Where is the justice?????????

[MarkT]

And God bless guibox. I like your spirit even though we disagree.

You should read the prophets in the light of Christ and not the other way around.

An interesting thing; wonderful and mysterious are his ways! When I read the Bible, I skipped the prophets. I think I got to Job. (No. It was Isaiah) For some reason, I couldn't read. I figured whatever they were saying, if it was important, it would be anyway, so I let them be. Then I read the gospels and the letters of the apostles, and the Spirit opened my mind, and I could read the prophets. What a great God we worship! Unbelievable!

 

[guibox]

And God bless guibox. I like your spirit even though we disagree.

You should read the prophets in the light of Christ and not the other way around.

An interesting thing; wonderful and mysterious are his ways! When I read the Bible, I skipped the prophets. I think I got to Job. (No. It was Isaiah) For some reason, I couldn't read. I figured whatever they were saying, if it was important, it would be anyway, so I let them be. Then I read the gospels and the letters of the apostles, and the Spirit opened my mind, and I could read the prophets. What a great God we worship! Unbelievable!

And God bless thee, Mark. However, I do not interpret Christ by the prophets for the NT only reiterates and agrees with the Old. The Bible cannot contradict itself. 'Further revelation' not given until Christ isn't 'brand new contradictory revelation' nor can it be. The bible is very harmonious between the NT and the OT. The NT completely agrees with the OT.

- John 5:28-29 and 2 Timothy 2:6-8 agree with Daniel 12:1-2 on the resurrection to eternal life, not at our physical death and that rewards are given out at the last day.

- 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 agrees with Job 14:10-14 on the nature of the resurrection to immortality

- Revelation 14:10-11 and Mark 9:44-45 agree with Isaiah 34:10, 66:24 and Jeremiah 17:27 in the usage of language to show the destruction of the wicked

- 2 Peter 2:6 and 2 Peter 3:9-10 agree with Malachi 4:1 and Psalm 37:20 and dozens of other OT texts in explaining the final destruction and non-existence of life of the wicked

- Romans 6:23 and Romans 5:12 agree with Genesis 2:17 and Ezekiel 18:20 to show that sin brings death of the whole person,the soul. Only the grace of Christ can save us from this death. Without Christ, there is no life...period.

- Luke 23:46 and Acts 7:60 agree with Ecclesiastes 12:7 and Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 to show that the 'spirit' or breath of all men goes back to God. This is us giving our life giving power back to God to hold in His keeping.

- Acts 7:60, John 11:11 and Matthew 9:24 agree with the myriads of OT texts that death is not conscious existence in heaven or hell as a dimembodied soul, but a 'sleep'

 

[francisdesales]

And God bless thee, Mark. However, I do not interpret Christ by the prophets for the NT only reiterates and agrees with the Old. The Bible cannot contradict itself. 'Further revelation' not given until Christ isn't 'brand new contradictory revelation' nor can it be. The bible is very harmonious between the NT and the OT. The NT completely agrees with the OT.

Just one comment, Guibox.

You seem as if you are at least somewhat familiar with the Church Fathers. I think they make it very clear that the NT and OT's harmony is something evident only when read in light of the Resurrection. The Fathers (even Paul) takes Scriptures from the OT and applies them to OUR view of God, post-Resurrection, often out of context, to point to another, more spiritual and deeper interpretation.

The Church very quickly used analogy and foreshadowing to explain the OT to Christians. Paul uses it on several occasions, and the following generations continue to do so. One is struck by how they are able to connect the OT with the NT.

You are correct, there is no "new revelation", just an awakening of our community to what God had already written through the inspired writings. Evidently, the Scriptures have more than one meaning in many cases!

Take care.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is one I really like --

Matt 10:28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but then have no power to kill the soul - but rather fear Him who can Destroy BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell"

I also find the John 11 and 1Thess 4 statements about the dormant condition of the person while dead to be "instructive".

In John 11 "Lazarus sleeps I go that I may wake HIM" and later "Lazarus is dead".

But in 1Thess 4 we find this regarding "Those who have fallen asleep" -- they are called "the DEAD in Christ".

Question for the group - how many times in 1Thess 4 does Paul argue that they are asleep?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dadof10]

My friend, the comparisons are obvious. Take it up with the Bible writers, not myself. When the language used by John is identical to that of the OT, you cannot simply ignore it for an isolated interpretation as you seem to be doing with Revelation 14. You accuse me of preconceived ideas simply because I refer you back to numerous passages that explain language used? And yet you simply read Rev 14 as it at face value and tell me that it is exactly what it says it is??

I have been gone for a week and not able to read all the posts on this thread, so the points I'm going to make might have already been covered, If so, I apologise.

First of all, the "comparisons" are ASSUMED. That's my point. Nowhere in Revelation 14 do we have ANY reference back to the destruction of Edom. John doesn't say it, the Angel doesn't reference it. It is an assumption made by you, period.

More importantly, I think where you make your biggest mistake in "letting Scripture interpret Scripture" is when you attempt to compare the temporal to the eternal. They are different as Paul says:

"For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, 18 because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. (2Corinthians (RSV) 4)

In all your comparisons to Rev. 14 you refer back to fire and smoke on earth and claim that "it's not still burning", so therefore the fire in Rev. will eventually go out also. That's a false comparison. "Fire" and "smoke" in the afterlife do not have the same nature or properties as fire on earth. On earth a fire needs fuel and oxygen to continue to burn, in the eternal there is no matter, so the fire must either "burn" by some other means or be a metaphor. I could be wrong, but i think it's the latter. In Scripture fire is used to symbolize punishment. Will there be actual fire, smoke, brimstone, etc. in Hell? I don't know. What I do know is that it will be painful and it will be "ETERNAL", which has only one meaning, "having no end".

When you refer back to Jer. 17 or Is. 34 for a comparison, you are only comparing apples to oranges. To prove your point you need to show fire (or another symbol of suffering or punishment) in what Paul calls the "unseen" going out or ceasing to exist. Can you?

dadof10 wrote:
Where do you get this from? Why do you think these two words must be the opposite? What did you accuse me of above....That's right, "assumptive reasoning". Aren't you assuming Jesus meant to polarize these two words? He is simply stating a fact, and He meant what He said, "eternal punishment" for those who do evil, eternal life for those who do good.

So what is the wages of sin if not the punishment for the wicked? Are you telling me that John 3:16, Matthew 25:46 and John 5:28-29 are all comparing eternal life to different things and not the same?

Come on, dad. What method of bible study are you following?

Not the "bait and switch" method. I was refering to the words "punishment" and "life" not having to be interpreted as "contrasting". I said nothing about the "wages of sin". Straw-man.

The wages of sin is death. Not "cessation of life" but eternal destruction, as it says here:

"They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2Thessalonians (RSV) 1)"

Eternal destruction means destruction (death, olethros) that is ETERNAL, that goes on forever, because if it ends, it CAN NOT BE ETERNAL. This simply means the act of destroying goes on eternally.

If you sin, you die, you face punishment. If you don't, if you accept Christ, if you are righteous, you receive eternal life. Eternal life is the opposite of death, punishment, destruction, perishing and destroy.

Why is the word "punishment" in the above sentence? You are substituting words again. If the above sentence was in Greek it would say "Eternal life is the opposite of apollymi, kolasis, apollymi, apollymi and apollymi." THEY ARE DIFFERENT WORDS WITH DIFFERENT MEANINGS. Kolasis means "correction, punishment, penalty", NOT death.

To claim "punishment" must be interpreted as "the opposite" of life is more reading your own theology into the text.

Secondly, and this is the main point, that the word death means "the cessation of life" in both places. While that is one of it's meanings, there are others, many others. From Strong's:

1) the death of the body

a) that separation (whether natural or violent) of the soul and the body by which the life on earth is ended

b) with the implied idea of future misery in hell
1) the power of death

c) 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,

a) 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

I know you don't agree with these other definitions because they don't bolster your preconceived dogma, but Thayer's is accepted as reliable and accurate by most of Christendom, both Catholic and Protestant.

I disagree with them because they are flat out wrong. Nowhere can you glean 'miserable state of wicked in hell' and 'separation of the soul from the body' from 'thanatos'. Nowhere in the bible can a 'soul/body' separation be supported.

For the record, I use Young's Analytical Concordance and nowhere does it support any of Strong's usage of the term 'thanatos'. It is gross assumption read into the term. Nowhere are the terms 'psuche', pneuma' as being separated from the 'sarx' implied in the interpretation of 'thanatos'.

Strong's is the standard, accepted by everyone I've ever talked to. You are the first person I've run across that has challenged it. Before I comment, how does Young's differ from Thayer's and what are Young's definitions of the word "death"? Is it simply "cessation of life" or is there more than one?

Nice try. The verb "goes up" or "ascendeth up" (KJV) is "anabiano" which is in the PRESENT TENSE, active voice, indicitive mood, which means that the action (going up) IS really happening, not "denoting a completed act".

Really? Where do you get a present tense action involved from the meaning of 'to go or come up'? It is merely explaining an action anabiano is also used in John 3:13; Ephesians 4:8-10 and Acts 2:34 to describe past events. Even if what I was saying wasn't so, the verse refers to the smoke ascending aionios, 'forever' doesn't mean 'eternally' but 'age lasting'.

OK, if you won't accept Thayer's tense, what is the tense given by Young's for the above verb "goes up" or "ascendeth up"?

Smoke as is used in the bible is to show a completed act, not eternal duration. When something is smoking, it means the after effect of the fire, not the continual burning of it. Again, see the destruction of Edom.

Again, more assumptions.

"And one of the four living creatures gave the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God who lives for ever and ever; 8 and the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from his power, and no one could enter the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were ended. (Revelation (RSV) 15)"

The glory of God and his power are being consumed? What act is being "completed"? Are God's "glory" and "power" eventually going to end? Note, this is in the ETERNAL, not the temporal world.

"And Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and the smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain quaked greatly. (Exodus (RSV) 19)"

There was nothing being consumed or completed here either. It was simply the Fire of God Himself producing smoke. It did eventually "go out" when God "left" (for lack of a better word), but note this was in the temporal world, not the "unseen".

"Then the LORD will create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, and smoke and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory there will be a canopy and a pavilion. (Isaiah (RSV) 4)"

God is burning NOTHING, the smoke is coming from the flaming fire. Again, temporal.

Again, because John uses the same words does NOT mean he "got this language" directly from Isaiah. Even if he did, this does not mean John meant that the torment ended, simply because the fire eventually went out in Edom. You are still assuming way too much with no proof.

The proof is in the language friend. Nowhere are the wicked immortal. You can choose to assume that and insist that Revelation 14 means the complete opposite of the same language used elsewhere to denote annihilation, or you can see what was meant as metaphorical language used throughout the bible to mean the same thing. That's like saying that the OT says 'The sky is blue' but in the NT, we are going to assume that 'blue' means 'red'. So when the OT says, 'The sky is blue', what it really means is 'The sky is red'

No, as stated above, you are falsly comparing the temporal to the eternal.

This is all I have time for now, I can't respond to all your errors. The bottom line is that the words "death", "destruction", "perish", etc. do NOT simply have one meaning, yours.

When they are used in relation to the wicked they do in fact have that meaning. Let's look at 'appolumi' for example.

'appolumi' means 'to loose, loose away, destroy'.

You insist that the meaning of the fate of the wicked will be 'to loose away'. This makes no sense especially when the literal meaning 'destroy' is used in Acts 5:37, Mark 4:38 (do you think that the disciples on the raging see were worried that they would be 'ruined' or 'loosed away'?) The figurative meaning is to be interpreted by it's literal meaning. You want to take it out of it's literal context and make some sort of opposite metaphor with no linguistic or contextual reason for doing so except to support assumptions that the Bible doesn't make.

Another straw-man. Can you please quote my post that shows where I "insist that the meaning of the fate of the wicked will be 'to loose away"? I have been saying over and over the fate of the wicked is "eternal punishment". I agree with Jesus on this. Please stop mis-quoting me in an attempt to make your point, and deal with the plain words of Scripture.

We have gone round-and round about the words "death" and "appolumi", but what about the word "eternal"? I notice you have very few comments about it. The only definition for that word is "without end". You think that Scripture can interpret itself, so where in Scripture does "eternal" mean having an end?

The words are "eternal punishment".

 

[guibox]

First of all, the "comparisons" are ASSUMED. That's my point. Nowhere in Revelation 14 do we have ANY reference back to the destruction of Edom. John doesn't say it, the Angel doesn't reference it. It is an assumption made by you, period.

So you're telling me that when the OT says, "It shall not be quenched night or day, 'the smoke thereof shall go up forever' is speaking of temporal results of the destruction of Edom. When Revelation says 'the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever' 'and 'they shall have no rest night or day', and Mark 9:44 says 'The fire shall not be quenched' means that they will suffer eternal conscious tormenting? So the exact same language means the exact opposite?

Come on Dad. If the phrase 'the sky is blue' in the OT means the sky is indeed blue, 'the sky is blue' in the NT can't mean that the sky is in fact red.

There is no assumption here. It is the biblical language being used similarily throughout the bible.

More importantly, I think where you make your biggest mistake in "letting Scripture interpret Scripture" is when you attempt to compare the temporal to the eternal. They are different

As far as the wicked goes, nothing has changed. They are still mortal as they are still sinful. They have not received eternal life from God. The language hasn't changed. The nature of the wicked man has not changed. How exactly can they be completely different?

In all your comparisons to Rev. 14 you refer back to fire and smoke on earth and claim that "it's not still burning", so therefore the fire in Rev. will eventually go out also. That's a false comparison. "Fire" and "smoke" in the afterlife do not have the same nature or properties as fire on earth.On earth a fire needs fuel and oxygen to continue to burn, in the eternal there is no matter, so the fire must either "burn" by some other means or be a metaphor.

Biblical proof please? This is an assumption read into the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that the wicked do not have life in the afterlife. They are specially resurrected to face judgment (Revelation 20) and then they are 'devoured' by the lake of fire. This is the 'second death'. You are assuming that the fire burns forever and that the wicked burn forever because you take Revelation 14:11 at face value and then work your way from there. The facts are, that the Bible explains how we are to interpret this highly metaphorical passage by seeing the evidence elsewhere that fully explains it.

You are ignoring that to take Revelation 14 as your foundation of interpretation.

In Scripture fire is used to symbolize punishment.

No it is not. Fire is used to show absolute destruction. Fire is the most destructive force used in the bible. The destruction of Edom, Sodom and Gomorrah, Jerusalem, the burnt offerings, the fire coming down from heaven on Mount Carmel to destroy the soaking sacrifice. It represents the awesome destructive power of Yaweh.

Will there be actual fire, smoke, brimstone, etc. in Hell? I don't know. What I do know is that it will be painful and it will be "ETERNAL", which has only one meaning, "having no end".

No it doesn't necessarily. The word for 'everlasting' or 'eternal' is 'aionios'. 'aionios' doesn't mean 'without end' it means 'age lasting'. It is dependant on what it is describing. The righteous are indeed 'eternal' because their nature is immortal at the resurrection. Hence, 'everlasting life' is life eternal, not because of the term 'everlasting' but because of the nature of the immortal person. Sometimes 'forever' means 'as long as life lasts.

See 1 Samuel 1:21-28.

When you refer back to Jer. 17 or Is. 34 for a comparison, you are only comparing apples to oranges.

No I'm not. When the bible says 'unquenchable fire' what does it mean? Does it mean 'burns for a time' one place but in another 'burns for eternity'? Unquenchable is unquenchable, dad. The same terms are used to show that the 'unquenchable' means that a fire cannot be 'quenched', not that it will go on forever. If the second is the case, then we MUST also read that back into Jeremiah 17. Again, the wicked do not have eternal life, so how can 'unquenchable fire' mean 'forever' when it is used to mean 'temporal destruction' two other places in the bible?

The wages of sin is death. Not "cessation of life" but eternal destruction, as it says here:

"They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. (2Thessalonians (RSV) 1)"

As John Stott points out with Matthew 25:46

"No, that is to read into the text what is not necessarily there. What Jesus said is that both the life and the punishment would be eternal, but he did not in that passage define the nature of either. Because he elsewhere spoke of eternal life as a conscious enjoyment of God (John 17:3), it does not follow that eternal punishment must be a conscious experience of pain at the hand of God. On the contrary, although declaring both to be eternal, Jesus is contrasting the two destinies: the more unlike they are, the better."

Dad this makes no sense. 'death' is NEVER used in the bible to denote 'eternal conscious torment'. Despite your protests, death is contrasted to life over and over and over. How can you have a continual process of destruction?? Destruction precedes a result, not a continual action.

I am so tired of hearing the 'everlasting destruction' must mean 'destruction that goes on forever'. The bible doesn't necessarly use the terms this way but a one time event that has eternal results.

As Basil Atkinson notes:

"When the adjective aionios meaning ‘everlasting’ is used in Greek with nouns of action it has reference to the result of the action, not the process. Thus the phrase ‘everlasting punishment’ is comparable to ‘everlasting redemption’ and ‘everlasting salvation,’ both Scriptural phrases. No one supposes that we are being redeemed or being saved forever. We were redeemed and saved once for all by Christ with eternal results. In the same way the lost will not be passing through a process of punishment for ever but will be punished once and for all with eternal results. On the other hand the noun ‘life’ is not a noun of action, but a noun expressing a state. Thus the life itself is eternal."

I'll go over the rest later.

 

[guibox]

Here is a great article on all of this. I think it is hrd to dispute when looked at scripturally, logically, morally and emotionally.

http://jeremyandchristine.com/articles/eternal.php

 

[dadof10]

So you're telling me that when the OT says, "It shall not be quenched night or day, 'the smoke thereof shall go up forever' is speaking of temporal results of the destruction of Edom. When Revelation says 'the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever' 'and 'they shall have no rest night or day', and Mark 9:44 says 'The fire shall not be quenched' means that they will suffer eternal conscious tormenting? So the exact same language means the exact opposite?

What I’m telling you is twofold:

1) That “Scripture interpreting Scripture†simply breaks down to subjective Bible interpretation. That was the context. I was in a hurry when I wrote some of my posts, so let me try to be as clear as possible now.

You COULD BE right, but it is not a FACT that John got Rev. 14 directly from Isaiah. It looks as though he did, but it’s still an assumption, not a fact. If John would have said “…as Edom was destroyed…†or something like that, then you would have a FACT, but he didn’t make a reference to it, therefore it’s an ASSUMPTION. Also, because John used similar words does not mean he was trying to convey the idea, that “the smoke of their torment†is temporary. We are talking about figurative language in both cases, so to make the claim that John definitely got his language from Isaiah and that he was definitely conveying the view that the smoke IN THE “UNSEEN†was temporal, is all just conjecture, not fact.

I am not doing any exegesis on the verses here, I am simply making the point that you, and everyone else who thinks Scripture interprets itself, eventually bring your own biases and subjectivity into the text. Maybe I should have started a new thread on this subject instead of addressing it here. It might have been less confusing.

2) It is NOT a difference between the Old and New Testaments, it’s a difference between the temporal (“things that are seenâ€Â) and the eternal (“things that are unseenâ€Â). The verses in Isaiah are figuratively describing temporal things, the verses in Revelation, are figuratively describing eternal things. I’m saying the verses need to be interpreted in the correct light.

As far as the wicked goes, nothing has changed. They are still mortal as they are still sinful. They have not received eternal life from God. The language hasn't changed. The nature of the wicked man has not changed. How exactly can they be completely different?

In all your comparisons to Rev. 14 you refer back to fire and smoke on earth and claim that "it's not still burning", so therefore the fire in Rev. will eventually go out also. That's a false comparison. "Fire" and "smoke" in the afterlife do not have the same nature or properties as fire on earth.On earth a fire needs fuel and oxygen to continue to burn, in the eternal there is no matter, so the fire must either "burn" by some other means or be a metaphor.

Biblical proof please? This is an assumption read into the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that the wicked do not have life in the afterlife. They are specially resurrected to face judgment (Revelation 20) and then they are 'devoured' by the lake of fire. This is the 'second death'.

"And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried;
23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'
27 And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.' (Luke (RSV) 16)

The rich man has life, he has not been "specially resurrected to face judgment", he was still in "hades", the "second death" has not happened yet because his brothers are still alive, and can still repent, and there is no evidence that he is being "devoured" in the flames. Your entire concept of the afterlife is seriously flawed.

He is in the AFTERLIFE and he is being "tormented" in the "unseen", as Paul calls it, the "eternal".

Will there be actual fire, smoke, brimstone, etc. in Hell? I don't know. What I do know is that it will be painful and it will be "ETERNAL", which has only one meaning, "having no end".

No it doesn't necessarily. The word for 'everlasting' or 'eternal' is 'aionios'. 'aionios' doesn't mean 'without end' it means 'age lasting'.

This is a blatant example of eisegesis. I had time this weekend and did a search of the word "eternal" and compared the verses I found to the different Scriptural versions. Of the 14 versions I searched and the dozens of verses, ONLY one version defined aionios as "age-during", Young's Literal Translation, which, coincidentally, is the lexicon you use. I also did some research on the YLT and found it was translated in 1898. Now, I don't mean to minimize Mr. Young's work, but there have been many advances in the field in the past 100 years.

It is dependant on what it is describing. The righteous are indeed 'eternal' because their nature is immortal at the resurrection. Hence, 'everlasting life' is life eternal, not because of the term 'everlasting' but because of the nature of the immortal person. Sometimes 'forever' means 'as long as life lasts.

For you to use only one definition of a word based soley on your own personal feelings and IGNORE (the root of the word "ignorant") all the rest of 20th century biblical scholarship is laughable. Almost as laughable as your statement that "It is dependant on what it is describing".

See 1 Samuel 1:21-28.

Again, this is referring to something transient. Why don’t you deal with this fact instead of simply throwing verses around.

When you refer back to Jer. 17 or Is. 34 for a comparison, you are only comparing apples to oranges.

No I'm not. When the bible says 'unquenchable fire' what does it mean? Does it mean 'burns for a time' one place but in another 'burns for eternity'? Unquenchable is unquenchable, dad. The same terms are used to show that the 'unquenchable' means that a fire cannot be 'quenched', not that it will go on forever. If the second is the case, then we MUST also read that back into Jeremiah 17. Again, the wicked do not have eternal life, so how can 'unquenchable fire' mean 'forever' when it is used to mean 'temporal destruction' two other places in the bible?

Again, you are ignoring the difference between the temporal and the eternal. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Because they all say "unquenchable", doesn't mean the word ALWAYS means the same thing in all circumstances, especially when we are dealing with two different states of being, the eternal and the temporal.

Let me see if I have this right. When "eternal" is describing “life†it means “never-ending lifeâ€Â, but when it describes punishment, IN THE SAME CONTEXT, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, it means “punishment that ends eventually in annihilationâ€Â? So, I’ll ask you the same rhetorical question you keep asking me: The exact same word means the opposite? I’ll go one step further: The exact same word in the same sentence in the same context means the opposite?

Why do you assume (there's that word again) that when John uses a word or phrase from the OT, that it's the OT meaning we should force on the NT? Has it even occurred to you that John is CLARIFYING the verses in Isaiah? That when OT verses are referenced in the NT they are being given a DEEPER, more concise meaning? Could it be possible that Isaiah is foreshadowing the “anger†of God and the punishment that awaits the sinner? Is it possible to open your mind enough to let this thought in?

I am so tired of hearing the 'everlasting destruction' must mean 'destruction that goes on forever'. The bible doesn't necessarly use the terms this way but a one time event that has eternal results.

You're tired of hearing the word "everlasting" means "never-ending"? And, yes, the Bible does use the term that way, in fact it's the ONLY way it uses the word, the YLT notwithstanding.

I tried to do some of this exegesis and biblical self-interpretation but Mark and dad want no part of it. They'd rather hang on to their own interpretation no matter how many holes and illogical inconsistencies it has. I have tried to show just a small amount and am met with ridicule and closeminded rhetoric because the facts don't support the conclusions they want to come to.

I've been on these forums for 15 years give or take and every time I read something like this it comes from arrogance. You seem to think that you are the only one who has the "facts" and everyone else should bow to your gigantic intellect. Maybe you should try to interpret Scripture according to Paul instead of your own flawed logic.

"For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, 18 because we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. (2Corinthians (RSV) 4)

This is what you need to deal with. The contrast is not between the Old and New Testaments, it’s between the temporal and the eternal.

 

[guibox]

2) It is NOT a difference between the Old and New Testaments, it’s a difference between the temporal (“things that are seenâ€Â) and the eternal (“things that are unseenâ€Â). The verses in Isaiah are figuratively describing temporal things, the verses in Revelation, are figuratively describing eternal things. I’m saying the verses need to be interpreted in the correct light.

dadof10, your problem with saying 'it is temporal compared with eternal' is that you have no basis for determining that the nature of the wicked is DIFFERENT from one to the other except for a deductive reasoning starting from Revelation 14 and Mark 9. You are assuming that the wicked are eternal and thus using that to interpret the rest of scripture to make it fit that assumption.

Take a step back and look at salvation history and scripture as a whole instead of eisegetically interpreting two highly metaphorical verses as your theological foundation on this.

"And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, full of sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table; moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried;
23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he called out, `Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, `Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'
27 And he said, `Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, `No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, `If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.' (Luke (RSV) 16)

The rich man has life, he has not been "specially resurrected to face judgment", he was still in "hades", the "second death" has not happened yet because his brothers are still alive, and can still repent, and there is no evidence that he is being "devoured" in the flames. Your entire concept of the afterlife is seriously flawed.

The flaw is in your reasoning and it is twofold:

1) That the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus is intended to be an exposition on the afterlife

2) You are not distinguishing the difference between 'hell/Hades' and 'hell/gehenna'

Even if number 1 is correct (and much has been said on this already, I suggest you find the numerous threads that deal with this subject), the rich man is in Hades, not the final judgment of gehenna as is spoken of in Revelation 20. Hades gives up the dead that are in it and they come together to make a final run against God's people where they are devoured with fire from heaven. (Revelation 20:5,9,13,14)

He is in the AFTERLIFE and he is being "tormented" in the "unseen", as Paul calls it, the "eternal".

The punishment of the wicked as is described in Revelation 20, John 5:28-29, and Matthew 25:46 does not occur at death, dadof10. It occurs at the end of time:

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity - Matthew 13:40-41

he Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished - 2 Peter 2:9

Will there be actual fire, smoke, brimstone, etc. in Hell? I don't know. What I do know is that it will be painful and it will be "ETERNAL", which has only one meaning, "having no end".

by guibox: No it doesn't necessarily. The word for 'everlasting' or 'eternal' is 'aionios'. 'aionios' doesn't mean 'without end' it means 'age lasting'.

This is a blatant example of eisegesis. I had time this weekend and did a search of the word "eternal" and compared the verses I found to the different Scriptural versions. Of the 14 versions I searched and the dozens of verses, ONLY one version defined aionios as "age-during", Young's Literal Translation, which, coincidentally, is the lexicon you use. I also did some research on the YLT and found it was translated in 1898. Now, I don't mean to minimize Mr. Young's work, but there have been many advances in the field in the past 100 years.

I have shown and there are many other instances where 'forever' is used to denote qualitative and temporal usages. 'Forever and ever' is used to mean 'as long as life lasts' many times. It IS relevant to whom it is speaking to, despite your protests.

This interpretation you call 'esegesis', is not from Young's but from a scholarly analysis of 'aionios'. I gave you quotes from scholars. Here are more on the nature of the word:

"The force attaching to the word is not so much that of the actual length of a period, but that of a period marked by spiritual or moral characteristics" (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of NT Words)

"Some aspects of both quality and duration appear in every context," nevertheless in some passages "the emphasis is on the quality ... rather than on unending duration" - The Holman Bible Dictionary

(In speaking of 'eternal life'.."the adjective 'aionios 'refers to "the quality more than to the length of life" (Dr. Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology).

: "Eternal, everlasting-nonetheless "eternal" is misleading, inasmuch as it has come in the English to connote the idea of "endlessly existing," and thus to be practically a synonym for "everlasting." But this is not an adequate rendering of aionios which varies in meaning with the variations of the noun aion from which it comes.- Hasting's Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. III, p. 369)

"Aristotle returns to the conception of 'aion' as the relative period of time allotted to each specific thing" (Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, p. 198)

"(Matt. 25:46): Everlasting punishment-life eternal. The two adjectives represent the same Greek word, aionios-it must be admitted (1) that the Greek word which is rendered "eternal" does not, in itself, involve endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the N.T. to periods of time that have had both a beginning and ending (Rom. 16:25), where the Greek is "from aeonian times;" our version giving "since the world began." (Comp. 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:3) -strictly speaking, therefore, the word, as such, apart from its association with any qualifying substantive, implies a vast undefined duration, rather than one in the full sense of the word "infinite."" Ellicott's Commentary on the Whole Bible

"Eternal: Greek: "aeonion," i.e., "of the ages." Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly formed, does not signify "during," but "belong to" the aeons or ages." - The New Testament in Modern Speech, by Dr. R. F. Weymouth

And finally (though there are many, many many more references, the biggest supporters of eternal torment: Catholicism:

" ETERNITY: The Bible hardly speaks of eternity in the philosophical sense of infinite duration without beginning or end. The Hebrew word olam, which is used alone (Ps. 61:8; etc.) or with various prepositions (Gen. 3:22; etc.) in contexts where it is traditionally translated as ‘forever,’ means in itself no more than ‘for an indefinitely long period." Thus me olam does not mean ‘from eternity’ but ‘of old’ (Gen. 6:4; etc.). In the N.T. aion is used as the equivalent of olam.- The large Catholic Bible dictionary, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (p.693)

Stating the nature of the word as what you want it simply because it doesn't fit into your theology doesn't make it 'esegetical interpretation, dad.

I will address the rest later.

 

[francisdesales]

And if thy hand causes thee to fall, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that can never be quenched, where their worm does not die, and the fire is never quenched Mark 9:43-44

These terms are already explained in Isaiah. I'm not sure what circular reasoning you are trying to use here. Unquenchable fire and worms not dying show the totality of destruction, not the continual prolonging of it. Isaiah is clear about this.

Circular reasoning would be trying to take a metaphor from the Old Testament and apply it THROUGHOUT the entire Bible. For example, "rock" does not always refer to God, especially when viewing Matthew 16... I am not so convinced that when Jesus states the "worm does not die and the fire is never quenched" means that people cast into this fire are destroyed instantly and that the worms live on forever... What are the purpose of the worms, to begin with?

Secondly, is this "destruction" instant? Do those condemned to eternal damnation suffer at all? Are they tormented for only a short, indeterminant time and THEN destroyed? How does this mesh with your view of God?

We know that the fire of hell is NOT meant to bring about repentance. It is purely punishment. How do we know? Besides the Greek useage in Revelation, Jesus tells us that there will be a sin that is NOT forgiven, even in the next world. Thus, hellfire is not meant to convert, since anyone tossed in there will not be forgiven. Ever. This is eternal punishment, not punishment meant to correct.

Now, try to follow. If God has a place to punish people, and it is not reformative fire, doesn't this defeat the premise that you hold to, that God wouldn't punish people in the next world because He loves them all? Instantaneous destruction does not occur because the Scriptures speak of hell as a place. It would seem odd that hell would be empty of people, serving no purpose at all, and IF occupied by the damned, even for one day, it defeats the idea that God would not torment the damned. The simple fact remains. The damned will be tormented, and not just for a nano-second while God snuffs out their existence permanently and pain-free. That concept is just not found in Scriptuures.

Regards

 

[brakelite2]

Hmmmm...... some very scholarly and informative replies thus far. However, all this has been done to death (excuse the pun) in other threads over the years, and if one is entrenched in his dogma and fears the threat of excommunication and/or mortal sin for turning away from church dogma in favor of the scriptures, then it is an uphill battle to convince.As an ex catholic I well know those fears, but they are overcome by trusting the scriptures and distrusting mortal man's interpretation of them. Like the Pharisees who boasted of their knowledge of the scriptures yet could not find Jesus in any of them. Yet Jesus is revealed on every page of the OT. In fact, the entire OT is a perfectly aimed arrow pointed right to Him.
And in none of the replies has the originally proposed question been answered. Where does eternal torment as a dogma /doctrine of the church fit into the nature and character of God?
In a previous post it was briefly suggested that it is a fruit of God's anger. If then the torment goes on forever, does that mean therefore that God's anger will never be satisfied, and will never be appeased? That God will stay angry forever?
If the scriptures point unerringly to Jesus, both old and new testaments , (and I of course believe they do) please show me where in the nature of Jesus belongs such a trait of character that can create eternal torment?
I will repeat my former challenges. Where in mercy is eternal torment? Where in love? Where in compassion? Where in grace? Where in righteousness? Where in holiness? Where in the justice?
Where is eternal torment in the purposes of God when throughout the old and new testaments the wicked are repeatedly and consistently shown to be burnt up!!!!!
The tares are destroyed. The fruitless branches are destroyed. God has no more intention of retaining or perpetuating sin and wickedness forever than He would for a stick or piece of dead wood that can not bear any fruit. Why should He when He has the power to do away with sin for good. Why immortalise sin???? As a memorial????!!!! He already has a memorial for that; in His hands and feet. He needs nor desires no other.

 

[Free]

I will repeat my former challenges. Where in mercy is eternal torment? Where in love? Where in compassion? Where in grace? Where in righteousness? Where in holiness? Where in the justice?
Where is eternal torment in the purposes of God when throughout the old and new testaments the wicked are repeatedly and consistently shown to be burnt up!!!!!

Where is any of God's punishment and wrath to be found in his nature? That there will be physical torment for unbelievers is without question. How long this physical torment lasts, whether temporal or eternal, is what needs to be determined.

So this leads to the first question that should be answered: Where is any temporary torment or physical punishment to be found in God's nature? If it can be said God is just in temporarily causing physical torment, then why is it any different for eternity? Where does one draw the line--10 years, 1,000 years, 500 trillion years?

 

[dadof10]

dadof10, your problem with saying 'it is temporal compared with eternal' is that you have no basis for determining that the nature of the wicked is DIFFERENT from one to the other except for a deductive reasoning starting from Revelation 14 and Mark 9. You are assuming that the wicked are eternal and thus using that to interpret the rest of scripture to make it fit that assumption.

The flaw is in your reasoning and it is twofold:

1) That the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus is intended to be an exposition on the afterlife

Let's try to concentrate on this first. Paul says: "for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. (2Corinthians (RSV) 4)

Once a person enters into the "unseen" the person enters into the eternal. Parable or not, the rich man is in the unseen, the eternal. He has consciousness and is communicating and there is absolutely no reason to believe he is being annihilated. I have a Biblical basis for "determining that the nature of the wicked is DIFFERENT from one to the other". It's called Luke 16.

2) You are not distinguishing the difference between 'hell/Hades' and 'hell/gehenna'

Irrelevant. He is in the afterlife, is conscious, and is not being annihilated.

Even if number 1 is correct (and much has been said on this already, I suggest you find the numerous threads that deal with this subject)

Threads? There are numerous threads that claim JFK is still alive and on an island with Elvis and Bruce Lee. I don't put much stock in "threads".

the rich man is in Hades, not the final judgment of gehenna as is spoken of in Revelation 20. Hades gives up the dead that are in it and they come together to make a final run against God's people where they are devoured with fire from heaven. (Revelation 20:5,9,13,14)

Still irrelevant. I was responding to this:

The Bible makes it clear that the wicked do not have life in the afterlife.

The rich man ABSOLUTELY has "life" in the afterlife, you admit it above.

He is in the AFTERLIFE and he is being "tormented" in the "unseen", as Paul calls it, the "eternal".

The punishment of the wicked as is described in Revelation 20, John 5:28-29, and Matthew 25:46 does not occur at death, dadof10. It occurs at the end of time:

Does it occur in the temporal or the eternal?

This is a blatant example of eisegesis. I had time this weekend and did a search of the word "eternal" and compared the verses I found to the different Scriptural versions. Of the 14 versions I searched and the dozens of verses, ONLY one version defined aionios as "age-during", Young's Literal Translation, which, coincidentally, is the lexicon you use. I also did some research on the YLT and found it was translated in 1898. Now, I don't mean to minimize Mr. Young's work, but there have been many advances in the field in the past 100 years.

[quote:2s1xcjvs]I have shown and there are many other instances where 'forever' is used to denote qualitative and temporal usages. 'Forever and ever' is used to mean 'as long as life lasts' many times. It IS relevant to whom it is speaking to, despite your protests.

[/quote:2s1xcjvs]

In the afterlife? No, you have NOT. You have shown that the word "forever" can be used in a metaphorical sense in reference to TEMPORAL things. It is used as an exaggeration. AGAIN, you need to look at the words in context, not simply do a word search, find verses that help your case, ignore context and ASSUME the word means the same thing THROUGHOUT Scripture.

This interpretation you call 'esegesis', is not from Young's but from a scholarly analysis of 'aionios'. I gave you quotes from scholars. Here are more on the nature of the word:

"The force attaching to the word is not so much that of the actual length of a period, but that of a period marked by spiritual or moral characteristics" (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of NT Words)

I don’t know where you got this from. The online version of Vine’s doesn’t have this wording.

http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0000928

Edited to attempt to fix the link above. Didn't work.

Here is the whole entry:

"<1,,165,aion>
"an age," is translated "eternal" in Eph. 3:11, lit., "(purpose) of the ages" (marg.). See AGE.
<2,,166,aionios>
"describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom. 16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the NT.

"The predominant meaning of aionios, that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in 2 Cor. 4:18, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., 'for a season,' and in Philem. 1:15, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e.g., of God, Rom. 16:26; of His power, 1 Tim. 6:16, and of His glory, 1 Pet. 5:10; of the Holy Spirit, Heb. 9:14; of the redemption effected by Christ, Heb. 9:12, and of the consequent salvation of men, Heb. 5:9, as well as of His future rule, 2 Pet. 1:11, which is elsewhere declared to be without end, Luke 1:33; of the life received by those who believe in Christ, John 3:16, concerning whom He said, 'they shall never perish,' John 10:28, and of the resurrection body, 2 Cor. 5:1, elsewhere said to be 'immortal,' 1 Cor. 15:53, in which that life will be finally realized, Matt. 25:46; Titus 1:2.

"Aionios is also used of the sin that 'hath never forgiveness,' Mark 3:29, and of the judgment of God, from which there is no appeal, Heb. 6:2, and of the fire, which is one of its instruments, Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 1:7, and which is elsewhere said to be 'unquenchable,' Mark 9:43. "The use of aionios here shows that the punishment referred to in 2 Thess. 1:9, is not temporary, but final, and, accordingly, the phraseology shows that its purpose is not remedial but retributive." * [* From Notes on Thessalonians by Hogg and Vine, pp. 232,233.]

There is a lot here:
1)The verses referenced in the second entry: “describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom. 16:25; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2†are all referring to “long ages†and “ages ago†(past), not anything in the future, and, of course, not anything in the “unseenâ€Â.

“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages (Romans (RSV) 16)

“Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel in the power of God, 9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago, (2Timothy (RSV) 1)

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to further the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness, 2 in hope of eternal life which God, who never lies, promised ages ago (Titus (RSV) 1)

Those are the ONLY verses that “describes duration, either undefined but not endlessâ€Â. All the rest mean “which are in their nature endlessâ€Â.

2)Note the reference to 2Cor.4. It is called “The predominant meaning of aionios, that in which it is used everywhere in the NTâ€Â. The word “aionios†is contrasted with the word “proskairos†which means “for a seasonâ€Â. So, if there is a Greek word for “for a seasonâ€Â, why do the NT Writers use the word aionios, which means “eternal†when they could have used the word “proskairosâ€Â, which more accurately conveys YOUR opinion?

3)Note especially that the “unquenchable fire†and the “eternal punishment†verses that we’ve been discussing are all mentioned in the article and all are called “not temporary, but final†and “not remedial but retributiveâ€Â.

So Vine’s is agreeing with me in saying that the punishment and the fire are permanent, final and retributive. Thanks for the help in making my point. I know now why you only posted one blurb from the article. Now Strong's and Vine's back me up. Hummm...

If I were to give you four or five “scholars†who back up the Church’s view of the afterlife, would you accept them as authoritative, or would you simply claim that their opinion is just as valid/invalid as your sources and ignore them? I tend to think the latter, which is what I’m going to do. I don’t have the time or resources to find all these quotes and look at the context. I could post “many, many…†sources also, including the unanimous consenus of the ECF's, and 200o years of Tradition, but I doubt they would carry any weight with you.

And finally (though there are many, many many more references, the biggest supporters of eternal torment: Catholicism:

“ETERNITY: The Bible hardly speaks of eternity in the philosophical sense of infinite duration without beginning or end. The Hebrew word olam, which is used alone (Ps. 61:8; etc.) or with various prepositions (Gen. 3:22; etc.) in contexts where it is traditionally translated as ‘forever,’ means in itself no more than ‘for an indefinitely long period." Thus me olam does not mean ‘from eternity’ but ‘of old’ (Gen. 6:4; etc.). In the N.T. aion is used as the equivalent of olam.- The large Catholic Bible dictionary, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (p.693)

Gasp….Not the Catholics….LOL…You know I’m Catholic, right? That’s why the BVM avatar. If you are trying to prove that even my Church teaches your view, you are sadly mistaken. First of all, to prove it, you have to show official hurch documents. NO CATHOLIC thinks “The large Catholic Bible dictionary†is authoritative. I really don’t know what you’re getting at here.

Stating the nature of the word as what you want it simply because it doesn't fit into your theology doesn't make it 'esegetical interpretation, dad.

You need to take this up with the people at Strong's, Vine's, the ECF's and the majority of 20th century Biblical scholars, both Catholic and Protestant.

 

[francisdesales]

...if one is entrenched in his dogma and fears the threat of excommunication and/or mortal sin for turning away from church dogma in favor of the scriptures, then it is an uphill battle to convince.

If one is entrenched in his OWN opinions and fears...then it is an uphill battle to convince...

Yes, I would conclude that you are no different in this matter.

As an ex catholic I well know those fears, but they are overcome by trusting the scriptures and distrusting mortal man's interpretation of them.

Oh, you are an immortal man who interprets Scriptures? Or perhaps your pastor is an immortal man??? We are all mortal men interpreting the Scriptures. Please be aware that the promise of the Spirit is given to the Church as a Body, not as individuals to each interpret the Bible as they see fit. Common sense rules that out very quickly when one considers how all these so-called "spirit guided interpretations" differ from other "spirit guided interpretations".

Like the Pharisees who boasted of their knowledge of the scriptures yet could not find Jesus in any of them. Yet Jesus is revealed on every page of the OT. In fact, the entire OT is a perfectly aimed arrow pointed right to Him.

Jesus is "revealed in every page of the OT" only by faith. It is not apparent in any other matter except for special pleading.

And in none of the replies has the originally proposed question been answered. Where does eternal torment as a dogma /doctrine of the church fit into the nature and character of God?

That has been answered. God is a passionate God as well as a merciful God. If men choose to turn to their own ways, He leaves them to their own devices - see Romans 1:18 and so forth. God is not a wishy-washy God of the 21st century mindset. You are trying to make God in your own image by saying He does "x" in the same manner that you would if you were God. But God's ways are not our ways...

In a previous post it was briefly suggested that it is a fruit of God's anger. If then the torment goes on forever, does that mean therefore that God's anger will never be satisfied, and will never be appeased? That God will stay angry forever?

You are thinking in time. God has no future and no past. He IS. Take your thoughts of God out of chronological time. Eternity is not a "long time". It is a timeless moment.

If the scriptures point unerringly to Jesus, both old and new testaments , (and I of course believe they do) please show me where in the nature of Jesus belongs such a trait of character that can create eternal torment?

I am wondering about some of the actions of Jesus, such as clearing out the Temple. How could such a "loving" (love defined by "feel-good" "live and let be" attitude you appear to condone) Jesus do such a thing? Didn't He get the memo from the Father that people should just do what they feel is good and right and God will accept that??? :-?

I will repeat my former challenges. Where in mercy is eternal torment? Where in love? Where in compassion? Where in grace? Where in righteousness? Where in holiness? Where in the justice?

Where is the justice of NOT punishing man who willingly refuses to follow God's commandments? Where is the righteousness in "live and let be"? Christ HIMSELF said that there is an unforgiveable sin. That is very clear to me that God will NOT FORGIVE EVERYONE...

Cry and complain and hand-wring all you like, but that is the bottom line. That is God's ways.

The tares are destroyed. The fruitless branches are destroyed.

Destroyed as in burnt. Not as in utterly eliminated from existence. The idea of being "destroyed by fire" is meant to be taken as spiritual punishment for those who refuse to obey God. The worm will gnaw at the person who will realize that he will never realize his purpose and happiness for which he was created - because of his OWN will and actions. The worm will burrow into his consciousness because it was his own fault. Scriptures use metaphor to explain the spiritual suffering that the damned will incur because they CHOOSE to disobey God. That will "burn" them.

God has no more intention of retaining or perpetuating sin and wickedness forever than He would for a stick or piece of dead wood that can not bear any fruit.

A stick of wood is not made in the image and likeness of God.

Ask yourself why the angels that disobeyed God still exist. Why didn't God just destroy them instead of allowing them to suffer for centuries and centuries...

Your idea of mercy and justice is not God's idea, apparently. The evil angels sinned once and they were condemned to suffer from the beginning of time... At least we have the advantage of being forgiven - IF WE ASK. Some will NOT ask, and those will NOT BE FORGIVEN.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

...if one is entrenched in his dogma and fears the threat of excommunication and/or mortal sin for turning away from church dogma in favor of the scriptures, then it is an uphill battle to convince.

If one is entrenched in his OWN opinions and fears...then it is an uphill battle to convince...

Yes, I would conclude that you are no different in this matter.

As an ex catholic I well know those fears, but they are overcome by trusting the scriptures and distrusting mortal man's interpretation of them.

Oh, you are an immortal man who interprets Scriptures? Or perhaps your pastor is an immortal man??? We are all mortal men interpreting the Scriptures. Please be aware that the promise of the Spirit is given to the Church as a Body, not as individuals to each interpret the Bible as they see fit. Common sense rules that out very quickly when one considers how all these so-called "spirit guided interpretations" differ from other "spirit guided interpretations".

Like the Pharisees who boasted of their knowledge of the scriptures yet could not find Jesus in any of them. Yet Jesus is revealed on every page of the OT. In fact, the entire OT is a perfectly aimed arrow pointed right to Him.

Jesus is "revealed in every page of the OT" only by faith. It is not apparent in any other matter except for special pleading.

And in none of the replies has the originally proposed question been answered. Where does eternal torment as a dogma /doctrine of the church fit into the nature and character of God?

That has been answered. God is a passionate God as well as a merciful God. If men choose to turn to their own ways, He leaves them to their own devices - see Romans 1:18 and so forth. God is not a wishy-washy God of the 21st century mindset. You are trying to make God in your own image by saying He does "x" in the same manner that you would if you were God. But God's ways are not our ways...

In a previous post it was briefly suggested that it is a fruit of God's anger. If then the torment goes on forever, does that mean therefore that God's anger will never be satisfied, and will never be appeased? That God will stay angry forever?

You are thinking in time. God has no future and no past. He IS. Take your thoughts of God out of chronological time. Eternity is not a "long time". It is a timeless moment.

If the scriptures point unerringly to Jesus, both old and new testaments , (and I of course believe they do) please show me where in the nature of Jesus belongs such a trait of character that can create eternal torment?

I am wondering about some of the actions of Jesus, such as clearing out the Temple. How could such a "loving" (love defined by "feel-good" "live and let be" attitude you appear to condone) Jesus do such a thing? Didn't He get the memo from the Father that people should just do what they feel is good and right and God will accept that??? :-?

I will repeat my former challenges. Where in mercy is eternal torment? Where in love? Where in compassion? Where in grace? Where in righteousness? Where in holiness? Where in the justice?

Where is the justice of NOT punishing man who willingly refuses to follow God's commandments? Where is the righteousness in "live and let be"? Christ HIMSELF said that there is an unforgiveable sin. That is very clear to me that God will NOT FORGIVE EVERYONE...

Cry and complain and hand-wring all you like, but that is the bottom line. That is God's ways.

The tares are destroyed. The fruitless branches are destroyed.

Destroyed as in burnt. Not as in utterly eliminated from existence. The idea of being "destroyed by fire" is meant to be taken as spiritual punishment for those who refuse to obey God. The worm will gnaw at the person who will realize that he will never realize his purpose and happiness for which he was created - because of his OWN will and actions. The worm will burrow into his consciousness because it was his own fault. Scriptures use metaphor to explain the spiritual suffering that the damned will incur because they CHOOSE to disobey God. That will "burn" them.

God has no more intention of retaining or perpetuating sin and wickedness forever than He would for a stick or piece of dead wood that can not bear any fruit.

A stick of wood is not made in the image and likeness of God.

Ask yourself why the angels that disobeyed God still exist. Why didn't God just destroy them instead of allowing them to suffer for centuries and centuries...

Your idea of mercy and justice is not God's idea, apparently. The evil angels sinned once and they were condemned to suffer from the beginning of time... At least we have the advantage of being forgiven - IF WE ASK. Some will NOT ask, and those will NOT BE FORGIVEN.

Regards

Excellent points, Joe. I especially liked the "immortal man" and the "timeless moment" parts.

 

[guibox]

Let's try to concentrate on this first. Paul says: "for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. (2Corinthians (RSV) 4)Once a person enters into the "unseen" the person enters into the eternal. Parable or not, the rich man is in the unseen, the eternal.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that this verse supports Luke 16. It's purpose is merely to point out that there are two different dimensions of life and eternity. You are stretching the limits of interpretation to apply it to a tormenting afterlife.

He has consciousness and is communicating and there is absolutely no reason to believe he is being annihilated. I have a Biblical basis for "determining that the nature of the wicked is DIFFERENT from one to the other". It's called Luke 16.

Ever heard of personification and metaphor? This parable makes it clear that the rich man and Lazarus are dead. Giving them life for the sake of having a conversation is not out of the realm of parabolic nature. Jesus made it plain the parable's message "They would not hear even if one rose from the dead'. Not rose from hell. Not come down from Abraham's bosom. They were dead. To read anything more into this as an exposition on the afterlife is to encounter a myriad of contradictions and things that NOWHERE is supported in the bible.

As I said before. There have been numerous threads on this forum about this topic. I'm not going to hash them out again.

2) You are not distinguishing the difference between 'hell/Hades' and 'hell/gehenna'

Irrelevant. He is in the afterlife, is conscious, and is not being annihilated.

No, not irrelevant. Read it again slowly. Even if he was conscious...this is not the final judgment where he will be annihilated. Don't you get the difference between interim and final judgment?

Still irrelevant. I was responding to this:

The Bible makes it clear that the wicked do not have life in the afterlife.

The rich man ABSOLUTELY has "life" in the afterlife, you admit it above.

Then you contradict the majority of bible texts that make it clear that there is no life except for at resurrection. If you want to throw out the majority of the scriptures teaching on this subject for one metaphorical parable, then there is really nothing to discuss. You might as well just teach our of your catechism for all the good it will do us.

by guibox: "I have shown and there are many other instances where 'forever' is used to denote qualitative and temporal usages. 'Forever and ever' is used to mean 'as long as life lasts' many times. It IS relevant to whom it is speaking to, despite your protests."

In the afterlife? No, you have NOT. You have shown that the word "forever" can be used in a metaphorical sense in reference to TEMPORAL things. It is used as an exaggeration. AGAIN, you need to look at the words in context, not simply do a word search, find verses that help your case, ignore context and ASSUME the word means the same thing THROUGHOUT Scripture.

And you have no basis for interpreting eternity as being different. Your only reasoning is esigesis of a passage that uses exact language to explain the same methodology. You have no basis to say that it means one thing in temporal life and the exact opposite in eternity. Again...you are saying that 'blue' means 'blue' on earth but 'blue' means 'red' in eternity.

You have no exegetical reason for making a difference between temporal and eternal in relation to the wicked using the exact same language of destruction. The wicked nature hasn't changed from temporal to eternal. The wicked still do not have immortality in this life or the next. You are assuming it does based on backwards reasoning of metaphorical passage. You are creating circular reasoning.

Vine's doesn't agree with you. Nothing in the passages you gave me implies that the wicked will be consciously tormented for all eternity. Merely it shows the nature of the word 'aionios' and the finality of it's usage. Even the interpretation into the 2 Thessalonians passage doesn't imply eternal torment. The punishment (which according to the bible is 'DEATH' and the 'destruction' is what is eternal.

So this leads to the first question that should be answered: Where is any temporary torment or physical punishment to be found in God's nature? If it can be said God is just in temporarily causing physical torment, then why is it any different for eternity? Where does one draw the line--10 years, 1,000 years, 500 trillion years?

[/quote]

God has said in His word that the earth and all the works therein would be destroyed by fire. (Hmm.. or do I mean 'perpetually kept into existence? Strange how the meaning of 'destroy' changes on a whim to suit the traditionalist's purposes). The punishing that occurs from this fire is merely a means to an end. God's wrath will still be poured out on sin and sinners. However, the punishment of the sinner is a secondary result. The primary purpose of disposing the sinners is not to punish them for eternity for finite sins, but to destroy the entire existence of sin and it's effects so that a 'new heaven and new earth' can be created. Therefore, the 'old heaven and the old earth have passed away' (Revelation 21:1)

 

[Free]

The primary purpose of disposing the sinners is not to punish them for eternity for finite sins, but to destroy the entire existence of sin and it's effects so that a 'new heaven and new earth' can be created. Therefore, the 'old heaven and the old earth have passed away' (Revelation 21:1)

So do all believers sit around and wait for 10 years, 1,000 years, 500 trillion years, until the very last sinner has been punished before there is a new heaven and a new Earth?

The original question was relating God's character to infinite punishment. My reply was to see how, or even if, this would change with regards to temporary punishment. It seems inconsistent to argue to God's character for infinite punishment but ignore God's character for temporary punishment.

 

[guibox]

The primary purpose of disposing the sinners is not to punish them for eternity for finite sins, but to destroy the entire existence of sin and it's effects so that a 'new heaven and new earth' can be created. Therefore, the 'old heaven and the old earth have passed away' (Revelation 21:1)

So do all believers sit around and wait for 10 years, 1,000 years, 500 trillion years, until the very last sinner has been punished before there is a new heaven and a new Earth?

Who knows, Free. Who knows if it will be an instant of pain or a bit longer. I doubt 'years' would come into the picture. I doubt sinners are going to individually, systematically pay for their sins like some sort of assembly line. Revelation 20 seems to make it clear that fire comes down out of heaven and 'devours' the wicked. I would guess it would be all of them at the same time.

The original question was relating God's character to infinite punishment. My reply was to see how, or even if, this would change with regards to temporary punishment. It seems inconsistent to argue to God's character for infinite punishment but ignore God's character for temporary punishment.

Not really. Nobody is arguing for a Universalist God. God still pours out His wrath. He is still a righteous God taking out vengeance against sin and sinners. However, there is a difference between punishing that lasts a moment to punishing that goes on for eternity. Nobody disagrees that there isn't any pain involved in capital punishment or that the criminal doesn't deserve a little bit for the pain he has caused others. However, no morally upright person would continue to flick the switch giving a little bit of juice to continue the pain and keep them alive for further torture.

Nobody can fault a mother or father for giving a good righteous swat to their bratty, out of control child..i wish more were allowed to do it when they pitch a fit in the supermarket like I've seen them. :x However, we'd question the parenting skills, morality and sanity of a parent that continually beats and overbeats his child for an infraction.

 

[Free]

I would guess it would be all of them at the same time.

There is no need to guess. Jesus himself said that the one who doesn't know his master's will and doesn't do it will be beaten with few blows and the one who knows his master's will and doesn't do it will be beaten with many blows. In other passages as well he implies degrees of severity in punishment.

This makes it very difficult to defend punishment as being annihilation.

 

[francisdesales]

I would guess it would be all of them at the same time.

There is no need to guess. Jesus himself said that the one who doesn't know his master's will and doesn't do it will be beaten with few blows and the one who knows his master's will and doesn't do it will be beaten with many blows. In other passages as well he implies degrees of severity in punishment.

This makes it very difficult to defend punishment as being annihilation.

Another fine point. The existence of evil angels tells us that God will punish those who reject Him willingly, and "longer" than a year or two... :wink:

Regards