Should Christians rethink Hell?

[FreeGrace]

Regarding Mathew 25, We've been over this. I've pointed out that "aionios" doesn't mean eternal. Translators have let their theology influence their translation.

Combine Matt 25 with Rev 20:10 and there is every reason to understand the lake of fire as being forever and ever.

From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance re: aionios -
aiōnios
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been andalways will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

It surely does NOT mean "ages and ages". It means exactly what the lexicon says it means. Eternal.

Unless you are a greek scholar and can clearly demonstrate that Strong's is wrong, you have no point.

Even if we set the Lake of Fire aside, Jesus said the wicked will be cast into Gehenna, Jeremiah prophesied that a day would come when Gehenna would once again made holy to the Lord. This should be proof positive (in addition to all of the other passages) that aionios doesn't mean eternal. The Scriptures refute the idea that aionios means eternal, that idea comes from men.

38 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner.
39 And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath.
40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever. (Jer 31:38-40 KJV)

Seems to me the prophesy here is literal as to the valley of Hinnon, not the lake of fire, where the devil and his angels will be in eternal torment.

 

[TimothyW]

The word luthēsetai clearly gives us an example of something that will cease to exist. Why doesn't Peter use this word for the ungodly men in 2 Pet 3:7 that will be destroyed?

Because Luthesetai contains the idea of something broken up, dissolved, that sort of thing. It makes perfect sense to use this word for the destruction of the earth. Someone writing in Greek about a person being destroyed so that they no longer exist wouldn't use the word luthesetai. In verse 7 Peter does say that the ungodly will be destroyed, he uses the Greek word for a person perishing or being destroyed, apoleias. In verse 6, Peter is talking about the people of the world being destroyed in the flood and they were. That is why he used the word apoleto in verse 6. Using the word apoleto to talk about the people of the world being destroyed by the flood does not prove that apoleo (apollumi) does not mean destroy.

 

[TimothyW]

Well, I reject your faulty understanding of my argument, because I don't believe that "not having EL is just as good as having EL".

Since you say that you don't believe that not having eternal life is just as good as having eternal, then you must also agree that losing out on eternal life is a punishment. An eternal punishment, even if those who lose out on eternal life are not tortured alive forever. So since the loss of eternal life IS a punishment, then your claim that Matthew 25:46 proves that the eternal punishment is eternal conscious torment doesn't work.

 

[chessman]

Paul said:

2 Corinthians 5:10 (LEB) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

​

All except the antichrist and false prophet, since God throws them alive into the lake of fire when Jesus returns at the Second Advent.

 

[turnorburn]

Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm
tob

 

[TimothyW]

Annihilation vs. Eternal conscious torment
http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm
tob

I've already seen that. It isn't very good.

 

[turnorburn]

That's O.k. there's lots more, but why pursue it, Jesus said it all when he said It Is Finished..
tob

 

[gr8grace3]

Because Luthesetai contains the idea of something broken up, dissolved, that sort of thing. It makes perfect sense to use this word for the destruction of the earth. Someone writing in Greek about a person being destroyed so that they no longer exist wouldn't use the word luthesetai. In verse 7 Peter does say that the ungodly will be destroyed, he uses the Greek word for a person perishing or being destroyed, apoleias. In verse 6, Peter is talking about the people of the world being destroyed in the flood and they were. That is why he used the word apoleto in verse 6. Using the word apoleto to talk about the people of the world being destroyed by the flood does not prove that apoleo (apollumi) does not mean destroy.

What word in the Greek would describe a person that ceased to exist or was annihilated then? And why wouldn't someone writing in the Greek use luthesetia to describe a person that was destroyed or "dissolved" by fire? The only reason I see they can't is, because they will never be "dissolved."

I agree apollumi does mean destroyed. But it is never used to describe total annihilation or the fact of something that ceases to exist

 

[TimothyW]

What word in the Greek would describe a person that ceased to exist or was annihilated then?

Apollumi, apoletai
ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
"that all who believe in him will not perish but will have eternal life"

And why wouldn't someone writing in the Greek use luthesetia to describe a person that was destroyed or "dissolved" by fire? The only reason I see they can't is, because they will never be "dissolved."

I agree apollumi does mean destroyed. But it is never used to describe total annihilation or the fact of something that ceases to exist

If you look back at my posts, you will notice that I never use the word "annihilation" just to avoid this kind of confusion. Peter says that the ungodly will be destroyed. This doesn't mean that they will remain undestroyed in hell forever. I strongly disagree with you that the word apollumi is never used to describe total destruction. A person can't be "dissolved", that is why the word "luo" is not used to describe their destruction.

 

[Butch5]

Combine Matt 25 with Rev 20:10 and there is every reason to understand the lake of fire as being forever and ever.

From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance re: aionios -
aiōnios
1) without beginning and end, that which always has been andalways will be
2) without beginning
3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

It surely does NOT mean "ages and ages". It means exactly what the lexicon says it means. Eternal.

Unless you are a greek scholar and can clearly demonstrate that Strong's is wrong, you have no point.

That's fallacious, I don't have to be a Greek Scholar to make a point. Regarding aionios, I've already given you Scripture that refutes the definition of eternal. When Jesus speaks of the destruction of the wicked it's in Gehenna, He doesn't speak of the Lake of Fire, that term is only in the book of Revelation. According to Jesus Gehenna is the place of fire, that is the aionios fire of Mat 25:46. Jerimiah said that Gehenna would be made holy to the Lord.

That leaves us with two options as I see it, either aionios doesn't mean eternal, or there is a contradiction within the Scriptures. I think it's clear which is the case, especially since there are other passages of Scripture that speak of aionios as finite periods of time. Jude gives an example of aionios fire and that didn't burn for eternity.

Aionios is the adjective form of aion which means an age. Here is a literal translation of Rev. 10:10


YLT Revelation 20:10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages.

Seems to me the prophesy here is literal as to the valley of Hinnon, not the lake of fire, where the devil and his angels will be in eternal torment.

If you're going to hold to that, please explain then why Jesus says the wicked will be cast into Gehenna and John says they will be cast into the Lake of Fire. If these are two different places it creates a problem can you please address this?

 

[turnorburn]

The doctrine of annihilation means that there is no need of salvation...
tob

 

[gr8grace3]

2 Corinthians 5:10 (LEB) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.​

This is the Bema seat of Christ. For believers only. The GWTJ is for unbelievers.

​

​

 

[TimothyW]

The doctrine of annihilation means that there is no need of salvation...
tob

That isn't logical. A person needs salvation in order to receive eternal life. If a person is about to be destroyed, they most certainly need salvation, in order to NOT BE DESTROYED!

 

[turnorburn]

Salvation isn't eternal life Tim..
tob

 

[TimothyW]

Salvation isn't eternal life Tim..
tob

You are incorrect sir, Here is John 3:15 and 16:
So must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

 

[turnorburn]

That's eternal life but salvation isn't eternal life..
tob

 

[chessman]

If you look back at my posts, you will notice that I never use the word "annihilation" just to avoid this kind of confusion.

I still can't spell it correctly without a spellchecker

 

[TimothyW]

That's eternal life but salvation isn't eternal life..
tob

You are incorrect, sir. "The gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". Romans 6:23

 

[FreeGrace]

Since you say that you don't believe that not having eternal life is just as good as having eternal, then you must also agree that losing out on eternal life is a punishment.

Since Matt 25:46 is clearly about eternal punishment, yes, I do.

An eternal punishment, even if those who lose out on eternal life are not tortured alive forever.

A statement without evidence or support has no bearing. Matt 25:46 is clear to me.

So since the loss of eternal life IS a punishment, then your claim that Matthew 25:46 proves that the eternal punishment is eternal conscious torment doesn't work.

I see no reason why not. In fact, the opposite is true. If there is no ECT, there can be no eternal punishment.

If one simply ceases to exist, there CAN BE NO torment. They aren't there.

 

[TimothyW]

Since Matt 25:46 is clearly about eternal punishment, yes, I do.


A statement without evidence or support has no bearing. Matt 25:46 is clear to me.


I see no reason why not. In fact, the opposite is true. If there is no ECT, there can be no eternal punishment.

If one simply ceases to exist, there CAN BE NO torment. They aren't there.

I agree that if one ceases to exist there can be no torment. Their punishment isn't torment though. Their eternal punishment is being eternally destroyed. If a person has been destroyed they do not continue to exist as if they had not been destroyed.