Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why wasn't Jesus eternally tormented?

We have 2 views in this world. Satanic or God,Period.
Okay?

As you can see I am not the sharpest tack in the bunch. But I see in your other post that you said ," ἀπολέσαι does not mean to put out of existence" And that is what I was Getting at. In the original language the word never means to put out of existence.
Yes you're the only person here who has even brought up this definition, I never ONCE mentioned it. You've been arguing against a straw-man for awhile now..

But I have seen nothing in your posts with that admission, and clearly stated as you have with that statement. If you had I missed it.

From your posts I got the impression that you were saying "out of existence"
You were not understanding me, when I say "this isn't what I mean" and you reply... "so that's what you mean." You have a problem with reading into my words what I am not saying.

I am sorry, but go back to post47 and look at your definition. Can you see how one could come to the conclusion that means "out of existence?"

IMO that opens a big can of worms now.......Utterly destroyed,yet existing.
The Word does mean to utterly destroy.. however, that depends on WHAT IS BEING DESTROYED! If you destroy the Body the Soul still exists, yet if you destroy both body and soul.. what is left? My point exactly, and this should clear up any confusion.

I don't mean that the Greek word itself means to put out of existence, I mean that for both body and soul to be destroyed in Gehenna, I come to the conclusion that it means the person has reached his ultimate end in the second death. They have "passed away" or indeed ceased to exist.
 
Actually the Kingdom of Darkness is what teaches Hell is not eternal. Satan always has a counterfeit to Gods truth. The last place Satan wants to be is in eternal torment. So He tries to Soften it up a bit and tries to convince us that Sin is not deserving of a eternal Hell is it?

Gods own Son isn't an infinite sacrifice. Those Sins that He bore on His undeserving back are not worthy of an eternal punishment are they? After all its just a bitty sin,what is he so worked up about?

Sorry, but you are not making any sense, scripturally or otherwise. Is just one sin worth eternal punishment or not? And did Yeshua take on that sin or not? Then what happens if he took that punishment in place of me? You need scriptures to back up your reasoning, because that's all I see in your post, rationalization.
That is my point in my last post, yes one itty bitty sin is worth eternal separation from a eternal, Holy and perfect God. Rom 6:23~~ notice Sin is singular.

In 2 Peter 2:9, the condition of the ungodly between death and resurrection is described in virtually the same terms as Peter used in verse 4 to describe the condition of the angels in tartarus.

The ungodly are kept for the day of judgment while being consciously tormented. The punishment is not future but a present experience of the ungodly while they await their final sentence.

Peter is obviously drawing a parallel between the torment of angels and the torment of sinners as they await the day of judgment.

Having already mentioned the murky darkness of tartarus in 2:4, Peter in 2:17 speaks of the unrighteous as sharing in the same fate as the angels. Thus he speaks of "the darkness" which had already been mentioned in 2:4 : " These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved."

Which brings us to Rev 20:10
10~~And the enemy/devil {diabolos}~~~~~~Satan is literal
who had deceived them~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~His deception is Literal.
was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur . . .
where the beast~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~the beast is a literal world dictator
and the false prophet~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a literal false Messiah
{false messiah) {are located} . . .
and they will be tormented/tortured {basanizo} ~~a literal torment
day and night . . . forever and ever {eis aion aion}.~~the Strongest statement the greek has to offer for "NEVER ENDING" "ETERNAL"

And Peter places sinners in this place.

And to say that Hell is not literal and sinners will not be tormented is to diminish Christs eternal Sacrifice on the Cross. He really didn't defeat death?
 
Actually the Kingdom of Darkness is what teaches Hell is not eternal. Satan always has a counterfeit to Gods truth. The last place Satan wants to be is in eternal torment. So He tries to Soften it up a bit and tries to convince us that Sin is not deserving of a eternal Hell is it?

Gods own Son isn't an infinite sacrifice. Those Sins that He bore on His undeserving back are not worthy of an eternal punishment are they? After all its just a bitty sin,what is he so worked up about?

Sorry, but you are not making any sense, scripturally or otherwise. Is just one sin worth eternal punishment or not? And did Yeshua take on that sin or not? Then what happens if he took that punishment in place of me? You need scriptures to back up your reasoning, because that's all I see in your post, rationalization.
That is my point in my last post, yes one itty bitty sin is worth eternal separation from a eternal, Holy and perfect God. Rom 6:23~~ notice Sin is singular.

In 2 Peter 2:9, the condition of the ungodly between death and resurrection is described in virtually the same terms as Peter used in verse 4 to describe the condition of the angels in tartarus.

The ungodly are kept for the day of judgment while being consciously tormented. The punishment is not future but a present experience of the ungodly while they await their final sentence.

Peter is obviously drawing a parallel between the torment of angels and the torment of sinners as they await the day of judgment.

Having already mentioned the murky darkness of tartarus in 2:4, Peter in 2:17 speaks of the unrighteous as sharing in the same fate as the angels. Thus he speaks of "the darkness" which had already been mentioned in 2:4 : " These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved."

Which brings us to Rev 20:10
10~~And the enemy/devil {diabolos}~~~~~~Satan is literal
who had deceived them~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~His deception is Literal.
was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur . . .
where the beast~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~the beast is a literal world dictator
and the false prophet~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a literal false Messiah
{false messiah) {are located} . . .
and they will be tormented/tortured {basanizo} ~~a literal torment
day and night . . . forever and ever {eis aion aion}.~~the Strongest statement the greek has to offer for "NEVER ENDING" "ETERNAL"

And Peter places sinners in this place.

And to say that Hell is not literal and sinners will not be tormented is to diminish Christs eternal Sacrifice on the Cross. He really didn't defeat death?

OK, fine, if you want to believe in eternal life in torment rather than death and perishing in the fire, that's your choice, but then in order for Yeshua to die for that sin, if he truly paid for it, he must by nature take on that punishment which is also eternal torment. That's what I'm driving at. Thus, if Yeshua is not in hell now, then nobody's sin been paid for if the price of sin, even one sin, is eternal life in torment.
 
what do ya mean.
Notice if you look at my posts, when quoting Scripture I don't assume that they support my position and then offer no explanation or interpretation. I attempt to provide an exegesis or brief interpretation of various texts by drawing out observations and making conclusions based on those observations.

This does a few things, that aids the conversation.

1. Simply proof-texting (what you did) is quoting or referencing a verse outside of it's context with no interpretation or exegesis and assume that it supports your position without arguing affirmatively for it. What this does it insult the person you are discussing with as it says basically this, "this teaching is as clear as day and you're a fool for not seeing it." Scripture can be difficult to understand, and all of those texts you quoted are within apocalyptic literature, a style of writing we westerners are not familiar with.
2. Allows for critics to happen as the person's actual views are put on display for scrutiny and examination. If you post those Scriptures with no explanation I can say AMEN! I believe those! Yet if you offer an interpretation of what they mean then we're able to get somewhere.
3. It enables each of us to learn by having our views scrutinized. I might be wrong! You might be wrong! Who knows we might both be wrong... But if we don't honestly discuss in a constructive manner than all we are doing is wasting our time. I come here to learn, and one of the primary means I learn by is through discussion of Scripture.

Hope this helps,
Servant of Jesus
 
what do ya mean.
Notice if you look at my posts, when quoting Scripture I don't assume that they support my position and then offer no explanation or interpretation. I attempt to provide an exegesis or brief interpretation of various texts by drawing out observations and making conclusions based on those observations.

I understand what your saying, but the person that denies torment in hell for eternity can clearly see that it's quite the opposite. All the person has to do is read the words. Scripture is all about the words. If a person has a question about scripture that i've posted, they should ask. If you can read, then i don't see the problem. The words are obviously in there; torment, forever and ever, dieth not, fire is not quenched. It's better to look to the words in scripture rather than our own opinion. Blessings.
 
There is eternal torment in hell because scripture doesn't lie, only man does.
Mark 9:48, Isaiah 14:11, Isaiah 66:24, Revelation 14:11 & Revelation 20:10.

No such thing as eternal torment...What I can't understand is why people ignore second death,being the death of the soul.......

And as I said earlier,Christ didn't sin,He paid the price for ours,by being the perfect,sacrafice!!!!
 
There is eternal torment in hell because scripture doesn't lie, only man does.
Mark 9:48, Isaiah 14:11, Isaiah 66:24, Revelation 14:11 & Revelation 20:10.

No such thing as eternal torment...What I can't understand is why people ignore second death,being the death of the soul.......

And as I said earlier,Christ didn't sin,He paid the price for ours,by being the perfect,sacrafice!!!!

what i can't understand is why so many people are ignoring what scripture says about eternal torment. either you choose not to read scriptures that make you feel uncomfortable or you can't read. :o
 
There is eternal torment in hell because scripture doesn't lie, only man does.
Mark 9:48, Isaiah 14:11, Isaiah 66:24, Revelation 14:11 & Revelation 20:10.

No such thing as eternal torment...What I can't understand is why people ignore second death,being the death of the soul.......

And as I said earlier,Christ didn't sin,He paid the price for ours,by being the perfect,sacrafice!!!!

what i can't understand is why so many people are ignoring what scripture says about eternal torment. either you choose not to read scriptures that make you feel uncomfortable or you can't read. :o

Off topic,so I will just offer you a indepth study on the subject

http://hell-know.net/

Check it out if you want,if not,its all good.........
 
There is eternal torment in hell because scripture doesn't lie, only man does.
Mark 9:48, Isaiah 14:11, Isaiah 66:24, Revelation 14:11 & Revelation 20:10.

No such thing as eternal torment...What I can't understand is why people ignore second death,being the death of the soul.......

And as I said earlier,Christ didn't sin,He paid the price for ours,by being the perfect,sacrafice!!!!

what i can't understand is why so many people are ignoring what scripture says about eternal torment. either you choose not to read scriptures that make you feel uncomfortable or you can't read. :o

Off topic,so I will just offer you a indepth study on the subject

http://hell-know.net/

Check it out if you want,if not,its all good.........

I have a better idea, why don't you just tell me what words you're using instead of torment, forever and ever, dieth not, fire is not quenched that's written in scripture..and we'll take it from there.
 
what i can't understand is why so many people are ignoring what scripture says about eternal torment. either you choose not to read scriptures that make you feel uncomfortable or you can't read. :o

Off topic,so I will just offer you a indepth study on the subject

http://hell-know.net/

Check it out if you want,if not,its all good.........

I have a better idea, why don't you just tell me what words you're using instead of torment, forever and ever, dieth not, fire is not quenched that's written in scripture..and we'll take it from there.
Once again,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
what i can't understand is why so many people are ignoring what scripture says about eternal torment. either you choose not to read scriptures that make you feel uncomfortable or you can't read. :o

Off topic,so I will just offer you a indepth study on the subject

http://hell-know.net/

Check it out if you want,if not,its all good.........

I have a better idea, why don't you just tell me what words you're using instead of torment, forever and ever, dieth not, fire is not quenched that's written in scripture..and we'll take it from there.

JUDE 7 (KJV)
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Simple question...Is Sodom and Gomorrah still burning ?

Therein lies your answer,anyway,believe what you will
 
JUDE 7 (KJV)
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Simple question...Is Sodom and Gomorrah still burning ?

Therein lies your answer,anyway,believe what you will

Sodom and Gomorrah were places on earth. I'm talking about after you die brother. Where did the people go in Sodom and Gomorrah after they died? Jude 7 is speaking about the people's sins inside the city. Where do people go after they die if they don't repent of their sins?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JUDE 7 (KJV)
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Simple question...Is Sodom and Gomorrah still burning ?

Therein lies your answer,anyway,believe what you will

Sodom and Gomorrah were places on earth. I'm talking about after you die brother. Where did the people go in Sodom and Gomorrah after they died? Jude 7 is speaking about the people's sins inside the city. Where do people go after they die if they don't repent of their sins?

Life and Death: The Two Polar Opposites

The apostle Paul summed up the whole matter of people’s reward for sin when he wrote:

ROMANS 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternallife through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Could anything be clearer than this text? The wages for sin is shown to be death, and eternal life is stated to be a gift from God, not something people already have. This is consistently expressed from Genesis to Revelation, notice:

MATTHEW 7:13-14

“Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad the road that leads to destruction and many enter through it, (14) but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

JOHN 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

ROMANS 8:13
For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

GALATIONS 6:8
The one who sows to please the sinful nature from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the spirit, from the spirit will reap eternal life.

PROVERBS 11:19
The truly righteous man attains life, but he who pursues evil goes to his death.

All these passages clearly describe the two separate destinies of the righteous and the unrighteous. The “righteous” are people who are in-right-standing with God because they’ve accepted his sacrifice for their sins, the “unrighteous” are those who are not in-right-standing with their Creator because they’ve rejected his offer of salvation. The former will inherit eternal life, whereas the latter will reap the wages of sin and be destroyed.
Yet those who adhere to the eternal torture doctrine mysteriously don’t accept this blatantly clear biblical truth. They don’t believe that the two polar opposites are life and death; they believe the two polar opposites are eternal life in heavenly bliss and eternal life in burning torment. Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? They may not phrase it in such an open manner, but this is what they actually believe when it comes down to it.

http://www.hell-know.net/

Oh so simple,you may need to get off the milk,and get some meat
 
what i can't understand is why so many people are ignoring what scripture says about eternal torment. either you choose not to read scriptures that make you feel uncomfortable or you can't read. :o

Off topic,so I will just offer you a indepth study on the subject

http://hell-know.net/

Check it out if you want,if not,its all good.........

I have a better idea, why don't you just tell me what words you're using instead of torment, forever and ever, dieth not, fire is not quenched that's written in scripture..and we'll take it from there.

JUDE 7 (KJV)
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Simple question...Is Sodom and Gomorrah still burning ?

Therein lies your answer,anyway,believe what you will
And of course we cannot forget the context within which that was written. According to Philo, the site of Sodom was still burning in the first century. If it was still burning when Jude wrote the above, then he certainly did mean it as analogous to eternal hell fire:

XXVII. (137) But God, having taken pity on mankind, as being a Saviour and full of love for mankind, increased, as far as possible, the natural desire of men and women for a connexion together, for the sake of producing children, and detesting the unnatural and unlawful commerce of the people of Sodom, he extinguished it, and destroyed those who were inclined to these things, and that not by any ordinary chastisement, but he inflicted on them an astonishing novelty, and unheard of rarity of vengeance; (138) for, on a sudden, he commanded the sky to become overclouded and to pour forth a mighty shower, not of rain but of fire; and as the flame poured down, with a resistless and unceasing violence, the fields were burnt up, and the meadows, and all the dense groves, and the thick marshes, and the impenetrable thickets; the plain too was consumed, and all the crop of wheat, and of everything else that was sown; and all the trees of the mountain district were burnt up, the trunks and the very roots being consumed. (139) And the folds for the cattle, and the houses of the men, and the walls, and all that was in any building, whether of private or public property, were all burnt. And in one day these populous cities became the tomb of their inhabitants, and the vast edifices of stone and timber became thin dust and ashes. (140) And when the flames had consumed everything that was visible and that existed on the face of the earth, they proceeded to burn even the earth itself, penetrating into its lowest recesses, and destroying all the vivifying powers which existed within it so as to produce a complete and everlasting barrenness, so that it should never again be able to bear fruit, or to put forth any verdure; and to this very day it is scorched up. For the fire of the lightning is what is most difficult to extinguish, and creeps on pervading everything, and smouldering. (141) And a most evident proof of this is to be found in what is seen to this day: for the smoke which is still emitted, and the sulphur which men dig up there, are a proof of the calamity which befell that country; while a most conspicuous proof of the ancient fertility of the land is left in one city, and in the land around it. For the city is very populous, and the land is fertile in grass and in corn, and in every kind of fruit, as a constant evidence of the punishment which was inflicted by the divine will on the rest of the country.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book22.html


(55) and when at a subsequent period the race of mankind had again increased from those who had been spared, and had become very numerous, since the succeeding generations did not take the calamities which had befallen their ancestors as a lesson to teach themselves wisdom and moderation, but turned to acts of intemperance and became studiers of evil practices, God determined to destroy them with fire. (56) Therefore on this occasion, as the holy scriptures tell us, thunderbolts fell from heaven, and burnt up those wicked men and their cities; and even to this day there are seen in Syria monuments of the unprecedented destruction that fell upon them, in the ruins, and ashes, and sulphur, and smoke, and dusky flame which still is sent up from the ground as of a fire smouldering beneath;

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book25.html


And a slightly older, but still relevant, reference from the Wisdom of Solomon:

[6] Wisdom rescued a righteous man when the ungodly were perishing;
he escaped the fire that descended on the Five Cities.
[7] Evidence of their wickedness still remains:
a continually smoking wasteland,

plants bearing fruit that does not ripen,
and a pillar of salt standing as a monument
to an unbelieving soul.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3905445
 
I have a better idea, why don't you just tell me what words you're using instead of torment, forever and ever, dieth not, fire is not quenched that's written in scripture..and we'll take it from there.

JUDE 7 (KJV)
Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Simple question...Is Sodom and Gomorrah still burning ?

Therein lies your answer,anyway,believe what you will
And of course we cannot forget the context within which that was written. According to Philo, the site of Sodom was still burning in the first century. If it was still burning when Jude wrote the above, then he certainly did mean it as analogous to eternal hell fire:

XXVII. (137) But God, having taken pity on mankind, as being a Saviour and full of love for mankind, increased, as far as possible, the natural desire of men and women for a connexion together, for the sake of producing children, and detesting the unnatural and unlawful commerce of the people of Sodom, he extinguished it, and destroyed those who were inclined to these things, and that not by any ordinary chastisement, but he inflicted on them an astonishing novelty, and unheard of rarity of vengeance; (138) for, on a sudden, he commanded the sky to become overclouded and to pour forth a mighty shower, not of rain but of fire; and as the flame poured down, with a resistless and unceasing violence, the fields were burnt up, and the meadows, and all the dense groves, and the thick marshes, and the impenetrable thickets; the plain too was consumed, and all the crop of wheat, and of everything else that was sown; and all the trees of the mountain district were burnt up, the trunks and the very roots being consumed. (139) And the folds for the cattle, and the houses of the men, and the walls, and all that was in any building, whether of private or public property, were all burnt. And in one day these populous cities became the tomb of their inhabitants, and the vast edifices of stone and timber became thin dust and ashes. (140) And when the flames had consumed everything that was visible and that existed on the face of the earth, they proceeded to burn even the earth itself, penetrating into its lowest recesses, and destroying all the vivifying powers which existed within it so as to produce a complete and everlasting barrenness, so that it should never again be able to bear fruit, or to put forth any verdure; and to this very day it is scorched up. For the fire of the lightning is what is most difficult to extinguish, and creeps on pervading everything, and smouldering. (141) And a most evident proof of this is to be found in what is seen to this day: for the smoke which is still emitted, and the sulphur which men dig up there, are a proof of the calamity which befell that country; while a most conspicuous proof of the ancient fertility of the land is left in one city, and in the land around it. For the city is very populous, and the land is fertile in grass and in corn, and in every kind of fruit, as a constant evidence of the punishment which was inflicted by the divine will on the rest of the country.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book22.html


(55) and when at a subsequent period the race of mankind had again increased from those who had been spared, and had become very numerous, since the succeeding generations did not take the calamities which had befallen their ancestors as a lesson to teach themselves wisdom and moderation, but turned to acts of intemperance and became studiers of evil practices, God determined to destroy them with fire. (56) Therefore on this occasion, as the holy scriptures tell us, thunderbolts fell from heaven, and burnt up those wicked men and their cities; and even to this day there are seen in Syria monuments of the unprecedented destruction that fell upon them, in the ruins, and ashes, and sulphur, and smoke, and dusky flame which still is sent up from the ground as of a fire smouldering beneath;

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book25.html


And a slightly older, but still relevant, reference from the Wisdom of Solomon:

[6] Wisdom rescued a righteous man when the ungodly were perishing;
he escaped the fire that descended on the Five Cities.
[7] Evidence of their wickedness still remains:
a continually smoking wasteland,

plants bearing fruit that does not ripen,
and a pillar of salt standing as a monument
to an unbelieving soul.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3905445
Let's grant for a minute that this claim actually holds some merit to it.

Who did God punish with eternal fire? The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, not the land itself.

What was the affect it had on the inhabitants of the two cities? They were utterly destroyed by being consumed by fire, their continual torture and suffering would not have been possible.

Also another issue. If eternal means forever and ever with no end, then by definition this fire would have to continue until today. Even if it lasted a LONG time, that does not conclude that the fire was by any means eternal.

I'll look into the historicity of this when I get home and am able to access my library before I pass judgement on where I stand in regards to that issue.
 
Let's grant for a minute that this claim actually holds some merit to it.

Who did God punish with eternal fire? The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, not the land itself.

What was the affect it had on the inhabitants of the two cities? They were utterly destroyed by being consumed by fire, their continual torture and suffering would not have been possible.
Your argument really doesn't work. The inhabitants were physically killed since that is what happens to us, we all die, but the same fire that destroyed the land is that which killed the inhabitants. Since you and I both believe that it is only after judgment that God throws people in hell, then clearly it is false to say that the inhabitants should somehow be undergoing continual suffering in order for the analogy to work.

Or do you think the lake of fire will burn forever but remain empty?

Also another issue. If eternal means forever and ever with no end, then by definition this fire would have to continue until today. Even if it lasted a LONG time, that does not conclude that the fire was by any means eternal.
But, the point is if the smoke was still rising when Jude wrote what he did, then from his point of view the fire was indeed eternal. The fact that it may not be burning today is irrelevant. To say otherwise is to take what Jude said out of context and change what he was actually saying.
 
All these passages clearly describe the two separate destinies of the righteous and the unrighteous. The “righteous†are people who are in-right-standing with God because they’ve accepted his sacrifice for their sins, the “unrighteous†are those who are not in-right-standing with their Creator because they’ve rejected his offer of salvation. The former will inherit eternal life, whereas the latter will reap the wages of sin and be destroyed.
Yet those who adhere to the eternal torture doctrine mysteriously don’t accept this blatantly clear biblical truth. They don’t believe that the two polar opposites are life and death; they believe the two polar opposites are eternal life in heavenly bliss and eternal life in burning torment. Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? They may not phrase it in such an open manner, but this is what they actually believe when it comes down to it.

http://www.hell-know.net/

Oh so simple,you may need to get off the milk,and get some meat

They actually believe? Who, the people that wrote the bible that were indwelled with the Holy Spirit?? Pleaassse, you need to learn more about what Mark 9:48, Isaiah 66:24, Revelation 14:11 & Revelation 20:10 says about the afterlife. I don't like milk, never did but ty.
 
Your argument really doesn't work. The inhabitants were physically killed since that is what happens to us, we all die, but the same fire that destroyed the land is that which killed the inhabitants. Since you and I both believe that it is only after judgment that God throws people in hell, then clearly it is false to say that the inhabitants should somehow be undergoing continual suffering in order for the analogy to work.

Or do you think the lake of fire will burn forever but remain empty?
I don't necessarily think that people will literally be burned, I believe that much of the imagery employed in the Bible is figurative especially in Revelation which is apocalyptic literature. The Book of Revelation does however clarify what the lake of fire is.. it is the second death.

However, I will not comment further on this particular argument for the historicity of it's continued burning and implied meaning in Jude until I research this notion a bit more. I don't wish to argue and to disagree just for the sake of disagreement, I believe these things because I am convinced by all the evidence to the contrary notion that you have come to. I may be wrong though, so I'll check this out. Thank you.
 
Your argument really doesn't work. The inhabitants were physically killed since that is what happens to us, we all die, but the same fire that destroyed the land is that which killed the inhabitants. Since you and I both believe that it is only after judgment that God throws people in hell, then clearly it is false to say that the inhabitants should somehow be undergoing continual suffering in order for the analogy to work.

Or do you think the lake of fire will burn forever but remain empty?
I don't necessarily think that people will literally be burned, I believe that much of the imagery employed in the Bible is figurative especially in Revelation which is apocalyptic literature. The Book of Revelation does however clarify what the lake of fire is.. it is the second death.

However, I will not comment further on this particular argument for the historicity of it's continued burning and implied meaning in Jude until I research this notion a bit more. I don't wish to argue and to disagree just for the sake of disagreement, I believe these things because I am convinced by all the evidence to the contrary notion that you have come to. I may be wrong though, so I'll check this out. Thank you.
I don't disagree on the first point and on the second I think we are more or less in agreement regarding looking into the historicity and not arguing for the sake of it. If the historicity of those statements from Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon is difficult to prove then I clearly cannot push it further. I do find it quite interesting though.
 
Back
Top