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

[chessman]

I

A false prophet who is called the false prophet is a human.


JLB

You are wrong. And i can prove it.

 

[dadof10]

Dadof10. According to the bible the beast is not human.

OK, I know there are other interpretations of who the beast is. If you don't accept it's a human, OK.

In that verse there are 2 nonhumans. I believe the false prophet is also not human, due to the close association with the other 2.

Are we made not human if we have a "close association" with the devil? The false prophet is either human or not. How close he is to the devil is irrelevant.

Don't forget what type of book Revelation is. You should expect to see symbols in John's vision.

Right, but who and what people are isn't changed by the symbolism. As far as I can tell by the websites I've read, there is a variety of interpretations of who or what the beast is. There is no such variety with the false prophet. It is universally thought he is a human being. If you have evidence to the contrary, I will surely listen, but, as it stands now, he is certainly a human that points to the beast.

Your objection about the second death proving that the first death is not death doesn't work because I believe that the dead are raised to life before the second death. Christians are resurrected and remain alive. We don't perish like those who reject Christ will. They die a second time. This second death is "the second death".

The point is, in scripture, the word "death" can mean something other than annihilation. Our bodies die, but our souls go on. You interpretation of "The wages of sin is death..." doesn't allow for this.

You claimed that I believe the Bible says "the wages of sin is annihilation". I never said that.

I never accused you of saying that. I said "If it means "the wages of sin is annihilation", then we ALL get annihilated because we all sin."

I believe that the wages of sin is death just as the Bible says. I don't redefine death to mean eternal life. I believe that death really is death.

When a person's body dies, don't you think that person's soul, if he's damned, goes to hell and is then annihilated? So, there is life after death even for a damned person, right? Where you and I disagree is the length of time the soul lasts. "Death" then, doesn't mean annihilation. Do you agree?

 

[dadof10]

If I took the time to show you where Scripture proves The Beast and The False Prophet are definitely not humans, would you believe it?

"The beast" can, and is, interpreted as something other than a human. The false prophet is not. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. If it takes into consideration the purely human characteristics of the false prophet described in Revelation, then of course I'll listen.

 

[dadof10]

Providentially it has not gone without saying. We have the Biblical definition.

Matthew 10:28
New International Version (NIV)

28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

since both soul and body are destroyed in Hell, can you think of a better word to describe it than annihilation? If so, we could use that word. Of this destruction that comes after a first one (that's only the body) can you think of a better description than 2nd death to describe it?

My point is the word "death" must have other BIBLICAL definitions besides annihilation, otherwise there could be no "second death". Do you agree or disagree?

 

[chessman]

"The beast" can, and is, interpreted as something other than a human. The false prophet is not. If you have evidence to the contrary, present it. If it takes into consideration the purely human characteristics of the false prophet described in Revelation, then of course I'll listen.

Great. I've actually never seen this presented before (which scares me) but it seems reasonable to me. I'm not quite sure why I've not seen it before.

I'd appreciate any good arguments for why what I'm about to present does not follow logically, from Scripture. I have two Scriptural arguments. I'll present one first (see how that goes) then the second:

The specific question here is whether The False Prophet and/or The Beast within John’s vision are humans or not.

First Scriptural Evidence:

Rev 19:17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” 19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. ​

V18. The birds were called to eat the flesh of ALL MEN free and slave, small and great.
V20. The Beast and The False Prophet were not eaten, they were thrown alive into the Lake of Fire.
Conclusion: The Beast and The False Prophet were not among All Humans of John’s vision.

The Beast and The False Prophet would have been included in “all men, both free and slave, both small and great” if they were human. Whether the vision is meant to be literal or highly figurative does not matter here in this argument. Either way, it depicts what John meant to communicate about The Beast and The False Prophet. And it’s certainly a vision meant to describe truth about real future events.

John seems to exclude the possibility they (either The Beast or The False Prophet) here since they were not eaten by the birds, yet since the birds were called to eat the flesh of ALL MEN.

Therefore, since The Beast and The False Prophet are not humans, Rev 20:10 is not talking about humans.

Note also how the Lake of Fire burns with sulfur (not flesh).

Note also that The Beast and The False Prophet were thrown into the Lake of Fire, prior to the resurrection and judgment humans (the topic of this thread)! Yet people call upon this Scripture and others which are clearly prior events (Rev 14 for example) at times in prophecy that are before the time we are discussing.

 

[turnorburn]

The wages of sin is death eternal death we don't see things in eternity so how are we supposed to know anything about it. When Jesus makes a statement i can guarantee its for all eternity those ten commandments aren't a temporary fixture in our vocabulary. To us death is being separated from say a loved one their gone forever their being exists in eternity whether it be in hell or heaven. When it comes to rewards they are eternal or do you receive rewards that wear out after a certain length of time. The reward for sin is death it can't be anything other than eternal if we follow along with what Jesus says.

Where it says *everlasting destruction" it means just that "everlasting"

II Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with *everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

tob

 

[chessman]

My point is the word "death" must have other BIBLICAL definitions besides annihilation, otherwise there could be no "second death". Do you agree or disagree?

Well sure I agree. BTW, I've believed in ECT for 35 years, yet now cannot find the Biblical evidence for it. I must have just been taught it indirectly since there is no Scripture for it that I'm aware of. And I'm not even here trying to convince anyone else one way or the other. Really! I'm just trying to find the best arguments for ECT. And frankly, there's none that's been present in this thread.

But the point of Matt 10:28 is not so much the fact that the word "death" is used (cause I agree that the Bible anticipates more to life than "death", thus our term "afterlife). That's not in question. But it's extremely instructive that in Jesus tells us that God can destroy both the body AND the soul. I'm not quite sure what's left if in fact, both the body and the soul are destroyed.

Can you explain what Matt 10:28 means, if it's not total destruction of a human? Not because it uses "death" but because it says destroy both the body and the soul. What's left after that?

I'm not even asking to be argumentative. But frankly, it's a point that ECT people (like I was) just ignore.

What exactly do you think Jesus meant by "destroy both the body and the soul"?

But, yes I get that death doesn't mean the end all to end all events. Certainly not the "first death" since God raises both the saved and unsaved after this. BUT, the "second death" must in some way represent the first. I'm simply saying Jesus explained how in Matt 10:28.

First is body only, second is both. Pretty simple, really.

 

[dadof10]

Great. I've actually never seen this presented before (which scares me) but it seems reasonable to me. I'm not quite sure why I've not seen it before.

I'd appreciate any good arguments for why what I'm about to present does not follow logically, from Scripture. I have two Scriptural arguments. I'll present one first (see how that goes) then the second:

The specific question here is whether The False Prophet and/or The Beast within John’s vision are humans or not.

First Scriptural Evidence:

Rev 19:17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great.” 19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. 20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur. ​

V18. The birds were called to eat the flesh of ALL MEN free and slave, small and great.
V20. The Beast and The False Prophet were not eaten, they were thrown alive into the Lake of Fire.
Conclusion: The Beast and The False Prophet were not among All Humans of John’s vision.

The Beast and The False Prophet would have been included in “all men, both free and slave, both small and great” if they were human. Whether the vision is meant to be literal or highly figurative does not matter here in this argument. Either way, it depicts what John meant to communicate about The Beast and The False Prophet. And it’s certainly a vision meant to describe truth about real future events.

John seems to exclude the possibility they (either The Beast or The False Prophet) here since they were not eaten by the birds, yet since the birds were called to eat the flesh of ALL MEN.

Therefore, since The Beast and The False Prophet are not humans, Rev 20:10 is not talking about humans.

Note also how the Lake of Fire burns with sulfur (not flesh).

Note also that The Beast and The False Prophet were thrown into the Lake of Fire, prior to the resurrection and judgment humans (the topic of this thread)! Yet people call upon this Scripture and others which are clearly prior events (Rev 14 for example) at times in prophecy that are before the time we are discussing.

After the birds WERE CALLED to eat the flesh, we read:

"And the rest were slain by the sword of him who sits upon the horse, the sword that issues from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.' (v.21)

It seems as though the rebels were eaten by the birds post-mortem and AFTER the beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire. The birds were CALLED before the battle, but did their feasting after the rebels were dead and the false prophet was captured and thrown into hell. Everyone else besides the beast and the false prophet were "slain by the sword" not by the birds.This being said, I don't think this speaks to our topic.

We can continue in this vein if you want. You can try and convince me, or we can move on to your other take.

 

[TimothyW]

My point is the word "death" must have other BIBLICAL definitions besides annihilation, otherwise there could be no "second death". Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree. If the first death really is death and the dead person is resurrected to life and then dies a second time the second death doesn't prove the first death wasn't really death. What do you mean by annihilation? Isn't that a fancy word for completely dead? What is your definition of annihilation?

 

[dadof10]

But the point of Matt 10:28 is not so much the fact that the word "death" is used (cause I agree that the Bible anticipates more to life than "death", thus our term "afterlife). That's not in question. But it's extremely instructive that in Jesus tells us that God can destroy both the body AND the soul. I'm not quite sure what's left if in fact, both the body and the soul are destroyed.

Can you explain what Matt 10:28 means, if it's not total destruction of a human?

No, frankly, I can't. This is one of the verses that seem to bolster your case. I'll have to look into it when I have time. If I remember right, there is a reasonable explanation, I just can't remember it at the moment.

 

[jeff77]

When I first heard that there is a belief among some Christians that people don't go to Hell a few things came to mind. It seems to take away from the seriousness of the consequences of rejecting God. It seems like some Christians would be less motivated to go out and witness to people. It makes spiritual warfare less meaningful.

 

[dadof10]

I disagree. If the first death really is death and the dead person is resurrected to life and then dies a second time the second death doesn't prove the first death wasn't really death.

Tim, that there is a second DEATH assumes a first. The first DEATH is not annihilation by definition.

What do you mean by annihilation? Isn't that a fancy word for completely dead? What is your definition of annihilation?

Ceasing to exist in some form. This is what you seem to be describing. A person is thrown into the Lake of Fire and then is burned up and exists no more. Isn't this your take?

 

[chessman]

After the birds WERE CALLED to eat the flesh, we read:

"And the rest were slain by the sword of him who sits upon the horse, the sword that issues from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.' (v.21)

It seems as though the rebels were eaten by the birds post-mortem and AFTER the beast and false prophet were thrown into the lake of fire. The birds were CALLED before the battle, but did their feasting after the rebels were dead and the false prophet was captured and thrown into hell. Everyone else besides the beast and the false prophet were "slain by the sword" not by the birds.This being said, I don't think this speaks to our topic.

We can continue in this vein if you want. You can try and convince me, or we can move on to your other take.

If that's your best take on this, yes. I'll just move on to the second Scripture that shows The Beast and The False Prophet are not human. I don't think it's proper to say "everyone else" but The False Prophet and The Beast when the Scripture says All men will be eaten by the birds.

The point is not how they died, but the fact that they were never eaten by the birds. I never said they would die by the birds, The Scripture says the birds would eat the FLESH of ALL men (not eat them alive). But they did not eat the flesh of The Beast or The False Prophet. I think they did eat the flesh of all humans as they were called to do (not just all of them except two or one depending on your view of The Beast).

My second Scriptural argument next:

 

[TimothyW]

Tim, that there is a second DEATH assumes a first. The first DEATH is not annihilation by definition.



Ceasing to exist in some form. This is what you seem to be describing. A person is thrown into the Lake of Fire and then is burned up and exists no more. Isn't this your take?

I believe the person ceases to exist at their first death. Then they are resurrected to life for judgment. Then unbelievers go to their second death. I don't see why you insist that the second death proves the first death isn't death or how any of this proves that death doesn't mean death or how any of this proves that death really means eternal life. People who are consumed by the fire do not remain alive.

 

[chessman]

Second Evidence from Scripture: The specific question here is whether The False Prophet and/or The Beast within John’s vision are humans or not.

First remember Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels (comes way earlier than John’s vision):

Matt 25:41 Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’​

The point is, Jesus says that some place has been prepared for BOTH Satan and his angels(demons) external to John’s vision but surely consistent with it.

Second,

Rev:20 1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.​

So here we have Satan himself joining The Beast and The False Prophet (who avoided being eaten by the birds and were thrown alive there earlier in Rev 19:20) in “The Bottomless Pit” or “The Lake of Fire” for “1000 years” (if in fact it's the same place).
Then:

Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out [of the pit] to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, … ​

10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.​

So here we see the harmony with Matt 25:41 (that is only if The Beast and The False Prophet are in fact demons. If they are humans, there's no harmony described in John's vision. Where is the place "prepared for the Devil and his angels (if not the Lake of Fire?) It cannot be the "bottomless pit".

My point is, The False Prophet and The Beast, had spent 1,000 years in the Lake of Fire within John’s vision, with Satan having been in “the bottomless pit”, released to Earth then in Rev 20:10, Satan joins them (these two, since humans ARE NOT YET SENT THERE) in The Lake of Fire. But they didn’t become human during that time period. The Lake of Fire was “prepared” for this event. It was “prepared for the Devil and his angels”.

So if John’s vision is accurate to Jesus’ teaching in the Gospel, the place prepared for The Devil is "The Lake of Fire" (it cannot be the bottomless pit) and guess who’s there also? His angels (The False Prophet and The Beast).

So this is why I think John means for us to see The Beast and The False Prophet as demons (not humans).

So what, exactly, are the Biblical arguments for where John says they are humans? I'm willing to listen to them, but "cause I say they are" is not gonna cut it.

Actually, there's a third argument:

Then we finally get to the treatment of humans after their Final Judgment (a perfectly good place in Scripture to say humans experience eternal torment, but it doesn't, it says "second death"):

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. 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.​

Note, The sea gave up dead (humans), Death (gave up humans) and Hades (gave up humans) but it does not say Hell gave up humans or certainly not the Lake of Fire gave up humans or “the bottomless pit” gave up humans. Which is exactly why the Rich Man was said to be in Hades (not Hell or The Lake of Fire). That's point one.

Actually there's a fourth argument: What's up with "they were judged, each one of them" yet The False Prophet and The Beast were missing out on their judgment (if they were humans). Remember, they've already been sent to "The Lake of Fire". Did John/God just forget to resurrect them in the vision (if they were human) or in fact God never meant to teach us through his vision that they were human to begin with? I say the later.

 

[chessman]

When I first heard that there is a belief among some Christians that people don't go to Hell a few things came to mind. It seems to take away from the seriousness of the consequences of rejecting God. It seems like some Christians would be less motivated to go out and witness to people. It makes spiritual warfare less meaningful.

If you heard an annihilationist or someone that believed in Conditional Immortality (same thing really) say there is no Hell, then you either mis-heard him or he was one not thinking clearly. Hell is real. The question is only whether Eternal Concise Torment of humans is carried out there or not.

 

[jeff77]

If you heard an annihilationist or someone that believed in Conditional Immortality (same thing really) say there is no Hell, then you either mis-heard him or he was one not thinking clearly. Hell is real. The question is only whether Eternal Concise Torment of humans is carried out there or not.

I meant to say human beings don't go there and that Hell does exist for the devil and his demons.

 

[reba]

why does it matter so much?

 

[chessman]

I meant to say human beings don't go there and that Hell does exist for the devil and his demons.

Okay, but to me (someone just about ready to change and call myself an anhilistionist (once i learn how to spell it i do see humans being sent to Hell (the Lake of Fire). It's their place of their second death (that's both body and soul).

 

[chessman]

why does it matter so much?

For me, cause I love studying what the Bible says about all subjects, even the weather. Plus, i want to represent it accurately.