul describing what can only be the false prophet:
Here, Paul says the false prophet will be destroyed, yet we know he (whether a demon or a human) is eternally tormented along with the beast and Satan.

First only if you assume Paul is talking about a direct one-to-one specific character in John’s vision do I see where it’s so clear as you say it is (but maybe). And Frankly, I doesn't matter to me. And I don’t mean “character” to mean fiction. But rather, my point is that John speaks of dragons, beast, frogs, etc. in his vision using apocalyptic language of the day (not in more direct and literal terms like Paul does) . So that would be odd that we could concretely make any one to one comparisons to The False Prophet in John’s vision to the Lawless One in Paul’s writing that comes before John’s vision. But you seem awfully confident that you've got him all figured out. Yet still undecided on whether he's human or not. It would be quite clear if Paul just came right out and said the Lawless One was The False Prophet. But, nothing personal, but I’m not just taking your word for it.

Also, I’m not even sure of your point. I’ve never argued that “destroy” cannot be used metaphorically at times. And if 2 Thess 2:8 is one of them, fine. But it says nothing about torment or what happens to humans after their Judgment. Nor does it say that The Lawless One is human, much less what you really need to show (that the False Prophet is human).

So anyway, Is the Lawless One human or not? I say no way. Here’s why:
1. Read verse 7. When was 2 Thess written to the Thessolonians? Around 50 A.D. or so written specifically to teach them that the coming of Christ (2nd coming) was in the future (not the past).

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.8 And then the lawless one will be revealed​

If the Lawless One was being “restrained” in 50 A.D. yet still not appearing even now in 2013, that sure does make him an old human! Plus, where is a place of “restraint” that comes to mind? I know. Hell.
2. Do I really need a #2? No, not really. But it says the Lawless One will be killed “with the breath of his mouth”. Sounds pretty spiritual to me. I’m sure even more so to a Jewish person.
3. The Lawless One is commanded to come by Satan himself and show “all power and false signs and wonders”. Again sounds pretty demonic to me and certainly not human.
4. I’m tired of this actually.

I’ll respond to your very next post that shows us a Scripture that says humans are tormented in Hell eternally or The False Prophet of Rev 20:10 is human.

Do you think it's at least possible that there is punishment in the afterlife that is never ending for humans, as Scripture CLEARLY says?

Absolutely. Positively. I do think “that there is punishment in the afterlife that is never ending for humans, as Scripture CLEARLY says?” Great to have you on board with us.

I cannot think of a better way to say a final everlasting punishment than their eternal destruction. I’m glad you mentioned 2 Thess 1:9.

Paul never once said anything about eternal torment of humans there, however.
And He doesn’t describe The Lawless One as a human, either.

Your other point was basically that at times in the Bible (like 2 Thess 2:8), “destroy” can be used metaphorically much as we do today to say “FSU destroyed NC State” Saturday. Which they did! Go Noles.

You don’t need to convince me of that. I do think “death” and “destroy” at times can be used rather metaphorically in the Bible. Much like it is even for the "first death" yet we know of a "second death" much more fearful

But always it's the context of the text is always the deciding factor, not you (or me). Matt 10:28 is NOT one of those times Jesus means it metaphorically. Nor do I see 2 Thess 1:9 as one. But I guess that you do. I note how these seem to mesh perfectly with the destruction of BOTH the soul and the body of humans.

I also note that the other word for “destroy” is in fact what’s used in 2 Thess 2:8. But there, it’s not talking about killing a human. Again (as with most of the other verses mentioned) it’s not even a post-judgment event anyway.

 

[TimothyW]

According to the Bible, the lake of fire is the second death. The false prophet is destroyed. The false prophet goes to the second death. The false prophet will die. All of these mean the same thing.

 

[westtexas]

I'll answer your question with a question. Is a dead person dead or alive? If the bottles are broken they are not unbroken. Are people people or are they bottles? If a person is destroyed, they do not remain undestroyed. Yes, a dead person is still a person. They are a dead person not a living person. They are not conscious. I have just been saying what the bible says.

Here's the point which you obviously don't care to address. Dad of 10 has pointed out that, biblically, there are NUMEROUS examples to show that "apollumi or destroy" does not necessarily ALWAYS denote non-existence as you continually insist.

This is from Vines Complete Expository Dictionary (apollumi, a strengthened form of ollumi, signifies "to destroy utterly", in middle voice, to perish. The idea IS NOT EXTINCTION but ruin, loss, NOT OF BEING, but of well-being.) W.E.Vines pg. 164-Caps are mine
Thoughts?
Edited to add: I wish I would have attached your post #268. If Dad's definition of "destroyed" is wrong- Is W.E Vines wrong as well?

 

[jeff77]

A question for those that believe in non-ECT. Have you always believed non-ECT? Or was there a time when you believed ECT and if so, what made you change your mind?

 

[TimothyW]

A question for those that believe in non-ECT. Have you always believed non-ECT? Or was there a time when you believed ECT and if so, what made you change your mind?

Like everyone else, I used to believe the traditional doctrine of ECT. I decided to check all of my beliefs to see if the bible supported them. I found much more support for the wages of sin being death and no support for eternal torment. So I changed my view to match what I was reading in the Bible.

 

[TimothyW]

Here's the point which you obviously don't care to address. Dad of 10 has pointed out that, biblically, there are NUMEROUS examples to show that "apollumi or destroy" does not necessarily ALWAYS denote non-existence as you continually insist.

This is from Vines Complete Expository Dictionary (apollumi, a strengthened form of ollumi, signifies "to destroy utterly", in middle voice, to perish. The idea IS NOT EXTINCTION but ruin, loss, NOT OF BEING, but of well-being.) W.E.Vines pg. 164-Caps are mine
Thoughts?
Edited to add: I wish I would have attached your post #268. If Dad's definition of "destroyed" is wrong- Is W.E Vines wrong as well?

The bible not only says that the wicked are destroyed, it also says they will perish, be consumer by fire, reduced to ash, be no more, etc. Other Greek experts disagree with Vine on this. It looks like Vine allowed his belief in etc to influence his definition. What evidence does Vine give for defining apollumi as "never destroyed"?

 

[chessman]

TimothyW, if you will I'd like you to explain a verse for me and then we can go from there. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Luke 5:37 says "and no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish." (KJV)
In this verse, what has happened to the bottles? Are they still bottles? Simply broken?

I know you asked Tim but here’s my answer since it’s a public forum and the only reason an alternate meaning for “destroy” was brought up is that it relates to a study/debate Dadof10 and I are having (quite interesting study really) where he’s still trying to use Rev 20:10 prove that humans’ post judgment treatment in Hell is in fact ECT.

It’s hard to believe really since Rev 20:10 clearly is not even talking about the timeframe of the OP topic nor the people that we are talking about (or should be) in this Thread. He’s still refuses to accept (or even address) two fundamental problems with using Rev 20:10 to prove ECT of humans in Hell, yet his brought in the argument that “destroy” does not always necessarily mean annihilation. Odd, really. You’d think someone would at least acknowledge that Rev 20:10 is not about the post judgment treatment of humans. You can simply go read Rev 20:14-15 if you want to find out what happens to lost humans. But oh well. Sa la vie.

14…This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.​

I’ll answer your questions in reverse order:

“Simply broken?” No. They were (or technically will be via the verb tense used for Apollumi) destroyed as a bottle. But are the pieces left, sure. They still loose their ‘bottleness’ however. But guess what, we aren’t talking about bottles. We are talking about destroying what? Lives (bodies and souls)! We (and Luke’s readers recording Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees question (a totally unrelated question by the way) knew the context of the discussion in/around “destroy/apollumi” and the brains to know what and how Jesus was using the word.

Let’s cut to the chase here: (Humm, did you know what I meant by “cut”? Sure. Was it the same meaning as “that really cuts me to the bone” or I “cut” myself with a knife cleaning that 30 lbs snapper over there onthe left

Dado is really, simply pointing out the obvious fact. ALL words can be used this way (including “all”, by the way). I’ve never said they cannot. It’s the context, however, in/around the topic at hand (not somewhere else where it's used (Luke 5 versus Rev 20) that ultimately decides the word’s meaning.

A related but admittedly slightly tangential point here: Ever thought about why the Ancient Hebrews reserved a word (just one little word) that could never be spoken or even written? Could it be that they were smart enough (or inspired enough) to know that whenever people start using a word, they inevitably start to use it figuratively and then even in totally different ways? Even to the point that sometimes it even begins to be used in ‘vain’ or even develop the opposite meaning (in its everyday use) to that which it originally had?​

Here’s another example. When someone says:

Playing on words to avoid doing what you said you would do.

Do you think this person meant ‘playing’ as in ‘playing on a trampoline' or rather, do you think he means ‘playing’ as in distorting meaning with joyful glee?

But it brings me back to my answer to your second question; Are they still bottles? No. they were bottles (useful for holding wine) but no longer. Now, if someone were talking about another subject. Let’s say the “life” of a human. And that “ human life” were to experience destruction (apollumi) tell me again how that means they are still a living conscious humans? Cause I certainly don’t get it.

Ah, but you say even the human soul lives on forever, even after apollumi (cause a bottle does) and we know humans have a resurrection even from the dead. Okay, sure. We all get that. But Jesus tells us that there is death even worse, more fearful and yes more ‘destructive’ than that first one.

Matthew 10:28 (ESV) And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.​

Does anyone want to present an argument that here Jesus means (after just using the example of what the ‘first death’ does to the body/flesh (it is eventually totally eaten up by maggots or else turn to ash in a fire, if it’s not quenched first) that a ‘second death’ actually equates to ECT? First, ECT of what?

Even if apollumi was used in Matt 10:28 (or any other passage you want to pick) like it was in Luke 5 (which it’s not, but even if it were);

If the body is ‘no longer functioning’ as a body should (like the bottle is no longer functioning as a bottle should) then is the soul somehow likewise somehow actually able to function as a soul should even after it experienced this type of appolumi? It makes no sense of this passage.

Obviously Jesus means something happens to the soul at the second death, that has not happened to the soul in between the first and the second. And it's a something much like the first.

If the soul is conscious of its torment after the ‘first death’ then how is it broken at the ‘second death’?
Frankly, I have no idea how one could conclude ECT is true based on an alternate (less powerful) meaning of ‘apollumi’. Even giving ‘apollumi’ the fairest of chances to simply mean ‘broken’ (injured) versus destroyed (burnt to ashes, consumed by maggots, whatever).

I’ve always thought it was a little silly (to extreme if you will) that the Jews wouldn’t even speak the name of God. But maybe they had a very good point!​

Anyway, your last question: “In this verse, what has happened to the bottles?” They were broken.

Here's a question for you that I've asked a lot of people without a very satisfying answer given to me; In Matt 10:28, after this 'second death' of the body AND the soul, what do you think Jesus means by what will happen to that human being that experiences that 'second death'? Are they just damaged goods, or is it more than that? We (and His hearers) pretty much know what happens to the body after the first death. I suppose it's all speculative to what happens after the second death. But how (exactly) does it compare to the first death (of which we know what that looks like)? That is, if the soul lives on?

 

[westtexas]

Here's a question for you that I've asked a lot of people without a very satisfying answer given to me; In Matt 10:28, after this 'second death' of the body AND the soul, what do you think Jesus means by what will happen to that human being that experiences that 'second death'? Are they just damaged goods, or is it more than that? We (and His hearers) pretty much know what happens to the body after the first death. I suppose it's all speculative to what happens after the second death. But how (exactly) does it compare to the first death (of which we know what that looks like)? That is, if the soul lives on?

Chessman, I just wanted to respond quickly. I am at lunch and do not have the time to give you the response that your question deserves but I'll address it tonite or tomorrow evening as my work schedule allows. While we differ on our viewpoints, I want to thank you for your courteous and well thought-out response. It is quite refreshing to have a discussion (and even though we will disagree) not simply get a "I'm right and you are wrong" answer. I'm looking forward to our discussion.
God bless, Westtexas

 

[chessman]

Chessman, I just wanted to respond quickly. I am at lunch and do not have the time to give you the response that your question deserves but I'll address it tonite or tomorrow evening as my work schedule allows. While we differ on our viewpoints, I want to thank you for your courteous and well thought-out response. It is quite refreshing to have a discussion (and even though we will disagree) not simply get a "I'm right and you are wrong" answer. I'm looking forward to our discussion.
God bless, Westtexas

Me too. I know I got long winded in my post. Sorry. I also, do not disagree with you on the various alternate meanings of Apollumi within Scripture.
Just fundamentally, though, the reason we know there are alternate uses, is ... well, by the way it’s used. Right?

I guess I could have just said it that way.

 

[WIP]

I'll answer your question with a question. Is a dead person dead or alive? If the bottles are broken they are not unbroken. Are people people or are they bottles? If a person is destroyed, they do not remain undestroyed. Yes, a dead person is still a person. They are a dead person not a living person. They are not conscious. I have just been saying what the bible says.

I'm not going to allow myself to get into the same debate I was earlier but I would like to ask you a question. Maybe you've already done this but could you provide for us your definition of the following words please? I would like to be sure we're all talking about the same thing.

Death
Die
Dead

 

[chessman]

I'm not going to allow myself to get into the same debate I was earlier but I would like to ask you a question. Maybe you've already done this but could you provide for us your definition of the following words please? I would like to be sure we're all talking about the same thing.
Death
Die
Dead

I could use these words with several different definitions in mind (and I’m sure I have in this thread). That cake is to die for. The death of the typewriter came about with computers. Or my grandmother is dead.

They all three have differing definitions depending on the sentence where I use them or the context of the passage we’re studying. So it’s actually hard for me to answer your question, though it sounds like a straight forward question, sure. I don’t mean to be obstinate.

All I can say is that I’d like to think we both would define them the same way. You must have a reason for asking this question. Can you be a little more specific and maybe even say what Scripture or statement that I’ve made where you’d disagree with how I’ve used any of these words? Then we could talk more about it.

Also, within the context of the CFNet A&T forum’s goals and ToS, How would you define debate?

Here’s my definition(s) and let’s see if we agree on it.

1. Primary: to talk about something (Scriptures related to the OP Topic in this case) at length, in detail, and treating others with the same content and verbal demeanor that you’d have them treat you, especially as part of a formal exchange of opinion”

2. Secondary: to ponder something (Scripture in this case) carefully.

Examples:

Acts 15: And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

Acts 17:2
And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Sound about right?

What I do not mean when I say ‘debate’ is:
1. Name calling.
2. Banter
3. Insults
4. Snide remarks
5. Accusations of another’s salvation because of a differing opinion
6. Etc.
Agreed?

 

[WIP]

You sound like an attorney on the defensive. I'm just asking, for the sake of this discussion, how TimothyW defines those three terms.

To your reference to my use of the word "debate" I guess debate is a little stronger term than I intended. Nothing implied.

 

[chessman]

You sound like an attorney on the defensive. I'm just asking, for the sake of this discussion, how TimothyW defines those three terms.

To your reference to my use of the word "debate" I guess debate is a little stronger term than I intended. Nothing implied.

I know I did not really answer your question. But really. It depends on the passage in question.

Did you have one in mind?