Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
way 2 go
Well-known member
yes Adam died physically, later
Adam died spiritually that day he ate from the tree
spiritually separated from God.
you deny they died that day so how can you rely on that verse
if you don't believe it .
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah, if the thing does not follow nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him.
Gen 2:17 but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
way 2 go
Well-known member
God is Love
Rom 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
way 2 go
Well-known member
physically or spiritually ?
Luk 23:43 Jesus replied, "I promise that today you will be with me in paradise."
Deu 18:21 You may be asking yourselves, "How can we tell if a prophet's message really comes from the LORD?"
Deu 18:22 You will know, because if the LORD says something will happen, it will happen. And if it doesn't, you will know that the prophet was falsely claiming to speak for the LORD. Don't be afraid of any prophet whose message doesn't come from the LORD.
way 2 go
Well-known member
I wrote
for context
you don't like that I reference that scripture cannot be broken
was pointing to
Psalm 82 he called them gods and yet they will die like men
still funny your going on about it :banana:
God inspired the writer to write to, record what judas did,
he did not as an example inspire Judas to hang himself
you did not answer the question "does the first death annihilate"
make non existent anywhere as in not possible to be around for
the judgement
if you would learn how to use the quote system...
Saul was not speaking for God nor was Solomon in your references .
who made the pronouncement or who was required to act ?
since your not good at this the answer is God
Exo 14:13 And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever.
Luk 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Mar 14:30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the rooster crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Num 16:28 And Moses said, "Hereby you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord.
Num 16:29 If these men die as all men die, or if they are visited by the fate of all mankind, then the LORD has not sent me.
Num 16:30 But if the LORD creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the LORD."
Num 16:31 And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart.
Peter makes no mention of "Sons of God"
Jesus never offers salvation to demons .
Jesus never said he was God
says today
Luk 23:43 Then Jesus said to him, "I promise you, today you will be with me in paradise."
your not interested in truth and have pointed out 2 times that God lied
in that God does not mean today when he says today
Luk 23:43 Then Jesus said to him, "I promise you, today you will be with me in paradise."
Gen 2:17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!"
or
Gen 2:17 except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah, if the thing does not follow nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You shall not be afraid of him.
learn to use the quote button more than once or go back and read older posts for reference
The Bible doesn't say they spiritually died that day. The Bible does say when Adam died and it wasn't that day. The Bible doesn't say anything about Adam spiritually dying.
Rosenritter
New member
Way 2 Go, you seem to have mastered the art of chutzpah. If your example is any measure, it seems that the method of ECT proponents is to swear up is down, black is white, and left is right until they are blue in the face. Yes, you have been given the precise relevant passages in question.
In a post replying to you that you also replied to, Jesus names himself as God, using the oldest and most ancient name known to the Jews. Original post 5301 here.
John 8:57-59 KJV
(57) Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
(58) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
(59) Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
also in a post replying to you that you also replied to, this time the Old Testament context when God introduces himself to Moses and says this is how they shall know him. Original post 5324 here.
Exodus 3:13-15 KJV
(13) And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
(14) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
(15) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
If you cannot be trusted to recognize something so simple that should not even be controversial for you, and you continue to argue against it when proven wrong multiple times over, why should anyone trust you in anything else?
Rosenritter
New member
Way 2 Go, in that digging back through those posts I couldn't help but be reminded of a question that you've avoided answering. I'll kindly remind you of it again.
Luke 20:34-40 KJV
(34) And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
(35) But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
(36) Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
(37) Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
(38) For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
(39) Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said.
(40) And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.
When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees he said that "He is not a God of the dead, but of the living" proved the resurrection of the dead, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should rise. Yet when you referenced this account you disagreed and said that it instead proved that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived on in heaven or some other such place.
So if we were to suppose that you were correct, then how can Christ's statement possibly be construed to prove the resurrection of the dead? For if they were alive in any fashion already, "He is the God of the living" would deny any necessity of resurrection, thus he would have disproved himself publicly. Yet the scribes acknowledged that Jesus had spoken well, and he put them to silence thus.
Way 2 Go, if souls (or spirits) of men be in heaven when they die, how did Christ's statement prove the resurrection?
Luke 20:34-40 KJV
(34) And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
(35) But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
(36) Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
(37) Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
(38) For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.
(39) Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said.
(40) And after that they durst not ask him any question at all.
When Jesus spoke to the Pharisees he said that "He is not a God of the dead, but of the living" proved the resurrection of the dead, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob should rise. Yet when you referenced this account you disagreed and said that it instead proved that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived on in heaven or some other such place.
So if we were to suppose that you were correct, then how can Christ's statement possibly be construed to prove the resurrection of the dead? For if they were alive in any fashion already, "He is the God of the living" would deny any necessity of resurrection, thus he would have disproved himself publicly. Yet the scribes acknowledged that Jesus had spoken well, and he put them to silence thus.
Way 2 Go, if souls (or spirits) of men be in heaven when they die, how did Christ's statement prove the resurrection?
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
Quick responses:
1. Christ's "The scripture cannot be broken" is not exclusive to one scripture only, Way 2 Go. The whole bible is called scripture. I am amazed that you would argue that the rest of the Bible can be broken.
2. Yes, I am still "going on about it" that you provide a ridiculous answer and then make fun of your own answer. One would assume that if you had a sensible answer you would have provided it. Seems that you are willing to act the fool as a diversion because you cannot answer the question.
3. First time I have seen you define this question thus:
If that is your definition for "annihilate" then the answer is a qualified no. The qualification is that no one will be around for the judgment unless they are first raised to life. Have no idea why you are asking such a question. Were you confused on this? Has anyone here said anything to the contrary?
4. You claim "Peter makes no mention of "Sons of God"" ... however, Peter gives reference for those "spirits in prison" which uses the "Sons of God" in Genesis as obvious reference. Go look at the previous posts, Way 2 Go. If you disagreed you should have objected then, but you did not.
5. You claim "Jesus never offers salvation to demons" which is another straw man argument. Please go back and read the posts you are pretending to reply to.
6. You claim "your not interested in truth and have pointed out 2 times that God lied" ... but as others have already pointed out, this isn't the case Way 2 Go. It would be more accurate to say that IF we believe what you say (such as Adam dying that day) then the rest of scripture contradicts itself...
By the way, God himself defines "death" after the transgression.
Genesis 3:17-19 KJV
(17) And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
(18) Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
(19) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
God did not say "Because you did against that which I commanded, you are now spiritually dead, to live forever in some wimpy languishing philosophical doldrums..." but rather says quite clearly that because of this Adam shall "return unto the ground" and that "unto dust shalt thou return."
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
'Ego Eimi'
'Ego Eimi'
If I might challenge this assumption as in previous threads,....there is no reason to believe that 'ego eimi' in this particular instance of use is a reference to the 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' of Ex. 3:14, as there is no reason to believe so apart from a presupposition of Jesus being the same 'personality' speaking from the burning bush :idunno: Jesus was simply referring to himself as being the one whom Abraham saw from afar by faith, as the Lord's messiah, his anointed messenger, his special representative. The Jews were therefore blind and did not recognize the Messiah in their midst. The context here is the Jews boasting about being 'children of Abraham', but they failed to see Jesus as the one whom Abraham looked forward to, the one existing before Abraham even came into being in the Mind of God, the promised Messiah who plays a prominent part in the plan of the ages. "Before Abraham came into being, I have been in existence".
Jesus did NOT claim in this passage to be 'God', let alone any particular "name" of 'God', like "Ehyeh" or "YHWH", since the simple Greek term "ego eimi" does not indicate a proper name at all, but is declaration of self-identification, a phrase used universally by anyone as a matter of self-reference, and commonly among the greek speaking people of the NT era. Any person can use the phrase 'ego eimi' about himself, and that does NOT make that person 'God'. Also, there is no proof or evidence that 'ego eimi' equates to the literal or even metaphorical meaning of 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' in Ex. 3:14 except by presupposition. We see a correlation of meaning of the divine name being a reference to self-existence, but in the NT accounts these are qualified contextually, as the phrase indicating "I am (he)" or "I am the one". There is no reference in Jesus case of he saying "I am the Self-Existing Eternal, Infinite DEITY"...a description that could only be applied to The Father of spirits.
For more commentary on this see Here & here.
A treatment of John 8:58 concerning the phrase "I am" from a JW perspective is given here (4 parts).
If pj would like a new thread opened on this subject or anyone else, PM me for some ideas, as I don't want to divert the thread from its intended subject
'Context' is key :thumb:
'Ego Eimi'
If I might challenge this assumption as in previous threads,....there is no reason to believe that 'ego eimi' in this particular instance of use is a reference to the 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' of Ex. 3:14, as there is no reason to believe so apart from a presupposition of Jesus being the same 'personality' speaking from the burning bush :idunno: Jesus was simply referring to himself as being the one whom Abraham saw from afar by faith, as the Lord's messiah, his anointed messenger, his special representative. The Jews were therefore blind and did not recognize the Messiah in their midst. The context here is the Jews boasting about being 'children of Abraham', but they failed to see Jesus as the one whom Abraham looked forward to, the one existing before Abraham even came into being in the Mind of God, the promised Messiah who plays a prominent part in the plan of the ages. "Before Abraham came into being, I have been in existence".
Jesus did NOT claim in this passage to be 'God', let alone any particular "name" of 'God', like "Ehyeh" or "YHWH", since the simple Greek term "ego eimi" does not indicate a proper name at all, but is declaration of self-identification, a phrase used universally by anyone as a matter of self-reference, and commonly among the greek speaking people of the NT era. Any person can use the phrase 'ego eimi' about himself, and that does NOT make that person 'God'. Also, there is no proof or evidence that 'ego eimi' equates to the literal or even metaphorical meaning of 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' in Ex. 3:14 except by presupposition. We see a correlation of meaning of the divine name being a reference to self-existence, but in the NT accounts these are qualified contextually, as the phrase indicating "I am (he)" or "I am the one". There is no reference in Jesus case of he saying "I am the Self-Existing Eternal, Infinite DEITY"...a description that could only be applied to The Father of spirits.
For more commentary on this see Here & here.
A treatment of John 8:58 concerning the phrase "I am" from a JW perspective is given here (4 parts).
If pj would like a new thread opened on this subject or anyone else, PM me for some ideas, as I don't want to divert the thread from its intended subject
'Context' is key :thumb:
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
Are you forgetting Love's will ?
Are you forgetting Love's will ?
This response does not really address the fact that God is LOVE. Love is what God IS,...speaking of nature. You begin there, knowing what God is in essence, then you know that his actions spring that his constitution.
Love does not inflict eternal pain or torment, neither could love will or enforce an eternal state of punishment and suffering upon any sentient being, let alone its own offspring. Love does no harm. Love saves, heals, restores, liberates, redeems, makes available all means of atonement, rehabilitation, reformation, renewal, rebirth, regeneration, salvation. Only if there is by some universal law of free will, the possibility that some souls could choose against love and make a final choice of self-destruction, could love no longer avail itself in the rescue of such an individual, per the laws of providence and free agency. This is a deeper subject than a surface browse will do....but there you have the laws of providence and destiny.
Is God's love infinite?
What is Love's will?
Does such a quest-ion interest you?
Are you forgetting Love's will ?
This response does not really address the fact that God is LOVE. Love is what God IS,...speaking of nature. You begin there, knowing what God is in essence, then you know that his actions spring that his constitution.
Love does not inflict eternal pain or torment, neither could love will or enforce an eternal state of punishment and suffering upon any sentient being, let alone its own offspring. Love does no harm. Love saves, heals, restores, liberates, redeems, makes available all means of atonement, rehabilitation, reformation, renewal, rebirth, regeneration, salvation. Only if there is by some universal law of free will, the possibility that some souls could choose against love and make a final choice of self-destruction, could love no longer avail itself in the rescue of such an individual, per the laws of providence and free agency. This is a deeper subject than a surface browse will do....but there you have the laws of providence and destiny.
Is God's love infinite?
What is Love's will?
Does such a quest-ion interest you?
Rosenritter
New member
There is reason to believe that though. The evidence is shown in how the Jews reacted to the statement. Stoning is the assigned punishment for blasphemy. Additionally, the context provided was when Jesus responded to the question of how he could know Abraham if he was not more than 50 years old. Your proposed meaning doesn't fit the context very well.
Why are you assuming that Jesus was speaking in Greek? The gospel was written in Greek, but Jesus was speaking to Jews. It would be very bizarre for him to switch into Greek for this purpose, rather far more likely that he was speaking in Hebrew. In Hebrew that phrase had meaning, as defined in the books of Moses. And as you said, in Greek the phrase wouldn't have any significance on its own, so why say something meaningless?
If context is key, then context indicates a Hebrew reference, in Hebrew speech, in response to the question being asked and the challenge to his authority. The reaction he got would not have been such to a milder statement suggested by Anthony Buzzard.
[Edit] I remember Dan Gill now. I even found an email that survived till now from back in 2011.
P.S. Concerning,
But the gospels also agree that Jesus was the Father of Spirits.
John 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
The bible is fairly clear that we are beings with free moral agency. We do have free will. If you were inclined to address the subject from "scripture only" I should be able to demonstrate this. However, I know that you aren't limiting yourself to scripture, and as such I assume that a proof from scripture wouldn't be convincing to you. However, here's the catch... isn't "God is love" sourced from that scripture also?
So I'll offer something else instead. You said "only if there is some universal law of free will ... could love no longer avail itself in the rescue of such an individual, per the laws of providence and free agency."
Without free will there is no individual, there is simply a hive mind: one individual and many parts, each of which could be discarded without affecting the whole. If you admit that we are individuals, you by necessity admit free will. If you remove free will, you destroy the very essence of what makes the individual.
I apologize if I misunderstood your meaning, by the way. I acknowledge that your logic of "All shall be saved if we do not have free will" does have merit, I just dispute the base assumption.
Last edited:
If I might challenge this assumption as in previous threads,....there is no reason to believe that 'ego eimi' in this particular instance of use is a reference to the 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' of Ex. 3:14, as there is no reason to believe so apart from a presupposition of Jesus being the same 'personality' speaking from the burning bush :idunno: Jesus was simply referring to himself as being the one whom Abraham saw from afar by faith, as the Lord's messiah, his anointed messenger, his special representative. The Jews were therefore blind and did not recognize the Messiah in their midst. The context here is the Jews boasting about being 'children of Abraham', but they failed to see Jesus as the one whom Abraham looked forward to, the one existing before Abraham even came into being in the Mind of God, the promised Messiah who plays a prominent part in the plan of the ages. "Before Abraham came into being, I have been in existence".
Jesus did NOT claim in this passage to be 'God', let alone any particular "name" of 'God', like "Ehyeh" or "YHWH", since the simple Greek term "ego eimi" does not indicate a proper name at all, but is declaration of self-identification, a phrase used universally by anyone as a matter of self-reference, and commonly among the greek speaking people of the NT era. Any person can use the phrase 'ego eimi' about himself, and that does NOT make that person 'God'. Also, there is no proof or evidence that 'ego eimi' equates to the literal or even metaphorical meaning of 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' in Ex. 3:14 except by presupposition. We see a correlation of meaning of the divine name being a reference to self-existence, but in the NT accounts these are qualified contextually, as the phrase indicating "I am (he)" or "I am the one". There is no reference in Jesus case of he saying "I am the Self-Existing Eternal, Infinite DEITY"...a description that could only be applied to The Father of spirits.
For more commentary on this see Here & here.
A treatment of John 8:58 concerning the phrase "I am" from a JW perspective is given here (4 parts).
If pj would like a new thread opened on this subject or anyone else, PM me for some ideas, as I don't want to divert the thread from its intended subject
'Context' is key :thumb:
They took up stones to cast at him not because he claimed to be Elohim Most High but because he claimed that the covenant to Abraham was not yet fully realized; for he says, "I am before Abraham comes to pass", (γενεσθαι). In other words, Before [the covenant of] Abraham comes to pass I am right here right now, (for all the Prophets and the Torah prophesied until Yohanan, Matthew 11:13, if any will truly believe this clear emphatic statement of the Master and apply it to the doctrine).
Rosenritter
New member
When I read the things that Jesus wrote, he very often quotes from and pulls from the existing scripture, and he speaks with his audience in mind. It would be very curious for Jesus to speak to the Hebrews and identify himself as "I AM" in such a plain sense and not expect the Jews to recognize the allusion of "I AM" from the burning bush.
Even stranger to suppose that he was speaking in Greek and just decided to speak in an incomplete sentence.
Hi Rosenritter, either way it is not an incomplete sentence. Look at how the form γενεσθαι is most commonly rendered, http://biblehub.com/greek/genesthai_1096.htm , and it becomes blatantly clear that in John 8:58 it is merely rendered in a past tense, ("was"), according to a Trinitarian bias in nearly all translations, (apparently to bolster the pre-incarnate pre-existent "eternal son doctrine").
Yeshua said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham comes to pass, I am.
Yeshua said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am before Abraham comes to pass.
This is because the Abrahamic Covenant was not fully realized, (actualized, activated, fully enacted, commenced in full force), until Golgotha. Additionally the Septuagint translation, (or a more ancient version thereof) was already extant at the time and is quoted most often in the Apostolic writings. However, if one checks the Septuagint version which is most often quoted by the apostles of Messiah, the LXX-Septuagint does not use ego eimi in the way that Trinitarianism uses the English equivalent "I am". In fact the Septuagint shows a radically different thinking in Exodus 3:14 as it uses HO ON, "THE BEING" with ego eimi in the statement "I am THE BEING", (ego eimi HO ON).
Exodus 3:14 LXX-Septuagint
14 και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
Exodus 3:14 LXX (Brenton English Translation)
14 And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; [ο ων] and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING [ο ων] has sent me to you.
It never even says what the Trinitarians say that it says from the Hebrew text but rather, in the Greek, "HO ON [THE BEING] has sent me to you". This HO ON is a portion of the same title found in Revelation 1:4 and Rev 1:8, "ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος", ("WHO IS and WHO WAS and WHO IS COMING"). But as Freelight already suggested I also do not want to derail the thread any more off topic than I already have by responding so I will leave it here.
Rosenritter
New member
If Jesus was who I think he was, his response made perfect sense. He was before Abraham, the "I AM" that spoke to Moses at the burning bush. It wouldn't be the first time he said something of that sort, and I would hate to think that he was being misleading. For example:
Luke 10:17-18 KJV
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Why were the devils subject to his name? Because he had power over them... it sure sounds like he said that he was there when they were cast down. And if Michael the Archangel dare not rebuke the devil (Jude 1:9) then what ranks above that on the winning side of that war?
I'm perfectly willing to go back to topic though, don't mind that at all. Know from experience that conversations on that bent (to which you refer) can take months and hundreds of full pages before they reach conclusion.
Luke 10:17-18 KJV
(17) And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
(18) And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Why were the devils subject to his name? Because he had power over them... it sure sounds like he said that he was there when they were cast down. And if Michael the Archangel dare not rebuke the devil (Jude 1:9) then what ranks above that on the winning side of that war?
I'm perfectly willing to go back to topic though, don't mind that at all. Know from experience that conversations on that bent (to which you refer) can take months and hundreds of full pages before they reach conclusion.
Do the following emphatic factual statements show deceptive or misleading teaching in your opinion?
Matthew 13:10-17 ASV
10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 And he answered and said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.
17 For verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things which ye see, and saw them not; and to hear the things which ye hear, and heard them not.
Matthew 13:34-35 ASV
34 All these things spake Jesus in parables unto the multitudes; and without a parable spake he nothing unto them:
35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world.
Mark 4:10-13 ASV
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parables.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables:
12 that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them.
13 And he saith unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how shall ye know all the parables?
Mark 4:33-34 ASV
33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it;
34 and without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things.
To those that are without all things are done in parables, allegories, idioms, and sayings. Yeshua spoke nothing to the multitudes and crowds of people except in parables, allegories, idioms, and sayings. This includes the statements concerning hell as well as the story of Lazarus which was spoken to the Pharisees out in the open. I personally am not willing to label this technique as "deceptive" or "misleading" and yet this information, (imo), bears weight on the statement of John 8:58 because if you believe the above information then the statements to the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Priests, are not so cut and dry as most seem to take for granted. In addition to the above Yeshua clearly says in John 5:31 that if he testifies of himself his testimony is not true, and therefore, he does not claim to be God anywhere in the Gospel accounts because if he did his own testimony of himself, claiming to be God, would by default nullify his own claim.
I was going to stop, as I said, but it was necessary to clarify, (for obvious reasons), the statement which I highlighted in red from the previous poster.