The Wages of Sin is ..... Eternal Life in Hell!

[jgredline]

If 1 John 3:15 isn't a slap in the face then I don't have a clue what it will take to understand the concept that immortality is only a gift for the righteous.

You are finally correct. You don't have a clue.
Lets look at that verse you are refering to and let me explain it to you in simple english or I can do it in Greek if you like. Let me know.

15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Bible students. Here is a hint that will help you when reading the words of the Apostle John and the Apostle paul.

When Paul speaks of the flesh, he is speaking in spiritual terms. When John speaks of the flesh, he is speaking in physical terms.
So lets look at what this verse means. Keep in mind that John wrote at a third grade level. :
In the eyes of the world, hatred is not a very wicked thing, but God calls it murder. A moment’s reflection will show that it is murder from conception. The motive is there, although the act might not be committed. Thus, whoever hates his brother is a murderer. When John says that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him, he does not mean that a murderer cannot be saved. He simply means that a man who characteristically hates his fellows is a potential murderer and is not saved.. Now what is so hard to understand about this, unless of course you never made to the third grade :-D

 

[Drew]

In the eyes of the world, hatred is not a very wicked thing, but God calls it murder. A moment’s reflection will show that it is murder from conception. The motive is there, although the act might not be committed. Thus, whoever hates his brother is a murderer. When John says that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him, he does not mean that a murderer cannot be saved. He simply means that a man who characteristically hates his fellows is a potential murderer and is not saved.. Now what is so hard to understand about this, unless of course you never made to the third grade

Who are you debating with? Certainly not guibox. His point was that the 1 John text states that murderers do not have specifically eternal life - he is not making any implication about whether they can or cannot be saved. His point, if I may speculate, is that this text counters the notion that the lost have an eternal existence.

This strategy is very interesting. Ignore (or fail to understand) a poster's point, write boldly and perhaps even correctly against some other point (having nothing nothing to do with the post you are responding to) and then proclaim victory with dismissive comments and smileys to boot.

I wish I had the guts to do this.

 

[jgredline]

Who are you debating with? Certainly not guibox. His point was that the 1 John text states that murderers do not have specifically eternal life - he is not making any implication about whether they can or cannot be saved. His point, if I may speculate, is that this text counters the notion that the lost have an eternal existence.

This strategy is very interesting. Ignore (or fail to understand) a poster's point, write boldly and perhaps even correctly against some other point (having nothing nothing to do with the post you are responding to) and then proclaim victory with dismissive comments and smileys to boot.

I wish I had the guts to do this.

Drew
Are you getting upset?

 

[Drew]

Drew
Are you getting upset?

Yes and no. It is a little disturbing to see how incompetent people are at conducting proper debate. On the other hand, I feel obliged to advocate for what I consider to be proper and responsible debate. Thanks for asking, though.

 

[CP_Mike]

You have made Dr. Tory Hoff your Lord of what is true, over what Jesus Christ teaches in the scriptures. Like the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ as Lord, you also reject his teachings. Your being born again is suspect; however, in that you refuse to accept the truth of the Word of God over the word of an unknown psychologist who has absolutely no inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Your comment below shows that you object to God's manner of hellenizing the world prior to disseminating His Word to the non-Jewish nations.

Solo,
Dr.Hoff is not 'Lord' of what is true. Its your linkered view point that makes you ignore the rest of scripture and what God spoke about 'Nephesh' and you are interpreting Matt 10:28 against it rather than with it. The link of Dr.Hoff was one of many studies of 'Nephesh'. What makes your own interpretation more correct than the many.

You seem not to be able to refute one statement from the link. So you resort to a personal attack and accuse my salvation of being 'suspect'.

Get a grip and move on and please, show me what I posted was wrong and how?

Jesus teaches that the body and the soul are two separate entities of an individual. Include that with the spirit of man, and you have the image of God in which man was created.

Matthew 10:28
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Problem:
This passage is cited by Pentecostals and Evangelicals as the foundation proof that man is really an indestructible soul clothed with an earthly body.

Solution:
"Rather fear him which is able to destroy1 both body and soul in hell" is proof that the soul is destructible and therefore, not immortal.

Since both soul and body can be destroyed in hell ("Gehenna" - the garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem), this indicates that the soul is as destructible as the body since both can be destroyed in the same place. Is this what the immortal soulist wants from this passage?

What is meant by "not able to kill the soul"? Simply, "Fear not (for an instant) them which kill the body, but are not able to destroy you utterly and finally." For the disciple, his life is "hid with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3) and although men may kill the body, in the resurrection this life will be given back to the body. (See Col. 3:4).

The Greek word, "psuche" translated "soul" in this verse has the meaning of "life". In Matt. 16:25, "psuche" is translated "life": "For whosoever shall save his life ["psuche"] shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life ["psuche"] for my sake shall find it."2 (In the R.S.V. "psuche" is translated "life" in vs. 26: "For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life.") The similarity of context suggests that "life" in Matt. 10:28 should be read for "soul".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:
It is sometimes argued that "destroy" means to "afflict" or "torment" but not to annihilate. The Greek word, "apollu" translated "destroy" means to "destroy utterly". Ethelbert W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek Testament, (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Ltd., 1957), p. 220. There is not the slightest suggestion of torment in any of the places where "apollu" is translated "destroy" in the A.V. (e.g. Matt. 2:13; 12:14; 21:41. 22:7; 27:20). Return

Obviously if the words "immortal soul" were substituted for "life" in this reference, the result would be absurd

From http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b01imm ... ality.html

 

[Drew]

Since both soul and body can be destroyed in hell ("Gehenna" - the garbage dump outside the walls of Jerusalem), this indicates that the soul is as destructible as the body since both can be destroyed in the same place. Is this what the immortal soulist wants from this passage?

I am very interested to see how the immortal soul believers will answer this. The only answers that I can imagine (that are not outright incoherent) are the following:

1. The lost person exists, both body and soul, in an eternal state of existence. On such a view, destroy does not mean to "do away with" but to place in some eternal state of existence.

2. The lost person's body is destroyed in the "normal - do away with it sense" and the soul continues to exist. On such a view destroy has different senses, depending on which entity it characterizes.

Number 2 seems too awkward to believe. Number 1 can work if the case can be made that we can construe "destroy" to mean "to place in some eternal existent state". That would seem like a tall order, given all the Biblical texts that suggest a "normal" interpretation of the word "destroy".

However, I think it is eminently clear that the immortal soulists bring a Greek dualist mindset to such passages, and simply cannot, or will not, entertain the possibility that this is not the correct interpretive framework.

 

[Solo]

Before the present day falling away from sound doctrine we have two commentaries from respected theologions pre-1900s.


John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
by John Gill (1697-1771)

Matthew 10:28

And fear not them which kill the body…

This is a "periphrasis" of bloody persecutors, who, not content to revile, scourge, and imprison, put the faithful ministers of Christ to death, in the most cruel and torturing manner; and yet are not so to be feared and dreaded by them, as to discourage and divert them from the performance of their important work and office; for, as Luke says, (Luke 12:4) "after" that they "have no more than they can do". This is all they are capable of doing, even by divine permission, when they are suffered to run the greatest lengths in violence against the saints; this is the utmost of their efforts, which Satan, and their own wicked hearts, can put them upon, or is in the power of their hands to perform: and the taking away of the lives of good men is of no disadvantage to them; but sends them the sooner out of this troublesome world to their father's house, to partake of those joys that will never end; so that they have nothing to fear from their most implacable enemies; but should boldly and bravely go on in their master's service, openly, freely, faithfully, and fully discharging the work they were called unto: for, the loss of a corporal life is no loss to them, their souls live after death, in eternal happiness; and in a little time God will raise up their bodies, and reunite them to their souls, and be for ever happy together. A noble argument this, which our Lord makes use of, to engage his disciples to a public and diligent ministration of the Gospel, in spite of all opposers; who, when they have vented all their malice, can only take away a poor, frail, mortal life; and which, if they did not, in a little time would cease in course:

but are not able to kill the soul;

which is immortal, and cannot be touched by the sword, by fire and faggot, or any instruments of violence: it is immortal, it survives the body, and lives in a separate state, enjoying happiness and bliss, whilst the body is in a state of death:

but rather fear him, which is able to destroy both body and soul in
hell.

This is a description of God, and of his power, who is able to do that which men are not: all that they can do, by divine permission, is to kill the body; but he is able to "destroy", that is, to torment and punish both body and soul "in hell", in everlasting burnings; for neither soul nor body will be annihilated; though this he is able to do. As the former clause expresses the immortality of the soul, this supposes the resurrection of the body; for how otherwise should it be destroyed, or punished with the soul in hell? Now this awful being which is able to hurl, and will hurl all wicked and slothful, unfaithful and unprofitable, cowardly and temporising servants and ministers, soul and body, into the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, is to be feared and dreaded; yea, indeed, he only is to be feared, and to be obeyed: cruel and persecuting men are not to be feared at all; God alone should be our fear and dread; though the argument seems to be formed from the lesser to the greater; yet this, is the sense of the word "rather", that God is to be feared, not chiefly and principally only, but solely; and in some versions that word is left out, as in the Arabic, and Ethiopic, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel.

Retrieved from http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871)

28. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul--In Luke 12:4, "and after that have no more that they can do."
but rather fear him--In Luke (Luke 12:5) this is peculiarly solemn, "I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear," even Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell--A decisive proof this that there is a hell for the body as well as the soul in the eternal world; in other words, that the torment that awaits the lost will have elements of suffering adapted to the material as well as the spiritual part of our nature, both of which, we are assured, will exist for ever. In the corresponding warning contained in Luke (Luke 12:4), Jesus calls His disciples "My friends," as if He had felt that such sufferings constituted a bond of peculiar tenderness between Him and them.

Retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/j/jfb/jfb/JFB40.htm#Chapter10

 

[guibox]

I am very interested to see how the immortal soul believers will answer this. The only answers that I can imagine (that are not outright incoherent) are the following:

1. The lost person exists, both body and soul, in an eternal state of existence. On such a view, destroy does not mean to "do away with" but to place in some eternal state of existence.
Number 1 can work if the case can be made that we can construe "destroy" to mean "to place in some eternal existent state". That would seem like a tall order, given all the Biblical texts that suggest a "normal" interpretation of the word "destroy".

There two other problems with this too, Drew,

1) the word here 'destroy' also literally means 'kill' which is paralleled in other translations as 'being cast into hell' which makes it all one and the same.

2) The comparison using the same words are to 'men who can kill the body'. Unless one wants to believe that for men to 'kill the body' means to keep somebody alive in a continual state of torture, they cannot read that into the next part 'fear whom who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell'

CP, just put Solo on 'Ignore' like I've done. It is much more peaceful.

 

[jgredline]

Solo
Great stuff!!!!!


guibox
u do realize that there are many many words in hebrew and greek for the one english word destroy right :-?

With many differant definitions right?
:-?

 

[guibox]

Solo
Great stuff!!!!!


guibox
u do realize that there are many many words in hebrew and greek for the one english word destroy right :-?

With many differant definitions right?
:-?

Yes I do. And I even showed them all in my 'Death, destroy, destruction' thread. When the terms are used in the fate of the wicked they are always meaning what they say. Go and read it again.

However, even if that were mostly so, the context of other passages clarifies it. That is why we must compare scripture with scripture. Also, you ignore again the CONTRAST to 'everlasting life' 'eternal life' which is for the wicked. This is what the Bible does: light-darkness; sheep-goats, 'black-white, righteous-wicked, life-death. This is a contrast. The further apart they are the better.

Well, lets lay it out on the table:

The wages of sin is 'death' but the gift of God is 'eternal life'

The wages of sin is 'eternal life in hell', but the gift of God is 'eternal life'

Despite how ludicrous that sounds, lets assume it.

Make it fit. Show how these two phrases mean the same thing.

Please show me the words for 'death' and where they are used to mean what you believe it means to make this the same thing.

 

[jgredline]

Yes I do. And I even showed them all in my 'Death, destroy, destruction' thread. When the terms are used in the fate of the wicked they are always meaning what they say. Go and read it again.

However, even if that were mostly so, the context of other passages clarifies it. That is why we must compare scripture with scripture. Also, you ignore again the CONTRAST to 'everlasting life' 'eternal life' which is for the wicked. This is what the Bible does: light-darkness; sheep-goats, 'black-white, righteous-wicked, life-death. This is a contrast. The further apart they are the better.

Well, lets lay it out on the table:

The wages of sin is 'death' but the gift of God is 'eternal life'

The wages of sin is 'eternal life in hell', but the gift of God is 'eternal life'

Despite how ludicrous that sounds, lets assume it.

Make it fit. Show how these two phrases mean the same thing.

Please show me the words for 'death' and where they are used to mean what you believe it means to make this the same thing.

Guibox
This is way to easy. I can't believe you are so hung up on this word death..
Lets take a look. By the way. I should point out that this verse to keep it in the context of what the Apostle is saying here starts way back in chapter 4 and ends in chapter 8.. May I suggest you do an indepth study of Romans and I recommend cranfield and morgan. They are the premier experts on these writings.

Death here means that the body dies. For the wages of Sin is death. This goes back to the Garden. When sin came in, death came with it. Now when the body dies, the soul is seperated from the body and sent to hades to await final judgment. So while the body dies, the soul does not. One either recieves eternal life with the Lord Jesus in heaven or eternal damnation ultimatly in the lake of fire with satan and his demons. Its really that simple. Now for the olE kUDEGRA on this subject. Lets look at this word death in context and see what it means..

Romans 6:23 The true context.
23 τα γαρ οψωνια της αμαρτιας θανατος το δε χαρισμα του θεου ζωη αιωνιος εν χριστω ιησου τω κυριω ημων


θάνατος, ἀθάνατος [thanatos /than·at·os/] n m. From 2348; TDNT 3:7; TDNTA 312; GK 2505 and together with Strongs 1 as GK 115; 119 occurrences; AV translates as “death†117 times, and “deadly†twice.

1 the death of the body. 1a that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended. 1b with the implied idea of future misery in hell.
1b1 the power of death.
1c since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin.

2 metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,.
2a the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell.
3 the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell.
4 in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell.

Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible

 

[Drew]

There are some extra-Biblical arguments that can marshalled against dualism - the notion that there is an immaterial soul that "inhabits" our bodies.

1. The "interaction problem": I believe that in philosophical circles, this has been the "kudegra" againts dualism. It is essentially incoherent to claim that an immaterial soul can influence the actions of a material body. Why? Because as soon as you say that the soul can "press physical buttons" in order to direct the actions of the body, you are implying a connectedness between these two realms that seems to contradict the very tenets of dualism.

2. The more we understand about the brain, the more we see how intimately connected all aspects of our experiential lives are connected to brain states - zap such and such an area of the brain with electriticity and a specific experiential state is elicited. This suggests such a tight correlation between brain states and experiential states as to suggest that they cannot be extricated from one another.

I am not suggesting conventional materialism, but I am suggesting expressing a belief in an underlying singularity of "essence" or substance in the human person.

 

[jgredline]

There are some extra-Biblical arguments that can marshalled against dualism - the notion that there is an immaterial soul that "inhabits" our bodies.

1. The "interaction problem": I believe that in philosophical circles, this has been the "kudegra" againts dualism. It is essentially incoherent to claim that an immaterial soul can influence the actions of a material body. Why? Because as soon as you say that the soul can "press physical buttons" in order to direct the actions of the body, you are implying a connectedness between these two realms that seems to contradict the very tenets of dualism.

2. The more we understand about the brain, the more we see how intimately connected all aspects of our experiential lives are connected to brain states - zap such and such an area of the brain with electriticity and a specific experiential state is elicited. This suggests such a tight correlation between brain states and experiential states as to suggest that they cannot be extricated from one another.

I am not suggesting conventional materialism, but I am suggesting expressing a belief in an underlying singularity of "essence" or substance in the human person.

Drew
I will say this. Your either in serious deniel (which is what I believe) or you really believe your false theology along with your budies.
You guys throw out this word death, and I define it for you, and then a new excuse comes out. Not many people have the patience that I have to humor you guys with your madness. Anyway, let me know if there is anything else you need help with.

 

[guibox]

Death here means that the body dies. For the wages of Sin is death. This goes back to the Garden. When sin came in, death came with it. Now when the body dies, the soul is seperated from the body and sent to hades to await final judgment.

This is incorrect and not speaking of the physical death for four reasons:

1) Both the wicked and the righteous experience the first death. There is nothing different between them. Even though we will live eternally, we still suffer the wages of sin as well on this earth.

2) The contrast to this death is eternal life. The righteous do not experience eternal life at their physical death. Tradition says it is AFTER. Hence the 'wages of sin is death' is speaking only of the wicked, not the righteous who also experience the 'first death' but still have eternal life

3) This verse parallels John 3:16 of which you try and use TO support eternal torment and the afterlife of the wicked. So Romans 6:23 is speaking of the first death but John 3:16 which says the exact same thing is speaking of the afterlife? Sounds convenient to support your theories when the Bible makes it clear.

4) Show me where 'thanatos' is used to NOT denote 'death' but 'eternal torment'

Nonetheless, even if this were so, the wicked still do not receive eternal life so this 'death' would carry over after their physical death.

Absolutely NOWHERE in the scriptures (even in Luke 16) is their support that the wicked's 'soul' goes to Hades at death. Nowhere is 'psuche' or 'pneuma' found in Luke 16 in describing the fate of the Rich man. Instead we see that he is 'dead' (vs 31-33) and has a body with parts.

It is a gratuitous assumption that Lazarus and the rich man are in their relative places as 'souls'.

θάνατος, ἀθάνατος [thanatos /than·at·os/] n m. From 2348; TDNT 3:7; TDNTA 312; GK 2505 and together with Strongs 1 as GK 115; 119 occurrences; AV translates as “death†117 times, and “deadly†twice.

1 the death of the body. 1a that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended. 1b with the implied idea of future misery in hell.
1b1 the power of death.
1c since the nether world, the abode of the dead, was conceived as being very dark, it is equivalent to the region of thickest darkness i.e. figuratively, a region enveloped in the darkness of ignorance and sin.

2 metaph., the loss of that life which alone is worthy of the name,.
2a the misery of the soul arising from sin, which begins on earth but lasts and increases after the death of the body in hell.
3 the miserable state of the wicked dead in hell.
4 in the widest sense, death comprising all the miseries arising from sin, as well physical death as the loss of a life consecrated to God and blessed in him on earth, to be followed by wretchedness in hell.

Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible

I am absolutely amazed at the incredible assumptions and tradition that Strong slips into his commentary that cannot be supported by the context of the verses. I've noticed this many times and compared to other concordances (with no commentaries of which is how it should be) like Youngs, I have no faith in Strong's personal opinions on the matter.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Soma, it's good to see your still in the business of trick question theology.

We can all agree that eternal life is the gift of those who profess Christ as Lord and believe in His resurection from the dead.

Soma's paradox is how can one be eternaly tormented if they are not alive. Where do we start in solving this mystery? How bout Revelation 20:10-15, where it tells us all who are not found in the book of like are cast into the lake of fire.

At which time they will be consumed ...gone forever ...kaput! The unrighteous dead are raised from the dead after the 1000 years to face judgment. After the judgment comes the penalty of ETERNAL death.

Now what's to say that this second death as the Bible says is a physical death? They are already physically dead, so how is it that they are being Judged?

As mentioned, they are raised from the first death for a while ...long enough to receive a fair judgment. The SECOND death is their elimination from existence FOREVER.

The Soul must still be alive, to be judged. Once the soul is judged, it is cast into the lake of fire, where a the soul is not only without a body, but without God's presence as well. Thus it is a second death.

So we 'kind' of agree ...no? ...yes ...? The lake of fire is - I beleieve - the process during which the earth is cleansed in order to transform the planet into the 'new earth'. EVERYTHING on earth will be consumed by the fire.

The first death for all is the death of the physical body. The second death is when the soul is cast to dwell eternal in the lake of sulfur. Since there is nothing physical to a soul, how can it be called eternally alive?

Sorry to be dumb, but are you saying, then, that you believe in the concept of annihilation?

As for Christians, they can experience eternal life, because those who believe will be given glorified bodies. These bodies won't die, or be corruptable at all. Thus the soul has a body to dwell in, and can be called eternally living.

By Christians you mean 'the saved' ...right? In any event, I agree.

 

[jgredline]

I am absolutely amazed at the incredible assumptions and tradition that Strong slips into his commentary that cannot be supported by the context of the verses. I've noticed this many times and compared to other concordances (with no commentaries of which is how it should be) like Youngs, I have no faith in Strong's personal opinions on the matter.

Guibox
NO matter what you or your possey think of the strongs concordance it is correct. The only problem that I see is that it does not line up with your theology. Infact you can say what you want and sound all smart and wise, but truthfully you sound foolish. Well since the strongs concordance is not right, lets look at what vines has to say. Or is that wrong to? Guess what. It affirms even more my position, which is the position the scriptures teach.

18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; 20 and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."


Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words:

DEATH, DEATH-STROKE (See also die)
A. Nouns
1. thanatos (2288), “death,†is used in Scripture of:
(a) the separation of the soul (the spiritual part of man) from the body (the material part), the latter ceasing to function and turning to dust, e.g., John 11:13; Heb. 2:15; 5:7; 7:23. In Heb. 9:15, the kjv, “by means of death†is inadequate; the rv, “a death having taken place†is in keeping with the subject. In Rev. 13:3, 12, the rv, “death-stroke†(kjv, “deadly woundâ€Â) is, lit., “the stroke of deathâ€Â:
(b) the separation of man from God; Adam died on the day he disobeyed God, Gen. 2:17, and hence all mankind are born in the same spiritual condition, Rom. 5:12, 14, 17, 21, from which, however, those who believe in Christ are delivered, John 5:24; 1 John 3:14. “Death†is the opposite of life; it never denotes nonexistence. As spiritual life is “conscious existence in communion with God,†so spiritual “death†is “conscious existence in separation from God.â€Â
“Death, in whichever of the above-mentioned senses it is used, is always, in Scripture, viewed as the penal consequence of sin, and since sinners alone are subject to death, Rom. 5:12, it was as the Bearer of sin that the Lord Jesus submitted thereto on the Cross, 1 Pet. 2:24. And while the physical death of the Lord Jesus was of the essence of His sacrifice, it was not the whole. The darkness symbolized, and His cry expressed, the fact that He was left alone in the Universe, He was ‘forsaken;’ cf. Matt. 27:45-46.â€Â*
2. anairesis (336), another word for “death,†lit. signifies “a taking up or off†(ana, “up,†airo, “to takeâ€Â), as of the taking of a life, or “putting to deathâ€Â; it is found in Acts 8:1, of the murder of Stephen. Some mss. have it in 22:20. See anaireo, under kill.¶ In the Sept., Num. 11:15; Judg. 15:17, “the lifting of the jawbone.¶
3. teleute (5054), “an end, limit†(cf. telos, see end), hence, “the end of life, death,†is used of the “death†of Herod, Matt. 2:15.¶
B. Adjective.
epithanatios (1935), “doomed to death†(epi, “upon,†thanatos, A, No. 1), is said of the apostles, in 1 Cor. 4:9.¶
C. Verbs.
1. thanatoo (2289), “to put to death†(akin to A, No. 1), in Matt. 10:21; Mark 13:12; Luke 21:16, is translated “shall … cause (them) to be put to death,†lit., “shall put (them) to death†(rv marg.). It is used of the death of Christ in Matt. 26:59; 27:1; Mark 14:55 and 1 Pet. 3:18. In Rom. 7:4 (passive voice) it is translated “ye … were made dead,†rv (for kjv, “are becomeâ€Â), with reference to the change from bondage to the Law to union with Christ; in 8:13, “mortify†(marg., “make to dieâ€Â), of the act of the believer in regard to the deeds of the body; in 8:36, “are killedâ€Â; so in 2 Cor. 6:9. See kill, mortify.¶
2. anaireo (337), lit., “to take or lift up or away†(see A, No. 2), hence, “to put to death,†is usually translated “to kill or slayâ€Â; in two places “put to death,†Luke 23:32; Acts 26:10. It is used 17 times, with this meaning, in Acts. See kill, slay, take.
3. apago (520), lit., “to lead away†(apo, “away,†ago, ââleadâ€Â), is used especially in a judicial sense, “to put to death,†e.g., Acts 12:19. See bring, carry, lead, take.
4. apokteino (615), to kill, is so translated in the rv, for the kjv, “put to death,†in Mark 14:1; Luke 18:33; in John 11:53; 12:10 and 18:31, rv, “put to death.†See kill, slay.
Note: The phrase eschatos echo, lit., “to have extremely,†i.e., “to be in extremity,†in extremis, “at the last (gasp), to be at the point of death,†is used in Mark 5:23.¶

 

[SputnikBoy]

Guibox
NO matter what you or your possey think of the strongs concordance it is correct.

I think you might be right, jg. And, if so, are you willing to go along with Strong's definition of the name 'Lazarus'? I know I brought this up before but it was passed over fairly quickly.

Strong's definition of 'Lazarus' is 'a person' ...one real (as in he who was raised from the dead by Jesus) and one imaginary (as in the 'Lazarus' in the parable). What say ...is Strong's still correct or is this the only 'flaw' in the whole concordance?

 

[John the Baptist]

More of satan's hoo-doo stuff! Gen. 3:4

Soma, it's good to see your still in the business of trick question theology.

We can all agree that eternal life is the gift of those who profess Christ as Lord and believe in His resurection from the dead.

(John here: We what??? :roll

Soma's paradox is how can one be eternaly tormented if they are not alive. Where do we start in solving this mystery? How bout Revelation 20:10-15, where it tells us all who are not found in the book of like are cast into the lake of fire.

Now what's to say that this second death as the Bible says is a physical death? They are already physically dead, so how is it that they are being Judged? The Soul must still be alive, to be judged. Once the soul is judged, it is cast into the lake of fire, where a the soul is not only without a body, but without God's presence as well. Thus it is a second death.

The first death for all is the death of the physical body. The second death is when the soul is cast to dwell eternal in the lake of sulfur. Since there is nothing physical to a soul, how can it be called eternally alive?

As for Christians, they can experience eternal life, because those who believe will be given glorified bodies. These bodies won't die, or be corruptable at all. Thus the soul has a body to dwell in, and can be called eternally living.

John again: ---Wow! Ezekiel 18:4, Ezekiel 18:20, And Christ's Word of 'fear Him who is able to destroy BOTH BODY AND SOUL in hell'. Gone, huh? Obadiah 1:16 BLOTTED OUT OF EXISTENCE as though they HAD NEVER BEEN! And one reason is, that they violated the last few verses of the Word of the Godhead. Teaching FALSE doctrine!
Even from Gen. to Rev. we see that one in hell would need to 'eat of the tree of life' to live forever!

One best consider before falling 'asleep' after this 7th day Sabbath evening, what it would be like to NEVER, NEVER, to awaken again, to just be as though you had NEVER BEEN! All because of Mark 7:7's Vain Worship. :

---John

 

[Drew]

Drew
I will say this. Your either in serious deniel (which is what I believe) or you really believe your false theology along with your budies.
You guys throw out this word death, and I define it for you, and then a new excuse comes out. Not many people have the patience that I have to humor you guys with your madness. Anyway, let me know if there is anything else you need help with.

Do you really think the readers do not notice how you simply avoid responding to material that is challenging to your position. I post a sober reasoned argument against dualism. You respond with rhetoric and non-argument.

I ask you to support a statement that you made about how scholars claim that Jesus always taught using literally true statements. Your response is proven to be inadequate - none of the material that you provides supports your claim. You also deny that you never made such a claim, even though it is there in black and white.

Here is the evidence:

Scholars have noted that whenever Jesus taught, he provided examples from real-life situations.

and then later

First of all don't take me out of context and don't put words in my mouth. I never said parables plural, I was only speaking of Luke 16

.

These are not my opinions - it is a fact that can be verified by anyone who will take the time to audit your material.

I call you on your claim that Jesus would never "illustrate a teaching with a falsehood" and prove your claim incorrect by bringing up the example of how Jesus called the Pharisee's snakes.

(Some) other posters at least respond to arguments with an attempt at a counterargument. You seem to think that you have no obligation to defend your position.

I point out a perfectly reasonable interpretation that "everlasting contempt" from Daniel 12:2 does not necessarily support eternal life for the wicked. No meaningful response from you.

In this very thread, you claim 2 Cor 5:8 and Phil 1:21,23 as support for your position. I provide an alternative interpretation that does not support your position. You would then be obligated to direcltly attack the coherence of my interpretation or show other material forces the resolution of the ambiguity of the 2 Cor 5:8 and the Phil 1 material in the direction of your view. You have done neither.

Even apart from the actual content of your posts, you either seem to not understand how to properly defend a position or are unwilling to do so. I invite you or any other poster to show if anything I have said in this post is incorrect. Again, these are verifiable claims of mine, so if they are wrong, someone should be able to show that this is the case.

 

[jgredline]

Drew
First of all let me start by saying good morning. Atleast its morning where I am at.
Now. Your possey have already taken Solo OUT OF CONTEXT and he has shown you your mistake..Now I will show you where you took me out of context. I will try and explain it to you at a first grade level. I will have my twins who are in first grade read this before I post it to make sure it is understandable.


Here is I wrote.
Scholars have noted that whenever Jesus taught, he provided examples from real-life situations. For example, he spoke of a treasure buried in a field, a wedding feast, a man working in a vineyard, a woman sweeping her house, a shepherd watching his sheep, and a son returning home after squandering money.

Jesus never illustrated a teaching with a falsehood. This being the case, we must conclude that in Luke 16 Jesus is giving a teaching based on a “real-life†situationâ€â€involving conscious existence after death. Certainly the verse is in perfect harmony with other verses that teach conscious existence in the afterlife (see Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 5:6–8; Phil. 1:21–23; 1 Thess. 4:13–17; Rev. 6:9–10).

Jesus never calls this real story a “parable,†and unlike parables, which never use real names, Jesus used a real name (Lazarus) of a person.

Here is my explanation
Scholars have noted that whenever Jesus taught, he provided examples from real-life situations. (These are persons, place or things in other words a noun or nouns) For example, he spoke of a treasure buried in a field (this was very common practice back in those times. Its not like you could go to an ATM), a wedding feast (jewish weddings lasted an average of 3 days. This was common knowledge), a man working in a vineyard (Does this really need explanation? Well I will give you one. People where commonaly working in vineyards), a woman sweeping her house (guess what, women cleaned there houses and yes brooms were very common), a shepherd watching his sheep( This is what sheppards do. They protect them from wolves and thiefs), and a son returning home after squandering money (there were many prodigal sons. There are still prodigal sons today that squander there inheritance). So these examples where all things the average common folk would clearly understand.. They would not need a commentary or a chat forum to get it. Get it? OK, Lets move on.

Jesus never illustrated a teaching with a falsehood (are you calling Jesus a liar? It sure seems like this is what you are implying. Then again one of your possey does not believe that NOT accepting Jesus Christ is NOT a chrime). This being the case, we must conclude that in Luke 16 Jesus is giving a teaching based on a “real-life†situationâ€â€involving conscious existence after death. Certainly the verse is in perfect harmony with other verses that teach conscious existence in the afterlife (see Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 5:6–8; Phil. 1:21–23; 1 Thess. 4:13–17; Rev. 6:9–10).

Did you read all the verses I posted?


Jesus never calls this real story a “parable,†and unlike parables, which never use real names, Jesus used a real name (Lazarus) of a person.

Drew
You do exactly what Satan did with the scriptures when he was quoting them to Jesus while he was tempting him. He took them out of context to fit his false theology which is where you theology comes from.
John 8:44
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.


Now
As far as the readers go. I have recieved PM'S from 13 differant people and 6 e mails all of encouragement to continue to battle these false teachers eg drew, guibox, cp, sput, soma, tan, etc.

The fact that you even have Lovely debating you says allot in itself. It's clear to anybody with the spirit of God that you are teaching falsely.
1 tim 4:1 1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

Now lets look at your doctrine. You say that I avoid your questions.
When you start with your ''dualistic theology'' questions, I will not address your false doctrines as those are mearly you opinions.
When you have asked about the scriptures, I have indeed answerd them, atleast most of them and I have answered them in proper context.
Just because I don't fall for your trick questions that you conjure up not dought in my mind from inspiration of the evil one.

2 peter 2:1-2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.

Then I hit you with the scriptures and you start
:smt022 to a Mod. Why is this so. I will tell you why. It's because the scripture convicted you.

2 tim 4:1-4 1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at* His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

Drew
You have even called stories in the bible fables :o
The bible clearly warns of people like you.
2 tim 3: 1-7 1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.