Reasons to believe hellfire is real.

[Drew]

The koine meant in that day what it means today.

No it does not. You cannot simply assume this. To be fair, I have only stated my position on how the Hebrews used "soul" in a different way than we do. So I have to make my case.

And you have to make yours - you cannot, legitimately, assume that the Hebrew writers used "soul" the same we 21st century westerners do.

This is the real issue, and it extends to all Biblical matters.

It is a deep, fundamental error to read the Bible through the lens of 21st century western culture. It was written in a different cultural setting and we need to read it as such.

 

[Webb]

The real issue is the Koine Greek is a dead language. What a word in that language meant then it means now. It was the language of the common man in that day. Living languages change in shades of meaning, etc.

 

[Drew]

The real issue is the Koine Greek is a dead language. What a word in that language meant then it means now.

I cannot imagine how you can justify such a claim. Or, perhaps more to the point, you are making the wrong argument. Some of us are asserting that the word "soul" does not, to the Hebrew mind who actually wrote the Bible, connote "disembodied consciousness that survives the death of the body".

You cannot, legitimately anyway, escape this challenge by pointing out that "Koine Greek" is a dead language. So what if it is? Even if it is dead, the point is that those who used it may have attached a certain meaning to a certain word ("soul) that is different from the one that we attach to that same word.

 

[Webb]

Seems you are missing out a lot on INSPIRATION.

 

[Drew]

Seems you are missing out a lot on INSPIRATION.

What is this supposed to mean? I trust you are not making the (obviously incorrect) argument: "If you were really attuned to God, you would know that I am right".

It sure sounds like it.

I am more than happy to get into the details. I suggest that when we do, the evidence (as contrasted with mere speculations about the degree to which other posters are "inspired") will weigh in favour of the position that the writers of the Bible (including Jesus whose words were written down by others) had no concept at all of a disembodied, consciousness-bearing "soul".

 

[Webb]

Are you saying Jesus had "no concept" of what He was saying???

 

[Drew]

Are you saying Jesus had "no concept" of what He was saying???

Of course, I am saying no such thing. I am saying that while Jesus had a concept of "soul", it was not one characterized by a disembodied consciousness that survives death.

Even if I am wrong about this, I do not think it is all that relevant to the question of the eternality of hellfire. One can imagine that even humans do have a soul that carries conscious awareness, that the souls of unbelievers are ultimately annihilated.

 

[Webb]

Do you agree that "soul" is used variously in scripture?

 

[Drew]

Do you agree that "soul" is used variously in scripture?

If by this you mean that the one word "soul" is used to denote different things, I would say "yes". Sometimes "soul" refers to the entire person, sometimes it is a descriptive term used in the same way we use the term "personality". Even a contemporary atheist would say that we each have personalities, but they would not believe the personality carries conscious awareness and survives death.

However, I know of no case where the term soul is unambiguously used to denote an immaterial "thing" that bears consciousness and that can survive the death of the body.

 

[Vic C.]

Do you agree that "soul" is used variously in scripture?

Hey guys,

The discussion of the definition of soul is a fascinating topic. But I'd like to see that branched out into a Theology topic in the proper forum.

Thanks.

 

[Free]

Every discussion about hell must begin by clearing up what is meant by “hell.†Unfortunately many translators chose to translate three different words as "hell": hades, gehenna and tartaroo. Tartaroo is used once, in 2 Pet 2:4, and for all intents and purposes is not relevant to the discussion. Hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew sheol, commonly translated as "grave." Gehenna, on the other hand, is the one most often used in reference to punishment, torment, etc. It is the place that Jesus warned about and is the final destination of the unbelieving. For that reason, I equate gehenna, which I believe to be the proper Hell, with the lake of fire of Revelation.

We also need to consider that it seems there are degrees of punishment, just as there are degrees of reward for the believer:

Luke 12:45-48, 45 But if that servant says in his heart, 'My master is delaying his coming,' and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more. (NKJV)

We must also consider the different nuances of “torment,†as this is one of the critical mistakes that is made. “Torment†can and does often refer to physical pain but can also refer to mental anguish. It seems that the most common objection to eternal hellfire is made by fallaciously equating “torment†with physical torture of some sort. But this is not necessarily the case.

We need to take into account the resurrection and judgement:

Rev 20:13-15, 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. (NKJV)

Here it must also be noted that “Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.†Here we have physical death and what is commonly understood as the grave being thrown into the lake of fire. This brings up the discussion on the nuances of the meaning of “death.†And once again, this is influenced by other beliefs. Most commonly it is held that physical death entered the world through the sin of Adam and Eve. That is not necessarily the case though. But, if no one objects, I will assume that everyone in this discussion believes that physical death entered through Adam. But it must also be noted that separation from God also entered the world.

So what does Rev 20:13-15 mean then? We have physical Death being thrown into the lake of fire, the second death. It could be the case that the second death is annihilation but it could also be the case that the second death is eternal separation from God.

 

[Free]

Something else that needs to be addressed is the parable in Luke 16. I agree with Vic that “Luke 16 doesn't deny or confirm the existence of an eternal hellfire. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but given the external evidence about the meaning of this parable, I wouldn't use the parable when debating either side of this doctrine,” and that the main thrust is in verse 31.

However, unless I am mistaken, there is not one other parable where the situation would not be understood by Jesus’ listeners. This would make the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man the only parable in which the situation is foreign to his listeners. It is a weak argument to be sure, but it is still something that must be considered.

As to the idea of an immortal soul, I do not find the argument to Greek influence very convincing, for a couple of reasons:

i. If one can show me where the writers of the OT clearly believed the Trinity or that the Messiah would suffer, die and be raised again, and not involved in physically overthrowing the oppressors of that time, the Romans, then perhaps a case can be made. However, I do not think such a case can be made, and in fact the case is stronger for progressive revelation, as the two analogies I used would show.

ii. All truth is God’s truth, whether it is Hebrew, Greek or other. God could very well have used Greek thought to bring a fuller revelation to Jewish concepts. I am not saying that that is the case, only that it is plausible.



What all this leaves us with is this:

1. Those who do not believe in eternal hellfire or the immortality of the soul must provide answers for when the unrighteous are punished with degrees of punishment, as per Luke 12:45-48, since all just dying in the lake of fire is the same punishment. They must also answer why God would resurrect the unrighteous dead, who were already not at all in existence, only to pronounce judgement and then send them once again into non-existence. Why not just leave them be?

2. Non-existence does not seem consistent with the severity of Jesus’ warnings about doing wrong and ending up in hell. How is non-existence a bad thing? It isn’t really even punishment, it is just nothingness.

3. Torment need not be understood solely as physical torture. It could very well be that the physical torment lasts proportionally to the sins that have been committed and then for the rest of eternity it is the mental anguish of knowing what is and what could have been, of having been such a fool for rejecting Christ, etc.

4.Hades, the grave, the temporary abode of the dead, could possibly be as the parable in Luke 16 indicates: believers go to a place of rest, peace and joy, and unbelievers go to a place of anguish, a precursor to the lake of fire. Of course, this does seem to directly contradict other passages of Scripture.

5. If we have immortal souls and go to “heaven” or “hell” at death, as is commonly believed, then what is the point of judgement? Why be raised, judged, and then sent back to where we just were? For those that believe in an immortal soul, this would seem to be taken care of in point 4.

Again, my main point with all of these ramblings is that I believe the issue to be more complex than is commonly understood and I wanted to hopefully bring up some points that some may not have considered. We really shouldn’t be so strongly opinionated regarding many things in theology and this is one of them. And I must apologize. Here I thought I could put something nice together but in my hurry to just get something done, together with an overly tired brain, it has come out as the ramblings of a mad man. There is certainly more that can be added and I hope that what is there makes at least some sense.

 

[Classik]

Wow!

Thanks alot, friends
I have been reading alot lately. (although with little confusion in my head)

 

[Webb]

Hi Vic

I agree with you'r post # 90. I have offered ( and its still open ) to discussd this matter with any annihilationist on the one-on-one providing we can agree on a proposition.

God bless

 

[thethinkingrebel]

Do you agree that "soul" is used variously in scripture?

A good way of reading soul would be "life" or "body".

 

[thethinkingrebel]

Something else that needs to be addressed is the parable in Luke 16. I agree with Vic that “Luke 16 doesn't deny or confirm the existence of an eternal hellfire. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but given the external evidence about the meaning of this parable, I wouldn't use the parable when debating either side of this doctrine,” and that the main thrust is in verse 31.

However, unless I am mistaken, there is not one other parable where the situation would not be understood by Jesus’ listeners. This would make the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man the only parable in which the situation is foreign to his listeners. It is a weak argument to be sure, but it is still something that must be considered.

Good point, but as has been established by scholars, the parable is based upon a very popular story of the time. Also the idea of torment had been established during the time the apocrypha was written. There is nothing new under the sun. However Jesus did not teach eternal conscious torment. It is quality not quantity.

As to the idea of an immortal soul, I do not find the argument to Greek influence very convincing, for a couple of reasons:

i. If one can show me where the writers of the OT clearly believed the Trinity or that the Messiah would suffer, die and be raised again, and not involved in physically overthrowing the oppressors of that time, the Romans, then perhaps a case can be made. However, I do not think such a case can be made, and in fact the case is stronger for progressive revelation, as the two analogies I used would show.

Theres loads of prophecies in Isaiah. lest I fill the page with scripture again I will give you this URL:
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/isaiah.htm

About the trinity..i wouldn't view it as an explicitly important doctrine..its not groundshaking or blasphemous either way. It equates Jesus as equal with God..he is the Son of God therefore in Jewish custom he is equal. The Holy Spirit is God..I wouldnt worry too much about these things. It more describes the nature of God and all we need to know is what is in the bible. The trinity doctrine is extraneous and may or may not be something that Paul believed. I wouldnt say that pre-Jesus Israel believed the trinity because Jesus had not arrived yet. Like I say its not that important. It most certainly wouldnt condemn someone.

ii. All truth is God’s truth, whether it is Hebrew, Greek or other. God could very well have used Greek thought to bring a fuller revelation to Jewish concepts. I am not saying that that is the case, only that it is plausible.

I completely disagree. God explicity warns agains Pagan idolatry and beliefs throughout the OT. He kills people for practising them. The prophets never talk about everlasting torment. These are the guys we should be listening to. Not Plato, Aristotle or even later Augustine and Tertullian. They dont add anything to the debate except heresies.

What all this leaves us with is this:

1. Those who do not believe in eternal hellfire or the immortality of the soul must provide answers for when the unrighteous are punished with degrees of punishment, as per Luke 12:45-48, since all just dying in the lake of fire is the same punishment. They must also answer why God would resurrect the unrighteous dead, who were already not at all in existence, only to pronounce judgement and then send them once again into non-existence. Why not just leave them be?

You miss the logic of conditionalism here. Every person tormented for eternity would eventually received the same punishment eternal = never ending. Whatever the intensity the punishment never ends. So the punishment over trillions of years will bottleneck. Conditionalism puts God in the driving seat, God tramples upon the wicked as he sees fit. Remember that he sustains the wicked! Therefore he can keep them alive until the sum of their punishment is over, the poof! They are burned up. Why would he continue to sustain them? Quality not quantity.

2. Non-existence does not seem consistent with the severity of Jesus’ warnings about doing wrong and ending up in hell. How is non-existence a bad thing? It isn’t really even punishment, it is just nothingness.

I'm sure if you had a gun to your head you would shrug it off as simply "nothingness". A man condemned to death for murder cares as much for his life as someone standing before God about to be consciously incinerated. It says some will weep (sorrow) and some will gnash their teeth (anger). Its not going to be a fun ride for the damned.

3. Torment need not be understood solely as physical torture. It could very well be that the physical torment lasts proportionally to the sins that have been committed and then for the rest of eternity it is the mental anguish of knowing what is and what could have been, of having been such a fool for rejecting Christ, etc.

It doesnt sit well with those verses that say the end of the wicked is destruction. Torment has no real edge here. If rich man and lazarus is what you are using to denote as torment..its not even hell..thats hades..and Jesus is not speaking about a literal hades...as that would contradict other verses where Jesus refers to a dead girl as not really beind dead but asleep [we know if she were physically asleep it would not have been a miracle].

4.Hades, the grave, the temporary abode of the dead, could possibly be as the parable in Luke 16 indicates: believers go to a place of rest, peace and joy, and unbelievers go to a place of anguish, a precursor to the lake of fire. Of course, this does seem to directly contradict other passages of Scripture.

We sleep awaiting the resurrection. The dead know nothing [ecclesiastes]. You are also missing the whole point..Judgment!!! It would be rather unfair to submit anyone to reward or punishment prior to actual judgment. Innocent and guilty must receive equal treatment prior to judgment. Its instantaneous for both. One minute dead next minute alive.

5. If we have immortal souls and go to “heaven” or “hell” at death, as is commonly believed, then what is the point of judgement? Why be raised, judged, and then sent back to where we just were? For those that believe in an immortal soul, this would seem to be taken care of in point 4.

Because God calls all sin to account and deals with it. Gods anger is kindled and judges all unrighteousness! There IS a resurrection! Paul defends it vehemently..there is no christian faith without it! Theres a term for those who dispute the resurrection, saducee. Look at 1 corinthians 15, think about how the resurrection fits with an immortal soul, then remember that righteous AND unrighteous are resurrected..both are judged. Then ask why God would resurrect people who are in HEAVEN in utter bliss (spirit) and are then put in bodies..why? Oh wait..because they are neither in heaven nor hell..there is no immortal soul The dead know nothing.

Again, my main point with all of these ramblings is that I believe the issue to be more complex than is commonly understood and I wanted to hopefully bring up some points that some may not have considered. We really shouldn’t be so strongly opinionated regarding many things in theology and this is one of them. And I must apologize. Here I thought I could put something nice together but in my hurry to just get something done, together with an overly tired brain, it has come out as the ramblings of a mad man. There is certainly more that can be added and I hope that what is there makes at least some sense.

I once felt the same as you on this issue. However this stuff is integral theological doctrine. People are missing whole chunks of information here..where is the hope of the resurrection that Paul speaks of? With our current theology it makes no sense. Conditionalism is BIBLICAL christianity. Yet it is swept under the rug as heresy..and people are taught nonsense.

 

[Free]

Theres loads of prophecies in Isaiah. lest I fill the page with scripture again I will give you this URL:
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/isaiah.htm

I worded my point specifically to avoid such arguments but I should have perhaps been a bit clearer yet. If one can show where Jews of the time believed that the Messiah would suffer, die and be resurrected and not involved in physically overthrowing the oppressors of that time, the Romans, then perhaps a case can be made.

Clearly even the disciples didn't understand that to be the case. One would be very hard pressed to find any who believed such, never mind a significant group of Jews. The reigning understanding of the Messiah was that he would rise up and overthrow the oppressors, ushering in the kingdom of God.

This is a significant point on the idea of progressive revelation. The link provided is very much a future understanding, a post resurrection understanding, looking back at the prophecies in Isaiah and most certainly not what the Jews of Jesus' time understood them to mean.

About the trinity..i wouldn't view it as an explicitly important doctrine..its not groundshaking or blasphemous either way. It equates Jesus as equal with God..he is the Son of God therefore in Jewish custom he is equal. The Holy Spirit is God..I wouldnt worry too much about these things. It more describes the nature of God and all we need to know is what is in the bible. The trinity doctrine is extraneous and may or may not be something that Paul believed. I wouldnt say that pre-Jesus Israel believed the trinity because Jesus had not arrived yet. Like I say its not that important. It most certainly wouldnt condemn someone.

Without turning this into a debate on the Trinity, I will say that the nature of God is absolutely central and significantly important. However, the point is that it shows the progressive nature of revelation and, therefore, shows that the immortal soul as the Greeks understood could be further revelation on the nature of man.

I completely disagree. God explicity warns agains Pagan idolatry and beliefs throughout the OT. He kills people for practising them. The prophets never talk about everlasting torment. These are the guys we should be listening to. Not Plato, Aristotle or even later Augustine and Tertullian. They dont add anything to the debate except heresies.

That is very much a generalization that we would do well to avoid, not to mention it begs the question. All truth is God's truth and to think that truth only came, or comes, through Scripture or Christianity is to do a great disservice.

You miss the logic of conditionalism here. Every person tormented for eternity would eventually received the same punishment eternal = never ending. Whatever the intensity the punishment never ends. So the punishment over trillions of years will bottleneck. Conditionalism puts God in the driving seat, God tramples upon the wicked as he sees fit. Remember that he sustains the wicked! Therefore he can keep them alive until the sum of their punishment is over, the poof! They are burned up. Why would he continue to sustain them? Quality not quantity.

"Few blows" and "many blows"; quantity, not quality. And, again, from your position, this presents a fairly significant problem. When does this happen?

I'm sure if you had a gun to your head you would shrug it off as simply "nothingness". A man condemned to death for murder cares as much for his life as someone standing before God about to be consciously incinerated. It says some will weep (sorrow) and some will gnash their teeth (anger). Its not going to be a fun ride for the damned.

But this isn't about having a gun to one's head and physical death in this life. If one does not exist, there is no thought, there is nothing. It isn't the severe punishment that Jesus warns about, it's simply nothingness.

Mat 8:12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (ESV)

Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (ESV)

Interestingly, weeping and gnashing of teeth is after judgement and yet in order to weep and gnash one's teeth, one must be alive and conscious.

It doesnt sit well with those verses that say the end of the wicked is destruction. Torment has no real edge here. If rich man and lazarus is what you are using to denote as torment..its not even hell..thats hades..and Jesus is not speaking about a literal hades...as that would contradict other verses where Jesus refers to a dead girl as not really beind dead but asleep [we know if she were physically asleep it would not have been a miracle].

I wasn't using referring to any verse. I am simply going by definitions of "torment." My point is that is fallacious to say that "torment" always means some sort of physical punishment akin to torture as there are other meanings, such as "mental anguish."

How do you know Jesus wasn't referring to a literal hades? That is roughly the equivalent of the Hebrew sheol, "the grave" as it is most commonly translated.

I don't follow what you are saying about the dead girl and how it applies to the discussion.

I once felt the same as you on this issue. However this stuff is integral theological doctrine. People are missing whole chunks of information here..where is the hope of the resurrection that Paul speaks of? With our current theology it makes no sense. Conditionalism is BIBLICAL christianity. Yet it is swept under the rug as heresy..and people are taught nonsense.

I have hardly even said how I feel on the issue other than I believe most do not realize how complex the issues are. And I fail to see what this has to do with the hope of resurrection.

What do you mean by "conditionalism"?

 

[thethinkingrebel]

I worded my point specifically to avoid such arguments but I should have perhaps been a bit clearer yet. If one can show where Jews of the time believed that the Messiah would suffer, die and be resurrected and not involved in physically overthrowing the oppressors of that time, the Romans, then perhaps a case can be made.

Well Peter did tell Jesus that he believed he was the Messiah. You must also understand that Israel was under the theological teachings of the Pharisees. They are the ones who held the keys to scriptural knowledge. So what the masses believed at that time was not only influenced by scripture..but also by the Talmud. If you look at the history of the Jewish people since Jesus time. Its theology is Talmudist, not scriptural.

Clearly even the disciples didn't understand that to be the case. One would be very hard pressed to find any who believed such, never mind a significant group of Jews. The reigning understanding of the Messiah was that he would rise up and overthrow the oppressors, ushering in the kingdom of God.

Indeed this was the underlying belief. But they did not realise that this is the SECOND coming, when he does so.

This is a significant point on the idea of progressive revelation. The link provided is very much a future understanding, a post resurrection understanding, looking back at the prophecies in Isaiah and most certainly not what the Jews of Jesus' time understood them to mean.

If "progressive revelation" were indeed accurate, then where do we stop? modern day christian prophets such as Joseph Smith..should be listened to and followed. You refer to a post-resurrection understanding, but we see Isaiah littered throughout the Gospels, and Jesus quotes it when he says "Their worm does not die, the fire is not quenched"..If you look at Isaiah 66 where it was received from..it PROVES that the wicked are dead.

Isaiah 66:24 “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.â€

Thats a hard verse to argue against.

Without turning this into a debate on the Trinity, I will say that the nature of God is absolutely central and significantly important. However, the point is that it shows the progressive nature of revelation and, therefore, shows that the immortal soul as the Greeks understood could be further revelation on the nature of man.

What I mean about the trinity, and of course about the nature of God, is that arguing the position of Jesus, whether he is less or AS important as God, is fruitless. If his nature is deity, or not..does not affect the fact that he is key to our salvation. You keep arguing FOR progressive revelation, but that means arguing that the bible could be outdated. Because the things you are arguing for IS NOT in the BIBLE!! The only evidence of immortality is FOR the righteous through Jesus Christ! The Greeks were Pagans, God would not support revelation through Pagans. The concept of immortal soul was pre-christian, it does not require God for immortality.
Just to clarify, I do believe the nature of God to be extremely important, but when it comes to the trinity, its like the disciples arguing who is greater in Heaven! We know that Jesus sees the Father as being more important.

<sup class="versenum">1 Corinthians 15:24 </sup>Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. <sup class="versenum">25 </sup>For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. <sup class="versenum">26 </sup>The last enemy to be destroyed is death. <sup class="versenum">27 </sup>For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.†But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,†it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. <sup class="versenum">28 </sup>When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

That is very much a generalization that we would do well to avoid, not to mention it begs the question. All truth is God's truth and to think that truth only came, or comes, through Scripture or Christianity is to do a great disservice.

It does...yes the Holy Spirit guides us to truth, but the truth is in scripture..thats why it was written down and inspired. All doctrine MUST be brought from the Bible..nowhere else. The problems we have today in the church are a war between man-made doctrines and scripture. Just as they were in Jesus' day. Jesus argued from scripture!! He fulfilled IT!

"Few blows" and "many blows"; quantity, not quality. And, again, from your position, this presents a fairly significant problem. When does this happen?

What I am saying is that the quality of punishment is more important than the length of time [quantity].
From my position it explains itself. A man about to be hanged would slice off his arm if it would give him more life. Yet from your position life in prison would be the greater punishment. Capital punishment is always seen as greater than a custodial sentence. Why would God waste his time torturing people for eternity? Its just ridiculous.

But this isn't about having a gun to one's head and physical death in this life. If one does not exist, there is no thought, there is nothing. It isn't the severe punishment that Jesus warns about, it's simply nothingness.

Yes it is! It is about the extinction of life!! and it is the severe punishment that Jesus talked about! Ashes underfoot as Isaiah 66:24 puts it, and that Jesus quoted. Did God change his mind from Isaiah to Matthew? Or was Isaiah not a true prophet?

Mat 8:12 while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (ESV)

Yes outer darkness..Not hell. Anger and Sadness..not pain. Outer darkness refers to extinction of life.

Mat 13:42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (ESV)

This would be the Lake of fire, there is anger and sadness again.

Interestingly, weeping and gnashing of teeth is after judgement and yet in order to weep and gnash one's teeth, one must be alive and conscious.

It says in that place..It doesnt say AFTER.

In context!

<sup class="versenum">40 </sup>Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. <sup class="versenum">41 </sup> The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, <sup class="versenum">42 </sup> and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. <sup class="versenum">43 </sup>Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

How interesting that Jesus says the bold text. Just as the weeds are gathered. They shrivel up..and turn to dust. it doesnt support ECT. It supports conditionalism.

Psalm 22:29 in reference to Jesus:

All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship;
before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
even the one who could not keep himself alive.

I wasn't using referring to any verse. I am simply going by definitions of "torment." My point is that is fallacious to say that "torment" always means some sort of physical punishment akin to torture as there are other meanings, such as "mental anguish."

I don't dispute either mental or physical torment. I dispute its length. God shall punish all according to their deeds:

Isaiah 59:18
According to their deeds, so will he repay,
wrath to his adversaries, repayment to his enemies;
to the coastlands he will render repayment.

How do you know Jesus wasn't referring to a literal hades? That is roughly the equivalent of the Hebrew sheol, "the grave" as it is most commonly translated.

Hades is simply the Greek word used for Sheol. It it means "realm of the dead/place of the dead" Hades is from Greek mythology..it isn't a real place. More paganism!!

I don't follow what you are saying about the dead girl and how it applies to the discussion.

It refers to death. The girl was dead, Jesus said she was sleeping. If she was in heaven partying with the saints, then Jesus would not have said she was sleeping. I was referring to the idea of people being in heaven now, and how it contradicts scripture.

I have hardly even said how I feel on the issue other than I believe most do not realize how complex the issues are. And I fail to see what this has to do with the hope of resurrection.

It should have nothing to do with the hope of the resurrection. Biblically we should believe

You are born
You live
You die
You sleep
You are resurrected
Judged
Recieve reward/punishment

Now we are arguing what the reward and punishment are. The reward at judgement is ETERNAL LIFE. The punishment is [possibly painful] death. This is what I believe scripture teaches. I also wholly dispute progressive revelation AFTER the bible was completed. Its a far too messy concept, we are bad enough at corrupting things on our own. What could God have possibly added that isn't already in scripture?

What do you mean by "conditionalism"?

The belief that God sustains life, and immortality is sustained by faith in Jesus Christ, it is conditional on Jesus Christ, and will be granted to us [righteous] at judgment. The reverse being life taken away from the wicked/sinner/unrighteous/unbeliever.

John 3:16-17

For God so loved the world,<sup class="footnote" value="[<a href=&quot;#fen-ESV-26126a&quot; title=&quot;See footnote a&quot;>a</a>]">http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 3:16&version=ESV#fen-ESV-26126a</sup> that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.


I often criticize overuse of this verse. But it pretty much explains conditionalism in one sentence. As well as explaining God's feelings towards the world. An arm of forgiveness, and a real desire to save us!

 

[Drew]

I worded my point specifically to avoid such arguments but I should have perhaps been a bit clearer yet. If one can show where Jews of the time believed that the Messiah would suffer, die and be resurrected and not involved in physically overthrowing the oppressors of that time, the Romans, then perhaps a case can be made.

Let me ensure that I get your basic point. You are arguing that just because the Jewish people did not have a concept of an immortal consciousness-bearing soul up to the point of Jesus, this does not mean that mean that there is no such a soul. And you support your point by, correctly in my view, giving us another example - one where the Jews were entirely mistaken about the nature of the Messianic vocation.

I would agree with this line of thinking, however I think there are other reasons for believing that there is no "immortal, consciousness bearing soul". I will not get into this in the present post. But I do agree - what the writers of the OT believed to be true about "things in general", including the nature of the soul in particular, may turn out, as we see in hindsight, to be false. The Messianic vocation is a good example - the OT writers described it in ways that more or less turned out to be incorrect (no doubt some will accuse me of questioning inerrancy, but I'll worry about that if it happens).

However, there is a qualification. In all the complexities of this discussion, we need to remember what the Jews actually did believe. And I suggest that the historical record shows that they did not beleive in an immortal soul. Now, according to your line of argument, this belief may have been mistaken. Fair enough, but we still need to not beg the question (and I use this phase in its correct sense of "assuming the very thing one should be trying to demonstrate") by presuming that when they used the word soul in the Old Testament, they were referring to an immortal, consciousness-bearing thing.

Pretty busy right now, but I hope to get back into the discussion later.

 

[Free]

Let me ensure that I get your basic point. You are arguing that just because the Jewish people did not have a concept of an immortal consciousness-bearing soul up to the point of Jesus, this does not mean that mean that there is no such a soul. And you support your point by, correctly in my view, giving us another example - one where the Jews were entirely mistaken about the nature of the Messianic vocation.

Yes, you have correctly understood my point.

I would agree with this line of thinking, however I think there are other reasons for believing that there is no "immortal, consciousness bearing soul". I will not get into this in the present post. But I do agree - what the writers of the OT believed to be true about "things in general", including the nature of the soul in particular, may turn out, as we see in hindsight, to be false. The Messianic vocation is a good example - the OT writers described it in ways that more or less turned out to be incorrect (no doubt some will accuse me of questioning inerrancy, but I'll worry about that if it happens).

I am going to be a little careful here and say that certain beliefs, such as the nature of the soul, weren't so much incorrect or false as they were incomplete, which is my point. Whether or not the Messianic vocation could be viewed as incomplete is a little more difficult.

However, there is a qualification. In all the complexities of this discussion, we need to remember what the Jews actually did believe. And I suggest that the historical record shows that they did not beleive in an immortal soul. Now, according to your line of argument, this belief may have been mistaken. Fair enough, but we still need to not beg the question (and I use this phase in its correct sense of "assuming the very thing one should be trying to demonstrate") by presuming that when they used the word soul in the Old Testament, they were referring to an immortal, consciousness-bearing thing.

I am in agreement here. I do want to state that the OT's first use of "soul" is that of a complete human being--the "joining" or "habitation" of the breath of God in the body of man. It seems to me that the NT may further delineate what the soul is and may be showing that it is something that could exist apart from a physical body.

Now, we need to be careful, as per Vic's request, and not get sidetracked on just what the soul is. It definitely has bearing on the discussion though, so I don't see how we can exclude it entirely.

Pretty busy right now, but I hope to get back into the discussion later.

No worries.