turnorburn
Member
: Poor Eddie felt the same..
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
HELL
- Thread starter turnorburn
- Start date
: Poor Eddie felt the same..
Everybody has a 'sacred cow' that they desperately want to hang on to no matter what the evidence says. For many Christians it is the Greek/Pagan idea of the immortality of the soul and eternal torment. An exegeticaly study on this topic will expose the fallacy of the arguments that support eternal torment and the immortality of the soul more than any other biblical doctrine. Sadly, many just don't want to listen but take a surface reading and acceptance of what they badly want to hear, without question.
The fallacy of hell and eternal torment hinges on two things. Without them, the doctrine of eternal torment falls:
1) That the soul is immortal and separate from the body
2) That the wicked have immortal souls that can be tormented for eternity.
The Bible not only doesn't support such notions but blatantly contradicts it. I can show you the numerous instances where it does but will it make any difference? Please show me where the wicked are raised with immortal bodies (never mind have immortal souls) to be tormented for eternity?
But what about Revelation 14:10-11 and Mark 9:45? Don't these texts support eternal torment?
Until you can prove the above 2 suggestions, you cannot interpret them that way. To use these as support for eternal torment before proving that the wicked soul is immortal is circular reasoning and building from assumption.
These texts cannot be used to support eternal torment when you understand the metaphorical imagery used and what these concepts were interpreted as in the Hebrew. When you really study them, you will find that they are used to denote complete and utter destruction and not eternal torment.
Check out Isaiah 34:10-11, Psalm 37, Jeremiah 17:27 and Isaiah 66 for temporal usage of these words that denote annihilation and not eternal torment.
Let the Bible interpret itself, and not Greek theology brought into the Christian church by the Catholic Church.
The fallacy of hell and eternal torment hinges on two things. Without them, the doctrine of eternal torment falls:
1) That the soul is immortal and separate from the body
2) That the wicked have immortal souls that can be tormented for eternity.
The Bible not only doesn't support such notions but blatantly contradicts it. I can show you the numerous instances where it does but will it make any difference? Please show me where the wicked are raised with immortal bodies (never mind have immortal souls) to be tormented for eternity?
But what about Revelation 14:10-11 and Mark 9:45? Don't these texts support eternal torment?
Until you can prove the above 2 suggestions, you cannot interpret them that way. To use these as support for eternal torment before proving that the wicked soul is immortal is circular reasoning and building from assumption.
These texts cannot be used to support eternal torment when you understand the metaphorical imagery used and what these concepts were interpreted as in the Hebrew. When you really study them, you will find that they are used to denote complete and utter destruction and not eternal torment.
Check out Isaiah 34:10-11, Psalm 37, Jeremiah 17:27 and Isaiah 66 for temporal usage of these words that denote annihilation and not eternal torment.
Let the Bible interpret itself, and not Greek theology brought into the Christian church by the Catholic Church.
Why not?Orion said:
Of course that would be wrong but that is not the case.Orion said:
Let's carry your argument to it's logical conclusion: the New Jerusalem isn't literal; the judgement isn't literal; the Book of Life isn't literal; etc.Orion said:
On what basis have you determined that the Lake of fire isn't literal?
1. Matthew 10:28 "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."guibox said:
Luke 12:4-5 '4 "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.'
2. Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
[/quote:e95a1]
The soul is the joining of spirit(breath) to body and thus, when we die, all people's breath go back to God and their body goes into the unseen (Hades/Sheol - grave). The body may well be destroyed by Satan (sin) but, if we have accepted Jesus as our Saviour, we know that when our body and breath are reunited at then second coming, and our soul (body + breath) is complete again, it will not be destroyed. If we have chosen the other way, then our body and breath (read soul) will be destroyed when cast into the Lake of Fire (Gehenna). It is not rocket science and is easy to understand if we just take off our blinders.
Parallel verse to the one above with the same response.
As you can see, with the wording of this particular verse, the word is punishment - not punishing. It is the result of the pnishment that is eternal, not then act of punishing.
Rad.
Your are reading far more into the text more than what is there. A plain reading indicates that man can kill only the body but not the soul. That is all that is stated in that passage.Radlad72 said:
No, it isn't, so why don't you take off your blinders. :-? Please don't make such useless statements.Radlad said:
Is it life that is eternal or the result of life that is eternal? The punishment is eternal as life is eternal.Radlad said:
turnorburn
Member
This is a message for those of you that reject God his Christ and worship self and self alone.
You know who you are but do you realize to whom your addressing your blather? God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows that shall he also reap, this is for you..
Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.
In His Service,
turnorburn
You know who you are but do you realize to whom your addressing your blather? God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows that shall he also reap, this is for you..
Joshua S. Black, when addressing an atheist said, "For people who don't believe in God, you guys sure are paranoid about something!!" How true that is. I have known many atheists, and I have found them to be totally committed to their negative cause. They are zealots, fanatics--who are serious, angry, hateful, and blasphemous towards something they don't believe in. And what's more, they spend their time gathering fuel for the fire of their hatred for God and those that love Him. They gather what they think is legitimate fuel, whether it is atrocities committed by hypocritical religions of history, or the horrors of the Inquisition (the Catholic church torturing Christians for their faith in Jesus). They even gather unintelligent and unscientific material. It qualifies for use because it fits their presuppositions. Any fuel will do, as long at it puts smoke between them and the God they hate "without cause." It was Jonathon Miller who said, "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." So, what is this "something" about which they are so paranoid? It is the same "something" that makes criminals paranoid, and it is that paranoia that fuels criminals to have a deep-rooted hatred for the police. It's not the individual officer they hate; it's what he stands for--civil law. And that's the root of the hatred that the atheist has for God and for those that represent Him. Once again, the Bible has said this all along. It hits the nail on its big and hard head: Romans 8:7: ". . because the mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God's Law; indeed it cannot" (Amplified Bible). They hate the morality that God's Law demands. That's the fuel for their hostility.
In His Service,
turnorburn
I am using other proofs that have been given before by people such as guibox that the soul is body plus breath. Body without breath is just a body. We become a soul when God breathes life into us. So the 'simple' reading you propose is not so simple when taken in the light of other evidence in the Bible.
Is it life that is eternal or the result of life that is eternal? The punishment is eternal as life is eternal.[/quote:6ec03][/quote:6ec03]
Tell me free - what are the wages of sin again? Oh, that's right, death. Death is our punishment for not accepting God's gift of eternal life. Eternal death - not eternal torment. eternal death is the opposite of eternal life. Eternal torment is still eternal life and we are told that only the righteous will receive eternal life. Please don't make more of it than it is.
Rad
Okay then, let's see if your conclusion really follows from your "proofs". According to you: Soul = Body + Breath, or Body = Soul - Breath.Radlad said:
However, as stated in Matthew 10:28:
"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."
You can see that Soul = Body + breath doesn't fit. If the body plus breath equals the soul, then how is it that man can kill the body but not the soul? Why does the verse state that God can destroy both body and soul? That is the equivalent of saying that God can destroy both body and body and soul.
This is something which I have continued to point out: people who use this argument continue to ignore the several nuances of "life" and "death", not to mention "soul". This is why these debates don't get anywhere.Radlad said:
Free, your views are erroneous due to your misguided interpretation of what the 'soul' is. The 'soul' is 'life' it is the 'nephesh/psuche' which is translated biblically as 'living being' and 'life'. The Hebrews said that there is 'nephesh' in the blood. The life force, the aspect of man being a living, cogitating being was contained in the blood.
Matthew 10:28 tells us that man cannot destroy our eternal life, only our body. God can choose to destroy us for all eternity (and according to myriads of places in the bible, does do that for the wicked after a time).
Even if the soul was the conscious part of man that exists outside the body, Matthew shows that it is not inherently immortal and that it CAN be destroyed.
If that were the case than God is truly a tyrant as He chooses not to destroy it when He can but chooses to allow and inflict eternal punishment for finite sins.
I would like you to show that 'death' is the same as 'life' instead of the opposite and where in the Bible when talking about the fate of the wicked, 'death' means something else entirely as to be translated as the opposite as you are saying it does.
Matthew 10:28 tells us that man cannot destroy our eternal life, only our body. God can choose to destroy us for all eternity (and according to myriads of places in the bible, does do that for the wicked after a time).
Even if the soul was the conscious part of man that exists outside the body, Matthew shows that it is not inherently immortal and that it CAN be destroyed.
If that were the case than God is truly a tyrant as He chooses not to destroy it when He can but chooses to allow and inflict eternal punishment for finite sins.
I would like you to show that 'death' is the same as 'life' instead of the opposite and where in the Bible when talking about the fate of the wicked, 'death' means something else entirely as to be translated as the opposite as you are saying it does.
Free said:
"The New Jeruselem coming down as a bride adorned for her husband". . . . Yeah, . . .definitely not literal.
An actual "book of life" that is written in, . . . .and erased from (when someone de-converts), . . .Yeah, most likely not literal either.
"Judgement"? . . . . . . Probably not literal either.
"Beast with 7 heads and 10 horns". . . . . not literal.
"Four horsemen of the apocalypse". . . . . not literal.
"Lake of Fire", . . . . . . you get the idea
And yes, IF this Hell is as current doctrine teaches, AND a person knew it was absolutely true, . . . they would NOT choose to spend their eternity in that existance. No one SANE, that is. So, . . NO ONE chooses Hell.
turnorburn
Member
Hey Newbies, don't pick on Free pick on me :wink:
turnorburn
Member
What you call picking I call sparing, just don't forget the head gear :wink:
Orion said:I'm not a newbie, but I think I've "picked on you" a bit, turnorburn.
No, actually I don't. You have chose very specific verses which, out of context seem to say something that they don't actually say. That you think the judgment is "probably not literal either" is utterly astounding and likely the reason why you think the Lake of Fire, or Hell, is not literal either or vice versa.Orion said:
As for the New Jerusalem, read the entirety of Rev. 21 and 22, don't just pull out one verse.
Of course if people actually believed that hell was a literal place where they would go if they didn't accept Christ, then they would choose to accept Christ and not go to hell.Orion said:
But that is precisely the problem, isn't it? People don't believe that Hell is a literal place. They are choosing to go to hell by remaining in their ignorance and unbelief.
turnorburn
Member
I see your mixing it up with Free again, why not put your head gear on and we'll
dance? Got head gear?
dance? Got head gear?
I am well aware of where the term comes from, where it is first used. But as I have stated many times, and will likely have to state many more, the term "soul" has different nuances and shows development from the OT to the NT.guibox said:
No, the verse tells us that man can destroy the body but not the soul. The only logical conclusion is that the soul can exist outside the body when the body is dead.guibox said:
Of course, only God can destroy it--and that is "can" not "will".guibox said:
Firstly, define what you mean by "eternal punishment". Secondly, if the soul is now immortal, why conclude that it will remain immortal?guibox said:
How about this: you look up the different nuances of "life", "death" and "soul" and then I may have something for you. I'm not going to do your work for you.guibox said:
turnorburn
Member
Oh come on boys, "two against one" Oh the...
Free said:
I don't believe you are 'well aware' for you continue to ignore the wholistic view of 'soul' that the Bible espouses for Greek philosophy. Free, the Greek 'psuche' as is used in the NT is the equivalent of nephesh. The NT quotes a few times straight from the OT in using 'soul' (Such as Acts 2:27) thus linking 'psuche' with 'nephesh'. Only gratuitous assumption says that the word soul 'developed' in meaning from the OT to the NT.
Free said:
Again an assumption with no merit. 'soul' is translated as 'life' a 'living being', what constitutes a 'thinking, cogitating feeling person' is what makes him a 'soul'. You do not (nor should according to biblical linguistic evidence) treat 'soul' here as a separate entity. Rather it is an existential reality. It's like us saying 'He damaged him physically and destroyed his spirit (i.e, damaged him emotionally). The soul is 'life'. Man cannot destroy eternal life, but merely the body. Only God can destroy life.
Free said:
You are contradicting yourself. Either it is immortal and will continue on or it is mortal because it can be destroyed. So many people say 'God is in us (soul) and God cannot destroy Himself'. If the soul is immortal and God chooses to keep it immortal or make it mortal, then we must come to the conclusion as the Calvinists: That God wills it and is directly responsible for eternal torment. The general argument is 'man sends himself to hell, God doesn't do it'. If God chooses not to kill man (the biblical punishment for sin) but makes his soul continue to be immortal, then He is directly setting sinners up to spend eternity in hell and thus must take responsibility for it. If God created hell for no redemptive or reformative purpose and can destroy man there but chooses to let him live for trillions of years...He must take responsibility. In doing so, He is a cruel tyrant.
Free said:
The onus is on you to prove that the 'soul' is an immortal entity of man separate from the body. the Bible doesn't support this, Free. Dodging around it and throwing challenges my way will not change the fact. I have looked at the instances of 'life' and 'soul' and all are interpreted in function and part according to man as a wholistic being (which the Hebrews believed) and not as the Greek's believed.