Your posts are the supporting evidence.
I see supporting scripture in my posts. I see insults and putdowns in the posts from the other side. I don't see any evidence that I am "deluded" or "retarded".
And Christ insulted people all the time.
1. You are not Christ.
2. You don't love other people like Christ does.
3. You have been commanded by Christ to love your enemies.
No, I disagreed with your interpretation in light of other Scripture.
I've posted a lot of scripture that supports the destruction of those who reject God. You didn't address the scripture that I posted, you didn't show how it doesn't mean what it says, and you didn't show how the scripture you posted supports your position or why you think a symbolic passage from the apocalyptic Book of Revelation should trump all of the rest of scripture.
You also lost the debate the minute you starting using insults.
As Scripture does not contradict itself it is clear you are wrong as Scripture is correct. It says what it means and means what it says. You don't know what it means.
I don't believe that scripture does contradict itself. I believe that you don't understand scripture, so when I show you what the scriptures say, you ignore that in favor of your tradition.
My first post in this thread after you resurrected it the other day was loaded with Scripture. I then showed you that "punishment" in one of your pet verses is used only one other time in the entire Bible and then is translated as "torment." I even linked to a lexicon explaining what the word means, showing that you were in error in your assumptions.
Your posts are filled with insults and putdowns. If you want to discuss scripture, like I've been asking from the beginning, we can discuss it now. Do you wish to start over, without insults and putdowns?
And why am I not surprised you ignored the Scripture I did post...
I have not ignored any scripture.
You're a troll and a hack; nothing you have to say is worth anything of any measure.
I suppose you would think I was brilliant if I called people "deluded retards", but I don't consider that to be effective conversation. We have different standards of what is "of any measure". Cheer on Mr "Resurrected", he says things that you respect. He called me a "deluded retard". I'm not sure why you think I should give your comments any respect. Now you've called me a troll and a hack, again without any sort of proof at all. Look at your posts, and "Resurrected". Name calling and constant putdowns seems to me to be more trollish than me posting the scripture that says that those who reject God will perish.
No, you are wrong about the intent of Jesus' words when He said "destroy" and "destruction."
ἀπόλλυμι is used metaphorically when referencing hell.
- to destroy
- to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
- render useless
- to kill
- to declare that one must be put to death
- metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
- to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
- to destroy
- to lose
It's the same word used in Matthew 10:28 for "destroy" and Luke 13:3, 5 for "perish."
ἀπώλεια in Matthew 7:13 means "the destruction which consists of
eternal misery in hell."
- destroying, utter destruction
- of vessels
- a perishing, ruin, destruction
- of money
- the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell
You found a definition of destruction that means "not destroyed", by someone who shares your view. Good job. All you are really saying is "people who agree with me agree with me". That isn't saying much.
Here is what an expert in the Greek language has to say about that (Dr. Weymouth)
My mind fails to conceive a grosser misinterpretation of language than when the five or six strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying 'destroy,' or 'destruction,' are explained to mean maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence. To translate black as white is nothing to this."
You are attempting to tell me that destruction actually means "eternally NOT destroyed, but kept preserved forever in Hell being tormented". That is a little far-fetched, don't you think? Am to MOCK me for not agreeing with you that DESTROYED means NOT DESTROYED seems a little disingenuous to say the least. If Apollumi actually does mean "Never Destroyed" as you claim, then why do all of the translators translate it as "destroyed"?
In Matthew 3:12 the fire is said to be "unquenchable." Do you know what that means? The word in Matthew 10:28 and Luke 13:3, 5 is the root word for the word in Matthew 3:12. And it, in turn, comes from ἀπό which means "of separation."
of separation
of local separation, after verbs of motion from a place i.e. of departing, of fleeing, ...
of separation of a part from the whole
where of a whole some part is taken
of any kind of separation of one thing from another by which the union or fellowship of the two is destroyed
of a state of separation, that is of distance
physical, of distance of place
temporal, of distance of time
of origin
of the place whence anything is, comes, befalls, is taken
of origin of a cause
You've missed the point. In Matthew 3:12, it says that the chaff is burned up. The greek word katakausai means "burned up". It doesn't mean "separation". So your definition of "separation" is absolutely irrelevant. The greek word means "completely consumed by fire". Just as the chaff is completely consumed by fire, those who reject God will be completely consumed by fire. When chaff is consumed by fire it does not remain unconsumed and tortured by the fire. And I know what "unquenchable" means. It means that it is unable to be quenched. It will continue to burn until the fuel is gone. It can't be put out before the fuel is consumed. What unquenchable does not mean is "continually burning forever and never consuming the fuel".
And Ezekiel 18:4 is
מוּת, which is translated as "to die." But in light of all the rest of the evidence it is clear that this "death" is a metaphorical death of the spirit...
You say "it is clear that this "death" is a metaphorical death of the spirit". Do you see how that is an unproven assumption? It doesn't SAY that "this death is a metaphorical death of the spirit". You are assuming that, and haven't proven it. And you mock me for not following along with your unproven assumptions based on your faith in an unbiblical tradition. Also the Hebrew word "Muth" does NOT mean "a metaphorical death of the spirit".
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, [Jesus]“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?”[/Jesus] that is, [Jesus]“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”[/Jesus]
-Matthew 27:46
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, [Jesus]“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”[/Jesus] which is translated, [Jesus]“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”[/Jesus]
-Mark 15:34
I'm not sure why you think these 2 verses prove that death doesn't mean death and it means separation instead. Are you claiming that Jesus didn't die on the cross? God did not forsake Jesus on the cross. Jesus was quoting Psalm 22. Psalm 22 is a prophecy of Jesus' death on the cross.
If you don't start with your assumption that the wicked are tortured alive in Hell forever, you don't get to that conclusion by reading scripture. Look at John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". The two alternatives are spelled out here. Just look at what the scripture says. Either a person will perish or they will have eternal life. Whoever believes in Him will not perish. Whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. Whoever rejects Him will perish. Whoever rejects Him will not have eternal life. They will not have eternal life in Heaven, or in Hell. They will not have eternal life anywhere. So they can't be tortured alive forever in Hell. They would have to have eternal life in order for that to happen, and they don't. I can't believe that you can just reject scripture completely.
