glorydaz
Well-known member
Ha....you see disagreements when there were none. What a hoot.
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
Ha....you see disagreements when there were none. What a hoot.
glorydaz
Well-known member
You're quite the wack job. I was making fun of what you said. You don't see the quotes? Jesus came to the Jews....of course he was referring to the Jews. It was your silly notion that the beggar was a Gentile that was so ridiculous.
You're actually afraid of that text about the rich man and Lazarus, aren't you? It's unsettling because it puts a huge hole in your argument. So you reach, and you fish, and you scold, and you cajole, and you even go so far as to claim Jesus is telling a fable....a tall tale not even based on any fact. :nono:
glorydaz
Well-known member
You've got to be kidding. I had no idea.
Then it must have been those darn Gentiles that came and licked his sores. Go figure.
Luke 16:20-22
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Who said they saw nothing unusual in it? Who said they thought it was natural...no big deal? Who said they kept track of time?
Do you think you're making some point here? :juggle:
glorydaz
Well-known member
You have to do a bit of studying....actually read the Bible instead of just dissect it to prove your point.
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: "God is the God of the Living NOT the dead!" You'll get no capitulation or traction on this one. We aren't even going to be able to 'see your side' empathetically on this one, let alone change to annihilation. :nono: To us 600 million, it is very clear.
Interesting :think: I was just going to say the exact same thing to you. :noway:
I wasn't going to say this, though. I was going to say you don't seem to follow plain language very well :think:
Unless we could agree on the ECF's, it'd just be distraction, I think.[/QUOTE]
Says two. Does it 'mean' there weren't 3 things? :nono: They agreed with two. Clear enough.
Psalm 8:5
As I said, let the Pharisees go, it is more important specifically, that the Lord Jesus Christ said "God is the God of the Living, not the dead." It is as clear as it can get, He is not the God of the dead, no matter 'how long' you think otherwise. Imho, not worth our time. The Lord Jesus Christ made it exceptionally clear.
Not really helping imho. The body returns to the dust. I am not my body. 2 Corinthians 5:1 2 Peter 1:13
Vision doesn't mean illusion. :nono: It means "something seen."
Yes, because scripture says so.
:nono: Because scripture doesn't say so.
Good question.
Those that have the neck broken, by whatever means, are unredeemed. Exodus 13:13
glorydaz
Well-known member
"...a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination."
Hanging by the neck until dead robbed a man of dignity as did any form of decapitation. Dignity is something even pagans hold dear. Dignity is pride and Elohim hates pride. What a fitting end to a pride filled existence.
"Vengeance is mine says Yah Veh it is mine to repay".
You people not only question His Sovereign authority you bring into disrepute His wisdom in vengeance. His vengeance upon you will be fitting. I've often wondered if being bound hand a foot is a slow process...
You people!
What if I have an itch?
Zeke
Well-known member
Says two. Does it 'mean' there weren't 3 things? :nono: They agreed with two. Clear enough.
Psalm 8:5
As I said, let the Pharisees go, it is more important specifically, that the Lord Jesus Christ said "God is the God of the Living, not the dead." It is as clear as it can get, He is not the God of the dead, no matter 'how long' you think otherwise. Imho, not worth our time. The Lord Jesus Christ made it exceptionally clear.
Not really helping imho. The body returns to the dust. I am not my body. 2 Corinthians 5:1 2 Peter 1:13
Vision doesn't mean illusion. :nono: It means "something seen."
Yes, because scripture says so.
:nono: Because scripture doesn't say so.
Good question.[/QUOTE]
2Cor 3:6 you're still using the wrong testament.
Lon
Well-known member
"IF" it is written on your heart, you'd never contradict what is written as you continue to do to your own shame.
Sorry Zeke. You either believe it, or you don't and you've repeatedly said you do not. There are others in this thread that also
have spoken clearly, they do not. None of you can have the Spirit who believe the Bible is not His Word
And Jesus also said:
Luke 22:19 And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.…
Seems pretty clear to me, unless you are confused by things like i am the door, or springs of living water...
Rosenritter
New member
1. I have an issue with this "the reality of the bible is fluid" idea you speak of. From my perspective, it feels like a method of evasion. If truth is not longer truth at some arbitrary point in the future, and for purposes of argument these change points can be invented, it feels wrong.
2. If you acknowledge that the passage above creates no contradiction for someone who consistently believes that man has no conscious awareness while dead, then I feel we have accomplished something productive. I am sure you realize that I can point to a few different passages that say in exactly that many words that the dead don't have awareness. This points back to point 1, above, about whether reality is fluid and passages like those become "outdated" or if once spoken, continues to remain true.
3. The problem I see in that passage for your position is that point about the earlier 1 Corinthians 15, that Paul speaks of only two types of forms, corruptible and incorruptible. Flesh and spirit. He says we receive the immortality at the resurrection, and not before. That leaves the mortal flesh corruptible body as our vessel until then.
4. When I say "read as the scripture was meant to be read" it doesn't matter whether it was Hebrew, Greek, or English. I'm talking about the order, starting at the beginning and then moving forward, establishing the foundation before building the embellishments. This is something available to pretty much anyone today, thanks in part to the sacrifices of martyrs before. I realize that it's hard to zero out assumptions and inherited perspectives, like most people have trouble not thinking about a "red fox running around the barn" (bet that triggered a thought.)
5. I am not sure what two scriptures you have in mind, but I am skeptical that you have two scriptures mandating eternal conscious torment that haven't received an answer in two thousand years. Can you define them?
6. What you said sounds like Pascal's argument, the idea of betting based on minimizing risk in case of a failed result. I reject Pascal's argument, because it doesn't take truth or faith into consideration. If you are wrong, and you teach people wrongly about God, many of these people will reject that God because it isn't a good God, and as such you become a stumbling block to God's children. There's a passage about millstones and deep sea diving in relation to that.
I'd like to present something else for consideration. This is a slightly different application that it is normally used for, but perhaps relevant:
Jas 3:15-17
(15) This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
(16) For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
(17) But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Eternal Conscious Torment cannot be "wisdom from above" because it is devilish. Yet Christians and non-Christians alike can understand that the extinction of the wicked would bring peace and it would even be a mercy. Yes, I am bringing the moral argument back into this, because it really doesn't go away. Yes, it is a moral argument, but it is a scriptural moral argument.
2. If you acknowledge that the passage above creates no contradiction for someone who consistently believes that man has no conscious awareness while dead, then I feel we have accomplished something productive. I am sure you realize that I can point to a few different passages that say in exactly that many words that the dead don't have awareness. This points back to point 1, above, about whether reality is fluid and passages like those become "outdated" or if once spoken, continues to remain true.
3. The problem I see in that passage for your position is that point about the earlier 1 Corinthians 15, that Paul speaks of only two types of forms, corruptible and incorruptible. Flesh and spirit. He says we receive the immortality at the resurrection, and not before. That leaves the mortal flesh corruptible body as our vessel until then.
4. When I say "read as the scripture was meant to be read" it doesn't matter whether it was Hebrew, Greek, or English. I'm talking about the order, starting at the beginning and then moving forward, establishing the foundation before building the embellishments. This is something available to pretty much anyone today, thanks in part to the sacrifices of martyrs before. I realize that it's hard to zero out assumptions and inherited perspectives, like most people have trouble not thinking about a "red fox running around the barn" (bet that triggered a thought.)
5. I am not sure what two scriptures you have in mind, but I am skeptical that you have two scriptures mandating eternal conscious torment that haven't received an answer in two thousand years. Can you define them?
6. What you said sounds like Pascal's argument, the idea of betting based on minimizing risk in case of a failed result. I reject Pascal's argument, because it doesn't take truth or faith into consideration. If you are wrong, and you teach people wrongly about God, many of these people will reject that God because it isn't a good God, and as such you become a stumbling block to God's children. There's a passage about millstones and deep sea diving in relation to that.
I'd like to present something else for consideration. This is a slightly different application that it is normally used for, but perhaps relevant:
Jas 3:15-17
(15) This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
(16) For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
(17) But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Eternal Conscious Torment cannot be "wisdom from above" because it is devilish. Yet Christians and non-Christians alike can understand that the extinction of the wicked would bring peace and it would even be a mercy. Yes, I am bringing the moral argument back into this, because it really doesn't go away. Yes, it is a moral argument, but it is a scriptural moral argument.
Okay, from your perspective, I see your consistency, now mine:
2 Corinthians 5:1-10 KJV
(1) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Our flesh.
(2) For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: Different body, not affect/infected by sin and death
(3) If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. "Inbetween, alive without a body - naked.
(4) For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Thus a longing to depart this life and be with God, clothed in Him. 1 John 3:2
(5) Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. So, we believers have His Spirit in/with us as well. Can God die? Sleep? :nono: Be removed? :nono:
(6) Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: Thus, away from our body conversely, then 'with' the Lord. There is no reason for this to be brought up otherwise. To be absent from the body IS to be present with the Lord. It is incredibly clear as far as I and the rest of the church read this.
(7) (For we walk by faith, not by sightYep, who else but a believer, with this belief, exactly as I have stated, 'would' want to 'be with the Lord" which means dying and exiting this particular life? Just us. We walk by faith. Sight is for flesh dwellers.
(8) We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Boom and proved imho.
(9) Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. Because whether we live or die, we are the Lord's Romans 14:8
(10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
For the whole church and I, very clear as well as consistent. My hope being, regardless of your disagreement, you'll see and note the consistency of your opposition in the church.
Understood to here.
:nono: It 'USED' to be that. You have to understand that places are 'fluid' as the Bible progresses. Paradise, as I've told you, was next to/part of Hades. Not any longer. Today, to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord specifically for believers. This promise, in our view, is ONLY for believers. The rest still go to Hades, that which is thrown into the Lake of Fire. Small mistakes like this will never have you understanding our view entirely. You have to remember the fluidity of before and after the Lord Jesus Christ's death burial and resurrection.
:think: 2Co 5:8 θαρροῦμεν δὲ καὶ εὐδοκοῦμεν μᾶλλον ἐκδημῆσαι ἐκ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἐνδημῆσαι πρὸς τὸν Κύριον.
Emboldened, Moreover, and would rather moreso that [we]be out of the body and be home with the Lord.
-seems clear enough, what were you looking for?
Meh, I can read Greek a bit, had a year of Hebrew.
As we continue, we read our views into texts and they interesting line up, no? I have to likely remind you, there are two passages that disallow me from being an annihilationist. Unless there is a clear scripture, and there hasn't been one given for 2000+ years, the church will not acquiesce. As I also said, I think your position, if you are wrong, will be a lie to unbelievers as well. You can call it a 'mistake' but after you've told them they are to be annihilated, and they live forever, they will also hate you for it much more, forever. My view? They won't even know I was wrong a second later, and happier I was wrong. -Lon
Rosenritter
New member
And likewise Jesus also defined the symbols like "dogs" that "desire crumbs from the Master's table" and the guy with "five brothers" dressed in "purple and fine linen" that calls Abraham "father." Seems likewise very simple to me. When the Bible uses symbols, it also provides the means for interpreting those symbols.
If no symbol was defined, then I might understand someone who would insist that a term was literal. When the symbol is defined, even with precision, do you suppose God just let that happen by accident? "Oops, I forgot that was in there?"
If no symbol was defined, then I might understand someone who would insist that a term was literal. When the symbol is defined, even with precision, do you suppose God just let that happen by accident? "Oops, I forgot that was in there?"