What do you think?

[TanNinety]

Setting my or any other annihilationist position of the interpretation on the parable of rich man and Lazarus aside, can any of the eternal torment proponent explain as to what the interpretation of it would be?

I am interested in seeing what other meaningful interpretation of the parable is possible.

 

[TanNinety]

Now the fork in the road is this. Correct me if I am wrong - you postulate that:

1. Both redeemed and unredeemed are resurrected.
2. The redeemed get resurrected imperishable bodies
3. The unredeemed get resurrected perishable bodies.
Notice the VIOLATION to the principal of the resurrection. I see you as saying: 'the perishable (unredeemed) put on the perishable.'

For the violation to occur scriptures need to teach that unredeemed put on the imperishable. The context of Paul saying we put on incorruptible seems only to apply to the redeemed, IMHO.

Evidence for Drew's postulate #3 is 1 Corinthians 15:50 And this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood the reign of God is not able to inherit, nor doth the corruption inherit the incorruption;

My framework is:

1. Both redeemed and unredeemed are resurrected.
2. The redeemed get resurrected spiritual bodies
3. The unredeemed get resurrected spiritual bodies.

There is a violation in #3. If the unredeemed get spiritual bodies i.e., imperishable, how are they subject to second death? In this case you are violating the second death law to which only the redeemed are immune.

 

[Drew]

Flesh is indeed a loaded term. That aside - we are approaching a fork in the road. The resurrected get bodies - imperishable ones. If they are imperishable then they can survive. . . The spiritual body I refer to is not a free floating spirit - a body but not a physical body like we have - Whenever I use the term 'physical body' I am refer to our ageing bodies that are destined to return to dust.

OK. I understand your definitions. I agree with all this except for your implication that the unredeemed get imperishable bodies - I see no evidence for this in the Scriptures.

Now the fork in the road is this. Correct me if I am wrong - you postulate that:

1. Both redeemed and unredeemed are resurrected.
2. The redeemed get resurrected imperishable bodies
3. The unredeemed get resurrected perishable bodies.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

My framework is:

1. Both redeemed and unredeemed are resurrected.
2. The redeemed get resurrected spiritual bodies
3. The unredeemed get resurrected spiritual bodies.

Notice the VIOLATION to the principal of the resurrection. I see you as saying: 'the perishable (unredeemed) put on the perishable.'

This is not found in scripture.

Why do you see me as saying this? There is a lot of possibility for confusion here and we need to be careful. It seems that you think that my assertion that the unredeemed get perishable bodies means that I have to now explain how this works given that the scriptures say that the "perishable puts on the unperishable". But I think you are applying the statement "the perishable put on the unperishable" at the wrong point in time - after the unredeemed are resurrected. In order for your objection to work against my view, I would have to believe in two resurrections of the lost. And I do not.

I think that the whole "perishable puts on the unperishable" thing refers to the redeemed - what happens in the process of their resurrection. In the process of the resurrection of the unredeemed, they are given perishable bodies.

You seem to think that because I assert the unredeemed get perishable bodies as a result of their resurrection, that they are now subject to application of the "perishable put on the unperishable" clause and I am thereby forced into a contradiction. But they are perishable in their post-resurrection state . The show is now over - the resurrection has taken place. They are not going to undergo a second resurrection where their resurrected perishable bodies are transformed into an imperishable state.

 

[Drew]

FYI, I will be not be reading or posting till Sunday. Blessings to all of you.

 

[stranger]

TanNinety wrote:
I will try to take the points that I saw needed answering in the previous posts stranger so forgive if my response seems haphazard.
Quote:
The following two propositions can be used to test annihilationism:

1. First comes the natural then the spiritual.
2. If there is a natural body there is also a spiritual body.


This does not pose any threat to the annihilationist because the spiritual body is only reserved for the justified. The spiritual body which is the incorruptible body is never referenced by Paul in the context of unredeemed non-believers. This is an assumption brought by the eternal torment proponent that the wicked also receive the second spiritual after the first natural. You should first make a case that “First comes the natural and then the spiritual†is valid both for the redeemed and the unredeemed. Then and only then will this cause a problem for the annihilationist.

My reasoning is as follows:

The physical bodies of the redeemed and unredeemed turn to dust.
Both are resurrected.
If both are resurrected then both have resurrection bodies.

Do not confuse the natures with which they are resurrected - they are opposites just like today being in the flesh is different to being in the Spirit.The annihilationist is the one who has to establish that there are two different types of bodies. Can you tell who is a Christian and who is not by the appearance of the physical body? My reasoning is consistent, as far as I can tell, with what we know about the resurrection. So there is cause for concern for the annihilationist.

Quote:
Temporary resurrection is no resurrection at all.

There are two kinds of resurrections. One that is immune to second death and one that is not immune to second death. The resurrection of the wicked is not immune to second death. By saying there is no temporary resurrection of the wicked you have to reconcile how this non-temporary resurrection of the wicked is immune to second death while the scriptures say only the redeemed are immune to second death.

The second death is the lake of fire. Rev20:14,15
The unredeemed are thrown into the lake of fire.
The redeemed are not.
'Immune' suggests that both suffer the same disease.It is the annihilationist who believes the unredeemed die, are resurrected, judged, thrown into a lake of fire and annihilated. So their resurrection is temporary.I believe resurrection is permanent.

The scripture in Rev20:15 simply says that they are thrown into the lake of fire. The wicked being thrown into the lake of fire is the second death. Notice also Rev20:10 the devil and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire and will be tormented day and night forever. It is a place of rewards for wicked deeds done.

Quote:
In the parable of the sower Jesus later gives us the interpretation

The sayings of Christ being a parable or not does not depend on if He gave an interpretation to them or not. If a parable is spoken it is a parable regardless of if the scriptures specify an interpretation. We need to understand that not all parables went over the top of the head of the disciples. Some did not need further interpretation from Christ because they understood them. In the current parable the purple and fine linen clothed rich man represents the royal priest hood.

Some He gave interpretations to - and this is an authoritative interpretation, others may be referenced by other scripture writers and this is also authoritative. Unless another scripture indicates this that is simply your interpretation - I would say purple is the colour of the rich.

EXODUS 19:6 And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel.
Exodus 28:39 And thou shalt embroider the coat of fine linen, and thou shalt make the mitre [of] fine linen, and thou shalt make the girdle [of] needlework.
Exodus 39:1 For the priests, the craftsmen made beautiful garments of blue, purple, and scarlet cloth-clothing to be worn while ministering in the Holy Place. This same cloth was used for Aaron's sacred garments, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

Priests were Levites - was the rich man a Levite? Striclkly speaking Levites did not inherit any land nor were they property owners. there may have been exceptions but their 'social welfare' came from donations people made.

The moment you see the rich man as a literal man of wealth you have started to strip the parable of its truth. The rich man represents the royal priesthood the house of Jews. The beggar Lazarus, Hebrew name Eleazer, when translated means "he whom God helps." We gentiles who are beggars literally became the ‘he’ whom God lifted up and helped. The five brothers of the rich man are the five houses of Israel that I have pointed out to in my previous posts. While now Israel has rejected the one who ‘rose from the dead’ as the parable aptly depicts, we who were once beggars are being comforted being elevated to Abraham’s bosom. That is a beautiful prophecy of the salvation being extended to the gentiles.

I disagree. I am the one who is calling the rich man the rich man. How am I stripping the parable of anything? You are interpreting the rich man to represent a royal priesthood. I call that ADDING to the word.Let us agree to stay within the bounds of the parable and use the exact words that are found in the parable.Agreed?

Death, now as you can see in the parable is the state of transition of Israel into torment because God has retreated from them for a while the gentiles have been elevated to the status off being comforted.

Again I am afraid you have lost me.I do not believe this parable refers to Jews and gentiles. It is probable that both the rich man and the beggar were both Jews. I cannot say that for certain.

The moral of the parable is presented in LUKE 16:25 "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented.

If you want to insist literal death and physical bodies, look at the reason given why the rich man was being tormented and lazarus is being comforted. Because the rich man received good things and the beggar evil things. Do you suggest that this is a legitimate reason? Do people who receive good things in their lifetime qualify for torture for eternity?

I don't insist on anything beyond the text. It is the parable that says that Lazarus was comforted, and the rich man tormented.Abahram makes the comment about good and evil things being received. By the way being a son of Abraham was a big deal in those days and being in Abraham's bossom certainly suggests that Lazarus was Abraham's son.I don't conclude that material wealth was the reason for the respective fate of the two characters. There is an association with Abraham the father of the faithful with Lazarus, and mention is made of the law and the prophets which like the rich man, the rich mans five brothers also did not believe in. I have also mentioned the violation of love your neighbour . . . Lazarus was not helped when he needed it.

 

[stranger]

There is a violation in #3. If the unredeemed get spiritual bodies i.e., imperishable, how are they subject to second death? In this case you are violating the second death law to which only the redeemed are immune.

The spiritual body or resurrection body, same thing, can have a corrupt or uncorrupt nature. Man is a partaker of one of two natures. At the resurrection we do not become something totally different to what we are now. The physical body can be likewise as is the case 'in Adam' or 'in Christ'.

They (the unredeemed) are subject to a second death by being thrown into a lake of fire.

 

[Free]

There is a third possibility and this is that Jesus' statement: "Truly I say to you, today, you shall be with Me in Paradise" (NASB version of this statement) has been inaccurately rendered through the inclusion of the comma. I have been told that the original Greek had no comma. So, the argument goes, the statement could also read as "Truly I say to you today.....(pause)....you will be with me in Paradise".

The problem with this is that it was obviously Today when he said it.

There is a fourth possibility also, and I have stated it several times - Jesus may have been speaking phenomenologically - expressing the fact that, for the thief, the transition from bodily death to resurrection in the presence of Jesus will seem instantaneous in the same way that I fall asleep at midnight and wake up at 7 AM with no experience of the intervening 7 hours having any reality at all.

A plain reading of the text would seem to say otherwise. If that were the case, Jesus most likely would have made that clearer. The context is clear: It was a simple statement made from one dying person to another.

I do not understand your logic here. You seem to assume that punishment is not punishment if it is not eternal. Are children who are sent to their rooms for less than an eternity not being punished?

You have hit the nail on the head but don't realize it. In your scenario, the children would be sent to their rooms and then annihilated. But why do we punish children? Why does God "discipline those he loves"? Is there not a purpose to punishment, a lesson to be learned? If one is annihilated after the punishment, then the punishment has served no purpose - it is tantamount to torture.

Remember that the unsaved will be punished, inversely proportional (good grammer may have eluded me there ;) ) to the degree of their ignorance. If they are annihilated, then their punishment is pointless. However, if, after they are punished by fire, they are removed from the fire and put somewhere else, let's say in "outer darkness", then they have eternity to remember what could have and should have been - the punishment has an end purpose. I don't beleive that the Bible states that people will be in firey torment forever. However, torment can also come within, from regrets and bitterness, and this, I believe, will last forever.

My main point in the previous post was that if the punishment doesn't last for eternity, it isn't punishment at all, for the simple fact that if the unsaved lives cease to exist, then it is as though they have never existed. They will remember no punishment which makes it utterly pointless. If people were even to be tormented in the lake of fire for a million years and then cease to exist, what point would it have serve?

And Jesus' warnings in no way demand a conclusion that punishment is eternal. Being cast into a lake of fire and experiencing being burned into non-existence can indeed be worse than cutting out one'e eye. I believe that the procces of being annihilated in hell-fire indeed causes conscious suffering.

Sure they do. As I stated above, the suffering is pointless if the person is no longer around to remember it. While I'm sure it would hurt like "heck", ceasing to exist in the long run makes Jesus' warnings fall flat.

Let's be clear: the concept of punishment, as a concept, does not demand eternal duration. This is obvious. So the only grounds for arguing that the conscious experience of punishment for the unredeemed is eternal is to make a Scriptural case for it. And I think that it has been shown that the case is weak and rather circular.

Since we're being clear, let's be clearer: the concept of punishment demands a purpose for the punishment, a purpose that extends beyond the punishment itself, otherwise it is torture.

 

[Drew]

There is a third possibility and this is that Jesus' statement: "Truly I say to you, today, you shall be with Me in Paradise" (NASB version of this statement) has been inaccurately rendered through the inclusion of the comma. I have been told that the original Greek had no comma. So, the argument goes, the statement could also read as "Truly I say to you today.....(pause)....you will be with me in Paradise".

The problem with this is that it was obviously Today when he said it.

The possibility that I raise is perfectly legitimate.

Here is the NASB version:

Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.

Obviously the placement of the comma gives a meaning that "on Good Friday, the thief will be with Jesus in Paradise". However, I am told that the original Greek had no comma. Without the comma we have:

Truly I say to you today you shall be with Me in Paradise

My point is that the above statement could be read as:

Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise.

This has an entirely different meaning. This meaning is the same as the following:

Today I make the following statement to you: At some non-specified point in the future, you will be with me in Paradise.

Without the comma, the NASB text is entirely consistent with such a reading and it is indeed a legitmate alternative.

 

[Solo]

All of the translations below depict that the thief and Jesus would be in paradise together that same day. This would be a problem for those who cannot separate the physical body and soul and spirit of an individual as Jesus teaches throughout the Scriptures, especially Luke 16.


Luke 23:43
Parallel Translations


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (NASB ©1995)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWT: Jesus said to him, "I can guarantee this truth: Today you will be with me in paradise." (GOD'S WORD®)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASV: And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBE: And he said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you will be with me in Paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBY: And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEY: "I tell you in solemn truth," replied Jesus, "that this very day you shall be with me in Paradise."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WBS: And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB: Jesus said to him, "Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLT: and Jesus said to him, 'Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'

 

[Drew]

There is a fourth possibility also, and I have stated it several times - Jesus may have been speaking phenomenologically - expressing the fact that, for the thief, the transition from bodily death to resurrection in the presence of Jesus will seem instantaneous in the same way that I fall asleep at midnight and wake up at 7 AM with no experience of the intervening 7 hours having any reality at all.

A plain reading of the text would seem to say otherwise. If that were the case, Jesus most likely would have made that clearer. The context is clear: It was a simple statement made from one dying person to another.

This argument is based on a belief that the Scriptures always speak in a kind "technical" manner, never adopting a phenomenological perspective. I see no justification for this assumption.

And even if there were, this line of reasoning does far more damage to the "unredeemed dead go straight to conscious and eternal torment". If we all agree that a "plain reading is what we go with" then:

1. The wages of sin is death, not unpleasant and neverending life:
2. The unredeemed are actually destroyed, consumed, etc., not just destroyed in the mysterious"preserved forever" sense of destroyed;
3. Sleep means sleep, not 'full conscious existence".

I would think that the last argument a supporter of eternal torment should deploy is the "plain reading" argument.

 

[Drew]

Drew wrote:
I do not understand your logic here. You seem to assume that punishment is not punishment if it is not eternal. Are children who are sent to their rooms for less than an eternity not being punished?

You have hit the nail on the head but don't realize it. In your scenario, the children would be sent to their rooms and then annihilated. But why do we punish children? Why does God "discipline those he loves"? Is there not a purpose to punishment, a lesson to be learned? If one is annihilated after the punishment, then the punishment has served no purpose - it is tantamount to torture.

Remember that the unsaved will be punished, inversely proportional (good grammer may have eluded me there ) to the degree of their ignorance. If they are annihilated, then their punishment is pointless. However, if, after they are punished by fire, they are removed from the fire and put somewhere else, let's say in "outer darkness", then they have eternity to remember what could have and should have been - the punishment has an end purpose. I don't beleive that the Bible states that people will be in firey torment forever. However, torment can also come within, from regrets and bitterness, and this, I believe, will last forever.

My main point in the previous post was that if the punishment doesn't last for eternity, it isn't punishment at all, for the simple fact that if the unsaved lives cease to exist, then it is as though they have never existed. They will remember no punishment which makes it utterly pointless. If people were even to be tormented in the lake of fire for a million years and then cease to exist, what point would it have serve?

I almost think you are intentionally undermining the position that I thought you held. With all due, respect I will state what seems obvious to me: eternal torment, torment that does not end and which therefore does not allow any chance to change one's path, most certainly serves no identifiable purpose except torture. You posit that the "torment by flames" part lasts a finite time and is followed by an eternity of "regretting what they could have been", with no actual capability to use that regret to change the state of their existence.

Either way (eternal fire, or fire followed by eternal regret) how can a person who will be tormented and / or "regretting forever in darkness" apply the lesson that you seem to think he is learning? It almost seems as if you are gaining leverage from the admittedly appealing argument that "punishment should have a purpose", while at the same time overlooking the fact that, by the very nature of the eternality and content of that punishment, no imaginable purpose can be served, except for the very torture which you yourself deem to be pointless.

Beside, there simply is nothing incoherent at all about notion of punishment that results in annihilation. Consider capital punishment. This is clearly punishment and it is clearly annihilation in the eyes of most people in secular society.

I am not sure why you think punishment must always have a purpose for the one who is being punished - with the implication that the purpose is a constructive one (you will get nowhere otherwise with your line of argument, I suggest). But let's go with that view for the sake of argument. If I had to imagine the scenario where punishment served the least constructive purpose, I would choose eternal torment.

As with the argument against "phenomenoligical reading" the above argument does far more damage to the "eternal torment" position than to the annihilation position.

 

[stranger]

Hi Drew,

I prepared a brief summary of the discussion so far, I will be interested in the annihilationist response.

General propositions:
1. First is the physical then the spiritual.
2. If there is a physical body there is also a spiritual body.
3. The spiritual body is the resurrection body.


Anihilationist framework:

1. Both redeemed and unredeemed are resurrected.
2. The redeemed get resurrected imperishable bodies.
3. The unredeemed get resurrected perishable bodies.

Orthodox framework:

1. Both redeemed and unredeemed are resurrected.
2. The redeemed get resurrected spiritual bodies (in Christ).
3. The unredeemed get resurrected spiritual bodies (in Adam).

Argument against Anihilationism:

1. If all men are resurrected then all men get resurrection bodies.
2. If all men get resurrection bodies all men get spiritual bodies.
3. Spiritual bodies partake of two natures just as physical bodies are in Adam or in Christ.

Luke 16:19ff
Lazarus is resurrected in Christ and finds himself in Abrahams bossom.
The rich man is resurrected in Adam and finds himself in Hades.

 

[Drew]

All of the translations below depict that the thief and Jesus would be in paradise together that same day. This would be a problem for those who cannot separate the physical body and soul and spirit of an individual as Jesus teaches throughout the Scriptures, especially Luke 16.


Luke 23:43
Parallel Translations


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." (NASB ©1995)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWT: Jesus said to him, "I can guarantee this truth: Today you will be with me in paradise." (GOD'S WORD®)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASV: And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBE: And he said to him, Truly I say to you, Today you will be with me in Paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBY: And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEY: "I tell you in solemn truth," replied Jesus, "that this very day you shall be with me in Paradise."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WBS: And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB: Jesus said to him, "Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLT: and Jesus said to him, 'Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.'

Romans 6:23 (Parallel translations):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NASB ©1995)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWT: The payment for sin is death, but the gift that God freely gives is everlasting life found in Christ Jesus our Lord. (GOD'S WORD®)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASV: For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBE: For the reward of sin is death; but what God freely gives is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBY: For the wages of sin is death; but the act of favour of God, eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEY: For the wages paid by Sin are death; but God's free gift is the Life of the Ages bestowed upon us in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WBS: For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLT: for the wages of the sin is death, and the gift of God is life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case the point is not clear:

If anyone argues that "today means Good Friday" because that is the plain reading of all the translated versions of Luke 23:43 considered without reference to rest of the Scriptures (which it clearly is, I fully concede), then they must concede that "death means death" by similar reasoning in respect to Romans 6:23.

Ah, you will rejoin: "death means separation with conscious existence" or "death means loss of the body with continued conscious existence". But that argument appeals to other elements of the Scriptures to gain its force - it is clearly not the plain reading - death is death just like today is today in a plain reading. And I am entitled to a similar appeal (which has already been exercised to show how "today" cannot mean "Good Friday" unless Paradise is someplace other than Heaven and I think that Scriptures shows them to be the same place)

And I hope to repost and amplify an argument that shows that "today" cannot be Good Friday. This argument is based on Jesus' statement in John 20 that, as of several days after the resurrection, He had not yet returned to the Father.

To be fair, Solo has a legitimate argument against this position. He has claimed (at least implicitly) that Paradise is not Heaven, it is the "upper chamber of Sheol". I suggest that the rest of the "eternal torment" supporters are forced into that position as well. And this is because if Paradise = Heaven, then the thief could not have been with Jesus in Paradise on Good Friday since Jesus certainly did not go there on Good Friday (since that would bring Him into the presence of the Father).

So: stranger, Free, jgredline, aLoneVoice, etc: Is Paradise = Heaven, or is Paradise a part of Sheol, or is it something else?

 

[Drew]

Argument against Anihilationism:

1. If all men are resurrected then all men get resurrection bodies.
2. If all men get resurrection bodies all men get spiritual bodies.
3. Spiritual bodies partake of two natures just as physical bodies are in Adam or in Christ

I may not fully understand some of your terminology. However, we do seem to have one thing straight - the "spiritual" body that we who are under God's grace receive will indeed be a "body" - it will not be a ghost-like entity.

In any event, I do not understand your argument above. In the interest of clarity, let me restate my position:

1. We all die physically and go into the ground. Our bodies are destroyed and there is no conscious existence of any kind until all the dead are called forth at some point in the future. In other words, a state of "sleep" follows physical death.

2. The process of calling the dead from "sleep" is resurrection. We all get bodies. These are actual bodies that have arms, legs, heads, etc. The redeemed get bodies that are indestructable. The unredeemed get bodies that are not indestructable.

3. The redeemed live forever in these resurrection bodies. The unredeemed, who have regained conscious existence upon their resurrection, are then cast into the lake of fire where they are annihilated. They do not exist in any sense at all following annihilation.

I am 99.9 % sure that the above is a logically possible state of affairs - there is no problem of logic or internal consistency. I suspect you believe that the above set of beliefs are contradicted by the Scriptures. Can you please explain precisely how?

And if you believe that 1 Corinthians 15 refers to the resurrection of the unredeemed as well as the redeemed, please explain why you believe this to be so. I think that 1 Corinthians 15 is about the redeemed and only the redeemed. I have explained why but will do so again if needed.

 

[jgredline]

Romans 6:23 (Parallel translations):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASB: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (NASB ©1995)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWT: The payment for sin is death, but the gift that God freely gives is everlasting life found in Christ Jesus our Lord. (GOD'S WORD®)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASV: For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBE: For the reward of sin is death; but what God freely gives is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DBY: For the wages of sin is death; but the act of favour of God, eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEY: For the wages paid by Sin are death; but God's free gift is the Life of the Ages bestowed upon us in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WBS: For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEB: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YLT: for the wages of the sin is death, and the gift of God is life age-during in Christ Jesus our Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In case the point is not clear:

If anyone argues that "today means Good Friday" because that is the plain reading of all the translated versions of Luke 23:43 considered without reference to rest of the Scriptures (which it clearly is, I fully concede), then they must concede that "death means death" by similar reasoning in respect to Romans 6:23.

Ah, you will rejoin: "death means separation with conscious existence" or "death means loss of the body with continued conscious existence". But that argument appeals to other elements of the Scriptures to gain its force - it is clearly not the plain reading - death is death just like today is today in a plain reading. And I am entitled to a similar appeal (which has already been exercised to show how "today" cannot mean "Good Friday" unless Paradise is someplace other than Heaven and I think that Scriptures shows them to be the same place)

And I hope to repost and amplify an argument that shows that "today" cannot be Good Friday. This argument is based on Jesus' statement in John 20 that, as of several days after the resurrection, He had not yet returned to the Father.

To be fair, Solo has a legitimate argument against this position. He has claimed (at least implicitly) that Paradise is not Heaven, it is the "upper chamber of Sheol". I suggest that the rest of the "eternal torment" supporters are forced into that position as well. And this is because if Paradise = Heaven, then the thief could not have been with Jesus in Paradise on Good Friday since Jesus certainly did not go there on Good Friday (since that would bring Him into the presence of the Father).

So: stranger, Free, jgredline, aLoneVoice, etc: Is Paradise = Heaven, or is Paradise a part of Sheol, or is it something else?

Drew
You seem to be putting ''allot'' of weight behind Romans 6:23 when you don't even understand the meaning of the word ''death''....I went and broke it down for you ''again'' so that perhaps you will understand....

The wages of sin is death....thanatos (eternal death here is in contrast with “eternal life†in v. 23b). This death is eternal separation from God in hell, in which unbelievers suffer conscious torment forever (Luke 16:24-25). This is the wages they have earned and deserve because of their sin .....see Rom. 5:12 and 7:13. Now contrast that with the gift of eternal life.....
Three times in this chapter Paul wrote that sin results in death...See Rom. 6:16, 21, 23. But believers have been set free from sin see verses 18 and 22,... and are no longer slaves to it see verses 6 and 20 but are slaves to righteousness..... Because they are alive to God and have eternal life they should present themselves to Him and live accordingly, not letting sin master them.....This is the context of this verse. This is what Paul is saying clear as day.....Now I have provided you with the definitions of the word thanatos.....


Romans 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death / θανατος; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

23 τα γαρ οψωνια της αμαρτιας θανατος thanatos το δε χαρισμα του Θεου ζωη αιωνιος εν Χριστω Ιησου τω Κυριω ημων

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


1.θανατος = thanatos “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 ââ‚Å“conscious existence in separation from God.â€Â

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

 

[stranger]

I may not fully understand some of your terminology. However, we do seem to have one thing straight - the "spiritual" body that we who are under God's grace receive will indeed be a "body" - it will not be a ghost-like entity.

In any event, I do not understand your argument above. In the interest of clarity, let me restate my position:

1. We all die physically and go into the ground. Our bodies are destroyed and there is no conscious existence of any kind until all the dead are called forth at some point in the future. In other words, a state of "sleep" follows physical death.

2. The process of calling the dead from "sleep" is resurrection. We all get bodies. These are actual bodies that have arms, legs, heads, etc. The redeemed get bodies that are indestructable. The unredeemed get bodies that are not indestructable.

3. The redeemed live forever in these resurrection bodies. The unredeemed, who have regained conscious existence upon their resurrection, are then cast into the lake of fire where they are annihilated. They do not exist in any sense at all following annihilation.

I am 99.9 % sure that the above is a logically possible state of affairs - there is no problem of logic or internal consistency. I suspect you believe that the above set of beliefs are contradicted by the Scriptures. Can you please explain precisely how?

And if you believe that 1 Corinthians 15 refers to the resurrection of the unredeemed as well as the redeemed, please explain why you believe this to be so. I think that 1 Corinthians 15 is about the redeemed and only the redeemed. I have explained why but will do so again if needed.

Hi Drew,

Consider the present physical body. . .

The redeemed and the unredeemed cannot be identified by their respective physical bodies. There is no difference here. Further proof of this is that when people are converted their physical bodies stay the same.

If what you say is true and the redeemed and unredeemed get different spiritual bodies - why don't they have different physical bodies now?

The answer lies in the natures 'in Adam' and 'in Christ.' That is the difference between the redeemed and the unredeemed.

These two natures are found in the physical bodies and in the spiritual bodies.

Further comment. . .

If the physical body of the redeemed and the unredeemed are indistinguishable, and
first comes the physical then the spiritual and
If there is a physical body there will also be a spiritual body and

there is correspondence between the physical and the spiritual

Where is the physical body that corresponds to your unredeemed spiritual body? This second resurrection body type is not revealed and does not exist. You have inserted this from your imagination to address the inconsistency of the framework of annihilationism.

1 Cor 15 addresses a general argument - if there is no resurrection. He addresses the implication for the gospel. (if there is no resurrection).
Then he turns to believers questions about the resurrection body. In this you can assume he is addressing the redeemed resurrection body - but he is silent about the unredeemed resurrection body - so your argument is still one from silence. The ONUS is on you to prove your case. I will do the the same with my case. Must go - later I will try to examine this in more detail.

 

[Drew]

Drew
You seem to be putting ''allot'' of weight behind Romans 6:23 when you don't even understand the meaning of the word ''death''....I went and broke it down for you ''again'' so that perhaps you will understand....

The wages of sin is death....thanatos (eternal death here is in contrast with “eternal life†in v. 23b). This death is eternal separation from God in hell, in which unbelievers suffer conscious torment forever (Luke 16:24-25). This is the wages they have earned and deserve because of their sin .....see Rom. 5:12 and 7:13. Now contrast that with the gift of eternal life.....

I think that there are elements of this and certain other "eternal torment" arguments that are circular - in this case, you assume that Luke 16 is a literal account and then leverage that assumption into the assertion that death means eternal separation. Some of us have argued that Luke 16 is a parable. In a serious argument, you would need to provide arguments as to why it is not a parable - and these arguments cannot simply be based on a belief that it is a literal account.

All this cuts both ways and the "annihilationist" needs to be careful to not engage in circular reasoning as well. I think that we have provided several lines of argument that are not circular.

 

[Drew]

Consider the present physical body. . .

The redeemed and the unredeemed cannot be identified by their respective physical bodies. There is no difference here. Further proof of this is that when people are converted their physical bodies stay the same.

Agreed

If what you say is true and the redeemed and unredeemed get different spiritual bodies - why don't they have different physical bodies now?

The answer lies in the natures 'in Adam' and 'in Christ.' That is the difference between the redeemed and the unredeemed.

These two natures are found in the physical bodies and in the spiritual bodies.

Further comment. . .

If the physical body of the redeemed and the unredeemed are indistinguishable, and
first comes the physical then the spiritual and
If there is a physical body there will also be a spiritual body and

there is correspondence between the physical and the spiritual

Where is the physical body that corresponds to your unredeemed spiritual body? This second resurrection body type is not revealed and does not exist. You have inserted this from your imagination to address the inconsistency of the framework of annihilationism.

1 Cor 15 addresses a general argument - if there is no resurrection. He addresses the implication for the gospel. (if there is no resurrection).
Then he turns to believers questions about the resurrection body. In this you can assume he is addressing the redeemed resurrection body - but he is silent about the unredeemed resurrection body - so your argument is still one from silence. The ONUS is on you to prove your case. I will do the the same with my case. Must go - later I will try to examine this in more detail.

I simply do not understand what you are saying. There are a lot of details to keep track of in this matter. Can you try again please?

 

[TanNinety]

Where is the physical body that corresponds to your unredeemed spiritual body? This second resurrection body type is not revealed and does not exist. You have inserted this from your imagination to address the inconsistency of the framework of annihilationism.

Regarding the part I have bolded, wasn't anything revealed about the resurrected body, 'second body type' in the accounts of the disciples when they saw risen Christ? We haven't inserted our imagination except for what is required from scripture.

For arguments sake if I agree that the redeemed and unredeemed get the same spiritual body except they partake in different 'natures'. Are you saying this poses a threat to annihilationist? I think not, because the eternal torture proponent is assuming God will allow the existence of this unredeemed spiritual body, whereas an annihilationists can say God is powerful enough to annihilate even the spiritual body of the wicked in the lake of fire.

 

[jgredline]

I think that there are elements of this and certain other "eternal torment" arguments that are circular - in this case, you assume that Luke 16 is a literal account and then leverage that assumption into the assertion that death means eternal separation. Some of us have argued that Luke 16 is a parable. In a serious argument, you would need to provide arguments as to why it is not a parable - and these arguments cannot simply be based on a belief that it is a literal account.

All this cuts both ways and the "annihilationist" needs to be careful to not engage in circular reasoning as well. I think that we have provided several lines of argument that are not circular.

Drew
2 things
First. ''IF'' Luke 16 is a parable, as Stranger has pointed out, it still does not change the meaning of what Jesus is clearly teaching.....

secondly, The circular argument comes from your lack of understanding of the make up of man, your lack of understanding on the the word death, and your lack of understanding on the word eternal....I would suggest you do a word study on those two words and then a study on the makeup of man....