How does C.I and E.C.T affect the Gospel?

[digging]

There is or was a very small gate or entrance in the wall of Jerusalem called the Needle gate. It was meant only for foot traffic, and was too small for a camel. The camel would have to crawl through it on his knees.
Now keeping that in mind, I think His comment is clearly understood.

I have heard this explanation thanks for sharing it because Gehenna also was a place of a garbage dump. These are extra details we have learned that have helped to get a better understanding of some of the meanings of Jesus illustrations. However IF we didn't have access to these little extra outside facts where might our minds lead us in trying to understand?

Digging

 

[chessman]

There is also Revelation 14:9-11. The ones who worship the beast and his image have no rest day or night either.

Notice the next verse:

Revelation 14:12 Here is the patient endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and the faith in Jesus. ​

This vision is a setting (time frame) well before the GWTJ. It does not depict their post judgment fate in any way. How could it be for it has the following facts:

1. There's still night and day.
2. It's occurring in the presence of The Lamb.
3. They are still receiving the mark.
Etc.

 

[Stan1953]

Now, I'm confused. Were the NLT translators not credentialed Greek scholars? I don’t really know that much about that version. But I would assume they have more credentials than you or I have. I see it used fairly often. It’s not typically one I prefer and the only reason I was even quoting that verse from it was for the discussion of the various usages of the word for Destruction. It could have been a verse about anything (any subject) using the word. It just happened that the verse was about sinners. My only point at that time was the way those NLT translators tried to convey the meaning of the word by saying “completely destroyed”. As my study indicates that's the way the word is used elsewhere.
Also “destroyed together” would tend to convey the same type of thought.

Like I said I don't use it or refer to it ever. As far as I can see, the NLT used to be a one man paraphrase by Kenneth Taylor, then became a translation. My indication of credentialed scholars has to do with those on this thread that would have us believe the English rendering is somehow wrong. Again the context is based on life, which includes the body. Refusal to see this is key to your flawed understanding. Dead NEVER refers to our spirits. You have to also read 2 Thess 1:9 in context with where we will LIVE eternally with God ON the NEW earth. Spirits can't do that, as the end of the verse states; "shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"

 

[Stan1953]

I have heard this explanation thanks for sharing it because Gehenna also was a place of a garbage dump. These are extra details we have learned that have helped to get a better understanding of some of the meanings of Jesus illustrations. However IF we didn't have access to these little extra outside facts where might our minds lead us in trying to understand?
Digging

That is why we need to study, but the Jews in Jerusalem understood that and many today learn that. I never knew it until I researched it. His Word is always able to stand up to any person's scrutiny.

 

[chessman]

Again the context is based on life, which includes the body. Refusal to see this is key to your flawed understanding.

I think that may be the third post of yours accusing me of refusing to see that several of these passages use the word “destruction” within the context of their lives on Earth, like I disagreed with that. I don’t. I do disagree that Matt 10:28b is about lives on Earth.

You keep bringing up people's 1st death, like I disagree with that fact. I understand that even the S&G wicked get a 2nd dose of that fire AFTER they are resurrected and judged.
But Jesus says that next time it's their body AND their soul that is destroyed in Hell, not on Earth.

 

[agua.]

2 Thessalonians 1:9
Lexham English Bible (LEB) 9 who will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength, ​

Eternal destruction
away from the presence of the Lord (the life giver)

Two ways to describe the same thing (the subject is the penalty).

911 was a catastrophe, a massacre and blood bath.

They pay the penalty of destruction, the penalty of being sent away from the presence of the Lord and His strength.
This event described in 2 Thess 1:9 (since it’s on the topic of the final punishment of the post-judged wicked people is consistent with Jesus’ teaching in:

Matthew 7:23 And then I will say to them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness!’ ​

Notice here their punishment is simply stated as "depart from me". That doesn't sound like a very harsh punishment at first glance (especially to a person that didn’t think Jesus was God). That is, until you recognize that The Lord is God, is the source of all life.

Genesis 2:7 when Yahweh God formed the man of dust from the ground, and he blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.​

Ecclesiastes 12:1 - 7
Advice to the Young: Life is Short and Then You Die
Remember your Creator in the days of your youth—
[… A short life happens, then death happens] 7 And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the breath returns to God who gave it.
​

No life giver, no life (body or ‘breath’).


The discussion I was having was about whether the word “destruction” and whether the word is ever used in a way that doesn’t really mean destruction. MarkT thinks that “their worm does not die” is a reference to a shriveled body (flesh) of a man burning in Hell. My point was that would mean the flesh is not really destroyed.


Are you sure? I totally disagree.
I am not aware that in Greek grammar adjectives fundamentally function any differently than they do in English. Adjectives modify nouns. That’s their purpose. The nouns determine the what (the subject) within the sentence structure, not the adjectives.
That’s exactly my point about 2 Thess 1:9. Some people think the adjective (eternal) is not really an adjective (modifying the noun “destruction”) and that “destruction” is a verb in the sentence structure. It’s bad grammar and exegesis of the sentence structure to do this to any verse (no matter the subject).

2 Thessalonians 1:9
Lexham English Bible (LEB) 9 who will pay the penalty of eternal destruction,

2 Thessalonians 1:9
Lexham English Bible (LEB) 9 who will pay the penalty of ______ destruction, ​

Paul could have used all kinds of adjectives to modify the penalty (destruction). He chose eternal. But he could have chosen an adjective like temporary.

2 Thessalonians 1:9
Lexham English Bible (LEB) 9 who will pay the penalty of _temporary_ destruction, ​

Or he could have chosen painful:

2 Thessalonians 1:9
Lexham English Bible (LEB) 9 who will pay the penalty of _painful destruction, ​

And on and on. Adjectives do NOT tell us the what(s) in sentences. Sorry but I just don’t buy that they do.

 

[WIP]

Let's try to watch the personal statements about another.
Thank you.

Not necessarily directed at the last post.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

There is or was a very small gate or entrance in the wall of Jerusalem called the Needle gate. It was meant only for foot traffic, and was too small for a camel. The camel would have to crawl through it on his knees.
Now keeping that in mind, I think His comment is clearly understood.

Do you have any evidence for this being the case?

This seems to have been a popular idiom in that region, as it was used by the Jews and Muslims.

"They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle." Judaism

"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and [camels?]." Midrash on the Song of Songs

"To those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of heaven, nor will they enter the garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: Such is Our reward for those in sin." The Qu'ran

The implications of this teaching plainly reveal it to be wrong I believe. It is the picture of a camel trying to fit through a little gate, that while small, it can fit if it kneels down and takes off a bit of it's cargo. Hence, all the man needs to do is humble himself and just get rid of some of his stuff. Which would at first seem to fit, but would contradict what Jesus says to his disciples. They ask who then can be saved in response to his statement about the camel passing through the eye of a needle, which wouldn't make sense if it was something possible. Jesus then responds:

"But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26 (ESV)

A camel passing through the eye of a needle, that's a small gate.... possible.
A camel passing through the eye of a needle, that's actually a needle.... impossible.

His statement was a hyperbolic statement to demonstrate that such a thing happening is impossible. The example from the Qu'ran is good as it also is clearly used in this way.

There is of course no archaeological evidence for such a gate existing, but is another invention of commentators, much like the burning garbage dump outside of Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom.

 

[JLB]

It's a verb. So you do think there's importance in nouns versus verbs. Let me ask you:




____ will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Who's the they? Fill in the blank.


Let's just stick to the plain words of Jesus about the final fate of wicked humans shall we? Why bring up a verse about "they devil and his angels"? I don't understand the relevance. When's the last time you witnessed or shared the Gospel to the Devil or one of his angels?

They is the devil, the false prophet, those who take the mark, and all those who Jesus cursed and sentenced to the same punishment as the devil.

That is who they is.

JLB

 

[Stan1953]

I think that may be the third post of yours accusing me of refusing to see that several of these passages use the word “destruction” within the context of their lives on Earth, like I disagreed with that. I don’t. I do disagree that Matt 10:28b is about lives on Earth.

Then if you're not, why are you bringing them up if they don't refer to CI? I'm not accusing, just making an observation based on your posts. If I'm not understanding you please, make me see what you are trying to say.

 

[Stan1953]

Do you have any evidence for this being the case?
This seems to have been a popular idiom in that region, as it was used by the Jews and Muslims.
"They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle." Judaism
"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and [camels?]." Midrash on the Song of Songs
"To those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of heaven, nor will they enter the garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: Such is Our reward for those in sin." The Qu'ran
The implications of this teaching plainly reveal it to be wrong I believe. It is the picture of a camel trying to fit through a little gate, that while small, it can fit if it kneels down and takes off a bit of it's cargo. Hence, all the man needs to do is humble himself and just get rid of some of his stuff. Which would at first seem to fit, but would contradict what Jesus says to his disciples. They ask who then can be saved in response to his statement about the camel passing through the eye of a needle, which wouldn't make sense if it was something possible. Jesus then responds:
"But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26 (ESV)
A camel passing through the eye of a needle, that's a small gate.... possible.
A camel passing through the eye of a needle, that's actually a needle.... impossible.
His statement was a hyperbolic statement to demonstrate that such a thing happening is impossible. The example from the Qu'ran is good as it also is clearly used in this way.
There is of course no archaeological evidence for such a gate existing, but is another invention of commentators, much like the burning garbage dump outside of Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom.

It may have even been a needle gate Jesus saw from Nazareth. The issue was more that rich men were thought to have God's favor and hence the response from the disciples. Their views of rich and poor were not as jaded as our views are today.
Jesus never said impossible, He said easier. His answer was about who can be saved, because they thought if rich men couldn't them no one could. IMO Jesus was NOT using hyperbole, He was using comparative language that these men knew of. As Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, it's likely this gate's status was not historically maintained in the records.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It may have even been a needle gate Jesus saw from Nazareth.

Or more likely a hyperbolic idiom known to be used by those from the region, as I presented evidence for. This position you espouse has no evidence, but is invented and read into the text.

The issue was more that rich men were thought to have God's favor and hence the response from the disciples. Their views of rich and poor were not as jaded as our views are today.

Yes, that they were thought to have God's favor, but were actually guilty of idolatry (covetousness as Paul describes it). Jesus said it was impossible with man, but not with God for these men to be received into the kingdom. This to me has clear implications on what Jesus meant with his statement about the camel.

Jesus never said impossible, He said easier. His answer was about who can be saved, because they thought if rich men couldn't them no one could.

He used impossible later, and said it was easier to do something obviously impossible, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

IMO Jesus was NOT using hyperbole, He was using comparative language that these men knew of. As Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD, it's likely this gate's status was not historically maintained in the records.

All evidence seems to indicate otherwise as it is a known hyperbolic idiom used in the region and time. Never in literature or in archaeology is there some kind of indication that there was such a gate.

You're welcome to believe it if you want, and then you'll have the implications that all a rich man needs to do is give up his money to get in. When God is rather concerned with his heart.

 

[Stan1953]

Or more likely a hyperbolic idiom known to be used by those from the region, as I presented evidence for. This position you espouse has no evidence, but is invented and read into the text.

WHAT evidence? Did you quote it without actually citing it?

Yes, that they were thought to have God's favor, but were actually guilty of idolatry (covetousness as Paul describes it). Jesus said it was impossible with man, but not with God for these men to be received into the kingdom. This to me has clear implications on what Jesus meant with his statement about the camel.

and yet He didn't say impossible with reference to them entering, only in response to the disciple's incredulity to it being harder. I can't follow your tracking of this scripture to your conclusion. You're saying Jesus used hyperbole to imply it was impossible for rich men to enter the kingdom of heaven? Yet the disciples weren't confused by the comparison, just that rich men were not readily accepted based on the common take that rich men should have easily been able to enter. He was challenging a few things here which made them think impossible when all He said was it's easier for the camel to do.

All evidence seems to indicate otherwise as it is a known hyperbolic idiom used in the region and time. Never in literature or in archaeology is there some kind of indication that there was such a gate.

Only all that you have read or accepted apparently.
http://hethathasanear.com/Needle.html

You're welcome to believe it if you want, and then you'll have the implications that all a rich man needs to do is give up his money to get in. When God is rather concerned with his heart.

I already do, and it wasn't the only thing Jesus instructed him to do, was it? I suggest you re-read v18, 19 & 21.

 

[Stan1953]

For anyone who has not made up their mind on this issue.

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201203/201203_086_Hell_forever.cfm

 

[agua.]

Do you have any evidence for this being the case?

This seems to have been a popular idiom in that region, as it was used by the Jews and Muslims.

"They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle." Judaism

"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and [camels?]." Midrash on the Song of Songs

"To those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of heaven, nor will they enter the garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: Such is Our reward for those in sin." The Qu'ran

The implications of this teaching plainly reveal it to be wrong I believe. It is the picture of a camel trying to fit through a little gate, that while small, it can fit if it kneels down and takes off a bit of it's cargo. Hence, all the man needs to do is humble himself and just get rid of some of his stuff. Which would at first seem to fit, but would contradict what Jesus says to his disciples. They ask who then can be saved in response to his statement about the camel passing through the eye of a needle, which wouldn't make sense if it was something possible. Jesus then responds:

"But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26 (ESV)

A camel passing through the eye of a needle, that's a small gate.... possible.
A camel passing through the eye of a needle, that's actually a needle.... impossible.

His statement was a hyperbolic statement to demonstrate that such a thing happening is impossible. The example from the Qu'ran is good as it also is clearly used in this way.

There is of course no archaeological evidence for such a gate existing, but is another invention of commentators, much like the burning garbage dump outside of Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom.

much like the burning garbage dump outside of Jerusalem in the Valley of Hinnom

I can't agree here Doulos we see a good description of Gehenna in scripture imo.

We see Josaih shut down the alter there

2Ki 23:10 KJV And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.

And we see Topheth used as a similie for the LoF in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Isa 30:33 KJV For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.


Jer 7:31-33 KJV And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. (32) Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place. (33) And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away.

I don't think we can use the absence of archeological evidence to dismiss a Biblical place imo.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I can't agree here Doulos we see a good description of Gehenna in scripture imo.

We see Josaih shut down the alter there

2Ki 23:10 KJV And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.

And we see Topheth used as a similie for the LoF in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Isa 30:33 KJV For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.

Jer 7:31-33 KJV And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. (32) Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place. (33) And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away.

I don't think we can use the absence of archeological evidence to dismiss a Biblical place imo.

I'm not denying it was a place, it most certainly was. What I deny is the idea that it was a perpetually burning garbage dump.

 

[agua.]

I'm not denying it was a place, it most certainly was. What I deny is the idea that it was a perpetually burning garbage dump.

Ah ok. Well the similie with the LoF doesn't insist it was a perpetual burning garbage dump but only that it was burning at some time and bodies were burnt in it.

 

[chessman]

Then if you're not, why are you bringing them up if they don't refer to CI? .

I'm not denying they speak of death on Earth (the 1st one) and have said so several times, so why do you say "if" I’m not?

But to answer again your perfectly reasonable question, because these passages DO provide evidence for CI:

Is S&G specifically given for us to be taken as a warning of a coming final punishment (not a temporary one on Earth)? Yes, Peter uses it as an example, warning us of future events that are after the final judgment even though the first Earthly events happened a long, long time ago on Earth. It's an "example" to their actual final punishment not their final one.

Is Matt 10:28b also a warning? Yes, it is. And furthermore, it’s a warning about what occurs in Hell/Gehenna that's even more fearful than the 1st death of only the body. That's why these earthly destruction by fire (i.e. death) passages are relevant. And furthermore, some that I've mentioned are not even about Earthly death but rather specifically warning about their post-judment death.

These facts support CI, because God not only is able to destroy bodies on Earth, He is able to destroy bodies and souls in Hell/Gehenna. Your idea has God NOT destroying the whole human being (leaving the spirit eternally in the Lake of Fire). Which is an odd thing for the Lake of Fire to do (leave the spirit undestroyed that is). God is perfectly able to destroy both the body and the soul and we are told to fear Him for that reason.

However, He's evidenlty chosen not to destroy souls until AFTER ALL the ungodly are all judged. I think I even know why He's reserving their judgment, in the Lake of Fire, until later on. Their Earthly sins have effected lot's of people years after their deaths(including lot). They need to be judged and sentenced to a punishment for those acts.

And here's why my point is on topic of this thread, as I’ve pointed out several times:

the "good news" is good for a reason. The reason is, people need healing from that disease of sin that kills them. Destroy's their body and soul in Hell, actually.

Notice that even in this rather dated post now, I clearly said that sin is a disease that kills them (meaning death on Earth of course). But that’s NOT the end of the story (or their final punishment, for that matter). In fact, for a Christian, we are told to NOT fear death of the body (rather fear the destruction of the soul). Odd, don’t you think that Jesus did NOT tell us to fear the torturing of the spirit in Hell but the destruction of the soul there?

And

2 Peter 3:7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Pick up this story in

Rev 21:8. ...
their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

Remember, God is a consuming fire! Now we also know that fire consumes not only the present heaven and Earth on the Day of Judgment but also ALL (not just many) ungodly men as they are also destroyed by this consuming fire along with Heaven and Earth (and Hades) and the souls of the wicked.

Look at 2 Peter 3:7 closely. Heaven and Earth are being reserved for fire! In Revelation we learn that both Heaven and Earth are “no more” (which kind of puts a damper on Hell being eternally at the center of this Earth forever or even that people live forever ‘spiritually’ in a Valley outside of Jerusalem).

But my point is, God’s Wrathful fire eventually destroys things we might think are permanent (Bodies and Souls. Heaven and Earth).

Eternal destruction DOES NOT mean eternal torment, either. Not to me or anybody with an open mind to evaluating the actual text, versus tradition.

Destruction means what it sounds like it means, destruction. God could have easily given us a passage that said wicked humans experience eternal torture of their spirits. He hasn’t. He said they receive eternal destruction. It’s really just that simple.

I’ve noticed how people try to use the passage about the Devil and his angles and apply it to humans even though it specifically says it’s prepared for the Devil and his angels. It seems odd to me why someone would do that, other than the obvious fact that there is no passage that says humans are tortured forever. So it’s the closest passage there is to that elusive ECT passage about human spirits living on somewhere (Hell, Gehenna, LoF, etc.) eternally.


p.s. Why do you think in John’s vision the ungodly receive the Lake of Fire (also known as the 2nd death) and not a River of Fire (versus the river of continually flowing Living Water, which the godly receive)? It’s worth thinking about.

 

[chessman]

They is the devil, the false prophet, those who take the mark, and all those who Jesus cursed and sentenced to the same punishment as the devil.

That is who they is.

JLB

Revelation 20:10 (LEB)10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet also are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever[a].
Footnotes:
a. Revelation 20:10 Literally “for the ages of the ages”​

IN this verse “They” _______ equals: The Devil, The Beast and The False Prophet.
Harmonize this to:

Matthew 25:41 (LEB)41 Then he will also say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed ones, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels! ​

Here the Fire was prepared for The Devil and His angels. Sure, the accursed ones (the Goats, the darnel) go there too later. But the point is, The Beast and The False Prophet are there already and are thusly meant to be understood as the Devil’s angels by clear revelation. The accursed ones are the darnel, (the goats) and are indeed told to depart into the eternal fire. But you assume their fate there is the same as the Devil, The Beast and The False Prophet (his angels). That’s a bad assumption, in my opinion since it specifically was said to be prepared for the Devil and his angels.

Likewise, let’s compare the Rev account to:

The Parable of the Weeds Among the Wheat​

25 But while his people were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed darnel [v] in the midst of the wheat and went away.

v. A weed that looks similar to wheat but has poisonous seeds

“Explain the parable of the darnel in the field to us.” 37 So he answered and
said,
“The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,
38 and the field is the world.
And the good seed—these are the sons of the kingdom,
but the darnel are the sons of the evil one. ​

In other words, you cannot look at a person and tell if they are a goat or a sheep.

39 And the enemy who sowed them is the devil,
and the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. ​

In other words, Jesus parable gives distinct roles/responsibilities to these characters in his parable. A reaper is NOT the same thing as the Devil nor are they the same as humans.

40 Thus just as the darnel is gathered and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age. ​

Here we see the wicked are burned with fire as darnel (poisonous weeds burn up in a fire)

41 The Son of Man will send out his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all the causes of sin and those who do lawless deeds, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. ​

So, In Jesus’ explanation of this parable, Jesus’ angels gather out of the world (at the end of the age) two groups; 1 (all the causes of sin) and 2 (those who do lawless deeds). Sound familiar?

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs before him, [i.e. they caused sin on Earth] by which he deceived [i.e. caused sin by deception]
those who received the mark of the beast and those who had worshiped his image. [performed lawless deeds, breaking Commandment #1 of the Law]
The two [that caused the sin] were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur.​

Clearly, The Beast and The False Prophet are the Devil’s angels (not wicked humans) if one studies this issue and breaks from tradtions. I don't know that I've ever heard an argument for why anyone beleives either The Beast or The False Prophet are sometimes considered humans. Other than there are false prophets in the world and thus it kind of sounds like that could be a reference to human flase prophets. That's not a very good reason.

Notice, that at no time does The Beast or The False Prophet worship. Also, they go to the fire at a separate time than all of the goats (the darnel) do.

Revelation 9:20 And the rest of humanity who were not killed by these plagues did not repent of the works of their hands, in order not to worship the demons and the gold and silver and bronze and stone and wooden idols, which are able neither to see nor to hear nor to walk,​

In other words, worshiping The Beast and The False Prophet is a word picture for worshiping the demons and the idols (false gods) of them.

Also,

Revelation 13:8 And all those who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name is not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered.​

Notice how The Beast and The False Prophet were sent to the fire ALIVE! Yet the humans were slaughtered. Why?

Revelation 19:10. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”​

Anything that testifies against Jesus is a False Prophet (including a false image).

 

[reba]

The connection of end times and hell can not be denied ,,, at the same time lets not take this thread too far there... admin