WHY?

[guibox]

Nowhere in the scriptures are the terms 'eternal punishing' 'eternal torment' or 'eternal destroying' ever used jg. I never said 'everlasting punishment' was temporal. The punishment is not 'punishing' and the punishment is not 'eternal torment'. The punishment is eternal death'.

This is still something you cannot explain and you ignore time after time.

And your 'clear texts' are all symbolic islands of scripture that can't be supported anywhere else. Instead, the bible explains the ambiguity quite clearly. You just don't want to a accept it. Instead you'd rather keep the verse an island and base your theology around the assumptions.

You take Revelation 14:10 and Mark 9 as meaning 'eternal torment for trillions of years' but you ignore Isaiah 34:9,10 and 1 Samuel 1:22,28 and Jeremiah 17:27 and Isaiah 66 and Psalms 37 which CLARIFY what these terms mean and WHY the NT writers borrowed them from the OT. They explain clearly that they are temporal metaphors for utter destruction and perishing of all life and not eternal torment.

And yet you still ignore it for your own teachings. Are you putting your own biases over that of the scriptures? I am not. I am allowing the Bible be the interpreter instead of myself. Don't accuse me of ignoring Christ's words when I am NOT ignoring them but allowing the rest of the Bible show me what they mean.

The whole problem comes down to the fact that you cannot get over the 'immortality of the soul' argument which you still haven't proved the wicked have except to try and use the 'circular argument' by appealing to Revelation 20 and 14 as 'proof'.

Go back and closely look at my post on 1 Corinthians 15 to see how useless this chapter is if my soul is immortal.

 

[Drew]

No because you are assuming too many things here instead of letting the clearer texts speak for the ambiguous ones.

LOL, The verses I posted speak very well on there own, especially the ones from the Lord Jesus Christ. How can I or any man say things more clearly than Jesus.

I think that above interaction is highly indicative of the way these discussions have gone and explains a huge weakness in the "eternal hell" position.

The annihilationist argument has all along recognized that there are texts whose "local" reading suggests an eternal hell. However, the annihilationists have looked at the big picture - what the OT teaches about the nature of the human person, how the nature of the human person was viewed in Hebrew culture, how precedent has been set for metaphorical language, and what statements are made about the fate of the wicked in the OT.

The annihilationist argument has recognized the reality of ambiguity and dealt with it. By contrast, the proponents of the "eternal hell" position seem to simply deny the existence of such ambiguity - which conveniently absolves them of responsibility to provide arguments as to how such ambiguity is to be resolved. In addition (and I think this one of Tan's points as well as mine), the annihilationist have the "time direction" right when resolving ambibuity - they allow OT precedent to resolve NT ambiguities. The "eternal hell" people generally seem to be taking a few verses from the NT and re-interpreting a vast array of OT material. If you think I am wrong, consider the extensive array of OT (and NT for that matter) texts that guibox has provided in support of the idea that the "wicked" really do "die".

Of course, one can resolutely look at a few texts that suggest eternal torment, ignore the culture beliefs about the nature of the human person, ignore Biblical precedent, ignore the possibility of the use of allegory, and ignore the historical fact that Western culture has been deeply biased in the direction of a dualism that never was presented in the Hebrew world.

 

[Drew]

You take Revelation 14:10 and Mark 9 as meaning 'eternal torment for trillions of years' but you ignore Isaiah 34:9,10 and 1 Samuel 1:22,28 and Jeremiah 17:27 and Isaiah 66 and Psalms 37 which CLARIFY what these terms mean and WHY the NT writers borrowed them from the OT.

This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about in my post. There are fundamental problems with the highly "localized" perspective. The Scriptures need to be view as an integrated story and interpretations need to honour all the precedents that have been set. Of course, one can build a theology by taking a single verse, interpreting it according to 21st century western ideas about dualism, and then rework the vast array of Biblical material to create an exceedingly awkward case for "eternal torment". Its a free country.....

 

[SputnikBoy]

:x SB, do you ever check your PMs? I've only sent you three or 4, the first one being 4 days ago....

Don't make me come through here and slap you one.. ;-)

Ouch ...! Consider me slapped ... :D

Yes, guibox, I did get the PMs ...thanks. I'll get back to you over the weekend.

 

[jgredline]

Quote: Sputnikboy
Not accepting Jesus Christ hardly qualifies as a 'crime' in my book.

32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

 

[SputnikBoy]

32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

Give it up, jg. Intimidation time is over, my friend. Go take a look in the mirror, look yourself in the eye, and say to yourself "I am a sinner" twenty times. Then, when you've convinced yourself that this is indeed a FACT, come back to the forum and involve yourself in some 'healthy' debating with your peers. Okay? :smt023 .