The lake of fire - Punishment ie torture or destruction

[godsquadgeek]

Then my question remains: where in the Bible. Please cite references with the names of each.

They have been posted twice in the picture I posted, do you want the picture a third time?

 

[godsquadgeek]

I said:
"1. Paradise, also referred to as Abraham's bosom
2. torments
3. tartarus, a prison for some fallen angels"

What the Bible calls "hell" is actually "hades", where both Lazarus and the rich man went after death. But they were in different areas or compartments there. Lazarus was in Paradise, also called Abraham's bosom, while the rich man was in torments (Luke 16:23). Both were conscious.

So the 3 on my list above are ALL in hades, and are different compartments in hades.

Hades is not the lof.

Please refer to your original post because you didn't say that.

 

[godsquadgeek]

I said:
"1. Paradise, also referred to as Abraham's bosom
2. torments
3. tartarus, a prison for some fallen angels"

What the Bible calls "hell" is actually "hades", where both Lazarus and the rich man went after death. But they were in different areas or compartments there. Lazarus was in Paradise, also called Abraham's bosom, while the rich man was in torments (Luke 16:23). Both were conscious.

So the 3 on my list above are ALL in hades, and are different compartments in hades.

Hades is not the lof.

If they are hell and the lake of fire is.hell then obviously they are.all.hell,.that's why I said there are.five compartments to.it. otherwise.you are forced to believe in a mythological underworld.

 

[FreeGrace]

You just said that Mormons twist the bible, what does it make you if you do the same?

Seems my posts aren't being read. I ASKED for anyone to show how/why my claims/views aren't supported by the Scripture I quote.

iow, if I'm as guilty of twisting Scripture, like the Mormons, then your responsibility is to show how/why I am.

Not just complain about it.

I quote orthodox scholars because the spirit of truth has kept Christianity safe through the centuries.

Probably just as many so-called "orthodox scholars" have gotten it wrong. The key is the Holy Spirit, not your so-called orthodox scholars.

Again, if I'm twisting Scripture, as you've at least insinuated, then it's your responsibility to provide a clear and complete explanation of how/why I have.

Not just complain about it.

If you come.up with new concepts then they probably are.wrong.

Sure. So please explain what these "new concepts" are that I'm being charged with.

Not just complain about it.

as the saying goes, if its new its not true, if it's true it's not new. Since you can't quote orthodox scholars I must assume your view is new and not true.

Stop the complaining and start the explaining.

Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace]

They have been posted twice in the picture I posted, do you want the picture a third time?

Where in the picture are the actual Scriptural references about these 5 places?

 

[godsquadgeek]

Seems my posts aren't being read. I ASKED for anyone to show how/why my claims/views aren't supported by the Scripture I quote.

iow, if I'm as guilty of twisting Scripture, like the Mormons, then your responsibility is to show how/why I am.

Not just complain about it.


Probably just as many so-called "orthodox scholars" have gotten it wrong. The key is the Holy Spirit, not your so-called orthodox scholars.

Again, if I'm twisting Scripture, as you've at least insinuated, then it's your responsibility to provide a clear and complete explanation of how/why I have.

Not just complain about it.


Sure. So please explain what these "new concepts" are that I'm being charged with.

Not just complain about it.


Stop the complaining and start the explaining.

Thanks.

Your new.concepts of redefining hell.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Where in the picture are the actual Scriptural references about these 5 places?

Right next to each one, but you have to look at it to see. Which you didnt.

 

[Butch5]

How does that not contradict what the Bible teaches about existence in the lof from Rev 20?

For smoke to rise forever, there must be fire forever. And the smoke is from their torment. So the torment must occur forever.

If a soul is annihilated, it no longer exists. Therefore, the torment cannot continue, and neither will the smoke.

I would appreciate an explanation.

I wasn't going to respond to this as our previous interactions have been fruitless. However, I will address it to point out a few things. Firstly, The passage doesn't say forever. The Greek text uses aion in the plural. It simply means ages. How long those ages are we aren't told. Secondly, this passage, Rev. 20:10, is only speaking of three individuals, the devil, the beast, and the false prophet. To then apply their sentence to the rest of mankind is a non sequitur, it doesn't follow. There's no logical connection in applying this sentence universally to all men. Thirdly, aion doesn't mean forever, Jude tells us that Sodom and Gomorrah were an example of aionios fire, which is translated eternal fire. Anyone can clearly see that Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning. In addition "aion" is used in Scripture of finite periods of time. Fourthly, in order to reconcile Jesus' and John's teaching on the destruction of the wicked we have to conclude that Gehenna and the Lake of Fire are one and the same. The prophet Ezekiel prophesied that one day Gehenna would again be made holy to the Lord. Therefore it doesn't burn as a place of torment for eternity.

Going back to the Beast and the False Prophet, It's likely that these are both demon possessed men. The Beast is for sure. Consider this short explanation .

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org...rist-and-false-prophet-suffer-endless-torture

 

[FreeGrace]

Your new.concepts of redefining hell.

You can call anything you want "new", but my list all comes from the Bible.

So, please explain what is "new" about using words straight out of the Bible.

 

[FreeGrace]

Right next to each one, but you have to look at it to see. Which you didnt.

I'm getting tired of all your non-answers.

I'm not interested in pictures, but words. Which seem to be in short supply in your posts.

 

[FreeGrace]

Firstly, The passage doesn't say forever. The Greek text uses aion in the plural. It simply means ages. How long those ages are we aren't told. Secondly, this passage, Rev. 20:10, is only speaking of three individuals, the devil, the beast, and the false prophet. To then apply their sentence to the rest of mankind is a non sequitur, it doesn't follow.

It absolutely does follow. Just as the dragon, beast an false prophet are cast into the lof, so are all humans who don't have eternal life.

 

[Butch5]

It absolutely does follow. Just as the dragon, beast an false prophet are cast into the lof, so are all humans who don't have eternal life.

No, it doesn't. The sentence to be tormented for ages is to the Devil, the Beast, and the False Prophet. It is not to all human beings. Yes, the wicked will be cast into the Lake of Fire, but it is not said that they will be tormented for ages. That sentence is for the, Devil, the Beast, and the False Prophet. To apply their sentence to all men is a non sequitur.

 

[godsquadgeek]

You can call anything you want "new", but my list all comes from the Bible.

So, please explain what is "new" about using words straight out of the Bible.

The fact you don't think lake of fire is hell, that's a new one. Basically means that no sinner will go to hell after great white throne. Revelation 20:14 proves that in your version no one goes to hell, rather they go to the lake of fire. Which is the final hell in my opinion, but in your opinion, it's just the lake of fire.

 

[godsquadgeek]

I'm getting tired of all your non-answers.

I'm not interested in pictures, but words. Which seem to be in short supply in your posts.

I won't do your homework for you. I posted a picture with ten verses on it twice,

 

[PeterJens]

I don't understand

What do you mean by "encounter"?

How are we saved? We talk about points of faith, important issues, attitudes, approaches.
When we talk about someone who knows nothing of Christ, the bible or a defined outlook, they
suddenly can be saved or lost depending on the natural testimony of existance.
Unfortunately this does not work. Either one has a very simple access to God or it is only through
faith in Christ and a narrow path. Having both you end up in a dispensational argument, one group
get Gods favour on one basis and another on some other basis.

What I mean by an encounter with God, is hearing His words, and seeing Jesus, in a spiritual sense
through the testimony of believers. I would hold unless we have this, we have no hope of salvation.

Most are victims of life, and drift along as a result of incidents in their life and the effects of family
and those they love and are close to.

 

[WIP]

This thread is in the Theology forum where claims made need to be backed up by posting the Scripture that explains or supports the view. There are too many opinions flying back and forth and not enough true study. The rules of this forum need to be followed.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Probably just as many so-called "orthodox scholars" have gotten it wrong. The key is the Holy Spirit, not your so-called orthodox scholars.

This quote seems to assume the absence of the Holy Spirit in the work of orthodox scholars while He is active in Joe on the couch. Pick good scholars. They have much to teach us. That's part of the work of a responsible believer. Iron sharpens Iron ( Proverbs 27:17 )

 

[Politico]

How are we saved? We talk about points of faith, important issues, attitudes, approaches.
When we talk about someone who knows nothing of Christ, the bible or a defined outlook, they
suddenly can be saved or lost depending on the natural testimony of existance.

I do not support such. Neither did I indicate such. I did mention a positive response to general revelation leading to the provision of additional special revelation that in turn can lead to salvation in Christ.

Most are victims of life, and drift along as a result of incidents in their life and the effects of family
and those they love and are close to.

Yes , everyone is a victim of something at some point in their life. But all have equal opportunity and access to succeed in their Maker. There is no excuse for failure except for sin committed in ignorance. But such sin does not have to be life destroying nor lead one to Hell.

 

[FreeGrace]

No, it doesn't. The sentence to be tormented for ages is to the Devil, the Beast, and the False Prophet. It is not to all human beings. Yes, the wicked will be cast into the Lake of Fire, but it is not said that they will be tormented for ages.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Or bad.

That sentence is for the, Devil, the Beast, and the False Prophet. To apply their sentence to all men is a non sequitur.

Nope. It's just common sense.

Dan 12:2 - Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
A reference to believers and unbelievers. If one ceases to exist, there is no way they can experience anything, much less everlasting contempt. One has to exist in order to experience contempt. The verse is meaningless if souls cease to exist.

Matt 25:41 - “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
This is about unbelievers, who will be thrown into the SAME PLACE as the devil and fallen angels. If souls cease to exist, the concept of "eternal fire" is meaningless.

Mark 9:44, 46, 48,49 speak of where unbelievers will go, along with the phrase "where their worm never dies".
Again, if a soul ceases to exist, why even make such a statement about "THEIR worm never dying"? It would be irrelevant.

2 Thess 1:9 - They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.
Please explain how a soul that ceases to exist can be punished with everlasting destruction.

If destruction leads to ceasing to exist, then the word "everlasting" is irrelevant and meaningless.

For punishment to be everlasting, the soul MUST EXIST, and experience the punishment.

If I was facing "everlasting punishment" but knew that I would cease to exist, what would I care about being punished? I wouldn't.

That's EXACTLY WHY atheists aren't afraid of death. They think they will simply cease to exist. They laugh at the idea of suffering after death. Boy will they be surprised.

Rev 14:11 - And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”
This is a reference to unbelievers, who take the mark of the beast. For smoke from THEIR torment to rise forever and ever, they must continue to exist forever and ever.

Then, the verse goes on to say there will be no rest day or night.

How can a soul that ceases to exist even be said to have "no rest"?? That doesn't make sense. In order to have 'no rest', one MUST EXIST.

 

[FreeGrace]

The fact you don't think lake of fire is hell, that's a new one.

No, it's an old one. "Hell" is hades, where all souls went before Christ was resurrected. That's orthodox Christianity.

Basically means that no sinner will go to hell after great white throne.

Correct. They will be cast into the lake of fire. For eternity.

Revelation 20:14 proves that in your version no one goes to hell, rather they go to the lake of fire. Which is the final hell in my opinion, but in your opinion, it's just the lake of fire.

"just"???? The lake of fire will be much worse than the holding tank for unbelievers.

btw, thanks for noting your opinion. But since there is no evidence that hades or sheol is equated to the lake of fire in Scripture, my view isn't my opinion. It's Scripture.