I suggested no such thing. I said word κόλασιν is translated both as "punishment" and as "torment" (1 John 4:18 KJV) and the meaning of these two words do overlap. Certainly we should be careful about attributing anything implied by the English usage of the word "punishment" which is not part of the original Greek word. For example, punishment is usually employed for behavior modification and certainly neither eternal torment nor annihilation would fit that usage.
So for clarification, you do believe the correct translation of Matthew 25 (the parable of the sheep and the goats) is "these shall go into eternal punishment" and not "these shall go into eternal torment."
??? I never said anything about any "coming back", but the Bible does speak of the dead returning to life, or resurrection. But like Paul in 1 Cor 15 I do not believe in physical resurrection but spiritual resurrection, that is resurrection to a spiritual body.
Also for clarification, you are no longer disputing that eternal death is an eternal punishment, granting that death is a punishment, and that the quality of permanency grants it the descriptor of eternal. I think we may be able to set aside the nature of resurrected bodies for the moment, but perhaps consider that the resurrected saints can first be raised to life in the most physical and dramatic way, and then changed when they are made immortal, and incorruptible, and this would not contradict scripture in any fashion.
The word is κόλασιν translated both as torment and punishment. It is preceded by the word αἰώνιον translated both as eternal and everlasting. If it meant "final death" or "oblivion" or "non-being" or "end to existence" or "annihilation" then that is what it would have said. But instead it is consistent with Luke 16, and contrasts eternal life with everlasting punishment.
Your logic meets failure here. A permanent death is an eternal punishment, and the text does not say "never ending torment" as you try to suggest. To the contrary, other descriptions of this punishment of death invoke fire and speak of being reduced to ashes, being as chaff consumed in a fire, as fire consumes the fat of lambs, as brambles and roots and stubble burnt up by flame, with the strongest language that can mean to destroy, not preserve. I could also say that if Jesus wanted to say that the goats would be tormented without out end, that it would have been incumbent upon him to say so clearly. As it is we must read the parable in the light of the repeated and clear language that tells us that the wicked shall be burnt up, go down into darkness and silence, to be no more.
You haven't support for Eternal Conscious Torment from the separation of the sheep and the goats. The wages of sin is death, it says in Romans. It does not say "the wages of sin is everlasting torments" and in John Jesus says that those who do not receive eternal life shall perish. Perish is a clear word, and is the opposite of to be preserved. If Jesus meant "preserved" then he would have said so.
God said on the day you eat of the fruit you will die. I think God told the truth. It talks about man returning to dust but clearly this is something Adam and Eve did not do on the day they ate of the fruit. Thus we have two kinds of death, one where our bodies return to dust and one where something else happens.
Check your Bible closely. God did not say that Adam and Eve would die on the day they ate the fruit. He said that on that day they *shall* die... *shall* has a different meaning than will. "Will" is when a thing "will" happen, "shall" is when a thing is "declared" or "pronounced." I could show you other Old Testament examples of "shall" being used when it is clearly obvious that the thing itself did not happen that day. Regardless, the point here is that "different type of death" is not something taught, but something that you assumed.
When Adam and Eve did eat of the fruit, the sentence went into effect. On that day they should surely die, and they were told exactly what that meant, and how it would happen. They would toil for their bread, live by their sweat, and return unto dust. No other type of death is described, let alone taught. And we are told when Adam died, which wasn't for another 960 years. But "dying he shall die" was certain sure and fixed.
Why do you think that the setting of the parable was meant to teach people that they will either go to heaven or simply disappear. Why dictate what I think and then ask me why I think that way?
Here is what I actually think: Jesus used the words eternal fire and eternal torment and in Luke 16 we see him giving a description which clearly describes a conscious experience. What I do not see is any valid justification for is dismissing this in order to replace it with a completely different teaching.
I don't think the parable teaches that people go to heaven, disappear, or are tormented in an afterlife. That's totally not the message of the parable, and such an interpretation would make Jesus contradict himself in other passages as well... as well as previous scripture, of which Jesus said that he did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. When Jesus spoke to the Sadducees he told them that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, thus the resurrection of the dead is clearly shown. If Abraham was alive or conscious in any state, this would have contradicted Jesus and he would not have shown any necessary reason for the resurrection for God to be the "God of the living."
The setting of the parable contrasts the Jew and Gentile, and the fictional settings of the "Jewish Reward" and "Gentile Hades" are swapped from the two characters. If you do read the Greek (and I think you do) you will notice that this hell is "Hades" whereas every where else that Jesus speaks of a fiery hell he uses a different word instead. "Hades" is a well known element of Greek stories. People go to Hades, attempt to rescue their friend or lover, and return.
But in this parable, the rich man makes such a request and it is denied. He is told that his brethren have "Moses and the prophets" and do not need him to go back to them. If the parable is really to teach that "the afterlife includes eternal torment" then you should also be able to show where this is clearly taught in Moses and the prophets, it would not be a new revelation. Also, the required elements of that parable for this "torment in afterlife" doctrine should also not be contradicted by any statements from Moses and the prophets.
However, if the parable is as I have described, and contrasting the Jew and the Gentile, as to whom shall now be comforted when the Jewish nation rejects Him and will not listen even if He comes Back from the Dead (as both an actual Lazarus and Jesus did, and they did not listen) then I should be able to show how the characters are clearly shown, and also be able to prove that this meaning is consistent with other parables. Which I can. The rich man also has a name, his name is Judah, thus the reference to purple, fine linen, and five brothers. And other parables reinforce the same message, such as the parable of the vineyard. The vineyard shall be taken away and given to others, "God forbid" they said.
Why do you think that this rich man is described as having Moses and the prophets, with Abraham as his father, clothed in purple and fine linen, and having five brothers? That's awfully descriptive, don't you think?
(post links to former dialogue in this and other threads, and other resource links).