Hell; are you sure?

[Vic C.]

What is meant by "not some immaterial entity"? It appears that's not acknowledging a spirit of man but is focusing instead on "body and life"?

"Immaterial entity" would be the spirit?

Hi Rick... most annihilationists are monisic as opposed to a dualistic or tripartite being. If I remember correctly, this was a Hellenistic conception and not one held by the ECFs. Javier started a study on this a while back.

I don't quite get it, considering Scripture tells us we have spirits and this spirit goes back to the One that gave it to Man. Ecclesiastes 12:7

I'll try to find Jav's thread.

 

[Rick W]

What does "destroy" mean guibox? Not the Webster's definition (Webster wasn't born yet) but the Greek word. And which word "destroy" are you refering to?

 

[jgredline]

OK for the sake of argument...

Vic..can You please start a new thread on annihilation...Since your on the fence (i believe) and I know you would be willing to listen to both sides of the argument and I know you would be fair at moding this conversation....

This is what I propose...

This will be an ''open debate'' as I suspect that Guibox would not want a one on one debate with me on this...

Vic..You start us off with two or three questions and those who are in the annihilation camp can ''try'' and make their case and those of us in the eternal torment camp will prove ours....

We can discuss the make up of man
Jewish History
The meaning of words and scripture...and what ever else you like....Just so long as we stay on topic and see it out...Once we start repeating ourselves, time to move on to the next topic....

We can do it one on one two on two three on three and so forth..Not like in times past when it has been basically Solo and I against the army of the sda church....What say thou?????

One thing I do ask...I would prefer no cut and paste jobs other than scripture or short commentary..I say this because I will not read page long cut and paste jobs.....If one side or the other introduces someone like say Joseph Smith, then Joseph Smith is fair game and gives us the right to question his credentials.......

 

[Drew]

[We can do it one on one two on two three on three and so forth..Not like in times past when it has been basically Solo and I against the army of the sda church

\
Not really a correct characterization. I have no connection at all to the SDA church and have been an active participant in these debates. I came to believe in annihilationism while knowing only one thing about the SDA church - that the initials means "Seventh Day Adventist".

Other than that, I knew diddly about them.

And if you had asked me who Ellen White is, I would probably have anwered "She was on 'Golden Girls' and the 'Mary Tyler Moore Show', wasn't she?".

 

[jgredline]

\
Not really a correct characterization. I have no connection at all to the SDA church and have been an active participant in these debates. I came to believe in annihilationism while knowing only one thing about the SDA church - that the initials means "Seventh Day Adventist".

Other than that, I knew diddly about them.

And if you had asked me who Ellen White is, I would probably have anwered "She was on 'Golden Girls' and the 'Mary Tyler Moore Show', wasn't she?".

Fair enough, I apologize...

 

[Vic C.]

And if you had asked me who Ellen White is, I would probably have anwered "She was on 'Golden Girls' and the 'Mary Tyler Moore Show', wasn't she?".

That's Betty White, wife of the late Allen Ludden, host of the old game show, Password.


J, sorry, I'm not up to starting another thread on this topic, let alone Moderating it. Besides, I'm not the Mod of this Forum. Add to that the fact that Biblical theology from the historical point of view is not very popular with some members here. :-? Studying where we came from (spiritually, not physically) and how we got this far fascinates me.

 

[Bubba]

Bubba,

I am well acquainted with all that from my word studies and debates with Universalists. I too agree that in almost all cases age or ages is the correct interpretation.

But...

What do you know about Lee Salisbury? Did he write this before his apostasia? Did he too write what he did based on his own agenda and motives? Also, while I trust Young and his translation, I have to point out that the Rotherham and Concordant Bibles are translated with a UR bend. That is why you will almost always "see" the URs using them.

Peace,
Vic

Vic,
I am not sure if he is a Universalist, but I suspect he is. I mainly posted what I did to see what the argument was against him. Being one who tends to believe in Annihilation, I think the "eternal" part is cessation of life in the case of the lost.
Bubba

 

[jgredline]

J, sorry, I'm not up to starting another thread on this topic, let alone Moderating it. Besides, I'm not the Mod of this Forum. Add to that the fact that Biblical theology from the historical point of view is not very popular with some members here. :-? Studying where we came from (spiritually, not physically) and how we got this far fascinates me.

Fair enough...I will start the topic and see where and if it goes anyplace...

 

[Vic C.]

Fair enough...I will start the topic and see where and if it goes anyplace...

Maybe it will go farther than the "Bride" thread you asked me to start in the End Times Forum. lol :-D

 

[RND]

I don't quite get it, considering Scripture tells us we have spirits and this spirit goes back to the One that gave it to Man. Ecclesiastes 12:7

Vic, if I can help with that I'd be much obliged. The verse in Ecc. 12:7 is actually factually correct. The "spirit" as translated in the Strong's Concordance means specifically "breath." (See Strong's #7307 - ruwach, a wind, by resemblance a breath). So when one dies, the "breath" does indeed go back to God who gave it.

From Genesis 2:7 we know that God "breathed" into Adam the "breath of life."

Genesis 2:7
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 word "breath" means just that, a breath. (Strong's # 5397 - neshamah - a puff, i.e. an angry or vital breath)

In understanding that it is God who gives the "breath of life" to all living creatures, not just man, it is easy to see that when one dies the "breath of life" goes back to the one who gave it....Alfred E. Newman....er, God the Father!

Hope that makes sense Homeboy!

 

[jgredline]

Vic, if I can help with that I'd be much obliged. The verse in Ecc. 12:7 is actually factually correct. The "spirit" as translated in the Strong's Concordance means specifically "breath." (See Strong's #7307 - ruwach, a wind, by resemblance a breath). So when one dies, the "breath" does indeed go back to God who gave it.

From Genesis 2:7 we know that God "breathed" into Adam the "breath of life."

Genesis 2:7
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 word "breath" means just that, a breath. (Strong's # 5397 - neshamah - a puff, i.e. an angry or vital breath)

In understanding that it is God who gives the "breath of life" to all living creatures, not just man, it is easy to see that when one dies the "breath of life" goes back to the one who gave it....Alfred E. Newman....er, God the Father!

Hope that makes sense Homeboy!

Through out the OT soul and Spirit are interchanged quite often...So what does God do with the soul/spirit when it goes back to God????

 

[guibox]

This will be an ''open debate'' as I suspect that Guibox would not want a one on one debate with me on this...

:-D Oh jg, you kill me. If you had anything else in your 'biblical arsenal' other than constantly harping on Matthew 25:46 to the exclusion of all other hermeneutics and exegetical biblical evidence and reason (the way you're not supposed to study the bible), I might have reason to fear you on a one on one debate.

Bring it on and let the rest decide, brother. If you can actually provide more evidence than your one or two misinterpreted, metaphorical. allegorical and highly ambiguous and contradictory bible 'evidence', we might actually have more than a one sided debate in my favor.

BTW, I like your rotating signature of bible texts. I sure would like to see where it says in there that the wicked have the eternal life promised to the children of God?

How about we start with that debate as eternal torment hinges on it?

 

[jgredline]

Sounds good...
Go to the debate forum and lets get the show on the road...Remember, I will be checking you for context....I will be looking for your opening statement....

 

[guibox]

Sounds good...
Go to the debate forum and lets get the show on the road...Remember, I will be checking you for context....I will be looking for your opening statement....

Do we want to lay our some ground rules here and what comes first? If we're not careful we can end up with eternal torment, immortality of the soul, conditional immortality and annihilation all in a hodgepodge.

Are we battling one side out first both pros and cons or do we debate the one by supporting our own? Are we starting specific or general?

 

[jgredline]

Do we want to lay our some ground rules here and what comes first? If we're not careful we can end up with eternal torment, immortality of the soul, conditional immortality and annihilation all in a hodgepodge.

Are we battling one side out first both pros and cons or do we debate the one by supporting our own? Are we starting specific or general?

True, very true...Why don't we each come up with a few things and we will narrow it down....
For example...
I would want to discuss the make up of man...
I would want to discuss the immortality of the soul...
I want to keep it in the scriptures...
No long cut and paste jobs....In fact, I would say only Scripture should be a cut and paste and the rest would be our own thoughts...but I am open to change here and else....

What are your thoughts..?

 

[RND]

Through out the OT soul and Spirit are interchanged quite often...So what does God do with the soul/spirit when it goes back to God????

I see minimal evidence where the OT treats the soul as a spirit, and the spirit as a soul. Would you have any conclusive scriptural evidence that confirms your assertion?

Now, the breath goes back to God and the soul/body goes back to the dust.

Genesis 2:7
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.

Notice it doesn't say man was "given" a living soul? It says quite clearly that man "became" a living soul.

That said, we can now understands what happens at death. The air, breath, returns to God and we become "dust" from whence we came.

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

[RND]

BTW, it is of great interest to note that the word "became" in Genesis 2:7 means to "exist." See Strong #1961 - hayah, exist, i.e. to become.

So the verse clearly is saying that man "began to exist" as a living soul.

 

[guibox]

True, very true...Why don't we each come up with a few things and we will narrow it down....
For example...
I would want to discuss the make up of man...
I would want to discuss the immortality of the soul...
I want to keep it in the scriptures...
No long cut and paste jobs....In fact, I would say only Scripture should be a cut and paste and the rest would be our own thoughts...but I am open to change here and else....

What are your thoughts..?

I think it doesn't hurt to have certain quotes from some heavy hitters for some support though they should be used sparingly. However the cut and paste from somebody else's website (basically their argument thus becomes yours) should be avoided (unless it basically says the same thing you've been arguing, just adjust it to how you have argued).

Frankly, I'm not sure how to approach this. There are so many facets to the argument that each one could take on its own life as we have seen on so many intermingled and mixed threads on both immortality/eternal torment and conditional immortality/annihilation. I guess we could approach it from two ways: 'Why my point of view is correct 'and 'Why I disagree with so and so's point of view'

We should maybe come up with three main points to support our view and maybe three points on why we disagree with the other person. Granted the arguments may spill into each other but at least it separates them between 'offense' and 'defense'. Or perhaps we could use the same criteria but argued from different perspectives. We could both argue on the basis of 1) biblical 2) Moral and 3) some other one (philosophical, theological, judicial?) grounds.

We could have one person go on the defense and the other person go on the offense without trying to bring their own offense in. Then we could switch over. i.e.. While you are defending eternal torment, I would not counteract it with why I think annihilation is preferable but argue against eternal torment on its own merits. However, I guess you cannot help that some of your own defense arguments might spill into it and might be necessary for the argument.

We would just need to make sure we keep it in check until it is time to present our own case.

Or maybe the facts are that we can't put forth one without the other.

Hmm...

 

[jgredline]

I think it doesn't hurt to have certain quotes from some heavy hitters for some support though they should be used sparingly. However the cut and paste from somebody else's website (basically their argument thus becomes yours) should be avoided (unless it basically says the same thing you've been arguing, just adjust it to how you have argued).

Frankly, I'm not sure how to approach this. There are so many facets to the argument that each one could take on its own life as we have seen on so many intermingled and mixed threads on both immortality/eternal torment and conditional immortality/annihilation. I guess we could approach it from two ways: 'Why my point of view is correct 'and 'Why I disagree with so and so's point of view'

We should maybe come up with three main points to support our view and maybe three points on why we disagree with the other person. Granted the arguments may spill into each other but at least it separates them between 'offense' and 'defense'. Or perhaps we could use the same criteria but argued from different perspectives. We could both argue on the basis of 1) biblical 2) Moral and 3) some other one (philosophical, theological, judicial?) grounds.

We could have one person go on the defense and the other person go on the offense without trying to bring their own offense in. Then we could switch over. i.e.. While you are defending eternal torment, I would not counteract it with why I think annihilation is preferable but argue against eternal torment on its own merits. However, I guess you cannot help that some of your own defense arguments might spill into it and might be necessary for the argument.

We would just need to make sure we keep it in check until it is time to present our own case.

Or maybe the facts are that we can't put forth one without the other.

Hmm...

I hear you...Tell you what...Because the weekend is upon us and I will be very busy this weekend I will have little time to post, so lETS ponder it and see what we end up with...

 

[sisterchristian]

No, Bubba, I'll have to disagree with you on this. Jesus is very clear what hell is; the fiery furnace, the eternal fire, the lake of burning sulphur, etc. So there are many adjectives used to describe the same thing so that people can't quibble about words to make scripture say what itching ears want to hear.

There are 30+ passages where Jesus describes hell. So it is an unistakable place of eternal torment.

I also agree with you Heidi on this! Remember the story of Lazerus and the rich man? was the rich man not in torment where he was? Was he not asking for a drop of water on his tongue? So it sounds to me like he wasn't just in a grave. You are so right about the itching ears thing, I've told a few people that myself! :